Analyzing the National Investment Fund of Uzbekistan: The Historical Background, Offering Structure, and Future Challenges

Part of the Central Asia — China Youth Exchange Co-authored by Young Economists Society of Uzbekistan and Bridges Street Column INTRODUCTIONCan a state successfully transition into a globalized market economy while retaining ownership of its crown jewels, or is absolute privatization the only path to economic efficiency?This fundamental dilemma lies at the heart of contemporary transition economics. The creation of the National Investment Fund of Uzbekistan (UzNIF) under Presidential Decree No. UP-111 (July 19, 2024) represents a bold structural answer to this question, marking a shift toward a market-oriented framework for managing the nation’s core capital resources. Historically, large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and natural monopolies were managed directly by sector-specific line ministries. This traditional administrative model harbored a structural conflict of interest: ministries acted simultaneously as regulators and commercial operators, which frequently relegated long-term financial efficiency to a secondary priority behind social goals.Decree No. UP-111 structurally decoupled the state’s regulatory functions from its commercial asset ownership. Modeled after Singapore's Temasek sovereign holding, this framework establishes a professional mechanism to maximize the market capitalization of consolidated assets.This analysis examines the establishment, operational strategy, and future outlook of Uzbekistan’s National Investment Fund, offering broader insights into the nation’s privatization process and ongoing economic transition.Chapter 1: The Transitioning Uzbekistan1.1 The Opening of the Uzbek Economy Since 2016The first president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, who held office from 1989 until his death in September 2016, developed what he called the Uzbek Path, which was a development paradigm consciously different from the policy of market liberalization dictated by the Washington Consensus. This model had a structure based on four foundations, namely, rigid state monopoly in the spheres of energy, telecommunications, transportation, and banking; use of a multi-exchange-rate system with artificially created parity and serving as an invisible tax on productivity; capital controls; and closed borders to any significant trade with its immediate neighbors.Opinions about this legacy differ indeed. During the period from 1996 to 2016, Uzbekistan had an average annual GDP growth rate of 5%, which exceeded 8% towards the end of Karimov's rule. Among his positive legacies are low levels of sovereign debts, prudent fiscal policies, and considerable reserves of gold and foreign exchange.However, the structural dysfunctions were just as serious. Private-sector GDP did not budge over an entire decade. Millions of young Uzbeks have emigrated to Russia to find work, leading to structural dependence on transfers from one destination market that makes the entire economy vulnerable to performance in Russia's economy.1.2 Three Act ReformMirziyoyev's reform agenda has seen three clearly identifiable stages. First Stage (2016-2021): The foundation of liberalisation.The single most important reform was the unification of exchange rates in Uzbekistan in September 2017 – a process which required a significant depreciation of the Uzbek currency to its market clearing value but instantly abolished the black market premium which had been holding back foreign investments for decades. This reform went hand-in-hand with the abolishing of virtually all foreign exchange controls, lowering the customs duties on thousands of products, making business registration easier and actively repairing relations with Central Asian neighbours. According to IMF estimates, as a consequence, Uzbekistan has been experiencing average annual GDP growth of 5.7% since 2017. Foreign investment has reached $39.7 billion in 2025, up from $4.1 billion in 2016 – a tenfold increase over nine years.Phase Two (2021-2024): Institutional infrastructure.In this phase there was an establishment of the infrastructure that is necessary for the implementation of largescale privatisation, including the Agency for Management of State Assets (UzSAMA) tasked with preparing the SOEs properly for privatisation; the Law on Privatisation of State Property (adopted in February 2024); the requirement for the application of the IFRS by the major SOEs; as well as the consultations with the OECD on the investment policy review. Without these foundations, the IPO of UzNIF would have been impossible. The audit of the UzNIF's financial statements carried out by Deloitte onin March 30, 2026, and registered at the Financial Reporting Council of the United Kingdom could not have been performed without the IFRS-compliant financial statements of portfolio companies.Phase Three (2024 – 2026): Access to international capital markets.UzNIF was founded by Presidential Decree No. 303 on 27 August 2024 and officially registered on 24 December 2024. The Investment Management Agreement with Franklin Templeton Asset Management was signed on 26 January 2025. Construction of the portfolio in stages occurred during 2025, with four firms being exited by capital reduction on 30 December 2025 and replacement by superior firms. When order books were opened in May 2026, Uzbekistan had built the institutional framework that would make the deal credible to the most sophisticated investors in the world.However, each of the three phases of reforms was technically reversible. Presidential decrees can be replaced. Agencies can be liquidated. Laws can be changed. This is not true in the case of the listing in London. The requirements for continuous disclosure in the LSE Main Market, the quarterly disclosure of NAV data by Franklin Templeton, the audit by Deloitte, the review of more than 160 institutional investors which incur reputational risks when holding equity in firms whose corporate governance practices are poor, the appointment of directors at thirteen Uzbek SOEs – all of this is irreversible through presidential decree.1.3 WTO Accession - A Must Step into the International MarketUzbekistan applied to the WTO in 1994 and made no progress for more than two decades during the presidency of Karimov as multilateral trade rules were considered a constraint on his development strategy. There was a drastic shift in the pace of the accession process from 2016 onwards, and the process has now entered its final technical phase. Prior to the UzNIF IPO, bilateral market access negotiations with 33 out of 34 WTO member states involved, including the EU, US, UK, China, and Russia – except Chinese Taipei – had already been completed. Over 180 national legislation acts have been harmonized with the WTO standards. The 12th Working Party Meeting in March 2026 led to the production of a draft Working Party Report with 62 commitments, seeking accession at the 14th Ministerial Conference in Cameroon in 2026.The traditional interpretation of WTO membership – tariff cuts, market access, trade expansion – misses the full import of membership for countries at Uzbekistan’s level of development. This lies along four tracks.State owned enterprise (SOE) disciplines.The WTO’s regime governing state trading enterprises is a barrier to the conferment of exclusive monopoly status that immunizes state owned enterprises from competition. This has direct bearing on UzNIF portfolio companies, where the UzNIF financial reports show that Uzbekistan plans to raise its energy tariffs to cost recovery levels by 2026-2027, and to unify rail freight tariffs by 2030, consistent with WTO requirements.   2. Liberalization of services.Binding commitments in relation to services in the Uzbek case will be made regarding finance, telecommunications, and distribution, which constitute three out of the five major sectors covered by the UzNIF portfolio. These are the commitments which make the competition inevitable and thus lead to the efficiency sought by UzNIF.   3. Legal predictability.Institutional investors are primarily interested in the legal environment in the host country rather than in the macroeconomic numbers. In the case of joining the WTO, one gets an additional dispute settlement system due to the lack of effective domestic accountability mechanisms. The 180 plus legislative changes already made are a huge step in this respect.   