Core Viewpoint - The transition of large collective products to public fund management has reached a critical phase, with many asset management companies facing significant challenges due to regulatory changes and market dynamics [1][2][4]. Group 1: Industry Changes - The number of fund managers in the public fund department of companies has decreased from a peak of twenty to around seven or eight, indicating a contraction in the workforce [1]. - The final name of a broker's asset management company, "Guojin Asset Management," has been removed from the list of applicants for public fund management qualifications, signaling the end of the "public fund rush" among broker asset management firms [1]. - The deadline for transforming large collective products into public funds is approaching, with many firms either transferring products to affiliated public funds or opting for liquidation [1][2]. Group 2: Product Transition - Several asset management companies have successfully transferred their large collective products to public fund institutions with "blood relationship," such as Everbright Fund taking over products from Everbright Securities Asset Management [2]. - Some firms have also transferred products to public institutions without direct ownership ties, as seen with Wanlian Securities transferring its money market fund to Ping An Fund [2]. - Many broker asset management firms are choosing to convert non-compliant or smaller products into private asset management plans or liquidate them, with liquidation becoming a common outcome [2][3]. Group 3: Profitability and Future Strategies - The loss of large collective products represents a significant profit loss for broker asset management firms, which need to explore new profit growth points [3]. - Broker asset management firms are focusing on developing multi-strategy investments and creating quantitative products to provide a more stable investment experience [3]. - The competitive landscape is shifting, with licensed institutions leveraging their comprehensive resources to create differentiated offerings, while unlicensed firms may focus on private and customized solutions to build niche brands [4].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the transformation of brokerage asset management large collective products into public offerings is entering a critical phase, with a deadline set for the end of 2025 for completion [1][2][4] - The three main paths for product disposal include transferring to affiliated public funds, liquidation, or transitioning to private equity [2][3] - The trend of "cross-group migration" is emerging, where some brokerages are transferring products to third-party public fund managers without direct equity ties [3][4] Group 2 - The application for public fund licenses by brokerages has reached a standstill, indicating the end of the licensing rush that began in 2023, leading to a new phase of differentiated competition [4][5] - Some brokerages are leveraging their dual licenses (public and private) to accelerate business expansion, with examples like Caitong Asset Management showcasing a stable business structure [4][5] - The focus is shifting from merely obtaining public licenses to enhancing investment research capabilities and business collaboration as key competitive advantages [7][8] Group 3 - Investment research and collaborative capabilities are identified as critical factors for brokerages to compete effectively against banks and public funds [7][8] - Brokerages can utilize their integrated financial ecosystem to provide comprehensive services, enhancing their competitive edge in a saturated market [8] - The ability to quickly respond to market changes and adapt product offerings is highlighted as a significant strength of brokerage asset management [8]

【导读】券商资管公募化改造冲刺，以投研与协同能力突围 中国基金报记者 孙越 赵心怡 临近年底，券商资管大集合产品的公募化改造进入最后的密集操作期。根据2018年资管新规配套法规要求，券商参公大集合应在2025年年底前完成公募化 改造。目前各券商正加速推进产品处置，行业迎来历史性时刻。 移交"兄弟"公募、清盘或转型私募是目前产品处置的三大主流路径，与此同时，"跨集团迁移"等新兴案例也为行业提供了新思路。此外，在公募牌照申请 热潮退去后，券商资管的发展逻辑正从追逐牌照转向深耕能力，以投研实力和业务协同为核心的差异化竞争新阶段已然开启。 大集合产品改造进入冲刺阶段 将大集合产品移交至同一股东旗下的公募基金公司，成为当前最主流的改造方式。这一路径能最大程度保持产品存续，避免清盘带来的规模流失，同时实 现券商与基金公司之间的资源整合。例如，中信证券资管于今年将旗下共计19只大集合产品移交给华夏基金进行管理，广发资管也陆续把旗下产品转至广 发基金管理，中金公司则将旗下大集合产品的管理人变更为其全资控股的中金基金。 对于不符合公募化改造条件或规模较小的产品，只能选择转为私募资管计划或清盘。今年6月，国投证券资管宣布将"安信 ...

中国基金报记者 孙越 赵心怡 临近年底，券商资管大集合产品的公募化改造进入最后的密集操作期。根据2018年资管新规配套法规要求，券商参公大集合应在2025年年 底前完成公募化改造。目前各券商正加速推进产品处置，行业迎来历史性时刻。 移交"兄弟"公募、清盘或转型私募是目前产品处置的三大主流路径，与此同时，"跨集团迁移"等新兴案例也为行业提供了新思路。此外， 在公募牌照申请热潮退去后，券商资管的发展逻辑正从追逐牌照转向深耕能力，以投研实力和业务协同为核心的差异化竞争新阶段已然开 启。 大集合产品改造进入冲刺阶段 【导读】 券商资管公募化改造冲刺，以投研与协同能力突围 对于不符合公募化改造条件或规模较小的产品，只能选择转为私募资管计划或清盘。今年6月，国投证券资管宣布将"安信资管瑞元添利一 年持有期债券型集合资产管理计划"转为私募资管计划。此前，东海证券、平安证券、光大证券都有产品因规模较小而选择清盘。 目前，券商大集合产品改造主要有三种路径：管理人变更、清盘或转型私募。 在主流路径之外，近期市场上还出现了"跨集团迁移"案例，部分券商选择将旗下产品移交至无直接股权关联的第三方公募基金管理。 将大集合产品移交至同一股 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent management changes of large collective investment products under Guangzheng Asset Management, indicating a trend of transitioning these products to public fund management companies as the deadline for regulatory compliance approaches [2][5]. Group 1: Management Changes - On November 27, Guangzheng Asset Management transferred 8 large collective products to Everbright Pramerica Fund Management, which is 55% owned by Everbright Securities [5]. - This transfer is part of a broader trend where many securities firms are moving their collective investment products to affiliated public fund companies to comply with new regulations [5][7]. Group 2: Industry Trends - The transition period for securities firms' collective investment products is nearing its end, with many firms opting to change management to avoid issues related to liquidation or investor concerns [5][7]. - In 2024, Guangzheng Asset Management reported revenues of 675 million yuan and a net profit of 219 million yuan, with assets under management reaching 3,114 billion yuan, reflecting a growth of 3.71% from the beginning of the year [5]. Group 3: Regulatory Compliance - According to the 2018 asset management regulations, securities firms must complete the public offering transformation of their collective products by the end of the transition period, with options including liquidation, extension, or management change [5][8]. - The article notes that many firms have chosen to change management to public fund companies, which has become a mainstream approach in the industry [5][8]. Group 4: Competitive Landscape - The article highlights that securities firms face intense competition from public funds and bank wealth management subsidiaries, particularly in fixed income and cash management products [8]. - Analysts suggest that the public fund path is more suitable for leading institutions with comprehensive financial ecosystems, while specialized securities firms may find private paths more advantageous [8].