7月17日，睿远基金发布2025年二季报。《财中社》梳理相关数据后发现，截至二季度末，其权益产品 规模合计291.99亿份，环比缩水5.20亿份，降幅1.75%。历史数据则进一步显示，其权益规模已经连续9 个季度缩水。 公司官网显示，睿远基金共有4只权益产品（仅计主代码），都是主动权益基金，分别是睿远成长价值 （007119）、睿远均衡价值（008969）、睿远稳进配置（014362）及睿远港股通核心价值（022700）。 其中，睿远成长价值成立时间最早，为其代表性产品。截至二季度末，其份额规模合计144.44亿份，环 比下降6.45亿份，同比下降14.75%，与2023年同期（183.99亿份）相比则下降21.50%。 历史数据显示，2023年一季度末，其份额规模为186.27亿份，其后9个季度依次为183.99亿份、181.38亿 份、177.56亿份、173.41亿份、169.44亿份、165.30亿份、157.13亿份、150.89亿份及144.44亿份。 业绩不佳导致规模缩水 业绩不佳应是导致其份额规模下降的主因之一。 根据东方财富Choice终端，截至7月16日，睿远成长价值近三年收益率为-18. ...

| 睿远成长价值混合型证券投资基金 | | | --- | --- | | 基金管理人：睿远基金管理有限公司 | | | 基金托管人：招商银行股份有限公司 | | | 报告送出日期：2025年07月17日 | | | §1 重要提示 | | | 基金管理人的董事会及董事保证本报告所载资料不存在虚假记载、误导性陈述或 | | | 重大遗漏，并对其内容的真实性、准确性和完整性承担个别及连带责任。 | | | 基金托管人招商银行股份有限公司根据本基金合同规定，于2025年7月14日复核 | | | 了本报告中的财务指标、净值表现和投资组合报告等内容，保证复核内容不存在虚假 | | | 记载、误导性陈述或者重大遗漏。 | | | 基金管理人承诺以诚实信用、勤勉尽责的原则管理和运用基金资产，但不保证基 | | | 金一定盈利。 | | | 基金的过往业绩并不代表其未来表现。投资有风险，投资者在作出投资决策前应 | | | 当仔细阅读本基金的招募说明书。 | | | 本报告中财务资料未经审计。 | | | 本报告期自2025年4月1日起至2025年6月30日止。 | | | §2 基金产品概况 | | | 基金简称 睿远 ...

