Core Viewpoint - The introduction of new floating fee rate funds has sparked significant discussion in the market, with 16 new funds launched for subscription on May 27, 2023, following recent public fund reform regulations [1]. Fund Performance Summary - Among the 20 floating fee rate funds established in 2023, 18 funds have positive returns since inception, representing 90% of the total, while only 2 funds have negative returns [2]. - The top five performing funds are: - 嘉实创新动力混合 (Jia Shi Innovation Power Mixed) with a return of 39.62% against a benchmark of 9.93% - 富国核心忧势混合 (Fu Guo Core Worry Mixed) with a return of 37.08% against a benchmark of 14.91% - 中欧时代共赢混合 (Zhong Ou Era Win-Win Mixed) with a return of 35.30% against a benchmark of 7.62% - 大成至信回报三年定开 (Da Cheng Zhi Xin Return Three-Year Open) with a return of 31.87% against a benchmark of 10.63% - 华夏瑞益混合 (Hua Xia Rui Yi Mixed) with a return of 23.48% against a benchmark of 12.10% [2][3]. Benchmark Comparison - Out of the 20 floating fee rate funds, 11 funds have outperformed their respective benchmarks, accounting for 55%, while 9 funds have underperformed, making up 45% [6]. - In terms of performance against the Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 Index, 13 funds have outperformed the index, representing 65%, while 7 funds have underperformed, accounting for 35% [9][10]. Relative Performance Among Peers - The top five funds rank in the top 10% of their peer group, indicating strong relative performance [14]. - The second tier includes two funds that rank in the 10%-20% range among peers, while eight funds fall within the 20%-30% range, indicating a middle to upper performance level [15][16]. - The lowest-performing fund, 华安远见慧选混合 (Hua An Vision Wise Selection Mixed), ranks in the bottom 20% of its peer group, highlighting significant underperformance [16].

Core Viewpoint - A new batch of floating rate funds has been approved and is being launched, emphasizing both holding duration and excess returns, with the previous batch achieving positive returns and some exceeding 30% [1][2] Group 1: Performance of Previous Funds - The previous batch of eight floating rate funds has been established for about a year and a half, all achieving positive returns, with an average return slightly outperforming the performance benchmark [1] - Notable funds such as Dazhong Zhixin and Yinhua Huixiang have reported excess returns, with Dazhong Zhixin achieving over 30% return and an excess return rate exceeding 20% compared to its benchmark [2] Group 2: Fee Structure and Management - The fee structure for the new floating rate funds includes a fixed management fee of 0.6%, a contingent management fee of 0.6%, and an excess management fee of 0.3%, with varying rates based on performance relative to benchmarks [4] - The management fees are directly linked to performance, incentivizing fund managers to focus on absolute returns and adjust their investment strategies accordingly [3][4] Group 3: Investment Strategy and Discipline - The new fee structure emphasizes the importance of performance benchmarks, requiring fund managers to pay attention to industry deviations, style exposures, and tracking errors to avoid style drift [5][6] - Fund managers are encouraged to adopt a disciplined approach to investment, focusing on fundamental research and risk control rather than short-term speculative behaviors [6] Group 4: Industry Implications - The new floating rate funds are expected to enhance the alignment of interests between fund managers and investors, promoting long-term investment and reducing impulsive trading behaviors [4][5] - The regulatory push for performance-based fee structures is likely to drive a shift in the industry from scale-driven to research-driven performance, fostering a competitive environment that prioritizes quality [4][6]

Core Viewpoint - The recent submission of a new batch of floating management fee rate funds by 26 fund companies marks a significant development in the public fund industry, emphasizing investor interest protection and long-term investment guidance [1][8]. Group 1: New Fund Submission - On May 16, the first batch of new model floating management fee products was accepted by the CSRC, involving 26 fund managers, including 21 leading firms and 4 smaller firms [1]. - The submitted products are primarily market selection equity funds, benchmarked against major indices such as the CSI 300 and CSI 500 [1]. Group 2: Fund Design and Fee Structure - The new fund designs focus on enhancing investor interests, aligning with the "Action Plan" that establishes a performance-based floating management fee mechanism [2]. - The fee structure allows for different management fee rates based on the fund's performance relative to a benchmark, with lower fees applied when performance is below the benchmark and higher fees when performance exceeds it [2][8]. - The design emphasizes asymmetric adjustments to fees, with more significant reductions when performance lags behind the benchmark compared to increases when performance exceeds it [2]. Group 3: Historical Context and Evolution - The floating management fee rate mechanism has evolved since its inception in 1999, with various models emerging over the years, including performance-linked fees and tiered fee structures [3][4][6]. - Recent innovations include a model where 50% of the basic management fee is performance-based, and another where fees vary based on the investor's holding period [6][7]. Group 4: Industry Impact and Future Outlook - Industry experts believe the new floating management fee funds will enhance the alignment of fund managers' income with investors' actual returns, promoting long-term investment and reducing irrational trading [8]. - The introduction of these funds is seen as a deep optimization of product supply in the industry, potentially leading to clearer strategies and defined risk-return characteristics [8].

Core Viewpoint - The public fund industry in China is set to undergo significant fee rate reforms, introducing a floating management fee mechanism linked to fund performance, aiming to align the interests of fund managers and investors more closely [1][3]. Group 1: Floating Management Fee Mechanism - Over 20 large fund companies are expected to submit products based on performance benchmarks with a management fee structure comprising a basic fee, potential fees, and excess management fees [2][5]. - The new floating fee products will charge management fees based on the annualized return during the holding period compared to the benchmark, with differentiated fees for different investors based on their actual returns [2][4]. - This innovation emphasizes the anchoring role of performance benchmarks, incentivizing fund managers to pursue excess returns while penalizing them with reduced fees if performance falls short [2][3]. Group 2: Regulatory Emphasis on Investor Interests - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has highlighted the importance of binding fund company income to investor returns, aiming to eliminate the "guaranteed income" model for fund managers [3][4]. - The action plan mandates that new actively managed equity funds adopt a floating management fee model based on performance benchmarks, with specific fee rates determined by the fund's performance relative to the benchmark [3][4]. - The CSRC aims for leading fund institutions to issue at least 60% of their actively managed equity funds under this floating fee mechanism within the next year [3]. Group 3: Historical Context and Future Outlook - Previous fixed fee structures led to dissatisfaction among investors, prompting the introduction of floating fee products in late 2019, which allowed for performance-based fee extraction [5][6]. - Recent floating fee products have shown positive returns, with some exceeding 28% and others achieving over 40% returns, indicating a successful alignment of interests between fund managers and investors [6]. - The floating management fee model is expected to enhance the competitive edge of fund companies by focusing on research and investment capabilities, promoting long-term investment strategies among investors [6].