Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the downfall of Liu Gesong, a once-celebrated fund manager at GF Fund, highlighting the significant losses faced by investors despite the company profiting from management fees. It raises questions about accountability in the investment landscape and the consequences of over-reliance on star fund managers [1][3][26]. Group 1: Rise of Liu Gesong - Liu Gesong's rise began in 2019 when he capitalized on the semiconductor and renewable energy trends, leading to a peak management scale of 843 billion yuan, which accounted for over 30% of GF Fund's total stock product scale [3][7]. - The marketing strategies employed by GF Fund transformed Liu into a personal brand, attracting over 148.7 billion yuan from more than 240,000 investors during the launch of the "GF Industry Select Three-Year Holding Period Mixed Fund" [5][7]. Group 2: Risks and Downfall - The initial success was attributed to market conditions and not solely Liu's abilities, which masked the underlying risks associated with high management scale and market volatility [8][10]. - Liu's heavy investments in stocks like Yiwei Lithium and Jing'ao Technology resulted in significant losses, with Yiwei's stock price dropping by 70% and Jing'ao's by 80% from their peaks [12][14]. Group 3: Systemic Issues - The concentration of risk due to similar holdings among multiple fund managers at GF Fund led to a systemic decline in net values when the renewable energy sector faced downturns [14][16]. - The talent pool at GF Fund is reportedly shallow, with nearly 80% of fund managers having less than 10 years of experience, raising concerns about their ability to navigate market cycles [18][22]. Group 4: Investor Sentiment and Regulatory Changes - Investor sentiment has shifted from blind faith in star managers to a more cautious approach, with significant net redemptions occurring, such as a 1 billion yuan redemption from a fund managed by Zheng Chengran [26][28]. - Regulatory changes are being implemented to align fund managers' interests with those of investors, including a floating management fee system that penalizes underperformance [28][30].

| 基金名称 | 广发行业严选三年持有期混合型证券投资基金 | | --- | --- | | 基金简称 | 广发行业严选三年持有期混合 | | 基金主代码 | 012967 | | 基金管理人名称 | 广发基金管理有限公司 | | 公告依据 | 《公开募集证券投资基金信息披露管理办法》、 | | | 《基金管理公司投资管理人员管理指导意见》、 | | | 《广发行业严选三年持有期混合型证券投资基金 | | | 基金合同》 | | 基金经理变更类型 | 增聘基金经理 | | 新任基金经理姓名 | 周智硕 | | 共同管理本基金的其他基金经理姓名 | 刘格松 | 广发行业严选三年持有期混合A/C成立于2021年8月26日，截至2025年9月12日，其今年来收益率为 20.84%、20.51%，成立来收益率为-38.01%、-39.00%，累计净值为0.6199元、0.6100元。 中国经济网北京9月15日讯近日，广发基金公告，广发行业严选三年持有期混合增聘周智硕，与刘格菘 共同管理该基金。 周智硕2009年7月至2012年8月任南方基金管理股份有限公司研究部行业研究员，2012年8月至2013年7月 任中国国际 ...

Core Viewpoint - The public fund industry is accelerating the trend of "de-starring" fund managers, with an increasing number of co-managed products emerging, reflecting a shift towards team collaboration among fund managers [2][3]. Group 1: Fund Manager Changes - Since July, 109 public fund institutions have seen changes in over 400 fund products, indicating a significant turnover in fund management [1][2]. - As of July 30, 457 fund products have experienced changes in fund managers, covering various types such as passive index funds and mixed equity funds [2]. - The changes in fund managers are primarily categorized into dismissals and new appointments, with a trend towards co-management for complementary advantages [2]. Group 2: Advantages of Co-Management - Co-management of fund products is seen to reduce decision-making biases, enhance decision-making scientificity, and support stable fund operations [1][3]. - The team management approach allows for broader asset coverage, risk diversification, and mitigates the impact of individual decision-making errors [3]. - The "old brings new" model in co-management is beneficial for building talent pipelines within institutions [3]. Group 3: Expanding Investment Capabilities - Fund managers are encouraged to expand their investment capabilities to better capture industry rotation opportunities, especially in a rapidly changing market [4]. - For instance, a fund manager who previously focused on the renewable energy sector has diversified into new consumer and internet sectors, indicating a shift in strategy [4]. - The core competencies of fund managers are identified as stock selection ability, continuous tracking of corporate dynamics, and deep value assessment capabilities, which are crucial for long-term competitive advantage [4].

Core Viewpoint - The launch of the floating fee rate fund, Guangfa Value Steady Mixed Fund (024448), is seen as a significant step in aligning fund manager incentives with investor returns, but the effectiveness of this new fee structure remains to be tested in the market [2][12]. Fund Structure and Management - Guangfa Value Steady Mixed Fund adopts a dual fee structure of "base management fee + performance fee," where the management fee is set at 1.5% if annualized excess returns exceed 6%, and reduced to 0.6% if excess returns are negative and below -3% [2][12]. - Wang Mingxu, the proposed fund manager, has a mixed track record, with some funds significantly underperforming their benchmarks [3][11]. Performance Analysis - Wang Mingxu currently manages over 10 billion yuan across seven products, with notable performance discrepancies; for instance, Guangfa Balanced Preferred Mixed Fund (010379) has returned -3.4% since his appointment, lagging its benchmark by 6.3 percentage points [3][11]. - Over the past three years, more than 60% of Guangfa's actively managed equity products have underperformed their benchmarks by over 10 percentage points, raising concerns about the alignment of management compensation with investor returns [11][12]. Employee Compensation and Shareholding - Guangfa Fund's employee shareholding platform has distributed nearly 600 million yuan in dividends over the past five years, with significant amounts going to top executives, highlighting a disparity between management income and investor returns [5][8]. - The shareholding structure includes several high-ranking executives, indicating a strong financial incentive tied to the fund's performance, yet the actual returns for investors have been disappointing [6][12]. Regulatory Context - The floating fee rate initiative is part of a broader regulatory push to reform the public fund industry, aiming to better align fund company revenues with investor returns and establish a performance-based incentive system [2][12]. - The regulatory framework emphasizes the need for fund managers to be held accountable for long-term performance, with penalties for those consistently underperforming [12].