This article examines the current market dynamics surrounding growth sectors, particularly AI, through the lens of capital cycles and temporal structure.
The recent sharp correction in AI-related growth sectors has raised two primary investor concerns. The first is whether the overarching growth trend has fundamentally reversed, representing a critical judgment on the contest between new and old industries. The second concern relates to the structure of growth itself. This encompasses both the technological structure—the potential shifting dynamics between non-AI and AI, or between soft and hard tech—and the temporal structure, which acknowledges that while the AI megatrend remains intact, strategic timing for entry and exit becomes paramount.
Our perspective remains consistent. Firstly, growth has boundaries, and from the perspective of underlying logic and aggregate indicators, it has not overstepped them, thus negating a discussion on the return of real estate or low-volatility assets. Secondly, the Kondratiev wave cycle, with AI as its primary vehicle, is at a turning point between the end of its fifth wave and the rise of its sixth. While the pace of technological revolution may vary, the trend and structure remain unchanged, with hard technology being a defining characteristic. Technical rebounds in soft tech and non-AI sectors are common market features but are not driven by endogenous industrial growth, thus lacking long-term allocation value. Consequently, this analysis focuses on the temporal structure of growth, a framework determined by the interplay between industrial and financial capital.
Market Overview: Divergence in Risk Assets
Last week, market focus was highly concentrated on the technology and growth sectors. The Hang Seng Tech Index and the STAR 50 led gains, followed by broad US equity indices, crude oil, and agricultural commodities, while industrial minor metals saw moderate increases. Interest rate and credit bonds were relatively stable, with the fixed-income sector overall in a muted, range-bound state.
Weakness was concentrated in A-share broad market indices, the Beijing Stock Exchange, as well as precious metals and ferrous commodities. Existing funds continued to flow into the dominant thematic sectors, putting passive pressure on the valuations of traditional assets. The A-share market exhibited extreme structural divergence, with only a few sectors like computers, media, real estate, and banking attracting capital, while the vast majority of industries weakened across the board. Post-cyclical real estate sectors like building materials, basic chemicals, and machinery equipment, along with traditional manufacturing, led the declines, as capital continued to exit older, cyclical industries. The core of this market movement is the AI industry dividend driving a targeted uplift in risk appetite, with capital shifting from traditional cyclical assets to the new quality productive forces theme. This divergence in strength fundamentally represents the alternating shift in valuation pricing power between new and old industries.
The Temporal Structure of Growth: A Classic Framework
Macro strategists synthesize established logic and apply it to real markets to uncover investment value. For analyzing the temporal structure of growth, the widely recognized framework is from Carlota Perez's 2002 work, "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages." Building on the foundational theories of Schumpeterian innovation cycles and Kondratiev long waves, the book traces five disruptive technological revolutions over two centuries, constructing a four-stage model of capital evolution that combines macro perspective with dynamic logic. This framework accurately addresses the often-overlooked macro-cyclical logic of capital attributes in growth stock valuation and boundary research, providing a clear explanation for the dot-com bubble's formation and burst. Its normative analysis is equally applicable to studying the temporal structure of growth in the AI era.
The dynamic interplay between industrial and financial capital constitutes the core underlying force driving the iteration of each technological revolution. Financial capital acts as the "nomadic force" of capital markets, primarily seeking short-term capital gains. It is highly liquid, profit-seeking, and risk-tolerant, naturally chasing valuation premiums and market dividends brought by emerging technologies. Its operating logic is detached from the operational essence of real industries, excelling at shaping market expectations through technological narratives, inflating asset bubbles, and focusing on valuation games rather than industrial implementation. It shows limited substantive concern for long-term operational efficiency, steady cash flow, or industry sustainability, making it a core driver of market volatility and bubble formation in the early stages of technological change.
Industrial capital, in contrast, is the "agricultural foundation" of the real economy. It is anchored in the long-term development of实体 industries, focusing on steady operations, sustained profitability, long-term dividends, and cash flow accumulation, with a lower risk appetite. Its core logic centers on deep industry cultivation—optimizing production models, reducing operational costs, perfecting supply chains, and enhancing production efficiency to solidify the industrial foundation, earning sustainable profits from实体 operations. It is the core support for technology落地, industry maturation, and stable economic development.
