A Century Before Swift and Blockchain, China Built Its Own Cross-Border Financial Network

marsbitXuất bản vào 2026-05-15Cập nhật gần nhất vào 2026-05-15

Tóm tắt

A century before Swift and blockchain, China's cross-border financial miracle: The Qiaopi Network. Driven by the phrase "a promise is greater than life," the Qiaopi (overseas Chinese remittance letter) system was a remarkable, entirely private financial network. Operating for over a hundred years until 1979, it facilitated billions in remittances, at one point constituting over 50% of China's foreign exchange during WWII—all without central banks, official clearing, or government backing. It began with "Shuike" (water guests), couriers who carried cash and letters personally between Southeast Asia and Chinese villages like Chaozhou. Their operation was peer-to-peer, identity-verified through kinship, and had a near-zero default rate, as trust was their sole collateral. This evolved into "Piju" (remittance houses), creating an institutional network. They ingeniously used currencies like the Hong Kong Dollar for settlement and practiced netting clearance, offsetting remittance flows against trade payments to minimize physical cash movement. Its resilience shone in wartime. When Japanese forces cut off main routes, the network forged an underground "Dongxing Remittance Path" through Vietnam. It used coded messages ("a bag of rice" for a sum of silver) to evade interception, reliably delivering funds critical for survival and even clandestine support for the war effort. Unlike Swift (built on state cooperation) or blockchain (relying on cryptography), Qiaopi was founded on cl...

Author: Xiaobing, Deep Tide TechFlow

Recently, I've been swamped by posts about "Letters to A-Ma." With a Douban score of 9.1, it's the highest-rated domestic film of the 21st century, a dark horse at the May Day box office, still gaining momentum even after breaking the 200 million yuan mark.

The film tells the story of a letter delayed by half a century. In the Chaoshan region during the 1940s, a man went to Southeast Asia (Nanyang) to seek a livelihood, leaving behind his young wife and three children. He died in a foreign land, and the daughter of the innkeeper, out of a debt of gratitude, spent 18 years writing letters and sending money to his wife under his name.

The crumpled pieces of paper in the movie are called "Pí" in the Teochew dialect. The letters and money sent home by overseas Chinese together are called "Qiaopi." It sounds rustic, but if you know a bit of financial history, you'll understand:

This thing was one of the most magical cross-border financial networks in human history. It emerged a hundred years before SWIFT and a hundred and fifty years before blockchain. Entirely privately operated, peer-to-peer, without central clearing, and operating across sovereignties, it supported half of China's international balance of payments in modern times.

Its entire credit foundation was based on a Teochew saying: "The letter is bigger than life."

A Forgotten Financial Infrastructure

First, look at a few numbers to understand how remarkable this thing was back in the day.

The origin of Qiaopi can be traced back to the mid-19th century. The earliest surviving physical Qiaopi found so far is from 1881, but its actual operation likely started earlier. It continued functioning until 1979, when this business was fully integrated into the Bank of China system, operating for over a full century.

There are about 170,000 archived items, with Guangdong accounting for 160,000 (over 100,000 from the Chaoshan region) and Fujian around 10,000. And these are just the survivors. At its peak, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into China annually through Qiaopi channels. During the War of Resistance against Japan from 1937–1945, remittances through Qiaopi accounted for over 50% of China's foreign exchange income, holding up half the sky.

Tan Kah Kee alone, relying on Qiaopi to send money home, founded the Jimei Schools in 1913 and Xiamen University in 1921. A complete modern university was funded by one crumpled letter after another.

What's even more astounding was its operating mechanism.

For most of the time before 1979, the operation of this network almost entirely did not rely on any government endorsement, any central bank, or any official clearing system. No SWIFT, no central bank foreign exchange controls, no cross-border interbank accounts—nothing.

What did it rely on? Three things: Shui Ke (water couriers), Pi Ju (Qiaopi agencies), and something called credit—the very thing most lacking and most precious in today's finance industry.

