I have consistently and tirelessly advocated for and promoted the philosophy of value investing, hoping that Warren Buffett's value investment principles can take root, blossom, and bear fruit in the A-share market. Since 2016, I have traveled to Omaha, USA, seven times over the past decade to attend the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting, dedicated to introducing Buffett's value investment philosophy to domestic investors and encouraging more people to embark on the path of value investing. Last year, the 95-year-old Buffett formally announced his retirement. Consequently, while he may not take the stage to share insights at this year's meeting, he is still expected to be present in the inner venue area. This year, I hope to continue joining everyone in traveling to the US for the Berkshire Hathaway meeting, leveraging this premier investment event to guide even more individuals toward value investing. Value investing is applicable not only to the US stock market but also to the A-share market. However, practicing value investing in A-shares cannot involve a mechanical application of Buffett's principles; it must be adapted to the realities of the A-share market, creating a "Chinese-style value investment." This is the investment philosophy I champion and adhere to, which includes at least two key components. First, investing in the A-share market requires acknowledging its dominance by retail investors, where mispricing opportunities frequently arise and overall volatility is relatively high, necessitating prudent position management rather than simple long-term holding. Second, it involves interpreting national policies and focusing intently on industries explicitly supported by policy, such as the new energy sector in 2019, and humanoid robotics, chips, and semiconductors starting from 2025. Conversely, one should decisively avoid industries subject to policy restrictions or adjustments, like education and training, pharmaceuticals, and real estate over the past year, which have experienced significant declines. Value investing is indeed viable in China, but it requires the correct methodological guidance. Last year, many traditional sectors failed to rise, jokingly referred to as "old stalwart stocks," leading some to question the efficacy of value investing. In reality, value investing should not be simplistically equated with buying "value stocks"; its true essence lies in investing in companies that will be valuable in the future—those with growth potential. Many traditional industries, such as real estate, have glorious histories but are now in a cyclical downturn, with some companies even facing bankruptcy risks. Judging their investment worthiness must be based on current conditions, not past glories. Past successes belong to former shareholders; only future growth benefits new shareholders buying in now. In contrast, the technology and innovation sector is thriving, buoyed by strong policy support and vast development prospects amid the AI revolution, leading to substantial stock price increases. This demonstrates that capital is astute, prioritizing future potential. While Buffett is hailed as a value investing master, he is equally a master of growth stocks. Many of the long-term quality companies he invested in have achieved decades of sustained growth, not merely fleeting success—a lesson we should particularly learn from him. Many people question how to view the frequent occurrence of price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios reaching hundreds or even thousands for tech innovation growth stocks. Evaluating a company's valuation, especially for tech stocks, cannot rely solely on traditional metrics like P/E or price-to-book ratios. The P/E ratio is not suitable for assessing tech stocks because their valuation hinges not on the P/E level but on their potential for R&D breakthroughs, becoming key suppliers in core industry chains, or achieving leadership in a specific field. Many tech innovation companies require substantial R&D investment in their early stages, some even "burning cash" to capture market share. Companies like Tesla and JD.com were initially unprofitable at their IPOs, lacking a P/E ratio, yet their stock prices soared multifold thereafter. This shows that traditional metrics are inadequate for tech firms, making an obsession with them meaningless. The P/E ratio is more applicable to evaluating stable, traditional industries and is unsuitable for cyclical sectors with significant profit volatility. Many investors, constrained by P/E considerations, missed last year's tech stock rally—a considerable pity. This highlights a crucial shift in investment thinking. For instance, I was firmly optimistic about the humanoid robotics direction last year, and it is expected to perform well again this year. Many component companies in this robotics industry originally produce automotive parts, so their current earnings reflect that business, not robotics components, which are still in the R&D phase and not yet mass-produced. A reasonable P/E assessment will only be possible after mass production begins this year or next, using earnings generated from the relevant business. Last year's surge in robotics tech stocks was largely concept-driven, showing strong sectoral effects as the market could not identify eventual winners. By 2026, the focus will shift to "order speculation," prioritizing companies securing the most orders, followed by "earnings speculation" the next year, focusing on which companies deliver strong performance. One might wonder how to forecast a company's future earnings—this is precisely where research adds value. Investors should extensively read industry and client analysis reports, using analysts' criteria to judge which companies are likely to realize future earnings. Of course, analysts' judgments