Core Viewpoint - The Guangdong Provincial Finance Department has issued the "Guangdong Provincial Government Investment Fund Management Measures," which has sparked significant market discussion regarding the new rules on fund management fees and their implications for the investment landscape in the region [1][3]. Summary by Relevant Sections Fund Management Fee Structure - The new management measures stipulate that fund management fees should be paid from fund earnings or interest, and generally should not be charged against the principal. If the fund has not yet generated earnings or interest, fees may be advanced from the principal, to be reimbursed once earnings are realized [2][3]. - The management fees will be based on actual contributions or investment amounts, moving away from traditional practices that often relied on committed capital [2][3]. Impact on Investment Landscape - The measures are expected to significantly impact over 155 government investment funds in Guangdong, with a total subscribed scale of 1.77 trillion yuan (approximately 1.24 trillion yuan already paid in) [1]. - The changes are anticipated to accelerate the process of industry consolidation, compelling institutions to enhance their investment capabilities [1][5]. Market Reactions and Industry Perspectives - Industry experts believe that the new rules will help filter out less competent fund management companies that rely solely on management fees, while providing more opportunities for professional firms [3][6]. - The adjustment in management fee structures is seen as a way to lower investment costs for limited partners (LPs) amid challenging market conditions, where achieving excess returns has become increasingly difficult [3][4]. Challenges and Concerns - Some industry participants express concerns that the new fee structure may lead to operational pressures for private equity firms, as they may struggle with cash flow stability without management fees being charged against the principal [6]. - There is a consensus that the market will experience a natural selection process, where firms that fail to generate returns for LPs will be eliminated [6].

编者按：近日，广东省财政厅发布了《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》，其中提及，基金管理 费从基金收益或利息中支付，原则上不允许在本金中列支，如基金暂未产生收益或利息，可先 从本金中预支，待基金产生收益或利息后补回。这引起了行业热议， 有评论指出创投行业进 入"管理费重构时代"。那么，基金管理费，到底该怎么收？ 基金管理费是基金出资人 "购买"管理人服务的基本费用，也是基金管理团队维持日常运营的基 本费用，是双方合作的重要基础。本文将从基金组织形式、管理费计算方法、管理费来源等维 度对私募股权基金管理费进行介绍。 有 限 合 伙 型 基 金 是 目 前 最 为 常 用 的 私 募 股 权 基 金 形 式 。 有 限 合 伙 企 业 通 常 包 括 普 通 合 伙 人 （ GP）和有限合伙人（LP），且至少应当有一个普通合伙人。《中华人民共和国合伙企业法》 （以下简称《合伙企业法》）第六十七条规定："有限合伙企业由普通合伙人执行合伙事务。 执行事务合伙人可以要求在合伙协议中确定执行事务的报酬及报酬提取方式。"第二十八条又 规定："由一个或者数个合伙人执行合伙事务的，执行事务合伙人应当定期向其他合伙人报告 事务执行情况 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent announcement by the Guangdong Provincial Finance Department regarding the management fee structure for government investment funds has sparked significant discussion in the investment community, particularly concerning the implications for venture capital (VC) firms and their management fee practices [10][11][12]. Group 1: Management Fee Structure - The management fee for government investment funds will now be determined based on performance evaluations, and fees should primarily be paid from fund earnings or interest, not from the principal [10][11]. - A notable shift in the management fee model is the move from a traditional "commitment-based" fee structure to a "performance-based" one, where fees are only collected if the fund generates returns [11][12]. - The common fee structure of "2+20" (2% management fee and 20% performance fee) is under scrutiny, with some firms now promising to defer management fees until after the fund has generated returns [2][10]. Group 2: Industry Reactions and Trends - The investment community is experiencing a "management fee earthquake," with LPs (limited partners) questioning the viability of traditional fee structures and some VCs offering to waive fees during the fundraising phase [10][15]. - The average fundraising time has significantly increased, from around 10 months in 2015-2020 to approximately 27 months currently, leading to increased pressure on VCs to adapt their fee structures [9][10]. - The new regulations may lead to a broader reevaluation of the management fee practices across the industry, with potential implications for the survival of many GP (general partner) firms [15][16]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The financial sustainability of VC firms is at risk, as management fees are crucial for covering operational costs such as salaries and office rent [12][15]. - The average DPI (Distributions to Paid-In) for government-guided funds