Core Viewpoint - The establishment of new policy financial tools aims to support technology innovation, expand consumption, and stabilize foreign trade, addressing the issue of insufficient project capital and matching funds [4][16]. Summary by Sections 1. Introduction: What are "New Policy Financial Tools"? - The new policy financial tools are designed to solve the problem of insufficient project capital and matching funds, as highlighted in the April Politburo meeting [4][16]. - The tools are expected to be implemented through market mechanisms, with policy banks as the main operators and potential low-cost funding support from the central bank [2][4]. 2. Operational Mechanism: How will it operate? - The operation may follow a market-oriented approach, with strict project reviews by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) [5][20]. - Policy banks are likely to be the main operators, participating in project presentations and matching funds [6][20]. - The central bank may provide funding support through the PSL (Pledged Supplementary Lending) mechanism [6][21]. - There is a clear intention to direct support towards private enterprises, with a specific allocation of 100 billion yuan for this purpose [6][21]. 3. Historical Review: What similar tools have existed? - Previous similar tools include the policy development financial tools from 2022, which focused on major infrastructure and technology innovation projects, with a total funding of 739.9 billion yuan [23][24]. - The special construction funds from 2015-2017 also served a similar purpose, with a total investment of 2 trillion yuan across various infrastructure projects [27][30]. 4. Scale Perception: How large might it be? - The total scale of the new policy financial tools is estimated to be around 500 billion yuan, although the exact allocation for this year remains to be seen [8][31]. 5. Key Directions: What are the "Eight Major Areas"? - The focus areas include digital economy, green low-carbon initiatives, artificial intelligence, consumption, and urban renewal, among others [9][32][33]. 6. Impact Measurement: How much will it drive fixed asset investment? - The leverage effect of the new policy financial tools is estimated to be over 10 times, potentially driving an investment of 5 trillion yuan, which would account for about 10% of the fixed asset investment in 2024 [10][34][35].

近一周，政策出台不多，主要关注以下内容： 文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人： 袁玲玲（微信 Yuen43） 报告摘要 报告正文 一、 近一周党中央及国务院高层重要行程 近一周（ 9 月 1 日至 7 日） ，党中央及国务院高层重要行程，参见如下表格。 4 、反腐：财政部、国资委、证监会等部委做出部署 。 1 ） 9 月 3 日， 财政部党组与驻部纪检监察组召开 2025 年年中会商会议，研究部署全面从严治党工作 。 2 ） 9 月 4 日 ，国务院国资委党委 2025 年第一轮巡 视完成反馈，提出" 要进一步强化系统整治，着力补齐短板弱项，做到以巡促改、以巡促建、以巡促治 … 党委书记要负首责、负总责"。 3 ） 9 月 6 日 ，证监会党委召开会议，坚决拥护党中央对易会满进行纪律 审查和监察调查的决定。会议强调，"始终保持战略定力和高压态势， 坚决打好反腐败斗争攻坚战持久战总 体战…要持续巩固拓展深入贯彻中央八项规定精神学习教育成果 ，推进中央巡视整改常态化长效化"。 5 、产业：涉及服务消费（体育）、电子信息、十五五部署（人工智能、机器 ...

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人：夏雪（微信 SuperSummerSnow） 核心观点 1 、今年上半年欧元区经济增速飙升，其中爱尔兰贡献大部分，背后受跨国企业活动影响较大，并不能真实反映欧元区经济修复动能，剔除爱尔兰以后，欧元区经 济整体呈温和复苏态势。 2 、往后看，目前 GDP 月频同步指标显示 Q3 欧元区经济增速或温和回升。领先指标则指向更远的后续可能维持弱复苏态势。 3 、拆分经济组分来看，国内私人需求方面，私人消费与固投或均缺乏进一步上行弹性，库存投资或处于上行周期中；海外需求方面，出口短期可能面临美国需求 前置后的退坡风险（特别是考虑到本轮美国抢进口从欧元区抢的幅度较大），中期或面临制造业竞争压力；财政方面，德国的扩张计划若落地或刺激一定需求，但 法国仍计划实施财政整顿，且目前面临政府倒台风险，财政不确定性较高，市场对于未来两年欧元区整体赤字率持收缩预期。 报告摘要 一、欧元区经济指标全扫描：增长动能如何？ 今年以来，欧元区综合 PMI 从 49.6% 震荡回升至 8 月 51% ，欧元区季调后实际 GDP 同比由 202 ...

