Fund Size - The total public fund size reached 35.4 trillion yuan, with a quarter-on-quarter increase of 6.04% or approximately 2.02 trillion yuan [6][11] - The bond fund size decreased by 0.25 trillion yuan to 10.56 trillion yuan, accounting for a reduction of 2.57% [6][11] - The stock fund size expanded significantly, increasing by 1.03 trillion yuan to 5.26 trillion yuan, while other fund types also saw slight growth [6][11] Pure Bond Fund Performance - The total size of pure bond funds decreased by 0.75 trillion yuan, with bond positions dropping by 0.7-2.3 percentage points [22][23] - The average yield of pure bond funds fell to 0.52%, down from 1.05%, indicating a significant decline in performance [42][43] - The maximum drawdown for bond funds increased from -0.15% to -0.54%, reflecting heightened risk [42][46] Asset Allocation - The allocation of pure bond funds remains primarily in financial bonds (including policy financial bonds), with a notable increase in credit bonds [14][20] - Financial bonds accounted for approximately 59.09% of the allocation, while credit bonds made up about 54.62% [14][20] - The proportion of financial bonds has remained stable between 50%-60% since 2020 [14] Leverage and Duration - The average leverage ratio for bond funds decreased to 114.53%, down from 117.88%, indicating a trend towards reduced leverage [54][55] - The average duration of bond funds shortened to 2.71 years, down from 3.45 years, as funds sought to mitigate interest rate risk [54][55] - The concentration of holdings in the top five positions increased to 40.04%, reflecting a slight rise in concentration [58] Credit Strategy - Many pure bond funds adopted a strategy of credit downgrading, with AAA-rated holdings decreasing by 2.99% and 3.45% for medium and short-term funds, respectively [60] - The strategy shift was primarily due to significant market adjustments, prompting funds to seek higher coupon income [60]

Core Insights - The "fixed income +" funds have become a market hotspot, with several large fund companies launching new products and increasing their holdings in existing ones [1][6] - There is significant performance differentiation among "fixed income +" funds, with some achieving over 20% returns while others have negative returns, leading to a performance gap exceeding 40 percentage points [1][4] Performance Analysis - As of October 16, 79 mixed bond funds achieved returns over 20% in the past year, with median returns of 3.18% for mixed bond type I funds and 6.02% for mixed bond type II funds [1] - High-performing "fixed income +" funds predominantly invested in convertible bonds and had substantial equity positions, particularly in technology stocks [2][3] Fund Characteristics - The top-performing mixed bond type II fund, Huashang Fengli Enhanced Open-End Bond, recorded a return of 39.48%, with an equity position of approximately 18.93%, indicating a more aggressive investment strategy [2] - Similar strategies were observed in other high-return funds, such as Huabao Enhanced Income Bond, which also focused on a diversified stock portfolio with a strong emphasis on technology stocks [3] Investment Strategy - The performance of "fixed income +" funds is influenced by stock allocation, bond configuration, and yield enhancement strategies, leading to significant performance disparities [4][5] - The core differences in "fixed income +" funds lie in the stock-bond ratio and the extent and method of the "+" component, affecting expected returns, volatility, and maximum drawdown [5] Market Trends - Since September, "fixed income +" products have gained traction in the market, with major fund companies launching new products and actively managing existing ones [6] - The current low-risk-free interest rates make pure bond products less appealing, while the high volatility of equity products may not suit all investors, positioning "fixed income +" as a balanced investment solution [6]

Core Insights - The "fixed income +" funds have become a market hotspot, with several large fund companies launching new products and increasing their holdings in existing ones [1][4] - There is significant performance differentiation among "fixed income +" funds, with some achieving over 20% returns while others have negative returns, leading to a performance gap exceeding 40 percentage points [1][3] Performance Analysis - As of October 16, 79 mixed bond funds achieved returns over 20% in the past year, with median returns of 3.18% for mixed bond type I funds and 6.02% for mixed bond type II funds [1] - High-performing "fixed income +" funds tend to have substantial positions in convertible bonds and a higher equity allocation, particularly in technology stocks [1][2] - For instance, the Huashang Fengli Enhanced Open-End Bond Fund achieved a return of 39.48%, with an equity position of approximately 18.93% [1] Fund Strategies - The performance of "fixed income +" funds is influenced by stock allocation, bond configuration, and yield enhancement strategies [3] - Successful funds often utilize a combination of convertible bonds, equity investments, and other strategies to enhance returns [3] - Conversely, some funds have underperformed due to a lack of equity exposure or poor stock selection, leading to negative returns [2][3] Market Trends - Since September, "fixed income +" products have gained traction as the equity market enters a volatile phase, prompting major fund companies to launch new products [3][4] - The current low-risk interest rates make pure bond products less appealing, while the high volatility of equity products does not suit all investors, positioning "fixed income +" as a balanced investment solution [4][5] Investor Appeal - "Fixed income +" products are seen as a stabilizing asset allocation tool for conservative investors, offering a blend of fixed income and equity characteristics [5] - The strategy aims to provide a flexible response to varying market conditions, maintaining a balance between growth and risk mitigation [5]

