Polyester FDY Price Divergence: Intensified Price Game Amid Overcapacity

The price scales for polyester FDY are tipping. On July 8, 2026, public quotes from domestic polyester mills for 150D/96F semi-dull grade showed a spread of 340 yuan per ton—ranging from a low of 8,110 to a high of 8,450 yuan—separated by a clear line of cost and strategy.

The Logic Behind Price Divergence

The same specification and grade of product are priced differently across companies. Zhejiang Jiabao New Fiber's 8,110 yuan/ton versus Tongkun Group's 8,450 yuan/ton—a 4.2% gap—is no coincidence amid high industry inventories. Geographically, Shaoxing offers lower quotes, clustering between 8,110 and 8,310 yuan/ton, while mills in Hangzhou and surrounding areas quote 200-300 yuan higher.

This divergence points to two variables: inventory pressure and downstream order concentration. Shaoxing, a weaving hub, has closer direct-supply relationships between local polyester mills and looms, allowing greater price flexibility. In contrast, large integrated firms in Hangzhou like Rongsheng Petrochemical and Tongkun Group leverage their vertical supply chains and brand premiums to command stronger pricing power.

Supply-Demand Imbalance and Price Transmission

The price split in FDY is essentially a prelude to capacity shakeout. Industry data shows that in the first half of 2026, new polyester capacity exceeded 2.5 million tons, while terminal textile and apparel demand growth slowed significantly, pushing polyester mill inventory days from 12 in March to over 18 by end of June. The 150D commodity grade is the first to feel the heat.

For weaving mills, this price divergence forces a shift from 'average price' to 'per-mill' procurement strategies. In the same market, a Shaoxing fabric maker can source raw materials at 8,110 yuan/ton, while a Hangzhou competitor may pay 8,450 yuan/ton—directly impacting grey fabric ex-factory prices and profit margins. On the export side, the window for quoting forward orders shrinks: the more volatile raw material prices, the greater the risk exposure on long-dated contracts.

The Anchor Effect of Leading Mills

Notably, Tongkun and Rongsheng, as industry leaders, did not follow Shaoxing's low prices with their 8,450 and 8,300 yuan/ton quotes. This is not just a cost difference but a market signal: large firms are protecting profit margins by maintaining higher prices, projecting an 'order-sufficient' stance.

But whether this strategy holds depends on downstream acceptance. Feedback from procurement indicates some weaving mills are increasing purchases from low-price sources and reducing contract volumes with high-price giants. If this trend continues, inventory pressure at high-price mills could intensify by Q3 end, potentially triggering a catch-up price correction.

Practical Recommendations

For Procurement Teams - Establish a multi-mill price comparison mechanism: given the current spread, source quotes weekly and lock in low-price supply to avoid single-vendor dependency. - Shorten procurement cycles: reduce the typical monthly cycle to a ten-day rhythm to adapt to rapid price adjustments. - Monitor leading mill moves: if Tongkun or Rongsheng cut prices, it may trigger an industry-wide decline—adjust procurement timing accordingly.

For Export Firms - Adopt floating price clauses: include raw material price linkage in export contracts to mitigate FDV volatility's impact on margins. - Lock forward orders in tranches: avoid concentrating large orders in one quote; use the current spread to hedge risk in batches. - Monitor dual FX and raw material volatility: Yuan exchange rate shifts combined with FDY spreads can cause actual costs to deviate from expectations—consider forward FX hedging tools.