Core Viewpoint - The recent draft guidelines from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) propose a performance evaluation mechanism for fund managers, emphasizing a tiered adjustment of performance compensation based on the past three years' performance against benchmarks and fund profitability [1][2]. Performance Evaluation Mechanism - Fund managers' performance compensation can be adjusted in four scenarios: a decrease of no less than 30% if performance is more than 10% below the benchmark with negative profitability, a decrease if performance is more than 10% below the benchmark with positive profitability, no increase if performance is less than 10% below the benchmark with negative profitability, and a reasonable increase if performance significantly exceeds the benchmark with positive profitability [1][2]. Current Fund Performance - Among 20 actively managed billion-level equity funds, 8 funds outperformed their benchmarks by over 10%, while 6 funds underperformed by over 10% as of December 9 [2]. Notable Fund Performances - The top-performing fund, Galaxy Innovation Growth A, managed by Zheng Weishan, achieved an excess return of 49.38% over three years, with a total return of 243% and an annualized return of 20.58% since its management began in May 2019 [4][5]. - Other notable funds include Dachen High Growth A, managed by Liu Xu, with a total return of 417.29% and an annualized return of 17.16% over 10 years, and Xingquan Business Model Preferred A, managed by Qiao Qian, with a total return of 203.42% and an annualized return of 16.11% over 7 years [5][7][8]. Investment Strategies - Zheng Weishan's strategy focuses on heavily investing in technology stocks, maintaining a high concentration in top holdings, while Liu Xu adopts a diversified approach across various sectors, balancing between well-known blue-chip stocks and smaller companies [5][7][9]. - Qiao Qian employs a flexible trading strategy with shorter holding periods and a diversified sector allocation, aiming to balance long-term investment judgments with short-term market fluctuations [9][10]. Implications of New Guidelines - The proposed guidelines aim to address the issue of fund managers' compensation being disconnected from performance, encouraging a stronger link between fund performance and manager remuneration [1][2][10].

Core Viewpoint - The recent surge in consumer-themed funds amidst a rising technology stock market has led to confusion among investors regarding the underlying assets of their funds [1] Group 1: Fund Performance and Market Reaction - Some funds have shown significant deviation from their performance benchmarks, sparking market discussions about their investment strategies [1] - There are funds that have benefited from the technology sector's rise, while others have maintained long-term positions in financials, leading to a drift in investment styles [1] Group 2: Regulatory Response - Regulatory authorities have introduced measures such as benchmark guidelines, the establishment of a benchmark library, and performance assessment linkage to ensure that performance benchmarks return to their intended purpose [1] - The performance benchmark, which is a key metric for evaluating fund managers' capabilities and style stability, is undergoing the strictest calibration in history [1] Group 3: Industry Adjustments - In response to regulatory pressures, some funds have begun to actively adjust their portfolios to realign with their benchmarks [1] - Fund companies are also submitting plans to revise the performance benchmarks of existing products, indicating a trend towards the standardization and restructuring of performance benchmarks in the industry [1]

基金的业绩比较基准，是基金公司按产品投资策略与资产配置设定的业绩目标参考。 对于投资者来说，它也是判断基金业绩优劣的重要依据——对于被动指数基金而言，它不仅划 定了投资范围也决定了业绩目标；对于主动基金来说，它还承担着检验基金创造超额收益能力 的责任。 然而在过去很长一段时间里，很多人因为认为"基准指数不难战胜"，所以对基准的关注度也不 高。这也催生了不少问题，比如部分基金会通过大幅偏离基准的投资范围来博取短期业绩，最 终让投资者承担了预期以外的风险。 监管部门也非常关注这些问题，在今年5月专门发文强调，要求规范基金业绩比较基准设置， 让其充分发挥衡量业绩的"标尺"作用。 在这样的背景下，我们也有必要重新深入讨论一个问题：基准是否真的像大家印象中的那样好 战胜吗? 晨星近期的研究发现，答案并非如此——选用不同收益处理方式的指数作为基准，会对基金相 对收益产生显著的影响。接下来，我们就来深入探究一下这个问题，看看到底什么指数才是基 金"可比"的业绩比较基准？"用错"基准又会对业绩比较造成哪些影响？ 01 投资收益从哪来？ 在此之前，我们得弄清楚一个基本的问题：我们实际到手的投资收益到底从哪来？ 无论是股票还是债 ...

