Group 1 - The difficulty of listing cultural tourism companies is significant due to structural contradictions between the purpose of listing and the current state of real business operations [20] - Most cultural tourism enterprises, approximately 99.99%, do not need to consider listing as a development goal, nor should they view secondary markets like REITs as a target for growth [20] - Existing listed cultural tourism companies have engaged in disorderly expansion, effectively blocking the path to a viable listing business model [20] Group 2 - Single scenic spots have the potential for listing if they meet two necessary conditions: having a top-tier brand and avoiding blind cross-industry expansion [20] - The number of domestic cultural tourism scenic spots that can meet these standards is limited, and success depends on subjective initiative and appropriate land use procedures [20] - The prosperity of capital markets is contingent upon excellent real business performance; relying on listing as a development goal can only provide temporary relief, as unsustainable practices will eventually be exposed [21] Group 3 - The current listing requirements for companies include being a joint-stock company, having stable shareholders and core management, meeting financial indicators, ensuring legal compliance, and adhering to capital and issuance ratios [6] - Cultural tourism companies face unique challenges as their core products, such as tourist attractions, are fixed and cannot be relocated, making expansion reliant on supplementary business models [9][11] - The only cultural tourism company that has successfully listed and meets the requirements is Songcheng Performance [12]