Shui Ke: The Human Version of On-Chain Nodes

In the earliest days, there were no Pi Ju agencies; it was all handled by "Shui Ke."

Shui Ke was a profession, specifically those who traveled back and forth between Nanyang (Southeast Asia) and Chaoshan or Southern Fujian on red-headed ships. They would go to mines, rubber plantations, and docks in Nanyang, visiting fellow villagers door-to-door to collect letters and money, which they then tucked into their belts. The money was literally strapped to their bodies, and upon returning to China, they would deliver it door-to-door to the recipients.

It sounds primitive? But this mechanism had several features that would make modern financial experts exclaim:

First, it was peer-to-peer. No intermediary clearing banks. From the moment the sender handed the money to the Shui Ke until the recipient received it, this money did not pass through any bank account or any sovereign monetary system.

Second, it was identity-verified. The Shui Ke were usually fellow villagers who knew both parties. This was a form of identity authentication more reliable than SSL certificates—you could run, but you couldn't hide your temple. A Shui Ke knew everyone in a Teochew village—how many family members, which alley they lived in, the entire kinship network.

Third, its default rate approached zero.

This point deserves special mention. From the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, Shui Ke had no collateral, no insurance, no legal recourse. They often carried the entire savings of dozens of households from a single village. Converted to today's purchasing power, a single trip could be worth millions of RMB. If a Shui Ke ran away, no one could catch him, let alone make him pay.

But they just didn't run.

Why? Because the essence of this business was credit as the sole collateral. If a Shui Ke ran off just once, all his relationships with fellow villagers on both sides—in Chaoshan and Nanyang—would instantly evaporate. He would be finished in the Chinese community for life. The cost of being permanently ostracized by the entire community was far heavier than any legal punishment.

Pi Ju: From P2P to a Network of Financial Institutions

As the Shui Ke era continued, some people began to professionalize the business, leading to the emergence of Pi Ju—specialized Qiaopi agencies.

The emergence of Pi Ju upgraded Qiaopi from "individual peer-to-peer" to an "institutional network." But unlike modern banks, Pi Ju remained privately owned, family-run, and networked, with one end in Nanyang and the other in the hometowns, woven together by relationships and family credit.

How intricate was its fund flow? Let's break it down:

Step one: Overseas Chinese A walks into a local Pi Ju in Nanyang, hands over 100 Thai baht, and tells the agency to send it to family member B in Chaoshan.

Step two: The Pi Ju immediately issues A a "Pi" (a letter combined with a remittance slip) based on the exchange rate. The amount written on it might be in Hong Kong dollars or silver dollars, but almost never in Thai baht.

Why not Thai baht? This is one of the smartest aspects of Qiaopi. Early transnational Pi Ju agencies long used Hong Kong dollars as the settlement currency, because the Hong Kong dollar was pegged to the British pound, had good liquidity, and was recognized throughout Southeast Asia. This was equivalent to the modern East Asian Chinese community spontaneously choosing a supra-sovereign settlement currency.

It sounds somewhat like the logic behind the demand for USDT/USDC in today's crypto circles—cross-border, avoiding exchange controls, deep liquidity, and recognized by all participants.

Step three: The Nanyang branch of the Pi Ju sends the letter and remittance instructions back to the corresponding Pi Ju in Chaoshan by ship, but the money doesn't necessarily physically travel back.

This is key. A mature Pi Ju would establish long-term relationships with import-export merchants in Nanyang. The money sent by Nanyang Chinese to their hometowns (Nanyang → Chaoshan direction) could be directly used to pay for goods imported from China (Chaoshan → Nanyang direction). The cash flows in the two directions offset each other, meaning only a small portion of the net difference might need to be transported across borders.

This mechanism has a trendy name today: "netting." The SWIFT system handles trillions of dollars in transactions daily, essentially doing this. The Pi Ju were doing it 100 years ago.

