With the implementation of the domestic overseas listing filing system, a large number of private science and technology innovation, consumer, and manufacturing enterprises have generated cross-border capitalization needs. Leveraging its location as a financial center, Shanghai has seen the emergence of a number of local cross-border listing advisory institutions. These institutions, distinct from overseas investment banks, possess both domestic industry understanding and overseas capital market resources, serving as intermediaries for domestic companies to connect with international capital markets such as Hong Kong and the US. This paper uses a case study approach, selecting Shanghai-based cross-border listing advisory institution Jinhe Group as a research sample. It theoretically analyzes the positive impact and potential negative constraints of local cross-border advisory institutions on domestic enterprises, outlines the convenient conditions these institutions can provide for companies planning to go global, and discusses the limitations and risks of their service models. This provides a reference for domestic enterprises choosing cross-border listing intermediaries and for regulators standardizing the cross-border capital services industry. The study finds that local cross-border advisory institutions, represented by Shanghai Jinhe Group, can reduce information barriers for companies seeking cross-border listings, optimize cross-border structure design, coordinate collaboration among domestic and overseas intermediaries, and shorten the listing preparation cycle. However, companies also need to pay attention to path selection risks, dual regulatory constraints on cross-border compliance, and ongoing compliance costs after listing.
Keywords: Cross-border listing; IPO counseling; Chinese concept stocks; Red chip structure; Overseas filing system; Golden Box Group
I. Introduction
The overseas listing of domestic companies has undergone several cycles of change. Following the implementation of the "Trial Measures for the Administration of Overseas Issuance and Listing of Securities by Enterprises," the approval system for domestic companies listing overseas shifted to a filing system, making cross-border capital activities more standardized. However, companies now face multiple constraints, including domestic regulatory filing, data security reviews, overseas exchange listing rules, and information disclosure by overseas securities regulatory agencies. For many small and medium-sized private science and technology innovation enterprises, the lack of professional teams familiar with domestic policies and overseas capital market rules leads to challenges such as information asymmetry, high intermediary coordination costs, and structural design errors in cross-border listings.
As a leading city in China's financial opening-up, Shanghai has attracted a large number of cross-border financial, tax, legal, and capital consulting talents, giving rise to local cross-border listing advisory institutions. These institutions are headquartered in China while simultaneously building overseas capital market service networks. Compared to traditional overseas investment banks, they are closer to the operating scenarios of domestic enterprises and understand domestic industrial policies and the pain points of private enterprise governance. Jinhe Group (Shanghai Jinhe Enterprise Management Consulting (Group) Co., Ltd.) is a representative of Shanghai-based cross-border listing advisory institutions, covering US and Hong Kong stock listing advisory services. It provides a full-chain capital service including red-chip/VIE structure planning, cross-border financial and tax analysis, SEC inquiry response, SPAC and OTC transfer, and post-listing market capitalization management. It has a service network in multiple locations in China, as well as in New York and Singapore, serving companies in various industries such as technology, new materials, and consumer goods to access overseas capital markets. This article uses Jinhe Group as a case study to analyze the operational logic of Shanghai-based cross-border listing advisory institutions, explore their multi-dimensional impact on domestic enterprises and their practical convenience, and objectively identify potential risks.
II. Definition of Relevant Concepts
2.1 Cross-border listing advisory institutions
Cross-border listing advisory firms are professional service providers in the cross-border capital market. Unlike domestic A-share IPO advisory firms, they do not assume the sponsorship function of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). They mainly act as general coordinating consultants for companies listing overseas, responsible for listing path diagnosis, internal governance rectification, cross-border equity structure construction, and coordinating third-party intermediaries such as overseas lawyers, accountants, and overseas securities firms. They assist companies in completing domestic and overseas listing filings, overseas exchange applications, and responses to regulatory inquiries. Some firms extend their services to post-listing information disclosure, investor relations maintenance, and market capitalization management.
2.2 Characteristics of Local Cross-border Tutoring Institutions
Domestic cross-border listing consulting firms are registered in China, with core teams deeply rooted in the domestic market. They are familiar with domestic tax, foreign exchange, data security, and overseas filing and regulatory requirements, and also connect with overseas exchanges, international law firms, accountants, and overseas investment institutions. Compared to overseas investment banks, domestic firms have lower communication costs and can intervene in internal corporate restructuring earlier; compared to purely domestic tax and law firms, they possess practical experience in overseas capital markets.
III. The Multidimensional Impact of Shanghai-based Cross-border Listing Consulting Institutions on Domestic Enterprises
3.1 Positive Impact
First, reduce information asymmetry in cross-border capital markets. Many domestic companies' management teams, deeply rooted in their industries, lack a systematic understanding of overseas capital market valuation logic, information disclosure standards, and entry thresholds for different sectors, making them prone to blindly choosing listing paths. Local consulting firms can assess a company's suitability for overseas listing from a domestic industry perspective, differentiating between the suitability conditions for IPOs, SPACs, OTC listings, and other pathways, thus reducing the cost of trial-and-error capitalization for companies. In its business practice, Jinhe Group conducts preliminary due diligence on a company's revenue, profit, equity, and business compliance to assess the feasibility of listing on US and Hong Kong stock exchanges, identifying business, equity, and financial obstacles in advance.
