Affected by the traditional consumption off-season and raw material price transmission, China’s deep-processed manganese products came under overall downward pressure this week. Products showed differentiated market performances due to distinct supply-demand fundamentals, with obvious linkage across the industrial chain.

Spot lithium carbonate prices stopped falling and rebounded this week, fluctuating upward. The futures market held up well, with the most-traded September 2026 contract oscillating upward from a price range of 160,300-165,800 yuan/mt at the start of the week to 164,800-175,000 yuan/mt, hitting a mid-week high of 175,000 yuan/mt. The weekly gain was approximately 5.5%, open interest increased significantly, and bullish funds intervened actively. Market transactions showed a pattern of upstream holding prices firm and holding back from selling, while downstream purchased as needed, creating a clear misalignment in price expectations between buyers and sellers. Upstream lithium chemical plants maintained their stance of holding spot orders firm and holding back from selling, with some enterprises keeping their willingness to sell at prices above 170,000 yuan/mt. Downstream material plants held comparatively lower psychological procurement price levels, with most purchasing as needed; their willingness to purchase spot orders weakened as prices rose. Overall, market inquiries were relatively active, but actual transaction volumes remained stable due to the misalignment in price expectations between upstream and downstream. Lithium carbonate production increased this week, mainly due to production lines at spodumene processing facilities that had been under maintenance earlier resuming production successively. The recycling sector and salt lake operations maintained stable production, while lepidolite operations saw minor output fluctuations due to raw material supply issues. From the standpoint of actual transactions and inventory, as prices continued to fluctuate downward, upstream lithium chemical plants were reluctant to sell spot orders; only a few enterprises that had previously hedged at high levels managed to complete small-volume spot transactions with downstream or traders, while most lithium chemical plants still focused on holding prices firm and holding back from selling. However, due to the concentrated delivery of long-term contract orders early in the month, combined with some resumed production lines not yet reaching full capacity, lithium chemical plant inventories experienced slight destocking this week. Downstream material plants saw inventory buildup this week, as early-month long-term contracts and customer-supplied materials arrived successively, along with dip-buying of spot orders. Traders, following downstream purchase-as-needed patterns, exhibited a destocking trend. The price rise this week was mainly driven by the following factors: First, stronger import-side support. According to Chile customs data, Chile's total lithium carbonate exports in May were 19,100 mt, down 35.2% MoM, of which exports to China were 13,600 mt, a sharp decline of 40.8% MoM, marking the first significant pullback in the past six months. Lithium carbonate monthly imports are expected to decrease somewhat in June-July; coupled with continued high production schedules for downstream LFP materials in June, China's destocking speed is expected to accelerate. Second, news-driven disturbances. A fire occurred at the Greenbushes lithium mine's CGP3 plant; although CGP1 and CGP2 operations were unaffected and IGO did not revise its FY2026 production guidance, the extent of the damage to CGP3 and the repair timetable still require attention. A substantial delay in its production ramp-up could impact the pace of future supply growth. Third, the ongoing tug-of-war between longs and shorts persisted, with supply-side factors such as the drop in Chilean exports and Jiangxi mine permit renewals providing support for prices. However, headwinds such as high warrant pressure and expectations of Zimbabwean ore arrivals capped the upside, keeping the tug-of-war between longs and shorts ongoing. Looking ahead, short-term lithium carbonate prices are likely to hold up well.

Raw material side, lithium carbonate prices edged up this week, nickel sulphate prices fluctuated, and cobalt sulphate prices continued to fall.

[SMM Lithium Battery Electrolyte Market Weekly Review: Electrolyte Prices Remain Stable This Week (2026.6.8-6.11)] From June 8 to 11, 2026, electrolyte prices remained stable. Supported by raw material costs and underpinned by downstream demand, electrolyte prices are expected to remain stable in the short term.