Step four: Upon receiving the instructions, the Chaoshan Pi Ju dispatches "Pi Jiao" (couriers) to make door-to-door deliveries. Pi Jiao often walked dozens of kilometers, visiting each household, reading and writing replies for illiterate wives and mothers-in-law, confirming receipt. Then this "return Pi" would travel back along the same route to Nanyang, completing the entire transaction loop.

The entire process involved no bank accounts, no government regulation, and no central clearing system, yet it ran steadily for a century.

Secret Pi and the Dongxing Remittance Route

The most fantastical stories of Qiaopi occurred during the war years.

In 1939, the Japanese invaders occupied Shantou, completely severing the normal Pi Ju remittance routes. Half a million families in the hometowns faced the imminent cutoff of their livelihood.

At this point, the overseas Chinese did something that would go down in history: they carved out a new underground remittance route.

Goods were shipped from Nanyang by boat to Haiphong, Vietnam, then entered China via the Dongxing checkpoint on the Sino-Vietnamese border. From there, porters carried them basket by basket into Guangxi, eventually making their way back to the hometowns in Guangdong. This route was called the "Dongxing Remittance Route," and at its peak, annual remittances still reached tens of millions of yuan.

While the sovereign financial system collapsed amidst the flames of war, the private financial network temporarily built an entirely new channel.

Even more extreme were the "secret Pi" (An Pi). To evade interception by Japanese troops and later the Kuomintang, overseas Chinese used coded language in their letters to indicate remittance amounts. "One bag of rice" represented a certain number of silver dollars; "five salted fish" represented a certain amount of Hong Kong dollars. This entire coded system operated in the minds of Shui Ke and Pi Jiao; even if the enemy intercepted the letters, they couldn't decipher them.

During the War of Resistance, Zhou Enlai personally wrote a letter of thanks from Wuhan to Tan Yixi, an overseas Chinese in Cuba, because this Chinese compatriot had hidden donations for the anti-Japanese war within Qiaopi and directly delivered them to the Wuhan office of the Eighth Route Army.

What would this be like in today's terms? It's equivalent to a scenario where the US dollar is sanctioned, SWIFT is cut off, and bank accounts are frozen, yet overseas Chinese, relying on a private consensus network, could still deliver tens of millions of dollars worth of funds annually to designated recipients.

Isn't this "censorship-resistant transactions," "off-ledger accounting systems," or "private stablecoin clearing networks"? But its inventors didn't know these terms. They only knew: Grandma at home is waiting for money, the children need to eat, and the country is at war.

A Financial Miracle We May Never See Again

Qiaopi, blockchain, and SWIFT represent different interpretations of credit.

SWIFT is cooperation based on state credit. It is built upon sovereign currencies, central banks, commercial banks, and regulatory coordination. Its strength relies on the stability of the entire international order. Crypto is the credit of mathematics and code, attempting to replace trust in people and institutions with cryptography and consensus algorithms.

And Qiaopi?

The essence of Qiaopi is the credit of clans, hometowns, human connections, and oaths. It had no mathematics, but it had family genealogies, accents, and hometown dialects. Its core engine was a cultural consensus where defaulting meant "social death."

This is what modern finance needs the most: credit itself as collateral.

All so-called "innovations" in today's finance industry essentially aim to compensate for the disappearance of this very thing: collateral, guarantees, regulation, insurance, legal recourse, credit scores, KYC, AML. We use increasingly complex systems in an attempt to recreate that simple state where "a Shui Ke carries a village's money in his belt and still doesn't run."

The weight of this difficulty can only be truly felt through specific people.

During the Guangxu era, Yang Jie, a Chinese immigrant in Thailand, sent a Qiaopi home containing only 10 characters: "Upon receiving this letter, immediately redeem my daughter and bring her home." Remittances had been interrupted at the time, forcing his wife to sell their daughter. After learning this, his heart was torn with grief. He urgently sent 50,000 yuan home, able to write nothing more than "immediately."

