Core Viewpoint - Anheuser-Busch InBev reported mixed second-quarter results with a revenue growth of 3.0% to $15.004 billion and normalized EBITDA gains of 6.5%, but missed expectations on beer volumes, leading to a 9.1% decline in stock price in pre-market trading, the worst session since the COVID-19 pandemic [1][4]. Financial Performance - Revenue increased by 3.0% to $15.004 billion and normalized EBITDA rose by 6.5% with margin expansion of 116 basis points to 35.3% [1][6]. - Despite the volume challenges, the company demonstrated pricing power by growing revenues while selling less beer [6]. Volume Performance - Beer volumes declined by 1.9% year-over-year, significantly worse than the 0.3% decline forecasted by analysts [5]. - The decline in volumes was primarily driven by significant drops in China (7.4%) and Brazil (6.5%), with the company acknowledging underperformance in China and attributing Brazil's decline to tough comparisons and adverse weather conditions [6]. Market Outlook - The average target price for BUD stock is $82.67 for the next 12 months, with optimistic predictions reaching as high as $91.00 and bearish outlooks at $72.00 [7]. - All six analysts covering the stock maintain Strong Buy ratings, with no Hold or Sell recommendations [9].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing food delivery subsidy war is significantly impacting the pricing power of restaurant businesses, leading to a struggle for survival in a highly competitive environment [1][4]. Group 1: Impact on Traditional Dining - Restaurant owners are facing challenges as low-priced delivery options are eroding the customer base for dine-in services, with some customers opting for cheaper delivery meals even when dining nearby [3]. - High average order values in certain food categories, like hot pot, make it difficult for these businesses to compete with lower-priced items offered through delivery platforms [3][4]. - The pressure to participate in delivery platform promotions creates a vicious cycle where restaurants must sacrifice profitability to gain visibility [3]. Group 2: Profitability Concerns - The profit margins for restaurants are declining due to heavy subsidies, with some businesses reporting that they receive as little as 1.69 yuan from a 19 yuan drink after accounting for various costs [4]. - Some restaurant owners are resorting to using cheaper ingredients to maintain profitability, which raises concerns about food quality [4]. - Despite the challenges, some businesses see potential benefits in consumer education and increased brand visibility through delivery platforms [4]. Group 3: Alternative Strategies - Some restaurant owners are opting out of the delivery platform wars and instead focusing on direct customer relationships through private channels like WeChat [6][8]. - By reducing reliance on third-party platforms, businesses can regain pricing power and control over customer interactions, leading to a more sustainable business model [8][12]. - The shift towards direct sales and building a private customer base is seen as a viable path for restaurants to navigate the current market challenges [8][13]. Group 4: Industry Dynamics - The competition among delivery platforms is reshaping consumer behavior and may lead to a long-term shift in shopping habits from physical stores to online platforms [11]. - The ongoing subsidy wars are prompting calls from industry associations for more sustainable practices and a reduction in aggressive competition among delivery platforms [12]. - The balance between leveraging platform benefits and maintaining independent operations is a critical challenge for many small and medium-sized enterprises in the industry [13].

Core Viewpoint - The news highlights the challenges faced by the hotel industry, particularly in Zhengzhou, where a five-star hotel resorted to street vending due to declining business. Meanwhile, Ctrip, a leading OTA, is facing allegations from hotel merchants regarding its pricing practices, indicating a broader issue of profitability and competition in the OTA sector [2][15]. Group 1: Ctrip's Performance - Ctrip Group is projected to achieve a net profit of 17.2 billion yuan in 2024, a significant increase of 72% year-on-year, marking its best performance in five years [3]. - In Q1 2025, Ctrip's net profit was 4.314 billion yuan, maintaining a net profit margin of 34% [3]. - All four major business segments of Ctrip saw revenue growth in Q1 2025: accommodation bookings increased by 23% to 5.5 billion yuan, transportation ticketing rose by 8% to 5.4 billion yuan, vacation services grew by 7% to 947 million yuan, and business travel management climbed by 12% to 573 million yuan [3]. Group 2: Industry Context - The overall OTA industry shows high net profit margins, with Tongcheng Travel reporting a net profit of 679 million yuan in Q1 2025, a year-on-year increase of 69.52% and a net margin of 18% [4]. - Ctrip holds a market share of 56% in GMV, significantly outperforming competitors like Meituan and Tongcheng, despite facing strong competition from them [5][8]. Group 3: Competitive Advantages - Ctrip's early entry into the market allowed it to capture high-end users, establishing a strong brand association with OTA services [8][9]. - The company has exclusive agreements with mid-to-high-end hotels, ensuring a stable supply of hotel rooms and enhancing its bargaining power [11]. - Ctrip's operational model includes a large workforce dedicated to customer service, which adds to its competitive edge in the OTA space [12]. Group 4: Market Dynamics and Challenges - Recent complaints from hotel merchants about Ctrip's pricing practices indicate potential instability in the OTA ecosystem, where one party's excessive profits could lead to unsustainable business practices [15][16]. - The entry of competitors like JD.com into the OTA market may disrupt the current dynamics, prompting existing players to reconsider their pricing and profit-sharing strategies [19][20]. - The need for a balanced ecosystem where all parties benefit is emphasized, suggesting that Ctrip may need to adjust its profit margins to maintain long-term sustainability [17][20].

