证券研究报告 | 行业深度报告 2026 年 03 月 04 日 电力设备系列报告（46） 美国启动765kV输电网建设 中游制造/电力设备及新能源 近期，德克萨斯州、中大西洋及中西部地区电网运营商已相继推动总额高达 750 亿美元的输电扩建计划，相关项目已获监管机构批准。该扩建计划核心是建设 一批 765kV 的超高压交流线路。 ❑ 风险提示：贸易壁垒、海外业务拓展不及预期、竞争加剧等。 重点公司主要财务指标 | 公司简称 | 公司代码 | 股价 | 25EPS | 26EPS | 26PE | PB | 投资评级 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 思源电气 | 002028.SZ | 219.4 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 38.1 | 11.06 | 强烈推荐 | | 神马电力 | 603530.SH | 61.1 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 45.3 | 16.16 | 强烈推荐 | | 金盘科技 | 688676.SH | 93.1 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 40.8 | 8.18 | 强烈推荐 | | 伊戈尔 | 0029 ...

有时候，我会在想，这场持续了八年的中美贸易战到底给两边带来了什么？谁赢了？谁输惨了？ 其实答案比我想象得更复杂，有些数据还挺让人心里一沉。美国那边，特朗普上台时说要让制造业回归，搞关税，结果等了八年，逆差却越搞越大。 2025年他们商品贸易逆差已经到了1.24万亿美元，这数字不只是大，是空前的。你要说特朗普心里不憋屈，那是不可能的。说到关税政策，那边的操作有点 自作聪明。 特朗普当年拍脑袋搞"对等关税"，意思是你给我多少逆差，我就收你多少关税。可结果呢？美国高院一判，去年大部分关税都违法，说白了，收的钱最后还 得吐给企业。 美联储出的报告也很打脸——超过九成的关税其实是美国企业和消费者自己买单。你能想象么？美国人买东西的时候，自己给自己加了价。 这事不是我一个人在网上吐槽，很多金融圈的人分析后都觉得挺离谱。 关税是想让中国制造难做一点，让工厂跑回美国，可实际效果完全相反。 美国制造业的日子没见好，反倒是中国这边，新开的外资企业一年比一年多。 2025年中国新设外资企业7万多家，比上一年涨了19%。 外资总额差不多7476亿人民币。 瑞士、阿联酋、英国的投资都在涨，有些投资机构还发了调研报告，说他们看好中国的市 ...

Group 1 - The Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for the U.S. domestic economy, despite having little effect on Trump's international relations [3][5] - Trump quickly adjusted his strategy by invoking the Trade Act of 1974, increasing global tariffs from 10% to 15%, which is higher than initially planned [5] - The increase in tariffs is expected to burden American consumers, with an estimated additional cost of $1,700 per household annually due to rising import costs [7][9] Group 2 - High tariffs are putting pressure on U.S. manufacturing, with overall costs rising by 2% to 4.5%, and specific industries like automotive facing increased costs of $1,200 to $2,500 per vehicle [9] - The manufacturing sector is experiencing job losses, with over 80,000 layoffs in the past year, contradicting Trump's goal of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. [9][11] - The share of manufacturing in the U.S. economy is declining, projected to drop from 10.8% in 2024 to 10.5% in 2025, indicating a lag in advanced technology sectors [11] Group 3 - The semiconductor industry is facing significant losses due to increased tariffs, with over $10 billion in damages and a reduction in global market share from 37% in 1990 to 12% today [11] - If tariffs persist, consumer electronics prices are projected to rise significantly, with smartphones potentially increasing by 31% and gaming consoles by 69% [11] - The U.S. is losing competitive ground to China in high-tech sectors, with China making substantial advancements in electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and semiconductor production [13]

