Core Viewpoint - Active equity funds are expected to generate excess returns in the current market environment and for a long time to come, but they also have notable drawbacks that need to be understood for a more rational investment framework [2] Group 1: Performance Challenges - The performance of active equity funds heavily relies on the alignment between the fund manager's investment style and market trends, with most funds unable to consistently outperform the market due to style rotation [4] - The "champion curse" phenomenon illustrates that once market styles shift, fund performance can change rapidly, making chasing top performers a significant trap for ordinary investors [4] Group 2: Individual Manager Risks - The core of active funds is the fund manager, whose investment philosophy, capability, emotional control, and even health can directly impact fund performance [6] - There is a risk of manager turnover, as talented fund managers are scarce and may be poached or switch firms [6] - Some managers may deviate from their investment style under pressure to achieve short-term rankings, leading to potential performance issues [6] Group 3: Misalignment of Interests - Fund companies earn revenue from management fees, which are driven by fund size, creating a misalignment with investors' goals of net asset value growth [6] - This misalignment may lead companies to prioritize scaling over maximizing absolute returns for investors, with rare instances of unethical practices like "lifting the car" and "mouse warehouse" [6] Group 4: Retail Investor Behavior - During market rallies, fund companies may issue numerous funds or investors may heavily subscribe, forcing managers to build positions quickly even if they are bearish on future performance [7] - Conversely, during market downturns, managers may be compelled to sell at low prices to meet redemption requests, exacerbating losses [7] Group 5: Scale Issues - Once a fund becomes a "blockbuster" due to excellent performance and its size swells to hundreds of billions, its excess returns often diminish [9] Group 6: Fund Issuance Timing - The most active periods for new fund issuance often coincide with market peaks and high valuations, exposing investors to long-term holding risks [11] Group 7: Cost Considerations - Fees represent a certain loss, and investors must carefully evaluate costs before investing, as active equity funds typically have higher management fees than index funds, which can significantly erode long-term returns due to compounding effects [13] Group 8: Information Asymmetry - Marketing materials often highlight historical performance but rarely disclose the logic behind returns and their sustainability, making it difficult for ordinary investors to assess a manager's actual investment capabilities, strategy stability, and potential risk exposure [15] Recommendations - Avoid chasing short-term champions and instead evaluate their long-term performance and style consistency over 3-5 years [18] - Focus on the fund manager as a core analysis element, considering their years of experience and the depth and consistency of their investment philosophy [18] - Be cautious of excessively large "giant" funds [18] - Use fee structures as a strict selection criterion, opting for funds with lower fees under similar conditions [18]

Group 1 - The article discusses the phenomenon of "champion curse" in the fund industry, where fund managers who achieve top rankings often struggle to maintain their performance in subsequent years due to market cycles and style shifts [4][6][7] - It emphasizes the importance of focusing on long-term performance of fund managers rather than being misled by short-term rankings when selecting funds [9] Group 2 - The article highlights the issue of misleading fund names, where fund managers may use popular industry themes in fund titles while the actual investment direction may differ significantly [10][12] - It advises investors to check the actual holdings and changes in holdings of funds to avoid those with a history of style drift [14] Group 3 - The article points out the problem of ineffective diversification, where investors may follow popular influencers and end up investing in funds that are heavily concentrated in the same sector, leading to synchronized downturns [16][18] - It stresses that true diversification should focus on the underlying assets rather than just the number of funds [20] Group 4 - The article discusses the limitations of large-scale funds, where a fund manager managing a significant amount of capital may face constraints in selecting small-cap stocks, potentially impacting performance [22][24] - It recommends choosing funds with a moderate scale to allow fund managers more flexibility in their investment decisions [27] Group 5 - The article warns against the risks of small-scale funds, which may face forced liquidation if they do not attract enough capital, leading to potential losses for investors [30][31] - It suggests avoiding funds with a scale below 100 million to mitigate the risk of forced selling [34]

Core Insights - The article highlights the significant decline in the performance of funds managed by Jin Zicai of Caitong Fund, with all 13 funds under his management ranking in the bottom ten of their categories as of April 30, 2025 [2][6][10] - Jin Zicai's previous success in 2024, where his fund achieved a net return of 48.62%, has sharply contrasted with the current year's performance, where funds have recorded losses exceeding 22% [2][4][6] - The phenomenon of "champion curse" in the mutual fund industry is discussed, indicating that funds that perform well in one period often struggle in subsequent periods, with many top-performing funds from previous years experiencing significant downturns [3][4] Fund Performance - As of April 30, 2025, Jin Zicai's funds have all recorded negative returns, with the worst performers being Caitong Growth Preferred A/C, which saw returns of -22.89% and -22.97%, ranking 2326th and 2328th out of 2331 similar products [6][10] - Caitong's other funds, such as Caitong Value Momentum A and Caitong Smart Growth A/C, also performed poorly, with returns of -23.38% and -23.57%, placing them at the bottom of their respective categories [6][10] - The overall average return for Caitong Fund's products was -3.72%, with 47 out of 97 products showing negative returns [11] Fund Management Strategy - Jin Zicai's investment strategy underwent a significant shift in 2025, where he reduced exposure to overseas computing power stocks and increased allocation to domestic computing power stocks, which ultimately did not yield the expected results [12][13] - The concentration of holdings in his funds is notably high, with the top ten holdings in Caitong Growth Preferred A having a concentration of 64.88%, significantly above the industry average of 37.75% [14] - The article suggests that the reliance on Jin Zicai's personal investment style has exposed weaknesses in Caitong Fund's research and investment framework, leading to a lack of stability in fund performance [14] Fund Size and Market Impact - The decline in fund performance has led to a reduction in the assets under management, with eight out of thirteen funds experiencing a decrease in size, including a 37.84% drop in Caitong Growth Preferred A [10] - Caitong Fund's total assets under management have decreased by 32.91% from the previous year, dropping to 678.57 billion yuan [10] - The article emphasizes the broader implications of these performance issues on investor confidence and the overall market perception of Caitong Fund [10][11]