一家黄金首饰店铺的销售经理表示，由于金价出现回调，店里22日的成交量较近期有所减少。"客流量还可以，但是大部分以观望为 主，大部分人在等。金价越降，他们其实越想再等等，觉得是不是还可以再降。" 金价为何突然高位回调？ 国际金价在本周一创下收盘历史新高后，周二急剧下挫，现货黄金一度大跌6.3%，创2013年4月以来最大单日跌幅，最终收跌 5.31%，报4124.36美元/盎司；现货白银最终收跌7.11%，报48.66美元/盎司。 不少买入黄金、白银的网友懵了：我今天才买的。一名福建网友发视频称："在下跌之前，我订了1公斤的黄金板料和15公斤的白银板 料，1个小时至少亏损了5万元。" 图源：大河报视频 金店销量下降 消费者观望情绪浓 国际黄金白银价格的大跌，对我国销售市场会产生怎样的波动？在深圳水贝黄金市场，不少黄金销售商表示，金价波动的幅度之大让 他们感到震惊。"每克黄金，一天从990元到960元跌到930元，这种跌幅我们从没见过，包括家里长辈，他们做了四十多年的黄金行 业。" 国信证券分析师认为，长期而言，全球货币信用体系重构、去美元化趋势、各国央行持续购金以及供需结构性失衡等因素构成了黄金 上涨的核心支撑， ...

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].