基金实时估值遭下架，有博主仍顶风兜售替代工具

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the recent controversy surrounding the misleading marketing practices of fund companies, particularly focusing on the incident involving Debon Fund, which raised 12 billion in a single day, prompting regulatory scrutiny on real-time valuation tools and their potential to mislead investors [1][20]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Regulatory authorities have mandated fund sales institutions and third-party platforms to enhance self-inspection and remove misleading features such as "real-time valuation" and "acquisition rankings" [1][20]. - Major platforms like Ant Fund, JD Finance, and others have quickly removed these functionalities in response to regulatory demands [1][20]. Group 2: Social Media Influence - Influencers on platforms like Xiaohongshu have begun to develop and promote real-time valuation tools, despite regulatory warnings, indicating a trend of evading compliance [3][7]. - Posts related to fund valuation tools have surged on social media, with influencers directing interested investors to private groups for further engagement [3][7]. Group 3: Market Reactions - The removal of certain functionalities has led to a significant increase in user engagement on these platforms, with some platforms offering membership incentives to retain users [17][18]. - Despite the regulatory push, some platforms have not fully complied, continuing to offer modified versions of real-time valuation tools, which raises compliance concerns [11][15]. Group 4: Investor Education and Misunderstanding - There is a persistent misunderstanding among investors regarding the difference between net asset value (NAV) and real-time valuation, which can lead to significant discrepancies in perceived fund performance [20][21]. - The article emphasizes the need for better investor education to clarify these differences and mitigate the risks associated with misleading valuation tools [20][21]. Group 5: Case Study of Debon Fund - The Debon Fund incident serves as a case study illustrating the potential consequences of misleading real-time valuations, where the fund's reported real-time increase of 13.01% contrasted sharply with its actual NAV increase of only 8.31% [22][23]. - This discrepancy highlights the risks of treating funds as short-term trading instruments rather than long-term investment vehicles, raising questions about the ethical implications of such marketing practices [22][23].