Bank wealth management performance benchmark adjustment display method leaves investors exclaiming "I can't understand"

Our newspaper (chinatimes.net.cn) reporters Zhang Meng and Lu Mengxue, Beijing reports

“I don’t understand it. I feel I need to quickly brush up on financial knowledge.” Beijing investor Ms. Chen told reporters that she recently planned to purchase some financial products, but when viewing the product details page, she found that the familiar performance comparison benchmark range had disappeared, replaced by a complex calculation formula.

On the bank app page she showed to the reporter, a certain product’s performance comparison benchmark states: “30% × the deposit rate of the People’s Bank of China + 70% × the CSI 0-6 Month Treasury Bond Index yield.” Confronted with this description, Ms. Chen admitted she was somewhat at a loss.

The reporter noticed that recently, many bank wealth management subsidiaries have been intensively adjusting the performance comparison benchmarks of their existing financial products. Traditional single values or ranges are gradually being replaced by market rate-based or index-composite types. Industry insiders point out that this round of adjustments is a positive response to the upcoming implementation of the “Measures for the Administration of Asset Management Product Information Disclosure of Banking and Insurance Institutions” (hereinafter “the Measures”) on September 1 this year, aiming to enhance transparency and standardization of information disclosure and better protect investors’ rights.

Adjustment of Performance Comparison Benchmark Display Methods

In the prospectus of financial products, the performance comparison benchmark is usually calculated by the product manager based on the investment scope, strategy, asset allocation plan, and market environment.

According to industry insiders, there are currently four main forms of performance comparison benchmarks in the market. First, a single value, such as “3.5%”; second, a range, such as “2.1%–3.1%”; third, a benchmark or market interest rate with adjustments, such as “People’s Bank of China 7-day notice deposit rate + 1.5%”; fourth, an index or index combination, such as “30% × the deposit rate + 70% × the CSI 0-6 Month Treasury Bond Index yield.”

Recently, many bank wealth management subsidiaries have adjusted their product benchmarks, with some changing from numeric or range formats to market rate or index-composite formats.

For example, China Everbright Wealth Management announced that its “Sunshine Gold Plus Half-Year Profit No. 2” product will, starting March 18, adjust its benchmark to “CBA00113.CS - ChinaBond New Comprehensive Full Price (Less than 1 Year) Index Yield.” The reporter checked the sales page of this product, where the current benchmark is 1.8%. Another product, “Sunshine Gold Steady and Enjoy Daily Purchase No. 8,” has been adjusted since March 16 to “ChinaBond - Comprehensive Full Price (Less than 1 Year) Index Yield + 0.05%.”

招商银行财务管理也已对多款产品进行了类似调整。一款固定收益类产品，调整前的业绩比较基准为“2.2%–4.2%”，调整后变更为“40% × the People’s Bank of China 3-month fixed deposit benchmark rate (after tax) + 60% × ChinaBond Comprehensive Wealth (Less than 1 Year) Index Yield.”

北京财富管理协会特约研究员杨海平向《华夏时报》记者表示，近期多家理财子公司调整业绩比较基准展示形式，背后主要有两方面原因：

首先是出于合规要求。《办法》将于今年9月1日正式实施。该办法对业绩比较基准的披露提出了明确要求，特别规定披露后需保持连贯性，不得随意调整；其次与市场波动有关。今年以来，债券市场波动较为明显，这导致理财产品收益率也随之出现较明显的波动。如果沿用过去的单一数值或区间形式来展示业绩比较基准，就可能因市场变化而面临中途调整。这与前述办法“不得随意调整”的合规要求相悖。因此，调整为与指数或市场利率挂钩等形式，更能适应市场波动，保持合规。

投资者教育服务应进一步加强

“看不懂。”“一知半解。”“得问问AI这到底怎么算。”

当记者将部分指数组合型业绩比较基准展示给一些普通投资者时，不少人给出了上述反馈。

“新的展示方式确实可能增加投资者的理解难度。”苏商银行特约研究员武泽伟向《华夏时报》记者表示。他提到，为避免加剧信息不对称，银行及理财机构应进一步加强投资者教育，通过简化说明、提供案例讲解、强化风险提示等方式，帮助投资者理解产品特性。同时，还应建立更便捷的咨询渠道，确保投资者在充分知情的基础上做出投资决策。

记者注意到，《办法》中明确提到，资产管理产品披露业绩比较基准的，应当说明业绩比较基准的选择原因、测算依据或计算方法，重点反映业绩比较基准与投资策略、底层资产和相关金融市场表现的关系。同时，产品管理人应当保持产品业绩比较基准的连贯性，原则上不得调整业绩比较基准。

有理财公司内部人士向记者坦言，调整确实基于相关监管要求，但并非所有产品的业绩比较基准都会进行变更。“是否调整、如何调整，仍需结合产品类型、投资策略和客户定位等实际情况综合判断。”

杨海平向记者分析称，监管层推动此项调整，或主要基于以下考虑：

其一，也是主要的方面，是为了继续淡化刚性兑付预期。原有的展示方式，如提供一个收益率区间，容易给投资者造成误解，使其模糊理财产品的风险属性，甚至可能被理解为理财子公司的一种收益承诺。这不利于巩固监管一贯倡导的“打破刚性兑付”理念。

其二，是为了规范理财子公司的展业和营销行为。如果对业绩比较基准的展示形式约束不足，部分机构可能采用违规方式，进行虚假宣传和营销，从而误导消费者、带来损失。

“新规要求业绩比较基准与产品实际投资策略更紧密挂钩，避免误导投资者形成刚性兑付预期。对理财公司而言，这要求其加强投研能力，优化产品设计，并提升信息披露的准确性和完整性。”武泽伟表示。

责任编辑：冯樱子 主编：张志伟

【来源：华夏时报】