Core Viewpoint - The price of silicon wafers continues to rise, driven by increased demand from the photovoltaic installation sector, which has exceeded expectations this year [1][2][3]. Price Trends - The average transaction price for M10 monocrystalline silicon wafers (182mm/150μm) increased to 3.36 yuan per piece, a week-on-week increase of 6.67% - The average price for N-type monocrystalline silicon wafers (182mm/130μm) rose to 3.45 yuan per piece, with a week-on-week increase of 5.83% - The average price for G12 monocrystalline silicon wafers (210mm/150μm) remained at 4.35 yuan per piece, reflecting a week-on-week increase of 3.57% [1]. Demand and Supply Dynamics - From January to July, the domestic newly installed photovoltaic capacity reached 97.2 GW, a year-on-year increase of 158% - In July alone, the newly installed capacity was 18.7 GW, marking a year-on-year increase of 174% and a month-on-month increase of 9% [2]. - The increase in silicon wafer prices is attributed to the unexpected surge in demand, as well as a reduction in overall industry capacity utilization due to lower prices earlier in the year [2][3]. Market Expectations - The silicon industry association noted that major producers are operating at full capacity, with an expected supply of 58 GW to 60 GW of silicon wafers in August [3]. - Despite the price increases, leading companies like LONGi Green Energy have maintained their prices, benefiting from strong cost control capabilities [4]. - Future price trends for silicon wafers will depend on various factors, including production capacity, the momentum of silicon material price increases, and the pricing trends in the battery segment [4]. Mid-term Outlook - Although the production of N-type battery cells is expected to increase, the market has not yet entered a phase of large-scale inventory replenishment, suggesting that silicon wafer prices may remain low and fluctuate in the mid-term [5]. - The overall supply of silicon materials and wafers still exceeds demand, which may provide competitive advantages to companies with technological and pricing advantages [5].

Core Insights - The recent decline in silicon material prices is attributed to a significant reduction in demand from downstream silicon wafer manufacturers, with production cuts exceeding 50% [1][3] - The price of N-type silicon material has decreased more sharply than P-type, reflecting a growing price gap between large and small manufacturers [1][3] - The industry is entering a consolidation phase, where less competitive players may be eliminated, leading to a stronger market position for companies with advanced technology and cost management [3] Price Trends - The average transaction price for N-type silicon material is 75,200 CNY/ton, down 19.23% from two weeks ago, while single crystal dense material averages 67,900 CNY/ton, down 15.23% [1] - InfoLink Consulting reports a smaller price drop for dense material, with an average of 74,000 CNY/ton, and a price range for second-tier and new entrants between 61,000 CNY and 68,000 CNY/ton [2] Market Dynamics - The pressure on silicon material companies is increasing due to inventory accumulation and the need to secure orders amid low demand [1] - The silicon wafer market shows a significant price drop, with M10 single crystal wafers averaging 2.39 CNY/piece, N-type at 2.50 CNY/piece, and G12 at 3.35 CNY/piece, reflecting weekly declines of 5.91%, 3.47%, and 3.46% respectively [4] - There is a notable price differentiation between first-tier and second-tier silicon wafer manufacturers, particularly for N-type wafers [4][6] Downstream Impact - The prices for mainstream battery sizes are also declining, with P-type M10 and G12 batteries trading between 0.47-0.5 CNY/W and 0.52-0.53 CNY/W respectively [5] - The component prices are approaching 1.1 CNY/W, primarily fulfilling previous orders, indicating ongoing downward pressure in the photovoltaic supply chain [6] - The overall price decline in the photovoltaic industry suggests an impending reshuffle, highlighting the varying capabilities of companies in market expansion and cost control [6]

