Analysis

JPMorgan Cuts Anthropic AI Access in Hong Kong

Published

5 months ago

June 18, 2026

JPMorgan Chase has blocked its Hong Kong employees from accessing Anthropic’s Claude AI models, the Financial Times reported on June 18, 2026, citing three people familiar with the matter. The move strips staff at the world’s largest bank by market capitalisation of a tool that had been available through an internal drop-down list of approved large language models. It’s the second such restriction imposed by a Wall Street institution in less than two months — and the contractual mechanism behind both decisions reveals something deeper than a routine vendor dispute.

The timing is deliberate. JPMorgan’s decision follows Goldman Sachs, which in late April 2026 quietly removed Claude from its internal AI platform for Hong Kong-based bankers — a move Reuters confirmed on April 29 after the Financial Times broke the story. Together, these two restrictions represent a significant narrowing of Anthropic’s footprint inside global finance’s most important Asian hub.

The broader backdrop is a US-China technology rivalry that has moved, with remarkable speed, from semiconductors to software. In February 2026, Anthropic publicly accused three Chinese AI laboratories — DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax — of orchestrating what it called “industrial-scale campaigns” to extract Claude’s capabilities through approximately 24,000 fraudulent accounts and more than 16 million engineered exchanges, a technique known as model distillation. OpenAI had raised similar alarms eleven days earlier. Google’s Threat Intelligence Group confirmed its Gemini model had faced comparable incursions. The line between a legitimate AI vendor relationship and an intelligence risk was no longer theoretical.

Hong Kong sits precisely on that line.

The mechanism behind both the Goldman and JPMorgan restrictions is the same, and it deserves careful attention: neither bank was ordered to act by a regulator. Both arrived at their decisions by reading their own contracts with Anthropic and concluding that the terms did not permit use in Hong Kong.

That conclusion was not difficult to reach. Anthropic’s own supported-countries page does not list Hong Kong as a market where its commercial API or Claude.ai are officially accessible. A company spokesperson told the Financial Times that Claude models had “never been officially supported” in the territory, though the company declined further comment. In other words, both Goldman and JPMorgan had, for some period, been operating outside the literal scope of their vendor agreements — and only a formal compliance review brought that to light.

For Goldman, that review came after an internal consultation with Anthropic, described by the FT as a “strict interpretation” of its licensing arrangement. JPMorgan’s decision followed the same logic: the wording of Anthropic’s usage terms prompted the bank to delist Claude models from its internal tool selection interface. JPMorgan and Anthropic did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

What makes this notable is the asymmetry. Other AI models remain available on Goldman’s internal platform: OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini are still accessible to Hong Kong staff. This isn’t a blanket retreat from AI tools in the city. It’s specifically Anthropic — and the reason traces directly to where Hong Kong sits in Anthropic’s geographic framework, which groups the territory alongside mainland China in its access restrictions.

In September 2025, Anthropic tightened its terms of service further, prohibiting access from companies whose majority ownership is directly or indirectly attributable to entities headquartered in unsupported regions. The stated logic was that subsidiaries in supported jurisdictions had been used as pass-through access channels. The Goldman and JPMorgan moves are the downstream consequence of that policy meeting enterprise contracts.

Why JPMorgan Blocking Anthropic in Hong Kong Matters Beyond Finance

The standard reading of this story positions it as a compliance footnote — two banks tidying up their vendor agreements. That reading is too narrow.

What does JPMorgan blocking Anthropic in Hong Kong actually mean for AI access policy?

JPMorgan’s restriction signals that frontier AI vendors are now enforcing geographic access through private contract terms, effectively creating a parallel export-control regime that operates faster and with less procedural visibility than formal government regulation. Where traditional export controls require rulemaking, public comment, and enforcement by customs authorities, vendor-imposed regional restrictions are expressed in bilateral contracts, enforced by IP-level blocks, and largely invisible to outside observers until a major institution is affected.

The picture is more complicated than simple US-China tension. Hong Kong has historically operated outside the Great Firewall that blocks Claude, ChatGPT, and other Western AI models in mainland China. That status has eroded not because of anything the Hong Kong government has done, but because of decisions made in San Francisco boardrooms. Anthropic has been explicit that it maintains defence and intelligence relationships with the US government and has actively advocated for semiconductor export controls on China. Its regional access policy is, in part, a reflection of those commitments.

