北京商报讯（记者 刘宇阳）1月9日，广东证监局公布行政处罚决定书，对珠海横琴博瀚股权投资基金管理有限公司（以下简称"横琴博瀚"） 及其控股股东、时任总经理、执行董事冯某予以处罚。 决定书显示，经查，2020年5月至2021年12月期间，横琴博瀚与部分投资者签订私募基金合同补充协议，违规承诺本金不受损失、承诺最低收 益。此外，2021年8月至2023年3月期间，冯某决策横琴博瀚管理的部分基金产品通过低价卖出、高价买入等操作，与冯某控制使用的证券账 户交易股票，横琴博瀚基金产品高价买入股票金额合计1083.6万元，冯某控制账户获利518.75万元，相关基金产品相应增加持股成本518.75万 元。冯某通过上述方式从事损害基金财产的投资活动，利用横琴博瀚相关基金财产和担任基金经理的职务之便牟取利益，进行利益输送。 对于上述行为，广东证监局责令横琴博瀚改正、给予警告并处3万元罚款；责令冯某改正，给予警告，处以6万元罚款，并对其采取5年证券市 场禁入措施。自决定之日起，在禁入期内，冯某不得在原机构和其他任何机构中从事证券业务、证券服务业务或者担任证券发行人的董事、 监事、高级管理人员职务。 ...

以下文章来源于凤凰网财经 ，作者公司研究院 凤凰网财经 . 你好，我们是凤凰网财经，全球华人都在看的财经公众号，传播最有价值的财经报道，你值得关注！欢迎访问：http://finance.ifeng.com/ 董宇辉又陷争议。 文 ｜ 凤凰网财经《公司研究院》 来源｜ 凤凰网财经（ID：finance_ifeng） 封面来源 ｜ IC photo 董宇辉又陷争议了，导火索就是那场卖了3.56亿的家居直播。直播间里最火的是顾家那款真皮沙发，最低价为3471.4元直接卖爆，单款就冲了1个亿的销售 额。 结果热闹劲儿还没过去，质疑声就冒出来了。 有人琢磨，订单量这么大，顾家自己的工厂能忙得过来吗？不会是找代工厂贴牌的吧？还有人担心，价格压得这么低，质量能跟线下门店的一样吗？亮眼的 销售数据摆在眼前，网友的连环追问也没停。这场直播的后续，直接成了全网盯着的供应链大考验。 爆单沙发陷入"代工"争议 这事儿得从12月10日董宇辉"与辉同行"的家居专场直播说起。 根据第三方数据统计，这场直播播了五个半小时，总销售额直接冲到3.56亿元。 其中最亮眼的是顾家家居的一款真皮沙发，2.8米的三人位款，优惠后价格只要3471.4元 ...