Core Insights - The "fixed income +" products have gained popularity due to their combination of stability and yield flexibility, with several large fund companies launching new "fixed income +" funds and intensifying marketing efforts for existing products [1][9] - Over the past year, the overall performance of "fixed income +" products has been impressive, but there is significant performance disparity among them, with some funds achieving over 20% returns while others have negative returns [1][6] Performance Disparity - The performance difference among mixed bond-type secondary funds has exceeded 42 percentage points over the past year [2][7] - As of October 16, 79 mixed bond-type primary and secondary funds have achieved returns exceeding 20%, with median returns of 3.18% for primary funds and 6.02% for secondary funds [3] Fund Characteristics - Funds with returns over 20% typically have high allocations in convertible bonds and a significant equity position, actively investing in technology stocks [4] - The top-performing mixed bond-type secondary fund, Huashang Fengli Enhanced Open-End Bond, achieved a return of 39.48%, with an equity allocation of approximately 18.93% [4] - The Huabao Enhanced Income Bond Fund also showed strong performance with over 37% returns, focusing on aggressive allocations in small and mid-cap technology stocks [4] Investment Strategies - The best-performing mixed bond-type primary funds are primarily convertible bond funds, with notable returns such as 29.81% for Everbright High-Grade Bond Fund and over 23% for Minsheng Jia Yin Xinxiang Bond Fund [5] - The performance of "fixed income +" funds is significantly influenced by stock allocation, bond configuration, and yield enhancement strategies [7][9] Market Trends - Since September, the equity market has entered a volatile phase, making "fixed income +" products a hot topic for fund companies, with several large firms launching new products [9] - The current low-risk interest rates make pure bond products less appealing, while the high volatility of equity products does not suit all investors, positioning "fixed income +" as a compromise solution [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The "Fixed Income +" strategy offers a balanced investment option for investors, combining fixed income and equity to achieve a risk-return balance, making it an ideal choice in a declining deposit rate environment [1] Product Types - The main types of "Fixed Income +" products include mixed bond type primary funds, mixed bond type secondary funds, and biased bond mixed funds, creating a complete risk-return spectrum from conservative to aggressive [2] - Mixed bond type primary funds (一级债基) are the most stable, primarily investing in fixed income securities like government bonds and corporate bonds, aiming to provide enhanced returns while controlling volatility [2] - Mixed bond type secondary funds (二级债基) retain convertible bond investments while allowing direct stock investments, balancing risk and return for moderate-risk investors [2] - Biased bond mixed funds (偏债混) exhibit stronger equity characteristics, utilizing a diverse strategy that includes stocks and derivatives, suitable for investors seeking higher returns with some risk tolerance [3] Performance Across Market Cycles - From 2018 to 2025, different "Fixed Income +" products showed varying performance across market conditions, with primary bond funds outperforming in bear markets, while biased bond mixed funds excelled in bull markets [4][7][8][9] - In the 2018 bear market, primary bond funds achieved a return of 4.67%, while secondary bond funds showed negative returns, highlighting the stability of primary bond funds in adverse conditions [7] - During the 2020 bull market, biased bond mixed funds led with a return of 13.21%, demonstrating their potential in favorable market conditions [8] - Since 2025, in a bull equity and bear bond market, biased bond mixed funds returned 5.81%, while primary bond funds lagged at 1.88%, indicating a direct relationship between equity exposure and returns [9] Conclusion - Each type of "Fixed Income +" product has distinct characteristics suited for different market cycles, emphasizing the importance of considering both returns and risk metrics when selecting a product [10]

