投资端也面临下滑压力。8月固定资产投资累计同比仅增长0.5%，较上月下降1.1个百分点。李湛表示， 三大投资分项均存下行压力，短期内难以形成有效支撑。 "当前我国经济运行呈现外需相对坚挺、内需走弱的分化态势，7至8月宏观经济数据边际放缓，三季度 GDP增速拟合值较7月有所下滑，内需不足已成为制约经济持续回升的重要因素，四季度面临的消费、 投资、通胀压力需重点关注。" 内需不足与外部供给压力共同影响价格回升。剔除食品和能源的核心CPI长期维持在1%以下，国内"反 内卷"聚焦中游制造业，对于抬升终端商品价格的传导有一定周期；海外市场上，美国加大化石能源开 发出口，OPEC+通过增产争夺市场份额，能源价格反弹动力不足。 在第十九届上市公司价值评选专家研讨会上，招商基金研究部首席经济学家李湛针对当前宏观经济与资 本市场运行态势作出上述判断。 值得关注的是，资本市场在多重支撑因素作用下呈现企稳回升态势，但资金结构与风险点仍需警惕。李 湛分析，三季度以来市场微观流动性充裕，7至8月非银金融机构存款同比多增1.94万亿元，增量资金入 市形成做多正反馈；外部风险持续缓释，中美关税谈判展期、美联储9月降息25BP并有望年内再降 ...

在第十九届上市公司价值评选专家研讨会上，中泰国际首席经济学家李迅雷指出，当前A股整体估值处 于合理区间，长期牛市需依赖上市公司业绩持续增长，同时强调内需不足与房地产下行压力仍需政策发 力应对。 从市场驱动逻辑来看，李迅雷分析，年初至今A股的涨幅，核心动力源于利率下行与场外资金入 市。"市场利率尤其是存款利率下行，叠加中美贸易谈判预期向好，推动资金从房地产和银行存款向资 本市场转移。"他表示，当前居民部门存款余额超160万亿元，其中定期存款约120万亿元，三年期存款 利率已降至1.3%左右，部分到期资金或转向理财与股市，但需理性看待入市规模，"大量银行存款属于 风险偏好极低的'养命钱'，大规模入市可能性较小"。 对于市场热度，李迅雷认为当前处于适中水平，尚未出现明显泡沫。"上证综指、沪深300指数市盈率处 于历史平均中位数附近，属于理性投资区间。"不过，李迅雷强调，成长性才是决定市场长期走势的关 键。"中国制造业全球份额近1/3，在先进制造、数字经济等领域具备优势，这是A股的核心亮点。"他指 出，2025年上半年A股上市公司净利润同比增长2.5%，但整体盈利增速仍显不足，"若未来几年上市公 司盈利增速能进一步提 ...

报告要点 证券研究报告 | 宏观研究 内需偏弱下的经济修复与政策应对 平减指数出现较长期负增长，通缩螺旋持续强化，且与过去两次有所不同。 2023 年二季度以来，GDP 平减指数连续 9 个季度负增长，包含 2025 年二季 度，已经达到三年时间。超过了亚洲金融危机时期的 6 个季度以及全球金融危 机冲击下的 3 个季度。我们认为尽管三轮平减指数为负的现象在表面上相似， 其背后的成因、机制与表现形式却存在实质性差异。1998 年和 2008 年是由 外部冲击诱发、通过快速政策刺激予以对冲的短期收缩，而本轮则是缺乏外部 冲击背景下持续时间偏长、结构特征较为复杂的一轮名义价格收缩周期。我们 认为不仅表征出物价下行的表层问题，更预示着经济运行内部机制面临深度调 整的转折期。 内需偏弱并非周期性，而是结构性。本轮通缩不是单纯的"需求不足"，而是由 房地产、债务和财政相互咬合、反复放大的链式反应：房价下跌和销量转弱削 弱了居民财富效应与企业利润，资产负债表恶化进一步压低银行风险偏好与信 贷派生；土地财政退潮令专项债从"增量投资"转为"缺口填补"，公共投资乘数 下降；名义增速与物价随之走弱，通缩预期被固化。正因如此，政策 ...