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the controversy of whether the high sales volume of the sofa sold during the live stream was due to the company's own production capacity or reliance on outsourcing [11][12][16] - Concerns were raised about the quality of the product being sold at a significantly lower price compared to traditional retail, leading to questions about potential compromises in quality [16][24] - Kuka Home clarified that the sofas sold during the live stream were produced in-house and that they were working to meet production demands [19] Group 2 - The price of 3471.4 yuan for the sofa is still profitable for Kuka Home, despite being lower than the average selling price of 3893.05 yuan for their standard products [25][26] - Kuka Home's financial performance has shown a decline, with a reported revenue of 184.80 billion yuan in 2024, down 3.81% year-on-year, and a net profit drop of 29.38% [28] - The founder's family has engaged in significant capital operations, having cashed out approximately 200 billion yuan since the company's IPO, raising concerns about the long-term operational strategy of the company [29][30] Group 3 - The company is undergoing a strategic shift towards smart home products, but recent fundraising efforts have faced scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and pricing discrepancies [32][33] - The planned fundraising includes a significant portion aimed at supplementing working capital, despite the company having substantial cash reserves, raising questions about the necessity of such measures [33][34] - The company's actions, including high dividend payouts and substantial financial management plans, have led to skepticism regarding the true financial health and intentions behind the fundraising [35]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding a live-streaming event led by Dong Yuhui, which generated significant sales for Gujia Home, raising questions about the quality and sourcing of the products sold during the event [4][6]. Group 1: Sales Performance and Controversy - The live-streaming event on December 10 resulted in total sales of 3.56 billion yuan, with a standout product being a leather sofa priced at 3,471.4 yuan, achieving sales of over 100 million yuan [9][10]. - Concerns arose regarding whether Gujia Home could fulfill the large order volume with its own production capacity or if it would resort to outsourcing [12][13]. - The company responded to these concerns by confirming that the sofas sold during the live stream were produced in-house and that they were working to meet production demands [19]. Group 2: Financial Analysis - Gujia Home's average selling price for standard sofa sets was 3,893.05 yuan, indicating a 12.15% premium over the live-stream price [19]. - The estimated gross margin for the live-streamed sofas is approximately 27.88%, which is a decline from the usual gross margin of 35.69% [19]. - Despite the lower price point, Gujia Home is still expected to make a profit on the live-streamed sales, as the cost per standard set is around 2,503.59 yuan [20]. Group 3: Company Background and Market Position - Gujia Home has faced challenges in recent years, with a reported revenue of 18.48 billion yuan in 2024, down 3.81% year-on-year, and a net profit of 1.42 billion yuan, down 29.38% [22]. - The founder's family has engaged in significant capital operations, having cashed out approximately 200 billion yuan since the company's IPO [25][26]. - The company is currently valued at around 25.3 billion yuan, raising questions about its long-term operational strategy versus capital gains [26]. Group 4: Strategic Concerns - Following the acquisition by He Jianfeng, Gujia Home is shifting towards smart home products, but its upcoming fundraising plan has raised suspicions of potential insider benefits due to significant price discrepancies [27][28]. - The necessity of the fundraising has been questioned, especially given the company's reported cash reserves of 2.785 billion yuan [29]. - The company's simultaneous high dividend payouts and large financial management plans have led to skepticism about its financial health and intentions behind the fundraising [30][31].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Dong Yuhui's live-streaming event, which generated sales of 3.56 billion yuan, has raised questions about the production capacity and quality of the products sold, particularly a popular leather sofa from Gujia Home [1][2][5]. Group 1: Sales Performance and Controversy - The live-streaming event on December 10 featured a leather sofa priced at 3,471.4 yuan, achieving over 1 billion yuan in sales for that model alone [2][6]. - Concerns emerged regarding whether Gujia's own factories could handle the high order volume, leading to speculation about outsourcing production to third-party manufacturers [5][6]. - The significant discount on the sofa raised doubts about whether the quality would match that of products sold in physical stores [5][9]. Group 2: Company Response and Production Assurance - Gujia Home responded to the concerns by stating that the sofas sold during the live stream were produced in-house and that they were working to expedite production [6][10]. - The company emphasized that the products were official and guaranteed to be genuine [6]. Group 3: Financial Analysis and Profitability - Despite the low selling price, Gujia Home is estimated to still have a profit margin, as the average cost per unit is 2,503.59 yuan, leading to a gross margin of approximately 27.88% for the live-streamed sofas [11][12]. - The average selling price of standard sofa sets in the first three quarters of the year was 3,893.05 yuan, indicating a 12.15% premium over the live-stream price [10][12]. - Gujia Home's financial performance showed a revenue of 184.80 billion yuan for the year, a decline of 3.81% year-on-year, with net profit dropping by 29.38% [14]. Group 4: Capital Operations and Shareholder Concerns - The founder's family has engaged in significant capital operations, having cashed out approximately 200 billion yuan since the company's IPO, raising concerns about the long-term operational strategy of Gujia Home [16][17]. - Recent low-priced capital increases have sparked allegations of potential benefits to insiders at the expense of minority shareholders, as the pricing was significantly below market value [20][22]. - The company's financial maneuvers, including high dividends and substantial investment plans, have led to skepticism about its actual liquidity needs and the motivations behind its fundraising efforts [24].