Investment Rating - The investment rating for the banking industry is "Positive" (maintained) [1] Core Insights - The banking sector is experiencing a shift in fund investment behavior, with banks redeeming low-yield money market funds and increasing their holdings in credit bond funds to enhance returns [5][57] - The total fund holdings of listed banks reached approximately 6.37 trillion yuan, accounting for 2.03% of total assets as of the end of the first half of 2025 [15][18] - The proportion of fund investments in the fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL) category is 48.5%, with city commercial banks showing even higher ratios [15][22] Summary by Sections 1. Fund Investment Participation and Scale - The self-managed fund holdings of listed banks as of June 2025 were approximately 6.37 trillion yuan, with shareholding banks and city commercial banks having significant investment scales of 2.84 trillion yuan and 1.72 trillion yuan, respectively [15][18] - The investment in money market funds decreased to 9.10%, while the proportion of passive index bond funds increased to 7.90% [23][25] 2. Changes in Fund Investment Behavior - Banks are redeeming money market funds and low-yield rate bond funds while increasing their investment in credit bond funds [5][57] - The redemption pressure for money market funds was primarily concentrated in the first quarter of 2025, driven by liquidity management needs and yield enhancement [49][55] 3. Future Expansion and Impact of Redemption Fee Reform - Smaller banks have greater expansion potential in fund investments, driven by the need for redundant fund screening and tax-exempt income [3][3] - The implementation of redemption fee reforms may catalyze preventive redemptions by banks, leading to a preference for customized bond funds and bond ETFs [3][3]

Core Insights - Bond funds have shown increasing average returns over the past 3, 5, and 7 years, with a widening gap between the best and worst performers [2][4][5] - The recent recovery in the A-share market has heightened investor interest in equity investments, but bond funds remain essential for stabilizing asset allocation [2][4] - The report titled "China Fund Industry Marathon Master Gathering 2025" analyzes extensive data to assess the long-term performance of bond funds [2] Performance Analysis - The average returns for the entire bond fund market over the past 3, 5, and 7 years are 8.37%, 17.32%, and 32.36% respectively, with a notable increase in the proportion of funds yielding positive returns [4][5] - Specific categories of bond funds, such as pure bond funds and mixed bond funds, have also demonstrated improved performance over time, with average returns of 9.49%, 17.64%, and 28.12% for pure bond funds over the past 3, 5, and 7 years [5][6] - The number of bond funds with positive returns has increased significantly, with 99.42% of funds achieving positive returns over the past 7 years [4] Risk and Performance Discrepancies - "Rights-containing" bond funds have shown mixed results, with some experiencing significant declines during market adjustments [6][7] - A total of 203 bond funds reported negative returns over the past 3 years, with a concentration in "rights-containing" funds [6][7] - Notably, some "rights-containing" funds have also achieved outstanding performance, with several funds exceeding 30% returns over the past 7 years [8][9] Top Performing Funds - The top-performing bond funds over the past 3 years include 富国久利稳健配置 A (41.20%), 华夏大中华信用精选 A 人民币 (34.97%), and 华商恒益稳健 (32.51%) [10] - Over the past 5 years, 华商丰利增强定开 A (131.24%) and 华商恒益稳健 (95.43%) lead the performance rankings [10] - For the past 7 years, 华商丰利增强定开 A (170.07%) and 汇丰晋信 2026 (127.30%) are among the top performers [10]

Report Investment Rating No investment rating information is provided in the report. Core Viewpoints - In June, the bond market generally rose, with ultra-long bonds showing prominent gains. Without considering coupon income, from an industry perspective, bonds in the transportation industry had a relatively high net price increase, with a monthly increase of 0.12%, indicating a certain alpha. In terms of maturity, there was positive alpha in government bonds and local government bonds with a maturity of over 10 years in June. From a subordinated perspective, commercial bank subordinated bonds had obvious alpha in June [1][10]. Summary by Directory 1. Overview of Yields of Various Bond Types - In June, the bond market generally rose. For interest rate bonds, the yields of all interest rate bonds declined. The average yields of government bonds, policy bank bonds, and local government bonds declined by 7BP, 5BP, and 5BP respectively. For credit bonds, the yields of almost all credit bond types declined. Among them, the 20-year urban construction investment bonds with an implied rating of AA+ had the largest decline in yield, with an average decline of 17BP [1][11]. - As of June 30, the historical percentile levels of interest rate bond yields were relatively high, with most interest rate bond types having a three-year historical percentile level of over 6%. The 30-year policy bank bond had the highest three-year historical percentile level of 9.6%. For credit bonds, the historical percentile levels of most credit bond yields were low, below 3%. However, some credit bond types had relatively high historical percentile levels, such as the 7-year AA- second-tier capital bonds and 7-year AA securities company bonds, with historical percentiles of 15.2% and 14.7% respectively [14]. 