[SMM Tin Midday Commentary: Initial Signs of Geopolitical Peace Emerge, SHFE Tin Prices Rebound Amid Improved Market Sentiment]

[SMM Silicon-Based PV Morning Briefing] Silicon metal: The silicon metal market remained in a weak stalemate. Yesterday, SMM east China oxygen-blown #553 silicon was at 9,100-9,200 yuan/mt, down 50 yuan/mt from the previous day. Weaker expectations for production cuts on the supply side weighed on market sentiment. At the start of the week, futures prices trended weaker, and the center of spot transactions for some cargoes in the market edged lower. Cost support from the raw material side remained firm, and prices may fall back into stalemate. Polysilicon: N-type recharging polysilicon was quoted at 35.5-41.5 yuan/kg. Polysilicon prices have continued to decline recently, mainly affected by market sentiment and inventory exit the market among some leading enterprises. At present, low-priced polysilicon has already fallen below the cost line of some producers, and the sentiment to hold quotes firm has strengthened somewhat. Relevant meetings still need to be monitored going forward.

The global aluminum market is currently characterized by a distinct divergence between overseas and domestic markets. Overseas markets have performed strongly amid supply-side disruptions, while the domestic market has also strengthened due to similar supply disturbances but remained relatively weak compared with the LME. Details on supply, demand, trade and market structure are as follows: I. Overseas Aluminum Market: Prominent Supply Tightness and Sustained Pressure on Inventories The core contradiction in overseas aluminum markets lies in supply contraction and low inventory levels, exacerbated by geopolitical conflicts, further intensifying supply tightness. In terms of LME inventory data, current inventories remain on a continuous downward trend, greatly weakening their supportive role in the market. Historically and recently, LME cancelled warrants peaked at 178,000 tonnes earlier, accounting for 39% of total inventory. As a result, the effectively available LME inventory has dropped to its lowest level since May 2025, further highlighting tight overseas supply. Supply contraction has widened the market deficit, with production cuts at two key projects—EGA and Alba—having a particularly significant impact.On March 28, EGA’s Al Taweelah smelter in the UAE and Alba’s plant in Bahrain were attacked, causing equipment damage and sharply raising risks of capacity disruptions. This came on top of earlier disruptions: March 15: Alba reduced output at three production lines due to shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz; March 12: Qatar’s Qatalum smelter suspended 40% of capacity due to natural gas supply cuts. Overseas primary aluminum supply deficits are expected to continue widening. Meanwhile, high energy costs in Europe have also reduced local semi-fabricated aluminum output, further tightening supply. Supply tightness has directly driven a sharp rise in overseas spot premiums. Amid supply concerns from escalating Middle East geopolitical conflicts, the Q2 MJP premium rose by approximately USD 156.5/t to USD 351.5/t. Specifically, major regional premiums rose markedly at end-March: CIF South Korea: from USD 168/t (early March) to USD 292/t; CIF Thailand: from USD 183/t to USD 317/t; European Duty Unpaid: from USD 345/t to USD 400/t; US Midwest DDP: from 103.75 cents/lb to 105.5 cents/lb. This fully reflects that expectations of tight primary aluminum supply have enabled sellers to push up quotations. Downstream demand and purchasing patterns vary significantly across regions: South Korea: Phase-wise restocking completed; weak downstream restocking sentiment, limited demand support. Southeast Asia: Dominated by term contract execution with limited spot restocking; insufficient incremental buying momentum. Europe: Rising supply shortage concerns amid production cuts in Qatar and Bahrain; downstream restocking underway, relatively strong demand. United States: Low inventories entering a restocking cycle, providing moderate market support. II. Domestic Aluminum Market: High Inventory Pressure, Weak and Constrained Demand In contrast to strong overseas markets, the domestic aluminum market has strengthened amid supply disruptions but underperformed relative to the LME, characterized by high inventories and constrained demand. High domestic aluminum prices have continued to suppress downstream purchasing. Current buying is mainly order-based rigid demand, with low willingness for active restocking, providing limited upward support. Domestic inventory pressure has not eased effectively: primary aluminum inventories remain elevated, and inventory destocking has progressed slower than expected, likely prolonging the digestion period.High inventories and high prices form dual constraints. Although the domestic market has upward momentum, it is weaker than overseas. Domestic spot premiums are expected to remain under pressure and further widen in the short term.