【导读】多家基金公司启动存量基金业绩比较基准摸排统计工作 公开募集证券投资基金业绩比较基准指引新规落地在即，规模超万亿元的存量基金产品业绩比较基准也 开启了摸底工作。 据中国基金报记者了解，近日，包括北上广深在内的多家基金公司接到通知，需要对照《公开募集证券 投资基金业绩比较基准指引（征求意见稿）》，提交存量产品业绩比较基准修订计划摸排统计方案，提 交时间截至12月15日。 "业绩基准修订涉及很多指标的计算和论证，公司旗下投资部、产品部、运营部、风险部都在为这事忙 碌。"一位基金公司人士称，为了保证方案如期提交，预计上述部门相关负责人本周每天都得加班。 存量基金产品需提交 业绩比较基准摸排统计 基金公司需要统计的指标非常多，仅以主动权益基金为例，填报指标就包括投资范围/策略的描述、基 金三季度末规模、近两年/三年的平均仓位、需调整的原因类型、具体原因、现有基准覆盖率、现有基 准近两年超额收益率、现有基准相关系数、现有基准行业偏离度、拟调整后的基准、拟调整后基准覆盖 率、拟调整后基准近两年超额收益率等多个指标。 其中，需调整的原因包括现有业绩比较基准与实际投资风格、资产配置比例、投资策略等不匹配，基准 发布不连 ...

2025年以来，基金公司着手检视并调整产品业绩比较基准与投资策略的一致性 告别"基金盲盒" 业绩比 较基准不再"随便写写" 一场涉及37万亿元公募基金的深刻变革，正悄然影响着投资者手里的每一只基金——投资不再凭感觉， 基金业绩优劣，终于有了清晰可依的标尺。 "过去我把'业绩比较基准'当成产品说明书里的'装饰文字'，后来才发现，导致我亏损的基金，恰恰是实 际投资方向偏离基准。"基民李先生的这番话道出了不少投资者的心声。 业绩比较基准，这个曾经被很多人忽略的细节指标，如今正成为公募基金行业规范发展的关键抓手。随 着推动公募基金高质量发展、强化业绩比较基准约束作用的政策举措相继落地，今年以来，多家基金公 司着手检视并调整旗下产品业绩比较基准与真实投资策略的一致性，尤其是5月份以来，基金变更业绩 比较基准步伐明显加快。 基金公司"批量改作业" 业绩比较基准是基金合同的核心要素与产品设计的根本，贯穿于基金投资运作全周期，既界定了基金的 投资范围与风格特征，也是客观评估基金长期表现的专业参照。 今年5月份，证监会发布《推动公募基金高质量发展行动方案》，要求强化业绩比较基准的约束作用。 10月底，证监会发布了《公开募集证券 ...

Core Insights - A significant transformation involving 37 trillion yuan public funds is reshaping the investment landscape, emphasizing the importance of performance benchmarks for mutual funds [1][2] - The regulatory push for high-quality development in the mutual fund industry is leading to a systematic review and adjustment of performance benchmarks to align with actual investment strategies [2][3] Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has mandated that performance benchmarks must accurately reflect the investment style and risk characteristics of funds, moving away from being mere formalities [2][3] - As of December 4, 220 funds have changed their performance benchmarks in 2023, marking a 73.23% increase compared to the previous year, with a notable acceleration in changes since May [2] Group 2: Industry Response - Fund companies are actively responding to regulatory requirements by recalibrating their performance benchmarks to better reflect their actual investment strategies, enhancing industry professionalism and credibility [3][4] - The adjustments are seen as a move towards eliminating the "blind box" phenomenon in funds, where the actual investment did not align with the stated themes [3][4] Group 3: Impact on Fund Management - The refined performance benchmarks are expected to guide fund managers towards more focused investment strategies, enhancing the stability of fund styles and promoting in-depth research in specific sectors [5][6] - The new benchmarks will help fund managers align their investment decisions with national industrial policies, directing funds towards key economic sectors such as technology and renewable energy [5][6] Group 4: Investor Benefits - Clear performance benchmarks will enable investors to better understand the risk-return profile of funds, fostering rational expectations and trust in fund companies and managers [8] - The transformation is anticipated to attract long-term capital from institutional investors, enhancing the vitality of the capital market [8]

