Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the low performance benchmark achievement rate among fund managers, with only 65.99% of the 2005 fund managers meeting their benchmarks over the past three years [2][3] - The "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds" was released on May 7, aiming to shift the focus of the industry from "scale" to "returns" and to establish a performance benchmark regulatory guideline [2] - Many public funds have yet to implement corresponding assessment systems in response to the new regulatory framework, primarily due to waiting for detailed guidelines and observing the actions of leading companies [5][6] Group 2 - Among the 2005 fund managers, 1323 achieved performance benchmarks, while 682 did not, indicating a significant disparity, especially within mixed fund managers where only 52.13% met the standards [3] - Active equity fund managers have a benchmark achievement rate of 52.19%, with a notable number of managers failing to meet benchmarks due to reliance on popular products launched in 2019-2020 [4] - The performance of stock fund managers shows a 61.54% achievement rate, with over 70% of those not meeting benchmarks concentrated in specific sectors like new energy and semiconductors [4] Group 3 - The industry response to the new assessment guidelines is cautious, with many firms preferring to wait for clearer regulations before making significant changes to their internal assessment systems [5][6] - Some large fund companies have submitted over 180 potential performance benchmark indices to provide a more diverse range of performance standards for their products, although this could complicate operations [6] - Current assessment practices vary, with some firms extending the assessment period to three years and focusing on excess returns relative to benchmarks to maintain investment direction and style consistency [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant reforms introduced in the public fund industry through the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds," emphasizing the importance of performance benchmarks and the need for a more rational setting of these benchmarks to improve fund performance [2][6][12]. Summary by Sections Performance Benchmarks - The document highlights the critical role of performance benchmarks for public funds, which serve as a standard for fund managers to achieve and exceed [6][7]. - Most funds currently use indices like CSI 300, CSI 800, and CSI 500 as benchmarks, with nearly half of active funds benchmarked against the CSI 300 [7]. Fund Performance Analysis - Recent data indicates that only 30% of funds have outperformed their benchmarks over the past three years, with nearly 50% of products underperforming by more than 10% [12]. - The average excess return relative to benchmarks has been negative in recent years, with a notable decline in the proportion of funds outperforming benchmarks from 2020 to 2024 [13][14]. Active Fund Management Challenges - Continuous outperformance is challenging, especially during market downturns, where only about 20% of active funds managed to outperform their benchmarks from 2022 to 2024 [14]. - A study identified only 46 funds (2.2% of the sample) that consistently outperformed their benchmarks over five years, with 25 of these having a combined scale of over 1 billion [17]. Fund Manager Performance - The article lists funds that have consistently outperformed their benchmarks over five years, noting that many of these funds are managed by well-regarded fund managers [21][22]. - The performance of fund managers is evaluated not only on returns but also on their ability to control drawdowns, with some funds experiencing significant drawdowns despite strong returns [23][24]. Notable Fund Managers - The article mentions specific fund managers who have successfully managed funds that consistently outperform benchmarks, highlighting their investment philosophies and strategies [25][36]. - It also discusses the impact of fund manager changes on fund performance, particularly in the context of recent departures of notable managers [29][33]. Conclusion on Fund Evaluation - The article concludes that while outperforming benchmarks is a key metric for evaluating fund performance, it should not be the sole criterion, as other factors such as risk management and drawdown control are equally important [44].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core View of the Report - The "Action Plan" is long - term oriented, and its short - term impact on the market may be overestimated. Its specific terms have a long - term impact on fund managers' behavior and funds, and the short - term market impact is mainly emotional [2][6]. - In the long run, the index enhancement of active equity funds is a major development trend. The active equity investment betting on a single track may decline, and floating - fee products put forward higher requirements for active equity investment to approach the benchmark [2]. 3. Summary by Directory 3.1 Policy Focuses on the Long - Term, and Short - Term Impact on the Market May Be Overestimated - Future public funds may adjust performance benchmarks according to actual investment characteristics rather than simply approaching existing benchmarks. The current calculation method overestimates the amount of position - adjustment funds [6]. - The three - year relative benchmark - 10% constraint is relatively mild. Fund managers don't need to significantly adjust their positions in the short term. In the three - year dimension, the possibility of correct and implemented active judgments by active equity fund managers increases significantly [7][9]. - The "Action Plan" emphasizes long - term assessment, which protects fund managers' long - term investment decisions and encourages them to take a long - term perspective in investment decisions [15]. 