I. Review of SHFE Aluminum Price Trends in Q1 2026 (by Stage) January: The market’s core trading logic deviated from fundamentals and centered on macro expectations for US Fed interest rate cuts Fundamentals: Chinese New Year off-season + demand vacuum + inventory buildup Aluminum prices continued to climb and hit a record high for the period, while downstream profit margins came under pressure, leading to weaker demand for primary aluminum. Repeated environmental protection-driven production restrictions in some regions constrained demand for raw materials. Aluminum social inventory continued to accumulate. As of end-January, SMM aluminum ingot social inventory rose to 782,000 mt, a high for the same period in the past three years. Macro front: In January, the US Fed was in an interest rate cut cycle, and the US dollar weakened significantly. Large amounts of capital flowed into the commodities futures market, driving broad commodity prices higher; together with favorable support from China’s consumption stimulus policies, this jointly supported aluminum prices. February: The market’s core trading logic deviated from fundamentals and centered on macro expectations for the US Fed to keep interest rates unchanged Fundamentals: Aluminum prices were generally in the doldrums. Affected by the Chinese New Year holiday, procurement demand from China’s downstream processing enterprises dropped sharply, aluminum plants showed stronger willingness to cast ingots, and aluminum social inventory continued to accumulate. After the Chinese New Year holiday, SMM aluminum ingot social inventory rose to 1.108 million mt. Elevated inventory levels struggled to provide effective upward support for aluminum prices. Macro front: Cooling expectations for US Fed interest rate cuts pushed the US dollar index higher, and profit-taking outflows triggered a pullback in aluminum prices, further reinforcing their weak and rangebound trend. March: The market’s core trading logic repeatedly switched between supply-side disruptions in the Middle East and demand-side suppression. The tug-of-war between longs and shorts intensified, dominating aluminum prices in a volatile pattern of “surge - correction - rebound.” Supply side: I. Production cut events occurred frequently on the overseas supply side, and disruptions continued to intensify. Mozal entered maintenance status. Qatar Aluminium Smelter announced its decision to stop further production cuts and maintain a 60% operating rate. Aluminium Bahrain initiated shutdowns of Production Lines 1, 2, and 3 under controlled and safe conditions, and the market later heard that Line 4 might also face production cuts or suspension. EGA’s aluminum plant facilities suffered severe damage, and the extent of the damage was still under assessment. The market expected it to undergo large-scale production cuts or suspensions. Ongoing concerns over continued tightening on the overseas supply side became the core driver pushing aluminum prices higher in stages. II. As the Middle East conflict continued to escalate, shipping security in the Strait of Hormuz drew widespread market attention, further increasing uncertainty over global aluminum supply and continuously injecting a geopolitical risk premium into aluminum prices, supporting prices fluctuating at highs. Demand Side: 1. From a macro perspective, concerns over stagflation continued to intensify, risk-off market sentiment picked up, dragging aluminum prices into a pullback and limiting upside room. 2. Hidden concerns on the demand side outside China became more prominent. Some downstream processing enterprises were constrained by multiple factors, triggering market concerns over weak demand: 1) high aluminum prices significantly suppressed downstream purchase willingness, hindering demand release; 2) shortages of energy resources such as natural gas and oil put some processing enterprises under pressure to reduce or suspend production; 3) costs such as freight rates rose sharply, and together with higher smelting costs, further squeezed the profit margins of downstream enterprises, indirectly suppressing demand release. Source: SMM

In March, China’s composite PMI for aluminum processing registered 65.6%, rebounding strongly above the 50 mark.