Chen Lianyin, a female street vendor in Singapore, struggling to survive herself, heard her mother had injured her foot. She scrimped and saved to send money home: "Mother, due to constant lack of food, you injured your foot, unable to walk without a cane. Hearing this, I cannot help but weep." She called this a sin against familial duty.

The last Qiaopi the grandmother received in the movie reads: "Although Siam (Thailand) is far, the heart has its abode. Even if separated by distance, take care and be safe—that itself is reunion."

The amounts in Qiaopi were mostly 5 HKD, 10 HKD, 50 HKD—just a little bit sent with each letter, but year after year. Over a century, generations of Chinese, tens of thousands of Pi Ju agencies, hundreds of thousands of Shui Ke and Pi Jiao, delivered these small sums and words of peace across wars, revolutions, turmoil, and famines, right on time to the doorsteps of homes in Chaoshan, Southern Fujian, and Wuyi counties that they might never have the chance to return to in their lifetime.

The engineering difficulty of this feat has yet to be replicated by any modern payment system under equivalent conditions.

And its entire tech stack was simply: a red-headed ship, a Shui Ke with a familiar accent, a faded belt, and the words "The letter is bigger than life."

All the grand narratives in the crypto space over the past decade—decentralized cross-border payments, permissionless financial networks, global clearing bypassing SWIFT, private stablecoins, credit as collateral—have already happened in those long-forgotten villages along China's southern coast, in the hands of those illiterate grandmothers and mothers-in-law, around the waists of those uneducated Shui Ke, for a full hundred years.

This is a story about the most simple yet magnificent essence of the word "credit," one we may never see again.

Dedicated to all those who ever wrote a word, signed a name, entrusted a sum, or received a payment on those yellowed pages.

And to all those still trying to rebuild such networks of credit today.

Câu hỏi Liên quan

QWhat was the '侨批' (Qiaopi) system and how did it function as a cross-border financial network?

AThe '侨批' (Qiaopi) system was a private, cross-border financial and communication network operated by Chinese diasporas, primarily from Chaozhou and Fujian, to send letters and remittances back to their families in China from Southeast Asia ('Nanyang'). It functioned for over a century, from the mid-19th century until 1979, without relying on government backing, central banks, or official clearing systems. It operated through 'water travelers' (水客) and specialized private agencies (批局), using social credit, clan relationships, and a cultural consensus where default was akin to social death.

QHow did the 'water traveler' (水客) system demonstrate characteristics of a decentralized network?

AThe 'water traveler' system demonstrated decentralized, peer-to-peer characteristics. It had no central clearinghouse; money passed directly from the sender to the traveler and then to the recipient. Identity verification was based on personal acquaintance and shared village ties, which was more reliable than formal certificates. Remarkably, the default rate was near zero because a traveler's entire livelihood depended on their reputation within the close-knit community—a breach of trust meant permanent social and economic exile, a penalty far heavier than any legal consequence.

QWhat sophisticated financial mechanisms did the specialized agencies (批局) develop, and what modern concepts did they anticipate?

AThe specialized agencies (批局) developed sophisticated mechanisms. They often used the Hong Kong dollar as a de facto settlement currency across borders, anticipating the need for a stable, widely accepted medium like modern stablecoins (USDT/USDC). Crucially, they practiced netting settlement (净额清算), where remittance funds from Southeast Asia to China were offset against payments for goods imported from China to Southeast Asia, minimizing the physical cross-border movement of cash. This is a core function of modern systems like SWIFT.

QHow did the Qiaopi network adapt and prove its resilience during times of war and disruption?

ADuring wars, such as the Japanese invasion which cut off normal routes, the Qiaopi network demonstrated incredible resilience by creating new, underground channels. The most famous was the 'Dongxing Remittance Route' (东兴汇路), which redirected funds through Vietnam and into China via porters. Agents also used coded messages ('暗批'), where phrases like 'a bag of rice' represented specific amounts of money, to evade interception. This allowed millions in remittance equivalents to continue flowing to families and even direct donations to support抗日 efforts, functioning as an anti-censorship, off-ledger network long before such terms existed.

