Core Viewpoint - The recent decline in the AH premium index, approaching a 10-year low, has raised concerns among investors regarding the significant price differences of the same companies listed in both A-shares and H-shares markets [1][3]. Group 1: AH Premium Performance - The AH premium index has dropped from 134 in May to 117, marking the lowest level since 2018, leading to widespread market confusion about the reasons behind this decline [1][3]. - Historical data indicates that the AH premium does not exhibit a tendency for short-term rapid mean reversion, with average premiums varying significantly over different periods [3][4]. Group 2: Fundamental Reasons for AH Premium - The fundamental reason for the AH premium lies in the differing valuations by investors in the two markets, as there is no sufficient arbitrage mechanism allowing for easy conversion between A-shares and H-shares [4][6]. - The differences in investor structure and trading systems between the two markets contribute to the observed price discrepancies, with foreign capital playing a larger role in the H-share market [6][7]. Group 3: Quantitative Analysis of Factors - The impact of dividend tax on the price difference is estimated to be around 5%, contrary to the common belief of 25%, indicating a more nuanced understanding of the factors affecting the AH premium [7][10]. - A comprehensive analysis suggests that the long-term theoretical center for the AH price difference may be around 26% to 27%, but this is subject to significant variability due to the lack of effective short-term theoretical centers [10][12]. Group 4: Future Outlook on AH Premium - The current trading dynamics suggest that while the AH premium may remain low, it does not guarantee a reversal opportunity, as external factors like the strength of the US dollar and market trends play a crucial role [10][12]. - Predictions indicate that if the US dollar weakens and the Hang Seng Index valuation rises, the AH premium could potentially decline further to below 15% [10][12]. Group 5: Investment Strategy - In investment decisions, it is essential to consider both capital gains and dividend returns, with capital gains being significantly more impactful than dividend yields [11][12]. - The assessment of AH premium trends is critical for stock selection between A-shares and H-shares, as the dividend yield advantage of H-shares may not compensate for capital gains from A-shares if the AH premium expands [12][13].

- The report provides a snapshot of the A-share market performance, highlighting that all broad-based indices experienced a decline on September 26, 2025, with the largest drops seen in the ChiNext Index (-2.6%) and CSI 2000 (-1.55%) [1][2][10] - The report notes that most indices, except SSE 50, fell below their 5-day moving averages, with CSI 1000 and CSI All Share Index also falling below their 10-day moving averages, and SSE 50 and CSI 2000 dropping below their 20-day moving averages [2][13][15] - The turnover rate of the indices on September 26, 2025, is highlighted, with CSI 2000 having the highest turnover rate (3.69), followed by ChiNext Index (3.02) and CSI 1000 (2.67) [2][18] - The daily return distribution of the indices is analyzed, showing that CSI All Share Index has the largest negative kurtosis deviation, while CSI 1000 has the smallest negative kurtosis deviation. CSI All Share Index also has the largest negative skewness, whereas SSE 50 and CSI 300 have the smallest negative skewness [2][23][25] - The risk premium of the indices relative to the 10-year government bond yield is discussed, with SSE 50 (33.65%) and CSI 300 (14.92%) having relatively high 5-year percentile values, while CSI 500 (10.63%) and ChiNext Index (4.68%) have lower values [2][30][32] - The PE-TTM values and percentiles of the indices are analyzed, showing that CSI 500 (99.75%) and CSI All Share Index (96.45%) have high 5-year percentile values, while SSE 50 (82.48%) and ChiNext Index (60.5%) have lower values [3][40][42] - The stock-bond valuation ratio is calculated using the reciprocal of PE-TTM and the difference with the 10-year government bond yield. None of the indices exceed their 80% percentile, and CSI 500 is below its 20% percentile [45][46] - Dividend yield trends are analyzed, showing that ChiNext Index (63.39%) and CSI 1000 (47.19%) are at relatively high 5-year historical percentiles, while CSI 2000 (18.6%) and CSI 500 (15.12%) are at lower percentiles [3][50][53] - The report highlights the current net asset value discount rates of the indices, with SSE 50 having the highest rate (26.0%), followed by CSI 300 (17.33%) and CSI 500 (12.0%), while ChiNext Index has the lowest rate (1.0%) [3][54]

