First place is Huaxia, Jiashi or Yifangda? Has Hui Tianfu, Huaan and Nanfang ranked higher or lower?
The answer will be unveiled on this day.
The senior managers of the fund companies need to account for this position to the board of directors, and the fund managers and the sales staff need to brag to the management when they are in office based on this data.
However, in 2019, such a provocative war will cease to exist.
1. Vanishing War of Scale
On Oct. 11, 21 Capital exclusively learned that regulators recently suspended early disclosure of the size of public funds.
This means that the rankings of public funds at the end of this year will not be disclosed on December 30, 2019, but will only be disclosed by 2020, after the disclosure of the funds four-quarter report last year, according to the data published in succession.
In previous years, fund companies reported scale data to fund evaluation agencies at the end of the year. This year, the regulatory authorities prohibited fund companies from publishing data to evaluation agencies in advance. A public funder told 21 Capital and 21st Century Economic Reporters.
For the fund companies, such results may have been foreseeable.
In fact, prior to this, the regulatory authorities have made many requests for fund evaluation agencies to weaken their concern about the size of public fund management.
The scale of management is not the key evaluation index to evaluate the ability of investment management. The fund industry association expressly pointed out.
In accordance with the requirements, fund evaluation agencies should further weaken their concern about the size of corporate management, stop publishing ranking data containing the size of money market funds, and establish a more scientific, comprehensive and rational evaluation index system for fund management companies, guide investors and relevant parties to view scale ranking more rationally and objectively, and highlight the long-term investment and value investment for wealth growth. Long plays an important role.
2. Size rankings are grotesque
Perhaps we can find the answer from the chaos in the ranking battle of public offering scale in the past years.
The most common way is to look for help money.
Although this method is efficient and fast, by the beginning of the next year, when the funds to help evacuate, naked swimmers will also emerge.
For example, according to the data of the end of 2016 when the size of IMF is still in the ranking, many fund companies with the highest management scale at the end of that year also rank the top in the size of IMF.
In the next years first quarter report of 2017, the size of the relevant companiesmonetary funds has shrunk by tens of billions.
For example, at the end of 2016, the scale of CITIC cash gain ranked second in the market-wide Monetary Fund was 81.323 billion yuan at the end of the first quarter of 2017, while at the end of 2016, the scale of CITIC cash gain was 135.28 billion yuan, shrinking by nearly 40%. At the end of the first quarter of 2017, the scale of CITIC cash gain ranked second in the market-wide currency fund was 15.646 billion yuan, which was 81% smaller than that of 83.319 billion yuan at the end of 2016.
We should know that in the fierce competition of public funds, the smallest gap is only a few zeros, and the scale gap of 50 billion can even leap more than 20 positions in the dense stage of ranking.
3. Lost Tianhong Fund
When it comes to using IMF to hedge the scale, we have to raise the dominance of Tianhong Fund in those years.
Therefore, since 2014, Tianhong Fund has broken the record of seven years of scale Championship monopolized by Cathay Fund since 2007, and become the new scale champion of that year.
From then on until 2016, no one could shake the status of Tianhong Fund.
However, in 2017, regulators announced the cancellation of the size and ranking of public funds.
Of course, the money fund, which has been used by many fund companies as a sharp weapon of hedging scale, formally withdrew from the stage of scale battle of public funds.
Today, Tianhong Fund focuses on the distribution of index products and consolidated products. In August, Tianhong Fund launched its first ETF fund, which has been in the hot spot for nearly two years.
From the ranking point of view, the scale ranking of Tianhong Fund in these two years is also gradually rising. After excluding IMF and short-term financial management in 2018, Tianhong Fund ranked 41st, up 7 places from 2017.
4. Can you stop the brake?
Its not just about ranking restrictions on the size of the IMF. In 2018, regulators are also demanding that short-term financial products be excluded from the ranking of product size.
In the Symposium on fund evaluation business organized by the association at the end of 2018, the Association asked the fund evaluation agencies to weaken their concern about the size of the companys management. The rules included that the ranking data containing the size of short-term financial bond funds would no longer be published, and fund management companies would not be able to publicize the size ranking and yield of short-term financial bond funds through various channels.
Over the past few years, regulation and detailed rules have given a clear signal: do not overemphasize scale ranking.
But has the ambition to compete for the ranking of public funds ceased?
Judging from the enthusiasm of many public funds to impact the scale of ETF products this year, the focus of this competition for scale ranking has shifted, but it still exists.
As early as at the beginning of the ETF fire in 2018, the head fund companies had a net inflow of hundreds of millions every day. Public fund people said to 21 capital, according to this trend, it is estimated that the companys year-end ranking will decline again.
This persons sentiment did not last long, more and more fund companies in the industry started the era of ETFs key layout.
It has to be said that many ETF funds have top-notch effect.
According to 21 capitals, as of the end of September this year, 7 ETF products have been launched with an initial volume of more than 5 billion copies. The average initial offering of four innovation-driven ETFs issued by Boshi, Jiashi and other four companies is more than 10 billion copies.
After a full year of reserves, the battle for rankings at the end of this year has been variable again.
How will the plot evolve? Lets wait and see.
Source: Responsible Editor of Economic Report in the 21st Century: Ren Hui_NBJ9607