A fake ranking list has healed 270 million investors.

Ask AI · Why can fake rankings hit investors’ emotional pain points?

Leading brokerages are undergoing critical changes

Skyworth Wallpaper TV A10H “Emerges Suddenly”

===

Source | Deep Blue Finance

Written by | Wang Xin

Today, a list titled “Q1 2026 Billion-Scale Active Equity Private Funds Top 20 Decliners” has been spreading wildly in major investment groups. Some netizens said, “Even the big shots can’t hold up anymore.”

The data indeed looks frightening: the top-ranked Xitai Investment lost 27.8% in the first quarter; Dongfang Gangwan by Dongbin fell 24.1%; Xiwa by Liang Hong dropped 21.5%… Even those at the bottom lost 6.3%.

At first glance, the entire private fund circle with over a hundred billion collectively “crashed,” and professional institutions lost more than retail investors. Many people’s first reaction is: turns out I’m not the only one losing money, which makes me feel a lot better.

But is that really the case?

1

The ranking can’t withstand scrutiny

This list looks fake at first glance. Although March just passed, with the A-share index falling significantly—especially the Shanghai Composite Index dropping 6.51% in one month—it looks alarming. But the entire first quarter was not a continuous plunge downward; instead, it was a rise followed by a fall, with gains first and then declines.

In the first quarter, the Shanghai Composite only fell 1.94%, and the ChiNext Index dropped 0.57%. The whole market did not experience a systemic crash; it was more a structural volatility.

Since the index didn’t collapse and individual stocks didn’t all plummet, it’s illogical for many private funds with over a hundred billion in assets to lose more than 10% or even 20% in a single quarter.

Checking real performance data from third-party platforms, it completely contradicts the circulating list.

But Dongbin’s Dongfang Gangwan, as of March 31, the biggest decline this year was in the Dongfang Gangwan Evolution Vision B shares, which fell 15.56% in Q1. Also, Dongfang Gangwan Shunxin 6, Dongfang Gangwan Yuanwang 15, etc., fell over 15%, but nowhere near the 24.1% drop on the list.

Other products from Dongfang Gangwan, including the 2024 champion product Dongfang Gangwan Haiya International No. 2, and the best-performing Dongfang Gangwan Marathon No. 17 over the past year, saw declines of about 12-13% in Q1. This means that the overall decline of Dongfang Gangwan is unlikely to exceed 15%.

However, compared to the main A-share indices’ declines, Dongfang Gangwan’s overall drop is indeed larger. This is mainly because these products heavily overweight U.S. stocks, with holdings highly concentrated in AI tech stocks like Nvidia and Google. The sharp correction in Q1 directly reflects their deep linkage with U.S. tech stock trends.

Liang Hong’s Xiwa Investment, with its flagship product Xiwa Little Bull No. 19, had a year-to-date return of +16.41% as of March 31, which is far from the 21.5% loss claimed. Currently, most publicly disclosed products from Xiwa show positive returns of over 10% this year.

Many private fund holders have also come forward on social platforms to clarify, saying their actual losses are much smaller than the rumors.

For example, a product managed by Deng Xiaofeng of Gao Yi Asset, which declined 7.73% this year, is not the 12.5% loss circulating online. Long-term performance shows this product has been around for over ten years, with a total return of 524%, an annualized return of 18.35%, and has significantly outperformed the CSI 300 over the past two, three, and five years.

Regarding the rumor that Juming Investment lost 15.5%, some holders also clarified that their actual return this year is 4.9%.

It’s clear that this list is a patchwork of fake data designed to attract attention. The logic is chaotic, full of loopholes. Yet, it spreads widely and many believe it to be true.

2

“All rises and falls depend on Trump”

Why can this fake ranking spread everywhere? Two reasons:

First, the market did indeed experience a wave of adjustment in March, with many private funds retreating significantly. Not only subjective private funds, but quantitative giants also saw nearly a 15% decline in net value over two weeks, and Bridgewater’s products fell 6.8% in one week. The market itself was under pressure, providing fertile ground for rumors.

Second, it precisely hits the emotional venting of ordinary investors. Many accounts didn’t perform well in Q1, and the March correction wiped out most of their profits. Seeing private funds losing more than they do creates a sense of relief: “It’s not just me.”

Currently, the total number of A-share investors approaches 270 million. The most explosive data is that, according to the Shanghai Stock Exchange, in March alone, about 4.6014 million new accounts were opened, an 82.38% month-on-month increase and a 50.10% year-on-year increase, reaching the highest single-month new account number in nearly three years.

