32 Wealth Management Companies Face Major Regulatory Rating Assessment, "Supporting the Strong and Restricting the Weak" Compels Internal Improvement

AI · Support the Good, Restrict the Bad Policy: How Will It Reshape the Industry Landscape?

Wealth management companies holding over 30 trillion yuan in market size will face regulatory rating assessments. On March 16, according to the official website of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, to improve the regulatory system for wealth management companies and promote a differentiated development and supervision model aligned with their capabilities, the regulator recently issued the “Interim Measures for the Supervision and Rating of Wealth Management Companies” (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”). The Measures establish six key rating factors and a seven-level rating system, focusing on corporate governance, asset management ability, and other core modules. Through scientific scoring and a dynamic adjustment mechanism, they comprehensively evaluate the operational and risk levels of institutions. The rating results are directly linked to business permissions and regulatory measures. “Excellent” companies may receive support for innovative pilot businesses like pension wealth management, while high-risk institutions will face strict restrictions or market exit. Experts note that the rating results will be directly connected to market access, innovation pilot programs, and regulatory resource allocation, forming a clear “support the good, restrict the bad” guidance.

Establishing Six Key Factors and a Seven-Level Rating System

Reviewing the development of the wealth management industry, since the introduction of the “New Asset Management Regulations,” the industry has undergone a profound transformation. The core goal is to break rigid payment guarantees and promote net value management, returning wealth management products to their fundamental purpose of “trusteeship and fiduciary management.” After years of regulated development, wealth management companies have become the industry’s main force. By the end of December 2025, 32 companies will have a total of 30.7 trillion yuan in existing wealth management products, accounting for 92% of the total market of 33.3 trillion yuan.

A relevant official from the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission pointed out in response to questions from reporters that there are also issues such as unclear development positioning for some institutions, the need to improve professional investment capabilities, the ongoing deepening of net value transformation, and incomplete risk control systems. To further clarify the development direction of the wealth management industry, improve the regulatory framework, and promote continuous capability enhancement of wealth management companies, it is necessary to formulate and implement the Measures.

The core highlight of the Measures is the creation of a complete system with six rating factors and a seven-level rating scale, enabling a comprehensive assessment of management and risk levels, and achieving precise and refined regulation. Regarding the regulatory rating factors, the Measures set up six modules: corporate governance, asset management ability, risk management, information disclosure, investor protection, and information technology, with respective weights of 10%, 25%, 25%, 15%, 15%, and 10%. They also include targeted scoring, deduction items, and level adjustment factors to evaluate management and risk conditions comprehensively.

For rating levels, the Measures specify that ratings range from 1 to 6 and S level, with higher scores indicating greater risk and higher regulatory attention. Scores of 90 points or above are rated as Level 1; 80–89 points as Level 2; 70–79 as Level 3; 60–69 as Level 4; 50–59 as Level 5; and below 50 as Level 6.

A senior official explained that Level 1 and 2 wealth management companies are operating stably with relatively good risk profiles, primarily supervised through non-on-site and routine oversight, with priority support for innovative pilot businesses like pension wealth management. Companies rated Level 3 and 4 have certain or multiple risk issues, requiring strengthened supervision in key areas, necessary corrective measures, risk control of new risks, reduction of existing risks, and prevention of risk spread. Level 5 and 6 companies face serious risk problems, requiring real-time risk tracking, strict restrictions, and risk mitigation, with orderly disposal or market exit. S-level companies are those undergoing restructuring, takeover, or market exit, and are not subject to annual regulatory ratings. The Measures specify that if a wealth management company’s rating declines to a level that no longer meets the conditions for certain business activities, it cannot initiate new such activities. If the next year’s rating remains low, the company should gradually reduce its existing related business.

Wu Zewei, a special researcher at the Shanghai Commercial Bank, pointed out that the issuance of the Measures marks the formal implementation of a unified regulatory rating framework for the wealth management industry, which is a milestone. By establishing six rating modules—corporate governance, asset management ability, risk management—the policy places risk control and asset management capacity at the core, reversing the previous tendency of some institutions to focus on scale over quality. This not only improves the tiered regulatory system but also signals a strong regulatory focus on the fundamental fiduciary nature of asset management. The rating results will be directly linked to market access, innovation pilots, and resource allocation, creating a clear “support the good, restrict the bad” guidance. This will push wealth management companies to shift from mere scale expansion to strengthening internal capabilities, focusing on investment research and compliance, entering a new stage of quality-driven development, and accelerating the formation of a differentiated competitive landscape.

Wealth Management Companies Will Form a Displaced Competition Pattern

Currently, the key stage of net value transformation in the industry has been completed, but many challenges remain. From an industry ecosystem perspective, in a low-interest-rate environment, market competition is intensifying. Some institutions are caught in “internal competition” by lowering fees excessively, chasing product yields and scale expansion while neglecting core areas like corporate governance, investment research, and risk management. Additionally, there are disparities among institutions, with some lacking the ability to acquire high-quality underlying assets, facing severe product homogeneity, and having incomplete risk control systems.

Furthermore, as residents’ wealth management needs become more diverse, some wealth management companies still struggle to match market demands in service and product innovation. Against this backdrop, the implementation of the Measures is timely. The rating results will become the “core business card” for institutions, directly influencing their future business permissions and development prospects.

A relevant official from the regulator stated that the Measures will strengthen regulatory guidance. They will serve as a “command stick” to urge wealth management companies to adopt prudent and steady management philosophies and fulfill fiduciary duties. They will also accelerate transformation by encouraging companies to benchmark industry leaders, identify gaps, and continuously improve capabilities to enhance internal growth momentum. Additionally, the rating system will help allocate regulatory resources more effectively by better reflecting risk profiles and operational characteristics, focusing on key institutions and areas, and improving regulation precision and scientificity.

“Under the guidance of ‘support the good, restrict the bad,’ the wealth management industry is accelerating away from scale-driven homogeneous competition and moving toward a tiered development stage centered on professional capabilities,” Wu Zewei further explained. Large companies, leveraging their integrated platform advantages, are expected to lead in high ratings and benefit from innovation pilot dividends to evolve into comprehensive asset management institutions. They will expand their capabilities and use technological empowerment to develop integrated solutions in complex fields, playing a leading role in the market. Meanwhile, numerous small and medium-sized companies face survival pressure if they do not adapt. The rating mechanism will push them to abandon the illusion of large-scale all-in-one offerings and instead focus on specific research areas or niche customer groups, building competitive advantages through differentiated “boutique” models. Weaker players may face marginalization. Overall, the rating system will guide the industry toward a layered, healthy competition pattern: leading institutions will build platform advantages through comprehensive development, while smaller ones will achieve differentiation and niche positioning, ultimately shifting the market from scale expansion to quality competition.

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. Ratings should generally be completed by the end of April each year. Wealth management companies must ensure that the data and supporting materials they provide are truthful, accurate, and complete, meeting the quality requirements for ratings. They must not conceal major issues or submit false, misleading, or significantly incomplete information.

Beijing Business Daily Reporter Song Yitong