12月29日，平安产险南平中心支公司签下全省首单科技项目研发费用损失保险，为邵武某氟化工国家级 高新技术企业"降血糖药物中间体自主研发项目"提供1058万元风险保障。此举标志着平安产险福建分公 司在科技保险"全生命周期风险管理"领域通过市场化风险分担机制，成功为科技创新"最先一公里"注入 金融动能。 聚焦研发痛点，破解创新后顾之忧 科技项目研发费用损失保险直击高新技术企业核心风险——当研发因技术路线失误、小试失败或验收不 达标导致资金损失时，保险机制可及时补偿研发投入成本。 党的二十大报告明确提出"完善风险共担机制，加速科技成果转化"。作为福建省科技保险政策落地的主 力军，平安产险福建分公司始终以服务科技强国战略为己任，将科技保险作为服务实体经济、支持高水 平科技自立自强的重要抓手。 近年来，分公司持续联动总部开展"政策研究院"企业智库建设，深度参与福建省科技保险制度创新，在 福建金融监管局、福建省科技厅的指导下，切实围绕科技企业"基础研发-成果转化-产业化"全周期风 险，构建多层次科技保险产品体系。2025年，从晋江落地的全省首单关键研发设备保险，到龙岩光电企 业的科技产品质量保证保险，再到南平的科技项目研 ...

高廷帆（首都经济贸易大学经济学院副教授、中国商业经济学会理事） 此次国家创业投资引导基金设立的一大亮点是京津冀、长三角、粤港澳大湾区三只区域基金的同步设立。这并不是简单的地理覆盖式的资源分 配，而是基于国家战略的精准落子。 近日，国家创业投资引导基金正式启动，京津冀、长三角、粤港澳大湾区三只区域基金同步设立运行。这是"十五五"规划支撑现代产业体系建 设的关键布局，也是在国际科技竞争加剧背景下，构建自主可控创新资本链条的战略举措。 三大区域代表着中国创新版图的三种范式。京津冀依托全国最密集的高校院所资源，长于基础研究和"从0到1"的原始创新；长三角以全球最完 整的制造业集群为底座，在工程化放大、产业链整合和规模化量产上优势突出，擅长将实验室成果转化为可交付的产品；大湾区则凭借毗邻境 外市场的区位优势与灵活的体制机制，在应用创新、商业模式创新和全球化运营上独具特色。三大基金并立，构建了一个从基础研究—技术转 化—产业化应用的完整创新全链条，适配不同创新类型的资本支撑体系。 当前正值人工智能、量子计算、生物制造等前沿技术从实验室走向产业化的关键窗口期。大量处于种子期、天使轮的硬科技项目陷入创新 的"死亡之谷"——技 ...

上述供需不适配问题凸显出创新科技金融服务的必要性与重要性。创新服务就是要迎难而上，想办法解 决堵点、难点。金融服务科技创新的核心难点在于因信息不对称引发的评价难、评估难，如果金融机构 无法客观、准确地评估科技型企业的偿债能力、盈利能力与发展能力，那么就较难给予企业相应的资金 与服务支持，否则容易引发逆向选择与道德风险。 首先，要深研企业需求。企业的所需、所盼是金融服务发力的重点、要点。当前，科技型企业的主要需 求依然是长期资金需求，以及相配套的市场、技术支持。为此，可进一步壮大具有产业背景的股权投资 机构，一方面通过发行低成本、长期限的科创债券，帮助其缓解自身的融资期限短、成本高等问题，另 一方面优化股权投资机构的考核机制，突出长周期考核导向，引导其投早、投小、投长期、投硬科技。 此外，银行信贷资金可充分发挥"融资+融智"功能，为科技型企业提供包括支付结算、本外币、市场拓 展等一系列综合服务，满足企业的多元化需求。 其次，要巧用增信手段。沿着供应链找企业是一个思路，部分金融机构已据此形成了一定的有益经验。 例如，当银行难以判断科技型企业的信用风险时，可观察该企业是否已获得供应链链主孵化，如果答案 是肯定的，那 ...

时值年末收官之月，科创债市场的表现几何？哪些产品更能获得投资机构青睐？繁荣市场背后是否仍存 发展阻碍？2026年市场规模是否有望进一步拓展？ 量质齐升态势凸显市场结构多点突破 新华财经上海12月10日电 自2025年5月债券市场"科技板"正式落地后，科创债市场规模步入高速增长通 道。尤其进入11月后，政策红利持续释放与市场需求稳步提升形成了共振，科创债市场在规模扩容、结 构优化等方面呈现出了诸多新特征。 自2025年5月启动债券市场"科技板"建设以来，科创债市场基础不断夯实，增量扩面成效显著，进入11 月后，市场规模持续攀升、发行结构愈发多元、二级市场保持稳健，整体呈现高质量发展态势。 公开数据显示，截至12月1日，全市场共发行科创债3004只，发行规模合计达 3.18万亿元，发行数量及 总规模较去年同期分别增长了85%和98%；2025年前三季度，科创债的发行规模达1.58万亿元，发行数 量为1428只，同比分别增长了74.94%和43.95%，成为今年信用债市场增量资金的重要来源。 再就发行情况分析，科创债市场呈现出了筹资主体多元化、期限适配性提升、民企参与度显著增强三大 特征。 于发行主体方面，市场结构 ...

