Funding targets not met, multiple bank wealth management products fail to launch! Industry insiders: products need to break free from the "same old" predicament

Each reporter｜Pan Ting Li Yuwen Each editor｜Yang Yi

Recently, multiple wealth management companies, including Huaxia Wealth Management, Pudong Development Bank Wealth Management, and China Merchants Bank Wealth Management, issued announcements stating that new wealth management products would not be established, primarily due to the total amount raised not meeting the lower limit. According to incomplete statistics from Law Inquiry Wealth Management Network, there have been 40 failed wealth management product issuances this year (as of now), all of which are fixed-income products, with most risk levels rated R2 (medium-low risk) or even R1 (low risk).

Reporters from the “Daily Economic News” noted that by 2025, the outstanding scale of the bank wealth management market continues to expand. However, since the beginning of this year, newly issued bank wealth management products have frequently failed due to “insufficient fundraising scale.”

How can wealth management companies break the situation of “products not established due to inadequate fundraising”? In this context, considering that residents’ risk preference remains relatively low in the short term, apart from low-risk wealth management products, what other more stable “alternatives” are available?

40 Wealth Management Products Failed to Issue

On March 19, Huaxia Wealth Management announced that the Huaxia Wealth Management Fixed Income Product No. 37 would not be established because the total amount raised did not meet the issuance scale lower limit stipulated in the product prospectus.

According to statistics from Tonghuashun, in March, Huaxia Wealth Management had a total of six products that failed to be established, namely: “Huaxia Wealth Management Fixed Income Product No. 37,” “Fixed Income Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 1317,” “Fixed Income Pure Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 354,” “Yue An Xin Fixed Income Pure Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 83,” “Fixed Income Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 1381,” and “Fixed Income Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 1002.”

According to reporters from the “Daily Economic News,” the aforementioned six products are all closed-end net value fixed income wealth management products, primarily rated as medium-low risk, overall leaning towards stability. In terms of issuance scale setting, the threshold for many products is set at 50 million yuan, while the lower limit for “Huaxia Wealth Management Fixed Income Bond-type Closed-end Wealth Management Product No. 1381” is set at 5 million yuan.

According to incomplete statistical data from Law Inquiry Wealth Management Network, there have been a total of 40 failed wealth management products issued so far this year, all of which are fixed income products.

In fact, apart from Huaxia Wealth Management, Pudong Development Bank Wealth Management, China Merchants Bank Wealth Management, and others also have wealth management products that have failed to issue. For example, Pudong Development Bank Wealth Management announced that the company’s exclusive wealth management product for enterprises, Pudong Development Bank Wealth Management Qi An Yue Company Exclusive Wealth Management Product No. 2603, issued on March 4, 2026, failed to be established by March 10, 2026, due to the total subscription amount not reaching the lower limit of the issuance scale stipulated in the product prospectus; in mid-February, China Merchants Bank Wealth Management announced that its Zhuhui Jiayue (Technology Growth) Daily Holding Period 1 Fixed Income Enhanced Wealth Management Plan, originally scheduled for fundraising from February 6, 2026, to February 10, 2026, did not reach the lower limit of the issuance scale according to the actual fundraising situation and decided that the wealth management plan would not be established according to relevant agreements.

Outstanding Scale of the Bank Wealth Management Market Exceeds 30 Trillion Yuan

The “Annual Report on the Bank Wealth Management Market (2025)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”) shows that by the end of 2025, the outstanding scale of the bank wealth management market was 33.29 trillion yuan, an increase of 11.15% compared to the beginning of the year, with a total of 33,400 new wealth management products issued throughout the year, raising funds of 76.33 trillion yuan; the number of investors holding wealth management products reached 143 million, an increase of 14.37% compared to the beginning of the year; the total annual income generated for investors was 730.3 billion yuan.

However, in February 2026, the number of newly issued wealth management products in the entire market decreased month-on-month. Data from Puyi Standard shows that in February of this year, 2,018 new wealth management products were issued in the entire market, a decrease of 522 from the previous month. Among them, 397 were open-ended products, with an average performance benchmark of 1.85%; 1,621 were closed-end products, with an average performance benchmark of 2.35%. During the same period, wealth management companies issued 1,518 new products, a decrease of 376 from the previous month, accounting for 75.22% of the total issuance in the entire market.

Zeng Gang, chief expert and director of the Shanghai Financial and Development Laboratory, told reporters that the failure of wealth management product issuances may still occur. In a low-interest-rate environment, products lacking clear positioning and differentiated features will continue to face elimination pressure, which is also a normal reflection of the market’s survival of the fittest.

Zeng Gang further stated that the main reasons for wealth management products failing to meet fundraising standards are threefold. First, the continuous decline in yield has significantly reduced product attractiveness, leading to a natural decline in investor subscription willingness; second, the high homogeneity of wealth management products makes it difficult to form effective demand. The vast majority of failed products are closed-end fixed income types, with underlying assets consisting solely of bonds and interbank certificates of deposit, leaving investors with not differentiated choices but rather a simple yield comparison, making market diversion inevitable; third, there is a mismatch in the supply and demand structure, and the contradictions have long remained unresolved.

According to Su Xiaorui, a senior researcher at Suxi Zhiyan, products that fail to be issued due to not meeting the establishment lower limit share some common characteristics. Su Xiaorui told reporters that these common characteristics include belonging to fixed income types, being rated as medium-low risk, and being closed-end net value types.

“Such wealth management products that fail to raise funds mainly target risk-averse conservative investors whose core demand is capital preservation and stable returns, rather than pursuing high returns. The failure to raise funds is the result of multiple factors from the supply side, demand side, channel side, and external environment. On the supply side, the degree of product homogeneity is high, while on the demand side, liquidity preference is on the rise, but the performance benchmarks of such products do not attract the market sufficiently,” Su Xiaorui added that the subsequent phenomenon of wealth management products failing to issue may become the norm.