Today, the SMM spot price of battery-grade lithium carbonate fluctuated upward compared to the previous trading day. In the futures market, the lithium carbonate 2609 contract opened higher at 168,000 yuan/mt today, quickly surged to 169,500 yuan/mt after opening, then fluctuated and pulled back, moving sideways around the average price line during the morning session. Around midday, it accelerated its decline to an intraday low of 164,800 yuan/mt. It rebounded in the afternoon, fluctuated narrowly around 167,400 yuan/mt in late trading, and ultimately closed up 0.65% at 166,400 yuan/mt, with open interest increasing by 8,762 lots. In the spot market, downstream psychological purchase willingness prices were relatively low, with most participants remaining cautious and on the sidelines. Upstream lithium chemical plants' willingness to sell via spot orders remained above the 170,000 yuan/mt level, maintaining an attitude of holding prices firm and holding back from selling. Overall, market inquiries were relatively active, but due to a mismatch in price expectations between upstream and downstream, actual transaction volumes were relatively limited. On the news front, today IGO Limited announced that a fire broke out at CGP3 at Greenbushes on June 9. The fire has been extinguished, and no casualties were reported. According to IGO, operations at CGP1 and CGP2 were unaffected, and IGO has not revised its FY2026 production guidance. The impact on actual near-term global spodumene supply is expected to be limited. However, the extent of the damage to CGP3, the repair timetable, and the recovery plan should be closely monitored. If this incident materially delays the ramp-up of CGP3, it could affect the pace and marginal volume of Greenbushes' future supply growth. In summary, the short-term lithium carbonate market continues to see a tug-of-war between bulls and bears. Supply-side disruptions, such as a pullback in Chilean exports and Jiangxi mine license renewals, provide price support, while high warrant pressure and expectations of Zimbabwean ore arrivals create overhead resistance. Lithium carbonate prices are expected to maintain a fluctuating trend in the near term, with key areas of future focus remaining the warrant inflection point, progress on Jiangxi mine license renewals, and the pace of Zimbabwean ore arrivals.

Europe's renewable energy market is undergoing structural acceleration in 2026. Utility-scale storage projects are breaking ground at pace, and solar installations continue to expand — but supply chain pressures are intensifying in parallel. Lithium carbonate price swings have yet to fully transmit through to system-level pricing, and the cost mechanisms across the cell and integration layers are still being recalibrated. At the same time, grid connection queues in Europe are lengthening, permitting timelines are growing less predictable, and project delivery schedules are under real strain. How Chinese supply chains respond to Europe's shifting market structure, and how European developers balance cost pressure with project momentum, have become defining questions for the entire value chain. To address these challenges head-on, SMM is hosting the 2026 SMM Germany Solar & Energy Storage Forum on 23 June 2026 in Munich, running alongside Intersolar Europe & ESS Europe. The forum brings together senior industry leaders from GCL, LONGi, Gokin Solar, Farasis Energy, Verkor, Greenvolt Power, AKU-BAT CZ, RES Group, Power Capital Renewable Energy, and more, for a focused dialogue on European ESS project realities, China's PV supply chain dynamics, and the path forward for China-Europe collaboration. Venue: Hotel Novotel München Messe, Munich, Germany Date : 23 June 2026 | 14:00–18:0 Forum details: https://www.metal.com/events/conferences/2026-SMM-Germany-Solar--Energy-Storage-Forum/969 Register for free : https://bd.smm.cn/s/HDq2UoEI For enquiries, please contact: Joanne Xu | +86 150 0197 5312 | joannexu@smm.cn

