6月13日，社会保险基金监管局披露了2025年一季度全国企业年金基金的业务数据。该数据显示，2025 年一季度全国企业年金基金投资资产净值突破3.7万亿元。 分产品来看，在单一计划中，1422个固定收益类组合期末资产金额为3312.44亿元，近3年的累计收益率 为10.8%；4113个含权益类组合期末资产金额约为2.99万亿元，近3年的累计收益率为7.13%。 值得注意的是，与以往披露当季收益不同的是，这次披露的是近3年的累计收益率，近3年的累计收益率 为7.46%。 《每日经济新闻》记者注意到，同时披露的还有养老金产品的数据，2025年一季度养老金产品的投资收 益率为0.58%。其中港股股票型产品一季度投资收益率达到7.48%。 两公司规模超3100亿 最新披露的2025年一季度全国企业年金基金业务数据显示，截至2025年一季度末，全国企业年金基金投 资资产净值突破3.7万亿元，近3年累计收益率为7.46%。 《每日经济新闻》记者注意到，在集合计划中，116个固定收益类组合期末资产金额为1972.92亿元，近 3年的累计收益率为10.11%；221个含权益类组合期末资产金额约为1815.51亿元，近3年的累 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent announcement by the Guangdong Provincial Finance Department regarding the management fee structure for government investment funds has sparked significant discussion in the investment community, particularly concerning the implications for venture capital (VC) firms and their management fee practices [10][11][12]. Group 1: Management Fee Structure - The management fee for government investment funds will now be determined based on performance evaluations, and fees should primarily be paid from fund earnings or interest, not from the principal [10][11]. - A notable shift in the management fee model is the move from a traditional "commitment-based" fee structure to a "performance-based" one, where fees are only collected if the fund generates returns [11][12]. - The common fee structure of "2+20" (2% management fee and 20% performance fee) is under scrutiny, with some firms now promising to defer management fees until after the fund has generated returns [2][10]. Group 2: Industry Reactions and Trends - The investment community is experiencing a "management fee earthquake," with LPs (limited partners) questioning the viability of traditional fee structures and some VCs offering to waive fees during the fundraising phase [10][15]. - The average fundraising time has significantly increased, from around 10 months in 2015-2020 to approximately 27 months currently, leading to increased pressure on VCs to adapt their fee structures [9][10]. - The new regulations may lead to a broader reevaluation of the management fee practices across the industry, with potential implications for the survival of many GP (general partner) firms [15][16]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The financial sustainability of VC firms is at risk, as management fees are crucial for covering operational costs such as salaries and office rent [12][15]. - The average DPI (Distributions to Paid-In) for government-guided funds is only 0.7, indicating that many funds have not yet returned their initial investments, which raises concerns about the long-term viability of the current investment model [13][14]. - The shift in management fee practices reflects a broader trend of decreasing fees in the industry, with some major firms reducing their management fees in response to market conditions [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The recent policies from Gansu and Guangdong provinces reflect a trend towards stricter management of government investment funds, emphasizing the need for quality development and control over new fund establishments [1][2][3]. Group 1: Policy Overview - Gansu's implementation opinion emphasizes strict control over the establishment of new funds and promotes the optimization and integration of existing funds [1][3]. - Guangdong's management measures highlight the necessity for government approval for fund establishment and restricts the use of fiscal allocations for new fund creation [2][5]. - Both provinces align with the spirit of the State Council's "Guiding Opinions" issued earlier this year, which aims to enhance the management system of government investment funds [1][4]. Group 2: Management and Performance - The policies from both provinces stress the importance of defining the positioning of government investment funds and enhancing performance evaluation mechanisms [2][5]. - Gansu's policy notably uses the term "strict" nine times, indicating a more rigorous approach compared to Guangdong's single mention of preventing financial fraud [2][10]. - The emphasis on performance evaluation and accountability mechanisms aims to ensure that funds are managed effectively and transparently [5][11]. Group 3: Regional Variations - Black龙江's recent policy introduces a focus on direct investment projects, which is a departure from the traditional fund establishment approach [6]. - The management fee structure in Guangdong may disrupt the conventional practice of fixed management fees, linking them instead to fund performance [7][9]. - Gansu's policy suggests a more flexible approach to management fees, allowing for adjustments based on performance evaluations [8][9].

