Group 1 - The report indicates a significant adjustment in the bond market, with credit bonds experiencing a larger decline compared to interest rate bonds, particularly in the period from July 18 to July 25, where 3Y and above interest rate bonds rose by 7-9 basis points, while credit bonds fell by 8-12 basis points [1][8][11] - The primary reasons for the market decline include a rebound in equity and commodity prices, a tightening of the funding environment, and increased redemption pressure [1][11][21] - Following the market adjustment, the report suggests that the credit market may enter a slow recovery phase, with the "stock-bond seesaw" effect being a short-term disturbance rather than a long-term trend [2][21][25] Group 2 - The report highlights a seasonal characteristic in credit bond net financing, with supply expected to rise from June to August, followed by a decline in September as corporate financing needs weaken [3][25][26] - It notes that the recent adjustments in the credit bond ETF market have led to a slowdown in growth, with some ETFs experiencing a slight contraction in scale [2][15][19] - The report emphasizes that the current credit market is relatively weak, with significant volatility and limited space for narrowing credit spreads, particularly in the short to medium term [3][27]

Group 1 - The report highlights that the bond market is currently experiencing fluctuations, with interest rates on government bonds mostly declining, particularly in the short end, while the long end, especially the 30-year government bonds, is under adjustment pressure [1][9] - The launch of the Sci-Tech Innovation Bond ETF has led to a significant increase in trading demand for credit bonds, particularly for the related component bonds, resulting in a decrease in credit bond yields and credit spreads [1][9] - The report notes that the average valuation yield of high-grade short-end component bonds is lower than that of 1-year AAA time deposits by 3-5 basis points, indicating limited trading space and potential risks of negative carry [4][35] Group 2 - The report indicates that the secondary capital bonds with a 5-year yield of 1.9% have regained value for funds, with funds being the main buyers of these bonds, particularly in the long end [2][11] - The component bonds have shown significant trading activity, with some experiencing an "over-increase" of more than 20 basis points, while perpetual bonds, especially those with subordinate attributes, have seen limited increases, mostly within 5 basis points [3][33] - The report suggests that in the context of crowded trading in component bonds, there may be opportunities to select non-component bonds from the same issuers, which could have price differences of up to 20 basis points compared to component bonds [4][35] Group 3 - The report emphasizes that the recent surge in the scale of the Sci-Tech Innovation Bond ETF, which increased by nearly 600 billion yuan in the week following its launch, has catalyzed a rush for component bonds [3][18] - The trading volume of component bonds has been notably higher than that of benchmark market-making component bonds and non-component bonds, indicating a strong market interest [22][29] - The report also highlights that the average valuation and credit spreads of component bonds are generally lower than those of non-component bonds, with significant differences observed in the long end compared to the short end [29][33] Group 4 - The report suggests that for other credit varieties, assets with a maturity of around 2 years may still be selected, as the funding environment remains favorable for the bond market [5][44] - It notes that the yield of short-term perpetual bonds has declined, and the yield curve has steepened, opening up space for riding strategies [5][44]

Group 1: Report Overview - The report is a fixed - income report released on July 14, 2025 [1] - Analysts are Liang Weichao and Li Shukai [2] Group 2: Industry Investment Rating - No industry investment rating is provided in the report Group 3: Core Viewpoints - In the second week of July, the bond market entered a consolidation phase. Credit bonds declined less than interest - rate bonds. After the adjustment, the short - term participation window for ultra - long - term bonds has likely passed, and the 3 - 5 - year weak - quality riding strategy may offer better cost - effectiveness. Also, 1 - 2 - year short - duration sinking is a good choice [3][5][30] Group 4: Market Performance Summary Overall Bond Market - In the week from July 7 to July 11, 2025, due to multiple negative factors, the "stock - bond seesaw" effect was in play, with the equity market strengthening and interest - rate bonds weakening. Credit bonds followed the trend of interest - rate bonds but declined less [3][10] Yield