跨 资产比较： 商品表现强于股债。上周，（ 1 ）资产表现： 大宗商品整体上行，贵金属与原油领涨。权益市场震荡调整。美股三大股指回调； A 股逆势上 涨，科创板表现亮眼。中债市场整体承压，三大债指均小幅下行。美元指数上涨 0.6% ，美元兑日元走强 1.0% 。 （ 2 ）相关性： 1 年滚动相关系数显 示，与上上周相比， A 股与中债国债间负相关、与港股间正相关的程度均显著下降。 （ 3 ）相对价值： A 股、美股相对 10Y 国债的风险溢价均边际下降； A 股相对商品的风险溢价边际上升。金油比、金铜比、金银比均边际下降。 权益：全球权益指数回调， A 股上涨且科创亮眼。 上周， MSCI 全球指数结束连续三周的上涨趋势，下跌 0.5% 。从区域表现看，新兴市场跌幅高于发 达，亚洲市场跌幅高于欧洲和北美。（ 1 ）发达市场中，美国三大股指均小幅下跌；港股恒指与恒科均跌逾 1.5% 。相较之下，欧股普遍走强， STOXX50 （ +0.8% ）、富时 100 （ +0.7% ）及德国 DAX （ +0.4% ）均录得正收益，日经 225 亦上涨 0.7% 。（ 2 ）新兴市场中， A 股表现亮眼，科创 50 ...

The provided content does not contain any specific quantitative models or factors, nor does it detail their construction, evaluation, or backtesting results. The report primarily focuses on descriptive statistics and market analysis of broad-based indices in the A-share market, including metrics such as risk premium, PE-TTM, dividend yield, and turnover rates. Below is a summary of the key points extracted from the content: Quantitative Analysis and Metrics - **Market Performance**: The report tracks the performance of broad-based indices such as the CSI 300, CSI 500, CSI 1000, and others, analyzing daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly returns[1][10][12] - **Moving Averages**: All indices have fallen below their 5-day moving averages, with the ChiNext Index showing the most significant distance from its moving average support levels[15][17] - **Turnover Rates**: The CSI 2000 has the highest turnover rate (4.56), while the CSI 1000 and ChiNext Index follow with 3.06 and 3.28, respectively[19][20] - **Risk Premium**: The CSI 300 and ChiNext Index exhibit high 5-year percentile risk premiums (54.52% and 47.62%), while the CSI 1000 and CSI 2000 show lower values (31.11% and 24.21%)[31][32][33] - **PE-TTM**: The CSI 500 and CSI All Share Index have the highest 5-year PE-TTM percentiles (99.75% and 96.61%), while the ChiNext Index has a relatively lower percentile (59.5%)[43][45][46] - **Dividend Yield**: The ChiNext Index and CSI 1000 have the highest 5-year dividend yield percentiles (66.03% and 44.46%), while the CSI 500 and CSI 2000 have the lowest (14.88% and 13.14%)[55][56] - **Break-even Rates**: The ChiNext Index has the lowest break-even rate (1.0%), while the CSI 2000 and CSI 1000 follow with 3.35% and 7.4%, respectively[57] Observations on Statistical Distributions - **Kurtosis and Skewness**: The ChiNext Index has the highest kurtosis and skewness, indicating a higher concentration of returns and a greater likelihood of extreme positive returns. Conversely, the CSI 2000 has the lowest values, suggesting a more dispersed return distribution[26][27] Risk Premium Analysis - **Volatility Trends**: The risk premium of indices like the CSI 1000 and CSI 2000 shows significant volatility, with notable spikes in September 2024 and April 2025 due to external events[30][31] - **Distribution Characteristics**: The CSI 1000, CSI 2000, and ChiNext Index exhibit more dispersed risk premium distributions, indicating higher uncertainty compared to indices like the SSE 50 and CSI 300, which have more concentrated distributions[36][37] PE-TTM and Valuation - **Historical Trends**: The PE-TTM values of most indices have shown a sharp increase since September 2024, with the CSI 500 and CSI All Share Index reaching the highest valuation levels relative to their historical ranges[41][43][45] - **Investment Implications**: The report highlights that no indices currently exceed their 80% valuation opportunity threshold, with the CSI 500 falling below its 20% danger threshold[48] Dividend Yield Analysis - **Historical Context**: The ChiNext Index and CSI 1000 have the highest historical dividend yield percentiles, suggesting their attractiveness in terms of cash flow returns. In contrast, the CSI 500 and CSI 2000 have the lowest percentiles, indicating less favorable dividend yields[55][56] Break-even Rates - **Current Levels**: The ChiNext Index has the lowest break-even rate, reflecting a more optimistic market valuation, while the CSI 2000 and CSI 1000 have slightly higher rates, indicating relatively lower market confidence[57] This report does not include specific quantitative models or factors, nor does it provide detailed construction methodologies, formulas, or backtesting results. Instead, it focuses on descriptive metrics and their implications for market analysis.

