Group 1 - The wealth management industry is showing positive signals, with the average annualized return of closed-end products at 2.78%, trailing the benchmark by 0.16 percentage points [1] - The actual payout returns of various products are increasingly approaching their performance benchmarks this year, prompting deeper discussions about the attractiveness of performance benchmarks in the wealth management industry [1] Group 2 - There is a noticeable divergence in returns between open-ended and closed-end fixed-income wealth management products, with open-ended products achieving an average payout return of 2.73%, up 7 basis points (0.07 percentage points) from the previous month, exceeding their average performance benchmark by 4 basis points [2] - Closed-end products, on the other hand, saw an average payout return of 2.78%, down 3 basis points, and lagging behind the average performance benchmark by 16 basis points [2] - This divergence is attributed to differences in portfolio structure and market conditions, with open-ended products benefiting from flexible redemption mechanisms and better capturing market fluctuations [2] Group 3 - Analysts indicate that closed-end products require investors to sacrifice some liquidity for potentially higher returns or lower volatility, but their returns are significantly influenced by the timing of establishment and maturity [3] - Historical data shows that the deviation between the actual payout returns of closed-end products and their performance benchmarks has narrowed significantly over time, indicating reduced volatility in these products [3] Group 4 - The concept of performance benchmarks and the associated assessment of wealth management product performance has sparked increasing discussion within the industry, with some critics arguing that certain benchmark ranges have lost their reference value for investors [4] - Industry leaders emphasize the importance of logically setting performance benchmark ranges to reflect product positioning, investment strategies, and risk limits [4][5] - The establishment of performance benchmarks is deemed necessary for guiding investment managers in strategy formulation and ensuring a client-centered approach [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the performance of bank wealth management products in June, highlighting a significant recovery in product issuance and a divergence in average payout yields between open-ended and closed-end products, attributed to mismatches in product mechanisms and market conditions [1][2]. Group 1: Payout Yields and Performance Metrics - Open-ended fixed-income wealth management products achieved an average payout yield of 2.73%, up 7 basis points (BP) month-on-month, exceeding their average performance benchmark by 4 BP [2]. - Closed-end fixed-income products had an average payout yield of 2.78%, down 3 BP month-on-month, lagging behind the average performance benchmark by 16 BP [2]. - The narrowing gap between actual payout yields and performance benchmarks for closed-end products indicates a reduction in volatility over recent years, with the difference decreasing from nearly 100 BP in March 2023 to 14 BP by June 2024, before slightly widening to 16 BP in June 2023 [3]. Group 2: Performance Benchmarking and Investment Strategy - The transition to net value-based management has replaced "expected yield" with "performance benchmark," which reflects the product manager's investment strategy and market assessment [4]. - There is an ongoing debate within the industry regarding the relevance of performance benchmarks, with some arguing that wide-ranging benchmarks have lost their reference value for investors [5]. - Industry professionals emphasize the importance of performance benchmarks in guiding investment strategies, managing risk, and ensuring accountability among investment managers [6][7]. - The necessity of performance benchmarks is acknowledged, as they help in setting investment strategies and ensuring that investment managers do not take excessive risks [7][8].