2% performance benchmark makes it difficult to retain funds; several new financial products failed to launch at the beginning of the year due to insufficient fundraising.

This report (chinatimes.net.cn) reporters Zhang Meng and Lu Mengxue from Beijing report

“The performance benchmark is around 2%, and it needs to be locked in for one to two years, which indeed has limited appeal for investors.” A bank wealth management manager candidly told reporters that similar feedback has been frequently seen in recent client communications.

Since the beginning of the year, several institutions, including Pudong Development Bank Wealth Management, Huaxia Wealth Management, and Suzhou Bank Wealth Management, have successively issued announcements stating that certain wealth management products failed to launch due to not meeting the minimum fundraising scale. These products are all low to medium-risk fixed-income wealth management, with most operating in a closed-end net value format.

Several industry insiders pointed out to reporters that the ongoing low interest rate environment has compressed the yield space for traditional fixed-income wealth management, affecting investors’ subscription enthusiasm; at the same time, the problem of product homogenization is becoming increasingly prominent, lacking differentiated competitiveness, making it inherently difficult to impress increasingly rational investors.

Multiple Wealth Management Products Fail to Launch

According to statistics from reporters, from early 2026 to March 23, Huaxia Wealth Management has issued a total of 14 announcements regarding the non-establishment of wealth management products. In contrast, the institution had only 10 wealth management products that failed to establish in the first half of 2025.

Further analysis by the reporters revealed that all 14 failed products are fixed income, with 5 being open-end net value types and the remaining 9 being closed-end net value types, all classified as low or medium-low risk. Regarding the reasons for non-establishment, aside from 1 product announcement indicating “failure to meet the preset asset investment requirements,” the other 13 simply stated “the total fundraising amount did not reach the minimum issuance scale as stipulated in the product prospectus.”

The planned minimum issuance scale for these failed products ranges from 5 million to 50 million yuan. In terms of performance benchmarks, closed-end products generally offer relatively higher performance benchmarks due to longer terms. The shortest closure period is 97 days, while the longest reaches 1093 days. For example, one product with a closure period of 1073 days has a planned issuance minimum of 5 million yuan, with its performance benchmark fluctuating between 2% and 2.2% depending on the share class.

For the failed open-end net value products, the planned issuance minimum is uniformly set at 10 million yuan, with a risk level classified as medium-low risk. The overall performance benchmark is lower than that of closed-end products, generally entering the “1” range. For example, one product has a performance benchmark of 1.2% to 2.2% for its Class A shares.

It is noteworthy that the situation at Huaxia Wealth Management is not an isolated case.

A company-exclusive wealth management product “Qi An Yi” issued by Pudong Development Bank on February 4 was declared non-established after the subscription period ended on February 10 due to the total subscription amount not reaching the minimum issuance scale. Coincidentally, another company-exclusive product “Qi An Yue” issued by the same company on March 4 also failed to establish for the same reason after the subscription period expired on March 10.

Additionally, the official website of Guangdong Nanyue Bank shows that a closed-end net value wealth management product issued on February 24 also failed to establish by March 2 due to not meeting the minimum fundraising scale.

In addition to entire products failing to raise funds, some products have also seen individual share failures. For instance, Suzhou Bank Wealth Management announced on February 2 that the share of “Suzhou Bank Wealth Management Hengyuan 1-Year Open 36th Phase ZU (Automatic Redemption)” had no actual fundraising and thus did not establish. However, the announcement emphasized that the non-establishment of this share would not affect the normal investment operation of other shares in that wealth management product.

Why is the Market “Not Buying”?

“It’s not that I don’t want to buy wealth management products; I just don’t know how to choose,” investor Ms. Chen expressed her confusion to reporters. “Now there are too many products recommended on the APP, and their names all sound similar. When you click in, the investment directions are also quite similar, but the performance benchmarks keep getting lower, and some even use complex calculation formulas that make it harder to understand.”

Analysis by Puyi Standard indicates that the failure of wealth management products to raise funds generally stems from several major reasons: first, in extreme market conditions with low sentiment and poor issuance environment, products struggle to gain sufficient subscriptions; second, some institutions’ previously bulk-launched products face sales difficulties after market changes; third, some products are highly innovative, such as those involving rare market commodities and financial derivatives, with complex structures and high cognitive thresholds, limiting ordinary investors’ understanding and leading to cautious attitudes; fourth, the past performance of similar established products also influences investors’ judgments on new products.

Data from Puyi Standard shows that in February 2026, a total of 2,018 new wealth management products were issued across the market, a decrease of 522 from the previous period. Among these, 397 are open-end products with an average performance benchmark of 1.85%; 1,621 are closed-end products with an average benchmark of 2.35%. During the same period, wealth management companies issued 1,518 new products, a decrease of 376, accounting for 75.22% of the total market issuance.

Wu Zewei, a special researcher at Suzhou Bank, stated in an interview that the frequent failure of fundraising for fixed-income wealth management products reflects short-term market sentiment fluctuations and also reveals deeper structural contradictions within the wealth management industry.

“Short-term factors such as fluctuations in market interest rates and bond market adjustments have impacted investor confidence, leading to decreased subscription willingness. But the deeper reason is the prominent problem of product homogenization, especially the lack of differentiated competitiveness among closed-end fixed-income products, which makes it difficult to meet the increasingly diversified needs of investors. Meanwhile, the ongoing transformation towards net value after the new asset management regulations has led some investors to still be insufficiently accepting of net value fluctuations, which also influences their purchasing decisions.”

Wu Zewei further explained that in an environment of low interest rates and high volatility, investor demand for wealth management products is changing significantly. First, from a focus on fixed income to balancing liquidity and yield. Investors prefer products with flexible holding periods and easy subscription and redemption, reducing acceptance of long-term closed-end products; second, risk appetite is becoming more polarized. Some investors are shifting to low-risk assets like deposits, while others seek higher returns through “fixed income +” products that include equity assets, weakening the appeal of purely medium-low risk fixed-income products; third, demands for transparency and asset allocation are increasing. Investors are paying more attention to the quality of underlying assets, the timeliness of net value disclosures, and managers’ ability to respond to market fluctuations. “These changes require wealth management institutions to accelerate product innovation, improve investment research and risk management capabilities, and develop more flexible, transparent, and diversified product systems to adapt to the new normal of the market.”

Editor: Feng Yingzi Chief Editor: Zhang Zhiwei