Report Overview - The report is a macro asset market analysis released by the research center's macro team on September 18, 2025, covering global asset market performance, including bond yields, exchange rates, stock indices, and trading data of stock index futures and treasury bond futures [2][3] Global Asset Market Performance Bond Yields - **10 - year Treasury Bond Yields**: Yields of major economies showed different trends. For example, the US 10 - year Treasury bond yield was 4.089 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of 0.060, a one - week change of 0.042, a one - month change of - 0.203, and a one - year change of 0.388 [3] - **2 - year Treasury Bond Yields**: The US 2 - year Treasury bond yield was 3.540 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of - 0.020, a one - week change of 0.050, and a one - year change of - 0.210 [3] Exchange Rates - **USD against Major Emerging Economies' Currencies**: The exchange rate of the US dollar against the Brazilian real was 5.305 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of 0.14% and a one - month change of - 3.24% [3] - **Renminbi**: The on - shore RMB exchange rate was 7.104 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of - 0.14%, a one - week change of - 0.24%, a one - month change of - 1.00%, and a one - year change of - 0.13% [3] Stock Indices - **Major Economies' Stock Indices**: The S&P 500 index was 6600.350 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of - 0.10%, a one - week change of 1.05%, a one - month change of 3.20%, and a one - year change of 20.64% [3] - **Emerging Economies' Stock Indices**: The emerging economies' stock index was 1347.850 on September 17, 2025, with a latest change of 0.59%, a one - week change of 3.09%, a one - month change of 6.98%, and a one - year change of 26.74% [3] Credit Bond Indices - Different credit bond indices, such as the US investment - grade credit bond index (3528.030 on September 17, 2025) and the euro - zone high - yield credit bond index (407.110 on September 17, 2025), showed various trends in the latest, one - week, one - month, and one - year changes [3][4] Stock Index Futures Trading Data Index Performance - The A - share index closed at 3876.34 with a 0.37% increase, the CSI 300 index closed at 4551.02 with a 0.61% increase, etc. [5] Valuation - The PE (TTM) of the CSI 300 was 14.16 with a 0.07环比 change, and the PE (TTM) of the S&P 500 was 27.47 with a - 0.03环比 change [5] Risk Premium - The risk premium (1/PE - 10 - year interest rate) of the S&P 500 was - 0.45 with a - 0.06环比 change, and that of the German DAX was 2.52 with a 0.02环比 change [5] Fund Flows - The latest fund flow of A - shares was - 198.10, and the latest fund flow of the CSI 300 was 79.42 [5] Trading Volume - The latest trading volume of the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets was 23767.38, and the latest trading volume of the CSI 300 was 6084.54 [5] Basis and Spread - The basis of IF was 2.18 with a 0.05% spread, the basis of IH was 3.42 with a 0.12% spread, and the basis of IC was - 7.64 with a - 0.11% spread [5] Treasury Bond Futures Trading Data - Treasury bond futures T00, TF00, T01, and TF01 closed at 108.155, 105.890, 107.855, and 105.760 respectively, with increases of 0.18%, 0.13%, 0.18%, and 0.14% [6] - The R001, R007, and SHIBOR - 3M in the money market were 1.5536%, 1.5493%, and 1.5540% respectively, with daily changes of 5.00 BP, 5.00 BP, and 0.00 BP [6]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the relationship between volatility and risk, emphasizing that while volatility is often equated with risk, it can also represent potential returns depending on the investor's perspective [6][34]. Group 1: Academic Perspective on Volatility - Volatility is defined as risk in traditional finance, where it represents the uncertainty of future returns [7][9]. - The Sharpe Ratio is highlighted as a key metric for evaluating fund performance, taking into account the risk taken to achieve returns [8][10]. - Historical volatility is used to quantify risk, with higher volatility indicating greater risk and necessitating higher expected returns [11][12]. Group 2: Practical Perspective on Volatility - Warren Buffett and other value investors argue against equating volatility with risk, focusing instead on the risk of permanent capital loss [15][18]. - The article presents a dichotomy where risk-averse investors view volatility as something to avoid, while risk-seeking investors see it as an opportunity for profit [23][34]. - Different investment strategies are discussed, including those that embrace volatility for potential gains, such as grid trading and trend trading [31][32]. Group 3: Trading