2. Industry Alpha Tracking - In June, all industry credit bonds rose, with an average net price increase of 0.07%. Among them, bonds in the transportation industry had a relatively high net price increase, with a monthly increase of 0.12%, indicating a certain alpha. Urban construction investment bonds and real estate bonds had an average net price increase of 0.03%, which were relatively small increases [1][15]. - In the real estate bond sector, in June, AAA-rated and public enterprise real estate bonds had obvious positive alpha, while AA+-rated real estate bonds had negative alpha. Specifically, the average net price increase of AAA real estate bonds was 0.04%, significantly higher than other real estate bond types. Public enterprise bonds had an average increase of 0.12%, higher than real estate bonds of other enterprise types. AA+ real estate bonds had an average net price decline of 0.01%, the only declining real estate bond type. In terms of specific bonds, the bonds of Longfor Group had a net price increase of over 2%, while the bond H20 Hejing 6 had a net price decline of 3.79% [19]. - For urban construction investment bonds, in June, different types of urban construction investment bonds had different price movements. Regionally, urban construction investment bonds in Guangxi declined by 0.07% in a single month, the most significant decline, indicating obvious negative alpha. Urban construction investment bonds in Hebei and Xinjiang had relatively high increases, with an average increase of 0.14%. In terms of ratings, AA- urban construction investment bonds had negative alpha, with an average net price decline of 0.13%, significantly lower than other rated urban construction investment bonds [26]. - In the financial bond sector, in June, private enterprise financial bonds had a relatively significant net price decline, with an average monthly decline of 0.03%, the only declining financial bond type, indicating negative alpha. The bonds with relatively high increases in June were 24 Kunpeng Investment MTN003, 25 Kunpeng Investment MTN001B, and 23 CATIC Finance 08, with net price increases of 3.06%, 3.06%, and 2.36% respectively. The bonds with relatively high declines were 21 Shenzhen Jusheng 01 and 20 Shenzhen Jusheng 01, with net price declines of 7.2% and 10.59% respectively [28]. 3. Maturity Alpha Tracking - In June, government bonds and local government bonds with a maturity of over 10 years had positive alpha. Data showed that government bonds with a maturity of over 10 years rose by 1.1% and local government bonds rose by 0.93%, significantly higher than other interest rate bond types. The main reason was that ultra-long interest rate bonds had the advantage of duration leverage, and the decline in yields led to a more significant increase in prices [2][33]. - Among long-term representative bonds, the ultra-long credit bond 24 Chengtong Holdings MTN009B had the highest monthly increase of 3.63% [37]. 4. Subordinated Alpha Tracking - In June, commercial bank subordinated bonds had positive alpha. Data showed that commercial bank subordinated bonds had an average increase of 0.05%, higher than commercial bank ordinary bonds and subordinated bonds. The alpha of commercial bank subordinated bonds mainly came from the significant decline in the yields of 7-year and 10-year commercial bank second-tier capital bonds and perpetual bonds. Although the yields of 20-year and 30-year commercial bank ordinary bonds declined more significantly, due to the small scale of ultra-long commercial bank bonds, the decline in yields had little impact on the overall price movement [2][39]. 5. June Public Bond Fund Ranking - In June, hybrid bond funds of the second category had the highest average increase among public bond funds. The average increase of hybrid bond funds of the second category was 1.04%, followed by hybrid bond funds of the first category with an average increase of 0.57%, medium- and long-term pure bond funds with an average increase of 0.29%, and short-term pure bond funds with an average increase of 0.18% [2][40]. - The top five medium- and long-term pure bond funds in terms of increase in June were Huarun Yuanda Runxiang Three-Month Fixed-Term Open A, Pengyang Chunxi One-Year Fixed-Term Open, Huataibaoxing Zunyi Interest Rate Bond 6-Month Holding A, Pengyang Chunli Regularly Open A, and Minsheng Jiayin Hengyu [46]. - The top five short-term pure bond funds in terms of increase in June were Tianhong Yueyuebao 30-Day Holding A, Baoying Ansheng Medium- and Short-Term Bond A, Zheshang Huijin Shuangyuexin 60-Day Rolling Medium- and Short-Term Bond A, Great Wall Short-Term Bond A, and Zheshang Huijin Yuexiang 30-Day Rolling Holding A [47]. - The top five hybrid bond funds of the first category in terms of increase in June were Great Wall Active Income Enhancement A, Everbright Medium- and High-Grade A, Tianhong Tianli E, Golden Eagle Add Interest Medium- and Long-Term Credit Bond A, and Minsheng Jiayin Xinxiang A [48]. - The top five hybrid bond funds of the second category in terms of increase in June were Golden Eagle Yuanfeng C, Huabao Enhanced Income A, China Merchants Anrui Enterprising C, Caitong Income Enhancement C, and Minsheng Jiayin Enhanced Income A [49].

