As the 2026 interim reporting season kicks off, 16 public fund firms have released their first-half financial results. Among the "trillion-yuan" non-money-market fund scale camp, China Asset Management Co., Ltd. (China AMC) and Fullgoal Fund Management Co., Ltd. (Fullgoal) were the first to disclose their performance figures. During the first half of the year, China AMC generated revenue of 5.708 billion yuan and net profit of 1.413 billion yuan, representing year-on-year growth of 34.05% and 25.82%, respectively. Meanwhile, Fullgoal posted revenue of 4.349 billion yuan and net profit of 1.143 billion yuan, up 30.63% and 23.74% year-on-year, respectively.

It is worth highlighting that China Southern Asset Management Co., Ltd. (China Southern), which sits in the "near-trillion" tier with non-money-market fund assets of 882.1 billion yuan, achieved a first-half net profit of 1.503 billion yuan. This surpasses China AMC by 90 million yuan and Fullgoal by 360 million yuan, with a year-on-year growth rate of 25.86%. In terms of revenue, China Southern ranked second with 5.014 billion yuan, trailing only China AMC, while outperforming Fullgoal by 665 million yuan.

Looking at scale data, China Southern's non-money-market fund assets stood at 882.1 billion yuan, an increase of 8 billion yuan from the start of the year, reflecting a steady expansion of its asset base. By contrast, China AMC's non-money-market fund scale reached 1,393.95 billion yuan but shrank by 174.5 billion yuan during the period, marking the second-largest decline after HuaTai柏瑞's 253.38 billion yuan reduction. Fullgoal, on the other hand, saw its non-money-market fund scale grow by 169.32 billion yuan to 1,057.82 billion yuan, the largest increment across the industry.

However, the landscape for ETF scale growth tells a distinctly different story. In the second quarter, China AMC's ETF scale surged by 326.8 billion yuan, ranking first in the industry. E Fund added 257.1 billion yuan, China Southern increased by 147.5 billion yuan, while Fullgoal only managed a modest 34.8 billion yuan increase. This divergence reflects strategic differences among the fund firms: China AMC has adopted ETFs as its spearhead, aggressively expanding into niche tracks, albeit at the cost of substantial overall scale contraction. In contrast, Fullgoal and China Southern have prioritized a more balanced approach between scale growth and profitability.

Examining the profit-generating capacity of individual products, China AMC's flagship offerings, including the STAR 50 ETF, semiconductor chip ETF, semiconductor materials and equipment theme ETF, and CSI 300 ETF, have achieved higher concentration of top-tier profits. Its TOP 10 profitable products generated combined profits of approximately 102.1 billion yuan, double that of China Southern's TOP 10. However, China AMC's top profit contributors are predominantly passive index funds with lower fee structures—only one of its top ten is an actively managed partial equity fund—resulting in relatively lower revenue conversion efficiency.

In contrast, China Southern's TOP 10 profitable products present a more diversified structure: six passive index funds, one hybrid bond fund, and three actively managed partial equity funds. This balanced composition stands in sharp contrast to China AMC's heavy reliance on passive strategies.

The gap on the loss side is even more pronounced. During the first half, China AMC's TOP 10 loss-making products recorded combined losses of approximately 40.9 billion yuan, with total assets under management reaching 138.6 billion yuan. Meanwhile, China Southern's TOP 10 loss-making products incurred combined losses of only about 9.2 billion yuan, with total scale of just 83.3 billion yuan. Notably, losses from just two products—the China AMC Hang Seng Internet Technology ETF and the China AMC Hang Seng Tech ETF—already far exceeded the combined losses of all of China Southern's TOP 10 loss-makers.

Despite these headwinds, China AMC continues to launch passive index funds. Of the 41 new funds established this year, 27 are passive index ETFs and feeder funds, covering a wide range of niche tracks including semiconductor materials and equipment, new energy batteries, industrial internet, chemicals, rare metals, power, grain, petroleum, and construction machinery. However, the majority of these ETFs saw issuance shares concentrated at just 200 to 300 million units. For instance, the Chemical ETF China AMC attracted only 204 million units, the Industrial Internet ETF China AMC 253 million units, and the Rare Metals ETF China AMC 231 million units. Several ETF feeder funds even recorded issuance shares below 20 million units. Such small-scale products are likely to degenerate into "mini funds" in the future, which not only fail to contribute meaningful profits but also continuously consume valuable resources in research, operations, and sales.

According to CITIC Securities' interim report, China AMC's directly managed asset scale has reached 2,907.998 billion yuan, with nearly 1.2 trillion yuan under management across the three pillars of pension investments. Its actively managed equity funds, bond funds, and social security mandates have all achieved steady growth, while its equity ETF and REITs businesses maintain industry-leading positions.

If "those who win ETFs win the market" is an industry consensus, China AMC's absolute dominance in ETFs should logically translate into profit advantages. Even amid the ongoing fee reduction trend, profitable ETFs in directions such as semiconductors and the STAR Market continue to deliver substantial returns. Yet, while China AMC's TOP 10 profitable products are twice those of China Southern, its TOP 10 loss-makers are more than four times larger. After balancing the gains and losses, the advantages from top-tier profits are largely eroded by significant losses at the tail end. Between scale expansion and profit efficiency, China Southern's profit overtake may well signal a shift in the industry's underlying logic.