记者丨黎雨辰 编辑丨姜诗蔷 围绕公募基金改革，又一大重磅细则即将落地。 10月22日，21世纪经济报道记者独家获悉，中国证券投资基金业协会即将于近日发布公募基 金业绩比较基准规则征求意见稿。 同时据记者前期自行业机构了解，以头部基金公司为主的多家管理人已上报了一批拟作为业 绩比较基准的指数，种类涵盖宽基、行业、风格等多种类型。不过对于进入实际基准库的指 数数量，监管层的态度整体较为审慎。 发挥其确定产品定位、明晰投资策略、表征投资风格、衡量产品业绩、约束投资行为的作 用。 有公募人士向21世纪经济报道记者分析称，业绩比较基准规则的推出，意味着基金业协会或 将同步发布多项业绩比较基准，供基金管理人根据旗下产品特性从中选择使用。该基准将成 为评价基金经理是否跑赢同业、创造超额收益的核心标准。 而在此基础上，基金经理的后续薪酬以及行业重要奖项的评选，也将均与其所实现的超额收 益紧密挂钩。同时，业绩比较基准一经选定即具备约束力，不得随意变更。 回顾公募基金行业改革启动的近半年历程，多项政策已陆续落地，包括新型浮动费率产品的 推出、第三阶段费率改革配套政策等。而在业内人士看来，作为刻画投资者"获得感"的重要 指标，业绩 ...

加强金融教育宣传，有利于持续提升公众金融素养和风险防范能力，维护金融消费者和投资者合法 权益。近期，多家理财公司结合金融监管总局等部门举行的金融教育宣传周活动，就投资者关心的理财 产品问题进行了解答。 很多投资者在购买理财产品时会注意到一个专业概念——业绩比较基准。业绩比较基准是什么？它 能代表理财产品的收益情况吗？理财产品通常会设置业绩比较基准，它是理财产品管理人基于产品性 质、投资策略、过往经验等因素对产品设定的投资目标。当理财产品的实际收益率超过业绩比较基准上 限时，投资者会因超出预期的产品业绩获得业绩回报。如果将理财产品的收益情况类比为考试成绩，那 么业绩比较基准就相当于考试前的预期分数，而业绩回报就是最终分数超过预期时得到的奖励。 此外，产品赎回规则、收益到账时间等投资者关心的问题还有很多。理财公司提示，投资者要学会 看懂产品说明书。投资者可通过代销机构客户端的理财专区找到想要了解的理财产品，进入详情页面找 到产品说明书。 （责任编辑：关婧） 认购理财产品后，有的投资者发现，产品刚成立，净值就下跌了，这种情况让他们很担心。实际 上，这可能是产品进入了建仓期。理财产品的"生命周期"通常包括产品设计、资 ...

Core Viewpoint - The release of the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds" signifies a profound systemic transformation in China's public fund industry, with 25 measures outlined to guide future development [1] Group 1: Investment Research Capability - Enhancing core investment research capabilities is fundamental for public funds to adhere to the "investor-centric" philosophy, aiming to create sustainable returns for investors [1] - The plan proposes establishing a performance evaluation system for fund companies' investment research capabilities, promoting a collaborative team approach rather than individual-driven models [2] - Silver Hua Fund has been exploring an "industrialized" approach to active equity investment, moving away from the star fund manager model to a modular capability framework [2] Group 2: Floating Fee Rate Funds - The plan emphasizes the promotion of floating fee rate funds that align the interests of fund managers with those of investors, encouraging long-term holding [3] - The floating fee mechanism adjusts management fees based on actual fund performance, incentivizing fund managers to focus on generating returns rather than merely managing scale [3][4] - This mechanism aims to reshape the industry's long-termism philosophy and enhance investor satisfaction [3] Group 3: Performance Benchmarking - The plan introduces regulatory guidelines for performance benchmarks, ensuring strict oversight of how fund companies set and modify these benchmarks [4][6] - Silver Hua Fund is committed to developing a benchmark system that reflects fund managers' investment styles, enhancing investor confidence and market health [5][6] Group 4: Long-Term Assessment and Incentives - The plan calls for a reform in performance assessment mechanisms, prioritizing fund investment returns over operational metrics [6] - Silver Hua Fund adopts a long-term assessment approach, focusing on three to five-year performance metrics to discourage short-termism [6] Group 5: Innovation in Equity Fund Products - The plan identifies standardized products like ETFs as key to public fund innovation, reflecting a shift in investor attitudes [7] - Silver Hua Fund has developed a diverse product matrix covering core indices, focusing on low-volatility strategies and aligning with national innovation strategies [7] Group 6: Industry Development Focus - The industry is shifting its focus from management scale to improving investor returns, with public funds acting as a bridge between resident wealth growth and high-quality economic development [8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the importance of performance benchmarks for fund managers, comparing them to a passing score in an exam, and emphasizes the need for accurate and reasonable benchmarks to evaluate fund performance [5][9][14]. Group 1: Performance Benchmarks - Fund managers have a performance benchmark, akin to a passing score in exams, which they strive to exceed [5][9]. - The benchmark is determined by the fund company and can sometimes be set lower to make it easier for managers to achieve [11][12]. - New regulations require that benchmarks must be accurately chosen to reflect the fund's characteristics, including market distribution and industry [14][17]. Group 2: Types of Funds and Benchmarks - Equity funds typically use the CSI 300 Index as their benchmark, which covers the largest 300 companies in the A-share market, representing nearly 60% of the market's total capitalization [21][22]. - Bond funds often use the China Bond Composite Index, which encompasses various core bond types, reflecting the overall performance of the Chinese bond market [24]. - Mixed funds have a more complex benchmark, combining stock and bond indices based on their asset allocation [27]. Group 3: Importance of Benchmarks for Investors - Benchmarks help investors assess the true performance of a fund by providing a standard for comparison [29]. - For instance, if a healthcare fund rises by 10% but the benchmark rises by 17%, the fund's performance is relatively poor [31]. - Investors can use a composite benchmark to evaluate the overall performance of multiple funds in their portfolio [36][38].

