CICC | Global Financial Technology: New Cycle, New Variables, New Growth

The global fintech industry is steadily developing under the combined resonance of three major cycles: macro markets, industry regulation, and technological transformation, giving rise to different demands from individuals and institutions, forming diverse business forms such as internet brokerage, digital payment, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0.

Currently, the global fintech industry stands at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward market fluctuations, reshaped regulatory landscapes, and technological updates. We believe that trends such as increasing compliance requirements, accelerated international expansion, diversified and integrated development, continuous digital innovation, and accelerated integration of internal and external industries will bring more opportunities and challenges, especially as AI and globalization may be key variables reshaping the growth engine. We actively seek high-quality sectors and companies that combine resilience and growth, focusing on leading internet brokerages with accelerated overseas market expansion and undervalued valuations, as well as the long-term potential of emerging formats like AI and Web 3.0.

Summary Internet Brokerage: De-institutionalization, internationalization, diversification, and integration. 1) With the increase in global market trading activity and the expansion of the retail investor base, internet brokerages focusing on retail clients are entering a golden opportunity period for customer acquisition; 2) The combination of strong brands, good products, high traffic, and low-cost internet models with the high customer value and strong user stickiness of financial services lays the foundation for an excellent user experience model for internet brokerages; 3) Prioritizing compliance, relying on international expansion, diversified product services, and integrated ecological layout, strengthening monetization, solidifying alpha growth outside market beta, and reaping long-term profits and valuation double boosts.

Digital Payment: Global expansion, value chain extension, platform evolution. 1) With domestic business growth slowing, payment institutions are targeting cross-border and overseas markets, serving local companies going abroad and local customers; 2) High growth in value-added services, AI empowering various segments to intelligent commerce, stablecoins, and other strategies deepening, with continuous product and technology innovation expanding the payment value chain; 3) The development of overseas Alipay, moving towards a super app and comprehensive financial entry, global wallets and merchant ecosystems interconnecting, and new global payment networks beginning to connect.

Credit Technology: Balance sheet reduction, clearing, and rebalancing under industry regulatory reshaping. 1) Under the new regulatory cycle and industry risk events, funding supply contracts and asset quality fluctuates, putting short-term operational pressure on the industry again; 2) The landscape is further optimized, with mid-tier platforms continuing to clear out, while leading platforms may gain relative resilience through stronger risk control capabilities and diversified funding channels; 3) Currently, focusing on liquidity safety nets and risk resistance is prioritized, while future breakthroughs may be sought through exploring overseas markets, expanding technology services, and optimizing customer structures.

Overseas Web 3.0: Compliance, integration with traditional finance, and the rise of investment applications. 1) More countries/regions are improving regulatory frameworks and clarifying digital asset licensing systems, with licensed compliance development becoming an inevitable trend; 2) The participation of digital assets, especially institutional funds, is increasing, with a two-way integration with traditional finance, and RWA, especially stock tokenization, gaining attention, while financial infrastructure like stablecoins is being built, but risks should not be underestimated; 3) The upstream and downstream of the industry chain are accelerating integration, with overseas institutions actively exploring, and leading compliant institutions potentially creating first-mover advantages.

Risks Macroeconomic fluctuations; significant market volatility; regulatory uncertainties; intensified industry competition.

Global Fintech: New Cycle, New Variables, New Growth

The global fintech industry is steadily developing under the combined resonance of three major cycles: macro markets, industry regulation, and technological transformation, giving rise to different demands from individuals and institutions, forming diverse business forms such as internet brokerage, digital payment, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0. We believe that the global fintech industry currently stands at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward market fluctuations, reshaped regulatory landscapes, and technological updates. Looking ahead, trends such as increasing compliance requirements, accelerated international expansion, diversified and integrated development, continuous digital innovation, and accelerated integration of internal and external industries may bring more opportunities and challenges, especially as AI and globalization may be key variables reshaping the growth engine. We actively seek high-quality sectors and companies that combine resilience and growth, focusing on leading internet brokerages with accelerated overseas market expansion and undervalued valuations, as well as the long-term development potential of emerging formats like AI and Web 3.0.

Chart 1: Global Fintech: Three Major Cycles Resonating, Four Sub-sectors, Five Trend Outlooks
Source: CICC Research Department

Steady Development Under the Resonance of Three Major Cycles: Market, Regulation, and Technological Transformation

Looking back, accompanied by the combined resonance of three major cycles—macro markets, industry regulation, and technological transformation—the global fintech industry has experienced different stages from disorder to order, rapid expansion to steady development, and a flourishing diversity to meticulous cultivation, with countries and regions around the world at different stages.

► Macro Market Cycle: Finance relies on the operation of the real economy and capital markets, with economic growth, liquidity, and risk appetite transmitted to various sub-sectors of fintech through different channels. 1) In digital payment and credit technology, payment serves as the infrastructure for the flow of funds in economic activities, while credit is an important carrier for credit expansion, and digital payment and credit technology more directly reflect residents' consumption, financial demand, and credit expansion levels. During the processes of economic growth, digital penetration, and financial demand expansion, the scale of digital payments and the volume of digital credit issuance have increased. 2) In the case of internet brokerages, macroeconomic conditions and liquidity transmit to capital markets, such as the rise of the Chinese capital market under improved liquidity in 2014-2015, increased retail trading activity driven by global low interest rates, fiscal stimulus, and home trading in 2020-2021, and renewed activity in global stock markets since 2024 driven by improved liquidity and trends in AI, with each market cycle profoundly impacting internet brokerages. 3) In the Web 3.0 space, digital asset prices and trading activity are sensitive to global liquidity and risk appetite, while the digital asset market cycle also reinforces the industrial cycle, with rising asset prices, improved financing conditions, and increased developer activity in bull markets providing more favorable conditions for infrastructure, applications, and business model innovation, as seen in multiple market cycles since 2017-2018, 2020-2021, and 2023.

► Industry Regulation Cycle: Globally, traditional finance and the fintech industry have high licensing and regulatory requirements, with discussions often revolving around strengthening licensed entry regulation, protecting financial consumer rights, preventing systemic financial risks, and enhancing platform antitrust measures. Meanwhile, the current global financial market integration and the development of digital technology further promote financial openness, while different countries and regions have varying regulatory frameworks in financial and digital finance, raising higher demands for regulation. Reviewing the regulatory context of the global fintech industry, whether in the cross-border securities trading sector moving from early gray areas and regulatory risk warnings to tightening "new and old distinctions," or this year's "comprehensive ban" and "resolute crackdown," or in the credit technology sector evolving from early inclusive innovation and even wild growth to regulatory cleanup and the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework, or in the overseas Web 3.0 space moving from regulatory voids and risk outbreaks to the establishment of frameworks and promotion of compliance licensing, the regulatory cycle profoundly influences the business models and operational space of the fintech industry.

► Technological Transformation Cycle: The development of traditional finance, especially fintech, is increasingly driven by technological innovation. Looking back at the history of technological transformation in finance: 1) Financial electronicization first promoted the transition of financial infrastructure from manual to electronic processing, enhancing transaction and clearing efficiency and leading to the proliferation of ATMs, POS machines, and bank cards; 2) The rapid development of internet technology further breaks the geographical and information dissemination constraints of financial services, reducing transaction, information acquisition, and processing costs, giving rise to financial information portals, internet brokerages, and electronic payment formats; 3) Mobile internet further extends financial services from PCs to mobile devices, rapidly popularizing mobile payments and transactions, while large-scale data accumulation and enhanced risk control capabilities also promote the development of internet credit; 4) The accelerated penetration of new technologies such as cloud computing, big data, and artificial intelligence pushes financial services from digitization to further intelligence, especially with the development and application of AI large models, transitioning AI from a backend efficiency tool to a frontend interactive entry, and bringing about new interaction modes like Agent to Agent; meanwhile, technologies like blockchain further optimize traditional financial infrastructure efficiency and give rise to emerging formats like Web 3.0 and on-chain finance. Overall, each round of technological transformation drives continuous innovation and development in the fintech industry, enhances financial service efficiency, improves user experience, and continuously spawns new formats and promotes business model innovation.

Four Sub-sectors: Seeking High-Quality Companies with Resilience and Growth

In the context of changing times, diverse business demands from institutions and individuals have emerged, covering financial information needs, internet trading/investment, online payment/offline quick payment, microcredit/internet consumer credit, blockchain, and AI applications, leading to different products and services and forming a diversified business landscape in the global fintech industry. In this article, we focus on four sub-sectors: internet brokerage, digital payment, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0, along with representative institutions within them:

► Internet Brokerage: Building ecosystems based on platform traffic and brokerage licenses, accumulating customer assets, monetizing through trading/margin financing/distribution/asset management/investment advisory, and obtaining the full lifecycle value of users, with specific representative institutions detailed in the full report.

► Digital Payment: The C2B bank card payment industry chain includes various segments such as clearing, acquiring, and issuing, with different commercial and monetization methods across the industry chain, but collectively nurturing many payment giants, with specific representative institutions detailed in the full report.

► Credit Technology: Mainly covering internet platforms and licensed financial institutions providing credit services for personal consumption, small and micro enterprises, and individual businesses, with different models based on the level of participation in the loan process and risk assumption by credit technology companies, with specific representative institutions detailed in the full report.

► Overseas Web 3.0: Covering upstream infrastructure and technology services, midstream asset issuance/trading/custody services, and downstream specific application services, with specific representative institutions detailed in the full report.

