"Chasing Gains Actively" "Disguised Concealment" Why Are These Thematic Funds "Not Matching the Description"?

Shortly after the start of 2026, complaints about “style drift” in funds have frequently appeared on major sales platforms. The industry issue of “style drift” has existed for a long time, and some funds driven by interests are becoming more and more intense. Journalists tracked that by the end of 2025, among the 13 funds identified as “style drift” by third-party fund evaluation agency Ji’an Jinxin in Q2 2025, 6 funds not only failed to correct their drift, but some even showed a new trend of “AI grouping” in Q4, forming a “second drift.”

Many industry insiders believe that under the strong regulatory background of the China Securities Regulatory Commission’s release of the “Guidelines for Performance Benchmarks of Publicly Offered Securities Investment Funds,” which took effect on March 1, the industry’s longstanding issues will gradually be corrected, promoting a return to the essence of fiduciary duty.

“Second Drift” Puzzle: From “Passive Defense” to “Proactive Chase”

At the beginning of 2026, “style drift” seems to have become a frequently mentioned complaint about some funds. Huabao Nasdaq Select, heavily invested in NIO and missing out on the US stock rally, has faced strong dissatisfaction from investors; even more rarely, on January 13, the Shanghai Hongkou Court held a hearing for a case where investors sued both the fund company and the fund manager. The involved fund, Guotou Ruiyin Jinbao, shifted from a heavy position in new energy to AI technology stocks, raising suspicion of serious style drift.

According to Ji’an Jinxin’s earlier release of the “2025 Q2 Public Fund Rating Report,” 13 funds were identified as having style drift issues. Journalistic follow-up found that by the end of 2025, 6 of these funds still exhibited style drift, with some even experiencing a “second drift.”

The China Post Health Entertainment Flexible Allocation Hybrid Fund is a typical example of “second drift.” According to Ji’an Jinxin’s Q2 2025 rating, the fund was already identified as drifting due to heavy holdings in AI computing hardware; however, quarterly reports show that instead of returning to health and entertainment themes, the fund continued to heavily invest in high-profile AI hardware and new energy stocks like Tianci Materials, Industrial Fuxin, and Huasheng Lithium, with a high concentration of 37.8% in top holdings.

Worse still, fund manager Gong Zheng explicitly stated in the quarterly report, “Considering that the computing power and lithium battery sectors, which have large holdings, saw significant gains in 2025, we will appropriately control positions in Q1 2026 and wait for new opportunities to add.”

A relevant person from a Shanghai fund evaluation agency said that early “style drift” mainly involved heavy positions in low-valuation sectors like banking and electricity, which was a defensive deviation. Now, the collective shift toward AI computing, new energy, and innovative drugs is essentially another form of thematic betrayal. The danger of this “second drift” is that fund managers are not unaware of their drift but choose to “go along with it” despite knowing it violates regulations for short-term performance rankings.

Data shows that the China Post Health Entertainment Flexible Allocation Hybrid Fund achieved an 83.52% return in 2025, ranking high among peers. “Although some drifting funds gained considerable returns in 2025 by heavily investing in AI, these gains are based on breach of contract. Once market styles switch, drifting funds will face a dilemma of double losses: missing the rebound of their original themes and standing at high positions in hot sectors,” the insider said.

BaoYing Modern Service Industry Hybrid Fund has demonstrated an advanced version of “second drift.” The fund’s contract clearly requires focusing on productive and residential services, but Q2 2025 data shows it was heavily invested in the pharmaceutical sector; quarterly reports reveal further concentration in Cinda Biotech, Kelun Botech, and Hengrui Medicine, with a 65% holding in these innovative drugs and AI hardware stocks. Fund manager Yao Yi explicitly stated in the quarterly report, “Although the innovative drug sector continued to fluctuate in Q4, we will continue to strategically allocate to this sector.”

The “second drift” of the Jiashi Green Theme Stock Initiating Fund is somewhat controversial. Market understanding suggests that this fund should focus on environmental protection, low-carbon, and new energy industries. However, Q2 2025 data shows it was heavily invested in semiconductor stocks, focusing on the semiconductor supply chain, with a 71% holding; Q4 2025 data shows the fund manager Cai Chengfeng still held positions in Lanke Technology, GigaDevice, and other semiconductor stocks, with holdings increasing to 82.5%.

