After the "ice cream assassin" aroused heated discussions, many investors also encountered "financial assassins" on online platforms.
The actual maturity yield of the bank wealth management products they purchased is far from the performance benchmark.
A reporter from Beijing Youth Daily found that against the backdrop of falling market interest rates, a number of banks have recently issued announcements to lower the performance benchmarks of wealth management products. Perhaps this will reduce investors' psychological expectations and reduce the pain caused by "financial assassins". .
Although social platforms often see netizens complaining that the income of wealth management products is lower than expected, the overall compliance rate of bank wealth management products is actually quite good. Overall, the payment situation of the wealth management market is still relatively optimistic.
Netizens earned 9 yuan in 15 months
Self-proclaimed financial management "solved a loneliness"
"50,000 was released for 476 days and earned more than 170 yuan. When I bought it, I marked the 4.4% benchmark, which is too bad." At the end of June, netizen Xiaosi posted a screenshot of the page where his wealth management funds expired on social networking sites. , disappointed with their earnings.
A reporter from Beiqing Daily checked the bank's official website and found the expiration information announcement of this product.
This product is a fixed-income closed-end wealth management product issued by a wealth management subsidiary of a large state-owned bank in early March last year. The risk level is PR3, the investment period is 476 days, and the expiration date is June 27 this year.
The performance benchmark of this product is 4.4%, but the net product value on the maturity date is only 1.0035.
A reporter from Beiqing Daily roughly calculated that its actual annualized rate of return was around 0.27%, which was less than 1/16 of the performance benchmark.
Another netizen, Xiao Li, also bought a closed-end wealth management product from this wealth management subsidiary with a risk level of PR3. The investment period is 15 months, the expiration date is April 26 this year, and the performance comparison benchmark is 4.20% ( annualized).
A reporter from Beiqing Daily found from the bank's official website that the net value of the product on the maturity date was 1.0009, which means that 10,000 yuan was invested for 15 months and could earn 9 yuan.
Roughly calculated, the actual annualized rate of return is about 0.072%, which is about 1/60 of the performance benchmark, and even only 1/3 of the custodial rate of 0.20%.
Xiaoli said: "I was confused when I saw the due amount of mobile banking, thinking that I had misremembered the principal. Later, when I looked at the transaction details, it was true that the principal came in and the principal came out. There is still 1.7% of the fixed deposit for one year. Interest, I seem to have been lonely for more than 400 days."
Multiple bank wealth management products income
well below performance benchmarks
The experience of Xiaosi and Xiaoli is not an exception. The products whose yield to maturity is far below the performance benchmark are not only available in that big bank.
On the black cat complaint platform, customers of many banks are complaining that the income of the wealth management products they bought did not meet expectations.
A customer of a joint-stock bank complained that he even lost the principal of a low-risk fixed-income wealth management product he purchased.
The screenshot posted by the customer shows that the 80,000 principal was financed for 6 months, and the loss was 785.889 yuan.
Some netizens purchased a 50,000 yuan wealth management in the mobile banking of another big bank in July last year, and the performance comparison benchmark was 4.2%. After the funds were automatically redeemed in July this year, they found that the 50,000 yuan wealth management only earned 45 yuan. .
There are also investors who bought 400,000 R2 wealth management products from a bank two years ago, with a term of 760 days, the "expected rate of return" (actually should be the performance comparison benchmark) is 4.5%, the product expires in early August, and only 3.2% when redeemed yield.
The investor said: "We must expect the bank to honor the low-risk product. Otherwise, why didn't we buy the bank's large-denomination certificate of deposit with an interest rate of about 4% two years ago?"
Bank financing is not guaranteed
Performance benchmarks are not promised earnings
Professionals from several banks told the Beiqing Daily reporter that the new asset management regulations have been in place for four years, and bank wealth management has long been not the guaranteed principal and guaranteed income that everyone thinks.
As for the performance comparison benchmark, although it is also expressed in the form of annualized rate of return, it is not the expected rate of return that everyone is familiar with in the past, but the investment target set for wealth management products based on factors such as product nature, investment strategy, and past experience, and does not represent the product. The future performance and actual returns of financial products are not the bank's commitment or guarantee for the returns of wealth management products.
Mr. Zhu, the wealth management manager of a state-owned bank, explained in layman's terms: "In the past few years, the bank's wealth management products have expected returns, and they can be realized, so many customers still think that the bank's wealth management products are rigid payment, and the capital and interest are guaranteed. After the introduction of the new regulations, the situation has completely changed. Bank wealth management will not guarantee principal and interest. Most of the current bank wealth management products are net worth, just like funds. There is no expected rate of return, but only performance benchmarks. Performance benchmarks It can be regarded as a 'small target' for the future income of net worth wealth management products, similar to a 'pass line', but it is not a promise of income. The actual income that investors finally get may be higher than the performance benchmark, or it may be lower than the performance benchmark Therefore, investors who buy bank wealth management should also have the risk awareness of 'buyer's own conceit', and cannot blindly enter."
The single numerical performance benchmark is
"Financial Assassin" main area
It is understood that there are three main forms of performance comparison benchmarks, including single numerical type, interval numerical type and index type.
