Core Viewpoint - The phenomenon of investment style drift is evident in the third-quarter report of the Jinxin Fund's Intelligent China 2025 Flexible Allocation Mixed Fund, which, despite its stated investment goal of focusing on intelligent enterprises, has heavily invested in traditional financial stocks, leading to poor performance and significant underperformance compared to peers [1][10]. Fund Performance - Jinxin Intelligent China 2025 Mixed Fund reported returns of -1.95% for Class A and -2.10% for Class C in the third quarter, while the benchmark return was 12.19%, and the CSI 300 index rose by 17.90%, indicating a nearly 20% underperformance against the index [2][3]. - Year-to-date performance as of October 21 shows Class A with a return of 14.90%, ranking 1417 out of 2303 similar products, and a six-month return of 11.87%, lagging the CSI 300 by nearly 10 percentage points [4][5]. Investment Strategy and Holdings - The fund's investment objective is to focus on enterprises providing intelligent production, design, and services, including sectors like smart machinery and smart healthcare [6]. - However, the top ten holdings for the third quarter were entirely traditional financial stocks, including major banks such as Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and China Construction Bank, indicating a significant deviation from its stated investment strategy [8][10]. Investor Sentiment - Investors have expressed concerns regarding the fund's strategy, questioning the rationale behind its heavy allocation to traditional financial stocks instead of intelligent enterprises, leading to skepticism about the fund's alignment with its stated goals [11][13]. Regulatory and Market Implications - The drift in investment style raises compliance concerns, as frequent style changes can mislead investors regarding the product's risk profile, potentially leading to greater scrutiny and pressure on the fund's future performance [14].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the phenomenon of style drift in public funds, specifically focusing on the Jin Xin Fund's "Intelligent China 2025" mixed fund, which has deviated from its stated investment goal of focusing on intelligent enterprises by heavily investing in traditional financial stocks, resulting in poor performance compared to the market [3][4][11]. Group 1: Fund Performance - Jin Xin Intelligent China 2025 mixed fund reported a negative return of -1.95% and -2.10% for its A and C shares respectively in Q3, significantly underperforming the benchmark return of 12.19% and the CSI 300 index which rose by 17.90%, leading to a performance gap of nearly 20% [4][5]. - Year-to-date performance as of October 21 shows the fund's A shares with a return of 14.90%, ranking 1417 out of 2303 similar products, indicating a mid-to-low tier performance [6][7]. - The fund's total management scale decreased by 25.7% from 7.59 billion to 5.64 billion yuan in Q3 [6]. Group 2: Investment Strategy and Holdings - The fund's stated investment objective is to focus on enterprises providing intelligent production, design, and services, including sectors like smart machines and smart healthcare [8]. - However, the top ten holdings in Q3 were entirely traditional financial stocks, including major banks like ICBC and Ping An Bank, indicating a significant deviation from its stated investment strategy [9][10]. - The fund's historical trend shows a consistent increase in bank stock holdings since 2017, with at least 8 out of the top 10 holdings being bank stocks since 2018, demonstrating a long-standing style drift [11]. Group 3: Investor Sentiment and Concerns - Investors have expressed concerns regarding the fund's management and investment strategy, questioning the rationale behind the heavy allocation to traditional financial stocks despite the fund's focus on intelligent enterprises [12][15]. - The fund managers acknowledged the market volatility in Q3 but maintained that their strategy focused on the financial services sector's intelligence, which contrasts sharply with their actual stock selections [14][15]. - The article notes that frequent style shifts can lead to confusion among investors regarding the fund's positioning, potentially misleading them about the risk profile of the product [15].