In the long run, it is a good thing to break the rigid payment, but the premise is that the level and effectiveness of supervision should keep up, that is to say, to protect the legitimate interests of investors, not only verbally, but also in action. At the same time, there should be a mechanism to accelerate the efficiency of investor protection and implement it in the actual follow-up work.
1. Investors in wealth management products are not unwilling to break the rigid redemption, but also willing to bear their own profits and losses according to market rules. But as an investor, he should only bear the trading profits and losses of the underlying assets of wealth management products in the market. All other losses caused to wealth management products should be borne by the managers of wealth management products and related responsible parties, not investors. In fact, there is a certain mistake in the logical concept to break the rigid redemption we understand now. We believe that investors should take the lead as long as there are problems with wealth management products. Then slowly distinguish the responsibilities and propose solutions.
2. According to the timetable of the new asset management regulations, it should be formally implemented by the end of 2020, and the two-year transition period will end. But why did the regulatory authorities extend the transition period by another year? In fact, the very important reason is that the management risk of wealth management products is too great, and it is possible to uncover the cover of wealth management products and find that there are serious management responsibilities from the establishment of wealth management products, the purchase of underlying assets, the risk identification of underlying assets, the survival management of underlying assets and the follow-up treatment. If implemented rashly, investors may eventually become the ultimate risk takers. It has also formed a new wave of accidents in wealth management products.
3. We can look at many faulty trust products of trust companies in the current whirlpool. Did investors make any mistakes in it? Without making mistakes, can the risk of the underlying assets of wealth management products be controlled? If it is only a market risk, it should be borne by investors. The problems exposed now are basically that the manager has not managed effectively, that many promises made when purchasing the underlying assets are false, and that the risk disposal measures are opaque and suspected of insider operation.
4. If all wealth management products run in the sun. When raising and marketing, we should abide by the norms and fully disclose information. When purchasing the underlying assets, the due diligence procedures are complete. Perform duties during the product life cycle, find problems in time and deal with them in time. Inform investors in time after the risk occurs and fully disclose the information. When dealing with risks, it will be carried out with investors. I believe that the final result at this time will be recognized by investors, and it will naturally break after the exchange.
5. Now the moral hazard and professional due diligence risk of managers are actually very large. For example, the recent controversy over trust products managed by Hu Zuliu, a famous economist, exposed moral hazard. I just want managers to make money, and investors don't care about profits and profits. 83 tons of fake gold in Wuhan revealed that the professional due diligence of managers is far from enough. This makes that if the rigid payment is really broken, if it is really in accordance with the regulations, these managers will be found out. First of all, managers will go bankrupt, go to jail, be fined and be punished.
6. From the perspective of supervision, how to establish an efficient dispute handling process for wealth management products and a more open and transparent investigation and handling process is also an important proposition before the post team is completely eliminated. As a neutral third party, supervision should actually gain the trust of investors and managers of wealth management products. But at present, supervision is the superior management organization of wealth management product managers. Will some opaque measures be taken to maintain the overall stable development of the industry? Do investors in wealth management products believe it or not?
Before the above work is completed, if the transaction rashly breaks the rigid redemption, the result is that no one dares to buy wealth management products. The reputation of financial institutions will be greatly reduced, the trust of regulatory agencies will also decline, and the harmony and stability of the whole society will also be affected to some extent.
Breaking the "rigid redemption" is the source of the loan repayment financial market. Our investors have been taken care of. Before the marketization of interest rates, everyone thought that investment was to protect the principal and pay interest, and never thought there was any risk. The worst result is to get back the principal without paying interest. However, after the marketization of 20 13 interest rate started, this "rigid redemption" gradually began to be broken by real cases, such as trust, creditor's rights and wealth management products.
At that time, neither the platform nor investors fully realized the risks of investment, and everyone was optimistic. Investors think that I invested 1 million, and I will pay back the principal and interest of 1, 654,38+0,500,000 after one year. The platform dares to promise, and all of them are called hard. At this time, you will find that those "regular" platforms are given instead. And those platforms that dare to promise can always be recognized by many investors, and they have invested money in them. Back to 20 15 years ago, the return on investment of 15% is not an easy thing, and the market can be seen everywhere.
However, in recent years, we have seen too many platforms close down, and online lending has brought this promise into full play. No matter what your background, state-owned enterprise background, listed company background or well-known investment institution background, the final outcome is the same. Many people think that it is because of the clean-up of the country that so many platforms have closed down. In fact, if the country does not clean up these platforms, it will still close down, and more investors will lose money, and it will be a bigger loss. In the end, the business model of usury in the market will inevitably survive. Small mortgage, the real interest rate is amazing, which can be magnified several times or even dozens of times through interest rolling, and eventually devour all your assets, even the assets of your family. The final result is bankruptcy and the platform earns enough.
The essence of rigid redemption is to restore the essence of financial market. Only banks can pay rigidly, but all other investments are not allowed, and neither are bank wealth management products. This is not determined by a person or an institution, but by the nature of finance. Banks dare to make rigid payment because the interest rate they can offer is very low, and they can bear it even if huge risks can occur.
Investment is full of uncertainty. Your rate of return must come from the cost of another entity. The rate of return brought by your investment in a product must come from the financing cost paid by another individual or enterprise, plus the operating expenses and profits of the platform. Now China's GDP growth rate has slowed down to 6%, which is not the economic growth rate of 10% in the past. The macro economy has always been like this. Where can I make so much profit? Where does the rate of return on capital come from?
When Alipay's Yu 'ebao was launched on 20 13, the yield was as high as 7%, but now it has fallen below 2%, which is already very low. Many people thought that Yu 'ebao would subvert the bank, but it didn't. The current scale is about 1.2 trillion. Why didn't you realize the grand feat of subverting banks or even replacing them? The reason is that Yu 'ebao is not an investment institution at all, but a "channel". Small amounts of money are gathered together through Alipay and then distributed to banks to earn a certain handling fee. This is not because of his investment ability at all.
With such trillions of assets, who can guarantee a fixed rate of return of 7%? If it is really so powerful, Ma Yun doesn't have to do Taobao, just do it directly.
It is inevitable to break the rigid redemption. If it is not broken, investors will move deposits, and whoever dares to promise to give it to Gao will give it to him. Then the final result must be that the more daring a liar is, the more money he can absorb, but in the end it can't be maintained, because if you want to invest this money, where can you get such a high return? Is it equity investment? Can it be better than a professional private equity firm? Or do you want to be a money fund? The yield of money fund is very low, so you must be losing money.
Where does your profit come from? Some people's promises are for your principal, without thinking about the future. It's like a man and a woman falling in love. Although people who dare to promise may be more popular with girls, they are more likely to be unreliable. The man who really wants to be with you is very cautious in his commitment. What he values more is whether it has been realized. Promise this kind of thing is a matter of opening your mouth, and if you give it, you will certainly do it. The same is true of investment. I promise to give you a high return and cheat your principal first. I didn't want to repay the principal in the future.
Investors need education. If you don't suffer the loss of market education, you always think that your persuasion is preventing him from making a fortune. This is the significance of breaking rigid redemption, which makes investors more cautious. Another meaning is that investment is risky, you need to be cautious, keep your eyes open, and don't blame the government for losses. You are all adults, and you have given many warnings.