QWhat is the core difference between the credit foundation of the Qiaopi system and modern financial systems like SWIFT or blockchain?

AThe core difference lies in the foundation of credit. SWIFT relies on the cooperation of institutional and sovereign credit, backed by central banks, regulations, and the international financial order. Blockchain/crypto relies on cryptographic and algorithmic trust enforced by code and consensus mechanisms. In contrast, the Qiaopi system's credit was rooted in social, familial, and cultural bonds—clan relationships, shared dialect, hometown ties, and an unwritten code where one's word and reputation were the sole collateral. Its operation was based on a cultural consensus where default meant complete social ostracization, a form of 'social collateral' that modern finance tries to replicate with complex systems of laws, insurance, and collateral.

Nội dung Liên quan

AI Trung chuyển gây tranh luận sôi nổi trên Zhihu: Đằng sau Token rẻ, người dùng thực sự lo lắng điều gì?

Một cuộc thảo luận trên Zhihu về "trạm trung chuyển AI" đã đưa chủ đề "Token giá rẻ" ra trước đông đảo người dùng, vượt khỏi phạm vi nhà phát triển. Cuộc thảo luận tập trung vào những lo ngại thực tế hơn là việc phán xét tính hợp pháp. Người dùng quan tâm hàng đầu tới tính xác thực của mô hình: liệu tên mô hình họ gọi có thực sự là mô hình đó hay đã bị "đánh tráo" thành phiên bản rẻ hơn, do nguồn cung token giá rẻ thường không minh bạch. Điều này tạo ra giao dịch thiếu cân bằng thông tin. Về chi phí, giá rẻ của trạm trung chuyển thường được so sánh với API chính thức tính theo lượng dùng, nhưng có thể không rẻ hơn gói đăng ký chính thức, mô hình trong nước hay hạn mức miễn phí. Người dùng cần xác định nhu cầu thực tế của mình trước. Nguồn gốc token giá rẻ được chỉ ra có thể từ kênh hợp pháp (mua số lượng lớn, tối ưu định tuyến) đến các kênh xám (chia sẻ tài khoản, lợi dụng chênh lệch giá, thẻ gian lận). Điều này làm tăng chi phí tin cậy, bao gồm rủi ro về tính ổn định dịch vụ và số dư tài khoản. Rủi ro an ninh dữ liệu là mối lo ngại lớn, đặc biệt khi xử lý mã nguồn, tài liệu kinh doanh hay thông tin khách hàng nhạy cảm. Trong các kịch bản Agent, rủi ro có thể leo thang từ "câu trả lời sai" sang "thực thi sai lệnh". Cuộc thảo luận đi đến đồng thuận chung: có thể sử dụng trạm trung chuyển cho các nhiệm vụ ít nhạy cảm, thay thế được, nhưng không nên coi đó là lựa chọn mặc định. Các khuyến nghị bao gồm: không nạp số tiền lớn, không ràng buộc toàn bộ quy trình làm việc, giữ đường dự phòng, kiểm tra chất lượng mô hình định kỳ và tuyệt đối không kết nối vào môi trường sản xuất của doanh nghiệp. Bài học cốt lõi là chi phí thực sự của việc sử dụng AI không chỉ nằm ở giá token, mà còn ở sự tin cậy, an toàn dữ liệu và trách nhiệm giải trình.

marsbit50 phút trước

AI Trung chuyển gây tranh luận sôi nổi trên Zhihu: Đằng sau Token rẻ, người dùng thực sự lo lắng điều gì?

marsbit50 phút trước

Hiệp hội Blockchain Thúc giục Thượng viện Thông qua Đạo luật CLARITY với Lá thư được Hỗ trợ bởi 160 Cựu Quan chức

