Core Viewpoint - The growth of asset management scale among securities firms is accompanied by a decline in income, indicating a structural challenge in the industry as it transitions towards public offerings [1][2][4]. Group 1: Asset Management Scale and Income - As of the end of Q2 2025, the scale of private asset management products by securities firms reached 6.14 trillion yuan, an increase of 0.21 trillion yuan from the end of Q1 2025 [4]. - The net income from asset management for listed securities firms totaled 21.2 billion yuan in the first half of 2025, reflecting a year-on-year decline of 3% [4]. - The divergence in income performance is notable, with Citic Securities leading with a net income of 5.444 billion yuan, up 10.77%, while Huatai Securities saw a significant drop of 59.8% to 893 million yuan [5]. Group 2: Challenges in Public Offering Transformation - The transformation towards public offerings is a key direction for securities firms' asset management, but many face challenges due to licensing issues, which hinder product development [7]. - As of September 5, 2025, there were 108 public offering products undergoing transformation, including 50 bond funds, 28 mixed funds, and 27 money market funds [7]. Group 3: Future Strategies and Competitive Landscape - The competition in the asset management industry is shifting from scale expansion to a focus on research capabilities, technological empowerment, and product ecosystems [10]. - Firms are encouraged to enhance their investment research capabilities, innovate products tailored to client preferences, and leverage technology to improve operational efficiency [10]. - The market is expected to see a differentiation where leading firms will cover a broader client base while smaller firms may focus on niche markets like REITs and carbon-neutral bonds [10].

Core Viewpoint - The frequent adjustment of management fees by brokerage asset management companies is primarily driven by the declining yields of money market funds, which have entered the "1% era" due to continuously falling market interest rates. Lowering management fees is seen as a necessary measure to balance product returns and mitigate potential risks for investors [2][4][6]. Group 1: Management Fee Adjustments - Shenwan Hongyuan Asset Management announced a reduction in the management fee for its Shenwan Hongyuan Daily Increase Money Market Fund from 0.9% to 0.3% effective September 2, 2023 [4][5]. - The adjustment is based on an agreement that requires the management fee to be lowered if the seven-day annualized estimated yield calculated at 0.9% falls below or equals twice the current demand deposit rate [4][5]. - Other brokerage asset management firms, such as Guangzheng Asset Management and Changjiang Asset Management, have also adjusted their management fees for similar reasons [2]. Group 2: Industry Context - Many brokerage asset management products maintain a management fee of 0.9%, while ordinary public fund money market products typically charge around 0.3%, creating a significant disparity [6]. - The high fees of brokerage asset management products are attributed to their investment scope, which often includes not only money market instruments but also bonds, leading to higher research and operational costs [6]. - The transition of margin products to public offerings is a challenge for brokerage asset management firms, as they must adapt to a new fee structure that aligns with public fund averages [8][9]. Group 3: Future Implications - By 2025, brokerage asset management firms must complete the public offering transformation of their margin products, or they will need to terminate these products or transfer them to affiliated public companies [8][9]. - If management fees are adjusted to align with public fund levels (approximately 0.3%), brokerage asset management firms could see a reduction of over 2.4 billion yuan in annual management fee income [9]. - Analysts suggest that brokerage asset management firms should shift from reliance on traditional high fees to a model driven by "scale + service" to find new growth opportunities during the public offering transition [9].

