专题报告：跨境理财通和跨境资管的比较分析

Cross-border Financial Services Comparison - Cross-border Wealth Management Connect (WMC) targets the Greater Bay Area (GBA) with a bilateral agreement model, while Cross-border Asset Management (CAM) in Hainan adopts a unilateral active opening model[1] - WMC covers deposits and public funds with risk levels R1 to R4, while CAM includes private products with more flexible investment strategies[1] - WMC investors are GBA residents, while CAM targets both domestic and foreign institutions and individuals[1] - WMC requires paired accounts for fund transfers, while CAM allows multi-currency investment accounts[1] Market Impact of Cross-border Services - WMC has attracted 124,500 individual investors as of September 2024, with 51,900 from Hong Kong/Macau and 72,600 from mainland China[38] - Southbound WMC recorded net purchases of 9.642 billion yuan, while Northbound WMC recorded 250 million yuan as of October 2024[38] - Hainan's CAM aims to attract international capital and establish itself as a global asset management hub[43] Opportunities for Financial Institutions - Chinese financial institutions can leverage cross-border services to expand international operations and develop diversified products[45] - Domestic institutions face competition from international players in cross-border wealth and asset management services[46]