Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by China Mineral Resources Group to suspend the purchase of iron ore from BHP Billiton priced in US dollars has significant implications for both the Australian mining industry and the global commodity pricing system, indicating a potential shift in the dominance of the US dollar in international trade [1][3][18]. Group 1: Market Reaction - Following the announcement, BHP's stock price dropped sharply, resulting in a market capitalization loss of nearly 12 billion AUD, equivalent to approximately 57 billion RMB [1]. - The Australian mining sector is facing pressure with nearly 100 billion RMB worth of iron ore inventory becoming burdensome, as the supply chain struggles to find alternative markets [1][8]. Group 2: Negotiation Dynamics - The failure of the recent China-Australia trade talks, where China proposed to switch to RMB pricing for long-term contracts while BHP insisted on maintaining USD pricing with a 15% markup, highlights the ongoing struggle for pricing power and currency dominance [3][5]. - The negotiation reflects a broader contest over who defines value and sets the terms of trade, with China seeking to transition from a passive follower to an active rule-maker in the pricing structure [5][18]. Group 3: Dependency Analysis - China relies heavily on Australia for iron ore, importing about 60% of its needs from the country, while Australia is even more dependent, with approximately 85% of its iron ore exports going to China [7][8]. - The suspension of USD-denominated purchases allows China to exert more control over the transaction dynamics, while Australia faces the reality of its reliance on a single major buyer [7][8]. Group 4: Structural Factors - Australia's competitive advantage in iron ore mining stems from its high-grade deposits and efficient extraction methods, which have historically allowed it to command higher prices in the market [9][12]. - The long-standing pricing practices, which have favored Australian exporters, have resulted in significant financial gains for them, amounting to nearly 700 billion RMB from the Chinese market over the past decade [12][18]. Group 5: Strategic Shifts - China is actively diversifying its sources of iron ore and building a network of storage facilities to mitigate supply risks and enhance its bargaining position [14][15]. - The establishment of a centralized procurement platform by China Mineral Resources Group aims to consolidate orders from various steel mills, thereby increasing negotiating power against global mining giants [15][26]. Group 6: Currency and Financial Implications - The insistence on USD pricing by BHP is not only a matter of tradition but also a strategy to leverage financial tools and currency fluctuations for profit [16][18]. - China's push for RMB settlement is part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on the US dollar and establish a domestic currency ecosystem for international trade [18][19]. Group 7: Future Outlook - Potential outcomes of the current situation include BHP making concessions on pricing and currency, Australia seeking alternative buyers, or China continuing to enhance its supply chain resilience [25][26]. - The recent developments signal a shift in the negotiation landscape, prompting both parties to reconsider their strategies regarding pricing mechanisms and currency choices in future discussions [26].

在矿石航线与汇率曲线交织的海风里，中澳之间的铁矿买卖忽然按下了暂停键。2025年9月底，中国矿产资源集团以一纸通知叫停对必和必拓美元计价的铁 矿石采购，范围锁定新合同和在途船货。这不是"砍断绳索"的禁运，而更像棋局里挪走一个关键子，逼对手重新坐回棋盘边。它指向的焦点只有一个：定价 权。 过去十多年，海运铁矿的价格普遍追随普氏指数加溢价的组合，季度为主的议价节奏在卖方看来稳妥，在买方眼里却意味着跟着美元和周期跳舞。越是周期 上行时，指数越坚硬、溢价越顽固，中国钢厂的成本就越像风口上翻滚的旗帜。中国矿产资源集团在2022年挂牌，本意就是把四分五裂的采购盘子集中起 来，统一议价、统一结算，借规模换条款。到了2025年初秋，谈判先从具体矿种开刀，比如金布巴粉，限购试探，再扩大到所有海运船货。一条线索很清 晰：从季度改月度，从美元换人民币，先把结算与周期的节拍调整，再碰定价的唱词。 买方的"不"，与卖方的惯性 定价权的攻防：指数、周期与币种的三角博弈 这套调整背后是风险管理的朴素逻辑。以美元计价的铁矿合同天然嵌入汇率风险，人民币结算能把这一段"外生波动"从钢厂的账本上拿掉；月度周期则让采 购更靠近现货波动，避免季度内" ...