is only 0.7, indicating that many funds have not yet returned their initial investments, which raises concerns about the long-term viability of the current investment model [13][14]. - The shift in management fee practices reflects a broader trend of decreasing fees in the industry, with some major firms reducing their management fees in response to market conditions [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The recent policies from Gansu and Guangdong provinces reflect a trend towards stricter management of government investment funds, emphasizing the need for quality development and control over new fund establishments [1][2][3]. Group 1: Policy Overview - Gansu's implementation opinion emphasizes strict control over the establishment of new funds and promotes the optimization and integration of existing funds [1][3]. - Guangdong's management measures highlight the necessity for government approval for fund establishment and restricts the use of fiscal allocations for new fund creation [2][5]. - Both provinces align with the spirit of the State Council's "Guiding Opinions" issued earlier this year, which aims to enhance the management system of government investment funds [1][4]. Group 2: Management and Performance - The policies from both provinces stress the importance of defining the positioning of government investment funds and enhancing performance evaluation mechanisms [2][5]. - Gansu's policy notably uses the term "strict" nine times, indicating a more rigorous approach compared to Guangdong's single mention of preventing financial fraud [2][10]. - The emphasis on performance evaluation and accountability mechanisms aims to ensure that funds are managed effectively and transparently [5][11]. Group 3: Regional Variations - Black龙江's recent policy introduces a focus on direct investment projects, which is a departure from the traditional fund establishment approach [6]. - The management fee structure in Guangdong may disrupt the conventional practice of fixed management fees, linking them instead to fund performance [7][9]. - Gansu's policy suggests a more flexible approach to management fees, allowing for adjustments based on performance evaluations [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The recent reform in management fees for public funds has led to significant adjustments in private equity investment fund management fees, particularly highlighted by the new regulations from Guangdong Province, which emphasize a market-driven approach to fee determination based on actual contributions and fund performance [1][2]. Summary by Sections Regulatory Changes - The Guangdong Provincial Finance Department released the "Management Measures for Government Investment Funds," which stipulates that management fees should be based on actual contributions and fund performance, and no fees can be charged after the fund's term ends [1][2]. - The new regulations align with earlier guidelines issued in January, which also emphasized that management fees should be based on actual contributions or investment amounts [1]. Industry Reactions - The industry anticipates that the restructuring of management fees will accelerate the reshuffling of the venture capital industry, with calls for market-driven standards for fee collection [1][6]. - There is a debate regarding whether the new rules apply only to government investment funds or extend to the underlying sub-funds, with expectations that many state-owned limited partners (LPs) may adopt a "transparent management" approach to mitigate audit risks [2][3]. Trends in Management Fees - Three key trends in management fees have emerged: 1. A decrease in management fee percentages, with many funds now charging between 1% and 1.5%, making the traditional 2% fee increasingly rare [3][5]. 2. A shift towards installment payments of management fees rather than one-time payments, with many LPs paying fees only after the fund's establishment [3][4]. 3. A linkage of management fees to fund performance, with some VC firms adjusting their fee structures to align with performance milestones, thereby enhancing trust with LPs [5][9]. Market Dynamics - The influx of state-owned LPs and stringent regulatory requirements are reshaping the management fee landscape, compelling GPs to reassess their fee structures amidst challenging exit conditions [7][9]. - The average DPI (Distributions to Paid-In) for government-guided funds is reported at only 0.7, indicating a pressing need for GPs to improve performance to meet LP expectations [7]. Call for Market-Driven Standards - There is a strong industry consensus advocating for management fee standards to be determined by market forces rather