Changes of Major Bond Types - For Treasury bonds, the 1Y, 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, and 5Y maturity yields increased by 3.40BP, 4.61BP, 3.67BP, 3.58BP, and 3.63BP respectively. For AAA medium - and short - term notes, the yields changed by - 0.58BP, 1.46BP, 3.34BP, 3.59BP, and 3.87BP respectively; for AA+ medium - and short - term notes, they changed by - 1.58BP, 0.46BP, 1.34BP, 4.59BP, and 2.87BP respectively [10][12] Ultra - long - term Credit Bonds - Ultra - long - term credit bonds were also adjusted. The adjustment of urban investment ultra - long - term bonds was the highest. Only AA+ 10Y medium - term notes performed well with a continued decline in valuation yield. AAA/AA+ 10Y medium - term note yields increased by 2.62BP and decreased by 1.38BP respectively. AAA/AA+ 10Y urban investment yields increased by 3.36BP and 4.36BP respectively, while the 10Y Treasury bond yield only increased by 2.20BP [3][11] Perpetual and Secondary Bonds (Er Yong Bonds) - The market of Er Yong bonds weakened and showed the characteristic of a "volatility amplifier". The decline of those with a maturity of less than 5Y was greater than that of general credit bonds of the same maturity, and the decline of those with a maturity of 7Y and above slightly exceeded that of ultra - long - term credit bonds. The yields of 1 - 5Y, 7Y, and 10Y AAA - bank secondary capital bonds increased by 3.94BP, 5.14BP, 5.79BP, 5.32BP, 5.44BP, 4.35BP, and 4.78BP respectively [4][17] Group 5: Market Feature Analysis Curve Shape - The steepness of the 1 - 2Y for all ratings and 3 - 5Y for low - ratings was the highest, but it was slightly lower compared to the end of May, and the 1 - year segment remained relatively flat [13] Historical Quantiles - The ticket - coupon value of credit bonds remained low. In terms of credit spreads, there may be opportunities for participation in the 3Y - 5Y segment. The yields of 1Y - AAA, 3Y - AAA, etc. were at relatively low levels since 2024, and after a week of adjustment, the short - end 1Y still had no cost - effectiveness, while the protection of 3Y - 5Y was enhanced [15] Active Trading - The trading sentiment of Er Yong bonds was relatively weak. The proportion of low - valuation transactions from July 7 to July 11 was 100.00%, 2.44%, 46.34%, 100.00%, 80.49% respectively, and the average trading durations were 5.90 years, 0.59 years, 2.14 years, 6.25 years, 4.02 years respectively. The trading margin of Er Yong bonds below the valuation was small, generally within 3BP; the discount trading margin was also small, generally within 2BP [19][20][22] Ultra - long - term Credit Bonds - Institutions' willingness to sell ultra - long - term credit bonds increased significantly compared to the previous week. The proportion of discount transactions was 2.44%, 85.37%, 70.73%, 95.12%, 60.98% respectively, and the discount margin was mostly within 3BP. The market's willingness to buy ultra - long - term credit bonds weakened, and the trading focus returned to the 3 - 5 - year riding transactions of low - quality urban investment bonds. Although the market adjusted, institutions' willingness to buy was still strong, with about 45% of the transactions below the valuation having a margin of 4BP or more [5][25][26]

Group 1 - The report highlights a market correction in the bond market, with credit products showing varying degrees of resilience. The "see-saw" effect between stocks and bonds continues, leading to a decline in the bond market and some profit-taking, particularly in perpetual bonds [2][9]. - Credit products generally follow interest rate adjustments, but their decline is less pronounced than that of interest rates. The credit spread has narrowed passively, with perpetual bonds experiencing a greater decline compared to other credit types [2][9]. - The report notes that the yield on short-term credit products fluctuated, with a passive widening of credit spreads by approximately 5 basis points over the week [2][9]. Group 2 - During the bond market adjustment period, trading volumes for credit bonds have decreased, particularly for perpetual bonds. However, insurance and other institutional investors have shown a notable increase in their holdings of high-quality credit bonds [3][16]. - The report suggests that the market may not need to worry excessively about the current credit market conditions, as the marginal impact of the stock-bond see-saw effect is expected to diminish. The report anticipates a potential re-entry point for investors as the credit spreads adjust [4][27]. - The report recommends focusing on 2-year duration assets for portfolio allocation, as well as considering mid-to-high grade 5-year perpetual bonds, which have seen a decline in yields above 1.9%, indicating potential buying interest [4][29][34].

