China’s Securities Industry Gets a Major Shakeup: SAC Introduces “China Stock Market Narrative” as Key Performance Metric

The Securities Association of China (Zhongguo Zhengquan Ye Xiehui 中国证券业协会 – SAC) just launched something interesting.

On May 27, the China Securities Journal (Zhongguo Zhengquan Bao 中国证券报) and CSJ Golden Bull (Zhongzheng Jinniu Zuo 中证金牛座) reported exclusively that the SAC rolled out its 2025 statistical survey on securities research operations across the industry.

But here’s what caught everyone’s attention: this is the first year they’re measuring how well research firms tell China’s stock market story to the world.

This isn’t just another compliance checkbox.

It signals a fundamental shift in how China is evaluating its financial research ecosystem—and it has real implications for how brokerages operate going forward.

---

What Changed in 2025? The Big Picture

The SAC’s new survey isn’t measuring research the way they used to.

For years, the metric that mattered was pretty straightforward: commission volume and research coverage rates.

That’s it.

But 2025 brought something different.

Industry insiders are noting that the valuation scale for brokerage research is shifting from a single dimension toward a more complex model.

Here’s what’s now on the radar:

• How research institutes serve national strategies
• The actual output of securities research for the “Five Great Articles” (financial sectors focused on technology, green finance, inclusive finance, pension finance, and digital finance)
• The role of securities research as “market think tanks”
• Quantitative traces of research efforts aimed at “telling the story of the Chinese stock market”
• Social, policy, and international communication functions of research

Translation: The Chinese government is now measuring whether brokerages are helping shape the narrative around China’s financial markets—both domestically and internationally.

This is a significant departure from pure financial metrics.

---

The 2025 Survey Breakdown: Three Major Sections

The questionnaire itself is comprehensive and revealing.

It’s organized into three main directions:

1. Overview of securities research institutions
2. Client service and business development
3. Service to national strategies and future industry development

Let’s unpack what each section is really asking.

---

Section 1: The Organizational Deep Dive

• Staff Composition: Total headcount, analyst ratios, and doctoral degree proportions.
• Seniority Breakdown: Percentage of staff with 5+ years of industry experience.
• Leadership Roles: Presence and function of a Chief Economist.
• Compliance Focus: Ratio of quality control to compliance review personnel.
• External Footprint: Changes to overseas subsidiaries and international capabilities.

The SAC wants to know everything about how research institutions are structured.

The survey conducts a highly detailed investigation into personnel and organizational structure.

Specifically, it’s asking for:

• Total number of researchers over the last two years
• Number of analysts
• Ratio of quality control to compliance review personnel
• Number of new hires and departures
• Proportion of employees with doctoral degrees
• Percentage of senior staff with over five years of experience

But it doesn’t stop there.

The questionnaire also digs into leadership and specialized structures:

• Whether the firm employs a Chief Economist
• Whether there’s an independent think tank or industrial research institute structure at the department or company level
• Size of the research sales team
• Changes in overseas subsidiaries or international research capabilities

Translation: The SAC is laying bare the entire “skeleton and capillaries” of every research institute in the country.

This level of detail reveals something important—the regulatory body isn’t just interested in numbers.

They want to understand institutional maturity, talent depth, and global reach.

---

Section 2: Revenue Streams and the Profitability Question

The 2025 survey is forcing brokerages to show their cards on how they actually make money from research.

The questionnaire probes the income and expenditure structure of research institutes by investigating:

• Institutional client trading commissions
• Internal synergy income
• Consulting agreement fees
• Commissions from the public fund “brokerage settlement” model
• Expenditures on expert consultations

Why does this matter now?

China is in the midst of major reforms to reduce public fund fees.

These fee cuts are fundamentally changing the economics of brokerage research.

By asking for detailed revenue breakdowns, the SAC is essentially stress-testing which firms have sustainable business models—and which ones are about to face real pressure.

The firms that can only survive on traditional trading commissions and fund management fees are the ones that will struggle most under the new regulatory environment.

---

The AI Wildcard: Research Innovation Takes Center Stage

Here’s something that signals where the industry is headed.

For the first time, the 2025 survey includes a new reporting item specifically focused on research innovation—particularly how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is empowering research operations.

This isn’t accidental.

It reflects a broader reality: AI is becoming table stakes in the securities research space.

Firms that can leverage AI to analyze data faster, identify patterns quicker, and produce research more efficiently will have a competitive advantage.

Those that can’t risk being left behind.

By explicitly measuring AI adoption, the SAC is signaling that they expect firms to be investing in this technology.

It’s also a way to identify which institutions are genuinely innovating versus just going through the motions.

---

What This Means for the Industry

The bigger picture here is that China’s regulatory approach to securities research is becoming more nuanced and strategic.

It’s no longer just about preventing fraud or ensuring compliance.

Now, the government is explicitly measuring whether brokerage research is contributing to:

• National financial priorities (the “Five Great Articles”)
• International perception of Chinese markets
• Thought leadership on market dynamics
• Technology-driven innovation in research

This suggests that brokerage research firms are being reframed as strategic actors in China’s financial ecosystem—not just profit-generating businesses.

For investors and founders paying attention to Chinese fintech and financial services, this is a signal worth noting.

The regulatory framework is evolving in ways that reward strategic alignment with government priorities.

Firms that can demonstrate they’re contributing to these national objectives—while maintaining strong fundamentals— are likely to be viewed more favorably by regulators and potentially get policy support.

Meanwhile, firms that are purely transactional or commission-focused could face headwinds.

---

The Bottom Line: Narrative Matters in China’s Stock Market

The inclusion of “telling the story of the Chinese stock market” as a formal SAC metric is worth reading between the lines on.

China’s government cares about how its financial markets are perceived—both internally and internationally.

Securities research firms are now being measured on their ability to shape that narrative through high-quality research, international engagement, and strategic communication.

This is a fundamentally different way of thinking about the value of brokerage research than traditional commission-based models.

And it signals where China’s securities industry is heading: toward a more strategically-aligned, globally-aware, technology-driven ecosystem.

If you’re operating in or investing in China’s financial services space, understanding this shift is essential to staying ahead of regulatory evolution and market dynamics in China’s securities industry.

---

References

• SAC Investigates Brokerage Research Business, “Telling the Story of China’s Stock Market” Included for the First Photo Time – China Securities Journal
• Home Page – Securities Association of China
• Institutional Supervision and Research Regulations – China Securities Regulatory Commission