Phaita, author of the column of the documentary/new wave financial opinion leader (kopleader)

The CPF is well structured to compensate for the shortlists of the A market, or to compensate for technological innovations in capital market services. This is clearly not comparable to the current small and medium-sized panels. This has also determined the possibility of the construction of the Nassauk market in China. In the construction of the Nassauk market in China, the founder’s path may be reversed.

The first China International Import Fair was opened at Shanghai on 5 November. The most shocking news of the capital markets that came from the meeting on the same day is that my Government will establish a calibration and pilot registration system on the Shanghai Stock Exchange to support the Shanghai International Finance Centre and the Centre for Science and Technology Innovation in order to continuously improve the capital market infrastructure system. There is no doubt that this is a gift that has been received from the Shanghai city, but also a further important initiative of my Government in support of business development.

The news was shocked because, on the one hand, the news was sudden and there was no sign before; on the other, it was very important. Whether it is the establishment of a cardboard or a pilot registration system, any one of these is sufficient for major changes in China’s capital markets, which are simultaneously managed by two initiatives. It is also normal for investors to have difficulty in “emerging minds”.

While set up at the top, it is clearly different from the “strategic nascent” that was put in place two or three years ago. The “strategic brand” that was planned at that time was an integral part of the market of the Gulf of Guinea, which corresponded to the city’s entrepreneurship and was designed to compete with entrepreneurship for marketable resources. Since the “strategic nascent” is essentially a repetitive construction, the “strategic nascent” ends in abdomen.

There is a clear difference between the creation boards and the “strategic newboard”. From the question of the Officer-in-Charge of the Board and the interviewing correspondents, the boards are new panels independent of the existing mainboard market. The creation of the Colloquium, which is designed to complement technological innovations in capital market services, is a step-by-step reform of capital markets, which will result in better differentiation arrangements in terms of profitability, equity structure, etc. to enhance the inclusiveness and adaptability of innovative enterprises. In addition, on the investor side, the creation has strengthened the proper management of pioneer investors in terms of assets, investment experience, risk-bearing capacity, and led to investor rational participation. Small and medium-sized investors are encouraged to participate in portfolio investment, including through public funds, to share innovative business development results.

In other words, investors in the A market are not currently able to invest in the A Account, and the Investment Section will need to be opened separately, with assets, investment experience, risk tolerance, etc. A number of small and medium-sized investors may even be left out of the door of the boards.

In this context, the boards are somewhat similar to the new three panels. In particular, the CPF pilot registration system is similar to the new three-board, since the new three-board company is equivalent to a registration system, so that it can be considered a “new three-board” for STI. However, the branding conditions are higher than the new three. Thus, in general, the positioning of the boards is situated between the new three boards and the market in equity A. If the system is well designed, it is entirely possible that the development of the CPF will move to the world market of Nasdak in China with the “level” of the A market.

The realization of China’s Nasdak market was a dream of small and medium-sized entrepreneurship. However, there is a clear gap between the small and medium-sized panels and the entrepreneurship board in the construction of the Nassauque market, namely that the small and medium-sized panels and the entrepreneurship boards are not independent of the market in Unit A, which continues to be developed on the basis of the market in Unit A. It was further stated that it was not important to call such a name as a small or entrepreneurship board, but rather a company listed in Unit A on the market in the deep market. Since both are developed on the basis of equity in A, they are also bound by the APO system. As such, companies that can truly fit on the entrepreneurship table are well advanced. Those companies that are truly at the stage of entrepreneurship cannot meet the requirements for listing. This also means that small and medium-sized business boards do not really support the development of entrepreneurial enterprises. And if the market threshold is lowered, because the small and medium-sized board and the entrepreneurship plate are followed by a market-consolidation system in Unit A, investors are without a threshold, which in turn increases the investment risk of equity markets in A, especially for small and medium-sized investors.

In contrast, there is no short-board issue for small and medium-sized boards and entrepreneurship boards. Since, from the outset, the positioning of the boards was independent of the bargain or even distinct from equity A, including the proper management of investors, it was self-contained that the structure of the boards was distinct from the current relevant system of Unit A. This includes a market threshold for CPF companies, which also differs from Unit A. In companies that are listed on the boards, their operating income can be significantly reduced from equity A markets, profit indicators can be significantly reduced, and even deficit companies may be admitted to the market for companies with different rights. These A market problems are difficult to resolve and can be rectified at the inaugural level. As a result, it is systemically good to compensate for the shortlists of the market in equity A, or to compensate for technological innovations in capital market services. This is clearly not comparable to the current small and medium-sized panels. This has also determined the possibility of the construction of the Nassauk market in China. In the construction of the Nassauk market in China, the founder’s path may be reversed.

(The author of the present paper introduced: Financial Commentator, 20 years of stock city exercises, a monopoly and opinion on the stock market, a book entitled Light-Favoured Stock. (b) The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;