The National Security Law imposed on Hong Kong in 2020 fundamentally changed the territory’s legal architecture — creating obligations to share information with mainland authorities that US technology companies regard as incompatible with their own security commitments. Goldman Sachs CIO Marco Argenti had, as recently as February 2026, described an active partnership with Anthropic to develop autonomous AI agents for trade accounting and client onboarding. The Hong Kong restriction doesn’t end that relationship. It draws a geographic boundary around it.

For the banks, the calculus is straightforward: the productivity gains from AI access at a Hong Kong desk do not outweigh the compliance, legal, and reputational risk of operating outside a vendor’s supported terms in a territory that carries elevated intelligence-exposure risk.

The JPMorgan decision will accelerate a review that legal teams at every major multinational with Anthropic enterprise agreements should already have begun. The question is no longer whether Hong Kong is a compliant deployment location — the answer is clearly no. The question is how many other institutions have been quietly using Claude in the territory without having audited their contracts.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has already signalled its engagement. Reuters reported in late April that the HKMA had contacted a range of major banks to understand developments around Anthropic’s newer models and to remind them to update their risk assessments. That kind of regulatory outreach, even when framed as information-gathering, is a prompt to act.

The second-order effects extend to Hong Kong’s ambitions as an AI hub. The territory has spent the better part of a decade positioning itself as a bridge between Chinese capital and Western technology. That bridge is narrowing. If the two most prominent US AI safety companies — Anthropic and, to a degree, OpenAI, which restricted Chinese API traffic in 2024 — treat Hong Kong as within their China risk perimeter, the competitive disadvantage for Hong Kong-based financial technology firms compounds quickly.

There’s also a signal effect for Anthropic’s enterprise strategy. The company has made substantial inroads in global banking: its Claude for Financial Services product launched in July 2025, expanding in October with real-time market-data connectors and pre-built agent skills for tasks such as discounted cash flow models and coverage reports. Goldman’s six-month embedded-engineer partnership was the most visible sign of that momentum. Yet the Hong Kong restrictions reveal a structural tension in Anthropic’s commercial model: the same security posture that makes the company attractive to US defence agencies makes it unavailable in one of the world’s most important financial centres.

For institutions choosing AI infrastructure in 2026, this imposes a new due-diligence requirement. Geography is now a compliance variable in AI vendor contracts, in the same way it is for data residency, cross-border transfer restrictions, and sanctions screening. Legal teams that built their enterprise AI agreements before this framework solidified are carrying risk they may not have priced.

It’s worth taking seriously the argument that these restrictions are disproportionate, or at minimum, poorly calibrated.

Hong Kong is not mainland China. Its legal system retains common-law foundations and its financial regulatory architecture — overseen by the HKMA — remains broadly aligned with international standards. Anthropic itself has acknowledged that distillation is “a widely used and legitimate training method” in the AI industry; its objection to the Chinese lab campaigns was not to the technique but to the alleged use of fraudulent accounts to circumvent access restrictions.

Critics argue, with some justification, that corporate AI access policy is doing the work of geopolitics without the accountability of formal regulation. As one analyst framed it in a widely circulated April 2026 essay: “The block, in other words, was self-imposed by the customer, on the basis of contract terms set by the vendor, not by any government regulator on either side.” There’s no public comment period, no appeals process, no parliamentary scrutiny.

There’s also a competitive-dynamics dimension that Anthropic’s critics are quick to identify. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini remain available on Goldman’s Hong Kong platform. If Anthropic’s stricter geographic policy results in it losing ground to rivals in major Asia-Pacific markets, the company’s commercial sustainability — and, by extension, its ability to fund frontier safety research — takes a hit. The irony is that the safety-focused company may be hardening its access policy in ways that cede the field to competitors less exercised about where their models end up.

Professors and ethics consultants studying the distillation controversy have raised a further point. Lia Raquel Neves, founder of the ethics consultancy EITIC, noted that since Anthropic itself recognises distillation as a legitimate practice, “the central point of controversy lies not only in the technique itself, but in the alleged fraudulent access and possible violation of contractual terms.” The legal and moral weight of Anthropic’s position rests on contract enforcement, not on a principled objection to knowledge transfer. That distinction matters when assessing whether geographic blanket restrictions are a proportionate response.

What JPMorgan’s decision confirms — coming seven weeks after Goldman’s and on the same contractual basis — is that AI access is now a geopolitical asset class. The question of which staff in which offices can use which model is no longer a procurement decision. It’s a foreign-policy adjacency.

