变化一，新规正式稿第十条内容对债券基金的赎回费率设置规则追加了补充说明，"对于个人投资者持续持有期限满七日的指数型基金、债券型基金份 额， 以及对于机构投资者持续持有期限满三十日的债券型基金份额，基金管理人可以另行约定赎回费收取标准"。 而在此前的征求意见稿版本中，债券型基金需与股票型基金、混合型基金平等地参考"对持续持有期少于七日的投资者，收取不低于赎回金额1.5%的赎回 费；对持续持有期满七日、少于三十日的投资者，收取不低于赎回金额1%的赎回费；对持续持有期满三十日、少于六个月的投资者，收取不低于赎回金 额0.5%的赎回费"规则。 当前各类基金管理人，为了更好地迎合投资者的申赎习惯，普遍将债券型基金产品的零赎回费率的分水岭定在1个月或以内的期限，其中绝大部分产品以7 天作为免收赎回费的界限。参考这一现状，在监管尺度放松后，基金管理人或将达成新的共识，即在最大化让利投资者的前提下，债券型基金产品面向个 人客户可实施持有7天及以上免赎回费的优惠，面向机构客户则可实施持有30天及以上免赎回费的优惠。总结而言，债券型基金需要做出的改变，主要是 当下面向机构客户实施"7天免赎回"的产品，需将免赎回条件提升至持有30 ...

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No industry investment rating is provided in the report. 2. Core Views of the Report - The Campisi model, a classic attribution framework in the fixed - income field, decomposes the total return of a pure - bond fund into four effects: income, treasury, spread, and selection effects, helping to evaluate a fund manager's abilities such as duration management and credit mining [6]. - The net - based Campisi model (RBA) constructs seven risk factors through factor regression, with advantages in high - frequency tracking and dynamic adaptability, capable of capturing strategy adjustments and market environment changes [2][80]. - The net - based Campisi model has strong explanatory power for fixed - income funds. From early 2025 to August 22, 2025, the adjusted R - squared generally exceeded 0.6, indicating that the model can explain most of the income sources [2][80]. - The model can identify strategy characteristics. For example, in 2025, interest - rate bond funds generally extended their durations, and credit bond funds shifted to a diversified strategy due to narrowing spreads. "Fixed - income +" funds balanced risks and returns through diversified rating allocations and maintained high exposure to option - containing assets [2][80][81]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 Performance Attribution of Fixed - Income Funds - The core value of fixed - income fund performance attribution lies in evaluating management capabilities, guiding investment decisions, and optimizing risk management. Its practical significance benefits investors, managers, and regulatory agencies [5]. 3.2 Net - based Campisi Model 3.2.1 Campisi Model Principle - The Campisi model decomposes the total return of a pure - bond fund into four effects: income, treasury, spread, and selection effects, helping to assess a fund manager's abilities in various aspects [6]. - The income effect is the coupon income during bond holding, independent of market interest rate fluctuations. The treasury effect measures the impact of changes in risk - free interest rates on bond prices, and the spread effect reflects the impact of changes in credit spreads on bond prices. The selection effect reflects the fund manager's active management ability [7][8][13]. - The Campisi model can be divided into the portfolio - based (PBA) and net - based (RBA) models. PBA has high decomposition accuracy but low timeliness, while RBA has high - frequency tracking and dynamic adaptability [14]. 3.2.2 Model Construction and Factor Selection - The net - based Campisi model decomposes bond returns into seven factors: interest - rate level, term structure, convexity, credit spread, rating spread, convertible bond, and equity factors [18]. - Each factor has its own construction method and reflects different aspects of a fund's risk exposure and strategy preference. For example, the interest - rate level factor reflects the impact of the parallel shift of the interest - rate curve on bond portfolio returns, and the convertible bond factor captures the income contribution of convertible bond assets [20][34]. 3.2.3 Factor Performance and Processing - Since January 2020, the convertible bond and equity factors have fluctuated greatly, while non - option - containing factors have shown an upward trend in the long - term. The interest - rate level, term structure, credit spread, and rating spread factors have stable long - term trends, and the convexity factor has the smallest fluctuation [39]. - There are certain correlations among the factors. For example, the convertible bond factor and the equity factor have a strong positive correlation, while the interest - rate level factor has a negative correlation with the convertible bond and equity factors [40]. 3.3 Bond Fund Performance Evaluation Empirical Analysis 3.3.1 Pure - Bond Fund Attribution Analysis - From early 2025 to August 22, 2025, the adjusted R - squared of interest - rate bond funds and credit bond funds was generally high, indicating that the model can explain most of the fund income [45]. - Compared with 2024, in 2025, interest - rate bond funds generally extended their durations and increased exposure to convexity factors. Credit bond funds also extended their durations but to a lesser extent, and their investment strategies became more diversified [45][50][52]. - Short - term bond funds have a higher average exposure to the term structure factor, reflecting their preference for short - term bonds. Medium - and long - term bond funds have more diversified investment directions in credit bonds [55]. 3.3.2 Characteristics of Top - Ranked Pure - Bond Funds in Alpha in 2025 - Top - ranked medium - and long - term interest - rate bond funds in Alpha generally have higher exposure to the interest - rate level factor and negative exposure to the term structure factor. Alpha, mainly from the selection effect, has a relatively small impact on their performance [58]. - Top - ranked medium - and long - term credit bond funds in Alpha have negative exposure to the rating spread factor, indicating a tendency to reduce credit risk exposure. Alpha also has a relatively small impact on their performance [61]. 3.3.3 "Fixed - Income +" Fund Attribution Analysis - From early 2025 to August 22, 2025, the adjusted R - squared of "fixed - income +" funds was generally high, and most of them had positive Alpha, indicating strong overall active management ability [63]. - In a low - interest - rate environment, "fixed - income +" funds balance risks and returns through diversified rating allocations and maintain high exposure to option - containing assets [67]. 3.3.4 Characteristics of "Fixed - Income +" Funds with Strong Active Management Ability in 2025 - Top - ranked "fixed - income +" funds in Alpha rely more on the fund manager's active management ability, and Alpha has a greater impact on their performance [76]. - Top - ranked "fixed - income +" funds in the convertible bond factor also mostly have strong active management ability [78]. 3.4 Investment Analysis Opinions - The net - based Campisi model provides a systematic tool for fixed - income funds, helping investors screen and allocate funds with stable strategies and strong active management abilities [80][81].