3.2 Long - Term Impact: Index Enhancement of Public Funds Is a Major Trend 3.2.1 Active Investment Betting on Sub - Tracks May Decline - The three - year performance benchmark - 10% constraint may force track - type fund managers to adjust their investment characteristics in the long term. Short - term volatile sub - industries are difficult to outperform broader benchmarks in the three - year dimension [18]. - The "Action Plan" also includes investor return assessment, which will make it difficult for the "business model" of high - volatility single - track products to continue. The active equity investment model of betting on tracks may gradually decline [20][21]. 3.2.2 Floating - Fee Products Are a Real Test for Active Equity Investment to Approach the Benchmark - The "Action Plan" proposes new floating - fee products, which are required to account for no less than 60% of new products. If these products are open - ended funds, they will pose a real challenge to active equity investors to approach the benchmark [23]. - Since fund managers cannot control investors' subscription and redemption behaviors, their optimal decision is to closely follow the benchmark to create excess returns, which puts forward higher requirements for active equity fund managers [24][27].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released an action plan to promote the high-quality development of public funds, emphasizing the importance of performance benchmarks for funds [1][7]. Group 1: Changes in Performance Benchmarks - A significant increase in the number of funds changing their performance benchmarks has been observed this year, with 82 funds making changes compared to only 37 in the same period last year [3]. - Several North Exchange theme funds have updated their performance benchmarks to align with relevant indices, although five companies have yet to make these necessary adjustments [3][6]. - The Tianhong Qingxiang Fund and Zheshang Huijin Quantitative Fund have both adjusted their performance benchmarks to better reflect their investment strategies, moving away from indices that do not accurately represent their risk-return profiles [4][5]. Group 2: Importance of Performance Benchmarks - Performance benchmarks are crucial for evaluating fund performance, yet many funds have benchmarks that do not serve their intended purpose, leading to a lack of accountability for fund managers [6][9]. - The CSRC's action plan aims to enforce stricter guidelines for setting and modifying performance benchmarks, linking them to fund company performance assessments and manager compensation [7][10]. - The current benchmarks often reflect a simplistic approach, with a high concentration of funds using major indices like the CSI 300, which may not accurately represent the diverse market landscape [9][11]. Group 3: Future Implications - The action plan is expected to lead to more refined management of performance benchmarks, encouraging fund companies to reassess their benchmarks and align them more closely with their investment strategies [8][10]. - As the industry evolves, there is a push for more sophisticated benchmark selection, including the potential use of composite indices instead of relying solely on broad indices [11].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued an "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds," emphasizing the implementation of a performance-based floating management fee model for newly established actively managed equity funds, and strengthening the constraints of performance benchmarks [1]. Summary by Category Performance Benchmark Definition - The performance benchmark is a critical "baseline" set by fund companies based on fund type, investment scope, philosophy, and strategy, allowing comparison of fund returns to assess whether excess returns are generated and their stability [1]. Types of Performance Benchmarks - **Index Return Type**: The most commonly used form, typically a single index or a combination of index returns, or a combination of index returns with other rates (e.g., current deposit rates) [2]. - **Market Interest Rate Type**: Based on market interest rates, often adding or subtracting a fixed rate, such as "one-year RMB time deposit rate (after tax) +2%," commonly seen in money market funds and some pure bond funds [2]. - **Absolute Value Type**: Defined by a specific value, such as "annualized return of 6%," often used by funds seeking absolute returns, though less common [3]. Implications of the Action Plan - The Action Plan proposes establishing a floating fee mechanism linked to fund performance, promoting a model where fund company income is tied to the excess returns generated by the fund, fostering a healthier industry development and aligning investor interests [3].

今年以来，已有不少基金产品已变更业绩比较基准。统计显示，截至5月12日，年内已有70多只基金变 更业绩比较基准，具体类型包括偏股混合型基金、灵活配置混合型基金、普通股票型基金、养老目标 FOF、一级混合债基、二级混合债基、中长期纯债基金、被动指数型债基以及QDII基金。 5月13日，鹏华基金发布公告称，旗下鹏华普天债券的业绩比较基准将从5月13日起调整，原约定的业绩 比较基准"中证综合债指数收益率"，现拟变更为"中债综合全价(1年以下)指数收益率"。 今年以来，已有多家公司开展有针对性的基金业绩比较基准调整，细化标准、匹配投资策略。前不久， 中国证监会发布的《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》也明确，强化业绩比较基准的约束作用，切实 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。 又有基金变更业绩比较基准 5月13日，鹏华基金发布公告称，旗下鹏华普天债券的业绩比较基准将从5月13日起调整，原约定的业绩 比较基准"中证综合债指数收益率"，现拟变更为"中债综合全价(1年以下)指数收益率"。 在公告业绩比较基准发生调整的同时，基金合同也公布了修订方案，对应调整前后的业绩比较基准差 ...

