Juli Automation Equipment (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Juli Co") recently responded to an inquiry letter and continues its sprint toward a ChiNext IPO. The company plans to raise approximately 1.01 billion yuan, with Guosen Securities serving as the lead underwriter.

Compared with comparable peer companies, Juli Co's gross margin is abnormally high and significantly exceeds that of its peers. One reason the company gives is technological advancement. Interestingly, however, Juli Co's R&D expense ratio ranks at the bottom among several comparable peer companies and is significantly lower than the peer average. Its proportion of R&D personnel also ranks last. Is the company's claim of technological advancement convincing?

In addition, Juli Co's average salary for R&D personnel is also lower than the peer average. In 2025, its figure was only higher than that of Mingnayang, ranking second from the bottom. Yet Juli Co's average salary per salesperson is not only higher than the peer average but also significantly higher than the average salary of its own R&D personnel.

More intriguingly, in the prospectus application draft, Juli Co disclosed a "comparison of selling expense ratio and administrative expense ratio with peer companies," but did not disclose a "comparison of R&D expense ratio with peer companies." Is this because its R&D expense ratio is abnormally low and ranks at the bottom among comparable peer companies? Moreover, in the inquiry response announcement, Juli Co also did not disclose the fact that its R&D expense ratio ranks last. Did the lead underwriter Guosen Securities fulfill its duties diligently?

Abnormally High Gross Margin Significantly Exceeds Peers

The prospectus shows that Juli Co is mainly engaged in the research and development, design, manufacturing, sales, and service of intelligent equipment. At present, the company mainly serves the fields of intelligent equipment for flat-wire drive motors of new energy vehicles and intelligent equipment for micro special motors. Its main products are intelligent equipment for flat-wire stators of new energy vehicle drive motors and intelligent equipment for micro special motors.

During the reporting period, Juli Co's operating revenue and net profit showed rapid growth. From 2023 to 2025, operating revenue was 267.6113 million yuan, 455.4578 million yuan, and 562.9003 million yuan, respectively, with year-on-year growth rates of 70.19% and 23.59% in 2024 and 2025. Net profit was 51.9388 million yuan, 101.9476 million yuan, and 123.4451 million yuan, respectively, with year-on-year growth rates of 96.28% and 21.09% in 2024 and 2025.

In terms of absolute scale, the company more than doubled its revenue in just three years, while net profit increased by more than one fold.

Gross margin is one of the most noteworthy indicators in Juli Co's financial data. During the reporting period, Juli Co's comprehensive gross margin was 48.03%, 46.77%, and 46.76%, respectively. Although it declined slightly, it remained significantly higher than that of comparable peer companies.

In the prospectus, Juli Co listed five companies—Haosen Intelligent, Mingnayang, Bondi Intelligent, Juyi Technology, and Bozhon Precision—as comparable peers. From 2023 to 2025, the average gross margins of the five companies were 27.98%, 26.04%, and 21.26%, respectively. Juli Co's average gross margin is not only significantly higher than that of comparable peers but also the highest among the six companies.

Source: application materials

From the perspective of major products, Juli Co's core product, intelligent equipment for flat-wire motors, had gross margins of 48.76%, 46.88%, and 45.16% from 2023 to 2025, significantly higher than those of comparable peer companies. The average gross margins of the comparable segments of three companies were 38.68%, 29.09%, and 24.29%, respectively.

Taking 2025 as an example, the gross margin of Haosen Intelligent's intelligent production line for drive motors was only 13.14%, Mingnayang's intelligent motor production equipment and production line gross margin was 34.17%, and Bondi Intelligent's intelligent production equipment for flat-wire motor stators gross margin was 25.55%, while Juli Co's flat-wire motor equipment gross margin was 45.16%, about 21 percentage points higher than the industry average.

Juli Co stated that the main reasons its flat-wire motor equipment gross margin is generally higher than that of comparable peer companies include: in terms of industry position, the company was among the first to provide downstream customers with domestic high-end equipment for flat-wire motors and has a leading industry position and brand advantage; in terms of technological advancement, the company maintains leading levels in key mass-production technical indicators such as production efficiency, yield, and equipment stability; and in terms of short-term pricing strategy, comparable peer companies adopt short-term strategies of acquiring first orders from customers through low prices.

In particular, Juli Co is very confident in its own technological advancement. The company stated that the field of intelligent motor equipment has high industry entry barriers, and the company, through long-term industry accumulation, has formed multidimensional competitiveness with leading advantages in both flat-wire motor equipment and micro special motor equipment. In the field of flat-wire motor equipment, the company has targeted solutions to multiple technical difficulties in the industry. The company's key mass-production technical indicators are at the leading level in the industry, and its products have strong core competitiveness and innovation compared with competitors in terms of completeness of process coverage for flat-wire motor stators, mass-production molding efficiency, compatibility with cutting-edge windings, and delivery of overseas projects. By virtue of its technological advancement, it is reasonable for the company's gross margin to be higher than that of comparable companies.

R&D Expense Ratio at Bottom, Lowest Proportion of R&D Personnel, Average Annual Salary of R&D Personnel Below Peers

Is the claim that Juli Co's gross margin is higher than that of comparable companies due to technological advancement valid? Several sets of data may undermine this argument.

