Cracking the clear signal that “funds make money and lose money to the public”
The disclosure of the 2026 interim report of public funds has come to an end, and the indicator "proportion of profitable investors" has made its debut, attracting market attention. As an innovative indicator after the implementation of the new public offering disclosure regulations, it not only provides a new observation dimension for fund performance, but also releases a clear signal of industry transformation, promoting the industry's transformation from "emphasis on scale" to "emphasis on returns", and placing the creation of returns for investors in a prominent position in the development of the industry.
The market has always judged the quality of funds, habitually focusing on net worth growth and short-term rankings. With outstanding short-term returns, it is regarded as a high-quality product, vigorously promoted by channels, and pursued by investors. However, this simple evaluation logic ignores one question: Can a good-looking net worth be truly transformed into actual returns for investors?
Previously, the fund evaluation system was based on product performance, which mainly reflected the operating income of the fund itself. Whether investors made money or not, how much money they made, there was no unified and quantifiable evaluation standard, and the true level of industry services was difficult to objectively measure. Over time, there has been a long-term disconnect between fund book performance and investors' actual returns. In March this year, the public fund information disclosure system was reformed, requiring for the first time actively managed stock and hybrid fund products that have been established for one year or more to disclose the proportion of profitable investors in the past year. This system change has transformed investors' sense of gain from a subjective experience into well-documented objective data.
The data disclosed this time intuitively confirms the pain points of this industry, and also clearly reveals the underlying reasons for the mismatch between performance and investment experience. The net value of some funds increased by nearly 70% during the year, but the proportion of profitable investors was less than 20%. On the other hand, more than 70% of the holders of some funds that have risen slightly and have a stable trend have made profits. This seemingly contradictory phenomenon stems from the deviation between fund returns and investor trading behavior. Changes in the fund's net value rely on the complete market cycle, while the actual profits and losses of ordinary investors depend more on the choice of entry point and investment determination. Affected by market sentiment, many investors are accustomed to following the market at high prices and engaging in frequent short-term trading. Not only do they miss out on long-term gains, but they also often suffer losses amid fluctuations, and eventually become "runners" in the market, which also weakens the actual value of professional investment research for funds.
This stark data contrast has sounded the alarm for the development of the industry. In the past, some fund institutions focused on short-term performance sprints and scale expansion, and were keen to use market hot spots to attract traffic, but ignored investor returns and holding experience, resulting in the recurring phenomenon of "funds making money and investors losing money." The disclosure of new indicators will push the industry back from the institutional level to the origin of asset management of “being entrusted by others and managing money on behalf of clients”. For fund institutions, they must not only conduct solid investment research, strictly control fluctuations and drawdowns, and maintain the bottom line of long-term returns, but also carry out regular investor education and accompanying services, cultivate a market culture of long-term investment and value investment, and narrow the gap between product performance and investment experience.
For ordinary investors, this new indicator is an important reference for optimizing investment decisions, but it is not the only criterion. This indicator only reflects the past profits of holders and cannot predict future trends. Investors should make rational reference and make comprehensive judgments, abandon the short-term speculative thinking of only increasing and ranking, escape the investment misunderstanding of blindly following the trend, and adopt long-term holdings that match the investment operation logic of public funds.
From keeping a close eye on the net value of products to focusing on the actual returns of investors, the emergence of an indicator reflects a profound change in the development philosophy of the public offering industry. Only by always being oriented toward investors' real sense of gain, adhering to long-term value, and optimizing service quality and efficiency, can the public offering industry truly shoulder the heavy responsibility of residents' wealth management and help investors share the dividends of capital market development.
(Economic Daily Ma Chunyang)
