登录新浪财经APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考评等级 海目星激光科技集团股份有限公司于2025年9月11日收到上海证券交易所关于2025年半年度报告的信息 披露监管问询函。中信证券作为海目星的持续督导机构，对问询函提及的相关问题出具专项意见。以下 为本次核查意见的主要内容。 经营业绩下滑 2024年及2025年上半年，海目星分别实现营业收入45.25亿元、16.64亿元，同比下滑5.82%、30.50%； 分别实现归属于上市公司股东的净利润 -1.63亿元、 -7.08亿元，均由盈转亏，净利润同比减少4.85亿 元、8.6亿元。 长账龄应收账款情况 报告期末公司应收账款余额21.72亿元，其中1 - 2年账龄应收账款余额7.32亿元，2 - 3年账龄应收账款余 额1.19亿元，均较期初显著增长。1年以上账龄应收账款前十大欠款方与上市公司无关联关系，合同具 备商业实质，产品已实际使用，超信用期未回款主要因下游行业景气度及客户资金安排等，不存在放宽 信用期刺激销售情形。 报告期末前十大应收账款欠款方期末余额与前十大客户销售情况基本匹配，少量差异为付款周期导致的 时间性差异。按单项计提坏账准备的客户均因财务状况恶化、经 ...

FF301 股份發行人及根據《上市規則》第十九B章上市的香港預託證券發行人的證券變動月報表 | 2. 股份分類 | 普通股 | 股份類別 | A | | 於香港聯交所上市 (註1) | | 否 | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 證券代號 (如上市) | 600030 | 說明 | | | | | | | | | | 法定/註冊股份數目 | | | 面值 | | 法定/註冊股本 | | | 上月底結存 | | | 12,200,469,974 | RMB | 1 | RMB | | 12,200,469,974 | | 增加 / 減少 (-) | | | 0 | | | RMB | | | | 本月底結存 | | | 12,200,469,974 | RMB | | 1 RMB | | 12,200,469,974 | 本月底法定/註冊股本總額： RMB 14,820,546,829 第 1 頁 共 10 頁 v 1.1.1 致：香港交易及結算所有限公司 公司名稱: 中信証券股份有限公司 ("本公司") 呈交日期: 202 ...

泓淋电力首次公开发行股票募集资金总额1,944,627,200.00元；扣除发行费用后，募集资金净额为 1,697,720,545.15元。泓淋电力最终募集资金净额比原计划多9.99亿元。泓淋电力于2023年3月14日披露 的招股说明书显示，该公司拟募集资金69,886.05万元，分别用于电源线智能制造及产能提升项目、威海 电源线技术改造项目、智能电源连接装置-泰国电源线生产基地(二期)建设项目、特种线缆技术改造项 目、补充流动资金。 泓淋电力首次公开发行股票的发行费用(不含增值税)合计246,906,654.85元，其中保荐及承销费 217,011,061.13元。 中国经济网北京9月30日讯泓淋电力（301439）(301439.SZ)今日股价下跌，截至收盘报15.34元，跌幅 2.48%。该股目前处于破发状态。 泓淋电力于2023年3月17日在深交所创业板上市，发行股份数量为9,728.00万股，发行价格为19.99元/ 股，保荐机构(主承销商)为中信证券股份有限公司，保荐代表人为李亦中、刘冠中。 上市当日，该股盘中最高价为28.00元，为该股上市以来最高价。 ...

记者丨崔文静 编辑丨巫燕玲 国庆假期临近，券商的罚单却未止步。在9月23日至9月26日的短短四天时间内，三家券商被地方证监局 点名，分别为中信建投、中信证券与财通证券。尽管所处地域与违规事由各不相同，密集出现的监管措 施仍反映出当前机构合规执行中的薄弱环节。 其中，中信建投因持续督导未尽责而受罚。其督导的新三板挂牌公司阳光中科，在2023年9月至2024年4 月期间多个车间陆续停产，却未按规定披露该重大经营变化。作为主办券商，中信建投在知悉情况后未 督促企业履行信披义务，暴露出持续督导环节的松懈。 中信证券则因（山东）济南分公司存在"无证销售基金"等问题收到警示函。尽管此类违规在行业中并不 鲜见，仍反映出部分营业机构在业绩压力与合规底线间的失衡——在持证人员有限的情况下，默许未获 资格的员工参与销售，暴露出执行层面有规未依、有责未守的现实困境。 财通证券因境外子公司管控不足被指出三大问题，涉及决策跟踪、风控机制及董事任职资格等方面。其 境外平台财通香港通过多家持牌子公司在港展业，复杂的架构对母公司的穿透管理提出更高要求。此类 境外风控罚单虽不常见，却揭示出部分券商在跨境业务扩张中管理能力未能同步跟进的隐忧。 ...

