证券研究报告|行业深度研究报告 [Table_Date] 2026 年 03 月 03 日 [Table_Title] 银行股价复盘：与券商股行情对比及六轮大跌解析 [Table_Title2] 银行 ► 银行股与券商股行情比较 启动结束顺序：2011 年后，银行股启动通常早于券商股； 2014 年后，因券商弹性被市场熟知，其行情往往更早结束。 涨幅差异：除特定阶段外，券商股涨幅通常是银行股的 1.5 倍以上。 2016-2018 年独立于券商的银行股行情：上涨动力源于地 产周期复苏、息差回升、资产质量改善、对异地展业、同业业 务监管收紧带来的结构性利好，以及并购新规对中小盘股票利 空下的蓝筹价值风格。 [Table_Summary] 慢牛特性下银行股的下行逻辑比其上涨更具研究价值。当 宏观预期悲观、信用环境收紧、结构性风险爆发三大因素共振 时，银行板块通常面临显著的估值调整压力。此外，行业层面 其他行业对于银行传统业务的渗透，以及银行业自身资本监管 的加强也会重创银行估值；另外美联储加息带来的人民币贬值 往往会强化利空因素。 ► 银行股特性：高 ROE、高稳定性、慢牛 基本面特征：盈利波动性远低于沪深 30 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the financial struggles faced by individuals in the current economic climate, highlighting the risks of investment and the erosion of purchasing power due to inflation and market volatility [1][12][21]. Group 1: Market Volatility and Investment Risks - The recent sharp decline in gold and silver prices has led to significant losses for retail investors, who are often left vulnerable in a volatile market [1][5]. - Historical events, such as the 2018 P2P industry collapse and the 2015 stock market crash, illustrate the recurring nature of financial crises that disproportionately affect individual investors [3][5]. - The shift in financial policies, including the end of guaranteed returns on investments, has left many investors exposed to market fluctuations [11][12]. Group 2: Psychological and Behavioral Factors - Many individuals fall into a "trap of identity," becoming complacent with their financial status and making poor investment decisions based on perceived wealth [14][16]. - The desire for social status can lead to overspending and increased financial risk, further diminishing individuals' ability to withstand economic downturns [16][19]. Group 3: Inflation and Erosion of Wealth - The article emphasizes the impact of inflation on purchasing power, noting that stagnant interest rates on savings accounts fail to keep pace with rising living costs [21][22]. - The hidden nature of inflation acts as a "silent thief," gradually reducing the value of money over time, making it difficult for individuals to achieve financial growth [24][36]. Group 4: Investment Strategies and Financial Health - The article advocates for a diversified investment approach, suggesting that individuals should maintain a safety net of liquid funds while cautiously exploring other investment opportunities [31][34]. - Emphasis is placed on investing in personal skills and health as core assets that cannot be taken away, highlighting the importance of self-improvement over speculative financial ventures [36][41]. - The concept of "anti-fragility" is introduced, suggesting that building a resilient financial system is crucial for navigating uncertain economic conditions [46].

Core Viewpoint - The banking industry is shifting back to a deposit-centric model, emphasizing the importance of attracting low-cost deposits to optimize liquidity and improve profitability in the face of declining net interest margins [1][2][3][5][11]. Group 1: Historical Context - Historically, attracting deposits was the primary focus for banks, especially before the interest rate liberalization in 2012, which allowed for a more competitive banking environment [1][14]. - From 2012 to 2016, the focus shifted from deposit-based banking to asset-based banking, with smaller banks relying more on interbank funding [1][15][16]. Group 2: Regulatory Changes - Since the financial deleveraging began in the second half of 2016, there has been a consensus among commercial banks to return to a deposit-centric approach due to regulatory changes that restrict reliance on interbank funding [2][17][18]. - The People's Bank of China has included off-balance-sheet wealth management products in the broad credit indicators, making it more challenging for banks to depend on interbank liabilities [2][17]. Group 3: Current Challenges - The net interest margin for commercial banks dropped to a historical low of 1.42% in 2025, with city commercial banks averaging even lower at 1.37% [5][21]. - Many banks are facing pressure to reduce deposit costs while maintaining profitability, leading to a focus on the quality of deposits rather than just quantity [11][27]. Group 4: Strategic Shifts - City commercial banks are now prioritizing the acquisition of low-cost, stable deposits and are moving away from aggressive pricing strategies [11][27]. - Some banks, like Qilu Bank, have successfully increased their deposits and net interest margins despite industry-wide pressures, indicating a potential competitive advantage for those who adapt early [12][28]. Group 5: Future Outlook - The competition among city commercial banks will increasingly focus on the ability to secure stable deposits at low costs, rather than merely accumulating large deposit volumes [12][28][29]. - There is an expectation for banks to actively manage their balance sheets and reduce unnecessary deposit levels in light of current lending challenges [11][30].

