On March 21, several funds under public funds such as China Construction Bank and China Guangfa announced the change of their performance benchmarks. This included public funds such as Yinhua, Huatai-PineBridge, Bocom Schroder, PuRong Ansheng, Penghua, and China Asset Management, which had previously taken similar actions. Since the beginning of the year, the number of funds that have changed their performance benchmarks has reached 80.

Among them, many active equity funds have abandoned traditional broad-based indexes such as the CSI 300 and turned to emerging indexes such as the CSI A500 Index, as well as industry indexes that better reflect the fund style, such as the CSI TMT Industry Theme Index and the China Strategic Emerging Industries Component Index.

The interviewee told the reporter of Securities China that with the increase in the number of listed companies, more and more industry segments, and more and more diversified market styles, traditional indexes can no longer reflect the characteristics of fund investment. Finding new benchmarks is an important manifestation of the new round of fund investment reforms. However, the investment reform of active equity funds also requires a more specific description of the fund investment scope. At present, the investment scope of most funds is too broad and the description is too vague.

Many fund benchmarks replaced the CSI 300 Index

According to the announcement of Jianxin Fund on March 21, the performance benchmark of Jianxin Information Industry Stock Fund has changed. The original performance benchmark was 85%×SSE 300 Index yield + 15%×China Bond Total Wealth (Total Value) Index yield, and the adjusted performance benchmark is CSI TMT Industry Theme Index yield × 85% + China Bond Total Wealth (Total Value) Index yield × 15%. That is, under the same weight, the CSI TMT Industry Theme Index yield replaces the SSE 300 Index.

This situation is not uncommon. Also on March 21, GF Fund announced that the GF Stable Strategy Hybrid Fund will change its performance benchmark from March 24. The original performance benchmark was the CSI 300 Index yield × 60% + the RMB-denominated Hang Seng Composite Index yield × 15% + the CSI All Bond Index yield × 25%. The changed performance benchmark is the CSI Dividend Index yield × 60% + the CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect High Dividend Investment Index yield (converted using the valuation exchange rate) × 15% + the CSI All Bond Index yield × 25%. It is not difficult to find that the benchmark change of the fund is to replace the CSI 300 Index yield and the RMB-denominated Hang Seng Composite Index yield with the CSI Dividend Index yield and the CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect High Dividend Investment Index yield, respectively.

In addition, starting from March 17, the performance benchmark of Founder Fubon Innovation Power Mixed Fund was changed from 80%×SSE 300 Index yield + 20%×CSI All Bond Index yield to China Strategic Emerging Industries Index yield × 85% + CSI All Bond Index yield × 15%. It not only replaced the SSE 300 Index, but also increased the proportion of the new benchmark index by 5 percentage points.

In addition to active equity funds, bond funds also experience benchmark changes.

According to the announcement of Tianhong Fund on March 21, the performance benchmark of Tianhong Gongying Three-Month Holding Bond Fund will be changed from China Bond Comprehensive Full Price Index Yield × 80% + Bank One-Year Time Deposit Rate (After Tax) × 20% to China Bond Comprehensive Full Price (1-3 Years) Index Yield × 80% + Bank One-Year Time Deposit Rate (After Tax) × 20% from March 24.

In addition, according to the announcement of Huatai Asset Management on March 20, Huatai Fengtai Pure Bond Fund changed its performance benchmark from March 21. The original benchmark was the China Bond Comprehensive Full Price (Total Value) Index Yield × 80% + the bank's one-year time deposit rate (after tax) × 20%, and was changed to the China Bond Comprehensive Wealth (1-3 years) Index Yield × 80% + one-year time deposit rate (after tax) × 20%.

According to incomplete statistics, as of March 21, there are about 80 funds that have changed their performance benchmarks since 2025. In addition to the above-mentioned fund companies, there are also public funds such as Yinhua, Bank of Communications Schroder, Puyin Ansheng Fund, Penghua Fund, and Fullgoal Fund.

