Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) is soliciting opinions on the draft guidelines for the performance comparison benchmarks of publicly raised securities investment funds, emphasizing the need for custodians to strengthen their investment supervision responsibilities [1] Group 1: Custodian Responsibilities - Custodians are required to enhance their review of the investment style library of fund investment targets, ensuring that the included targets comply with the fund contract and align with the fund's investment style [1] - There is a focus on the stability of investment styles, with custodians expected to monitor and alert against risks such as thematic products deviating from their themes and non-thematic products having excessively high industry concentration [1]

人民财讯10月31日电，中国证监会10月31日发布《公开募集证券投资基金业绩比较基准指引（征求意见 稿）》，同日，基金业协会同步发布了《公开募集证券投资基金业绩比较基准操作细则（征求意见 稿）》，向社会公开征求意见。新规将以增强公募投资行为稳定性、明晰产品投资风格、提升投资者获 得感为目标，从基金管理人内部明确业绩比较基准设定、变更、披露规范，完善内部控制机制方面；到 外部加强托管、销售、评价等方面，全链条、多维度地完善业绩比较基准的监管要求。 ...

人民财讯10月31日电，证监会就《公开募集证券投资基金业绩比较基准指引（征求意见稿）》公开征求 意见，其中提出，基金管理人应当按照规定建立以基金投资收益为核心的考核体系，充分体现基金产品 业绩和投资者盈亏情况，建立健全与基金投资收益相挂钩的薪酬管理机制。基金管理人衡量主动管理权 益类基金产品业绩时，应当加强与业绩比较基准对比，做好业绩归因分析，科学评估超额收益质量和偏 离基准情况，合理剔除指数编制、风险应对等客观因素带来的正负超额收益情况。主动管理权益类基金 长期投资业绩明显低于业绩比较基准的，相关基金经理的绩效薪酬应当明显下降。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The new regulatory guidelines for performance benchmarks in public funds are imminent, marking a significant step towards high-quality development in the fund industry, with clearer product positioning and enhanced constraints on investment behavior [1][3][11]. Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The "Action Plan" mandates the establishment of regulatory guidelines for performance benchmarks, detailing the setting, modification, disclosure, continuous evaluation, and correction mechanisms for fund companies [3]. - The guidelines aim to strictly regulate the selection of performance benchmarks by fund companies, ensuring they effectively define product positioning, clarify investment strategies, represent investment styles, measure product performance, and constrain investment behavior [3][11]. Group 2: Industry Response - Many fund companies have begun to proactively adjust their performance benchmarks in anticipation of the new regulations, with 176 funds having adjusted their benchmarks this year alone [8][7]. - Fund companies have received preliminary versions of the benchmark index library and are preparing to modify their performance benchmarks accordingly [5][4]. Group 3: Benchmark Construction Standards - There is a consensus in the industry regarding the standards for constructing scientific benchmarks, which include matching risk-return characteristics with the fund, accurately reflecting investment strategies and styles, ensuring transparency in benchmark composition and calculation methods, and adequately covering major industries for thematic funds [8][9]. Group 4: Short-term Challenges - The implementation of the new guidelines is expected to have a profound impact on the public fund industry, but it may also lead to short-term pressures for concentrated adjustments [11]. - Fund managers may need to adjust their portfolios to align with the new benchmarks, which could involve significant changes in holdings [12][11].