Core Viewpoint - The withdrawal of GF Asset Management from the public fund management qualification approval list signifies the end of its nearly two-and-a-half-year application process, adding uncertainty to the competitive landscape of public fund transformation among brokerage asset management firms [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes and Market Context - In May 2022, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued new regulations that relaxed the restrictions on the number of public fund licenses held by the same entity, creating new opportunities for brokerage asset management firms [1][2]. - 2023 has been characterized as a "breakout year" for brokerage asset management firms applying for public fund licenses, with six firms submitting applications, although only two, China Merchants Asset Management and Everbright Securities Asset Management, successfully obtained approval [1][3]. Group 2: Challenges Faced by GF Asset Management - GF Asset Management submitted its application for public fund management qualifications on January 19, 2023, but its progress has been slow, remaining in the acceptance stage until its recent removal from the approval list [2][3]. - The reasons for GF Asset Management's withdrawal from the public fund management qualification list remain unclear, but industry insiders speculate it may relate to market conditions, review pace, or strategic adjustments within the company [2][3]. Group 3: Industry Trends and Transformations - The pursuit of public fund licenses is driven by the need for brokerage asset management firms to expand their asset management capabilities and enhance their market influence, especially as the deadline for transforming public collective products approaches at the end of 2025 [3][4]. - As of mid-2025, only 14 brokerage firms and their subsidiaries have obtained public fund licenses, highlighting the scarcity of such licenses in the industry [3][4]. Group 4: Product Management Adjustments - For brokerage asset management firms that have not obtained public fund licenses, transitioning public collective products has become increasingly challenging, with options including liquidation, conversion to private products, or transferring management to affiliated fund companies [4][5]. - GF Asset Management has begun transferring its products to its affiliated fund company, with plans to change the management of ten products, reflecting a broader trend among firms in the industry [5].

Group 1: E Fund's Investment in Broker H-shares - E Fund has significantly increased its holdings in 11 Chinese broker H-shares, with the proportion of shares held in 6 brokers exceeding 5%, in 3 brokers exceeding 7%, and in 2 brokers exceeding 6% [1] - The increase in holdings is attributed to the rapid growth of E Fund's Hong Kong Securities ETF, which surged by 135% to reach 22.876 billion yuan by the end of July [1] - This move reflects enhanced confidence from institutional investors in the Chinese brokerage sector, potentially boosting overall market sentiment towards financial stocks [1] Group 2: Guangfa Asset Management's Withdrawal from Public Fund License Application - Guangfa Asset Management has withdrawn from the public fund license application list, marking the end of its nearly two-and-a-half-year application process [2] - The withdrawal highlights the challenges faced by brokerage asset management firms in their transition to public fund management amid intense competition [2] - The competitive landscape for asset management firms may shift, with a focus on alternative strategies as the difficulty of obtaining public fund licenses increases [2] Group 3: Judicial Auction of Jinlong Shares - Jinlong Co. announced that its controlling shareholder will have 35 million shares auctioned for the second time, representing 16.59% of the shareholder's holdings and 3.91% of the total shares [3] - The auction is set to take place from August 25 to August 26, and if all shares are sold, the controlling shareholder will still hold 176 million shares, maintaining control [3] - This situation indicates financial pressure on the controlling shareholder, which may raise concerns about corporate governance stability and impact Jinlong's stock price [3] Group 4: Honghu Investment's Fund Performance - Honghu Investment reported that several of its products experienced a net value decline exceeding 6% in the past week, primarily due to negative returns from commodity assets [4][5] - The firm attributed the negative performance to a mismatch between medium-term fundamental signals and short-term market price movements, particularly following unmet policy expectations [5] - This situation may lead to a reassessment of similar macro-strategy products by investors, as market sensitivity to policy changes increases [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the trend of securities firms changing the management of their public fund products to avoid liquidation and enhance competitiveness, particularly as the deadline for contracts approaches [1][2]. Group 1: Changes in Management - At least six securities firms have submitted applications to change the management of nearly 50 public fund products this year, including major firms like GF Asset Management and CITIC Securities [1]. - CITIC Securities Asset Management has proposed changing the management of 17 public fund products to Huaxia Fund, which has been accepted by regulators [1][4]. - The management changes are primarily being made to comply with regulatory requirements and to avoid product liquidation [2][6]. Group 2: Strategic Considerations - The shift to management by affiliated public fund companies is driven by regulatory compliance, resource complementarity, and strategic business adjustments [6][7]. - Securities firms are focusing on private equity and high-value areas, while transferring public fund products to optimize resource allocation [7]. Group 3: Performance and Market Position - Public fund products have struggled to stand out in performance, with many having small management scales; nearly a quarter of these products manage less than 100 million yuan [10][11]. - The article highlights that the performance of public fund products is often hindered by differences in investment strategies and insufficient research resources compared to established public funds [11]. Group 4: Future Trends in Asset Management - Major securities firms plan to continue applying for public fund licenses and establishing asset management subsidiaries, while also enhancing their product lines and research teams [12][13]. - There is a focus on international business expansion, with firms aiming to develop diverse investment strategies and improve cross-border service processes [13].