Core Viewpoint - The core challenge of technological financial innovation is transitioning from singular breakthroughs to scalable development, necessitating a financial ecosystem that can support a modern industrial system and foster globally competitive tech companies [2][4]. Group 1: Challenges and Solutions - The key challenge for technological financial innovation is achieving scalable support for new productive forces, which is critical for the next five years [4]. - Five major challenges include the non-standardization of technology, unprofitability of tech companies, light asset models, high uncertainty, and long cycles, which traditional financial services struggle to address [4][5]. - The concept of "technology capital" is proposed, which should provide additional value such as technological and market understanding alongside financial support [5]. Group 2: Industry Insights - The "smart manufacturing industry chain" is identified as a potential new pillar to replace real estate, with significant spillover effects expected in the next 5-10 years [2][9]. - The need to enhance pricing capabilities for unprofitable companies is emphasized, with a stark contrast noted between the U.S. and China regarding the percentage of unprofitable companies at the time of IPO [9]. Group 3: Future Pathways - Artificial intelligence is defined as a "general technology" leading the fourth industrial revolution, with a critical window for adoption in the next 5-10 years [6][7]. - A "risk-sharing mechanism" is proposed to address unmet investment needs for early-stage tech companies, suggesting that local governments could establish subordinate funds to absorb initial losses [10].

Core Insights - The core challenge of technological financial innovation is transitioning from singular breakthroughs to scalable development, necessitating a financial ecosystem that can support a modern industrial system and foster globally competitive tech enterprises [1][2] Group 1: Technological Financial Innovation - Emphasis on the need for scaling from "1 to N" in technological financial innovation, with the "14th Five-Year Plan" highlighting the absence of replicable models for supporting new productive forces [1] - The "15th Five-Year Plan" suggests a framework for a modern industrial system, balancing the service of "technological industrialization" and "industrial technology" [1][2] - The essence of technological finance is "innovation capitalization," which requires converting technological innovation into capital returns to sustain future innovation cycles [1][2] Group 2: Challenges in Innovation Capitalization - Five major challenges to achieving innovation capitalization include non-standardization, unprofitability, light asset models, high uncertainty, and long cycles, which traditional financial services struggle to address [2] - The concept of "technology capital" is introduced, which should provide additional value alongside financial investment, encompassing understanding of technology, industry, pricing, risk management, and resource allocation [2] Group 3: Future Outlook and Recommendations - Artificial intelligence is identified as a "general technology" leading the fourth industrial revolution, with a critical window for adoption in the next 5-10 years [3] - The "smart manufacturing industry chain" is projected to become a new pillar of the economy, potentially rivaling real estate, with significant spillover effects [3] - A recommendation for the Greater Bay Area to establish a "1+N" industrial system centered around the smart manufacturing industry chain [3] Group 4: Risk Sharing Mechanism - The absence of a risk-sharing mechanism is identified as a barrier to meeting the investment needs of early-stage tech enterprises [3][4] - Suggestions include local governments establishing subordinate funds to absorb initial losses, thereby encouraging social capital to invest in early-stage and hard technology ventures [4]

Core Insights - The core challenge of technological financial innovation is transitioning from singular breakthroughs to scalable development, necessitating a financial ecosystem that can support a modern industrial system and foster globally competitive tech enterprises [1] Group 1: Technological Financial Innovation - Emphasis on the need for scaling from "1 to N" in technological financial innovation, with the "14th Five-Year Plan" highlighting numerous innovative points that have yet to form replicable models [1] - The "15th Five-Year Plan" suggests a framework for a modern industrial system, balancing the service of "technological industrialization" and "industrial technologicalization" [1] Group 2: Innovation Capitalization - The essence of technological finance is "innovation capitalization," which involves converting technological innovation into capital returns to support sustainable innovation and iteration [1] - Five major challenges to achieving innovation capitalization include non-standardization, unprofitability, light asset models, high uncertainty, and long cycles, which traditional financial services struggle to address [2] Group 3: Concept of "Tech Capital" - The concept of "tech capital" is introduced, requiring additional value such as technological and industrial understanding, market comprehension, and risk management alongside financial investment [2] - "Tech capital" must possess five capabilities: understanding technology, industry, pricing, risk management, and resource allocation [2] Group 4: Future Outlook - Artificial intelligence is identified as a "general technology" leading the fourth industrial revolution, with a potential for exponential growth in adoption over the next 5-10 years [3] - The "smart manufacturing industry chain" is projected to become a new pillar of the economy, comparable to real estate, with significant spillover effects [3] Group 5: Risk Sharing Mechanism - The absence of a risk-sharing mechanism is identified as a root cause for unmet investment needs in early-stage tech enterprises, with suggestions for government or private entities to assume a "subordinated" role [3] - Establishing a subordinated fund by local governments could incentivize social capital to invest in early-stage hard technology [4]