Core Viewpoint - Investors should not solely rely on displayed yield numbers when selecting bank wealth management products, as these figures require careful analysis of their specific types and regulatory context [1][2]. Group 1: Types of Yield - Various yield types include performance comparison benchmarks, annualized yields over different periods (7 days, 1 month, 3 months, since inception), which serve different purposes in evaluating investment performance [2][3]. - The performance comparison benchmark is a target set by the product manager and does not guarantee future performance or actual returns [2][3]. - Annualized yield is calculated on a yearly basis to standardize returns for easier comparison, with different time frames providing multiple metrics for investors [3][4]. Group 2: Regulatory Context - Regulatory requirements prohibit the prediction of future performance for wealth management products, emphasizing that past performance does not indicate future results [1][4]. - Financial institutions can display various past performance metrics based on product characteristics, but there is no unified standard for presenting these yields [4]. Group 3: Investment Strategy - Investors should align their analysis of yield types with their investment horizon; for long-term investments (over 6 months), focus on performance comparison benchmarks and annualized yields, while for short-term investments (1 to 6 months), short-term yields should be prioritized [4]. - It is suggested that investors extend their investment duration to achieve more stable returns, as most net value-based products tend to fluctuate around the performance comparison benchmark over time [4].

Core Viewpoint - The newly proposed "Measures" aims to standardize information disclosure for three types of asset management products, ensuring investor rights and obligations are upheld throughout the product lifecycle [1][2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The "Measures" address industry pain points by unifying information disclosure standards across various asset management products, enhancing regulatory consistency and investor protection [2][4]. - The implementation of the "Measures" is set for approximately six months after formal release, allowing institutions to adjust product documentation and systems accordingly [1][3]. Group 2: Information Disclosure Process - The "Measures" comprehensively regulate the information disclosure process during the product lifecycle, covering fundraising, ongoing management, and termination phases [5][6]. - Specific requirements include detailed disclosures during fundraising, regular performance reporting during the product's life, and clear communication of fees and profit distribution upon termination [5][6]. Group 3: Performance Benchmarking - The "Measures" stipulate that asset management products should maintain consistent performance benchmarks, with adjustments only permitted under strict internal approval processes [7][8]. - This regulation aims to enhance transparency and reduce misleading practices related to past performance disclosures, thereby protecting investor interests [7][8]. Group 4: Differentiated Standards for Public and Private Products - The "Measures" establish stricter disclosure requirements for public products, reflecting their broader audience and varying investor knowledge levels, while allowing for more flexibility in private product disclosures [9][10]. - This approach balances the need for transparency with the protection of sensitive information in private transactions [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The release of the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds" has become a focal point in the industry, emphasizing the need to enhance the stability of fund investment behavior and address issues like "style drift" and "inconsistent products" [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Performance Benchmarking - The Action Plan strengthens the role of performance benchmarks as a constraint for public fund products, establishing clear guidelines for setting, modifying, disclosing, and continuously evaluating these benchmarks [2][3]. - Fund companies are expected to be more cautious in setting performance benchmarks, shifting the evaluation logic from beta returns to alpha returns [3]. - The emphasis on performance benchmarks aims to ensure that fund managers adhere to agreed-upon investment styles, reducing arbitrary deviations [2][3]. Thematic Fund Regulation - The Action Plan proposes stricter registration and self-regulatory rules for thematic funds, addressing the frequent style drift observed in these funds [4][5]. - Measures include controlling product design, dynamic holding checks, and linking performance benchmarks to fund manager evaluations [5]. - There has been a significant increase in the number of funds changing their performance benchmarks, with over 60 funds making changes this year, more than double compared to the same period last year [5]. Long-Term Assessment Mechanism - The Action Plan introduces a long-term assessment mechanism, requiring that at least 80% of the evaluation weight be based on performance over three years or more [7][8]. - This mechanism aims to reduce short-term market fluctuations' impact on investment performance evaluations, encouraging a shift from focusing on scale to prioritizing returns [8]. - The long-term assessment is expected to attract more long-term capital into the stock market, enhancing market stability and resource allocation efficiency [8].