文 | 银行螺丝钉 （转载请注明出处） 基金2025年的1季报更新 完毕， 螺丝钉也梳理了一下投顾组合基金经理池中，主动基金经理的 1 季报 。 包括基金经理的观点，以及基金的一些数据信息。 基金经理观点怎么看 基金经理在季报中会有两个主要的内容。 • 一个是回顾过去一段时间的投资； • 另一个是对未来市场的观点。 后者会更重要一些。 不同基金经理，对待这一部分的态度也不同。 • 有的基金经理会很详细的写很多 ，例如景顺长城的杨锐文，就以报告观点详细著称。 • 有的基金经理写的不多（可能投资做的不错，但在报告里不怎么解释）。 并且，基金经理因为投资风格不同，每个人的偏好自然会有区别。 例如： • 价值风格的基金经理，偏向于低估值的品种一些。 • 成长风格的基金经理会更看重品种的增长速度。 所以，对基金经理的观点，也要辩证看待～ 我们把基金经理分成了几组。 • 2016-2017年表现不错； • 2019-2020年跑输市场； • 2021 -2024年跑赢市场。 报告期内,本基金持仓基本不变,基 金业绩基本跑平市场,考虑到当前持 仓公司的基本面，我们对未来的信心 还是比较强的。 展望以后，我们认为影响市场的因 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) aims to address the issue of high management fees in public funds despite poor performance through a floating management fee mechanism, highlighting the industry's long-standing problem of "guaranteed returns" regardless of fund performance [1]. Group 1: Fund Performance and Management Fees - The report indicates that the fund "Guangfa High-end Manufacturing A" has the worst three-year return at -53.01%, while it collected management fees totaling 456 million yuan over the same period [3]. - "China Europe Medical Health A," with a scale of 31.179 billion yuan, experienced a 32.55% decline in three-year performance but still charged 2.2 billion yuan in management fees [3]. - The trend shows that larger funds tend to incur greater losses while charging higher fees, raising concerns about the reasonableness of fees relative to fund managers' performance [3][4]. Group 2: Fund Manager Performance - Fund manager Liu Gesong's funds have underperformed, with a three-year return of -27% and a two-year return of -17%, significantly lagging behind the CSI 300 index [4]. - The total assets under Liu's management decreased by 5.7% to 32.171 billion yuan as of the end of the first quarter of 2024 [4]. - The floating management fee reform may lead to a significant reduction in management fee income for fund managers like Liu, as poor performance could result in a "double whammy" effect [4]. Group 3: Industry Outlook - The CSRC's reform is expected to shift the focus of fund companies from merely pursuing scale to emphasizing investment returns, marking a significant change in the industry [11]. - The industry may witness a trend where stronger firms thrive while smaller institutions face accelerated elimination, making investment research capabilities and risk control systems increasingly critical [11]. - In the long run, more competitive products are likely to attract additional capital and new investors, benefiting investors and promoting sustainable industry development [11].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) aims to address the issue of high management fees in public funds despite poor performance through a floating management fee mechanism, highlighting a significant industry pain point [1] Group 1: Fund Performance and Management Fees - The fund "Guangfa High-end Manufacturing A" has the lowest three-year return at -53.01% but has collected management fees totaling 4.56 billion yuan over the past three years [3] - "China Europe Medical Health A" has a fund size of 311.79 billion yuan and a three-year performance decline of 32.55%, yet it has still charged 2.2 billion yuan in management fees [3] - The trend of larger funds experiencing greater losses while charging higher fees is evident in funds like "Jingshun Changcheng Emerging Growth A" and "Ruiyuan Growth Value A" [3] Group 2: Fund Manager Performance - Fund manager Ge Lan's funds have shown significant losses, with "China Europe Medical Health A" losing 68.33 billion yuan last year and 178.2 billion yuan in 2022, while still collecting 22 billion yuan in management fees [4] - Ge Lan's overall fund manager index return is -31.77% over three years, with a slight decrease in managed public fund size to 404.47 billion yuan [5] - The potential implementation of the floating management fee reform could drastically reduce management fee income for funds like "China Europe Medical Health A," which may lead to accelerated fund outflows if performance remains poor [5] Group 3: Future Outlook - Ge Lan maintains an optimistic outlook on the continuous breakthroughs in innovative drugs and the recovery of the consumer medical sector, despite the challenges posed by the floating management fee reform [8] - The upcoming reform may pose significant challenges for high-profile fund managers as management fees become closely tied to benchmark returns, potentially impacting their career trajectories [8]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) aims to reform the public fund industry by implementing a floating management fee mechanism to address the issue of high management fees despite poor fund performance [1][7]. Group 1: Fund Performance and Management Fees - The performance of equity funds over the past three years has shown a significant decline, with many funds experiencing substantial losses while still charging high management fees [1][4]. - For instance, the fund "Guangfa High-end Manufacturing A" reported a return of -53.01% over three years, yet collected management fees totaling 4.56 billion yuan during the same period [4]. - "China Europe Medical Health A," despite a 32.55% decline in net value, managed to collect 2.2 billion yuan in management fees over three years, indicating a disconnect between performance and fees [4][5]. Group 2: Impact of the Reform - The proposed floating management fee reform is expected to shift the focus of fund companies from merely pursuing scale to emphasizing investment returns, thereby aligning the interests of fund managers and investors [7]. - The reform aims to create a virtuous cycle of increased returns, inflows of funds, and market stability, which could lead to a more sustainable growth model for the industry [7]. - The CSRC's initiative is seen as a critical step towards normalizing the equity market and addressing the long-standing issue of funds profiting from poor performance [7]. Group 3: Industry Challenges - The current model has led to a situation where larger funds often incur greater losses while still charging higher fees, creating a "vicious cycle" [5][6]. - Notable fund managers, such as Guo Lan and Liu Ge Song, have seen their fund sizes shrink significantly while their performance remains below market benchmarks, raising concerns about their future management fee income [6]. - The industry is facing a transformation as it moves away from the "scale-driven" model towards a performance-driven approach, which may result in short-term challenges for fund managers [7].

Core Viewpoint - The A-share market has experienced significant volatility in recent years, making it challenging for fund managers to maintain outstanding performance over the long term [1] Group 1: Fund Manager Performance - There are 47 fund managers managing over 10 billion yuan in equity funds with ten years or more of experience [1] - The top-performing fund managers over the past five years include Yan Enqian and Han Chuang, who achieved high returns with moderate fund sizes [4] - Liu Xu, managing a large fund size, also demonstrated that scale and returns can coexist [4] - The worst performer in the past five years was Guo Lan from China Europe Fund, with a total return of -25.95% [4] - Other poorly performing managers include Yang Zhen and Zheng Lei from Huatai PineBridge, with returns of -20.38% and -16.16%, respectively [6] Group 2: Fund Size and Management - The top ten fund managers by equity management scale are: Ge Lan (30.447 billion), Hu Xinwei (30.130 billion), Liu Xu (25.734 billion), and others [3] - The data indicates that even experienced fund managers can face challenges due to market changes or inappropriate investment strategies [6] Group 3: Risk and Return Analysis - The risk-return analysis shows that while Guo Lan has high interval returns, her Alpha value is negative, indicating poor performance relative to market benchmarks [8] - Zhu Lin and Gui Kai also reported negative interval returns, suggesting significant market challenges or misalignment of investment strategies [8] - The analysis highlights that fund managers' investment styles vary, with some facing substantial market challenges [8] Group 4: Representative Fund Comparisons - Guo Lan's fund, China Europe Medical Health A, has shown stable long-term performance but has low recent returns and high maximum drawdown, indicating a need for better risk control [10] - Zheng Lei's fund, Huatai PineBridge Innovation Medicine, has performed well recently but has lower long-term returns and high maximum drawdown [10] - Zhu Lin's fund, Ruiyuan Growth Value A, while large in scale, has not performed well long-term, with low recent returns and high maximum drawdown [10] Group 5: Investment Strategy Insights - The historical performance of fund managers does not guarantee future success, as market dynamics require continuous adjustment of investment strategies [11] - Investors should consider the underlying investment philosophies and management styles of fund managers to make informed decisions [11]