TCL Zhonghuan acquires the IPO project sponsored by Guojin Securities that failed, staging a dramatic turnaround.

MaticHoleFiller · 2026-04-08T18:50:03+00:00

TCL Zhonghuan recently faced short-term decline and long-term industry downturn, and announced losses along with the acquisition of Xineng. Xineng had planned an IPO but was unsuccessful, and its performance subsequently declined significantly. This case has raised questions about the evaluation capabilities of sponsoring institutions and is worth paying attention to.

MaticHoleFiller

2026-04-08 18:50:03

Abstract generation in progress

When it comes to stock trading, just look at the research reports from the Golden Qilin analyst team—authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive. Help you uncover high-potential themes and opportunities!

Source: Fundamental Data Force

After TCL Zhonghuan’s share price reached a phase high in early February, its short-term pullback has been pretty fierce. Looking at a longer cycle, since the solar photovoltaic industry peaked in 2023, after that brutal drop from the second half of 2023 to the first half of 2024, the company has been stuck in a bottoming-range, sideways-to-choppy trend. It’s hardly impressive and certainly not up to the task.

But over the past two weeks, there’s been no shortage of news released by TCL Zhonghuan. First, it reported an annual report with a slight revenue increase but losses of nearly 1.26B yuan. Then it also announced a massive investment of 2.61B yuan in total to acquire a controlling stake in Dao New Energy Technology.

What’s quite interesting is that this Dao New Energy, which TCL Zhonghuan has brought in through its revenue acquisition, actually had previously planned to pursue an independent IPO. In December 2023 and June 2024, it released its prospectus twice (the filing version). At that time, the securities firms’ service team was also quite strong—Gold Fortune Securities (600109.SH) served as the sponsor and lead underwriter, with the sponsor representatives being Meng Jie and Zhao Yimeng. Meanwhile, CITIC Securities (600030.SH) acted as the joint lead underwriter.

Based on the data disclosed at the time, before Dao New Energy’s IPO filing, it had the look of a company poised for performance breakout and planning to go all out. First, it turned profitable successfully in 2022 and achieved nearly 200 million yuan in net profit. In 2023, it further expanded its profitability to 435 million yuan, a year-over-year increase of 126%. Against the backdrop of the overall solar photovoltaic industry enduring tests of fire and blood, before its IPO filing, Dao New Energy used its own numbers to show everyone what “a view that’s just so perfect” really means.

But for this “a view that’s just so perfect,” regulators had doubts, and in January 2024 they issued the company a first-round letter of inquiry.

And the stance of Dao New Energy together with two top-tier securities firms—Gold Fortune Securities and CITIC Securities—is even more intriguing. More than 7 months passed with no response to the regulators’ letter of inquiry, and then in August 2024 it voluntarily withdrew its IPO application.

And judging from the announcement that TCL Zhonghuan released this time, after the IPO failed, Dao New Energy’s performance suffered a cliff-like drop. It recorded a loss of 1.97B yuan in 2024 and a further loss of 1.970 billion yuan in 2025. Even its revenue in 2025 shrank significantly, and by the end of 2025 it was in a state of liabilities exceeding assets.

Seeing these figures, the author couldn’t help but feel a chill in the heart: thankfully, thankfully! Luckily Dao New Energy’s IPO failed back then—otherwise this would have been a classic case of a “bomb” right after listing!

On the other hand, at the time, as service providers for Dao New Energy’s IPO, how did Gold Fortune Securities’ Meng Jie and Zhao Yimeng—serving as sponsor institutions and sponsor representatives—and the underwriting team at CITIC Securities evaluate the sustainability of Dao New Energy’s profitability? After all, in the “Securities Offering Sponsorship Letter” that Dao New Energy issued at the time, Gold Fortune Securities was absolutely certain in describing that “the issuer has good profitability,” and that “the issuer has good debt repayment ability.”

From later facts, the big drama Dao New Energy staged—strong pre-IPO performance followed by a “bomb” once the IPO failed—had neither “good profitability” nor “good debt repayment ability.” With such a stark contrast before and after, did Meng Jie and Zhao Yimeng of Gold Fortune Securities, as well as the service team at CITIC Securities, play any particular professional role?

The author can’t provide an answer to this question, but it’s worth thinking about, worth recording, and worth savoring, isn’t it?

A wealth of information, precise interpretation—on the Sina Finance APP

Responsible editor: Gao Jia

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.