After several rounds of sharp lithium price volatility, companies across the battery supply chain have become increasingly focused on raw-material risk management. Long-term agreements, spot procurement frameworks, futures and standard options are gradually becoming part of the procurement toolkit. At the same time, a more complex type of structured product has also attracted attention from industry participants: the Accumulator . At first glance, an accumulator contract offers a procurement opportunity at a price below the prevailing market level. In a range-bound or moderately rising market, it can indeed help reduce average procurement costs. However, the discount is not free. By obtaining a more favourable purchase price, the company is effectively selling part of its downside protection to the counterparty: it receives a limited procurement discount in exchange for assuming tail risk if prices fall. This article examines the basic mechanics of accumulators, their potential applications in the battery supply chain, their transmission effects on market prices and inventories, and the key issues companies should consider when using such instruments. 1. What Is an Accumulator? An accumulator is not a single standardized option. It is an over-the-counter structured contract under which the reference price is observed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and procurement volumes accumulate over time. Under a typical structure, a downstream buyer agrees with a bank, trader or financial institution to purchase a specified quantity of raw-material exposure at a fixed price over a defined period. The agreed purchase price is usually below the prevailing spot price at inception, making the structure appear attractive from a pricing perspective. However, the contract normally includes two important features. The first is the knock-out mechanism . If the market price rises to a predetermined level, the contract terminates early. The buyer retains the discounts already obtained but can no longer continue purchasing at the discounted price. The second is the volume-multiplier mechanism . If the market price falls below the agreed strike price, the buyer is required to continue purchasing a larger quantity. A common structure is a doubling of the purchase volume, although other multipliers may also be agreed. This creates a clear asymmetry: Market Scenario Outcome for the Buyer Prices rise moderately but remain below the knock-out level The buyer continues purchasing at a price below spot and benefits from the discount Prices rise rapidly and reach the knock-out level The contract terminates early; previous discounts are retained, but the buyer must return to the spot market for future procurement Prices fall below the strike price The buyer must continue purchasing at the agreed price and at a higher volume, usually double the original quantity Prices continue to fall High-cost purchases accumulate, inventory pressure increases and cash-flow exposure expands; theoretical losses are uncapped The defining feature of the accumulator is therefore not simply price locking. It is the exchange of limited procurement discounts for downside tail-risk exposure. 2. Why Would Downstream Battery Companies Consider This Type of Structure? Several characteristics of the battery supply chain make accumulator structures attractive under certain conditions. First, raw-material prices can be highly volatile. Lithium prices have experienced both rapid increases and prolonged declines. For cathode-material producers and battery-cell manufacturers, changes in lithium carbonate prices can quickly affect product costs and profit margins. Second, there is a clear timing mismatch across the supply chain. Companies often need to secure raw materials in advance, while downstream orders and actual deliveries remain uncertain. When prices rise, buyers worry about insufficient procurement coverage. When prices fall, they worry about having locked in excessive volumes at elevated prices. Third, some downstream companies prefer not to pay the explicit upfront premium associated with standard options. An accumulator embeds knock-out and volume-multiplier provisions, converting part of the visible premium into conditional risk. This can make the initial pricing appear more attractive. However, this does not mean accumulators are suitable for every company. They are more appropriate for companies with stable raw-material demand, strong cash-flow capacity, mature risk-management systems and professional derivatives teams. For companies with volatile demand, limited inventory capacity or significant funding pressure, accumulators can materially amplify operating risk. 3. A Simplified Scenario: How Does an Accumulator Work? Consider a cathode-material producer. At the time of signing, the spot price of lithium carbonate is RMB 100,000 per tonne. The company is concerned about a possible price rebound and wants to lock in part of its future procurement cost. A simplified accumulator structure could be designed as follows: Contract Term Illustrative Setting Spot price at inception RMB 100,000/tonne Accumulator strike price RMB 90,000/tonne Knock-out price RMB 110,000/tonne Base purchase volume 100 tonnes per month Purchase volume if price falls below strike 200 tonnes per month Contract tenor 12 months Scenario 1: Prices Rise Moderately The lithium carbonate price rises from RMB 100,000 to RMB 105,000 per tonne but does not reach the knock-out price of RMB 110,000 per tonne. The company continues purchasing at RMB 90,000 per tonne and gains a procurement advantage of RMB 15,000 per tonne. This is the most favourable environment for an accumulator: prices remain range-bound or rise moderately, allowing the buyer to continue benefiting from discounted procurement. Scenario 2: Prices Rise Rapidly and Trigger the Knock-Out The lithium carbonate price rises to RMB 110,000 per tonne, triggering the knock-out mechanism. The contract terminates early. The company retains the discounts already achieved but must return to the spot market for future purchases, now at a higher price level. This demonstrates that an accumulator provides only limited protection against extreme upside risk. Scenario 3: Prices Fall Below the Strike Price The market price falls to RMB 70,000 per tonne. The company must still purchase at RMB 90,000 per tonne, and the monthly purchase volume doubles from 100 tonnes to 200 tonnes. The monthly cost disadvantage reaches RMB 4 million. If the price falls further to RMB 50,000 per tonne, the monthly cost disadvantage increases to RMB 8 million. If actual production demand is insufficient, the additional volumes cannot be consumed immediately and will become involuntary inventory. The core risk of an accumulator is therefore not price volatility alone. It is that the company is forced to expand its exposure precisely when market prices move against it. Procurement volumes, inventory pressure and cash-flow risk rise at the same time. 4. How Can Accumulators Affect Lithium Market Prices and Inventories? When a market contains a meaningful volume of outstanding accumulator contracts, physical orders alone may no longer fully explain procurement behaviour. Traditional supply-demand analysis usually focuses on mine output, lithium chemical production, cathode-material production schedules and end-use demand. However, financial instruments can influence physical procurement patterns around specific price levels, creating signals that do not fully reflect underlying fundamentals. When accumulator contracts are concentrated around a particular price range, three phenomena may emerge. First, Downstream Procurement May Increase as Prices Fall Falling prices would normally suggest weakening demand. However, if accumulator contracts trigger volume multipliers, downstream companies may be required to increase purchases. Some market participants may interpret this as restocking or