are not infallible, and missteps do occur. The tech industry embodies a harsh reality where "success is built on a mountain of failures." For example, while several leading companies exist in the chip and semiconductor sector, even their chairmen likely cannot definitively predict which will ultimately dominate, let alone external investors. Tech investing inherently carries venture capital-like attributes. Behind Nvidia's rise lies the silence of countless other CPU firms. Nvidia initially produced gaming graphics cards before pivoting to GPUs with tremendous success, whereas many former gaming graphics card companies have vanished, illustrating that tech stock investment involves a blend of foresight and luck. When SoftBank Group's Masayoshi Son invested in Nvidia, he quickly took profits, missing the largest appreciation phase; holding longer would have yielded staggering returns. Yet, there are no "regret pills" in investing—if a top investor like Son can miss such opportunities, why should retail investors be overly critical of themselves? Commercial aerospace was a notably strong performer recently, with enthusiasm surging following Tesla's SpaceX seeking a public listing and initiating Mars plans. China's policy in this domain has shifted from "state-led" to "state-guided, private participation," promising a vibrant and diversified future. Although a gap exists in rocket recovery technology compared to companies like those of Musk and Bezos, China possesses significant growth potential. Thus, commercial aerospace is a sector worth watching, but given substantial prior gains and accumulated profits, it carries investment risks; consider waiting for a pullback before deciding on allocation. This direction is expected to have considerable future growth potential. I categorize new energy, non-ferrous metals, and defense as "mid-tier stocks," situated between small caps and old stalwarts, showing strong performance since the second half of last year. The non-ferrous metals sector even topped the industry gain rankings in 2025, with nearly a 100% increase. Photovoltaics (PV), the most severely overcapacity segment within new energy, shows signs of recovery after capacity reduction and淘汰落后产线. Although recent pre-reported significant losses by some PV companies have dampened sector performance, concepts like "space-based photovoltaics" are spurring a rebound. A turnaround is anticipated for the PV industry in 2026, with some firms potentially returning to profitability. Investors should also heed market volatility and watch for signals of fundamental improvement in the sector. Furthermore, against the backdrop of major advancements in solid-state batteries, the energy storage sector has performed exceptionally well. Most companies currently developing solid-state batteries were previously leading lithium battery manufacturers. These industry leaders have substantial future growth potential, making solid-state battery technology an area worthy of investment attention. Overall, after three to four years of adjustment, the new energy industry may enter a "2.0 phase," with many companies poised for a resurgence. National support for new energy remains unwavering, as its vigorous development is a established national policy unlikely to change. Therefore, in 2026, new energy is expected to remain a prominently performing sector. Due to last year's price war, PV module prices plummeted. In July, relevant industry associations demanded that PV companies eliminate 30% of落后产能 within a month—a classic case of administrative guidance for capacity reduction. Admittedly, some companies may have paid lip service without genuine implementation, which is an objective reality. Consequently, concerns exist that incomplete capacity reduction could reignite price wars, contributing to PV industry volatility. In contrast, overcapacity is less severe in wind power. China boasts thousands of kilometers of coastline suitable for offshore wind projects and vast deserts and Gobi areas in the western regions ideal for PV power stations. Thus, new energy, represented by PV and wind power, remains a direction worthy of attention. Traditional consumer sectors, particularly baijiu (white liquor), remain relatively sluggish, impacted by declining consumption growth with no significant recovery on the demand side. Last year, while attending a book launch in Beijing by renowned investor Lin Yuan, I concurred with his view that the baijiu industry overall faces high inventory and gradually declining sales volume, offering few broad opportunities. However, a "survival of the fittest" dynamic is expected, where leading brands will further increase market share, and many third- or fourth-tier brands may exit. As industry concentration rises, the value of top baijiu brands will become more pronounced. One traditional sector's market value is relatively overlooked: electric power. I have consistently emphasized that future competition between nations will hinge on two resources: computing power and electrical power, with the former ultimately dependent on the latter. China's current power generation capacity is triple that of the United States, constituting a competitive advantage. In the upcoming AI race, China's power supply will be ample, whereas the US often faces shortages. China has achieved significant strategic success by vigorously developing hydropower, thermal power, nuclear power, and clean energies like PV and wind, with future plans for controlled nuclear fusion. Continued national investment in power generation, transmission, distribution, and grid construction is anticipated. Consequently, sectors related to grid equipment, power equipment, ultra-high voltage, and power transmission hold substantial growth potential. (The author is the Chief Economist and Fund Manager at Qianhai Open Source Fund)