Group 1 - The announcement of the temporary leave of fund manager Fang Yubing and the return of former manager Luo Wenbo to manage the "Agricultural Bank of China Huiri Jin Sui Preferred 6-Month Holding Period Mixed (FOF)" fund has drawn market attention, highlighting concerns about the fund's management stability [1][3] - Luo Wenbo previously managed the fund but left due to "business adjustments" after recording a loss of 1.09% during his tenure, raising questions about his ability to effectively manage the fund again [3][5] - The fund's performance has been poor, with another FOF product managed by Luo, "Agricultural Bank of China Anrui One-Year Holding (FOF)," showing a total return of -21.92%, ranking second to last among 48 similar funds [3][5] Group 2 - The fund's assets have significantly decreased from 268 million yuan at the end of 2021 to 92 million yuan by the end of 2024, a decline of 65.67%, and further down to 86 million yuan by the second quarter of 2025, a 6.5% decrease from the previous year [4] - The ongoing decline in fund size reflects investor dissatisfaction with performance, leading to concerns about Luo Wenbo's capability as a "firefighter" in this context [5][6] - The overall FOF business of Agricultural Bank of China Huiri Fund is struggling, mirroring the broader challenges faced by the company, which has seen its total management scale drop from a peak of 267.98 billion yuan in June 2021 to 163.16 billion yuan by the third quarter of 2023 [7][8] Group 3 - Other FOF products managed by Zhang Mengke have also underperformed, with most showing negative annualized returns, except for one product that achieved positive returns [6][7] - The overall decline in Agricultural Bank of China Huiri Fund's scale contrasts sharply with other bank-affiliated funds, which have seen significant growth, highlighting the company's current struggles in the competitive landscape [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - Huabao Fund's FOF product line is facing significant challenges, with multiple funds at risk of liquidation due to insufficient asset values, highlighting a broader trend of declining performance and investor confidence in the company's offerings [1][9][11]. Group 1: Fund Performance and Liquidation Risks - Huabao's actively managed three-month holding period mixed fund (FOF) is at risk of liquidation as its net asset value has been below 50 million yuan for 50 consecutive working days, with a deadline set for May 29 [1]. - The fund was launched on April 23, 2024, with an initial size of 456 million yuan, but by the end of 2024, its net asset value had plummeted to 65.98 million yuan, a decrease of over 80% [6]. - As of the first quarter of 2025, the fund's size further declined to 32 million yuan, representing a 92.95% reduction from its inception [6]. Group 2: Management and Strategy Challenges - Fund manager Sun Mengyi emphasized the importance of asset allocation, industry selection, and fund selection for achieving excess returns, but the rapid style rotation in the A-share market has undermined these strategies [6][7]. - The total return during Sun Mengyi's tenure for the actively managed fund was -5.45%, ranking last among its peers [7][8]. - Huabao's FOF product line has seen a pattern of "raising funds only to see them peak," with the previously liquidated Huabao Stable Target Risk three-month holding mixed fund (FOF) shrinking by 93.56% from its initial size of 202 million yuan to just 1.3 million yuan before liquidation [9]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Huabao Fund - The overall management scale of Huabao Fund has decreased by 22.7 billion yuan in 2023, with the total assets under management dropping to 335.75 billion yuan by the first quarter of 2025, contrary to the ambitious target of reaching one trillion yuan set by Chairman Huang Kongwei [9][11]. - The decline in the ETF business, once a competitive advantage for Huabao, has also contributed to the company's struggles, with significant losses reported in key products [11]. - The company's attempts to recover through marketing strategies have faced criticism, further damaging its brand image and investor trust [11][12].