Core Insights - The article discusses the evolution of the black industry chain, highlighting the rigid pricing mechanisms between the upstream steel industry and downstream manufacturing sectors, which transfer price volatility risks to downstream players [1][2] - It emphasizes the introduction of futures derivatives as a solution to restructure risk-sharing mechanisms within the industry chain, allowing for a more flexible pricing buffer [1][4] Industry Overview - The steel industry operates under a long-process smelting model, focusing on maintaining reasonable profits and stable production while controlling costs [2] - Steel trading companies serve as supply chain service providers, addressing the pricing risks that arise from asymmetric purchasing and sales between upstream and downstream entities [2] Market Dynamics - In Q2 2023, steel prices fell due to supply-demand imbalances and seasonal factors, prompting downstream shipbuilding companies to seek current market prices for their annual production needs [2] - Existing pricing models from steel companies did not meet the actual needs of shipbuilding firms, leading to a mismatch in pricing expectations [2] Risk Management Solutions - The collaboration between futures companies and steel trading firms facilitated a pricing conversion that addressed the needs of both shipbuilding and steel companies [3] - A closed-loop system was established where steel companies sold at floating prices, while trading firms provided price management services to shipbuilders, allowing for fixed-price procurement [3] Financial Impact - From May to September 2023, trading firms locked in steel resources for shipbuilders, reducing procurement costs from approximately 5780 CNY/ton to 4980 CNY/ton, resulting in an additional revenue of about 800 CNY/ton for shipbuilders [3] - Steel companies benefited from a stable profit of around 200 CNY/ton without bearing the exposure risk [3] Strategic Importance - The "guaranteed supply and locked price" model meets the needs of both upstream production and downstream risk control, ensuring stable prices and supply [4] - This project supports the stable operation and development of the manufacturing sector, which is crucial for maintaining economic growth and enhancing competitiveness in the industrial landscape [4]

Core Insights - The difficulty for private enterprises in issuing bonds has been alleviated in Jiangsu, with over 25% of issued technology innovation bonds attributed to private enterprises, significantly higher than the national average of 11.59% [2][3] Group 1: Current Situation of Private Enterprises in Bond Issuance - Private enterprises face challenges in bond issuance due to low ratings and market recognition, leading to high financing costs [2] - As of August 2025, the cumulative issuance scale of technology innovation bonds reached 3.69 trillion yuan, with private enterprises accounting for only 11.59% of the total issuance [3] Group 2: Factors Affecting Participation of Private Enterprises - The low participation of private enterprises in the technology innovation bond market is attributed to weak qualifications, insufficient market valuation systems, and limited policy support [4] - Private enterprises often lack prominent technology innovation attributes and effective collateral, which hinders their ability to issue bonds [4] Group 3: Solutions Implemented in Jiangsu - Jiangsu has adopted a strategy to enhance credit support and improve risk-sharing mechanisms to facilitate bond issuance for private enterprises [5] - The establishment of a provincial credit enhancement company aims to provide credit support for bond financing, thereby reducing financing costs and optimizing the financing structure for private enterprises [5][6] Group 4: Impact of Risk-Sharing Tools - Risk-sharing tools provide credit enhancement for bond issuance, enabling private equity investment institutions to access financing channels and support seed funding for more enterprises [6] - In Jiangsu, two projects supported by national risk-sharing tools have seen significant reductions in comprehensive financing costs, demonstrating improved market recognition [6][7] Group 5: Additional Support Initiatives - Jiangsu has established a service center for technology finance to provide comprehensive support for technology innovation bonds, enhancing the overall service ecosystem for private enterprises [7]

Core Viewpoint - The expansion of credit risk mitigation tools (CRMW) to include local institutions is expected to enhance the issuance and investment of technology innovation bonds (科创债) in China, providing a more stable financing environment for private equity and technology enterprises [2][10][12]. Group 1: CRMW Expansion - Three local institutions have recently been approved as CRMW creation entities, marking a significant expansion beyond large commercial banks and securities firms [2][10]. - The total number of approved CRMW creation institutions has reached 58, indicating a broader participation in the market [10]. - The inclusion of local credit enhancement institutions is anticipated to improve regional bond issuance and support for private enterprises [10][15]. Group 2: Impact on Technology Innovation Bonds - Since the launch of the technology board in May, the issuance of technology innovation bonds has accelerated, with CRMW playing a crucial role in stabilizing the market [2][12]. - The average issuance rate for new technology innovation bonds in September was 2.19%, reflecting a slight increase from 1.93% in May, but still demonstrating stability due to CRMW's credit protection [13]. - CRMW has significantly contributed to lowering financing costs for technology enterprises, with many bonds issued at rates lower than traditional bonds [12][13]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Investor Sentiment - The current market environment, characterized by declining interest rates and ample liquidity, has led investors to seek higher-yielding risk products, making the combination of private enterprise bonds and CRMW particularly attractive [6][12]. - CRMW has been instrumental in supporting the issuance of bonds for private technology enterprises, with 84% of the total CRMW issuance linked to private enterprises [14]. - The revised guidelines for CRMW are expected to enhance market activity and encourage more financial institutions to participate in the creation of these risk mitigation tools [9][15].