The “Old-Guard” Asset Countertrend Play: Market Battles and Long-Term Opportunities Behind New Fund-Raising Difficulties

Introduction

At a time when the AI rally is oscillating at elevated levels, a seemingly contradictory financial phenomenon is unfolding: many new funds focused on traditional “core assets” such as consumer staples and financials are repeatedly extending their subscription periods, and some products have even been delayed twice within half a month before barely crossing the RMB 200 million threshold needed for establishment. These so-called “old-guard” assets are now squeezed from both sides by fund companies' contrarian positioning and the market's tepid response. Behind this phenomenon lies a deeper game between large all-category public funds trying to pre-position for a potential style rotation and investors waiting for confidence to recover. Have old-guard assets entered a value pocket, or is the road to recovery still long? This article analyzes the issue from three dimensions: issuance conditions, market logic, and investment opportunities.

New-Fund Subscription Periods Keep Getting Longer: A True Picture of Issuance Difficulty

Recently, several consumer-theme and broad-based index funds have faced issuance delays, becoming a market focus. A large Shanghai-based public fund's CSI All Share Food ETF originally planned a subscription period from May 11 to June 30, but on June 26 it announced an extension of the deadline to August 7. Similarly, an ETF-linked fund from a large Beijing public fund began selling on April 7, with the deadline pushed from April 30 to July 3; a similar linked fund from a major South China public fund was also adjusted from May 26 to June 9, and finally managed to be established with only RMB 227 million in assets and 2,464 valid subscribers.

According to CSI Index data, the CSI All Share Food Index covers 77 constituent stocks, with the top ten holdings including leading consumer names such as Haitian, Yili, Shuanghui, and Yihai Kerry. There are currently six ETFs tracking this index, all established within the last six months, and the largest has only RMB 141 million in assets. This shows that even a widely representative sector index is facing a cold reception from funds in the current market environment.

It is worth noting that this subscription difficulty is not an isolated case. Under the strong squeeze from the AI rally, active consumer products as well as financial, CSI 300, and similar products are also facing comparable challenges, mostly among large public fund houses. For example, another large Beijing public fund's Consumer Enjoyment Mixed Fund, which began selling on June 1, saw its deadline first extended from June 12 to June 26 and then again on June 26 to July 24. The fund has a stock allocation of 60%-95% and invests in major consumer sectors such as food and beverage and home appliances, as well as discretionary consumer sectors such as beauty care and autos, yet it still struggles to attract enough capital.

In addition, on June 26 a Shanghai-based public fund announced that the deadline for its CSI 300 Quality ETF Link Fund had been extended from that day to July 10; and a large South China public fund's CSI Hong Kong Stock Connect Mainland Financials ETF also announced the same day that its deadline would be pushed to July 3. Together, these cases paint a picture of new funds tied to old-guard assets falling into a broad fundraising slump.

Waiting for a Market Style Rotation: The Contradictory Mindset and Strategic Game of Fund Houses

Amid the elevated volatility of the AI rally, fund companies are positioning against the trend in old-guard assets, reflecting a complex and contradictory mindset. A brand-marketing professional at a large South China public fund said: “The biggest factor affecting fund issuance should be market conditions. Whether it is consumer staples, financials, or the CSI 300, performance this year has been mediocre, and consumer staples have been weak for years. Under these conditions, it is naturally hard for fund launches to attract attention. At this stage, fund houses' main goal is to ensure establishment, but judging from the frequent extensions, even the RMB 200 million threshold is hard to reach.”

A brand professional at a Beijing public fund sees a deeper logic: old-guard assets such as consumer staples have been weak for years, while AI assets have accumulated a lot of unrealized gains. If the market style rotates in the future, old-guard assets may stage a recovery. For large all-category fund houses, pre-positioning in such assets has strategic value—which is one reason why they continue to launch food and consumer funds against the trend. The problem is that even if they barely get established, they still cannot grow if the rally never comes.

According to Wind, at least 20 consumer-theme funds were established year-to-date as of June 26. Fund houses have put significant effort into product naming, adding words like “research-selected,” “selected,” “smart-selected,” “preferred,” and “premium-selected” after “consumer.” But in terms of fundraising scale, the average size of these funds is only RMB 226 million, with 13 of them being initiative-style funds and the rest mostly established at RMB 200-300 million. This “small and scattered” pattern stands in sharp contrast to the huge resources fund houses have invested.