Report Industry Investment Rating - The industry rating is not explicitly mentioned in the report regarding the bond market. However, the general tone seems to suggest a cautious view on the bond market, with potential risks and adjustments ahead [27]. Core View of the Report - The bond market has been weakening recently with a divergence in bond varieties. Both bulls and bears in the bond market are currently confused. The report presents multiple reasons for both bullish and bearish outlooks on the bond market and concludes that the risk in the bond market has not been eliminated, with potential for further adjustments within the year [2][6]. Summary by Related Catalogs Bullish Reasons - **Bond Supply Mismatch in Q4**: This year, the fiscal bond issuance has been front - loaded, with the remaining quotas for national and local bonds in Q4 at 21.5% and 22.1% respectively, lower than last year's 26.3% and 30.5%. Q4 is also the insurance "opening - up" period, leading to increased allocation demand from insurance companies [7]. - **Favorable Economic Data**: The corporate loans in the social financing data have weakened for two consecutive months, and the economic data in August was generally weak. The production slowed down, with the industrial added - value growth rate in August at 5.2%, down 0.5pct from the previous month. The fixed - asset investment also slowed down. Weak economic data is beneficial for the bond market [8]. - **Monetary Policy and Treasury Bond Transactions**: With a weakening economy, weak social financing and credit, and the Fed's rate cut, there is an increased probability of rate cuts and reserve requirement ratio cuts in Q4. The adjustment of the 14 - day reverse repurchase operation by the central bank implies a potential rate cut. The discussion on government bond issuance management and central bank's treasury bond transactions also provides room for speculation [12]. Bearish Reasons - **Nominal GDP and Re - inflation**: The "anti - involution" policy has a positive impact on inflation. PPI has shown signs of bottoming out. Nominal GDP may rise due to the narrowing of the GDP deflator, which could be unfavorable for bond yields. Expectations of inflation are also increasing [16]. - **Mutual Fund Redemption Chain Reaction**: Due to weakening profitability and the potential redemption fee, mutual bond funds may face scale shrinkage, which could lead to liquidity and valuation spread pressures on certain bond varieties favored by mutual funds [20]. - **Weak Monetary Policy Coordination**: The monetary policy has not adjusted policy rates. To cooperate with the "anti - involution" policy, interest rates may not be further reduced. The desired growth rate of loans may decline, and the current interest rate level may be appropriate [23]. - **Sustained Breakthrough in the Equity Market**: The equity market has shifted from a situation of "no fundamental support" to "having performance support from specific sectors". This may lead to a long - term trend of capital flowing from the bond market to the equity market [24]. Outlook for Monday - Two news events, a news conference on the "14th Five - Year Plan" and a positive phone call between the Chinese and US presidents, may boost risk appetite. The bond and equity markets are likely to have a "risk - on" trading pattern. The risk in the bond market has not been eliminated, and there is still room for adjustment within the year [27].

Group 1: Wealth Management Scale - The wealth management scale decreased by CNY 744 billion to CNY 30.92 trillion during the week of July 28 to August 1[1] - In July, the total growth was only CNY 2,469 billion, significantly lower than the historical average of over CNY 10 trillion for the same month[1] - The decline in scale is attributed to ongoing net value decreases and redemption pressures, with short-term and medium-term debt products experiencing maximum drawdowns of 8bp and 6bp respectively[1] Group 2: Leverage Rates - The average leverage level in the interbank market decreased from 107.41% to 107.34% during the week of July 28 to August 1[3] - Non-bank institutions saw a rebound in leverage rates, increasing from 112.10% to 112.34%[3] - Exchange leverage rates also declined slightly from 122.47% to 122.43% during the same period[3] Group 3: Bond Fund Duration - The duration of interest rate-based medium and long-term bond funds decreased from 5.49 years to 5.45 years[4] - Credit bond fund duration reached a historical high of 2.81 years, up from 2.78 years[4] - Short and medium-term bond fund durations decreased to 1.01 years and 1.65 years respectively[4] Group 4: Government Debt Issuance - The planned issuance of government bonds increased to CNY 5,785 billion for the week of August 4-8, up from CNY 5,174 billion[47] - Net issuance of government bonds rose from CNY 2,876 billion to CNY 3,390 billion, primarily due to a significant increase in national bond net issuance[47] - Local government bond issuance for the week of July 28 to August 1 was CNY 3,372 billion, with a net issuance of CNY 2,360 billion[50]