If you’re curious as to how committed officials in Beijing really are to the stimulus push behind a world-beating rally in Chinese equities, Zheng Shanjie will offer some policy specifics this week.

Zheng’s the head of China’s economic-planning bureau, the National Development and Reform Commission. The department will hold a press conference on Tuesday, when mainland markets re-open after Golden Week.

To restate the obvious: Investors — hell, forget about investors, everyday Chinese — need details about the Party’s public-spending plans. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it usually ends. In disappointment.

If the government wants to revive domestic demand, Beijing needs to present a credible outline for a fiscal push large enough to give the economy a durable boost and comprehensive enough to convince investors that Xi’s interested in addressing structural problems, not just rescuing this year’s growth target.

Jia Kang, the former head of an internal think tank at the finance ministry, last week suggested the Party has scope to issue as much as CNY10 trillion in special bonds to fund demand-side stimulus. That’s the sort of conviction the government needs to demonstrate. Color me skeptical.

“The catch is that [because] expectations [are] running wild, policy must deliver,” Hao Hong, a widely-followed China strategist, said, of the NDRC event. Analysts generally expect the bureau to unveil measures worth between CNY2 trillion and CNY3 trillion, with only a portion of that earmarked to boost domestic spending directly.

At stake in all this: A delerious 30% rally in local shares, fueled by margin-buying, short-covering and hot money inflows as hedge funds chase the dragon and rotate out of Japanese shares, the region’s erstwhile 2024 winners.

On Monday, H-shares rose another 2%. It was the 15th gain in 16 sessions.

Wall Street’s China strategy teams are hurriedly (and belatedly) upgrading Chinese equities. Goldman, for example, reckons local shares have another 20% upside in them if you’re inclined to catch a moving train.

“Big investors remain understandably skeptical given US-China relations and [Beijing’s] aversion to ‘booms,’ but structural bears will be forced in by China bond yields rising from a 2% ‘floor,’ house prices improving from the current -6% YoY and, as was the case after 2008, 2016, 2020 stimulus packages, China GDP estimates [getting] revised higher,” BofA’s Michael Hartnett remarked.

He weighed in on what he called “the most frequently asked question” which is simply, “What’s the upside?” now that local shares have run 30% to 40% from the lows? Here’s Hartnett’s multi-part answer:

Assuming China as a percentage of MSCI ACWI market cap rises no more than the 2018 high of 4.0% = 30% upside. Assuming MSCI China P/E moves from 11-12x to 15-16x (the average peak following three prior China policy shocks) = 40% upside. Assuming China stocks ape equity gains after five major global stimuli of past 20 years (China 2008, US 2009, Japan 2012, Europe 2012, US 2020) = 20-25% upside from current levels.

Note that China-focused equity funds saw their second-largest inflow on record over the latest weekly reporting period, according to EPFR, a remarkable $14 billion.

Of course, skeptics do abound. “Fool me once,” as they say. On Monday, Bloomberg published a compendium of cautionary comments from analysts who worry the rally might’ve run out ahead of the “fundamentals.” Some were concerned about the size of the fiscal package, others about geopolitical friction and still others about the inherently ephemeral nature of hot money flows like those which helped push up H-shares in recent weeks.

As usual, not a soul dared mention the real risk to Chinese assets: The fact that the country’s a totalitarian dictatorship. Wait. Let me expand on that by adding a word: A totalitarian communist dictatorship.

It’s hilarious to me — and I mean that, I’m genuinely amused — that Wall Street and the financial media are so craven in their desperation to preserve access to the Chinese market, that banks and journalists will weigh in on the country’s assets without so much as an allusion to the reality of the country’s form of governance. Small matters, I suppose.