CICC: The new cycle, new variables, and new growth of financial technology

The global fintech industry is steadily developing under the overlapping 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 brokerages, digital payments, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0.

Currently, the global fintech industry is at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward market fluctuations, reshaping 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 growth engines. We actively seek high-quality tracks and companies that combine resilience and growth, focusing on leading internet brokerages in overseas markets with accelerated new business expansion and undervalued valuations, as well as the long-term space for emerging formats like AI and Web 3.0.

Summary Internet Brokerages: De-institutionalization, Internationalization, Diversification, and Integration. 1) Against the backdrop of increased trading activity in global markets 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) With compliance as a priority, relying on international expansion, diversified product services, and integrated ecological layouts, they strengthen monetization, solidify alpha growth outside market beta, and reap long-term profits and valuation double boosts.

Digital Payments: Global Expansion, Value Chain Expansion, Platform Evolution. 1) As domestic business growth slows, payment institutions target cross-border and overseas markets, serving local companies going abroad and local customers abroad; 2) High growth in value-added services, with AI empowering various segments to smart commerce, stablecoins, and other strategies deepening, continuously expanding the payment value chain through product and technology innovation; 3) The development of overseas Alipay, moving towards a super app and comprehensive financial entry, interconnecting global wallets and merchant ecosystems, with new global payment networks beginning to connect.

Credit Technology: Balance Sheet Reduction, Clearing, and Rebalancing under Industry Regulation Restructuring. 1) Under the new round of regulatory cycles 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-tail platforms continuing to clear out, while leading platforms may gain relative resilience relying on stronger risk control capabilities and diversified funding channels; 3) Currently, focusing on meticulous operations with liquidity safety nets and risk resistance as priorities, the future may seek breakthroughs through exploring overseas, expanding technology services, and optimizing customer structure.

Overseas Web 3.0: Compliance, Integration with Traditional Finance, Rise of Investment Applications. 1) More countries/regions are improving regulatory frameworks and clarifying digital asset licensing systems, with licensed compliance development becoming a 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, is 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 overlapping 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 brokerages, digital payments, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0. We believe that the current global fintech industry is at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward market fluctuations, reshaping 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 growth engines. We actively seek high-quality tracks and companies that combine resilience and growth, focusing on leading internet brokerages in overseas markets with accelerated new business expansion and undervalued valuations, as well as the long-term development space for emerging formats like AI and Web 3.0.

Chart 1: Global Fintech: Resonance of Three Major Cycles, 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 overlapping 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 terms of digital payments and credit technology, payments are the infrastructure for the flow of funds in economic activities, and credit is an important carrier for credit expansion, while digital payments 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 terms of internet brokerages, macroeconomic conditions and liquidity are transmitted to capital markets, such as the rise of China's capital market in 2014-2015 under improved liquidity, the increased trading activity of retail investors driven by global low interest rates, fiscal stimulus, and home trading in 2020-2021, and the renewed activity of global stock markets since 2024 driven by improved liquidity and trends in AI, with each market cycle profoundly impacting internet brokerages. 3) In terms of Web 3.0, the prices and trading activity of digital assets are sensitive to global liquidity and risk appetite, while the market cycle of digital assets also mutually reinforces the industrial cycle, with rising asset prices, improved financing environments, and increased developer activity during 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 that have driven the continuous evolution of industry forms.