Group 1: Report Industry Investment Rating - Not provided in the given content Group 2: Core Viewpoints of the Report - The current bond market situation cannot simply be compared to the 2017 bear market as the interest rate change sequence is different. Currently, long - term interest rates rise first due to economic recovery expectations while short - term interest rates remain stable under the central bank's liquidity - maintaining policy [36]. - Systemic bear markets usually require the combination of rising short - term interest rates and tightened liquidity. Expectations alone can only lead to a phased rise in long - term interest rates but are insufficient to trigger a full - scale bear market [37]. - Given the current low short - term interest rates and the need for economic recovery, the yield inversion between money market funds and bond funds will improve. A steeper bond yield curve allows for leveraging strategies to obtain returns [37]. Group 3: Summary by Directory 1. Historical Review: Structural Anomalies from 2016 - 2018 1.1 Yield Trends - From 2016Q4, bond fund yields slowed significantly, and were outperformed by money market funds in many quarters. For example, in 2016Q4, the quarterly return of money market funds was 2.62%, while short - term pure bond funds had - 0.66% and medium - long - term pure bond funds had - 1.29%. Bond funds faced high capital costs and a flattened yield curve, resulting in large net value drawdowns [10]. 1.2 Key Policies and Major Events during the Period - In December 2016, the central bank included off - balance - sheet wealth management in the MPA's broad credit indicator, tightening non - bank institutions' funding sources. In March 2017, the CBRC launched the "Three Threes and Four Tens" special governance, shrinking bank inter - bank business and intensifying liquidity stratification. From 2016 - 2018, the central bank raised MLF and OMO rates multiple times, increasing financial institutions' capital costs. In April 2018, the asset management new regulations were officially implemented, promoting the institutionalization of de - leveraging [13]. 2. Cause Analysis 2.1 Policy Aspect: Central Bank's Open - Market Operation Interest Rate Adjustment - From 2016 - 2018, the central bank raised OMO and MLF rates, achieving a de facto interest rate hike. The 1 - year MLF rate rose from 3% in February 2016 to 3.3% in April 2018, indicating a tightening policy [16]. 2.2 Funding Aspect: Intensified Liquidity Stratification - Financial de - leveraging policies restricted inter - bank business, leading to severe liquidity stratification in the inter - bank market. The spread between R007 and DR007 widened from less than 20bp in the first three quarters of 2016 to a maximum of 71bp in March 2017, eroding bond funds' leverage arbitrage space [17][19]. 2.3 Fundamental Aspect: Strong Growth Supported Policy Implementation - In 2017, financial de - leveraging was an active policy choice during a period of strong economic fundamentals. China's GDP growth in 2017 was 6.9%, providing confidence for de - leveraging. The "high PPI, low CPI" inflation structure in 2017 created a good policy window [20][23]. 3. Relationship between Bond Yield Curve Shape and Bond Fund Yields - In 2017, the bond yield curve showed a two - stage V - shaped trend. From the end of 2016 to June 2017, it was bear - flattening due to tight funding. From July to December 2017, it was bear - deepening as strong economic fundamentals drove long - term interest rates up [25]. - The monthly returns of short - term and medium - long - term pure bond funds reflected the "first flat, then steep" change of the yield curve. From the end of 2016 to June 2017, short - term pure bond funds had lower returns, while from July to December 2017, medium - long - term pure bond funds suffered more capital losses [28]. - Bond funds' leverage ratios first decreased and then increased. In the first half of 2017, most funds reduced leverage. In the second half, short - term pure bond funds actively increased leverage as the yield curve steepened [30][32]. 4. How Did the Structural Anomaly Recover? 4.1 Policy Turnaround and Decline in Short - Term Interest Rates - In the second half of 2018, the policy shifted from de - leveraging to stabilizing growth. The central bank implemented multiple rounds of reserve requirement ratio cuts from 2018 to early 2019, releasing long - term low - cost liquidity and lowering short - term interest rates [33]. 4.2 Changes in Bond Yield Curve Shape - After the easing policy, short - term interest rates dropped rapidly, while long - term interest rates declined more slowly. The yield curve changed from bear - flat to bull - steep, reopening profit opportunities for bond funds' carry and duration strategies [34]. 5. Implications for the Current Market - The current situation is different from 2016 - 2018. The current long - term interest rate rise is driven by economic recovery expectations, and short - term interest rates are stable. The yield inversion between money and bond funds will improve, and leveraging strategies can be used [36][37].

