First of all, it is reasonable for the fund to hold a group. First, "fund embracing" is an inevitable phenomenon of current supply-side reform. Under the task of "de-capacity, de-inventory, de-leverage, cost reduction and short-board", some small and medium-sized enterprises with backward production capacity will be eliminated through integration and optimization, so that resources will be concentrated in some high-quality large enterprises, thus leading enterprises in various industries will be produced. And by continuously reducing transaction costs, and with the improvement of the bargaining power of leading enterprises, more benefits will be gathered in the upstream leading enterprises, and the profitability of leading enterprises will become stronger and stronger, and they will occupy more market share in the future. Moreover, under the influence of the current epidemic, some small and medium-sized enterprises can't resist the impact of the epidemic and go bankrupt, while large enterprises can adapt well to environmental changes and survive, showing the phenomenon that the strong is king. In this case, everyone will choose leading companies with good development prospects, and natural funds will be invested in leading enterprises in hot industries, and leading enterprises will gradually become sought-after investment targets. Therefore, under the influence of supply-side reform, institutional investors have invested their funds in larger and stronger high-quality enterprises, forming a seemingly "cluster" appearance. Second, "fund hug" is the embodiment of the concept of value investment. When fund managers choose sectors or stocks, they will mainly look at two aspects: performance and growth. Fund managers invest by analyzing the fundamentals of industries and companies, and look for companies' stocks worth investing in. In the capital market, just because great minds think alike, different funds find the same batch of stocks when looking for stocks with increased performance, that is to say, fund managers have the same expectation for the stocks with increased performance selected through various information analysis, thus causing the phenomenon of "holding a group". Coupled with the scarcity of high-quality stocks in the capital market, it is easy for fund managers to be optimistic about the same stock. From this perspective, "holding a group" is only the result of the fund manager's expectation.
Secondly, there may be premeditated "holding a group" and there may be fraud in holding a group of funds. Fund companies earn a certain percentage of management fees, and the fund "holds the group" to push up the stock price, which not only brings higher returns to investors, but also allows fund managers to earn high management fees. If fund companies want to earn more management fees, they need to sell more fund shares to raise more funds. If they want to sell more, they need to make their funds perform well in the market. Therefore, fund managers should either take a steady approach and rely on their own skills to achieve excess performance for a long time, or keep up with the pace and achieve excess performance in a short time by "holding a group". Just like everyone is buying stocks in hot industries such as new energy and medicine, they are making money. Some fund managers quickly follow up to buy the same stock in order not to fall behind, which leads to the so-called "holding a group". This kind of investment behavior is not a correct investment idea, but "following the trend". What's more, fund companies may also have the possibility of fund group fraud. Fund managers may discuss the stocks to be invested in the next step in advance (these stocks often have a lot of room for growth, which is in line with the trend of national policies), and then start selling funds and financing separately, and then invest money in the stocks discussed before, thus driving the stock price to rise, thus making the fund rise, selling more fund shares and earning more management fees. It seems that under the concept of value investment, fund managers find undervalued stocks based on their own judgment, but the essence is "premeditated cooperation" for their own interests, which is illegal. The end result is likely to be that institutions make money and harvest retail investors. In this case, "holding a group" is not only the result, but also the purpose.
The fund can always hold the group and keep rising, and everyone will benefit. But in any case, the price fluctuates around the value, and the pushed-up valuation will eventually return to the performance. If the company's performance growth is in line with market expectations, it can continue to digest the bubble brought by "holding the group" and attract more funds; If not, then the stock price will return to its original value after a short rise, and then be abandoned by capital. Especially for the stock whose share price has been inflated, if a fund manager sells the shares of the group instead of buying them, the fund that sells the shares of the group will gain the most, while other funds that still hold the shares of the group will lose money because of the stock price decline, thus forming a prisoner's dilemma (the best choice of a single fund manager will maximize its own income, but it is not the best choice of the group), which will harm the interests of investors. Or there will be a huge valuation bubble caused by "holding a group" to drive the stock price to rise, but the subsequent company's performance growth can not meet expectations, and the valuation bubble can not be well digested, then the stock price will still fall, and the loss will still be made by retail investors.
Investors need to correctly understand the phenomenon of "holding a group" of funds and respond rationally. Investment funds need rationality and cannot blindly follow the crowd. In short, investment funds should also be cautious.