Core Viewpoint - The revised "Trust Company Management Measures" aims to enhance the regulatory framework for trust companies, focusing on business scope, shareholder responsibilities, and risk management, effective from January 1, 2026 [1][2][3]. Summary by Sections Business Structure Adjustment - The revised measures reduce the business scope of trust companies from 11 categories to three: trust business, proprietary asset-liability business, and other business [2][3]. - Trust business is further categorized into asset service trusts, asset management trusts, and public welfare trusts [3]. Regulatory Enhancements - The minimum registered capital for trust companies is raised from 300 million to 500 million yuan [6]. - New governance requirements include establishing a specialized committee for the protection of client rights and enhancing shareholder behavior management [6]. Risk Management - Trust companies are required to implement a recovery and disposal plan mechanism, which must be updated regularly and approved by regulatory authorities [8]. - The measures specify that investments in non-standard debt assets must not exceed 30% of the company's net asset balance [7]. Prohibited Practices - Trust companies are explicitly prohibited from promising that trust assets will not incur losses or guaranteeing minimum returns [3]. - The revised measures ban channel services and fund pool operations that circumvent financial regulations [3]. Transition and Compliance - Trust companies must identify and rectify non-compliant businesses, lock in their scale, and implement a timeline for orderly reduction [9][10].

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of asset management regulations aims to break the implicit guarantee and promote a responsible investment environment, but issues with asset management products can lead to legal disputes regarding investor protection [1][8]. Group 1: Case Overview - A specific case was highlighted by the Beijing Financial Court, where a fund management company failed to conduct adequate due diligence, leading to an inability to repay an investor [1][5]. - The fund product was registered in March 2017, and the investor transferred 1 million yuan to a dedicated account as per the contract [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court found that the fund management company only investigated the investment situation and did not verify the performance of cooperation agreements with the investment target and downstream partners, indicating a lack of due diligence [5][7]. - The court ruled that the fund management company was 40% liable for the investor's losses, which included the principal and interest on the funds occupied [7]. Group 3: Due Diligence Standards - The core disputes in asset management-related cases revolve around whether the management fulfilled their fiduciary duties, particularly the due diligence obligation [8][10]. - The Beijing Financial Court established a "six-step review method" to assess whether fund managers have fulfilled their due diligence obligations, providing a reference standard for similar cases [11][15].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of investor responsibility and the need for financial institutions to ensure proper risk disclosure and management in asset management products, marking a shift towards a "buyer beware, seller be diligent" approach in the investment landscape [11][12][13]. Summary by Sections Case Overview - A Mr. A invested 1 million yuan in an asset management product from B Securities Company, which was later liquidated, resulting in a return of only 650,000 yuan [2][3]. - Mr. A claimed that the sales personnel misled him regarding the product's stop-loss line, prompting him to seek compensation for additional losses of 250,000 yuan [3][4]. Mediation Process and Outcome - The mediator analyzed the case, noting that the product contract clearly stated that the stop-loss line does not guarantee the minimum principal, and multiple documents highlighted the risks involved [7]. - Communication records did not reveal any misleading statements from the sales personnel, leading the mediator to explain the true meaning of the stop-loss line to Mr. A [8]. - Ultimately, Mr. A could not provide evidence of misleading information, and the securities company fulfilled its obligation for investor suitability management, resulting in no agreement reached [8]. Implications and Recommendations - With the implementation of guidelines for asset management, financial institutions can no longer promise capital protection or guaranteed returns, indicating a new phase in the investment market [11]. - Investors are encouraged to enhance their risk recognition abilities and adopt a rational investment mindset, ensuring they thoroughly read contracts and understand product risks before investing [11]. - Securities companies are advised to improve investor suitability management, emphasizing risk disclosure and ensuring that critical information is clearly communicated to investors, especially for high-risk products [12].