Core Insights - The Chinese government aims to exceed 7 trillion yuan in the sports industry by 2030, emphasizing the importance of sports in enhancing public health, fulfilling people's aspirations for a better life, and driving economic and social development [1] Group 1: Supply-Side Reforms - Supply-side reforms are essential for unlocking the potential of sports consumption, addressing shortcomings in high-quality and personalized offerings, and the lag in developing emerging sports projects [2] - The integration of sports with other industries such as culture, tourism, education, health, and technology is crucial for fostering new business models and enhancing consumer choices [2] - The adoption of advanced technologies like 5G, big data, and artificial intelligence is necessary to improve the efficiency and quality of sports supply, catering to diverse and high-quality consumer demands [2] Group 2: Demand-Side Cultivation - The demand for sports consumption is shifting from traditional viewing and physical goods to participation and experiential activities, driven by the largest middle-income group globally and increasing health awareness [3] - Improving the consumption environment by enhancing facilities, events, and public services is vital for lowering barriers to consumption [3] - Companies should focus on consumer needs, improve product value and service quality, and strengthen brand building to enhance consumer loyalty [3] Group 3: Collaborative Efforts - A coordinated effort between supply and demand sides is necessary to create a seamless cycle, requiring government support in terms of land, funding, and talent, while breaking down institutional barriers [3] - Companies must be attuned to market trends, invest in research and development, and maintain compliance with safety and legal standards [3] - Industry associations should facilitate communication, establish standards, and promote self-regulation to enhance the overall market environment [3] Group 4: Overall Impact - The promotion of sports consumption is linked to national strength and the well-being of the populace, necessitating stronger measures to enhance the quality and scale of sports consumption [4]

Core Viewpoint - The automotive industry is facing significant challenges with many companies struggling to survive, and the process of exiting the market is complicated by government support and capital infusion [2][4]. Group 1: Current Industry Situation - Weima Automobile is planning to resume production with a target of one million vehicles, despite having debts of 26 billion yuan, while its restructuring investor has only 100 million yuan in registered capital [1]. - Other companies like Zotye Automobile are in dire situations, facing bankruptcy and asset liquidation without buyers [1]. - Companies such as Hengchi and Neta are also struggling to find strategic investors or buyers, indicating a broader trend of instability in the sector [1]. Group 2: Government and Capital Influence - Local government support plays a crucial role in preventing the complete collapse of struggling automotive companies, as they are vital for local economies in terms of employment and tax revenue [2]. - Some capital sources continue to inject funds into these "zombie companies," hoping for a revival based on scarce resources or new narratives to attract market valuation [2]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Competition - The automotive market is evolving, with a clear distinction between successful companies with competitive advantages and those lacking core technologies [3]. - The industry is expected to undergo a significant reduction in the number of brands, with predictions suggesting that only about 15 brands will survive in the long term [4]. Group 4: Need for Industry Reform - The current situation necessitates a supply-side reform in the automotive industry, similar to past reforms in steel and coal, to eliminate excess capacity and improve overall efficiency [4][5]. - Accelerating the exit of "zombie companies" will allow for the reallocation of resources to more productive sectors, fostering the growth of globally competitive enterprises [5]. Group 5: Policy Recommendations - The Central Financial Committee has called for measures to ensure the orderly exit of underperforming companies, emphasizing the importance of competition and the elimination of low-quality enterprises [6]. - Recommendations include improving bankruptcy laws, enhancing retraining programs for displaced workers, and creating a fair competitive environment to facilitate resource concentration in efficient companies [6].