Report Industry Investment Rating - Not provided in the given content Core View - In May, the bond market showed differentiation. Interest rate bonds mostly had rising yields, while credit bonds generally had falling yields. There was no obvious α in the industry dimension of credit bonds, a significant negative α in 10 - year - plus treasury bonds, and a certain α in insurance company bonds. Among public bond funds, hybrid bond - type secondary funds had the leading average increase in May [1][2][10]. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 1. Each Variety Yield Panorama - In May, the bond market performance was differentiated. For interest rate bonds, the yields of treasury bonds and China Development Bank bonds increased by an average of 4BP, and the yields of local government bonds decreased by an average of 1BP. For credit bonds, almost all credit bond varieties had falling yields, with the 7 - year, AA + and below implicit - rated commercial bank ordinary bonds having the largest yield decline of 19BP on average [11]. - As of May 31, the historical percentile levels of interest rate bond yields were relatively high, especially for short - term varieties. Most interest rate bond varieties had a three - year historical percentile level of over 8%, and the 1 - year treasury bond had the highest three - year historical percentile of 20%. For credit bonds, low - grade long - term financial bond varieties had relatively high historical percentile levels of yields, with the 7 - year, 10 - year, and 5 - year AA - bank secondary capital bonds having the top three percentile levels of 18%, 17%, and 15% respectively [13]. 2. Industry Alpha Tracking - In the industry dimension, credit bonds in various industries generally rose in May, with an average net - price change of 0.14%. The increases in each industry were relatively balanced, and there was no obvious α. The mining and financial industries had relatively small increases of 0.09% and 0.07% respectively [17]. - In the real - estate bond sector, AAA - rated and public - enterprise real - estate bonds had obvious positive α in May. The average net - price increase of AAA real - estate bonds was 0.18%, significantly higher than other real - estate bond varieties. Public - enterprise bonds had an average increase of 1.38%, far higher than other enterprise - type real - estate bonds. The top - rising bond was Vanke Bond with a net - price increase of about 4%, while the top - falling bonds were 24 Lianfa MTN004 and 22 Longhu 03, with net - price decreases of 0.56% and 4.48% respectively [21]. - In the urban investment bond sector, all regional urban investment bonds had rising net prices in May, with an overall increase of 0.15%. Hebei and Tianjin had obvious positive α, with average increases of 0.23% and 0.22% respectively. Guangxi had the smallest increase of 0.06%. AA - urban investment bonds had negative α, with an average net - price decrease of 0.02% [28]. - In the financial bond sector, there was little difference in the net - price changes of financial bonds of various ratings and types in May, and no obvious α appeared. The top - rising bonds were 24 Yuandong IV, 24 Yuandong Leasing MTN005, and 25 Ganzhou Leasing 01, with net - price increases of 1.03%, 1.03%, and 0.84% respectively. The top - falling bonds were 21 Shenzhen Jushenghua 02 and 21 Shenzhen Jushenghua 01, with net - price decreases of 6.55% and 6.69% respectively [31]. 3. Term Alpha Tracking - In May, 10 - year - plus treasury bonds had a significant negative α. The change rate of 10 - year - plus treasury bonds in May was - 1.5%, significantly higher than other interest rate bond varieties. The reasons were that the yield increase of ultra - long - term interest rate bonds in May exceeded other term varieties, and the yield increase of ultra - long - term treasury bonds was significantly higher than that of local government bonds [37]. - Among long - term representative bonds, the ultra - long - term credit bond 23 Sanxia K2 led the increase in May, with a monthly increase of 0.49% [42]. 4. Sub - Alpha Tracking - In May, insurance company bonds had a certain α. The average increase of insurance company bonds in May was 0.1%, 0.03% higher than that of commercial bank ordinary bonds and sub - bonds. The α of insurance company bonds mainly came from the fact that the yield decline of insurance capital supplementary bonds within 7 years in May was greater than that of commercial bank bonds and sub - bonds, and the long - term bond scale of these three varieties was relatively small, so short - and medium - term interest rate fluctuations had a more significant impact on the overall price [44]. 5. May Public Bond Fund Ranking - In May, hybrid bond - type secondary funds led other types of public bond funds in average change rate. The average change rate of hybrid bond - type secondary funds was 0.41%, that of hybrid bond - type primary funds was 0.27%, that of short - term pure - bond funds was 0.18%, and that of medium - and long - term pure - bond funds was 0.12% [47].

