应收账款飙升至营收86%，莱茵生物募资改道背后的财务真相

Core Viewpoint - The recent announcements from Lain Bio have raised concerns about the company's financial health and operational challenges, particularly regarding the abrupt termination of two key projects and the redirection of raised funds to supplement working capital instead of project development [1][4]. Group 1: Project Developments - Lain Bio's natural sweetener business accounts for over 90% of its revenue, primarily from stevia and monk fruit extracts, which are popular in the sugar substitute market [2]. - The company raised 968 million yuan through a private placement in September 2022, with plans to invest 730 million yuan in a stevia extraction factory, expected to generate an additional net profit of 159 million yuan annually upon full production [2][3]. - However, as of June 2023, the stevia factory project was only 77% complete with no production or sales, while the health product research institute was only 33% complete, indicating significant delays [5][10]. Group 2: Financial Performance - In the first half of 2025, Lain Bio reported a revenue of 837 million yuan, a year-on-year increase of 15.37%, but the net profit dropped by 41.27% to 38.11 million yuan [10][12]. - The company's gross margin fell to 23.57%, down 5.03 percentage points year-on-year, and the net margin decreased to 5.22%, down 4.15 percentage points [13]. - The decline in profitability is attributed to increased competition and pricing pressures in the sweetener market, as well as rising internal costs [13]. Group 3: Cash Flow and Debt Issues - Lain Bio's accounts receivable surged to 722 million yuan, a 125.43% increase year-on-year, significantly outpacing revenue growth and raising cash flow concerns [14]. - The company's short-term borrowings reached 521 million yuan, with total interest-bearing liabilities at 867 million yuan, while cash reserves dwindled to 243 million yuan, indicating a severe liquidity crunch [16]. - The reported increase in operating cash flow by 895.28% is misleading, as it was primarily due to reduced raw material payments and one-time adjustments rather than genuine operational improvements [17][18].