公募基金"旱涝保收"的"好日子"终于要被强行扫进历史了。 近日，为落实2024年9月26日中央政治局会议"稳步推进公募基金改革"的决策部署，中国证监会印发《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》（下称《方 案》）。方案中的"基金公司考核激励方案改革调整"引发了业内最大的关注，其事关每个基金经理的生计，尤其是近些年陆续从"神坛"跌落的明星经理也 牵涉其中。 《方案》明确规定了，对三年以上产品的业绩低于业绩比较基准超过10个百分点的产品，要求其基金经理绩效薪酬应当明显下降；且规定了未来一年内， 管理规模靠前的头部公募发行浮动管理费收取机制的基金数量，不得低于其主动权益类基金发行数量的60%。 据Wind统计，目前仅有138只公募基金产品收取浮动管理费，其中有49只为偏股混合或普通股票型基金，相较于市场整体数量较少。此次《方案》的力 度，可以说是"伤筋动骨"。 中信建投证券在最新的详解报告中称，此举意在解决"基金赚钱基民不赚钱"的问题。 南方基金总经理杨小松对《凤凰WEEKLY财经》介绍《方案》出台的背景："在宏观经济形势变化、基础资产市场波动等背景下，部分基金的中长期业绩 不及预期或者投资表现与业绩比较基准存在偏离，导 ...

【导读】响应《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》，首批基金变更业绩比较基准 5月9日，浦银安盛基金宣布，即日起调整旗下三只债基产品的业绩比较基准，成为《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 以来，首批变更业绩比较基准的公募产品。 三只债基产品变更业绩比较基准 浦银安盛基金表示，为维护基金份额持有人的权益，以更科学、合理的业绩比较基准评价基金的业绩表现，根据相关法律法规的规定，公司经与各基金托 管人协商一致，决定自2025年5月9日起对浦银安盛稳健增利、浦银安盛悦享30天持有、浦银安盛双债增强的业绩比较基准进行变更，并修改各基金《基金 合同》的相应条款。 具体来看，浦银安盛稳健增利的业绩比较基准由"中证全债指数"变更为"中债综合（全价）指数收益率*85%+中证可转换债券指数收益率*5%+银行活期存 款利率（税后）*10%"。 | 《基金合同》 | 变更前 | 変更后 | | --- | --- | --- | | 修改章节 | | | | 第十部分 基 本基金业绩比较基准:中证全 | | 本基金业绩比较基准:中债综 | | 金的投资 | 賃指数 | 合(全价)指数收益率*85%+中 | | ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has implemented a new action plan aimed at promoting high-quality development in the public fund industry, introducing 25 measures to address industry pain points and improve fund performance and investor confidence [1][4][9]. Group 1: Fund Performance and Management Fees - A significant portion of funds have underperformed their benchmarks, with 2,071 funds (approximately 23.2%) having a net value growth rate that lags behind their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points in the last three years [1][6]. - The new plan includes a floating management fee structure that ties fund company income to investor returns, encouraging long-term investment and improving the focus on performance rather than scale [4][5]. - Fund managers whose products underperform their benchmarks by more than 10 percentage points over three years will see a reduction in their performance compensation, while those who exceed benchmarks may receive increased compensation [6][10]. Group 2: Regulatory and Performance Evaluation Enhancements - The action plan emphasizes the importance of establishing clear performance benchmarks for funds, which will help investors better assess fund performance and enhance market stability [6][9]. - The plan proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the performance evaluation system for fund companies, prioritizing investment returns over operational metrics like scale and profit [9][10]. - Fund companies will be evaluated based on long-term performance, with a minimum of 80% weight given to investment performance metrics in assessing fund managers [9][10]. Group 3: Industry Development and Investor Confidence - The introduction of floating fee structures is seen as a positive step towards aligning the interests of fund companies and investors, fostering a healthier industry ecosystem [5][10]. - The measures aim to address the issue of funds making profits while investors do not, thereby enhancing investor confidence and attracting more long-term capital into the market [9][10]. - The plan encourages the issuance of floating fee funds by leading firms, with a target of at least 60% of new active management equity funds to adopt this model within a year [4][5].

告别"躺赚"时代：业绩基准挂钩薪酬 公募基金高质量发展行动方案"靴子落地"。这不仅重塑着基金行业的生态，更深刻影响着基金经理与投 资者的行为逻辑。 5月7日，中国证监会发布的《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》（下称"行动方案"）进一步强化业绩 比较基准的约束作用，督促基金公司建立健全与基金投资收益相挂钩的薪酬管理机制、完善行业考核评 价制度等。这也意味着，基金经理的考核体系正从单纯的全市场排名，转向与基准表现深度挂钩，推动 公募基金回归"专业投资"本源。 事实上，业内对此次政策升级早有预期。部分机构已提前行动。数据显示，截至5月7日，年内至少61只 基金产品完成基准变更并修订合同，较去年同期19只的数量激增2倍有余，释放出行业加速规范的强烈 信号。 "通俗来讲，可以把业绩比较基准理解为公募基金产品的'锚'。"一位头型基金公司人士对第一财经表 示，有了这个基准，有利于对投资结果进行评价，同时也有利于投资者建立一个稳定、清晰、合理的预 期，实现了把合适的产品推荐给适配的投资者的效果，这也是增强投资者获得感的重要一环。 强化业绩基准监管 5月7日，中国证监会主席吴清在参加国新办新闻发布会时表示，针对风格漂移、货不对 ...