融券方面，会稽山2月25日融券偿还0.00股，融券卖出300.00股，按当日收盘价计算，卖出金额5880.00 元；融券余量1.44万股，融券余额28.22万元，超过近一年80%分位水平，处于高位。 声明：市场有风险，投资需谨慎。本文基于第三方数据库自动发布，不代表新浪财经观点，任何在本文 出现的信息均只作为参考，不构成个人投资建议。如有出入请以实际公告为准。如有疑问，请联系 biz@staff.sina.com.cn。 资料显示，会稽山绍兴酒股份有限公司位于浙江省绍兴市柯桥区湖塘街道杨绍路2579号，成立日期1993 年10月18日，上市日期2014年8月25日，公司主营业务涉及绍兴黄酒、黄酒的生产、销售和研发。主营 业务收入构成为：黄酒75.67%，其他24.33%。 责任编辑：小浪快报 截至9月30日，会稽山股东户数2.99万，较上期增加14.94%；人均流通股16025股，较上期减少13.00%。 2025年1月-9月，会稽山实现营业收入12.12亿元，同比增长14.12%；归母净利润1.16亿元，同比增长 3.23%。 2月25日，会稽山涨0.67%，成交额1.20亿元。两融数据显示，当日会稽山获融 ...

证券研究报告·行业跟踪周报·食品饮料 食品饮料行业跟踪周报 从"历史经典产业"到"传统优势民生产业" ， 新五年酿酒产业提质发展 增持（维持） [Table_Tag] [投资要点 Table_Summary] 2026 年 02 月 22 日 证券分析师 苏铖 执业证书：S0600524120010 such@dwzq.com.cn 证券分析师 孙瑜 执业证书：S0600523120002 suny@dwzq.com.cn 行业走势 -10% -7% -4% -1% 2% 5% 8% 11% 14% 17% 20% 2025/2/24 2025/6/22 2025/10/18 2026/2/13 食品饮料 沪深300 2026-02-10 东吴证券研究所 1 / 9 请务必阅读正文之后的免责声明部分 ◼ 从"历史经典"到"优势民生"产业，再度定调酿酒产业重要地位，鼓 励高质量发展。继 2025 年 10 月工信部发布《关于推动历史经典产业高 质量发展的指导意见（2026—2030 年）（征求意见稿）》，近期工信部、 人社部、市场监管总局再度印发《酿酒产业提质升级指导意见（2026— 2030 年）》，明确定调 ...

Summary of Key Points Core Viewpoint The recent food safety supervision sampling conducted by the Nantong Market Supervision Administration revealed that out of 203 batches of various food products tested, 200 batches were found to be compliant with safety standards, while 3 batches were deemed non-compliant. Group 1: Food Safety Supervision Results - A total of 203 batches of food products were tested, covering 14 categories including pastries, alcoholic beverages, edible oils, meat products, dairy products, and snacks [2][3]. - Out of the 203 batches, 200 were found to be compliant, resulting in a compliance rate of approximately 98.5% [2][3]. Group 2: Non-Compliant Food Products - Three batches were identified as non-compliant, with specific details provided in the attached documentation [2][3]. - The non-compliant products include items from various categories, indicating potential areas for improvement in food safety standards [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The case represents the first administrative lawsuit in Shanghai regarding market manipulation, highlighting the regulatory boundaries of legitimate versus illegitimate market value management [3][13]. Summary of Violations - The main entities involved include Shanghai Dengcheng Consulting Management Co., Ltd., its president Liu Mouyu, and Jin Mouchun, the legal representative of Jinggong Group. The case revolves around a series of illegal transactions from December 2017 to April 2019 aimed at maintaining the stock price of "Huaijishan" and mitigating stock pledge risks [4][14]. - The manipulation process was divided into four stages: building positions, raising prices, maintaining prices, and liquidating positions. During the price-raising phase, the involved accounts ranked first in trading volume for 43 trading days, with over 40% of the buying volume in 20 trading days. The stock price of "Huaijishan" increased by 12.62%, significantly deviating from the Shanghai Composite Index's decline of 22.03% during the same period [5][15]. - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Commission imposed fines totaling 2.4 million yuan on the involved parties, with 1.2 million yuan each for Jin Mouchun and Shanghai Dengcheng Consulting, and a 500,000 yuan fine for Liu Mouyu [6][16]. Administrative Litigation - Following the penalties, Shanghai Dengcheng Consulting and Liu Mouyu filed an administrative lawsuit against the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Commission, claiming their actions constituted legal market value management rather than market manipulation [6][16]. - The Shanghai Financial Court elevated the case, which became the first administrative lawsuit stemming from a market manipulation penalty, drawing significant attention from the capital market [7][16]. Court Ruling - The court ruled against Shanghai Dengcheng Consulting and Liu Mouyu, supporting the regulatory penalties. The court found their defenses lacked sufficient factual and legal support, noting that the timing of fund transfers and trading activities was highly correlated, and the involved funds violated basic investment diversification principles [8][17]. - The court emphasized that the so-called "legitimate market value management" was essentially a guise for market manipulation, and even if the manipulation resulted in losses, it did not absolve them of legal responsibility [8][18]. Core Controversy - The case clarifies the legal boundaries between "legitimate market value management" and "illegitimate market value management," dispelling two common misconceptions in the capital market: that market manipulation must result in profits to be prosecuted, and that one can evade liability by claiming market value management [9][18]. - The ruling sends a clear regulatory signal that the space for illegitimate market value management will continue to shrink, with enhanced regulatory scrutiny and tighter compliance requirements for the private equity industry [9][18].