4. GDP effects.Expert assessments suggest WTO membership could increase Uzbekistan's national income by as much as 20% over the medium term through expanded trade and investment flows. While precise quantification is inherently uncertain, the directional effect is robust in the empirical trade literature.1.4 Why Reform Now? The Convergence of Five Structural DriversThe structural logic of SOE privatisation has been identifiable since at least 2017. Yet the country's first international equity offering happened in 2026. The explanation lies in the simultaneous convergence of five structural drivers.Table 1: Five Structural Drivers of the 2026 Reform WindowDriverMechanismWhy Decisive in 2026Demographic pressure600–700k new labor force entrants per yearSOE model cannot absorb this; privatisation accelerates reallocationRussia shock (2022)Remittance disruption; Western capital diverted from sanctioned marketsFDI inflows reached $39.7bn in 2025 — almost tenfold growth since 2017WTO deadlineEach Working Party session generates mandatory legislative changesPolitical cover for cutting SOE monopoly privileges; 180+ laws alignedInstitutional readinessIFRS accounts (Deloitte audit), UzSAMA, Privatisation Law (Feb 2024), Franklin Templeton IMA (Jan 2025)None of these existed before 2024 — the IPO was structurally impossible earlierPresidential mandateSeven-year term from 2023 constitutional referendumLong horizon absorbs short-term transitional costs of SOE restructuringSources: UzNIF Long-Term Strategy (Franklin Templeton, 2025); IFRS Financial Statements (Deloitte, March 2026); IMF; World Bank; Yale Journal of International Affairs (January 2026).The Demographic ImperativeUzbekistan has achieved a population of about 38.2 million with a median age of 28 years and a growing workforce of up to 600,000 to 700,000 people per year. Since 57% of the population falls below 30 years of age, there is structurally no way for an economy characterized by SOEs to absorb such growth. According to the Yale Journal of International Affairs in January 2026, the structural reforms of Uzbekistan, including privatization of SOEs, are not ideological decisions but a necessity forced on the government through labor market calculations. The process of privatizing SOEs expedites the process of labor market adjustment through competitive pressures and signals multinational corporations that institutional structure is being put in place for future investments.The Russia Shock and Geopolitical ReconfigurationThe full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 was an exogenous shock which increased the urgency for reforms. Sanctions from the West led to lower economic output, depreciation of the rouble, and complications with international remittances – disrupting a source of income on which millions of Uzbek families relied. These risks are recognized in the financial statement of UzNIF, where it is stated that Uzbekistan has substantial economic relations with Russia and that sanctions towards Russian organizations may have a material impact on Uzbekistan's trade. However, the indirect effect was beneficial for Uzbekistan. Isolation of Russia from Western capital markets meant that the universe of opportunities for institutional investors who managed emerging market mandates became limited. With its proven track record of economic growth, lack of sanctions and publicized plan for reforms, Uzbekistan became the obvious choice for these investors' money.WTO Accession as External DisciplineThe public willingness of Uzbekistan to complete its WTO accession process by 2026 was a case of an exogenous accountability device, which domestic reform processes do not tend to produce. Every Working Party meeting yielded a particular set of legislative actions needed as prerequisites of membership, thus generating an uninterrupted flow of liberalisation reforms that could be presented to domestic interest groups as being externally imposed on the country rather than politically selected. This is of critical importance for SOE reform politics: liberalising the monopolistic privileges of Uzbektelecom and exclusive trade rights of Uztransgaz creates significant domestic losses.Institutional Readiness: Why Not Before?It is clear that the reason why IPO could not take place earlier than 2026 comes from the evidence provided in the primary source. In particular, UzNIF became an established entity only on 24 December 2024. Franklin Templeton management agreement was signed in 2025 (on 26 January). Share contributions from the Ministry of Economy and Finance started in 2025 (on 1 May). Portfolio company accounting records in compliance with IFRS standard became available only starting from 2024. The audit was completed on 30 March 2026. Portfolio of entities was also being developed until December 2025 when four companies were stripped out by capital reduction (Uzbekistan Airports, Microcreditbank, Business Development Bank, Uzbekistan Post).Presidential Political Capital: Why Not After?The re-election of Mirziyoyev in July 2023, following a constitutional referendum that extends the presidential period to seven years and sets new term limits, provides the political security needed to cope with the disruption that the privatisation process is expected to cause. SOEs will not have patronage control any more. Suppliers with political connections will not be guaranteed their contract anymore. It was even more difficult to launch the IPO of the UzNIF later since this would mean missing out on the early mover advantage that is expected to be crucial in the increasingly competitive Central Asian IPO environment. As the UzNIF Long-Term Strategy states, its success is completely reliant on political support to SOE reform.Chapter 2: The Outlook of UzNIF in Uzbekistan2.1 How does the Uzbekistan Government portray UzNIF?Official government messaging frames UzNIF not merely as a financial vehicle, but as a revolutionary institution symbolizing the country’s transition toward global economic integration. Rather than treating the fund's planned IPO on the London Stock Exchange as a standard market transaction, state communications present it as a historic turning point—tangible proof of Uzbekistan’s departure from a closed, state-dominated economy to a competitive, investment-driven, and globally connected system.Central to this narrative is institutional credibility. By emphasizing the need to build trust in a new generation of domestic institutions, officials position governance reform and transparency on par with capital creation. Listing on a major international exchange signals an embrace of global market standards while opening the nation to foreign investment. Beyond its symbolic value, UzNIF serves a practical structural role: holding stakes in 13 major state-owned enterprises, the fund operates as a strategic pipeline designed to prepare key domestic assets for future privatization and deeper economic reform.2.2 How does the general public in Uzbekistan view UzNIF?Public perception of the Uzbekistan National Investment Fund remains highly fragmented, largely driven by limited public information, varying levels of financial literacy, and the infancy of the country’s capital markets. For many, the fund evokes a strong sense of national pride, as its dual listing—particularly on the London Stock Exchange—is seen as international validation of post-2016 modernization efforts. Concurrently, the domestic listing on the Tashkent Stock Exchange creates an unprecedented opportunity for local citizens to directly own a stake in major national assets, reinforcing a positive association with broader economic reform.However, a significant portion of the population views the fund with neutrality or uncertainty. The complex mechanics of sovereign wealth management, global depositary receipts (GDRs), and dual-market listings make the initiative difficult for the average citizen to intuitively grasp, often leading to its perception as a distant government financial project with little personal relevance. Compounding this detachment is an underlying layer of skepticism, where critics and cautious observers express concern over economic inequality—worrying that the ultimate financial benefits of privatizing national assets will concentrate among foreign investors and domestic elites rather than trickle down to the broader public.2.3 Reason of Low Public Awareness in UzbekistanPublic awareness of the UzNIF remains severely restricted by a combination of structural, informational, and cultural-financial barriers. At its core, the fund relies on highly technical mechanisms—such as Global Depositary Receipts (GDRs) and complex sovereign IPO structures—that inherently cater to institutional financiers rather than the general public. This knowledge gap is exacerbated by the early development stage of Uzbekistan’s capital markets, where a mainstream retail investment culture has yet to fully take root. Consequently, stock exchanges and equity markets remain largely disconnected from the daily financial lives of average households, leaving the fund perceived as a remote economic experiment rather than a relevant personal opportunity.Chapter 3: Portfolio Formation3.1 Selection of Component CompaniesThe portfolio consists entirely of Uzbek state-owned enterprises, all of which remain wholly or majority state-controlled.UzNIF's portfolio has been reduced in number of holdings even as its NAV has grown — narrowing from 18 companies under Presidential Decree No. PP-303 (August 2024), to 15 under PP-289 (September 2025), and finally to 13 under PP-74 (April 2026). As of 30 June 2026, the fund's NAV stood at USD 2,625.8 million.The final 13 span the sectors seen as core to Uzbekistan's economy — transportation accounting for 32.4% of the total net asset value, followed by energy production (19.1%), telecommunications (15.2%), utilities (14.9%) and banking (13.4%). That spread was designed to give international investors a single-ticket way to gain access to key sectors of the local economy: energy