FF301 股份發行人及根據《上市規則》第十九B章上市的香港預託證券發行人的證券變動月報表 截至月份: 2025年9月30日 狀態: 新提交 致：香港交易及結算所有限公司 公司名稱: 中信証券股份有限公司 ("本公司") 呈交日期: 2025年9月30日 I. 法定/註冊股本變動 | 1. 股份分類 | 普通股 | 股份類別 | H | | 於香港聯交所上市 (註1) | | 是 | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 證券代號 (如上市) | 06030 | 說明 | | | | | | | | | | 法定/註冊股份數目 | | | 面值 | | 法定/註冊股本 | | | 上月底結存 | | | 2,620,076,855 | RMB | | 1 RMB | | 2,620,076,855 | | 增加 / 減少 (-) | | | 0 | | | RMB | | | | 本月底結存 | | | 2,620,076,855 | RMB | | 1 RMB | | 2,620,076,855 | | 2. 股份分類 | 普 ...

国庆假期临近，券商的罚单却未止步。在9月23日至9月26日的短短四天时间内， 三家券商被 地方证监局点名，分别为中信建投、中信证券与财通证券 。尽管所处地域与违规事由各不相 同，密集出现的监管措施仍反映出当前机构合规执行中的薄弱环节。 其中， 中信建投因持续督导未尽责而受罚 。其督导的新三板挂牌公司阳光中科，在2023年9 月至2024年4月期间多个车间陆续停产，却未按规定披露该重大经营变化。作为主办券商，中 信建投在知悉情况后未督促企业履行信披义务，暴露出持续督导环节的松懈。 2016年，阳光中科在新三板挂牌；2017年其曾计划在创业板上市，但在2018年因"上市计划调 整"主动终止；2022年，阳光中科与中信建投签署辅导协议，聘请中信建投作为其北交所IPO 的辅导机构。同时，中信建投成为阳光中科新一任主办券商。不过，这一上市计划也于2023年 6月宣告终止。 北交所IPO之行虽已于2023年6月终止，但阳光中科仍是新三板挂牌企业，具有信披义务；而 中信建投也依然是其主办券商，具有督促阳光中科及时信披的职责。 中信证券则因（山东）济南分公司存在"无证销售基金"等问题收到警示函 。尽管此类违规在 行业中并不鲜 ...

后十大AH股溢价率排行 | 股票名称 | H股(港元) | A股 | 溢价率↑ | 偏离值 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 宁德时代(03750) | 571.500 | 402 | -15.74% | -2.42% | | 恒瑞医药(01276) | 88.800 | 71.55 | -3.49% | -2.73% | | 招商银行(03968) | 46.760 | 40.52 | 3.79% | -2.91% | | 美的集团(00300) | 82.250 | 73.18 | 6.58% | 0.31% | | 紫金矿业(02899) | 32.600 | 29.44 | 8.16% | 2.03% | | 福耀玻璃(03606) | 78.300 | 73.41 | 12.30% | -0.56% | | 药明康德(02359) | 118.700 | 112.03 | 13.05% | -0.56% | | 民生银行(01988) | 4.110 | 3.97 | 15.82% | -6.61% | | 中信证券(06030) | 30.800 | 29.9 ...

Group 1 - The three major indices experienced a decline, with the brokerage sector falling, as evidenced by the brokerage ETF fund (515010) dropping by 0.96% as of 14:05 on September 30 [3] - In September, the brokerage ETF fund (515010) saw net inflows of funds on 17 out of 21 trading days, totaling 360 million yuan, reaching a new high of 1.786 billion yuan as of September 29 [3] - The brokerage ETF fund (515010) tracks the securities company index (code 399975), with the top ten constituent stocks accounting for 60.56% of the weight, including major brokerages like CITIC Securities and Huatai Securities, benefiting directly from the recovery of the A-share market [3] Group 2 - The financial technology ETF Huaxia (516100) closely tracks the CSI Financial Technology Theme Index, covering software development, internet finance, and the digital currency industry chain, potentially benefiting from both market recovery and AI-related catalysts [3] - The management and custody fee rate for the brokerage ETF fund (515010) is the lowest in the sector at a combined rate of 0.2%, facilitating lower-cost investments in the brokerage sector [3]