Group 1: Investment Ratings - No industry investment ratings are provided in the report. Group 2: Core Views - The stock index is expected to rise in the long - term, but the probability of a unilateral upward trend before the National Day holiday is low. It is recommended to control positions [1]. - Asset shortage and weak economy are favorable for bond futures, but the central bank's short - term interest rate risk warning suppresses the upward trend [1]. - After the interest rate cut, the gold price is expected to fluctuate at a high level in the short - term, but there is still room for growth in the long - term [1]. Group 3: Summary by Variety Macro - Financial - **Stock Index**: Long - term bullish, but low probability of unilateral rise before National Day, control positions [1]. - **Treasury Bonds**: Asset shortage and weak economy are favorable, but short - term rate risk warning by central bank suppresses rise [1]. Precious Metals - **Gold**: Short - term high - level oscillation, long - term upward potential [1]. - **Silver**: Short - term strong due to market sentiment [1]. Base Metals - **Copper**: Pressured by profit - taking after Fed rate cut, but expected to stabilize and rise with overseas easing and domestic demand [1]. - **Aluminum**: Pressured by profit - taking, but limited downside in consumption season [1]. - **Alumina**: Weak fundamentals but limited downside as price nears cost line [1]. - **Zinc**: Social inventory increase pressures price, but Sino - US relations may boost sentiment [1]. - **Nickel**: Short - term macro - dominated, may be strong, pay attention to supply and macro changes [1]. - **Stainless Steel**: Short - term oscillation, Sino - US relations may boost sentiment, pay attention to production [1]. - **Tin**: Potential low - buying opportunities in demand season [1]. - **Industrial Silicon**: Influenced by supply and market sentiment factors [1]. Energy - **Crude Oil**: Affected by US inventory, OPEC+ production plan, and Fed rate cut [1]. - **Fuel Oil**: Short - term follows crude oil, supply of raw material is sufficient [1]. Chemicals - **PTA**: Output increases, basis falls, downstream profit recovers [1]. - **Ethylene Glycol**: Basis strengthens, but new device and hedging pressure exist [1]. - **Short - fiber**: Factory devices return, delivery willingness weakens [1]. - **Benzene and Styrene**: Supply increases, import pressure rises [1]. - **Urea**: Limited upside due to weak demand, supported by cost [1]. - **PE**: Price oscillates weakly due to demand and maintenance [1]. - **PVC**: Oscillates weakly with supply pressure and high near - month warehouse receipts [1]. - **LPG**: Upward momentum is suppressed by OPEC production and inventory [1]. Agricultural Products - **Palm Oil**: May break through oscillation range due to supply disruption [1]. - **Soybean Oil**: Long - term bullish with de - stocking expectation, pay attention to Sino - US talks [1]. - **Rapeseed Oil**: Recommend 11 - 1 calendar spread strategy [1]. - **Cotton**: New crop is expected to be abundant, short - term supply may be tight [1]. - **Sugar**: Expected to oscillate weakly with limited downside [1]. - **Corn**: Expected to oscillate at the bottom, focus on new - crop price [1]. - **Soybean Meal**: Buy on dips, pay attention to Sino - US policy [1]. Others - **Paper Pulp**: Oscillates, focus on warehouse receipt cancellation after September delivery [1]. - **Logs**: Oscillates with stable spot price and falling foreign quotes [1]. - **Live Pigs**: Weak due to supply increase and limited downstream demand [1]. - **Shipping (Container Shipping to Europe)**: Freight rates are falling faster than expected [1].

Report Industry Investment Rating - No information provided Core View of the Report - Urea domestic demand is weak, and exports support the upward movement of the futures price. It is expected to fluctuate in the short - term, and the market is waiting for new drivers. Attention should be paid to news - related disturbances [1][11] Summary by Related Catalogs Strategy Analysis - Urea futures opened high and moved high today, with a slight decline in the afternoon and a small gain. Upstream factories lowered prices to attract orders, and downstream buyers replenished at low prices, resulting in good market transactions. This week's urea production declined, but next week, most factories will resume production, and production will increase month - on - month. Northern agricultural demand is near the end, with sporadic purchases. After compound fertilizer factories started autumn fertilizer production, the operating load increased slightly. Currently, compound fertilizer factories have taken 30% of nitrogen fertilizer, and there is still an expectation of further purchases. However, due to the dominance of advance payments, the finished - product inventory in factories has increased, and the demand for urea has strong elasticity and limited support. Inventory continued to decline this period, mainly due to regional agricultural demand and export orders, but the decline rate has slowed down [1][11] Futures Market - The main 2509 contract of urea opened at 1750 yuan/ton, fluctuated strongly during the day, and finally closed at 1745 yuan/ton, up 0.29%. The trading volume was 188,727 lots, a decrease of 9,285 lots. Among the top 20 main positions, long positions decreased by 3,019 lots, and short positions decreased by 2,273 lots. Qisheng Futures' net long positions increased by 1,437 lots, and Zheshang Futures' net long positions decreased by 519 lots. CITIC Futures' net short positions increased by 1,642 lots, and Dongzheng Futures' net short positions increased by 3,271 lots. On July 18, 2025, the number of urea warehouse receipts was 2,523, a decrease of 107 from the previous trading day, all from Anhui Zhongneng [2] Spot Market - After downstream buyers purchased at low prices and factories lowered prices to attract orders, the order - receiving situation was fair. The ex - factory price of small - particle urea in Shandong, Henan, and Hebei was mostly in the range of 1730 - 1770 yuan/ton, with a few factories quoting slightly higher [3] Fundamental Tracking - In terms of basis, today's mainstream spot market quotes were stable, and the futures closing price increased. Based on Shandong, the basis strengthened compared with the previous trading day, and the basis of the September contract was 65 yuan/ton, an increase of 8 yuan/ton. On July 18, 2025, the national daily urea production was 197,400 tons, unchanged from yesterday, and the operating rate was 84.03% [7][10]

