Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent wave of adjustments to performance benchmarks by fund companies in response to new regulatory guidelines, emphasizing the need for scientific setting of benchmarks and understanding their impact on fund operations [1][3][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes and Industry Response - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) released the "Action Plan for Promoting the High-Quality Development of Public Funds," which highlights the importance of performance benchmarks [3]. - As of June 19, 134 funds have adjusted their performance benchmarks this year, an increase of approximately 80% compared to the same period last year [4][6]. - Fund companies have begun to proactively review and adjust their benchmarks to align with investment styles, especially following the release of the new guidelines [4][11]. Group 2: Characteristics of Adjusted Funds - A significant number of the adjusted funds are actively managed equity funds, with 55 out of the 134 being such funds [7]. - Some fixed-income products have also adjusted their benchmarks to better match their bond asset allocations [7][8]. - Fund of funds (FOF) have frequently adjusted their benchmarks, reflecting new asset allocation needs, with 44 of the adjusted products being mixed FOFs [8][9]. Group 3: Importance of Performance Benchmarks - The article highlights that many investors do not adequately consider performance benchmarks when selecting funds, often focusing more on absolute returns [15][16]. - There is a general lack of understanding among investors regarding the significance of performance benchmarks, which can lead to misalignment with investment strategies [17][18]. - The article suggests that performance benchmarks serve as a critical tool for managing investor suitability and understanding risk-return characteristics [18][19]. Group 4: Recommendations for Future Benchmarking - The industry suggests enhancing the diversity of performance benchmarks by including thematic indices and style factor indices [18]. - Establishing a dynamic adjustment mechanism for benchmarks is recommended to ensure they reflect significant market changes or strategy adjustments [18]. - Fund companies are encouraged to strengthen internal research to select the most appropriate benchmarks and continuously evaluate their effectiveness [20].

Core Viewpoint - The recent emphasis on the performance benchmark for public funds, highlighted by the China Securities Regulatory Commission's action plan, is expected to lead to significant adjustments in the industry, with many funds proactively revising their benchmarks to align with investment strategies and market conditions [2][3][7]. Group 1: Industry Response to New Regulations - As of June 19, 2023, 134 funds have adjusted their performance benchmarks, an increase of approximately 80% compared to the same period last year [2][4]. - The adjustment trend has accelerated since the release of the action plan in May, with 16 fund companies modifying benchmarks for 26 products [4][6]. - Fund companies are conducting self-assessments to ensure compliance with the new requirements, focusing on reducing discrepancies between benchmarks and actual investment styles [7][8]. Group 2: Characteristics of Adjusted Funds - A significant portion of the adjusted funds are actively managed equity funds, with 55 out of the 134 being equity-related [5]. - Fixed-income products are also adjusting their benchmarks to better match their bond asset allocations, reflecting a more precise investment strategy [5]. - Fund of funds (FOF) have shown frequent benchmark adjustments, indicating new asset allocation needs, with 44 FOFs adjusting their benchmarks this year [6]. Group 3: Importance of Performance Benchmarks - The action plan clarifies the role of performance benchmarks in determining product positioning, clarifying investment strategies, and measuring performance [12]. - Industry experts suggest that the current benchmarks are often homogeneous, primarily tracking major indices like the CSI 300 and government bonds, which may not adequately reflect diverse investment strategies [11][13]. - There is a call for a more dynamic adjustment mechanism for benchmarks to ensure they remain relevant to market changes and fund strategies [13]. Group 4: Investor Awareness and Education - Many investors do not adequately consider performance benchmarks when selecting funds, often focusing more on absolute returns [9][10]. - It is suggested that investors should understand the risk-return characteristics of benchmarks to make informed decisions about fund selection [10][14]. - The industry recognizes the need for better investor education regarding the significance of performance benchmarks in managing investment risks and expectations [10][14].