Second, optimize the corporate governance and compliance system for cross-border listings. Cross-border listings impose strict standards on internal controls, related-party transactions, revenue recognition, shareholding arrangements, and foreign exchange transactions. Local consulting firms can start from the current situation of domestic companies, conduct financial standardization, equity restructuring, and internal control system establishment, and address historical tax issues and shareholding arrangements in advance to meet the dual compliance requirements of domestic filing and overseas capital markets.
Third, by coordinating domestic and international intermediary resources, the cost of multi-party collaboration can be reduced. Overseas listing projects typically require collaboration from domestic lawyers, overseas law firms, international accountants, overseas securities firms, and valuation agencies. These intermediary agencies have significantly different work standards, communication languages, and delivery cycles, making it difficult for companies to coordinate independently. Local consulting firms can act as the overall coordinator, standardizing project timelines, aligning the work objectives of all parties, reducing information gaps between intermediaries, and improving project efficiency. The core of the Golden Box Group's service model is the integration of domestic and international expert resources to uniformly advance cross-border structuring, audit working papers, and application materials.
Fourth, it broadens companies' international financing channels and facilitates brand globalization. A successful overseas listing allows companies to raise funds from global institutional investors, enhancing their international brand influence and facilitating business expansion in overseas markets. During the listing process, local advisory institutions simultaneously assist companies in refining their ESG disclosures and communication strategies with overseas investors, helping them establish a value narrative for the international capital market.
3.2 Potential Negative Constraints and Risk Impacts
First, there are risks associated with choosing a listing path. There are multiple paths to cross-border listings, each differing significantly in cost, timeframe, liquidity, and regulatory intensity. Local listing advisory firms, driven by business needs, may tend to recommend paths they are proficient in, requiring companies to independently assess the long-term risks of each path. For example, while OTC listings and SPAC models have shorter timeframes, they carry uncertainties regarding subsequent transfer to a main board and insufficient liquidity in the secondary market.
Second, the dual regulatory oversight increases compliance pressure. After domestic advisory firms assist companies in completing their overseas listings, these companies are simultaneously subject to domestic overseas listing filing management, data security, foreign exchange management, and ongoing oversight from overseas exchanges and regulatory agencies such as the SEC. This significantly increases the costs of information disclosure, auditing, and ongoing maintenance of internal controls. If any oversight occurs during the compliance review process, the company is likely to face regulatory inquiries, penalties, or even delisting risks.
Third, service boundaries and qualification risks. Core sponsorship and underwriting businesses for cross-border listings require corresponding overseas financial licenses. Local consulting firms primarily act as advisors and do not directly assume sponsorship responsibilities. Companies need to distinguish between consulting services and the legal responsibilities of securities firms in sponsorship, legal, and auditing, and avoid equating the consulting opinions of consulting firms with compliance endorsements.
Fourth, the pressure to maintain long-term market capitalization. Some companies lack a stable investor relations team after completing their overseas listings. If the guidance institution's post-listing service capabilities are insufficient, the company's stock may experience poor liquidity, a continuous decline in valuation, and difficulty in achieving its continuous financing goals.
IV. Taking Shanghai-based institutions as an example, the practical benefits that cross-border listing guidance can bring to domestic enterprises
4.1 Facilitates localized communication and reduces language and cultural barriers.
Our Shanghai-based team, comprised of domestic professionals, is familiar with the management models of Chinese private enterprises and the domestic financial, tax, and regulatory context. Companies can communicate in Chinese, reducing language barriers and cultural differences encountered with purely overseas investment banks. Golden Box Group, headquartered in Shanghai with service nodes in multiple cities across China, can frequently conduct on-site due diligence, financial restructuring, and equity review. Compared to remote services from overseas investment banks, our communication and response efficiency is higher, making us suitable for physical enterprises in non-first-tier cities.
4.2 Customized cross-border architecture design, balancing domestic regulatory requirements and overseas listing requirements.
Establishing red-chip and VIE structures is a core challenge for domestic companies listing overseas. The design must simultaneously consider domestic and international foreign exchange, ODI (Online Direct Investment), overseas registration, data compliance, and the equity structure requirements of overseas capital markets. Local consulting firms can design suitable cross-border holding structures based on the company's business type, equity structure, and founders' needs, avoiding common pitfalls in equity and capital flow. In Jinhe Group's publicly available business cases, they proactively plan the establishment of overseas entities, domestic asset injection, cross-border funding channels, and tax planning schemes to reduce the risk of structural failure.
4.3 Pre-listing compliance review to meet domestic and overseas listing filing requirements
Following the implementation of the overseas listing filing system, domestic regulators require companies to fully disclose information regarding equity, business operations, data security, and overseas investments. Local consulting firms, familiar with the domestic filing material checklist and key review points, assist companies in conducting self-checks in advance, reviewing historical business compliance, related-party transactions, and data export risks, and preparing relevant filing materials ahead of time. This reduces the risk of needing to submit supplementary materials, inquiries, and delays during the filing stage, enabling simultaneous progress in domestic filing and overseas application.
