Core Viewpoint - The Financial Regulatory Bureau is drafting a management method for information disclosure of asset management products in banking and insurance sectors to establish unified regulatory standards and enhance investor protection [1][2]. Group 1: Information Disclosure Management - The proposed method aims to standardize information disclosure for asset management trust products, wealth management products, and insurance asset management products, addressing the lack of a dedicated disclosure regulation [1][3]. - The method will regulate the entire lifecycle of asset management products, including fundraising, ongoing management, and termination, ensuring clarity in product information [1][2]. Group 2: Specific Requirements - During the fundraising phase, the method will specify requirements for product documentation, including performance benchmarks, to ensure transparency in product sales [2][3]. - In the ongoing management phase, it mandates accurate and comprehensive reporting of past performance and timely disclosure of significant events to clarify product risks [2][3]. - For the termination phase, it requires disclosure of fees and profit distribution in the final announcements and liquidation reports to ensure clarity in product returns [2][3]. Group 3: Performance Benchmark Disclosure - The method allows asset management products to not disclose performance benchmarks, providing flexibility to managers and avoiding unnecessary formalism [2][3]. - For products that do disclose performance benchmarks, strict requirements will be set to ensure that the benchmarks are relevant and accurately reflect the investment strategy and underlying assets [3][4]. Group 4: Regulatory Consistency - The method emphasizes a unified standard for information disclosure across the three types of products, enhancing regulatory consistency while respecting the unique characteristics of each product type [3][4]. - It distinguishes between public and private products, imposing stricter disclosure requirements on public products to enhance transparency for less knowledgeable investors [4][5].

Core Viewpoint - The first batch of innovative floating rate funds based on performance benchmarks has been officially approved, marking a significant development in the public fund industry aimed at enhancing fund quality and aligning the interests of fund managers and investors [1][2][6]. Group 1: Fund Structure and Mechanism - The newly approved floating rate funds will implement a three-tier fee structure: 1.2% (benchmark tier), 1.5% (upward adjustment), and 0.6% (downward adjustment), with management fees linked to the fund's performance relative to a benchmark [2][3]. - The fee mechanism emphasizes a "single customer, single share" approach, allowing for personalized fee structures based on individual investor performance, thus promoting a tailored investment experience [3][4]. Group 2: Industry Impact and Response - The introduction of these floating rate funds is seen as a positive response to the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds," reflecting the industry's exploration of diverse fee models [6][7]. - Fund companies are expected to enhance their operational capabilities and investment research systems to meet the new requirements posed by the floating rate mechanism, which aims to improve long-term investment performance [3][5]. Group 3: Investor Benefits and Long-term Focus - The floating rate mechanism is designed to encourage long-term holding by investors, providing benefits to those who maintain their investments for a certain period, thereby reducing irrational trading behaviors [7]. - By linking management fees to excess returns over benchmarks, the new structure aims to enhance the professional investment research capabilities of fund managers, fostering a culture focused on generating alpha returns rather than relying solely on market beta [7].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating - No relevant information provided 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - The market overestimates the proportion of active equity funds underperforming their benchmarks. Selecting a benchmark that matches the fund manager's style can significantly reduce the proportion of funds with performance 10% lower than the benchmark [3][19] - The S&P 500 is the most widely - chosen benchmark for active equity funds in the US, and Russell style indices are also highly recognized [24][25] - In the short - term, banks, non - banks, and food and beverage are under - allocated industries, while electronics, media, and machinery are over - allocated industries. Active equity funds in Hong Kong still prefer growth - oriented industries [3][38][43] - When selecting a performance comparison benchmark, factors such as index style suitability, market recognition, stability, investment opportunities, and long - term viability should be considered [3] 3. Summary According to the Table of Contents 3.1 Market Overestimates the Proportion of Active Equity Funds Underperforming Their Benchmarks 3.1.1 Problems of Directly Selecting Broad - based Indices as Benchmarks - The two simple calculation methods currently used in the market may not have reference value for the future. The data on the proportion of funds underperforming benchmarks in the past has randomness and cannot reflect the true ability of active equity funds [10][11] - If fund managers choose broad - based indices as benchmarks without changing their investment strategies, the probability of their performance being more than 10% lower than the benchmark in three years is uncontrollable. Selecting a benchmark that matches the investment style is more important [16][19][20] 3.1.2 Benchmarks Used by Overseas Active Equity Funds - In the US, the S&P 500 is the most widely - chosen benchmark, with a scale proportion of over 40% in all active products investing in the US. Russell style indices such as Russell 1000 Growth and Russell 1000 Value are also highly recognized [24][25] - Different types of US active funds have different benchmark selection preferences. For example, the S&P 500 is commonly chosen for large - cap core products, while Russell 2000 is dominant in small - cap core products [26] 3.2 Short - term Market Transaction Expectations 3.2.1 Industry and Stock Dimensions: Under - allocation of Finance and Traditional Consumption, Over - allocation of Technology and Growth - Balanced style funds under - allocate non - banks, banks, and food and beverage, and over - allocate media, automobiles, and machinery. Growth style funds under - allocate food and beverage, transportation, and public utilities, and over - allocate electronics, power equipment, and machinery. Value style funds under - allocate banks, non - banks, and building decoration, and over - allocate power equipment, real estate, and pharmaceutical biology [33][34][35] - Different industry - themed funds also have different over - and under - allocation situations. Overall, banks, non - banks, and food and beverage are industries with large under - allocation amounts, while electronics, media, and machinery are industries with large over - allocation amounts [38] 3.2.2 Hong Kong Stock Allocation: Over - and Under - allocation Relative to the Hang Seng Index - In Hong Kong stocks, under - allocated industries include banks, non - banks, and commerce and retail, while over - allocated industries include pharmaceutical biology, media, and electronics. Active equity funds in Hong Kong still prefer growth - oriented industries [43] 3.3 How to Select Performance Comparison Benchmarks for Active Equity Funds 3.3.1 Indices Currently Issued by Mainstream Index Companies - Active equity funds commonly choose broad - based indices, industry - themed indices, and SmartBeta products as performance comparison benchmarks. The top 5 most - tracked indices are usually broad - based indices such as the CSI 300, CSI 800, Hang Seng Index, CSI 500, and CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect Composite [46] - Mainstream index companies issue three types of indices: broad - based indices, SmartBeta indices, and industry - themed indices, covering multiple markets and strategies [49] 3.3.2 Indices More Likely to Generate Excess Returns - Three factors affect a fund's excess returns: investment ability, investment breadth, and investment opportunities. Indices with wider coverage and more investment opportunities can generate higher excess returns, but their Beta may be weaker [53][57] 3.3.3 How to Select Broad - based Indices - From multiple perspectives such as industry allocation deviation, standard deviation of component stock returns, and stock - selection tolerance, the CSI A500 index is more in line with the investment styles of most fund managers [61]