12月25日，俄罗斯《生意人报》报道称，俄总统普京在与商界领袖会晤时表示，美国有意利用拟议中其在扎波罗热核电站的股份开展加 密货币挖矿业务。 普京特别提到美国要用扎波罗热核电站开展加密货币挖矿业务，揭特朗普的"老底"，说明只要有利益，特朗普什么都肯干，很离谱，但 很合理。 开展加密货币挖矿业务需要大量电力，而扎波罗热核电站刚好能解决，特朗普家族旗下的加密货币业务正如火如荼进行。 特朗普上任之初就发行"特朗普币"，深度介入加密货币业务，进而割韭菜，还给家族每个人都发币割MAGA信徒的韭菜，还特赦币安创 始人赵长鹏，准备在加密市场狠狠赚钱。 这不是编造的消息，确实是俄罗斯媒体的消息，而且是俄总统普京关于扎波罗热核电站如何处置时提到的。 普京表示，目前正在与美国而不是乌克兰讨论共同管理扎波罗热核电站的问题。 乌克兰希望与美国按照五五分成解决扎波罗热核电站的问题， 美国提议将扎波罗热核电站一分为三，俄罗斯、乌克兰和美国共同占有股份。 俄罗斯希望美国和俄罗斯共同占有扎波罗热核电站股份，现在该核电站由俄罗斯控制。 不管哪种方案，美国都要有股份，会有收益，这个收益当然归美国。 特朗普的儿子创建加密货币公司割韭菜，特别是向阿 ...

Core Viewpoint - Vanke is facing a critical situation, with its stock price halved and bond prices plummeting, highlighting the severe financial distress of the once-leading real estate company [3][4]. Group 1: Financial Distress - Vanke is seeking an extension for a 2 billion yuan bond, indicating its struggle to manage even a small amount of debt [4]. - The company, which previously reported annual sales exceeding 700 billion yuan and held substantial cash flow, is now in a precarious position, unable to access necessary funds [4]. - Vanke's financial issues stem from a long-term, hidden loss of profits, rather than just the current industry downturn [7]. Group 2: Shadow Companies - Vanke has been significantly impacted by "shadow companies," which are nominally independent but controlled by insiders or specific interest groups [8]. - These shadow companies have created a closed loop for profit transfer, where profits that should belong to Vanke are siphoned off, while the risks are transferred back to the parent company [10][15]. - This situation has left Vanke with apparent assets but insufficient liquidity to address immediate financial needs [16]. Group 3: Government Support and Market Dynamics - There is a misconception that Vanke will receive unlimited support from its state-owned backers, such as Shenzhen Metro, but the reality is that support is limited to a specific borrowing cap of 22 billion yuan [20]. - Vanke faces 150 billion yuan in debt maturing within a year, with the majority of the support already utilized, indicating a lack of sufficient backing from its major shareholder [20][22]. - The current stance of state-owned enterprises reflects a shift towards risk management, prioritizing the protection of taxpayer money over bailing out failing companies [22][23]. Group 4: Accountability and Fairness - If Vanke collapses, the primary losers will be small shareholders, homebuyers facing delivery risks, and creditors [25]. - The executives who profited significantly during the boom years through high bonuses and shadow companies may have already secured their wealth, leaving others to bear the consequences of the company's failure [26][28]. - There is a pressing need for accountability, questioning whether those who benefited from the profits should return their gains in light of the current crisis [29].

