← 返回首页

SFC Type 2, Type 4 and Type 9 Side by Side: Which Licence Fits Your Business

Type 2 (“Dealing in futures contracts”), Type 4 (“Advising on securities”) and Type 9 (“Asset management”) are separate regulated activities under Schedule 5 to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), not interchangeable labels. The licence that fits depends on the service actually performed and whether a specific SFC exemption applies. The Type 2 exemption covers only wholly incidental Type 5 and Type 9 activities; the Type 9 exemption has its own “solely for purposes” conditions; and the Type 1 comparison covers wholly incidental Type 4, Type 6 and Type 9 activities. Where the services are distinct and no exemption applies, each remains a separate licensing question. Authorized financial institutions and individual regulated-function performers follow separate parts of the same statutory framework. This is a general scope comparison, not an individual eligibility assessment or an application service.

Official names and the SFO licensing framework

Schedule 5 to the SFO (Cap. 571) provides the definitions of regulated activities. The official names relevant to this comparison are:

The SFC states that Schedule 5 contains a detailed definition for each regulated activity. The names above follow the SFC’s reproduction of the Schedule 5 list. Each activity also has its own detailed definition in Schedule 5, so the short name alone should not be treated as the full test for what a licence covers.

The licensing consequence is dealt with separately under the SFO. Broadly speaking, a corporation that is not an authorized financial institution needs a licence if it carries on a business in a regulated activity in Hong Kong, under sections 114(1) and (2). A corporation may also require a licence if it actively markets, in Hong Kong or from outside Hong Kong and by itself or another person on its behalf, services to the public that would constitute regulated activities if provided in Hong Kong, under section 115.

Business scope and the SFC exemption links

The relevant distinction is between the activity being licensed and other activities that may be covered through an incidental exemption.

Type 2 → Type 5 and Type 9. A corporation licensed for Type 2, dealing in futures contracts, does not need a separate Type 5 licence for advising on futures contracts or a separate Type 9 licence for asset management if those activities are carried out wholly incidental to its futures dealing business. The SFC says this typically applies to futures brokers that provide investment advice or manage discretionary futures-client accounts as subordinate services to futures dealing. It may not apply where the actual arrangement indicates a distinct service, such as charging a fee based on assets under management for discretionary account management.

Type 4 — Advising on securities. Securities advice is its own regulated activity under the Schedule 5 label. The SFC’s comparison identifies two relevant exemption routes:

The Type 2 incidental-exemption provision does not list Type 4. It lists Type 5 and Type 9. Advice on futures contracts is therefore addressed through the Type 5 category, while advising on securities falls within Type 4.

Type 9 → Type 1, Type 2, Type 4 and Type 5. A Type 9 licensee does not need separate licences for those activities when they are carried out solely for the purposes of its asset management business. For Type 4 and Type 5, that asset management business must involve managing a portfolio under a CIS. The SFC says this exemption typically applies to fund managers that place orders with dealers or provide advice or research reports while managing clients’ securities and futures portfolios. It may not apply to orders for funds or portfolios that are not under the manager’s management.

Type 1 comparison → Type 4, Type 6 and Type 9. A Type 1 licensee does not need separate Type 4, Type 6 or Type 9 licences where those activities are wholly incidental to its securities dealing business.

How to apply the SFC incidental exemption factors

The SFC’s general rule is that a separate licence may not be required where another regulated activity is performed wholly incidental to a regulated activity for which the corporation is already licensed. The SFC identifies the following as relevant factors:

The application should therefore start with the actual service, not the label used by the business:

  1. Identify which regulated activity the service involves and which activity the corporation already performs under its existing licence.
  2. Check whether the SFC has an exemption route covering that combination. The routes are specific: not every additional activity can be added to every base licence.
  3. Apply the wording of the relevant route. The Type 1 and Type 2 provisions refer to activities that are wholly incidental. The Type 9 provision uses the formulation “solely for the purposes of” the asset management business.
  4. Consider whether the activity is subordinate, whether it has a discrete fee, and whether it accounts for a major part of the business.
  5. Examine the actual arrangement against the SFC’s examples. An assets-under-management fee may indicate a distinct discretionary account management service; orders for funds or portfolios not under management may indicate that the Type 9 exemption is unavailable.

These factors must be read as a whole. A separate fee is relevant, but the SFC does not present it as an automatic yes-or-no test. The examples likewise show that the actual operating arrangement matters.

Fund managers, group companies and combined licence needs

The SFC’s fund-company example separates the activities by function:

The SFC then refers the reader back to the incidental-exemption rules. A Type 9 fund manager may therefore not need separate Type 1, Type 2, Type 4 or Type 5 licences where the relevant activity is solely for its asset management business, subject to the CIS condition for Type 4 and Type 5. That does not remove the regulated activities from the analysis; it means that a separate licence is not required under the stated exemption.

This does not mean every fund manager needs all three licences. The position is conditional: if a corporation carries on futures dealing, securities advice and asset management as three distinct activities, and no incidental or sole-purpose exemption covers one of them, the broad licensing rule presents a separate licensing requirement for each. A Type 2 base licence does not extend to Type 4 under the quoted Type 2 route. A Type 9 base licence may reach Type 2 and Type 4, but only if the relevant conditions are met.

The SFC’s group company exemption has a separate boundary. It applies only where a corporation provides asset management services to its group company, on a wholly owned basis, in respect of that group company’s assets. It does not extend to assets belonging to the group company’s clients. Managing third-party assets constitutes asset management and attracts a licensing requirement.

Authorized financial institutions: registration rather than licensing

The SFC sets out a status-based alternative for an authorized financial institution. If an authorized financial institution carries on a business in a regulated activity other than Type 3, leveraged foreign exchange trading, or Type 8, securities margin financing, it must be registered as a registered institution under sections 114(1) and (2) of the SFO.

Type 2, Type 4 and Type 9 are not among the two activities excluded from that registration paragraph. An authorized financial institution carrying on any of those businesses therefore falls within the registration route rather than the licensing route.

For a bank, the relevant distinction is whether it has authorized financial institution status. The registration consequences turn on that status rather than on a separate bank-only test.

Individual approval: licensed representatives and responsible officers

The SFC’s individual requirement applies where an individual performs a regulated function for a principal that is a licensed corporation in relation to a regulated activity carried on as a business. In that case, the individual must be a licensed representative accredited to the principal under sections 114(3) and (4) of the SFO.

If that individual is also an executive director of the corporation, the individual must also be approved as a responsible officer under section 125(1)(a).

The cited provision is framed around an executive director. It does not support extending the responsible-officer statement automatically to every director or every person employed by the corporation. The licensed-representative requirement depends on the individual performing a regulated function for the relevant licensed principal.

Capital and fees: current SFC requirements must be checked separately

This comparison does not state any capital or fee amount, and none should be inferred from it. Capital requirements and fees differ by activity, legal form and the applicant’s circumstances.

Any figure should be checked against the SFC’s current approval criteria and, where applicable, the Financial Resources Rules. No amount should be converted from another figure or estimated from the licence names, business descriptions or exemption examples in this article.

The scope names and incidental-exemption rules explain which activities may be relevant. They do not determine whether a particular applicant meets all applicable approval requirements, and this article does not assess an individual application.

Sources and dates

This page is the source for the Schedule 5 activity names, the licensing and registration provisions, the incidental-exemption factors, the Type 2 and Type 9 exemption routes, the Type 1 comparison, the fund-company example and the group-company boundary. The legislative text of Cap. 571 and Schedule 5 itself should be read alongside this summary when the exact wording matters.