Group 1 - The trend of full-staff fundraising has become more common among mid-tier and lower-tier institutions due to increased fundraising difficulties in recent years [2][4] - Some institutions have set strict KPIs for investment managers, such as raising no less than 5 million yuan, with consequences for failure to meet targets [3] - A notable case involves a new "billion-dollar institution" that hired nearly 100 Investor Relations (IR) staff and set daily fundraising targets, with termination for non-compliance within three months [4] Group 2 - The practice of full-staff fundraising is not new, but it is less common for investment institutions to engage in fundraising themselves [6][8] - Some institutions have resorted to collaborating with external financial advisors (FAs) or developing internal FA teams due to market downturns [9] - A controversial approach involves requiring all investment managers to sign FA agreements with portfolio companies to assist in subsequent financing, with performance metrics tied to their annual salaries [10] Group 3 - Mandatory co-investment has been a topic of debate, with some institutions imposing strict co-investment requirements on employees [11][13] - Examples include a state-owned enterprise requiring a 10% co-investment in projects, with project approval contingent on meeting this threshold [14] - Another case involved a market-oriented fund that laid off employees based on their willingness to co-invest in new fund offerings, citing a lack of commitment to the company's growth as justification for termination [14] Group 4 - Specialized fundraising funds have evolved in response to the challenges faced by traditional blind pool funds, with general partners (GPs) needing to generate management fees [16][18] - Some GPs are willing to take on projects without management fees, driven by the desire to expand their management scale despite the lack of financial incentives [20] - The role of local governments in investment attraction has led some GPs to act as intermediaries, although this can be a challenging and lengthy process [22][23] Group 5 - Acquiring publicly listed companies has emerged as a strategy for GPs, as valuations are often lower than in the primary market [26][27] - However, transitioning from primary to secondary market operations poses significant challenges, including the need for specialized knowledge and the competitive landscape [28][30] - The difficulty of executing public company acquisitions has led some to consider private placements as an alternative, although success is highly dependent on market conditions and the quality of the companies involved [31][32] Group 6 - Recent regulatory actions have targeted firms engaging in unrelated business activities, highlighting the scrutiny faced by GPs [34] - Despite criticism, some in the industry argue that pursuing alternative income sources is a pragmatic approach to sustaining operations [35]