China’s high-profile market spat between economist Ren Zeping and private-equity veteran Dan Bin has mellowed into a public truce after Dan issued an apology that Ren said he had “received in goodwill.” The exchange, played out on social media, capped months of heated argument about the strength and character of China’s recent stock-market rally that began in late September 2024.
The row dates back to autumn 2024, when a sharp market upswing — often referred to by Chinese commentators as the “9·24” rally — intensified debate over whether China had entered a sustained bull market. Ren, a widely followed economist and commentator, accused some industry voices of adopting “absurd” positions that both missed the rally and were professionally deficient and morally suspect. Dan, chairman of Oriental Harbor and a prominent private fund manager, fired back with criticism of Ren’s rhetoric and urged economists to be more “rational and objective.” The exchange escalated with public accusations over corporate performance and personal attacks before Dan’s recent move to apologize.
Ren framed his response to the apology in conciliatory terms, praising Dan’s stature as a top investor and saying he was inspired by many of Dan’s insights. He described the apology as “善意收到了” — literally “the goodwill is received” — and added that differences of view can coexist. Ren also urged peers to tone down the spectacle, calling the dispute essentially a “war of words” without fundamental conflicts of interest and encouraging others not to fan the flames.
This episode matters beyond its personalities. Both men wield influence over sizeable audiences of retail and institutional investors; their public dispute highlights how social-media debates among elite commentators can shape investor sentiment in China’s volatile market environment. The spat also underscores a broader tension in China’s financial ecosystem between bullish narratives that reinforce momentum and cautions that seek to curb speculative excess.
The reconciliation is consequential for market psychology. A de-escalation between two visible figures reduces the risk that public acrimony will amplify uncertainty for ordinary investors who follow their pronouncements. It also signals a preference among some elites for restoring collegial norms and avoiding protracted public spectacle that could invite regulatory scrutiny or greater market volatility.
Yet the underlying disagreements about valuation, policy risks and the durability of the bull market are unlikely to vanish with a handshake. The argument was about substance — assessments of macro fundamentals, corporate earnings and the role of policy support — and those analytical disagreements will continue to animate China’s financial discourse.
For international observers, the episode is a reminder that China’s markets are driven not only by macroeconomic data and policy signals but also by high-profile narratives and personalities. How market commentators and fund managers choose to quarrel — or to reconcile — can matter almost as much as balance-sheet fundamentals for short-term price action and investor confidence.
In the immediate term, the truce reduces headline risk. In the longer term, attention will shift back to the core questions that sparked the fight: whether the post‑September 2024 rally reflects a durable improvement in growth and corporate profitability or a speculative upswing vulnerable to correction. The public exchange and its resolution are a small but revealing episode in the larger story of China’s capital markets and the social-media ecosystem that now amplifies them.