Hong Kong built its financial primacy on the promise that it could offer something mainland China could not: legal predictability, open information flows, and access to the world’s best tools and capital. That promise is being tested from multiple directions simultaneously — by Beijing’s legal architecture, by Washington’s export-control instincts, and now by the private contract decisions of AI companies headquartered in San Francisco.

JPMorgan’s move won’t be the last. Every major institution with an Anthropic enterprise agreement and a Hong Kong desk is, today, looking at its contract language with fresh eyes. The banks that haven’t yet acted are simply the ones that haven’t finished reading.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

Water, Energy, and the Battle for Computational Power

Don't Miss

Singapore’s ASEAN 2027 Chair: AI Strategy, SMEs & Digital Public Goods

Click to comment

Opinion

The Sandbox Imperium: Why Beijing’s Digital Yuan Needs Hong Kong

Published

29 minutes ago

November 1, 2026

Abdul Rahman

For decades, the global dominance of the U.S. dollar has rested on two primary pillars: deep, unencumbered liquid capital markets and an indispensable global financial messaging protocol known as SWIFT. When Beijing launched its e-CNY initiative, Western observers initially framed it as a central bank digital currency (CBDC) designed primarily for domestic surveillance, retail convenience, and financial inclusion.

However, recent strategic moves highlight a far more ambitious objective. As documented by the South China Morning Post, Beijing is actively leveraging Hong Kong as its central offshore laboratory to establish the infrastructure required for international cross-border digital yuan adoption.

The crucial strategic question is no longer whether China can engineer robust distributed ledger architecture, but whether an offshore financial hub operating under “One Country, Two Systems” can bridge the gap between rigid domestic capital controls and global institutional acceptance. To succeed, China must resolve the fundamental tension between absolute monetary sovereignty and the open networks required for international currency adoption.

1. The Paradox of the Offshore Laboratory

China’s monetary expansion faces a well-documented structural paradox. According to macroeconomic research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, no currency can achieve true international reserve status without offering open capital accounts and deep, freely convertible liquidity. Yet, completely relaxing capital controls would expose China’s domestic banking system to volatile international capital flows and speculative pressures.

Hong Kong serves as the pressure valve and testing ground for this paradox:

Legal & Regulatory Buffer: Hong Kong maintains a trusted common law judicial system and an independent monetary authority (Hong Kong Monetary Authority).
Convertibility Bridge: It allows mainland authorities to test e-CNY settlement, cross-border retail links, and digital asset integration without opening mainland financial markets directly to global speculative shocks.
Institutional Liquidity: As the world’s premier offshore renminbi hub, Hong Kong provides the institutional counterparties necessary to build real-world transaction volume.

“The digital yuan’s true test lies not in domestic retail adoption, but in whether foreign counterparties can settle cross-border trade without taking on unacceptable regulatory or capital risks.”

2. Wholesale Settlement and Project mBridge

While retail consumer wallets attract considerable media attention, the real geopolitical shift is occurring at the wholesale institutional level. Strategic initiatives like Project mBridge—developed in partnership with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the People’s Bank of China, and regional central banks—demonstrate how multi-CBDC platforms can streamline international trade.

As reported in market analyses by Bloomberg and trade finance studies covered by Reuters, multi-lateral CBDC platforms offer significant operational advantages:

Elimination of Intermediaries: Direct ledger-to-ledger transactions bypass traditional correspondent banking networks.
Speed and Efficiency: Cross-border settlement times are reduced from days to seconds.
Cost Reduction: Transaction costs and foreign exchange spreads across regional trade corridors in Asia and the Middle East are dramatically lowered.

If commercial enterprises operating in Hong Kong can settle trade directly in e-CNY with instant finality, Beijing creates a compelling economic incentive for trade partners that operates independently of Western clearing networks.

3. Geopolitical Implications & The Road Ahead

Western policymakers and central bankers are monitoring these developments closely. Recent congressional testimony and Treasury reviews highlighted by Reuters reflect growing concern in Washington that alternative settlement rails could gradually erode the reach and enforcement of Western financial sanctions.

However, technological capability alone does not guarantee global currency dominance. Until foreign corporate treasuries and central banks have full confidence in converted currency liquidity, property rights, and transparent legal protections, the digital yuan will serve primarily as an efficient alternative mechanism for bilateral trade rather than an immediate replacement for the U.S. dollar.

