Securities Times reporter Liu Xiaoyou

  The fall of the stock market, the volatility of the bond market, and the non-standard under-allocation of the three major pressures have made the “fixed income +” wealth management, which once had a stable halo, suddenly retraced its net worth.

  Securities Times reporters sorted out according to Wind data, as of March 7, among the 29,193 bank wealth management products (including banks and bank wealth management sub-issues) in the whole market, as many as 900 had their net value below 1, accounting for 3.08%.

  Although the proportion of 3.08% breaking net is not too high, and the average drawdown of the net value of related bank wealth management products is much lower than that of similar products of other non-bank institutions, the number of customer complaints still increased significantly.

At present, the most important job of the bank account manager and the bank's wealth management sub-consumer insurance team is to appease customers. More and more wealth management partners are investing in education and publicity, calling on customers to stick to long-term holdings and "spend the darkest moments with managers."

  What happened with this round of "breaking the net tide" is the era of small profits in bank wealth management.

Since the beginning of the year, BOC Wealth Management, CMB Wealth Management, Xingyin Wealth Management, Everbright Wealth Management, Huaxia Wealth Management and other companies have lowered the rates of dozens of products, involving fixed management fees, sales service fees, custody fees, and redemption fees during the event. Wait, some rates have dropped to 0.

  Reducing fees and giving profits is not only to expand sales, but more importantly, bank wealth management attempts to convey confidence to the market - to further bind the interests of managers and investors, and to strengthen the long-term consistency of interests.

  Three factors put pressure on

  Fixed Income + Breaking Net Long

  Like many fund companies, bank wealth managers have been busy apologizing and investing in education recently.

  It is also a call for holders to strengthen their confidence and "walk through the darkest moment hand in hand with managers", but after bank wealth managers issued similar appeals, they gained more from another wave of public opinion's wounds - "Bank wealth management actually Lose money?"

  The old-fashioned topic has once again set off a discussion boom.

This also exposes the problem - even though the new asset management regulations (including the transition period) have been in effect for a long time, many investors still do not have a clear understanding of what the net worth of wealth management means, and are even unwilling to accept the original nature of asset management products. look.

The investment education and customer companionship of bank wealth management are a long way to go.

  Wind data shows that as of March 7, there were a total of 29,193 bank wealth management products (including banks and bank wealth management products issued by banks and bank wealth management products) in the whole market, of which 900 were broken net, accounting for 3.08%; bank wealth management products were the main issuers. There are a total of 9,124 wealth management products, of which 619 were broken, accounting for 6.78%.

  The higher proportion of bank wealth management subs in breaking the net, just shows that bank wealth management subs started cleanly in strict accordance with the new regulations on asset management, and practiced "true net worth" operation.

A series of principled changes such as independent accounting of accounts, matching of asset and product terms, and rectification of valuation methods (amortized cost method to market value method) have made market fluctuations truly manifest in products.

  What recent changes have taken place in the underlying assets of the bank's wealth management, which will make the net worth fluctuate greatly?

This issue needs to be discussed in two dimensions: fixed income + and equity.

  As of March 7, as many as 609 of the 619 net-breaking wealth management products with bank wealth management products as the main issuer are fixed income and mixed types, of which fixed income + (including multi-asset and FOF) accounts for the vast majority.

There are three main reasons for the poor performance of fixed income + product net worth: bond market volatility, non-standard under-allocation, and equity drag.

The first two reasons affect "fixed income", while equity drag affects "+".

  First, let's look at the bond market.

After a month of shock adjustment, the current bond market yields have been suppressed at low levels, and both absolute returns and relative spreads are at historically low levels.

The 10-year treasury bond interest rate has been adjusted from a low point to a high point, and the cumulative adjustment rate is close to 20 BP; the bond yield has dropped significantly, and the current average annualized yield of the 3-year AAA-rated public bond is less than 2.9%.

  Such adjustments have surprised many organizations.

The Guotai Junan Fixed Income Team said frankly, "The bond market adjustment was expected to be at most 5BP~10BP before the Spring Festival, but the final adjustment was not expected to be so large." The volume is negative, such as the high total financing in January, the disturbance of the rumors of "window guidance"; the redemption of fixed income + funds, which led to the sell-off of interest rate bonds; and the relaxation of real estate policies in many places.

  A senior fixed-income investment manager of a bank's wealth management company analyzed to the Securities Times reporter that there are three main reasons for such a large correction: first, the social financing and loan data in January greatly exceeded expectations, hitting a record high, and the callback was initiated; second, 2 The monthly PMI data slightly exceeded expectations, and the correction deepened; third, the real estate policy showed a loosening signal, which intensified the panic in the bond market, and the adjustment continued.

  Let's look at non-standard.

The Securities Times has previously reported that since the second half of last year, bank wealth management has experienced high-yield non-standard underpayment.