买方向卖方购买东西时，很大程度上，议价权或者定价权都掌握在卖方的手上，而买方只有跟随和默认的份。 有时候，买方虽然觉得这价格有点偏高，不满意，但若卖方坚持不降价的话，买方也束手无策，无可奈何。谁叫卖方手里有买方需要的东西呢？ 那么，作为买方，怎么样才能获得更多的主动权呢？ 接下来，就看看作为买方的我国是如何从作为卖方的澳大利亚里获得更多的议价权的吧！ 我国是全球最大的铁矿石消费国，消费了约占全球海运铁矿石进口的75%。我国的消费量如此巨大，肯定有不止一家的大供应商在。 事实上确实如此！ 全球有三大主要供应商向我国钢铁制造商供应大部分铁矿石，它们分别是巴西的淡水河谷、澳大利亚的力拓和必和必拓。这三家供应商长期、稳定地和我国 市场保持紧密联系。 2024年，我国铁矿石的进口量达12.37亿吨，占全球总量的60.2%，进口依存度高达86%。其中从澳大利亚必和必拓（BHP）和力拓（TINO）总共进口了7.2 亿吨，占到了澳大利亚铁矿石出口总量的85%。 按理说，作为全球最大铁矿石消费国的我国从澳大利亚进口高达85%的铁矿石，对其依赖性之高显而易见。换句话说，澳大利亚对我国会有很大的把控和主 导权。这主要体现在议价权上 ...

Core Viewpoint - The launch of the new "Miracle Tongyan 3.0" by Xinyang at a price of 2999 yuan marks a significant price drop in the market for Tongyan injections, which typically exceed 10,000 yuan, establishing a new low price point in the industry [1][4]. Pricing Strategy - Xinyang's pricing strategy is based on obtaining pricing authority from upstream manufacturers, allowing them to offer competitive prices [6][7]. - The previous versions of Tongyan injections were priced at 4999 yuan and 5999 yuan, indicating a trend of progressively lowering prices [4][9]. Market Context - The current market for Tongyan injections includes several high-priced products, with manufacturers like Saint Boma and Kanjie Pharmaceuticals pricing their products between 12,800 yuan and 14,800 yuan [4][9]. - The trend of decreasing prices for Tongyan injections is expected to continue, driven by market demand and product effectiveness [5]. Company Performance - Xinyang's clinics have achieved monthly profitability at the store level, although overall profitability is still pending due to the costs associated with middle and back-end operations [9]. - The company plans to expand its clinic network significantly, aiming for over 50 locations by the end of 2025, with a long-term goal of establishing a presence in 100 cities [9]. Financial Growth - Xinyang reported a substantial increase in revenue from its light medical beauty chain business, with a year-on-year growth of 551.4% in Q1 2025, reaching 98.8 million yuan [10]. - In Q2 2025, revenue from beauty treatment services also saw a significant increase of 426.1%, totaling 144.4 million yuan [10].

