With the completion of the disclosure of the fund’s annual report in 2021, the data on the proportion of shares held by institutional investors disclosed in the fund’s annual report has attracted attention.
“Institutional investors” include insurance companies, pension funds, banks, enterprises and institutions, etc. Institutional investors are more professional than individual holders and are often regarded as “smart money”.
The holding share of institutional investors in a fund is increasing or the proportion of institutions is relatively large, which means that the fund has been recognized by professionals.
Then, can individual investors directly choose the active equity fund with a high proportion of institutional positions to buy it?
fund competition
According to the statistical data provided by Tianxiang investment consulting fund evaluation center, the annual report data of 2021 shows that there are 700 funds in the whole market with institutional positions accounting for no less than 80% (only the main share funds are counted, and the funds whose product establishment time is later than January 1, 2021 are excluded).
According to the number of products, the top ten are e fund (30), Penghua Fund (28), Guoshou Security Fund (24), Huaxia Fund (20), GF Fund (19), Cathay Pacific Fund (18), Boshi Fund (17), BOC Fund (17), Ping An fund (16) and ICBC Credit Suisse Fund (16).
Specifically, the average rate of return of institutional allocation equity products is greater than 4%, of which the highest is the overall average rate of return of Huaxia Fund of 11.68%, and the single product with the largest rate of return also comes from Huaxia Fund. The largest number of institutional allocation products is e fund, while all products allocated to Penghua Fund are positive returns. Among the top ten managers of institutional allocation products, GF has the lowest proportion of products with positive returns, with 73.68% of products with positive returns. In 2021, the CSI 300 index fell by 5.2% in the whole year, and the average yield of products mainly allocated by institutions far exceeded the CSI 300 index.
The 700 products are collected according to the primary classification of Tianxiang funds. The maximum number of flexible allocation hybrid funds is 390, and the maximum average rate of return of active allocation hybrid funds is 10.81%, while all hybrid funds with absolute return target achieve positive returns, and 66.67% of pure index stock funds also achieve positive returns.
According to the statistics of the maximum pullback data for the whole year of 2021, the average pullback of Penghua Fund of – 4.91% is the lowest according to the company’s caliber, which reflects a good risk control ability in the products held by a large proportion of institutions. According to the types of public funds, the minimum average pullback of absolute return target hybrid funds is – 2.81%.
what kind of funds do institutions like
The above is the situation of equity products with high institutional positions. Specifically, the active equity funds that are more concerned by investors (Note: including common stock funds, partial stock hybrid funds, balanced hybrid funds and flexible allocation funds, the same below) are a unique situation.
The 21st Century Business Herald reporter screened according to the data. At the end of 2021, among the active equity funds, there were 379 funds with institutional holders accounting for 90% – 100%, 360 funds with institutional holders accounting for 60% – 90%, and 482 funds with institutional holders accounting for 30% – 60%.
However, funds with institutional holders accounting for more than 90% are not the goal pursued by investors, because for funds with institutional holders accounting for more than 90%, when the redemption pressure is relatively high, there will be a risk of net value fluctuation or even liquidation caused by a large number of institutional redemptions.
Therefore, it is better to take a middle value for the holding proportion of institutional investors, and select 30% – 80% below.
By the end of 2021, a total of 713 active equity funds met this requirement – the proportion held by institutional investors was in the range of 30% – 80%.
Among the active equity funds, the fund managers with institutional holders accounting for 30% – 80% include a group of star fund managers, including Cao Mingchang, Feng Mingyuan, Li Xiaoxing, Lu Bin, Wang Pei, Du Meng, Qiu Dongrong, Zhao Bei, Tan Donghan, Xu Cheng, he Shuai, Yuan Weide, etc.
so what kind of active equity fund does the institution prefer
A typical case is Cinda Aoyin new energy industry fund managed by Feng Mingyuan.
The scale of the fund is 17.5 billion yuan, with 1.146 billion shares held by institutional investors, accounting for 35.16%.
The fund’s earnings for three consecutive years from 2019 to 2021 were 94.11%, 59.88% and 45.37% respectively, with excellent performance. The maximum pullback in these three years was 23%, which was smaller than that of similar technology funds.