demand recovery. In reality, part of the additional procurement may be driven by contractual obligations rather than improved end-use demand. Second, Inventory Composition May Change High-cost inventory accumulated through contractual obligations may not immediately return to the market. However, it can reduce companies’ willingness to make additional discretionary purchases and create destocking pressure when prices recover. Inventory analysis should therefore go beyond total volume. It should also examine how inventory was accumulated and at what cost. Third, Liquidity May Become Distorted Around Key Price Levels If a large number of contracts are concentrated near similar trigger prices, volume multipliers, margin changes and dynamic hedging by counterparties may jointly affect market liquidity. This can create short-term volatility that appears disconnected from the underlying supply-demand balance. It is important to emphasize that the price impact of accumulator structures is not necessarily one-directional. The effect depends on whether contracts are physically settled, how counterparties hedge their positions, whether contract sizes are sufficiently large and whether exposures are clustered around similar price levels. For analysts, periods of significant lithium price volatility require closer attention to procurement behaviour, unusual increases in transaction volumes during price declines and signs of involuntary inventory accumulation. An increase in procurement during a falling market should not automatically be interpreted as a recovery in real demand. 5. Lessons from the 2023–2024 Lithium Price Downturn Lithium carbonate prices declined by more than 80% from their peak during the 2023–2024 downturn. This provides a useful stress-test scenario for evaluating the risks embedded in accumulator structures. If downstream companies had entered large accumulator positions with relatively high strike prices during the elevated-price period, a prolonged decline would have amplified the pressure through volume multipliers, high-cost inventory accumulation and cash-flow requirements. The key lesson is that the knock-out mechanism terminates gains during price increases, while the volume-multiplier mechanism magnifies losses during price declines. This structural asymmetry can become particularly severe in highly volatile commodity markets. A company may have stable physical demand, but stable physical demand does not automatically mean that its financial exposure is safe. Because accumulator contracts are generally customized over-the-counter instruments, public markets rarely provide complete information on individual companies’ positions, strike prices or contract tenors. It is therefore more appropriate to view the 2023–2024 downturn as a risk scenario rather than as confirmation of any specific company’s actual transaction behaviour. 6. How Should Companies Use Accumulator Structures Prudently? Accumulators are most suitable for managing a portion of highly certain procurement demand. They should not replace the overall procurement framework. A more appropriate approach is to integrate accumulators into a layered procurement system rather than use them as the primary tool. Demand Category Characteristics More Suitable Instruments Base demand Supported by confirmed orders and rigid procurement needs Long-term agreements, spot frameworks and futures hedging Flexible demand Order probability is relatively high, but delivery timing may vary Staged spot procurement, futures or standard options Strategic demand The company can tolerate some volume variation and seeks to optimize average procurement cost Small-scale accumulator positions In practical terms, companies should focus on at least four constraints. Link the Structure to Real Procurement Demand The base volume under the accumulator should remain materially below confirmed procurement requirements. Even after the multiplier is triggered, the company should still be able to absorb the resulting volume through actual production. If a company needs 500 tonnes per month, it should not set the base accumulator volume at 500 tonnes. Once doubled, the required purchase volume would materially exceed actual consumption. Link the Structure to Inventory Limits Companies should define inventory limits in advance, including: Maximum inventory volume; Maximum inventory days; Maximum proportion of high-cost inventory; Warehouse capacity; Working-capital requirements. If the additional purchase volume triggered by a price decline would exceed these limits, the company should not expand its accumulator exposure. Conduct Stress Testing Before signing, the company should model scenarios in which prices fall by 20% or 40%, remain below the strike price for six consecutive months, downstream orders fall short of expectations and inventory turnover slows. Only companies that can maintain cash-flow safety under extreme scenarios should consider using accumulator structures. Ensure the Pricing Benchmark Matches the Physical Exposure Battery materials are not fully standardized products. If the specification or delivery location of the company’s physical lithium carbonate procurement differs from the settlement benchmark used in the derivative contract, basis risk may arise and reduce the effectiveness of the hedge. The contract should clearly define: Reference product; Product specification; Delivery location; Settlement benchmark; Price source; Quality differentials. Companies should not focus only on whether the strike price appears attractive. 7. What Problems Cannot Be Solved by Accumulators? Accumulator structures can help reduce a portion of procurement costs, but they cannot eliminate all supply-chain risks. First, they cannot solve physical supply shortages. If the market experiences resource constraints, logistics disruptions or supplier defaults, a cash-settled accumulator cannot provide physical material. Second, they cannot fully protect against extreme price increases. Once the knock-out level is triggered, the company must return to the spot market. Third, they cannot replace inventory discipline. Even a discounted purchase price can become a burden if the company lacks effective inventory management. Fourth, they cannot create real demand. Financial instruments do not generate physical orders. Companies should not expand procurement merely because a discounted purchase opportunity exists. Fifth, they cannot eliminate basis risk. Differences in product specifications, quality, geography and trading terms may still reduce hedging effectiveness. Conclusion Accumulator contracts are not inherently unsuitable, but they must be placed within a strict procurement-management framework. They can serve as a complementary tool alongside spot procurement, long-term agreements, futures and standard options. In range-bound or moderately rising markets, they may help companies optimize average procurement costs. However, the discount comes from risk transfer rather than risk elimination. The buyer receives a limited price advantage while assuming the obligation to expand purchase volumes, increase inventory and absorb greater cash-flow pressure when prices fall. From the perspective of lithium market analysis, accumulators introduce an important additional dimension: An increase in procurement during a falling market does not necessarily indicate real demand recovery. An increase in inventory does not necessarily indicate active restocking. Around key lithium price levels, the impact of financial contracts on physical procurement behaviour deserves close attention. Disclaimer: This article provides an analysis of market mechanisms based on commonly used industry structures and publicly available information. It does not constitute confirmation or implication of any specific company’s actual positions, trading activities or financial condition. Lesley Yang Senior New Energy Analyst, SMM yangle@smm.cn