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming release of the public fund performance benchmark rules by the Asset Management Association of China aims to address long-standing discrepancies in the fund industry, aligning fund manager performance with investor expectations and enhancing transparency in performance evaluation [2][3][4]. Group 1: Fund Performance Benchmark Rules - The new benchmark rules are expected to become the core standard for evaluating whether fund managers outperform their peers and generate excess returns, which will also be linked to their compensation and industry awards [2]. - The current lack of transparency and scientific guidance in measuring fund performance has led to a disconnect between investor experiences and the claims made by fund companies [3][4]. - The performance benchmark has often served as a marketing tool rather than a true measure of risk and return characteristics, resulting in a misalignment of interests between fund companies, managers, and investors [3][4]. Group 2: Impact on Market Dynamics - Frequent redemptions by investors due to poor performance have increased liquidity management costs for funds and negatively impacted expected investment returns [3]. - The existing mechanism allows fund managers to report outperformance against benchmarks while investors may still incur losses, creating a misalignment of incentives [3][4]. - The anticipated changes in benchmark rules are expected to promote a wealth-sharing market, enhancing the effectiveness of the capital market in supporting consumer confidence and economic stability [4][5]. Group 3: Need for Reform and Professionalization - The reform of performance benchmarks requires a decisive approach to eliminate existing discrepancies and enhance the credibility of the rules [5]. - There is a call for the development of more specialized and precise total return indices to provide accurate measures for fund performance, ensuring transparency and professionalism in fund operations [5]. - The emphasis on recalibrating performance benchmarks is crucial for fostering a healthy fund industry and enabling the capital market to effectively contribute to consumer confidence and economic growth [5].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article emphasizes the enhanced role of performance benchmarks in mutual funds, as mandated by the regulatory framework, which aims to improve the quality of fund development [2] - Investors are advised to assess whether a fund aligns with their preferences by examining the benchmark composition, such as whether it is based on broad indices like CSI 300 or sector-specific indices like semiconductor or renewable energy indices [2] - The article highlights the importance of evaluating a fund manager's performance against the benchmark over different time frames (3 years, 5 years) to determine the fund's true management capability and investment value [2] Group 2 - The performance benchmark is not static and may change when the fund's investment scope is adjusted, indicating a shift towards a more focused investment direction, such as Hong Kong stocks [3] - Investors are encouraged to stay updated on any announcements regarding benchmark adjustments to ensure that the fund's investment direction continues to meet their needs [3]

Core Viewpoint - Understanding the performance benchmark of mutual funds is crucial for investors to establish a rational investment perspective, as it conveys important information about the fund's investment direction, style, and strategy [1][2]. Group 1: Importance of Performance Benchmarks - The regulatory framework has elevated the significance of performance benchmarks in mutual funds, guiding product positioning, investment strategies, and performance evaluation [1]. - Performance benchmarks help investors identify the investment focus and style of funds, such as large-cap blue-chip stocks or specific sectors like semiconductors [2][3]. - Composite benchmarks, such as a mix of equity and bond indices, indicate a balanced investment strategy, while more complex benchmarks reflect specific asset allocation strategies [3]. Group 2: Evaluating Fund Performance - Performance benchmarks serve as a tool to filter market styles and assess the true management capabilities of fund managers, allowing for a more accurate evaluation of their performance [3][4]. - For actively managed funds, deviations from benchmarks can indicate attempts to achieve excess returns, while passive index funds rely heavily on accurately tracking their benchmarks [4]. - The introduction of floating fee structures linked to performance benchmarks ensures that investors pay for value, with fund managers receiving higher compensation only when they outperform the benchmark [4]. Group 3: Analyzing Fund Selection - Investors should analyze benchmarks to determine if a fund aligns with their preferences, considering the composition of the benchmark and its implications for risk and return [5][6]. - The choice of benchmark is critical; funds using price indices rather than total return indices may mislead investors regarding their true performance and management effectiveness [6]. - Adjustments to performance benchmarks may occur as funds change their investment focus, necessitating investor awareness of such changes to ensure alignment with their investment goals [7].

