Summary of Key Points
In 2013, the "Three Passes and One Delivery" companies (YTO, STO, ZTO, Yunda) along with SF Express, which joined later, established the Fengwang Investment Platform. Their goal was to collectively purchase supplies, share technology, and expand their presence in the upstream of the supply chain in order to counter external pressures such as the rise of Cainiao and the pressure from e-commerce companies to lower delivery prices. However, 13 years later, all five giants withdrew from the partnership, and Fengwang became a small company controlled by individual individuals. This change reflects a shift in the competitive landscape of the courier industry: from cooperation for mutual support to independent competition. Each company has developed its own strategic ecosystem, and the common platform has become a constraint rather than a benefit. Additionally, the shift in governance from reliance on personal relationships to adherence to institutional rules led to the end of Fengwang's mission.
Detailed Analysis
1. Why was Fengwang established?
In 2013, the courier industry faced three major challenges:
- Dominant e-commerce platforms: Cainiao had just been founded, and e-commerce companies (such as Taobao) controlled traffic, allowing them to exert pressure on delivery prices.
- Rising costs: Transportation vehicles and packaging materials accounted for nearly 30% of total costs, making it expensive for individual companies to purchase these resources independently.
- Increasing technological barriers: Investments in smart lockers and the Internet of Things required significant capital, which was beyond the capacity of a single company.
Therefore, the "Three Passes and One Delivery" companies (all from Tonglu) agreed to jointly invest 25% each (later joined by SF Express, with each contributing 20%) to establish Fengwang. Their goal was clear: to purchase materials together to reduce costs, invest in technology, and develop smart logistics solutions, essentially creating their own "mini-Cainiao" to avoid being controlled by others.
This approach was initially effective; for example, joint procurement helped lower costs, and they invested in more than 60 companies. However, Fengwang's scale remained small, with assets amounting to only 235 million yuan after 10 years of operation—far less compared to the five giants.
2. Why did they split up?
Today, competing for market share is more important than collaborating, and platforms have become a hindrance:
- High market concentration: The top eight companies account for 96% of the industry's business volume, with the five giants holding over 70%. Even a 0.5% increase in market share represents millions of additional deliveries, making it crucial to compete for existing customers.
- The logic of cooperation no longer works: While joint purchasing used to save costs, now each company wants to negotiate better terms on its own, and shared procurement may weaken their bargaining power. Moreover, a common platform could reveal strategic plans (for example, if one company plans to expand its cold chain logistics, competitors could learn about it through the platform and make early preparations).
- Complex decision-making: With each company holding 20% of the shares, no single entity can make decisions unilaterally. This slow process makes collective decision-making inefficient. For instance, by the time all five companies agree on a new project, the opportunity may have passed.
The timeline shows that on June 12, three companies had their shares frozen, followed by ZTO and SF Express withdrawing from the partnership in late June, and then Yunda, YTO, and STO also left. This was clearly a coordinated exit strategy, indicating that Fengwang was no longer useful and it was decided to dissolve it gracefully.
3. The competitive focus has shifted: from scale to ecosystem
Ten years ago, companies were focused on growing larger; now, they are focusing on differentiation:
- YTO: Buying aircraft and building aviation hubs for premium delivery services.
- ZTO: Strengthening its presence in local stores (e.g., ZTO Supermarkets) and developing cold chain logistics to capture the fresh food market.
- Yunda: Increasing investment in automated sorting to improve efficiency.
- STO: Integrating with Alibaba's warehousing systems for comprehensive logistics solutions.
- SF Express: Expanding its global logistics network through the establishment of an airport in Ezhou.
Each company is building its own ecosystem, and the coordination costs associated with a common platform (e.g., aligning strategies among the five companies) have surpassed any potential benefits. Fengwang, which once served as a buffer for trial and error, has now become a stumbling block to decision-making.
The lesson from previous collaborations, such as the investment in Fengchao (which led to pricing issues and strategic conflicts), has made companies more cautious about joint projects. With annual technology investments in the tens of billions, companies have much more flexibility than Fengwang, which had only a registered capital of 250 million yuan.
4. The change in governance logic
The success of Fengwang relied on the trust among the Tonglu-born founders (such as Yu Huijiao from YTO and Chen Dejun from STO). However, now that all five companies are listed, they are subject to regulatory oversight and investor scrutiny:
- Joint investments require compliance reviews, and related-party transactions must be disclosed.
- Personal relationships cannot replace corporate governance; in the event of problems, shareholders must bear responsibility.
Previously, decisions could be made informally, but now formal processes and agreements are necessary, adding complexity. This shift from personal to institutional governance makes it increasingly difficult to maintain cooperation based on trust.
5. The buyer of Fengwang is a new company
The buyer of Fengwang is "Shanghai Yixulangsheng," established at the end of 2025, with Huang Junhao holding 99% of the shares (as an individual). What does this indicate?
- Fengwang no longer possesses core assets or unique resources, such as proprietary technology or stable supply channels.
- Companies with industry experience were unwilling to acquire it (since all five giants had withdrawn), so it was likely sold to a pure financial investor, possibly just a shell company.
In summary, Fengwang has evolved from a partnership of five giants into a small company that has lost its original strategic significance.
Conclusion
The demise of Fengwang reflects the transition of the courier industry from a period of informal cooperation to one dominated by competitive giants. In the business world, there are no eternal "brotherhoods"; only enduring interests. When shared benefits disappear, dissolution becomes inevitable.