For a long time, the valuation of securities firms in the A-share market has been almost entirely tied to the single rope of trading volume. With the onset of a bull market, the transaction volume of the two markets exceeded one trillion yuan, and brokerage stocks rose in response; The market turned weak, with daily average transactions falling to 5-6 trillion yuan, and the stock price quickly came under pressure. This pricing inertia of "watching the weather to eat" has long been internalized as investors' intuition - securities firms are the thermometers of the market, and more importantly, the amplifiers of prosperity.

This logic is not unreasonable. The active trading directly drives brokerage commissions and the demand for dual financing, while the upward trend in the market increases the self operated safety cushion. The rebound in corporate financing willingness injects vitality into investment banks. Under the joint efforts of multiple parties, securities firms naturally carry the functional attribute of a "cyclical amplifier" in the capital market, and thus have won the market consensus of being the "flag bearer of the bull market".

However, if we only focus on the daily average transaction volume, it may be difficult to accurately understand the current securities firms. Industry revenue structure, innovation policies, and fintech are jointly reshaping the value sources of securities firms - while trading volume remains the foundation of prosperity, asset allocation, risk pricing, and the ability to serve technology companies are beginning to determine the valuation performance of different securities firms.

1、 Trading volume remains the foundation, but it is no longer the only answer

In the first half of 2026, securities firms submitted a fairly impressive performance report. As of mid July, 21 listed securities firms have disclosed their semi annual performance forecasts, of which 20 are expected to make profits. The net profits of several top securities firms such as CITIC Securities and Guotai Haitong have reached a new high for the same period. At the same time, the daily average trading volume of A-shares reached about 2.74 trillion yuan, nearly doubling year-on-year; As of July 24th, the balance of the two financing companies also exceeded 2.6 trillion yuan. Active trading has directly improved brokerage, margin trading, and wealth management businesses, and securities firms remain the main beneficiaries of the rising capital market prosperity.

However, in contrast to the performance, brokerage stocks have not reproduced the neat and fierce "bull market flag bearer" trend of the past. The CSI Quanzhi Securities Company Index has continued to decline slightly in the past year, while Wande Quanzhi A has risen during the same period; The price to book ratio of the brokerage index is about 1.34 times, which is at a relatively low level in the past decade.

The increase in trading volume and profit growth, but the lack of synchronous return in valuation, indicates that the market is not unable to see securities firms making money, but still has doubts about the sustainability of such profits.

The first reason is that traditional businesses have experienced a significant increase in volume and decrease in price. The net commission rate of the securities industry has decreased from 6.8% in 2015 to 1.78% in 2025, a cumulative decrease of over 70%; The two financing businesses also face interest rate competition. The increase in transaction scale and raised funds can certainly expand revenue, but the profit contributed by unit business is different from ten years ago.

This change is ultimately reflected in capital returns. The ROE of the securities sector has decreased from 21.3% in 2015 to around 7.3% in 2025. That is to say, even if trading volume rebounds, securities firms using the same scale of net assets can still generate significantly lower returns than the previous bull market. It is not difficult to understand why the market is unwilling to simply replicate past valuations.

The deeper changes come from the income structure. According to data from the China Securities Association, by 2025, the industry's securities investment income and fair value changes have surpassed the net income from brokerage business, becoming the largest source of income. Securities firms are becoming more and more like capital allocators, rather than just trading channels.

Therefore, evaluating a securities firm should not only focus on how much money it can earn from the market trend, but also on whether the profits come from stable customer assets and service income, or from floating profits generated by market growth; Is it relying on a replicable investment system or accidentally betting on a certain direction.

The trading volume still largely determines whether the industry as a whole can benefit, but investment ability and profit quality begin to determine the valuation gap between securities firms.

2、 Science and technology innovation policies transform securities firms from "underwriters" to "co investors"

Another important variable in the valuation changes of securities firms is the policy system that supports technological innovation in the capital market.

After the establishment of the sponsorship institution follow-up investment system on the Science and Technology Innovation Board, the relationship between securities firms and issuers is no longer limited to charging underwriting sponsorship fees. According to current rules, the relevant subsidiaries of the sponsoring institution need to use their own funds to subscribe for 2% to 5% of the issued securities and hold them for 24 months. If the follow-up investment is not implemented according to regulations, the issuer shall suspend the issuance.

The core of this system is to allow securities firms to invest real money in their pricing and project judgment. The project quality is good, and securities firms can share the growth benefits of the company after going public; If the project pricing is too high or the operation falls short of expectations, securities firms also have to bear the losses of capital occupation and price decline. As a result, investment banking services have gradually shifted from relatively light capital channel services to investment attributes.