But the problem is, these new investors didn’t make money in March. Relying on comparing oneself to professionals’ losses to ease anxiety fuels the spread of this fake ranking.

After debunking, some investors also admitted, “Investing this year has indeed been tough. The investment since the Spring Festival started amid the fire of the US-Iran war, not because the index fell much, but because you don’t know what will cause the next drop.”

There’s a popular joke now: “One operation as fierce as a tiger, rises and falls all depend on Trump.” Any tweet or mouthpiece from the US can cause related sectors in the A-shares market to plunge directly. After studying fundamentals, technicals, and capital flows for a long time, you find that what determines your account’s profit or loss is an 74-year-old’s mood across the ocean.

Gf Securities transportation chief analyst recently complained on social media: “I don’t want to study anything related to Trump anymore. I want to vomit. The most schizophrenic month in over 100 months of sell-side research.”

A chief who has been in the industry for nearly ten years is pushed to this point. You can imagine how irrational the current market is.

3

What do institutions and big shots think?

When Trump causes chaos, how do institutional investors view it?

Industrial Securities conducted a survey of domestic institutional investors, including fund managers, research leaders, and research institutes. Nearly 80% of respondents believe the bottom of the Shanghai Composite Index is around 3,700-3,800 points. Coincidentally, recently the index just fell below 3,800 and rebounded quickly, confirming strong support at this level.

Looking at the latest statements from several top global investors, they give three very different answers about the outlook for the global market.

Warren Buffett: Holding 370 billion yuan in cash, waiting patiently.

In a recent CNBC interview, Buffett clearly stated that although U.S. stocks have fallen sharply from their highs, he doesn’t think now is the time to buy heavily, “The market is ‘not cheap’ right now.” Buffett said he has over $350 billion in cash and won’t enter just to chase a 5-6% rebound in the index.

He also shows remarkable calmness about market volatility: “Since I took over, Berkshire Hathaway has had at least three declines of over 50%. The current volatility is nothing.” Buffett’s logic is clear: wait for truly cheap opportunities before acting, rather than betting on a rebound when the market is only halfway up.

Ray Dalio: The AI bubble is here, and fiat currency devaluation is the biggest risk.

Bridgewater founder Dalio issued a strong cautious signal at the start of 2026. He warned that the current U.S. “wealth-to-money” ratio has reached 850%, close to the peaks before the 1929 financial crisis and the 2000 dot-com bubble burst.

In terms of investment logic, Dalio proposed a disruptive perspective: measuring U.S. stock performance in gold. He did a calculation—by 2025, the S&P 500 index rose about 18% in dollar terms, but in gold terms, it actually declined about 28%. What does this mean? The so-called rise of U.S. stocks is partly due to the decline in dollar purchasing power, representing a “nominal prosperity.” Behind this is the continuous decline of fiat currency’s value, while gold’s strength indicates the real decline of fiat currency’s worth.

Dalio also bluntly states that AI is forming a bubble. “AI is no longer just a growth story; it’s in the early stages of forming a bubble.” He warns that when AI’s valuation shifts from “profit realization” to “imagination-driven” expansion, a correction will be fierce if profits don’t keep up. He estimates the long-term expected return of stocks will be around 4.7%, which is quite low, with high volatility, low returns, and strong divergence in 2026.

Dalio’s conclusion: beware of bubbles, watch for fiat devaluation, and value gold’s hedging role.

Bi Bin: War is temporary; the growth logic of tech stocks remains unchanged.

Unlike Buffett’s caution and Dalio’s warning, Bi Bin, who experienced a net value decline in Q1, is the most optimistic. After recently undergoing heart stent surgery, she stated: the US-Iran war is temporary and cannot change the long-term trend of major assets. Instead of reducing holdings, she suggests increasing positions in stocks that can change the world.

She said the Nasdaq is the core indicator of global tech growth, currently affected by Trump’s speeches and US-Iran tensions, causing volatility. But market bottoms are always forged in panic. Looking back to April 2025, when Trump’s policies caused panic, the Nasdaq plunged but then rebounded spectacularly, starting a new rally. If the Nasdaq can stabilize at the current level without making new lows, it’s likely the bottom of this correction, repeating last April’s pattern.

Her answer: Believe in tech, withstand volatility, and hold long-term.

These three strategies seem contradictory, but their underlying logic is actually consistent: In times of extreme market uncertainty, only a clear investment framework can combat anxiety.