Institutional Summary & Comparison

Dimension	Conventional Retail Focus	Wholesale / Strategic Reality
Primary Mechanism	Retail e-CNY wallets for tourists & merchants	Multi-CBDC corridors (Project mBridge) & Project Ensemble
Core Objective	Domestic payments & payment app competition	Disintermediation of correspondent banking and SWIFT rails
Primary Barrier	Consumer habituation & merchant readiness	Capital controls, currency convertibility, and institutional trust

Sources & Citations

South China Morning Post: Beijing wants Hong Kong to sow the seeds for the digital yuan
Bank for International Settlements (BIS): Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) & Cross-Border Payments Research
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: China’s Financial System and Capital Account Dynamics
Bloomberg Financial Analysis: Global Macro & Digital Currency Integration
Reuters News & Analysis: Cross-Border Settlement and Global Trade Finance

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

Tokyo Disneyland Peter Pan’s Flight Closure: January–February 2027 Guide

Published

3 days ago

October 29, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Guests planning a visit to Tokyo Disneyland in early 2027 should put one easily missed detail on their itinerary: Peter Pan’s Flight is scheduled to be temporarily closed from January 6 through February 2, 2027. The operator lists the dates both on its official attraction page and in the Tokyo Disneyland closure schedule. This is a scheduled interruption, not an announcement that the classic ride is being removed permanently. Travelers visiting on dates inside that window should assume the attraction will not be available unless Tokyo Disney Resort publishes a change.

The distinction matters because online references to “Peter Pan closing at Tokyo Disney” can confuse two different parks and two different experiences. Tokyo Disneyland’s Peter Pan’s Flight is a compact Fantasyland ride. Tokyo DisneySea has a separate, newer attraction called Peter Pan’s Never Land Adventure, with its own planned March 2027 maintenance period. The first planning step is making sure the information applies to the ticket you actually bought.

At a glance: what the operator currently says

Planning question	Verified answer
Which attraction?	Peter Pan’s Flight
Which park?	Tokyo Disneyland, Fantasyland
Scheduled closure starts	January 6, 2027
Scheduled closure ends	February 2, 2027
Reopening expectation	After the listed closure window, subject to operator changes
Type of notice	Temporary closure; not announced as permanent
Where to recheck	Official attraction listing

The dates are explicitly labeled as a temporary closure by Tokyo Disney Resort. Do not treat February 3 as an unconditional reopening guarantee: an operator may update maintenance information or temporarily suspend operations for other reasons. Check again shortly before travel and on the day you enter the park.

What is Peter Pan’s Flight?

Peter Pan’s Flight is a dark ride based on the familiar journey from London to Never Land. Guests sit in a flying pirate-ship vehicle that travels through a storybook environment. According to the operator’s ride information, it is in Fantasyland, lasts about two and a half minutes and carries two people per vehicle. It operates indoors and includes dark spaces. These details make it particularly appealing to families who want a gentle, classic Disney experience rather than a high-speed thrill ride.

There are restrictions worth noting even on operating days. The published guidance says a guest must be able to maintain a stable seated position independently and that children may not be held on an adult’s lap during the ride. If your group includes young children, anyone needing seating assistance or visitors uncomfortable with darkness, read the official description and accessibility guidance rather than assuming that the attraction suits everyone because it is short.

Short ride duration is not the same as short waiting time. Demand for well-known classics can vary with crowds, operating conditions and holiday schedules, so it is unwise to schedule a tight sequence of unrelated bookings around a predicted queue. The operator’s app and in-park staff can provide current operating information when the ride is available.

The dates around the closure are not interchangeable

A guest visiting January 5 has a fundamentally different planning position from someone arriving January 6. January 5 falls before the currently listed closure, while January 6 is its opening day. A February 2 visit falls on the final listed day of the maintenance window; February 3 is the earliest day after that window, not a contractual promise that the ride will run.

For a family staying at the resort for multiple days, the difference might be worth changing which day is assigned to Tokyo Disneyland. If one day is before January 6 and another is inside the closure, put Disneyland first if the classic Peter Pan ride is a must-do. But do not swap a park ticket or hotel reservation until you understand the applicable change and cancellation conditions. The economic cost of reshuffling an entire trip can exceed the benefit of experiencing one short ride.

A visitor traveling from overseas may be choosing between a single Disneyland day and a DisneySea day. In that case, consider the trip’s overall priorities. Someone who values vintage Fantasyland attractions may still prefer Disneyland even during the closure. Someone traveling expressly for an immersive Peter Pan adventure could be more interested in the DisneySea attraction—but must buy admission to that different park and verify its own operating schedule.