How Should Wealth Management Companies Break the Impasse?

So, how can wealth management companies break the situation of “products not established due to inadequate fundraising”? In Zeng Gang’s view, efforts should be made in three aspects: product restructuring, operational logic, and rebuilding investor trust.

“On the product level, to break out of the ‘thousand products, one face’ dilemma, it is necessary to align with investors’ preference for liquidity and increase the supply of open-ended, short-holding period products.” Zeng Gang told reporters from the “Daily Economic News” that it is necessary to appropriately introduce diversified assets such as equities, gold, and REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) to enrich the “fixed income +” strategy, making products genuinely possess differentiated competitive advantages. By 2026, the scale of “fixed income +” strategy products has increased by over 70% year on year, confirming the market’s recognition of this direction.

“Secondly, the shift in operational logic requires wealth management products to move away from scale orientation and return to value creation.” Zeng Gang pointed out that if it is judged before issuance that the fundraising scale is unlikely to meet the standard, it should be actively terminated rather than blindly promoted, concentrating resources to create a few refined benchmark products is more strategically valuable than forcing a poorly performing product to continue.

The final step is to rebuild investor trust. “In the era of net value, professional risk communication and transparent information disclosure are key to retaining customers.” In Zeng Gang’s opinion, helping investors truly understand that “low risk does not equal capital preservation,” and establishing a long-term companionship mechanism in market fluctuations can help maintain scale and earn reputation in stock game.

Su Xiaorui also proposed her views from the perspectives of asset allocation and channel expansion: on one hand, wealth management companies can strengthen asset allocation, developing from “fixed income-oriented” to “diversified balanced” development, increasing allocation to equity assets; on the other hand, they can also enhance channel expansion and the full lifecycle service system of wealth management, using professional investment research capabilities and reliable customer companionship abilities to promote fund retention and enhance customer stickiness.

What Other Stable “Alternatives” Are Available?

Considering that residents’ risk preference remains relatively low in the short term, what other more stable “alternatives” are available apart from low-risk wealth management products? In this regard, the reporter has found that currently, products such as savings treasury bonds and participating insurance not only have stable advantages but also possess their unique characteristics, thus gaining favor with many investors.

● Savings Treasury Bonds: Flexible Liquidity, Can Be Pledged or Cashed Early

On March 10, the first batch of savings treasury bonds (certificate-type) for 2026 was issued. On the same day, many bank branches experienced situations where quotas were “sold out” in seconds. Specifically, the maximum issuance amount of treasury bonds this year has been 15 billion yuan, with a 3-year coupon annual interest rate of 1.63% and a 5-year coupon annual interest rate of 1.7%.

If this yield level were considered unremarkable a few years ago, with interest rates declining, the current fixed deposit rates for 3-year and 5-year terms at major state-owned banks are only 1.25% and 1.3%, respectively; in comparison, savings treasury bonds offer more advantageous yields.

In addition, another advantage of savings treasury bonds is their flexibility in liquidity, making them quite liquid.

According to the reporter’s understanding, when investors need loans, they can use savings treasury bonds as collateral at the original purchasing bank for loans. Furthermore, savings treasury bonds can also be cashed early during the holding period, with interest paid based on the actual holding time and the corresponding tiered interest rates.

● Participating Insurance: Dual Yield Advantage of “Guaranteed + Floating,” Suitable for Long-term Holding

Recently, reporters visiting banks found that participating insurance with a guaranteed interest rate of 1.75% has become a flagship product promoted by various banks, mainly including participating annuity insurance and participating whole life insurance.

Participating insurance offers a guaranteed interest rate, and on this basis, the insurance company allocates distributable surplus to policyholders based on actual operating conditions, forming floating dividends. With the dual yield advantage of “guaranteed + floating,” participating insurance is quite attractive in the current low-interest-rate environment.

According to an analysis by the financial team of Guosen Securities Economic Research Institute, participating insurance shows threefold attractiveness in the current market environment: first, its guaranteed interest rate provides a safety cushion similar to deposits, catering to residents’ deep demand for capital safety; second, the floating dividend part is linked to the investment performance of the insurance company, allowing insurance funds to achieve higher yield potential than bank deposits during the downcycle of interest rates, satisfying residents’ desire for moderate yield growth; third, participating insurance typically has a longer insurance period, which helps guide funds for long-term planning, alleviating the volatility in the financial market caused by rapid inflows and outflows of funds. Additionally, some products also offer policy loan functions, balancing liquidity needs to a certain extent.

According to the reporter’s understanding, the current guaranteed interest rate for participating insurance is mostly 1.75%, with the demonstrated interest rate, including the dividend part, reaching over 3%.

● Securities Firm Channels: Flexible Reverse Repo Terms

Apart from wealth management products sold by banks, securities firm channels also offer some stable products to choose from, such as treasury bond reverse repos.

The essence of treasury bond reverse repos is a short-term loan; simply put, it involves investors lending funds through the stock exchange to earn fixed interest income, while the borrower uses treasury bonds as collateral and repays the principal and interest upon maturity.

Its advantage lies in being secured by treasury bonds, regulated by the stock exchange, while the yield on treasury bond reverse repos generally exceeds that of concurrent bank deposit rates, and the terms are varied, ranging from 1 day to 182 days, allowing investors to choose the lending days based on their idle funds.

Usually, at month-end, quarter-end, year-end, and before holidays, there is a strong demand for funds, and interest rates tend to spike, making it a golden period for participating in treasury bond reverse repos. It is important to note that treasury bond reverse repos cannot be bought back in advance; upon maturity, the principal and interest are automatically returned to the investor’s account.