更具制度创新意义的，是同步推出的投向评价机制。评价不再只看收益率，而是看政策符合性、生产力 布局优化、资金使用效率和管理能力。这意味着，政府投资基金第一次被系统性纳入"政策效果评估"框 架。评价结果不仅通报排名，还与后续出资、项目对接、要素保障直接挂钩，这等于给基金管理人装上 了"压力表"。 □徐兵 从宏观层面看，这两项办法传递出一个清晰信号：在产业竞争加剧的背景下，政府投资不再追求面面俱 到，而是更强调精准投放、有效撬动、可被评估。毕竟，基金不是万能钥匙，但如果方向选准、边界清 晰、评价到位，就能在社会资本不敢投、不愿投的地方发挥真正的补位作用。 近日，国家发展改革委等部门推出两项政府投资基金管理办法，引发行业关注。其核心指向并不在 于"多设基金"，而在于"把钱投向哪、怎么投、投得好不好"。从布局规划、负面清单到投向评价与激励 约束，一整套制度正在把政府投资基金从"规模扩张逻辑"拉回"政策工具本位"。 最鲜明的变化，是投向被放在了前台。工作办法明确要求，基金设立之初就要讲清楚"投什么、不投什 么"，且必须对齐国家产业目录、生产力布局和发展规划。这实际上是在纠偏过去一些地方基金"先有 钱、再找项目"的做法。尤 ...

Core Viewpoint - Government investment funds have become a major source of capital in China's equity investment industry, playing a crucial role in promoting healthy industry development and optimizing traditional industries [1][12]. Group 1: Policy and Regulatory Changes - The State Council issued the "Guiding Opinions on Promoting the High-Quality Development of Government Investment Funds" on January 7, 2025, outlining 25 measures across seven areas to enhance the fund management process [1][12]. - Local governments are increasingly focusing on optimizing existing government investment funds rather than solely establishing new ones, leading to a more pragmatic approach in fund creation [12][22]. - The "1号文" emphasizes that government investment funds should not be established solely for attracting investment, leading to a slowdown in new fund establishments, particularly in less economically robust regions [13][27]. Group 2: Fund Establishment and Trends - In the first half of 2025, 60 new government investment funds were established, surpassing the total of 55 in 2024, with a total scale of 188 billion yuan [6][8]. - The establishment of government investment funds is concentrated in economically vibrant regions like the Yangtze River Delta and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, while interest in new funds has declined in the central and western regions [8][12]. - The trend is shifting towards a "fund cluster" model, focusing on multiple smaller funds with clear positioning rather than a few large-scale funds [26]. Group 3: Investment Focus and Strategies - Government investment funds are increasingly targeting strategic emerging industries such as new-generation information technology, biotechnology, and new energy vehicles, which are crucial for developing new productive forces [8][9]. - There is a consensus on "investing early and investing small," with both national and local funds showing more support for early-stage projects [9][10]. - The investment strategies of industry investment funds differ from venture capital funds, with a notable trend towards the mother-child fund structure to attract social capital [9][10]. Group 4: Management and Operational Efficiency - Most government investment funds have established sound systems and standardized operational processes, with many implementing ESG/responsible investment strategies [10][31]. - The management fee structures are becoming more refined and market-oriented, with a focus on cost control and performance [32][36]. - The introduction of a "tolerance for losses" policy allows for higher risk-taking, with some regions permitting up to 100% loss on individual projects [36][38]. Group 5: Exit Strategies and Market Dynamics - The recovery of the A-share and Hong Kong IPO markets in 2025 has provided a favorable environment for government investment funds to realize exits [41][42]. - The development of S funds and active mergers and acquisitions (M&A) markets are creating diversified exit channels for government investment funds [41][45]. - In 2025, the number of M&A transactions increased by 12.58%, indicating a more active market, with local governments becoming significant participants in M&A activities [48][49].

