National Financial Regulatory Administration Releases "Interim Measures for Supervisory Rating of Wealth Management Companies"

On March 16, the website of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission published a notice. To thoroughly implement the decisions of the Central Financial Work Conference on accelerating the transformation and development of bank wealth management subsidiaries, improve the regulatory system for wealth management companies, and promote the development and supervision models that match their capabilities, the Financial Supervision and Administration Bureau recently issued the “Interim Measures for the Supervision and Rating of Wealth Management Companies” (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”), which took effect upon release.

The Measures consist of five chapters and twenty-six articles, covering general provisions, regulatory rating elements and methods, organizational implementation, use of rating results, and supplementary provisions. They specify the overall requirements for the supervision and rating of wealth management companies, rating elements, basic procedures, and classification supervision. First, they clarify the rating elements and methods. The Measures establish six rating modules: corporate governance, asset management capability, risk management, information disclosure, investor protection, and information technology, with respective weights of 10%, 25%, 25%, 15%, 15%, and 10%. They also set targeted scoring items, deduction items, and level adjustment factors to comprehensively evaluate the operation, management, and risk status of wealth management companies. Second, they clarify the basic procedures for regulatory rating. The rating process includes self-assessment, initial evaluation, review, and feedback. After the rating, if the regulatory authorities discover significant issues during the rating period or if the risk or management status of the wealth management company undergoes major changes, the rating results may be dynamically adjusted. Third, they clarify the principles of classified supervision. The rating results are divided into levels 1–6 and S level, serving as key bases for regulatory resource allocation, market access, and differentiated supervision measures.

The issuance and implementation of the Measures will strengthen regulatory guidance, leverage the “guiding role” of ratings, urge wealth management companies to fulfill their fiduciary management responsibilities, accelerate industry transformation, and guide companies to enhance their investment research and risk control capabilities. It will also help rationally allocate regulatory resources, improve precision and scientificity in supervision. Going forward, the Financial Supervision and Administration Bureau will strengthen supervision and guidance, ensure the implementation of the Measures, continuously improve the quality and efficiency of supervision, promote the steady and standardized development of wealth management companies, and better serve residents’ wealth management needs and the high-quality development of the real economy.

Interim Measures for the Supervision and Rating of Wealth Management Companies

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Article 1: To strengthen the classified supervision of wealth management companies, rationally allocate regulatory resources, and promote their accelerated transformation and development, these Measures are formulated in accordance with the “Banking Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of China,” “Regulations on the Management of Banking Wealth Management Subsidiaries,” and other relevant laws and departmental regulations.

Article 2: These Measures apply to wealth management companies that have been in operation for more than one full accounting year.

Article 3: The supervision and rating of wealth management companies refer to the regulatory process where the National Financial Regulatory Bureau and its dispatched agencies evaluate the overall risk and management status of the companies based on daily supervision, following these Measures. It is the basis for implementing classified supervision. Classified supervision means that the regulatory authorities, based on the rating results, implement differentiated policies in market access, supervision measures, and resource allocation according to the risk level of the companies.

Article 4: The National Financial Regulatory Bureau and its dispatched agencies shall carry out the supervision and rating work of wealth management companies in accordance with these Measures.

Chapter 2: Rating Elements and Methods

Article 5: The supervision rating elements include six aspects: corporate governance, asset management capability, risk management, information disclosure, investor protection, and information technology, composed of qualitative and quantitative indicators.

Article 6: The main content of the rating method includes:

(1) Setting weights for rating elements. The total score is 100 points. The weights are: corporate governance (10%), asset management capability (25%), risk management (25%), information disclosure (15%), investor protection (15%), and information technology (10%).

(2) Scoring of rating elements. The scores are determined by the National Financial Regulatory Bureau and its dispatched agencies based on the rating indicators, scoring principles, and professional judgment.

(3) Calculating the overall rating score. The total score is the sum of scores across all rating elements.

(4) Determining the level. The rating level is formed based on the total score, adjusted by regulatory factors.

Article 7: The rating results are divided into levels 1–6 and S level. Higher scores indicate higher risk and greater regulatory attention. Scores of 90 points or above are Level 1; 80–89 points are Level 2; 70–79 points are Level 3; 60–69 points are Level 4; 50–59 points are Level 5; below 50 points are Level 6. Wealth management companies rated at Level 5 or 6 are considered high-risk. Companies undergoing restructuring, takeover, or market exit, as recognized by the regulatory authorities, are directly classified as S level and are not subject to the annual rating.