► Industry Regulation Cycle: Globally, traditional finance and the fintech industry have high licensing and regulatory requirements, with topics such as strengthening licensed entry regulation, protecting financial consumer rights, preventing systemic financial risks, and enhancing platform anti-monopoly often discussed. At the same time, the current global financial market is integrated, and the development of digital technology further promotes financial openness, while different countries and regions have varying regulatory frameworks in financial services and digital finance, raising higher demands for regulation. Reviewing the regulatory context of the global fintech industry, whether in the cross-border securities trading field from early gray areas and regulatory risk warnings to tightening "new and old distinctions," or this year's "comprehensive ban" and "resolute investigations," or in the credit technology industry from early inclusive innovation, even wild growth, to beginning rectification and cleaning up, and then to the improvement and tightening of regulatory frameworks, or in the overseas Web 3.0 field from regulatory voids and risk outbreaks to establishing frameworks and promoting compliance licensing, the regulatory cycle profoundly impacts 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 the financial sector: 1) Financial electronicization first promoted the transition of financial infrastructure from manual to electronic processing, improving transaction and clearing efficiency, leading to the popularization 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, leading to the emergence of financial information portals, internet brokerages, electronic payments, and other formats; 3) The mobile internet further extends financial services from PCs to mobile devices, rapidly popularizing mobile payments and mobile trading, while the large-scale accumulation of data and the enhancement of 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 digitalization to further intelligence, especially the development and application of AI large models, promoting AI's evolution from backend efficiency tools to frontend interaction interfaces, and bringing about new interaction modes like Agent to Agent; meanwhile, technologies like blockchain further optimize traditional financial infrastructure and give rise to emerging formats such as 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 management, online payments/offline quick payments, microloans/internet consumer credit, blockchain, and AI applications, leading to the derivation of different products and services, forming a diversified business form in the global fintech industry. In this article, we focus on four sub-sectors: internet brokerages, digital payments, credit technology, and overseas Web 3.0, along with their representative institutions:

► Internet Brokerages: 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 Payments: The C2B bank card payment industry chain includes different segments such as clearing, acquiring, and issuing, with varying business 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 business owners, with different models based on the level of participation in the lending 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

Based on the present, the global fintech industry is at the starting point of a new cycle characterized by upward macro market fluctuations, reshaping 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. At the starting point of a new round of regulatory cycles, the regulatory frameworks in various sub-sectors of global fintech are becoming more refined. Compliance operations and embracing regulation are prerequisites for institutions in the industry. In terms of specific sectors: 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 tightening 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, involving clear regulatory requirements such as AML/KYC, and in the future, with the rise of emerging payment methods like AI and stablecoins, compliance regulatory requirements may become even higher; 4) In the Web3.0 field, as more countries and regions clearly incorporate digital assets into regulatory frameworks and introduce corresponding licensing systems, compliant licensed operations will become an inevitable trend in the future.

► The pace of internationalization is accelerating. Driven by factors such as the integration of global economic trade and finance, the innovation and 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 focuses on mainstream markets represented by the United States or China, which have vast spaces but fierce competition, often starting from these two markets while also seeking small but beautiful regional markets for breakthroughs, such as Hong Kong/ Japan/ South Korea/ Southeast Asia; 2) The digital payment sector has already produced many globally leading payment giants, and currently, many payment institutions are targeting the vast space of cross-border and overseas markets, following local enterprises overseas and beginning to serve local customers abroad; 3) Credit technology, under the current domestic business pressure, is beginning to explore Southeast Asia and emerging markets to gain growth momentum, but overall it is still in its early stages; 4) The internationalization of Web3.0 may closely follow compliance requirements, with future operations likely to be more 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, based on existing business, by adding new categories/play styles to meet customers' diverse needs, optimize customer experience, and enhance customer stickiness, such as internet brokerages expanding various derivatives/wealth management products, and emerging categories like digital assets/prediction markets, bringing more monetization possibilities; 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 Web3.0 institutions are also actively expanding product services within the regulatory framework. 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 sub-sectors also making efforts, such as leading internet brokerages actively building one-stop comprehensive financial service platforms, and leading Web3.0 institutions aiming to connect the entire upstream and downstream industry chain ecosystem.

► Digital innovation continues to transform. Emerging technologies represented by AI and Web3.0 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 interaction 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 the efficiency of information processing and decision execution for investors, and Agent Commerce promoting AI Agents to autonomously complete tasks like product search/comparison/trading; however, new issues such as identity recognition and authorization management pose higher demands on financial institutions. 2) Web3.0 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 that 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. Web3.0 payments possess characteristics such as automated execution, traceability, and 24/7 availability, which align 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 of internal and external industries. 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 output. 2) AI and Web3.0 are accelerating their integration with various fields of finance. On one hand, AI deeply empowers the entire process of payment/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 sub-sectors of the industry chain are also becoming increasingly blurred, with business layouts beginning to merge, such as internet brokerages entering the digital asset/prediction market trading 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) tightly integrated into the wallet payment ecosystem.

