关注集思录微信 特别提示 本文不构成任何投资建议，仅为信息分享。任何因本文导致的投资行为发生的亏损，本公众 号及作者概不承担任何责任。 去年年底我想 25年这一年涨了不少， 还依稀记得24年惨淡的行情， 我要保守， 26年能挣 5%我就满足了。 这开年第一周，科创板指数都已经涨了10% 连转债等权指数都涨了5.44% 去年年底我想 25年这一年涨了不少 还依稀记得24年惨淡的行情 我要保守 26年能挣5%我就 满足了 这开年第一周，科创板指数都已经涨了10% 连转债等权指数都涨了5.44% | | 指数涨幅统计(刷新) 历史数据 | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 代码 | 名称 | 现价 | | | 本日涨幅 本周涨幅 本月涨幅 本季涨幅 本年涨幅 | | | | 000680 | 科创综指 | 1803.40 | 2.09% | 10.19% | 10.19% | 10.19% | 10.19% | | 000688 | 科创50 | 1475.97 | 1.43% | 9.80% | 9.80% | 9.80 ...

- The report primarily focuses on tracking and analyzing the performance of broad-based indices in the A-share market, including metrics such as daily returns, moving averages, turnover rates, risk premiums, PE-TTM, dividend yields, and price-to-book ratios[1][2][3] - The turnover rate of indices is calculated using the formula: $ \text{Turnover Rate} = \frac{\Sigma(\text{Component Stocks' Free Float Shares} \times \text{Component Stocks' Turnover Rate})}{\Sigma(\text{Component Stocks' Free Float Shares})} $ This metric reflects the liquidity and trading activity of the indices[15] - The risk premium is measured relative to the 10-year government bond yield, serving as a benchmark for assessing the relative investment value and deviation of indices. The report highlights that indices like CSI 500 and SSE 50 exhibit high 5-year percentile values for risk premiums, indicating relatively attractive valuations[25][26][29] - The PE-TTM (Price-to-Earnings Trailing Twelve Months) is used as a valuation metric, with indices such as CSI 500 and CSI All Share showing high 5-year percentile values (99.92%), suggesting elevated valuations compared to historical levels[37][40][42] - Dividend yield is analyzed as a measure of cash return to investors, with indices like the ChiNext Index and CSI 300 showing relatively high 5-year historical percentile values (57.93% and 31.65%, respectively), indicating their attractiveness during periods of market downturns or declining interest rates[46][51][53] - The price-to-book ratio (P/B) is evaluated through the "break net ratio," which measures the proportion of stocks trading below their book value. The report notes that indices such as SSE 50 and CSI 300 have higher break net ratios, reflecting market sentiment and valuation levels[52][55]