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人：付春生（18482259975） 报 告 摘 要 8月非农数据简述 1、新增非农再次低于预期 。新增非农2.2万，预期7.5万。6月数据从1.4万下修至-1.3万，7月数据从7.3万上修至7.9万。就业增长主要集中在2个行业，教育保健 服务（+4.6万，前值+7.7万）、休闲和酒店（+2.8万，前值+0.6万），制造业、专业和商业服务、政府部门的就业萎缩。就业增长广度本月有所改善，但整体依 然维持在非衰退时期的历史低位。 2、失业率小幅上行 ，录得4.3%（4.324%），前值4.2%（4.248%），预期4.3%。本月供需实际上边际有所改善：劳动参与率回升0.1个百分点至62.3%，家庭 调查口径的新增就业增长28.8万，此前三个月则是平均减少86.3万，只是需求边际改善幅度不及供给，因此失业率小幅上行。 3、时薪增速符合预期 。时薪环比0.3%，预期0.3%，前值0.3%。时薪同比增速3.7%，预期3.8%，前值3.9%。周工时持平于34.2小时，处于2015年以来的低位 水平。周薪环比增长0.3%，上 ...

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人：陆银波（15210860866） 报告摘要 景气向上： 利率： 债券震荡偏弱。 截至 9 月 5 日， 1 年期、 5 年期、 10 年期国债收益率分别报 1.3959% 、 1.6121% 、 1.8260% ，较 8 月 29 日环比分别变化 +2.61bps 、 -2.01bps 、 -1.19bps 。 报告目录 | 每周经济观察… | | --- | | (一) 华创宏观 WEI 指数维持在相对高位 . | | (二)资产:股债夏普比率差继续上行 | | (三)需求:乘用车零售增速回落,她产销售增速转正… | | (四)生产:石油沥青装置开工率连续三周回落 . | | (五)贸易:摩根大通全球制造业 PMI 回升至荣枯线上………………………………………… 7 | | (六)物价:金涨油跌,多晶硅大幅反弹……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 | | ( ...