generation, transportation, banking, financials, and industrials, rather than exposure to one company or sector.The trustee, Franklin Templeton, has a mandate to transform these portfolio companies and improve their corporate governance by installing independent directors — including members of its own investment team — on the boards of all portfolio companies. UzNIF is the largest shareholder in these companies after the Uzbekistan government's dominant stake, giving it significant minority influence.Table 2: Transportation in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026Uzbekistan Airways25%25%25%16.5%Railway Infrastructure Company25%40%40%14.9%Tashkent City Transport Services25%25%25%1.0%Uzbekistan Airports25%0%0%0.0%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.Uzbekistan Airways is the flag-carrier airline holding roughly 86% of Uzbekistan's domestic air travel market.Railway Infrastructure Company is the sole owner and operator of Uzbekistan's national railway infrastructure network.Tashkent City Transport Services operates public bus and fixed-route taxi in Tashkent.Uzbekistan Airports operates all the civil airports in Uzbekistan.Table 3: Energy Generation in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026Uzbekhydroenergo20%40%40%16.0%Thermal Power Plants25%25%25%3.1%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.Uzbekhydroenergo operates all national hydropower plants, supplying about 10% of the country's total electricity.Thermal Power Plants operates 70% of the country's gas and coal generation capacity.Table 4: Telecommunication in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026Uzbektelecom25%25%30%15.2%Uzpost25%0%0%0.0%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.Uzbektelecom holds 83% of fixed broadband market and 98% of fixed-line connections.Uzpost is the national postal service operatorTable 5: Utility in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026National Electric Grid40%40%40%6.4%Regional Gas Supply Company40%40%40%6.2%Regional Electric Networks Company40%40%40%2.1%Water Supply Company40%40%40%0.3%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.National Electric Grid is the sole operator of the national high-voltage electricity transmission grid and dispatch.Regional Electric Networks Company is the leading distributor of natural gas to households and businesses nationwide.Regional Electric Networks Company has a 100% market share over retail electricity distribution and sales to end-users in its designated segments.A leading provider of water supply and sanitation services nationally, Water Supply Company oversees municipal drinking water supply and wastewater treatment services across the regions of Uzbekistan.Table 6: Banking in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026SQB0%30%40%13.4%People's Bank of Uzbekistan30%30%0%0.0%Microcreditbank40%0%0%0.0%Business Development Bank25%0%0%0.0%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.SQB is the 3rd-largest bank in Uzbekistan by assets with a 11% market share, focused on corporate, SME, and retail banking.People's Bank of Uzbekistan is the 5th-largest bank by assets with a 6% market share, focused on retail banking and pension/social payments.Microcreditbank is the 8th-largest bank by assets with a 3% market share, focused on microfinance and small-business lendingBusiness Development Bank is the 6th-largest bank by assets with a 4% market share, focused on SME financingWhile the precise rationale behind each addition and removal is not disclosed, one plausible explanation for why four banks appeared across UzNIF's component company lists but only one (SQB) survived to the final portfolio is the broader delay in Uzbekistan's state bank privatization program. Under the updated "Uzbekistan–2030" strategy, the government pushed back privatization timelines for several state banks — a shift attributed to structural challenges, including elevated non-performing loans and credit portfolios concentrated in long-term, government-directed lending programs that carry heightened risk. Notably, Microcreditbank, Business Development Bank, and the People's Bank of Uzbekistan — the three banks dropped from UzNIF's portfolio — are among those with no privatization currently planned through 2028, while SQB's privatization was explicitly targeted for completion in 2025–2026, aligning with its retention and increased stake in the fund.Table 7: Financial Companies in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026Uzbek Commodity Exchange40%40%40%3.5%UzbekInvest20%30%40%1.4%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.Uzbek Commodity Exchange is the operator of the national commodity and raw-materials trading exchangeUzbekInvest is a leading provider of export credit and investment insurance in Uzbekistan.Table 8: Financial Companies in UzNIF PortfolioComponent CompaniesShare capital held by UzNIF% of NAV of UzNIFPP-303 Aug 2024PP-289 Sep 2025PP-74 Apr 2026Navoiyazot25%25%0%0.0%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Presidential Decree No. PP-303, PP-289, PP-74.Navoiyazot is the largest chemical enterprise in Uzbekistan, producing roughly 660,000 tons of ammonia and 577,500 tons of urea annually3.2 Comparable of Component Companies with NAV contribution >10%Given that most of these companies, as well as their regional comparables, are unlisted, meaningful equity multiples are largely unavailable. Although a small proportion of portfolio companies are listed in Tashkent, market price is still unavailable due to the lack of market depth. As a result, valuation must rely primarily on debt multiples and operational performance metrics.Figures are of 2024 as the latest figures displayed by all the portfolio companies of UzNIF are of 2024.Uzbekistan Airways (UA)Air Astana is the directly comparable peer, with near identical revenue scale and similar geographical focus. The state of Kazakhstan owns 47.5% of Air Astana, whereas the state of Uzbekistan owns 75% of UA excluding the UzNIF shares. The domestic market share of Air Astana is 68% in 2024, whereas that of UA is 86%.Turkish Airlines is far larger in scale but is geographically anchored in Eurasia and serves as a regional performance benchmark, ranked 7th in the world by the Skytrax World Airline Awards.Table 9: Uzbekistan Airways (UA) - Financial Metrics with Comparable Companies in 2024CompaniesRevenue (USD, Mn)Net Income (USD, Mn)Net Debt/ EBITDA (2024)202220232024202220232024Uzbekistan Airways1,1091,2861,4081531071182.95Air Astana (Kazakhstan)1,0321,1751,3097869531.2¹Turkish Airlines18,42620,94222,6692,7256,0213,4251.1Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Air Astana Annual Report, 2024. Air Astana Annual Report, 2023. Turkish Airlines Annual Report, 2024. Turkish Airlines Annual Report, 2023. ¹Net Debt/Adjusted EBITDAR.Table 10: Uzbekistan Airways (UA) - Operational Metrics with Comparable Companies in 2024CompaniesPASKCASK excl. FuelLoad factorUzbekistan Airway$0.013$0.03883.1%Air Astana (Kazakhstan)$0.0073N/A83.5%Turkish Airlines$0.0068$0.04682.2%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Air Astana Annual Report, 2024. Air Astana Annual Report, 2023. Turkish Airlines Annual Report, 2024. Turkish Airlines Annual Report, 2023.UA and Air Astana grew revenue at a nearly identical pace, approximately 12.6% CAGR from 2022 to 2024, yet UA has a more outstanding profit margin.The Net Debt/EBITDA of UA is markedly higher than both comparables, which may partly reflect its status as an unlisted company. Without access to public equity markets, UA has likely relied more heavily on debt to fund capital expenditure, such as fleet expansion, than Air Astana and Turkish Airlines, both of which can raise equity capital directly from public shareholders.UA has stronger operational performance metrics than the comparables. UA has the highest unit profit margin, represented by PASK, which is revenue less total cost per Available Seat Kilometre. For Cost per Available Seat Kilometre (CASK excl. Fuel), UA's $0.038 is lower than Turkish's $0.046, though this likely reflects Uzbekistan's lower input cost environment as much as operational efficiency, given Turkish's more complex long haul network. Load factor measures capacity utilization. All three carriers are closely clustered (82.2% to 83.5%), indicating comparable demand strength and limited differentiation on this metric.UA's unit economics are competitive with, and in the case of PASK superior to Turkish Airlines, one of the best airlines in the world, and its revenue growth matches Air Astana's with a higher profit margin.UzbekhydroenergoTable 11: Uzbekhydroenergo - Figures in 2024Revenue (USD Mn)Profit (USD Mn)Net debt/EBITDATotal Capacity (MW)Production volume (TWh)3101601.62,2568.195Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Uzbektelecom JSC 2025 Consolidated financial statementsThere is no comparable company for the national hydropower operator. This implies that UzNIF provides investors a unique market exposure.UzbektelecomBoth Uzbektelecom and Kazakhtelecom are Central Asian, post-Soviet telecom incumbents operating in similar frontier-market currency, regulatory, and political-risk environments. Both are listed and majority state-owned via a sovereign wealth fund — Uzbektelecom has 92% owned by the Government and UzNIF, and Kazakhtelecom has 79.2% owned by Samruk-Kazyna. Both are integrated fixed-line and mobile operators, carrying universal-service obligations to subsidize rural coverage.Table 12: Uzbektelecom - Figures from 2023 to 2025 UzbektelecomMetricUzbektelecomKazakhtelecom2023202420252024320242025Revenue growth-+14.7%+19.5%-+5.2%+18.0%EBITDA margin 28.4%30.0%32.1%35.7%32.9%35.9%Net Debt / EBITDA2.703.112.351.351.721.28EBITDA / cash interest paid5.844.885.134.633.334.84Current ratio0.210.300.300.750.64¹0.67Capex / Revenue21.7%34.8%17.3%81.9%44.7%33.1%Free cash flow-122bn soums-1.80tn soums+1.39tn soums-134.0bn tenge-15.5bn tenge-63.3bn tengeSource: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Uzbektelecom JSC 2025 and 2024 Consolidated financial statements. Kazakhtelecom 2025 and 2024 Consolidated financial statements.