A related Jiashi fund official said that there are differing opinions on whether Jiashi Green Theme has drifted, mainly because the market’s definition of “green” varies. The fund’s contract clearly defines “green themes” as focusing on sectors benefiting from China’s economic restructuring and industrial upgrading under the new development concepts of innovation, coordination, green, openness, and sharing, selecting high-quality companies with core competitive advantages and sustainable growth potential.

“The fund’s investment scope mainly includes two areas: one is green low-carbon transformation, including new energy, new materials, smart vehicles, energy conservation and environmental protection, industrial internet, IoT, biomedicine; the other is green low-carbon technology R&D and application, including new-generation information technology, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, high-end equipment, and other sectors integrated with green low-carbon industries.” The official added that, according to Shenwan Hongyuan’s industry classification, the listed companies related to the green theme mainly distribute across communications, computers, electronics, machinery, power equipment, transportation, non-ferrous metals, basic chemicals, utilities, environmental protection, automotive, and biomedicine.

Varieties of Drift: From “Deep Drift” to “Invisible Disguise”

Besides the above “second drift” cases, three other funds show different aspects of style drift, forming a chaotic picture of “mismatch between claims and reality.”

Taxin Modern Service Industry Hybrid is a typical example of “deep drift.” Its name clearly indicates a focus on commerce, leisure services, and transportation, but Q2 2025 data shows it was heavily invested in lithium mining stocks; quarterly reports reveal its top nine holdings are still Tianci Materials, Yahua Group, Tianhua New Energy, and other new energy chain companies, which are completely inconsistent with the modern service industry theme.

Beixin Ruifeng’s Extensional Growth Theme Flexible Allocation faces a dual dilemma of “misleading name” and imminent liquidation. Its name emphasizes “extensional growth,” which should focus on M&A and expansion, but Q2 2025 data shows heavy holdings in power stocks; quarterly reports show its top ten holdings include Guiguan Power, Huaneng Hydropower, Zijin Mining, and other utilities and non-ferrous metals. The fund’s current size is only 0.16 billion yuan, on the verge of liquidation, with style drift and risk of closure coexisting.

More covert is Jinxin Intelligent China 2025’s “invisible drift.” In Q2 2025, it was identified as drifting due to heavy holdings in bank stocks; quarterly reports show that although two new semiconductor stocks were added, its top eight holdings remain concentrated in banking and insurance sectors, including ICBC, Industrial Bank, with a combined share of 42.85%. Fund manager Tan Jiajun stated in the quarterly report that the allocation was in “financial services intelligence,” but in reality, it remains a “repackaged” traditional banking stock.

Notably, not all funds choose to “go along with it.” CCB Innovation Leading Hybrid, despite heavy holdings in banks and power stocks in Q2 2025 being identified as style drift, in its quarterly report, its top ten holdings have been largely adjusted to tech growth stocks like CATL, Zhitong Xuchuang, and Tianci Materials, completing correction—forming a stark contrast with “second drift” funds.

Strong regulatory “tightening”: New regulations and industry reshaping

Amid chaos, regulators have taken strong action. The governance of “style drift” funds has entered a phase of “strict constraints.”

On March 1, 2026, the China Securities Regulatory Commission officially implemented the “Guidelines for Performance Benchmarks of Publicly Offered Securities Investment Funds.” Seen as a “rebuilding of industry investment culture,” this document marks the industry’s formal departure from the previous “light benchmarks, heavy rankings” approach.

It requires that the investment directions, strategies, and risk-return characteristics specified in fund contracts must be “three-matched” with the benchmarks; for active equity funds with long-term underperformance relative to benchmarks, fund managers’ performance-based pay should significantly decrease.

For existing funds, a 12-month transition period is set for rectification. This means that the “style drift” products, including the six mentioned above, must correct their drift before March 2027, or face stricter regulatory measures.

Many insiders say that when “Health and Entertainment” funds can openly hold AI computing stocks, it not only damages individual investors’ rights but also undermines the fundamental trust of the public fund industry in “trusteeship and client management.” With the implementation of the new performance benchmark rules, the industry is undergoing a profound shift from “ranking battles” to “contract adherence.” This is not only the best protection for financial consumers but also the only way for high-quality industry development. In the future, under the “tightening” of strong regulation, fund managers attempting to chase short-term gains through “second drift” will realize that compliance is the longest shortcut, and the spirit of contracts is the greatest moat.