Content: --------- <doc id='1'>证券研究报告·金融工程报告 2025 年 12 月 18 日 江海证券研究发展部 金融工程定期报告 金融工程研究组 A 股市场快照：宽基指数每日投资动态 2025.12.18 ◆市场表现：2025 年 12 月 17 日, 各宽基指数（表 1）全部上涨，其中创业板指（3.39%） 投资要点：</doc> <doc id='2'>分析师：梁俊炜 执业证书编号：S1410524090001 A 股市场快照：宽基指数每日投资动 和中证 500（1.95%）涨幅最大。当年涨跌情况，创业板指（48.3%）涨幅最大，其 次是中证 2000（30.48%）和中证 500（24.66%），中证 1000（22.34%）和中证全指 （21.17%）涨幅扩大，而上证 50（11.43%）涨幅最小。 ◆均线比较：除了中证 1000 和中证 2000，其余跟踪指数已突破 5 日及 20 日均线。 创业板指率先突破 60 日均线。各跟踪指数单日修复程度较大。 ◆资金占比与换手：2025 年 12 月 17 日, 沪深 300（25.34%）交易金额占比最高， 相关研究报告</doc> <doc id='3'>态 2025.12.17 A 股市场快照：宽基指数每日投资动 态 2025.12.16 A 股市场快照：宽基指数每日投资动 态 2025.12.15 其次是中证 2000（23.94%）和中证 1000（20.51%）。各宽基指数当前换手率分别 为中证 2000（3.88），创业板指（2.41），中证 1000（2.24），中证全指（1.63）， 中证 500（1.56），沪深 300（0.54）和上证 50（0.23）。 ◆日收益率分布：创业板指的峰度负偏离最大，中证 1000 的峰度负偏离最小。上 证 50 和创业板指的负偏态最大，中证 1000 和中证 2000 的负偏态最小。 ◆风险溢价：2025 年 12 月 17 日, 创业板指（97.14%）和中证 500（96.59%）风险 溢价近 5 年分位值较高，中证 1000（88.41%）和中证 2000（69.05%）较低。</doc> <doc id='4'>◆PE-TTM：中证 500（95.04%）和中证 1000（93.47%）分位值较高，而中证 2000 （79.17%）和创业板指（57.69%）分位值较低。 ◆股债性价比：没有指数高于其 80%分位，中证 500 低于其 20%分位。 ◆股息率：创业板指（63.22%）和中证 1000（51.65%）所处近 5 年历史分位值较 高，而中证 2000（31.32%）和中证 500（24.55%）较低。 ◆破净率：当前，各指数破净率为上证 50（22.0%），沪深 300（16.33%），中证 500（11.2%），中证 1000（8.3%），中证 2000（3.8%），创业板指（nan%）和中 证全指（6.51%）。 ◆风险提示：本报告可能存在数据缺失、数据错误、数据不及时、模型处理错误 等风险。本报告仅从金融工程角度，对重要指数的市场数据进行跟踪、统计、分 析，不构成对市场指数、行业或个股进行预测或推荐。</doc> <doc id='6'>| 市场衣乳… | | --- | | 1.1 指数表现 … | | 1.2 指数与均线的比较 | | 1.3 资全占比与换手率 … | | 2 日收益分布 | | 2.1 收益区间分布对比 | | 22 分布形态变化对比 | | 3 风险溢价 … | | 3.1 各宽基指数的风险溢价 | | 32 风险溢价历史分布 | | 4 PE-TTM. | | 4.1 各宽某指数 PE-TTM 和分位值 | | 4.2 PE-TTM 历史对比… | | 4.3 股债性价比历史对比… | | 5 吸血率… | | 5.1 近一年各宽某指数股息率变化情况, | | 5.2 股息率历史对比… | | 6 玻璃率 | | 7 风险提示 . |</doc> <doc id='8'>| 表 1、各宽基指数表现情况 | | --- | | 表 2、各宽基指数与均线、近250交易日高位和低位的比较 … | | 表 3 、各宽基指数分布形态变化 … | | 表 4、各宽基指数和十年期国债即期收益率的风险溢价 | | 表 5、各宽基指数 PE-TTM 分位值和历史值 | | 表 6、各宽基指数当前股息率和历史情况 | | 图 1、各宽基指数交易全额占比和换手率 | | 图 2、各宽基指数每日收益率分布情况 | | 图 3、各宽基指数相对十年国债即期收益率的风险溢价 | | 图 4、各宽基指数相对沪深 300 的风险溢价的近 5年分布 . | | 图 5 、各宽基指数 PE-TTM 及其分位值 | | 图 6、各宽基指数的股债性价比… | | 图 7、各宽基指数股息率 | | 图 8、各宽基指数破净个股数和占比………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 |</doc> <doc id='10'>1 市场表现 本报告将从指数涨跌幅、连阴连阳、上涨下跌分布等维度对各宽基指数进 行评价和跟踪。 1.1 指数表现 </doc> <doc id='11'>2025 年 12 月 17 日, 各宽基指数（表 1）全部上涨，其中创业板指（3.39%） 和中证 500（1.95%）涨幅最大。当周涨跌情况，各跟踪指数全部下跌，其中 中证 2000（-1.22%）和中证 1000（-1.12%）跌幅最大。当月涨跌情况，各跟踪 指数涨跌各现，其中创业板指（4.04%）和中证 500（1.51%）涨幅最大，而中 证 2000（-0.89%）和中证 1000（-0.62%）下跌。当季涨跌情况，各跟踪指数除 了上证 50（0.09%）外全部下跌，其中中证 1000（-3.78%）和中证 500（-3.7%） 跌幅最大。当年涨跌情况，创业板指（48.3%）涨幅最大，其次是中证 2000（30.48%） 和中证 500（24.66%），中证 1000（22.34%）和中证全指（21.17%）涨幅扩大， 而上证 50（11.43%）涨幅最小。 表 1、各宽基指数表现情况 指数名称 指数代码 当日涨幅% 当周涨幅% 当月涨幅% 当季涨幅% 当年涨幅% 日K </doc> <doc id='12'>| 指数名称 | 指数代码 | 当日涨幅% | 当周涨幅% | 当月涨幅% | 当季涨幅% | 当年涨幅% | 日K 连阴连阳 | 周K 连阴连阳 | 月K 连阴连阳 | 季K 连阴连阳 | 年K 连阴连阳 | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 上证50 | 000016.SH | 1.25 | -0.10 | 0.74 | 0.09 | 11.43 | | | |

