The function of the fund rating agencies is to collect relevant information about the fund market, and then rank the funds by scientific qualitative and quantitative methods according to the rating standards, the risks arising from the purchase of such funds and the returns that the funds can bring. For your convenience, let's take a look! Let's share with you the necessary conditions for fund rating agencies. Welcome to read!
What is a fund rating agency?
Fund rating agencies are service agencies that provide fund-related information and data to investors and the public, and fund rankings and performance ratings released by research departments are their vital products. For example, CITIC Fund Rating, china galaxy Securities Fund Research Center, Morningstar Fund Rating, Lipper Fund Center, Fitch Fund Rating, etc.
Necessary conditions for fund rating agencies
Because fund rating products are the results of complex mathematical and statistical operations on fund performance, their production process is hidden and the workload of data processing is heavy, so it is obviously unrealistic to account for them one by one. Therefore, the supervision of the fund rating industry should start with the choice of fund rating agencies. By investigating the independence, impartiality and data processing level of fund rating agencies, the quality of fund rating products can be well controlled. A fund rating agency shall meet the following five basic conditions:
independence
Independence means that the information provided by a fund evaluation institution cannot be influenced by the interests and will of any institution or ten people. The results of fund evaluation may involve the interests of many participants in the fund market. If there is an interest relationship between the fund evaluation institution and the relevant participants in the fund market, the fund evaluation results may be influenced by the interests of some participants, thus misleading all users of the evaluation results, making bad decisions on fund selection and investment, and adversely affecting fund sales and fund managers' incentives. At the same time, if the evaluation results can't completely guarantee their independence, the market credibility of the evaluation results will be affected, and even the credibility of the whole fund evaluation industry will be shaken, thus affecting the progress of the industry. Therefore, the independence of fund evaluation institutions is the basis to ensure the fairness and reliability of their evaluation results and corresponding products.
(2) Fairness
The fairness of fund evaluation system and its products is the basis for its market recognition. Fairness includes substantive fairness and formal fairness of fund evaluation products. Substantial fairness means that the evaluation results of each fund should be fair, and the evaluation results of the fund are biased or partial to any fund without any interests or other related reasons. In order to ensure the fairness of fund evaluation in essence, institutions that implement fund evaluation and launch related products must be able to fully guarantee their independence and fairness, gain the trust and recognition of all market participants, that is, let investors believe in the fairness of evaluation results in form, that is, ensure their formal fairness.
(3) Effective data maintenance and processing capabilities
Fund evaluation is a process of data processing, which needs to be based on a huge database and implemented according to certain rules, that is, the fund evaluation index system. The determination and perfection of data processing rules need strong theoretical and market research support. Therefore, having a strong basic database and database processing ability is the basis for the success of fund evaluation products.
(4) Strong financial strength
The establishment and maintenance of the fund evaluation system and the promotion and publicity of the fund evaluation products at the beginning of their launch all require certain manpower, material resources and financial resources. Under normal circumstances, only after the fund evaluation products have relatively extensive market influence and credibility can they gradually generate economic benefits. Therefore, fund evaluation institutions need to have certain financial strength to implement early and early investments or other profitable products to ensure their future success.
(5) Efficient information dissemination and promotion channels.
In addition to ensuring the scientific and fair index system of fund evaluation, successful marketing is also an important guarantee for the commercial success of fund evaluation products. Smooth information distribution channels and flexible and diverse promotion methods are the basis for the commercial promotion of fund evaluation products. Therefore, a smooth and efficient channel for the release and promotion of fund evaluation results is an important support for the success of fund evaluation.
Present situation of performance evaluation institutions of important international funds
(1) Differences in business scope.
Lipper, Morning Star, Standard & Poor's. PMicropal and GlobalFundAnalysis are specialized fund evaluation institutions, focusing on fund performance evaluation, developing dozens of products for different customers and expanding income channels, which is also a magic weapon for fund evaluation of enterprise survival and progress. Standard & Poor's. Standard & Poor's and Moody's are credit rating companies and also engage in fund evaluation. Fund performance evaluation is just one of their many rating businesses.
(2) The evaluation objects are slightly different.
Lipper, Morning Star, Standard & Poor's. PMicropal has set up branches in key fund markets, so their evaluation targets cover almost all kinds of funds publicly issued in most countries and regions around the world. In contrast, GlobalFundAnalysis and Moody's evaluation objects are relatively narrow. GlobalFundAnalysis is very important to nearly 10 thousand kinds of international offshore funds, and Moody's is very important to bond funds and money market funds.
