Investment Rating - The report maintains an "Overweight" rating for the industry [2] Core Insights - The first batch of floating management fee public funds has been launched, with approximately 70% of new products being floating fee funds, aligning with the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds" [5][8] - The floating management fee model links fees to fund performance and investor holding periods, emphasizing investor protection over manager incentives [13][15] - The average management fee across the 24 floating fee funds is 1.27%, with 40% of funds charging 1.2% and 52% charging 1.5% [20] Summary by Sections 1. Floating Fee Fund Management Fee Methods and Historical Comparisons - The floating management fee structure is designed to align with fund performance, reducing fees when performance is below benchmarks and increasing fees when performance exceeds benchmarks significantly [14][15] - The historical fee rates for floating fee funds are consistent with previous fund fee structures, with a 0.2% custody fee across all funds [17] 2. Overview of Pilot Fund Companies and Fund Managers - The 25 fund managers of the floating fee funds have an average tenure of 6.51 years, with a history of managing an average of 7.08 funds [18][20] - The historical performance of these fund managers is generally better than their peers, with an average annualized return of 5.89% [20][22] 3. Comparison of Floating Fee Fund Benchmark Indices - The floating fee funds utilize 17 benchmark indices, with stock indices accounting for 79.08% of the benchmarks, primarily including the CSI 300 and CSI 800 [29][32] - The allocation to the CSI 300 has decreased compared to historical benchmarks, while allocations to the CSI 800 Growth and CSI A500 have increased [32] 4. Investment Recommendations - The report suggests focusing on underrepresented sectors such as non-bank financials, recommending stocks like New China Life Insurance and China Pacific Insurance for potential growth [36]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article emphasizes the importance of performance benchmarks in the mutual fund industry, as outlined in the "Action Plan" released by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, which aims to enhance the quality of public funds through specific measures [1] - The article discusses the historical performance of active equity funds in the U.S. compared to their benchmarks, noting that the average tracking error for U.S. active equity funds is around 5%, while domestic equity funds in China have a tracking error close to 15% over the past five years, indicating a weaker benchmark awareness in China [1][2] - The article highlights the need for domestic active managers to adjust their investment strategies under the constraints of performance benchmarks, suggesting two potential adjustment plans: one based on quantitative index enhancement and another involving a split investment strategy [3][4] Group 2 - The first adjustment plan involves using a quantitative index enhancement framework to control the investment proportions of constituent stocks, industry weight deviations, and individual stock weight deviations to minimize performance divergence from the benchmark [4][5] - The article presents a simulation using the CSI 300 index as a benchmark, showing that when the investment proportion in constituent stocks is set at 80%, the probability of outperforming the index over three years remains close to 100%, regardless of industry and stock weight deviations [6][7] - As the investment proportion in constituent stocks decreases to 50% and 30%, the likelihood of underperforming the index increases significantly, indicating that maintaining a higher proportion of constituent stocks is crucial for performance [8][9][10] Group 3 - The article discusses a second strategy that involves a combination of passive index tracking and active management, where a portion of the portfolio is allocated to index investments while the remainder is actively managed [15][18] - A simulation using the top 50 constituent stocks of the CSI 300 index shows that this approach can yield excess returns while effectively tracking the index, with a historical annualized return of 4.36% compared to the CSI 300 index's 2.36% [18][19] - The article emphasizes that the proportion of passive index investment should not fall below 20% to minimize the risk of underperforming the index, especially when the active manager's performance is at the market average [20][21] Group 4 - The article draws on international experiences, noting that successful active management products in the U.S. maintain clear viewpoints on individual stocks while adhering to benchmark constraints, with examples of funds that have significantly deviated from their benchmarks yet achieved strong performance [28][29] - It highlights that even with a focus on benchmark adherence, active managers can still express distinct views on individual stocks, as seen in the performance of funds like Fidelity Contrafund and JPMorgan US Equity Fund [30][34] - The article concludes that while the new regulatory framework imposes stricter performance benchmarks, it does not eliminate the potential for active management to express unique investment perspectives [28][29][47]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission has released an action plan to promote high-quality development of public funds, emphasizing the importance of performance benchmarks and their impact on fund managers' evaluations and compensation [2][8]. Group 1: Fund Performance and Benchmarking - The action plan requires fund performance deviations from benchmarks to be included in the evaluation and reward systems for fund companies and managers [2]. - Three funds, namely the Jiashi Intelligent Automotive Stock Fund, Jinying Multi-Strategy Mixed A Fund, and Tianzhi New Consumption Mixed Fund, have underperformed their benchmarks by over 60 percentage points in the past three years, highlighting significant deviations [2][6][7]. - Jiashi Intelligent Automotive Stock Fund has underperformed its benchmark by 81.83 percentage points, primarily due to a misalignment in investment strategy focusing heavily on upstream lithium battery materials while neglecting downstream automotive sectors [3][4]. Group 2: Fund Manager Strategies and Changes - The Jiashi Intelligent Automotive Fund's manager has maintained a concentrated position in lithium battery stocks despite market shifts towards vehicle intelligence and optimization, resulting in significant losses [3][4]. - The Jinying Multi-Strategy Mixed A Fund has changed managers six times in nine years, leading to inconsistent investment strategies and a 71.14 percentage point underperformance against its benchmark [6]. - The Tianzhi New Consumption Mixed Fund has struggled with a heavy allocation in the pig farming sector amid a slow consumer recovery, resulting in a 61.45 percentage point underperformance [7]. Group 3: Regulatory Impact and Industry Trends - The new regulatory framework aims to enhance the stability and consistency of fund investment strategies by linking fund manager compensation to performance benchmarks [8]. - The emphasis on performance benchmarks is expected to lead to a more transparent investment environment, reducing the difficulty for investors in selecting funds and increasing trust in public funds [8]. - The industry may see a shift towards more conservative investment styles as fund managers align their strategies with mainstream broad-based indices [8].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating There is no information regarding the industry investment rating in the provided content. 2. Core Views of the Report - The "Action Plan" issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission on May 7, 2025, emphasizes strengthening the binding effect of performance comparison benchmarks. This is to address the weak benchmark awareness in domestic public - offering funds and avoid widespread underperformance [6]. - Two adjustment strategies are proposed for domestic active managers under the constraint of performance comparison benchmarks. The first is to refer to quantitative index enhancement by controlling the proportion of constituent stocks and industry constraints to reduce deviation. The second is to adopt a split - position investment approach, with part of the position for benchmark index investment and the other part for active management [2][8]. - Overseas high - performing active management products still express clear views on individual stocks. They deviate from the benchmark to some extent in industries while maintaining distinct style characteristics [2][36]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalog 3.1 《行动方案》强化业绩比较基准的约束作用 - The "Action Plan" proposes 25 specific measures in seven major areas to promote the high - quality development of the public - offering fund industry, with a clear emphasis on strengthening the binding effect of performance comparison benchmarks. Fund company evaluation, executive assessment, and fund manager assessment will be closely related to these benchmarks [6]. - In the past 10 years, the average annualized tracking error of US active equity funds relative to their performance comparison benchmarks was mostly between 3 - 6%, with an average of less than 5%. In contrast, the average tracking error of domestic equity - biased funds in the past 5 years was close to 15%, indicating weak benchmark awareness [6]. 3.2 参考量化指数增强：通过成分股比例、行业约束来降低偏离 - A conventional quantitative index enhancement constraint framework includes constraints on the proportion of constituent stocks, individual stock weight deviation, industry weight deviation, style factor deviation, and tracking error deviation. For active managers, the focus is on adjusting the proportion of constituent stocks, industry deviation, and individual stock deviation [10][11]. - Taking the CSI 300 as an example, when the investment proportion of constituent stocks is 80%, the portfolio is likely to outperform the index within three years at any time point, and industry deviation has little impact. When the proportion drops to 50%, it is recommended that the industry deviation be within 3%. If it further drops to 30%, the probability of underperforming the index by more than 10% within three years increases significantly [2][14][19]. 3.3 跟踪与主动管理并重：用多大仓位主动管理更合适？ - An approach of split - position investment is considered, with part of the position for benchmark index investment (using the top 50 constituent stocks for sampling replication) and the other part for active management. The Shenwan Hongyuan Active Equity High - Position Fund Index is used to represent the average performance of the market's active funds [24]. - When the investment performance of active fund managers is at the market average level, to avoid underperforming the price index by more than 10% within three years, the index investment position should not be less than 20%. To ensure not underperforming the index, a 50% replication position is recommended. For managers in the top 30% of performance, they can have more active management space [29][30]. - For funds with obvious style and industry biases, such as advanced manufacturing funds, at least 50% of the position should be invested in the index replication portfolio to avoid underperforming by 10% within three years [35]. 3.4 海外经验参考：绩优主动管理产品在个股上仍有明确观点 - US high - performing active equity products in different styles (large - cap core, large - cap growth, large - cap value) still maintain distinct active management characteristics. They deviate from the benchmark in industries while keeping clear style features and express clear views on individual stocks, with individual stock deviations generally reaching 3% [36][56]. - For example, Fidelity Contrafund has significant over - allocation in communication services and finance and under - allocation in technology and consumption. It over - allocates Meta by more than 10% and Berkshire by more than 8% [42].

