500 Billion ETF Rebranding Countdown, Nearly 80% of Products Complete Standardization

Ask AI · How can small and medium-sized companies break through after ETF market reshuffling?

Cailian Press, March 19th (Reporter Yan Jun) As the countdown to March 31st for ETF standardized naming approaches, the pace of ETF renaming accelerates.

On March 19th, Guotai Fund announced that all its ETFs would be renamed starting today, displayed as “Core Investment Target ETF Guotai.”

The day before, on March 18th, Huatai-PineBridge, a major ETF provider, unified the intraday abbreviations of 28 ETFs with the suffix “ETF Huatai-PineBridge,” completing the standardized naming of all its ETF products.

This “renaming campaign,” initiated proactively by leading fund companies like E Fund and others to regulate naming chaos, is nearing its conclusion.

Adding the company name suffix to ETFs may seem like a minor change, but industry insiders see it as a major event affecting the 5.22 trillion yuan market and 1,455 products. A unified, clear naming standard helps deepen the ETF market and optimize the ecosystem. From this perspective, it benefits investor screening, reduces the chance of buying the wrong product, and represents a new reshuffle—companies that focus on brand building and have strong brand reputation will stand out more easily.

As of the latest, fund companies such as E Fund, Yongying, HFT, Huatai-PineBridge, and Guotai have completed renaming all their ETFs according to the “core investment target + ETF + manager name” format.

In the ETF market, as of March 18th, 326 ETFs remain unrenamed, accounting for about 22%, meaning nearly 80% of ETFs have completed standardized renaming.

Countdown to renaming: Nearly 80% of ETFs have completed standardization

The domestic ETF market once exceeded 6 trillion yuan, prompting the agenda for standardization.

In fact, the initial push for ETF renaming came from major leading firms.

In January 2025, E Fund was the first in the industry to adjust the abbreviations of 17 ETFs in bulk, and in February, it changed the abbreviations of 8 more ETFs, all following the “underlying index + ETF + E Fund” naming rule. To date, all ETFs under E Fund have been renamed.

E Fund stated that the purpose of renaming was to further improve product recognition and enhance investors’ screening and decision-making efficiency, making ETF investment easier.

Subsequently, Jiashiqi followed with a collective renaming. On June 17th of that year, Jiashi Fund renamed 22 products (21 ETFs + 1 LOF), involving core broad-based and industry-specific ETFs tracking indices like CSI A series, rare earths, pharmaceuticals, gold, etc.

On July 1st, the largest ETF by scale, Huatai-PineBridge A500 ETF, changed its intraday abbreviation from “CSI A500 ETF Fund” to “A500 ETF Huatai-PineBridge.”

Regulatory measures from the system level ended the chaos in naming, improving market transparency and investment convenience.

The revised fund business guidelines issued by the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges in November 2025 required all existing ETFs to complete standardized intraday abbreviation adjustments by March 31, 2026. The abbreviation must include the fund manager information, and new ETF names must follow the “core investment target + ETF + manager” format.

A larger-scale renaming wave then kicked off.

On January 5th, all 117 ETFs under E Fund completed standardized naming. E Fund called this a year-long systematic project.

On January 9th, the largest domestic ETF, Huatai-PineBridge’s CSI 300 ETF, officially renamed.

By March 19th, fund companies including E Fund, Yongying, HFT, Huatai-PineBridge, and Guotai had all completed their ETF renaming according to the “core investment target + ETF + manager” format.

Cailian Press’s incomplete statistics show that out of 1,455 ETFs in the market, only 326 remain unrenamed as of March 18th, nearly 80% have completed the renaming.

“Recently, companies are also completing the renaming of all their ETFs, not waiting until the last minute,” a senior fund company executive told Cailian Press. The company has a few products with good abbreviations, and if not for regulatory requirements, they wouldn’t change easily. But with the deadline approaching, they decided to respond proactively.

Post-renaming, better recognition

In the past, abbreviation advantages were a key part of new product launches. Clear abbreviations like index + ETF or theme + ETF were favored by fund companies. Lucky draw luck played a role, and when tracking the same index with few products, intraday abbreviations could be somewhat distinguishable.