Five Trend Outlooks: Opportunities and Challenges in the New Cycle of Global Fintech

Currently, the global fintech industry stands at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward macro market fluctuations, reshaped industry regulatory landscapes, and technological updates. Looking ahead, we believe that the global fintech industry may face increasing compliance requirements, accelerated international expansion, diversified and integrated development, continuous digital innovation, and accelerated integration of internal and external industries, presenting both opportunities and potential challenges.

► Compliance requirements are continuously increasing. Standing at the starting point of a new round of regulatory cycles, the regulatory frameworks in various segments of global fintech are becoming more refined. Compliance operations and embracing regulation are prerequisites for institutions in the industry. In terms of specific segments: 1) Cross-border internet brokerages strictly cooperate with regulatory requirements for rectification, obtaining corresponding product service licenses in international expansion and complying with local laws and regulations in overseas markets; 2) Credit technology currently faces operational adjustment pressures again in the short term due to tightened regulations and industry risk events, with mid-to-late tier platforms further clearing out, while leading platforms need to enhance compliance risk control capabilities and diversify funding sources, seeking safety nets and risk resistance in the later stages of the industry bottom; 3) Digital payments are already strictly licensed globally and involve clear regulatory requirements such as AML/KYC. In the future, with the rise of emerging payment methods like AI and stablecoins, compliance regulatory requirements may be even higher; 4) In the Web 3.0 field, as more countries and regions clearly include digital assets in regulatory frameworks and introduce corresponding licensing systems, compliant licensed operations will become the trend.

► The pace of internationalization is accelerating. Driven by factors such as the integration of global economic trade and finance, the innovative development of digital technology, and the slowdown of domestic business growth, financial institutions and fintech companies are accelerating their overseas expansion to seek new growth points: 1) The internationalization path of internet brokerages mostly targets mainstream markets represented by the United States or China, which are broad but highly competitive, often starting from these two markets while also seeking small but beautiful regional markets for breakthroughs, such as Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia; 2) The digital payment sector has already produced many globally leading payment giants, and many payment institutions are currently targeting the vast space of cross-border and overseas markets, following local enterprises overseas and beginning to serve local customers abroad; 3) Credit technology is beginning to explore Southeast Asia and emerging markets for growth momentum against the backdrop of short-term pressure on domestic business, but overall it is still in its early stages; 4) The internationalization of Web 3.0 may closely follow compliance requirements, with future operations more likely to be compliant and licensed in countries and regions with relatively sound regulations.

► Diversification and comprehensive development. 1) Providing more diversified products and services, on one hand, by adding new categories/play styles based on existing business to meet diverse customer needs, optimize customer experience, and enhance customer stickiness, such as internet brokerages expanding various derivatives/wealth management products and emerging categories like digital assets/predictive markets based on customer account AUM; on the other hand, helping to create new business growth points, such as credit technology companies expanding installment e-commerce and digital services under domestic pressure, and payment institutions expanding value-added services beyond payments like banking/credit/investment/software, while Web 3.0 institutions are also actively expanding product services within regulatory frameworks. 2) Upgrading and expanding business models, moving towards a comprehensive ecosystem, such as the emergence of overseas super apps that integrate payment/credit/wealth management/lifestyle services, with institutions in various segments also making efforts, such as leading internet brokerages actively building one-stop comprehensive financial service platforms and leading Web 3.0 institutions aiming to connect the entire industry chain ecosystem.

► Digital innovation continues to transform. Emerging technologies represented by AI and Web 3.0 are accelerating their penetration into the financial and fintech fields, giving rise to new business forms and imposing higher demands on industry participants: 1) AI may reshape the interactive subjects and methods of financial services. As AI agents evolve towards autonomous execution, financial services may gradually shift from being human-centered to agent-centered, such as agent trading enhancing investors' information processing and decision-making efficiency, and agent commerce promoting AI agents to autonomously complete product searches/comparisons/trades; however, new issues like identity recognition and authorization management pose higher demands on financial institutions. 2) Web 3.0 and blockchain may reshape the asset side and financial infrastructure. On one hand, digital assets and related products help enrich the product shelf; on the other hand, we believe technologies like blockchain are expected to enhance settlement efficiency and fund transparency, reduce payment costs, and promote the evolution of traditional financial infrastructure towards digitization and on-chain integration. 3) The integration of AI agents, stablecoins, and payments may become a new direction for innovation. Web 3.0 payments feature automation, traceability, and 24/7 availability, aligning well with the high-frequency/low-value/cross-border payment needs during the autonomous execution of AI agents; in the future, as related protocols, identity authentication, and security standards gradually improve, the integration of the three may give rise to new payment scenarios and business models.

► Accelerated integration within and outside the industry. 1) The boundaries between traditional finance and fintech may become increasingly blurred, with the relationship between the two shifting from "competition" to "co-opetition." On one hand, traditional financial institutions are accelerating their digital transformation, rapidly laying out fintech through self-built/investment/M&A methods, while fintech companies are returning to the essence of financial business by obtaining licenses; on the other hand, traditional financial institutions and fintech platforms are increasing cooperation and technology empowerment. 2) AI and Web 3.0 are accelerating their integration with various fields of finance. On one hand, AI deeply empowers the entire process of payments/credit/wealth management, from cost reduction and efficiency enhancement to reshaping business models; on the other hand, the correlation between overseas digital assets and traditional finance is increasing, with a shift from digital native to digital twin, and a two-way integration of on-chain and off-chain. 3) The boundaries within various segments of the industry chain are also becoming increasingly blurred, and business layouts are beginning to merge, such as internet brokerages entering the digital asset/predictive market exchange field through self-built or acquired means, digital asset exchanges laying out upstream blockchain infrastructure, and expanding downstream payment applications, with buy now pay later (BNPL) closely integrated into the wallet payment ecosystem.

Internet Brokerages: De-institutionalization, Internationalization, Diversification, and Comprehensive Development
Currently, the global market's trading activity is increasing, and the individual investor group is expanding, showing a trend of "de-institutionalization." Against this backdrop, internet brokerages focusing on retail customers are entering a golden opportunity period for customer acquisition. We believe that the combination of strong brands, good products, high traffic, and low costs in the internet model, along with the high single-customer value and strong user stickiness of financial business, gives internet brokerages a relatively excellent business model. Looking ahead, we believe that under the premise of compliance, relying on international expansion, diversified product services, and comprehensive ecosystem layouts, leading internet brokerages are expected to strengthen monetization, solidify alpha growth outside the market beta, and reap long-term profits and valuation through a Davis double hit.

Under De-institutionalization, Retail Trading is Active, and Brokerages Enter a Golden Opportunity Period for Customer Acquisition

Global market liquidity has improved, and trading activity has increased, showing a trend of "de-institutionalization." Over the past decade, the average daily trading volume in major global markets has fluctuated upward, reflecting a reverse flow from "institutionalization" to "retailization." We believe the main drivers include: 1) In terms of market environment, the profit-making effect from recent equity market rises has attracted individual investors to enter the market, while the frequent occurrence of global events such as geopolitical conflicts and policy shocks has increased market divergence and volatility, intensifying speculative demand among individual investors; 2) In terms of policy environment, a globally friendly environment for individual investors has laid the foundation for public participation in investment, with some markets like the United States lifting restrictions on day trading for retail investors further boosting their investment enthusiasm; 3) In terms of technological transformation, social media has improved information dissemination efficiency, AI advisory tools have enhanced decision-making experiences, and cheap or even commission-free trading services have lowered investment thresholds and costs, promoting "equalization" of information dissemination and investment trading; 4) In terms of social factors, under generational changes and wealth inheritance, the younger generation of investors is participating in investments earlier and is more confident in self-directed investing.

The expansion of the individual investor group and the increasing importance of users require more meticulous cultivation. The power of individual investors under the "de-institutionalization" trend should not be underestimated, and to some extent, we believe there are signs of retailization in global capital markets. Although recent market transaction volumes have slightly contracted, since the beginning of 2026 (as of September 28, 2026), the average daily trading volume of the A-share market has still maintained a relatively high level of 2.6 trillion yuan, an increase of +195%/+143%/+50% compared to the average daily volumes in 2023/2024/2025; the average daily trading volume of Hong Kong stocks is 281.1 billion Hong Kong dollars, an increase of +167%/+113%/+13% compared to the average daily volumes in 2023/2024/2025; the average daily trading volume of U.S. stocks is 766.4 billion U.S. dollars, an increase of +119%/+75%/+32% compared to the average daily volumes in 2023/2024/2025. We believe that individual investors are an important force behind the active market transactions, with the number of new stock accounts opened in the A-share market since the beginning of the year increasing by +46% year-on-year to over 25 million accounts. It is important to note that although the number of accounts has risen sharply, there is still significant room for improvement in the conversion and retention rates from account opening to funding and trading, and we estimate that the actual number of active stock investors in China still has a considerable gap compared to the United States.

Internet brokerages are experiencing rapid growth in customer numbers, asset scale, and their own performance. With the increasing participation of individual investors, internet brokerages focusing on retail clients are actively embracing the development opportunities under the wave of mass investment, achieving rapid growth in their own businesses: since 2026, the number of accounts for Robinhood / Interactive Brokers / Webull has increased by 5% / 18% / 2% from the beginning of the year to 2.99 million / 5.19 million / 5.13 million (2020-25 CAGR of 18% / 33% / 11%), customer assets increased by 14% / 19% / 16% to $36.87 billion / $93.03 billion / $2.85 billion (2020-25 CAGR of 39% / 22% / 61%), and net income in 1H26 increased by 24% / 24% / 44% year-on-year (2020-25 CAGR of 36% / 23% / 13%); Chinese internet brokerages like Futu have gradually been affected by policy changes in 2Q, with the number of funded clients at the end of 1H26 increasing by 14% from the beginning of the year, customer assets up by 13%, and total revenue up by 30% year-on-year.