21世纪经济报道记者 易妍君 广州报道 公募基金行业高质量发展的序幕已然开启。 近日，证监会印发《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》（以下简称"方案"），针对行业"症结"，围绕 基金运营模式、行业考核考评制度、行业长效机制建设等关键环节提出25项政策举措，为公募基金行业 勾勒出全面改革的"路线图"。 《21世纪经济报道》记者注意到，《方案》中有关基金业绩比较基准的约束作用、浮动管理费收取机 制、基金公司绩效考核机制、行业薪酬管理等内容，引发了行业内的广泛讨论。机构认为，这些改革举 措将对公募基金的产品布局、战略路径，甚至是投资行为带来深远影响。 在此背景下，公募基金"火速"行动。5月9日，浦银安盛基金公告称，将对旗下部分基金产品的业绩比较 基准进行变更，这也是《方案》发布后首批变更业绩比较基准的公募基金产品。同时，自4月以来，已 有超过20只基金启动降费，以债券基金为主。 5月13日，鹏华基金变更了鹏华普天债券基金的业绩比较基准，以"更好地反映基金的风险收益特征，科 学合理地评价基金的业绩表现。" 此外，近期，多家大中型基金公司表示，近期将上报新型浮动费率主动权益类基金，此次上报产品主要 与业绩比较基准挂钩。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds" released by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), which aims to reform the public fund industry to better align with investor interests and enhance the stability of investment behaviors [1][2]. Group 1: Reform Measures - The "Action Plan" proposes 25 reform measures across six areas, focusing on transitioning the industry from "scale-oriented" to "investor return-oriented" to achieve high-quality development [2][4]. - A core aspect of the reform is the establishment of an industry evaluation system centered on fund investment returns, incorporating performance benchmarks and profit rates that directly affect investor interests [2][3]. Group 2: Performance Benchmarking - The performance benchmark serves as a "anchor" and "yardstick" for fund companies, helping to clarify investment styles and constrain investment behaviors, thus preventing significant deviations from product names and positioning [3][4]. - The plan emphasizes the need for a regulatory guideline on performance benchmarks and the establishment of a performance benchmark database, which will include mechanisms for setting, modifying, disclosing, and evaluating benchmarks [4][5]. Group 3: Fee Structure - The introduction of a floating management fee structure linked to fund performance is a key point of the "Action Plan," allowing for differentiated management fees based on the fund's performance relative to benchmarks [5][6]. - Fund companies will be required to adjust their fee structures gradually, with a focus on ensuring that management fees are reduced for underperforming funds and increased for those that significantly exceed benchmarks [5][6]. Group 4: Incentive Alignment - The "Action Plan" aims to strengthen the alignment of interests between fund companies, executives, fund managers, and investors by enhancing the weight of investment returns in performance evaluations [6][7]. - Fund companies are encouraged to establish a compensation management mechanism linked to fund investment returns, with specific performance metrics influencing the compensation of fund managers [6][7]. Group 5: Institutional Development - The plan outlines measures to accelerate the development of first-class investment institutions, including improving governance, enhancing investor service capabilities, and supporting the coordinated development of equity and fixed-income funds [8]. - It also proposes a high-quality development demonstration plan for small and medium-sized fund companies, promoting their unique operational characteristics and improving overall industry competitiveness [8].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released the "Action Plan for Promoting High-Quality Development of Public Funds," aiming to deepen reforms in the public fund industry, enhance investor service capabilities, and strengthen the binding of interests between the industry and investors [1][9]. Group 1: Reform Measures - The "Action Plan" proposes 25 reform measures across six areas, including optimizing fund operation models and enhancing risk management, to shift the industry focus from "scale" to "investor returns" [2][9]. - A new industry evaluation system centered on fund investment returns will be established, incorporating performance benchmarks and profit margins into the assessment framework [2][4]. Group 2: Performance Benchmarking - The performance benchmark will serve as a "anchor" and "ruler" for fund investments, clarifying investment styles and constraining investment behaviors to prevent significant deviations from product names and positioning [3][4]. - The plan aims to address issues of performance volatility and style drift in actively managed equity funds by reinforcing the constraints of performance benchmarks [3][4]. Group 3: Floating Management Fee Mechanism - The "Action Plan" introduces a floating management fee model linked to fund performance, allowing for differentiated fee rates based on the fund's performance relative to benchmarks [5][6]. - Fund companies will be required to implement this model for 60% of newly registered active equity funds within a year, with a phased approach for larger and smaller institutions [6][9]. Group 4: Compensation and Evaluation - The plan emphasizes the need for fund companies to align the interests of executives and fund managers with those of investors, with performance metrics weighted heavily towards fund investment returns [7][8]. - Fund managers with performance significantly below benchmarks will see a reduction in performance-based compensation, while those exceeding benchmarks may receive increases [7][8]. Group 5: Development of Investment Institutions - The "Action Plan" outlines measures to enhance fund company governance, improve investor service capabilities, and support the coordinated development of equity and fixed-income funds [8]. - It encourages the development of small and medium-sized fund companies through specialized operations and aims to improve the competitive landscape of the industry [8][9].