Group 1 - The article highlights the recent focus on "anti-involution" policies, which have become a trading hotspot in stock and commodity markets, with at least 23 brokerages publishing 36 research reports on the topic since July 1 [1][2] - The central government's emphasis on promoting a unified national market and addressing low-price disorderly competition is expected to improve supply-demand dynamics in various industries [2] - The current "anti-involution" initiative is seen as a key policy focus for 2024, with the concept of "pricing power" being crucial for manufacturing companies to combat "involution" [2] Group 2 - The "anti-involution" market trend is expected to be short-term, with limited space and duration, as it is catalyzed by the central government's focus on addressing low-price competition [4][5] - Analysts suggest that the "anti-involution" trend may develop in three phases: initial policy-driven expectations, followed by price increases in resource products, and finally, sustained high prices [4] - For the financial market, short-term self-discipline in production can help narrow supply-demand gaps, but long-term sustainability requires reversing oversupply and improving prices and profitability [5] Group 3 - Industries likely to benefit from the "anti-involution" policies include the photovoltaic industry chain, traditional industries facing overcapacity, and emerging non-manufacturing sectors like e-commerce [7] - Specific sectors identified as potential beneficiaries include coal mining, coke, common steel, energy metals, glass fiber, steelmaking raw materials, precious metals, and the hospitality industry [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the unreliability of expert predictions in the financial market, emphasizing the importance of data analysis over expert opinions [1][3][10]. Group 1: Expert Opinions - Experts often provide ambiguous analyses that can be interpreted in multiple ways, leading to confusion among retail investors [3]. - The article criticizes the tendency of experts to take credit for correct predictions while deflecting blame for incorrect ones through complex jargon [3]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The essence of the stock market is the competition for pricing power, which is predominantly held by institutional investors, leaving retail investors as passive participants [4]. - Institutional investors often act contrary to their public statements, as illustrated by their secretive investments in restructuring stocks while claiming to avoid speculative plays [4]. Group 3: Data Analysis - Data is presented as a more reliable indicator of institutional behavior than expert opinions, with examples showing how institutions were quietly accumulating shares of "Rongke Technology" during a market downturn [6]. - The case of "Wenyi Technology" demonstrates that analyzing trading behavior data is crucial for understanding market movements beyond just price charts [8]. Group 4: Federal Reserve Report - The 9% probability of zero interest rates, while seemingly low, is significant in the context of the global economic landscape, warranting careful preparation [10]. - The article concludes that rather than relying on expert forecasts, investors should focus on studying trading data and developing their analytical tools [10].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the controversy surrounding Ctrip's unilateral price adjustments for hotel rooms without merchant consent, highlighting the broader issue of pricing power in the digital economy [2][4]. Group 1: Pricing Power and Market Dynamics - Ctrip utilizes an internal program called "Price Adjustment Assistant" to automatically lower hotel prices if they are found to be higher than competitors, which merchants argue disrupts their business operations [2]. - The issue of pricing power raises questions about whether it belongs to the merchants, platforms, or the market itself, with merchants asserting that they should control pricing as the providers of products and services [2][3]. - The relationship between platforms and merchants is complex, as platforms act as market organizers and control access to consumers, which can indirectly affect merchants' pricing capabilities [2][3]. Group 2: Platform Pricing Strategies - Platforms exhibit diverse pricing control strategies, including direct pricing for self-operated businesses, reference pricing that merchants feel pressured to follow, and minimum price requirements that can create unfair competition [3]. - In the case of Ctrip, the price adjustments made to avoid customer loss fall between reference pricing and minimum pricing, where merchants can refuse but often feel compelled to comply to maintain visibility [3]. Group 3: Impact on Quality and Market Competition - Merchants facing excessive price pressure may resort to cost-cutting measures, leading to a decline in product quality, which poses risks to consumers and distorts the market [4]. - Over-intervention by platforms in pricing can stifle innovation and competition, potentially leading to algorithmic collusion and implicit monopolies [4]. Group 4: Recommendations for Fair Practices - It is essential to delineate between reasonable price interventions and overreach by platforms, emphasizing the need for transparency in pricing mechanisms and compliance review processes [5]. - The ongoing struggle between platforms and merchants raises critical questions about fairness in the digital economy, necessitating careful consideration of pricing authority and boundaries [5].