Group 1 - The access control industry has significant pricing power and premium margins, with a consolidated market structure limiting new entrants [1] - There are primarily two major players in North America capable of providing a comprehensive suite of products for building outfitting, which contributes to the industry's high configuration and specification requirements [1] - The company influences demand by engaging with architects and end-users, which helps in creating a sticky installed base and strong customer relationships [2] Group 2 - The sticky end-user relationships established through demand creation provide the company with pricing power and the ability to maintain long-term customer relationships [2]

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No information about the industry investment rating is provided in the report. 2. Core Views - Layout of the bottom - position is as important as flexible offense. A basket of "high - dividend × low - volatility" dividend assets can provide a natural "shock absorber" for the portfolio, and the combination can withstand extreme market conditions by suppressing volatility with stable cash flows and low β and then capturing market mismatches with the remaining positions [3]. - To amplify returns in the dividend pool, a dual - screening approach is more reliable than relying solely on the "high - dividend" indicator. Adding a second filter such as low - volatility, earnings quality, or institutional holdings can eliminate potential risks and further increase the returns of general dividend assets [3]. - On top of the dividend bottom - position, there are systematic excess opportunities from the left - to - right shift of the industrial cycle. Priority should be given to companies with stable cash flows despite pressured profits. Industries such as cement, silicone, and phosphate chemicals are currently in the preferred range, while the photovoltaic chain is still in a state of "double losses in profit and cash flow". The overall allocation strategy involves initially establishing an observation position, increasing the position after confirming the leading indicators of the profit inflection point, and exiting when profits weaken again or the gross margin is inverted [3]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 Bottom - Position Allocation Necessity: "Pure Left" and "Pure Right" Are Not Desirable - In a market with an increasing industry rotation center, it is crucial to build a long - term core position first. A 15 - year quarterly rotation experiment on 31 Shenwan primary industries shows that both extreme left - side bottom - fishing and extreme right - side chasing result in single - digit annualized returns and significant drawdowns. In contrast, a dividend portfolio characterized by "high - dividend × low - volatility" can provide double - digit annualized returns and keep drawdowns within an acceptable range. Therefore, increasing the exposure of "high - dividend + low - β" in the bottom - position can provide a safety cushion for the portfolio [7]. - Dividend assets are the optimal core bottom - position in terms of return - to - drawdown. Historical stress tests show that the dividend index has shallower drawdowns, a stable 3 - year rolling Sharpe ratio, and does not require market timing in the long - term perspective. It also has higher probabilities of achieving positive returns in different holding periods compared to most broad - based and style indices [10][12][21]. 3.2 Dividend Yield Single - Factor Trap - Selecting stocks based solely on the "high - dividend" factor often leads to choosing high - volatility stocks with limited return increases and large drawdowns. Adding a second filter such as low - volatility or earnings quality can improve the overall cost - effectiveness. Statistical regression shows that the dividend yield alone has a weak explanatory power for future returns [29]. - Several case studies illustrate different types of "false high - dividend" traps. For example, some companies rely on one - time gains to support high dividends, some have high dividends due to falling stock prices rather than improved profitability, and some have high dividends at the peak of the business cycle or due to high leverage. To avoid these traps, specific financial and operational criteria need to be set [37][40][44]. 3.3 High - Dividend Smart - Beta's Distortion Risk - Modified dividend indices such as "Dividend Quality" and "Dividend Potential" have larger fluctuations and deeper drawdowns than the CSI Dividend Index. Their style drift and uncontrolled risk exposure lead to higher volatility, especially in bear markets. The main reasons are their high - concentration weighting, high - valuation requirements, and frequent chasing of market highs [60][64]. - The CSI Dividend Index selects 100 stocks based on a three - year dividend yield with a diversified weighting, while the Dividend Quality and Dividend Potential indices select 50 stocks by adding factors such as ROE and EPS growth, with a more concentrated and high - chasing weighting. As a result, they are more likely to suffer from double - kills of earnings and valuation when the market weakens [64]. 