Hong Kong-listed companies flock to "return to A-shares" to strengthen industry collaboration and improve financing efficiency

Securities Times reporter Wang Jun, Zhu Yong

Recently, vaccine leader AImvaccine, listed in Hong Kong, released an announcement proposing to apply to the Beijing Stock Exchange (BSE) for an A-share listing. Under the relevant rules, the company’s domestic shares must first be listed on the National Equities Exchange and Quotations (NEEQ). If this “back to A-share” effort proceeds smoothly this time, AImvaccine will become the first company to move from Hong Kong back to the BSE for listing.

Since mid-June last year, when the General Offices of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued documents clearly supporting qualified Hong Kong-listed companies in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area to list on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, together with the continued improvement in inclusiveness on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and the ChiNext for unprofitable biopharmaceutical and hard-technology companies, Hong Kong-listed companies are now launching the “back to A” process in a concentrated manner.

From BaiO Saitu, which has already listed on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board, to companies such as Ying’en Biotechnology, Everbright Environment, Paradigm Intelligent, and Yuejiang Technology that have recently advanced their “back to A” plans through announcements, “H-to-A” is expected to add more new demonstration cases. “A+H” is unfolding a “mutual pursuit in both directions.”

Top Subsector Leaders in Hong Kong Stocks

A-Share Listings Kick Off in a Cluster

While a large number of A-share companies are “going south” to list in Hong Kong, more and more Hong Kong-listed companies are choosing to “go north,” starting a layout of an “A+H” dual-capital platform.

The AImvaccine announcement, which recently proposed applying for an A-share listing, is a leading company in the vaccine sector. According to the company’s Hong Kong IPO prospectus and financial reports over the years, it is China’s second-largest and private-sector’s first comprehensive-chain vaccine group. At the same time, it ranks first globally in hepatitis B vaccines and second in rabies vaccines, and is also among the domestic first-tier players in mRNA vaccine R&D.

Such a leading company’s “back to A” is not a one-off. Not long ago, Hong Kong AI (artificial intelligence) leader Paradigm Intelligent disclosed that it had already obtained a tutoring and filing record with the Beijing Securities Regulatory Bureau and plans to list on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. In March, collaboration robot leader Yuejiang Technology announced plans to list on the ChiNext on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and raise about RMB 1.2 billion to invest in core projects such as multi-legged robots and humanoid robots. Earlier this year, Zhipu, which listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and has been hailed as the “first global large-model stock,” is also simultaneously advancing A-share listing guidance as it moves toward an “A+H” structure.

According to an incomplete count by Securities Times reporter, there are currently 10 Hong Kong-listed companies that have clearly submitted A-share IPO applications or initiated listing guidance, including Liqin Resources, Everbright Environment, Ying’en Biotechnology, Xinjiang Xinxin Mining, JZX Communication, China Biopharmaceutical, Beijing Automobile, and Xunzhong Communication, among others. They cover multiple fields including biopharmaceuticals, high-end manufacturing, environmental protection, resources, and communications.

In addition to direct IPOs, M&A restructuring has also become an important path for Hong Kong assets to “go back to A.” In January this year, Hong Kong-listed China Hongqiao achieved a strategic “back to A” by injecting its core aluminum assets into A-share Hongchuang Holding through a transfer, providing the industry with a replicable “curve back to A” sample.

Three Driving Forces

Driving the “Back to A” Boom

In June last year, the General Offices of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council issued documents to clearly support qualified Hong Kong-listed companies in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area to list on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. In addition, as the inclusiveness of the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and ChiNext has increased, the “back to A” channels for unprofitable biopharmaceutical and hard-technology companies have opened up. The combined effect of institutional reform and policy dividends undoubtedly provides Hong Kong-listed companies with more solid policy support and broader development space for “back to A.”

Beyond policy and institutional dividends, Liu Youhua, Research Director of Paipaiwang Wealth, told Securities Times reporter that this round of “back to A” enthusiasm in Hong Kong stocks has also been driven by two important factors: first, A-share liquidity and valuations are more attractive, with clear track-specific premiums for hard technology and biopharmaceuticals; local investors have higher awareness, and financing efficiency is better. Second, “back to A” helps strengthen synergy within local industries, making it easier for companies to connect with mainland supply chains, market and policy resources, and improving brand influence. “ ‘Hong Kong listing, with A-shares amplifying it’ is becoming an increasingly smooth capital route,” Liu Youhua said.

Among these, the most direct driver is still the valuation gap. In a direct remark to Securities Times reporter, He Jinlong, General Manager of Youmeili Investments, said: “A-shares are driven by both institutions and retail investors. Overall, trading activity and liquidity premiums are significantly higher than in Hong Kong. For local tracks such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and new energy, A-share valuations are usually 30%–60% higher than those in Hong Kong.”

