董宇辉爆单沙发陷“代工”争议，背后老板是“美的太子”

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent performance and controversies surrounding Kuka Home, particularly focusing on a successful live-streaming event led by Dong Yuhui, which raised questions about the company's production practices and financial health [4][10][11]. Group 1: Company Performance - Kuka Home experienced a decline in revenue and net profit in 2024, but showed signs of recovery in the first three quarters of 2025, with revenue and net profit increasing by 8.77% and 13.24% respectively [8][30]. - The company's sofa products are a significant revenue driver, contributing 56.67 billion yuan in the first half of 2025, up from 49.42 billion yuan in the same period the previous year, marking a growth of 14.68% [17]. - Despite the revenue growth, Kuka Home's accounts receivable increased by 22.94% year-on-year, raising concerns about cash flow and financial management [9][30]. Group 2: Controversies and Production Practices - Following a live-stream event where a sofa sold over 1 billion yuan, there were allegations regarding whether the products were manufactured in-house or outsourced to third parties, leading to market speculation about production capabilities [5][14]. - Kuka Home's management clarified that the sofas sold during the live stream were self-manufactured, and they are accelerating production to meet demand [6][15]. - The company maintains a production model that primarily focuses on self-manufacturing, supplemented by external production to address capacity issues [16]. Group 3: Leadership and Ownership Changes - Kuka Home's actual control shifted from the Gu family to He Jianfeng, son of Midea Group's founder, following a significant share transfer in January 2024 [25]. - The new leadership has faced challenges, with Kuka Home reporting a 3.81% decline in revenue and a 29.38% drop in net profit for 2024, indicating a tough transition period [27][29]. - The company has initiated a capital increase plan to raise 19.97 billion yuan for various projects, including 10 billion yuan for working capital, which has drawn scrutiny due to the significant price difference from the market value at the time of announcement [26].