The entire evolution of each disruptive technological revolution is essentially a continuous game and dynamic balancing act between financial and industrial capital concerning technology落地, industrial restructuring, and value re-rating. The ebb and flow of these two types of capital define the bubble prosperity and golden ages of technological cycles and dominate the long-term evolutionary rhythm of capital markets.
Growth's Temporal Structure
The iterative cycle of technology and industry is fundamentally a game, role-switching, and rebalancing between industrial and financial capital. These two capitals have截然不同的 risk preferences and behavioral rhythms, alternately dominating the market to form a complete cycle from technological萌芽 to maturity.
Stage 1: Breakout & Germination – Old Order Loosens, Capital Perception Diverges. A new cycle begins with the marginal decline of traditional industries. Incumbent industrial capital is trapped in path dependency within old sectors, struggling with diminishing returns and stagnant growth, unable to突破 the original industrial system. In contrast, financial capital,敏锐 and flexible,率先 decouples from存量 sectors as old industry红利 dry up. Through venture capital and early speculative positioning, it empowers startups and new technologies that突破 traditional paradigms. At this stage, cracks appear in the old industrial order, and capital率先 completes the differentiation between old and new tracks, accumulating initial capital for new technologies.
Stage 2: Frenzied Expansion – Financial Capital's Solo Dance, Bubbles Empower Infrastructure. New technology enters a peak导入 phase, with financial capital dominating the market and开启 independent行情 detached from industrial fundamentals. By constructing a "this time is different" industry narrative and amplifying变革 expectations, it吸納s全社会 funds into emerging sectors,催生ing market valuation bubbles and investment狂热. From a cyclical perspective, irrational泡沫 is a necessary cost for new technology industrialization. Underlying technology infrastructure requires heavy investment, carries high risk, and has a long cycle. Conservative industrial capital难以 quickly完成全域布局. Only the短期狂热 of financial capital can汇聚 massive funds in an极短 time,铺垫ing the industrial底层基建, essentially trading market泡沫 for industrial development time.
Stage 3: Clearing & Inflection – Bubble Bursts, Painful Order Restructuring. Capital overheating inevitably leads to mean reversion.持续无序投入 leads to severe overcapacity in new technology infrastructure, unmet profit expectations, cash flow imbalances, and a Minsky moment. Financial capital集中抽逃s, liquidity tightens, the valuation system collapses, and大量 concept companies without实质价值 are cleared out. The market彻底告别s narrative-driven pricing,转向ing to fundamental-based valuation. Stakeholders重塑 industry rules,终结ing financial capital's dominance and enduring the cyclical阵痛 of de-leveraging from the虚 to the实.
Stage 4: Maturity & Stability – Industrial Capital Returns, Cycle Completes Its轮回. After the泡沫出清, the previously built comprehensive infrastructure沉淀s into low-cost industrial resources. New technology enters the golden stage of规模化落地. Industrial capital regains dominance, leveraging mature infrastructure to推动 technology全面普及 and落地 into the实体 economy. As technology becomes普惠 and壁垒消解, industry超额收益收敛, and industrial growth陷入稳态停滞. Financial capital, in pursuit of超额收益, departs again to挖掘全新 technological tracks and重构 new industry narratives.
At this point, the two capitals complete a full round of轮动博弈. Technological iteration is never just about technological突破; it's a dynamic rebalancing of capital structure, market expectations, and industrial order. Mastering the规律 of capital cycle轮动 is key to grasping long-term industry trends.
Current Growth Stage: First Phase of the Frenzy
Accurately judging the current stage of growth is crucial for asset allocation. Our conclusions are as follows.
Firstly, the第一阶段 differentiation between new and old tracks is largely complete. Evidence includes the divergence between real estate investment and manufacturing investment, particularly in computer, communication, and other electronic equipment manufacturing. From January to May 2026, national real estate development investment fell 16.2% year-on-year, while investment in computer, communication, and other electronic equipment manufacturing rose 6.7% year-on-year, widening the gap to nearly 23 percentage points. The differentiation trend of leading industries is very clear.
Post-differentiation, the key question for investors regarding the temporal structure is whether the first stage has ended. If so, has it entered the second stage of frenzied expansion or the third stage of clearing and inflection? We use the progress of AI industry capital expenditure (industrial capital) and IPOs (financial capital) to make this judgment.
Secondly, the IPO acts as a转换枢纽. An IPO is the ultimate tool and highlight moment for financial capital, but it also serves as the转换枢纽 for the handover of power from financial to industrial capital. The nature and purpose of IPOs undergo fundamental changes across different stages of the博弈 between the two capitals.
