主动权益基金应该如何选业绩比较基准？——后明星时代公募基金研究系列之六

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the China Securities Regulatory Commission's "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds," particularly focusing on the constraints of performance benchmarks for fund managers and the potential impact on their investment strategies and fee structures [1][15]. Group 1: Market Misestimation of Active Equity Funds - The market has overestimated the proportion of active equity funds that will underperform their benchmarks by 10% from 2022 to 2024, with 68.76% of funds projected to face this issue, compared to only 1.05% from 2019 to 2021 [2][6]. - The first method of estimating the probability of underperformance is flawed due to historical data not reflecting future performance accurately, as active equity funds have historically downplayed benchmark tracking [2][5]. - The second method assumes fund managers will align their strategies with broad indices like the CSI 800, which may not be realistic as managers typically select benchmarks that suit their investment styles [2][5]. Group 2: Benchmark Selection Challenges - If fund managers choose broad indices like the CSI 300 or CSI 800 as benchmarks without adjusting their investment strategies, the probability of underperforming these benchmarks by over 10% becomes uncontrollable [5][8]. - Fund managers face two choices: either select a broad index and adjust their portfolio to minimize deviation or choose a benchmark that aligns with their investment style, effectively turning their products into "enhanced index funds" [5][8]. Group 3: Importance of Style-Matched Benchmarks - Choosing benchmarks that align with a fund manager's investment style significantly reduces the proportion of funds underperforming their benchmarks from 47.82% to 22.34% [7][8]. - Growth-style fund managers are often underestimated, while value-style fund managers may be overestimated when using inappropriate benchmarks [7][8]. - The article emphasizes that selecting a suitable benchmark is more critical than conforming to broad indices, as it enhances the stability of excess returns and management fee income [8][11]. Group 4: Short-Term Market Expectations - The market is currently assessing the gap between fund allocations and benchmark indices, which may lead to short-term trading opportunities in certain sectors [15][16]. - Active equity funds are generally underweight in financials and traditional consumer sectors while overweight in technology and growth sectors, indicating a need for adjustments if broad indices are adopted as benchmarks [15][18]. Group 5: Industry and Stock Allocation Insights - Balanced style funds are underweight in non-bank financials, banks, and food and beverage sectors, while they are overweight in media, automotive, and machinery sectors [15][18]. - Growth-style funds show significant underweighting in food and beverage, transportation, and utilities, while being overweight in electronics, power equipment, and machinery [18][19]. - Value-style funds are underweight in banks, non-bank financials, and construction decoration, while overweight in power equipment, real estate, and biomedicine [18][19].