Core Viewpoint - The recent announcement from Qingdao Leang Asset Management indicates that market-neutral strategies experienced significant weekly drawdowns due to three main factors: poor Alpha environment, unfavorable style Beta, and substantial convergence of basis spreads [1][4][5]. Group 1: Reasons for Drawdown - The Alpha environment was unfavorable, with the average stock market increase of 2.0% and a median increase of only 0.36%, indicating insufficient market momentum and low inherent volatility, leading to fewer Alpha opportunities for quantitative strategies [4]. - There was a notable structural differentiation in the A-share market, with the CSI 300 index rising by 2.37%, the CSI 500 by 3.88%, and the CSI 1000 leading with a 4.09% increase, while micro-cap stocks fell by 0.65%. Only 23% of stocks outperformed the CSI 1000 index, posing challenges for market-neutral strategies [4][5]. - The basis spread for the main contract (IM2509) converged by over 1% within the week, resulting in an additional 1% drawdown in product net value. Overall, the market-neutral products experienced approximately a 3% drawdown [5]. Group 2: Company Overview - Qingdao Leang Asset Management was established in November 2018 and registered with the Asset Management Association of China in April 2019. The company has a registered capital of 10 million yuan and operates in Shanghai with a total of 14 full-time employees [6]. - The firm manages 32 private equity products with an asset management scale ranging from 2 billion to 5 billion yuan [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant weekly drawdown in market-neutral strategies by quantitative private equity firms, attributing it to three main reasons: poor Alpha environment, unfavorable style Beta, and substantial convergence of basis [2][3][6]. Group 1: Reasons for Drawdown - The Alpha environment was poor, with the average stock in the market only rising by 2.0% and the median increase being just 0.36%, indicating insufficient overall market momentum [6]. - There was a notable structural differentiation in the A-share market, with the CSI 1000 index leading with a 4.09% increase, while only 23% of stocks outperformed the CSI 1000 index, posing challenges for market-neutral strategies [6][10]. - The basis for the main futures contract used for hedging (IM2509) converged by over 1% within the week, leading to an additional 1% drawdown in product net value [6][7]. Group 2: Performance Summary - The market-neutral products experienced an approximate 3% drawdown due to the combined effects of a poor excess return environment, the strong performance of the CSI 1000 index, and the convergence of the basis [7]. - Despite the drawdown, firms believe that the overall basis environment will improve, allowing for recovery in market-neutral strategies [7][12]. Group 3: Company Profile - Qingdao Leang Asset Management Co., Ltd. was established in November 2018 and registered with the Asset Management Association of China in April 2019, with a registered capital of 10 million yuan [8]. - The company currently manages 32 private equity products with a management scale ranging from 2 billion to 5 billion yuan [7][8].

Report Summary 1. Report Industry Investment Rating - There is no information provided regarding the industry investment rating in the report. 2. Core View of the Report - As of the week ending July 25, 2025, the weekly returns of Tonglian All A (Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing), ChinaBond Composite Bond Index, and Nanhua Commodity Index were 2.11%, -0.48%, and 2.73% respectively. In the public - fund market, the returns of stock - bond strategies were differentiated in the past week. Among equity strategies, passive index - type products led in returns, and market - neutral strategy products mostly rose. In bond strategies, the pure - bond fund index showed a significant decline. In the commodity market, energy - chemical ETFs were strong with a weekly increase of 6.00%, non - ferrous metal ETFs rebounded, and precious - metal ETFs continued the upward trend of net value [3]. - Among the CITIC five - style indices, all style indices closed up last Friday. The cycle and growth styles led in returns. The style rotation chart showed that the relative strength of the cycle and stable styles increased significantly, while the momentum of the consumption style decreased slightly. In the public - fund pool, the average returns of financial and consumption - style funds significantly outperformed the index in the past week, with excess returns of 1.14% and 0.23% respectively. The excess returns of cycle and growth - style funds continued to shrink. The stable style strengthened slightly, and the cycle style declined. In terms of crowding, the growth and cycle styles rebounded marginally, while the consumption and financial styles remained in the historically high - crowding range [3]. - Among Barra factors, the residual volatility factor performed well in the past week, with an excess return of 0.60%. The returns of momentum and valuation factors weakened marginally, and the excess return of the profitability factor continued to shrink. In terms of winning rate, the growth factor declined, and the capital - flow factor strengthened slightly. This week, the cross - sectional rotation speed of factors rose from the historically low - quantile range to the middle range. According to the latest scoring results of the style timing model, the financial style weakened marginally this week, and the consumption style recovered. The current signal favors the consumption style. The return of the style timing strategy last week was 0.36%, and the excess return compared to the benchmark balanced allocation was - 1.59% [3]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 Market Index Performance - Tonglian All A (Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing) had a weekly return of 2.11%, the ChinaBond Composite Bond Index had a return of - 0.48%, and the Nanhua Commodity Index had a return of 2.73% as of July 25, 2025 [3]. 3.2 Public - Fund Market Performance - **Equity Strategies**: Passive index - type products led in returns, and market - neutral strategy products mostly rose [3]. - **Bond Strategies**: The pure - bond fund index showed a significant decline [3]. - **Commodity Market**: Energy - chemical ETFs had a weekly increase of 6.00%, non - ferrous metal ETFs rebounded, and precious - metal ETFs continued the upward trend of net value [3]. 3.3 CITIC Five - Style Index Performance - **Return Performance**: All style indices closed up last Friday. The cycle and growth styles led in returns [3]. - **Relative Strength and Momentum**: The relative strength of the cycle and stable styles increased significantly, while the momentum of the consumption style decreased slightly [3]. - **Fund Excess Return**: The average returns of financial and consumption - style funds significantly outperformed the index in the past week, with excess returns of 1.14% and 0.23% respectively. The excess returns of cycle and growth - style funds continued to shrink [3]. - **Style Trend**: The stable style strengthened slightly, and the cycle style declined [3]. - **Crowding**: The growth and cycle styles rebounded marginally, while the consumption and financial styles remained in the historically high - crowding range [3]. 3.4 Barra Factor Performance - **Factor Return**: The residual volatility factor had an excess return of 0.60%. The returns of momentum and valuation factors weakened marginally, and the excess return of the profitability factor continued to shrink [3]. - **Winning Rate and Momentum**: The growth factor declined in terms of winning rate, and the capital - flow factor strengthened slightly [3]. - **Factor Rotation Speed**: The cross - sectional rotation speed of factors rose from the historically low - quantile range to the middle range [3]. 3.5 Style Timing Strategy - According to the latest scoring results of the style timing model, the financial style weakened marginally this week, and the consumption style recovered. The current signal favors the consumption style. The return of the style timing strategy last week was 0.36%, and the excess return compared to the benchmark balanced allocation was - 1.59% [3].