Group 1: National Enterprise Annuity Fund Data - As of the end of Q1 2025, the net asset value of the national enterprise annuity fund exceeded 3.7 trillion yuan, reaching 37,004.62 million yuan [2][3] - The cumulative return over the past three years for the national enterprise annuity fund is 7.46% [2][3] - The investment returns for the national enterprise annuity fund in 2023 and 2024 were 1.21% and 4.77%, respectively [3] Group 2: Investment Management Breakdown - In single plans, there are 1,422 fixed income combinations with a total asset amount of 331.24 billion yuan and a cumulative return of 10.8% over three years [3][4] - In collective plans, there are 116 fixed income combinations with a total asset amount of 197.29 billion yuan and a cumulative return of 10.11% over three years [3][4] - The total number of combinations in single plans is 5,535, with a cumulative return of 7.42% [4] Group 3: Fund Management Scale - Two fund companies, E Fund and ICBC Credit Suisse, have management scales exceeding 310 billion yuan, reaching 311.8 billion yuan and 315.1 billion yuan, respectively [5] - The only fund company with a management scale between 200 billion and 300 billion yuan is Southern Fund, which has increased from approximately 246 billion yuan at the end of last year [6] Group 4: Pension Product Performance - The investment return for pension products in Q1 was 0.58%, with a total net asset value of approximately 2.4 trillion yuan [8] - The investment return for ordinary stock-type pension products was 1.68%, while the return for Hong Kong stock-type products reached 7.48% in Q1 [8][9] - The cumulative return since inception for pension products is 33.46% [8]

Group 1 - The core management team of Xingyin Fund has experienced frequent personnel changes since 2024, indicating a lack of systematic planning in talent allocation and succession mechanisms [1][6] - Hong Mumei, the vice president and a key figure in the fixed income team, has seen a significant reduction in the scale of the funds she manages, dropping over 80% after resigning from multiple funds in 2024 [2][4] - The company currently manages 59 products with a total scale of 905.24 billion, with bond and money market funds accounting for over 90% of the total, highlighting a significant "偏科" (specialization) issue [6][8] Group 2 - Since the beginning of 2025, the company has accelerated its layout in the index fund sector, launching several new products, although their management scales remain relatively small [9][10] - The investment decision-making process at Xingyin Fund is based on a collective decision-making system, but recent personnel changes suggest ongoing adjustments within the management structure [10][12] - The performance of funds managed by Hong Mumei has been strong, with returns of 17.77% and 15.59% for two of her funds, indicating her previous effectiveness as a fund manager [4][5]

专题：谢卫卸任交银施罗德基金总经理，袁庆伟接任 6月6日，交银施罗德基金发布高级管理人员变更公告，总经理谢卫因工作安排转任公司资深专家，新任 袁庆伟为总经理，任职日期2025 年 06月05日。 袁庆伟，历任交通银行乌鲁木齐分行财务会计处副处长、会计结算部高级经理；交通银行总行资产托管 业务中心（资产托管部）副总裁、总裁；交通银行总行金融机构部总经理、资产管理业务中心总裁等职 务。 谢卫， 历任中央财经大学金融系教员；中国社会科学院财贸所助理研究员；中国电力信托投资公司基 金部副经理；中国人保信托投资公司证券部副总经理、总经理、北京证券营业部总经理、证券总部副总 经理兼北方部总经理；1998年谢卫参与筹备"老十家"之一的富国基金并担任富国基金副总经理，开启了 他长达27年的公募基金从业生涯。2008年，谢卫加入交银施罗德基金担任副总经理，自2019/02— 2025/06担任交银施罗德基金总经理，其中，2024/08至2024/10曾代任交银施罗德基金董事长。 | 基金管理人名称 | 交银施罗德基金管理有限公司 | | --- | --- | | 公告依据 | 《公开募集证券投资基金信息披露管理办 | | | ...

在公募基金行业的大棋盘上，管理层变动从来都是足以颠覆棋局走向的胜负手。 当市场还在为基金行业积弊争论不休时......今日（6月6日），红土创新基金的一纸公告犹如"深水炸弹"——董事长阮菲因董事会到期换届于6月5日离任。公 司董事长缺位期间，暂由总经理冀洪涛代为履行董事长职务，任职日期为2025年6月5日，期限不超过6个月。这看似程序性的人事更迭，实则撕开了行业发 展的三道伤疤：在《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》落地的关键节点，基金行业长期被诟病的"基金赚钱基民不赚"的信任危机尚未消解，投资风格漂移 的乱象仍在暗流涌动，基金清盘潮更如达摩克利斯之剑高悬，此刻掌舵人的频繁更替，究竟是破局良方，还是饮鸩止渴？一纸管理层 的变动公告，也将行 业发展的深层矛盾与治理困境暴露无遗。 2025年以来，公募基金行业管理层变更仍旧高频。Wind数据显示，截至6月6日，全行业共有88家基金公司出现高管变动，高管变更人数多达178人。其中， 21家有公募业务机构更换了董事长（包括基金公司12家、证券资管4家、证券公司5家），董事长变动人数达到37人。 今年以来基金公司董事长变更一览 | 序号 | 基金公司 | 非货规模 1/. ...

