1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - The adjustment of Tier 2 and Perpetual (Two - Yong) bonds may not be over, and they still face risks of callback and repricing. However, they still have certain cost - effectiveness, especially 5 - year high - rating varieties [5][6]. - In the fourth quarter, the bond market is likely to fluctuate and decline, and there are still concerns about the decline in spreads. It is difficult to reproduce the unilateral downward trend in April [5]. - After the official release of the new public offering sales regulations, the spread center of Two - Yong bonds and their yield may rise slightly [5]. 3. Summary According to the Directory 3.1 Two - Yong Bonds' Cost - Effectiveness is Prominent - In September, affected by market risk appetite and rising interest rates, the bond market continued to adjust. After the China Securities Regulatory Commission solicited opinions on the new public offering sales regulations on September 5, the bond market faced redemption pressure. Two - Yong bonds, as heavily - held by public funds, had significant declines, and the yields of 5Y and above Two - Yong bonds reached new highs for the year [5][12]. - In October, the stock market pulled back, the 10Y Treasury bond interest rate declined slightly, and the yields of urban investment bonds and Two - Yong bonds decreased. The Two - Yong bonds with larger previous declines had more obvious recoveries. As of now, the yields and credit spreads of 5Y credit assets are still at relatively high historical percentile levels for the year, and the decline may be limited [5][14]. 3.2 What to Focus on in Two - Yong Bonds - From a macro - fundamental perspective, Sino - US games and a weak economy support the bond market. However, the stock market rebound in October and concerns about the new public offering sales regulations still pose concerns about the decline in yields of quasi - interest - rate varieties [20]. - In terms of supply structure, the redemption of Two - Yong bonds reached a new high in September, the net financing gap widened, and banks faced capital replenishment pressure. In the fourth quarter, the supply of Two - Yong bonds may not be weak due to "redeeming old and issuing new" [5][23]. - From the perspective of institutional behavior, the spread trend of Two - Yong bonds is more related to the net purchases of funds, wealth management products, and securities firms. Currently, the liquidity of Two - Yong bonds is okay, but the buying power of funds is not strong. The impact of the official release of the new public offering sales regulations remains to be observed [27]. - Historically, the bond market in the fourth quarter is likely to show a pattern of fluctuating recovery, and it mostly moves sideways in October. Currently, the trading volume and turnover rate of Two - Yong bonds have rebounded, and the decline space is limited. Attention can be paid to the effect of the interest - rate amplifier of Two - Yong bonds on increasing returns when interest rates decline [47]. 3.3 Which Two - Yong Bonds Still Have Cost - Effectiveness - From the perspective of asset comparison, except for 3Y - AA+ Tier 2 capital bonds, the historical percentiles of the yields of other Two - Yong bonds are higher than those of other varieties with the same maturity, still having certain cost - effectiveness. The yields of 3Y implied AAA - and AA+ perpetual bonds are higher than those of medium - short - term notes and Tier 2 capital bonds of the same maturity, at 76% and 18% historical percentile levels for the year respectively. The yields of 5 - year Tier 2 capital bonds and perpetual bonds are higher than those of other credit assets, and the yields are all at more than 16% historical percentile levels for the year [53]. - From the perspective of credit spreads, high - implied - rating Two - Yong bonds have relatively higher cost - effectiveness, especially 5Y Tier 2 capital bonds. The 3Y implied AAA - perpetual bonds have relatively large spread compression space compared with Tier 2 capital bonds of the same rating and maturity, at the 50% historical percentile level for the year. The spreads of 5 - year high - implied - rating Two - Yong bonds compared with general credit bonds are more sufficient, and the 5Y implied AAA - perpetual bonds are worthy of attention, with a credit spread of 66bp, at the 59% historical percentile level for the year [58].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights a significant shift in the asset allocation of wealth management products in China's banking sector, indicating a trend towards more conservative investment strategies due to regulatory pressures and market conditions [2][4][6]. Asset Allocation Changes - The proportion of cash and bank deposits in wealth management products increased from 23.9% (approximately 7.68 trillion yuan) at the end of 2024 to 24.8% (approximately 8.18 trillion yuan) by mid-2025 [2]. - Conversely, the allocation to bonds decreased from 43.5% to 41.8%, with the balance dropping from 18.6 trillion yuan to 18.33 trillion yuan [3]. - Equity assets also saw a decline, with the balance falling from 0.83 trillion yuan (2.58%) at the end of last year to 0.78 trillion yuan (2.38%) by mid-year [3]. Investment Style - The investment style of wealth management funds has become increasingly conservative, reflecting a heightened sensitivity to net asset value fluctuations among clients [4][6]. - The trend of short-term funding sources for wealth management products has raised concerns among industry professionals, as new products are being launched with shorter durations and low-risk profiles remain dominant [7]. Regulatory Impact - Since 2024, various technical methods for stabilizing net asset values have been prohibited, forcing wealth management funds to revert to conservative asset allocations [8]. - The regulatory environment has led to a reliance on low-volatility assets, despite attempts to diversify into equities [8]. Liquidity Risk Management - The significant allocation to interbank deposits, while meeting low-volatility requirements, poses potential liquidity risks [9]. - Current regulations limit the investment in illiquid assets to 15% of the net asset value for open-ended public wealth management products, yet many products exceed this limit through indirect investment channels [10][11]. Industry Practices - Some wealth management firms are reportedly circumventing liquidity restrictions by channeling investments through trust or insurance products, which allows them to bypass direct investment limits [10][12]. - This practice raises concerns about the actual liquidity of assets held within these products, as a high proportion may be tied up in illiquid investments [11][13]. Conclusion - The article suggests that the wealth management industry is constrained by a "low volatility" mandate, which may hinder the transition to a more dynamic and transparent investment approach [12][13].

