Since March 2026, securities regulators have mandated that mutual fund distributors display the fund's contractual performance benchmark alongside the fund's historical returns in the same screen location. A one-year transition period was set for compliance, and with nearly half of that period now elapsed, a survey of 15 major institutions reveals a stark divide in implementation progress.

Banks and securities firms have largely completed the required system upgrades, while independent fund distributors are lagging behind. Even among those that have implemented the benchmark display, the metrics are often buried deep within the app interface, requiring users to manually search for them, rather than being prominently featured.

Banks and Brokerages Lead Compliance Efforts

The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) formally issued the "Guidelines for the Performance Benchmark of Publicly Offered Securities Investment Funds" in January 2026, which took effect in March 2026. Article 16 mandates that when displaying interval performance for equity funds, hybrid funds, and fund of funds (FOFs) in graphical, tabular, or textual form, the fund's corresponding performance benchmark must be shown in the same location. The one-year transition period ends on March 1, 2027.

A review of the top-ranking banks, brokerages, and independent distributors by equity fund sales scale shows a significant gap in progress. Banks and brokerages have generally moved faster, with most already displaying the performance benchmark line alongside the fund's performance curve. However, some institutions still only show broad-market indices, industry benchmarks, or hide the actual performance benchmark.

From a 'availability' perspective, banks, as the dominant force in public fund distribution, have shown relatively strong compliance. Among the five major banks tested, China Merchants Bank, Bank of China, Bank of Communications, and Agricultural Bank of China have all completed the transformation, displaying the performance benchmark curve on the fund's performance chart. In contrast, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China currently uses broad-market indices like the CSI 800, CSI 300, and Shenzhen Component Index as references, rather than the fund's specific benchmark.

Among the top five independent distributors by equity fund scale, Tiantian Fund and JD Kenterui Fund have added the performance benchmark curve. However, Ant Fund still displays industry benchmarks and broad indices, while Tencent Asset Management and Yingmi Fund only show broad-market index comparisons. One independent distributor revealed that its app's benchmark transformation is still in the planning stage, with a target completion date by the end of 2026.

For the top five brokerages, more than half have completed the transformation. Huatai Securities, China Merchants Securities, and GF Securities now display the performance benchmark curve, while CITIC Securities and Guotai Haitong Securities currently only offer broad-market index comparisons.

Non-Compliant Displays Can Lead to Misinterpretation

The disparity in progress between banks and independent distributors or brokerages stems from differences in regulatory pressure and system upgrade costs. Banks face stricter regulatory oversight and heavier penalties, pushing them to prioritize compliance. Their centralized IT architectures and standardized data governance also make it technically easier to access benchmark data from custodians and fund companies.

Independent distributors, with their vast product shelves and diverse page formats, face a higher technical challenge. Their business model, heavily reliant on interval return rankings for traffic generation, creates a conflict of interest with the new rules. Brokerages, juggling on-exchange and off-exchange distribution and investment advisory portfolios, have complex data reporting structures that require cross-system integration, lengthening the upgrade cycle.

A key difficulty lies in data governance, system integration, and user experience. The core challenge is ensuring precise matching and dynamic updating of performance data for each fund across all intervals. Redesigning the front-end interface to display multiple data sets with equal prominence in a limited space is also a significant hurdle.

Misleading displays can distort investor perception. For example, the E Fund Healthcare Industry Hybrid A fund shows a one-year cumulative return of 0.13% as of August 12. When compared to the CSI 300 index, it appears to have significantly underperformed. However, when comparing it to its actual performance benchmark, the fund's return is shown to be a "win" against a -5.84% benchmark. This demonstrates how an improper comparison can mask a fund's true performance and mislead investors about its active management capabilities.

Ultimately, replacing the performance benchmark with other indices undermines its function as an "anchor" and "yardstick," preventing investors from assessing a fund's true investment direction, risk profile, and the manager's skill. This exacerbates information asymmetry, contradicting the CSRC's investor-centric principle.

Redefining the Industry's Standard

The issue is not theoretical. Many investors on social media platforms admit they have never noticed the performance benchmark and do not know how to use it to evaluate a fund. A clear performance benchmark helps investors understand a fund's investment strategy and risk-return profile. A standardized, side-by-side display allows them to intuitively judge whether a fund is truly outperforming its benchmark, lowering the barrier to investment decision-making.

Industry participants believe that standardized display will push sales institutions to transition from a "product-selling" to a "buy-side" advisory model. By providing a more objective assessment, it encourages a focus on "helping clients choose the right products and allocate assets" rather than just selling products. This will force sales teams to enhance their investment research and professional advisory capabilities, relying on real asset allocation skill rather than marketing hype to win client trust.

From a broader industry perspective, the new rules aim to standardize fund sales information disclosure, correct the one-sided focus on absolute returns, and guide the industry back to a rational evaluation and promotion model. However, these positive changes depend on the "side-by-side" display being implemented effectively. With the transition period nearly half over, institutions that have not yet completed the transformation must accelerate their efforts to ensure the fund's contractual performance benchmark is prominently displayed, allowing investors to see and compare clearly.