文 | 银行螺丝钉 （转载请注明出处） 在有特殊事件发生，以致影响指数的代 表性和可投资性时，指数公司将对指数 样本做出必要的临时调整。 指数的临时调仓通常比较少见。 (2) 定期调仓 具体的频率和时间，以及对应的代表指 数,如下图所示: | 定期调仓的频率 | 定期调整的时间 | 代表指数 | | --- | --- | --- | | 每季度调整 | 每年3月、6月、9月和12月的第 | 科创50、科创100、 | | | 二个星期五的下一交易日 | 中证全指自由现金流等 | | 每半年调整 | 每年6月和12月的第二个星期五 | 沪深300、中证500、中证 | | | 的下一交易日 | 1000、中证2000等 | | 每年调整 | 每年12月的第二个星期五的下 | 中证红利、上证红利等 | | | 一交易日 | | 对中证等系列的指数,每次调仓,通常 是在6月和12月份第二个周五之后。 不同指数,调合频率也会有区别。 例如沪深300、中证500指数,都是6月 和12月调仓一次。相关的300价值、500 低波动指数,也是如此。 不过像中证红利、上证红利指数，就是 依据样本稳定性和动态跟踪相结合的原 则 ...

Core Viewpoint - The market is experiencing a structural bull market, characterized by significant gains in specific sectors while others lag behind, indicating potential investment opportunities in undervalued stocks [10][11][12]. Group 1: Market Performance - The overall market opened lower but closed higher, returning to a rating of 4.2 stars [1]. - All market caps, including large, mid, and small caps, saw increases, with small caps outperforming slightly [2]. - Both value and growth styles experienced upward movement [3]. Group 2: Positive Market Drivers - Positive news circulated during the trading day, contributing to market gains [4]. - Insurance institutions lowered risk factors for indices like the CSI 300 and the Low Volatility Dividend 100, allowing for increased allocation to these stocks [5][6]. - This adjustment led to significant increases in sectors such as securities, insurance, and value stocks [7]. Group 3: Structural Bull Market Characteristics - Structural bull markets often see certain categories of stocks rise significantly while others may not reach high valuations [10][12]. - Historical examples include the small-cap growth bull market in 2015 and the large-cap value bull market from 2016 to 2017 [13][14]. Group 4: Current Market Trends - The main drivers of this year's market increase are small-cap and growth styles, with indices like the CSI 2000 and tech-focused boards showing gains exceeding the market average [15]. - Many stocks in these categories have strong fundamentals, with tech companies in A-shares and Hong Kong showing over 30% year-on-year profit growth [18]. - Some sectors, such as consumer and healthcare, have seen moderate profit growth, while others like consumption have experienced declines [21][25]. Group 5: Future Outlook - Stocks that are currently underperforming may become leaders in future market cycles, emphasizing the need for patience among investors [27][32]. - Even undervalued indices can yield returns over time, as seen with dividend and low-volatility indices that have appreciated by 50-70% since 2018 despite not reaching high valuations [40][41]. Group 6: Valuation Insights - The article provides a valuation table for Hong Kong indices, indicating that the market has already returned to a rating of over 3 stars due to earlier gains compared to A-shares [42]. - The valuation metrics for various indices, including PE ratios and dividend yields, are summarized for investor reference [43].

