Over 70% of Private Securities Products Profit in First 5 Months 前5个月超七成私募证券产品“赚钱”

Over 70% of products are profitable? This figure sounds like a carefully packaged victory. When the data from Private Fund Ranking Network puts "72.68%" on the table, a giant question mark actually hangs in the air: over the past five months marked by a series of policy stimuli and sentiment reversals, is achieving positive returns with a sound investment strategy truly an "impressive" result, or has it merely reached the "survival line"? If the market as a whole rises, most boats will be lifted by the tide—this does not prove the skill of every helmsman. The truly cruel test comes when the tide recedes, revealing who is skin-swimming. Moreover, the distribution of this 72.68% profitability is likely highly uneven. Leading quantitative funds and a few directional longs that caught thematic trends are raking in profits, while followers may have only barely "recovered" or are still struggling in the deep waters of net asset values. Using a broad "profitability" ratio to gloss over the industry's ecosystem feels more like psychological massage for investors than a sober self-assessment of performance.

If private fund data is the foam floating on the surface, the A-share index system beneath the surface is undergoing a silent yet seismic tectonic shift. The addition of 374 new indices within the year itself carries an almost obsessive frenzy. We seem to have entered an "era of the Great Leap Forward" in indexing: robotics, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, new power systems... every trend is quickly dismantled, numbered, and packaged into tradeable symbols. The underlying logic is raw and efficient: wherever there is a capital narrative, index products emerge to absorb it; wherever there is a policy tailwind, financial engineering arrives for "precision irrigation." This undoubtedly reflects market agility and capital efficiency, but it also reveals a profound anxiety over homogenization—as if failing to label every sub-sector would mean missing the train of the times.

More intriguing is the "systematic revision" of index rules. Introducing ESG negative screening and adjusting sample sizes—these technical adjustments are assigned grand missions of "enhancing the accuracy of market representation" and "guiding new quality productive forces." Yet we must be wary of the discursive traps herein: indices, tools meant to reflect the market as objectively as possible, are being loaded with an increasing number of value-driven filters. ESG is beneficial, and supporting new quality productive forces is necessary, but when index providers—be they exchanges or commercial firms—begin to act as "referees," using complex rule sets to predefine "what constitutes a good company" and "what represents the future," is the purity of indices and the diversity of the market being quietly eroded? The market needs a true mirror, not a portrait touched up with beauty filters. Overly embellished indices may ultimately lose their core value as market benchmarks, becoming merely another thematic investment tool.

The profitability celebration of private funds and the refined expansion of indices together outline a picture of the current market: lively on the surface, divergent underneath; tools increasingly abundant, yet market beta returns may become ever harder to capture. Investors face not simpler choices, but a labyrinth woven from more concepts, more labels, and more narratives. That golden figure of "72.68%" might well be the most enticing neon sign at the labyrinth’s entrance. It lights the way for some, while leaving many others deep in the maze, exhaustingly chasing the next numbered "trend."

七成以上产品盈利？这个数字听起来像是一场精心包装的胜利。当私募排排网的数据把“72.68%”摆在台面上时，一个巨大的问号其实已经悬在空中：在经历了一系列政策刺激与情绪反转的前五个月里，一个健全的投资策略取得正收益，究竟是“不俗”的成绩，还是仅仅达到了“生存线”？如果市场整体上行，大部分船都会被潮水抬高，这并不能证明每个舵手的技术。真正残酷的考验，是潮水退去时，谁在裸泳。而这72.68%的盈利分布，恐怕极不均匀，头部量化与少数抓住主题的主观多头赚得盆满钵满，而跟风者或许只是勉强“回血”，甚至仍在净值的深水区挣扎。用一个笼统的“赚钱”比例来粉饰行业生态，更像是一种面向投资者的心理按摩，而非冷静的业绩自白。

如果说私募数据是浮在水面上的泡沫，那么水面下的A股指数体系，则正在发生一场静默却剧烈的地壳运动。年内新增374条指数，这个数字本身就带着一种近乎偏执的狂热。我们似乎进入了一个“指数大跃进”时代：机器人、半导体、人工智能、新型电力系统……每个风口都被迅速拆解、编号、打包成一个可供交易的符号。这背后的逻辑赤裸而高效：哪里有资金叙事，哪里就有指数产品来承接；哪里是政策风口，哪里就有金融工程来“精准滴灌”。这固然体现了市场的敏锐与资本的效率，但也透露出一种深刻的同质化焦虑——仿佛不为每个细分赛道贴上标签，就会错过时代的列车。

更值得玩味的是指数规则的“系统性修订”。引入ESG负面剔除、调整样本容量，这些技术性调整被赋予了“提升市场表征准确性”和“引导新质生产力”的宏大使命。但我们不得不警惕其中的话语陷阱：指数，这个本应尽可能客观反映市场面貌的工具，正在被加载越来越多的、带有明确价值导向的筛选器。ESG是好的，对新质生产力的支持也是必要的，但当指数编制机构——无论是交易所还是商业公司——开始以“裁判员”身份，用一套套复杂规则预先定义“什么是好公司”、“什么代表未来”时，指数的纯粹性与市场的多元性是否正在被悄然侵蚀？市场需要的是真实的镜子，而不是经过美颜和滤镜的画像。过度修饰的指数，最终可能失去其作为市场基准的核心价值，沦为另一种主题投资工具。

私募的盈利狂欢与指数的精细化扩张，共同勾勒出一幅当前市场的图景：表面热闹，内里分化；工具日益丰富，但市场的β收益却可能越来越难捕捉。投资者面对的不是更简单的选择，而是一个由更多概念、更多标签、更多叙事编织成的迷宫。那个“72.68%”的金色数字，或许正是这个迷宫入口处最诱人的霓虹灯牌。它照亮了一部分人的道路，也让更多人在迷宫深处，为寻找下一个被编号的“风口”而疲于奔命。