Hiệp hội Blockchain, một trong những nhóm vận động hàng đầu ngành, đã gửi thư tới lãnh đạo Thượng viện Mỹ, thúc giục thông qua Đạo luật CLARITY. Thư có chữ ký của 160 cựu chuyên gia an ninh, tình báo và thực thi pháp luật. Các bên ký tên cho rằng thiếu khuôn khổ pháp lý rõ ràng sẽ đẩy hoạt động tiền mã hóa ra nước ngoài, gây khó khăn cho việc điều tra tội phạm tài chính. Đạo luật CLARITY nhằm tăng cường năng lực thực thi pháp luật và ngăn ngừa tội phạm tài chính trong lĩnh vực tài sản số. Các biện pháp chính bao gồm: củng cố nghĩa vụ chống tài chính bất hợp pháp (mở rộng yêu cầu theo Đạo luật Bảo mật Ngân hàng và luật trừng phạt), tăng cường chia sẻ thông tin giữa Bộ Tài chính, Bộ Tư pháp, FBI, DEA và khu vực tư nhân, cũng như tăng cường bảo vệ cho các máy giao dịch tài sản số (kiosk) thông qua giám sát giao dịch, báo cáo, hạn mức và các quy định chống gian lận. Hiệp hội nhấn mạnh đây là các biện pháp tăng cường thực thi, không phải bãi bỏ quy định. Một cuộc họp thị trấn trực tuyến sẽ được tổ chức để thảo luận về lợi ích của dự luật đối với thực thi pháp luật và an ninh quốc gia. Dự luật đã được Ủy ban Nông nghiệp Thượng viện thông qua một phần vào tháng 1 và dự kiến được đưa ra biểu quyết toàn thể tại Thượng viện vào mùa hè này. Tuy nhiên, nếu thông qua, nó vẫn cần được Hạ viện phê chuẩn, và có thể cần phải điều chỉnh để phù hợp với phiên bản đã được Hạ viện thông qua vào mùa thu năm ngoái.

bitcoinist1 giờ trước

Hiệp hội Blockchain Thúc giục Thượng viện Thông qua Đạo luật CLARITY với Lá thư được Hỗ trợ bởi 160 Cựu Quan chức

bitcoinist1 giờ trước

ByteDance Dùng CPU Arm, Ông Hoàng Nhân Huân: Đáng Tiếc Không Mua Được Arm

Bài báo đưa tin từ sự kiện Computex 2026, nơi CEO của Arm, Rene Haas, thông báo rằng ByteDance (TikTok) và Oracle đã áp dụng chip CPU dành cho trung tâm dữ liệu do Arm tự nghiên cứu, tên là Arm AGI. Arm đã tăng gấp đôi kỳ vọng về nhu cầu đối với CPU này, dự kiến đạt doanh thu 20 tỷ USD vào các năm tài chính 2027-2028 và 150 tỷ USD hàng năm trong khoảng 5 năm. Haas cũng chia sẻ quan điểm rằng việc Mỹ ngăn cản xuất khẩu CPU AI sang Trung Quốc là gần như không thể. Trong một cuộc đối thoại thú vị, CEO NVIDIA, Jensen Huang, đã tham gia và bày tỏ sự tiếc nuối khi NVIDIA không thể mua lại Arm trước đây. Ông cũng giải thích lý do đằng sau việc NVIDIA phát triển siêu chip RTX Spark dựa trên kiến trúc Arm, nhấn mạnh nhu cầu về CPU mạnh mẽ cho các tác nhân AI (AI agent) chạy cục bộ trên PC. Huang dự đoán ngành công nghiệp máy tính có thể mở rộng gấp mười lần nhờ sự phát triển của các tác nhân AI tự chủ. Bài báo cũng đề cập đến những tiến bộ của Arm trong lĩnh vực chip PC và CPU cho trung tâm dữ liệu. Nhiều đối tác lớn như OpenAI, Meta, Google và Microsoft đang sử dụng hoặc hợp tác với Arm. Haas đã công bố lộ trình phát triển cho các thế hệ CPU Arm AGI tiếp theo, khẳng định cam kết lâu dài trong việc tự sản xuất chip. Kết luận chỉ ra rằng sự bùng nổ của các tác nhân AI đang dịch chuyển sự chú ý trong cuộc đua sức mạnh tính toán sang CPU, thúc đẩy xu hướng tích hợp theo chiều dọc trong ngành công nghiệp bán dẫn, nơi hiệu quả năng lượng trở thành yếu tố cạnh tranh chính.

