The first view is that the supervisor should bear the guarantee responsibility, that is, the securities company or futures company acts as the guarantor of the trustee in the contract to guarantee the trustee to perform the contract. Once the trustee breaches the contract, the securities company or futures company shall bear the guarantee responsibility for the client. As for general guarantee or joint guarantee, it depends on the contract. The second point of view is that the supervisor should bear tort liability, that is, in the case that the trustee's behavior constitutes a breach of contract and may or will damage the principal's funds, the supervisor with supervision obligation can complete the trustee's breach of contract or make the loss actually happen because he violates the duty of care and notification or fails to take active supervision measures, and his fault has a causal relationship with the principal's loss, and the principal can claim damages from the infringing bank. The third view is that the supervisor should bear the liability for breach of contract, that is, in the third-party supervision contract, whether it is a supervision contract signed by three parties or a supervision contract signed by the client and the supervisor, the supervisor is the trustee, and his contractual obligations conform to the provisions of the contract law on entrustment contracts. The supervisor shall be liable for compensation only if he fails to perform his supervision obligations or does not conform to the agreement and causes losses to the client. For the first view, although the third-party supervision contract seems to have many similarities with the guarantee contract, from the perspective of responsibility, as long as the debtor fails to perform the debts in the guarantee contract, the guarantor should perform the debts or bear the responsibilities as agreed, regardless of whether the guarantor violates the guarantee contract; In the third-party supervision contract, the responsibility of the supervisor is based on the fact that the supervisor violates his supervision promise and fails to perform his supervision obligations. When determining the supervisor's liability for compensation, it should be based on whether the supervisor is at fault, the size of the fault, and the relationship between fault and loss. The principle of fault liability applies to supervisors. For the second point of view, in the case of the coexistence of entrusted financial management and entrusted supervision, if the supervisor fails to fulfill his supervisory obligations, resulting in losses to the principal or the trustee, there must be a breach of contract by the trustee at the same time, and the two are related. The acts of the trustee and supervisor not only infringe on the creditor's rights of the client, but also constitute non-performance of the debt. It seems that the parties can claim jointly. However, the supervisor's failure to perform his supervisory obligations and the trustee's breach of contract are often independent acts, and there is no evidence that there is a subjective interest. If the responsibility basis (based on different entrusted financial management contracts and entrusted supervision contracts) is independent, it will bring some disputes, such as the responsibility relationship between the trustee and the supervisor, how to share the responsibility, whether the supervisor can recover from the trustee after assuming the responsibility, and how to determine the share of recovery. We tend to the third point of view, because the third-party supervision contract and the entrusted financial management contract coexist but are relatively independent. The conclusion of the entrusted supervision contract is based on the trust of both parties to the entrusted financial management contract in the securities company or futures company. In practice, because of the existence of designated transactions, securities companies or futures companies have the ability to provide supervision objectively. Although most supervision contracts are free, securities companies or futures companies can earn commission or fee income through designated transactions of supervision services, regardless of whether there is supervision fee or not. In the contract, the supervisor accepts the joint entrustment of the principal and the trustee or the separate entrustment of the principal to supervise the securities account and the fund account determined by both parties to ensure the safe and legal use of the funds in the account. Some supervision contracts also authorize the supervisor to forcibly close the position when the sum of the total assets of the account is lower than the closing line standard. The supervisor's right comes from the authorization of the client, which constitutes the supervisor's obligation. At the same time, whether the supervisor assumes the responsibility mainly depends on whether he has violated the regulatory commitment agreed in the contract, whether there is any fault in performing the regulatory responsibility, and whether it has caused losses to the client. Therefore, the supervisor shall be liable for breach of contract. Based on the above analysis, in the case of financial entrusted financial management disputes, the supervisor may have the following forms of responsibility: First, the supervisor's liability for breach of contract. That is, if the supervisor violates the supervision contract and fails to perform the supervision obligations such as timely liquidation and stop loss, resulting in the loss of entrusted assets, he shall bear the corresponding liability for damages for breach of contract. The second is the tort liability of the supervisor. That is, if the supervisor misappropriates the entrusted assets under the entrusted financial management contract or transfers the entrusted assets in violation of relevant regulations, causing losses to the client, he shall bear the corresponding liability for tort damages. The third is the joint tort liability of the supervisor and the trustee. That is to say, if the supervisor and the trustee damage the interests of the principal due to joint fraud, malicious collusion, insider trading, market price manipulation, etc., they shall be jointly and severally liable for the losses of the principal. Fourth, the responsibility of the supervisor for contracting fault. That is, after the supervision contract is confirmed to be invalid according to law, the supervisor shall be liable for compensation for the trustor's trust interests according to whether the contract is invalid or not. Fifth, the supervisor's guarantee responsibility. That is, if the supervisor agrees in the supervision contract to provide guarantee for the trustee to perform the entrusted financial management contract, he shall bear civil liability to the client when the trustee fails to perform his obligations. As mentioned above, the supervisor's breach of contract often exists at the same time as the trustee's breach of contract, which jointly leads to the loss of the client. At this time, should the supervisor bear joint and several liability or supplementary liability? We believe that the supervisor should bear supplementary responsibility for the losses caused to the client due to his failure to fulfill his supervision obligations. Because the entrusted financial management contract and the entrusted supervision contract are independent of each other, the trustee and the supervisor are also independent of each other without subjective contact. The supervisor's liability for breach of contract based on the entrusted supervision contract is different from that of the trustee, regardless of its basis or scope. Because when the supervisor assumes the responsibility, the ultimate responsible person is often the trustee, unless there is evidence to prove that the supervisor and the trustee jointly cheat, maliciously collude, engage in insider trading or manipulate the market to harm the interests of the client, the trustee and the supervisor should bear joint and several liability for compensation, and the supervisor should only bear corresponding supplementary liability for compensation. Editor's recommendation: explanation of the client's dissolution of the entrustment contract by entrustment agreement.