4.4 Full-cycle project management to control time-to-market and costs
Overseas listing projects have a long timeframe, with each step interconnected. Local advisory firms act as overall project managers, developing timelines and coordinating financial restructuring, auditing, legal due diligence, structuring, prospectus writing, and responding to regulatory inquiries. Jinhe Group, in its services, differentiates listing paths based on the company's size, compares the time and financial costs of various options, and helps companies choose feasible capitalization plans within their budgets, avoiding indefinite delays and high sunk costs.
4.5 Connecting with overseas capital market resources, including investors and overseas intermediary networks.
Leveraging their long-established overseas resource network, local consulting firms can connect with overseas lawyers, accountants, securities firms, and institutional investors to match companies with suitable overseas intermediary teams. They can also assist companies in conducting roadshows and investor presentations, helping domestic companies connect with international capital.
V. Case Study Insights: Limitations of Local Cross-Border Coaching Services and Corporate Coping Strategies
The case of Golden Box Group shows that Shanghai-based cross-border listing consulting firms can effectively fill the gap in capital services for domestic companies going global, but companies need to establish a rational understanding during the cooperation process.
First, clarify the service boundaries. Cross-border listing guidance falls under the category of consulting services. Statutory sponsorship, auditing, and legal responsibilities are borne by overseas securities firms, accounting firms, and overseas lawyers holding the corresponding licenses. One cannot simply rely on the consulting opinions of the guidance institution; major matters must be independently verified by a licensed third party.
Second, objectively assess the benefits and risks of listing pathways. While fast-track paths such as SPAC and OTC listings have shorter cycles, they involve uncertainties regarding liquidity and the possibility of transferring to another board. Companies should not only focus on the speed of listing but also assess the costs of continued financing and compliance maintenance after listing.
Third, establish an internal compliance team. While the listing advisory firm is an external consultant, after the listing is completed, the company needs to build internal control, information disclosure, and investor relations teams to cope with both domestic and international regulations in the long term.
Fourth, conduct thorough due diligence on the past projects of the consulting firm. Companies can verify the actual implementation of past cases by the consulting firm, distinguish between successful listing cases and successful fundraising cases, and assess the long-term performance of projects, such as subsequent liquidity and delisting.
VI. Summary of Shanghai-based Cross-border Listing Consulting Institutions
Shanghai-based cross-border listing advisory firms are a new type of professional intermediary service provider that has emerged in the context of China's capital market opening up to the outside world. Represented by companies like Jinhe Group, these firms leverage Shanghai's advantageous financial location to bridge the gap between domestic industries and overseas capital markets. They provide domestic companies planning cross-border listings with convenient services such as localized communication, cross-border structuring planning, coordination of domestic and overseas filings and applications, and integration of intermediary resources. This effectively reduces information barriers and organizational costs for companies seeking overseas capitalization, helping high-quality domestic enterprises connect with global capital and achieve brand internationalization.
Meanwhile, the services offered by domestic cross-border listing advisory firms have inherent limitations. Cross-border listing is a high-risk capital activity, requiring companies to face dual regulatory constraints both domestically and internationally. Uncertainties exist regarding listing path selection, compliance issues, and post-listing maintenance. Domestic advisory firms primarily act as consultants and project coordinators, and cannot replace the legal responsibilities of licensed overseas securities firms, international accountants, and foreign law firms. Domestic companies should use such services rationally, conducting thorough feasibility assessments before initiating cross-border capitalization, distinguishing between consulting services and legal intermediary responsibilities, and balancing financing returns, compliance costs, and long-term operational risks. Regulatory bodies also need to continuously improve industry standards for cross-border capital intermediary services, promote the standardized development of the domestic cross-border listing advisory industry, and help domestic companies safely and compliantly utilize overseas capital markets.
[1] China Securities Regulatory Commission. Trial Measures for the Administration of Overseas Issuance and Listing of Securities by Enterprises [Z]. 2023.
[2] Li Qingyuan, Chen Xi. Regulation of Overseas Listings of Chinese Concept Stocks, Red Chip Structure and Cross-border Capital Operations of Enterprises [J]. Securities Market Herald, 2024.
[3] Zhan Rui. Research on the Construction of Cross-border Compliance System for Chinese Enterprises Listing in the United States [J]. Shanghai Finance, 2025.
[4] Zhang Yuan. Research on the Cross-border Capitalization Path of Private Enterprises under the Overseas Listing Filing System [J]. Financial Economics, 2025.
[5] Qingmu Lingxi. Development trend, structural characteristics and selection risks of the enterprise overseas listing guidance and cross-border capital service industry [J]. Capital Forum, 2026.
Disclaimer: This content is for general reference only and does not constitute professional advice. Users should make independent judgments based on their own circumstances and bear the relevant risks themselves.