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report The report focuses on the performance comparison benchmarks of domestic active bond funds. It analyzes the benchmark settings of various sub - types of active bond funds and their deviations in actual operations. After the release of the "Action Plan", some bond funds have adjusted their performance comparison benchmarks. The report also studies the correlation between funds and benchmarks, tracking errors, and excess returns [1][9]. 3. Summary According to the Table of Contents 3.1 Introduction On May 7, 2025, the CSRC issued the "Action Plan for Promoting the High - quality Development of Public Funds", emphasizing the importance of performance comparison benchmarks. The report, as the second in the series, will analyze the benchmark settings and actual operation deviations of domestic active bond funds [9]. 3.2 Active Bond Fund Performance Comparison Benchmark Characteristics - **Generalized Active Bond Fund Sample Selection**: As of May 7, 2025, 4191 generalized active bond funds in existence and with performance comparison benchmarks were selected as samples, with a total scale of 9.05 trillion yuan. The samples include 7 types of funds, and the medium - long - term pure - bond funds have the largest number and scale [9][10][12]. - **Performance Benchmark Composition Method**: The performance comparison benchmarks of active bond funds have various forms, mainly including single bond indexes or weighted composites of different indexes. The component indexes can be classified into 6 major categories, and the bond index can be further divided into 5 sub - types, while the stock index can be divided into 9 sub - types [13]. - **Performance Benchmark Commonly Used Indexes**: The top ten "main benchmark indexes" of medium - long - term pure - bond funds are mainly indexes compiled by ChinaBond. For example, the number of funds with ChinaBond - Composite Full Price (Total Value) Index as the main benchmark index is 964, accounting for 52.56%. The main benchmark indexes of convertible bond funds are mainly convertible bond indexes, with CSI Convertible Bond Index being the most used. The main benchmark indexes of fixed - income enhanced funds are mainly A - share market indexes such as CSI 300 Index [36][41][50]. - **Comparison of Commonly Used Index Clusters**: The ChinaBond index system is compiled by the Central Government Bond Depository Trust & Clearing Co., Ltd., and the CSI index system is compiled by CSI Index Co., Ltd. The component bond listing locations, remaining maturities, and credit ratings of ChinaBond and CSI indexes are different [54][57]. - **Weight Distribution of "Main Benchmark Indexes"**: For most active bond funds, the weights of ChinaBond - Composite Full Price (Total Value) Index and ChinaBond - Composite Wealth (Total Value) Index are mainly in the range of 90 - 100% for medium - long - term pure - bond funds, mixed bond - type first - level funds, and mixed bond - type second - level funds. The weights of equity indexes in the performance comparison benchmarks of mixed bond - type second - level funds, convertible bond - type funds, and partial - debt hybrid funds are relatively concentrated [62][66]. 3.3 Fund Performance and Benchmark Correlation and Other Analyses - **Correlation Analysis between Active Bond Funds and Their Benchmarks**: From 2022 to 2025, convertible bond - type funds, short - term pure - bond funds, medium - short - term pure - bond funds, medium - long - term pure - bond funds, and partial - debt hybrid funds have relatively high correlations with their performance comparison benchmarks, while mixed bond - type first - level funds and mixed bond - type second - level funds have relatively low correlations [72][73]. - **Tracking Error and Excess Return of Funds Relative to the Benchmark**: The average tracking error of pure - bond funds is less than that of products with embedded options. Among fixed - income enhanced bond funds, first - level bond funds have lower tracking errors, second - level bond funds and partial - debt hybrid funds are relatively close, and convertible bond funds have the highest and most volatile tracking errors. Most pure - bond funds can outperform the benchmark in most years, and the average outperformance is within 2%. Among fixed - income enhanced funds, partial - debt hybrid funds have relatively high average excess returns [3][78]. - **Distribution of Fund Types with Significant Underperformance against the Benchmark**: Pure - bond funds have relatively small deviations from the benchmark and a low proportion of significant underperformance. The performance of fixed - income enhanced funds is related to the selected time interval and the performance of the equity market. In the long - term, active bond funds have the ability to obtain positive excess returns relative to the benchmark, but there are significant performance differences within each type of fund [3].