《公开募集证券投资基金业绩比较基准指引（征求意见稿）》点评：贯穿基金产品管理运营“锚”

Core Insights - The report emphasizes the importance of the "representativeness" of performance benchmarks for public funds, which should reflect the fund's investment style, objectives, scope, strategy, and proportions [1] - Internal controls are directly linked to performance benchmarks, enhancing the investment managers' focus on these benchmarks. Significant deviations from the benchmark will require review by the investment decision committee [1] - The weight of performance benchmarks in performance evaluation and fund assessment has significantly increased, with clear guidelines on how to compare active equity fund performance against benchmarks [1] Summary by Sections Performance Benchmark Adjustments - Adjustments to performance benchmarks can be made without convening a holder's meeting, except when there are changes to the investment scope, such as adding Hong Kong stock investments [1] - Existing products will have a one-year transition period for benchmark adjustments [1] Market Impact Discussion - The report suggests that public fund managers will likely reduce overall deviations from benchmarks, but the ability to make subjective adjustments remains crucial for generating excess returns [1] - During market opportunities, public funds may still have strong incentives to deviate from benchmarks to pursue relative returns, but in market correction phases, there may be a tendency to align more closely with benchmarks [1] - Historical trends indicate that growth-style managers tend to outperform benchmarks in growth-dominant phases, while value-style managers face more challenges in outperforming during value-dominant phases [1] - The distinction between indices suitable for active versus passive investment is clear, with active investment indices having more diverse constituents and greater stock differentiation [1]