专题：2025基金年终大盘点：冠军基年内狂飙233%，主动权益重获主导，全行业规模逼近36万亿新高 2025年以来，权益市场整体上行，带动百亿级主动权益类基金普遍实现业绩增长，但内部业绩分化显 著。截至去年12月31日，全市场共有34只规模超过百亿的主动权益类基金，仅2只基金全年收益为负， 32只基金收益为正。 | 数据来源：Wind 截止 | | --- | 至20251231 从规模看，易方达蓝筹精选以364.13亿元位居榜首，中欧医疗健康A以329.53亿元紧随其后。兴全合润 A、富国天惠精选成长A、睿远成长价值A、永赢先进制造智选A规模均超过200亿元，其余产品规模多 集中于100亿元至190亿元区间，例如泉果旭源三年持有A、兴全合宜A、诺安成长A等规模均超过180亿 元。 从2025年回报表现来看，科技成长主题基金领跑市场。 永赢基金旗下任桀管理的永赢科技智选A以233.29%的年内涨幅摘得桂冠，最新规模达115.21亿元；中 航基金韩浩管理的中航机遇领航A以168.92%的涨幅位居第二，最新规模为132.31亿元；中欧基金冯炉 丹管理的中欧数字经济A则以143.07%的涨幅位列第三。 另一方面，部 ...

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 Conclusions - The public fund market in 2025 saw an increase in both scale and share, with significant changes in structure, as fixed income and active equity funds experienced net redemptions, while fixed income+ and index equity funds were net subscribed [1][3] - Global equity markets strengthened, with domestic stocks outperforming bonds, leading to overall gains in funds, particularly in active funds outperforming passive products, with notable performance in technology and cyclical theme funds [1][2] - For 2026, it is expected that equities will continue to have upward potential, with a recommendation to maintain a balanced allocation between growth and reversal strategies, while flexibly seizing short-term opportunities [1][4] Market Development: Total Growth and Structural Changes - The total scale of public funds surpassed 35 trillion yuan, with stock funds growing by over 1 trillion yuan, indicating a robust market expansion [13] - The number of public funds increased to 13,300, with significant growth in stock and REITs funds, while money market and alternative investment funds saw a decline [13][25] - Active equity funds grew by 21%, with a notable recovery in new fund launches, particularly in technology theme funds, which saw a growth rate exceeding 50% [1][2][29] Performance Analysis: Strong Equity and Weak Bonds - The performance of various asset classes showed that equities outperformed bonds, with gold reaching new highs and equity assets experiencing a broad rally [2][9] - Active funds outperformed passive funds, with specific themes such as TMT, cyclical, and advanced manufacturing showing strong results [9][2] - Fixed income+ funds demonstrated superior performance, particularly those with high allocations to fixed income and convertible bonds [9][20] Investment Strategies: Balanced Allocation and Trend Following - The report suggests a balanced allocation strategy for equity funds, emphasizing the importance of flexibility in capturing phase-specific market opportunities [4][3] - For fixed income funds, the emergence of the fixed income+ era is highlighted, with a focus on asset and strategy characteristics based on risk preferences [5][39] - The report advocates for a global multi-asset allocation approach, emphasizing the value of overseas and commodity funds, with recommendations to follow QDII quotas and focus on mutual recognition funds and southbound ETFs [6][32]

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 Viewpoint - The investment style of public funds is shifting from "full market stock selection" to "thematic investment," driven by economic transformation and the emergence of high-growth stocks [1][3]. Group 1: Shift in Investment Strategies - Public funds previously favored "core assets" like large-cap stocks, but this strategy is losing traction as thematic investments gain popularity [2][3]. - Thematic investments allow for a more comprehensive layout of high-growth stocks and can enhance competitive rankings among funds [1][2]. - The shift is attributed to changes in the investment environment, including slower economic growth and the emergence of new industries, which have made traditional core assets less attractive [3][5]. Group 2: Characteristics of Thematic Investment - Thematic funds have been performing well, often ranking at the top in annual performance due to their focus on high-growth sectors like AI and innovative pharmaceuticals [4][5]. - The concentration on specific themes allows for greater potential returns, but also increases volatility and risk [5][11]. - Thematic investments help investors engage with long-term trends and direct capital towards state-supported sectors, fostering a positive cycle between capital markets and technological innovation [6][11]. Group 3: Challenges of Thematic Investment - Thematic investment requires deeper industry understanding and foresight, as it involves answering long-term questions about market dynamics and competition [7][8]. - The need for rigorous valuation discipline and risk management is heightened, as concentrated portfolios are more susceptible to individual stock performance and policy changes [8][9]. - The complexity of managing risks increases with thematic investments, necessitating precise control over concentration and liquidity [8][9]. Group 4: Future of Full Market Stock Selection - Despite the rise of thematic investments, "full market stock selection" is not expected to disappear, as it offers unique advantages in capturing structural opportunities across various sectors [10][11]. - The ability to conduct fundamental comparisons across industries will remain relevant, especially in a market characterized by frequent sector rotations [10][11]. - The long-term viability of "full market stock selection" will depend on its adaptation to new macroeconomic and industry conditions [10].

Core Viewpoint - The investment style of public funds has shifted from core assets to high-growth stocks amid economic transformation, moving from "full market stock selection" to "thematic investment" strategies [1][3]. Group 1: Shift in Investment Strategies - Public funds previously favored large-cap stocks like Sany Heavy Industry and Kweichow Moutai, achieving significant returns through a diversified stock selection approach [2]. - The "full market stock selection" strategy has become less prominent, with thematic products dominating annual performance rankings [2][3]. - Changes in the investment environment, including economic deceleration and shifts in consumer behavior, have led to decreased profitability and valuation of traditional core assets [3]. Group 2: Rise of Thematic Investment - Thematic funds have gained popularity due to structural opportunities concentrated in high-growth sectors, outperforming traditional industries [5]. - The volatility of thematic products can lead to substantial excess returns, encouraging funds to increase style purity and concentration [5]. - Thematic investments help investors engage with long-term trends and direct capital towards government-supported sectors, fostering a positive cycle of capital market support for national strategies [6]. Group 3: Challenges of Thematic Investment - Thematic investment requires deeper industry understanding and foresight, raising the bar for fund managers [7]. - The need for rigorous valuation and risk management frameworks is heightened, as concentrated portfolios are more susceptible to individual stock performance and policy changes [8]. - The complexity of managing risks in concentrated portfolios necessitates meticulous control over concentration, liquidity, and stress testing [8]. Group 4: Future of Full Market Stock Selection - The "full market stock selection" strategy is unlikely to disappear, as it offers unique advantages in capturing structural opportunities across various sectors [10]. - Market aesthetics will continue to evolve with macroeconomic and structural changes, but the fundamental capabilities of full market stock selection will remain relevant [10]. - Thematic investments, while potentially lucrative, carry risks of significant losses if market trends shift unfavorably [11].