Recently, news about "orders" has become a significant factor in causing stock price volatility. The mix of true and false information within these reports poses a substantial risk to normal investor trading and market order. This year, regulatory authorities have intensified their crackdown on the fabrication of rumors and the dissemination of misleading statements. However, in the current environment, determining the appropriate boundaries for disclosing partnership or order information remains a new challenge.
On May 9, the Beijing Securities Regulatory Bureau issued an administrative penalty decision. It penalized two individuals for fabricating and spreading false information, including claims that "relevant parties had substantially increased chip orders from a certain listed company." Their combined profit from this activity was 293.53 yuan, and they were fined a total of 450,000 yuan.
A review of related information indicates that this penalty is connected to a market rumor from last year about "Alibaba purchasing 150,000 GPUs from Cambricon Technologies Corporation Limited." In late August last year, several rumors about Alibaba increasing its GPU orders from Cambricon to 150,000 units attracted market attention. However, on September 1, Alibaba clarified the situation, stating that "while Alibaba Cloud does support a multi-chip strategy within its cloud ecosystem to bolster the domestic supply chain, the rumor about Alibaba purchasing 150,000 GPUs from Cambricon is untrue."
Recently, news concerning "orders" has emerged as a prominent factor in unsettling stock prices. The intermingling of factual and fabricated reports within this category significantly harms standard investor transactions and market stability. Regulatory bodies have been strengthening enforcement actions against the creation of false narratives and deceptive claims this year. Nonetheless, defining the limits for disclosing collaborative or procurement details in today's climate presents a fresh difficulty.
A 1500-Fold Fine Judging solely by the profit gained versus the penalty imposed, the fine levied by the Beijing Securities Regulatory Bureau represents a multiplier of approximately 1500, demonstrating a clear deterrent effect.
According to the penalty decision, at 22:11 on August 29, 2025, Feng Pengpeng published Article 1 on a WeChat public account. This article contained false information, including claims that relevant parties had significantly increased chip orders from a specific listed company. This information was subsequently disseminated and spread across internet platforms. Feng Pengpeng profited 119.83 yuan from this activity. After the relevant party requested the deletion of Article 1 on August 31, 2025, Feng Pengpeng removed the published article. On September 1, 2025, the relevant party issued a clarification statement.
Ban Keke rewrote Article 1, which was obtained from an internet platform, to create Article 2. This new article also contained false information about relevant parties substantially increasing chip orders from a listed company. At 18:24 on August 30, 2025, Ban Keke published Article 2 on a WeChat public account. Through exaggerated descriptions, this information became more misleading and was propagated across internet platforms. Ban Keke profited 173.70 yuan from this behavior. Following a request from the relevant party to delete Article 2 on August 31, 2025, Ban Keke removed the published article.
During the hearing and in statements of defense, Ban Keke argued: First, the content in question was adapted from Article 1 and generated by an AI tool. They claimed to have failed in their duty to conduct a prudent verification and lacked any malicious intent to deliberately mislead the market. Second, they pointed to their proactive remedial measures, efforts to mitigate harmful consequences, and sincere cooperation with the investigation. They contended that the penalty amount was disproportionate to their profit, degree of fault, and family financial situation. Based on these points, Ban Keke requested a reduced penalty.
However, the Beijing Bureau maintained that by rewriting Article 1 into Article 2 and adding exaggerated descriptions that made it more misleading, Ban Keke, as an influencer operating a self-media account, should have been aware that such actions could disrupt the securities market. "This Bureau has comprehensively considered the facts, nature, circumstances, and societal harm of the parties' illegal acts, and the penalty is appropriate," stated the Beijing Bureau.
The Beijing Bureau imposed administrative penalties on the two individuals. Feng Pengpeng was ordered to disgorge illegal gains of 119.83 yuan and fined 200,000 yuan. Ban Keke was ordered to disgorge illegal gains of 173.70 yuan and fined 250,000 yuan. Their combined profit was less than 300 yuan, while the total fines amounted to 450,000 yuan.
"Order" Rumors Disrupt the Market Amid active stock market trading and the dominance of tech-related narratives in the A-share market, news about orders and potential orders involving prominent tech companies has increasingly become a notable factor in stock price fluctuations. Companies like Cambricon Technologies Corporation Limited, CATL, and even NVIDIA and Tesla have become frequent subjects of various rumors and speculative reports.
For instance, there was the news about a "120-billion-yuan major order from CATL" for Ronbay Technology. On the evening of January 13 this year, Ronbay Technology released an "Announcement on Signing a Significant Routine Business Contract with CATL." It stated, "Starting from the first quarter of 2026 through 2031, Ronbay Technology is expected to supply CATL with a total of 3.05 million tons of lithium iron phosphate cathode materials for the domestic market, with a total sales agreement value exceeding 120 billion yuan."
Another example is the rumor about Laplace "winning the bid for Tesla's Phase II photovoltaic project, with an order scale nearing 10 billion yuan." On the morning of April 1 this year, market rumors began circulating about this news, causing Laplace's stock price to instantly hit the 20% daily limit-up. By noon that day, it was verified that the aforementioned news was a rumor. The company also issued an announcement at midday stating, "As of the date of this announcement, the company has not obtained any related orders." When trading resumed in the afternoon, Laplace's stock price plummeted, with gains narrowing instantly to below 8%. The price later fluctuated and recovered, ultimately closing up 11.72% for the day, with a single-day amplitude exceeding 15%.
Analyzing the Laplace case, Huang Jiangdong, Director of the Financial Securities Compliance Business Committee and Legal Research Center at Grandall, and Partner at Grandall Shanghai, opined that if relevant entities intentionally fabricate facts about a "10-billion-yuan order" and publicly disseminate them, or knowingly spread unverified information to mislead investors despite being aware of its inaccuracy, this clearly constitutes the illegal act of fabricating and disseminating false information under the Securities Law. Such behavior does not necessarily require "profit-seeking" as a condition; as long as the information is false, its dissemination is public, and it disrupts the market, it can be deemed illegal.
Unlike directly fabricating false information, the approach of listed companies "neither confirming nor denying" information in their disclosures is posing new challenges for information disclosure regulation at this stage.
Currently, for many high-profile tech companies, even without concrete order news, mere information about being an "ecosystem partner" or reports of "factory inspections" or "audits" can trigger significant stock price swings.
A senior executive from a listed company mentioned that previously, there were market rumors about a large foreign tech company conducting a factory audit at their firm. In response to investor inquiries, the company provided no response—neither confirming nor denying whether the audit was real. Regarding what the lack of response signifies—whether it implies non-denial or non-confirmation—the company's stance remained one of no comment. When asked about better balancing trade secrets with investors' right to information, the executive acknowledged, "This is indeed an issue."
The ongoing situation with Envicool is similar. Regarding whether the company is an "NVIDIA supplier," Envicool also adopts a stance of neither directly confirming nor denying. It merely cites that the company has no plans to publicly disclose information about cooperation with specific clients, thus leaving the悬念 for the market and allowing investors to speculate for themselves.
Comments