Group 1: Report Overview - The report focuses on the performance comparison benchmarks of US active funds, aiming to provide insights for China's public fund market after the release of the "Action Plan for Promoting the High - quality Development of Public Funds" [2] Group 2: Investment Rating - Not provided in the report Group 3: Core Views - The US has established requirements for performance comparison benchmarks with broad - based indices as the main and narrow - based indices as supplementary. The CFA Institute also offers benchmark - setting guidelines [4][9] - US active funds mainly use single - index benchmarks. Stock - type funds use S&P 500 as a single - benchmark index; multi - benchmark funds prefer broad - based and narrow - based index combinations. Hybrid funds often use composite benchmarks, and bond - type funds have concentrated single - benchmarks and diverse multi - benchmarks [4][22] - US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark have higher correlation, lower tracking error, and a lower proportion of significantly underperforming the benchmark compared to Chinese ordinary stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [5][53] - Capital Group and Fidelity, two leading active equity fund companies, have different benchmark - setting characteristics. Capital Group mainly uses single - benchmarks, while Fidelity has a more balanced distribution of single - and multi - benchmarks [61] Group 4: Summary by Directory 1. US Active Fund Performance Comparison Benchmark Overview - **Performance Comparison Benchmark Policy**: Since 1993, the SEC has required funds to compare their total returns with the total returns of appropriate broad - based indices, and also encourages the use of narrow - based indices. In 2022, the definition of broad - based indices was revised. The CFA Institute also provides benchmark - setting guidelines [9][10][13] - **US Active Fund Classification**: According to SEC naming rules, 80% of a fund's assets should be invested in line with its name. The ICI classifies mutual funds into major asset categories. As of April 2025, the US mutual fund market was worth $27.97 trillion, with stock - type funds being the largest in scale [15][16] - **US Active Fund Performance Comparison Benchmark Type Distribution**: Among 4938 US active mutual funds, 56.3% are stock - type funds and 32.4% are bond - type funds as of March 17, 2025. 63.4% of funds use single - benchmarks, 31.6% use multi - benchmarks, and 5.0% use composite benchmarks [19][22] 2. Stock - Type Fund Benchmark Analysis - **Single Benchmark**: Single - benchmark stock - type funds have high index concentration and diverse index selection, mainly using S&P 500. Among 1848 single - benchmark stock - type funds, S&P 500 is used 320 times [26] - **Multi - Benchmark**: Multi - benchmark stock - type funds often use broad - based and narrow - based index combinations. 846 out of 913 multi - benchmark stock - type funds use 2 indices as benchmarks. Large - scale multi - benchmark stock - type funds mainly use broad - based and style indices [30][35] 3. Hybrid Fund Benchmark Analysis - Among 239 hybrid funds, 122 use composite benchmarks, mostly composed of 2 indices. The equity index weight in composite benchmarks ranges from 5% to 85%. The most commonly used combination is S&P 500*60% + Bloomberg US Aggregate*40% [37][40] 4. Bond - Type Fund Benchmark Analysis - **Single Benchmark**: Bloomberg US Aggregate and Bloomberg Municipal are the most commonly used single - benchmarks for bond - type funds, with high benchmark concentration [46] - **Multi - Benchmark**: Multi - benchmark bond - type funds have diverse benchmark combinations, reflecting investment characteristics in regions, bond types, durations, and credit ratings. Large - scale multi - benchmark bond funds use diverse benchmark combinations [48][50] 5. US Active Fund Return vs Benchmark Comparison - **Correlation and Tracking Error Analysis**: The average correlation coefficient between US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark and S&P 500 in the past three years is 0.91, higher than that of Chinese ordinary stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark. The tracking error of US funds is also lower [53][54] - **Excess Return Analysis**: Less than 10% of US single - benchmark stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark significantly underperformed the benchmark in the past three years, a lower proportion compared to Chinese stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [59] 6. Benchmark Setting of Leading Active Equity Fund Companies - **Capital Group**: As of October 3, 2024, it had 94 products with a total management scale of $2.4 trillion. Stock - type funds accounted for 67% of the scale. The company mainly uses S&P 500 or MSCI ACWI as single - benchmarks [64][68] - **Fidelity**: As of October 4, 2024, its management scale was $2.95 trillion, with similar active and passive product scales. Stock - type funds accounted for 79% of the scale. Single - and multi - benchmark funds are evenly distributed, with single - benchmark funds mainly using S&P 500 and multi - benchmark funds using broad - based and industry/style index combinations [73][76] 7. Summary - The report introduces US active fund performance comparison benchmark policies and industry guidelines, and analyzes current benchmark - selection characteristics. US active funds mainly use single - index benchmarks, and different types of funds have different benchmark - selection preferences [84][85] - US stock - type funds with S&P 500 as the benchmark have better performance in terms of correlation, tracking error, and excess return compared to Chinese stock - type funds with CSI 300 as the main benchmark [86] - Capital Group and Fidelity have different benchmark - setting characteristics, and both show certain abilities to obtain excess returns [87]