With only two weeks remaining until the March 31 deadline, a sweeping "renaming campaign" involving over 1,400 products totaling more than 5 trillion yuan in assets under management is nearing its conclusion.

This naming reform will mark the end of an era defined by "name advantage"—where firms that secured short, memorable tickers like "Chip ETF" or "Broker ETF" gained a first-mover edge. Starting April 1, all ETFs must adopt a standardized naming format: "Core Investment Element + ETF + Fund Manager Abbreviation."

This shift signals that ETF competition will transition from a race to claim desirable names to a contest of brand strength. While investors will benefit from lower search and selection costs, fund companies will compete more directly on research capabilities, liquidity management, and client service.

One industry insider remarked, "This is the most impactful regulatory change for the ETF industry in the last three years."

**From Name-Grabbing to Brand-Building**

According to revised guidelines issued by the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges on November 19, 2025, all existing ETFs must complete the renaming process by March 31, 2026.

The renaming effort is now in its final stages. On the evening of March 16, Huatai-PineBridge Fund announced that it had completed the renaming of its final 28 ETFs, becoming one of the first major firms to achieve full brand unification across its product line. Similarly, Huaan Fund completed the renaming of its last batch of 40 ETFs on March 6, while E Fund Management became the first company to complete the process back in January, having renamed all 117 of its ETFs.

According to Wind data, 12 asset managers have announced the renaming of 156 ETFs since the beginning of March.

One top-tier fund company stated that it expects to complete the renaming of its final batch of ETFs next week, while another indicated it would finish the process before the end of the month. Several other firms have also reported that their renaming work is nearly complete.

This industry-wide transformation, which began last November, is now reaching its climax.

Previously, ETF tickers were allocated on a first-come, first-served basis—allowing one ETF on each exchange to share the same short name. This often made it difficult for investors to distinguish between products from different managers. For instance, ETFs named "CSI 300 ETF" were managed by both Huatai-PineBridge (510300.SH) and Harvest Fund (159919.SZ). Similarly, short and catchy names like "Healthcare ETF" or "Chip ETF" offered significant search ranking advantages to those who registered them first.

An ETF marketing professional recalled that during the peak of ETF popularity, one firm’s sector ETF attracted nearly 10 billion yuan in assets within a year largely because it had secured a favorable name and high search visibility. "Many investors didn’t even know which company managed the ETF—they only recognized the name, not the manager behind it."

This "name advantage" often sparked intense competition for desirable tickers. When the first batch of 10 A500 ETFs was launched in September 2024, multiple firms vied for the "A500ETF" ticker. One source revealed that regulators had to allocate popular names via a lottery system in a WeChat group, likening the process to a property ballot.

The new rules have put an end to such practices.

"This marks a shift from competing for naming advantages to competing on brand strength," said the head of index investing at a large fund company. "It’s no longer about whose product has a catchy name—it’s about whose product delivers real value."

Huatai-PineBridge Fund, which began its renaming process early in 2025, has not only rebranded its products but also refined the core investment descriptors for seven ETFs. For example, "Hong Kong Financial ETF" was changed to "Hong Kong Stock Connect Financial ETF Huatai-PineBridge," clarifying the investment channel, while "Cash Flow ETF All-Share" was updated to "All-Share Cash Flow ETF Huatai-PineBridge" to align the product name more closely with the underlying index.

Southern Asset Management noted that the renaming enhances product recognition by clearly identifying the fund manager and more accurately reflecting the ETF’s investment focus, thereby eliminating ambiguity in the old naming convention.

**Accelerating Concentration Among Top Players**

Wind data shows that as of March 16, the top 10 ETF managers by size collectively oversee approximately 3.68 trillion yuan in assets, accounting for over 70% of the total market. China Asset Management leads with 730.2 billion yuan, followed by E Fund Management with 668.6 billion yuan, Huatai-PineBridge Fund with 423 billion yuan, and Guotai Fund with 328.6 billion yuan. Other major players including Southern, GF, Harvest, Bosera, Fullgoal, Huaan, and Huabao each manage more than 200 billion yuan in ETF assets.

Industry observers widely believe that the naming reform will benefit larger firms, reinforcing a "winner-takes-most" dynamic.

"A clear naming system will lead investors to prefer larger, more liquid, and more reputable products," said a representative from a leading fund company. "Investor behavior will become more rational—they will focus more on size and liquidity, which are the foundations of a healthy ETF ecosystem."

Another industry insider predicted that the new rules may accelerate the trend of asset concentration, potentially leading to a duopoly dominated by E Fund and China Asset Management.

Guan Xiaomin, a researcher at GES Fund, noted that well-established managers will see their brand advantages amplified, while smaller firms with lower brand recognition may struggle to compete.

In this new environment, brand management has become more critical than ever.

"Without the advantage of a catchy name, building investor trust in your ETF lineup is now paramount," admitted one fund company executive. "For lesser-known brands, even a well-designed product may be overshadowed by stronger competitors—much like how branded goods outsell generic ones in a supermarket."

Guan Xiaomin emphasized that future competition will revolve around product design differentiation, consistent tracking performance, operational efficiency, cost control, and cross-border expansion.

Some also anticipate that leading firms may initiate another round of fee cuts, further squeezing smaller players.

**From Scale-Driven Growth to Quality Competition**

The impact of the renaming initiative extends far beyond nomenclature.

Huatai-PineBridge Fund believes that explicitly including the manager’s name in the ETF ticker will hold firms accountable for long-term performance and market conduct. This should elevate industry competition from a narrow focus on scale and liquidity to a more comprehensive contest involving brand strength, strategic depth, risk management, and investor service.

For investors, the benefits are already becoming apparent. "Before, when I searched for 'Chip ETF,' I’d get a long list of results and couldn’t tell them apart," said an experienced ETF investor. "Now, with the manager’s name attached, I can immediately identify the products I trust. It’s much more efficient."

Guo Beibei, Deputy Director of Index and Quantitative Investment at China Universal Asset Management, explained from a branding perspective: "As index products become more homogeneous, we are not just selling a product—we are selling a philosophy of product design, product strategy, and solution-oriented investing."

Pang Yaping, Head of Index Research at E Fund Management, noted that a unified and clear naming standard will optimize the ETF market ecosystem and support higher-quality industry development. "As existing ETFs complete their name changes, product recognition will improve significantly, and investor due diligence costs will decline."

An industry veteran pointed out that while the renaming of over 1,400 ETFs representing more than 5 trillion yuan in assets is nearly complete, a deeper transformation is just beginning. As brand identity grows in importance, ETF competition will shift away from land-grabbing and back to the fundamentals of investment management, client service, and long-term credibility.

"Now that names are no longer a differentiator, we must let our products and performance speak for themselves," said one fund manager. "We will focus even more on research, liquidity, and client support."

Guan Xiaomin added that fund sales channels will increasingly emphasize the brand and research strength of ETF providers, prompting investors to look beyond names and focus on strategy and management quality. This should lead to a healthier, more rational market where capital flows toward high-quality products and managers.

"With the implementation of standardized naming, the ETF market is entering a product-driven phase," Guan concluded. "Managers can no longer rely on clever naming to differentiate their products—they must continuously develop innovative strategies, explore new asset classes, and improve tool effectiveness to add real value."