Core Viewpoint - The company is expected to experience significant growth and operational changes in 2026, driven by tax incentives, new product launches, and management changes. Group 1: Performance and Business Operations - The company received high-tech enterprise certification in December 2025, allowing it to enjoy a 15% corporate income tax rate for three years starting from 2025, which is expected to increase profits by approximately 5% in 2025 and 10-15% in 2026-2027 [1] - The company plans to accelerate the national rollout of new products, including bubble yellow wine, targeting sales of 200 million yuan and expanding into second and third-tier cities such as Shandong, Guangdong, and Sichuan [2] Group 2: Management Changes - In January 2026, the company completed a board restructuring, appointing Tang Guijiang, a former executive from China Resources Snow Beer, as the new general manager, which is expected to enhance channel efficiency and national market penetration [3] Group 3: Company Status - As of February 2026, the company has not yet disclosed its full-year financial report for 2025, but the revenue for the first three quarters showed a year-on-year increase of 14.12%, with net profit growing by 3.23%, leaving the sustainability of growth to be confirmed in the annual report [4]

Core Viewpoint - The leadership change at Kuaijishan, a leading Huangjiu producer, aims to leverage the marketing expertise of its new general manager, Tang Guijiang, from the beer industry to address the challenges of regional consumption limitations and to attract younger consumers [3][4][5]. Group 1: Leadership Change - Kuaijishan appointed Tang Guijiang as the new general manager, replacing Yang Gang, with a term of three years [4]. - Tang Guijiang has extensive marketing experience in the beer industry, having held various senior positions at major companies like Budweiser and China Resources Snow Beer [4]. - The appointment is seen as a strategic move to enhance Kuaijishan's market presence and operational capabilities [4][6]. Group 2: Industry Challenges - Huangjiu, represented by Shaoxing Huangjiu, has a long history of about 2,500 years but faces significant regional consumption limitations, with 83% of Kuaijishan's revenue coming from the Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai regions as of the first three quarters of 2025 [5][6]. - The industry is characterized by a need for modernization and a shift towards younger demographics, which has become a critical focus for Huangjiu companies [6][7]. Group 3: Strategic Initiatives - Kuaijishan's strategy includes high-end, youth-oriented, and nationwide expansion, addressing the traditional challenges of the Huangjiu market [4][6]. - The company has engaged in cross-industry collaborations, such as partnering with popular influencers and launching new products to attract younger consumers [6][7]. - Despite these efforts, Kuaijishan's revenue growth remains slow, with a revenue of approximately 12.12 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2025, reflecting a year-on-year increase of 14.12% [6][7]. Group 4: Comparative Analysis - Kuaijishan and another leading Huangjiu producer, Guyue Longshan, are both attempting to leverage beer industry expertise to overcome similar market challenges, albeit through different strategies [7]. - Kuaijishan focuses on internal transformation by integrating beer industry marketing practices, while Guyue Longshan opts for external partnerships to innovate products and reach new consumer segments [7].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court upheld the administrative penalty imposed by the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau on Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and its executive Liu Mouyu for market manipulation, marking the first administrative case of its kind in Shanghai [1][3]. Group 1: Case Background - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau found that Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and a third party, Jin Mou Shun, colluded to manipulate the trading price and volume of K stock, violating Article 203 of the 2005 Securities Law [1][3]. - The penalties included a fine of 1.2 million yuan for both Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and Jin Mou Shun, and a warning with a fine of 500,000 yuan for Liu Mouyu [1][3]. Group 2: Court's Ruling - The court determined that there was clear evidence of a shared intent between Liu Mouyu and Jin Mou Shun to manipulate the market, supported by trading patterns and fund flows [3][4]. - The private fund accounts involved ranked first in trading volume for 43 trading days during the manipulation period, with K stock price increasing by 12.62%, deviating from the Shanghai Composite Index by 22.03% [3][12][13]. Group 3: Market Manipulation Details - The manipulation occurred from December 19, 2017, to April 8, 2019, with distinct phases including stock accumulation, price lifting, price maintenance, and eventual liquidation [9][10][11][15][16]. - During the second phase, the involved accounts held 4.05% of total shares and accounted for 33.80% of market trading volume, with significant trading activity indicating manipulation [11][12]. Group 4: Regulatory Perspective - The court emphasized that market manipulation undermines the normal price discovery mechanism and violates regulatory requirements, thus justifying the penalties imposed by the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau [4][17].

