"The fund should really be a chicken, or a hen that can only lay eggs for investors." Recently, the senior management of Cinda Aussie Fund Company wrote an article to promote the leading growth of its first fund, Cinda Aussie Fund.
However, some market participants pointed out that as a new company established more than three years ago, Cinda Australia Bank has shortcomings in comprehensive investment and research capabilities, frequent job-hopping of fund managers, and basic understanding of funds by company executives, which may add more uncertainty to the company's prospects.
Insufficient professional qualifications
In the related publicity, Cinda Aussie Bank claimed to be the first asset management company to make a fund, emphasizing the background of the major shareholder's asset management company. However, this kind of propaganda is quite a diversion.
Cinda Asset Management Company, the major shareholder of Cinda Australia Bank, was established on 1999. Although it has the name of an asset management company, its main business is not the securities asset management generally understood by ordinary people, but "using the special legal status and professional advantages endowed by the state to manage and dispose the assets formed by the acquisition of non-performing loans from China Construction Bank and China Development Bank, so as to preserve assets to the maximum extent and reduce losses."
To put it simply, the major shareholder of Cinda Aussie Bank is best at dealing with bank bad debts and has no special advantage in the field of securities investment. As a fund company, if it is based on good faith, there is no need to overemphasize the background of the major shareholder's asset management company, because it is easy for investors to misunderstand after all.
Fund returns are like hens laying eggs? Improper understanding of company executives
Recently, He, the chairman of Cinda Aussie Bank, wrote that "funds should be chickens". "Some funds have good performance, more dividends, some poor performance and less dividends, just like some hens lay more eggs, some have fewer eggs and small eggs."
Market participants pointed out that the above remarks of Cinda Australia Bank executives were obviously suspected of misquoting and misleading the public. The subscription and redemption mechanism of open-end stock funds can ensure that the holders realize the benefits through redemption. Only when the fund company is not optimistic about the market outlook, it is necessary to return the funds to investors through dividends. It is obviously misleading to compare the fund to a chicken and measure the performance of the fund with dividends. In the early stage, some funds paid dividends for marketing needs, actually at the expense of the interests of old holders. If the senior executives of Cinda Australia do not correct their misconceptions in time, it is easy to make decisions that are not conducive to the interests of the holders in the future.
Frequent job-hopping of fund managers has caused controversy.
Generally speaking, the professional quality and investment ability of securities investment fund managers are of great concern to the holders. The resume of the fund manager of Cinda Aussie Bank's first fund shows that he has many job-hopping experiences. Previously, the fund manager had served as the investment director and fund manager of three fund companies, but the longest term was only a little over two and a half years, and the shortest was only one year.
In overseas mature markets, frequent job-hopping of fund managers is often regarded as a taboo. Because the reason why the fund manager is introduced in the fund prospectus is actually a promise made to the holder by contractual relationship, that is, the fund manager is one of the important factors for investors to choose funds.
If the fund manager is changed frequently, the investment ideas of the new fund manager are difficult to be completely consistent with those of the original fund manager. Therefore, the cost and risk of stock transfer brought by the change of fund manager will be passed on to the holders, which is unfavorable to investors.
In addition, Cinda Aussie Bank, as a new company, is relatively weak in overall strength due to its small number and short establishment time. Whether it is competent for fund management with a scale of no more than 9 billion is worth observing.
In addition, the company's investment audit committee consists of five members, including general manager Li Kenan and two other non-professional investors, one is the company's marketing director and the other is the company's operation director. As the highest decision-making body of investment and research, there are too many non-professional investors, which will inevitably affect the professionalism of investment decision-making. (Qi) According to
National business daily