Why is Gao Shanwen worth remembering? Scholarly integrity and independent spirit. Dr. Gao is widely recognized as a top-tier macroeconomist in China, and it’s no exaggeration to omit "one of." People remember him not only for his professional expertise but also for the increasingly rare intellectual temperament, independent spirit, and courage to speak the truth he displayed in the highly commercialized, short-term profit-driven field of macroeconomic research—qualities especially precious today.

1. Professional strength + deep insight (hard power)
He has consistently used a systematic framework to explain China’s economic cycles, structural issues, and turning points. Many practitioners regard his analyses as "must-read textbooks." Even after leaving the securities firm (resigned in November 2025), his influence remains.
He constructed a macroeconomic analysis system with Chinese characteristics:
1) Around 2006, he proposed the "asset revaluation" theory, linking trade surplus, foreign exchange reserves, liquidity, credit cycles, and asset prices such as stocks and real estate.
2) He continuously refined the framework around industrial capacity cycles, the Lewis turning point, potential growth rate, and real estate cycles.
3) His books—*Perspectives on Prosperity*, *The Logic of Economic Operation*, and *At the Turning Point of the Cycle*—are considered required reading by professionals and remain important references for understanding China’s macroeconomy.
What people miss is a scholar who can articulate complex realities clearly and offer independent judgments.

2. Unique scholarly temperament: maintaining independence in a flashy industry
Securities sell-side research often pursues extreme views, hot topics, traffic gimmicks, and cutthroat competition. Gao Shanwen did the complete opposite:
1) He held stable views, never flip-flopping for attention.
2) He refused excessive commercial marketing, rarely appeared in public, didn’t build a "social media influencer" persona, focusing instead on research, writing books, and mentoring teams.
3) He was tolerant of peers and juniors, rarely attacking publicly, and generously shared his framework.
4) He balanced "intellectual pursuit of truth" with "market pragmatism": bridging academic, policy, and market perspectives with both scholarly depth and practical applicability.
He jokingly described economic analysis:
"Explaining the past seems reasonable and confident;
predicting the future is evasive and wildly inaccurate."
Such candor and restraint are exceptionally rare amid a public discourse filled with bullishness or anxiety.

3. Courage to speak the truth (the most scarce part)
This is what people miss most. In the current environment, he was one of the few economists who publicly questioned official data.
1) In 2019, he warned of a downward shift in medium- and long-term growth, saying "striving for 4–5%% growth would be very difficult."
2) At a Shenzhen investor meeting in December 2024, he described social reality: "Everywhere you see vibrant elderly people, lifeless young people, and middle-aged people who feel life is hopeless." Young people consume less due to employment pressure, while elderly people have stable pensions—a stark contrast.
3) He also bluntly stated that over the past two to three years, official GDP may have been overestimated by about 3 percentage points per year (real growth around only 2%%), accumulating an overestimate of 10 percentage points—consistent with the data showing 47 million urban job losses. The video and report of his speech quickly went viral before being taken down.
This frankness of "saying what others are unwilling to say" is increasingly rare. He wasn’t being pessimistic, but using logic and data to remind people: economics should explain reality, not serve as a propaganda tool. He represented a vanishing "independent researcher temperament"—combining academic height, market warmth, and personal integrity.

4. One more point worth emphasizing
In an era of economics papers filled with abstruse theories and complex mathematical formulas, Dr. Gao’s articles are mostly in plain language, emphasizing clear logical chains and factual data reasoning rather than piling up esoteric theories or complex formulas.
1) His writing style is simple, restrained, and plain: reports and articles rarely use ornate rhetoric, sensational headlines, or catchy gimmicks.
2) He prioritizes data and causal logic chains, downplaying formulas and abstract theories, building models "from causal mechanisms" rather than applying classic models or complex formulas.
3) He is adept at explaining complex concepts with stories and analogies, making them accessible to ordinary people.
Bold in logic but rigorous in evidence, sharp and direct in language, shedding academic packaging to point directly to real pain points. Industry insiders say his research is "rich in data and strong in logic."
Honestly, I am deeply influenced by this writing style. Though I am far from Dr. Gao’s level, I try to explain data and logic in plain language in my own articles as much as possible.
His research emphasizes data-driven causal chains and revisable logic, rather than grand narratives or emotional drives. His articles are plain and restrained, focusing on argumentation rather than packaging, with stable and consistent views (anchored in frameworks like asset revaluation and capacity cycles). What he left behind is not just several judgments, but a systematic methodology for understanding China’s economy and a research paradigm that respects facts and continuously seeks verification.

People remember Dr. Gao not simply because his predictions were accurate, but because in the commercialized capital market, he still maintained the independence of an intellectual and the courage to speak the truth. Such qualities are too scarce today. His passing suddenly made people realize: one more person who could thoroughly explain China’s economic cycles, face data deviations head-on, and influence the market—is gone.
In the complex reality of China’s economy, this rigorous logic, independent judgment, and sincere expression will always be worth remembering and cherishing.
Years ago, thanks to a senior fellow who was the director of a domestic securities firm’s research institute, I was fortunate to have dinner with Dr. Gao twice. I still remember that he had no airs at all, was very humble, and loved to laugh. I even asked some questions that now seem very foolish, but he answered them patiently one by one. Thinking back now, I feel ashamed.
May he rest in peace, and I hope we can remember and practice this spirit of "expertise plus courage to speak."
Though he is gone, his hearty laughter still echoes in my ears.