Internet Brokerages: De-Institutionalization, Internationalization, Diversification, and Comprehensive Development
Currently, the global market 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 branding, 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 layout, 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.

Active Retail Trading Under De-Institutionalization, Brokerages Entering a Golden Opportunity Period for Customer Acquisition

Global market liquidity is improving, and trading activity is increasing, showing a trend of "de-institutionalization." Over the past decade, the average daily trading volume in major global markets has fluctuated upwards, reflecting a reversal from "institutionalization" to "retailization." We believe the main drivers include: 1) In terms of market environment, the profit-making effect from the recent rise in equity markets 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 the speculative demand of 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, such as the United States, lifting restrictions on day trading for retail investors, further boosting retail 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 the "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 individual investor group is expanding, the importance of users is becoming more prominent, and there is a greater need for 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 the global capital markets. Although recent market trading volumes have slightly contracted, from the beginning of 2026 to the present (2026/9/28), the average daily trading volume of A-shares remains at 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 trading in the market, with the number of new stock accounts in the A-share market increasing by +46% year-on-year to over 25 million since the beginning of the year. It is important to note that although the number of accounts has risen sharply, there is still significant room for improvement in the conversion rate and retention rate from account opening to funding and trading. 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 that focus on retail clients are actively embracing the development opportunities presented by the wave of public 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 (CAGR from 2020-25 is 18%/33%/11%), customer assets have increased by 14%/19%/16% to $36.87 billion / $93.03 billion / $28.5 billion (CAGR from 2020-25 is 39%/22%/61%), and net income in the first half of 2026 has increased by 24%/24%/44% year-on-year (CAGR from 2020-25 is 36%/23%/13%); Chinese internet brokerages like Futu have gradually been affected by policy changes in the second quarter, with the number of new clients at the end of the first half of 2026 increasing by 14% from the beginning of the year, customer assets increasing by 13%, and total revenue increasing 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 HKD to USD 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 relatively superior business model, creating a high-growth and quality unit economics model. The growth in customer numbers, along with high user stickiness and retention rates, and the increase in customer AUM, driven by more product and service offerings and international expansion, leads to an increase in customer value and overall revenue levels. Coupled with the strong scale effects of a highly scalable light asset model, this drives continuous expansion of profitability. 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, based on 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 variations 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, lag behind in comparison 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 to both U.S. and Chinese internet brokerages.

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

► Different stages of business development have led to differentiated revenue structures. Revenue has evolved from being primarily transaction-based to wealth management and comprehensive financial services, shifting from a structure dominated by trading commissions and interest income to a diversified revenue composition 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 the first half of 2026, while Robinhood's trading revenue share also decreased from 75% in 2020 to 59% in the first half of 2026.

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 arrangements, 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 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 based on funded accounts, Tiger Brokers on funded clients, Interactive Brokers on total accounts, and Charles Schwab on active brokerage accounts, with Interactive Brokers and Tiger Brokers including institutional clients; 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 HKD to USD 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, with Interactive Brokers having different entities for listing and operations, thus Non-GAAP net profit attributable to the parent may not align with operational net profit.
Source: Company announcements, company websites, CICC Research Department

International Business Expansion, Product Diversification, and Comprehensive Models Drive Strong Organic 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 the first half of 2026. Chinese internet brokerage Futu is expanding beyond its advantageous markets in Hong Kong and Singapore to regions such as 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 steadily increasing average AUM across all overseas markets. We believe that international expansion not only tests internet brokerages' product/service/technology/licensing arrangements but also emphasizes how to better integrate into local markets, provide differentiated products and services, and enhance 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 customers with a variety of global asset categories 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 various products such as 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 U.S. and Hong Kong stocks and related derivatives, also provides customers with A-shares (through the Stock Connect), as well as local market stocks such as Japanese and Malaysian stocks. Recently, it launched trading for South Korean stocks in June and is actively expanding into digital assets/prediction markets and providing wealth management services.