Macro Strategy - The report discusses the shift in policy focus from "controlling high prices" to "controlling low prices" to boost core CPI, suggesting that service price subsidies could increase core CPI by approximately 0.3 percentage points, offsetting declines in housing service prices [1][10][11] - Core CPI has shown a significant rebound since September of the previous year, despite four months of negative growth driven mainly by food and energy prices [10][11] - The report emphasizes the limited upward potential for core goods and housing service prices, indicating that future policy should focus on enhancing prices of other services [10][11] Industry Insights - The report highlights the new phase of controllable nuclear fusion as a potential ultimate energy solution, driven by policy and capital support, with multiple devices under construction [5][16][17] - It identifies key suppliers in the nuclear fusion sector, including West Superconducting, Lianchuang Optoelectronics, and Aikesaibo, suggesting that the industry is moving from experimental to industrial stages with significant future potential [5][16][17] - The report also discusses the trend towards lightweight robots, emphasizing the increasing application of magnesium alloys and PEEK materials, which are expected to enhance performance and reduce weight in humanoid robots [18]

进入中国市场25年来，主力产品首次降价，这对星巴克来说不是容易的决定。 面对快速增长的非咖市场，星巴克中国宣布自6月10日起，星冰乐、冰摇茶、茶拿铁三大系列共10款产品降价，以大杯规格计算，平均每杯降价5元。 2024年，星巴克新任CEO布莱恩·尼科尔（Brian Niccol）就曾表示，星巴克需要回归其可以让人们悠闲逗留的咖啡店的本源，同时重新思考定价问题。 思考了近1年后，降价终于落地中国市场。在是否降价这个问题上，星巴克中国近两年是纠结的。虽做过谨慎尝试，如通过发放优惠券间接降价，但这些尝 试似乎总是浅尝辄止。在竞争过于激烈的中国咖啡市场，即使不是从打价格战的角度出发，战略层面的反复横跳也绝非明智之举。从这个意义上说，星巴克 此次"实打实"降价的最大考验就在于战略的可持续性。 从这些层面看，降价应该不是星巴克针对中国咖啡市场价格战的短期回应。星巴克中国仍需要回答一些更根本的问题：作为市场的教育者，如何在消费者逐 渐成熟、本土竞争者崛起的时候仍能保持领先？星巴克又将如何定义"领先"？ 此外，当前这个时间节点也很微妙，除了在冰饮畅销季提升相关非咖产品市场竞争力的考虑，此时降价或许还与此前市场频繁传闻的星巴克 ...

A股复盘 | 是谁在保卫3400点？ / 2025.06.12 折腾了一天，沪指竟然守住了3400点，是哪位勇将护卫着大A？ 当然是我们的保险和银行啦。详情请看 《今天谁在"护航"3400点？》 今天还有一个讨论的事情——恒生AH股溢价指数创阶段新低。 6月11日，AH股溢价指数创下5年来新低，跌至127.84点，今天稍微回升了点。 这是否意味着一些投资者会开始买入更便宜的内地股票。 AH股溢价指数反映的是在中国内地和中国香港两地同时上市公司的股票价格差 异。AH股溢价指数下跌，显示H股相较于A股折价有所收窄，背后的直接原因在 于其间H股表现好于A股。 从2024年4月份至今，恒生指数已经历了四轮技术性牛市，底部中枢不断抬升。 再就是今天IP经济大涨，主要是一篇报道。继初代藏品级薄荷色的LABUBU以 108万元拍卖成交后，澎湃报道说，泡泡玛特春节开始紧急找工人复工，扩充产 能，但是"把缝纫机都踩冒烟了也跟不上需求"。 光大证券指出，LABUBU隐藏款年均收益率超300%，部分联名款二手溢价达30 倍 。 惊了！感觉还有得炒！ "年轻人的茅台"——泡泡玛特股价不断刷新纪录，而茅台今天广泛传播的新闻是 飞天跌破 ...

证券研究报告 · 宏观报告 · 宏观点评 宏观点评 20250612 如何"反内卷"?——关键在于定价权 在过去 5 年毛利率标准差的倒数低于 25%、介于 25%至 50%两组上市 公司中,区间股价涨跌幅为负的上市公司数量占比分别为 59.85%、 51.65%; ) 乐吴让莽 2025年06月12日 证券分析师 芦哲 执业证书:S0600524110003 luzhe@dwzq.com.cn 证券分析师 刘子博 执业证书:S0600524120014 liuzb@dwza.com.cn 相关研究 《并购重组驶入"快车道"助力科技 企业估值提升》 2025-06-08 《融资需求回暖,5月社融增速或继 续抬升》 2025-06-08 具体而言: 通过对沪深上市公司计算1自 2020年至 2024年毛利率标准差的倒数 (反映定价权,数值越高越好),2自 2020/1/2 至 2024/12/31 区间股价 涨跌幅可得: 但在过去 5年毛利率标准差的倒数介于 50%至 100%、高于 100%两组 上市公司中,区间股价涨跌幅为负的上市公司数量占比分别为 39.23%、 41.69%。 ■ 风险提示:(1)对地方 ...