据同花顺（300033）数据，施成旗下有6只主动权益类基金今年以来的收益率（仅统计A份额）跑赢同 期基准20至38个百分点不等；但从3年业绩看，最近3年产品收益率约在-5%至28%不等，跑输同期基准 18至48个百分点不等。 【深圳商报讯】（记者 詹钰叶）中国证券投资基金业协会日前修订《基金管理公司绩效考核管理指引 （征求意见稿）》，主动权益类基金经理连续3年业绩太差或被降薪30%。 知名基金经理施成业绩近来引起市场热议，其旗下产品3年业绩均跑输基准，半数以上利润率为负，其 薪酬或被下调。 具体来看，国投瑞银先进制造混合、国投瑞银产业趋势混合A、国投瑞银进宝混合最近3年的净值分别 下跌27.97%、27.86%与26.81%，分别跑输同期基准收益率47.71、47.5、39.59个百分点。国投瑞银新能 源混合A近3年净值下跌26.78%，跑输同期基准近18个百分点。国投瑞银产业转型一年持有期混合A、 国投瑞银产业升级两年持有混合A由施成与他人共管，近3年净值分别下跌18.78%与4.68%，分别跑输同 期基准38.41与24.32个百分点。 ...

深圳商报·读创客户端记者 詹钰叶 中国证券投资基金业协会日前修订形成了《基金管理公司绩效考核管理指引（征求意见稿）》（下称 《指引》），主动权益类基金经理连续三年业绩太差或被降薪30%。新能源"拥趸"施成在今年调整了持 仓，在管产品业绩显著跑赢基准；但从三年收益看，他旗下产品均至少跑输基准10个百分点，存在降薪 风险。 中国证券投资基金业协会日前修订形成《基金管理公司绩效考核管理指引（征求意见稿）》，并下发至 部分基金公司，就指引条文内容以及指引是否损害公平竞争、中小投资者权益保护事项征求意见。其中 提到，基金管理公司应当根据主动权益类基金经理过去三年业绩比较基准对比、基金利润率的不同情 形，建立阶梯化的绩效薪酬调整机制：过去三年产品业绩低于业绩比较基准超过十个百分点且基金利润 率为负的，其绩效薪酬应当较上一年明显下降，降幅不得少于30%；低于业绩比较基准超过十个百分点 但基金利润率为正的，其绩效薪酬应当下降；低于业绩比较基准不足十个百分点且基金利润率为负的， 其绩效薪酬不得提高；显著超过业绩比较基准且基金利润率为正的，其绩效薪酬可以合理适度提高。 因此，多位基金经理长期业绩近来引起市场热议。其中，知名基金经 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the underperformance of public funds managed by Guotou Ruijin, particularly focusing on the poor results of star fund manager Shi Cheng, who has significantly lagged behind in returns despite a bullish market in 2025 [2][3] - Shi Cheng's fund management strategy involved a substantial overhaul of the portfolio, with half of the top holdings replaced, including major players in the semiconductor sector, but the overall performance has been disappointing, with only two funds achieving over 10% returns [4][5] - Comparatively, other fund managers within Guotou Ruijin, such as Qi Fupeng and Sang Jun, also exhibited lackluster performance, with their managed products failing to achieve significant returns, indicating a broader issue within the active equity team [6][7] Group 2 - Shi Cheng's recent portfolio adjustments included high-profile stocks like SMIC and Huichuan Technology, but many of the new additions have not performed well, with some stocks like Cambrian still in decline [4][5] - Qi Fupeng's management of multiple funds has resulted in subpar performance, with the best-performing fund yielding less than 7%, and a significant portion of his top holdings experiencing declines [7][8] - Sang Jun's management has also been ineffective, with one fund not even achieving positive returns, and the overall equity portion of his funds being minimal, raising questions about the efficiency of having multiple managers [9][10]