3.4 Potential Ways to Enhance Dividend Low - Volatility - **Dividend + Pricing Power Approach**: Traditional high - dividend indices have several drawbacks, including style drift, inclusion of high - risk high - dividend stocks, and right - side trading characteristics. A comprehensive scoring system based on pricing power, price - to - earnings ratio, and stability can be used to select the top 20 stocks for a portfolio. A ten - year back - test shows that this combination has better performance in terms of cumulative return, annualized return, and drawdown control compared to the CSI Dividend Index [83][84]. - **Considering Institutional Participation Rate**: Incorporating institutional holdings into high - dividend screening reveals that stocks with high institutional participation (≥20%) from stable - cash - flow industries have better risk - return profiles, including higher cumulative returns, greater upside potential, and controlled drawdowns. In contrast, stocks with low institutional participation (<20%) from cyclical industries perform less well. Therefore, combining high - dividends with institutional recognition can build a safer and more sustainable dividend portfolio [89]. 3.5 Bottom - Position Is Not Just Dividends: Quality Low - Volatility and Cash Cows - The "quality + low - volatility" dual - screened bottom - position established in June 2020 can achieve a balance between offense and defense. By filtering out high - leverage and low - resilience companies and compressing risk thresholds, it has achieved a five - year rolling net value increase of about 1.6 times, with stable single - digit annualized returns and significantly reduced volatility and drawdowns compared to ordinary low - volatility strategies [94]. - The long - term returns of dividend assets mainly come from stable dividends and profits rather than valuation increases. From 2014 - 2025, the annualized total returns of Dividend Low - Volatility and CSI Dividend after reinvestment were 13.9% and 13.2% respectively, with dividend contributions exceeding 9 percentage points and accounting for over 70% of the total returns [98]. - The cash - cow enhancement framework uses six dimensions to examine potential risks in high - dividend portfolios and provides corresponding enhancement measures. These measures include equal - weighting industries and quality sorting to address concentration risks, using free - cash - flow and growth thresholds to eliminate "high - dividend traps", and implementing valuation gates and hedging strategies to manage valuation risks [108]. 3.6 Industrial Cycle Reversal: From Left to Right - At the inflection point of the industrial cycle, multi - dimensional indicators such as fundamentals, inventory, price, valuation, and funds often show concurrent inflection points. The consistency in the industry dimension, from raw material prices to mid - stream production and downstream demand, can improve the reliability of inflection - point signals. For example, the anti - involution market rhythm is often in line with this "consistency chain" [111][112]. - At the company level, by dividing samples into leading, mid - stream, and tail companies, monitoring the second - order derivatives of 10 key indicators can help identify the acceleration of marginal improvements in demand, pricing, or cash flows. When at least three indicators in any two of the three sample layers show positive second - order derivatives, it can be regarded as a company - level consistency inflection point [114]. - The industrial cycle reversal framework uses a "three - light" approach to determine investment opportunities. When the three conditions of valuation repair, profit - cash flow resonance improvement, and completion of inventory reduction and demand expansion are met simultaneously, it indicates a three - dimensional resonance of supply - demand, profit, and sentiment, and investors can make aggressive investments. Otherwise, they should continue to hold the dividend bottom - position [115].

Core Viewpoint - Anheuser-Busch InBev reported mixed second-quarter results with a revenue growth of 3.0% to $15.004 billion and normalized EBITDA gains of 6.5%, but missed expectations on beer volumes, leading to a 9.1% decline in stock price in pre-market trading, the worst session since the COVID-19 pandemic [1][4]. Financial Performance - Revenue increased by 3.0% to $15.004 billion and normalized EBITDA rose by 6.5% with margin expansion of 116 basis points to 35.3% [1][6]. - Despite the volume challenges, the company demonstrated pricing power by growing revenues while selling less beer [6]. Volume Performance - Beer volumes declined by 1.9% year-over-year, significantly worse than the 0.3% decline forecasted by analysts [5]. - The decline in volumes was primarily driven by significant drops in China (7.4%) and Brazil (6.5%), with the company acknowledging underperformance in China and attributing Brazil's decline to tough comparisons and adverse weather conditions [6]. Market Outlook - The average target price for BUD stock is $82.67 for the next 12 months, with optimistic predictions reaching as high as $91.00 and bearish outlooks at $72.00 [7]. - All six analysts covering the stock maintain Strong Buy ratings, with no Hold or Sell recommendations [9].