Group 1: Steel Import and Export Dynamics - In June, China's iron ore imports surged to 105.95 million tons, marking a record high for the year and an 8% increase from May, driven by mining companies aiming to meet quarterly targets [1] - The price of iron ore fell to approximately $94 per ton, providing an opportunity for domestic steel mills to increase procurement and reduce production costs [1] - China's steel exports reached a record 58.15 million tons in the first half of the year, a significant increase of 9.2% year-on-year, attributed to competitive pricing compared to other countries [4] Group 2: Inventory and Domestic Market Challenges - As a result of increased imports, iron ore inventory at major Chinese ports reached 133.6 million tons by the end of June, a 0.5% increase from the previous month, raising concerns about potential oversupply [2] - Domestic steel production is increasingly reliant on exports due to weak domestic demand, with real estate investment down 10.7% and new construction area down 22.8% [8] - Steel imports fell to 470,000 tons in June, a year-on-year decrease of 18%, reflecting a reduced dependence on foreign resources [5] Group 3: Trade Policies and Market Risks - Trade tensions have introduced uncertainty for Chinese steel exports, with Vietnam imposing a 23.8% anti-dumping tax on Chinese hot-rolled coils, leading to a 26% drop in exports to Vietnam in the first half of the year [6] - The number of trade remedy investigations against Chinese steel products has doubled to 18, indicating a rise in global protectionism [6] - Despite the challenges, emerging market demand, particularly from countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, has provided support for Chinese steel exports [4]

Summary of Conference Call Industry or Company Involved - The discussion primarily revolves around the impact of the U.S. tariff policy, specifically the "reciprocal tariffs" introduced by the Trump administration, and its implications for the U.S. economy and global trade dynamics. Core Points and Arguments 1. **Introduction of Reciprocal Tariffs**: The reciprocal tariffs were implemented on April 2, 2024, and have been evolving since then, with ongoing discussions about potential negotiations between the U.S. and China [1][2][3]. 2. **Tariff Calculation Methodology**: The tariffs are calculated based on the trade deficit the U.S. has with other countries, with a specific formula provided by the U.S. Trade Representative's office. For instance, the trade deficit with China was $295.4 billion against imports of $438.9 billion, resulting in a tariff rate of approximately 67% [2][3]. 3. **Tariff Rates on Other Countries**: Besides China, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on other countries, such as 40% on Vietnam and around 50% on Lesotho, indicating a broad application of these tariffs [3]. 4. **Underlying Economic Logic**: The rationale behind these tariffs is argued to be flawed, as the U.S. trade deficit is more a reflection of domestic demand exceeding supply rather than unfair trade practices by other countries [4][5][6]. 5. **Historical Context of the Dollar**: The discussion highlights the historical evolution of the international monetary system, particularly the transition from the Bretton Woods system to the current fiat currency system, which has allowed the U.S. to maintain a trade deficit by printing dollars without physical backing [8][9][10]. 6. **Consequences of Trade Deficits**: The U.S. has benefited from its trade deficits by acquiring goods and services globally at a low cost, but this has led to domestic issues such as deindustrialization and widening income inequality [11][12][16][17]. 7. **Potential Solutions for the U.S.**: Suggestions include abandoning dollar hegemony and establishing a supranational currency to address income inequality and the negative impacts of globalization [18][19][20]. 8. **Impact on U.S. Economy**: The implementation of reciprocal tariffs has led to a significant decline in investment confidence in the U.S., as evidenced by the Syntex investment confidence index [25]. The tariffs have also created uncertainty in the global economic outlook, affecting investment willingness [25][27]. 9. **Financial Market Reactions**: The financial markets have reacted negatively to the tariffs, with a notable decline in the U.S. dollar's strength and rising bond yields, indicating a loss of confidence in the U.S. as a safe haven [26][27][32]. 10. **Future Globalization Trends**: The current global trade dynamics are shifting, with the potential for a new form of globalization that may depend heavily on China's economic choices and domestic policies [23][24]. Other Important but Possibly Overlooked Content 1. **Domestic Economic Pressures**: The U.S. faces significant internal pressures, including rising inflation and a potential debt crisis as the trade deficit is compressed [37][38]. 2. **China's Economic Strategy**: China is encouraged to enhance domestic consumption and investment to mitigate the impacts of U.S. tariffs and maintain economic stability [23][24][50]. 3. **Long-term Economic Outlook**: The long-term sustainability of the U.S. economic model, heavily reliant on trade deficits and dollar dominance, is questioned, with implications for future economic policies [32][57]. This summary encapsulates the key points discussed in the conference call, providing insights into the implications of U.S. tariff policies and the broader economic context.

