Core Viewpoint - The recent appointment of Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) in multiple trust companies is driven by regulatory requirements and the need for industry transformation and stable operations [1][3][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Requirements - The establishment of CCOs in trust companies is a response to the revised "Trust Company Management Measures," which mandates that CCOs be appointed by January 1, 2026 [1][5]. - The "Financial Institutions Compliance Management Measures," effective from March 1, 2023, requires financial institutions to have a CCO who reports directly to the board [4][5]. Group 2: Industry Transformation - The appointment of CCOs aims to enhance compliance governance capabilities, prevent systemic risks, and address previous issues of compliance management at the executive level [3][5]. - CCOs will play a crucial role in integrating compliance into strategic decision-making and business processes, shifting compliance from a support function to a decision-making role [5][6]. Group 3: Risk Management - The trust industry has faced numerous compliance violations, with penalties reaching 18.03 million yuan in 2025, highlighting the need for robust risk management frameworks [3][5]. - CCOs are expected to lead the development of comprehensive risk control mechanisms, ensuring compliance checks are integrated into key business stages [3][5]. Group 4: Enhancing Industry Credibility - The establishment of CCOs is also aimed at restoring the credibility of the trust industry, which has suffered from inadequate information disclosure and other issues that have harmed investor interests [3][5]. - By strengthening oversight, CCOs can improve the transparency of trust products and rebuild trust among high-net-worth clients [3][5].

Core Viewpoint - The joint statement by Li Auto, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute, and Dongfeng Liuzhou Automobile aims to clarify the circumstances surrounding the collision test of the Li Auto i8, addressing public concerns and maintaining a positive industry ecosystem [2][4][5]. Group 1: Li Auto's Position - The purpose of the collision test was to verify and enhance the passive safety performance of the Li Auto i8, not to target the safety and quality performance of any other brand [2]. - Li Auto expressed sincere apologies for the unintended involvement of Dongfeng Liuzhou's brand in the public controversy, acknowledging the potential negative impact on its brand image and the misunderstanding caused to the public [2][3]. Group 2: China Automotive Engineering Research Institute's Position - As the executing agency for the test, China Automotive Engineering Research Institute admitted to failing to clearly communicate that the Dongfeng Liuzhou vehicle was used solely as a "mobile barrier" and not as an evaluation of its safety and quality performance [4]. - The institute committed to improving its testing management mechanisms and adhering to scientific, objective, and neutral principles to maintain industry credibility [4]. Group 3: Dongfeng Liuzhou Automobile's Position - Dongfeng Liuzhou emphasized its commitment to high quality and reliability, focusing on continuous innovation and core technology enhancement to create value for customers [5]. - The company reiterated its dedication to lawful and compliant operations, contributing to the transition of China from a major automotive country to a strong automotive nation [6]. Group 4: Joint Initiatives - The three parties called for strict self-discipline within the automotive industry, advocating for integrity and ethical business practices in product development, testing, and promotion [7]. - They urged the industry to focus resources on enhancing vehicle safety performance, core technology innovation, and optimizing user experiences to elevate the overall image and competitiveness of the Chinese automotive industry [7].