Figure 2: The average daily trading volume in major global markets has shown a fluctuating upward trend over the past decade
Note: Data is standardized based on the average daily trading volume (ADT) of each market in 2014, data as of 2026/9/25
Source: Wind, CICC Research Department

Figure 3: The increase in global stock market activity is driven by cyclical and structural factors
Source: CICC Research Department

Figure 4: With market activity, the number of A-share accounts has increased, but there is still room for growth in the number of shareholders
Source: Shanghai Stock Exchange, National Bureau of Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, FINRA, ICI, Wind, CICC Research Department

Figure 5: Rapid growth in customer assets and net income for overseas internet brokerages focused on retail clients
Note: 1) Net income is defined as total revenue minus interest expenses; Robinhood, Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, and Tiger Brokers report net income, while Futu reports total revenue minus interest expenses; 2) Futu's customer assets are adjusted for the Hong Kong dollar to U.S. dollar exchange rate
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department

A Quality Business Model Lays the Foundation for Growth, Compliance First for Long-term Stability

Internet brokerages possess quality business models, with high growth and excellent unit economics opening up long-term potential. We believe that the internet model based on strong branding, good products, high traffic, and low costs, combined with the high customer value and strong user stickiness of financial services, gives internet brokerages a superior business model, creating a high-growth and quality unit economics model. The growth in customer numbers, high user stickiness and retention rates, and growth in customer AUM, driven by more product and service offerings and international expansion, lead to an increase in customer value and overall revenue levels, coupled with strong scale effects under a highly scalable light asset model, driving continuous expansion of profit levels. We believe this is a common and comprehensive long-term growth strategy for internet brokerages.

In the short term, different market environments, customer bases, and development stages create differentiation among internet brokerages. We believe that under the foundation of an excellent business model and similar long-term growth paths, there are still differentiated developments for different internet brokerages (Figure 6):

► Different market coverage leads to differences in user base and product structure. For example, Robinhood and East Money, which focus on the mainstream markets in the U.S. and mainland China, have a leading number of users, while Futu and Tiger Brokers, which focus on internationalization, are comparatively behind but are experiencing rapid user growth. A-share internet brokerages serving the mainland market primarily focus on spot trading, while the U.S. market is active in options and other derivatives trading, and the rise of digital assets and prediction markets also contributes significant commission income for U.S. and Chinese internet brokerages.

► Differentiated user and product positioning has resulted in different customer bases. For instance, Interactive Brokers relies on specialized trading tools and APIs covering a wider range of asset types, serving more diversified institutional and mature individual investors, while Charles Schwab can provide more complex customized investment consulting solutions to meet higher-tier client needs, resulting in higher average assets per client for both. Futu has accumulated a group of investors with strong self-investment awareness and capability early on, with average assets per client being second; Robinhood captures young retail investors in the U.S. by offering simple and easy-to-use products and unique trading categories, resulting in relatively lower average AUM per client.

► Different stages of business development have led to differentiated revenue structures, evolving from primarily trading to wealth management and comprehensive financial services. Revenue has shifted from being mainly composed of trading commissions and interest income to a diversified revenue structure that integrates retail brokerage, wealth management, asset management, institutional services, and banking services. For example, Charles Schwab's trading revenue share decreased from 49% in 2000 to 48% / 26% / 17% / 9% for net interest / asset management / trading / other income in 1H26. Robinhood's trading revenue share also decreased from 75% in 2020 to 59% in 1H26.

However, what remains unchanged is that compliance and embracing regulation are essential for long-term stability. We believe that for internet brokerages, in addition to creating leading products, services, and technological capabilities, licensing, compliance operations, and embracing regulation are prerequisites and important foundations for providing multi-product services and comprehensive solutions to clients. Whether it is Robinhood in the U.S. or Chinese international brokerages like Futu and Tiger Brokers, they have all encountered regulatory issues during their growth, which may have posed certain challenges to short-term operations and stock performance. However, overall, when regulatory pressures ease and factors suppressing company valuations are released, combined with the company's proactive embrace of compliance and steady business growth, it is expected to support long-term stable development. For more details, see the CICC report "Cross-Border Internet Brokerage Rectification: Compliance First for Long-term Stability."

Figure 6: Differentiation among internet brokerages is shaped by different market environments, customer bases, and development stages
Note: 1) Market capitalization data as of September 28, 2026; 2) Account numbers: Robinhood, Futu, and Webull are funded accounts, Tiger Brokers are funded clients, Interactive Brokers are total accounts, and Charles Schwab are active brokerage accounts, including institutional clients for Interactive Brokers and Tiger Brokers; 3) Unit account revenue = net income / average number of accounts at the beginning and end of the period; 4) Net income: net income is defined as total revenue minus interest expenses; Robinhood, Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, and Tiger Brokers report net income, while Futu and Webull's net income is total revenue minus interest expenses; 5) Net interest income: net income from interest income minus interest expenses; 6) Futu's customer assets and net income are adjusted for the Hong Kong dollar to U.S. dollar exchange rate; 7) Non-GAAP net profit attributable to the parent: Robinhood's Non-GAAP net profit attributable to the parent is adjusted to exclude one-time expenses such as stock incentive costs, fair value changes of convertible notes and warrants, restructuring costs, and legal and tax settlement reserves. Interactive Brokers, Charles Schwab, Futu, Tiger Brokers, and Webull report Non-GAAP net profit attributable to the parent, and the Non-GAAP net profit attributable to the parent for Interactive Brokers differs from the operating entity's net profit due to different listing entities.
Source: Company announcements, company websites, CICC Research Department

Internationalization of Business, Diversification of Products, and Integration of Models, Strong Internal Growth

International expansion is an inevitable path for internet brokerages, and the importance of localized operations is increasing. Globally, internet brokerages are actively promoting internationalization strategies. Interactive Brokers, a leader in internationalization, began its global layout in the 1990s and has expanded over more than thirty years, currently providing trading services to individual and institutional investors in over 200 countries and regions, with international business revenue accounting for 32% in 1H26. Chinese internet brokerage Futu, in addition to its advantageous markets in Hong Kong and Singapore, is expanding into the U.S., Australia, Japan, Malaysia, and Canada, and has recently obtained a license for the Thai market, with approximately 60% of its existing clients located overseas, and steady increases in average AUM across all overseas markets. We believe that international expansion not only tests internet brokerages' product, service, technology, and licensing arrangements but also emphasizes the importance of better integrating into local markets, providing differentiated products and services, and enhancing localized operational capabilities while complying with local laws and regulations in overseas markets.

Product and service diversification, seeking new growth points, reducing business concentration risks and dependence on a single market/category. On one hand, providing clients with a variety of global asset classes to meet their diversified asset allocation needs; on the other hand, actively laying out various derivative products/digital assets/prediction markets, seizing emerging business opportunities. For example, Interactive Brokers has currently connected to over 170 markets in 40 countries and regions worldwide, supporting trading in stocks/derivatives/foreign exchange and digital assets; Robinhood has expanded its tradable categories from stocks/options to digital assets/prediction markets, continuously launching richer derivatives such as index options/futures, with contributions to revenue from stocks/options/digital assets/prediction markets in Q2 2026 being approximately 10%/26%/8%/11%; Futu, in addition to US and Hong Kong stocks and related derivatives, also provides clients with A-shares (through the Stock Connect), as well as local market stocks such as Japanese and Malaysian stocks, recently launching Korean stock trading in June, and actively expanding into digital assets/prediction markets and providing wealth management services.

The business model is becoming increasingly integrated, moving towards a one-stop comprehensive financial service ecosystem. Internet brokerages worldwide, during their growth process, continuously diversify products and expand service models. For example, Charles Schwab has evolved from an early discount brokerage to an internet brokerage, and then to a one-stop comprehensive wealth management platform, with a more balanced revenue structure; Robinhood has transitioned from the preferred trading platform for active investors to a distinctive entry point for digital assets, aiming to become a global comprehensive wealth management ecosystem platform. In addition to actively expanding trading categories, it has also developed investor subscription services, credit cards, investment management, private banking, and other comprehensive financial services, while acquiring digital asset exchanges, building prediction market exchanges, and connecting upstream and downstream financial ecosystems, currently having 13 product lines contributing annualized revenue of $100 million; Futu's Hong Kong digital asset trading platform VATP is fully licensed, holding a licensed digital bank in Hong Kong, and deepening AI strategies such as Futu Bull AI and AI Skills; Tiger Brokers has collaborated with licensed institutions in Singapore to launch the Tiger BOSS bank card and introduced the Cash Boost account to support Contra Trading functions, while deepening the Tiger AI strategic layout and expanding to B institutional services.

Digital Payments: Global Expansion, Value Chain Extension, Platform Evolution

The digital payment industry has expanded from traditional single payment channels to a new stage of global expansion and capability boundary extension. With the current slowdown in domestic business growth, payment institutions are moving from local markets to global ones, targeting high growth in cross-border and overseas markets, seeking to serve local enterprises going abroad and overseas local clients. Meanwhile, the high growth of diversified value-added services, AI empowering various segments to smart business agents, stablecoins, and other strategies are deepening, with continuous product and technology innovations expanding the payment value chain and reconstructing payment infrastructure. In addition, overseas Alipay has developed rapidly, moving towards a super app and comprehensive financial entry point, while global wallets and merchant ecosystems are accelerating interconnection, and new global payment networks are beginning to connect.