In a complete technology industry cycle, the core attributes of IPOs evolve with the博弈. In the爆发 stage, with old industrial capital stagnant, financial capital开启s venture capital布局, and there are almost no IPOs. Capital隐秘ly incubates新兴 tech firms in天使 and VC forms. The狂热 stage, dominated by financial capital, sees a泡沫期 where technology落地催生s an infrastructure boom. Post-IPO profits, if unsustainable, can lead to harvesting market红利 detached from实体 industrial logic. After the泡沫破裂, the协同阶段 begins, with过剩 asset valuations回归ing and industrial capital重掌ing主导权. IPOs回归 to their本源, becoming bridges for输血ing实体 industries, with listings aimed at low-cost financing, industry整合, and building core壁垒, shifting market investment toward long-term value. In the成熟阶段, as technology红利 are exhausted and markets饱和, industry IPOs基本枯竭.存量的 industrial capital sits idle with declining returns,蜕变为 speculative financial capital again,游离ing the market for the next disruptive technological opportunity.
Thirdly, the剪刀差 between industrial and financial capital is a core gauge. From an industry cycle paradigm, we define market fundraising activities like equity investment and financing, IPOs, private placements, and M&A as financial capital.实体 investments like fixed asset investment in产业链, computing power infrastructure, and production line expansion are defined as产业资本. The divergence剪刀差 between the two is a核心标尺 for研判 the AI industry's growth stage.
Based on aggregated data from public sources, financial capital totaled 159.3 billion yuan in 2023, with industrial capital at 250 billion yuan. In 2024, financial capital was 195.8 billion yuan, and industrial capital was 350 billion yuan. For 2025, the figures were 234.4 billion yuan and 500 billion yuan, respectively. In the first half of 2026, financial capital surged significantly to 399.7 billion yuan, while industrial capital稳步加码ed to 550 billion yuan. Over the past three and a half years,实体投入 by industrial capital has持续大幅领先ed financial capital fundraising规模, with the剪刀差持续走阔,呈现ing the典型特征 of a technology industry导入期 where实体扩产先行s and capital valuation滞后s.
A格局拐点 is悄然显现. Upstream hard tech sectors are集中开启ing IPOs, with a capital化浪潮涌现ing, indicating financial capital is开始加速向实体产业落地. The long-widening资本剪刀差 is迎来ing a收敛 trend. Judging from the周期结构, the current AI industry is in the latter half of the导入期, on the eve of the主升浪. Past industrial capital has持续深耕ed底层 infrastructure like computing power,晶圆, and optical modules, completing供给侧提前布局. Financial capital前期 focused on试探性布局, showing明显预期滞后. Currently, financial capital is加速补位ing, but终端应用盈利 has not yet been完全兑现, leading to错位 between capital运作 and实体盈利. With常态化推进, financial capital will持续反哺实体产能, the剪刀差 will逐步收窄, and once下游需求落地兑现s, the two capitals will form共振,正式迈入ing the high-growth主升阶段.
Fourthly, the current market is in the first phase of the狂热期. The狂热期 is the most迷人,暴利, and longest-lasting phase of the entire technology cycle. Simply labeling it "狂热" is too coarse and can lead investors to exit too early or too late. In practice, it needs further细分 into stages对应ing to the different博弈心态s of financial capital and the逐渐累积 risks for industrial capital.
Based on the preceding analysis, it can be大致判断ed that our current AI market remains in the first stage of the狂热期. The characteristics of this stage are: 1) Policy端加码扶持补贴,快速拉起ing industry热度; consumers are merely观望关注ing, with no大规模实际消费; enterprises侧重勾画行业长远布局, with落地产品尚未成型. 2) On the capital层面, IPOs are primarily试探性布局 by一级风投, showing显现ing热度;企业新增产能资本开支 are倾斜ed toward R&D. 3) Market资金嗅觉敏锐,优先布局ing产业链底层基建 and "selling shovels"环节. Downstream终端格局 is未定,胜负难料, but the entire industry's development requires upstream配套, offering相对更高 certainty. 4) The核心策略 for this stage is重仓布局ing "selling shovels"类标的.尽管估值 has有所抬升, the基本面 logic is扎实, with lower不确定性, making it the周期最优配置方向.