The business model is 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. In addition to actively expanding trading categories, it has also broadened 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 also deepening the Tiger AI strategic layout and expanding to B2B 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 customers. At the same time, the growth of diversified value-added services is high, and AI is empowering various segments to strategic areas such as intelligent business agents and stablecoins, with continuous product and technological innovation 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 the global wallet and merchant ecosystem accelerates interconnection, and a new global payment network begins to connect.

Cross-Border Payments Experience 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 U.S. and China are already at high levels, with industry growth slowing and competition becoming fierce, as leading payment institutions have accumulated a wealth of mature experience; meanwhile, the 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, enterprise operations are accelerating globalization, with many AI products already launched globally; additionally, overseas long-tail markets have become the main revenue source for some companies. For example, among merchants whose revenue mainly 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 such as LianLian Pay and overseas Payoneer/Block continuously increasing. 2) At the same time, cross-border payments combine high growth with high fee characteristics, with LianLian Pay'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); Yike'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 payments in H1 2026). The company aims to increase the profit contribution of this segment 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, the space for serving Chinese enterprises going abroad is vast, with China's total import and export trade expected to reach 45.5 trillion yuan by 2025, of which the export scale is 27.0 trillion yuan, maintaining an international market share of over 14%; from a structural perspective, the regional trade pattern continues to optimize, and China's exports to emerging markets such as Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East continue to grow. The mode of enterprises going abroad is also 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 Pay has already held 68 payment licenses and is currently focusing resources on the high-value needs of Chinese enterprises in the globalization process, 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 maturing. The global payment ecosystem is becoming increasingly fragmented, and relying solely on international bank card networks can no longer adequately 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 statistics, offering BLIK local payment to consumers in Poland can increase the payment conversion rate by an average of 46%; integrating Pix in Brazil can increase the payment conversion rate by an average of 31%. Therefore, payment companies are shifting their focus from replicating uniform 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 local payment capabilities, improving local operations, compliance, risk control, and product team development, deeply integrating into the regional trade ecosystem to enhance merchant reach and payment success rates. dLocal focuses on merchant acquiring in emerging markets, with local teams configured in each market, averaging over six alternative payment methods per market; it deeply covers local living 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: Yike'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 its customer base and product service types
Note: The chart shows the breakdown of 2025 revenue by region, customer type, and product type
Source: Company website, company announcement, CICC Research Department

Chart 15: Block's overseas GPV share increases
Source: Company announcement, CICC Research Department

Value-added services / AI / Stablecoins 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 popularizing, 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 technical 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 business, with a more significant contribution to revenue. In practical terms, Visa has further repositioned itself as "Visa as a service," breaking down its originally integrated underlying capabilities into independent modular services open to various customers; Block, relying on the Cash App and Square dual ecosystems, extends diversified value-added services around C-end consumers and B-end merchants, expanding revenue space beyond payments.

AI is reshaping the entire payment process, empowering each link to intelligent commerce. AI's empowerment of the payment industry has evolved from a cost-reduction and efficiency-enhancing tool to an important engine for optimizing user experience and driving revenue growth, deeply embedded in various links 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 application scenarios, agentic commerce is rapidly emerging. Current commercialization progress mainly involves AI responsible for discovery/search/comparison, while humans handle 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 call user-stored payment methods for instant checkout, while long-tail merchants not integrated will settle via one-time virtual cards issued by Link; the entire process requires user confirmation of the amount, with Muse not accessing the underlying card numbers, 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 limit 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, primarily focusing on complex cross-border payment scenarios and local payment scenarios with significant local currency exchange rate fluctuations. However, the penetration rate remains low. According to McKinsey, the annual payment scale of stablecoins is expected to be 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 layouts. 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, repeated, 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 the income from basic payment processing, financial solutions income is from embedded finance/credit income, and Bitcoin ecosystem income is from Bitcoin transaction income
Source: Company website, company announcements, CICC Research Department

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

Chart 18: All participants are attempting to launch their own relevant 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, CICC Research Department

