China's MIIT Speaks Out: Supply Chain Diversification Is Not "De-CATL-ization"
nashnova research
China's MIIT published a commentary rejecting the 'de-CATLization' narrative, calling automakers' supplier diversification and in-house battery plans normal business conduct; yet CATL's stock has fallen nearly 35% from its all-time high, and whether the official stance can reverse sentiment remains an open question.
What exactly did the MIIT say?
The MIIT's news center published a commentary with one core message: supplier diversification is normal business conduct.
The article stated explicitly that automakers broadening their supplier base should not be read as a deliberate effort to weaken CATL or to drive a wedge between carmakers and battery suppliers.
This means → Beijing is framing the situation as market routine, not an industry crisis — an attempt to cool an overheated narrative.
Where did the 'de-CATLization' talk come from?
Xiaomi, Li Auto, and XPeng all recently moved to expand partnerships with battery suppliers beyond CATL, or disclosed in-house battery development plans.
These announcements clustered in September, and their sheer density let the market assemble a single storyline: top automakers are walking away from CATL.
In plain terms = any one company doing this is normal risk diversification; when a group does it at the same time, investors start questioning CATL's moat.
How far has the stock fallen?
As of September 23, CATL's Shenzhen-listed shares (300750) were down roughly 25% from their mid-August peak.
Measured from the early-May all-time high, the decline was close to 35%; the stock closed down 1.19% on the day.
This reflects a market that has already priced in real concern about CATL's competitive position — this is no longer just speculation.
Can the official statement turn things around?
The MIIT's framing tries to downgrade "de-CATLization" from an industry trend to a routine commercial adjustment.
The real unresolved question: will automakers' moves keep expanding, or is this a one-off supply-chain rebalancing?
This means → official messaging can steady the narrative, but it cannot steady the fundamentals — the next signal will come from actual procurement orders.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。