Chinese stocks are doing well because the government is helping them a lot. They also made it harder for some people who bet on the stock market going down, so those people had to buy back their bets, which helped the stock prices go up. This made many investors in China and other places happy and they bought more shares, making the stock prices even higher. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Beijing is actively supporting the stock market by injecting liquidity or providing guarantees, which is not true according to the article itself. Instead, it states that Beijing is only going "all-in" on financial support, which means they are exploring various options and measures, but not necessarily implementing them yet.
2. The article uses vague terms like "squeezes short sellers", which suggest a negative connotation and an aggressive stance from the government against market participants who bet against the market. However, the reality is that China's regulators are only cracking down on illegal or malicious short selling activities, such as naked short selling or manipulation of the stock lending market, which have been harming the market stability and investor confidence. The article does not acknowledge this distinction or provide any evidence of how these actions affect legitimate short sellers who provide valuable market signals and hedging opportunities.
3. The article exaggerates the magnitude and duration of the stock rally, which is based on a mere 2-day performance since November 2022. This does not represent a sustainable or meaningful trend, especially given the volatile nature of the Chinese markets and the ongoing uncertainties surrounding the economic recovery from the pandemic. The article also fails to mention any fundamental drivers or catalysts for the stock rally, such as positive earnings reports, innovative products, or favorable policy changes, which would support a long-term bullish outlook.
4. The article cites some analyst comments that are irrelevant or contradictory to the main thesis of the article. For example, it quotes Ihor Dusaniwsky, who points out a trend of continued short covering, hinting at a potential short-term recovery in Chinese markets. This implies that the market is not overreacting or disconnected from reality, but rather adjusting to new information and expectations. However, this contradicts the previous statement that Beijing's actions are "squeezing" short sellers, which suggests a forced and artificial rally. The article also mentions the reactions of some ETFs that track Hong Kong or Chinese stocks, but these do not reflect the performance or sentiment of the mainland Chinese market, which is the focus of the article.
5. The article uses emotional language and tone, such as "rally", "all-in", "squeezes", and "soars", which appeal to the reader's feelings and intuition, rather than presenting a rational and objective analysis of the facts. This creates a bias and exaggerates the significance of the events described in the article, making it less credible and

Neutral

Explanation: The article is mainly providing factual information about the recent rally in Chinese stocks and the reactions of various market participants. It does not express a clear bias or opinion towards either the bearish or bullish side, nor does it convey any negative sentiment. Therefore, the sentiment of the article can be considered neutral.