than government regulations, emphasizing the need to respect the interests of social investors and ensure fair returns for fund managers [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations from Guangdong Province regarding management fees for government investment funds are causing significant disruption in the venture capital and private equity sectors, emphasizing a shift towards performance-based compensation for fund managers [2][3][4]. Summary by Sections Management Fee Regulations - The management fees for government investment funds will now be determined based on market principles and the fund's performance evaluation results [2]. - Management fees will generally be calculated based on actual contributions or investments, and it is prohibited to charge these fees from the principal unless the fund has generated returns or interest [3][5]. Impact on Fund Managers - The new rules could lead to a situation where fund managers may not receive management fees if they fail to generate profits, effectively eliminating the "guaranteed income" model for them [3][11]. - This change reflects a growing maturity among limited partners (LPs), particularly government LPs, who are becoming more discerning and less reliant on traditional practices [3][10]. Industry Reactions - Some investors express concerns that the new regulations may deter investment in Guangdong, especially as other regions are adopting more lenient investment policies [4][6]. - There are fears that the focus on short-term returns to secure management fees could undermine the long-term investment strategies needed for the development of innovative sectors [8][10]. Broader Implications - The shift in management fee structures may accelerate the elimination of less capable fund managers, pushing the industry towards greater specialization and consolidation among top-tier firms [11]. - The government investment funds are becoming a crucial pillar in China's venture capital market, with a total scale exceeding 2.5 trillion yuan, accounting for nearly 40% of the total fundraising in the primary market [8]. Future Considerations - The new regulations may lead to a more rigorous selection process for fund managers, focusing on those who can deliver value and align with government investment goals [10][11]. - Balancing policy objectives with market efficiency will be a key challenge for future government investment fund management [10].

6月3日，广东省财政厅官网发布关于印发《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》（以下简称：《管 理办法》）的通知。 其中，《管理办法》第二十三条规定： " 政府投资基金管理费用按照市场化原则协商确定，依 据基金考核评价结果情况予以核定拨付。 基金管理费一般应以实缴出资或实际投资金额为计费 基础，合理确定计提标准 。基金管理费从基金收益或利息中支付， 原则上不允许在本金中列 支，如基金暂未产生收益或利息，可先从本金中预支，待基金产生收益或利息后补回 。 " 直投基金的管理费：早期投资基金（投资于早期项目），投资期按照基金认缴规模的 2%- 3%/ 年收取管理费，退出期与延长期按照基金实际管理规模（即：实缴规模减去已退出规模）的 1 . 5%- 2%/年收取管理费，并且管理人从最终收益中提取2 0％的收益分成。创业投资基金 （即：VC，投资于中期项目）和PE基金（投资于后期项目），投资期按照基金认缴规模的 2%/年收取管理费，退出期与延长期按照基金实际管理规模（即：实缴规模减去已退出规模） 的1 . 5%/年收取管理费，并且管理人从最终收益中提取2 0％的收益分成。 管理私募股权基金是专业度极强、门槛极高的业务，管理人需要 ...

Core Viewpoint - Guangdong Province is leading reforms in government investment fund management, particularly regarding the linkage of management fees to fund performance [1][3]. Group 1: Fund Management Fee Structure - The new management regulations state that government investment fund management fees should be determined based on market principles and linked to fund performance evaluations [3]. - Management fees are generally calculated based on the actual capital contributions or investments, and should be paid from fund earnings or interest, with prepayment allowed from principal only if no earnings are generated [3][4]. - The regulations aim to eliminate the practice of fund managers profiting without delivering value to limited partners (LPs), potentially leading to a significant reshuffle in the venture capital industry [3][4]. Group 2: Impact on Investment Funds - The Guangdong government plans to establish a comprehensive industrial investment fund system with a total scale exceeding 1 trillion yuan, with provincial funds exceeding 100 billion yuan [6]. - Guangdong has over 50 mother funds with a total managed scale exceeding 400 billion yuan, ranking first in the country [6]. - The management of government-guided funds in Guangdong is currently led by several firms, with notable management scales reported [6][7]. Group 3: Future Developments - The new management regulations are part of broader measures to enhance the capital market and attract investment funds to local projects, moving away from traditional tax incentive models [8]. - The industry is awaiting further details on how the new management fee structure will be implemented and how fund performance will be defined [7].

