The first concentrated implementation of mutual fund performance benchmark adjustments took effect on June 1st.

This date coincided with a sharp decline in A-share tech stocks and a rebound in consumer stocks, raising the question of whether compliance-driven adjustments were the primary driver behind this sector rotation.

Industry insiders from several mutual fund companies interviewed largely dismissed this notion, arguing that attributing this market style shift simply to the benchmark adjustments involves multiple factual discrepancies.

One industry insider explained that, on one hand, the scale of products requiring passive portfolio adjustments is not as large as external speculation suggests.

To avoid market impact and maintain the consistency of a product's original risk-return profile, this round of adjustments primarily involves a post-facto clarification and standardization based on existing holdings.

On the other hand, the adjustments are being implemented in batches and dynamically based on fund size, with the explicit goal of proceeding without causing market disruption.

From a capital flow perspective, the scale of portfolio adjustments attracting market attention may also be limited.

Analysts cited estimates from China Securities Co., Ltd., suggesting that while the fund scale involved in this benchmark adjustment exceeds 390 billion RMB, the proportion requiring substantive portfolio realignment might only be around 10%.

Is the market style rotation related to the benchmark adjustments?

The "Guidelines for Performance Benchmarks of Publicly Offered Securities Investment Funds" issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission officially took effect on March 1st.

Following a three-month transition period, the first batch of adjustments became effective starting June 1st.

According to statistics from a China Securities team, 195 existing funds from 12 fund companies are involved in this performance benchmark adjustment.

The types cover equity funds, hybrid funds, bond funds, FOFs, and QDII funds, representing a comprehensive scope.

The total scale of involved funds is also significant, reaching 391 billion RMB.

In terms of investment types, hybrid funds constitute the majority by number, accounting for 58% of the total.

The scale involved in bond funds is larger, at 188.58 billion RMB, representing approximately 48% of the total scale.

Coinciding with the implementation of these adjustments, the A-share market showed significant divergence over the past two trading sessions: the technology sector suffered heavy losses, while the consumer sector staged a strong rebound.

This starkly contrasting market performance quickly sparked speculation—could the "concentrated portfolio adjustments" triggered by compliance requirements be the main force behind the sector's unusual movement?

However, multiple mutual fund industry insiders interviewed generally hold a negative view, believing that simply attributing this round of market style rotation to benchmark compliance adjustments involves several factual deviations.

A mutual fund insider stated that the recent market adjustment is more likely the result of a combination of factors, including the concentrated release of crowded trades in high-flying tech sectors, increased overall market trading volatility, and the combined effects of technical pressure and external macroeconomic disturbances.

"Forcing a connection to performance benchmark adjustments is, in my understanding, incorrect."

Another insider interpreted the situation from the perspective of the regulatory intent.

They pointed out that the performance benchmarks for many existing products were initially set unscientifically, and this adjustment is essentially a standardization move aligning with the industry's maturation trend.

"Precisely to provide holders with a more stable investment experience, the aim is to align the benchmark with the actual portfolio, not to set a rigid benchmark that forces funds into large-scale portfolio adjustments. The cause and effect cannot be reversed."

Panic selling may be an overreaction.

However, despite institutional emphasis on "limited impact," market doubts have not completely dissipated.

Industry insiders note that for equity funds, their stock position is typically subject to a minimum limit of 80%.

Under rebalancing mechanisms, even if benchmark adjustments strive to align with existing holdings, it is difficult to completely avoid the need for some portfolio adjustments.

"Even if only 10% of the positions require substantive adjustments, this capital flow of approximately 40 billion RMB could still have a marginal impact on individual stocks and sectors within a specific time window and in crowded trading sectors."

In response to the market's "single-factor attribution" linking sector volatility to performance benchmark adjustments, a mutual fund insider offered another perspective: the "portfolio adjustment impact" currently discussed in the market likely confuses two fundamentally different aspects.

"The benchmark adjustment effective on June 1st marks the formal生效 of amended contract clauses for the first batch of fund companies, not a deadline for portfolio adjustments."

The person stated that the core principle of this adjustment is "adjusting the benchmark, not the portfolio," and a one-year smooth transition buffer period has been established for this purpose, aiming to completely eliminate instantaneous impact on the secondary market.

Therefore, concerns about panic selling triggered by benchmark adjustments are an overreaction to the rules and lack a fundamental logic for continuously draining market liquidity.

The person further pointed out that what could truly cause structural shifts of the magnitude seen in "tech plunges and consumer surges" is more likely to be active and concentrated strategic rebalancing by some major market players.

This rebalancing would be based on independent assessments of tech stock trading拥挤度 and short-term valuation泡沫.

The selling observed in recent trading sessions has been decisive and concentrated, which does not align with the smooth,微调 nature of compliance adjustments and may represent active timing behavior based on market judgment.

A cooling in AI investment could become a catalyst for style rotation.

Regarding the outlook for tech stocks, several institutions have returned to fundamentals to provide their respective forecasts.

Soochow Asset Management believes that, firstly, tech stocks, especially those on the STAR Market, have seen significant gains over the past two months, leading to overly crowded positions.

Secondly, valuations on the STAR Market are relatively high.

However, looking ahead, AI may still be a crucial force determining the global economy and stock markets.

Both upstream capital expenditures and downstream applications are experiencing rapid growth.

The corporate profits of major global AI-related companies and price increases across various upstream AI segments corroborate that this trend is likely continuing vigorously.

Therefore, after the adjustment, tech stocks may still be worth关注.

Sun Shuo, Senior Fund Manager of the Equity Investment Department at Manulife Investment Management, pointed out that for the AI sector, two main points warrant attention.

First is the risk of overly rapid AI industry development; if the iteration speed of artificial intelligence exceeds society's capacity to accept and adapt, it could trigger unforeseen conflicts, leading to significant market valuation volatility.

Second is the risk of AI industry development falling short of expectations; with substantial AI capital expenditure in North America in recent years, if industrial implementation progresses slowly, leading to unmet expectations for capital and social resources, it could also bring adjustment pressure to the market.

Pengyang Fund stated that the overall market is in a phase of震荡 adjustment, and the tech sector's pullback is primarily driven by trading structure, but the long-term industry trend remains unchanged.

Considering signs that the current market style is shifting towards balance, investors should seek companies with fundamental certainty within the tech sector.

Market structural配置 attention is转向前期跌幅较大的品种.

"This round of semiconductor行情 has risen for about 28 months, approximately 2-3 months short of the historical average upper limit of about 30 months for stock market trends driven by industry cycles.

Historical patterns may not repeat, but in an environment of tightening liquidity, close attention must be paid to subsequent拐点 in industry data."

Pengyang Fund further added that the current market possesses the necessary conditions for a major style rotation, such as valuation and positioning, but awaits the emergence of three key signals: confirmation of the narrative around strengthening domestic demand and weakening external demand, improvement in corporate earnings data, and recovery in macroeconomic indicators like consumer prices.

A cooling in AI industry investment could potentially become a catalyst for style rotation.