Recently, a company has applied for an IPO on the Beijing Stock Exchange. The company's full name is Hebi Haichang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., with the stock abbreviation Haichang Intelligent (874519.NQ). The sponsor is Sinolink Securities Co., Ltd. (600109.SH), and the designated sponsors are Zhou Liuqiao and Xie Ming.
Public information shows that Haichang Intelligent is primarily engaged in the manufacturing of high-performance wiring harness equipment. Its products serve as core equipment for wiring harness production. Among its downstream customers, the largest client is Tianhai Electronics, a related party that is also currently applying for an IPO. Other major clients include Byd Company Limited (002594.SZ) and Luxshare Precision (002475.SZ), among others.
Incidentally, Haichang Intelligent and Tianhai Electronics share the same roots; both were originally part of the US-listed company Tianhai Electric, which subsequently underwent a privatization and delisting in 2016. Then, in May 2020, Tianhai Electronics spun off its automotive wiring harness production automation equipment business, leading to Haichang Intelligent operating independently. The current situation is that Haichang Intelligent and Tianhai Electronics are jointly sprinting towards IPOs, which, overall, seems quite strategic.
In terms of financial performance, Haichang Intelligent is doing reasonably well, with revenue showing steady growth in recent years and good growth potential. The fly in the ointment is the trend of pressure on its gross margin, which was 38.71%, 34.21%, and 33.36% for the full year 2023, the full year 2024, and the first three quarters of 2025, respectively.
Those are the broad data points. Now, let's delve into some more intriguing details.
As mentioned earlier, although Haichang Intelligent's largest client has consistently been its former parent company, Tianhai Electronics, it also serves Byd Company Limited, which is its second-largest customer after Tianhai Electronics. Regarding the dynamics of serving BYD, it's widely understood what level of intense competition that entails. In its disclosures about this competitive pressure from BYD, Haichang Intelligent demonstrated notable innovation by introducing a new concept in its "Reply to the Review Inquiry Letter": the "strategic low-price client."
Even more interesting is that Haichang Intelligent applied for and was granted an exemption from disclosing all detailed sales information related to these "strategic low-price clients." This persisted even when, in the "Second Round of Review Inquiry Letters," the regulatory authorities explicitly requested the company to "explain the comparison of gross profit margins for the same or similar products sold to Tianhai Electronics versus the strategic low-price clients Byd Company Limited and Jieyi Technology, and to analyze the changes in the actual markup profit rate and its comparison with those for Byd Company Limited and Jieyi Technology."
However, Haichang Intelligent held its ground, refusing to disclose the information on the grounds that it had "applied for an exemption from disclosure." The stance was firm, and their lips were sealed. Ultimately, it appears the Beijing Stock Exchange accepted this position.
This situation raises a question worth pondering: How do the sponsoring representatives from Sinolink Securities, Zhou Liuqiao and Xie Ming, view the rationale behind this "exemption from disclosure"?
In April 2025, the China Securities Regulatory Commission formulated the "Provisions on the Management of Suspension and Exemption of Information Disclosure by Listed Companies" to further strengthen the supervision of such practices and protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors.
The Provisions clarify the scope of exemptions, requiring listed companies to prudently determine matters for suspended or exempted disclosure. Permissible exemptions are divided into two categories: one comprises state secrets or other information whose disclosure might violate national confidentiality regulations or requirements, collectively referred to as state secrets; the other comprises trade secrets or confidential business information, collectively referred to as trade secrets.
Specifically regarding trade secrets, the Provisions list scenarios allowing for exemption, which include three items: 1. Risk of Unfair Competition: The information constitutes core technical information, etc., and its disclosure might lead to unfair competition. 2. Harm to Company or Others' Interests: The information pertains to the company's own operational details, or the operational details of clients, suppliers, or other third parties, and its disclosure might infringe upon trade secrets or seriously harm the interests of the company or others. 3. Other Serious Detrimental Consequences: Disclosure might lead to other situations that seriously harm the interests of the company or others.
As for which of the above three clauses is triggered by Haichang Intelligent's classification of Byd Company Limited as a "strategic low-price client," the public information disclosures do not mention it, and it would be inappropriate to speculate. One also wonders how the sponsoring representatives from Sinolink Securities, Zhou Liuqiao and Xie Ming, interpret this situation.