Perspective on Volatility - Volatility can be viewed as a tradable commodity, with options pricing reflecting historical volatility [26][27]. - The article explains that risk is a commodity that can be bought and sold, with different strategies catering to varying attitudes towards volatility [25][28]. - The concept of "volatility = returns" is explored, indicating that higher volatility can lead to greater profit opportunities for certain investors [22][24]. Group 4: Conclusion on Volatility - The article concludes that volatility is an inherent aspect of the financial world, influencing investor behavior and creating opportunities for profit [39][40]. - It emphasizes the importance of understanding what can be controlled and what cannot in the context of volatility and investment strategies [38][39].

Group 1: Market Overview - The market is currently in a phase of increased volatility and divergence, necessitating a focus on deterministic investments to mitigate risks [1] - Gold's upward trend has weakened, aligning with the assessment that the Fed's rate cut trades are largely concluded, leading to increased investor confidence in gold pricing [2] - The performance of various asset classes shows a clear distinction in investor sentiment towards traditional versus emerging technologies, with significant movements in the tech sector [3] Group 2: Economic Indicators - Recent macroeconomic data reflects the effects of anti-involution policies, with CPI indicating weak consumer demand and PPI showing a rebound as a direct result of these policies [4] - The growth rate of social financing remains stable, indicating no significant influx of funds into the stock market or a clear signal of credit expansion in the real economy [4] - New RMB loans in August were 589 billion, lower than the previous year's 900 billion, suggesting weak credit demand despite the central bank's easing measures [4] Group 3: External Factors and Risk Premium - External shocks, including geopolitical tensions and trade negotiations, have heightened risk premiums, impacting asset allocation strategies [5][6] - The ongoing U.S.-China trade negotiations and the potential for increased conflict have raised concerns about the stability of risk premiums in the market [7] - The Citi Economic Surprise Index indicates a trend of rising risk premiums, reflecting the market's reaction to economic data versus expectations [7] Group 4: Strategic Outlook - The current economic environment suggests that low-volatility strategies may be effective, with a narrowing divergence between stocks and bonds [8] - The anticipated anti-dumping investigation into U.S. imports of simulated chips may reignite import substitution trends, serving as a bargaining chip in U.S.-China negotiations [8] - Emphasis on self-sustaining market demand as the true source of value investment is highlighted, particularly in the context of global supply chain restructuring [8]

Core Viewpoint - The market is entering a phase of increased volatility and divergence, necessitating a focus on certain investment strategies that enhance certainty, such as anti-involution policies, global supply chain layouts, and domestic consumption [3][4]. Market Review - Last week's performance showed a weakening trend in gold prices, aligning with the assessment that the Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts are nearing an end. The rise in global risk premiums has led to increased investor confidence in gold pricing, although opinions on its potential peak vary significantly [4][5]. - The performance of various asset classes indicates a clear preference for technology and innovation sectors over traditional sectors, with the ChiNext Index and the STAR 50 showing stronger gains compared to the Northbound Stock Connect [4][5]. - The real estate sector's rebound reflects investor hopes for government intervention to support economic stability, although this is viewed as a temporary rather than a sustainable trend [5]. Macroeconomic Data - Recent economic data has confirmed the effects of anti-involution policies, with CPI indicating weak consumer demand and PPI showing a recovery as a direct result of these policies. The slowdown in exports is a natural correction following previous surges [8][10]. - The stability in social financing growth suggests no significant influx of funds into the stock market or a clear signal of credit expansion in the real economy. New RMB loans in August were lower than the previous year, indicating weak credit demand despite monetary easing measures [8][10]. External Shocks and Risk Premiums - External factors, including the ongoing US-China trade negotiations and geopolitical tensions, have heightened