At the end of 2021, the fund’s stock position was 94.49%, holding 652 stocks, and the investment was very scattered. The top ten most heavily loaded shares are the top ten of the top ten with the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the top ten of the most heavy warehouse shares that is ‘ Shanghai Putailai New Energy Technology Co.Ltd(603659) , Fangda Carbon New Material Co.Ltd(600516) etc.
The top ten heavyweight stocks of the fund accounted for only 17.86% of the net value of the fund. The highest Shanghai Putailai New Energy Technology Co.Ltd(603659) accounts for only 3.55% of the net fund value.
Feng Mingyuan’s allocation is mainly to invest in new energy, electronics, communications and other technology stocks. The investment is very scattered, so there is little fluctuation in growth funds.
As can be seen from the above cases, summarizing the fund groups favored by institutions, the 21st Century Business Herald reporter found the following characteristics: first, the fund performance is relatively excellent. Generally speaking, the performance of funds with high proportion of institutions will be relatively high-quality, and the income for consecutive years is much higher than that of similar funds, except for some flexible allocation funds (some flexible allocation funds are “fixed income +” funds with low allocation stock positions, with relatively low but stable income).
On the other hand, fund managers are relatively excellent. Institutions are bound to inspect fund managers before investing. Only excellent fund managers can get their favor.
For example, many fund managers are “older generation” fund managers who have experienced multiple bull and bear markets, such as Cao Mingchang, Xu Lirong and Du Meng, who have more than 10 years of fund manager experience; “New generation” fund managers often have excellent performance in recent years. For example, Lu Bin has less than three years as a fund manager, but he won the title of stock fund in 2020, and his performance has been equally dazzling since then; Funds with a high proportion of institutional holders are “Mesozoic” fund managers with stable and excellent performance, such as Zhao Bei, Feng Mingyuan, Li Xiaoxing, etc.
In addition, there are controllable risks. The return of the fund is very stable, and the fluctuation and withdrawal are relatively small.
Among them, many fund managers are balanced allocation fund managers, and the allocation of fund industry and individual stocks is relatively scattered; There are also many “line drawing” fund managers, that is, their net fund value fluctuates less, forming an inclined upward straight line; In addition, there are many investors, such as Cao Dongrui, Qiu Yingrong, etc; At the same time, there are many growth groups, but most of these fund managers are balanced investments, such as Feng Mingyuan, shenaiqian, etc.
Wang Yi, a researcher at Jinzhang investment under GESHANG, said that funds with a high proportion of institutional investors generally have the characteristics of stable style, predictability and strong performance sustainability. For institutional investors, investment funds first determine the position proportion of different assets, different styles and types of funds based on asset allocation and portfolio management, and finally select the excellent funds with predictable performance and strong sustainability among the corresponding styles and types. Therefore, it is very important for funds to have a stable style and no drift in strategy, which means that fund managers have mature investment philosophy, clear investment strategy and perfect investment research system. These funds are more popular with institutional investors.
individual investors want to follow
So, are the funds or fund managers held by these institutions worth following by individual investors?
Tianxiang investment consulting Fund Evaluation Center believes that the comprehensive strength of institutional investors is generally stronger than that of individual investors, especially in terms of product strategy and fund manager screening, which has advantages that ordinary individual investors do not have. Specifically, institutional investors have a wide range of information sources, strong investment research ability, and rich resources for investment management, maintenance and adjustment. Therefore, for ordinary individual investors, when screening specific funds, they can appropriately refer to the indicator of the proportion of institutional positions, which is also an important indicator to disclose the information of institutional fund allocation.
However, Tianxiang investment adviser reminded that in the specific investment practice of individual investors, you can refer to the holder’s structure information to select the base or manager, but you must not make judgment only based on the above information. The main reason is the principle of appropriateness, which is to match the appropriate product strategy with the appropriate investors. Specifically, products suitable for large professional institutions are not necessarily suitable for ordinary individual investors.
Some of these reasons include but are not limited to: different asset allocation considerations of institutions and individuals, different setting of capital investment period, different short-term fluctuation risks they can bear, different capital liquidity needs, etc. The above factors will comprehensively affect the return and risk characteristics, preference and tolerance of investors.
