Chinese investors snap up stocks on hopes for an end to price wars and overcapacity
The prevailing catchphrase is 'anti-involution,' and it reflects efforts to curb intense competition and overcapacity in industries like solar panels, steel, and electric vehicles.
With rising trade barriers such as President Donald Trump's higher tariffs, and relatively weak domestic demand, manufacturers have been slashing prices, undermining their bottom lines and driving some out of business.
The producer price index, which measures the price that factories receive for their goods, has fallen steadily for nearly three years in China in a prolonged bout of deflation. The long-running issue spilled over into global markets as low-priced Chinese exports worsen trade friction with key trading partners including the United States and Europe.
Solar panel glass makers agree to cut output by 30% In a series of recent statements, the Chinese government and industry associations have signaled they're getting serious about reining in cut-throat competition, known as invollution or 'neijuan' in Chinese.
The top 10 makers of glass for solar panels agreed on June 30 to shut kilns and cut production by 30%, an industry association said. The government has launched an auto safety inspection campaign, addressing concerns that automakers were skimping on quality to cut costs.
It's unclear whether these efforts will succeed, but the sense that China may finally be tackling this chronic problem was enough to spark a rally in stocks in some of those under-pressure sectors.
Shares of Liuzhou Iron & Steel Co. gained 10% on Friday and have risen more than 70% since June 30. Solar panel glass producer Changzhou Almaden Co. fell at the end of last week but is still up about 50%.
More broadly, two exchange traded funds in solar panels and steel have risen about 10%, outpacing a 3.2% rise in the Shanghai Composite, China's leading market index.
The performance of EV-maker stocks has been mixed, with Li Auto and Nio recording double-digit percentage gains while market leader BYD declined.
Foreigners can't buy Chinese stocks directly but they are able to invest in about 2,700 stocks and 250 exchange traded funds through the Hong Kong exchange.
Government calls intense price wars 'disorderly'
The gains follow high-level government pronouncements against disorderly price wars. On June 29, the People's Daily newspaper, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party, ran a lengthy page 1 article on involution, saying they run counter to the party's goal of high quality economic development.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping weighed in at a closed-door economic meeting, calling for better regulating competition and incentives by local governments to attract factory investments that are blamed for overinvestment in affected industries.
The tougher talk began with a focus on automakers in late May, specifically around electric vehicle price wars that began more than three years ago.
Analysts at investment bank UBS said the shift is good news for auto industry profits and company stocks.
'Though it's difficult to imagine a sudden U-turn of the industry from fierce competition to orderly consolidation, it's indeed possible to have near-term ceasefire of the price war,' they wrote.
Weak demand and overcapacity bring a fight for survival
After BYD launched another round of price cuts on May 23, some competitors, the main industry association and government all called for fair and sustainable competition.
The EV battery industry, the cement association and major construction companies have issued statements echoing calls for an end to excess competition.
The term involution, which suggests a spiraling inward and shrinking, was initially applied in China to students and young workers, who felt they were caught up in meaningless competition that led nowhere as the job market weakened and wages stagnated in recent years.
At the industry level, it has come to mean sectors that have too many companies competing for a slice of the pie, leading to fierce price cutting to try to gain market share.
The mismatch between production capacity — how much an industry can make — and actual demand for the product, reflects overcapacity that forces companies to compete for survival in a limited market space, said a recent article in the Communist Party magazine Qiushi.
Obstacles to fixing the problem
Some Chinese industries, especially steel and cement, have long suffered from overcapacity. A government push to promote green industries has fostered similar problems in that sector, including solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles.
A flood of Chinese exports is leading to more trade barriers in Europe and the U.S. and in some emerging markets such as Mexico, Indonesia and India.
Ultimately, economists say industries need to consolidate through company mergers and bankruptcies. But the process will take time. A major obstacle is provincial governments that want to protect local companies and jobs.
Alicia García-Herrero, the chief economist for Asia-Pacific at the Natixis investment bank, said that recent comments by top Chinese economic officials suggest they realize something needs to be done.
'How much is action versus words, I don't know,' she said. 'But I do think it's a big problem for China.'
___
Associated Press researcher Yu Bing contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
How DeepSeek and Open-Source Models Are Shaking Up AI
Tech companies and academics have long wrestled with the risks and rewards of building open-source software. But the frenzy around generative artificial intelligence has lent new significance to the debate. DeepSeek and other Chinese companies have pushed out a wave of low-cost, open source models that rival software from the top American AI developers. In response, OpenAI, a leading US AI company, has released a new open model, its first in six years. The Trump administration has called for more US tech companies to do the same.
