Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the existence of "financial assassins" in the banking wealth management sector, where investors are misled by high advertised returns but receive significantly lower actual returns due to manipulative practices by wealth management companies [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Practices - Wealth management companies are engaging in unfair competition by using "T-1 valuation" methods to manipulate returns, leading to discrepancies in actual investor earnings [2][6]. - The practice of "yield shifting" allows new products to appear more attractive by transferring returns from older products, creating an illusion of high performance [6][10]. - The regulatory environment has tightened, limiting previous methods of smoothing returns, prompting companies to seek new ways to maintain high reported yields [9][12]. Group 2: Impact on Investors - Investors in older products often receive lower returns, leading to feelings of being treated unfairly and encountering "financial assassins" [15][16]. - The average net value growth rate for certain products has been low, with a reported annualized return of only 1.7%, indicating that many investors are not receiving the returns they expect [16]. - The reliance on short-term gains and high turnover in investment behavior is detrimental to the overall market, as it discourages long-term value investing [15][16]. Group 3: Regulatory and Market Dynamics - The shift towards T-1 valuation methods has been driven by a desire to circumvent stricter regulations, reflecting a persistent "scale obsession" within the industry [9][14]. - The article calls for regulatory measures to ensure fairness in the market and to penalize non-compliant practices, emphasizing the need for a more equitable investment environment [15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of new valuation techniques in the wealth management industry, particularly the use of T-1 valuation methods, which allow companies to manipulate reported returns on investment products, leading to unfair treatment of investors and misleading performance metrics [1][2][10]. Group 1: Industry Practices - Wealth management companies are increasingly using T-1 valuation methods to shift returns between products, creating high-yield "showcase" products while older products suffer from lower returns [1][6][9]. - This practice results in unfair treatment of clients, where some investors see their returns diminished as their funds are redirected to support the performance of newer, smaller products [2][19]. - The industry is experiencing a trend of excessive product launches, with many small-scale products being introduced, leading to a dilution of focus on investment research and management [16][17]. Group 2: Regulatory Environment - Financial regulators have taken steps to curb previous practices that circumvented asset management regulations, prompting companies to seek new methods like T-1 valuation to maintain competitive returns [10][14]. - The regulatory landscape has become stricter, with some companies already prohibiting the use of T-1 valuation, while others continue to exploit it for higher reported yields [14][15]. Group 3: Market Impact - The reliance on T-1 valuation has led to a significant disparity in returns, with many products yielding only 1.7% annualized returns, which is not reflective of market conditions [19]. - This manipulation of returns contributes to a more short-term investment behavior among clients, undermining the potential for long-term value investing in the capital markets [19][20]. - The industry faces calls for regulatory action to ensure fair practices and transparency, as the current environment fosters potential investor deception [21].

Core Viewpoint - The long-standing practice of "deposit rush" in the banking industry is experiencing a decline due to stricter regulations and a growing consensus against excessive competition, leading to a shift in operational strategies among banks [1][3][6]. Group 1: Deposit Rush Dynamics - The "deposit rush" has traditionally been a critical task for banks at the end of financial periods, with brokers acting as intermediaries between banks and private funds [3][6]. - Recent investigations reveal a significant decrease in the number of active brokers and the volume of deposit rush communications, indicating a cooling market [3][4]. - Brokers have reported fewer opportunities to connect with banks, and the once-popular "day-cut arbitrage" strategy is becoming increasingly difficult to execute due to enhanced regulatory scrutiny [4][6]. Group 2: Regulatory Impact and Market Changes - Regulatory authorities have intensified efforts to curb practices like "false deposits" and "interbank assistance," which have historically inflated liquidity metrics [6][8]. - The shift in market dynamics has led to the elimination of many small-scale brokers, as banks transition from a focus on rapid growth to more refined management of funding costs [4][6]. - Despite a decrease in demand, the pricing for deposit rush activities remains stable, with returns for large deposits still within the range of 0.01% to 0.02% [4][6]. Group 3: Internal Banking Challenges - The ongoing pressure for banks to meet performance metrics has resulted in a reliance on short-term deposit strategies, which can distort market pricing and increase overall funding costs [7][9]. - Many banks continue to face internal conflicts between long-term strategic goals and short-term performance pressures, leading to a persistence of "deposit rush" behaviors in informal channels [8][10]. - The current focus on deposit volume over quality has been criticized for undermining sustainable growth and profitability within the banking sector [9][10]. Group 4: Future Strategies for Sustainable Growth - To achieve sustainable development without relying on aggressive deposit acquisition, banks are encouraged to shift their focus from "scale obsession" to "value cultivation" [11][12]. - Strategies include enhancing customer service and product offerings, transitioning from deposit-based income to management fees and service charges [11][12]. - A comprehensive approach involving strategic clarity, service innovation, and regulatory collaboration is essential for banks to realign their operations with the needs of the real economy [11][12].

Report Industry Investment Rating - There is no information provided regarding the report industry investment rating. Core View of the Report - The discussion on bank liability pressure should clarify the concept, which depends on the scale of the liability gap and the difficulty of filling it, and the liability gap can be measured by regulatory indicators and banks' own demands [1][8]. - The regulatory - indicator - based liability gap is rigid but easy to fill due to the central bank's ample liquidity supply, while the gap based on banks' own demands is flexible but difficult to fill, mainly referring to the demand for deposits [1][8][9]. - Banks' attempts to increase deposit rates to attract deposits due to scale - related concerns lead to an involution - style competition, which reduces the industry's profitability and affects the sustainability of financial support for the real economy and the space for monetary policy [2][11]. - Although the monetary authorities have achieved good results in regulating the deposit and loan market competition order, the involution - style competition caused by scale concerns may resurface, and the root solution lies in abandoning the one - sided pursuit of scale, perhaps by having the board of directors reduce scale - based assessments [3][13]. Summary by Relevant Directory 1. By Bank Liability Pressure - Many investors think that after the new round of deposit rate cuts on May 20, a large amount of deposits flowed to wealth management products, increasing banks' liability pressure [1][8]. - The liability pressure depends on the scale of the liability gap and the difficulty of filling it, and there are two measurement scales: regulatory indicators and banks' own demands [1][8]. - The regulatory - indicator - based liability gap is easy to fill as the central bank has provided ample liquidity, such as a 1 - trillion - yuan reserve requirement ratio cut on May 15, about 0.5 billion yuan of medium - term funds through MLF in May and June, and 1.4 trillion yuan of outright reverse repurchase operations on June 6 and 16 [8]. - The yields of 1Y AAA - grade CDs and 5Y AAA - grade commercial bank financial bonds are at relatively low levels since early May, indicating low demand for funds and easy access to liquidity at low cost for commercial banks [8]. - The gap based on banks' own demands is mainly the demand for deposits, which is difficult to fill as the total deposit scale is relatively fixed [9]. - Banks usually raise deposit rates explicitly or implicitly, but this leads to a zero - sum game, and if other banks follow suit, it may cause a phased increase in deposit rates [2][9][11]. - Banks' desire to increase deposit rates is due to scale concerns, such as not meeting the deposit growth target after the May rate cut, worrying about ranking decline, or wanting to improve their ranking [2][11]. - This involution - style competition also affects the asset side, resulting in an unreasonable decline in loan rates, and overall, it reduces the industry's net interest margin and profit growth [2][11]. - The monetary authorities have regulated the market competition order, but the involution - style competition may resurface, and the root solution is to abandon the one - sided pursuit of scale [3][13].