The Beiqing Daily reporter noticed that financial products whose performance comparison benchmark is a single numerical value are the main areas where the performance does not meet the standard, especially those products with high benchmark settings.
Taking a joint venture wealth management company as an example, the information released by China Wealth Management Network shows that the wealth management company currently has 24 products that have expired, all of which are fixed-income products with a closed period of 12-15 months.
The performance comparison benchmarks of these 24 wealth management products are all single numerical values, all between 4.3-4.5%. Only 5 products have reached the performance comparison benchmark, and the actual annualized rate of return is between 4.45%-5.67%.
The actual annualized rate of return of 13 of the 19 products that did not meet the standard is the prefix 2.
For example, the latest one-year product due on August 3 has a performance benchmark of 4.35% and an actual annualized rate of return of 2.48%, which is less than 40% off the benchmark.
The actual annualized rate of return of a product with the lowest yield to maturity is only 1.8%, a difference of 2.55 percentage points from the performance benchmark, which is almost a 40% discount.
Industry insiders pointed out that there will be a lower limit and an upper limit for the range-based performance comparison benchmark. Even if the performance of financial products is not satisfactory, it is generally easier to reach the lower limit. The attractiveness is weaker; the single-value performance comparison benchmark looks more certain, and it is easier to attract investors in the sales process, but it is not easy to meet the standard when it actually expires.
Although social platforms often see netizens complain that their wealth management products are less profitable than expected, the overall compliance rate of bank wealth management products is actually not bad.
According to the statistics of Puyi Standard, 12,380 closed-end products due in the first half of 2022 have disclosed performance benchmarks, of which 10,367 products can calculate the yield to maturity, and nearly 90% of the products can calculate the yield to maturity. The performance comparison benchmark set by the bank has been reached, and even more than 40% of the products' yield to maturity has exceeded the performance comparison benchmark center, achieving overpayment.
On the whole, the payment situation of the wealth management market is still relatively optimistic.
analyze
Lowering the benchmark for performance comparison does not mean that the actual rate of return will inevitably decline
On August 3, BOC Wealth Management announced that it plans to adjust the performance comparison benchmark of the "BOC Wealth Management-Wanfu (Quarterly Gain) 007" (WFJZY007A) product from August 9, 2022, from 2.70% to 4.00%. (annualized) adjusted to 2.50%-3.80% (annualized), that is, a reduction of 20 basis points on the basis of the original performance benchmark.
As of August 4, the net value of Bank of China Wealth Management-Wenfu (Quarterly Gain) 007-WFJZY007A was 1.037851, which means that the actual yield of holding for one year was 3.79%, which not only met the standard, but also exceeded the original 3.7% benchmark.
The CMB Wealth Management Zhaorui Yuetianli Balance 2A product, which has been in operation for more than a year, has also adjusted its performance comparison benchmark many times. On October 8 last year, the performance comparison benchmark of this product changed from a single numerical type to an interval type: 3.20% -3.80%.
Two months later, the lower end of the range fell to 3.1%, and the upper end was unchanged.
In January this year, the lower limit of the range was significantly lowered by 0.3 percentage points to 2.80%, and further lowered to 2.6% in May, but the upper limit has remained unchanged.
According to the official website of China Merchants Bank, the net value of China Merchants Bank’s Zhaorui Yuetianli Balance 2A product on August 8 was 1.061700, which means that the rate of return within 20 months of establishment is 6.17%, and the annualized rate of return is about 3.7%, which is close to the upper limit of the range. , also surpassed the original performance benchmark by 3.5%.
It can be seen from the two wealth management products of Bank of China and China Merchants Bank that even if the bank lowers the benchmark for performance comparison, it does not mean that the actual rate of return of wealth management products will inevitably decline.
It is worth noting that the overall performance comparison benchmark of the bank wealth management market is also in a downward stage.
Puyi Standard data shows that the average level of newly issued closed-end and open-end net worth wealth management products in the second quarter of this year has declined to varying degrees.
Among them, the average performance comparison benchmark of open-end net worth wealth management products was 3.79%, down 0.12 percentage points from the previous month; the average performance comparison benchmark of closed-end net worth wealth management products was 4.12%, down 0.10 percentage points from the previous month.
For investors who are accustomed to expected returns, how to choose excellent net worth products to avoid the sting of "financial assassins"?
Liu Yinping, an analyst at Rong 360 Digital Technology Research Institute, said that the performance comparison benchmark is only a reference rate of return. The product breaks the rigid payment, and the actual rate of return will fluctuate around the performance comparison benchmark, and sometimes may deviate far.
After the financial products break the rigid payment, the investment must be responsible for its own profits and losses. The purchase of financial products should not only be based on performance comparison benchmarks, but should focus on the risk of the product. The level of product risk is mainly judged from the risk level, investment scope, asset allocation ratio, historical net worth fluctuations, etc. .
Generally speaking, wealth management products with higher performance benchmarks have either high risk or deviation in liquidity. Investors should be able to balance the relationship between product risks, returns and liquidity.
Gou Haichuan, a researcher at Puyi Standard, suggested that investors can fully understand the historical performance of such products before purchasing wealth management products, and at the same time choose products according to their actual situation and risk preference. High risk appetite, you can choose medium and high risk products.
This group of articles / our reporter Cheng Jie
Coordinator/Chi Haibo