Digital Finance × Fintech Shenzhen Forum is full of highlights

On March 28-29, 2026, the “Shenzhen Xiangmi Lake International Financial Technology Research Institute 2026 Spring Conference,” jointly organized by the Shenzhen Xiangmi Lake International Financial Technology Research Institute and the Digital Finance Cooperation Forum, was successfully held in the Futian District of Shenzhen, focusing on two major topics: financial technology and macroeconomics. The special seminar on “Financial Technology Driving the Development of New Productive Forces,” held on the afternoon of the 28th, prominently released the research report titled “Digital Finance Empowering the Development of Financial Technology” (hereinafter referred to as “the report”).

Li Lihui, the head of the research team, former president of the Bank of China, and academic advisor of the Shenzhen Xiangmi Lake International Financial Technology Research Institute, along with Gao Feng, the deputy head of the research team, former chief information officer of the China Banking Association and member of the academic committee of the Shenzhen Xiangmi Lake International Financial Technology Research Institute, represented the team to introduce the main viewpoints and content of the report.

The report adheres to four principles: relevance, practicality, structure, and strategy, striving to be close to financial market hotspots, technology innovation highlights, and institutional reform focuses. By exploring the development laws of financial technology itself and the inherent logic of digital finance empowering financial technology development, it studies the practical foundation, challenges, and policy framework for using digital finance to assist in the development of financial technology, especially providing strategies for commercial banks to develop financial technology. He emphasized the introduction of the main content of the first part of the report. Li Lihui pointed out that China has formed a financial technology product and service system consisting of four categories: indirect financing for technological innovation, direct financing for technological innovation, insurance services for technological innovation, and financial services for technological innovation. During the “14th Five-Year Plan” period, financial technology services in key technological tracks such as frontier information technology, biotechnology and life sciences, semiconductors and integrated circuits, new energy industries, and green technology have enormous potential. He stressed that although China’s financial technology policies are continuously improving and a preliminary-scale, comprehensive, and systematic financial technology service system has been established, the development of financial technology still faces structural defects such as mismatches between the allocation of financial resources and the financing needs of technology enterprises, and an imbalance between direct and indirect financing, as well as institutional challenges from economic, regulatory, and data-related factors.

Gao Feng, representing the research team, introduced the theoretical foundation, practical experiences, real challenges, and countermeasure suggestions for digital finance empowering financial technology development. He believes that the core development advantages of digital finance stem from the innovative application of underlying digital technologies, and its core value is reflected in three dimensions: reducing transaction costs, reshaping market customer structures, and optimizing the microstructure of financial markets. The collaborative development of digital finance and financial technology is not only an inevitable requirement for implementing national strategies but also a practical need for solving the financing issues of technology enterprises, as well as an intrinsic demand for the high-quality development of the financial industry. Currently, digital finance plays an important role in innovating the organizational structure of financial institutions, empowering the entire chain of digitalization, innovating financial technology products and services, and governance in key areas. However, it should also be noted that digital finance empowering the development of financial technology still faces four major challenges: first, the “three highs and three lows” characteristics of technology enterprises impose higher requirements on financial technology; second, there are “five major shortcomings” in the empowerment of digital finance for financial technology; third, the collaborative ecosystem urgently needs improvement; and fourth, balancing innovation tolerance and risk prevention is quite challenging. He proposed that to empower the high-quality development of financial technology through digital finance, efforts should be made from four dimensions: first, solidifying the digital foundation of technology enterprises; second, reshaping the “risk-return” matching model; third, optimizing the risk-sharing mechanism; and fourth, constructing an inclusive and prudent regulatory system tailored to the characteristics of financial technology.

During the keynote speech session, Tu Guangshao, founding director of the Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and former executive vice mayor of Shanghai, shared three thoughts on the development of financial technology. First, it is important to clearly grasp the relationship between traditional industry finance and financial technology. He believes that although both belong to the category of industrial finance, there are significant differences in terms of service targets, asset forms, and risk characteristics, especially in two aspects: first, technological innovation has a much greater uncertainty compared to traditional industries, facing challenges such as the “valley of death” and “Darwin’s sea” from “0 to 1,” “1 to 10,” or “10 to 100.” Second, it is difficult for financial technology to apply the risk-return, service cycle, and pricing mechanisms of traditional industry finance, necessitating optimization of the financing system and transformation of financial institutions. Second, it is vital to deeply understand the relationship between financial technology and innovation in financial technology. Financial technology itself is not an innovative product but needs to continuously innovate its service model along with technological innovation and iteration, with digital finance empowerment possibly being an important leverage and key direction. The organic integration of digital finance and financial technology could promote the two-way integration of financial digitalization and digital finance, innovate service models and forms of financial technology, and create a new ecosystem of sustainable development. Third, it is essential to accurately grasp the relationship between Sino-American financial technology development. Currently, China and the United States are the two main entities in global technological innovation, and behind technological competition is competition in financial technology. The development of financial technology in both countries emphasizes policy guidance, the importance of technology enterprises throughout their life cycles, and direct financing, while also having many differences. “Other mountains’ stones can be used to polish jade”; systematically analyzing and comparing the similarities and differences in financial technology development between China and the U.S. can help further highlight and improve China’s unique advantages in financial technology while drawing on international experience to promote the high-quality development of financial technology with a broader vision.