Group 1: Report's Core View - The capital flow of wealth management products is an important influencing factor in the credit bond market. This report analyzes the changes in wealth management scale and bond - allocation behavior under the background of net - value transformation to enrich the credit bond analysis framework [1][9] Group 2: Wealth Management Scale Trends 2.1 Overall Scale and New Product Term - Deposit interest rate decline drives deposit transfer to wealth management, leading to an increase in wealth management scale. As of Q1 2025, the wealth management product scale reached 29.14 trillion yuan. The average 1 - year fixed - deposit rate of the six major banks was only 0.96% in June 2025, while the wealth management yield was 3.01%. Newly issued products are mainly closed - end, and the term of new products has been extended, with the proportion of new wealth management products with a term over 1 year reaching 47% in June 2025, up about 14 percentage points from March 2024 [10][12] 2.2 Main Expansion Force - Open - ended products are more popular among individual investors. In 2024, the scale of open - ended products increased by 2.7 trillion yuan year - on - year, while that of closed - ended products increased by only 160 billion yuan. The minimum - holding - period products are the main expansion force of wealth management products in 2024, balancing liquidity and yield. As of the end of June 2025, the average maximum drawdown of minimum - holding - period products in the past 1 year was 0.18%, the lowest among open - ended products, and the average annualized yield in the past 1 year reached 2.53%, about 70bp higher than daily - open products [16][17] Group 3: Impact of the "Impossible Triangle" on Bond - Allocation Style 3.1 Bond Allocation Changes - To stabilize the net value of wealth management products, wealth management has reduced bond allocation in recent years and increased the allocation of cash and bank deposits with higher liquidity and lower valuation fluctuations. As of Q1 2025, the scale of wealth management investment in bonds, cash and bank deposits, and inter - bank certificates of deposit was 13.68 trillion yuan, 7.27 trillion yuan, and 4.20 trillion yuan respectively, accounting for 43.9%, 23.3%, and 13.5% of the total investment assets, with changes of - 6.5%, 5.8%, and 0.2% respectively compared to Q4 2022 [23] 3.2 Credit Bond Allocation - Credit bonds are the main investment direction of wealth management funds, accounting for 41% of the total investment assets. As of the end of 2024, the proportions of interest - rate bonds and credit bonds in bond investment were 5% and 95% respectively. In Q1 2025, wealth management preferred to allocate urban investment bonds, secondary perpetual bonds, and industrial bonds, accounting for 35%, 26%, and 23% of credit bonds respectively. Due to the short - term nature of most wealth management products and the instability of the liability side, the duration of credit bond allocation is short [33][37] 3.3 Increased Fund Entrustment - It is difficult for wealth management to meet the performance benchmark by directly investing in bonds. In Q2 2025, the wealth management performance benchmark dropped to 2.88%, still 84 - 87bp higher than the yields of 3Y AA(2) urban investment bonds and 7Y AA+ secondary perpetual bonds. With the blockage of insurance and trust channels, wealth management has increased entrusted investment in funds. The proportion of wealth management's penetrated investment in funds has been rising, indicating an increasing importance of entrusted funds [39][47] 3.4 Bond - Buying Behavior after Self - Built Valuation Model Restrictions - The "self - built valuation model" is a new way for wealth management to smooth net - value fluctuations but has problems such as liquidity risk and unfair returns. After the restriction of the self - built valuation model, some wealth management may reduce the allocation of long - term secondary perpetual bonds and medium - low - rated credit bonds and increase the allocation of short - term high - rated bonds [52][53] Group 4: Impact of Wealth Management on the Credit Bond Market 4.1 Influence of Scale Changes - The bond - allocation rhythm of wealth management is highly correlated with the scale change, which affects the credit spread trend. When the wealth management scale rises, the credit spread tends to narrow; when it falls, the credit spread tends to widen. The seasonal change of wealth management scale also makes the credit spread show seasonal characteristics. Quarter - beginning is a good time for credit spread compression, especially from August to the end of the year. September is a good allocation window, but beware of widening credit spreads in November [3][57] 4.2 Observing Market Adjustment from Wealth Management - During bond market adjustments, pay attention to the risk of "redemption tides". The "redemption tide" occurs when wealth management passively sells bonds due to significant net - value drawdowns. The "redemption tide" is accompanied by an increase in the net - value break - even rate. When the weekly环比 change of the 4 - week rolling net - value break - even rate exceeds 6%, the possibility of a "redemption tide" increases. The maximum drawdown rate of wealth management products can be a leading indicator of credit spread changes, leading by about 7 - 60 days [3][64]