“A+H Hong Kong Listing Requires RMB 30 Billion Market Cap”? On‑Site Inquiry Dispels The Rumor

Rumors that listing thresholds for Hong Kong were being tightened circulated widely on Friday, touching both mainland companies seeking direct Hong Kong listings and A‑share issuers pursuing dual listings. The speculation was interpreted by some market participants as a sign that the Hong Kong listing channel might be cooling. To establish the facts, reporters conducted on‑site verification with market intermediaries and exchange sources.

When asked about claims that “some brokerages have received guidance requiring dual‑listed companies to meet a RMB 30 billion market capitalization threshold,” several brokerages contacted by Cailian Press denied receiving any such instruction or notice. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange has likewise not issued any directive to raise listing thresholds. Senior executives at leading investment banks observed that a RMB 30 billion requirement would represent an unusually high barrier relative to the size of most current Hong Kong listing candidates, and they judged the likelihood of immediate implementation to be low.

From a regulatory perspective, while an abrupt halt or material tightening of Hong Kong listing standards is not impossible, it appears unlikely. Hong Kong’s capital market operates on market‑driven principles: provided a company’s shares can secure investor demand, are properly placed and do not involve disclosure violations, regulators generally avoid imposing blanket, high‑threshold restrictions. Moreover, Hong Kong serves as a principal offshore financing venue for Chinese enterprises; raising thresholds in parallel with the mainland’s quality‑oriented review regime could impede cross‑border capital formation and constrain corporate development.

Policy consistency is another consideration. Throughout 2025, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange advanced a series of listing reforms intended to broaden access and enhance market appeal, including dedicated channels for specialized technology and pre‑commercial firms and a minimum market capitalization threshold set at HKD 6 billion. Elevating the threshold to RMB 30 billion would run counter to these recent policy directions and could undermine the incentives regulators have sought to create.

Beyond the immediate rumor, market participants should focus on the underlying regulatory logic: irrespective of any future adjustments to listing rules, authorities appear intent on anchoring issuance standards to a quality baseline, reflecting a supervisory emphasis on “prioritizing quality and improving efficiency.”

The rumor’s emergence likely reflects deeper industry anxieties. Structural differences between A‑share and H‑share listing regimes, divergent regulatory frameworks and disparities in IPO allocation rules, combined with information asymmetry among investors, have given rise to a range of market irregularities. Market sources point to problematic practices at the IPO stage, where certain third‑party advisory firms have played controversial roles by arranging introductions to onshore capital, including cornerstone investors, in exchange for advisory fees rather than genuine strategic backing. Such arrangements can inflate issuance valuations to meet listing prerequisites, distort pricing and dampen southbound investor appetite.

Post‑listing market behavior has also raised concerns. Low free float and limited liquidity in some Hong Kong listings have created conditions conducive to price manipulation, with episodes of extreme intraday moves followed by sharp reversals that leave retail investors exposed. These dynamics echo earlier irregularities once seen in the A‑share market, which have since been largely addressed through sustained regulatory tightening, whereas similar vulnerabilities persist in segments of the Hong Kong market. Regulatory responses have already begun to surface: in December 2025, Hong Kong regulators jointly issued warnings to IPO sponsors highlighting three categories of non‑compliance in listing submissions, signaling a push to safeguard review rigor amid elevated filing volumes.

Turning to market activity, Hong Kong’s IPO pipeline remains robust and continues to absorb momentum from 2025. At the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, HKEX Chief Executive Nicolas Aguzin reported that more than 350 companies are in the listing queue. In the first three weeks of 2026, Hong Kong recorded 11 new listings that raised approximately USD 4 billion. Early January featured several high‑profile debuts: Biren Technology, positioned as Hong Kong’s first GPU stock, rose 75.82% on its first trading day to reach a market capitalization of HKD 82.571 billion; Zhipu AI and MiniMax listed on January 8 and 9 respectively, becoming among the first global companies to list with large language models as core businesses and reinforcing Hong Kong’s role in financing frontier technology.

The composition of queued issuers shows a concentration in technology and healthcare, a pattern attributed in part to HKEX’s Chapter 18A and 18C listing frameworks. Concurrently, the return of U.S.‑listed Chinese companies to Hong Kong has become a focal trend. Since mid‑2025, Nasdaq’s tightening of listing rules for Chinese issuers has raised delisting risks and entry barriers in the U.S., while Hong Kong has continued to refine its regulatory regime—updating Chapter 18A and 18C provisions and launching a dedicated “Tech Line” service—to facilitate cross‑border listings. This divergence is reshaping issuers’ venue selection calculus and may prompt additional U.S.‑listed Chinese firms to pursue Hong Kong listings in 2026.

Looking ahead, market participants and advisers generally expect Hong Kong’s IPO market to remain active through 2026. With more than 300 companies in the queue and a healthy project pipeline, fundraising could exceed HKD 300 billion. PwC projects roughly 150 successful listings in 2026, raising between HKD 320 billion and HKD 350 billion, including more than ten deals above HKD 5 billion. New‑economy issuers—particularly Chapter 18C innovation companies and Chapter 18A biotech firms—are expected to remain central to the market, while retail and consumer services companies may benefit from domestic demand policies.

Policy developments will be closely watched. Market analysts identify three areas where regulatory improvements may yield tangible benefits for issuers: continued preferential treatment for innovative firms, streamlined listing processes that accelerate review and settlement, and practical guidance to help companies align listing timing and structure with policy incentives. Specific measures under discussion include alternative public float arrangements, shortened review cycles for technology firms, enhanced settlement efficiency through the FINI platform and reduced disclosure frequency for certain innovation companies.

In sum, ample deal flow combined with ongoing regulatory refinement is likely to sustain Hong Kong’s IPO momentum in 2026, even as market participants and regulators work to address quality and compliance concerns that gave rise to recent rumors.