1. Report Industry Investment Rating - No industry investment rating information is provided in the report. 2. Core Viewpoints - The "anti - involution" policy is compared with the supply - side reform in 2016 - 2017. Both aim to address supply - demand mismatches through capacity reduction, but there are differences in background, industries covered, policy measures, implementation cycles, and outcomes [14]. - The "anti - involution" policy is expected to have a longer implementation cycle and a more profound impact. It focuses on long - term mechanism building and is likely to achieve more sustainable and healthy results [50]. - Regarding the impact on the bond market, the "anti - involution" policy is unlikely to change the long - term bullish trend of the bond market. In the short term, there is adjustment pressure on bond interest rates due to a slight rebound in commodity prices, but a demand - driven bearish trend is unlikely. In the long run, if the policy can increase corporate profits and drive up factor prices, it may lead to an upward inflection point in bond interest rates [51][63]. 3. Summary by Directory 3.1 "Anti - involution" Policy Context Review - In 2024, the Central Political Bureau Meeting first proposed "preventing 'involution - style' vicious competition." On July 1, 2025, the Sixth Meeting of the Central Financial and Economic Commission incorporated "anti - involution" into the national economic governance framework, accelerating policy implementation. Subsequently, various industries issued implementation opinions, such as the China Cement Association, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology for the photovoltaic industry, and 33 construction central enterprises [10][11]. 3.2 "Anti - involution" and Supply - side Reform Comprehensive Comparison 3.2.1 Background Motivation - Supply - side reform in 2015 was due to the transition from high - speed to medium - high - speed economic growth, with severe over - capacity in traditional industries like coal and steel, and diminishing marginal effects of demand - side stimulus [15]. - The "anti - involution" policy since 2022 is because PPI has been in the negative range again, and over - capacity is more concentrated in emerging industries such as photovoltaic, lithium - battery, and new - energy vehicles. "Involution" is a structural and institutional over - capacity, threatening the long - term health of industries [17][21]. 3.2.2 Key Industries - The "anti - involution" policy covers a wide range of industries, including traditional industries related to real - estate and infrastructure, emerging industries, and downstream consumer - related industries. The policy focuses on the "new three items" (new energy, semiconductors, high - end equipment) [24]. - The supply - side reform in 2016 - 2017 focused on upstream raw - material industries, mainly addressing over - capacity in traditional industries led by state - owned enterprises. In contrast, the "anti - involution" policy is more extensive, emphasizing emerging industries in the middle and lower reaches, with more private enterprises involved [28]. 3.2.3 Policy Measures - The supply - side reform in 2016 - 2017 used "three removals, one reduction, and one supplement" as the main policy tools, featuring administrative means, quantified targets for key industries, supplementary measures, and demand - expansion policies such as shantytown renovation monetization [34]. - The "anti - involution" policy currently mainly uses market - based means such as industry self - discipline, with milder administrative intervention and an emphasis on institutional building. Its ultimate goal is to build a new development pattern and promote high - quality development, and it is unlikely to be accompanied by large - scale demand - expansion policies [39][40]. 3.2.4 Policy Implementation Cycle and Outcomes - The supply - side reform had a short implementation cycle of about 2 years, with significant and rapid results. It led to a substantial increase in capacity utilization, commodity prices, and industrial profits, and had a "first positive, then negative" impact on interest - rate bonds [42][43]. - The "anti - involution" policy may have a longer implementation cycle. It focuses on long - term mechanism building and is expected to achieve more sustainable and healthy results through market - based and legal means [50]. 3.3 "Anti - involution" Impact on the Bond Market Outlook - The impact of the "anti - involution" policy on interest - rate bonds is mainly transmitted through factors such as expectations, commodity prices, monetary policy, and the demand side. Currently, the demand side is weak, and monetary policy remains loose [51]. - It is predicted that the year - on - year PPI will gradually recover to around - 1.5% within the year but will not turn positive immediately. In the short term, there is adjustment pressure on bond interest rates due to a slight rebound in commodity prices, but a trend - driven bear market is unlikely. In the long run, if the policy can increase corporate profits and drive up factor prices, it may lead to an upward inflection point in bond interest rates [63].