¹Excludes the MTS disposal group's held-for-sale assets/liabilities.From the figures, both have EBITDA margin and interest coverage, however:Uzbektelecom has recorded a more impressive revenue growth.With a higher Net Debt/EBITDA, Uzbektelecom is the meaningfully riskier credit.Uzbektelecom has a much lower current ratio, flagging auditors' concern.For Capex/Revenue, Kazakhtelecom spent 82% mostly on a 5G license purchase in 2023, dwarfing Uzbektelecom's 2024 peak of 35%. Kazakhtelecom's capital cycle is bigger but does not move its leverage much.To conclude, Uzbektelecom has a concerning debt leverage and liquidity problem as compared to Kazakhtelecom, despite achieving a more outstanding revenue growth. Yet, Uzbektelecom has demonstrated a healthy trend overall: leverage peaked at 3.11x Net Debt/EBITDA in 2024 and has since pulled back to 2.35x; capex intensity peaked the same year and has since eased to 17.3%; and free cash flow, negative in both 2023 and 2024, turned solidly positive in 2025.Railway Infrastructure CompanyTable 13: Railway Infrastructure Company - Figures in 2024CompanyCountryNet income margin (2024)Railway Infrastructure CompanyUzbekistan1%Georgian RailwayGeorgie10.3%Kazakhstan Temir ZholyKazakhstan7.4%Source: UzNIF Prospectus, 2026. Georgian Railway 2024 Consolidated financial statements. Kazakhstan Temir Zholy 2024 Consolidated financial statements.Uzbekistan Railways has a lower net income margin than its two post-Soviet, majority state-owned counterparts, Kazakhstan Temir Zholy and Georgian Railway.One likely reason is transit exposure: Kazakhstan sits on the China-Europe corridor and Georgia on the Caspian-Black Sea oil/transit route, both generating high-margin, often hard-currency transit revenue, whereas Uzbekistan is double-landlocked and sees comparatively little international transit traffic.A second likely reason is the capex cycle. Uzbekistan is mid-way through heavy investment in electrification, high-speed rail expansion, and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan line, all of which weigh on near-term profitability.Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)Table 14: The Largest Banks in Uzbekistan Ranked by Total Assets in July 2026BankAssets (trillion UZS)Share of SystemOwnershipNational Bank of Uzbekistan (NBU)146.515%StateAgrobank118.412%StateSanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)108.511%StateKapitalbank62.76%PrivateAsaka Bank62.56%StateSource: Information on major indicators of commercial banks as of July 1, 2026, The Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2026.While National Bank of Uzbekistan (NBU) takes a dominant position in the banking sector, Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB) is among the three largest banks in Uzbekistan that has a significantly higher share in the Uzbekistan banking system.Table 15: Net Interest Margin of Banks in Uzbekistan in 2024 and 2025BankNet Interest Margin 2024Net Interest Margin 2025Agrobank7%6%Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)4.9%4.8%Asakabank2%1.5%Sector Average5%5%Source: Fitch Ratings; UzNIF ProspectusSQB's net interest margin held nearly flat at 4.9% in 2024 and 4.8% in 2025 — essentially stagnant rather than improving, and consistently below the 5% sector average in both years. Notably, all the banks in this table have their net interest margin decreasing in 2025.Table 16: Profitability of Banks in Uzbekistan in 2024 and 2025BankReturn on AssetsReturn on EquityCost-to-income202420252024202520242025National Bank of Uzbekistan (NBU)1.90%1.91%13.0%13.0%40.9%45.5%Agrobank0.08%0.09%0.56%0.69%60.5%62.8%Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)1.31%1.59%11.9%15.0%49.3%56.4%Source: 2025 Consolidated Financial Statements of National Bank of Uzbekistan, Agrobank, Sanoat Qurilish BankCompared to other banks of similar size, SQB delivered the strongest profitability improvement of the three banks in 2025, with ROA rising from 1.31% to 1.59% and ROE climbing from 11.9% to 15.0%. However, SQB’s cost-to-income rose faster than other banks, which suggests that SQB's 2025 profitability gains seems to be driven by margin and volume rather than by improving cost discipline.Table 17: Credit Ratings of The Larger Banks in Uzbekistan in 2026Bank / InstitutionAgencyRatingOutlookDateNational Bank of Uzbekistan (NBU)S&PBB/BStableJuly 2026AgrobankFitchBB VR: b-PositiveJune 2026Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)S&PBB-/BNegative (from Stable)July 2026KapitalbankS&PBB-/BPositive (from Stable)July 2026Asaka BankFitchBB VR: bStableMarch 2026The State of UzbekistanS&PBB/BStableMay 2026FitchBBPositive (from Stable)June 2026Source: Fitch Ratings, S&P GlobalSQB stands out as the one credit actively deteriorating rather than being carried by sovereign or sector tailwinds. Other state-owned banks, such as National Bank of Uzbekistan and Asakabank, benefit from strong government support and carry ratings anchored to the sovereign, resulting in stable outlooks. Agrobank, meanwhile, holds a positive outlook — though this reflects Fitch's improving view of Uzbekistan's broader banking operating environment rather than any strengthening in Agrobank's own fundamentals, which remain weak. SQB is the outlier: it is the only bank among its state-owned peers with a negative outlook, reflecting S&P's expectation of further asset quality deterioration as the bank proactively recognizes legacy problem loans ahead of its planned privatization.Table 18: Asset Quality of Sanoat Qurilish BankBankStage 3 loans + OREOStage 2 loans2024202520242025Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB)6.8%9.1%27%35%Source: S&P GlobalSQB's asset quality deteriorated markedly in 2025, with Stage 3 loans plus other real-estate-owned assets rising from 6.8% to 9.1%, while Stage 2 loans climbed from 27% to 35% of the total loan book. Taken together, more than 44% of SQB's loans now sit in Stage 2 or worse, meaning well over a third of performing loans carry some elevated risk flag even before counting outright problem loans. This aligns with S&P's rationale for revising SQB's outlook to negative. S&P explicitly ties this to the bank "proactively recognizing" problem loans ahead of a planned privatization. The scale of the Stage 2 buildup also means there is substantial headroom for further migration into Stage 3 over the next 12 to 24 months. To conclude, SQB is strong in profitability and demonstrates a good trend in returns, yet the asset quality is concerning thus negatively impacted the credit ratings. The deterioration is a byproduct of the bank proactively recognizing legacy problem loans ahead of its own planned privatization, which is arguably a sign of governance improving rather than eroding.OverallAcross the five component companies benchmarked, UzNIF's asset quality presents a mixed but broadly reassuring picture, with the credit risk concentrated in specific, identifiable pockets rather than spread evenly across the portfolio.At the stronger end, Uzbekistan Airways and Uzbekhydroenergo anchor the portfolio's quality. UA's operational metrics (PASK, load factor) are competitive with or superior to established regional and global peers, and its elevated leverage is more a function of unlisted status and capex funding structure than underlying credit weakness. Uzbekhydroenergo, while not benchmarkable against a direct peer, shows a comfortable 1.6x Net Debt/EBITDA against a substantial production base, and its lack of comparables reflects the uniqueness of the asset rather than any quality concern.The Railway Infrastructure Company's thin 1% net income margin looks weak against comparable companies, but this is best read as a structural and cyclical feature. Uzbekistan's double-landlocked geography limits high-margin transit revenue, and the company is mid-cycle on electrification and high-speed rail capex. This is a margin quality issue rather than a solvency one, and should partially reverse as capex normalizes.The two credits requiring closer scrutiny are Uzbektelecom and SQB, though for different reasons and on different trajectories. Uzbektelecom carries meaningfully higher leverage than Kazakhtelecom and a low current ratio, but the trend is constructive as leverage has already pulled back from a 2024 peak of 3.11x, capex intensity has eased, and free cash flow turned positive in 