Core Insights - Liu Gesong, a prominent fund manager, has resigned from managing the Guangfa Small Cap Growth Mixed Securities Investment Fund (LOF), marking his second resignation this year [2][7] - Under Liu's management since June 2017, the fund achieved a total return of 125.2% and an annualized return of 10%, ranking 143rd among 458 similar products [3][6] - The fund's assets under management have significantly decreased from 843.3 billion yuan at the end of 2020 to 275.1 billion yuan as of the third quarter of 2025 [2][7] Fund Performance - The Guangfa Small Cap Growth LOF experienced three consecutive years of losses from 2022 to 2024, with a three-year loss of 16.0% and a five-year loss of 19.3%, underperforming its benchmark by over 40 percentage points [6] - In 2019, Liu's management of other funds led to all three achieving over 100% returns, earning him the title of "growth stock hunter" [5] Management Changes - Liu's management team has been expanded with the addition of two new fund managers, Chen Yunzong and Wu Yuanyi, to share responsibilities for the Guangfa Small Cap Growth LOF [6] - The concentration of the fund's top ten holdings has decreased from nearly 70% to below 50% since the new managers took over [6] Industry Trends - The trend of "shared management" and "graduating" new fund managers is becoming standard practice in the industry, driven by regulatory changes and increased market competition [8] - In 2025, the number of newly hired fund managers reached 599, with 461 fund managers resigning in a "clean sweep" manner, reflecting a 29% increase from the previous year [8]

Group 1 - Liu Gesong, a prominent fund manager at GF Fund, has resigned from managing the flagship product, GF Small Cap Growth Mixed Fund (LOF), after over eight years due to "work arrangements" [2][22] - This marks his second significant resignation in three months, having previously stepped down from managing GF Multi-Dimensional Emerging Stock Fund on September 10 [3][4] - Following these resignations, the number of products under Liu's management has decreased to four, with total assets under management dropping from 33.4 billion to approximately 27.5 billion [4][24] Group 2 - Liu's funds have shown a turnaround this year, with annual returns exceeding 30% for most of his managed funds, ranking in the top 40%-50% of their peers [6][24] - The GF Small Cap Growth Mixed Fund achieved a return of 41.53%, while the GF Multi-Dimensional Emerging Stock Fund recorded a return of 33.22% as of December 24 [25][24] - Liu was once a market superstar during the structural bull market from 2019 to 2020, with assets under management peaking over 80 billion [8][26] Group 3 - Liu's heavy investments in sectors like photovoltaic and battery technologies led to significant losses for his funds during the downturn from 2022 to 2024, resulting in hundreds of billions in losses for investors [9][10][28] - Despite the recent resignations, industry insiders indicate that Liu does not plan to leave the company, as he remains the Deputy General Manager and Co-Chief Investment Officer at GF Fund [11][29] - The company is transitioning from a "star-driven" model to a "platform-enabled" approach, aiming to pass on some products to younger fund managers [14][32] Group 4 - Liu faces potential salary reductions due to new regulatory guidelines that could impose a minimum 30% cut in performance pay for fund managers whose funds underperform their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points over three years [15][18] - The performance of Liu's remaining funds has been poor, with three funds showing negative returns compared to their benchmarks, placing him at risk of salary cuts [33][34] - Although Liu is not currently considering leaving, the threat of salary reduction looms over him as a significant concern [35]

Core Viewpoint - The Chinese fund industry in 2025 presents a stark contrast, with private equity funds performing exceptionally well while public funds struggle significantly, revealing systemic issues in the industry after over two decades of rapid development [1] Performance Disparity: A True Reflection of the Market - In 2025, the structural market conditions of A-shares serve as a key differentiator for performance, leading to a stark contrast between public and private fund results [1] - Private equity securities products show strong profitability, with over 90% achieving positive returns and an average return rate of 22.61%, while stock strategies yield an impressive average return of 27.07% [2] Public Fund Struggles - Among 6,129 public active equity products that have been established for over three years, 60.5% failed to outperform their benchmarks [3] - A significant number of funds, 2,454, lagged their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, indicating a consistent underperformance compared to market averages [3] Investor Losses: The Cost of Silence - The performance disparity results in real financial losses for investors, with previously celebrated fund managers delivering disappointing results [4] - For instance, a fund managed by Liu Yanchun reported a return of -23.05% over three years, while its benchmark yielded a positive 14.41%, resulting in a 37.46 percentage point gap [4] Corporate Profit vs. Investor Loss - Despite poor performance, some fund companies continue to distribute substantial dividends, creating a stark contrast with the losses faced by investors [5] - A leading fund company distributed nearly 83 billion yuan in dividends over ten years, while its products collectively lost 1,004 billion yuan in the same period [5] Structural Issues: Root Causes of Industry Ailments - The root of performance disparity lies in differing incentive mechanisms, with private funds typically using a performance-based compensation model that aligns managers' interests with those of investors [6] - In contrast, public funds often rely on management scale for fees, leading to a focus on growth rather than performance [6] - Only three out of 28 large-scale active equity funds managed to achieve excess returns while maintaining positive profits over the past three years [6] Regulatory Restructuring: From Scale-Oriented to Performance-Linked - In response to industry issues, regulators are implementing new performance assessment guidelines that tie fund managers' compensation directly to product performance and investor profits [10] - This shift is expected to drive significant changes in the industry, with many active equity fund managers adjusting their strategies to align more closely with benchmark indices [10] Market Trends: Shifts in Fund Flows - Under regulatory and market pressures, there is a noticeable change in fund flows, with private equity products showing a 90.66% positive return rate compared to public funds [12] - High-net-worth clients and institutional investors are increasingly turning to private equity, particularly quantitative strategy products, while ordinary investors are becoming more cautious and reevaluating their investment strategies [12]