业内普遍认为，随着募资端结构和资金量的深刻变革，创投行业洗牌出清的节奏将进一步加速。但业内 同时呼吁，管理费收取标准应交由市场来决定。 公募基金费率改革之后，私募股权投资基金的管理费也迎来了重大调整。6 月 3 日，广东省财政厅官网 发布《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》（以下简称《管理办法》），其中关于政府投资基金管理费缴付 的规范指引引发行业热议。整体来看，《管理办法》明确，政府投资基金的管理费缴付应视基金考核情 况而定、以实缴出资为计费基础、在基金收益中支付、基金存续期满后不得收费。实际上，今年 1 月发 布的《关于促进政府投资基金高质量发展的指导意见》也提出 "管理费以实缴出资或实际投资金额为计 费基础" 的要求。另据记者了解，过去一年来，部分地方政府也开始对政府投资基金的管理费进行调 整，一级市场管理费收取模式和运行规则逐渐被重塑。 三大核心指引引发业内热议 《管理办法》第二十三条，针对政府投资基金管理费提出三点规范指引：一是政府投资基金管理费用按 照市场化原则协商确定，依据基金考核评价结果情况予以核定拨付。二是基金管理费一般应以实缴出资 或实际投资金额为计费基础，合理确定计提标准。基金管理费从基金收益 ...

明确基金设立规范 在政府投资基金的设立和退出方面，《办法》就组建方案、管理审批、权责关系和退出机制等提出相应 要求。 日前，广东省财政厅印发《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》（以下简称《办法》）。《办法》共四十 条，其中重点提及"政府投资基金设立规范""基金管理费收取条件"等方面内容，引发社会关注。 据了解，该《办法》自印发之日起实施，原有的《广东省政府投资基金管理实施办法（试行）》（粤财 预〔2016〕178号）同时废止。 所有权、管理权、托管权分立 管理费原则上不在本金中列支 在本次颁布的《办法》中，所占篇幅最大的是"基金管理"章节，共计十一条内容。同时，许多社会关注 的热点，也来自这一部分。 其中，《办法》提到将对不同定位和类型的政府投资基金，从准入遴选、决策机制、过程管理、绩效考 核、容错机制等方面施行差异化管理。 例如，对于创业投资类基金，《办法》提出，要鼓励适当提高政府出资比例、风险容忍度、让利比例、 延长存续期限和绩效评价周期；而对于产业投资类基金，《办法》则指出，应根据产业类型、发展阶 段、区域分布特点合理设置管理要求和决策机制，优化基金功能，突出支持重点产业、产业链关键环节 和重点项目，强化政策 ...

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations from Guangdong Province regarding management fees for government investment funds are causing significant disruption in the venture capital and private equity sectors, emphasizing a shift towards performance-based compensation for fund managers [2][3][4]. Summary by Sections Management Fee Regulations - The management fees for government investment funds will now be determined based on market principles and the fund's performance evaluation results [2]. - Management fees will generally be calculated based on actual contributions or investments, and it is prohibited to charge these fees from the principal unless the fund has generated returns or interest [3][5]. Impact on Fund Managers - The new rules could lead to a situation where fund managers may not receive management fees if they fail to generate profits, effectively eliminating the "guaranteed income" model for them [3][11]. - This change reflects a growing maturity among limited partners (LPs), particularly government LPs, who are becoming more discerning and less reliant on traditional practices [3][10]. Industry Reactions - Some investors express concerns that the new regulations may deter investment in Guangdong, especially as other regions are adopting more lenient investment policies [4][6]. - There are fears that the focus on short-term returns to secure management fees could undermine the long-term investment strategies needed for the development of innovative sectors [8][10]. Broader Implications - The shift in management fee structures may accelerate the elimination of less capable fund managers, pushing the industry towards greater specialization and consolidation among top-tier firms [11]. - The government investment funds are becoming a crucial pillar in China's venture capital market, with a total scale exceeding 2.5 trillion yuan, accounting for nearly 40% of the total fundraising in the primary market [8]. Future Considerations - The new regulations may lead to a more rigorous selection process for fund managers, focusing on those who can deliver value and align with government investment goals [10][11]. - Balancing policy objectives with market efficiency will be a key challenge for future government investment fund management [10].