Cross-Border Payments Welcome High Growth, Digital Payment Institutions Accelerate Overseas Market Expansion

Cross-border payments exhibit high growth and high fees, opening up global growth space for payment institutions. 1) The international market space is vast: from the supply side, the payment penetration rates in mature markets like the US and China are already at high levels, with industry growth slowing and competition becoming fierce, leading payment institutions to accumulate a wealth of mature experience; meanwhile, payment penetration rates in overseas markets remain low, and digital payment infrastructure continues to improve, providing incremental space for payment institutions' global expansion. From the demand side, in the AI era, enterprises are accelerating globalization, with many AI products already launched globally; additionally, overseas long-tail markets have become the main revenue source for some enterprises. For example, among merchants whose revenue primarily comes from overseas, 30% of Stripe's revenue does not come from the merchant's home country or the world's top ten economies. Against this backdrop, the globalization of payments is gradually evolving into an industry consensus, with the international business revenue and transaction scale of leading payment institutions like LianLian Technology and overseas Payoneer/Block continuously increasing. 2) At the same time, cross-border payments feature both high growth and high fee characteristics, with LianLian Technology's global payment TPV in H1 2026 increasing by 26% year-on-year to 249.9 billion yuan, with a fee rate of 24 bps (vs. 1.3 bps for domestic payments in 2025); Yika's overseas payment TPV in H1 2026 increased by 2.9 times year-on-year, with a fee rate of 63 bps (vs. 12 bps for domestic payment rates in H1 2026), with the company's goal to increase this segment's profit contribution to 50% of overall payment business within three years.

Payment institutions serve Chinese enterprises going abroad, extending comprehensive financial service capabilities. From a total perspective, there is vast space for serving Chinese enterprises going abroad, with China's total import and export trade expected to reach 45.5 trillion yuan by 2025, including an export scale of 27.0 trillion yuan, maintaining an international market share of over 14%; structurally, the regional trade pattern continues to optimize, with China's exports to emerging markets in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East continuing to grow, and the mode of enterprises going abroad evolving from single product exports to full industry chain and globalization operations. Against this backdrop, the demand for payment services from Chinese enterprises has gradually extended from simple international settlement and trade financing to acquiring, collection, fund management, and other comprehensive financial services. Payment institutions can leverage their long-term accumulated customer relationships and local service capabilities to extend service boundaries alongside enterprises going abroad, enhancing customer retention and wallet share. For example, LianLian Technology holds 68 payment licenses and is currently focusing resources on high-value needs in the globalization process of Chinese enterprises, strengthening domestic payment capabilities and the synergy of global payment networks, continuously optimizing business structure.

Payment institutions serve overseas customers and build localized payment capabilities. The overseas local wallet functions are richer, and the real-time payment network is accelerating and maturing. The global payment ecosystem is increasingly fragmented, and relying solely on international card networks can no longer fully meet the local payment habits of consumers in different markets. Providing payment methods that match local payment needs can improve payment conversion rates. According to Stripe's statistics, offering BLIK local payments to consumers in Poland can increase payment conversion rates by an average of 46%; integrating Pix in Brazil can increase payment conversion rates by an average of 31%. Therefore, payment companies are shifting their focus from replicating unified products to building localized payment capabilities that cover local payment methods, payment networks, and operational systems. For example, LianLian Digital continues to build local acquiring and collection capabilities, improving local operations, compliance, risk control, and product team development, deeply integrating into regional trade ecosystems to enhance merchant reach and payment success rates. dLocal focuses on merchant acquiring in emerging markets, deploying local teams in each market, with an average of over six alternative payment methods integrated per market; it deeply covers local life scenarios, with TPV growth exceeding 50% year-on-year for seven consecutive quarters, supported by vertical scenarios such as ride-hailing, travel, and instant delivery.

Chart 12: LianLian Digital's Global Payment Business Grows Rapidly with High Fees
Source: Company announcement, CICC Research Department

Chart 13: Yika's Overseas Acquiring Business Grows Rapidly with Strong Profitability
Source: Company website, company announcement, CICC Research Department

Chart 14: Payoneer Covers Customers in Over 190 Countries and Regions, Continuously Diversifying Clientele and Product Service Types
Note: The chart shows the 2025 revenue breakdown by region, customer type, and product type. Source: Company website, company announcement, CICC Research Department

Chart 15: Block's Overseas GPV Proportion Increases
Source: Company announcement, CICC Research Department

Value-Added Services/AI/Stability Coins Are Gaining Attention, Expanding the Value Boundaries of Payment Institutions

Value-added services have become a new growth curve for payment institutions. The payment industry continues to evolve, with A2A payments rapidly becoming popular, the rise of AI agents for autonomous payments, and increasingly fragmented payment methods reshaping payment infrastructure and transaction models. In this context, the standardized capabilities provided by traditional payment networks are gradually unable to cover the diverse new payment scenarios. Payment institutions are beginning to productize and service their long-accumulated industry know-how, data, and technological capabilities, shifting value creation from transaction fees to capability fees. Leading payment institutions such as Visa, Mastercard, and Block have seen their value-added services grow at 1.5 to 2 times the rate of traditional payment businesses, with a more significant contribution to revenue. In specific practices, Visa has further repositioned itself as "Visa as a Service," breaking down its originally integrated underlying capabilities into independent modular services available to various clients; Block, relying on its Cash App and Square dual ecosystem, extends diversified value-added services around C-end consumers and B-end merchants, expanding revenue opportunities beyond payments.

AI is reshaping the entire payment process, empowering various stages to intelligent commerce. AI's empowerment of the payment industry has evolved from a cost-reduction and efficiency tool to an important engine for optimizing user experience and driving revenue growth, deeply embedded in multiple stages such as risk control, identity verification, and merchant operations. For example, Adyen uses dynamic behavior recognition and AI risk models to make contextual judgments on transactions, with its Uplift solution reducing fraud false positive rates by 42%. Particularly in cutting-edge applications, agentic commerce is rapidly emerging, with current commercialization primarily involving AI responsible for discovery/search/comparison and humans responsible for decision-making/authorization/payment. We believe one of the core constraints for further scaling may still be the payment authorization and transaction trust mechanisms. Currently, card organizations, payment institutions, and tech giants are actively laying out corresponding payment protocols and infrastructure, with Stripe's layout being relatively advanced. In September 2026, Meta's personal AI agent Muse will provide payment services through Stripe, allowing merchants integrated with Link (Stripe's intelligent wallet) to directly use retained payment methods for instant checkout, while unintegrated long-tail merchants will settle via a one-time virtual card issued by Link; throughout the process, user confirmation of the amount is required, and Muse does not access the underlying card number, only receiving status feedback, thus isolating payment credentials from transaction execution. LianLian Digital has also realized the productization of its AI-native strategy in 1H26, developing an Agent wallet intelligent payment base aimed at agentic commerce, addressing issues such as agent identity verification, authorization management, and quota control.

Stablecoins are integrating into payment scenarios and may become a new type of "financial infrastructure." 1) In traditional payment scenarios, stablecoins possess characteristics such as relative value stability, programmability, and 24/7 settlement, mainly focusing on complex cross-border payment scenarios and local payment scenarios with significant currency exchange rate fluctuations. However, the penetration rate remains low. According to McKinsey statistics, the annual payment scale of stablecoins is expected to reach approximately $390 billion by 2025, accounting for 0.02% of the global payment scale. Currently, various financial institutions have begun exploring stablecoin payment applications, such as Visa collaborating with digital asset platforms to launch stablecoin-linked Visa cards, allowing users to spend stablecoin balances within the Visa merchant network. Mastercard has also announced support for payments and settlements using regulated stablecoins. 2) In cutting-edge payment scenarios, stablecoins are adapting to the small, high-frequency, cross-border payment needs of AI agents during task execution. Currently, both Web 3.0 and traditional payment institutions have begun to make forward-looking arrangements. For example, Stripe's Machine Payments Protocol (MPP) in March 2026 is based on the HTTP 402 mechanism, enabling AI agents to have continuous, autonomous, and secure payment capabilities, adapting to long-term, multiple, and strategic machine payments, and natively compatible with fiat currencies and stablecoins.

Chart 16: The growth rate of value-added services from various payment institutions exceeds that of traditional payment businesses
Note: Block's commercial empowerment income is based on payment processing income, financial solutions income is from embedded finance/credit income, and Bitcoin ecosystem income is from Bitcoin transaction income.
Source: Company website, company announcements, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Chart 17: In agent commerce, the cooperative relationship between merchants and payment institutions has not changed
Source: OpenAI, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Chart 18: All participants are trying to launch their own related protocol standards to address corresponding payment authorization mechanisms and other issues
Note: Incomplete statistics, only listing some representative institutions' protocol layouts. Source: Company website, company announcements, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Chart 19: Web 3.0 payments are currently mainly focused on traditional cross-border payments and local payments in emerging markets
Source: Bank for International Settlements (BIS), China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Chart 20: Various institutions are promoting the infrastructure construction and commercialization of stablecoins
Source: Company announcements, company website, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Overseas "Alipay" leaps forward, a new global payment network begins to connect

Global digital wallets are accelerating penetration, with overseas "Alipay" landing in multiple locations. Overall, digital wallets are continuously increasing their share of global payments. According to Worldpay statistics, by 2025, digital wallets are expected to account for 56% of global e-commerce transaction amounts and 33% of offline POS transaction amounts, making them the largest payment method. This is expected to further increase to 63% and 42% by 2030. 1) By region, Southeast Asia is represented by Grab, Gojek, GCash, MoMo, etc.; Latin America is represented by Mercado Pago, Nubank, etc.; and other Asian markets are represented by Paytm, Kakao Pay, PayPay, etc. 2) In terms of platform scale, leading digital wallets have formed a broad user base and strong payment mindset. As of the end of the first half of 2026, Nubank had 116 million active users, covering over 60% of the adult population in Brazil, with a payment scale year-on-year increase of 30% to $82.9 billion; GCash had 41.5 million monthly active users, covering over 55% of the adult population in the Philippines, with a gross transaction value year-on-year increase of 23% to 9.8 trillion pesos; PayPay had 41.7 million monthly transaction users, covering 40% of the adult population in Japan, with a gross merchandise volume year-on-year increase of 23% to 10.4 trillion yen.