Core Viewpoint - Financial institutions are adjusting the performance benchmarks of wealth management products in response to the recent interest rate cuts by the People's Bank of China, although the adjustments do not fully reflect the actual decline in underlying asset yields [1][2][3]. Group 1: Adjustments in Performance Benchmarks - Institutions such as Xingyin Wealth Management and Minsheng Wealth Management have lowered the performance benchmarks of several wealth management products, with some upper limits reduced by up to 155 basis points and lower limits by up to 60 basis points [2]. - For instance, Xingyin Wealth Management's product benchmark was adjusted from 2.05%-2.75% to 2.00%-2.70%, effective from May 14 [2]. - Minsheng Wealth Management also reduced its product benchmark from 3.1%-4.0% to 2.6%-3.1%, effective from May 13 [2]. Group 2: Market Response and Asset Allocation - The decline in performance benchmarks is seen as a normal adjustment to align with the downward trend in market interest rates [2][3]. - Financial institutions are encouraged to optimize their asset allocation structures to cope with performance pressures resulting from the declining yields of underlying assets [3][4]. - The supply-demand gap for low-risk, high-yield quality assets may further widen, as banks control deposit rates and guide costs downwards [4]. Group 3: Market Trends and Predictions - The recent interest rate cuts are expected to lead to a new wave of collective rate reductions by banks, potentially increasing the scale of wealth management products to historical highs, possibly exceeding 33 trillion yuan [6]. - In April, the scale of wealth management products increased by 2.1 trillion yuan, reaching 31.3 trillion yuan, surpassing previous levels [6]. - There is a growing preference for "fixed income plus" wealth management products, which are expected to continue expanding in market share due to their risk diversification capabilities [7].

