金价暴涨，金料商却卷款跑路，有人被卷走400万元！咋啦？

Core Viewpoint - The recent incident in Shenzhen's Shui Bei gold and jewelry market involves a major gold supplier, Yue Bao Xin, reportedly running away with significant amounts of money, leading to concerns about a potential wave of defaults among gold suppliers in the area [1][4][19]. Group 1: Incident Details - Yue Bao Xin, a gold supplier located in the Xinglong Gold and Jewelry Building, was found closed with its sign removed after being operational until September 12 [2][3]. - Multiple merchants reported to the police on September 13, claiming they had made large prepayments to Yue Bao Xin, only to find the company’s representatives unreachable [4][10]. - Victims have formed a group, with reports of losses reaching up to 4 million yuan for some individuals, and around 400 victims have joined the group [6][12]. Group 2: Company Background - Yue Bao Xin, established in August 2023, was a significant intermediary in the gold raw materials market, providing gold to downstream processing merchants and handling gold recovery for external merchants [8]. - The company engaged in both sales and recovery of gold, utilizing a deposit locking price model to manage price fluctuations [21]. Group 3: Market Reactions and Implications - Following the incident, some suppliers in the market have announced they are undergoing liquidation due to significant losses, with one company reporting a loss of over 70 million yuan [14][16]. - Despite rumors of a widespread "runaway tide" among gold suppliers, investigations revealed that many businesses are still operating normally, and the situation may have been exaggerated [18]. - The rising international gold prices, which have increased by over 120 yuan per gram in six months, have contributed to the financial strain on these suppliers, as they struggle to fulfill orders at previously locked prices [19][23]. Group 4: Trading Practices and Risks - The "locking price" trading model, while intended to mitigate risks from price volatility, has been misused by some suppliers to engage in speculative practices, leading to significant financial gaps when prices rose unexpectedly [21][25]. - The low deposit requirement of 2.4% to 3% for locking prices, compared to the typical 10% margin in futures trading, has introduced high leverage risks, making it easier for investors to face substantial losses [27]. - Legal experts have indicated that this model may be classified as illegal futures trading, raising concerns about the safety of funds and the potential for misuse by suppliers [27].