昔日那句响亮的让美国再次伟大的承诺，已经被民众的账单、消失的岗位和无辜的枪声撕成了碎片。随 着共和党内部的分裂以及联邦特工暴力执法所引发的全民愤怒，特朗普的权力正遭遇猛烈的反噬。白宫 陷入孤立，整个国家仿佛置身于一颗随时可能引爆的火药桶之中。 在斯特拉斯堡，电子屏幕上或许滚动着欧洲的决议，但此刻的世界中心却是华盛顿特区议会大厅里那块 巨大的计票板。当那个刺眼的数字定格在219票赞成、211票反对时，反而没有预想中的喧嚣，整个空气 弥漫着一种难以言喻的沉默与错愕。 这不仅仅是民主党的胜利，而是共和党内防线的崩塌。六个名字——六个本该是，犹如一记响亮的耳 光，狠狠抽在了宾夕法尼亚大道1600号那扇厚重的防弹门上，发出清脆的回响。 就在前一天，手握议事锤的议长还试图启动程序熔断这场关于终止加拿大关税的投票，然而，三名党内 的边缘议员像事先达成共识一样，坚决顶住了议长的防守，将这场表决拖进了审判时刻。特朗普在投票 前曾在真实社群上发出威胁：任何共和党人，无论是在众议院还是参议院，如果投票反对关税，都将在 选举时遭遇严重后果。 他还补充道，关税保障我们的经济与国家安全，任何共和党人都不应该破坏这 项特权。 然而，这番威 ...

可几年过去，美国自己先懵了——老办法不管用了。 中国经济没停，反而在好几个关键地方跑得更快了。 中美这场大戏，从贸易战那会儿就正式开锣了。 没人能想到，美国一上来就祭出关税大棒，还把技术封锁玩得越来越狠，以为这么一压，中国就得趴下。 美国这边倒好，制造业空心化的问题越捂越臭，供应链全靠外面输血，结果一打起来，自己先断了气。 现在美国制造业占GDP也就10%左右，听着还行？可这10%里头，四成集中在军工、半导体和制药这三个领域，其他地方基本是空的。 说白了，美国在全球价值链里，早就不是那个能自己造东西的主了，而是个靠别人供货的中间商。 中国呢？连续15年稳坐全球制造业头把交椅，到2024年，制造业增加值已经占到全世界的31.6%。 出口也不再是以前那种"十亿件衬衫换一架飞机"的老路子了，现在卖的是高端机电、数码设备，技术含量高，利润也厚。 美国想用关税把工厂逼回本土，可现实狠狠打了脸——人工贵、地价高、工人还招不到，建厂成本翻着跟头往上蹿。 你让企业回去？回去等于烧钱。 芯片，成了中美掰手腕最硬的那根骨头。 从2018年开始，美国对华技术封锁层层加码，光刻机不卖，EDA软件卡脖子，连先进制程的设备都锁得死死的。 ...