risk premiums, impacting asset allocation strategies. The recent focus on potential tariffs has re-entered investor considerations, complicating the market outlook [10][11]. - The Citi Economic Surprise Index indicates an increase in risk premiums, suggesting that external conflicts could have a more pronounced impact on market dynamics in the near term [11]. Strategic Outlook - The current economic environment suggests that low-volatility strategies may be effective, with a narrowing gap between equity and bond markets. However, the likelihood of significant interest rate cuts from the Chinese central bank remains low [13]. - The market is expected to continue consolidating amid rising risk premiums, with a focus on certainty-driven investments. The upcoming anti-dumping investigations into US-origin chips may reignite discussions around import substitution, reflecting the ongoing US-China negotiations [13].

Market Performance - The Sci-Tech 50 Index increased by 5.48% over the last five trading days, while the ChiNext Index rose by 2.10%. In contrast, the large-cap value index fell by 0.22%, and the large-cap growth index increased by 2.16% [1] - The performance of sectors showed that electronics and real estate were leading, while comprehensive and banking sectors lagged behind [1] Risk Premium Analysis - The risk premium, measured as the inverse of the static PE of the CSI All Share Index minus the yield of 10-year government bonds, has reached historical extremes. As of October 28, 2022, it was at 4.08%, indicating a market rebound. The latest reading on January 19, 2024, was 4.11%, marking the fifth time since 2016 it exceeded 4% [1] - As of September 12, 2025, the risk premium indicator was at 2.87%, with the two-standard deviation boundary set at 4.76% [1] Valuation Levels - As of September 12, 2025, the CSI All Share Index's TTM PE was at the 78th percentile, while the SSE 50 and CSI 300 were at 72% and 70%, respectively. The ChiNext Index was close to the 48th percentile, indicating a relative median valuation level historically [2] Long-term Market Trends - The Shenzhen 100 Index has historically experienced bear markets every three years, followed by bull markets. The current adjustment, which began in Q1 2021, has shown sufficient time and space for a potential upward cycle [2] Investment Themes - The latest investment themes identified include automotive, communication, artificial intelligence, and chemicals. Specific indices highlighted are the CSI 800 Automotive and Parts Index, CSI All Share Communication Equipment Index, CSI Artificial Intelligence Theme Index, and CSI Sub-segment Chemical Industry Theme Index [2][3] Fund Flow and Trading Activity - Over the last five trading days, ETF inflows totaled 11.6 billion yuan, while margin financing increased by approximately 59.1 billion yuan. The average daily trading volume across both markets was 22,948 billion yuan [2] Market Sentiment - The proportion of stocks above the 200-day moving average indicates market sentiment, with a focus on the long-term trend [12] Financing Balance - The financing balance reflects the overall market leverage and investor sentiment towards equity investments [15]

Report Industry Investment Rating No information provided in the content. Core Views of the Report - Since 2025, products such as wealth management, fixed-income plus, and equity have attracted significant funds. Money market funds and bond funds have seen a notable decline in net asset value growth, while fixed-income wealth management products continue to grow due to their yield advantage over time deposits. Insurance premium income growth was high before the reduction of the guaranteed interest rate but has since decreased. Equity and hybrid funds have maintained high-speed growth [1]. - Deposit relocation and stock market rallies often reinforce each other. The current deposit relocation is related to factors such as the reduction of deposit interest rates, regulatory bans on manual interest supplements, and the rise of the stock market. As the equity market continues to rise, deposit relocation accelerated in July [2]. - In the long term, non-bank institutions tend to adjust their asset allocation in a low-interest-rate environment. For example, the proportion of pure fixed-income funds has decreased in the United States, Europe, and Japan during low-interest-rate periods. In China, the proportion of bond and money market funds among all public funds has decreased since 2025 as the absolute level of interest rates has declined and the profitability of bond assets has weakened [3]. - In the short term, the relocation of non-bank funds may slow down periodically. This can be observed