Core Viewpoint - The copper market is experiencing downward pressure due to multiple factors, including monetary policy changes, supply chain dynamics, and weakening demand [1] Supply Side - As of May 19, the current treatment charge (TC) is -43.03 USD/thousand tons, and the current refining charge (RC) is -4.30 cents/pound, indicating an expansion of negative processing fees [1] - Significant amounts of scrap copper are expected to continue entering the domestic market [1] - In April 2025, China imported 300,200 tons of refined copper, a year-on-year decrease of 1.83%, while exports reached 53,100 tons, a year-on-year increase of 216.38% [1] Inventory - The Shanghai Futures Exchange copper inventory rebounded from low levels during the week, while U.S. copper inventories increased significantly [1] Demand Side - Downstream demand is showing marginal weakness, with social inventory rebounding and terminal momentum weakening [1] - As of March 2025, apparent consumption of electrolytic copper was 1,372,400 tons, an increase of 93,800 tons, or 7.34% [1] - May marks the beginning of the demand off-season, with expected reductions in apparent consumption [1] - Cumulative sales of passenger vehicles from January to April 2025 reached 6.872 million units, a year-on-year increase of 7.9% [1] Market Outlook - Overall market expectations are uncertain, with copper prices under pressure due to weakening demand fundamentals, low social inventory, and tight supply expectations [1] - Despite domestic policy measures providing some support, the market remains in a state of strong expectations but weak realities [1] - Continuous monitoring of the Federal Reserve's interest rate cut probabilities and U.S.-China tariff policies is necessary [1]

Core Insights - The U.S. business activity is experiencing a significant slowdown in April, with a marked decline in market confidence [1] - The PMI data indicates that the growth rate of business activity is at its slowest since December 2023, reflecting an annualized growth rate of only 1.0% [1] - Inflationary pressures are increasing, posing challenges for the Federal Reserve as it seeks to stimulate a weakening economy [1] Economic Activity - The output growth in April is the slowest recorded since December 2023, indicating a concerning trend for the U.S. economy [1] - Manufacturing is largely stagnant, with any positive effects from tariffs being offset by heightened economic uncertainty, supply chain concerns, and declining exports [1] - The service sector is also slowing down, particularly in areas related to tourism and exports, due to a decrease in demand growth [1] Market Confidence - There is a sharp deterioration in confidence regarding business conditions for the upcoming year, largely driven by increasing concerns over policy impacts [1] - The overall sentiment in the market is negatively affected by the combination of economic slowdown and rising inflation [1]

Core Viewpoint - The price spread between silicon iron and ferrosilicon is primarily influenced by cost and supply-demand changes, with significant price movements often triggered by cost variations since the futures market was established [2][30]. Group 1: Cost Changes - Cost changes predominantly drive price spread variations, often leading to extreme market conditions. Historical data shows that major price movements are frequently linked to manganese ore and coal-related costs, with manganese ore being particularly volatile due to high import dependence and various uncontrollable factors [3][31]. - The cost structure for silicon iron is mainly composed of electricity (50%-60%), coal (15%-25%), and other materials (10%-15%), while for ferrosilicon, manganese ore constitutes 55%-60% of the cost, followed by electricity (20%-35%) [7][10]. Group 2: Supply-Demand Dynamics - Supply-demand fluctuations generally result in smaller price movements compared to cost changes. In recent years, the supply side has become more self-regulated, reducing the impact of policy-driven supply constraints on price spreads [4][32]. - The demand for ferrosilicon is significantly higher in steel production (over 90%) compared to silicon iron (60%-70%), which affects the price spread based on inventory levels and demand strength [10][11]. Group 3: Price Spread Evolution - The evolution of the price spread has matured over time, with trading becoming more timely and efficient since the futures market for silicon iron and ferrosilicon was launched in 2014. The price spread has transitioned from being lagged by spot prices to being actively traded [5][33]. - The historical price spread has undergone significant changes, particularly post-2020, where the price of silicon iron began to exceed that of ferrosilicon due to various factors including energy policies and production constraints [12][26]. Group 4: Historical Price Spread Review - The price spread between silicon iron and ferrosilicon has experienced various phases influenced by cost, demand, and supply dynamics. For instance, from 2015 to 2016, the price spread was primarily driven by cost changes and environmental regulations affecting supply [14][19]. - In 2021, the price spread saw a significant shift due to policy impacts, with silicon iron prices reaching historical highs while ferrosilicon prices lagged, leading to an expanded price spread [26][27]. Group 5: Recent Trends and Outlook - Since 2022, the price volatility of silicon iron and ferrosilicon has narrowed, returning to a cost-driven pricing logic. The price spread is expected to continue its downward trend into 2023, influenced by easing energy prices and high inventory levels [28][29].