Core Viewpoint - The People's Bank of China (PBOC) is adjusting its monetary policy to enhance its effectiveness and responsiveness to the current complex economic environment, indicating a more proactive approach in policy implementation [1][3]. Economic Analysis - The meeting highlighted the increasingly complex and severe external environment, with weakened global economic growth and rising trade barriers. Internally, it emphasized insufficient domestic demand and the new challenge of persistently low prices, providing a more detailed analysis compared to previous meetings [3][4]. Policy Adjustment - The monetary policy committee stressed the importance of maintaining ample liquidity and guiding financial institutions to increase credit supply. It aims to align the growth of social financing and money supply with economic growth and price level expectations, reflecting a coordinated approach between monetary policy and economic development goals [4][5]. - Recommendations were made to strengthen the central bank's policy interest rate guidance and improve the market-based interest rate transmission mechanism, with a focus on reducing overall financing costs [4]. Structural Policy Tools - The meeting called for specific measures to deepen financial supply-side structural reforms, urging large banks to enhance their role in supporting the real economy while smaller banks focus on their core responsibilities. This indicates a clear understanding of the differentiated roles of various financial institutions [5]. - Emphasis was placed on effectively implementing various structural monetary policy tools, particularly in supporting technology innovation and boosting consumption. The meeting also highlighted the need to stabilize the capital market through mechanisms like stock repurchase and loan facilitation [5]. - In the real estate sector, the focus shifted from merely stabilizing the market to consolidating its stability, with calls to enhance the vitality of existing properties and land, reflecting a slight adjustment in policy focus [5].

Economic Overview - In April 2025, industrial added value increased by 6.1% year-on-year, down from 7.7% in the previous period, while retail sales grew by 5.1%, a decrease from 5.9%[1] - Fixed asset investment for January-April rose by 4.0% year-on-year, slightly down from 4.2%, with real estate investment declining by 10.3%[1][2] Consumption Trends - Retail sales in April fell short of expectations, with a year-on-year growth of 5.1%, down 0.8 percentage points from the previous value and below the market expectation of 5.5%[3][12] - The consumption of gold and silver jewelry, cultural office supplies, and building materials saw the highest growth rates, while automotive consumption remained volatile[3][14] Investment Insights - Real estate investment saw a significant decline, with a year-on-year drop of 10.3%, compared to a previous decline of 9.9%[5][18] - Manufacturing investment increased by 8.8% year-on-year, down from 9.1%, indicating a slight decrease in corporate investment willingness[5][26] Supply and Production - Industrial production growth was recorded at 6.1%, a decrease of 1.6 percentage points from the previous period, but still above market expectations of 5.2%[5][38] - The service sector's production index fell by 0.3 percentage points to 6.0% year-on-year[39] Employment and Economic Outlook - The urban survey unemployment rate in April was 5.1%, down 0.1 percentage points, consistent with seasonal trends[44] - Looking ahead, the second quarter is expected to maintain economic resilience, with GDP growth projected around 5%, but pressures are anticipated to increase in the second half of the year[2][10][11]

Group 1 - The core argument is that the trade war has shifted the focus from external demand to internal demand, making the latter the cornerstone for winning the trade war, emphasizing the need for certainty in internal demand [3][5] - The issue of insufficient internal demand is linked to the high tax burden on private enterprises, which leads to low profitability and potential market exit, thereby reducing the tax base and overall income [4][9] - The comparison with Western developed countries highlights that despite high tax systems, they do not face demand shortages due to a greater allocation of tax revenue towards social welfare rather than administrative costs, leading to a more balanced distribution of resources [7][9] Group 2 - The high administrative costs in the domestic economy are identified as a direct cause of insufficient demand, indicating that tax revenue must be effectively redistributed to stimulate consumption [9] - The article suggests that the current economic model is unsustainable, as low corporate profits lead to cost-cutting measures that can spiral into a decline in the middle-income group, creating a negative feedback loop [4][9]