Securities Association Surveys Brokerage Commission Models, Seeks Views on Minimum Fee

The Securities Association of China (SAC) is conducting a fact-finding survey on the commission service models used by securities firms for investor trading, with the results to serve as a policy reference for optimizing the commission system. This survey represents the largest and most detailed industry-wide review of commission-related issues in recent years. Client complaint data released in 2026 show that the inverted commission rates between new and existing clients remain a persistent problem, alongside long-standing issues such as the absence of fee disclosure during online account opening and opaque breakdowns of commission components. Complaints related to commission adjustments and fee refunds have remained at elevated levels.

The survey evaluates the current commission policy, which allows rates to float below an upper limit, gathering industry feedback on dimensions such as pricing flexibility, revenue stability, and competitive order. It specifically solicits opinions on core issues including adjustments to the 5 yuan minimum commission per trade, the setting of rate ranges, and industry self-regulation. Regarding the retention or abolition of the 5 yuan minimum commission for single trades, the SAC offers three options: maintain the status quo, lower it moderately to 3 yuan, or abolish it entirely, with considerations covering cost calculations, market competition, investor protection, and industry transformation.

The survey also seeks feedback on institutional directions such as setting a floor for commission rates to form a price range, regularly publishing industry average rates, and strengthening self-regulatory enforcement against low-price competition. The rate disparity between new and existing clients is the most concentrated trigger for commission complaints. Securities firms commonly use preferential rates to attract new clients, with some institutions adopting below-cost strategies such as "one basis point with no 5 yuan minimum," driving down commission rates for new accounts. Meanwhile, a large number of existing clients continue to pay higher historical rates, with differences sometimes reaching multiples. The absence of rate disclosure in the online account-opening process, opaque commission breakdowns on trading terminals, untimely or erroneous handling of rate-adjustment requests, and the inability to refund commission differences are all listed as high-incidence complaint scenarios. The survey also notes that during periods of significant market volatility, clients become more sensitive to high commission rates due to investment losses.

In response to existing clients' demands for rate adjustments and fee refunds, securities firms currently adopt widely varying approaches, including moderate rate cuts with full refunds, partial refunds, no refunds, no rate cuts and no refunds, or substituting value-added services such as investment advisory. The industry has yet to establish a unified handling standard. In recent years, commission-related complaints have consistently ranked among the top categories in the securities industry, and regulators have made complaint data the primary dimension of this survey. The survey also examines how securities firms display commission rates, present trading information, calculate net commissions, and determine pricing logic. Currently, the industry uses two commission pricing bases: "full commission," which includes the brokerage service fee charged by the firm plus pass-through regulatory fees such as exchange transaction fees, securities regulatory fees, and transfer fees, and "net commission," which is the firm's actual revenue after deducting these pass-through fees. Some firms use inconsistent bases between marketing and trade-display stages, with some using full commission to create a perception of low prices and others mixing the two, making it difficult for investors to accurately assess true trading costs.

Regarding information display on trading terminals, some firms show only the total commission amount without breaking down net commission and individual regulatory fees, while others provide a breakdown but place it in obscure locations that are not easily accessible to investors. The SAC also specifically surveyed the importance of net commission in firms' pricing decisions and whether the value of additional services is separately reflected in commission disclosures. Currently, the industry often bundles all services into the commission, with value-added services such as investment advisory and research reports not priced separately.