ST京蓝股价“三连涨”背后：控股股东爽约业绩补偿，2025年预亏超1.5亿元

Core Viewpoint - The stock price surge of ST Jinglan (SZ000711) is not supported by substantial positive developments in the company's fundamentals, which face significant challenges [1][2]. Financial Performance - ST Jinglan's stock price increased by over 15.97% in three consecutive trading days, despite the company facing severe financial difficulties, including a projected net loss of between 1.5 billion to 2.2 billion yuan for 2025 [1][2]. - In the first three quarters of 2025, the company reported a revenue increase of 310.85% to 332 million yuan, but the net profit attributable to shareholders was a loss of 105 million yuan, worsening from the previous year [2][3]. - The company has been in a continuous loss state for several years, with a projected net loss of 1.19 billion yuan for 2024 [2][3]. Shareholder Obligations - The controlling shareholder, Yunnan Jiajun, failed to meet its profit compensation commitment, resulting in a compensation obligation of 52.08 million yuan, of which only 6 million yuan has been received, leaving 46.08 million yuan overdue [3][4]. - The company is expected to trigger new compensation obligations due to projected performance falling significantly below the agreed targets in the restructuring investment agreement [3]. Liquidity Issues - As of the end of the third quarter of 2025, ST Jinglan had only 9.1263 million yuan in cash, indicating severe liquidity constraints [4]. - The company is in a strategic transformation phase, requiring significant funding for various projects, which may lead to delays and impact overall performance if funding is not secured [5]. Future Prospects - The company announced plans to inject assets from Xinlian Technology into the listed company to pivot towards the hazardous waste resource utilization sector, but funding challenges pose a significant barrier to this plan [5]. - The controlling shareholder's financial situation is precarious, with 540 million shares pledged, reflecting high liquidity pressure and raising doubts about the ability to fulfill performance compensation commitments [5][6].