marsbit2 giờ trước

ByteDance Dùng CPU Arm, Ông Hoàng Nhân Huân: Đáng Tiếc Không Mua Được Arm

marsbit2 giờ trước

Hướng dẫn Q3 của Broadcom thấp hơn kỳ vọng 1,2 tỷ USD, giá cổ phiếu giảm hơn 13% sau giờ giao dịch, câu chuyện AI đang 'hạ nhiệt'?

Tóm tắt báo cáo kết quả kinh doanh Q2/2026 và dự báo Q3 của Broadcom Broadcom đã công bố kết quả kinh doanh quý 2 năm tài chính 2026 với doanh thu 221,9 tỷ USD, tăng 48%, trong đó doanh thu bán dẫn AI đạt 108 tỷ USD, tăng 143%, và đây là quý tăng trưởng thứ 13 liên tiếp cho phân khúc này. Lợi nhuận điều chỉnh EBITDA đạt mức kỷ lục 152 tỷ USD. Tuy nhiên, dự báo của công ty cho quý 3 đã khiến thị trường thất vọng. Mặc dù dự kiến tổng doanh thu đạt 294 tỷ USD (vượt kỳ vọng), doanh thu bán dẫn AI được hướng dẫn chỉ ở mức 160 tỷ USD, thấp hơn khoảng 7% so với kỳ vọng chung của các nhà phân tích (172 tỷ USD). CEO Hock Tan cũng không nâng dự báo doanh thu bán dẫn AI cho cả năm tài chính 2026, vẫn giữ ở mức hơn 1000 tỷ USD. Đặc biệt, ông Tan cho biết tỷ trọng doanh thu từ mạng AI trong doanh thu bán dẫn AI, hiện ở mức gần 40%, dự kiến sẽ trở về mức ~30% trong tương lai. Tuyên bố này có thể tạo ra áp lực định giá lại đối với các công ty con ngành quang học (như Zhongji Innolight, Eoptolink) vốn được định giá cao dựa trên kỳ vọng tăng trưởng liên tục của phân khúc mạng. Phản ứng thị trường rất tiêu cực. Cổ phiếu AVGO của Broadcom lao dốc hơn 13% trong giao dịch ngoài giờ, làm bốc hơi hơn 2700 tỷ USD vốn hóa thị trường. Hiệu ứng lan tỏa khiến cổ phiếu Marvell và một số công ty trong lĩnh vực kết nối AI khác cũng giảm theo. Sự sụt giảm này được cho là do việc chốt lời sau một đợt tăng mạnh trước đó và định giá cao (PE ~90 lần) so với mặt bằng ngành. Dù vậy, lãnh đạo Broadcom vẫn khẳng định nhu cầu chip AI "khó có thể được đáp ứng đầy đủ" và giữ vững tầm nhìn dài hạn. Đợt điều chỉnh này là điểm chuyển giao câu chuyện AI hay chỉ là đợt chốt lời thông thường sẽ cần được theo dõi thông qua các động thái chi tiêu vốn tiếp theo của các nhà cung cấp dịch vụ đám mây quy mô lớn.

marsbit2 giờ trước

Hướng dẫn Q3 của Broadcom thấp hơn kỳ vọng 1,2 tỷ USD, giá cổ phiếu giảm hơn 13% sau giờ giao dịch, câu chuyện AI đang 'hạ nhiệt'?

marsbit2 giờ trước

Giao dịch

Giao ngay
Hợp đồng Tương lai
活动图片