In-Depth Analysis of Financial News: What Exactly Does the “Inclusive Listing” in the A-share Market Accommodate?
Summary of Key Points
In simple terms, this news article discusses the profound “systematic upgrade” that the Chinese stock market (particularly the Science and Technology Innovation Board and the GEM board) is undergoing.
Previously, companies were only considered eligible to list if they were making a profit; those that were losing money were not considered suitable for the stock market. However, the government has now made it clear that it aims to make the A-share market the preferred destination for high-quality companies to go public, and the core approach to this is the **“inclusive listing system.”
This is not just about allowing loss-making companies to list; it represents a comprehensive ecosystem that includes:
1. Financial support and pathways: Providing funding for companies that have not yet made a profit but possess strong technological capabilities, thereby accelerating their research and development.
2. Strict regulation and scrutiny: Although loss-making is permitted, the supervision is more stringent, and the review process is more detailed, with a focus on cracking down on fraud and violations.
3. Targeted approach: Only companies engaged in cutting-edge technologies that represent future trends are accommodated, not all loss-making industries.
4. Chinese characteristics: This system is not a direct copy of the American or Hong Kong stock markets; it is tailored to China’s unique pace of technological development, scale, and risk profile, combining “pre-event prevention, in-event regulation, and post-event compensation.”
In one sentence, the A-share market is shifting from focusing on profits to focusing on potential, with the prerequisite being genuine technology and compliance.
---
Detailed Explanation: Understanding the Logic Behind Inclusiveness from Five Dimensions
1. Debunking Misconceptions: Inclusiveness Does Not Mean Tolerating Losses, but Respecting the Laws of Innovation
Many ordinary investors, upon hearing about the possibility of loss-making companies listing, might think, “Won’t I be more likely to lose money?” or “Is this giving bad companies a green light?” This is a misunderstanding. The news provides a set of key figures: in the seven years since the launch of the Science and Technology Innovation Board, it has supported 63 unprofitable companies in going public, 28 of which have turned profitable (removing the “U” designation from their stock names), and the remaining 35 are also seeing a rapid reduction in losses (18% increase in revenue, 18% reduction in losses).
In plain language: It’s like planting trees. Some trees grow slowly, focusing on root development without producing leaves or even consuming nutrients (losing money) in the early stages. If you stipulate that they must bloom and bear fruit before they can be planted, those valuable saplings would have been removed long ago. The inclusive system allows these high-tech saplings that are “taking root” to enter the “garden.” The data shows that most of them have indeed thrived, indicating that inclusiveness is not about indulging in losses but about respecting the fact that technological innovation takes time and requires investment. Rejecting them just because they are not profitable in the short term could mean that China’s high-tech industry misses a critical period of growth.
2. A Systematic Perspective: It’s Not Just a Single Rule, but a Comprehensive Ecosystem
Understanding inclusive listing as merely the stock exchanges relaxing financial criteria would be too simplistic. The news emphasizes that it is a systematic initiative that covers the entire process from investment to listing to trading.
In plain language: Imagine a precision assembly line where each link works together:
- **The primary market (venture capital/VC) is the “source of lifeblood”: Previously, VCs were hesitant to invest in early-stage high-tech companies because they didn’t know when they could exit through a listing. With the inclusive system, VCs are more confident: “As long as the technology is strong, there’s a chance for a future listing and exit.” As a result, more funds are being invested in early and cutting-edge technologies.
- **Intermediary institutions (brokers, law firms, accounting firms) act as “personal trainers”: They no longer only check financial statements for compliance; they also delve into the company’s technology roadmap, business model, and even help improve its governance structure. This is like a comprehensive “health check” and “fitness boost” before listing, enhancing the overall quality of the company.
- **The regulatory authorities (CSRC/exchanges) use a “three-dimensional microscope”: The review process is not just about rigid numbers; it considers industry trends, the company’s position in the supply chain, and even the details of core technologies and inventory turnover. This rigorous scrutiny forces companies to be transparent about their financial situation and risks.
Conclusion: Inclusiveness is not about someone or one department leniency; it’s about the coordinated operation of the entire market ecosystem—venture capital is willing to invest, intermediaries provide proper management, regulatory authorities conduct thorough reviews, and the secondary market sets fair prices, creating a closed loop.
3. Awareness of Boundaries: Unbounded inclusiveness is Abuse; Strict Regulation is Protection
The news makes a sharp point: “Unbounded inclusiveness is a waste of the system.” Inclusiveness has its limits and principles.