from the following perspectives: the relative advantage of stocks over bonds may decrease as the stock market rises; the spread between the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the policy rate has returned to the "normal" range; and an increase in the scale of 30-year ETFs and the long-short ratio of TL positions may indicate a slowdown in non-bank fund relocation [4]. Summary by Relevant Catalog I. Products such as wealth management, fixed-income plus, and equity attract significant funds 1.1 Decreased attractiveness of non-equity assets to funds - Cash management products have limited appeal. During the current deposit relocation period, money market funds have grown more than cash management wealth management products. Since 2025, the yields of both types of assets have dropped to low levels, with cash management wealth management products having an annualized yield of about 1.6% [12]. - The bond market's profitability has declined, but it still offers an advantage over time deposits. Since the end of 2023, bond funds and fixed-income wealth management products have grown rapidly. However, since 2025, the bond market has entered a "triple low" era of low interest rates, low spreads, and low volatility, leading to a decline in the profitability of pure bonds and a slowdown in the growth of bond fund scale. Currently, the annualized yield of pure bond funds is about 2.7%, and that of fixed-income plus funds is about 2.6%, still significantly higher than the time deposit rate of about 1% [12]. - The attractiveness of insurance products has diminished. After the reduction of the guaranteed interest rate in September, the "panic buying" effect has weakened. The market's response to this round of "panic buying" has been muted due to factors such as the establishment of a dynamic adjustment mechanism for the guaranteed interest rate, the exhaustion of consumers' purchasing power from previous rounds of "panic buying," and the decreasing marginal impact of interest rate adjustments on consumers' willingness to move funds in a low-interest-rate environment [17]. 1.2 More funds may flow into the equity market - Equity funds have experienced high-speed growth, and the stock market is attractive to funds. Since September 2024, as the stock market has continued to rise, the net asset value of equity funds has maintained high-speed growth, and the growth rate of hybrid funds has turned positive. The yields of equity and hybrid products have been increasing, and they are expected to attract more funds in the future [22]. - In the future, more funds may flow into the equity market. In a low-interest-rate environment, equity assets are more cost-effective than pure bonds. As the equity market rises, the overall risk appetite has increased, and residents and non-bank funds may flow more into the equity market. Since July 2025, the increase in wealth management products has been lower than in previous years, indicating that more funds have flowed into other non-bank institutions and products. The risk appetite of non-bank institutions has increased significantly, as evidenced by the growth of convertible bond ETFs and the increase in institutional new account openings in the stock market [25]. II. How long will the relocation of deposits and non-bank funds continue? 2.1 Deposit relocation and stock market rallies often reinforce each other - The current deposit relocation is related to multiple factors, including the reduction of deposit interest rates, regulatory bans on manual interest supplements, and the rise of the stock market. Since 2022, there have been multiple rounds of deposit interest rate cuts. After the first four cuts, the last three cuts had a limited impact on deposit relocation. In 2024, the ban on manual interest supplements led to a significant decrease in deposit growth and a large increase in non-bank deposit growth, but the relocation reversed after the standardization of interbank deposit interest rates in November. The rise of the stock market has also driven deposit relocation. In September 2024, non-bank deposit growth increased significantly due to the stock market rally but then declined. In July 2025, the increase in risk appetite at home and abroad led to a rise in the equity market, and institutional funds and deposits moved from pure bonds to fixed-income plus and equity products, resulting in a significant increase in non-bank deposit growth [30][35]. - Deposit relocation accelerated in July as the equity market continued to rise. After the state-owned large banks initiated a new round of deposit interest rate cuts in May, deposit relocation was not obvious in June. However, in July, the combined deposits of residents and enterprises decreased by 2.57 trillion yuan, the highest in the past four years. Resident deposit growth decreased slightly, while non-bank deposit growth rebounded significantly to 15% [36]. - Deposit relocation may continue. Historically, deposit relocation has been significant during major stock market rallies, such as from 2005 - 2007, 2014 - 2015, 2016 - 2017, 2019 - 2021, and since September 2024. Even after the stock market reaches a peak and retraces, deposit relocation usually continues for some time. Since July, the stock market has risen significantly, and if it continues to rise, deposit relocation may persist [37]. 