Core Viewpoint - China is currently the world's largest producer, accounting for nearly one-third of global industrial products by 2024, with a trade surplus projected to reach approximately $1.2 trillion by 2025, breaking historical records [1][3]. Group 1: Production vs. Consumption - The notion that the largest producer can also be the largest consumer is fundamentally flawed, as consumption is primarily driven by the service sector rather than manufacturing [3][10]. - Developed economies like the U.S. have a higher proportion of their economic output from services, which supports higher consumption frequency and employment [3][10]. Group 2: Savings and Consumer Behavior - There has been a significant shift in consumer behavior in China, with household savings increasing from around 80 trillion yuan in 2019 to over 160 trillion yuan today, indicating a trend towards precautionary savings rather than consumption [5][12]. - The concept of "preventive savings" has emerged, reflecting a change in mindset among consumers who prioritize saving over spending [5][12]. Group 3: Economic Structure and Income Levels - China's per capita GDP is nearing $14,000, and rising labor costs challenge its ability to maintain its status as the largest producer while also becoming the largest consumer [10][12]. - The income levels of the lowest earners in China, such as sanitation workers earning only a few thousand yuan per month, highlight the disparity in income distribution and its impact on consumption potential [14][15]. Group 4: Balance Between Production and Consumption - The need for a balanced economic approach is emphasized, where reliance on exports should not overshadow the importance of domestic consumption [21][20]. - Both production and consumption are essential for economic health, and over-reliance on one can lead to systemic issues, necessitating a focus on sustainable growth strategies [21][20].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights that the U.S. tariff strategy against China has not yielded the intended results, with the burden of tariffs primarily falling on American consumers and businesses rather than on Chinese exporters [3][5][27]. Group 1: Impact of Tariffs - The report from the New York Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office indicates that 90% of the tariff costs are borne by U.S. consumers and businesses, while foreign exporters only bear less than 5% [3][30]. - In 2025, the average American household spent an additional $1,000 due to tariffs, contributing to a significant financial burden [5]. - Despite the tariffs, U.S.-China trade remained resilient, with the total trade volume reaching 4.01 trillion yuan in 2025, accounting for 8.8% of China's total foreign trade [7][8]. Group 2: China's Trade Resilience - China's foreign trade reached a record high of 45.47 trillion yuan in 2025, with a year-on-year growth of 3.8%, driven by high-tech product exports which increased by 13.2% [12][15]. - The export of electric vehicles from China saw significant growth, with pure electric vehicle exports rising by 66.7% and plug-in hybrid vehicle exports increasing by 226.5% in 2025 [14]. - China's diversified trade partnerships, including a significant increase in trade with ASEAN and countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative, have mitigated the impact of U.S. tariffs [15][17]. Group 3: U.S. Domestic Challenges - The article emphasizes that the U.S. faces more pressing internal issues, such as outdated infrastructure and supply chain disruptions, which are more challenging to resolve than external trade conflicts [19][21]. - The slow progress of infrastructure projects in the U.S. has been highlighted, with many initiatives facing funding and approval delays [19][21]. - The instability of U.S. trade policies, including frequent changes in tariff regulations, complicates long-term business planning for American companies [23][25]. Group 4: Recommendations for U.S. Policy - The article suggests that the U.S. should focus on improving its domestic conditions, such as infrastructure and supply chain stability, rather than relying on tariffs as a solution [25][27]. - It advocates for a strategic approach to industrial policy, prioritizing key sectors for development similar to China's model, rather than resorting to trade protectionism [25][27].

Group 1 - The article discusses the perception of the U.S.-China trade relationship, highlighting that many Americans believe China cannot afford to lose the U.S. market, with some suggesting a potential 15% loss as a threat to compel China to compromise. However, Chinese scholars assert that China does not care about losing the U.S. market, emphasizing its historical independence from American influence [1][7]. - China has responded to U.S. tariffs by canceling significant orders from the U.S. in various sectors, including soybeans, pork, and Boeing aircraft, demonstrating that the U.S. may be more dependent on China than previously thought [1][22]. - The article notes that the U.S. has attempted to suppress China's rise through various means, including technology and economic sanctions, reflecting a perception of superiority and a lack of consideration for equitable relationships [2][4]. Group 2 - The article highlights that under Trump's administration, tariffs on China reached as high as 145%, with intentions to increase them to 245%. In contrast to other countries that have shown weakness under tariff threats, China has firmly retaliated, showcasing its resilience and confidence [6][10]. - China's manufacturing strength is identified as a key reason for its confidence in the trade war, as the U.S. aims to reduce imports from China to revive its own manufacturing sector, overlooking the fact that Chinese manufacturing is integral to global supply chains [14][20]. - The article points out that despite the U.S. reducing imports from China, many products still contain Chinese components, leading to a persistent trade deficit for the U.S. This highlights the essential role of Chinese manufacturing in the global economy [18][29]. Group 3 - The article reports a significant decrease in U.S. pork orders from China, dropping by 12,000 tons, indicating a shift in sourcing to countries like Argentina and Brazil, while the U.S. faces challenges in maintaining its market share [22][24]. - U.S. farmers and manufacturers are increasingly vocal about the negative impacts of the trade war, with calls for Trump to negotiate with China to restore exports of key products like soybeans and pork, reflecting a shift from a position of strength to one of vulnerability [26][27]. - The article concludes that the decline of U.S. manufacturing is a long-term issue rooted in the capitalist production model, contrasting with China's integrated production approach that maintains its competitive edge in manufacturing [29][30].