每日｜荐读 热文： 社会LP去哪了 热文： 购基金井喷，巨头们开始"买买买" 报告： 独角兽的"新双轮驱动"：《2025中国CVC影响力报告》发布 报告： 哪些LP在活跃出资？——《LP全景报告2024》发布 如下为《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》全文： 广东省财政厅日前印发《广东省政府投资基金管理办法》。《办法》提出，政府投资基金可采取母 子基金或直投项目方式进行投资。子基金原则上以直投项目（含单项目专项基金）方式进行投资， 控制基金层级，防止多层嵌套影响政策目标实现。 基金绩效考核重点关注政策目标综合实现情 况，不以盈利为主要目的， 可不设定内部基准收益率，不以单个项目或单一年度盈亏作为考核依 据，原则上不穿透考核子基金的单个投资项目。 此外，《办法》还指出政府投资基金管理费用按照市场化原则协商确定，依据基金考核评价结果情 况予以核定拨付。基金管理费一般应以实缴出资或实际投资金额为计费基础，合理确定计提标准。 基金管理费从基金收益或利息中支付，原则上不允许在本金中列支，如基金暂未产生收益或利息， 可先从本金中预支，待基金产生收益或利息后补回。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The first batch of 26 floating rate funds is being issued, linking management fees to fund performance, which aims to encourage long-term investment strategies rather than short-term performance chasing [1][4]. Fund Management Fee Structure - Unlike traditional actively managed equity funds with a fixed management fee of 1.2%, these floating rate funds will charge a management fee of 1.5% if the investor holds the fund for over one year and the return exceeds the benchmark by 6%. Conversely, if the return underperforms the benchmark by more than 3%, the fee will drop to 0.6% [1]. - This fee structure reform is intended to shift the focus of fund management from short-term performance rankings to long-term performance against benchmarks [1][4]. Selection Criteria for Floating Rate Funds - Investors should assess the capability and experience of fund managers, as they are crucial to the fund's operation and long-term performance [1]. - Two types of "red flags" to watch for include: 1. Fund managers of older funds that have consistently underperformed their benchmarks but are still in charge [2]. 2. Newer fund managers with only one to three years of experience, whose investment strategies may lack stability [2]. Notable Fund Managers - Among the proposed fund managers for the floating rate funds, two categories stand out: 1. Mid-career managers with over five years of strong historical performance, such as Liu Jianwei from E Fund, who has outperformed benchmarks over the past 1, 3, and 5 years with an annualized return exceeding 11.2% [3]. 2. Senior managers with over ten years of experience, like Zhu Hongyu from China Merchants Fund, who has a diverse background in public and private funds, achieving an annualized return of over 12% since April 2022 [3]. Fund Manager Styles - Investors should consider the different investment styles of fund managers to find a suitable match for their risk tolerance: - Balanced style funds focus on diversified allocations across sectors like consumption, finance, and healthcare for steady growth [5]. - Growth style funds emphasize high-volatility sectors such as technology and renewable energy, suitable for risk-tolerant investors [5]. - Value style funds aim to identify undervalued assets, providing defensive strategies in volatile markets [5]. Impact of Fee Structure Reform - The reform of the fee structure is a significant step towards restoring the contractual spirit in public funds and is expected to change investment logic [4]. - Under the floating fee model, if a fund consistently underperforms its benchmark, management fees will decrease significantly, potentially leading to investor redemptions and prompting fund companies to enhance their research and investment capabilities [4].