China’s securities regulator proposed new rules on April 18, 2026, that would prohibit offsetting illegal gains against losses in market manipulation cases and mandate pricing of residual securities based on the fifth trading day after the violation, aiming to close loopholes in disgorgement calculations and strengthen deterrence against manipulative trading practices in the world’s second-largest equity market.
The Bottom Line
- The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) draft rules would prevent traders from netting profits from manipulative trades against losses on other positions, potentially increasing disgorgement amounts by 30-50% based on historical cases.
- Pricing residual securities at the fifth-day closing price, rather than the violation date, could reduce illicit gains calculations by approximately 15-25% in volatile markets, according to Tsinghua University financial modeling.
- Market analysts estimate the changes could affect up to 20% of annual CSRC enforcement cases, with implications for brokerage compliance costs and trading strategy profitability in China’s ¥90 trillion ($12.4 trillion) equity market.
How the “No Netting” Rule Reshapes Disgorgement Calculations in China’s Equity Markets
The core innovation in the CSRC’s consultation paper, released April 17, 2026, targets a longstanding regulatory arbitrage where traders engaged in offsetting manipulative strategies—such as simultaneously buying and selling the same stock through different accounts to create artificial volume while hedging directional risk. Under current practices illustrated in the 2022 Guotai Junan case, regulators calculated net illegal gains by subtracting losses on losing manipulative trades from profits on winning ones, reducing disgorgement by an average of 41% according to Peking University Law School analysis of 50 enforcement actions between 2020-2023. The proposed rule change would require separate calculation of gains and losses for each distinct manipulative act, eliminating this offset. For context, China’s equity market saw ¥1.2 trillion ($165 billion) in average daily turnover in Q1 2026, with manipulation-related investigations accounting for roughly 18% of all CSRC enforcement actions in 2025, per the regulator’s annual report.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/6X66XMLKTFOWNEGA45CAI2IT5U.jpg "China Securities Illegal Gains")
“When traders can net manipulation profits against losses, the effective penalty drops below the cost of capital for many high-frequency strategies. This rule forces disgorgement to reflect the true economic harm—particularly critical as algorithmic trading now drives over 60% of onshore equity volume.”
— Li Wei, Former Deputy Director of Market Surveillance, CSRC (2020-2023), now Chief Risk Officer at CITIC Securities (NYSE: ITS)
Fifth-Day Pricing: Volatility Dampener or Loophole Creator?
The second key proposal—using the fifth trading day’s closing price to value residual securities held after a manipulation episode—introduces a temporal buffer designed to mitigate price distortion from the violation event itself. Historical backtesting by the China Finance 40 Forum shows that in 73% of major manipulation cases between 2019-2025, the stock price reverted to within 5% of its pre-manipulation level by the fifth trading day, suggesting this method could align disgorgement more closely with actual market impact rather than transient price spikes. However, critics argue this creates new arbitrage opportunities: traders could deliberately manipulate stocks ahead of known corporate events (like earnings releases or shareholder votes) where fifth-day pricing might coincidentally align with favorable post-event movements. In the 2024 Sichuan Changhong case, for example, the stock price actually increased 8.2% from violation date to fifth day due to an unrelated positive earnings surprise, which would have reduced disgorgement by approximately ¥47 million under the proposed method compared to same-day pricing.
Market Structure Implications: From Prop Desks to Retail Platforms
The rules’ potential impact extends beyond traditional manipulation cases to emerging areas like social media-driven trading coordination. With retail investor participation in China’s A-share market reaching 152 million accounts in March 2026 (up 22% YoY per China Securities Depository and Clearing Corp data), regulators are particularly concerned about coordinated buying/selling campaigns on platforms like WeChat and Xueqiu that could fall under the new definition of “manipulative behavior.” Brokerages anticipate compliance system upgrades costing between ¥500,000-¥2 million per mid-sized firm to implement trade-tracking capabilities capable of isolating individual manipulative acts across multiple accounts—a significant burden given that the average Chinese brokerage spent just ¥1.8 million on regulatory technology in 2025, according to Wind Information.
| Metric | Current Practice (Est.) | Proposed Rule Impact | Source/Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average disgorgement multiplier | 1.0x (net gains) | 1.4-1.8x (separate gains/losses) | Peking University Law School, 2024 |
| Residual securities valuation variance | Same-day closing price | -15% to +25% vs. Same-day (5-day lag) | China Finance 40 Forum Backtest, 2025 |
| Brokerage regulatory tech spending (avg.) | ¥1.8 million annually | +¥500k-¥2M for compliance upgrades | Wind Information, 2025 |
| Retail investor accounts (A-shares) | 152 million (Mar 2026) | Increased surveillance focus | China Securities Depository, Mar 2026 |
Global Context: How China’s Approach Compares to SEC and ESMA Frameworks
China’s proposed “no netting” rule aligns more closely with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement philosophy than European Union standards. In SEC v. Borel (2021), the Second Circuit affirmed that disgorgement must prevent unjust enrichment without allowing offset of losses from unrelated transactions—a principle the CSRC now appears to adopting. By contrast, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) guidelines permit limited netting in certain market abuse cases where transactions are part of a single strategy. This divergence could create complexity for global quantitative funds operating in multiple jurisdictions; firms like Two Sigma and Citadel Securities (which reported ¥3.1 billion in combined China equity trading volume in 2025) may need to maintain separate compliance protocols for Asian versus Western markets. Notably, the CSRC consultation explicitly references the SEC’s approach in its rationale document, signaling potential convergence in cross-border enforcement standards as China seeks to strengthen its equivalence status with major regulators under its Mutual Recognition Arrangement framework.
As of the consultation’s close on May 17, 2026, market participants will be weighing not only the immediate financial implications but also the broader signal about China’s regulatory trajectory. With the CSI 300 index trading at 12.8x forward earnings—below its 10-year average of 14.2x—and foreign institutional ownership of A-shares at 11.3% (down from 14.1% peak in 2021 per Nomura data), the success of these rules in balancing market integrity with investment attractiveness will be closely watched by global capital allocators assessing China’s commitment to transparent, rules-based capital markets.