Other Tokyo Disneyland closures during the same period

The official park maintenance listing shows other attractions with early-2027 closure windows that may overlap your visit. At the time of this review, it lists Jungle Cruise: Wildlife Expeditions from January 6 through March 31, Splash Mountain from January 7 through February 4, and Haunted Mansion from January 8 through February 4. These are operator-published schedules, not independent predictions about refurbishment completion.

This makes the Peter Pan closure more significant for certain visitors than a single unavailable ride might suggest. A group that expected several classic experiences in one afternoon could find multiple priorities temporarily inaccessible. Conversely, the park contains many other attractions and entertainment offerings, and the attractions that remain open should be evaluated on their own current descriptions rather than guessed from historical schedules.

It is worth making a small “must ride / would enjoy / optional” list. Mark each attraction against the closure page. Then build flexibility around weather, performance calendars and queue variation. A plan with alternatives is more resilient than a rigid minute-by-minute schedule.

Better alternatives for different kinds of visitors

If the attraction’s appeal is gentle fantasy storytelling, explore other Fantasyland offerings listed in the official Tokyo Disneyland attraction directory. Filter for ride type and height or access restrictions, and read the current operating details. Do not assume that a neighboring attraction will be open merely because it is not listed in an older travel blog.

If the main attraction is Disney character immersion, devote time to character experiences, themed areas, shopping or scheduled entertainment that is actually available on your day. These can preserve the spirit of the trip without pretending they are substitutes for the ride itself. Some guests will prefer to spend the recovered time on a longer headliner; others may value an unhurried lunch and a park exploration that is less vulnerable to queues.

If the trip is built around Peter Pan specifically, Tokyo DisneySea’s Never Land Adventure may appear attractive. But it is not the same ride: it is a 3D boat-based experience in Fantasy Springs, with different restrictions and a different length. Tokyo Disney Resort’s DisneySea attraction page is the reliable way to compare them. Admission, access arrangements and the day’s capacity remain separate questions.

Parents should also avoid overstating the value of a replacement to children. “Another attraction has pirates” does not make it the planned Peter Pan experience. Setting expectations before entering the park is often more effective than negotiating disappointment in a crowded queue area.

Are refunds or ticket changes automatic?

The announcement of an attraction’s temporary closure does not itself demonstrate that every guest is entitled to a ticket refund or a date change. Theme-park tickets ordinarily grant admission subject to operating conditions, not a binding guarantee that every individual ride will operate. Actual ticket terms, package conditions and any operator-specific accommodation policy govern what can be changed.

Before buying or modifying a pass, review the official Tokyo Disney Resort ticket and reservations guidance and any reseller’s terms. A third-party package might combine transport, hotel rooms and tickets under separate cancellation rules. You should not rely on the statement “ride closed” as a universal reason for a penalty-free cancellation.

If your booking is complex, write down the name of the supplier, reservation reference, exact park date and type of admission. Seek a written answer before paying a change fee. This is particularly important if you plan to move only one day of a multi-day trip and keep the remainder unchanged.

Does Disney Premier Access help during the closure?

No paid queue-management product can make an attraction operate while it is closed. Disney Premier Access is a separate, paid tool for eligible operating experiences; eligibility and availability can change. The official Premier Access guide explains that places may sell out and that the price does not include park admission. It should not be marketed to families as a guaranteed workaround for a published maintenance closure.

The app can nevertheless be useful for other attractions and live operating information. If a ride is unavailable, remove it from the day’s queue-management plan and redirect attention to attractions genuinely offered that day. Check the current product terms before purchasing any additional access.

How to build a more reliable 2027 itinerary

Start with the official attraction closure list rather than the social-media version of it. Choose a date, read the list for the correct park, then check the pages for the two or three attractions most important to your group. If several favorites overlap with closures, compare another travel day, but preserve buffer time and cost limits.

Once you have a provisional itinerary, check whether your whole group can experience the alternatives. A family with a toddler and grandparents may have different needs from a group of teenagers. Ride seating rules, dark environments, height restrictions and walking distances deserve attention before buying optional upgrades.

A week before departure, look at the operator’s park calendar and attraction pages again. On the morning of your visit, follow current app information and staff instructions. Write down a backup plan that does not depend on a single ride reopening on the first conceivable day.

