Vietnam's VIFC Ambition: What International Financial Institutions Need to Know Before 2027

For decades, the geography of international finance has been organised around a handful of jurisdictions: London, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai. These centres did not emerge by accident. They were built through deliberate combinations of regulatory architecture, tax policy, talent pipelines, and — perhaps most importantly — institutional credibility accumulated over time. Vietnam is now attempting something that very few countries have pulled off: constructing an international financial centre from the ground up, on an accelerated timeline, in a market that most global banks still classify as frontier.

The Vietnam International Financial Centre, or VIFC, is not a vague aspiration. It has a legal framework (Decree 323), a dual-location structure spanning Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang, and a target date of 2027 for initial operations. For international financial institutions — banks, asset managers, insurers, fintech firms — the question is no longer whether Vietnam is serious. It is whether the operational and regulatory details are sufficient to justify early commitment.

The Regulatory Architecture#

The VIFC's regulatory framework draws explicitly from models in Singapore, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. That is both a strength and a source of uncertainty. The strength lies in the signalling: Vietnam's policymakers have studied what works in established centres and have adopted common-law dispute resolution mechanisms, English-language documentation requirements, and international accounting standards as baseline expectations.

The uncertainty lies in implementation. A regulatory framework on paper is categorically different from a regulatory framework in practice. The institutions that will matter most — the VIFC Management Authority, the specialised courts, the licensing bodies — are still being constituted. International FIs evaluating the VIFC need to be realistic about this gap:

• Licensing regimes have been outlined but operational procedures remain in development. Institutions should expect iterative guidance from regulators through 2026 and into 2027.
• Tax incentives, including the widely discussed preferential corporate income tax rates, are legislated but the administrative mechanics of claiming those benefits across jurisdictions are not yet fully documented.
• Capital account provisions for VIFC-registered entities suggest meaningful liberalisation relative to domestic Vietnamese law, but the precise scope of permitted cross-border flows has not been tested in practice.
• Dispute resolution through VIFC-specific arbitration and commercial courts is a centrepiece of the project's credibility proposition, but judicial independence will inevitably face scrutiny from institutional risk committees.

"The comparison that matters is not VIFC versus the City of London. It is VIFC in 2027 versus DIFC in 2004 or GIFT City in 2015. Judged against the early stages of comparable projects, Vietnam's preparation is notably more structured."

The Dual-City Model#

One of the VIFC's most distinctive features is its two-location structure. Ho Chi Minh City will serve as the primary financial hub, housing the core banking, capital markets, and asset management functions. Da Nang is positioned as a centre for fintech, innovation labs, and digital finance operations. The logic is straightforward: Ho Chi Minh City offers proximity to Vietnam's commercial centre of gravity and existing financial infrastructure, while Da Nang provides lower operating costs, a growing technology workforce, and quality-of-life advantages for expatriate staff.

For international institutions, the dual-city model introduces both opportunity and operational complexity. Firms with diversified operations may find it natural to split functions across the two locations. But the model also raises practical questions about regulatory coordination, talent mobility between sites, and whether the administrative overhead of operating in two jurisdictions within one country outweighs the cost advantages.

What Should International FIs Be Doing Right Now?#

The institutions that have historically benefited most from new financial centres are those that engaged early — not recklessly, but strategically. In the DIFC's first years, the firms that established presence gained preferential relationships with regulators, shaped emerging rules through consultation processes, and secured prime positions that latecomers could not replicate.

For the VIFC, the equivalent window is open now and will likely narrow through 2026. Practical steps include:

• Regulatory mapping: Assigning legal and compliance teams to systematically compare VIFC regulations with existing operating jurisdictions.
• Stakeholder engagement: Participating in the VIFC's consultation and feedback mechanisms.
• Scenario planning: Developing internal assessments under optimistic, base-case, and pessimistic scenarios.
• Talent assessment: Evaluating the availability of qualified staff in both cities.
• Partnership exploration: Identifying Vietnamese institutions that could serve as local partners or counterparties.

None of this requires a binding commitment. But it does require institutional attention — the kind that, in large organisations, must be deliberately allocated rather than assumed. The VIFC is not yet a proven proposition. But the cost of ignoring it until it is may be higher than the cost of engaging with it while the rules are still being written.