Core Insights - The article discusses the advantages of a dividend low-volatility strategy compared to traditional stock picking, highlighting its ability to reduce drawdowns and facilitate buying low and selling high [1][11] - It emphasizes the importance of asset allocation, suggesting a balanced approach between dividend low-volatility stocks and bonds to mitigate risks during market downturns [3][11] Summary by Sections Investment Strategy - A 55:45 allocation between dividend low-volatility stocks and bonds can yield an annualized return of approximately 7%, although a 4% loss may still occur in extreme market conditions like those in 2018 [1] - The strategy of using Bollinger Bands for managing positions is suggested, where selling occurs at the upper band and buying at the lower band, which can enhance returns compared to a static holding approach [1][5] Risk Management - The article notes that a 16% drop in the dividend low-volatility index in 2018 should be viewed as a historical buying opportunity, advocating for a reallocation strategy to enhance returns during recovery phases [3] - It discusses the potential of using put options for additional protection against extreme market downturns, although this may not be deemed necessary for strategies with low maximum drawdowns [11] Portfolio Construction - Recommendations include building a personalized portfolio based on the top holdings of the dividend low-volatility index, allowing for greater flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions [4][8] - The concept of passive rebalancing is introduced, where adjustments are made based on changes in asset ratios, promoting a disciplined approach to high selling and low buying [5][9]

- The report tracks the performance of various broad-based indices in the A-share market, including their daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly changes. For instance, on November 18, 2025, all tracked indices fell, with the CSI 2000 and CSI 500 experiencing the largest declines of -1.32% and -1.17%, respectively[1][2][10] - The report compares the indices against their moving averages and their positions relative to the highest and lowest points over the past 250 trading days. For example, all tracked indices have fallen below their 5-day and 10-day moving averages, with the CSI 2000 still above its 20-day moving average[13] - The report provides data on the trading volume and turnover rates of the indices. On November 18, 2025, the CSI 2000 had the highest trading volume share at 24.98%, followed by the CSI 300 at 22.28% and the CSI 1000 at 22.17%. The turnover rates for these indices were 4.48, 2.85, and 2.83, respectively[15] - The report analyzes the distribution of daily returns for the indices, noting that the ChiNext Index has the largest negative kurtosis deviation, while the CSI 1000 has the smallest. The CSI 2000 has the smallest negative skewness, while the SSE 50 has the largest[21][23] - The report examines the risk premiums of the indices relative to the 10-year government bond yield. As of November 18, 2025, the SSE 50 and CSI 300 had relatively high 5-year percentile risk premiums of 37.62% and 24.29%, respectively, while the CSI 2000 and CSI 500 had lower values of 15.95% and 13.41%[25][28][29] - The report evaluates the PE-TTM (Price-to-Earnings ratio based on trailing twelve months) of the indices as a measure of valuation. The CSI 1000 and CSI 500 had high 5-year percentile values of 96.86% and 95.45%, respectively, while the CSI 2000 and ChiNext Index had lower values of 82.64% and 55.04%[37][40][41] - The report assesses the stock-bond yield ratio, which compares the inverse of the PE-TTM to the 10-year government bond yield. None of the indices were above their 80% percentile (opportunity value), and none were below their 20% percentile (danger value)[43] - The report tracks the dividend yields of the indices, noting that the ChiNext Index and CSI 1000 had relatively high 5-year historical percentile values of 70.58% and 39.17%, respectively, while the CSI 500 and CSI 2000 had lower values of 16.94% and 13.55%[45][50][51] - The report monitors the net asset value break rates of the indices, indicating the proportion of stocks trading below their net asset value. As of the latest data, the break rates were 22.0% for the SSE 50, 16.0% for the CSI 300, 11.6% for the CSI 500, 7.2% for the CSI 1000, 2.45% for the CSI 2000, 1.0% for the ChiNext Index, and 5.65% for the CSI All Share Index[52]