Fast Company
18 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Samsung is now tracking employee office attendance
Samsung is one of many companies that have been pushing for employees to return to the office fulltime. However, now the brand is taking RTO efforts in the U.S. one step further with a tool that tracks attendance for a group in its semiconductor business. In an internal email, seen by Business Insider, Samsung informed employees about the new compliance tracking tool. 'This tool will provide each Manager with visibility to the number of days & time in building metrics for each team member,' the email said. It continued, 'This will ensure that team members are fulfilling their expectation regarding in office work – however that is defined with their business leader – as well as guarding against instances of lunch/coffee badging.' In 2023 the brand embraced a global hybrid work model, rolling out 500 new jobs. While the specifics varied, the majority of the postings (58.3%) included the ability to work from home at least part of the work week. The brand also gave employees in the company's corporate offices in South Korea one Friday off a month. However, last April, after posting lower than expected sales, the brand asked its corporate executives to begin working six days a week in order to 'inject a sense of crisis' into its workforce. 'Considering that performance of our major units, including Samsung Electronics Co., fell short of expectations in 2023, we are introducing the six-day work week for executives to inject a sense of crisis and make all-out efforts to overcome this crisis,' a Samsung Group executive told the Korea Economic Daily. This May, Samsung asked employees to begin returning to the office full time. The following month, it updated employees on the RTO initiative. 'We are already experiencing increased foot traffic daily, with more cars in the parking lot and hungry mouths in our cafeterias on Fridays, to name just a few signs,' Samsung said in an email viewed by BI. At the time, Samsung also noted that it was developing a tool to track attendance. Employee tracking might sound offbeat, but workplace surveillance is on the rise. According to a recent ExpressVPN survey, 74% of U.S. employers now use online tracking tools to monitor work activities. That includes real-time screen tracking (59%) and web browsing logs (62%). Likewise, 61% use AI -powered analytics to measure productivity and around 67% collect biometric data to monitor things like behavior and attendance. Still, that doesn't mean it's popular among employees or feels all that ethical. While most companies (three out of four) use biometric surveillance, only 22% of employees know they're being monitored, according to the same report. Likewise, 17% of employees said they'd be 'very likely' to resign over workplace surveillance. Another 32% said they'd strongly consider it. It's unclear how Samsung's new tracking tool will work, how closely employees will be monitored, and how many employees will be impacted. Fast Company reached out to the brand but did not hear back by the time of publication. Samsung told employees they will find out more about the tracking system soon. 'Additional information regarding the new tool will be made available to Managers this month,' the email to employees said.
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Smart Leaders Use Constraints to Drive Strategic Innovation
Recently, reports began circulating that Nvidia was developing a detuned version of its next-generation Blackwell chip for China. The new chip would be slower on paper, lower priced, and engineered to comply with U.S. export limits. This wasn't a retreat—it was a redesign. Rather than waiting for the wall to move, the company chose to build right up to the wall. Nvidia's decision captures something essential about leadership under pressure. When reality draws a hard line, the instinct is to negotiate for more room. Another quarter. Another budget cycle. Another exemption. The alternative is to treat the line itself as part of the brief. Nvidia's response is less about salvaging a market than about reframing the problem: take the rule, freeze it, and optimize around it faster than anyone else can respond. The limit becomes an input. The boundary becomes an edge to cut against. Most organizations don't work this way. Most teams treat constraints as temporary inconveniences. They lobby around them, litigate them, or wait them out. Yet the firms that keep outmaneuvering their peers treat constraint as a forcing function for clarity, speed, and differentiation. Leadership is difficult even in the best of times. And these aren't the best of times. Markets are unsettled, geopolitics shows up inside product roadmaps, and investors ask for discipline and outsized growth at the same time. Teams are stretched. Wanting more room is understandable. The task is to find clarity inside the room that actually exists. The Power of Constraints Psychologists and designers have long understood the power of limits. If you were asked to name as many white objects as you could, many of us would stop after five or six: clouds, snow, paper, teeth... But narrow the frame to white objects in the refrigerator and people's lists grow quickly: milk, eggs, yogurt, cauliflower, sour cream, leftover rice... The boundary doesn't reduce imagination; it directs attention and sharpens perception. Amazon's two‑pizza team rule was introduced as that kind of structural discipline. Teams were capped at the size that could be fed with two pizzas, not as a gimmick but as a principle. It was a deliberate constraint on group size that encouraged accountability, clear ownership, and speed. With a small enough team, there's little room for ambiguity. Decisions are made closer to the work. Apple, often discussed as a company of boundless ambition, operates with an unusual level of internal constraint. Consider the number of SKUs and the narrowness of the design language. With artificial intelligence, privacy is prioritized, on-device processing