Digital wallets are evolving from a single payment tool to a super app, continuously enhancing user value and monetization depth. Various digital wallets rely on high-frequency life scenarios, financial services, and merchant networks to rapidly accumulate users and establish user identity systems. On this basis, they continuously expand financial services such as credit, insurance, and wealth management, while also extending to all categories of life service scenarios such as consumption, travel, food delivery, and recharge, gradually evolving from a single payment/financial tool to a comprehensive service platform, continuously enhancing user stickiness and monetization levels. Taking Nubank as an example, in 2013, the company entered the underserved long-tail customer group of traditional financial services in Brazil with a no-annual-fee digital credit card to accumulate initial customers; in 2017, it launched account services to open new customer entry points, doubling the user scale; thereafter, it continuously expanded product and cooperation ecosystems, gradually covering financial services such as payments, transactions, and insurance, and extending to life service scenarios, promoting the platform's evolution from a single credit card product to a one-stop comprehensive financial service platform, with a CAGR of 37% for user numbers and 89% for interest-bearing credit portfolio size from 2019 to 2025, forming a positive cycle of user scale expansion and financial service depth enhancement.

The interconnectivity among global wallets is accelerating, with payment networks evolving from localization to globalization. In the past, the wallet and account systems, as well as payment networks in different countries, were relatively fragmented, and consumers often relied on bank card networks or multiple payment intermediaries for cross-border payments. Global wallet aggregation platforms represented by Alipay + are reducing the connection costs between different payment systems by linking local wallets, regional payment networks, and merchant ecosystems across different countries and regions, promoting a broader cross-border connection from decentralized local payments. For consumers, they can directly use familiar local wallets for cross-border payments; for merchants, a single integration allows them to reach more overseas consumers; for wallet service providers, they can expand overseas usage scenarios at a lower cost, thus forming a positive cycle of wallet expansion, merchant expansion, and improved user experience, further strengthening network effects. As of September 2026, Alipay + has connected over 50 mobile payment service providers and more than 10 national payment exchange networks, covering over 220 markets globally, over 2 billion consumers, over 150 million QR merchants, and over 150 million NFC merchants. Chart 21: Local payment platforms landing in multiple locations overseas, accelerating evolution towards super apps
Note: The red box indicates developing countries and emerging markets, while the blue box indicates developed countries and mature markets
Source: Company website, company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 22: Nubank continues to expand its product matrix, evolving from a financial platform to a comprehensive ecosystem
Source: Company website, company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 23: Alipay + as a unified global integrated wallet portal, working together with various parties to build an interconnected digital ecosystem
Source: Company website, company announcements, CICC Research Department

Credit Technology: Balance Sheet Reduction, Clearing, and Rebalancing Under Industry Regulation Restructuring

In the new round of regulatory cycles and industry risk events, the overall funding supply in the industry is contracting, and asset quality is fluctuating, putting short-term operations of credit technology companies under pressure again. Against this backdrop, the industry landscape is further optimizing, with mid- and small-sized platforms continuing to clear out, while leading platforms may gain relative resilience through stronger risk control capabilities and diversified funding channels. Looking ahead, we believe credit technology companies may focus more on meticulous operations, prioritizing liquidity safety nets and risk resistance, and may seek breakthroughs through exploring overseas markets, expanding technology services, and optimizing customer structures.

Short-term Operations: Entering a Balance Sheet Reduction Cycle Under New Regulatory Cycles and Industry Risk Events

The new regulations on loan facilitation have initiated a new round of regulatory cycles in the industry. In April 2025, the National Financial Regulatory Administration issued the "Notice on Strengthening the Management of Internet Loan Facilitation Business by Commercial Banks to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Financial Services" (hereinafter referred to as the "Loan Facilitation New Regulations"), starting a new round of regulatory cycles in the industry; subsequently, the regulations issued a series of progressive, full-chain interest rate control measures targeting the three layers of funding sources for banks, consumer finance companies, and micro-lending companies from top to bottom. Against this backdrop, industry funding supply has tightened, asset quality has deteriorated, and loan facilitation institutions have faced significant operational pressure since Q3 2025. Following this, industry risk events have further intensified short-term operational pressures. At the end of June 2026, the incident involving Orange Data Science withholding customer funds and setting up a private fund pool caused funding supply to enter an extremely tight state again, compounded by tightened collections, interrupting the "recovery" state of the loan facilitation industry and entering another phase of bottom pressure.

This round of loan facilitation regulation focuses on protecting consumer rights and reducing overall financing costs. The Loan Facilitation New Regulations were issued by the Financial Regulatory Administration on April 1, 2025, and implemented on October 1 of the same year, requiring that the annual comprehensive financing cost of consumer loans sourced from banks not exceed 24%, and strengthening the whitelist admission mechanism for cooperating institutions. Subsequently, the interest rate red line for consumer loans has been pressed down layer by layer along the funding source: by the end of October 2025, some consumer finance companies received window guidance, stating that the average comprehensive financing cost of new loans must not exceed an annualized 20%; on December 19, the central bank and the Financial Regulatory Administration issued the "Guidelines for Managing Comprehensive Financing Costs of Micro-lending Companies," clearly stating that no new loans with a comprehensive financing cost exceeding an annualized 24% should be issued, and by the end of 2027, all new loans must be reduced to within four times the one-year LPR (approximately 12%). In addition, the central bank and the Financial Regulatory Administration simultaneously issued supporting measures such as the "Regulations on Explicit Comprehensive Financing Costs for Personal Loan Business" and the "Administrative Measures for Online Marketing of Financial Products," further strengthening the protection of consumer rights in terms of information disclosure and marketing promotion.
Chart 24: Overview of the current regulatory policies related to internet loans
Source: People's Bank of China, National Financial Regulatory Administration, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, State Administration for Market Regulation, China Securities Regulatory Commission, National Intellectual Property Administration, Cyberspace Administration, State Administration of Foreign Exchange, CICC Research Department
The Loan Facilitation New Regulations have been implemented for nearly a year, and the industry has experienced four complete quarters of pressure and adjustment. Under the dual drive of passive asset reduction and active tightening of risk control measures, combined with the data from leading credit technology companies in Q2 2026, indicators such as asset issuance and credit quality have stabilized compared to before:

► Issuance: In Q2 2026, there is a marginal increase. The quarterly loan issuance volume for Q2 2026 for Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology/Le Xin decreased by -3%/+5%/+3% respectively, with a total loan issuance volume increasing by 1% to 163.2 billion yuan. Except for Qifu Technology, which saw a slight decline in loan issuance due to continuous upward trends in customer groups and tightening risk control, Xin Ye and Le Xin have shown marginal growth in new loan issuance.

► Risk: In Q2 2026, leading institutions continued the improvement trend from Q1 in asset quality. 1) First overdue rate: Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology decreased/increased by -0.1/+0.1 percentage points to 5.6%/5.3%; 2) 30-day recovery rate: Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology increased by +2.3/+2.2 percentage points to 88.1%/89.0%; 3) 90-day overdue rate (which has a certain lag and can reflect the asset quality of new loans issued three quarters ago, i.e., Q4 2025): Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology/Le Xin decreased/increased by -0.7/-1.0/+0.1 percentage points to 2.8%/2.1%/3.6%.

► Profitability: There is differentiation due to the impact of one-time items and differences in risk control capabilities. In Q2 2026, the non-GAAP net profit of Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology/Le Xin decreased by -75%/-38%/-76% year-on-year, and by -52%/+7%/-44% quarter-on-quarter. Among them, Qifu was mainly affected by one-time tax expenses of 400 million yuan, and after excluding this non-recurring gain and loss, profitability increased by 1% quarter-on-quarter to 950 million yuan, while Le Xin was mainly due to the company's cautious provisioning in June after the Orange incident considering the elevated industry risks.
Chart 25: As of Q2 2026, risk indicators of leading credit technology companies have improved
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department
However, against the backdrop of the industry gradually stabilizing, the risk event involving Orange Data Science occurred at the end of June 2026, breaking the trust bond between financial institutions and loan facilitation platforms. Most banks entered a risk review and self-examination period in July, reassessing the risk control and fund safety management capabilities of cooperating platforms, leading to a large-scale suspension of business and a contraction of the whitelist, significantly tightening industry funding supply and further increasing collection pressures on institutions. Overall, we judge that in Q3, under the circumstances of large-scale funding cuts from funding parties, the overall liquidity in the industry may face significant shocks, and asset quality and funding costs will face new pressures, interrupting the risk improvement trend seen since 2026.