Report Industry Investment Rating Not provided in the content Core Viewpoints - The market performance from July 5 to August 3 exceeded expectations, with abnormal financial sector liquidity in June and greater - than - expected fiscal front - loading. The financial sector liquidity peaked around the first week of July and then converged marginally. The government and entity sector debt growth rate reached their highs in July, and the entity sector debt growth rate is likely to decline unilaterally until the end of the year, with a slight expansion in late September or early October [1][39]. - Looking ahead to August, the two major factors affecting asset prices are stable earnings and marginally converging liquidity. As risk preference is an endogenous variable of earnings and valuation, it will decline over time. When risk preference drops, the stock - bond ratio will shift back to bonds, and the equity style will return to value - dominance. It is advisable to focus on bonds and wait for value - type equity assets to show an intervention window [1][12][39]. Summary by Directory 1.全社会债务情况 - As of the end of June, China's total social debt balance was 491.5 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 8.6%. The financial institution (inter - bank) debt balance was 90.0 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 7.6%. The entity sector debt balance was 401.5 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 8.8%. Among them, household debt grew at 2.9%, government debt at 15.3%, and non - financial enterprise debt at 7.9% [14][16][19]. - In June, industrial enterprise profits decreased by 4.3% year - on - year, and the debt balance increased by 5.4% year - on - year. State - owned enterprise profits decreased by 4.0% year - on - year [24]. 2.金融机构资产负债详解 - As of the end of June, the debt balance of broad financial institutions was 165.2 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 7.6%. Bank debt was 134.0 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 6.9%, and non - bank financial institution debt was 31.1 trillion yuan, a year - on - year increase of 10.7% [27]. - In June, the bank's excess reserve ratio was 1.7%, and the money multiplier was 8.62. The year - on - year growth rate of base money supply decreased from 2.8% to 2.0%. The new broad - money supply indicator NM2 showed a similar trend to M2, but with a lower absolute level since 2017 [29][35][36]. 3.资产配置 - From July 5 to August 3, the domestic stock market was bullish and the bond market was bearish, with growth stocks outperforming. The core logic driving the market shifted from liquidity improvement to rising risk preference. The stock market was positively correlated with the Nanhua Composite Index [1][39]. - In June, the year - on - year growth rate of bank bond investment balance was 18.7%, and the growth rate of the central bank and bank's total foreign asset balance was 3.5%. The year - on - year growth rate of the US Treasury balance was 4.0%, and fiscal deposits decreased by $102 billion to $334.6 billion [40][43].

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese financial industry is undergoing a profound transformation driven by new regulatory measures aimed at tightening monetary policy and mitigating systemic financial risks, particularly in the areas of internet lending and shadow banking [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The People's Bank of China (PBOC) issued guidelines on July 15 to strengthen financial risk prevention, marking a new phase of tightened monetary policy [1]. - New regulations significantly increase the required contribution of banks in joint lending from 30% to 70%, effectively reducing the leverage of internet platforms [2]. - The regulations also target shadow banking, which had a scale of approximately 25.3 trillion yuan at the end of 2024, accounting for 19.7% of GDP [4]. Group 2: Impact on Financial Institutions - Major banks like Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and China Construction Bank are adjusting their strategies, with ICBC halting joint lending with 10 internet platforms [2]. - Smaller banks are particularly affected, with internet loan income constituting an average of 17.3% of their operating revenue, and some exceeding 30% [5]. - Banks are responding by tightening their investment in non-standard assets and focusing on compliance and risk management [4][5]. Group 3: Long-term Outlook - The adjustments are expected to lead to a healthier and more sustainable financial ecosystem, with improved transparency in fund flows and more reasonable risk pricing [5]. - Analysts predict that the overall non-performing loan ratio in the banking sector will decrease to around 1.2% by 2026 following the adjustment period [5]. - The regulatory changes are part of a broader systemic effort to reduce financial leverage and prevent risks, with 23 significant policy documents issued since 2021 [4][5]. Group 4: Balancing Act - The new regulations reflect the regulatory authorities' commitment to balancing financial openness with risk prevention amid increasing global economic uncertainties [7]. - The adjustment process is expected to be ongoing, requiring adaptation from all market participants [7].