Group 1 - The article discusses the paradox of how a country with minimal industrial base, like Yemen, can produce missiles and drones, drawing parallels to the current state of the US-China trade war [1][3] - The US has imposed tariffs of up to 125% on Chinese goods, aiming to isolate China's economy, but this strategy has backfired, leading to increased global reliance on Chinese manufacturing [3][9] - In 2024, China's total trade with the US reached $688.2 billion, with exports to the US at $524.6 billion and imports from the US at $163.6 billion, highlighting China's significant influence on US trade [6][3] Group 2 - The article describes the "Yangcheng Lake" phenomenon, where despite apparent trade disruptions, Chinese manufacturing continues to infiltrate the US market through various indirect channels [11][18] - Companies are adapting by relocating parts of their production to other countries to circumvent high tariffs, allowing them to comply with US import regulations while still benefiting from Chinese manufacturing [11][18] - Vietnam, for instance, has become a key player in this dynamic, exporting $136.6 billion to the US while importing $13.1 billion from the US, heavily relying on Chinese materials for its exports [17][18] Group 3 - Trump's tariff strategy aimed to bring manufacturing back to the US and reduce trade deficits, but these goals are fundamentally flawed as the trade deficit is a result of US choices rather than external imposition [20][25] - The reliance on the dollar as a global currency allows the US to maintain trade deficits without immediate production costs, complicating the feasibility of Trump's manufacturing return strategy [25][27] - The article argues that the trend of "de-Americanization" is intensifying, with countries seeking alternatives to US economic dominance and increasingly depending on Chinese manufacturing [27][20] Group 4 - The conclusion emphasizes that control over manufacturing is essential for maintaining international competitiveness, contrasting the US's financial dominance with China's robust manufacturing capabilities [27]

Core Viewpoint - The anticipated manufacturing resurgence in the U.S. due to tariffs has not materialized, with manufacturing employment declining and investment in the sector decreasing significantly [1][2]. Group 1: Manufacturing Employment and Economic Indicators - U.S. manufacturing employment has fallen to its lowest point since the end of the pandemic, with a loss of 68,000 jobs over the past year and over 200,000 jobs lost since 2023 [1]. - The factory activity index has contracted for 26 consecutive months, indicating a persistent decline in manufacturing activity [2]. - Despite a recent increase in the PMI index from 47.9 to 52.6, analysts caution that this improvement may be temporary due to ongoing uncertainties in trade policies [2]. Group 2: Impact of Tariffs on Manufacturing - Tariffs have led to a 20% decrease in capital spending for new manufacturing plants, counteracting government efforts to encourage industrialization [2]. - The imposition of tariffs has raised costs for foreign intermediate goods, forcing companies to increase prices and leading to layoffs [2]. - High tariffs on semiconductors and other advanced manufacturing inputs have disproportionately affected high-tech industries, resulting in significant job losses [4]. Group 3: Investment Climate and Global Trends - The uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policies has led to a stagnation in investment, with many executives labeling the past year as one of investment paralysis [3]. - Other countries are moving forward with trade agreements independent of the U.S., potentially undermining the competitiveness of American industries [3]. - Major companies like Volkswagen have paused significant investment plans in the U.S. due to the adverse effects of tariffs and an unpredictable trade environment [6]. Group 4: Skills and Workforce Challenges - The U.S. manufacturing sector is facing a shortage of skilled labor, with a reported shortfall of 600,000 factory workers and 500,000 construction workers [9]. - The transition from manufacturing to R&D and marketing has led to a decline in essential manufacturing skills, complicating efforts to revitalize the sector [7][9]. - The need for skilled labor and engineers is critical for the success of any manufacturing resurgence, but the development of such talent requires time and investment [10].