CMB Wealth Management pointed out that the income and supply of non-standard assets have dropped significantly. Compared with the non-standard income of 5.5%~6.0% in the past, the current average non-standard income with better security can only reach 3.8%~4.2%.

  Finally, let's look at rights.

Among the products currently broken, 10 are only for equity financing.

The stock market directly affects the net value of 10 pure equity products, as well as the "+" part of fixed income + products.

  Since the beginning of the year, based on style differentiation and intensified sector rotation, the Shanghai Composite Index has fallen by 5.27%, and the Shenzhen Component Index has fallen by 12.36%.

Securities Times reporters combed through the information of several equity products and found that growth styles such as new energy and technology have been redistributed; and the fixed-opening products with the highest equity positions have a retracement rate of more than 3%.

  The drawdown is relatively small

  Customer complaints soar

  "I am afraid when I see customers entering the line these days. Since the FOF product is lower than the performance benchmark, I have been very careful when dealing with customers who complain. What is more sad is that some customers actually call us a liar and take our products and structural characteristics. In terms of deposit ratio, they say that 'no matter how small a local bank is, the structured deposit that guarantees capital is not bad once', but he bought a wealth management product!" A customer manager described his experience to a Securities Times reporter.

  The joint-stock bank where this account manager works has recently held trainings for the account managers of some key branches at the head office level in conjunction with the relevant financial sub-departments. The theme is to use professional words to appease customers.

"To sum up, it is a 'three-step process' - first, we must help customers to explain clearly what is happening in the market and how other products of the same type are performing; then substitute for the customer's situation and empathize with customers; finally, we must reiterate 'long-termism' and strengthen customers long-term confidence.”

  His experience is really just a microcosm of what has happened to many bank account managers recently.

Bank Wealth Management products are generally considered to be an integral part of a bank's overall retail brand, and are regarded as an important starting point for wealth management.

Therefore, the reputational risk management standards of wealth management products are stricter than those of many similar asset management products.

  "Now we attach great importance to customer experience. Our middle and Taiwan departments also need to help branches share the pressure. There are all kinds of customer complaints, and everyone has different demands, different buying points, and different risk tolerance. Use appropriate and appropriate words to help account managers prepare." A person from a bank's wealth management sub-product management department told reporters.

  "In the mobile APP, the 'annualized rate of return' presented by some products has dropped a lot. This is because the loss in a certain month range is correspondingly magnified to 12 times to display the result. If you get angry, we will give you various explanations and comforts.” A person from the sales department of a bank’s wealth management submarket said that his company has recently attached great importance to publishing investment education articles on the WeChat public account, hoping to minimize investors’ concerns. anxiety.

  The root cause of the above phenomena is that bank wealth management customers have almost the lowest tolerance for the withdrawal of the net value of products.

In fact, if you compare products with similar assets, you will find that the overall performance of bank wealth management is still relatively "stable".

  Taking public funds as an example, according to the information provided by the fund industry, excluding existing funds established after October 1, 2021 (because these funds are still in the position-building period), the period from January 1 to March 4 this year is used. Extracting the performance of fund drawdown, it is found that among the existing hybrid bond secondary funds, there are 66 funds with a maximum drawdown greater than 5%, accounting for 16%; 161 funds with a drawdown range of 2% to 5%, accounting for 16%. 40%.

Among the existing partial debt hybrid funds, there are 43 funds with a maximum drawdown higher than 5%, accounting for 7%; 241 funds with a drawdown range of 2% to 5%, accounting for 41%.

The drawdown performance of medium and long-term pure debt funds is better than that of short-term funds, but products with a drawdown of less than 2% currently account for as high as 88%.

  The aforementioned person in charge of the financial management sub-product management department of a bank said that the net value drawdown of the bank's wealth management fixed income + is much lower than that of the public bond base.

According to the performance of fixed income + products managed by his company and the data of inter-bank exchange, the person in charge estimated that the average drawdown of bank wealth management fixed income + products year-to-date should not exceed 1%, which is much smaller than the drawdown of debt bases in the same period .

When comparing the industry-wide data horizontally, the actual rate of return of its expired products exceeded the performance benchmark by an average of 10 BPs.

  However, the person in charge also admitted that the fixed income + products are indeed facing large fluctuations since their establishment, and the income of the fixed income part has declined by 1.5% to 2% compared with the past.

  In terms of equity financing, the decline in the stock market has made the net worth of these products much higher than the fixed income +.

As of March 7, a total of 10 of the 20 surviving equity wealth management companies had a net value of less than 1.

Among them, there are 9 products whose net value is above 0.922, and the largest floating loss is "Sunshine Red Hygiene and Safety Theme Selection", whose net value is still below 0.8.

