With the extreme deduction of market style and fierce hammer value investment, fund managers are “taught” by investors to invest and even be a man!
Recently, a letter to Qiu Guolu, chairman of Gaoyi asset private placement, spread on the Internet. In the letter, investors accused Qiu Guolu of poor performance and advised him to learn more from his Feng Liu and Deng Xiaofeng, not to touch products and actual combat, and even criticized value investment as an “umbrella” and “fig leaf”.
It is worth noting that with the gradual retreat of traditional value stocks, whether the value raising public fund managers or private equity fund managers, such as Zhang Kun, Cao Mingchang, Qiu Guogen, Dan Bin, etc., make complaints about investors. However, back to the end of 2017, value investment once won in a shares and was highly sought after by investors.
Thirty years east of the river, thirty years west of the river. From the perspective of extension, “value” and “growth” lead each other in different time periods. What investors need to be vigilant about is the risk of a style going to the extreme.
On August 9, there were signs of style change in the market, funds fled the high boom track, and the chip and lithium battery sectors fell sharply; On the other hand, white horse stocks such as Vanke, poly, Sany Heavy Industry and Hengrui medicine rose sharply.
The net value retreated sharply, and the public and private placement of value school was tested
Value investment has always been regarded by most people as unsuitable for the A-share market. This year, A-shares seem to prove this view again. A group of public and private leaders who are firm in value investment generally withdraw their products.
According to third-party data, as of the end of July, Zhang Kun’s performance this year was – 9.52%, that of the representative products of Dongfang harbor under Dan bin was – 1.39%, and that of dozens of its products fell by more than 10% this year. The performance of representative products of Fengling capital Jinbin, Hanhe capital Luo Xiaochun, Yingfeng Jiang Feng and other deep value leaders also fell by more than 10%, while Gao Yi and Qiu Guolu lost 17.31% this year.
As the net value of products is generally retraced, the value private public giants make complaints about the market. Some private placement had to appease investors, and Dan bin, chairman of Dongfang harbor investment, personally sent a document to apologize. Qiu Guolu, who had a large withdrawal this year, was recently issued by an investor claiming to be Gaoyi assets with a little immature suggestions on Qiu Guolu.
This letter to Qiu Guolu accused Qiu Guolu of poor performance and suggested him to learn more from Feng Liu and Deng Xiaofeng, not to touch products and actual combat, and even “guide” Qiu Guolu to concentrate on the company’s operation, intern training and daily food. This letter also rises to the level of personal attack, attacking value investment as an “umbrella” and “fig leaf”
It is worth noting that back to the end of 2017, value investment once won in a shares and was highly sought after by investors. It was at that time that a group of investors joined the value investment camp. After a painful 2018, value investment remained stable in 2019, but it began to feel uncomfortable in 2020. In 2021, value investment leaders were defeated one after another, embracing growth and the track became the main theme of the market.
Qiu Guolu’s short-term performance is poor, with an annual growth rate of 17% in recent 6 years
As a big man who has been famous for a long time, Qiu Guolu’s performance has been ridiculed. It is understood that Gao yiguolu No. 1 is the product with the longest management time and the largest scale of Qiu Guolu. It was established in February 2015.
First, look at the long-term performance. By the end of 2020, the annualized rate of return of Guolu 1 has been about 17% since its establishment for nearly six years. By the end of July 2021, that is, after a significant retreat this year, the annualized rate of return of guolu-1 has been about 12% since its establishment for more than six years, and about 106% since its establishment, outperforming the Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 index by 41.43% and the average of 54%, that is, its long-term performance still belongs to the better ranks.