Article 8: The National Financial Regulatory Bureau may adjust the rating elements, indicators, and scoring principles annually based on industry supervision priorities, company development, and risk characteristics, and shall clarify these adjustments before each year’s rating work.

Chapter 3: Organizational Implementation

Article 9: The rating cycle for wealth management companies is one year, covering the period from January 1 to December 31 of the previous year. The rating work should generally be completed by the end of April each year.

Article 10: The regulatory authorities shall continuously collect various information needed for ratings during daily supervision, including but not limited to: market access, off-site supervision, on-site inspections, administrative penalties, corporate governance, data governance, case management, relevant policies and management documents, internal and external audit reports, petition and illegal report information, and other important internal and external information.

Article 11: The rating process includes self-assessment, initial evaluation, review, and feedback.

Article 12: Wealth management companies shall conduct self-assessment as required, truthfully provide self-assessment results, relevant data, and supporting materials reflecting their actual situation, issues, and regulatory measures taken. These materials should be formally submitted to the regulatory authorities before March 1 each year.

Companies must ensure that the data and materials provided are true, accurate, complete, and meet the rating quality requirements. They must not conceal major issues or provide false, misleading, or significantly incomplete information.

Article 13: The dispatched agencies shall analyze the relevant information of the companies according to the rating methods and standards, conduct initial evaluations, and form preliminary results. When necessary, they may verify through on-site visits or regulatory discussions.

If the data or supporting materials provided are found to be inadequate, the agencies shall confirm and verify with the companies, use the verified data for rating, and take regulatory measures according to the severity of the issues.

Article 14: The regulatory authorities shall review the preliminary results, make adjustments if necessary, and form the final rating results.

Article 15: The Banking Wealth Management Registration and Custody Center and industry self-regulatory organizations shall support and cooperate with the rating work within their respective responsibilities.

Article 16: The regulatory authorities shall inform companies of their rating results and major risks or issues through meetings, regulatory opinions, or notices, and propose regulatory suggestions and rectification requirements.

Companies shall promptly report to their major shareholders, boards, and senior management, including the rating results, main risks, issues, regulatory opinions, and rectification plans, and implement necessary corrections.

Article 17: After the rating work concludes, the authorities shall archive all related documents, including rating information, working papers, results, and feedback.

Article 18: If significant issues are discovered during the rating period or if the risk or management status of a rated company changes substantially, the authorities may adjust the rating results dynamically, following the procedures in Articles 16 and 17.

Article 19: The authorities shall track and evaluate the implementation of the rating work and continuously improve the supervision and rating processes.

Chapter 4: Use of Rating Results

Article 20: The rating results reflect the company’s operational management and risk level, serving as a key basis for resource allocation, market access, and differentiated supervision measures.

• Level 1 indicates sound management, minor issues, and strong risk resistance, mainly supervised off-site, prioritizing innovative pilot businesses.
• Level 2 indicates generally sound management, good risk resistance, with some weak areas needing targeted monitoring.
• Level 3 indicates overall resilience but with certain risk issues in specific areas, requiring strengthened supervision.
• Level 4 indicates significant or serious risks, requiring ongoing risk tracking and corrective measures.
• Level 5 indicates very serious risks, with potential for operational failure, requiring strict control and risk mitigation.
• Level 6 indicates severe risks, possible liquidity crises, requiring orderly risk disposal or market exit.

Article 21: Based on the rating results and individual element scores, the authorities shall adjust supervision requirements, off-site monitoring intensity, on-site inspection frequency and scope, and regulatory measures accordingly, urging companies to rectify issues promptly.

Article 22: The authorities may adjust classified supervision measures as needed based on industry development and risk management needs.

Article 23: If a company’s rating drops below the threshold for certain business activities, it shall not initiate new such businesses. If the rating remains below the threshold in the following year, the existing business shall be gradually phased out.

Article 24: The rating results are intended solely for the use of the regulatory authorities. Companies shall keep the results confidential and shall not disclose, use for advertising, promotion, or marketing purposes.

Chapter 5: Supplementary Provisions

Article 25: The interpretation of these Measures is the responsibility of the National Financial Regulatory Bureau.

Article 26: These Measures shall take effect from the date of issuance.

(National Financial Regulatory Bureau)

(Edited by: Qian Xiaorui)