Core Viewpoint - The Chinese fund industry in 2025 presents a stark contrast, with private equity funds performing exceptionally well while public funds struggle significantly, revealing systemic issues in the industry after over two decades of rapid development [1] Performance Disparity: A True Reflection of the Market - In 2025, the structural market conditions of A-shares serve as a key differentiator for performance, leading to a stark contrast between public and private fund results [1] - Private equity securities products show strong profitability, with over 90% achieving positive returns and an average return rate of 22.61%, while stock strategies yield an impressive average return of 27.07% [2] Public Fund Struggles - Among 6,129 public active equity products that have been established for over three years, 60.5% failed to outperform their benchmarks [3] - A significant number of funds, 2,454, lagged their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, indicating a consistent underperformance compared to market averages [3] Investor Losses: The Cost of Silence - The performance disparity results in real financial losses for investors, with previously celebrated fund managers delivering disappointing results [4] - For instance, a fund managed by Liu Yanchun reported a return of -23.05% over three years, while its benchmark yielded a positive 14.41%, resulting in a 37.46 percentage point gap [4] Corporate Profit vs. Investor Loss - Despite poor performance, some fund companies continue to distribute substantial dividends, creating a stark contrast with the losses faced by investors [5] - A leading fund company distributed nearly 83 billion yuan in dividends over ten years, while its products collectively lost 1,004 billion yuan in the same period [5] Structural Issues: Root Causes of Industry Ailments - The root of performance disparity lies in differing incentive mechanisms, with private funds typically using a performance-based compensation model that aligns managers' interests with those of investors [6] - In contrast, public funds often rely on management scale for fees, leading to a focus on growth rather than performance [6] - Only three out of 28 large-scale active equity funds managed to achieve excess returns while maintaining positive profits over the past three years [6] Regulatory Restructuring: From Scale-Oriented to Performance-Linked - In response to industry issues, regulators are implementing new performance assessment guidelines that tie fund managers' compensation directly to product performance and investor profits [10] - This shift is expected to drive significant changes in the industry, with many active equity fund managers adjusting their strategies to align more closely with benchmark indices [10] Market Trends: Shifts in Fund Flows - Under regulatory and market pressures, there is a noticeable change in fund flows, with private equity products showing a 90.66% positive return rate compared to public funds [12] - High-net-worth clients and institutional investors are increasingly turning to private equity, particularly quantitative strategy products, while ordinary investors are becoming more cautious and reevaluating their investment strategies [12]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Investment Fund Industry Association has revised the "Performance Assessment Management Guidelines for Fund Management Companies (Draft for Comments)," which stipulates that fund managers of actively managed equity funds with poor performance for three consecutive years may face a salary reduction of 30% [1] Group 1: Performance Assessment Guidelines - The new guidelines establish a tiered performance salary adjustment mechanism, where if the performance of actively managed equity products falls below the benchmark by more than 10 percentage points over three years and the fund's profit margin is negative, the performance salary should decrease significantly, with a reduction of no less than 30% [1] - If the performance is below the benchmark by more than 10 percentage points but the fund's profit margin is positive, the performance salary should still decrease [1] Group 2: Fund Performance Issues - The "personal system" public fund company Tongtai Fund has several actively managed equity funds facing issues such as small scale and performance divergence, with multiple funds underperforming their benchmarks over the past three years [1] - Data shows that among Tongtai Fund's actively managed equity funds, half of the products have seen a decline in net value over the last three years, with nine products underperforming their benchmarks [2] Group 3: Specific Fund Performance - Tongtai Kaitai Mixed A has seen a net value decline of over 28% in the last three years, underperforming its benchmark by nearly 41 percentage points [3] - Tongtai Huaying Mixed A has experienced a net value drop of over 13%, underperforming its benchmark by nearly 27 percentage points [3] - The fund manager Wang Xiu has been in charge for just under two years, and the previous manager Yang Zhe has moved to another fund company, which may indicate a larger responsibility for the poor performance [3] Group 4: Fund Management Scale and Ranking - Tongtai Fund, established in October 2018, is the 14th "personal system" public fund company in China, with a total management scale of 4.728 billion yuan as of the end of the third quarter of 2025, ranking 143rd among public fund institutions [5] - The company manages 22 products, with five stock funds totaling 458 million yuan and nine mixed funds totaling 1.043 billion yuan, accounting for over 30% of its total management scale [5] - Several funds, including Tongtai Huaying Mixed and Tongtai Huizhe Mixed, have scales below 50 million yuan, approaching the liquidation threshold [5]

