新规下，如何检验主动基金经理的“真本事”

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the transformation of the public fund evaluation system in China, emphasizing the shift from traditional performance metrics to a focus on benchmark-based assessments, driven by new regulatory guidelines aimed at enhancing the quality of fund management [1][3]. Group 1: New Regulations Reshaping Evaluation Logic - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) released the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds," which elevates the importance of performance benchmarks in fund management [3]. - The new regulations require clear definitions of performance benchmarks for fund products, which will guide product positioning, investment strategies, and performance measurement [3][4]. - A dual mechanism of "performance incentives + fee adjustments" will align the interests of investors and fund managers, with penalties for underperformance and rewards for exceeding benchmarks [3]. Group 2: Misconceptions About Performance - The article highlights that "beating the benchmark" does not equate to true investment capability, as risks may be hidden behind apparent returns [5][6]. - Many funds use flawed benchmarks, with nearly 75% relying on price indices, which can inflate perceived excess returns by ignoring dividends and reinvestment gains [7]. - A mismatch between fund strategies and benchmarks can distort excess returns, making them more reflective of style differences rather than actual investment skill [7]. Group 3: Risks of Excess Returns - The pursuit of short-term performance can lead to high volatility and concentrated investments, which may yield high returns during favorable market conditions but can result in significant losses when market dynamics change [9]. - The article notes that excess returns achieved through high risk may not accurately reflect a fund manager's investment ability, as they could stem from inadequate risk management [9][10]. Group 4: Importance of Risk-Adjusted Returns - The new regulations incorporate risk-adjusted performance metrics such as information ratio, tracking error, and active share into the evaluation framework, shifting the focus from pure returns to risk-adjusted returns [10]. - The information ratio is highlighted as a key tool for assessing active management effectiveness, measuring excess returns relative to the risk taken [12]. Group 5: Recognizing True Investment Capability - The article advocates for a shift in investor focus from mere performance rankings to evaluating risk-return profiles, emphasizing the importance of metrics like information ratio and tracking error [17]. - Funds with stable and high information ratios are likely to demonstrate sustainable excess returns, while those with fluctuating ratios may be relying on luck or risk-taking [16][17].