Core Viewpoint - Recent changes in fund managers at GF Fund highlight a shift towards a collaborative management model, reflecting ongoing trends in the industry to optimize fund performance and adapt to market volatility [2][6][7]. Group 1: Fund Manager Changes - GF Fund announced the departure of fund manager Jiang Ke from GF Rui Jie Select, with Chen Yanzhong taking over; other funds transitioned from single management to co-management [2][3]. - A total of 64 new fund managers have been hired in the past year, with 13 fund managers leaving, representing nearly 20% of the total funds managed by GF Fund [2][6]. - The trend of increasing co-management is evident, with several funds now managed by teams rather than individual managers [3][6]. Group 2: Fund Performance - Three of the four funds involved in the recent changes have recorded losses exceeding 30% compared to their performance benchmarks over the past three years [2][4]. - Specifically, GF Cheng Xiang Mixed and GF Xing Cheng Mixed have seen cumulative returns of approximately -36% and -37%, respectively, underperforming their benchmarks by about 63 and 65 percentage points [4][5]. - The newly appointed managers have significant experience, with annualized returns varying among them, indicating a potential for improved performance moving forward [3][5]. Group 3: Industry Trends - The shift towards a platform-based research and investment strategy is becoming a common practice in the industry, moving away from the reliance on star fund managers [6][7]. - The recent changes at GF Fund are part of a broader trend in the industry, where firms are adapting to new regulatory environments and market conditions by enhancing collaborative investment strategies [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has released an action plan to promote the high-quality development of public funds, introducing a new floating management fee mechanism linked to fund performance [1][2]. Group 1: Floating Management Fee Mechanism - The new fee structure stipulates that if a fund's performance meets the benchmark, it will charge the standard fee rate; if performance is significantly below the benchmark, a lower fee rate will apply; and if performance exceeds the benchmark, a higher fee rate will be charged [1][2]. - The floating fee mechanism aims to reduce the "guaranteed income" phenomenon for fund companies, encouraging them to enhance investment capabilities [2][5]. - The CSRC plans to implement this mechanism for newly established actively managed equity funds, with a target that at least 60% of the funds issued by leading firms in the next year will adopt this model [2][5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Current Trends - Since the exploration of floating fee structures began in 2013, the industry has seen continuous innovation, with 249 floating management fee funds reported as of May 7, 2025 [2][3]. - The main types of fee structures include scale-linked fees, holding period-linked fees, and performance-linked fees, with the latter being the most prevalent, accounting for nearly 90% of the market [3][4]. - Historical guidelines from 2017 outlined two main floating fee models: one that adjusts fees based on performance relative to a benchmark and another that charges performance fees based on excess returns [3][4]. Group 3: Future Outlook - The implementation of the new action plan is expected to further popularize the performance-based fee model, leading to a shift from "scale-driven" to "ability-driven" growth in the public fund industry [5]. - The focus on performance will enhance the core competitiveness of fund companies and promote a more competitive industry landscape [5]. - Despite the new fee structures, it is emphasized that investors should consider multiple factors, including the management company's strength and the fund manager's investment capabilities, when making investment decisions [5].