投资者购买理财产品亏损，代销银行为何频频被判赔

Core Viewpoint - The era of "capital preservation and guaranteed returns" has ended, and the principle of "buyer bears responsibility" has become widely accepted, but it does not absolve sales institutions from accountability for improper recommendations [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Cases and Responsibilities - In a case involving Everbright Bank, the court ruled that both the investor and the bank should share responsibility for losses, with each party bearing approximately 7.57 million yuan of the investor's principal loss due to the bank's failure to adequately assess the investor's risk tolerance and inform them of the product's risk level [4][5]. - Another case with Hengfeng Bank resulted in a similar ruling, where the bank was found to have inadequately fulfilled its duty to understand the customer, leading to a significant loss for the investor [6][7]. - The court's decisions highlight that if a sales institution fails to meet its suitability obligations, it may be held liable for the investor's losses, regardless of the "buyer bears responsibility" principle [8][9]. Group 2: Suitability Obligations - Legal experts emphasize that the principle of "seller bears responsibility" is a prerequisite for "buyer bears responsibility," meaning that sales institutions must fulfill their suitability obligations to avoid liability [8][10]. - The core obligations include understanding the customer, understanding the product, risk matching, and providing full disclosure of risks, which are legally mandated and cannot be waived through standard clauses or verbal agreements [9][10]. - Courts assess the degree of fault from both parties when determining compensation, with the potential for varying compensation levels based on the severity of the sales institution's violations [9].