This gap is especially evident among companies that have already “gone back to A.” BaiO Saitu, which listed on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board in December 2025, saw its A-share price rise more than twofold versus its offering price, and its premium over Hong Kong shares exceeded 90%. Wind data shows that as of March 31, for multiple “A+H” stocks including Guolian Minsheng, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, and CICC, the A-share premium rates over H-shares are all no less than 100%.

Yuan Mei, Research and Investment Director of Sullivan Jie Li (Shenzhen) Cloud Technology Co., Ltd., also believes that Hong Kong-listed companies have already passed the listing review and can operate compliantly on a continuous basis, resulting in higher market trust. After meeting the conditions, the “back to A” process is relatively faster, and domestic share shareholders can flexibly choose liquidity across two markets, which is more conducive to realizing equity value.

However, some private equity practitioners told Securities Times reporter that some “back to A” companies’ shares are still under lock-up periods, so their actual share prices and liquidity performance may only be reflected more objectively after the unlock. Ultimately, a company’s valuation still needs to align with the market environment and the degree to which fundamentals are being realized.

Performance and Valuation

The Biggest Risk Point

Although the “back to A” dividend is significant, this path is not smooth sailing. Securities Times reporter noted that companies including JZX Communication, China Biopharmaceutical, Beijing Automobile, and Xunzhong Communication have all announced the termination of “back to A” listing tutoring. The reasons given are mostly changes in the market environment, adjustments to capital market rules, and adjustments to corporate development strategies. In He Jinlong’s view, this termination of tutoring is not a failure, but a rational “brake” by the company—an act of prudence when the market environment, performance, valuation, and strategy do not match. There may still be a possibility of restarting in the future.

So, what is the biggest risk point that companies face in this round of “back to A” wave? Wen Tianna, CEO of Hong Kong-based Boda Capital International, told Securities Times reporter directly: first, performance falling short of expectations; second, valuation pullbacks. He further analyzed that most “back to A” companies are in an expansion or transformation period, with high R&D spending and large capital expenditures. If the macro environment fluctuates, clinical progress falls short of expectations, technology implementation is delayed, or demand along the industrial chain weakens, the difficulty of realizing profits will increase significantly. This directly impacts valuation and the ability to refinance, which is particularly critical for unprofitable biopharmaceutical and robotics companies. As for the risk of valuation pullbacks, it comes more from pressure on the supply side. If a number of “back to A” companies list in a short period of time, it may dilute liquidity in certain segments, and overvalued targets are more likely to be affected by market sentiment.

Liu Youhua also said that “back to A” means companies must bear higher compliance costs. Facing stricter performance expectations and more intense market competition, companies must make prudent decisions in line with their own development stages.

Against the backdrop of concentrated “back to A,” one of the market’s most concerned questions is: whether A-shares have enough capacity to absorb these listings, and whether it could trigger overall valuation convergence. Based on views from multiple interviewees, the overall A-share absorption capacity is sufficient, and it is likely to present a pattern where structural opportunities outweigh systemic pressure.

On the one hand, A-shares have a large pool of capital, and many companies in this round of “back to A” are industry leaders or track targets supported by policies, which makes it easier to attract long-term allocation funds. On the other hand, historical experience shows that high-quality companies going “back to A” often drive re-rating of sector valuations, rather than broadly suppressing them across the board.

Wen Tianna analyzed that currently, the A-share versus H-share premium index is at a relatively low level, and the valuation gap is moving toward rational convergence. The main situations that may face valuation pressure are targets whose fundamentals are not solid enough and those with high valuations that are still unprofitable. Meanwhile, leading companies whose strategy aligns with policies, with clear tracks, still have strong valuation resilience.

For the future “A+H” two-market listing structure, interviewees generally believe that the two markets will move toward deeper integration. At the same time, they will maintain differentiated positioning and form an ecosystem of mutual complement and win-win outcomes. Deep integration is reflected in continued policy efforts to promote mutual market access and listings/filings between the two markets being more convenient. Companies can use Hong Kong’s internationalized window together with mainland local capital and policy resources to achieve coordinated financing across the two platforms. The A-share versus H-share premium will also gradually move toward a more reasonable level.

And differentiation will exist in the long term. “Hong Kong stocks will continue to retain the characteristics of international capital, flexible listing tools, and global pricing. A-shares, by contrast, focus on the structure of local investors, support for hard technology, policy orientation, and long-term value investing,” Wen Tianna said. For companies, “going back to A” is not the final goal. How to use the dual platforms to achieve coordinated upgrades in technology, industries, and capital is what constitutes long-term value.