(1) Traditional bank wealth management products generally give the expected rate of return, which can be achieved through bank wealth management. Gradually, in the eyes of depositors or investors, bank wealth management products are all guaranteed income. Although the sales staff of bank wealth management clearly stated in the risk warning to customers that "wealth management is not a deposit, and investment needs to be cautious", in the eyes of customers, bank wealth management products are essentially a special type of deposit with guaranteed income.

From the bank's own financial investment operation, because the invested bond assets can be discounted and amortized by the rate of return, the income of financial products can be accrued and locked; For non-standard assets, they are not traded in the exchange or interbank market, and the net price does not fluctuate. Only the rate of return is calculated according to the holding time. Therefore, the unit net value of wealth management products is 1 yuan unchanged, and with the extension of wealth management period, the unit net value is rising.

When the wealth management products are paid at maturity, the principal and income can be paid by renewing the wealth management or transferring back to the self-operated account, which can actually lock in the income. In the collection of management fees, the traditional wealth management products of banks are all included in the management fees, except for certain custody fees and the income that should be distributed to customers. This is also the place where bank wealth management products have been criticized the most, because many scholars and experts believe that as a proxy wealth management, it should essentially be for customers, and banks should charge a fixed management fee and the remaining income should be distributed to customers.

(2) The new bank asset management plan does not set the expected rate of return. For example, the asset management plan issued by ICBC is to set a critical rate of return, beyond which a certain percentage of management fees will be charged. If the critical rate of return is not reached, a mechanism is set up to return management fees to compensate customers for their investment income. Therefore, the collection of management fees is essentially different from the traditional bank wealth management products.

As for the specific operation, I personally think that there is no essential difference, and the investment of assets should not change much, except for the introduction of direct financing tools for wealth management. In fact, the first pilot scale of the asset management plan is only 20 billion yuan, and the direct financing tool for wealth management is1200 million yuan (as I remember), which is actually a drop in the bucket for the bank wealth management market with a scale of 10 trillion. Compared with the credit assets invested in the wealth management account, the direct financing salary of wealth management is also very small, which has little effect on the compression of channel business such as brokers. However, the introduction of bank asset management plan is of greater significance, good policy orientation and a long way to go.

Data expansion and asset management did not expect the highest annualized rate of return. In the past, the bank's (self-selling) wealth management business income, in addition to custody fees and sales fees, the bank will also obtain the excess part of the wealth management investment that exceeds the highest expected annualized rate of return after it expires in the name of investment management fees. Asset management business also charges custody fees and sales fees, but management fees are not charged according to the excess part of investment income, but according to the proportion of scale and/or income.

To put it bluntly, all the excess returns from wealth management belong to banks, and most of the excess returns from asset management belong to investors. Someone on the Internet mentioned that asset management has cancelled "rigid redemption" relative to financial management. In fact, this can't be considered as the difference between the two, because the phenomenon that financial management can't reach the expected income also happens, but most consumers still can't understand the concept of financial management without deposits, so this is a problem of financial management popularization.