Raw material side, spot lithium carbonate and nickel sulphate prices fluctuated this week, while cobalt sulphate prices continued to decline.

Spot lithium carbonate prices continued to decline this week. The futures market performed weakly, with the price range of the most-traded LC2609 contract fluctuating downward from 178,000-182,100 yuan/mt at the beginning of the week to 157,600-167,600 yuan/mt, hitting a mid-week low of 157,600 yuan/mt, with a weekly decline of approximately 10.7%. Overall open interest decreased, and market sentiment was bearish. Market transactions exhibited a divergent pattern of "upstream holding prices firm and holding back from selling, downstream dip-buying," while actual transactions maintained a certain level of activity. Upstream lithium chemical plants showed a passive attitude toward spot order shipments, with sentiment to hold prices firm and hold back from selling still prevailing. Only some enterprises that had hedged at higher levels earlier were able to close a small number of spot orders with downstream buyers or traders. On the downstream material plants side, June production schedules stayed high with demand continuing to grow. Supported by rigid demand, some enterprises maintained dip-buying and stockpiling for rigid needs. As prices continued to fall, some enterprises adopted a cautious wait-and-see attitude, with purchase willingness and target prices adjusted downward in tandem. Overall, market inquiries and actual transactions maintained a certain level of activity. Supply side, production increased, and industry chain inventory changes diverged significantly. Lithium carbonate production increased this week, mainly due to the successive production resumptions of spodumene processing lines that had previously undergone maintenance. The recycling segment and salt lake segment maintained stable production, while the lepidolite segment experienced minor production fluctuations due to raw material supply issues. In terms of inventory changes: upstream lithium chemical plants saw slight destocking this week as long-term contract orders were delivered in a concentrated manner at the beginning of the month, coupled with some resumed production lines not yet operating at full capacity; downstream material plants saw inventory buildup as long-term contracts and customer-supplied materials arrived successively at the beginning of the month, combined with dip-buying spot orders; traders saw destocking as downstream buyers purchased as needed. Looking ahead, spot lithium carbonate prices are expected to maintain an in the doldrums pattern in the short term, but downside room is limited. Supply side, the pace of Zimbabwean lithium ore arrivals at ports and the progress of production resumptions at Jiangxi mines are key variables going forward. Demand side, downstream production schedules in June stay high, and rigid demand support persists. Short-term lithium prices are expected to maintain a fluctuating trend. It is recommended to closely monitor warrant inflection points, the pace of Zimbabwean lithium ore arrivals at ports, and the actual fulfillment of downstream production schedules.

[SMM Lithium Battery Electrolyte Market Weekly Review: Electrolyte Prices Remained Stable This Week (2026.6.1-6.4)] From June 1 to June 4, 2026, electrolyte prices remained stable. Against the backdrop of poor cost pass-through in the earlier period, even though upstream raw material costs edged down, electrolyte prices are expected to remain stable in the short term.