Core Viewpoint - International Industry (000159.SZ) reported its Q3 2025 results, indicating a total institutional holding of 112 million shares, accounting for 23.33% of the company's total equity, with a slight decrease in institutional holding percentage compared to the previous quarter [1] Institutional Holdings - As of October 30, 2025, there are two institutional investors disclosing their holdings in International Industry A-shares, with a combined holding of 112 million shares [1] - The institutional holding percentage has decreased by 0.94 percentage points compared to the previous quarter [1] Public Fund Activity - One new public fund has been disclosed this quarter, namely the Jin Yuan Shun An Flexible Allocation Mixed Securities Investment Fund [1] - A total of 15 public funds were not disclosed this quarter, including notable funds such as CITIC Prudential Multi-Strategy Mixed (LOF) A, CITIC Prudential Economic Selection Mixed A, and others [1]

Core Viewpoint - Hongbo New Materials (605366.SH) reported a decline in institutional ownership in its third-quarter report for 2025, with a total of 3.57 billion shares held by seven institutional investors, representing 54.99% of the total share capital, a decrease of 2.82 percentage points from the previous quarter [1] Institutional Ownership - As of October 30, 2025, seven institutional investors disclosed holdings in Hongbo New Materials, totaling 3.57 billion shares, which accounts for 54.99% of the company's total share capital [1] - The institutional investors include Hongbo Chemical Co., Ltd., Hongbo (Asia) Group Co., Ltd., Nanchang Longhou Industrial Co., Ltd., and others [1] - The overall institutional ownership percentage decreased by 2.82 percentage points compared to the previous quarter [1] Public Fund Holdings - One public fund, Everbright Baodexin Anyang One-Year Mixed A, increased its holdings compared to the previous period, showing a slight rise in ownership [1] - A total of 30 public funds did not disclose their holdings in this period, including notable funds such as CSI 2000, Huatai-PB National Index Enhanced A, and others [1]

Core Viewpoint - Jinli Technology (002869.SZ) reported an increase in institutional ownership, with a total of 44.48 million shares held by six institutional investors, representing 24.77% of the total share capital, marking a 6.25 percentage point increase from the previous quarter [1] Institutional Investors - Six institutional investors disclosed their holdings in Jinli Technology, with a combined ownership of 44.48 million shares, accounting for 24.77% of the total share capital [1] - The institutional ownership increased by 6.25 percentage points compared to the previous quarter [1] Public Funds - Two new public funds disclosed their holdings in the current period, including Huaxia Industry Prosperity Mixed A and Huaxia Excellent Growth Mixed A [1] - A total of 26 public funds that were previously disclosed did not report their holdings this quarter, including Huashang Advantage Industry Mixed A and others [1] Social Security Funds - One new social security fund disclosed its holdings in Jinli Technology, specifically the Huaxia Fund Management Co., Ltd. - Social Security Fund 422 Combination [1] Foreign Investment - One foreign fund, Hong Kong Central Clearing Limited, increased its holdings in Jinli Technology by 1.10% compared to the previous period [1]