Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the report indicates that the pricing power of the 30Y government bond has undergone three migrations, driven by the "asset shortage" and improvement in liquidity [1][5][6] - Before 2022, the 30Y government bond received little attention, with its supply significantly lower than that of the 10Y bond, leading to weak liquidity and primarily being purchased by insurance companies [6][12][14] - From 2022 to 2024, the pricing power of the 30Y government bond has shifted towards the trading market, becoming a "barometer" for the bond market, with increased liquidity and active trading [1][14][18] Group 2 - Currently, the 30Y government bond faces challenges related to the alleviation of the "asset shortage" and mismatched supply-demand structure, leading to a re-pricing phase [41][51] - The alleviation of the "asset shortage" is reflected in the improvement of risk appetite and return structures in the equity market, with the Shanghai Composite Index showing a steady rise and reduced volatility since early 2025 [42][46] - The supply-demand contradiction arises from the mismatch between the long-term supply of government bonds and the short-term liquidity provided, resulting in a structural issue where the supply of 30Y bonds exceeds demand [51][60] Group 3 - The report suggests that the pricing power of the 30Y government bond may be returning to the configuration plate, as the trading market's marginal pricing ability has declined due to significant market volatility [66][71] - The transition of pricing power has been characterized by three phases: before 2022, where pricing was dominated by the configuration plate; from 2022 to 2024, where trading power increased; and from 2025 onwards, where there is a potential return to the configuration plate [66][70] - To alleviate the upward pressure on the yield of the 30Y government bond, two main paths are suggested: a price path where the long end adjusts to a perceived "valuable" range, and a liquidity path where market liquidity becomes significantly more accommodative [72][73]

Group 1 - The pricing power of 30Y government bonds has undergone three migrations, driven by the "asset shortage" and improvement in liquidity [1] - Before 2022, the focus on 30Y government bonds was low, with supply significantly lower than that of 10Y bonds, leading to weak liquidity and primarily driven by insurance companies [9][16] - From 2022 to 2024, the pricing power of 30Y government bonds shifted towards trading accounts, becoming a market "barometer" as liquidity improved and trading activity increased [18] Group 2 - The current situation of 30Y government bonds is characterized by a relief of the "asset shortage" and a mismatch in supply and demand structures [49] - The easing of the "asset shortage" is reflected in the steady rise of the Shanghai Composite Index and the continuous increase in dividend yields, indicating a shift in economic expectations [50][54] - The supply-demand contradiction arises from the mismatch between the long-term supply of government bonds and the short-term liquidity provided, leading to an oversupply of 30Y bonds [60] Group 3 - The pricing logic for 30Y government bonds has changed, with the market now requiring higher risk compensation due to the shift from a "supply-demand balance" to an "oversupply" situation [69] - The transition of pricing power may revert back to the allocation accounts as trading accounts face challenges in the current volatile market [74] - To alleviate the upward pressure on 30Y government bond yields, two main paths exist: adjusting prices to a more attractive range for allocation accounts and improving liquidity in the market [82]