Stop misunderstanding Pop Mart

A recent investment search led me to three companies I wanted to study; Pop Mart ranked first. For roughly ten days I have looked at it online and in stores: watching foot traffic, asking friends and strangers why they buy, reading company plans and founder interviews, and gathering other commentators’ views.

I am surprised by how often I still see what I consider misunderstandings of the company, including from influential commentators. Here are four of them.

1. “Pop Mart is a short-lived toy company built on blind-box gambling.”

To me, that is like reducing Apple to phones or Nintendo to consoles. Blind boxes are a way to sell; the harder question is whether Pop Mart can discover, develop, and commercialize characters and stories.

The blind box is the tableware. The IP is the meal. You can change the tableware; the meal has to be good.

2. “When Labubu cools down, Pop Mart’s results will collapse.”

Not necessarily. I would watch whether other characters can take its place. Molly, Skullpanda, and Crybaby seem promising to me at the moment.

A team can survive a star player’s retirement if it keeps developing new talent. Pop Mart has to show that it can do that for IP.

3. “The internet will make something more fun, so Pop Mart will become obsolete.”

The internet will bring new forms of entertainment, but characters can move to new media. Pokémon has traveled through games, animation, cards, and film; Mario has moved from games to film and theme parks. Strong characters can outlive their original format.

4. “The fate of ‘暴力熊’ is Pop Mart’s future.”

I see important differences. In my view, the appeal of what I called “暴力熊” was tied heavily to scarcity, art speculation, and resale premiums. Pop Mart seems more like a platform that can launch different characters and offer pleasure, comfort, and a way for people to connect. As long as people seek those things, I think the underlying demand remains. That is why I see it as a form of new consumer business rather than simply a bubble.

I will leave it there for now and watch the earnings report on the 20th.

Addendum (2026-10-05): After the earnings release, I became a little more cautious

After the interim results were released on August 20, I took another look at Pop Mart and became a little more cautious. The increase in inventory and the slowdown in profit growth concerned me.

• Inventory: At the end of June 2026, inventory was approximately RMB 6.102 billion, compared with approximately RMB 2.274 billion a year earlier, an increase of about 168.4%. Comparing the two first-half periods, inventory turnover days rose from 83 to 201. The company attributed the inventory increase mainly to advance stocking for overseas expansion; how well that inventory sells through remains to be seen. 2026 interim results, pp. 4 and 35 , 2025 interim results, pp. 4 and 32
• Profit: Taking net profit attributable to shareholders of the parent company as an example, it was approximately RMB 5.038 billion in the first half of 2026, still up 10.1% year on year. The year-on-year growth rate in the same period a year earlier was 396.5%. The distinction matters: profit growth slowed, but the absolute amount of profit did not decline year on year. 2026 interim results, p. 1 , 2025 interim results, p. 1

These figures are why I am more cautious. They are not enough on their own to conclude that inventory is already failing to sell, or that the long-term assessment of the company has been confirmed or disproved.

Also, the term “暴力熊” in the original article did not refer to a specific brand or IP, so that passage cannot serve as a clearly identified brand comparison. “Not a bubble” was also my judgment at the time; this addendum does not provide evidence proving it.

The original article preserves my views from August 10; this addendum records how they changed after the results. This is a record of my personal research at particular points in time, not investment advice.