We believe that this industry event has once again brought about an overall contraction in capital supply, interrupting and reversing the trend of asset quality improvement. In the coming quarters, risk volatility will intensify, and lending platforms will face operational adjustment pressures once again. Structurally, mid-tier and lower-tier platforms are expected to continue clearing out, while leading platforms will stabilize their market positions with relatively robust risk control strategies and stronger risk control capabilities.
Chart 26: Overview of Operational and Financial Data of Leading Credit Technology Companies in Q2 2026
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department

Industry Landscape: Mid-tier and Lower-tier Platforms Continue to Clear Out, Leading Institutions Exhibit Relative Resilience

Against the backdrop of tightening regulations and shrinking consumer credit demand, the lending industry as a whole has entered a balance sheet contraction cycle. The industry's concentration has further increased, and the Matthew effect has become more pronounced, driven by both supply and demand sides: on one hand, there is the active selection from capital providers, and on the other hand, the differences in the capabilities of lending institutions themselves. From the perspective of capital providers, due to phenomena such as multiple borrowing and rolling over old debts, the overall risk level in the industry has risen after capital supply tightened, leading to a widespread decline in asset quality. Coupled with strengthened regulatory guidance on the whitelist system, the overall risk appetite of capital providers has decreased, making leading institutions more favored by capital providers. From the perspective of lending institutions themselves, leading platforms with more diversified funding sources and stronger risk control capabilities are more likely to weather the cycle during downturns, while mid-tier and lower-tier platforms continue to shrink passively due to compliance, risk control, and insufficient capital strength. We believe that this round of industry adjustment will mainly focus on mid-tier and lower-tier platforms, while the relative share and market position of leading institutions are expected to be further consolidated.
Chart 27: Since 2026, domestic consumer credit demand has contracted
Source: People's Bank of China, CICC Research Department
Tightening of the Whitelist: Restructuring of Industry Concentration under Capital Access. The new lending regulations require commercial banks to implement a list management system for lending partner institutions and publicly disclose the list of partner institutions. In August 2025, the National Financial Regulatory Administration further issued a notice on strengthening the management of cooperative institutions of three types of banks, aiming to standardize bank-enterprise cooperation through penetrating supervision. According to our statistics, under regulatory guidance, after the implementation of the new lending regulations, banks began to conduct large-scale reviews of lending partner institutions, with some banks significantly reducing the number of cooperative operating institutions, most of which are leading platforms. Additionally, some financial institutions have suspended or slowed down the issuance of lending business, continuously compressing the survival space of mid-tier and lower-tier platforms.

Since 2026, especially after the Orange Data Technology incident, under ongoing industry pressure and regulatory guidance, most banks have further compressed their cooperation lists and raised entry thresholds, cautiously selecting quality platforms for cooperation. According to our incomplete statistics, the whitelist of lending institutions disclosed by relatively strong joint-stock banks is primarily composed of five major internet platforms: Ant Group, ByteDance, Meituan, JD.com, and Du Xiaoman. Shanghai Qiyu under Qifu Technology and Fenqile under Lexin have also made several appearances, and the overall list has seen some reductions. Furthermore, city commercial banks and private banks are becoming increasingly important sources of funding for third-party lending institutions. According to our statistics, their cooperative institutions also show a trend of total contraction and concentration towards leading platforms. Apart from large internet platforms, cooperative internet loan institutions are mainly those under Qifu, Lexin, Xinye, Xiaoying, Weixin Jinke, and Jiayin Technology.

Overall, relying on strong risk control capabilities, relatively stable asset performance, and stronger brand effects, leading institutions are more likely to be chosen by capital providers, while mid-tier and lower-tier platforms with weaker risk control and looser asset deployment are more likely to face exhaustion of capital supply and pressure on asset quality. Although leading platforms are also experiencing balance sheet contraction, their relative advantages are becoming more pronounced, and the Matthew effect in the industry may continue to strengthen.
Chart 28: Compilation of Whitelists of Cooperative Institutions for Internet Loan Business of Some Joint-stock Banks and City Commercial Banks
Source: Company website, CICC Research Department
Risk Control: Capability Determines the Lower Limit, Channels Determine the Share. Due to the obvious trend of tightening capital supply from banks, funds are further concentrating on leading institutions with solid risk control capabilities and diversified funding sources. In this context, Qifu Technology, with its strong risk control capabilities and broad funding sources (self-operated and supported by ABS), has shown relative resilience amid the contraction of capital supply: in Q2 2026, the company's funding cost decreased by about 10bps to 2.7%, and the ABS issuance scale increased by about 90% to 5.5 billion yuan, with a high proportion of self-operated microloan business and relatively strong autonomy. According to our statistics, after the Orange Data Technology incident, in July, Qifu's loan issuance contracted significantly less than that of peers like Lexin and Xinye, mainly due to its more diversified funding sources and relatively smaller impact from the tightening of single capital providers.

Moreover, we believe that financial institutions are placing greater emphasis on the compliance level and capital strength of their partners. Overall, the industry logic is shifting from "scale and traffic" to "risk control + capital," where risk control capabilities determine whether institutions can remain on the whitelist of capital providers, and diversified funding sources determine whether they can maintain issuance during contraction periods. Although leading platforms are also facing balance sheet contraction and profit pressure, their relative advantages are becoming more pronounced.

Looking Ahead, Fine-tuning Strategies to Seek Survival, Multiple Measures to Break Through and Restructure Profit Logic

Amid the continuous challenges brought by tightening regulations and frequent industry risk events, we believe that the lending industry is gradually entering a new stage of development. Overall, the domestic businesses of leading institutions currently prioritize survival as the primary task and are gradually creating new growth points, mainly including going overseas, business innovation, and retaining cash flow. Specifically:

Going Overseas: It has become a necessary path for leading lending institutions. Summarizing the internationalization journey of representative institutions, the focus is on the Southeast Asian market, expanding into emerging markets like Mexico and Pakistan, and then laying out in relatively mature developed markets like Australia:

► A typical and pioneering benchmark is Xinye Technology, which listed globalization as a long-term strategy in 2018. Its overseas business has now become the company's second-largest profit engine, contributing major growth momentum. The company chose Indonesia as its first overseas stop in 2018 and has now become the second-largest independent online lending institution in Indonesia. In 2020, it replicated the Indonesian model in the Philippines, currently ranking first in the industry. In 2024, it added the Pakistan market, further improving its layout in emerging markets, with transaction volume accounting for nearly 30% of the local business total. Subsequently, in 2025, the company entered the Australian market through the acquisition of Fundo, marking its entry into the first developed market. By the end of H1 2026, the company's international loan balance reached 2.5 billion yuan, with total loan issuance in the first half of the year increasing by 27% year-on-year to 7.9 billion yuan. In Q2 2026, net income from overseas business increased by 18% year-on-year to 930 million yuan, accounting for 27% (vs. the company's target of increasing overseas revenue share to 50% by 2030), corresponding to a year-on-year increase of 108% in operating profit before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization under Non-GAAP standards to 55 million yuan.

► Additionally, Qifu Technology, Lexin, Jiayin Technology, Weixin Jinke, and Yirendai are also positioning overseas business as an important anchor, but they are still in the early stages. In the current domestic business environment, where survival is the primary goal, going overseas is an important source of growth momentum for each lending platform. However, from obtaining licenses, building and iterating risk control models to achieving stable profitability, it still requires time and investment. Among them, Qifu Technology adopts a dual-line layout of mature and emerging markets, covering multiple markets including the UK, Canada, Mexico, and Southeast Asia, currently focusing on license applications, building local teams, and localizing risk control model testing, with only small-scale pilot loans; Lexin focuses on the two brands of Fortaprest in Mexico and Kredito in Indonesia, which will be operational from 2024, and is still in the cultivation period, with no significant profit contribution yet.

Diversification of Business: Upgrading Customer Base and Building New Momentum through Technology Services. Currently, the overall lending assistance industry is gradually shifting from a rough development pace focused on scale growth to a refined operational stage with higher risk control requirements, higher investment efficiency, and smaller risk customer groups. Leading platforms are becoming more pronounced. Specifically: 1) Qifu Technology is increasing efforts to identify quality customers and creating new growth poles through financial technology services. In terms of optimizing customer structure, the proportion of quality users in new loans increased by 25 percentage points quarter-on-quarter in Q1, and the proportion of users in new credit limits increased by 6 percentage points. The proactive optimization of customer structure helps the company reduce credit costs and aligns with regulatory guidance to further lower financing costs. In terms of financial technology services, it targets retail and small micro-enterprise customers with pricing between 3-12%, supplementing the company's traditional customer base. In Q2 2026, the loan scale empowered by this business increased by 515% year-on-year, with continuous growth in technology output. 2) Lexin's ecological business expansion and stable growth in non-lending assistance business. Relying on installment e-commerce and digital technology ecological businesses, the transaction volume of non-lending assistance business exceeded 50% in the second quarter, becoming an important stabilizer for investment and income, driving it to be the only institution among leading listed lending assistance platforms to achieve positive year-on-year growth in investment.

Cash is King: The Priority of Retaining Cash Reserves Increases. In the current environment where asset quality faces challenges, leading platforms have begun to prioritize the importance of retaining cash safety nets over short-term shareholder returns to enhance their "survival capability" when operations are impacted, further reflecting their judgment on the current bottom of the industry cycle. From the perspective of shareholder return rhythm, all three leading platforms have experienced varying degrees of delays: 1) Qifu Technology executed a small buyback in Q2, paused buybacks at the end of June due to the industry's liquidity crisis, but still maintained a 30% dividend payout ratio for mid-term dividends; 2) Lexin changed its dividend frequency from "semi-annual" to "annual," mainly to strategically retain cash for sustainable operations and enhance risk buffer capacity. The previous $50 million buyback plan also did not add new quotas; 3) Xinye Technology repurchased $27.4 million in Q2 (vs. $39.4 million in Q1), with a slower buyback pace compared to Q1.