Quick visitor questions

Is Peter Pan’s Flight shutting permanently? The published notice says temporary closure January 6–February 2, 2027. It does not announce permanent removal.

Is it in Tokyo Disneyland or DisneySea? Peter Pan’s Flight is in Tokyo Disneyland’s Fantasyland. DisneySea has the separate Never Land Adventure.

Can I ride on February 2? The current listing includes February 2 in the closure window. Do not plan on riding that day.

Is February 3 the official reopening day? It is the first day after the presently announced closure period, assuming the dates are unchanged. Confirm the park’s live information rather than treating operation as guaranteed.

Should I change my trip? That depends on how important this specific ride is compared with hotel, flights, admission and other attractions. For most travelers, adjusting priorities within the same park is the lower-risk first option.

Final planning advice

This news is not a farewell to Peter Pan’s Flight. It is a defined, temporary gap in the operating calendar. The useful response is to check your exact visit date, compare the rides your family actually cares about and keep a realistic alternative ready. Tokyo Disneyland can still be an appealing destination during the listed closure; the difference between an enjoyable trip and a frustrating one may simply be accurate expectations.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Opinion

Rolex Perpetual Market Value 2026: Why Luxury Watches Remain a Top Alternative Asset

Published

1 month ago

September 17, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Key Takeaways

Rolex’s secondary market rose approximately 7.9% year-over-year as of 2026 (per WatchCharts data) — trailing Patek Philippe (+16.2%) and Tudor (+11.4%) but still outperforming Audemars Piguet (+3.4%).
Rolex raised U.S. retail prices 4–9% in January 2026 (steel models ~5.6%, gold models ~8.7%), narrowing the historical gap between retail and pre-owned pricing.
Not every model appreciates: steel sports references (Submariner, GMT-Master II, Daytona) have held value far better than two-tone or widely available dress references like the standard Datejust.
The Lady-Datejust posted the sharpest 2026 gain among tracked collections — up 22.73%, from roughly $9,269 to $11,376 — driven by demand for smaller, “everyday luxury” watches.
Gold’s rise past $2,400/oz has directly lifted the investment case for Rolex’s precious-metal references (Day-Date, Sky-Dweller, Yacht-Master).

The Model-by-Model Picture

Category	2026 Trend
Lady-Datejust	+22.73% (strongest performer among tracked collections)
Steel sports models (Submariner, GMT-Master II)	Held value well; corrected from 2022 peak but stabilized above retail
Daytona	Corrected from highs above $50,000 to the mid-$30,000s; still among the most sought-after references
Two-tone/widely available Datejust	Flat to negative — “holds value” is an overstatement for this category
Gold references (Day-Date, Sky-Dweller)	Lifted by gold’s rise above $2,400/oz

Why the “Rolex Always Appreciates” Myth Is Fading

The pandemic-era boom pushed some references — the Daytona above all — to speculative highs disconnected from historical norms. Since the March 2022 peak, steel sports models have compressed meaningfully, and dealers who bought inventory near the top have in some cases faced 20–40% markdowns on liquidation. The lesson for 2026 buyers: Rolex as a category is not a monolith. Value retention depends heavily on specific reference, condition, and whether the piece comes with box and papers (“full set”).

What’s Actually Driving 2026 Strength

Retail price increases raise the floor. When a new Submariner retails at $10,050 (up from $9,500), a pre-owned example at $11,000–$12,000 suddenly represents a smaller premium — narrowing the gap without secondary prices actually moving.
Supply discipline remains Rolex’s core lever. The brand has never confirmed production numbers, and secondary-market premiums remain entirely a function of Rolex’s own manufacturing decisions — a risk factor as much as a support.
Certified Pre-Owned rollout. Rolex’s now fully rolled-out CPO program has changed how buyers transact in the used market, adding a layer of brand-verified legitimacy that supports pricing.

The Case for Rolex as a Portfolio Diversifier

Financial advisors increasingly frame luxury watches not as a replacement for equities or bonds, but as a tangible, historically low-correlation diversifier — one that carries its own risks (illiquidity, condition-dependent pricing, no yield) but has demonstrated multi-decade resilience for specific references.

Is Rolex a good investment in 2026?

It depends heavily on the specific reference. Steel sports models like the Submariner and Daytona have held or grown in value; two-tone and widely available dress models generally have not. Overall, Rolex’s secondary market rose about 7.9% year-over-year in 2026, trailing Patek Philippe but ahead of Audemars Piguet.