2025 for the first time in the observed window. SQB moves in the opposite direction — profitability improved in 2025, but this was accompanied by rising cost-to-income and a marked deterioration in asset quality, with S&P moving to a negative outlook, explicitly tied to pre-privatization recognition of legacy problem loans, signals further asset-quality migration is likely over the next 12–24 months.Taken together, UzNIF's portfolio asset quality is adequate to good on average, supported by two operationally strong, low-to-moderate leverage assets (UA, Uzbekhydroenergo) and one asset (Uzbektelecom) whose leverage is elevated but improving. The principal downside risk sits with SQB, where deteriorating loan quality is a genuine and worsening credit concern rather than a temporary or structural feature.Chapter 4: The Structure of the Offering4.1 The Selection of TrusteeA central factor in the Government of Uzbekistan's decision to appoint Franklin Templeton as trustee for UzNIF was the manager’s successful track record with Romania’s Fondul Proprietatea. Appointed in 2010 as sole administrator of Fondul Proprietatea, Franklin Templeton restructured the fund to meet international regulatory standards, culminating in dual listings on the Bucharest Stock Exchange in 2011 and the London Stock Exchange in 2015.Both post-communist transition economies faced structural impediments: state-owned enterprises (SOEs) lacked transparency, operated inefficiently within market dynamics, and hindered foreign direct investment. Franklin Templeton’s framework addresses these exact market distortions. As Fondul Proprietatea’s public relations team noted upon UzNIF’s listing, the asset manager leverages over 15 years of experience in Romania to unlock value in strategic SOEs through active management, corporate governance reforms, enhanced disclosure, and shareholder value creation. Furthermore, Franklin Templeton has a mandate to assist appointed lead managers to dual-list the fund’s shares on both the Tashkent and London stock exchanges.4.2 The Source and Size of Share CapitalThe listing sells existing shares instead of issuing new shares. According to the Prospectus, “all of the Securities being offered as part of the Offering are being sold by the Selling Shareholder.”Table 19: UzNIF London IPO Share Capital DetailsItemNumber of SharesTotal Issued Shares of UzNIF5,054,262,531,127Total Number of Shares Held by the Selling Shareholder (The Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan)5,054,262,531,127Total Offer Shares (Excluding Greenshoe Option)47,943,008,287Total Offer Shares (Including Maximum Greenshoe Option)55,134,459,530 (15% more at maximum)Source: UzNIF Prospectus.Even if taking the over-allotment option to its maximum, the offering accounts for just 1.09% of the selling shareholder's total holdings—a remarkably small float for an IPO. This limited size suggests the issuance is less about raising capital and more about setting an unprecedented valuation benchmark for Uzbek companies in international markets.4.3 Rationale of Going Public and the Use of ProceedsThe proceeds of around $690 million will be taken by the selling shareholder, which is the Ministry of Economy and Finance of Uzbekistan. “The Company (UzNIF) will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the Securities by the Selling Shareholder,” as explained in the prospectus.After deducting $27.2 million in offering fees and expenses, as well as allocating 4% of the proceeds to Franklin Templeton as a trustee fee, the remaining net proceeds will be transferred to the state budget. Evaluating the UzNIF offering based solely on the use of proceeds misinterprets its strategic intent.While conventional IPOs primarily aim to raise capital for growth projects or liquidity, the UzNIF transaction is fundamentally about market signaling and reform credibility. By listing a premier state-backed asset on both international and domestic exchanges, Uzbekistan demonstrates a binding commitment to transparency, asset valuation, and governance standards under international regulatory oversight.Specifically, the offering serves two main objectives:Anchor for Broad-Based Privatization: UzNIF serves as the foundational precedent for Resolution No. PP-145, which mandates IPOs and secondary public offerings (SPOs) across major state-owned enterprises (SOEs) through 2028.Institutional and Governance Transformation: It embeds systemic reforms into Uzbekistan’s corporate sector, establishing a trusted institutional framework to support future capital-raising initiatives.Ultimately, this listing transitions key Uzbek state enterprise oversight beyond internal government channels to external, institutional bodies—including the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the London Stock Exchange, underwriting syndicates, and international investors.4.4 Offering StructureOn May 18, 2026, UzNIF officially listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) via a sponsored Global Depositary Receipt (GDR) program. Under this setup, one GDR represents an underlying interest in 64,700 ordinary shares primary-listed on the Tashkent Stock (TSE). The overall transaction was bifurcated into an international institutional tranche and a domestic retail tranche, designed to balance global capital access with localized participation.Table 20: International and Local Tranche of UzNIF IPOTrancheNumber of SharesPercentage of Shares (excl. Greenshoe)Percentage of Shares (incl. Greenshoe)International Tranche1,570,305,264,00097%85.1%Max Greenshoe Option (in Intl Tranche)227,459,837,600 12.3%Tashkent Tranche47,943,008,2873%2.6%Source: UzNIF Prospectus.The international tranche constituted the vast majority of the total offering and was placed exclusively with institutional investors via the LSE’s International Order Book. To accommodate varying regulatory jurisdictions, the GDR program utilizes a dual-tranche, dual-ticker structure:UZNF (Regulation S GDRs): Designated for institutional investors outside the United States.UZ20 (Rule 144A GDRs): Designated for Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) within the United States.This dual-ticker structure enables UzNIF to access both US and non-US institutional liquidity pools while avoiding direct US Securities Act registration for its underlying ordinary equity.The Tashkent tranche accounted for a minor fraction of the total issuance and was made available to local retail and institutional investors on the Tashkent Stock Exchange. To incentivize local retail involvement, eligible individual domestic buyers were offered a 5% price discount, purchasing shares at 4.41 soums against the baseline price of 4.65 soums.Table 21: Details of the Tashkent Retail Tranche of UzNIF IPOTrancheProceedsPercentage of Proceeds (excl. Greenshoe)Tashkent Retail Tranche (With 5% discount)USD 995,800~0.01%Source: UzNIF Prospectus.To prevent cross-border arbitrage—specifically, buying discounted retail shares on the TSE and immediately converting them into full-priced GDRs in London—a strict broker lock-in mechanism was implemented. Retail investors must be verified through designated local placement managers, including Alkes Research, Avesta Investment Group, or Bluestone Financial Group. Then, these discounted accounts are prohibited from converting local shares into GDRs without undergoing complex, institutional-level cross-border clearing procedures.4.5 Listing via Global Depositary Receipts in LondonUzNIF listed its GDRs pursuant to Chapter 15 of the UK Listing Rules, which mandates that the ordinary shares backing the GDRs must be actively traded on an "overseas regulated, regularly operating, recognised open market"—a condition UzNIF fulfilled through the primary listing of its underlying shares on the TSE.A primary structural precedent for selecting a London GDR listing stems from the operational experience of UzNIF’s manager, Franklin Templeton, which successfully executed a similar London GDR dual-listing for Romania’s Fondul Proprietatea eleven years prior.Although the global offering was restricted to institutional investors, UzNIF pursued an exchange-listed GDR rather than a private placement. As the debut international listing for an Uzbek state-backed entity, admission to the LSE Main Market carried high-profile signaling value, underscoring Uzbekistan’s broader integration into global capital markets. Furthermore, an exchange listing demands rigorous disclosure standards, directly advancing UzNIF’s core objective of enhancing institutional transparency.4.6 Rationale Against a Secondary Equity Listing in LondonThe decision to issue GDRs rather than execute a direct secondary equity listing was driven by a strategic combination of governance requirements, market entry thresholds, and technical listing structures.Primary among these are corporate control considerations: a direct secondary equity listing in London would necessitate full compliance with rigorous international standards, such as the UK Corporate Governance Code, which imposes strict mandates on independent board directors, committee structures, and formal board evaluations. Because the Government of Uzbekistan remains the majority shareholder, UzNIF maintains its primary corporate architecture