  "Actually, I also hope that the media will call on everyone to look at 'good products' from a more rational perspective. The so-called 'good product' not only depends on the absolute return, but also on its ability to control the drawdown. When the net value of the product falls, if The net worth drawdown is much lower than the market drawdown in the same period; or when the net worth rises, a product that can outperform similar assets and performance benchmarks for the same period is an excellent product." A head of the investment department of a large bank wealth management company Straightforward.

  When the market risk is relatively large, how can a product be able to control the drawdown more stably?

He admitted that this is also a topic his team has been researching.

At present, the team's approach is roughly divided into three points: first, use leverage to increase earnings; second, adjust investment portfolios to increase transactional income; third, reduce sales fees and investment management fees.

  Reduction in fees and profits

  While feeding back to the mother

  The sales fee has dropped again and again, and the management fee has been relinquished.

On the one hand, it is to reduce fees and make profits with the intention of not breaking the just exchange, and on the other hand, it continues to undertake the mission of creating benefits for the parent bank - this is the attack that the bank's wealth management is experiencing.

  Since the beginning of the year, many companies such as Bank of China Wealth Management, CMB Wealth Management, Xingyin Wealth Management, Everbright Wealth Management, Huaxia Wealth Management, Nanyin Wealth Management and other companies have lowered the rates of dozens of products, involving fixed management fees, sales and service fees, custody fees, and during the event. The redemption fee, etc., some rates have been reduced to 0.

  Against the background of poor returns and slow issuance (Puyi standard data shows that 2,302 new products were launched in February, and the issuance volume decreased by 835 month-on-month), the rates of some products of public funds have been reduced to varying degrees.

Based on the consideration of promoting wealth management sales, it is inevitable for bank wealth managers to lower their rates, but more importantly, it also shows that bank wealth management is trying to further bind the interests of managers and investors and strengthen the consistency of interests.

  Securities Times reporters obtained wealth management companies from 12 banks (wealth management companies of 6 state-owned banks including ICBC, China Agricultural Bank, China Construction, Jiaotong, and Post; wealth management companies of 6 joint-stock banks including China Merchants, Everbright, Huaxia, Ping An, CITIC, and Industrial) The latest rate situation shows that as of now, the average sales rate of fixed-income wealth management is 0.22%, of which Everbright Wealth Management is the lowest, charging only 0.01% sales fee; the average sales rate of hybrid and equity products is 0.24% ; The average sales rate for the cash management category is only 0.2%.

  In terms of fixed management fees, among the above-mentioned 12 bank wealth management companies, the management fee for fixed income wealth management products is only 0.25%, the highest is only 0.25%, several do not exceed 0.15%, and the lowest is only 0.12%.

The average management fee of 12 banks' wealth management sub-fixed income wealth management is only 0.17%, which is much lower than last year's fixed income wealth management fee of 0.2%~0.5%.

The average management fee of equity and mixed products is not much higher, and the average management fee of equity and mixed products of the 12 banks’ wealth management companies is only 0.32%.

  In terms of custodial fees, since its establishment, the custodial rates of fixed-income, mixed and equity products of Da Bank Wealth Management are generally at the level of 2/10,000 (except for China Post Wealth Management, which is higher), and it is difficult to have room for decline; joint-stock bank wealth management The custodial rates for fixed-income products of sub-products generally range from 13,000 to 15,000, while the custodial rates for equity and mixed products range from 11 to 19,000.

Taken together, the average custody fees for fixed-income products, mixed products and equity products of 12 bank wealth management companies are only 10,000 yuan.

  Combining the above-mentioned sales fee, fixed management fee, and custody fee into one, the average cost of fixed expenses for investors is only 0.42%.

Of course, this only refers to the cost of fixed expenses, and many products will require additional subscription and redemption fees if the specific holding period is not met.

Compared with the standard of 1.5% for the management fee of non-stock public funds alone, bank wealth management is indeed a "small profit".

  Against such a background, it is not difficult to understand why some bank wealth management products set the management fee for the excess income part relatively high, because the management fee for the absolute income part has been charged very low.

In the opinion of professionals, more bank wealth management pursues absolute returns. Therefore, when reporting performance benchmarks in the early stage, investment managers should consider the balance between the market, income, and quotations.

  In addition to creating value for investors, bank wealth managers also bear more "political missions" than other asset management institutions.

The Securities Times reporter learned that at present, the wealth management companies of various banks entrust most of their products in the parent bank, contributing to the scale of custody for the parent bank.

At the same time, some bank wealth managers are still distributing income to branches in the aspects of wealth management sales, asset recommendation, and post-investment management in the form of sales fees, custody fees, and asset allocation sharing.

At the asset level, bank wealth management also needs to use the flexible asset creation function to combine off-balance sheet funds with the parent bank's traditional credit through asset income rights, debt-to-equity swaps, mergers and acquisitions, and other methods to support the parent bank's key customers.

In fact, some banks’ wealth management should recommend the launch of urban renewal projects and green accounts receivable creditor’s rights financing plans, in order to respond to the parent bank’s green financial plan.