Core Viewpoint - Senfeng Laser's IPO on the ChiNext board was terminated after passing multiple rounds of scrutiny, revealing deeper issues behind its failed attempt to go public [2][9]. Group 1: Company Background - Senfeng Laser, established in 2007, specializes in the research, manufacturing, and provision of laser processing equipment and intelligent manufacturing solutions [6]. - The company’s main products include laser cutting, welding, and cladding equipment, as well as flexible processing production lines [6]. Group 2: IPO Journey - Senfeng Laser submitted its IPO application to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on June 15, 2022, and successfully passed the listing committee's review on August 17, 2023, after three rounds of inquiries [6][8]. - Despite passing the review, the IPO was halted on January 27, 2025, when the company and its sponsor, Minsheng Securities, voluntarily withdrew the application [7][8]. Group 3: Regulatory Issues - The termination of the IPO was linked to regulatory scrutiny, as the Shenzhen Stock Exchange initiated on-site supervision, uncovering issues related to the accuracy of financial controls and revenue recognition [9][10]. - The two lead sponsors, Cao Dong and Cao Wenxuan, faced disciplinary measures for failing to conduct thorough checks on Senfeng Laser's financial practices [9][10]. Group 4: Future Plans - Following the termination of the IPO, Senfeng Laser has shifted its focus to the Beijing Stock Exchange, aiming to reinitiate its listing process with a more favorable regulatory environment [10][23]. - The company has already signed a new listing guidance agreement with Minsheng Securities to facilitate its application to the Beijing Stock Exchange [23][24]. Group 5: Financial Performance - Senfeng Laser's financial performance has shown signs of decline, with a significant drop in net profit in 2024, marking its first revenue decrease since 2020 [25]. - The company's non-recurring net profit growth slowed to just 2.5% in 2023, raising concerns about its ability to maintain previous growth rates [25].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent supervisory actions taken by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange regarding two IPO companies on the ChiNext board, highlighting issues related to internal controls, revenue recognition, and procurement management [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case One - Internal Control Issues - The issuer's internal control over revenue recognition was not effectively executed, with sales contracts lacking specific acceptance or signing methods, primarily relying on phone negotiations with clients [1][3]. - There were anomalies in revenue recognition documents, such as acceptance forms being dated earlier than the actual acceptance dates and instances of duplicate sign-offs with inconsistent seals [3][4]. - Procurement management showed missing documentation, including raw material inspection reports, and some procurement prices were abnormally high without reasonable explanations [3][4]. Group 2: R&D Investment Internal Control - The actual controller of the issuer, acting as a non-full-time R&D personnel, inaccurately reported R&D hours without proper attendance records, leading to discrepancies in R&D labor hour reporting [5][6]. - The basis for calculating R&D salaries was inaccurately disclosed, with a significant portion of the actual controller's salary included in R&D expenses, but the year-end bonus was based on revenue growth rather than R&D contributions [5][6]. - Internal procedures for R&D were not effectively executed, with missing R&D work logs and lack of checks on key milestones for commissioned R&D projects [6]. Group 3: Case Two - Sales Model and Client Credit Policy - The issuer misrepresented its sales model with major trading clients, claiming no typical distribution model existed, while actual agreements indicated otherwise [7][8]. - There was an error in revenue recognition due to inaccurate disclosure of a major client's trading model, which was misclassified as a buyout transaction instead of an export agency [7][8]. - Changes in credit policies for major clients were not disclosed accurately, with a significant reduction in prepayment ratios that were concealed from the public [9][10].