Core Viewpoint - The recent implementation of the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds" by the China Securities Regulatory Commission has led to significant adjustments in the performance benchmarks of public funds, aiming to enhance the accountability and sustainability of fund performance [1][2]. Group 1: Adjustments in Performance Benchmarks - Several fund companies have already begun to adjust their performance benchmarks following the release of the Action Plan, with a focus on aligning investment behavior with product positioning [2][3]. - For instance, the performance benchmark for the "Puyin Ansheng Stable Income Bond Fund" has changed from the "CSI All Bond Index" to a more complex formula involving multiple indices and bank deposit rates [3]. Group 2: Industry Response and Trends - Other fund companies are also considering adjustments to their performance benchmarks, indicating a broader industry trend towards compliance with the new regulatory framework [4]. - E Fund has announced plans to introduce floating management fees based on performance benchmarks for actively managed equity funds, further reinforcing the importance of these benchmarks [4]. Group 3: Performance Discrepancies and Challenges - A significant number of actively managed equity funds have underperformed their benchmarks by over 20% in the past three years, highlighting issues with asset allocation and investment discipline [5]. - The analysis suggests that many funds are experiencing "style drift," where their actual holdings do not align with their stated investment strategies, leading to a lack of sustainable performance [5]. Group 4: Enhanced Accountability Measures - The Action Plan links performance benchmarks to the income of fund companies and the compensation of fund managers, promoting a performance-driven culture [6]. - New management fee structures will be implemented, where fees will vary based on the fund's performance relative to its benchmark, incentivizing better performance [6]. Group 5: Future Outlook - The adjustments in performance benchmarks may lead to more rigorous and suitable benchmarks as the index market evolves, allowing fund companies to better align their products with appropriate performance measures [7].

Core Insights - The A-share market has seen high activity this year, with nearly 80% of public quantitative index-enhanced funds outperforming their benchmarks, particularly those tracking small-cap indices like CSI 1000 and CSI 2000 [1][2] Group 1: Performance of Quantitative Funds - Nearly 80% of public index-enhanced funds have achieved excess returns this year, with significant outperformance noted in funds tracking small-cap indices [2] - For instance, the performance of the Zhaoshang CSI 2000 Enhanced Strategy ETF reached a return of 20.80%, while its benchmark only increased by 9.74%, resulting in an excess return of 11 percentage points [2] - Funds tracking larger indices like CSI 300 and CSI 500 have shown less impressive excess returns, with some achieving over 5 percentage points above their benchmarks [2] Group 2: Market Conditions and Strategy - The high activity level in the A-share market this year has been favorable for quantitative strategies, with growth factors and trading behavior factors contributing significantly to excess returns [4] - The competitive landscape for excess returns has intensified due to the rapid growth of public and private quantitative products, leading to a normalization of excess returns expected in 2024 [4][6] - The introduction of the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds" has reinforced the constraints of performance benchmarks, prompting a focus on stable excess returns [6] Group 3: Future Outlook and Risk Management - Future index-enhanced products are expected to diversify sources of excess returns and control risk exposure to maintain performance across varying market conditions [7] - The performance of new products like the CSI A500 index-enhanced funds has shown significant variation, influenced by factors such as establishment and investment timing [3][5] - The need for a more disciplined approach to risk management and the use of multi-factor systems for stock selection is emphasized to enhance long-term performance [6][7]

Group 1 - Three new floating rate funds were launched on August 4, including E Fund Value Return Mixed, China Europe Core Smart Mixed, and CCB Medical Innovation Stock, with fundraising periods ending on August 20, August 15, and August 22 respectively [2][3] - The issuance scale for CCB Medical Innovation Stock is capped at 3 billion yuan [3] - The new floating rate funds feature differentiated performance benchmarks, which will influence the fee rates based on the funds' performance relative to these benchmarks [1][4] Group 2 - The performance benchmark for China Europe Core Smart Mixed is set as: 80% of the CSI 800 Index return + 5% of the CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect Composite Index (RMB) return + 15% of the China Bond Composite Index return [4] - E Fund Value Return Mixed has a benchmark of: 55% of the CSI 800 Index return + 20% of the CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect Composite Index return + 25% of the China Bond Total Index return [4] - CCB Medical Innovation Stock's benchmark consists of: 70% of the CSI Pharmaceutical and Health Index return + 15% of the China Bond Composite Index return + 15% of the Hang Seng Healthcare Index return [4] Group 3 - The funds are designed for dual market investment in A-shares and Hong Kong stocks, with a limit of 50% of stock assets in Hong Kong Stock Connect stocks [3][4] - The management fee structure includes three tiers: 1.2% for the benchmark tier, 1.5% for the upgrade tier, and 0.6% for the downgrade tier, based on the fund's performance after one year [5] - The funds aim to enhance the holding experience through a quarterly dividend mechanism, with China Europe Core Smart Mixed implementing a "quarterly dividend upon meeting standards" clause [1][3]