Group 1: Market Overview - The recent month has seen a resurgence of purchase limits in the QDII sector, including high-performing funds, aimed at controlling quotas and stabilizing net value fluctuations to protect existing investors [1] - As of August 1, the Shanghai Composite Index fell by 0.37% to 3559.95 points, the Shenzhen Component Index decreased by 0.17% to 10991.32 points, and the ChiNext Index dropped by 0.24% to 2322.63 points, with a total trading volume of 15983.51 billion yuan [1] Group 2: Fund News - On August 1, 24 new funds were launched, primarily equity and bond funds, with the Qianhai Kaiyuan Research Preferred Mixed C fund targeting a fundraising goal of 8 billion yuan [2] - In July, driven by the floating fee rate reform, investor subscription sentiment remained strong, with 135 newly launched funds raising a total of 1048.68 billion yuan, marking the second-highest monthly fundraising this year [2] - The expansion of ETFs has led to significant declines in the shares of some index ETFs, prompting fund managers to announce new market makers to enhance liquidity and prevent further marginalization of smaller products [2] Group 3: Fund Performance - The top-performing fund on August 1, excluding innovative closed-end funds, was the Debon Stable Growth Flexible Allocation Mixed C fund, with a daily growth rate of 5.5820% [3] - In the stock fund category, the leading fund was the Hongtu Innovation Healthcare Stock fund, achieving a daily growth rate of 2.0747% [4] - The top bond fund was the Shangyin Convertible Bond Selected Bond A, with a daily growth rate of 0.6568% [4] - The top mixed fund was again the Debon Stable Growth Flexible Allocation Mixed C fund, while the top money market fund was the Yinhua Trading Money B, with a daily growth rate of 0.0100% [4] Group 4: ETF and Other Fund Categories - The top ETF fund was the GF CSI Photovoltaic Leading 30 ETF, with a daily growth rate of 1.8686% [5] - The top LOF fund was the Guoshou Anbao Strategy Selected Flexible Allocation Mixed (LOF) C, with a daily growth rate of 2.9651% [5] - In the QDII category, the leading fund was the Southern Peak TOPIX ETF, which experienced a decline of 0.6863% [5]

Core Viewpoint - The expansion of the ETF market in the U.S. is expected to temporarily enhance turnover rates, while the liquidity premium of domestic bond ETFs is already relatively high [1]. Group 1: U.S. Bond ETF Market Trends - The U.S. bond ETF market is projected to grow significantly from $554.48 billion in 2023 to $1,152.81 billion in 2024, marking a growth rate of 107.9%. However, a noticeable decline is expected in 2025, with the market size dropping to $441.57 billion by June 2025 [2]. - During the periods of market expansion, particularly in early 2022, the turnover rate of U.S. credit bond ETFs increased, with an annual average turnover rate of 41% and peaks of 43% and 45% during specific months [2]. - There is no clear positive correlation between the expansion of the U.S. bond ETF market and turnover rates over a longer time frame, as evidenced from 2018 to 2020 when market size increased but turnover rates did not [2]. Group 2: Trading Activity and Liquidity Premium - The number of transactions for constituent bonds has significantly increased with the expansion of ETFs. For instance, the proportion of constituent bonds in the AAA benchmark market-making credit bond index has risen to 91.7% since July 2025 [3]. - The liquidity premium is reasonably anchored within 10 basis points (BP). Since 2024, the risk associated with high-grade urban investment bonds and secondary capital bonds has been similar, with a central spread of 0 and fluctuations generally within 10 BP [4]. - Some constituent bonds are experiencing liquidity premiums exceeding 15 BP due to heightened buying sentiment among certain institutions [5]. Group 3: Market Sentiment and ETF Dynamics - The expansion of ETFs is unlikely to lead to a sustained increase in the liquidity of constituent bonds. The physical redemption mechanism makes it easier to increase the scale of credit bond ETFs, but the liquidity of some constituent bonds may peak and decline as their market size decreases [5]. - Market sentiment significantly influences liquidity, with changes in ETF scale reflecting market emotions. The fluctuation in cash redemption products may be more pronounced during market adjustments, potentially putting pressure on the constituent bonds in the PCF list [5].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - The increase in the scale of the US ETF market has a temporary impact on the turnover rate, and the liquidity premium of domestic bond ETF component bonds is already relatively high [1]. - The expansion of ETFs is difficult to bring about a continuous improvement in the liquidity of component bonds. The liquidity premium of some component bonds is already at a high level, and the valuation difference between the exchange and the inter - bank market may lead to a narrowing of the spread [2][5][6]. - It is recommended to pay attention to the impact of market sentiment changes on liquidity [6]. 3. Summary According to the Directory 3.1 US Bond ETF Market Scale and Liquidity Comparison - The scale of the US bond ETF market increased significantly from 2023 - 2024 and declined significantly in 2025. In 2023, the scale was $554.482 billion, rising to $1152.808 billion in 2024 with a growth rate of 107.9%. As of June 2025, it was only $441.57 billion [2][11]. - During the periods when the scale of the US bond ETFs increased, the turnover rate of US credit bond ETFs increased significantly in 2022. However, in the long - term, there is no obvious positive correlation between the increase in the scale of US bond ETFs and the change in the turnover rate [2][12]. 3.2 Current Changes in Domestic ETF Liquidity and Component Bond Liquidity - Under the expansion of ETFs, the number of component bond transactions has increased significantly. Taking the Shanghai Stock Exchange AAA Benchmark Market - making Credit Bond Index as an example, the proportion of component bonds in the top three component entities has been continuously rising since 2025, reaching 91.7% since July [21]. - The valuation difference between the exchange and the inter - bank market for medium - long - term and medium - high implicit rating component bonds is more obvious. The spread between Shanghai market - making component bonds and inter - bank comparable bonds is currently between - 1BP and 13BP. The spread difference between central enterprises and local industrial state - owned enterprises is more obvious, while that of urban investment and transportation - related entities is relatively small [21]. - The exchange - inter - bank excess spread of science and technology innovation bond component bonds has widened since July [22]. 3.3 Component Bond Liquidity Pricing: Reasonable Liquidity Premium and Potential Risks - The reasonable pricing anchor for liquidity premium is within 10BP. Since 2024, under the expectation of debt resolution, the spread between high - grade urban investment bonds and secondary capital bonds is centered at 0, and the spread fluctuation range is basically within 10BP. The same is true for the spread between high - grade securities firm bonds and secondary capital bonds [35]. - The risk points of the valuation difference between the exchange and the inter - bank market: the spread of some benchmark market - making bonds and science and technology innovation bonds between the exchange and the inter - bank market has exceeded 10BP, and the spread of some component bonds with high institutional buying enthusiasm has exceeded 15BP [35]. - Three views on liquidity premium and risk points: ETF expansion is difficult to bring continuous improvement in component bond liquidity; the liquidity premium of some component bonds is already at a high level; after the valuation difference between the exchange and the inter - bank market, the exchange corporate bonds become more offensive, while inter - bank bonds are more defensive, and the spread may narrow with the increase in supply [36].