Core Viewpoint - The performance of private equity funds has been significantly impacted by tariff shocks, leading to a general decline in returns for April, although recent market recovery has shown signs of stabilization in net asset values and management scales, particularly among large private equity firms [1][2][7]. Group 1: Performance Overview - In April, only 20 out of 100 leading long-only private equity products achieved positive returns, indicating that over 80% of products experienced losses [2][3]. - Among large private equity firms, the average return for 49 firms with performance data was -0.46%, with only 34.69% achieving positive returns [5]. - The top-performing large private equity firms included Honghu Private Equity, Evolution Asset, and Lery Asset, while some firms faced losses exceeding 10% [3][5]. Group 2: Strategy Performance - Quantitative strategies among leading private equity firms performed poorly, with only 10% of products yielding positive returns, while market-neutral and quantitative CTA strategies showed better performance [4]. - Mixed strategy large private equity firms outperformed others, with an average return of 0.04%, while subjective long-only strategies suffered the most with an average return of -1.24% [5]. Group 3: Market Dynamics - The number of large private equity managers has increased to 87, up from 84 in March, indicating a slight expansion in the sector [2][8]. - The competitive landscape is intensifying, with a notable increase in the proportion of quantitative large private equity firms, which now account for 43.68% of the total, reflecting a shift in market dynamics [12]. Group 4: New Entrants and Exits - Four large private equity firms exited the billion-dollar club, while seven new or returning firms joined, including Shanghai RuiLiang and Zhuhai Kuande, with a focus on quantitative strategies [9][10]. - The majority of new entrants are quantitative firms, while subjective firms still dominate the large private equity landscape [11].

Core Viewpoint - The deep discount of stock index futures has raised concerns in the market, impacting market-neutral strategy products and leading to net value declines, although quant hedge funds have managed to maintain overall excess returns this year [1][2]. Group 1: Market Conditions - Since April, the discount rates for IC (CSI 500 index futures) and IM (CSI 1000 index futures) have deepened, with IC reaching an annualized discount rate of 19.23% and IM at 22.36% as of April 16 [2]. - The significant drop in the CSI 500 and CSI 1000 indices on April 7, attributed to tariff shocks, resulted in extreme declines in stock index futures, causing a sharp increase in hedging costs for neutral products [2]. - The overall excess returns for quant strategies have improved compared to last year, despite increased market volatility and deepening discounts [2][4]. Group 2: Performance of Market-Neutral Strategies - As of April 18, the average return for 738 market-neutral strategy products since 2025 was 3.06%, but the average return over the past month dropped to 0.03%, with a slight recovery to 0.34% in the last week [3]. - Market-neutral products have maintained relatively stable operations since April, although new investors may face risks related to basis convergence [3][4]. - The overall return rate for market-neutral strategies this year is reported at 4%, with a yield of 0.47% since April [4]. Group 3: Risk Management and Strategy Optimization - Companies have implemented various methods for basis management and volatility response, including optimizing strategy models to enhance return stability [1][4]. - A multi-dimensional risk control system has been established, utilizing mixed hedging and automated dynamic management of basis [5]. - Recent upgrades to strategy frameworks have improved the ability to capture excess returns by integrating multi-frequency price and volume characteristics with AI models [5].