We believe that while short-term shareholder returns have decreased, retaining the ability to respond to risks for sustainable development may be more important at this stage: on one hand, the industry's capital supply has not yet returned to normal, and platforms need to use their own liquidity to hedge against the phased contraction of external financing; on the other hand, actively slowing down buybacks and dividends, and retaining resources for business and risk buffers, also means that short-term valuations lack catalysts from shareholder returns, and their recovery still needs to wait for the marginal stabilization of business scale and asset quality. Overall, leading platforms generally choose the latter between shareholder returns and liquidity safety nets, marking a shift in the industry's operational focus towards safety nets and risk resistance priorities.

Overseas Web 3.0: Compliance, Integration with Traditional Finance, and Rise of Investment Applications

The overseas Web 3.0 industry chain includes upstream infrastructure and technology services, midstream asset issuance/trading/custody services, and downstream specific applications. With more countries/regions abroad improving regulatory frameworks and clarifying digital asset licensing systems, licensed operations and compliant development are trends that cannot be ignored. Currently, participation in overseas digital assets, especially from institutional funds, is increasing, with mainstream institutions entering under the dual integration with traditional finance. Real-world assets (RWA), especially stock tokenization, are gaining attention, and financial infrastructure such as stablecoins is being constructed. However, we believe that the associated risks and challenges, as well as issues related to investor protection and market stability, should be given more attention. Overall, the upstream and downstream of the industry chain are accelerating integration, with overseas institutions actively exploring, where leading compliant institutions may create first-mover advantages.

Global Regulatory Framework Gradually Perfecting, Compliance Development is Inevitable

The regulatory framework for digital assets is becoming clearer, and compliance development is an inevitable trend. Since the 2024 U.S. presidential election, where Donald Trump expressed support for the digital asset industry, various countries and regions worldwide have been continuously advancing digital asset-related policies. Overall, as various countries clarify the inclusion of digital assets in regulatory frameworks and introduce corresponding licensing systems, we believe that compliant licensed operations in the Web 3.0 field will be an inevitable trend:

► United States: Transitioning from enforcement regulation to legislative regulation, building a "three major bills" system from top to bottom. Among them, the GENIUS Act establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, which has been issued and is awaiting effectiveness; the CLARITY Act clearly defines and categorizes digital assets, delineating the regulatory responsibilities of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and SEC for different categories of digital assets, and explicitly prohibits stablecoins from providing passive income but allows for activity rewards. However, the bill did not pass the Senate's procedural vote in September 2026; the anti-CBDC Act clarifies the regulatory framework for U.S. central bank digital currency, which is still pending Senate review.

► Hong Kong, China: Balancing and open, gradually incorporating digital assets into the regulatory framework with prudent stability. In fact, Hong Kong's regulatory authorities began exploring classified regulation of digital asset-related activities as early as 2017. The "Stablecoin Ordinance" is expected to be passed and effective in 2025. In the same year, the Hong Kong government issued the "Policy Declaration 2.0," proposing the LEAP framework, and the SFC released the ASPIRe roadmap, proposing specific measures to respond to market changes. Subsequently, it continued to issue circulars to refine and improve details, such as allowing virtual asset financing for margin clients and considering allowing secondary market trading of tokenized products (Figure 30).

The licensing system is becoming more complete, and digital asset operating institutions are fully moving towards licensed compliance development. Under an increasingly complete and clear regulatory framework, the liquidity of digital asset trading activities is gradually shifting from offshore to compliant/licensed/onshore structural transfers. According to estimates from Frost & Sullivan and HashKey's prospectus, onshore trading volume is expected to grow at a rate of 49% from 2024 to 2029, exceeding the offshore trading volume growth rate of 20%, with its share expected to rise from 16% to 37%. Currently, the licensing system required for U.S. digital asset service providers involves federal and state-level licenses and must meet corresponding anti-money laundering (AML) requirements; Hong Kong has also established a relatively complete licensing system covering stablecoin issuers and various digital asset service providers, with the HKMA and SFC regulating stablecoins and digital assets respectively (Figure 31). U.S. digital asset institutions such as Coinbase, Robinhood, and Circle, as well as Hong Kong's HashKey, OSL, and Futu, have all obtained licensed compliance operations under the aforementioned systems. For more details, see the CICC report "Overseas Digital Assets: Compliance Development of the Web 3.0 Industry."

Under the compliance background, the acceptance of digital assets is increasing, especially with institutional funds likely to enter the market. With the improvement of the regulatory framework and the expansion of compliant products, we see retail and institutional funds entering the market. However, at the same time, we believe that the industry is still in its early development stage, and risks such as market volatility need to be cautiously monitored. There may be some retail investors with insufficient risk awareness blindly entering during market uptrends, taking on investment risks that do not match their risk tolerance; considering that some categories lack verifiable fundamental support, it is even more important not to underestimate the investment risks of digital assets. We believe that the entry of institutional funds will be more cautious and gradual.

► For retail investors, as compliant exchanges and licensed brokers provide trading services, they have broadened their compliant participation channels, while the variety of investable product categories and the introduction of margin trading models cater to their diverse risk investment needs. However, the trading activity of retail investors is highly correlated with market conditions, and their participation exhibits significant pro-cyclical characteristics. For example, Robinhood's digital asset trading contributed 41%/35% of total revenue during the booming markets in Q2 2021/Q4 2024, but rapidly declined during market adjustments in 2022 and since 2026, with its share dropping to 10%/8% in Q4 2022/Q2 2026.

► For institutional funds, the importance of compliant channels and improved infrastructure is even more prominent. On one hand, with a clear regulatory framework, institutional services such as trading mechanisms, asset custody, and insurance are becoming increasingly refined, and the launch of compliant products like Bitcoin spot ETFs helps institutional investors participate, as seen with the increasing shareholding ratio of institutional investors in the Bitcoin spot ETF IBIT (Figure 33). On the other hand, the allocation value of digital assets themselves influences institutions' willingness to allocate in their investment portfolios, but currently, mainstream top asset management institutions still have divergent attitudes towards this, and the market has yet to form a relatively unified pricing analysis framework for digital assets. Additionally, sovereign funds and corporate funds in some countries and regions have also begun to make arrangements. In fact, the strategic importance of institutional clients on digital asset platforms is continuously increasing, as Coinbase's institutional trading revenue contribution rose from 5.9% in 2023 to 17.4% in the first half of 2026; Robinhood focuses on serving institutional trading through its acquisition of Bitstamp, with Bitstamp's trading volume accounting for 60% in the first half of 2026; HashKey continues to strengthen its market competitiveness in the field of institutional compliance trading, with institutional client trading volume increasing by 59% year-on-year in the first half of 2026, contributing to a total trading volume ratio increase of 14 percentage points year-on-year to 82%, driving the platform's total trading volume up by 32% year-on-year in a volatile market environment, and the company's revenue steadily increasing by 21%.

Figure 29: The United States transitions from law enforcement regulation to legislative regulation, constructing a "three major bills" system from top to bottom
Source: U.S. Congress, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Figure 30: The SFC in Hong Kong, China, continuously develops digital asset regulation along the ASPIRe roadmap
Source: SFC, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

Figure 31: Leading financial institutions and technology companies have obtained licenses related to virtual assets in Hong Kong, China
Note: Number of SFC license holders as of September 24, 2026
Source: SFC, HKMA, China International Capital Corporation Research Department

On-chain native attempts to integrate into the mainstream financial system, investment and application are on the rise

The dual integration of offshore digital assets and traditional finance is accelerating, and the requirements for investor protection need to be raised. Factors such as clear regulations, product expansion, and application implementation are driving some traditional financial institutions to enter the market. The industry is attempting to integrate on-chain native assets into the mainstream financial system, and investors are diversifying their ways of gaining exposure to digital assets through traditional financial markets and institutions. However, considering the high volatility of digital assets themselves, the investment risks may transmit to traditional financial markets, making it more difficult to identify risks. We believe that regulatory agencies should maintain a prudent approach to public-facing digital asset products, requiring operating institutions to strictly implement investor suitability management and focus on investor protection.

► Traditional financial institutions are increasingly entering the digital asset space, providing related products and services, including digital asset spot/derivatives trading, issuing digital asset asset management products, issuing tokenized products, and directly investing in digital assets. For instance, digital asset exchange products (ETPs) in the United States and Hong Kong, China, are set to develop following regulatory approval in 2024, with the AUM of digital asset spot ETPs in the U.S. and Hong Kong reaching approximately $1.173 billion and $610 million, respectively, as of August 31, 2026.

► The increase in listed licensed compliant digital asset targets and their growing attention in traditional financial markets includes exchanges like Coinbase, Bullish, HashKey, internet brokerages like Robinhood, stablecoin issuers like Circle, and digital asset treasury companies like Strategy. The performance of these listed targets is closely linked to the fundamentals of digital assets, and their stock price performance is also influenced by the sentiment of the digital asset market, thus becoming an asset choice for traditional financial market investors participating in the Web 3.0 ecosystem.