under domestic standards. The GDR framework bridges this gap by allowing UzNIF to maximize financial disclosure and global institutional accessibility without dismantling its existing domestic control structure.In addition to governance flexibility, technical market entry regulations made a direct equity listing impractical. Standard equity listings on major international exchanges like the LSE enforce rigid free float rules, typically requiring a minimum of 10% of total issued ordinary shares to be in public hands across international markets. GDR programs provide the necessary legal and regulatory flexibility when international public share distribution falls below these minimums or when the primary domestic exchange retains the vast majority of share liquidity.Finally, the GDR structure offers critical advantages in trading architecture and capital access that a direct share listing cannot match. A standard secondary listing of ordinary equity on the LSE trades under a single, unified ticker symbol. By contrast, a GDR issuance enables a dual-tranche setup under Regulation S and Rule 144A, creating distinct tickers such as UZNF and UZ20.4.7 Bookrunners and UnderwritersThe selection of bookrunners and underwriters for UzNIF’s international offering reflects a deliberate strategy to balance core Western institutional placement with regional expertise and market-testing in emerging liquidity pools.Table 22: Underwriters and Bookrunners in UzNIF IPOFinancial IntermediaryUnderwriterBookrunnerNumber of GDRsJefferies✓✓15,937,429WOOD & Company✓✓3,281,234Auerbach Grayson✓✓3,046,860Raiffeisen Bank International✓✓1,171,869Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank✖✓/Source: UzNIF ProspectusTo target major tier-one global institutions across the United States and Europe, UzNIF engaged Jefferies as sole global coordinator, alongside US-focused boutique broker Auerbach Grayson. Jefferies provided the top-tier global distribution capacity required to secure key cornerstone orders from mega-cap international asset managers. Complementing this, Auerbach Grayson leveraged its specialized network of US-based institutional funds focused on frontier and emerging marketsA central feature of the syndicate is the strong presence of Central and Eastern European (CEE) investment banks—most notably Czech-headquartered WOOD & Company and Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI). These institutions hold significant operational footprints across Eastern Europe, a region that underwent economic transitions closely parallel to Uzbekistan's current reforms—moving from centrally planned economies to market-driven systems through state-owned enterprise privatization. Because CEE-focused institutional investors routinely evaluate post-sovereign transition assets, they are uniquely positioned to assess UzNIF's true asset value and risk profile. Furthermore, Franklin Templeton—acting as UzNIF's asset manager—holds a proven track record in Eastern Europe through its long-standing management of Romania’s Fondul Proprietatea. This established regional reputation allowed WOOD & Company and RBI to effectively market UzNIF to institutional funds within their existing investor networks.In contrast to the international underwriting syndicate, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank was appointed as a bookrunner without underwriting commitments. Under this structure, the bank actively participated in marketing, investor roadshows, and order-book construction across Gulf Cooperation Council markets, but assumed no balance-sheet obligation to buy unsold GDRs. This implies that engaging the bank solely for bookbuilding allowed UzNIF to test institutional appetite in the Gulf without forcing the syndicate to absorb or price the risk of uncommitted Middle Eastern allocation.4.8 Cornerstone InvestorsThe transaction was anchored by a consortium of global institutional investors, including BlackRock, Franklin Resources Inc. (whose subsidiary acts as UzNIF's asset manager), Redwheel, and the Allan & Gill Gray Foundation (the asset manager of Orbis). Together, these cornerstone backers committed $300 million, absorbing roughly 43% of the international IPO proceeds and signaling the highest caliber of institutional demand quality.Crucially, as fundamental long-only asset managers, these investors deploy capital with multi-year investment horizons rather than seeking short-term flip profits. By locking in nearly half of the offering prior to bookbuilding, this cornerstone group reduced execution risk, created a powerful signaling effect for other international accounts, and effectively removed a substantial portion of the public float from immediate secondary market turnover. In the aftermarket, this concentrated long-only holding structure acts as a structural stabilizer: it restricts floating supply on the London Stock Exchange, dampens share-price volatility, and shields the GDRs from speculative selling pressure, thereby establishing a firm valuation floor for Uzbekistan's flagship equity transaction.4.9 Price DiscoveryGiven UzNIF’s modest offering size of approximately $690 million, the syndicate opted for a fixed-price IPO structure rather than a conventional price-discovery range. This fixed valuation model was validated by robust institutional demand: the international tranche was four times oversubscribed, serving as a clear vote of international confidence in Uzbekistan’s broader privatization roadmap and economic reform agenda.Secondary market trading on the London Stock Exchange reflects sustained upward momentum, with UZNF trending consistently upward from its $25.00 offer price. By August 27, 2026, the GDR closed at $36.50, a 46.0% gain compared to the offer price, which demonstrates smooth price appreciation with minimal downside volatility. Spurred by strong initial trading performance, the global coordinator exercised the over-allotment option in full just two days following the London debut to facilitate stabilization.Despite impressive capital appreciation, secondary market depth presents a growing structural concern. Trading activity has thinned significantly since the initial offering surge: as of 27 August 2026, average daily trading volume over the three months post-listing sits at 23.43k GDRs, but the 10-day moving average volume has contracted sharply to just 3.82k GDRs.This drop in turnover is further compounded by a widening bid-ask spread—recently quoted between $36.50 and $37.00. At roughly 1.37% of the asset's price, this spread is notably wide for a liquid main-market listing. The combination of declining daily volume and wide spreads indicates that while long-only cornerstone accounts have successfully stabilized the price floor, additional market-making support and secondary liquidity initiatives will be necessary to deepen the order book and facilitate seamless institutional position-building. Another project operated by Franklin Templeton, Fondul Proprietatea, delisted its GDRs from London in April 2025 because of very low trading volume.Chapter 5: How Chinese Investors Speak the Same Language5.1 Strong Investor Interest in ChinaHaving navigated its own transition from a planned to a market economy—and the large-scale privatization of state-owned enterprises—China possesses a unique institutional perspective on Uzbekistan’s reform path. Consequently, Chinese investors are uniquely positioned to recognize the deep underlying value and untapped efficiency of the state-owned companies within the UzNIF.This strategic alignment is backed by massive economic commitment: China stands as Uzbekistan’s largest source of foreign direct investment, deepening its footprint across Central Asia through key Belt and Road Initiative projects. Landmark ventures like the $4.7 billion China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway and major transport corridors like the Tashkent-Samarkand toll highway demonstrate Beijing’s long-term commitment to integrating Uzbek infrastructure into regional trade networks.By consolidating 13 critical state enterprises into UzNIF, Uzbekistan offers Chinese institutional and strategic investors a familiar entry point: high-yield industrial, energy, and infrastructure assets backed by state-led governance reform. As Chinese capital shifts from pure infrastructure financing to equity participation, UzNIF presents a natural vehicle for investors looking to secure a strategic stake in the premier economic growth engine of Central Eurasia.5.2 Chinese Investors Have Gone through the Privatisation in China, and Understand the Hidden Value of State-Owned EnterprisesHaving navigated their own transition from a planned to a socialist market economy, Chinese investors possess a institutional perspective on state-owned enterprise (SOE) reform. Ever since Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatic realization that market mechanics and state planning are compatible economic instruments, China has uniquely mastered the art of combining market forces with state control—transitioning from rigid direct administration to modern capital management through institutional anchors like the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council and mixed-ownership models.Because Chinese capital