32 Wealth Management Companies to Face Major Regulatory Rating Assessment, with Rating Results "Tied" to Business Development, Creating Strong Incentives and Hard Constraints

Everyday Economic News Reporter | Pan Ting
Everyday Economic News Editor | Huang Bowen

On March 16, the National Financial Regulatory Administration (hereinafter referred to as “Financial Regulatory Bureau”) announced on its official website that to improve the regulatory system for wealth management companies and promote the development and supervision models that match their capabilities, it recently issued the “Interim Measures for the Supervision and Rating of Wealth Management Companies” (hereinafter referred to as “Measures”). The Measures establish a complete system with six major rating factors and seven rating levels, focusing on asset management ability, risk management, and other core modules. Through scientific scoring and dynamic adjustment mechanisms, they comprehensively evaluate the operational and risk levels of institutions.

A relevant official from the Financial Regulatory Bureau stated in response to a reporter’s question that some institutions need to further clarify their development positioning, improve professional investment capabilities, deepen the transformation to net value, and enhance risk control. The regulatory rating results are an important basis for regulatory authorities to allocate supervision resources, conduct market access, and implement differentiated regulatory measures.

Zeng Gang, director of the Shanghai Financial and Development Laboratory, told the Daily Economic News that: “Overall, this Measures will promote the wealth management industry to form a ‘good money drives out bad,’ with highly rated institutions gaining more opportunities in innovative business and market access. Institutions with lower ratings will need to focus on rectification. The industry’s business structure will be optimized towards compliance, high quality, and strong capabilities, ultimately helping the wealth management industry better serve residents’ wealth management and the real economy.”

Establishing a Complete System of Six Major Rating Factors and Seven Rating Levels

Since the introduction of the “New Regulations on Asset Management,” wealth management products have returned to their original purpose of “entrusted management,” and positive results have been achieved in regulatory transformation.

The reporter noted that the Measures build a complete system with six major rating factors and seven rating levels, providing a comprehensive assessment of wealth management companies’ management and risk levels, enabling more precise and refined regulation.

Regarding the regulatory rating factors, the Measures set up six modules: corporate governance, asset management capability, risk management, information disclosure, investor rights protection, and information technology. These modules are assigned weights of 10%, 25%, 25%, 15%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. They also include targeted bonus points, deduction points, and level adjustment factors to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the management and risk status of wealth management companies.

For rating levels, the Measures specify that the regulatory ratings are divided into levels 1 to 6 and S level, with higher numbers indicating greater risk and requiring increased regulatory attention. Scores of 90 points (inclusive) or above are rated level 1; 80 to 89 points are level 2; 70 to 79 points are level 3; 60 to 69 points are level 4; 50 to 59 points are level 5; and below 50 points are level 6.

In terms of implementation, the Measures establish a one-year regulatory rating cycle for wealth management companies, covering the period from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. In principle, the ratings for the previous year should be completed by the end of April each year.

Linking Rating Results to Business Conditions Creates Strong Incentives and Constraints

A relevant official from the Financial Regulatory Bureau explained that the rating results are a key basis for regulatory authorities to allocate supervision resources, conduct market access, and implement differentiated regulatory measures.

Specifically, level 1 and 2 wealth management companies operate steadily with relatively good risk profiles. They are primarily supervised through non-on-site and routine oversight, with priority support for innovative pilot businesses such as pension wealth management; level 3 and 4 companies have certain or more significant risk issues, requiring strengthened supervision in key areas, necessary corrective measures, risk control of incremental risks, reduction of existing risks, and prevention of risk spread; level 5 and 6 companies face serious risk problems, requiring real-time monitoring of risk changes, strict restrictions, and resolution of high-risk businesses, with orderly risk disposal or market exit; S-level companies, which are undergoing restructuring, takeover, or market exit, do not participate in that year’s regulatory rating.

Notably, the Measures clarify that if a wealth management company’s rating declines to a level that no longer meets the conditions for certain business activities, it must not initiate new such businesses. If the next year’s rating remains unchanged, the company should gradually reduce the existing volume of those businesses.

Additionally, the Financial Regulatory Bureau may adjust the rating factors, indicators, and scoring principles annually based on industry supervision priorities, development status of wealth management companies, and risk characteristics, and will clarify these adjustments before each year’s rating work.

Zeng Gang pointed out that the linkage between rating results and business conditions creates strong incentives and hard constraints. If a company’s rating drops, it cannot add new related businesses; if not restored the following year, it must reduce the existing volume. This requires wealth management firms to integrate rating management into daily operations to avoid shrinking their business scope due to risk issues.

Wealth Management Companies Should Benchmark Industry Leaders and Identify Gaps

Currently, the key stage of net value transformation in the wealth management industry has been completed, but the industry still faces many challenges. China International Capital Corporation (CICC) pointed out that the industry is expected to maintain high growth through 2025, but under short-term scale demands, institutions are choosing to reduce asset-side risks, with homogeneous competition still prevalent.

“Exit of small and medium-sized banks and deepening reforms of leading institutions will also drive a new round of industry reshuffling,” said Wang Ziyu, an analyst at CICC. “Looking into 2026, we are optimistic about wealth management institutions breaking through and innovating in multi-product layouts and equity asset allocation.”

Latest data shows that as of the end of December 2025, there are 32 existing wealth management companies nationwide, with a total of 30.7 trillion yuan in wealth management products, accounting for 92% of the total market of 33.3 trillion yuan.

The issuance of the Measures is a strategic move to accelerate the transformation and development of bank wealth management subsidiaries, aiming to improve the regulatory system for wealth management companies and promote differentiated development and supervision models that match their capabilities.

A relevant official from the Financial Regulatory Bureau stated that the Measures are beneficial for strengthening regulatory guidance, leveraging the “pointer” role of ratings to urge wealth management companies to establish prudent and steady management concepts and fulfill their fiduciary duties; for accelerating transformation and development, helping companies benchmark industry leaders, identify gaps, and continuously improve their capabilities; and for rationally allocating regulatory resources, better reflecting risk and operational characteristics through ratings, clarifying key institutions and areas, and enhancing regulatory precision and scientificity.