广发行业严选基金3年亏80多亿，为何刘格菘亏那么多，谁是真凶？

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the downfall of Liu Gesong, a once-celebrated fund manager at GF Fund, highlighting the significant losses faced by investors despite the company profiting from management fees. It raises questions about accountability in the investment landscape and the consequences of over-reliance on star fund managers [1][3][26]. Group 1: Rise of Liu Gesong - Liu Gesong's rise began in 2019 when he capitalized on the semiconductor and renewable energy trends, leading to a peak management scale of 843 billion yuan, which accounted for over 30% of GF Fund's total stock product scale [3][7]. - The marketing strategies employed by GF Fund transformed Liu into a personal brand, attracting over 148.7 billion yuan from more than 240,000 investors during the launch of the "GF Industry Select Three-Year Holding Period Mixed Fund" [5][7]. Group 2: Risks and Downfall - The initial success was attributed to market conditions and not solely Liu's abilities, which masked the underlying risks associated with high management scale and market volatility [8][10]. - Liu's heavy investments in stocks like Yiwei Lithium and Jing'ao Technology resulted in significant losses, with Yiwei's stock price dropping by 70% and Jing'ao's by 80% from their peaks [12][14]. Group 3: Systemic Issues - The concentration of risk due to similar holdings among multiple fund managers at GF Fund led to a systemic decline in net values when the renewable energy sector faced downturns [14][16]. - The talent pool at GF Fund is reportedly shallow, with nearly 80% of fund managers having less than 10 years of experience, raising concerns about their ability to navigate market cycles [18][22]. Group 4: Investor Sentiment and Regulatory Changes - Investor sentiment has shifted from blind faith in star managers to a more cautious approach, with significant net redemptions occurring, such as a 1 billion yuan redemption from a fund managed by Zheng Chengran [26][28]. - Regulatory changes are being implemented to align fund managers' interests with those of investors, including a floating management fee system that penalizes underperformance [28][30].