Core Viewpoint - The recent draft guidelines from the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) propose a performance evaluation mechanism for fund managers, emphasizing a tiered adjustment of performance compensation based on the past three years' performance against benchmarks and fund profitability [1][2]. Performance Evaluation Mechanism - Fund managers' performance compensation can be adjusted in four scenarios: a decrease of no less than 30% if performance is more than 10% below the benchmark with negative profitability, a decrease if performance is more than 10% below the benchmark with positive profitability, no increase if performance is less than 10% below the benchmark with negative profitability, and a reasonable increase if performance significantly exceeds the benchmark with positive profitability [1][2]. Current Fund Performance - Among 20 actively managed billion-level equity funds, 8 funds outperformed their benchmarks by over 10%, while 6 funds underperformed by over 10% as of December 9 [2]. Notable Fund Performances - The top-performing fund, Galaxy Innovation Growth A, managed by Zheng Weishan, achieved an excess return of 49.38% over three years, with a total return of 243% and an annualized return of 20.58% since its management began in May 2019 [4][5]. - Other notable funds include Dachen High Growth A, managed by Liu Xu, with a total return of 417.29% and an annualized return of 17.16% over 10 years, and Xingquan Business Model Preferred A, managed by Qiao Qian, with a total return of 203.42% and an annualized return of 16.11% over 7 years [5][7][8]. Investment Strategies - Zheng Weishan's strategy focuses on heavily investing in technology stocks, maintaining a high concentration in top holdings, while Liu Xu adopts a diversified approach across various sectors, balancing between well-known blue-chip stocks and smaller companies [5][7][9]. - Qiao Qian employs a flexible trading strategy with shorter holding periods and a diversified sector allocation, aiming to balance long-term investment judgments with short-term market fluctuations [9][10]. Implications of New Guidelines - The proposed guidelines aim to address the issue of fund managers' compensation being disconnected from performance, encouraging a stronger link between fund performance and manager remuneration [1][2][10].

Core Viewpoint - The new regulatory guidelines aim to address the issue of fund managers profiting while investors do not, by linking their compensation to long-term performance and establishing a rigid reward and punishment mechanism [3] Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The recently issued "Performance Assessment Management Guidelines for Fund Management Companies (Draft for Comments)" mandates that the compensation of active equity fund managers be closely tied to long-term performance [3] - Nearly 1,000 fund managers are expected to face at least a 30% salary reduction due to underperformance, while high-performing managers may see salary increases [3] Group 2: Performance Metrics - A total of 3,757 active equity fund products were analyzed, with 1,444 (38.43%) underperforming their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, affecting 996 fund managers [4] - Notable underperforming funds include those managed by well-known managers, such as Guotou Ruijin's fund with a cumulative return of -26.12%, lagging its benchmark by over 45 percentage points [4] Group 3: Incentive Alignment - The guidelines enhance the alignment of interests by increasing the proportion of fund managers' performance pay tied to their own investments in the funds they manage, from 30% to 40% [5] - Senior management and key business department heads are now required to invest at least 30% of their performance pay in public funds, with a minimum of 60% in equity funds [5] Group 4: Assessment Criteria - The assessment framework now includes metrics such as "fund profit margin" and "percentage of profitable investors," reflecting the actual gains and losses of investors [6] - This shift represents a move from evaluating "product net value" to focusing on "investor wallet" outcomes, deepening the assessment criteria [6]

