Whether the fund company goes public needs to be considered.

Recently, the regulatory authorities expressed their support for the listing of qualified wealth management institutions, including fund companies, for the first time, which immediately aroused widespread concern in the industry. However, the author believes that for domestic fund companies, whether to go public needs careful consideration. As we all know, listing means getting capital quickly and at low cost, and it also means letting more people know about the company and improving its popularity and reputation. At the same time, listing also provides a convenient exit mechanism for fund company employees, and employee equity incentives can be directly realized in the secondary market. From the perspective of overseas markets, listing with fund management companies has emerged, such as BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Puxin and other world-renowned asset management companies are public companies. However, although the listing of fund companies has many advantages, it may also bring some negative effects. From the experience of listed fund companies in the United States, fund companies will face the pressure of public shareholders after listing, and public shareholders may ask fund companies to pursue short-term interests in order to get the stock price to rise. Similarly, in order to repay shareholders, listed fund companies tend to raise the fund rate level to obtain higher profits. Of course, the situation of domestic fund companies is different from that of the United States. Even if it is not listed, shareholders still have great pressure on the performance of fund companies and high requirements for short-term profits. From this point of view, the impact of listing on the short-term interests of fund companies is not as obvious as that in the United States, and it is likely to shift the source of pressure from the original shareholders to the public shareholders. However, the existing dual agency problems of domestic fund companies (shareholders and managers, managers and fund holders) cannot be well solved by listing. For domestic fund companies, the real motivation for listing is to increase capital to cope with the capital consumption caused by the development of subsidiaries and other businesses. However, as light asset company, fund companies have relatively limited demand for funds. Moreover, at present, the regulatory authorities have not put forward capital requirements for fund companies to carry out various businesses like brokers. Therefore, the existing capital accumulated by large fund companies for many years can basically meet the needs of expanding business. However, small and medium-sized fund companies usually have poor profitability and it is difficult to meet the listing requirements. This may cause the dilemma that those who can do it don't want to do it, and those who want to do it can't. In fact, the success criteria of fund companies are performance and scale, and listing has no direct impact on them. American fund companies usually go public when they are bigger, not because they go public, and their performance has not improved significantly after listing. From this perspective, domestic fund companies should focus on improving management performance, rather than thinking about how to go public, which is more helpful for the company's growth.