Better reflect the fund's own investment characteristics

"When selecting a performance benchmark for a fund product, one must first consider the fund's own investment direction, and second, consider the benchmark's own characteristics, and try to make the benchmark reflect the fund's own investment characteristics as much as possible." A product designer from a public fund in South China told a reporter from Securities China that in the past few years, most market players, including fund companies, have focused on the absolute return of active equity funds, that is, "whether it makes money", but have not paid enough attention to whether the fund "outperforms the benchmark", because the fluctuation of the net value itself will be more intuitive.

The person in charge of public offerings also said that fund companies generally used broad-based indexes such as the CSI 300 when designing their products in the early days. However, with the increase in the number of listed companies, the increasing number of industry segments, and the increasing diversification of market trends, traditional indexes such as the CSI 300 seem to be generally practical, but to some extent they are stereotyped and can no longer reflect the characteristics of fund investment. If there is a more suitable index, you can consider changing the performance benchmark.

This kind of analysis coincides with the statements made by fund companies when they change their benchmarks. For example, Jianxin Fund stated in the announcement that the change in benchmark of Jianxin Information Industry Stock Fund is to make its benchmark better reflect the fund's investment strategy and to evaluate the fund's performance more scientifically and reasonably. Regarding the use of China Strategic Emerging Industries Component Index to replace the CSI 300 Index in the benchmark of Founder Fubon Innovation Power Mixed Fund, Founder Fubon Fund stated that the constituent stocks of China Strategic Emerging Industries Component Index are selected from energy conservation and environmental protection, new generation information technology industry, biological industry, high-end equipment manufacturing, new energy industry, new materials industry, new energy vehicles, digital creative industry, high-tech service industry and other fields, which are generally consistent with the field of science and technology innovation enterprises, and are highly representative of the overall trend of listed companies of science and technology innovation enterprises, and are suitable as a comparative benchmark for fund stock investment.

China Securities Journal reporters found that some fund products targeted the recently launched new index when choosing a new benchmark index. Taking the CSI A500 as an example, Ping An Strategy Return Hybrid Fund and SPDB Ansheng ESG Responsible Investment Hybrid Fund both chose the CSI A500 Index when they recently changed their benchmarks. The former's new benchmark gave the index a proportion of up to 90%.

Have reasonable expectations about how the fund will make money

Relative returns have always been the mainstream trend of public fund investment. One of the important manifestations of relative returns is that fund performance must outperform the performance benchmark. Therefore, what index is used as the benchmark for fund investment? The difference between the old and new benchmarks will have an impact on many aspects such as fund performance evaluation. Among the funds with the above performance changes, a considerable number are active equity funds. In the view of some industry insiders, finding a more suitable performance benchmark is a manifestation of fund companies' refinement and in-depth cultivation of active equity investment.

"In the past few years, active equity funds have had their moments of glory and their moments of trough. Whether they are fund managers or fund investors, they rarely pay attention to the fund's performance benchmark. Fund managers focus on performance rankings because it is linked to their assessment and promotion. Investors focus on the net asset value return of the fund itself because it is related to their own profits and losses. Due to different comparative perspectives, active equity funds have encountered mixed reviews in the past few years." An insider of a public fund in Beijing told Securities China reporters.

An investment director of a public fund in Shanghai told a reporter from Securities China that public actively managed funds may gradually enter a new stage, which is to not only realize what kind of money fund products "earn", but also have a reasonable expectation for it. On the one hand, the investment of fund companies must be carried out under the constraints of clear investment contracts and in accordance with strict investment disciplines to correct past behaviors of betting on a certain track and experiencing large fluctuations in net value, and to create excess returns in five or even ten years as much as possible. On the other hand, fund investors must have a reasonable expectation of the return on fund investment. Fund investment does not guarantee making money, and whether it makes money cannot be the only evaluation criterion. Instead, they must see the performance benchmark behind the fund products.

In addition, the aforementioned person in charge of public offering products in South China also said that in addition to choosing a more suitable performance benchmark, the investment transformation of active equity funds also requires a more specific description of the fund's investment scope. Up to now, the investment scope of most funds on the market is too broad and the description is too vague. In name, they are industry theme funds, but in fact they can cover everything. If there is only a performance benchmark but no corresponding investment scope, fund investment may be like "carving a boat to find a sword".