Core Viewpoint - The new guidelines for fund manager compensation will significantly tie salaries to performance, marking a shift towards a performance-driven culture in the public fund industry [2][6]. Summary by Relevant Sections Performance-Based Compensation - The new regulations require fund managers' performance pay to be closely linked to three-year performance metrics, with mandatory salary reductions of at least 30% for products that underperform their benchmarks by over 10% and incur losses [2][6]. - This change indicates a decline in the reliance on the "star fund manager" phenomenon, emphasizing that performance will now be the primary measure of success in the industry [2][6]. Impact on Fund Managers - A number of prominent fund managers, particularly those managing actively managed equity funds exceeding 20 billion, are at risk of salary reductions due to poor performance over the past three years [2][7]. - Specific funds that have crossed the performance threshold include: - E Fund Blue Chip Selection: underperformed by 28.6% with a cumulative loss of 6.2% [3][10]. - E Fund Quality Selection: underperformed by 28.9% with a cumulative loss of 7.5% [3][10]. - Other funds managed by Liu Yanchun and Liu Gesong also show significant underperformance [5][10]. Cultural Shift in the Industry - The new guidelines represent not just a salary adjustment but a cultural transformation within the industry, encouraging absolute return strategies and a focus on risk management and positive returns rather than merely relative rankings or asset growth [5][11]. - The emphasis will shift towards a more rational evaluation of fund managers' past performances, moving away from blind admiration for top performers to a focus on their long-term profitability [6][11]. - The era of high salaries disconnected from performance is coming to an end, prompting both fund managers and investors to reassess the meaning of "performance" in terms of actual returns [6][11].

Core Viewpoint - The new regulatory guidelines for fund management companies are set to significantly reshape the compensation structure for fund managers, linking their pay to long-term performance and establishing a strict reward and punishment mechanism aimed at addressing the issue of fund managers profiting while investors incur losses [2][3][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The recently issued "Performance Assessment Management Guidelines for Fund Management Companies (Draft for Comments)" ties the compensation of active equity fund managers to their long-term performance, with a focus on a rigid reward and punishment system [2][3]. - Fund managers whose products underperform their benchmarks by more than 10 percentage points over three years and have negative profit margins will face a mandatory salary reduction of at least 30% [3][4]. - Conversely, fund managers whose products significantly outperform benchmarks and are profitable may receive reasonable salary increases [3][4]. Group 2: Industry Impact - As of December 5, over 1,400 active equity products have underperformed their benchmarks by more than 10 percentage points over the past three years, affecting nearly 1,000 fund managers, including well-known figures like Shi Cheng and Liu Yan Chun [2][4]. - Approximately 38.43% of the 3,757 active equity fund products analyzed have underperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, indicating a substantial number of fund managers may face salary cuts [4][5]. - In contrast, 982 active equity funds have outperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, with 146 of these funds exceeding their benchmarks by more than 50 percentage points, potentially leading to salary increases for their managers [5]. Group 3: Long-term Performance Focus - The new guidelines represent a fundamental shift from a focus on management scale and relative industry rankings to an emphasis on long-term absolute returns and the investor experience [4][6]. - The assessment framework now includes metrics such as "fund profit margin" and "percentage of profitable investors," which directly reflect the real gains and losses of investors, enhancing the accountability of fund managers [8][9]. - The guidelines also stipulate that the performance indicators for fund managers must account for at least 80% of their assessment, with benchmark comparison metrics making up no less than 30% [7][8]. Group 4: Implementation and Industry Response - The push for long-term performance assessment and compensation reform has been a focal point for regulators, with previous statements emphasizing the need for a long-term evaluation framework [6][9]. - Fund companies are beginning to implement long-term assessment practices, with some already categorizing performance evaluations into different time frames, emphasizing the importance of three-year performance metrics [9].

Core Viewpoint - The new regulatory guidelines for fund management companies are set to significantly reshape the compensation structure for fund managers, linking their pay to long-term performance and establishing a strict reward and punishment mechanism aimed at addressing the issue of fund managers profiting despite poor performance [1][2]. Summary by Sections Performance-Based Compensation - The new guidelines stipulate that active equity fund managers will see their compensation closely tied to their long-term performance, with a mandatory reduction of at least 30% if their managed products underperform the benchmark by over 10 percentage points over three years and incur losses [1][2]. - As of December 5, over 1,400 active equity products have underperformed their benchmarks by more than 10 percentage points in the past three years, affecting nearly 1,000 fund managers, including well-known figures like Shi Cheng and Liu Yan Chun [1][2]. Shift from Scale to Performance - The guidelines introduce a tiered performance-based compensation adjustment mechanism, moving away from the previous focus on management scale and relative industry rankings to a model centered on absolute returns and investor experience [2][4]. - Approximately 38.43% of the 3,757 active equity fund products analyzed have underperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points [2]. Detailed Assessment of Fund Managers - Among the underperforming products, 322 active equity funds have consistently failed to meet the benchmark, with notable examples including funds managed by Shi Cheng and Liu Yan Chun, which have significantly lagged behind their benchmarks [3]. - In contrast, 982 active equity funds have outperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, with 146 of these exceeding the benchmark by more than 50 percentage points, qualifying their managers for potential salary increases [4]. Regulatory Context and Long-term Incentives - The push for long-term performance evaluation and compensation reform has been a focus of regulatory bodies, with previous statements emphasizing the need for a robust long-term assessment framework [5][6]. - The new guidelines require that performance metrics account for at least 80% of fund manager evaluations, with specific weightings for benchmark comparisons and fund profitability [6]. Binding Interests of Fund Managers and Investors - The guidelines enhance the alignment of interests between fund managers and investors by increasing the required investment of fund managers in their own products, with a new minimum of 40% for fund managers and 60% for senior management [6][7]. - The industry is gradually implementing long-term assessment practices, with some firms already adopting multi-year performance metrics for evaluating fund managers [7].

