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

The current A-share market is facing two significant underlying logical changes that cannot be ignored: 1. Internal position structural imbalance; 2. Huge changes in the macro environment. The former refers to the fact that as of last year Q4, the positions of general technology institutions had exceeded 50%, and being in a high-position state makes them extremely sensitive to negative news while decreasing sensitivity to positive news; the latter is characterized by high oil prices causing the dollar to strengthen from a weak position, with the oil price center inevitably rising, leading to a contraction in the liquidity environment. Against the backdrop of these two important changes, we believe the most important question after this round of decline is: whether it is more comparable to early 2021 or early 2022.

Looking at historical pricing reviews, March 2021 and February 2022 are the two most controversial benchmark periods currently. Through in-depth reviews and comparisons, we clarify that there are essential differences between the two declines.

1. March 2021: The core essence of the decline was structural adjustment rather than the onset of a systemic decline. Our review found that this decline was triggered by the rapid rise in U.S. Treasury yields after the Spring Festival and the deterioration of the micro trading structure. The core assets of the previously popular “Mao index” experienced indiscriminate corrections, with the Shanghai Composite Index falling by a maximum of 8.1% and the ChiNext Index dropping nearly 21.6%. However, after the decline, the market did not enter a full bear market; instead, a clear mainline switch was completed— the “Ning combination” replaced the “Mao index” as the core of market trading, and the cyclical sectors continued to strengthen under the impetus of economic recovery and industrial upgrades, presenting a distinct “economic cycle rotation” characteristic throughout the year. Institutional holdings also completed a rebalancing from high crowding white horses to higher prosperity and lower crowding in the new energy and semiconductor sectors.

2. February 2022: The core essence of the decline was defensive reduction of positions, not merely a style rebalancing, but rather a comprehensive defensive stage after risk appetite, incremental capital, and profit expectations all weakened simultaneously. Our review shows that this decline was directly triggered by the stagflation expectations brought about by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with the CSI All A falling by 9.46% in January 2022 alone, and mainstream broad-based indices experiencing significant pullbacks across the board. After the decline, the market consistently lacked strong mainlines that had sustained profit-making effects and resonated with industrial trends, with only temporary trading opportunities arising from policy impulses related to steady growth and the digital economy. The overall profit-making effect for institutions disappeared, incremental capital continued to decline, and positions underwent marginal adjustments, resulting in a passive switch from high-valuation growth to low-valuation defensive sectors, ultimately evolving into a stock game.

Based on the in-depth comparison of the above historical scenarios, we conduct two core scenario simulations for the current market: If the subsequent macro environment presents mild inflation and global economic resilience, the current market will be more inclined to resemble March 2021, and the current trend of the Shanghai Composite Index aligns better with that scenario. The core supporting logic lies in observing the current AI technology TMT sector, which has a highly similar industrial pricing logic to the “Ning combination” of 2021. The capital expenditure in the AI field has not shown signs of slowing growth, and the sector’s pricing is transitioning from “capital expenditure-driven valuation” to “supply-demand gap pricing.” Since October 2025, copper and storage chip prices have continued to rise, and recent price increases in cloud computing further validate this trend, with upstream power equipment and storage, as well as downstream PCB and other segments becoming core beneficiaries. This is entirely consistent with the pricing migration logic of the new energy industry chain in 2021 from leading companies to the upstream and downstream supply-demand gap segments. However, if a clear stagflation pattern emerges and the global interest rate cut cycle is paused, the current market will resemble early 2022, at which point the market will need to significantly reduce positions and shift to defense, with only a few defensive varieties providing relative returns.

Currently, if AI technology TMT is compared to the logic support of the “Ning combination” in 2021: In 2021, capital expenditure for new energy vehicles was in the realization stage, with pricing transitioning to the supply-demand gap segments, primarily focusing on upstream supply-demand gaps (lithium mines) and downstream supply-demand gaps (automotive parts).

Currently, if AI technology TMT is compared to the “Ning combination” of 2021: The similarity lies in the fact that there are currently no signs of slowing growth in capital expenditure in the AI field, with pricing transitioning to the supply-demand gap segments, including upstream supply-demand gaps (power equipment and storage) and downstream (PCBs).

Currently, if compared to February 2022 and corresponding to reducing positions, the macro background at that time was: 1. Inflation exceeded expectations. 2. Overseas interest rate hikes. 3. Domestic pandemic + significant decline in real estate prices. From the perspective of holdings, if the current AI technology TMT is likened to the “Mao index”: The similarity lies in the fact that the position level is at a relatively high level.

Source: Lin Rongxiong Strategy Salon

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

        The market carries risks, and investments should be approached with caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investment based on this is at the user's own risk.