From 2023 to 2025, Juli Co's R&D expenses were 13.8226 million yuan, 18.1023 million yuan, and 27.2548 million yuan, respectively, with corresponding R&D expense ratios of 5.17%, 3.97%, and 4.84%. Wind data shows that the average R&D expense ratios of Juli Co's five comparable peer companies were 8%, 9.1%, and 7.18%, respectively. Juli Co's R&D expense ratio is not only significantly lower than the comparable peer average but is actually the lowest among the six companies. How can such data support its claimed technological advancement?

Juli Co's ratio of R&D personnel to total employees is also the lowest among comparable peer companies, which is another unfavorable proof of its statement on technological advancement. At the end of each year from 2023 to 2025, Juli Co had 57, 66, and 90 R&D personnel, respectively, accounting for 10.65%, 11.52%, and 12.56% of total employees in the corresponding periods, the lowest among several companies that disclosed their R&D personnel proportions.

Source: application materials

Taking 2025 as an example, Mingnayang's R&D personnel proportion reached 18.57%; Bondi Intelligent's was 13.68%; Haosen Intelligent's was 17.58%; Juyi Technology's was as high as 24.92%; and Bozhon Precision's R&D personnel proportion was as high as 25.85%.

In addition, Juli Co's average salary per R&D employee is also lower than that of comparable peer companies. From 2023 to 2025, Juli Co's average salary for R&D personnel was 197,600 yuan per year, 208,000 yuan per year, and 196,000 yuan per year, respectively. In the same period, the industry average salaries of the five comparable companies were 224,600 yuan, 253,200 yuan, and 241,200 yuan, respectively. In 2025, Juli Co's average salary for R&D personnel was only 81.3% of the industry average, higher only than Mingnayang among comparable companies and ranking second from the bottom.

Source: application materials

On the one hand, Juli Co stands out in the industry with a gross margin exceeding 45%, telling a story of technological leadership. On the other hand, the company's R&D expense ratio and R&D personnel proportion are both at the bottom, and the average salary of R&D personnel is below the peer average. The contradiction between the two is obvious.

Interestingly, Juli Co's sales personnel compensation exceeds the average of comparable peer companies. From 2023 to 2025, Juli Co's average sales personnel compensation was 295,900 yuan, 386,300 yuan, and 338,700 yuan, respectively, while the average sales personnel compensation of comparable companies in the same industry was 197,200 yuan, 240,500 yuan, and 282,300 yuan, respectively.

Source: application materials

Juli Co's sales compensation was significantly higher than the peer average during the reporting period, about 50% higher in 2023, about 60% higher in 2024, and about 20% higher in 2025. Juli Co stated that most of its sales personnel are composite technical and sales talents, with higher entry thresholds and professional quality requirements than sales personnel for standardized equipment, corresponding to relatively higher compensation levels.

The above explanation has a certain degree of reasonableness, but the question is: if sales personnel are "composite technical talents," how should the real R&D personnel be positioned? Taking 2025 as an example, Juli Co's average annual salary for R&D personnel was 58% of that of sales personnel in the same period, less than 60%.

Selective Disclosure in the Prospectus? Did Guosen Securities Fulfill Its Duties?

In Juli Co's prospectus application draft, the company disclosed the "comparison of selling expense ratio with peer companies" and the "comparison of administrative expense ratio with peer companies," but did not disclose the "comparison of R&D expense ratio with peer companies."

Source: prospectus

In the section on period expenses under "VIII. Analysis of Operating Results" in "Section VI Financial Accounting Information and Management Analysis" of the prospectus, the company disclosed a comparison table of selling expense ratios. The company's selling expense ratios were 4.55%, 3.26%, and 3.06%, respectively, compared item by item with comparable peer companies. Similarly, the comparison table of administrative expense ratios was also complete, with the company's administrative expense ratios at 15.36%, 13.50%, and 10.99%, respectively, also listing item-by-item data for the five comparable companies.

Source: prospectus

But for the R&D expense ratio, there was no comparison table. Juli Co's prospectus only disclosed the company's own R&D expense amount and proportion, without comparing it with peers.

By the response to the first round of review inquiry letters, the situation remained unchanged. In Question 2, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange explicitly required the issuer to analyze the "specific manifestations of core competitiveness and innovation" and further asked about "the reasons why the gross margin is higher than that of comparable companies and whether the issuer's high gross margin factors are sustainable." The company's response ran to dozens of pages and elaborated in detail on technical barriers, mass-production indicators, customer structure, and so on, but did not compare its R&D expense ratio with that of comparable peer companies.

If a company ranks last among peers in R&D expense ratio and yet uses "technological advancement" to explain its gross margin far exceeding peers, does failing to disclose a peer comparison of R&D expense ratios constitute a form of "selective disclosure"?

According to the Measures for the Administration of Securities Issuance and Listing Sponsorship Business, a sponsor institution shall be "diligent and responsible, and shall conduct due diligence and prudent verification of the issuer's application documents and information disclosure materials." The Measures for the Registration of Initial Public Offerings on the ChiNext Board clearly stipulate that the issuer shall disclose information in a "true, accurate, and complete" manner and shall not have false records, misleading statements, or major omissions.

So, during its verification process, did Guosen Securities notice the fact that Juli Co's R&D expense ratio ranks at the bottom among comparable peer companies? Does Guosen Securities' "silence" on this key dimension constitute a deficiency in fulfilling its duty of diligence and responsibility? These questions remain to be answered by time.