Chen Wenhui, former vice chairman of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and academic advisor of the Shenzhen Xiangmi Lake International Financial Technology Research Institute, expressed his views on “Unblocking the Blockages of Science and Technology Innovation Bonds to Support Research on Venture Capital Financing Policy Mechanisms.” He pointed out that in recent years, China’s science and technology innovation bond market has gradually expanded, presenting a structural characteristic of “high grades, central and state-owned enterprises, and concentration in the medium-to-short end.” Venture capital institutions, as newly added issuers, still have a limited issuance scale and proportion in the overall science and technology innovation bond market. He believes that venture capital institutions face three major pain points in issuing science and technology innovation bonds: first, the comprehensive financing cost for GP bond issuance is relatively high, and LP bond issuance still occupies group quotas; second, the matching degree between science and technology innovation bonds and project funding needs is weak, with strong repayment attributes potentially affecting investment decisions; third, there is uncertainty in policy support, and issuers worry about refinancing risks and liquidity discounts. Institutional investors face three blockages in participating in science and technology innovation bond investments: first, high upfront due diligence costs and doubts about fund allocation; second, risk-return mismatches in science and technology innovation bonds, with credit enhancement mechanisms needing improvement; third, limited market liquidity for science and technology innovation bonds and insufficient information disclosure. In response, he suggested: first, focusing on unblocking GP financing blockages and continuing to support LP bond issuance. Second, innovating credit enhancement pathways for science and technology innovation bonds and improving the risk-return compensation mechanisms for products. Third, improving the supporting mechanisms to support the high-quality development of the science and technology innovation bond market. Fourth, refining the regulatory framework to encourage medium- and long-term funds to enter the market. Fifth, leading with science and technology innovation bonds to cultivate a high-yield bond market with Chinese characteristics.

During the institutional sharing session, Lv Zhongtao, former chief technology officer of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, emphasized that the financial needs of technology enterprises throughout their life cycles urgently require “end-to-end” solutions, and how to integrate the financial services of banks, securities, insurance, and trusts is a major challenge in forming a complete solution. In terms of the external ecosystem, issues such as data barriers between regulatory departments and financial institutions urgently need to be addressed. Internally, financial institutions face problems such as insufficient service capabilities and limitations on service boundaries. He proposed that the empowerment of financial technology development through digital technologies should break through constraints from multiple aspects. First, using big data and AI technologies to improve the evaluation models for technology enterprises by incorporating indicators such as technological innovation capabilities, intellectual property values, research and development investments, and market inputs into credit risk profiles. Second, replacing traditional collateral guarantees with digital risk control models to lower financing thresholds. Third, fully utilizing data management technologies such as tagging technology, privacy computing, and blockchain to build a safe and compliant data-sharing platform, enhance platform services, and promote data interoperability among government departments, financial institutions, and industries.

Li Jiong, vice president and chief information officer of Hangzhou Bank, shared three practical directions for digital finance empowering financial technology: first, empowering financial practitioners with data modeling and AI technology to bridge the knowledge structure gap between finance and technology innovation fields, solving the “hard investment” dilemma; second, collaboratively creating innovative products through data-driven approaches and “investment + loans + subsidies + guarantees + insurance” to solve the “early investment” dilemma; third, providing supporting services such as human resources, finance, and policy consulting for small and micro technology enterprises to deepen the understanding of enterprises by financial services, solving the “small investment” dilemma.

Han Xuesong, a partner at Dongfang Fuhai, expressed his views that “PE/VC is an important driving force for new productive forces.” He believes that venture capital plays a prominent role in technological innovation. Taking Shenzhen as an example, about 60%-70% of listed companies have received support from PE/VC. He pointed out that the current entrepreneurial environment is becoming increasingly challenging, and the ability to secure financing has become a core competitive advantage for startups, and the venture capital industry also needs support and cultivation, exploring more sustainable investment models. He shared Dongfang Fuhai’s investment logic and strategy, including “adhering to a people-oriented approach, investing in innovation + growth” and focusing investment on “early-stage + mature-stage” companies. He suggested promoting collaboration among banks, guarantees, leasing, and other institutions with venture capital to improve the multi-level financial technology system to better serve the development of new productive forces.