Subsequent policy reforms further expanded this change. In 2024, the "Eight Articles of the Science and Technology Innovation Board" emphasize the priority support for "hard technology" enterprises that break through key core technologies, and support the listing of high-quality unprofitable technology enterprises; In 2025, the "1+6" reform of the Science and Technology Innovation Board will establish a growth layer for science and technology innovation, restart the application of the fifth set of standards for listing unprofitable enterprises, and further extend the coverage of the system to cutting-edge fields such as artificial intelligence, commercial aerospace, and low altitude economy.

The policy has increased the "scientific content" of securities firms, but the "scientific content" here should not only be understood as how many technology stocks they hold. More importantly, securities firms have begun to participate more deeply in the entire process of technology companies from early financing, IPO to post IPO refinancing, mergers and acquisitions, and market making. The investment research department needs to determine the technological roadmap and industrial space, the investment department needs to bear early risks, and the investment banking department is responsible for connecting the enterprise with the capital market.

Specific cases of policy effects have emerged. In October 2025, three unprofitable companies, Heyuan Biotechnology, Xi'an Yicai, and Bibeite, were listed on the Science and Technology Innovation Board, becoming the first batch of newly registered science and technology growth enterprises after the "1+6" reform. Their businesses respectively involve fields such as biomedicine and integrated circuits.

Among them, Heyuan Biotechnology is sponsored by Guotai Haitong Securities. According to the listing announcement, Haitong Innovation Investment has been allocated 2.68354 million shares, accounting for 3% of the issued quantity, with a total allocation amount of approximately 77.98 million yuan and a restricted period of 24 months. This is not an abstract concept of 'supporting technological innovation', but a real exposure of a securities firm's balance sheet to an unprofitable biotech company.

This is the specific meaning of the increase in the "scientific content" of securities firms: technology companies may not only appear on the underwriting project list, but also enter the investment portfolio of securities firms and extend their business to research, market making, refinancing, and mergers and acquisitions.

But 'scientific content' does not necessarily mean a risk-free valuation premium. UnpProfit making technology companies have long R&D cycles and uncertain commercialization, and co investment may not only share growth benefits, but also cause capital occupation and investment losses. The policy increases opportunities for participating in the growth of technology enterprises, rather than ensuring investment returns.

3、 The new valuation logic is not a 'technology concept', but a pricing based on capability

The valuation of securities firms in the future may re differentiate along three dimensions.

The first is the ability to discover projects. The value of technology companies often cannot be measured by current profits. Securities firms need to assess whether the technology is real, whether the market space exists, and whether research and development achievements can be converted into revenue. This requires collaboration among investment banks, research and investment departments, rather than simply competing for underwriting projects.

The second is the ability to allocate capital. Securities investment income has exceeded brokerage income, but high investment returns may also come from increasing risk exposure. What truly deserves a valuation premium should be cross cycle, low drawdown, and replicable returns, rather than book gains in a single market trend. Evaluating securities firms requires a further shift from price to book ratio to return on equity, stability of returns, and return on risk capital.

The third is financial technology capability. Artificial intelligence, big data, and digital systems can reduce customer acquisition costs, improve investment research, advisory, trading, and risk control efficiency, but technology investment itself is only a cost. Only when technology is transformed into customer asset accumulation, service revenue growth, more accurate risk identification, and lower marginal costs, "technology+finance" becomes the valuation logic rather than a promotional label.

For example, comprehensive securities firms such as CITIC Securities and Guotai Haitong are deepening their participation in the entire lifecycle of technology enterprises through "investment banking+investment+research+market making"; Huatai Securities and Oriental Wealth rely more on digital platforms to expand their retail customer and wealth management businesses. The commonality of different paths is that securities valuation has shifted from being driven by licenses and trading volume to being driven by professional capabilities, capital efficiency, and technological application effects.

Conclusion

Securities firms will not bid farewell to cycles. When a bull market arrives, trading volume will still rapidly improve industry profits; When the market is sluggish, almost all securities firms will feel pressure. But in the future, securities stocks may no longer rise and fall uniformly.

The trading volume often greatly affects whether securities firms can have a favorable wind, investment ability is related to how high they can fly, and risk control is related to how long they can fly. The science and technology innovation policy has opened up new asset and customer spaces for securities firms, enabling them to identify real technological and reasonable pricing risks, and transform financial technology into operational efficiency institutions. Perhaps they are more likely to complete the valuation transition from "bull market options" to "long-term assets".