However, as ETFs grew, some popular index tracking products reached dozens, and investors faced a flood of similar products with confusing abbreviations, often unable to tell them apart.

Two major issues existed in past ETF naming: one was different names for the same index. For example, for ETFs tracking the CSI 300 index (excluding leveraged types), there are now 25 ETFs, with multiple names like “CSI 300 ETF,” “300 ETF,” “300 Index ETF,” etc. The other was different indices sharing the same name. For instance, two satellite ETFs track the CSI Satellite Industry Index and the Guozheng Commercial Satellite Communication Industry Index, with only 60% overlap in their constituent stocks.

In this context, the lack of standardized naming caused confusion for investors choosing products. After standardization, investors can quickly distinguish and identify the underlying index and management institution just from the ETF abbreviation, improving decision-making efficiency.

Besides reducing information filtering costs, reducing misjudgment risks is another benefit. Ping An Fund said that clarifying the manager and target features makes it easier for investors to differentiate similar ETFs, reducing the risk of investment bias or losses caused by mistaken purchases.

“Standardized naming will greatly reduce misbuying,” said a fund company executive. During the period of similar naming, many investors searching for a product tend to choose simple and clear names like “core target + ETF,” such as Chip ETF or STAR Market 50 ETF, which rank higher in search results and are more targeted. Without knowing the manager behind, most investors blindly pick, but with the manager suffix, they are more likely to consider the company and make a better judgment, greatly reducing mispurchases.

Additionally, Ping An Fund pointed out that ending the “name dividend” phenomenon allows fund companies to focus more on improving product research, tracking accuracy, and liquidity management—core competitiveness.

Major firms benefit more; small and medium funds have at least three development paths

Adding the manager’s name to ETFs benefits leading firms most.

With the intraday abbreviation including the manager’s name, companies gain more exposure; and as they continue to improve product operation, management, and service quality, they strengthen brand effects. Those with sustainable value creation capabilities will stand out more clearly in the market.

“Once the existing ETFs complete the naming adjustments, product recognition will significantly improve, and screening costs for investors will further decrease. In the future, fund companies need to further improve product management and service capabilities based on compliance with naming standards, continuously strengthening brand effects,” said Pang Yaping, General Manager of Index Research at E Fund. He believes that in the long run, a unified and clear naming standard will promote deep development and ecological optimization of the ETF market, driving higher-quality industry growth.

“Including the fund manager’s name in the abbreviation tightly links the brand with product performance, encouraging fund companies to focus on long-term performance, risk control, and customer service, thereby enhancing overall corporate image and credibility,” Ping An Fund stated. The industry will increasingly emphasize brand responsibility.

From an industry perspective, a Huatai-PineBridge representative pointed out that after rapid development, improving the basic system and optimizing the ecosystem are key to high-quality growth. Standardizing product naming as a fundamental task helps build a clearer, fairer market environment, reduces investor decision costs, and guides industry competition from scale expansion to quality improvement and service enhancement.

While leading firms benefit, this does not mean small and medium funds are at a disadvantage.

In fact, small and medium-sized fund companies can find differentiated development paths.

First, focus on niche indices like style and strategy ETFs. For example, earlier, Xingzheng Global issued its first ETF tracking the CSI Quality Index, and China Merchants Schroder chose the CSI 50 Technology ETF, both as exclusive products. The market is accelerating index issuance, with over 360 indices issued by CSI in 2025 alone. Fund companies can select competitive indices or collaborate with index providers to develop exclusive indices to enhance competitiveness.

Second, launching innovative products like active ETFs and multi-asset ETFs is also an opportunity. These products are expected to break through this year, opening new tracks for fund companies with strong research capabilities but later entry into ETFs.

Third, actively respond to investor deposit shifts. In the context of transferring 50 trillion yuan in deposits, developing low-volatility, dividend-paying, and multi-yield strategy ETFs encouraged by regulators is another way to break through.

(Reporter Yan Jun, Cailian Press)