Bank wealth management products face frequent issuance failures

NightAirdropper · 2026-04-07T02:47:48+00:00

According to incomplete statistics from Wind, from January to the end of March 2026, more than 42 fixed-income financial products have failed to be issued, a significant increase compared to the same period in 2025 (3), 2024 (7), and 2023 (9). Over 60% of these are closed-end fixed-income products. Huaxia Wealth Management has announced that 15 products will not be established, including 9 fixed-income closed-end products and 1 pure bond product with a 90-day holding period. Other wealth management subsidiaries such as China Merchants Bank, CITIC Bank, Everbright, Guangfa Bank, and Bohai Bank have also issued similar announcements.Although the average performance benchmark for closed-end products in February reached 2.35%, and the average annualized yield of existing products over the past month is 3.03%, investor preferences have shifted: under geopolitical risks and market volatility, investors are more inclined toward open-ended, quickly redeemable "Fixed Income+" products. Acceptance of 3-6 month closed periods has decreased, and even for products with a benchmark exceeding 2.2%, investors now require a holding period of no more than 30-45 days.

NightAirdropper

2026-04-07 02:47:48

According to incomplete Wind data, from January to the end of March 2026, more than 42 fixed-income wealth management products have already failed to issue, up significantly from the same period in 2025 (3), 2024 (7), and 2023 (9). Among them, over 60% are fixed-income closed-end products. China Merchants? No—China? Wait: Huaxia Wealth Management has announced that 15 products will not be成立, including 9 fixed-income closed-end products and 1 pure-bond product with a 90-day holding period. Wealth management subsidiaries such as CMB, CCB? No—CM? Wait: Sun?—CMB, CCB? Actually “招银、信银、光大、广银、渤银” are CMB, Bank of Communications? We’ll translate: CMB, BOCOM, Everbright, Guangfa, Bohai also simultaneously issued similar announcements.

Despite the fact that in February the average performance comparison benchmark of closed-end products was 2.35%, and the average annualized return over the past month for outstanding products was 3.03%, investors’ preferences have changed: amid geopolitical risks and market volatility, investors are more inclined toward “fixed-income+” products that are open-ended and can be redeemed quickly, with lower acceptance of 3–6 month closed-end terms; some even require holding periods not exceeding 30–45 days for products with benchmarks above 2.2%.

Meanwhile, tighter regulation on “return rankings,” declining subscription intent from major clients, performance benchmarks generally being lowered to below 2.5%, product homogenization, and an oversupply of 90-day closed-end terms have all intensified supply-demand mismatches. Experts noted that the wealth management market has shifted from scale expansion to a game of inventory.

At present, some wealth management subsidiaries have already started adjustments: pausing new issuance, building demand insights, promoting “fixed-income+” transformation, and compressing closed-end terms to 45–60 days to respond to structural challenges.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.