目前，白银的供给除了一部分回收银外，主要是矿山供给。根据世界白银协会数据，2024年，白银的储 量是64万吨，以2024年的开采量2.54万吨计算的话，仅够开采25.2年。 另外，由于银价暴涨导致用银成本升高，不少产业开始寻找替代品，对与银价有一定压制作用，但是短 期内银仍然是工业需求中必不可少的一环。大宗商品分析机构22V的研究主管约迪.维瑟也认为，鉴于白 银在过去一年中的迅猛上涨，市场会出现回调。但他并不认为工业需求会很快出现下滑。 今日周二(1月27日)亚盘时段，伦敦银目前交投于107.46一线上方，今日开盘于103.93美元/盎司，截至发 稿，伦敦银暂报108.39美元/盎司，上涨4.32%，最高触及111.12美元/盎司，最低下探103.34美元/盎司， 目前来看，伦敦银盘内短线偏向震荡走势。 【要闻速递】 近期银价呈现爆发式上涨态势，主要源于供需结构性失衡、工业需求爆发，以及金融属性强化这三种因 素的共同驱动。 在2012年—2020年之前，全球白银的供应量大部分时候高于需求量，供应总体偏过剩，但从2021年开 始，白银的需求结构发生了显着变化。由于工业需求激增，而矿山产量下降，白银供应开始出现明 ...

Group 1: Market Movements - Palladium prices fell sharply by 10.00%, currently trading at $1712.93 per ounce [1] - Platinum futures hit the limit down again with a 10% drop, reported at 634.35 yuan per gram, before rebounding to 659.65 yuan per gram, narrowing the decline to 6.41% [1] Group 2: Silver Market Dynamics - Spot silver dropped by 2.98%, currently at $76.59 per ounce, after experiencing a volatile trading session with a peak of over 5% increase to $83 per ounce, followed by a drop below $75, resulting in a daily fluctuation of $9 [2] - Silver prices have surged nearly 180% this year, driven by supply tightness, designation as a critical mineral by the U.S., strong industrial demand, geopolitical tensions boosting safe-haven demand, and expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve [2] Group 3: Silver Market Valuation - The current market capitalization of silver is approximately $4.485 trillion, ranking it as the third-largest asset globally, behind gold and Nvidia [3] - Silver's market capitalization recently surpassed that of Google, marking a significant milestone in its valuation [3] Group 4: Fund Performance and Market Reactions - The Guotai Silver LOF experienced significant volatility, hitting the limit down before quickly rebounding, with a closing price of 2.746 yuan and an 8.8% increase, resulting in a premium rate of 34.06% [3][4] - The fund's trading price has shown extreme fluctuations, with premium rates reaching 68.16% during a three-day limit-up period, followed by a drop to below 30% [4] - Guotai Ruijin Fund has issued multiple risk warnings and implemented measures such as trading halts and purchase limits to cool the market, indicating that the fund's market price significantly exceeds its net asset value [4]

Core Viewpoint - The silver market has experienced significant volatility, with prices recently surpassing $80 per ounce, making it the third-largest asset globally, only behind gold and NVIDIA [1][3]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - Silver prices have surged nearly 180% this year, driven by supply shortages, strong industrial demand, geopolitical tensions, and expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve [3][6]. - The recent price fluctuations were attributed to traders taking profits after a record surge, leading to a sharp decline from a peak of over $83 to below $75 within a single day [1][3]. Group 2: Market Capitalization - As of now, silver's market capitalization stands at $4.485 trillion, surpassing Apple and ranking third among all assets, while gold leads with $31.719 trillion and NVIDIA follows with $4.638 trillion [4][5]. - The rapid ascent of silver's market cap occurred within approximately ten days, during which it overtook Google [5]. Group 3: Future Outlook - Market experts suggest that if the current upward momentum continues, silver could potentially surpass NVIDIA to become the second-largest asset globally [6]. - Analysts are divided on silver's future price trajectory, with some optimistic about a potential rise above $100 next year, while others warn of a looming correction, predicting a drop to around $42 by the end of next year [6].