is preferred, and partnerships are introduced cautiously and selectively. A peculiar paradox now defines strategy work. Many leaders face too much of everything: too many tools, data, priorities, and meetings to align too many stakeholders. In that context, additional resources often slow the system down. The surface area of indecision expands, and momentum leaks away. Seen through that lens, Nvidia's move is instructive. Instead of lamenting what can't be built or sold, the question shifts to what must be built to win inside the boundary. Constraint ceases to be the bottleneck. It becomes the clarifier. Reacting to Constraints Most businesses face three kinds of constraints. There are imposed constraints: regulators, geopolitics, macro shocks, activist boards. Nvidia's China strategy sits here. The boundary is hard, public, and rarely negotiable on the timelines that matter to product and go‑to‑market teams. There are structural constraints: legacy tech stacks, capital availability, brittle supply chains, outdated incentive systems, operating‑model debt, and talent gaps. These constraints are rarely acknowledged because they feel like the water the organization swims in every day. But there are chosen constraints, too: limits leaders set deliberately to produce sharper strategy and faster execution. Amazon's team size rule and Apple's SKU discipline fall into this category. The distinction matters. An imposed constraint demands adaptation. A structural constraint demands redesign. A chosen constraint demands leadership. When it's no longer plausible that more is the answer, it becomes easier to see that less often can be. Operating Inside a Boundary Many companies have intricate criteria for funding projects and almost none for killing them. Under a constraint, the kill criteria are built into the brief from the outset. The team knows what would cause them to stop. That clarity accelerates learning. Of course, constraints amplify accountability only if it's obvious who holds the pen. If a project has five sponsors and ten reviewers, the constraint turns into politics. If it has one owner, it turns into progress. And make no mistake: the narrative matters. There's a psychological cost when constraint is framed as austerity. People feel punished and hide their ambitions. Framed as concentration, the same constraint invites professionalism rather than martyrdom. Trust builds when leaders say no to expansion, but then protect the teams working inside the smaller mandate. Constraints work best when people understand the game they're playing. Telling an organization to do more with less generates anxiety. Explaining where the line sits, why it exists, and how the team intends to win inside it generates focus. Budget becomes a design instrument when it's fixed early and defended. Teams turn time into a forcing function when they announce a release date before work begins. When Netflix decided to start developing its own content, it didn't launch into it with a sprawling studio and Game of Thrones budgets. It began with House of Cards, a show free of expensive CGI dragons. Still, the company had a focused, data‑informed thesis of what would appeal to its audience. Working inside limitations led to sharper choices and a stronger debut. Getting Started with Constraints Leadership under constraint tends to follow a recognizable sequence. The boundary conditions are frozen. The rule, the regulator, the budget, or the headcount is treated as an input rather than a grievance. The design brief then makes explicit what must be true to win inside that line, what has to ship, and what will be deliberately cut. Ownership is concentrated in a small, fast team rather than diluted across a large coalition. Decisions are time‑boxed so that momentum is protected. The constraint is narrated so the organization understands why the wall exists, what it's teaching, and how the team intends to win inside it. One initiative that truly matters can be selected and treated with the same clarity Nvidia is applying to its China strategy. The central constraint can be written in a single sentence—regulation, budget, timeline, talent, compute, attention—and held fixed. That constraint can then be translated into a specification: what has to be true to succeed inside it, and what will be cut. A small team can be appointed, given no more than sixty days, and asked to deliver something concrete rather than something perfect. To be sure, not every constraint produces clarity. Some are arbitrary, performative, or so severe that they starve the work rather than focus it. The task is to decide which boundaries are worth accepting, which must be redesigned, and which should be chosen on purpose—and to move faster once that difference is clear. The Deeper Challenge for Leaders In a zero-interest-rate environment, conversations tended to revolve around removing limits: more funding, more hiring, more time. All of that signaled ambition, yet it often spread attention thinner. But there's another way to view the game. A small, focused mission signals that the work matters and that the organization trusts the team to move with speed and clarity. Constraint, in this reading, isn't a penalty. It's a commitment to coherence. When leaders embrace constraint, they force prioritization. They grant permission to be decisive. They encourage a kind of moral clarity: this is the thing being built, for these people, at this moment. Everything else is noise. That clarity shows up in shorter feedback loops, in smaller teams making bigger calls, and in an organization that tells a consistent story about what matters. So the brief can be frozen. The timebox can be set. The constraint can be named. The final step is to help the team see that the work isn't about operating with less, but about discovering what's essential and executing against it with speed and care. The future won't be won by the company with the most room to run. It will be won by the companies that know how to find the wall and run up against it. To use it not as a limit, but as