markets regularly deploy state-backed vehicles as core engines for innovation and growth (as seen in leading sovereign investments in high-tech sectors like DeepSeek), Chinese investors do not suffer from the Western bias that views state involvement as an inherent discount. Instead, having witnessed China’s own multi-decade restructuring of state assets, they possess the practical experience to recognize the hidden asset value, operational upside, and strategic security embedded within Uzbekistan’s state-owned portfolio. Consequently, UzNIF is far less likely to be undervalued in China, where investors fully understand how state-backed governance and market-driven monetization can synergistically compound long-term economic value.5.3 How Hong Kong Helped State-Owned Enterprises to Attract Foreign Capital and Align with International Governance StandardsHong Kong’s transformation into the premier international financial gateway for Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) offers a proven historical blueprint for how global markets can elevate transitioning economies. During the early 1990s, while Hong Kong sought stock market diversification beyond real estate, Mainland China required foreign direct investment to modernize state assets without relinquishing state ownership. This alignment culminated in the historic June 1993 Memorandum of Understanding between regulators, paving the way for Tsingtao Brewery to pioneer the first H-Share listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.By creating dedicated structures for Mainland entities—specifically H-Shares for domestic corporations and Red Chips for overseas-incorporated state entities—Hong Kong successfully bridged the gap between state-dominated economies and global institutional capital. Unlike domestic A-Shares, which imposed strict foreign investment controls, Hong Kong offered unrestricted exposure to international investors. Crucially, listing on the exchange forced Chinese SOEs to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards, institute independent board oversight, and adhere to strict disclosure mandates. This process proved that sovereign enterprises could achieve operational discipline and institutional credibility without sacrificing core strategic state control—a framework that now accounts for roughly 77 percent of Hong Kong's total market capitalization.For Uzbekistan and the National Investment Fund (UzNIF), Hong Kong’s experience provides a vital playbook for state enterprise privatization. Leveraging an international financial center with deep experience in sovereign asset transition allows Uzbek SOEs to access foreign capital while rapidly aligning with global governance standards. Just as the H-Share model transformed Chinese state enterprises into trusted, market-driven global entities, a similar international listing strategy can convert Uzbekistan’s sovereign portfolio into high-grade institutional assets.Chapter 6: ConclusionThe question posed at the outset — whether a state can retain ownership of its most strategic assets while still submitting to the discipline of global capital markets — cannot be answered in the abstract. UzNIF's first year on the London Stock Exchange suggests a qualified yes, but one built on a narrow and still-untested foundation.The portfolio itself substantiates this reading. Across the five benchmarked component companies with the largest NAV weight in the portfolio, the underlying credit quality of UzNIF's assets is adequate to good on average. Uzbekistan Airways and Uzbekhydroenergo demonstrate that Uzbek SOEs can already compete operationally with — and in some metrics outperform — established regional peers. The Railway Infrastructure Company's thin margins reflect Uzbekistan's landlocked geography and an ongoing capex cycle rather than mismanagement. Uzbektelecom's elevated leverage is trending in the right direction. Only SQB presents a genuinely deteriorating credit, and even there the deterioration is a byproduct of the bank proactively recognizing legacy problem loans ahead of its own planned privatization — arguably a sign of governance improving rather than eroding. Taken as a whole, this is not the profile of hollowed-out state enterprises being offloaded onto foreign investors, but of assets whose fundamentals had simply never been tested against international benchmarks before.The structure of the offering itself, however, complicates a simple "successful IPO" narrative. At $690 million and just 1.09% of the selling shareholder's total holding, UzNIF's float was never designed to raise meaningful capital, as proceeds flow entirely to the state budget, not the fund. Its true purpose was price discovery and reputational signaling: establishing a credible valuation benchmark for the thirteen SOEs still to come under Resolution No. PP-145's IPO pipeline through 2028. On that narrow mandate, the deal succeeded with a four-times oversubscribed, a 46% first-quarter gain, and a cornerstone base of quality long-only big name funds locking in structural price support. But the same features that made the IPO a low-risk signaling exercise — a minimal float and heavy reliance on long-only cornerstone holders — have already produced the thin secondary liquidity now visible in UzNIF's contracting daily volumes and widening bid-ask spread. Fondul Proprietatea's 2025 London delisting, run by the same trustee, is a pointed reminder that governance credibility and market signaling do not automatically translate into a durable, liquid security.Looking forward, the next test of Uzbekistan's transition model will not be UzNIF's share price but whether the pipeline behind it: the remaining SOE IPOs, the WTO accession, and the tariff and governance reforms embedded in the prospectus' own forward commitments. China's parallel experience with SOE reform, and its demonstrated appetite for state-backed equity through vehicles like the Hong Kong H-share market, positions Chinese capital as a natural second wave of demand should Western liquidity prove as shallow as early trading data suggests. Whether UzNIF becomes the template for Central Asia's broader integration into global capital markets, or a well-intentioned but thinly-traded one-off, depends less on the deal itself than on what Uzbekistan does next.ReferenceAcemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown.Agrobank. (2025). 2025 consolidated financial statements.Air Astana. (2023). Annual report 2023.Air Astana. (2024). Annual report 2024.Auerbach Grayson. (2026). Frontier markets distribution capability statement.Beers, B. (2025, May 25). H-shares vs. A-shares: What's the difference? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062315/what-are-differences-between-hshares-and-a shares-chinese-and-hong-kong-stock-exchanges.aspBertelsmann Stiftung. (2026). BTI 2026 Uzbekistan country report.Bloomberg. (2026, June 16). UzNIF to start preparing IPO of Uzbekistan Airways.bne IntelliNews. (2026, June 17). TIIF 2026: An Uzbek boom is underway.Brookings Institution. (2022). High expectations in Uzbekistan.Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2026). Financial stability report for 2025.Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2026, July 1). Information on major indicators of commercial banks.Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, Art. 6. (1944). Scheduled air services and the legal status of national flag carriers. International Civil Aviation Organization.Development Strategy Centre. (2026, April). Updated 2030 targets.The Economist. (2019, December). Country of the year 2019: Uzbekistan.Euronews. (2026, May 18). UzNIF debuts on London market in first international Uzbek IPO. https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/18/uznif-debuts-on-london-market-in-first-internati onal-uzbek-ipoEuronews. (2026, June 10). UzNIF's international IPO shifts focus from fundraising to corporate governance. https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/10/uznifs-international-ipo-shifts-focus-from-fundraising-to-corporate-governanceFitch Ratings. (2026, March). Fitch affirms JSC Asakabank at 'BB'; outlook stable.Fitch Ratings. (2026, March 6). Fitch revises Uzbekistan's outlook to positive; affirms at 'BB'. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-revises-uzbekistan-outlook-to-positive-af firms-at-bb-03-06-2026Fitch Ratings. (2026, June). Fitch affirms Agrobank at 'BB'; outlook positive.Franklin Templeton Asset Management. (2025). Long-term strategy of the National Investment Fund of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2025–2035.Franklin Templeton Asset Management. (2026, May 31). UzNIF factsheet.Franklin Templeton Asset Management. 2026, July). UzNIF investor presentation. https://franklintempletonprod.widen.net/content/nt6pwec3pz/pdf/UzNIF_Investor_Presentation_ July26.pdfFreedom House. (2026). Freedom in the world 2026: Uzbekistan.Gazeta.uz. (2026, March 30). Uzbekistan to launch international financial center.Gazeta.uz. (2026, May 19). UzNIF IPO marks historic milestone for Uzbekistan's capital markets. https://www.gazeta.uz/en/2026/05/19/uznif-london/Georgian Railway. (2024). 