Core Insights - The number of fund managers managing over 10 billion yuan has increased significantly, reaching 109 by the end of Q3, marking a nearly one-third increase from the previous quarter [1][2] - The industry is transitioning from a "star-making" model to a "platform" strategy, indicating a shift in focus from individual fund managers to a more collaborative approach [1][9] - The era of "trillion-level" top fund managers is unlikely to return, as the highest management scale among current fund managers has not exceeded 600 billion yuan, a significant drop from previous peaks [9][10] Fund Manager Performance - Notable fund managers like Zhang Kun, Xie Zhiyu, and Ge Lan have seen their management scales rebound, with Zhang Kun managing 565.44 billion yuan, an increase of nearly 15 billion yuan in a single quarter [3][4] - Newer fund managers, such as Ren Jie from Yongying Fund, have rapidly increased their management scales, with Ren's scale growing from 0.26 billion yuan to 128.78 billion yuan in just over a year [2][7] - Despite the growth in management scales, many top fund managers still face net redemptions, with over 330 billion units redeemed across their products in Q3 [6][11] Industry Dynamics - The current landscape features a mix of large institutions and emerging mid-sized firms, with companies like Yongying and Jinying successfully entering the "billion club" [1][7] - The top fund managers are distributed across 38 fund companies, with seven companies having five or more billion-yuan fund managers, accounting for nearly half of the total [6][10] - The industry is increasingly aware of the "double-edged sword" of scale, with many fund managers opting to limit rapid growth to maintain operational effectiveness and avoid the pitfalls of excessive scale [10][11] Market Outlook - The A-share market is experiencing a steady upward trend, with increased investor enthusiasm and significant inflows into equity markets, particularly in technology sectors [12][13] - Fund managers express cautious optimism about the market, predicting potential new highs while acknowledging the risks of profit-taking due to previous gains [12][13] - Long-term investment strategies focus on sectors like innovative pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare, driven by structural changes in the economy and supportive policies [14]

Core Insights - In Q3, a stark contrast emerged in the fund industry, with large funds experiencing significant share shrinkage while smaller funds enjoyed substantial growth in both performance and share size [1][2][4] Group 1: Large Funds Performance - Many large funds, despite showing improved performance, faced significant redemptions, with examples like E Fund Blue Chip Select seeing a net value increase of 16.37% but a reduction of over 2 billion shares, a decline of more than 10% [2][3] - Other large funds, such as Xingquan Helun and Ruifeng Growth Value, also reported net value increases of over 35% and 50% respectively, yet their A-class shares decreased by over 2 billion shares [2][3] - The trend of redemption for large funds began after the market downturn in September 2022, with significant year-on-year share reductions noted [3] Group 2: Small Funds Performance - Smaller funds experienced a "highlight moment" in Q3, with significant increases in both net value and share size, such as Yongying Technology Selection achieving nearly 100% net value growth and a scale increase of over 10 billion [4] - Other small funds like Zhonghang Opportunity Navigator and Zhongou Digital Economy also saw net value increases of nearly 90% and 80%, respectively, with substantial share growth [4] - The performance of smaller funds is attributed to their ability to focus on high-growth sectors without the historical burdens faced by larger funds [7] Group 3: Investor Behavior - The contrasting performance of large and small funds reflects a shift in investor sentiment from "star chasing" to a more pragmatic approach, focusing on strategies and sectors rather than just fund managers [5][7] - Investors are currently in a transitional phase, with some opting to redeem for safety while others may re-enter the market if the upward trend continues [6][7] Group 4: Market Outlook - The outlook for the A-share market remains positive, with expectations of a "slow bull" market driven by factors such as improved macroeconomic conditions and liquidity, alongside strong performance in sectors like AI and semiconductors [8][9] - Analysts predict that as the market stabilizes, there will be a gradual return of long-term capital, enhancing market activity [8][9]