Report Summary 1. Investment Rating No investment rating for the industry is provided in the report. 2. Core Viewpoint The report analyzes the performance of upstream, midstream, and downstream industries in different economic cycles and their historical trends from 2005 to 2024. It also explores the relationship between the ratio of upstream and downstream indices and the A - share market, finding that the correlation reversed around 2015 due to economic structure transformation, policy regulation, and changes in the industry competition pattern. The current weak economic recovery may drive the upstream to take the lead, which helps in stock index style selection and may create medium - to - long - term arbitrage opportunities [1][18][22]. 3. Summary by Directory 3.1 Different Economic States and Industry Performance - **Upstream Industry**: The upstream industry includes raw materials, energy, and mining. It performs best in the economic recovery stage, with the order of performance being economic recovery > economic expansion > economic stagflation > economic recession. In the recovery stage, it rebounds first due to increased demand for raw materials and energy, rising commodity prices, and positive market expectations. In the expansion stage, demand grows, but high raw material prices may lead to policy regulation. In the stagflation stage, demand growth slows, and profits fluctuate. In the recession stage, demand and profits decline [3]. - **Midstream Industry**: Comprising manufacturing and related sectors, it performs strongest in the economic expansion stage, with the order of performance being economic expansion > economic recovery > economic stagflation > economic recession. In the expansion stage, it benefits from increased manufacturing orders and high capacity utilization. In the stagflation stage, demand growth slows, and costs rise. In the recession stage, demand and profits decline significantly [5]. - **Downstream Industry**: Including consumer goods and services, it performs best in the economic expansion stage, with the order of performance being economic expansion > economic stagflation > economic recession > economic recovery. In the expansion stage, consumer demand is strong, and optional consumer goods perform better. In the stagflation stage, inflation affects consumption, but essential consumer goods are relatively stable. In the recession stage, demand and profits decline [6]. 3.2 Historical Review of Upstream, Midstream, and Downstream Trends - **2005 - 2007 (Upstream Explosion)**: The stock market rose overall, with the style being upstream > midstream > downstream. The economic fundamentals first expanded and then contracted. Upstream industries, represented by coal and non - ferrous metals, rose more than five times due to factors such as global commodity bull markets and China's industrialization. Midstream industries, like machinery, benefited from the real - estate market. Downstream industries were relatively weak due to lagging resident income growth [10]. - **2008 - 2009 (Full - Industry Chain Collapse and Policy Rescue)**: The stock market was weak, with the style being downstream (defensive) > midstream > upstream. Affected by the financial crisis, the upstream industry declined sharply, the midstream was supported by falling raw material prices and government investment, and the downstream rebounded first due to policy support [14]. - **2010 - 2015 (Midstream Upgrade and Downstream Consumption Rise)**: The stock market had a "V" - shaped trend, with the style being downstream > midstream > upstream. The economy was in a transformation stage. The upstream was affected by over - capacity, the midstream benefited from falling raw material prices and the development of high - end manufacturing, and the downstream reached its peak due to industry upgrades, policy support, and a loose financial environment [15]. - **2016 - 2020 (Supply - Side Reform and Consumption Differentiation)**: The stock market fluctuated and generally rose, with the style being upstream (2016 - 2017) > downstream > midstream. Supply - side reform led to a significant increase in upstream profits from 2016 - 2017. The midstream was affected by trade frictions and supply - side reform, and the downstream benefited from global liquidity and the "drinking and medicine - taking" market during the epidemic [15][16]. - **2021 - 2024 (Carbon Neutrality and Global Supply Chain Reconfiguration)**: The stock market declined, with the style being upstream (2021) > midstream (2022 - 2023) > downstream. The upstream was boosted by new energy demand in 2021. The midstream was affected by geopolitical conflicts and the epidemic but was supported by the development of photovoltaic and energy - storage industries. The downstream was affected by the epidemic and the real - estate downturn [17]. - **Summary**: Midstream performance is usually in the middle, and the upstream and downstream show obvious differentiation. Upstream indices rise first in the economic recovery, followed by the midstream, and finally the downstream. In the economic decline, the downstream has some defensive properties. Upstream is sensitive to supply - side policies, downstream to demand - side policies, and midstream is passively affected by events and policies [17]. 3.3 Industry Comparison and A - Share Market Review - The ratio of the upstream index to the downstream index is expected to be positively correlated with the A - share market. However, the correlation reversed around 2015. Before 2015, the upstream was more elastic, and the ratio was positively correlated with the A - share market. After 2015, the downstream became more elastic due to economic transformation, policy regulation, and other factors. Despite the change, the upward trend of the ratio still has indicative significance, and the current weak economic recovery may drive the upstream to take the lead [18][20][22].

Group 1 - The article highlights the increasing interest in the chemical sector due to the "anti-involution" policies, which are expected to benefit the midstream cyclical manufacturing industry [2][6][9] - The chemical sector has shown a significant rebound, with the chemical index rising by 11.84% recently, following a broader trend of cyclical stocks outperforming [4][6] - Fund companies are intensifying their focus on chemical-themed funds, with four new funds reported since September, indicating a growing optimism about the sector's investment prospects [8][9] Group 2 - The chemical industry has been in a bottoming phase for 11 quarters, with supply-side reforms expected to drive a shift from low-level competition to high-quality development [6][7] - The recent rebound in the chemical sector is attributed to policy-driven supply contraction, with expectations for further supply-side reforms impacting the industry's trajectory [7][9] - Fund managers believe that the chemical sector, along with other midstream cyclical industries, is poised for recovery due to improved capacity utilization and potential exits of less competitive players [10]