Core Viewpoint - The Shanghai Financial Court upheld the administrative penalty imposed by the Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau on Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and its executive Liu Mouyu for market manipulation, marking the first administrative case of its kind in Shanghai [1][3]. Group 1: Administrative Penalty Details - The Shanghai Securities Regulatory Bureau found that Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and a third party, Jin Mou Shun, conspired to manipulate the trading price and volume of K stock, violating Article 203 of the 2005 Securities Law [2][18]. - The penalties included a fine of 1.2 million yuan for both Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and Jin Mou Shun, and a warning with a fine of 500,000 yuan for Liu Mouyu [2][18]. Group 2: Court's Rationale - The court determined that there was clear evidence of a shared intent between Liu Mouyu and Jin Mou Shun to maintain K stock's market value through public market transactions, supported by the flow of funds [3][17]. - The private equity fund's concentrated trading activities in K stock, which deviated from normal investment practices, were deemed to have disrupted the normal trading order of the securities market [4][3]. Group 3: Market Manipulation Evidence - During the manipulation period from December 19, 2017, to April 8, 2019, the involved accounts ranked first in trading volume for 43 trading days, with over 40% market share on 20 days [3][12]. - K stock's price increased by 12.62% during the manipulation period, significantly diverging from the Shanghai Composite Index, which increased by only 22.03% [13][3]. Group 4: Background of the Companies Involved - Shanghai Certain Consulting Company, also known as Shanghai Dengcheng Consulting Management Co., was previously named Shanghai Taihehui Asset Management Co., with Liu Mouyu as its president [6][8]. - Jin Mou Shun was the legal representative and chairman of Jinggong Group Co., Ltd., involved in the trading of K stock [6][8].

Core Viewpoint - The leadership change at Kuaijishan, a leading Huangjiu producer, aims to leverage the experience of new General Manager Tang Guijiang from the beer industry to address the challenges of regional consumption limitations and to attract younger consumers [2][3] Group 1: Leadership Change - Kuaijishan appointed Tang Guijiang as the new General Manager, replacing Yang Gang, with a three-year term starting from February 9 [3] - Tang Guijiang has extensive marketing experience in the beer industry, having held various senior positions at companies like Budweiser and China Resources Snow Beer [3] Group 2: Industry Challenges - Huangjiu, a traditional liquor with a history of about 2,500 years, faces significant regional consumption limitations, primarily concentrated in the Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai areas [5] - In the first three quarters of 2025, 83% of Kuaijishan's revenue came from the Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai regions [5] Group 3: Strategic Directions - The core strategy for Kuaijishan includes high-end positioning, youth engagement, and national expansion, addressing the traditional challenges of the Huangjiu industry [3][6] - Kuaijishan's marketing expenses have significantly increased, with sales expenses reaching 3.32 billion yuan in 2024, a 60.2% year-on-year increase, and 3.34 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2025, a 54.7% increase [5] Group 4: Market Response - Kuaijishan's attempts to attract younger consumers through collaborations and product innovations have gained some visibility but have not yet resulted in a decisive market breakthrough [6] - The company's revenue growth remains slow, with a less than 20% increase in both revenue and net profit in 2024, and a revenue of 12.12 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2025, a 14.12% year-on-year increase [6] Group 5: Comparative Strategies - Kuaijishan and Guyue Longshan are both exploring ways to leverage beer industry expertise to overcome Huangjiu's challenges, but they are taking different approaches: Kuaijishan focuses on internal management transformation, while Guyue Longshan emphasizes external product innovation and partnerships [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the first administrative lawsuit in Shanghai related to market manipulation, where Shanghai Securities Regulatory Commission (SSRC) imposed penalties on Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and its personnel for manipulating stock prices of K stock through collusion and concentrated trading activities [2][3][4]. Summary by Sections Case Background - The case involves Shanghai Certain Consulting Company and Liu Mouyu, who were penalized by SSRC for manipulating the market by colluding with Jin Mouchun to influence the trading price and volume of K stock [3][4]. - The SSRC imposed a fine of 1.2 million yuan on both the consulting company and Jin Mouchun, while Liu Mouyu received a warning and a fine of 500,000 yuan [3]. Allegations and Findings - The SSRC found that from December 2017 to October 2018, the consulting company and Jin Mouchun engaged in activities to maintain K stock prices, which included using funds from affiliated companies to buy K stock [4]. - The trading activities involved three private equity funds that repeatedly bought and sold K stock, which was deemed as market manipulation [4]. Court Ruling - The Shanghai Financial Court supported the SSRC's decision, stating that the evidence showed a clear intent to manipulate the market, as the trading volume and price movements were abnormal [5]. - During the manipulation period, the private equity accounts ranked first in trading volume on 43 trading days, with K stock price increasing by 12.62%, deviating from the Shanghai Composite Index by 22.03% [5]. Market Management Context - Market management is defined as a strategic behavior by listed companies to enhance investment value and shareholder returns, which should adhere to regulatory requirements and not involve price manipulation or insider trading [6]. - The court concluded that the actions taken by the consulting company did not align with the principles of market management and disrupted normal trading order, thus justifying the administrative penalties imposed by the SSRC [6].