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

Chart 20: Various institutions are promoting the infrastructure construction and commercialization of stablecoins
Source: Company announcements, company website, CICC 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, 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 1H26, Nubank had 116 million active users, covering over 60% of the adult population in Brazil, with a payment scale year-on-year growth 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 year-on-year growth 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 year-on-year growth 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 into financial services such as credit, insurance, and wealth management, while also extending into comprehensive life service scenarios such as consumption, travel, food delivery, and recharging, 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 segment of Brazil's traditional financial services with a no-annual-fee digital credit card, accumulating initial customers; in 2017, it launched account services to open new customer entry points, doubling the user scale; thereafter, it continuously expanded its product and cooperation ecosystem, gradually covering financial services such as payments, transactions, and insurance, and extending into 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 interconnection between global wallets is accelerating, and payment networks are evolving from localization to globalization. In the past, the wallet and account systems, as well as payment networks of 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 + connect local wallets, regional payment networks, and merchant ecosystems from different countries and regions, reducing the connection costs between different payment systems and 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, Cleansing, 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 currently contracting, and asset quality is fluctuating, putting pressure on the short-term operations of credit technology companies. Against this backdrop, the industry landscape is further optimizing, with mid-tier platforms continuing to cleanse, 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 lending regulations have initiated a new round of regulatory cycles in the industry. In April 2025, the National Financial Supervision and Administration issued the "Notice on Strengthening the Management of Internet Lending by Commercial Banks to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Financial Services" (hereinafter referred to as the "New Lending Regulations"), starting a new round of regulatory cycles in the industry; subsequently, regulations were issued in a progressive manner from top to bottom regarding the three layers of funding sources for banks, consumer finance companies, and micro-lending companies. Against this backdrop, industry funding supply has tightened, and asset quality has deteriorated, significantly pressuring the operations of lending institutions since Q3 2025. Following this, industry risk events further exacerbated short-term operational pressures. By the end of June 2026, the incident involving Orange Digital Technology withholding customer funds and setting up a private fund pool caused funding supply to enter an extremely tight state once again, compounded by tightened collection efforts, interrupting the "recovery" state of the lending industry and re-entering a phase of bottom pressure.

This round of lending regulation focuses on protecting consumer rights and reducing overall financing costs. The New Lending Regulations were issued by the Financial Supervision 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 does not exceed 24%, and strengthening the whitelist admission mechanism for cooperating institutions. Subsequently, the interest rate red line for consumer loans was progressively lowered along the funding source layers: 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 Supervision Administration issued the "Guidelines for the Management of Comprehensive Financing Costs of Micro-lending Companies," clearly stating that new loans must not exceed an annualized comprehensive financing cost of 24%, 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 Supervision Administration simultaneously issued supporting measures such as the "Regulations on the Explicit Comprehensive Financing Costs of Personal Loan Business" and the "Management Measures for Online Marketing of Financial Products," further strengthening the protection of consumer rights in areas such as information disclosure and marketing promotion.

Chart 24: Overview of Regulatory Policies Related to Internet Loans
Source: People's Bank of China, National Financial Supervision 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 implementation of the New Lending Regulations has been 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 investment and credit quality have stabilized compared to before:

► Investment: In Q2 2026, marginally stable with a slight increase. The quarterly loan amounts for Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology/Le Xin were -3%/+5%/+3% respectively, with a total loan amount increasing by 1% to 163.2 billion yuan, where, except for Qifu Technology's loan amount slightly declining due to continuous increases in customer groups and tightening risk control, Xin Ye and Le Xin's new loans have shown marginal growth.

► Risk: In Q2 2026, leading institutions continued the improvement trend from Q1 in asset quality. 1) First overdue rate: Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology were -0.1/+0.1ppt respectively to 5.6%/5.3%; 2) 30-day recovery rate: Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology were +2.3/+2.2ppt respectively 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 were -0.7/-1.0/+0.1ppt respectively to 2.8%/2.1%/3.6%.

► Profitability: There is differentiation due to one-time events and differences in risk control capabilities. In Q2 2026, Qifu Technology/Xin Ye Technology/Le Xin's non-GAAP net profit was -75%/-38%/-76% year-on-year, and -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 mainly considered the industry's risk elevation after the Orange incident in June and prudently made provisions.