文 ： 华创证券研究所副所长 、首席宏观分析师 张瑜（执业证号：S0360518090001） 联系人： 陆银波（15210860866） 2025 年上半年，制造业上市公司可支配收入为 2828 亿，去年同期为 263 亿。从可支配收入的构成来看， 主要是商品收支、员工报酬（含股息）两项体量较大。 2025 年上半年相比 2024 年上半年，员工报酬（含 股息）同比增长 3.0% ，但商品收支同比增长 17.8% 。从行业来看（中信二级），可支配收入改善较为明 显的是电源设备、发电及电网、光学光电、工业金属、白色家电、普钢等。可支配收入相比去年有所走弱 的是煤炭、酒类、消费电子、食品、商用车等。 三、积极变化 2 ：资本支出强度有所下降 核心观点 本篇报告结合上市公司的中报数据，分析上市公司的现金流。我们构建类似居民部门资金流向的分析框 架，对企业部门的资金流入流出予以分析。其流入来自可支配收入（经营性业务） + 股权融资 + 债权融资 + 存量储蓄损耗，其流出包括资本开支和金融投资。制造业上市公司的中报表明，今年上半年，企业的可 支配收入大幅好转、资本开支强度有所下降、融资结构中股权融资占比有所提高。 报 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article provides an analysis of global asset performance and macroeconomic indicators, highlighting trends in various markets and potential investment opportunities. Group 1: Global Asset Performance - In August, global asset performance ranked as follows: global stocks (2.45%) > global bonds (1.45%) > RMB (0.97%) > 0% > commodities (-0.77%) > USD (-2.20%) [2] - The Bloomberg Federal Reserve sentiment index has declined, which may lead to a decrease in US Treasury yields [4][11] - The 10-year government bond yield spread between France and Italy has narrowed to near zero, indicating a reassessment of fiscal and political risks in both countries [4][15] Group 2: Market Trends and Fund Manager Behavior - There is a divergence between cyclical and defensive sectors in the US stock market, with cyclical stocks outperforming despite a weak ISM manufacturing PMI [4][17] - Global fund managers have increased their allocations to emerging markets and equities while reducing exposure to pharmaceuticals, the Eurozone, and REITs [4][20] Group 3: Credit and Commodity Insights - The credit impulse index in China has been rising, which may limit the upward momentum of the USD index [4][23] - Speculative net positions in WTI crude oil futures have dropped to the lowest level since 2012, reflecting cautious market sentiment towards oil prices [4][25] - The copper-to-oil ratio has been increasing, which may positively impact the CSI 300 index, indicating stronger industrial activity in China [4][27] Group 4: Currency and Gold Market Dynamics - The RMB has appreciated significantly, reaching its highest level since November 2024, driven by easing trade tensions and strong export performance [4][33] - Since 2025, the MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF has significantly outperformed spot gold, showcasing strong momentum in gold mining stocks due to rising gold prices and improved operational efficiencies [4][36]

Core Viewpoint - The economic outlook for August indicates resilience under the easing of external demand pressures and the gradual withdrawal of extraordinary internal policies, with highlights in exports, production, and service consumption, while manufacturing investment, infrastructure investment, and durable goods consumption may continue to weaken due to policy rhythms [2][4]. Exports - It is expected that August dollar-denominated exports will grow by approximately 7% year-on-year, while imports will increase by around 2%. Key observations include a significant year-on-year increase of 9% in port container throughput and a manufacturing PMI average of 50.88% among major economies [4][14][15]. Production - The industrial growth rate for August is projected to be around 6.0%. High-energy-consuming industries are expected to remain stable, with a recovery in crude steel production growth. However, downstream consumption production may be relatively weak, as indicated by a PMI of 49.2% in the consumer goods sector [5][13]. Service Consumption - August is expected to see improved resident travel conditions, with increases in the business activity index and new orders in the railway and aviation sectors, likely boosting dining, accommodation, and entertainment consumption [5][21]. Social Financing and Investment - New social financing in August is anticipated to reach 2.1 trillion, an increase of 780 billion compared to the same period last year. The stock growth rate of social financing is expected to decline to around 8.7% [6][22]. - Fixed asset investment growth is projected to fall to around 1.0%, with manufacturing investment at 5.3% and real estate investment at -12.5% [6][18]. Price Levels - The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is expected to decline to around -0.5% year-on-year, while the Producer Price Index (PPI) is projected to recover from -3.6% to approximately -2.9% year-on-year [7][11][12]. Durable Goods Consumption - The "old-for-new" policy is being reintroduced with refined subsidy arrangements, but durable goods consumption growth may slow. Retail sales growth is expected to be around 3.8%, with automotive sales declining by 3.5% [6][20]. Real Estate Sales - Real estate sales area growth is expected to be around -8.0%, with significant declines in sales figures for major property companies [19]. Financial Sector - The government bond issuance and corporate bond issuance in August are projected to be around 1.2 trillion, with a decrease in net financing for government bonds and corporate bonds compared to the previous year [22][24].