Group 1: Report Industry Investment Rating - No relevant content provided Group 2: Core Views of the Report - In May, the interest rate was in a volatile market, and the decline of the capital center opened up the carry trade space. Institutions chased credit products with relatively high coupon yields, and funds became the main buyers, driving the credit spreads to narrow across the board. The 3 - 5 - year medium - and low - grade bonds performed better. In June, the supply - demand pattern of credit bonds is unfavorable, and the cost - performance of credit bonds has declined, which may lead to the widening of credit spreads. It is not recommended to chase low - grade medium - and long - term bonds, but there is no need to rush to take profits on medium - and long - term credit bonds. Instead, consider taking profits in mid - to late July. In June, when the coupon and credit spreads are both at low levels, it is appropriate to explore the riding opportunities of medium - and high - grade varieties, especially the 4 - year medium - and high - grade bonds. [1][2][24] - For bank capital bonds, the cost - performance of long - term large - bank capital bonds for insurance institutions is still low, and the allocation demand is difficult to recover in the short term. It may depend more on the start of the trading market. In the process of waiting, coupon assets can still be pursued, and there is still cost - performance in sinking the credit of medium - and short - term bonds. [3] Group 3: Summary According to the Directory 1. June Credit: Sinking within 3 Years and Riding Medium - and High - Grade Bonds 1.1. It is not advisable to chase high for low - grade medium - and long - term bonds. Explore the riding opportunities of medium - and high - grade 4 - year bonds - In May, the bond market was defensive, and the long - end interest rate fluctuated. The decline of the capital center opened up the carry trade space, and funds became the main buyers of credit bonds, driving the credit spreads to narrow across the board. The 3 - 5 - year medium - and low - grade bonds in urban investment bonds performed better, with yields down 12 - 16bp and credit spreads narrowing 12 - 18bp. [8][9] - In June, the demand for credit bonds is facing a decline in the scale of wealth management products at the end of the quarter, while the supply side will see an increase in issuance and net financing month - on - month. The unfavorable supply - demand pattern and the decline in the cost - performance of credit bonds may lead to the widening of credit spreads. [13][16] - In May, the market for low - grade 3 - 5 - year bonds was extreme. There is no need to rush to take profits on medium - and long - term credit bonds in June, but it is not recommended to chase low - grade medium - and long - term bonds. [22][24] - In June, when the coupon and credit spreads are at low levels, it is appropriate to explore the riding opportunities of medium - and high - grade varieties. The current convex point is at the 4 - year term, and the 4 - year medium - and high - grade urban investment bonds are worth deploying. It is also possible to consider replacing 5 - year bonds with similar 4 - year bonds to improve the risk - return ratio of the portfolio. In addition, 3 - year AA(2) and AA urban investment bonds have both coupon income and liquidity and can be used as defensive investment products. [29][30][33] 1.2. Bank capital bonds are waiting for the start of the trading market - In May, institutions valued the coupon cost - performance when allocating bank capital bonds. Medium - and small - bank capital bonds and AA - perpetual bonds with coupon advantages performed better, while the performance of 1 - year large - bank capital bonds and 4 - 5 - year AAA - bank capital bonds was poor. [36] - The cost - performance of long - term large - bank capital bonds for insurance institutions is still low, and the allocation demand is difficult to recover in the short term. The performance of long - term large - bank capital bonds may depend more on the start of the interest - rate bond trading market. In the process of waiting, coupon assets can still be pursued, and there is cost - performance in sinking the credit of medium - and short - term bonds. [38][45] 2. Urban Investment Bonds: The Issuance Interest Rates Have Declined across the Board, and the Buying Interest Remains High - In May, the issuance scale of urban investment bonds continued to decline year - on - year, and the net financing was negative, but the overall issuance sentiment was good. The proportion of 3 - 5 - year issuance continued to rise slightly, and the issuance interest rates of all terms declined, with relatively large declines in the medium - and short - term. [48][49] - The secondary - market buying interest in urban investment bonds was high in May, but the trading sentiment declined in the last week. The trading volume was gradually extended in terms of duration, and the low - grade varieties had a high proportion of trading volume. [58] - The yields of public urban investment bonds in each province declined in May, with the 2 - 3 - year medium - and low - grade bonds performing better. [60] 3. Industrial Bonds: Both Issuance and Net Financing Increased Year - on - Year, and the Yields Declined across the Board - In May, the issuance and net financing of industrial bonds increased year - on - year. The industries with large net financing scales include comprehensive, building decoration, chemical, and transportation industries. The proportion of issuance within 1 year increased significantly, and the issuance interest rates within 3 years declined significantly, while the 3 - 5 - year issuance interest rates increased slightly. [62][64] - The yields of industrial bonds declined across the board in May. Low - grade bonds with coupon advantages and 7 - year medium - and high - grade bonds performed better. The yields of public bonds in each industry declined by 7 - 21bp, with 1 - year AA, 1 - 3 - year AA + and AA performing better. [65][69] 4. Bank Capital Bonds: Low - Grade Bonds Performed Better, and the Trading Sentiment Was Weak - In May 2025, the issuance scale of bank capital bonds increased year - on - year, but due to the large amount of maturity redemptions, the net financing scale decreased year - on - year. [72] - The yields of bank capital bonds generally declined in May, and most of the credit spreads narrowed. Low - grade perpetual bonds performed better, while large - bank capital bonds performed weakly. [76]