Fund "Shell" And Institutions "Exclusive": 1.5% Remains Unchanged, Why Retail Investors Can'T Enjoy "Reduced Rate"

Under the boom of equity fund issuance, many active equity funds have taken the initiative to reduce management fees to "attract customers".

According to the 21st century economic report, since July, active equity funds such as Dacheng trend return, Dongfanghong's leading selection, AXA Pudong Bank's quantitative Multi Strategy and gf's refinancing announced that the management fee rate would be reduced.

The management rates of several funds before the adjustment are 1.5%, while the management rates after adjustment are reduced to 0.6%, 0.7% and 0.8%.

In addition to a few funds in July, several active equity funds such as Yingda Ruixin, Yingda state-owned enterprise reform, Debang Xinxing value and other active equity funds have announced the reduction of management fees.

"On the other hand, the reason for the reduction of fund rate is that some companies are required to reduce the premium rate of their products to avoid the demand of institutions." On July 30, a public fund source in South China told the reporter of the 21st century economic report.

It has been controversial for public funds to charge fixed management fees, especially in the context of bear market. Public funds rely on management fees to achieve "drought and flood revenue", but for investors, they still have to bear fixed management fees.

Multi fund management fee reduction

"We have previously reduced the management rate of one product, because that product is an organization customized product, and the reduction of the rate is the demand of customers." A securities company is a public fund source, told the 21st century economic report reporter.

"In fact, some of the mini funds have reduced the rate to attract institutional funds to help with the shell," said a public fund source in Beijing. "Some institutional clients help fund companies to keep this shell, mainly because the institutions have the ability to allocate assets. The institutions can guarantee the scale, while the fund companies will be required to reduce the management fees. At the same time, the institutions will propose to the fund companies In terms of investment strategy, although the fund company does active management, it is designated by the investment institution in terms of strategy and general direction. "

From the current situation, there are two kinds of fund management rate reduction.

For example, Dacheng trend returns, the statistics of 21st century economic report reporters show that the fund's share at the end of June this year was 237 million, of which 195 million shares were held by a single holder, accounting for 82%; however, the scale of AXA's quantitative multiple strategies at the end of June this year was less than 10 million, and there was liquidation risk.

"Reducing management fees is a common practice to increase the competitiveness of products." A public fund in Shanghai said.

"Some funds are now relatively small, but most companies are not willing to go directly to liquidation. Reducing the rate has become a more mainstream method to save Mini funds, and enhance the attractiveness of products to customers." The person said.

At present, the fund's liquidation strategy is not so good as to improve the competitiveness of its products directly. Therefore, it may be better for the fund to choose its products directly in order to improve its competitiveness

In fact, since the beginning of this year, the issuance of equity funds in the market has been booming, and the hot money funds often attract 10 billion yuan, which is a serious capital squeeze for some poor performance funds.

"This year, there are a lot of hot money funds in the A-share market. On the one hand, these hot money funds come from incremental funds, on the other hand, they come from the redemption of old funds to apply for new funds. Therefore, many foundations with weak performance and low brand are redeemed. As a result, many mini funds face the risk of liquidation. In order to protect the shell, fund companies adopt the way of reducing fees to support the marketing direction. " Zhang Ting, a researcher at GESHANG wealth, said.

Another important reason for the reduction of product rate is the demand of customers.

Management fee dispute

The fund companies have different answers on whether the reduction of management fees will achieve the desired "attracting customers" effect.

"In fact, the effect is good. Reducing the rate is equivalent to adding a selling point. When the financial manager recommends to customers, there will also be bright spots. Under the same conditions, the low rate will certainly be considered, so reducing the rate has advantages." According to an interview with a public fund in Shanghai.

It believes that "reducing the rate is to give profits to investors. Now there are so many products in the market, everyone's strategy is very similar, and low rate is more competitive. In the future, reducing the rate will also be a very common means to improve the competitiveness of products. "

However, a person from a public fund in South China believes that "for retail investors, it is not possible to retain customers by lowering the rate. Retail investors still pay attention to the income, and the income gap will naturally vote with their feet. On the other hand, the fund management companies do not take the initiative to reduce the fees of the industry, and on the other hand, there is no incentive for the fund management companies to reduce the fees

"In the future, it will become a trend in the industry for passive index funds to reduce their fees. For active equity products, whether to lower the management fees or not depends on the brand and performance of the products. For products with good performance, investors with slightly higher management fees are acceptable. For some products that are not easy to raise, fund companies may adopt the way of reducing management fees But fundamentally speaking, excellent historical performance and stable excess return are the core of the fund's ability to expand, and the difference in management fees is not the main consideration factor. Therefore, how to improve the investment research strength and do a good job in performance is what fund companies should pay more attention to. " Zhang Ting thinks.

In fact, in the early bear market years, there were many disputes about the fixed management fees charged by fund companies.

Our reporter learned that a poor performance fund company failed to bring returns to investors through fixed management fees, but only realized the fund company to generate income. Although the new product of floating rate was introduced later, the actual effect was not satisfactory.

In the current market situation, the bull market background makes the contradiction between management fees no longer obvious, and performance is placed in a more important position.

"From the present point of view, the performance of fund companies with relatively large scale is relatively good, and the top-notch funds also show excellent historical performance. Investors will choose to vote according to the performance, and the scale of funds with poor performance will shrink rapidly. For those who have no income but earn management fees, the scale will naturally shrink or even be wound up. In fact, fixed rate is an internationally accepted way, and the problem industry is also actively exploring. " An analyst from a tripartite agency told the 21st century economic reporter.