Core Viewpoint - The article analyzes the supply-side reform period from 2015 to 2018, highlighting the impact on asset performance and PPI, and contrasts it with the current anti-involution policies, providing insights for future investment opportunities and risks [2]. Group 1: Asset Review During Supply-Side Reform - The introduction of supply-side reform in November 2015 marked a bottoming out of coal and steel prices, leading to a relative outperformance against the market [3]. - In the early stages of the policy (end of 2015 to mid-2016), there was significant volatility in related assets due to the clash between "strong expectations" and "weak realities" [3]. - The trend of rising coal and steel prices began around June 2016, following the breakdown of local capacity reduction targets and improvements in economic fundamentals [3][4]. - The sustainability of the market rally was primarily driven by demand, with profitability in the coal and steel sectors improving due to rising prices, which were largely supported by demand [4][31]. Group 2: PPI Review During Supply-Side Reform - From the introduction of supply-side reform to the PPI turning positive, it took 10 months, with coal, steel, and non-metallic building materials contributing 49% to the PPI recovery [5][53]. - The recovery of PPI was also supported by improvements in the global economy, with oil and non-ferrous metals contributing 36% to the PPI rise during the same period [5][53]. - After PPI turned positive, the breadth of price increases across industries significantly improved, with the proportion of industries experiencing price increases remaining high [5][54]. Group 3: Differences Between Current Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - The macroeconomic context and policy objectives differ significantly between the current anti-involution measures and the supply-side reform, with the latter focusing on reducing ineffective supply and expanding effective supply [7]. - The current anti-involution policies are expected to have a more gradual impact on prices compared to the rapid effects seen during the supply-side reform [7]. - The methods of capacity governance differ, with supply-side reform relying more on administrative measures, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches [7]. Group 4: Future Insights on PPI and Anti-Involution Related Assets - PPI is expected to enter a recovery cycle starting in August, but the timing for it to turn positive may be longer than in 2016, likely extending beyond the first quarter of next year [8]. - The performance of anti-involution related assets will depend on overall macro demand improvement, with key indicators such as manufacturing sector ROE, capacity utilization, and actual inventory growth showing no significant improvement yet [10]. - Active equity funds have a relatively low allocation to key anti-involution sectors, indicating that the momentum from fund reallocation may be weaker than during the supply-side reform period [11].

Core Viewpoint - The construction of a unified national market requires the regulation of local investment attraction behaviors and the elimination of local protectionism, with tax incentive policies being a key measure to break local protectionism [2][4][5]. Tax Competition Indicators - Two tax competition indicators have been established: the provincial tax competition index, which indicates the intensity of tax competition and the attractiveness of tax policies to enterprises, and the tax refund rate for listed companies in each province, which measures the proportion of tax exemptions for listed companies [6][7][8]. - The current tax competition index is close to its highest value in the past 30 years, reflecting the necessity of a unified national market [7][23]. Four Types of Competition Models - The 31 provinces can be categorized into four competition models based on the tax competition index and the tax refund rate for listed companies: 1. **Free Type**: Low tax competition index and low refund rate (e.g., Beijing, Tianjin) indicating minimal local protectionism [15]. 2. **Strong Type**: Low tax competition index and high refund rate (e.g., Jiangxi, Zhejiang) focusing on attracting large enterprises [15]. 3. **Depressed Type**: High tax competition index and low refund rate (e.g., Henan, Jilin) indicating high overall tax policy attractiveness but low emphasis on listed companies [15]. 4. **Preferential Type**: High tax competition index and high refund rate (e.g., Hunan, Shandong) indicating the highest local protectionism and urgent need for a unified market [15]. Tax Competition Index Analysis - The tax competition index has been rising since 2010, with a projected average of 0.88 for 2024, nearing the maximum value of 0.9 observed in the past 30 years [23][24]. - The highest tax competition indices are found in Central and Northeast China, while the lowest are in South and North China [24]. Tax Refund Rate for Listed Companies - The national tax refund rate for listed companies has been around 5% to 10% over the past 30 years, with a significant increase to 15% in 2024, reflecting a higher level of tax relief compared to historical averages [28][29]. - The highest tax refund rates for listed companies are observed in Jiangxi (38.2%), Zhejiang (36.7%), and Hunan (35.6%), while the lowest are in Shanxi (1.6%) and Guizhou (2.4%) [29].