Group 1 - The new exit tax refund policy in China aims to enhance the attractiveness of domestic products and increase inbound consumption, with potential inclusion of traditional Chinese medicine products in the refund scope [1] - The satellite navigation and positioning industry in China is projected to exceed 1 trillion yuan in value by 2025, driven by the marketization and internationalization of the BeiDou system [2] - The Shanghai Stock Exchange is intensifying efforts to attract long-term capital into the market, focusing on the role of ETFs in facilitating this process [3] Group 2 - The revised major asset restructuring management measures by the China Securities Regulatory Commission are expected to boost merger and acquisition activities among listed companies, enhancing market confidence [4] - Fund managers have purchased over 2 billion yuan worth of equity funds this year, indicating a positive outlook and confidence in the market [5] - May is expected to see an improvement in credit issuance, with banks focusing on balanced and quality-driven lending, particularly in technology and retail sectors [6] Group 3 - Bond funds have shown strong fundraising capabilities, accounting for 80.19% of total new fund issuance in the second week of May, reflecting investor preference for low-risk fixed-income assets [7][8] - Public funds are exploring new economic sectors, particularly in AI-driven fields such as electronics and software, to identify potential investment opportunities [9] - The introduction of floating fee rate funds by 26 fund companies marks a shift towards a long-term perspective in fund management, aiming to enhance investor experience [10] Group 4 - The successful nomination of independent directors by a securities investor protection agency is expected to improve corporate governance in listed companies [11] - The China Securities Regulatory Commission's new action plan emphasizes the importance of performance benchmarks in public funds, promoting a shift from scale to return-focused strategies [12] - The issuance of REITs has surpassed 11.3 billion yuan this year, with insurance companies playing a significant role as strategic investors [13][14]

Group 1 - The core content of the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds" focuses on guiding fund managers to return to the essence of "entrusted by others, managing wealth on behalf of clients," aiming for high-quality development in the public fund industry [1] - The main direction of the plan is to align with investor interests and enhance their sense of gain, emphasizing the importance of products that can track performance benchmarks with low volatility and controllable risks, rather than merely seeking excess returns [1] - Active equity funds with a turnover rate of 5-10 times, balanced stock and industry holdings, and a management scale of 500 million to 5 billion yuan are more likely to outperform performance benchmarks, while products with style drift show poor performance [1] Group 2 - Over half of the public active equity funds in the market use the CSI 300 index as their core benchmark, with 15% using the CSI 800 index, indicating a significant deviation from actual performance, necessitating changes in benchmarks or holdings [2] - The financial sector has a holding return amount of 264.9 billion yuan, accounting for 4.6% of the sector's free float market value, which is significantly higher than other industries, highlighting the need for attention in cyclical high-dividend sectors like coal, oil, and utilities [2] - As of the first quarter of 2025, active equity funds are mainly overweight in technology and manufacturing sectors, while being underweight in finance and infrastructure, with notable continuous overweights in pharmaceuticals and electronics since 2020 [2] Group 3 - Following the release of the plan, funds have begun to modify their performance benchmarks, with nearly 120 funds changing benchmarks this year, including various types such as equity mixed funds and flexible allocation mixed funds [3] - Performance benchmarks are considered an important reference for portfolio construction, with a focus on achieving stable risk-return characteristics over the long term rather than extreme short-term performance [3] - A new batch of floating management fee funds will be launched, adopting a performance benchmark-based fee model that adjusts management fees according to the fund's performance relative to the benchmark during the holding period [3]

