英大、方正富邦率先“破冰”，基金行业迎来监事会“撤销潮”

Core Viewpoint - The recent wave of fund companies in China, including Fangzheng Fubang Fund and Yingda Fund, has announced the abolition of their supervisory boards, transferring oversight functions to committees under the board of directors, sparking discussions on governance reform and supervisory effectiveness in the industry [2][4][6]. Group 1: Industry Changes - Yingda Fund was the first public fund company to abolish its supervisory board in July 2023, following a decision by its shareholder, State Grid Yingda International Holdings Group, and approval through democratic procedures [4]. - Fangzheng Fubang Fund followed suit, officially abolishing its supervisory board and dismissing four supervisors after a shareholder meeting [6]. - The actions of these two companies have initiated a broader discussion on the existence of supervisory boards and the transfer of supervisory functions within the public fund industry [6]. Group 2: Legal Framework - The changes in the fund industry are supported by the new Company Law of the People's Republic of China, effective July 1, 2024, which allows companies to choose not to establish a supervisory board and instead set up an audit committee under the board of directors to perform supervisory functions [7]. - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) will issue further guidelines by the end of 2024, requiring relevant institutions to complete internal supervisory adjustments by January 2026, promoting a shift from the traditional governance model to a more streamlined structure [7]. Group 3: Industry Trends - The abolition of supervisory boards is not unique to the fund industry; several listed securities firms and major banks in China have also moved to abolish their supervisory boards, indicating a trend across the financial sector [8][9]. - Major state-owned banks, including Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Agricultural Bank of China, have collectively announced the abolition of their supervisory boards in the first half of 2023 [9]. Group 4: Motivations for Change - The primary drivers for the abolition of supervisory boards include the need to address overlapping functions, reduce costs, and optimize governance [10]. - The traditional supervisory board has overlapping responsibilities with the audit committee, leading to inefficiencies and resource dispersion [10]. - By abolishing the supervisory board, companies can reduce operational costs associated with the board's functioning, such as salaries and administrative expenses [10]. Group 5: Challenges Ahead - Despite the intention to optimize governance, experts express concerns regarding the independence and effectiveness of the audit committees that will assume supervisory roles [12]. - The members of the audit committee, being part of the board, may face conflicts of interest, potentially undermining their supervisory effectiveness [12]. - There are concerns that some companies may merely transfer existing supervisory board members to the audit committee without genuine reform, risking superficial changes in governance [12].