Core Viewpoint - In 2024, China's crude steel production is projected to be 1.005 billion tons, accounting for 53.38% of global production, marking five consecutive years as a billion-ton steel powerhouse. However, Chinese steel companies face challenges of being large but not strong, with high production but low profitability compared to global competitors like Japan [4][26]. Group 1: China's Steel Industry - China's steel industry has six companies in the top ten global steel producers, but the net profits of its top four listed steel companies are still lower than Japan's Nippon Steel [4][7]. - In 2024, China is expected to export 110.71 million tons of steel, with an average price of $755.4 per ton, indicating a trend of increasing volume but decreasing total revenue [26][27]. - China's reliance on imported iron ore is significant, with imports expected to reach 1.237 billion tons in 2024 at an average price of $106.9 per ton, making the industry vulnerable to international price fluctuations [28][30]. Group 2: Japan's Steel Industry Recovery - Japan's Nippon Steel faced severe losses in 2019, with a deficit of 406.1 billion yen (approximately 19.45 billion RMB), but implemented a turnaround strategy that included shutting down furnaces and restructuring operations, leading to a profit of 113 billion yen (approximately 5.61 billion RMB) within a year [18][23]. - The company shifted focus to high-value-added products, such as special steels, which accounted for 20.96% of its total production in 2020, compared to only 12.31% for China [21][24]. - Nippon Steel's recovery strategy also involved negotiating price increases for long-term contracts with clients, which, despite potential backlash from major customers, effectively boosted revenue [22][24]. Group 3: Lessons for China - The challenges faced by Japan's steel industry in the past provide valuable lessons for China, particularly in terms of focusing on high-value products and improving operational efficiency [31]. - China's steel companies are making strides in producing high-value steel products, such as LNG ship steel and aircraft carrier deck steel, indicating a shift towards higher quality and value in production [31].

Core Viewpoint - The solid-state battery industry is at a critical turning point, transitioning from laboratory experiments to commercial mass production, with increasing clarity in technology routes and growing policy support, indicating a potential market breakout [1][2] Industry Outlook - The A-share market has shown strong performance this year, with investor enthusiasm on the rise. The outlook for 2026 remains optimistic, supported by confidence in liquidity and corporate performance improvements [2] - Solid-state batteries are expected to become one of the main market trends, driven by their high safety and energy density advantages, with applications in electric vehicles, consumer electronics, robotics, and low-altitude aircraft [3] Market Potential - The solid-state battery market has significant growth potential, with expectations that it could replace approximately 20% of the high-end lithium battery market in the long term, leading to substantial growth for related upstream and downstream companies [3] Investment Opportunities - The solid-state battery sector is characterized by performance improvement and growth elasticity, with some companies already showing revenue and profit recovery. The investment opportunities in the solid-state battery supply chain are expected to follow a systematic layout along the logic of "equipment first - material breakthroughs - scenario expansion," with current opportunities focusing more on the equipment segment [3][4] Investment Philosophy - The investment philosophy emphasizes a combination of deep industry research and broad market coverage, allowing for the identification of long-term value industries and companies while adapting to market changes [4][5] - The investment process includes three key stages: value discovery through deep industry research, mean reversion during industry nascent or reversal phases, and dynamic selection of investment products based on market conditions [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, termed "Supply-Side Reform 2.0," highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as the core contradiction driving economic challenges in China [5]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are characterized by structural imbalances in supply and demand, leading to decreased capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increased economic downward pressure [7]. - Industrial capacity utilization has significantly declined, with a drop from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 during the supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 in the anti-involution phase [7]. - Industrial prices have seen substantial declines, with the Producer Price Index (PPI) entering negative growth for 54 months during the supply-side reform and continuing negative growth for 34 months since October 2022 in the anti-involution phase [9]. - Corporate profits have decreased, with a 2.3% decline in industrial profits in 2015 during the supply-side reform, and a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 during the anti-involution phase [12]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with GDP growth slowing from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, and stabilizing around 5% during the anti-involution period [14]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs, with anti-involution facing more severe demand shortages due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market, while supply-side reform had resilient demand supported by post-crisis recovery [18][22]. - Industry characteristics vary, as supply-side reform focused on traditional industries like steel and coal, whereas anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies [25][27]. - The underlying causes differ, with supply-side reform driven by excess capacity from previous stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a range of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including real estate adjustments and technological shifts [36][37]. - Implementation paths diverge, with supply-side reform relying on administrative measures to cut excess capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [45][49].

