The thermometer of the polyester filament market dropped to freezing point in early September: the average sales-to-production ratio of sampled enterprises was only 39.1%, down 0.7 percentage points from the previous trading day. More notably, this figure came amid widespread price hikes by manufacturers—raising prices failed to secure orders and instead pushed more downstream users to the sidelines.
Divergence Between Price Hikes and Sales
What does a 39.1% sales-to-production ratio mean? Simply put, for every 100 tons of polyester filament produced, only about 39 tons were sold that day, leaving more than 60% of output as inventory. This level is clearly below the industry health line (usually 60% or above for balanced production and sales), indicating severely insufficient demand-side absorption.
Looking at the specific data from sampled enterprises on that day, the ratios were extremely uneven: the lowest was 0%, the highest was 310%, but the vast majority hovered between 10% and 60%. The 310% extreme value likely came from occasional large orders or concentrated deliveries under long-term agreements by a few enterprises, not a general market recovery. This "ice and fire" structure precisely confirms the fragmentation and uncertainty of end demand.
Behind the price hikes and sluggish transactions lies a tug-of-war between cost push and weak demand. If upstream raw material prices continue to rise, polyester filament manufacturers must pass on costs to protect processing margins. However, weaving enterprises, lacking sufficient orders themselves, have naturally limited acceptance of high-priced raw materials, ultimately responding with reduced purchases or paused restocking.
Industrial Chain Transmission: Wait-and-See Sentiment Spreads
The declining sales-to-production ratio is not an isolated event; it is simultaneously transmitting upstream and downstream along the industrial chain. For polyester plants, poor filament sales mean increased inventory backlog and capital occupation, which may later force adjustments in operating rates or price cuts, thereby affecting procurement rhythms for PTA and MEG.
For downstream weaving and garment enterprises, the "apparent increase but actual stability" in raw material prices raises order risks. Without clear improvement in terminal consumption, fabric suppliers are reluctant to build inventories, and foreign trade orders face uncertainties in delivery schedules and exchange rates. Most enterprises choose a "produce-to-order" strategy, keeping raw material inventories at minimum levels.
This collective wait-and-see is forming a negative feedback loop: the fewer people buy, the less factories dare to cut prices (fearing further decline makes selling harder), and the less prices drop, the more buyers wait for even lower levels. The market is stuck in a typical "volume-price standoff." Breaking this deadlock in the short term requires external variables—either a clear direction in raw materials or a concentrated release of terminal orders.