Is the fund management fee rate in China too high? Perspective on the dispute over management fees "

The disclosure of the fund's semi-annual report has been closed for many days, and the net value of the fund has lost one trillion yuan in half a year, which has heated up the discussion of the fund management fee in the market again: around the question of whether the current fund management fee charging model and rate standard in China are reasonable, the dispute over the fund management fee charging system has intensified.

The management fee dispute: started in the bear market.

Statistics show that in the first half of this year, the fund management fees collected by 59 fund companies in the A-share market totaled 65.438+08.806 billion yuan, while the net loss of funds reached 654.38+0.08 trillion yuan in the same period. This makes many investors who want the fund to achieve stable income heartache.

Faced with such a huge contrast, many investors shouted: fund management companies should share risks with investors, and the management rate should be linked to performance, and a floating rate system should be implemented.

In fact, it's not the first time that there is a dispute about the fund rate. This topic has also caused many discussions in the short history of the fund. Zhong Heng, a researcher at Morningstar (China) Research Center, said that in the bull market, most investors ignored the rate factor because of the high rate of return on capital. However, when there are losses in the bear market, especially in the first half of this year, the rate problem is particularly prominent.

Another reason why investors are dissatisfied with management fees is that the image of fund companies as institutional investors has been criticized in the stock market decline of 1000 this year. People question: In the bear market, many fund companies not only become market stabilizers, but also become an important force to help down, affecting investors' income, but there is nothing wrong with management fees.

It is not surprising that such criticism appears. Insiders pointed out that under the current system, fund managers tend to pursue rankings too much. When the market expectation is not good, there will be a situation of competing to sell, because when the stock market falls, the losses of the funds that fled first are smaller than those that fled later, and the relative returns are still high, which will easily lead to collective selling of funds and accelerate the stock market decline. However, the main reason for the fund's net loss is the stock market decline caused by changes in the market environment and internal mechanism of the market.

At the same time, some fund companies do not pay dividends according to the fund contract, and investors think that they are suspected of maintaining the fund size to collect more management fees. All these have caused people to question the management fee charging mode and rate level more and more strongly.

Should the fund management fee rate float?

In the case of investors suffering huge net losses, there are different opinions on whether the fund management fee rate should be lowered accordingly and whether the fixed fee system currently implemented in China should be changed to floating.

Jiang Saichun, an analyst at Desheng Fund Research Center, believes that the increase in management fees of fund companies in the first half of the year is due to the rapid expansion of fund scale in the second half of 2007, and the fixed rate system is the cornerstone of the industry, which is reasonable for Public Offering of Fund industries.

It is understood that the management fees of Public Offering of Fund in China are levied according to a certain proportion according to the scale, and the assessment of fund managers is more based on ranking. Internationally, Public Offering of Fund, a major developed country, mostly adopts a fixed rate system, while private equity funds mostly adopt a floating rate system linked to income.

Hu, head of the Galaxy Securities Fund Research Center, believes that the basic characteristics of the fund industry "entrusted by people, managing money on behalf of others" determine that fund management companies and investors cannot bear the benefits and risks of Public Offering of Fund.

He analyzed that if the manager bears the investment risk, the fund will not be entrusted with management, but will invest together. At this time, fund management companies have their own interests and their own risk considerations, and the balance between income and risk will deviate from the long-term interests and fundamental interests of investors. In practice, it will take the interests of fund management companies as the starting point. In the long run, Public Offering of Fund's fixed rate system is to safeguard the fundamental interests of ordinary investors.

In response to the current investor's call for lowering the management fee, some public opinion believes that although the fund company is not obliged to lower the management fee under the current fixed fee system according to the contract, it should make some gains at this time for its own image and Public Offering of Fund's social responsibility.

In fact, some fund management companies have stopped charging management fees recently. Due to the condition that the net value in the contract is lower than the value growth line, Boss Value Growth has announced that it will stop collecting management fees. In addition, the fund Jinsheng suspended the provision of fund management fees and fund custody fees because the dividend in 2007 did not meet the proportional requirements.

Zhong Heng believes that large-scale fund companies with conditions can appropriately reduce their rates according to market conditions, which is beneficial to investors and cannot be afforded by smaller fund companies. As both parties have a contract, it is the fund company's own business to reduce the management fee as long as it does not violate the contract.

Is the fund management fee rate too high in China?

According to the report provided by Morningstar (China) Research Center, overall, the total rate of American equity funds is 1.39%, while that of domestic equity funds is 2.08%. Looking at the management fees of stock funds alone, China is 1.5%, and the United States is 0.73%.

"Although in absolute terms, China's fund rate is higher than that of the United States, considering the different degrees of development and marketization of the two industries, it is actually difficult to compare." Zhong Heng said that the most obvious difference between the two is that the interest rate of funds in the United States has been declining, while China has remained stable for many years.

Statistics show that in 2006, the total expenses of various funds in the United States decreased from 199 1 by 0.93% to 0.83%. This is mainly due to the scale effect brought by the expansion of fund scale, coupled with the full competition among funds in the American market and the high sensitivity of investors to the rate, which has formed a powerful thrust to promote the rate decline.

Generally speaking, with the rapid expansion of fund scale, investors' demand for low-cost funds will become more and more obvious. Because large-scale funds have advantages in cost performance, small-scale funds will attract customers by canceling some fees in order to attract more investors. Of course, this kind of competition needs to be based on the sensitivity of investors to the level of management fees, which leads to increased competitive pressure among funds.

According to the report of American Investors Association, during the period from 1997 to 2006, 90% investors tend to buy stock funds with below-average rates, which shows that American investors are quite sensitive to the rate level.

On the other hand, the current situation in the United States does not appear: China's fund industry has a short history of development, insufficient product competition, and investors' low sensitivity to the rate, which leads to little change in the fund rate for many years, and the stock fund rate is basically fixed at 1.5%, with no difference among companies.

According to reports, the main factors that determine the fund rate include the investment target, expected income and resource input of the fund. According to the statistics of Morningstar, generally speaking, there are only seven kinds of funds in China, while there are more than 70 kinds in the United States. Specific to equity funds, domestic funds of this kind are very similar, and the investment targets are similar. The competition between funds is mainly ranking rather than rate. All these have led to the firm management fee rate of domestic funds.

Zhong Heng believes that, driven by market forces, the management fee of China fund industry will gradually decrease, which is the general trend. With the diversification of fund products, the competition between funds is becoming more and more full, investors are more and more sensitive to the rate, and the management rate will naturally come down.

Hong Yan, a researcher at Great Wall Securities Fund, agrees. She believes that the direction of the future fund management fee rate is definitely complete marketization, but it takes a process to achieve marketization. The management can consider exploring and implementing a more flexible rate level and collection method from the new fund, which not only effectively protects the interests of investors, but also further encourages outstanding fund managers and promotes the healthy development of the fund industry.

It is reported that at present, Public Offering of Fund in the United States has begun to adopt the charging mode of combining fixed rate and floating rate, which consists of basic management fee and floating management fee, and the latter is based on performance. This new rate model is a more flexible and market-oriented exploration.

(xinhuanet)