The tokenization of real-world assets is steadily developing, with a focus on tokenized stocks. According to statistics from rwa.xyz, as of September 25, 2026, the circulating asset scale of global real-world asset tokenization (RWA) is approximately $38.6 billion, compared to about $4 trillion for digital native assets and the total scale of traditional financial assets like stocks and bonds. The scale of "digital twin" tokenized assets still has room for growth. For example, HashKey plans to launch a one-stop issuance solution for RWA in 2026, providing a full-link infrastructure for professional institutions, including tokenized issuance, on-chain deployment, secondary market trading, custody, and compliance disclosure services, and has launched various RWA products such as money market funds, gold, silver, private credit, and real estate. In terms of product categories: 1) Tokenized money market funds have been implemented early, such as BlackRock's tokenized U.S. dollar money market fund BUIDL, which currently has a scale of about $2.2 billion. In 2025, Huaxia Hong Kong issued the first tokenized money market fund for retail investors in the Asia-Pacific region, followed by the launch of a tokenized gold ETF; 2) The exploration of tokenized stocks continues, with Robinhood already offering over 2,000 Classic Stock Tokens in Europe, covering U.S. listed stocks and ETPs, and the Stock Tokens for the on-chain ecosystem have now expanded to over 190; Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange received SEC approval in March and April 2026, respectively, to amend rules allowing the trading of tokenized securities. In September, the SEC further introduced "innovation exemptions," opening a five-year experimental channel for compliant trading of tokenized U.S. stocks in eligible tokenized securities trading venues. However, it is important to note that the implementation of tokenized stocks may give rise to more issues, such as whether there is regulatory arbitrage space, whether it may affect market stability, and whether there is a lack of investor suitability management. Overall, we believe that the compliance path and real demand for RWA still need to be validated, and different categories of RWA may have different development paths.

Web3.0 financial infrastructure is being built, focusing on the integration of stablecoins and payment scenarios. Current financial activities are gradually shifting to blockchain technology-driven on-chain operations, prompting traditional financial infrastructure to explore more optimization possibilities, such as some companies beginning to build their own chains (Coinbase Base / Circle Arc / Robinhood Chain / HashKey Chain, etc.). In this process, we focus on Web3.0 payments, which are currently mainly applied to improving the efficiency of traditional cross-border and local payment scenarios, and exploring new autonomous payment infrastructures aimed at AI agents in the future. Currently, leading payment institutions and Web3.0 companies are continuously improving infrastructure construction and laying out stablecoin payments, such as Visa collaborating with digital asset platforms to launch stablecoin card products, OSL partnering with US stablecoin issuers to launch USDGO, which has now become the world's largest B2B stablecoin payment infrastructure company, and LianLian Digital expanding its VATP layout, introducing stablecoin cross-border payments under existing payment services. However, it is important to note that we believe Web3.0 payments are still in the early stages of development, and we should not be overly optimistic about their large-scale implementation; we need to face the related risks and challenges. Moreover, stablecoins may not be the only solution for new payment infrastructures and AI agent autonomous payments, as traditional financial institutions are also exploring other Web3.0 payment technologies (such as tokenized deposits).

Chart 32: Steady Development of ETP Products in Digital Asset Exchanges in the United States and Hong Kong

Source: SEC, Bloomberg, SFC, Hong Kong Stock Exchange, CICC Research Department

Chart 33: Institutional Funds Promote Digital Asset Allocation

Source: SEC, Bloomberg, CICC Research Department

Chart 34: Rapid Increase in Digital Asset RWA Scale

Source: rwa.xyz, CICC Research Department

Chart 35: Steady Increase in Stablecoin Trading Volume

Source: Frost & Sullivan, McKinsey, CICC Research Department

Accelerated Integration of Upstream and Downstream in the Industry Chain, Licensed Compliance Platforms May Create First-Mover Advantages

Overseas institutions are actively exploring, accelerating from early licensing layouts to large-scale commercialization. We define the Web3.0 industry to include upstream infrastructure and technology service segments, midstream asset issuance/trading/custody services, and downstream specific application services. Currently, domestic and foreign institutions are actively laying out: 1) On-chain issuers, with a few institutions possessing global compliance advantages and distribution capabilities occupying major market shares, such as Circle building a global compliant stablecoin USDC system and further launching Arc public chain to serve stablecoins and AI payments; 2) The leading pattern in the exchange field is beginning to emerge, such as Hong Kong's leading licensed HashKey / OSL benchmarking Coinbase, but more participants also have development potential, such as Futu's Cheetah Exchange leveraging Futu's customer traffic and one-stop digital financial service ecosystem to form unique advantages; 3) Leading internet brokerages are in a leading position in the digital asset trading field, such as Robinhood / Futu; 4) Application service providers are accelerating infrastructure layout, with overseas development paths benchmarking global leading payment institutions like Visa / Mastercard / Stripe.

Overall, leading institutions are forming advantages through early deployment, with compliance licenses, scale effects, and ecosystem capabilities being core competitive strengths. Around the asset issuance, trading intermediaries, and application service ends of the Web3.0 industry chain, leading institutions have formed relative advantages. We summarize that industry leaders typically possess three types of capabilities: first, a complete licensing and compliance system that can operate stably across multiple jurisdictions; second, significant liquidity and scale advantages that can create network effects; third, the ability to integrate ecosystem systems to create comprehensive services or form multi-scenario applications.

At the same time, the Web3.0 industry chain is showing a trend of accelerated integration and convergence. On one hand, leading institutions are expanding upstream and downstream of the industry chain through mergers, investments, and collaborations, evolving from single-segment platforms to comprehensive service providers, such as Coinbase acquiring multiple exchanges and on-chain financing platforms, and continuously extending to public chains, custody, and financing services; Robinhood / Futu, in addition to providing integrated asset trading configuration services, are extending upstream in the industry chain, laying out digital asset exchanges to create differentiated digital asset trading features compared to other brokerages. On the other hand, traditional financial institutions such as banks, payment institutions, and trading platforms are accelerating their Web3.0 layouts, leveraging their own compliance, network, and scenario advantages to participate in full industry chain competition, such as Mastercard establishing an end-to-end stablecoin payment system covering wallet/card issuance/merchant acquiring/clearing through partnerships and acquisitions; OSL transitioning from a digital-native exchange platform to an integrated trading and payment layout, and LianLian Digital expanding from traditional payment institutions to Web3.0 payments.

Chart 36: Circle USDC Circulation Scale Approximately $73.3 Billion

Note: 1 USDC is pegged to 1 USD.

Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 37: Coinbase's Revenue Composition Tends to Diversify
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 38: HashKey's Institutional Client Contribution Ratio Increases
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 39: OSL Platform Trading Scale and Revenue Growth
Source: Company announcements, CICC Research Department
Chart 40: Overview of the Overseas Web3.0 Industry Chain
Source: The Block, Grayscale Company announcements, Coinbase Company announcements, Robinhood Company announcements, CICC Research Department
Risk Warning
Macroeconomic fluctuations. The business demand in the payment and credit industry is closely related to the economic growth of the regions where they operate, the operational conditions of enterprises, and the consumption levels of residents. A slowdown in the macroeconomy may lead to pressure on corporate profits and resident consumption, thereby suppressing the demand for payment and credit and narrowing the industry's expansion space. At the same time, the macroeconomic environment also affects capital market performance and market risk appetite; a slowdown in economic growth may lead to a slowdown in corporate profits and suppress risk appetite, reducing the activity level of capital markets and investor participation, thus affecting the performance of internet brokerage firms.

Significant market volatility. Internet brokerages and industries such as Web3.0 are highly correlated with the performance and activity of capital markets/digital asset markets in the short term. If the market continues to adjust or risk appetite declines, it may lead to a decrease in trading activity and investor participation, further affecting the customer acquisition efficiency, client asset scale, and client turnover rate of related companies, thus adversely impacting operational performance.

Regulatory uncertainty. The traditional finance and fintech industries have high licensing and regulatory requirements, and there are differences in regulatory frameworks across different countries and regions in areas such as financial services, cross-border operations, and digital assets. Emerging industries like Web3.0 are still in the stage of gradually improving regulatory systems, while the credit technology industry faces continuously tightening consumer credit regulatory requirements. Changes in regulatory policies or a trend towards stricter regulations may lead to higher compliance costs and operational pressures for industry participants, impacting business models and expansion space.

Intensifying industry competition. On one hand, traditional financial institutions are accelerating digital transformation and expanding their presence in the fintech sector through investments/mergers and acquisitions; on the other hand, competition within the fintech industry is also intensifying, and technological iterations and data openness may further lower industry entry barriers and challenge the competitive advantages of early participants. The continuous increase in fintech industry participants and intensifying competition may lead to adverse effects such as price competition, pressure on market share, and increased difficulty in customer acquisition, impacting the profitability and long-term development space of related enterprises.

[1] WeBull is for the 2022-2025 CAGR metric, same below

[2] https :// fintecdaily . com / juzishuke626 /
Source
This article is excerpted from "Global Fintech: New Cycle, New Variables, New Growth" published on September 30, 2026

Fan You Analyst SAC Certification Number: S0080522070009 SFC CE Ref: BRI789

Yao Zeyu Analyst SAC Certification Number: S0080518090001 SFC CE Ref: BIJ003

Tang Yining Contact Person SAC Certification Number: S0080126030017

Jing Yujie Analyst SAC Certification Number: S0080526070005

Li Peifeng Analyst SAC Certification Number: S0080521070004 SFC CE Ref: BTO526

Mao Qingqing Analyst SAC Certification Number: S0080522040002 SFC CE Ref: BRI453