Chart 25: As of Q2 2026, the 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 Digital Technology occurred at the end of June 2026, breaking the trust bond between financial institutions and lending 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. The industry's funding supply tightened significantly, and the tightening of collections further increased the pressure on institutions to recover funds. Overall, we judge that in Q3, under the large-scale cut-off of funding supply from fund providers, the overall liquidity of the industry may be significantly impacted, and asset quality and funding costs will face new pressures, interrupting the trend of risk improvement 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 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 management 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 regulation and shrinking consumer credit demand, the lending industry has overall entered a balance sheet contraction cycle, with industry concentration further increasing and the Matthew effect becoming more pronounced. This differentiation is driven by both supply and demand sides: on one hand, there is active selection from capital providers, and on the other hand, there are 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 declined, 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, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of cooperative operating institutions for some banks, with most of the retained institutions being leading platforms. Additionally, some financial institutions have suspended or slowed down their lending business, continuously compressing the survival space of mid-tier and lower-tier platforms.

Since 2026, especially after the incident involving Orange Data Technology, under ongoing industry pressure and regulatory guidance, most banks have further compressed their cooperation lists and raised access thresholds, cautiously selecting quality platforms for cooperation. According to our incomplete statistics, the whitelist of lending institutions disclosed by relatively strong joint-stock banks currently mainly consists 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 a few 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. Aside from large internet platforms, cooperative internet lending institutions mainly consist of 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 depletion of capital supply and pressure on asset quality. Although leading platforms are also experiencing balance sheet contraction in line with the industry, 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 concentrated in leading institutions with solid risk control capabilities and diversified funding sources. In this context, Qifu Technology demonstrates relative resilience during the contraction of capital supply due to its strong risk control capabilities and broad funding sources (self-operated and supported by ABS): In Q2 2026, the company's funding cost decreased by approximately 10bps to 2.7%, and the ABS issuance scale increased by approximately 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 incident involving Orange Data Technology, in July, the contraction in Qifu's lending volume was significantly smaller than that of peers such as Lexin and Xinye, mainly due to its more diversified funding sources and relatively smaller impact from the tightening of single capital providers.

Additionally, 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 lending during contraction periods. Although leading platforms are also facing balance sheet contraction and profit pressure, their relative advantages are becoming more pronounced.

Looking Ahead, Delving Deep to Seek Survival Strategies, Multiple Measures to Break Through and Restructure Profit Logic

Under the continuous challenges brought by tightening regulation and frequent industry risk events, we believe that the lending industry is gradually entering a new development stage. Overall, the current domestic business of leading institutions prioritizes survival as the primary task and is gradually creating new growth points, mainly including going overseas, business innovation, and preserving cash flow. Specifically:

Going Overseas: 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 such as 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 station 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 entered the Pakistani 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 first foray into a developed market. By the end of H1 2026, the company's international loan balance reached 2.5 billion yuan, with total lending volume 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 goal 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 Yiren Intelligence also regard overseas business as an important anchor point, but they are still in the early stages. In the current domestic business, where survival is the immediate 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 still requires time and investment. Among them, Qifu Technology adopts a dual-line layout in mature and emerging markets, covering markets in 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 lending; Lexin focuses on the two brands of Fortaprest in Mexico and Kredito in Indonesia, with operations set to launch in 2024, still in the cultivation period and not yet contributing significant profits.

Diversification of Business: Customer Base Upgrading and Technology Services Creating New Momentum. Currently, the overall lending assistance industry is gradually shifting from a rough development pace focused on scale growth to a refined operational phase 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 tap into high-quality customers and creating new growth drivers through financial technology services. In terms of optimizing customer structure, the proportion of high-quality users in new loans increased by 25 percentage points quarter-on-quarter in Q1, and the proportion of new credit limit users increased by 6 percentage points. The proactive optimization of customer structure helps the company reduce credit costs and aligns more with regulatory guidance to further lower financing costs. In terms of financial technology services, it targets retail and small micro-enterprise customers with service pricing between 3-12%, supplementing the company’s traditional customer base. In Q2 2026, this business empowered loan scale increased by 515% year-on-year, with continuous technology output. 2) Lexin's ecosystem business expansion and stable growth in non-lending assistance business. Relying on installment e-commerce and digital technology ecosystem businesses, the transaction volume of non-lending assistance business exceeded 50% in the second quarter, becoming an important stabilizer for investment and revenue, 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 is Rising. In the current environment where asset quality faces challenges, leading platforms are beginning to actively prioritize the importance of retaining cash safety cushions over short-term shareholder returns to enhance "survival capability" when operations are impacted, further reflecting their judgment on the current industry cycle bottom. 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 liquidity crisis, but still maintained a 30% dividend payout ratio for the interim dividend; 2) Lexin changed its dividend frequency from "semi-annual" to "annual," mainly to strategically retain cash for sustainable operations and enhance risk buffer capacity, and the previous $50 million buyback plan 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, industry funding 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 marginal stabilization of business scale and asset quality. Overall, leading platforms generally choose the latter between shareholder returns and liquidity safety cushions, marking a shift in the industry’s operational focus towards safety cushions and risk resistance priorities.