2.2 In the long term, non-bank institutions tend to adjust their asset allocation in a low-interest-rate environment - Non-bank asset allocation adjustment is a typical feature of a low-interest-rate environment. In recent years, as broad-based interest rates have declined, the profitability of fixed-income assets such as bonds has gradually decreased. Driven by factors such as the introduction of policies to stabilize the capital market in September 2024, technological breakthroughs since 2025, and the expectation of "anti-involution" policies, the equity market has continued to break through, and non-bank institutional funds have shifted from pure fixed-income assets to equity and fixed-income plus assets [41]. - Similar trends have been observed in other countries. In the United States, during the two rounds of interest rate cuts from 2007 - 2016 and 2018 - 2021, the proportion of bond and money market mutual funds decreased from a high of 56% in 2008 to about 40% in 2021. In Europe, from 2012 - 2021, the proportion of bond and money market UCITS funds decreased from 45% in 2012 to about 36% at the end of 2021. In Japan, after entering a low-interest-rate era in the late 1990s, the scale of bond and money market funds declined rapidly, and their proportion decreased from a peak of 77% to about 7.0% in March 2024 [41][42][49]. - In China, the scale of bond and money market funds has grown rapidly in recent years, and their proportion among all public funds increased from about 55% to about 65% in 2024. However, since 2025, the proportion has decreased as the absolute level of interest rates has declined and the profitability of bond assets has weakened [49]. 2.3 In the short term, when will the relocation of non-bank funds slow down periodically? - The relocation of non-bank funds may slow down periodically as the equity market fluctuates and interest rates change. This can be observed from the following perspectives: - Stock-bond valuation and bond-credit valuation: As the stock market rises significantly, the relative advantage of stocks over bonds may decrease. As of the end of August, the risk premium of the WIND300 ex-financial index has decreased from more than two standard deviations above the mean to less than one standard deviation below the mean, and the risk premium of the dividend index has decreased to near two standard deviations below the mean. Insurance funds and other institutions may slow down the relocation of funds. Bonds still have a significant advantage over loans, and as the bond market rebounds from a low level, the cost of real economy financing continues to decline, making bonds attractive to banks [52]. - The spread between the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the policy rate: Before 2024, the spread between the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the 7-day reverse repurchase rate fluctuated around 70BP. In 2024, as broad-based interest rates declined, the spread was compressed to about 50BP. From December 2024 to January 2025, interest rates declined rapidly, further compressing the spread. Since 2025, the spread has oscillated between 10BP and 40BP. However, since late July, as the bond market has continued to rebound, the spread has gradually risen to about 45BP, returning to the "normal" range before 2025, indicating that the market has corrected the previously overdrawn expectations, and non-bank funds may slow down the selling of bonds [57]. - The scale of 30-year ETFs and the long-short ratio of TL positions: As the equity market rally slows down and interest rates rise, institutions are increasing their purchases of 30-year ETFs, and the long-short ratio of TL positions is rising. On the one hand, the growth of fixed-income plus products has increased the demand for 30-year ETFs. On the other hand, some institutions may buy 30-year ETFs and TL to hedge against equity market risks. When the scale of 30-year ETFs and the long-short ratio of TL positions continue to rise, it may indicate a slowdown in the relocation of non-bank funds [61].