Core Viewpoint - The management fee structure in the venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) industry is undergoing significant changes, moving away from the traditional "2% management fee + 20% performance share" model to more diversified and performance-linked fee arrangements [1][2]. Fee Reduction Trend - The management fee has been reduced from the standard "2%" to "1.5%" in many cases, with some government-guided funds even charging as low as "1%" [3][4]. - Feedback from investment professionals indicates that the downward adjustment of management fees is becoming a trend, with many general partners (GPs) relying on management fees and performance compensation as their main income sources [4][5]. Changes in Fee Calculation Methods - The industry is shifting from charging based on committed capital to charging based on actual paid-in capital, with some funds adopting a "project-based deduction" model where fees are only charged after project approval [5]. - A performance extraction mechanism is being implemented, linking management fees to investment progress, returns, and policy objectives, which can lead to reduced fees if performance targets are not met [5][6]. Changes in Limited Partner (LP) Contribution Structure - The structure of LP contributions is changing, with institutional LP contributions declining for four consecutive years, and government funds now dominating the LP structure, accounting for approximately 88.8% of contributions [8][9]. - The shift towards government and state-owned capital as primary LPs is driving the evolution of management fee rules, as these funds require a balance between economic returns and social benefits [9][10]. Impact of Fee Reduction on GP Viability - The reduction in fees and the lengthening of exit cycles are raising concerns about the sustainability of GPs that rely heavily on management fees [6][11]. - The current financial environment, including salary reductions in financial institutions, is influencing the fee structures in the VC/PE sector [11]. New Balance Between GP and LP - The government is introducing measures to stimulate GP activity, such as profit-sharing, relaxed reinvestment standards, and risk compensation mechanisms, creating a new equilibrium of "low fees + diversified compensation" [13][14]. - Policies aimed at improving GP incentives are emerging, with a focus on enhancing the professional requirements for GPs and aligning their services with actual returns [15].

Core Insights - The 2024 annual reports of public fund companies reveal a mixed performance, with nearly half of the companies experiencing revenue growth, while 74 fund companies collectively earned a net profit of 37.774 billion yuan [1][3]. Group 1: Revenue Performance - A total of 64 fund companies reported a combined revenue of 114.148 billion yuan in 2024, with E Fund leading at 12.109 billion yuan, although it saw a slight decline of 3.13% year-on-year [2]. - Six other companies, including Huaxia Fund and Southern Fund, reported revenues exceeding 5 billion yuan, with figures of 8.031 billion yuan and 7.523 billion yuan respectively [2]. - Among the 63 companies with year-on-year data, 31 achieved revenue growth, accounting for 49.21%, with 13 companies seeing growth exceeding 20% [2]. Group 2: Net Profit Performance - The net profit of 74 fund companies totaled 37.774 billion yuan, with E Fund, Southern Fund, and Huaxia Fund leading the rankings with net profits of 3.9 billion yuan, 2.352 billion yuan, and 2.158 billion yuan respectively [3]. - Eleven companies entered the "10 billion club" for net profit, with notable growth from Tianhong Fund, which increased by 19.29% to 1.679 billion yuan [3]. - Two companies, China Ocean Fund and Hongta Hongtu Fund, turned losses into profits, while seven companies, including Nanhua Fund, reported losses [3]. Group 3: Company Strategies and Market Dynamics - The performance disparity among fund companies is attributed to factors such as product strategy iterations and market recognition of flagship products [6]. - Leading fund companies have leveraged brand reputation and comprehensive strength to better attract customers amid a fee reduction trend, while smaller firms face increased competition [7]. - Companies achieving revenue and profit growth have benefited from scale advantages, innovation capabilities, and enhanced service quality, allowing them to capture greater market share [7][8].