Overseas Web3.0: Compliance, Integration with Traditional Finance, and Rise of Investment Applications

The overseas Web3.0 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 the trends of the future. Currently, the participation of digital assets abroad, especially the attention of institutional funds, is increasing, with mainstream institutions entering under the dual integration with traditional finance. RWA, especially stock tokenization, is receiving attention, and financial infrastructure such as stablecoins is being built. However, we believe that the associated risks and challenges, as well as issues related to investor protection and market stability, should not be underestimated. Overall, the upstream and downstream of the industry chain are accelerating integration, and overseas institutions are actively exploring, with leading compliant institutions likely to create first-mover advantages.

Global Regulatory Framework Gradually Perfecting, Compliance Development is the Trend

The regulatory framework for digital assets is becoming clearer, and compliance development is the trend. Since the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when Donald Trump expressed support for the digital asset industry, various countries and regions worldwide have continued to advance digital asset-related policies. Overall, as countries clarify the inclusion of digital assets in regulatory frameworks and introduce corresponding licensing systems, we believe that compliant licensed operations in the Web3.0 field will be the trend:

► United States: Transitioning from enforcement regulation to legislative regulation, building a "three major bills" system from top to bottom, among which the GENIUS Act establishes a regulatory framework for payment-type 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 procedural vote in the Senate in September 2026; the anti-CBDC bill clarifies the regulatory framework for U.S. central bank digital currency and is still awaiting Senate review.

► Hong Kong: Balancing openness and prudence, gradually incorporating digital assets into the regulatory framework. In fact, the regulatory authorities in Hong Kong began exploring classified regulation of digital asset-related activities as early as 2017. The "Stablecoin Ordinance" is set to take effect in 2025, and the Hong Kong government issued the "Policy Declaration 2.0" that proposed the LEAP framework. The SFC released the ASPIRe roadmap, proposing specific measures to respond to market changes, and has continued to issue circulars to further refine 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 the share expected to increase 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 licenses for compliant operations under the aforementioned systems. For more details, see the CICC report "Overseas Digital Assets: Compliance Development of the Web3.0 Industry."

Under the backdrop of compliance, the acceptance of digital assets is increasing, especially with institutional funds likely to enter the market. As the regulatory framework improves and compliant products expand, we see retail and institutional funds entering the market. However, 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 upswings, taking on investment risks that do not match their risk tolerance; considering that some categories lack verifiable fundamental support, the investment risks of digital assets should not be underestimated. 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, it broadens their compliant participation channels. At the same time, 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 has significant pro-cyclical characteristics. For instance, Robinhood's digital asset trading contributed 41%/35% of total revenue during the bullish markets of Q2 2021/Q4 2024, but rapidly declined during the market adjustment periods of 2022 and since 2026, with shares dropping to 10%/8% in Q4 2022/Q2 2026.

► For institutional funds, the importance of compliant channels and improved infrastructure is becoming more prominent. On one hand, under 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 asset management institutions still have divergent attitudes towards this, and the market has yet to form a relatively unified digital asset pricing analysis framework. In addition, 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 institutional trading through the 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 area of institutional-level compliant 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, while the company's revenue remained robust with a 21% increase.