Group 1 - Steel stocks mostly rose, with Angang Steel (000898) up 5.63% to HKD 2.25, Chongqing Steel (601005) up 4.55% to HKD 1.38, and Maanshan Steel (00323) up 2.85% to HKD 2.53 [1] - According to Galaxy Securities, steel demand is transitioning from real estate to high-end manufacturing, indicating a potential continuous recovery in steel production as the domestic manufacturing sector upgrades [1] - The "anti-involution" policy is promoting supply-side reforms, which are expected to stabilize and recover corporate profits, while infrastructure demand is anticipated to be released in a concentrated manner, leading to an overall stabilization in future demand [1] Group 2 - As the manufacturing sector accelerates its transformation and upgrading, the marginal improvement in steel demand from high-end manufacturing industries is expected [1] - The development of downstream industries such as aerospace, automotive manufacturing, and the replacement of old home appliances is benefiting special steel consumption, indicating a favorable outlook for special steel enterprises to achieve stable growth [1]

Core Viewpoint - Steel stocks are experiencing an upward trend, driven by a shift in demand from real estate to high-end manufacturing, with expectations of continued recovery in steel production and stable profit margins for companies in the sector [1] Group 1: Stock Performance - Ansteel Corporation (00347) increased by 5.63%, trading at HKD 2.25 [1] - Chongqing Iron & Steel Company (01053) rose by 4.55%, trading at HKD 1.38 [1] - Maanshan Iron & Steel Company (00323) saw a rise of 2.85%, trading at HKD 2.53 [1] Group 2: Industry Outlook - The transition of steel demand from real estate to high-end manufacturing is expected to support the domestic manufacturing sector's ongoing transformation and upgrades [1] - The "anti-involution" policy is facilitating supply-side reforms, which are likely to stabilize and improve corporate profits [1] - Infrastructure demand is anticipated to be released in a concentrated manner, leading to a potential stabilization in overall demand [1] Group 3: Future Demand - As the manufacturing sector accelerates its transformation and upgrades, there is expected marginal improvement in steel demand from high-end manufacturing industries [1] - The development of downstream industries such as aerospace, automotive manufacturing, and the replacement of old home appliances is projected to positively impact special steel consumption, indicating stable growth for special steel companies [1]

Group 1 - The non-ferrous metal sector is leading the market, with the non-ferrous metal ETF (159876) rising over 3.1% during trading, reaching a peak and achieving a transaction volume exceeding 310 million yuan [1] - Key stocks such as Yunnan Copper, Northern Copper, and others have hit the daily limit, while Jiangxi Copper and Yun Aluminum have increased by over 7% [1] Group 2 - In the first half of 2025, China's economy is expected to recover beyond expectations, with GDP growth reaching 5.3%, benefiting the non-ferrous metal industry [3] - The non-ferrous metal sector has experienced a strong bullish trend this year, driven by multiple favorable factors, including expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve [3][4] - The "anti-involution" policy and large-scale infrastructure projects are creating significant demand for non-ferrous metals [3][4] Group 3 - The supply-demand dynamics are improving, with stricter regulations on rare earth mining and smelting, leading to a perception of increasing scarcity [4] - Rapid development in green industries such as new energy and electric vehicles is driving strong demand for metals like copper, aluminum, lithium, and rare earths [4] - Predictions indicate that the demand for key metals in new energy will increase sixfold by 2040 compared to 2020, with electric vehicle metal demand expected to grow at least 30 times [4] Group 4 - The current economic policies are expected to stimulate a new round of supply-side reforms, similar to the impact seen in 2015, which could lead to a recovery in the non-ferrous metal sector [4][6] - The non-ferrous metal sector is positioned to benefit from both monetary easing due to Federal Reserve rate cuts and domestic policies aimed at optimizing production factors [6] Group 5 - The non-ferrous metal sector is characterized by strategic metals like rare earths benefiting from global competition, while lithium and cobalt are influenced by the "anti-involution" logic [7] - The supply-demand balance for industrial metals like copper and aluminum is tight due to limited supply growth and emerging industry demand [7] - The non-ferrous metal ETF and its linked funds provide a diversified investment option, reducing risks associated with investing in single metal industries [7]