In plain language: It’s like a school that uses a “comprehensive quality assessment” system, allowing students with strengths in certain areas to enroll, but not allowing all students to graduate even if they fail in all subjects.
- Strict financial standards: In the first eight months of this year, the CSRC handled 644 cases and fined nearly 10 billion yuan. This shows that while the door is open to high-quality tech companies, fraud and deception are strictly punished. On one hand, real innovation is welcomed; on the other hand, fake innovation is severely punished.
- Industry-specific criteria: The fifth set of listing criteria for the Science and Technology Innovation Board is not applicable to all companies. It has expanded from biomedicine to areas like artificial intelligence, commercial aerospace, and quantum technology. What do these fields have in common? They are all “cutting-edge,” “highly competitive,” and “representing the future.” If your industry is just traditional manufacturing with losses or has an unclear business model, the inclusive system is not for you.
- Quality-focused regulation, not mere blocking: Some say the review process has become stricter, but it’s more accurately described as “quality improvement.” Companies with continuously expanding losses, no hope for improvement, and no leadership in their industry will face stricter reviews; however, leading companies with high technological barriers and clear paths are still welcome.
Core logic: Inclusiveness is about identifying genuine “top students,” while strict regulation keeps “poor performers” and fraudsters out. Only when policies reach the right companies does the system be effective.
4. Chinese Innovation: Not Copying, but Tailoring to Local Conditions
Many might ask, “The US NASDAQ and Hong Kong’s 18A market have had similar systems for a long time—what’s new about the A-share market’s approach?” The news highlights that the A-share’s inclusive system is unique because it has been developed within China’s specific context.
In plain language:
- More complex scenarios and thorough testing: China’s tech industry is rapidly evolving with numerous sectors and a large number of companies. From chips to AI, from aerospace to the low-altitude economy, new technologies emerge every year. This fast-changing environment has subjected the A-share market’s inclusive system to more intensive and complex real-world tests than overseas markets. It is not a theoretical concept in a protected environment but is continuously refined and improved through the actual growth of numerous companies.
- Different approaches to risk management:
- US model: Relys mainly on post-event accountability: When problems arise, investors file lawsuits and engage in class actions, resulting in financial losses. This is a “litigation-driven economy.”
- Chinese model: Focuses on full-cycle management:
- Pre-event: Strengthening regulation and raising compliance awareness to reduce risks from the outset (e.g., a significant increase in the insurance coverage for directors and executives).
- In-event: Strict reviews and information disclosure to give the market a clear picture of the company.
- Post-event: Various mechanisms such as representative litigation (China’s version of class actions), advance compensation, and administrative fines are in place.
- This combination of pre-event prevention, in-event control, and post-event relief is more suited to China’s investor base (dominated by retail investors) and the current stage of market development.
- Different social implications: Overseas, listing is primarily for capital appreciation. In China, the inclusive system plays a key role in “technology finance.” It encourages early, small-scale, and high-tech investments in the primary market and delivers new, high-quality assets to the secondary market. It supports not just the stock prices of a few companies but the overall speed and quality of the country’s technological innovation.
5. The Ultimate Value: From a Financing Tool to an Innovation Engine
Finally, we need to understand the ultimate value of this system for individuals and society.
In plain language: Previously, the stock market was just a “cash machine” for many tech companies—listing was about raising funds. Now, the inclusive system is transforming the stock market into an “innovation accelerator.”
- For companies: It provides valuable financial support during the critical early stages, accelerating technological breakthroughs. Many companies have become profitable during the review process, which was unimaginable before.
- For investors: Although there may be short-term fluctuations, in the long run, the market will have more high-quality assets representing future trends. What you buy is not just “past profits” but “future potential.”
- For society: This system opens up a channel between “money” and “technology,” encouraging capital to venture into high-risk areas and transforming technology into real productivity.
Conclusion: The goals outlined in the “15th Five-Year Plan for Building a Financial Power” and the practices of the Science and Technology Innovation Board/GEM board indicate that China’s capital market is maturing. It no longer uses a simple criterion of “profitability” to evaluate companies but has established a more complex, detailed, and targeted evaluation system.
Implications for ordinary investors:
1. Don’t panic blindly: Don’t immediately dismiss companies labeled as unprofitable; instead, consider whether they are in truly cutting-edge technology sectors.
2. Pay attention to companies removing the “U” designation: Those that have done so often indicate substantial improvement in their fundamentals, which is an important signal to watch.
3. Trust the power of the system: As regulation becomes stricter and compliance costs increase, the overall quality of the A-share market is improving. Although there may be initial challenges, the direction is clear: to benefit genuine innovators and eliminate fake ones.