2024 consolidated financial statements.Government of Uzbekistan. (2023, September). Presidential Decree No. 158: Uzbekistan 2030 strategy. Government of Uzbekistan. (2024, February). Law on privatisation of state property. Government of Uzbekistan. (2024, June 12). Presidential Decree No. PF-145.Government of Uzbekistan. (2024, July 19). Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. UP-111: On measures to bring about a radical turn in property relations, create the foundations of a free market economy, and introduce international standards into the management of state-owned enterprises. National Database of Legislation (Lex.uz). https://www.lex.uz/en/docs/7086027Government of Uzbekistan. (2025, April 21). Presidential Resolution No. PP-145: On the privatization of large enterprises with state participation on international markets.Government of Uzbekistan. (2026). Investor demand and economic framing. https://gov.uz/oz/imv/news/view/166897Government of Uzbekistan. (2026). Official IPO commentary and reform statements. https://gov.uz/en/imv/news/view/166900Government of Uzbekistan. (2024). Presidential Decree No. PP-303.Government of Uzbekistan. (2025). Presidential Decree No. PP-289.Government of Uzbekistan. (2026). Presidential Decree No. PP-74.Government of Uzbekistan. (n.d.). Law on Joint-Stock Companies and the Protection of Shareholders' Rights. National Database of Legislation (Lex.uz).Gulf Times. (2026, April 29). Qatar's Islamic banking expertise a pathway for Uzbekistan.HKEX. (2023, August 22). H-shares: Kick-starting 30 years of connectivity. https://www.hkexgroup.com/Media-Centre/Insight/Insight/2023/Laura-Cha/H-shares-kick-startin g-30-years-of-connectivity?sc_lang=enHKEX. (2023, August 22). HKEX celebrates 30th anniversary of H-share listings. https://www.hkex.com.hk/News/News-Release/2023/230822news?sc_lang=enHKEX. (n.d.). Hong Kong and mainland market highlights. https://www.hkex.com.hk/Mutual-Market/Stock-Connect/Statistics/Hong-Kong-and-Mainland Market-Highlights?sc_lang=enInternational Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. (n.d.). The Santiago principles: Generally accepted principles and practices (GAPP) for sovereign wealth funds. IFSWF Secretariat.International Monetary Fund. (2025). Uzbekistan: Article IV consultation staff report.International Monetary Fund. (2025, October). World economic outlook, Chapter 4: Legal institutions and investment.International Monetary Fund. (n.d.). Sovereign wealth funds: Institutional structures and asset management practices in emerging economies (IMF Policy Paper Series).Invest Uzbekistan. (n.d.). The Republic of Uzbekistan is launching a new stage of large-scale privatization of state-owned enterprises in the period of 2025–2028. https://invest.gov.uz/en/posts/the-republic-of-uzbekistan-is-launching-a-new-stage-of-large-scale-privatization-of-state-owned-enterprises-in-the-period-of-2025-2028Islamic Development Bank. (2025). Uzbekistan country assessment.Jenkinson, T., & Jones, H. (2004). Bids and allocations in European IPO bookbuilding. Journal of Finance, 59(5), 2309–2338.Kazakhstan Temir Zholy. (2024). 2024 consolidated financial statements.Kazakhtelecom. (2024). 2024 consolidated financial statementsKazakhtelecom. (2025). 2025 consolidated financial statements.Kun.uz. (2026, May 13). UzNIF IPO secures over $600 million on Tashkent and London exchanges. https://kun.uz/en/news/2026/05/13/uznif-ipo-secures-over-600-million-on-tashkent-and-london-e xchangesKun.uz. (2026, May 18). Uzbekistan National Investment Fund debuts on London Stock Exchange. https://kun.uz/en/news/2026/05/18/uzbekistan-national-investment-fund-debutKursiv Uzbekistan. (2026, April 29). UzNIF unveils $1.95 bn dual-listing IPO. https://uz.kursiv.media/en/2026-04-29/uzbekistan-national-investment-fund-unveils-1-95-bn-dua l-listing-ipo/Kursiv Uzbekistan. (2026, July 23). Moody's upgrades UzbekInvest's rating to Ba1 with stable outlook. https://uz.kursiv.media/en/2026-07-23/moodys-upgrades-uzbekinvests-rating-to-ba1-with-stable outlook/La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.Leftwich, A. (1993). Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 14(3).Liu, P. (2022, June 29). What are 'red chips', and why are China's state-owned companies such a big deal in Hong Kong's stock market? South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3183390/chinese-red-chip-stocks-make-th eir-presence-felt-hong-kongLondon Stock Exchange. (2026). UzNIF full exercise of greenshoe option. https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/market-news/uznif-full-exercise-of-greensh oe-option/17601745London Stock Exchange. (2026). UzNIF GDR prospectus. LSE Regulatory Announcements.London Stock Exchange. (2026, May 13). UzNIF IPO listing data and retail subscription details.London Stock Exchange. (2026, May 18). London Stock Exchange welcomes the listing of the National Investment Fund of the Republic of Uzbekistan (UzNIF). https://www.londonstockexchange.com/discover/news-and-insights/london-stock-exchange-welc omes-listing-national-investment-fund-republic-uzbekistan-uznifLSE.co.uk. (2026, May 13). Uzbek sovereign fund debuts in London, raises $604 million in IPO. https://www.lse.co.uk/news/uzbek-sovereign-fund-debuts-in-london-raises-604-million-in-ipo-xd vf6x1gsa1v0v3.htmlMegginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321–389.National Bank of Uzbekistan. (2025). 2025 consolidated financial statements.National Investment Fund of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2026). IPO centre. https://www.uznif.com/en-uz/ipo-centreNikkei Asia. (2026). Uzbek IPO oversubscribed as investors jump at privatization play. https://asia.nikkei.com/business/markets/ipo/uzbek-ipo-oversubscribed-as-investors-jump-at-priv atization-playOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Investment policy review of Uzbekistan.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2025, November). Roadmap for sustainable investment policy reforms in Uzbekistan.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). OECD guidelines on corporate governance of state-owned enterprises. OECD Publishing.President Mirziyoyev. (2026, June 17). Address at TIIF 2026. UZA.uzRedwheel. (2024). Global emerging markets fund: Investment strategy overview.Richful. (n.d.). 中国企业香港上市回顾 [Review of Chinese enterprises' Hong Kong listings]. http://www.rf.hk/listed/hongkong/580.htmlRock, K. (1986). Why new issues are underpriced. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1–2), 187–212.Rumer, B. (Ed.). (2007). Central Asia: Views from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. M.E. Sharpe.Sanoat Qurilish Bank (SQB). (2025). 2025 consolidated financial statements.Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.S&P Global Ratings. (2026, July). National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan JSC affirmed at 'BB/B'; outlook stable.S&P Global Ratings. (2026, July). Uzbekistan-based Kapitalbank outlook revised to positive on strengthening capitalization; 'BB-/B' ratings affirmed.S&P Global Ratings. (2026, July). Uzpromstroybank JSCB outlook revised to negative on asset quality deterioration; 'BB-/B' ratings affirmed.S&P Global Ratings. (2026, May). Uzbekistan 'BB/B' ratings affirmed; outlook stable. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/101687339Spot.uz. (2026, January 5). UzNIF plans an IPO in the first half of 2026 with listings in London and Tashkent — Franklin Templeton. https://www.spot.uz/en/2026/01/05/uznif/State Assets Management Agency of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Davaktiv). (2025). Annual reports on corporate governance assessment and transformation of large state-owned enterprises (2024–2025). https://davaktiv.uzTemasek Holdings Private Limited. (n.d.). The Temasek charter, core principles and institutional governance framework.The Times of Central Asia. (2026). Dual IPO structure and market reaction. https://timesca.com/uzbekistan-conducts-first-dual-ipo-in-london-and-tashkent/The Times of Central Asia. (2026, May). UzNIF and Uzbekistan's dual reform track.Turkish Airlines. (2023). Annual report 2023.Turkish Airlines. (2024). Annual report 2024.United Nations Development Programme. (2025). Independent country programme evaluation: Uzbekistan (2024–2025).UzNIF. (2026). UzNIF prospectus.UzNIF JSC. (2025). IFRS financial statements (Note 4(e): Operating environment; Note 14: Shareholders' equity).UzNIF JSC. (2026, March 30). Financial statements for the period 24 December 2024 to 31 December 2025 (audited by Deloitte LLP, Kazakhstan; registered with the UK Financial Reporting Council).Uzbektelecom JSC. (2024). 2024 consolidated financial statements.Uzbektelecom JSC. (2025). 2025 consolidated financial statements.World Bank. (2019). Sovereign wealth funds and asset management in transition economies: Balancing state ownership and market discipline (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9842).World Bank. (2025). Uzbekistan financial sector review. World Bank. (2026, April). Uzbekistan country overview. World Bank. (2026, April). Uzbekistan poverty update. World Trade Organization. (2026, March). Working party documents for the accession of Uzbekistan (acc_09mar26). Yale Journal of International Affairs. (2026, January). How Uzbekistan can escape the middle-income trap.

Maqolani ko'rish