Figure 29: The United States transitions from enforcement regulation to legislative regulation, building 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, continues to develop 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 regulation, product expansion, and application implementation are driving some traditional financial institutions to enter the space, as the industry attempts to integrate on-chain native assets into the mainstream financial system. Investors are diversifying their methods 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 risk identification more challenging. We believe that regulatory agencies should maintain cautious access for publicly offered digital asset products, requiring operating institutions to strictly implement investor suitability management, with a 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, began to develop following regulatory approval in 2024, with AUM for 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 the rising attention in traditional financial markets include exchanges like Coinbase, Bullish, HashKey, internet brokers 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, making them asset choices 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 will launch a one-stop issuance solution for RWA in 2026, providing one-stop services for professional institutions including tokenized issuance, on-chain deployment, secondary market trading, custody, and compliance disclosure, and has launched various RWA products such as money market funds, gold, silver, private credit, and real estate. By product: 1) Tokenized money market funds have landed earlier, 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) Exploration of tokenized stocks continues, as Robinhood has provided over 2,000 Classic Stock Tokens in Europe, covering U.S. listed stocks and ETPs, and 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 waivers," opening a five-year experimental channel for eligible tokenized securities trading venues, allowing compliant trading of tokenized U.S. stocks. However, it should be noted 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, promoting 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 concentrated on improving the efficiency of traditional cross-border and local payment scenarios, while exploring new autonomous payment infrastructure 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 U.S. stablecoin issuers to launch USDGO, which has 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 it is not advisable to 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 infrastructure 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 Digital Asset Exchange ETP Products 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 of the Industry Chain, Licensed Compliance Platforms May Create First-Mover Advantage

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 services, 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 emerging, such as Hong Kong's leading licensed HashKey/OSL benchmarking Coinbase, but more participants also have development potential, such as Futu's Leopard 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 ecological capabilities being core competencies. 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 ecological 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, is extending upstream in the industry chain, laying out digital asset exchanges, creating 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, China International Capital Corporation Research Department
Chart 37: Coinbase's revenue composition is becoming more diversified
Source: Company announcements, China International Capital Corporation Research Department
Chart 38: HashKey's institutional client contribution ratio has increased
Source: Company announcements, China International Capital Corporation Research Department
Chart 39: OSL platform trading scale and revenue growth
Source: Company announcements, China International Capital Corporation Research Department
Chart 40: Overview of the overseas Web3.0 industry chain
Source: The Block, Grayscale company announcements, Coinbase company announcements, Robinhood company announcements, China International Capital Corporation 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 status 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 demand for payment and credit and narrowing the industry's operational space. At the same time, the macroeconomic environment also affects the performance of capital markets and market risk appetite. A slowdown in economic growth may lead to a slowdown in corporate profits and suppress risk appetite, reducing the activity of capital markets and investor participation, thus affecting the performance of internet brokerage firms.

Significant market fluctuations. 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, thereby adversely impacting operational performance.

Regulatory uncertainty. The traditional finance and fintech industries have high licensing and regulatory requirements, and there are differences in the regulatory frameworks for financial business, cross-border operations, and digital assets across different countries and regions. Emerging industries such as Web3.0 are still in the stage of gradually improving regulatory systems, while the credit technology industry faces continuously tightening consumer credit regulatory requirements. If regulatory policies change or become stricter, industry participants may face higher compliance costs and operational pressures, which may impact business models and operational space.

Intensified industry competition. On one hand, traditional financial institutions are accelerating their digital transformation and are rapidly entering the fintech sector through investments and mergers/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 intensified competition may lead to adverse effects such as price competition, pressure on market share, and increased difficulty in customer acquisition, affecting the profitability and long-term development space of related companies.

[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 No.: S0080522070009, SFC CE Ref: BRI789

Yao Zeyu, Analyst, SAC Certification No.: S0080518090001, SFC CE Ref: BIJ003

Tang Yining, Contact Person, SAC Certification No.: S0080126030017

Jing Yujie, Analyst, SAC Certification No.: S0080526070005

Li Peifeng, Analyst, SAC Certification No.: S0080521070004, SFC CE Ref: BTO526

Mao Qingqing, Analyst, SAC Certification No.: S0080522040002, SFC CE Ref: BRI453