近日，华福证券因在江平生物2021年、2022年2次定向发行推荐工作中未能充分勤勉尽责，被厦门证监局出具警示函。 公告称，华福证券作为原新三板挂牌公司江平生物的主办券商，在江平生物2021年、2022年2次定向发行推荐工作中，未能充分勤勉尽责，未对其有关信 息披露文件和定向发行申请文件认真履行审慎核查职责，未能及时发现江平生物定向发行说明书存在虚假记载的情形，未能保证公司所出具的推荐工作报 告以及对其定向发行说明书核查意见的真实性、准确性。 根据相关规定，厦门证监局决定对华福证券采取出具警示函的监督管理措施，并将相关情况记入诚信档案。华福证券应充分关注挂牌公司财务内控有效 性，健全挂牌公司持续督导及定向发行推荐业务内控制度，落实勤勉尽责要求，切实提高执业质量水平。 这并非华福证券今年首次因投行业务违规被警示。就在今年5月，上交所已对华福证券出具书面警示函，原因是其在某发行人非公开发行公司债券项目的 挂牌申请中，对于发行人贸易业务商业合理性及收入确认依据核查不充分，相关尽调程序执行不到位，质控部门未提示项目组重点核查，内核部门也未进 行重点审议。 此外，华福证券分公司今年也曾被警示。4月，上海证监局对华福证券上 ...

Core Viewpoint - The risk rating system in the financial market is undergoing a trust crisis, as some institutions manipulate risk levels for sales purposes, leading to significant investor losses [2][3][5] Group 1: Issues with Risk Ratings - The self-evaluation and self-sale model of private equity and trust institutions essentially transfers risk pricing power to interested parties, raising questions about the need for change in the current system where risk rating entities also act as sellers [2][3] - The inconsistency in risk evaluation standards leads to a situation where different institutions apply varying criteria, making it difficult to standardize risk ratings across the asset management industry [2][3] - There is a call for increased supervision from multiple stakeholders in the risk rating process to ensure accountability and transparency [2][3] Group 2: Case Study of Risk Mismanagement - The "Yingxue Funiu No. 1" private equity fund, rated R2, faced a 70% loss, leading to a complete loss of investor capital, highlighting the discrepancies between rated risk and actual investment performance [3][4][5] - The fund's investment strategy included high-risk assets, which contradicted its R2 classification, raising concerns about the integrity of risk assessments [5][12] - Other R2-rated financial products have also faced similar issues, with investors reporting sudden cessation of payments without clear explanations from the issuing institutions [6][7] Group 3: Market Dynamics and Sales Pressure - The demand for low-risk financial products has surged, prompting institutions to lower risk ratings to enhance sales, creating a conflict of interest [9][10] - Institutions often self-assess risk ratings, leading to potential manipulation where products are rated lower than their actual risk to attract more investors [9][10][11] - The lack of clear differentiation in risk ratings among similar products can lead to a scenario where higher-risk products are misrepresented as lower-risk, undermining investor trust [14][15] Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - There is a consensus that a more standardized and scientific approach to risk rating is necessary, incorporating quantitative and qualitative assessments to better reflect the true risk of financial products [16][17] - Regulatory bodies are taking steps to enforce better practices in risk rating, including requiring private equity firms to establish clear risk assessment standards [18] - Enhanced disclosure requirements for R2-rated products, such as quarterly reporting of top holdings and their risk profiles, are suggested to protect investor interests [17][18]