Core Insights - The performance of products under Taixin Fund shows significant differentiation, with some funds achieving long-term gains while others have underperformed their benchmarks in recent years [1][2] - The company has faced criticism from third-party evaluation agencies regarding style drift in two of its products in Q2 of this year, which the company attributes to compliance with contract terms related to "new technology transformation of traditional services" [1] Fund Performance - Taixin Fund currently manages 35 products with a total net asset value of 32.937 billion yuan, ranking 98th among peers; its only money market fund has a scale of 19.454 billion yuan, while non-money market funds are below 13.5 billion yuan, ranking 127th [1] - The company has only one equity fund with a scale of 11.22 million yuan and 20 mixed funds totaling 6.184 billion yuan, which together account for less than 19% of the company's total management scale [1] - There are 13 bond funds under Taixin Fund with a combined scale of 7.288 billion yuan; however, the company has only two index products, both with scales below 50 million yuan [1] Performance Disparity - Among the equity products, some funds like Taixin Medical Service Mixed Fund and Taixin Small and Medium Cap Selected Mixed Fund have significantly outperformed their benchmarks over the past year and several years [2] - Conversely, several funds, including Taixin Development Theme Mixed Fund and Taixin Modern Service Industry Mixed Fund, have underperformed, with some showing a net value decline of around 50% over the past three years [2] - Specific funds have underperformed their benchmarks by at least 20 percentage points over the past two years, indicating a clear performance disparity within the company's offerings [2]

Group 1 - The core point of the article is the appointment of Xue Zhen as the new chairman of Dongwu Fund, succeeding Ma Zhenya, who has served for nearly seven years and will transition to a senior supervisory role due to age [1][2][3][4] - Dongwu Fund was established on September 2, 2004, and as of the end of Q2 this year, it manages a non-monetary fund scale of 26.3 billion yuan, ranking 95th in the industry [1][5] - The major shareholders of Dongwu Fund are Dongwu Securities, which holds 70% of the shares, and Hailan Group, which holds the remaining 30% [5] Group 2 - Under the management of Liu Yuanhai, the equity investment director, the scale of managed funds has increased significantly from less than 900 million yuan at the end of Q2 2022 to 6.408 billion yuan at the end of Q2 this year, contributing to a total equity fund management scale of 9.619 billion yuan [5] - Despite the growth in non-monetary fund scale, Dongwu Fund faces challenges with performance differentiation in equity funds, as some funds have seen significant declines in net value over the past five years [7]

Core Viewpoint - Dongwu Fund has appointed a new chairman, Xue Zhen, following the retirement of Ma Zhenya due to age, marking a leadership transition within the company [3][4]. Group 1: Leadership Transition - Dongwu Fund announced the appointment of Xue Zhen as the new chairman on August 8, after Ma Zhenya transitioned to a senior supervisory role [3][4]. - Ma Zhenya served as chairman for nearly seven years, and the company expressed gratitude for his contributions during his tenure [4]. - Xue Zhen has a background in various leadership roles within the financial sector, including positions at Dongwu Securities and Suzhou Asset Management [5]. Group 2: Company Overview - Dongwu Fund was established on September 2, 2004, with a registered capital of 100 million RMB, and is headquartered in Shanghai [7]. - The company is primarily owned by Dongwu Securities, which holds 70% of the shares, while Hailan Group owns the remaining 30% [7]. Group 3: Fund Performance - As of the end of Q2 this year, Dongwu Fund managed a total of 26.3 billion RMB in non-monetary funds, ranking 95th in the industry [7]. - The management scale of equity investments led by Liu Yuanhai has significantly increased from less than 900 million RMB in Q2 2022 to 6.408 billion RMB by Q2 this year, contributing to a total equity fund management scale of 9.619 billion RMB [7]. - Despite growth in overall fund size, Dongwu Fund faces challenges with performance disparities among its equity funds, with some funds experiencing significant declines in net value over the past five years [9].

Core Insights - The fund market is experiencing significant performance divergence, with differences exceeding 50 percentage points among products managed by the same fund manager, reflecting internal fund allocation preferences and market biases towards different risk-return profiles [1] Group 1: Internal Fund Preferences - Fund managers show a clear preference for high-elasticity products, as evidenced by a northern fund manager's two consumer sector funds, where one fund received substantial internal investment, resulting in a year-to-date return of 44%, while the other, lacking internal support, only achieved approximately 12% [3] - A southern fund manager's two products also illustrate this trend, with one fund yielding over 50% and having over 60% of its shares held by the fund manager, while the other fund, without internal backing, returned less than 25% [3] - In Shanghai, a fund manager's products, with about 99% of shares from the same fund company, achieved nearly 25% returns, contrasting with another product that returned less than 10% without such internal support [3] Group 2: Contractual Terms and Risk Characteristics - The products favored by internal funds typically exhibit higher risk-return characteristics, primarily due to specific terms in the fund contracts that allow for more flexible investment ranges and higher risk exposure [4] - For instance, a northern fund manager's product, favored by internal funds, allows up to 50% of its position in Hong Kong stocks, with a current allocation of 32%, while the other fund does not permit such investments, focusing solely on A-shares [4] - A prominent southern fund manager's product, chosen by internal funds, has a concentrated strategy with a 35% allocation in top ten holdings and approximately 40% in Hong Kong stocks, yielding over 20% year-to-date, while the unfavored product has a more conservative approach with less than 20% in top holdings and no Hong Kong exposure [4]