Long-term funds entering the market are certainly a necessary condition for a bull market, but this is only a result and a surface phenomenon. The core is whether there are enough high-quality growth assets in the market. Note that it is growth, not cheap assets.

Yushu is about to go public, and there’s also Zhiyuan Robotics, which is borrowing the shell of Weiqi New Materials, plus I’ve learned that many large models (like Zhipu) are also seeking to go public. The market seems to have controversy over this, questioning why humanoid robots or large models are in a hurry to go public without large-scale commercialization. Is it a rush to cash out? I believe that allowing a large number of emerging industries represented by Yushu to go public early is precisely the core foundation of a long-term bull market. It allows more retail investors to share in the fruits of leading growth in emerging sectors.

In the past, we emphasized revenue and profit during IPO reviews under the pretext of 'protecting ordinary investors.' Little did we know that in many niche industries, when 'revenue and profit meet the standards of the association,' it is often close to the ceiling of that industry. Once a company goes public, the best strategy for shareholders becomes to reduce their holdings and cash out. For example, innovative medical devices are a very promising sector in the US stock market, particularly cardiovascular devices, which are the golden sector within medical devices. I remember around 2020 when I was scanning the entire innovative medical device sector, companies like Mindray, BaiRen, and Microelectrophysiology all faced a common issue: their market value at the time of listing had already exhausted all growth potential (because this is how the medical device industry works; the scale of niche sectors is not large, and when companies show impressive profits, they are often at their ceiling). This is a typical example of making money in the primary market and handing it over in the secondary market. In contrast, if we imagine that CATL only went public when its profits reached hundreds of billions for various reasons (analogous to Industrial Fulian and Wens Foodstuff), then perhaps there wouldn't have been the roaring bull market in new energy in previous years.

Additionally, there is a type of 'pseudo-growth' where going public is aimed at expanding production and intensifying competition. In 2021, the entire lithium battery materials market was almost a dam in the primary market, and this time, anti-competition must guide capital direction from the root; otherwise, retail investors in the secondary market will again become the ones taking over the losses. Therefore, when we criticize or even enact various policies to limit major shareholders from reducing their holdings, the root cause is still that companies have exhausted all their options after going through numerous hardships to IPO. Truly growing assets are either still in the queue suffering or have flowed to NASDAQ to go public.

Having finished discussing Yushu, let's talk about the lively AI over the weekend.

OpenAI won the gold medal at the IMO Math Competition, which is remarkable and represents another milestone for AI nearing AGI/ASI. I believe the value of AI lies in its ability to accomplish tasks that humans cannot, not in agents helping people book flights or polish resumes. Recently, Huang Renxun and Wang Jian's discussion also mentioned that all human inventions and creations are extensions of human organs: for example, cars and airplanes are extensions of legs, telephones and mobile phones are extensions of mouths and ears, while AI is an extension of the brain. For instance, coding certainly has a threshold, while vibe coding can achieve equality. When ordinary people can use AI to participate in IMO, coding, generating videos, or conducting in-depth research, that is a sign of AI releasing productivity. Rather than AI helping you book hotels or order takeout (unfortunately, T understands agents this way; I have never liked T's AI strategy, and many say I am not qualified to comment on big companies.

[狗头]Because AI actually finds it very difficult to perform tasks such as resume polishing and hotel booking better than humans (the essence is that most people are unclear about their own needs)[狗头]

And this kind of agent cannot be said to release productivity.

Finally, returning to the trading level, I actually don’t like to chase and roll order data because there are countless examples in the electric era where orders/performance were excellent but stock prices plummeted. Therefore, it’s more important to elevate one’s perspective and clearly see the underlying logic and trends. For me, as long as the long-term narrative logic of AI and robots does not go awry, it is not yet time to switch tracks. Thus, this time, IMO's gold medal actually gives me more confidence than XX has acquired XX's order; investment requires vague correctness rather than precise errors.

Many people like to say 'I have long seen the right side of something' and feel self-satisfied, as if they have a prophetic sense that is far ahead of others. In fact, there’s no need for that; everyone who has been in the stock market for a long time will have times when they 'saw it right but the market was wrong.' I think trading is like species evolution; the key is to respond: when right, can you hold and increase your position, and when wrong, can you defend and decisively reduce your position? We come to the market to make money, not to prove how much of a prophet we are or how foolish others are, and certainly not to argue. In this era of abundant information, seeing and choosing correctly is not difficult, but that is only 10% of the work on the surface. To actually make big money, one must understand the 90% of the content below the surface, which is how you respond to and judge the market.