GuoTou Lin Rongxiong: Will AI in 2026 be like the new energy sector in 2021?

When stock trading, rely on financial analyst reports from Golden Unicorn analysts—authoritative, professional, timely, comprehensive—helping you uncover promising themes and opportunities!

Source of this article: Lin Rongxiong Strategy Talkroom

According to Lin Rongxiong of Guotou Securities, the current A-share pan-technology positioning has already exceeded 50%. AI technology and TMT are highly similar to the 2021 “Ning Portfolio”—capital expenditures have not peaked, and pricing is shifting toward an affirmative supply-demand gap. If the macro environment remains mild, AI in 2026 will replicate the 2021 new energy sector行情, with upstream and downstream supply-demand gap segments being the core beneficiary direction; but if a stagflation pattern becomes established, then there is fear of a repeat of the comprehensive bear market of 2022.

The current A-share market is facing two major underlying logic changes that cannot be ignored: 1) structural imbalance in internal positioning; 2) tremendous changes in the macro environment. The former refers to the fact that as of last year’s Q4, the pan-technology institutions’ positioning already exceeded 50%, meaning that being at a high positioning level makes the market extremely sensitive to negative news while becoming less sensitive to positive catalysts. The latter refers to the high oil price situation in which the U.S. dollar turned stronger from weakness; the oil price mid-point inevitably moves higher, which contracts the liquidity environment. Against the backdrop of both two important changes occurring simultaneously, we believe the most important question after this round of decline is: is it more like the beginning of 2021 or the beginning of 2022?

Based on a historical pricing replay, March 2021 and February 2022 are the two most controversial comparison time periods. Through in-depth replay and comparison, we have made it clear that the two declines have fundamental differences.

1、 March 2021: The core essence of the decline was adjusting the structure rather than the start of a systemic selloff. We found in our replay that this round of decline was triggered by two factors: the rapid rise in U.S. Treasury yields after the Spring Festival and the deterioration of micro market trading structure. The “Mao Index” core assets that had previously been a tight cluster saw indiscriminate pullbacks. During this period, the Shanghai Composite Index saw a maximum drop of 8.1%, while the ChiNext Index fell by nearly 21.6%. But after the decline, the market did not enter a comprehensive bear market—instead, it completed a clear main-line switch. The “Ning Portfolio” replaced the “Mao Index” as the market’s trading core, and cyclical sectors also continued to strengthen under the push of economic recovery and industrial upgrading. Throughout the year, it showed a distinct “rotation driven by the business cycle” pattern; meanwhile, institutions’ holdings also completed a rebalancing from highly crowded blue chips to the new energy and semiconductor tracks with higher business-cycle prospects and lower crowding.

2、 February 2022: The core essence of the decline was de-risking and defensive positioning, not merely a style rebalancing. It was a comprehensive defense stage after risk appetite, incremental capital, and profit expectations all weakened in sync. We saw in our replay that this round of decline was directly triggered by stagflation expectations brought about by the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In January 2022 alone, the one-month Wan得 All A fell by 9.46%, and major broad-based index benchmarks all saw large drawdowns. After the decline, the market consistently lacked a strong main line with sustained money-making effects and resonance with industry trends. Only at certain times there were policy-triggered trading opportunities such as stabilizing growth and digital economy. The overall money-making effect for institutions disappeared, incremental capital kept weakening, and positioning was marginally reduced. The market passively switched from growth stocks with high valuations to defensive sectors with low valuations, and ultimately evolved into a stock-within-stock game in a limited market.

Based on the in-depth comparison of the above historical scenarios, we project the current market under two core scenarios: if, going forward, the macro environment shows mild inflation and global economic resilience, the current market trend will be more inclined to resemble March 2021, and the trajectory of the current Shanghai Composite Index is also more consistent with that scenario. The core support logic is that when we observe today’s AI technology TMT sector, it has a highly similar industrial pricing logic to the 2021 “Ning Portfolio.” In the AI space, there is no sign that capital expenditures will slow down in growth; sector pricing is transitioning from “capital expenditure pulling up valuations” to “supply-demand gap pricing.” Since October 2025, copper and storage chip prices have continued rising, and recently, rising prices in cloud computing further validate this trend. Upstream segments such as power equipment and storage, and downstream segments such as PCBs, have become the core beneficiary directions. This is completely consistent with the 2021 new energy industry chain pricing migration logic from leading players to the upstream and downstream supply-demand gap segments. But if, going forward, a clear stagflation situation emerges and the global interest-rate-cut cycle pauses, then the current market trend will resemble the beginning of 2022. At that time, the market will need to comprehensively reduce positions and shift toward defense, and only a small number of defensive product types will have relatively better returns.”

If today’s AI technology TMT is supported by the logic similar to the 2021 “Ning Portfolio”: in 2021, new energy vehicle capital expenditures were in the execution/realization phase, with pricing transitioning toward the supply-demand gap segments. The core is the upstream supply-demand gap (lithium mines) and the downstream supply-demand gap (automotive parts).

If today’s AI technology TMT is comparable to the 2021 “Ning Portfolio”: the similarity is that in the AI field, there is currently no sign of capital expenditures slowing down. Pricing is transitioning toward the supply-demand gap segments. The upstream supply-demand gap (power equipment and storage) and the downstream (PCB)

If the current situation is compared to February 2022 in terms of reducing positioning, the macro background at that time was: 1) inflation above expectations. 2) overseas interest-rate hikes. 3) domestic COVID-19 plus a sharp decline in real estate prices. If we look from the perspective of holdings: today’s AI technology TMT, if compared to the “Mao Index,” the similarity is that the positioning level is at a relatively high level.

		Sina Statement: This message is a repost from Sina’s partner media. Sina.com publishes this article for the purpose of transmitting more information, and does not mean that Sina agrees with its viewpoints or confirms the statements described. The article content is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors act at their own risk.

For massive information and precise interpretation, it’s all on the Sina Finance App

责任编辑：凌辰