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 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].