Meanwhile, market performance is not encouraging. On June 26, the Wind Consumer Broad Category Index was already down more than 20% year to date. In daily terms, the index has fallen for nine consecutive sessions since June 15. The consumer funds established this year have generally been underwater since June 15, with the maximum loss reaching 10%. Money has voted with its feet, mercilessly confirming the market's pessimistic expectations for old-guard assets.

The Dilemma of Positioning in Old-Guard Assets: New Funds vs. Existing Funds

A Beijing fund researcher raised a thought-provoking question: “Food and consumer staples still show no clear improvement, but as an all-category fund house, you still need to have some positioning. However, that does not necessarily require a new fund. There are already many existing consumer funds in the market, mostly active equity products, and they achieved good results during the 'core asset' rally in previous years. Moreover, compared with continuously marketing existing funds, new funds require much greater resource input.”

However, the public-fund brand professional above explained the deeper logic behind choosing a new fund. First, many earlier consumer funds were deeply tied to star fund managers of the time. Because the funds grew too large and the strategy was too single-minded, NAVs later suffered big drawdowns, and investor confidence has still not fully recovered. Compared with continuously marketing an old fund, launching a new one makes it easier to tell a new story, shed historical baggage, and attract investors again. Second, new consumer indices have emerged in recent years, such as the CSI All Share Food Index, and fund houses still have incentives to launch corresponding new funds to complete their product lines. This “old bottle, new wine” strategy both follows the trend of index investing and stores ammunition for a future style rotation.

This analysis highlights the dilemma in fund-product layout: fund houses must deal with today's weakness while also preparing for tomorrow's style rotation. New funds require more input but are more flexible and better at storytelling; existing funds have historical performance but struggle to escape concerns about NAV drawdowns. In this context, positioning against the trend in old-guard assets is essentially a bet on the future.

Investment Opportunities: The Rise of Service Consumption and Consumer Healthcare

A Shenzhen equity fund manager offered a different perspective from a fundamentals angle. He pointed out that while consumption has been in a downcycle for the past five years, the stability of consumer stocks has always existed. Taking the liquor and soy-sauce leaders as examples, their full-year 2025 profits are already above the 2020-2021 levels; by contrast, many tech leaders that were equally glamorous back then actually saw losses or sharp earnings declines. This shows that high-quality consumer assets have not lost value because of cyclical adjustments; instead, their earnings resilience is becoming clearer.

The manager believes that since 2025, the market has seen a round of “new consumption” trading, but it was mostly driven by individual stock opportunities and lacked a clear industry-chain logic. Entering 2026, the share of consumption companies with improving data is expected to reach 20%-30%, and the industry-chain clues are clearer, such as service consumption and restaurant supply chains. He particularly emphasized that if consumption is treated as an offensive asset, then excessive emphasis on certainty and dividend yield should be moderated, and growth potential should be given more weight.

Specifically, he likes two directions. One is service consumption with a self-pleasing attribute that requires consumers to devote their “disposable time,” such as travel, sports, and gaming, which may become the new “long slope, thick snow” tracks. These forms of consumption no longer merely satisfy material needs; they focus more on emotional experience and lifestyle upgrades, and therefore have stronger growth and pricing power. The second is essential consumer healthcare, namely the necessary-consumption segment within healthcare, including home medical products, chain pharmacies, and functional medicine. Such assets combine consumer defensiveness with healthcare growth, and in an aging society their demand is relatively certain and persistent.

Conclusion: Positioning in Winter Needs Time to Be Tested

The fundraising difficulties of many new funds tied to old-guard assets are a direct reflection of the current structural market divergence. The strength of the AI rally has concentrated capital into growth assets, while traditional consumer and financial sectors have been marginalized. However, historical experience shows that style rotations often happen unexpectedly. Fund houses positioning against the trend in winter may be laying the groundwork for a potential value rebound.

For investors, the appeal of old-guard assets does not lie in short-term price swings, but in their long-term earnings resilience and valuation-recovery potential. In emerging tracks such as service consumption and consumer healthcare, the next round of growth may be hidden. In any case, this game around old-guard assets will ultimately be verified by time and market-style rotation. While waiting, patience and rationality may be the wisest choice.

(About 1,991 Chinese characters in the original)