3月6日，Venture Global在路易斯安那州Plaquemines Parish宣布对其位于密西西比河的大型LNG终端进行 180亿美元扩建。该项活动吸引了多名对LNG项目具有监管权的特朗普政府高级官员。 在这场高规格活动结束后的第四天(3月10日)，Venture Global的股价因市场对其第四季度业绩失望而跌 至约9.37美元的低点。萨贝尔和彭德随即开始了一场罕见且密集的增持行动，连续数天每天购买数千至 数十万股股票。到3月14日当周结束时，两人分别累计买入近120万股，价值接近1200万美元。 紧接着在3月19日，美国能源部长克里斯.赖特宣布批准Venture Global的另一项重大LNG计划——CP2终 端的出口许可。该项目年产能达2800万吨，曾因环保组织、气候科学家和当地渔民的抗议而被拜登政府 暂停，但在特朗普政府执政不到两个月便重新启动。 与此同时，Venture Global的游说支出也显著激增。根据非营利组织Open Secrets的数据，与公司关联的 个人在2024年花费了86万美元游说国会，而2025年以来已投入81万美元，远高于此前7万美元的最高纪 录。 自重返白宫以后，美 ...

Core Viewpoint - New Guodu has submitted its prospectus for H-share listing in Hong Kong, raising questions about potential information disclosure violations regarding the transfer of its subsidiary Changsha Fadu Internet Technology Co., Ltd. [1][3] Group 1: Company Transactions and Valuation - New Guodu transferred Changsha Fadu on November 10, 2025, but did not disclose this in its A-share announcements, which raises concerns about compliance with disclosure regulations [3][5]. - The goodwill value of Changsha Fadu at the time of acquisition was 433 million yuan, while New Guodu's net profit for 2024 was only 234 million yuan, suggesting that the transaction could meet mandatory disclosure thresholds [3][4]. - New Guodu has a history of high-premium acquisitions followed by significant losses, such as the sale of Gongxin Chengfeng for 10 million yuan after acquiring it for 500 million yuan, resulting in a loss of 490 million yuan [9][16]. Group 2: Financial Performance and Market Position - New Guodu's revenue for the first three quarters of 2025 was 2.343 billion yuan, a year-on-year decline of 4.15%, with a significant drop in net profit of 68.98% in 2024 [16]. - The company's core business, payment services and value-added services, saw revenue shrink from 3.059 billion yuan in 2022 to 2.113 billion yuan in 2024, a nearly 31% decrease over three years [17]. - New Guodu has been reducing its workforce significantly, with employee numbers dropping from 2,821 in 2021 to 1,571 in 2024, a reduction of 36.4% in one year [17]. Group 3: Financial Health and Investment Strategy - As of the end of Q3 2025, New Guodu had over 4.2 billion yuan in cash and financial assets, accounting for about 70% of total assets, with only 200 million yuan in interest-bearing liabilities [16][17]. - The company announced plans to use up to 3 billion yuan of idle funds for wealth management and securities investment, indicating a strong cash position [17].

Core Viewpoint - Tianyi Ma plans to acquire 98.5632% of Xingyun Kaiwu for a total consideration of 1.1885 billion yuan, representing a significant premium of 649.77% over its assessed value [1][2][5] Group 1: Acquisition Details - The acquisition price of 1.1885 billion yuan is based on an assessed value of 121 million yuan for Xingyun Kaiwu, with a net asset value of 161 million yuan as of June 30, 2025 [2][3] - The valuation of 1.2 billion yuan is considered high, especially given that the last effective share transfer valued the company at only 136 million yuan [3][5] - The acquisition involves issuing shares at a price significantly lower than the market price, providing substantial arbitrage opportunities for original shareholders and management [6][8] Group 2: Financial Implications - Tianyi Ma will pay 582 million yuan in shares and 606 million yuan in cash, but has only 331 million yuan in cash available, leading to a funding gap of 120 million yuan [6][11] - The cash outflow will deplete the company's cash reserves, raising concerns about the interests of minority shareholders [12][10] Group 3: Company Performance and Valuation Concerns - Xingyun Kaiwu's revenue and profit growth appear to be driven by significant cost-cutting, with R&D expenses and sales costs decreasing despite revenue growth [12][13] - The company's gross margin is higher than industry averages, but its reliance on marketing is evident, as sales expense ratios exceed those of comparable companies [14][12] - The disparity between revenue growth (16.1%) and net profit growth (123.97%) raises questions about the sustainability and authenticity of the company's financial performance [12][13]