Breaking a historical high is not sufficient evidence by which one can come to the conclusion that the market is healthy. In May of 2000, the bursting of the high-tech bubble brought the NASDAQ to its knees-- the index tumbled from 5000 points to below 2000, at one point even reaching 1200. Did this not indicate the actual value of these tech stocks? Although the NASDAQ was recently at 2400 points, it was still considered the primary market for global tech stocks. The Hong Kong Hengsheng Index frequently rises and falls, even sharply at times. But none of this affects its status among global capital markets.
    
We should heed the words of Tu Guangshao, vice-chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, who says that in developing the capital markets, we should not just pay attention to the numbers but also quality, not just scope but also the structure, not just development but also the standards surrounding it, not just growth but also efficiency and competitive power.
    
Besides investors profiting from the rising indexes, the significance of this historical high is really not that great. Whether or not the trend will continue is also not so important. What is important is whether or not China’s capital markets will become a genuine avenue for the distribution of capital, whether or not it will become the economy’s barometer, and whether or not it will increase direct investment. In reality, all of these have little to do with the market’s recent performance.