In a recent routine internal think-tank discussion, Anbound's chief researcher Chan Kung had some conversations on the topic of the development of the financial industry in China and the United States with senior financial professionals. In the U.S. economy, California located in the western part of the country is one of the most economically important states. For many years, California's GDP has ranked first among the states in the U.S. California has the largest population, accounts for 12% of the U.S., contributed 16% of employment growth in the country. In 2017, real GDP in California increased by 3.4%, and the total economy reached US$ 2.75 trillion. The state's economic scale exceeds that of the United Kingdom and is ranked fifth in the world.

However, California, a western state, does not represent the whole U.S., let alone the country's political and cultural voices. California is actively involved in technology development and venture capital. At the same time, there are many social organizations, political factions, and triad gangs in California. However, the academics, the Anglo-Saxon cultural foundation, and the financial industry are still located at the east coast of the U.S. Academic activities, scholarly journals, and academic panels are concentrated in the east coast. In the financial industry, New York as a global financial center and Wall Street are also located at the east coast. Those who understand the U.S. would consider that the east coast could truly represent the U.S. The west coast does not represent the typical U.S.; it is just its frontier land on the Pacific coast.

There is a common understanding in the global financial industry: a true financial center is where insurance company's headquarters are located. Between Boston and New York on the east coast, there is a city called Hartford, and all insurance companies in the United States are said to be there. Hartford is the birthplace of the insurance industry in the U.S., and the Morgan family is its earliest founder. Although some say Hartford does not have a financial trading market, therefore it cannot be considered a financial center; in reality, the financial center of the United States is not a point-like city, but is concentrated in a narrow strip of land. It is located a few hours' drive from Boston and approximately 300 km from New York. In this narrow strip, there are many funds, insurance companies, and the headquarters of the banking industry. These headquarters are located in different towns, cities, and states, but are generally concentrated on this narrow financial strip; the financial center in this narrow strip is the heart of the U.S. financial industry.

Anbound's chief researcher Chen Gong believes that the distribution of the financial belt in the eastern part of the United States can be a reference for the development and spatial distribution of China's financial industry. In recent years, China's financial industry has adopted a model of concentrating resources in a few large cities. For example, Shanghai has emerged to become an international financial center, and this is an open national strategy of China. Although Shenzhen does not receive the same treatment as Shanghai, it is also home to some insurance companies and commercial banks due to the existence of the stock exchange market. Coupled with the proximity to Hong Kong, Shenzhen has always hoped to develop into a regional financial center. The fiercest competitor of Shanghai as the financial center is Beijing. Although there is no economic or financial center in Beijing's urban strategic positioning, Beijing has the unique political status as the capital; the central bank and other financial regulatory agencies are located there, as are the headquarters of the four major state-owned banks, making it the birthplace of all major financial policies. Therefore, Beijing has never positioned itself as a financial center. According to Anbound's tracking and understanding over the years, the competition between Beijing and Shanghai on the financial center still continues.

However, if the financial center is only concentrated in a few megacities, this pattern may not be the best for China, as this will not only aggravate the "Matthew Effect" that accumulates multiple resources in the megacities, and also exacerbate the "urban disease" of big cities, and it will not be conducive to regional economic development. Therefore, Chan Kung suggested that China could consider developing the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt" based on the "financial zone" development model of the U.S. east coast from Boston to New York to replace the original focus where only a few cities were being focused in China; this kind of development is more in line with China's reality. The development of the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt" has better traffic conditions; it can boost Nanjing and Suzhou, as well as developing parts of Shandong. The Xiong'an New District, which is being vigorously promoted by the Chinese Central Government, can be counted as part of the Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt under the larger framework.

We believe that the development of the Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt is related to China's future financial industrial and urbanization development. Compared with the earlier development model, this is advancement in development thought. Certain special policies can be adopted for the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt". For example, cities along the financial belt may be allowed to relax their property market development; for financial institutions and trading venues, some supportive policies may be granted. Some may argue that if the distance between Beijing and Shanghai exceeds 1,000 km, and that could be too far. Of course, this distance is much longer than from Boston to New York, and it takes 4 hours by high-speed train. Although the distance is a bit longer, it is still acceptable from the point of view of the traffic. If the Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt is established, it will be able to gather a large number of financial resources in the eastern part of China, which will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the spatial distribution of the Chinese economy. Under this development framework, there will be no need for rivalry and competition between Beijing and Shanghai in the future.

From a national point of view, the spatial economic and financial pattern can be summed up as "one belt and two zones". The so-called "one belt" refers to the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt", which focuses on the financial services industry and other related service industries. The so-called "two zones" are Guangdong-Hong Kong-Shenzhen and Chengdu. The "two zones" have many supporting manufacturing industries and the potential to develop service industries. Coupled with the promotion of national-level policies and development strategies like National Central City and Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, we believe that these regions will have better opportunities for development in the future. It should be emphasized that the position of the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt" is very clear, that is to focus on the financial industry and utilize financial services to drive the service industry to achieve the transformation of China's major economic regions. This will also achieve the main goal of the Chinese central government.

Final Analysis Conclusion:

Drawing on the experience of the U.S. east coast finance belt, China can also make up for shortcomings in the eastern region by developing the "Beijing-Shanghai Financial Belt" with Chinese characteristics, which is of great significance to China's future economic development.