Core Viewpoint - The Morgan Anyu Return Mixed Securities Investment Fund aims to achieve stable returns through strict risk control and dynamic asset allocation based on macroeconomic analysis and market conditions [2][3]. Fund Product Overview - Fund Name: Morgan Anyu Return Mixed - Fund Code: 004823 - Fund Type: Contractual open-end fund - Effective Date of Fund Contract: September 13, 2018 - Total Fund Shares at Reporting Period End: 122,437,254.25 shares [2]. Investment Strategy - The fund employs a comprehensive analysis of macroeconomic conditions, fiscal and monetary policies, and market sentiment to determine asset allocation among stocks, bonds, and money market instruments [2][3]. - The fund utilizes various investment strategies, including duration strategy, credit bond strategy, and convertible bond strategy, to actively manage the portfolio [3][4]. Performance Metrics - For the reporting period from April 1, 2025, to June 30, 2025, the fund's net value growth rates were as follows: - Morgan Anyu Return Mixed A: 0.54% (benchmark: 1.60%) - Morgan Anyu Return Mixed C: 0.42% (benchmark: 1.60%) [12][13]. - Over the past year, the net value growth rate for Morgan Anyu Return Mixed A was 6.53%, while for Mixed C it was 6.00% [5][12]. Financial Indicators - The fund's total assets were allocated as follows: - Stocks: 31,817,490.49 RMB (17.56%) - Bonds: 68,855,405.68 RMB (37.99%) [16]. - The fund's investment in policy financial bonds amounted to 10,329,104.11 RMB (5.71%) [18]. Market Analysis - The domestic real estate data showed a weak trend, while consumer spending improved due to fiscal support [9]. - The U.S. economy is oscillating between stagnation and recession, with potential impacts on global risk appetite [10]. - The bond market remained stable despite negative factors, with a decline in the ten-year government bond yield by 16 basis points [11]. Fund Management - The fund management team has adhered to fair trading practices and has not engaged in any actions detrimental to the interests of fund shareholders [6][9]. - The fund manager's investment decisions comply with relevant laws and regulations, ensuring fair treatment across different investment portfolios [6][9].

Group 1: Report Overview - The report focuses on the performance comparison benchmarks of US active funds, aiming to provide insights for China's public fund market after the release of the "Action Plan for Promoting the High - quality Development of Public Funds" [2] Group 2: Investment Rating - Not provided in the report Group 3: Core Views - The US has established requirements for performance comparison benchmarks with broad - based indices as the main and narrow - based indices as supplementary. The CFA Institute also offers benchmark - setting guidelines [4][9] - US active funds mainly use single - index benchmarks. Stock - type funds use S&P 500 as a single - benchmark index; multi - benchmark funds prefer broad - based and narrow - based index combinations. Hybrid funds often use composite benchmarks, and bond - type funds have concentrated single - benchmarks and diverse multi - benchmarks [4][22] - US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark have higher correlation, lower tracking error, and a lower proportion of significantly underperforming the benchmark compared to Chinese ordinary stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [5][53] - Capital Group and Fidelity, two leading active equity fund companies, have different benchmark - setting characteristics. Capital Group mainly uses single - benchmarks, while Fidelity has a more balanced distribution of single - and multi - benchmarks [61] Group 4: Summary by Directory 1. US Active Fund Performance Comparison Benchmark Overview - **Performance Comparison Benchmark Policy**: Since 1993, the SEC has required funds to compare their total returns with the total returns of appropriate broad - based indices, and also encourages the use of narrow - based indices. In 2022, the definition of broad - based indices was revised. The CFA Institute also provides benchmark - setting guidelines [9][10][13] - **US Active Fund Classification**: According to SEC naming rules, 80% of a fund's assets should be invested in line with its name. The ICI classifies mutual funds into major asset categories. As of April 2025, the US mutual fund market was worth $27.97 trillion, with stock - type funds being the largest in scale [15][16] - **US Active Fund Performance Comparison Benchmark Type Distribution**: Among 4938 US active mutual funds, 56.3% are stock - type funds and 32.4% are bond - type funds as of March 17, 2025. 63.4% of funds use single - benchmarks, 31.6% use multi - benchmarks, and 5.0% use composite benchmarks [19][22] 2. Stock - Type Fund Benchmark Analysis - **Single Benchmark**: Single - benchmark stock - type funds have high index concentration and diverse index selection, mainly using S&P 500. Among 1848 single - benchmark stock - type funds, S&P 500 is used 320 times [26] - **Multi - Benchmark**: Multi - benchmark stock - type funds often use broad - based and narrow - based index combinations. 