一、数据背后的焦虑陷阱 融资余额创新高了，但操作中散户的焦虑，一点都没消除。 沪市融资余额突破1万亿元大关的消息刷屏了朋友圈，这个数字创下了近十年新高。表面上看，这是市场信心高涨的表现。但融资盘动辄超过1万亿，也很明 显是有投机资金在里面搏一把消息刺激后击鼓传花，传到哪里结束，完全不清楚。但这真的适合散户吗？恐怕，未必适合，所以千万别被其他人影响。 我见过太多这样情况：持仓大涨时纠结要不要卖出，持仓不涨时纠结要不要换仓，赚钱时纠结要不要止盈，亏钱时纠结要不要止损。这种无处不在的焦虑 感，正是机构投资者最乐意看到的局面。因为一旦陷入焦虑，散户就很容易被反复收割。 问题的根源在于，大多数投资者无法看清市场的真实交易行为。我们总是被表面的涨跌所迷惑，却忽视了决定股价走势的核心因素——机构资金的真实动 向。 二、利好背后的定价权游戏 让我们来看两个典型案例。今年中报季前夕，"盛屯矿业"和"齐峰新材"都发布了业绩预增公告。按理说，在当下经济环境下，企业能实现业绩增长是件好 事。但这两只股票的表现却大相径庭。 有人可能会说，"盛屯矿业"是因为黄金概念才上涨的。但作为一个量化投资者，我要告诉你：股市里炒作的从来不是概念本身 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing food delivery subsidy war is significantly impacting the pricing power of restaurant businesses, leading to a struggle for survival in a highly competitive environment [1][4]. Group 1: Impact on Traditional Dining - Restaurant owners are facing challenges as low-priced delivery options are eroding the customer base for dine-in services, with some customers opting for cheaper delivery meals even when dining nearby [3]. - High average order values in certain food categories, like hot pot, make it difficult for these businesses to compete with lower-priced items offered through delivery platforms [3][4]. - The pressure to participate in delivery platform promotions creates a vicious cycle where restaurants must sacrifice profitability to gain visibility [3]. Group 2: Profitability Concerns - The profit margins for restaurants are declining due to heavy subsidies, with some businesses reporting that they receive as little as 1.69 yuan from a 19 yuan drink after accounting for various costs [4]. - Some restaurant owners are resorting to using cheaper ingredients to maintain profitability, which raises concerns about food quality [4]. - Despite the challenges, some businesses see potential benefits in consumer education and increased brand visibility through delivery platforms [4]. Group 3: Alternative Strategies - Some restaurant owners are opting out of the delivery platform wars and instead focusing on direct customer relationships through private channels like WeChat [6][8]. - By reducing reliance on third-party platforms, businesses can regain pricing power and control over customer interactions, leading to a more sustainable business model [8][12]. - The shift towards direct sales and building a private customer base is seen as a viable path for restaurants to navigate the current market challenges [8][13]. Group 4: Industry Dynamics - The competition among delivery platforms is reshaping consumer behavior and may lead to a long-term shift in shopping habits from physical stores to online platforms [11]. - The ongoing subsidy wars are prompting calls from industry associations for more sustainable practices and a reduction in aggressive competition among delivery platforms [12]. - The balance between leveraging platform benefits and maintaining independent operations is a critical challenge for many small and medium-sized enterprises in the industry [13].

Group 1 - Deutsche Bank's report highlights four major risk factors: tariff impacts, employment data, U.S. Treasury yields, and multiple events overlapping [2] - The report's warnings are seen as repetitive and not new, as similar concerns were raised last year [2] - The concept of "black swan" events is questioned, suggesting that market movements are often predictable based on institutional behavior rather than expert predictions [11] Group 2 - Data analysis reveals that institutional funds had already reduced their participation in the liquor sector prior to the market downturn, indicating a lack of confidence [5][7] - The essence of the stock market is viewed as a struggle for pricing power, with institutional actions leaving clear data traces [8] - Observing institutional trading behavior is emphasized as a more reliable strategy than following expert opinions [10] Group 3 - The report suggests that rather than fearing "black swan" events, investors should focus on monitoring institutional fund movements for true market signals [11] - The importance of data tools that penetrate market noise and provide clear insights is highlighted, contrasting with the often fluctuating views of experts [12] - The market is always changing, but human behavior and institutional logic remain constant, suggesting that finding suitable observation tools can provide an advantage in the pricing power game [13]