October 21, 2026, marked one of the most brutal trading sessions in recent years for CATL (300750). Following the disclosure of third-quarter results the previous evening that showed profit growth falling significantly short of expectations, the company's A-shares plunged more than 12% intraday, with H-shares suffering a parallel sharp decline. The combined A+H share market capitalization shrank to approximately 1.1 trillion yuan, and the stock has now fallen over 50% from its historic high in May of this year. Weighing on the share price, beyond the immediate financial data, is the intensifying trend over the past month of automakers pursuing "de-single-sourcing" in their supply chains. Together, these two forces have prompted the market to reprice CATL's future bargaining power and profit potential.

Rising Revenue Without Rising Profit in Q3: Profit Growth Plummets Off a Cliff. On the evening of October 20, CATL released its 2026 third-quarter report. On the surface, the cumulative nine-month figures appeared relatively solid: operating revenue of 442.137 billion yuan, up 56.19% year-on-year, and net profit attributable to shareholders of 64.53 billion yuan, up 31.6% year-on-year. But drilling down to the single quarter reveals the severity of the problem. In the third quarter, the company generated operating revenue of 165.221 billion yuan, up 58.58% year-on-year, with the top line still robust; however, net profit attributable to shareholders came in at only 21.246 billion yuan, with year-on-year growth sliding to 14.54%. The "scissors gap" of more than 44 percentage points between revenue growth and profit growth means that while CATL is expanding its scale, its per-unit profitability is being rapidly eroded. This profit performance fell significantly below the market's prior consensus expectations and served as the direct trigger for the sell-off on the 21st. Although the search results did not provide the specific gross margin figure for the third quarter, the severe divergence between profit growth and revenue growth is itself sufficient to illustrate the problem: cost-side pressures—whether from raw material volatility, tax policy changes, or a shift toward lower-tier product mix—are substantively compressing the profit margins of the world's largest power battery manufacturer.

The Automaker "Unbundling" Wave: From Isolated Cases to a Broader Trend. If the third-quarter report was the "trigger-pulling" event that sparked the sharp sell-off, then the collective shift in automakers' supply chain strategies represents the long-term weight on the other side of the scale. Since September, adjustments by multiple mainstream new energy vehicle makers to their battery supply systems have been intensively exposed, a trend the market has summarized as "de-CATL-ization"—more precisely, reducing dependence on a single supplier and reclaiming the power to define batteries. Li Auto's pivot has been the most thorough. The Li L8, launched in June 2026, uses cells supplied entirely by Sunwoda, with CATL no longer supplying that model. In early September, Li Auto injected 2.65 billion yuan into Sunwoda Power, becoming its second-largest shareholder with approximately 11.17% equity. Li Auto President Ma Donghui stated explicitly at an October 20 technology launch event that the company requires deep involvement in material specifications, process parameters, and full-process data, "opening up data flows with all suppliers upstream." This means that even if cells are still manufactured externally, the power of definition and quality standards are firmly in the automaker's hands. Xiaomi's approach is similar but more independent. The Xiaomi "Dragon Armor Battery" unveiled in September was led by Xiaomi in product definition, with CALB and Sunwoda Power handling electrochemical development and manufacturing; CATL did not appear on the core supplier list for the Pengcheng series. XPeng Chairman He Xiaopeng publicly stated in September: "Starting this year, XPeng makes its own batteries," clarifying that the battery system is led by XPeng, with cells still sourced externally but no longer dependent on a single source. GAC's subsidiary Yinpai Battery officially rolled out its 300,000th battery pack on October 15, achieving full-stack in-house research, development, and production from materials and cells to PACK. According to a September report by Shanghai Securities News, Seres added Gotion High-Tech to its supplier system, XPeng brought in EVE Energy, and HarmonyOS Intelligent Mobility is also expanding second- and third-tier suppliers such as CALB. The automakers' strategy is not to "completely stop using CATL" but rather to "stop using only CATL." But for a company that has long commanded a premium through technological advantages and scale barriers, the loosening of customer loyalty is itself the most dangerous signal.

What Is the Market Pricing In? Placing the two narratives side by side makes the sharp decline on the 21st easy to understand. The third-quarter report answers "how much is being earned now," while automaker unbundling answers "how much can still be earned in the future." The former has already delivered a disappointing answer, while the latter is shaking investors' confidence in CATL's long-term bargaining power. Over the past several years, CATL has enjoyed rare pricing power in the supply chain, thanks to its nearly 40% global market share and overwhelming domestic dominance. In the first half of 2026, CATL reported net profit attributable to shareholders of 43.284 billion yuan, while the combined net profit of 15 major listed automakers during the same period was only 21.05 billion yuan. When the vehicle manufacturing industry's profit margin on sales is compressed to single digits while the battery segment still captures the largest share of supply chain profits, automakers' search for alternatives shifts from "optional" to "mandatory." CATL's installed capacity share has not yet experienced a cliff-like decline, and its absolute global leadership position remains difficult to challenge in the short term. But capital markets never trade the past—they trade expectations. When a financial report showing "rising revenue without rising profit" coincides with an industry trend of "customers actively diversifying supply," the question investors must answer becomes pointed: where should the valuation of a supplier whose technological advantages no longer automatically translate into customer stickiness be anchored? Note: This article was generated by AI; please scrutinize carefully.