(3) Evaluation methods have their own characteristics.
Moody's and Standard Poor's; PMicropal adopts the ranking method of stars. GlobalFundAnalysis uses the asterisk rating of the scoring method. Standard & Poor's. P'S and Mgody's follow the symbol of credit rating, and give the rating of the rated fund through substantive analysis and standard judgment. Lipper's rating results are not marked by specific symbols, but announced by sorting, evaluating and listing indicators.
(4) Different profit models.
Standard & Poor's. PMicropal has a fund rating business, applying for fund performance evaluation, and charging a certain fee at the request of fund managers, while most fund performance evaluation companies only obtain income by providing services derived from fund performance evaluation such as fund data, investment analysis tools, research reports and online services. For example, Momingstar provides institutional investors with asset management analysis software, with an annual usage fee of $545, online paying customers pay $99, and the published Morning Star * * * and Fund costs $500 in magazine subscription.
Practice of China Fund Evaluation Agency
1999-2000, China's capital reached a peak of progress, and at the same time it had a great impact on the securities market. Funds have gradually attracted the attention of investors, and various research institutions have begun to increase their research efforts on funds. At first, the research on the fund mainly focused on the concepts of fund heavy stocks and fund investment. At the same time, although some non-mainstream institutions, such as Shenzhen Pengyuan Credit Rating Enterprise and He Kang Financial Consulting Enterprise, have also done research on fund performance evaluation, they have not formed market influence. The fund rating of Pengyuan credit rating enterprise directly adopts Micropal's rating method. However, due to the rating time interval and data collection problems, the rating results were questioned by fund management companies and eventually dropped.
After 200 1, the market gradually attached importance to the research of funds, and many research departments of securities firms set up special fund research groups. The fund research strength within the insurance company also supports the fund investment, and the fund performance evaluation is the focus of its fund research. Among them, Galaxy Securities Fund Research and Evaluation Center and CITIC Securities Fund Classification have formed a wide range of market influence, and Ping An Insurance has also achieved certain results by learning from Momenstar's evaluation method. Fund evaluation by independent third-party organizations has also appeared one after another, such as Tianxiang Investment Fund Rating by the Financial Engineering Laboratory of the Chinese University of Science and Technology and Credit Suisse Fund Rating.
At present, domestic fund performance evaluation is still in the research and experimental stage, far from reaching the trend of forming an industry, and the evaluation method needs to be gradually improved.
1. Non-independent brokerage research institutions dominate.
Although there is nothing unfair about the fund evaluation of brokerage research institutions from the current pure quantitative evaluation system, because of the equity relationship and customer relationship between brokerage and fund, brokerage research institutions can't avoid the suspicion of interest relationship (although it doesn't necessarily exist) in fund evaluation based on quantitative evaluation, and it is difficult to guarantee that they can provide investors with real fund research reports that can tap value and control crisis, especially public reports for public investors. However, due to the problems of information sources and research resources, it is difficult for independent third parties to dig out real research materials and give detailed value judgments and crisis tips. This is the dilemma faced by fund evaluation.
2. The existing fund evaluation only stays at the level of performance evaluation, but the content of fund evaluation is much broader.
On the basis of performance evaluation, style analysis, crisis evaluation, management evaluation and many other aspects are indispensable contents of fund evaluation. In particular, style analysis and crisis assessment can enable investors to form a deep understanding of the characteristics of funds, so as to choose fund products that meet their investment habits, rather than relying solely on historical performance to make judgments.
3. Performance evaluation.
Most of the existing methods directly apply classical rhyme performance evaluation indicators and models, and list income indicators, crisis indicators or income indicators after crisis adjustment in detail. But at present, there is no comprehensive evaluation method which not only conforms to the basic principles of fund performance evaluation, but also has its own distinctive characteristics. At the same time, this evaluation method is easy to understand and can be accepted by investors, especially non-professional investors. The basic rating methods and models of some institutions are too complicated for non-professional investors to understand, which affects the recognition and spread of performance evaluation results in the market.
4. Just stay in the release stage of rating or ranking results.
Because it has not reached the level of producing a large number of related products based on evaluation, let alone the industrialization of research results and finding a suitable profit model. Of course, there are also problems of evaluation institutions themselves, such as evaluation methods, market positioning, etc., but the urgent problems focus on the underdeveloped fund market, the lack of rich fund products and the diverse demand for fund information and data. The progress of fund performance evaluation must complement the progress of fund market.