Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the understanding of Supply-Side Reform 3.0, emphasizing its integration with domestic demand expansion and the differences from previous reforms in 2015 and 2016 [2][3][5]. Top-Level Design - The core deployment of the current economic strategy is to combine the implementation of the domestic demand expansion strategy with deepening supply-side structural reforms [3]. - A new framework called "BBT" has been introduced, focusing on three aspects: supplementing shortages, transformation, and improvement [3][4]. - Industries are categorized based on supply-demand matching: supplementing shortages, improving efficiency, and transformation for future needs [4]. Historical Comparison - The external environment differs significantly from 2015-2016, with higher contributions from exports and greater external pressures [6]. - The current reform focuses on midstream manufacturing with a more complex range of industries compared to the previous focus on state-owned enterprises and fewer product categories [6]. - The goals of the current reform emphasize long-term industrial upgrading rather than immediate economic recovery [6]. - The methods of implementation have shifted from administrative to market-oriented and legal frameworks, which may result in slower effects [7]. - The duration of the current reform is expected to be longer, potentially lasting 1-3 years, as it relies on market and institutional changes [7]. Three Stages of Reform - The current supply-side reform may progress through three stages: controlling new projects, promoting industry mergers and restructuring, and potentially implementing mandatory capacity reduction measures if necessary [9]. - The process is not urgent and will adapt to the specific conditions of different industries, with some like the photovoltaic sector possibly moving faster [9]. Historical Review of Previous Reforms - The article identifies five similarities between the supply-side reforms of 1998 and 2015, including similar reform backgrounds and common industry focus [11][12]. - The approach to reform has been consistent, involving setting targets, monitoring progress, strict enforcement, and maintaining employment [13][14]. - The effectiveness of past reforms shows long-term improvements in industry profitability, although short-term impacts varied [16]. Current Assessment of Supply-Side Pressure - A quantitative assessment of supply-side pressures indicates that the current industrial pressure index has not yet reached the levels seen in 2015, suggesting a slower approach to capacity reduction [18]. - The photovoltaic industry currently exhibits the highest pressure index, indicating it may be prioritized in the reform process [18].

Core Viewpoint - The year 2025 is expected to be a turning point for China's steel industry, with Q1 anticipated to mark a long-term performance inflection point [1][8] Industry Performance - In Q1 2025, the total profit of industrial enterprises above designated size in China is projected to reach 1,509.36 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 0.8% [2] - The black metal smelting and rolling processing industry achieved a total profit of 7.51 billion yuan, marking the first profitable quarter since Q1 2022 [2] - Key steel enterprises saw a 9.6% year-on-year decrease in operating costs, while the average sales profit margin for steel products increased by 0.67 percentage points [2] - The production of construction rebar decreased by 2.9% to 48.11 million tons, while the output of thick plates, medium plates, coated plates, and plated plates for manufacturing increased by over 10%, totaling 38.84 million tons [2] - The national crude steel production remained stable at 259 million tons, with a slight year-on-year increase of 0.6% [2] Supply-Side Reform - Supply-side reform is crucial for the steel industry as it enters a phase of reduction and quality improvement [3] - The government emphasizes addressing structural contradictions in key industries through supply and demand measures, promoting the exit of outdated and inefficient production capacity [3] - The steel industry is characterized by overcapacity, and further consolidation is challenging after a decade of integration post-2015 [3] Regulatory Framework - The "Steel Industry Normative Conditions" revised in 2025 sets stricter requirements for steel enterprises, including compliance with laws, environmental protection, and quality management [4] - The new regulations provide a framework for the elimination and upgrading of production capacity in the industry [4] Profit Redistribution - The profit distribution within the black industry, which includes coal, coke, steel, and iron ore, is undergoing changes, with coal and iron ore's profit share decreasing to 91% [5] - The steel and coke sectors are entering a marginal profit phase, benefiting from ongoing industry restructuring and the exit of inefficient capacity [5]

▍ 2 0 2 5年Q1有望成为钢铁行业长期业绩拐点。 根据国家统计局数据，2 0 2 5年Q1全国规模以上工业企业实现利润总额1 5 0 9 3 . 6亿元，同比增长0 . 8%。其中黑色金属冶炼和压 延加工业利润总额7 5 . 1亿元，成为继2 0 2 2年Q1后首个盈利的一季度。今年一季度钢铁企业效益逐步改善，重点钢铁企业营业 成本同比下降9 . 6%，钢材产品平均销售利润率同比上升0 . 6 7个百分点。此外，钢材产品的结构持续优化，一季度，建筑用钢 筋产量4 8 11万吨，下降了2 . 9%；用于制造领域的特厚板、中板、涂层板、镀层板产量同比增长都超过了1 0%，合计产量3 8 8 4 万吨；粗钢的产量基本保持稳定，全国粗钢产量2 . 5 9亿吨，同比微增0 . 6%。 我们预计 2 0 2 5年是中国钢铁行业的拐点年份。2 0 2 5年Q1有望成为钢铁行业长期业绩拐点。随着行业改革的深入，产能产量的 持续性削减将势在必行。供应端有望带来产量超预期收缩。同时随着钢铁行业"推进整合重组，推动落后低效产能退出"的持续 推进，预计产业链利润将持续进行再分配，而钢铁行业将在再分配中受益。我们认为当前在估值底 ...

债需求变化超预期。 明明｜中信证券首席经济学家 S1010517100001 债市启明｜ 美国财政压力对美债影响几何？ 李翀｜中信证券海外研究联席首席分析师 S1010522100001 海外研究｜"年中美债集中到期"的现实与误读 近期市场存在"年中美债集中到期"的叙事。然而，从美国到期债务结构、财政操作和 市场行为来看，这一叙事存在明显夸大。美债到期结构方面，今年年中确实存在一定 的集中到期压力，但主要源于短债（T-Bills）。不过，T-Bills以高频滚动、"借新还 旧"为常态，而且从"对等关税"发布后T-Bills的拍卖情况看，T-Bills需求依旧稳定。 另外，我们观察到在特朗普2.0时期非美央行有"买短卖长"、缩短持有美债久期的趋 势。因此，2Y和5Y美债拍卖表现或并不能准确反映当前非美央行对美债久期的真实 需求。最后，T-Bills ETF的资金流入情况显示 "年中美债集中到期"的叙事并没有使 投资者卖出T-Bills。我们认为年中短期美债集中到期是可以解决的问题，不过，因为 特朗普政策冲击导致的信用裂痕使得美国债务问题虽无近忧但有远虑。 风险因素：特朗普政府政策变化超预期；美国财政部发债计划超 ...