846 out of 913 multi - benchmark stock - type funds use 2 indices as benchmarks. Large - scale multi - benchmark stock - type funds mainly use broad - based and style indices [30][35] 3. Hybrid Fund Benchmark Analysis - Among 239 hybrid funds, 122 use composite benchmarks, mostly composed of 2 indices. The equity index weight in composite benchmarks ranges from 5% to 85%. The most commonly used combination is S&P 500*60% + Bloomberg US Aggregate*40% [37][40] 4. Bond - Type Fund Benchmark Analysis - **Single Benchmark**: Bloomberg US Aggregate and Bloomberg Municipal are the most commonly used single - benchmarks for bond - type funds, with high benchmark concentration [46] - **Multi - Benchmark**: Multi - benchmark bond - type funds have diverse benchmark combinations, reflecting investment characteristics in regions, bond types, durations, and credit ratings. Large - scale multi - benchmark bond funds use diverse benchmark combinations [48][50] 5. US Active Fund Return vs Benchmark Comparison - **Correlation and Tracking Error Analysis**: The average correlation coefficient between US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark and S&P 500 in the past three years is 0.91, higher than that of Chinese ordinary stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark. The tracking error of US funds is also lower [53][54] - **Excess Return Analysis**: Less than 10% of US single - benchmark stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark significantly underperformed the benchmark in the past three years, a lower proportion compared to Chinese stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [59] 6. Benchmark Setting of Leading Active Equity Fund Companies - **Capital Group**: As of October 3, 2024, it had 94 products with a total management scale of $2.4 trillion. Stock - type funds accounted for 67% of the scale. The company mainly uses S&P 500 or MSCI ACWI as single - benchmarks [64][68] - **Fidelity**: As of October 4, 2024, its management scale was $2.95 trillion, with similar active and passive product scales. Stock - type funds accounted for 79% of the scale. Single - and multi - benchmark funds are evenly distributed, with single - benchmark funds mainly using S&P 500 and multi - benchmark funds using broad - based and industry/style index combinations [73][76] 7. Summary - The report introduces US active fund performance comparison benchmark policies and industry guidelines, and analyzes current benchmark - selection characteristics. US active funds mainly use single - index benchmarks, and different types of funds have different benchmark - selection preferences [84][85] - US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark have better performance in terms of correlation, tracking error, and excess return compared to Chinese stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [86] - Capital Group and Fidelity have different benchmark - setting characteristics, and both show certain abilities to obtain excess returns [87]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent wave of adjustments to performance benchmarks by fund companies in response to new regulatory guidelines, emphasizing the need for scientific setting of benchmarks and understanding their impact on fund operations [1][3][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes and Industry Response - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) released the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds," which highlights the importance of performance benchmarks [3]. - As of June 19, 134 funds have adjusted their performance benchmarks this year, an increase of approximately 80% compared to the same period last year [4][6]. - Fund companies have begun to proactively review and adjust their benchmarks to align with investment styles, especially following the release of the new guidelines [4][11]. Group 2: Characteristics of Adjusted Funds - A significant number of the adjusted funds are actively managed equity funds, with 55 out of the 134 being such funds [7]. - Some fixed-income products have also adjusted their benchmarks to better match their bond asset allocations [7][8]. - Fund of funds (FOF) have frequently adjusted their benchmarks, reflecting new asset allocation needs, with 44 of the adjusted products being mixed FOFs [8][9]. Group 3: Importance of Performance Benchmarks - The article highlights that many investors do not adequately consider performance benchmarks when selecting funds, often focusing more on absolute returns [15][16]. - There is a general lack of understanding among investors regarding the significance of performance benchmarks, which can lead to misalignment with investment strategies [17][18]. - The article suggests that performance benchmarks serve as a critical tool for managing investor suitability and understanding risk-return characteristics [18][19]. Group 4: Recommendations for Future Benchmarking - The industry suggests enhancing the diversity of performance benchmarks by including thematic indices and style factor indices [18]. - Establishing a dynamic adjustment mechanism for benchmarks is recommended to ensure they reflect significant market changes or strategy adjustments [18]. - Fund companies are encouraged to strengthen internal research to select the most appropriate benchmarks and continuously evaluate their effectiveness [20].