Core Viewpoint - The recent policies from Gansu and Guangdong provinces emphasize stricter control over the establishment of government investment funds, aligning with the central government's guidance to enhance the quality and management of these funds [1][2][5]. Group 1: Policy Overview - Gansu's implementation opinion highlights the need to "strictly control the establishment of new funds" and to optimize existing funds, reflecting a trend towards improving the quality of existing government investment funds [1][5]. - Guangdong's management measures also stress the importance of government guidance and policy orientation in fund establishment, requiring approval from local governments for new funds [2][7]. - Both provinces have adopted similar measures regarding the classification and management of funds, emphasizing the need for thorough evaluation and approval processes [2][6]. Group 2: Stringency of Regulations - Gansu's policy is noted for its heightened emphasis on strictness, with the term "strict" appearing nine times in its document, covering various aspects such as fund establishment, performance evaluation, and risk control [3][4]. - The Gansu policy explicitly prohibits the establishment of funds for the purpose of attracting investment, indicating a more rigorous approach compared to Guangdong [5][6]. Group 3: Implementation of Central Guidelines - Since the issuance of the central government's "Guidance on Promoting the High-Quality Development of Government Investment Funds," multiple provinces have introduced related policies to strengthen the management of these funds [1][6]. - The central document outlines the need for a well-structured, efficient, and risk-controlled framework for government investment funds, which has been echoed in the provincial policies [6][7]. Group 4: Management Fee Regulations - Guangdong's management measures propose that fund management fees be determined based on performance evaluations, potentially disrupting the traditional practice of fixed management fees [10][11]. - The shift to performance-based management fees aims to align the interests of fund managers and investors, although it may increase short-term performance pressure on investment institutions [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent implementation of policies aimed at promoting the high-quality development of government investment funds in Gansu Province, reflecting a broader trend across various regions in China to control the establishment of new funds and optimize existing ones [1][3]. Group 1: Control and Integration of Funds - The Gansu government's implementation opinion emphasizes the unified management of government investment funds by fiscal departments, with a strict control on the establishment of new funds and a push for the optimization and integration of existing funds [3][4]. - The scope of control over new fund establishment has expanded from county-level to include municipal-level governments, indicating a tightening of fund creation policies [3]. - Data shows a decrease in the establishment of local government funds, with 298 funds created in Q1 2025, down 2.5% year-on-year, and a total fund size of 338.41 billion yuan, down 19.04% year-on-year [3]. Group 2: Adjustments in Funding Mechanisms - Policies are being introduced to adjust the contribution ratios and optimize return policies for government investment funds, aiming to enhance their guiding role [6]. - For instance, a new 2 billion yuan mother fund in Jingzhou aims to create a fund cluster of at least 20 billion yuan within three years, allowing for a contribution ratio of up to 99% for certain sub-funds [6]. - Other regions, such as Tianjin and Sichuan, have also increased the maximum contribution ratios for government investment funds, with some allowing up to 70% contributions [6]. Group 3: Policy Responses and Trends - Following the release of the national guidelines, various regions have actively issued related policy documents to regulate and guide the high-quality development of government investment funds [8][9]. - The trend indicates a shift towards more cautious fund establishment, prioritizing quality over quantity, and a growing market-oriented approach in fund management [9]. - Enhanced professional management and risk control measures are being emphasized, with local governments focusing on integrating funds with industry needs to better support national and local development strategies [10].

Core Viewpoint - The implementation opinions from Gansu Province emphasize the need for high-quality development of government investment funds, aligning with the national guidelines issued earlier this year, indicating a tightening of new fund establishment across all levels of government [1][2][3]. Summary by Sections Government Investment Fund Management - The Gansu implementation opinions require all levels of financial departments to manage government investment funds uniformly, strictly controlling the establishment of new funds and promoting the optimization and integration of existing funds [1]. - The document reflects a broader trend where many regions are tightening their policies on new government investment funds in response to national directives [1][2]. Impact on Fund Establishment - The enthusiasm for establishing new government investment funds has decreased, influenced by the national guideline that prohibits setting up funds for the purpose of attracting investment [2][3]. - In the first quarter of 2024, the scale of newly initiated mother funds was 238.7 billion, while in the first quarter of this year, it dropped to 146.2 billion, marking a decline of 38.75% [3]. Changes in Investment Strategy - The national guideline has significantly impacted the previously popular "fund attraction" model, leading to a transformation in local government strategies for investment and fund establishment [3][4]. - Many local governments are now focusing on nurturing local industries rather than attracting external projects, indicating a shift in the investment landscape [5]. Future Policy Developments - Multiple regions are revising their government investment fund policies in accordance with the national guidelines, with new policies expected to be released throughout the year [6].