- The report does not include any specific quantitative models or factors for analysis[1][2][3]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released a draft guideline for the selection and use of performance benchmarks for publicly offered securities investment funds, aiming to standardize practices and protect investors' rights [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The guideline is necessary for regulating fund performance and management fees, as it ties the floating management fee mechanism to the performance benchmark [1][2]. - The draft emphasizes that fund managers must compare their actively managed equity fund performance against the benchmark and conduct performance attribution analysis [2]. Group 2: Performance Assessment - The performance benchmark is crucial for assessing fund performance but should not be the sole criterion; it must be combined with the fund's net profit or loss [4][5]. - In cases of investment losses, even if a fund outperforms its benchmark, the fund company cannot charge higher management fees, and fund managers should not receive high performance bonuses [5]. Group 3: Investor Protection - The guideline aims to ensure that fund performance assessments are fair and responsible, protecting the legitimate rights of fund holders [4][5]. - The CSRC's initiative is designed to prevent situations where fund companies benefit from management fees despite poor fund performance [5].

- The report discusses the performance of various enhanced index funds, including the Huashang CSI 300 Enhanced Index A (166802.OF), which achieved the best performance among CSI 300 enhanced index funds last week with an excess return of 1.05% relative to its benchmark[54]. - The report highlights the performance of the China Europe CSI 500 Enhanced Index A (015453.OF), which achieved an excess return of 0.79% relative to its benchmark last week, making it the best performer among CSI 500 enhanced index funds[54]. - The China Europe CSI 1000 Enhanced Index A (017919.OF) achieved an excess return of 0.75% relative to its benchmark last week, leading the CSI 1000 enhanced index funds category[54]. - The Xin Yuan Guozheng 2000 Enhanced Index A (018579.OF) was the top performer among Guozheng 2000 enhanced index funds last week, with an excess return of 0.33% relative to its benchmark[54]. - Over the past year, the Ping An CSI 300 Quantitative Enhanced A (005113.OF) achieved the highest excess return of 12.32% among CSI 300 enhanced index funds[55]. - The Penghua CSI 500 Enhanced Index A (014344.OF) achieved the highest excess return of 19.01% among CSI 500 enhanced index funds over the past year[55]. - The Boda CSI 1000 Enhanced Index A (017644.OF) achieved the highest excess return of 29.68% among CSI 1000 enhanced index funds over the past year[55]. - The Huixianfu Guozheng 2000 Enhanced Index A (019318.OF) achieved the highest excess return of 32.22% among Guozheng 2000 enhanced index funds over the past year[55].

Group 1 - The phenomenon of style drift in A-share market is prevalent, where funds claiming to focus on consumer themes are heavily investing in technology stocks, leading to confusion regarding their actual investment strategies [1] - A specific mixed strategy fund has changed managers six times in nine years, resulting in inconsistent investment styles and poor performance during critical market events [1] - As of October 31, 2023, 63.46% of actively managed equity funds have underperformed their benchmarks over the last three years, indicating a significant issue within the fund management industry [2] Group 2 - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released a draft guideline emphasizing the importance of performance benchmarks in mutual funds, stating that benchmarks should reflect the product's positioning and investment style [3] - The new regulations aim to prevent funds from changing their benchmarks arbitrarily due to manager changes or short-term market fluctuations, promoting more stable investment strategies [4] - As of October 31, 2023, 183 funds have announced changes to their performance benchmarks this year, a notable increase from 144 in the same period last year, indicating a proactive approach to comply with upcoming regulations [4] Group 3 - The selection of performance benchmarks is now strictly regulated, requiring strategy funds to use corresponding strategy indices, which aims to enhance accountability in fund management [5][6] - Funds without a clear thematic focus have more lenient requirements, but investors are advised to pay close attention to fund managers' styles and past performance when selecting these funds [7] Group 4 - Index funds are considered a safer investment option for ordinary investors due to their lower susceptibility to manager biases and more precise industry positioning [10] - Historical data shows that actively managed funds often underperform index funds over the long term, suggesting that index funds may be a more reliable choice for wealth accumulation [11]