摩根士丹利：中国观察-供给侧改革回归，但这一次更为复杂

Investment Rating - The report maintains a persistent deflation baseline into 2026, indicating a cautious outlook on the industry [1]. Core Insights - The renewed supply-side reform in China is characterized as "new wine in an old bottle," suggesting that while the initiative is returning, the current industrial landscape and macro environment are more complex than during the previous reform period from 2015 to 2018 [1][3]. - The "anti-involution" initiative launched in July 2024 aims to address excessive competition and overinvestment, with recent signals from leadership indicating a more systematic approach to these challenges [2][3]. - The report highlights that the current overcapacity challenge is different due to several factors, including a more decentralized industrial landscape dominated by private firms and a weaker economy with constrained fiscal space [8][18]. Summary by Sections Introduction - The concept of "involution" has led to the "anti-involution" initiative aimed at sustainable growth and societal well-being [2]. - The initiative is a response to renewed price wars and entrenched deflation, indicating a need for deeper analysis of overinvestment causes [2]. Supply-Side Reform Comparison - The current supply-side reform (Anti-involution 1.0) differs from the previous reform (Supply-side Reform 1.0) in targeted sectors, firm ownership, and the approach to overcapacity [5]. - The current reform focuses on mid-to-downstream sectors and is more nuanced compared to the administrative orders of the past [5]. Economic Context - The report notes that the economy is starting from a weaker position, necessitating demand-side stimulus to counteract supply reductions [8][18]. - High government debt levels (~100% of GDP) may limit the ability to undertake aggressive fiscal expansion [8]. Implementation Challenges - The complexities of the current industrial landscape, including advanced utilized capacity and the dominance of private firms, complicate the coordination of mergers and capacity closures [8][18]. - The report suggests that while there is rhetoric around anti-involution, clear timelines and actionable plans are still lacking, reflecting the complexities in implementation [15][16]. Conclusion - The report concludes that rapid reflation is contingent on demand improvement, contrasting the previous period's reliance on housing and exports [17]. - The renewed focus on anti-involution is seen as a positive step, but the tools available are softer, and the macro backdrop is weaker compared to 2015-2018 [18].