Core Viewpoint - Silver experienced a significant drop after initially surpassing $80 per ounce, driven by a structural supply-demand imbalance that led to record highs [1] Group 1: Market Dynamics - Silver prices peaked at over $83 per ounce before a decline of up to 5% following five consecutive days of increases [1] - The rapid rise in silver prices reflects a broader trend in precious metals, influenced by substantial central bank purchases, inflows into ETFs, and three consecutive interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve [1] Group 2: Supply and Demand Factors - The silver market is characterized by a thinner structure, tighter inventories, and quicker liquidity depletion compared to gold, which has approximately $700 billion in lendable bars as a liquidity buffer [1] - A severe structural supply-demand imbalance has led to a rush for physical silver, with buyers currently paying a staggering 7% premium for immediate delivery over waiting a year [1]

Group 1 - Silver prices experienced a significant drop after reaching an all-time high of $84 per ounce, with a decline of 5% observed in trading [1] - The recent surge in precious metal prices is attributed to central bank purchases, inflows into exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and three consecutive interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve [2] - The Bloomberg Dollar Index fell by 0.8%, marking the largest weekly decline since June, which typically benefits gold and silver prices [2] Group 2 - The silver market is experiencing a structural supply-demand imbalance, leading to a rush for physical silver, with buyers willing to pay a premium of up to 7% for immediate delivery [2] - Silver's performance has outpaced gold due to its smaller market size and tighter inventory, with significant supply shortages reported in regions like China [2] - The Relative Strength Index (RSI) for silver is nearing 80, indicating that the recent price increase may be excessive [3]

Core Viewpoint - International gold prices experienced a significant drop after reaching a historical high, with spot gold falling by 5.31% and silver by 7.11%, leading to a decline in consumer confidence and market activity [1][3][5]. Market Reaction - The sharp decline in gold and silver prices has led to decreased sales in the gold market, with many consumers adopting a wait-and-see approach, hoping for further price drops before making purchases [3][5]. - In Shenzhen's Shui Bei gold market, sellers reported unprecedented price fluctuations, with gold prices dropping from 990 yuan to 930 yuan per gram in a single day [3]. Price Dynamics - The recent price correction is attributed to several factors, including excessive previous gains, a strong dollar, the end of India's seasonal gold buying peak, and profit-taking by investors concerned about overvaluation [5]. - Citibank predicts that the end of the U.S. government shutdown and easing U.S.-China trade tensions may lead to a period of price consolidation for gold, with a short-term bearish outlook and a target price of $4,000 per ounce over the next 1-3 months [5]. Long-term Outlook - Analysts from Guosen Securities believe that the long-term bullish trend for gold will continue due to structural factors such as the reconstruction of the global monetary credit system, de-dollarization, and ongoing central bank purchases [6]. - HSBC forecasts that the upward momentum for gold could persist until 2026, setting a target price of $5,000 per ounce, driven by concerns over U.S. fiscal deficits and the demand for gold as a hedge against debt sustainability risks [6].

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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as a core issue, leading to declining capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increasing economic downward pressure [5][15]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are driven by structural supply-demand imbalances, resulting in significant declines in industrial capacity utilization. For instance, industrial capacity utilization fell from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 before supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 during the anti-involution phase [5][6][13]. - Industrial prices have also seen substantial declines. During the supply-side reform period, the Producer Price Index (PPI) experienced negative growth for 54 consecutive months starting from March 2012. Similarly, the PPI has been in negative growth since October 2022, continuing for 34 months as of July 2025 [6][10]. - Corporate profits have declined due to falling demand and prices. In 2015, industrial profits fell by 2.3%, marking the first negative growth since 1998. In the anti-involution period, industrial profits have been in negative growth since 2022, with a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 [7][10]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with declining capacity utilization and industrial prices leading to reduced corporate revenues and profits, which in turn decrease investment and increase unemployment. GDP growth fell from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, while the growth rate has stabilized around 5% during the anti-involution period [13][19]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs significantly. While both periods face demand shortages, the anti-involution phase is characterized by a more severe demand shortfall due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market. In contrast, the supply-side reform period saw resilient demand supported by post-financial crisis recovery and real estate market upturns [16][19]. - The industry characteristics also vary. Supply-side reform primarily targeted traditional industries like steel and coal, while anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies. This shift indicates a new phenomenon where "involution" competition is prevalent across various industries [21][24]. - The reasons behind the two phases differ. Supply-side reform was largely a response to overcapacity resulting from stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a wider array of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including the deep adjustment in the real estate sector and the transition to new production forces [30][32]. - The implementation paths diverge as well. Supply-side reform focused on traditional industries with administrative measures to cut capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [40][43].