In recent years, the most common and straightforward framework for assessing demand across the lithium battery value chain has been to anchor it to EV sales. The logic was simple: the more vehicles sold, the stronger the battery demand; conversely, a slowdown in vehicle sales would imply weaker battery demand. This relationship held true in the early stages of the industry, when EV penetration was rapidly increasing, product structures were relatively simple, and battery demand exhibited a strong linear correlation with vehicle sales. However, this linear relationship is now clearly weakening. Increasing evidence suggests that battery demand is no longer solely determined by vehicle sales , but is increasingly driven by multiple factors, including average battery capacity per vehicle, product mix, commercial vehicle electrification, and export dynamics. 1. The “Vehicle Sales = Battery Demand” Formula Is Breaking Down At its core, vehicle sales represent the number of units sold, while battery demand reflects total energy consumption, i.e., total installed battery capacity. These two metrics only move in tandem when the average battery capacity per vehicle remains stable. Once average battery size increases, or when the sales mix shifts across BEV vs. PHEV, passenger vs. commercial vehicles, the direct linkage between vehicle sales and battery demand begins to decouple. As a result, assessing battery demand today requires answering several additional questions beyond headline vehicle sales: What is the average battery capacity per vehicle? Which vehicle segments are driving incremental growth? Are export flows and regional differences amplifying demand volatility? In other words, the industry is transitioning from a “unit-driven” model to an “energy-driven” model . 2. Rising Battery Capacity per Vehicle: The Primary Driver The most direct reason for the decoupling is the continuous increase in battery capacity per vehicle. This trend is driven by three key factors. First, vehicle upsizing. Both in China and overseas, EV consumption is shifting from basic electrification to enhanced user experience. The rising share of SUVs, pickup trucks, larger sedans, and premium vehicles naturally drives higher battery capacity per vehicle. Larger vehicle size, longer range requirements, and higher performance expectations all translate into higher kWh configurations. Second, the range competition is not over. While the industry has moved beyond the most aggressive phase of “range-at-all-costs,” consumers still place strong emphasis on real-world range, low-temperature performance, highway efficiency, and charging convenience. Even amid intense price competition, automakers are reluctant to reduce battery capacity, as it remains a core determinant of product competitiveness. Third, the growth of premium BEVs and heavy-duty applications. Although EV sales growth is expected to moderate going forward, battery demand is still projected to grow at a faster pace, with increasing battery capacity per vehicle being a key contributor. This reflects a critical shift: vehicles may not be selling faster, but each vehicle is consuming more battery capacity. Therefore, relying solely on slowing vehicle sales growth to infer weaker battery demand may significantly underestimate the offsetting effect from rising battery capacity per vehicle. 3. Product Mix Matters More Than Total Sales Volume Beyond battery capacity, changes in product mix are also reshaping battery demand. For instance, selling one million EVs with a higher BEV share will result in stronger battery demand than the same volume with a higher PHEV share, due to differences in battery size. In other words, shifts between different powertrain technologies directly impact overall battery intensity. Globally, this structural divergence is becoming more pronounced. In Europe, policy adjustments have led to a temporary rebound in PHEVs, which dilutes average battery capacity per vehicle. In contrast, China continues to maintain a high share of BEVs and higher-capacity vehicles, supporting stronger battery demand intensity. Thus, evaluating battery demand today requires understanding not just how many vehicles are sold, but what types of vehicles are driving the growth . 4. Commercial Vehicle Electrification: The Most Undervalued Growth Driver If rising battery capacity per vehicle represents the first layer of demand restructuring, then the electrification of commercial vehicles represents the second—and arguably the most underestimated—layer. Passenger EVs typically carry battery packs in the range of tens of kWh, whereas electric heavy-duty trucks, construction vehicles, and specialty vehicles often require 300–600 kWh or more. This means that a single electric truck can generate battery demand equivalent to multiple passenger EVs . Even with a smaller sales base, incremental penetration in commercial vehicles can significantly amplify overall battery demand. Rising oil prices further accelerate this trend by improving the total cost of ownership (TCO) of electric commercial vehicles, particularly in high-utilization, heavy-load, and fixed-route applications. In such scenarios, electrification becomes economically compelling much faster. As a result, while commercial vehicles are not the largest segment by volume, they are likely to become one of the most powerful “energy leverage” drivers of battery demand in the near term. 5. Exports, Inventory Cycles, and Production Scheduling Are Increasing the Mismatch In addition to end-market dynamics, midstream factors such as exports, inventory cycles, and production scheduling are further widening the gap between vehicle sales and battery demand. On one hand, changes in export policies, overseas customer stocking behavior, and shifts in trade flows can either front-load or delay battery and materials production. On the other hand, inventory cycles are once again becoming a central analytical framework. Automakers and distributors are no longer maintaining stable inventory levels; instead, they dynamically adjust stocking based on sales trends and pricing competition. This means that battery production is increasingly influenced by inventory drawdowns, restocking cycles, and order visibility—rather than simply mirroring real-time vehicle sales. Analyst SMM Lithium Battery Analyst Lesley Yang yangle@smm.cn