21世纪经济报道记者 崔文静 国庆假期临近，券商的罚单却未止步。在9月23日至9月26日的短短四天时间内，三家券商被地方证监局 点名，分别为中信建投、中信证券与财通证券。尽管所处地域与违规事由各不相同，密集出现的监管措 施仍反映出当前机构合规执行中的薄弱环节。 其中，中信建投因持续督导未尽责而受罚。其督导的新三板挂牌公司阳光中科，在2023年9月至2024年4 月期间多个车间陆续停产，却未按规定披露该重大经营变化。作为主办券商，中信建投在知悉情况后未 督促企业履行信披义务，暴露出持续督导环节的松懈。 中信证券则因（山东）济南分公司存在"无证销售基金"等问题收到警示函。尽管此类违规在行业中并不 鲜见，仍反映出部分营业机构在业绩压力与合规底线间的失衡——在持证人员有限的情况下，默许未获 资格的员工参与销售，暴露出执行层面有规未依、有责未守的现实困境。 财通证券因境外子公司管控不足被指出三大问题，涉及决策跟踪、风控机制及董事任职资格等方面。其 境外平台财通香港通过多家持牌子公司在港展业，复杂的架构对母公司的穿透管理提出更高要求。此类 境外风控罚单虽不常见，却揭示出部分券商在跨境业务扩张中管理能力未能同步跟进的隐忧。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The securities industry is experiencing a severe "price war" in the margin financing and securities lending business, with average financing rates plummeting from a historical high of 8.35% to a range of 5%-5.5%, and some brokers offering rates below 4%, which is approaching their comprehensive funding cost line. Despite this, the overall scale of margin financing is steadily increasing, highlighting a significant disconnect between volume growth and price reduction, representing a typical symptom of the industry's transformation pains [1][2]. Group 1: Current Challenges - The financing rates in the securities industry are on a downward trend, with rates expected to continue decreasing from 8.35% in 2015 to 5%-5.5% by 2024, and some firms offering rates below 4% to high-net-worth clients, intensifying competition [2][3]. - The price war is rooted in structural contradictions and homogeneous competition, with 150 securities firms in the market, leading to fierce resource competition and forcing firms to rely on price cuts to gain market share [3]. - The mismatch between the growth in margin financing balance, which reached 18,505 billion with a year-on-year increase of 24.95%, and the revenue from financing interest, which only grew by 10%, indicates the limitations of the price war [3]. Group 2: Negative Impacts - The price war is hindering industry innovation, as firms are focusing resources on traditional business lines rather than exploring new models, which limits their ability to meet the diverse needs of the real economy [4][5]. - The competitive environment has led to a degradation of service capabilities, with the value of professional services being underestimated and talent retention becoming increasingly difficult due to declining profit margins [6]. - The adverse effects of the price war may result in a misallocation of social economic resources, undermining the financial sector's ability to serve the real economy effectively [7]. Group 3: Systemic Risks - The low financing rate environment is likely to amplify market volatility, as high leverage can lead to forced liquidations during market downturns, negatively impacting liquidity [8]. - The interconnectedness of risks among financial institutions is heightened, as difficulties in short-term financing can lead to asset sell-offs by securities firms, triggering broader market declines [8]. Group 4: Policy and Structural Solutions - The central government has initiated a series of anti-involution policies to regulate market order, emphasizing the need for industry self-discipline and the prevention of "involutionary" competition [11][12]. - A shift in development philosophy is necessary, moving from a focus on scale to value creation, with a comprehensive evaluation system that prioritizes long-term indicators such as customer satisfaction and innovation investment [13]. - Establishing a multi-tiered competitive system based on professional capabilities is essential, allowing firms to transition from price competition to value creation [14]. Group 5: Technological and Regulatory Enhancements - Digital transformation is crucial for reconstructing the business value chain, with firms deploying AI systems and enhancing risk management through big data [15]. - Regulatory guidance and industry self-discipline must work in tandem to establish a healthy market ecosystem, including reasonable interest rate determination and the prohibition of malicious competition [16]. Conclusion - To overcome the challenges posed by the "involutionary" competition in the securities industry, a balance between market efficiency and industry order is required, alongside a strategic focus on long-term value creation [17].