Group 1 - The decline in domestic housing prices is a result of multiple intertwined factors, primarily characterized by "high leverage expansion + demographic dividend decline + policy correction" [1] Group 2 - Structural imbalance in supply and demand is evident, with new housing inventory reaching 750 million square meters, requiring 5.7 years to digest [4] - The surge in second-hand housing listings is notable, with cities like Chongqing and Wuhan exceeding 200,000 listings [4] - The national housing vacancy rate stands at approximately 15%, equating to 380 billion square meters, with severe issues in third and fourth-tier cities [4] Group 3 - Demand continues to shrink, with urbanization rate at 65.2% and the annual growth rate of urban population decreasing from 20 million to 10 million [4] - The primary home-buying demographic (ages 25-44) has decreased by 60 million since 2015 [4] - The birth rate has dropped to 1.09, lower than Japan, with marriage numbers expected to fall below 5 million in 2024 [4] Group 4 - The "housing is for living, not for speculation" policy has deepened, with investment home purchases dropping from 23% to 11% [4] - The financial risks are exposed, with developers like Evergrande having debts of 2.4 trillion and residents' leverage rate reaching 63% [4] Group 5 - Economic growth faces pressure from pandemic impacts and trade friction, affecting consumer confidence [4] - The aging population, currently at 14.9% for those over 65, is projected to exceed 30% by 2035, reducing new housing demand [4] Group 6 - Core cities like Beijing and Shanghai are less affected due to industrial upgrades attracting high-end demand [4] - Non-core cities, such as Hegang and Ordos, are experiencing drastic price drops [4] - Population flow is polarized, with new first-tier cities seeing net inflows exceeding 500,000, while northeastern regions face an outflow rate of 819% [4] Group 7 - A trend reversal has formed, with short-term policy stimuli like the "517 new policy" expected to have only a temporary effect [4] - Long-term recovery relies on industrial transformation and demographic structure optimization, emphasizing the need to focus on the integration of industry and city in core urban areas [4]

Core Viewpoint - The coastal coal market is experiencing a sustained price increase due to seasonal demand peaks and structural supply-demand imbalances, with the Qinhuangdao coal price index rising to 663 yuan per ton, up 1 yuan from the previous period [1][2]. Demand Side - The National Energy Administration reports that since the beginning of summer, China's electricity load has reached historical highs twice, with 10 provincial power grids hitting new records 22 times [1]. - Coastal power plants have consumed over 2 million tons of coal daily for 13 consecutive days, driven by rising temperatures and increased electricity demand, indicating a strong purchasing trend in the coastal coal market [1]. Supply Side - Recent regulatory pressures and local rainfall have impacted coal production and sales activities in major coal-producing areas, leading to tight coal supplies and rising prices in these regions [1]. - The arrival of coal at ports in the Bohai Rim has shown a fluctuating decrease, with some ports experiencing a phenomenon of ships waiting for cargo, highlighting structural supply issues despite stable inventory levels [1]. Market Outlook - The coastal market is expected to enter a phase of stalemate as coal production in major mining areas normalizes and nationwide rainfall and cooling reduce electricity consumption, alleviating structural supply-demand issues [2].