中国证监会官网显示，5月16日，易方达、华夏、嘉实、富国、交银施罗德、汇添富、中欧基金等26家 基金管理人集中申报了首批基于业绩比较基准的创新浮动费率基金。证券时报记者从业内人士处了解 到，上述集中申报的26只基金为《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》(以下简称《行动方案》)发布后 首批上报的新模式浮动管理费率产品，即投资者持续持有一定时间后，根据投资者持有期间的收益情况 来确定管理费率档位。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent reduction in reserve requirements and interest rates by the central bank has led to a downward trend in interest rates, prompting banks' wealth management subsidiaries to adjust their strategies and product offerings to adapt to the low-interest environment [1][2][4]. Group 1: Market Response to Monetary Policy Changes - Major wealth management institutions, including ICBC Wealth Management and Agricultural Bank of China Wealth Management, have issued recommendations for asset allocation in a low-interest environment [1][2]. - The reduction in interest rates is expected to lower the yields on wealth management products, with many institutions adjusting their performance benchmarks downward [1][4]. - The anticipated "deposit migration" could lead to a significant increase in the wealth management market size, potentially exceeding 33 trillion yuan this year [1][6]. Group 2: Investment Strategies - Agricultural Bank of China Wealth Management suggests that investors should focus on short-term debt assets to capture opportunities before deposit rates decline further [2][7]. - ICBC Wealth Management recommends extending investment horizons to lock in favorable rates and mitigate short-term volatility [2][7]. - Experts indicate that the current low-interest environment may lead to a shift in asset allocation towards higher-risk assets, such as equities and credit bonds, as investors seek better returns [4][6]. Group 3: Performance Benchmark Adjustments - As of May 19, a wealth management product from China Merchants Bank will see its performance benchmark reduced significantly, reflecting the overall trend in the market [3]. - The average annualized yield for open-ended fixed-income wealth management products has decreased, with a notable drop of 0.29 percentage points in the past month [4]. - Several wealth management products have introduced temporary fee reductions to attract investors in the current market conditions [3][4].

Group 1: Regulatory Impact - The introduction of a performance comparison evaluation system in the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds" will significantly influence investment behavior in public funds, especially actively managed equity funds[1] - The new regulations link management fees to fund performance relative to benchmarks, enhancing accountability for fund managers[12] Group 2: Benchmark Composition - The existing performance benchmarks for actively managed equity funds are primarily concentrated in the CSI 300, CSI 800, government bonds, and Hong Kong stock indices, with the top 15 benchmarks accounting for 83.7% of the total weight[2][14] - The overall benchmark weight distribution includes A-share broad-based indices at 48.5%, bonds at 22.9%, industry and thematic indices at 16.2%, Hong Kong stocks at 8.5%, deposit rates at 3.5%, and fixed income at 0.4%[19] Group 3: Asset Allocation Discrepancies - As of Q1 2025, the bond allocation in actively managed equity funds is only 4.5%, significantly below the benchmark weight of 22.9%, indicating an underweight of approximately 638.9 billion yuan[3][21] - Conversely, the equity allocation stands at 84.2%, exceeding the benchmark weight of 73.2%, resulting in an overweight of about 382 billion yuan[3][21] Group 4: Sector Allocation Insights - The electronic sector shows the highest overweight at 18.8%, surpassing the CSI 300 and CSI 800 weights by 8.5 and 7.9 percentage points, respectively[5][26] - The banking sector is notably underweight at 3.8%, falling short of the CSI 300 and CSI 800 weights by 9.7 and 6.7 percentage points, respectively[5][27] Group 5: Future Changes in Benchmarks - A significant number of funds (87) have adjusted their performance benchmarks between early 2024 and May 2025, indicating a trend towards aligning benchmarks with existing investment strategies[33]

Core Viewpoint - The recent action plan issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission aims to address long-standing issues in the public fund industry, promoting high-quality development by linking fund company income to investor returns [1][3][6]. Summary by Relevant Sections Fund Management Fees - The new regulations require a floating management fee mechanism linked to fund performance, particularly for newly established actively managed equity funds [5][9]. - Management fees for different fund types vary, with stock and mixed funds typically charging between 1.2% and 1.5% [3]. - In 2023, only about 39% of the 4,510 fund products had positive returns, highlighting the disparity between high management fees and poor investor returns [3]. Performance Benchmark Changes - Following the action plan's release, several fund companies have already adjusted their performance benchmarks to align with the new regulations [10]. - The performance benchmark serves as a reference for evaluating fund performance, often based on a combination of market indices [5]. Impact on Fund Companies - The new policy is expected to shift fund companies' focus from scale-driven to performance-driven strategies, enhancing their investment strategies and risk management [6][12]. - Fund companies are encouraged to invest more in research and development to improve their investment capabilities [6]. Fund Manager Accountability - The action plan imposes stricter salary management for fund managers, linking their compensation to fund performance [13][14]. - Fund managers whose products underperform relative to benchmarks will see a significant decrease in performance-based pay, while those who exceed benchmarks may receive higher compensation [13]. Market Reactions and Concerns - The changes have sparked discussions among investors, with many believing that the new performance-linked compensation will improve fund management effectiveness [13][14]. - However, some investors express concerns that an overemphasis on performance benchmarks may lead to homogenized investment strategies, potentially increasing market volatility [15].