Bank Wealth Management Rebrands to Anchor, Performance Benchmarks Shift to Indexing

Index-linked benchmarks have three main advantages

□ Better reflect actual product operations by anchoring to market indices or interest rate indicators, allowing dynamic reflection of yield fluctuations;

□ Greater stability, requiring fewer adjustments, and meeting regulatory requirements for the continuity of performance benchmarks;

□ Higher transparency, enabling investors to intuitively assess product performance by comparing to the index, and helping managers strengthen investment discipline and risk control.

◎ Reporter Zhang Xinran

The performance comparison benchmarks for bank wealth management products are undergoing a structural adjustment. Recently, many bank wealth management companies have gradually adjusted their product benchmarks. From the trend, the proportion of index-based and market interest rate benchmarks continues to rise, while traditional single-value and interval benchmarks are gradually decreasing.

Industry insiders believe this change is driven by the gradual implementation of the “Information Disclosure Management Measures for Asset Management Products of Banking and Insurance Institutions” (referred to as “New Disclosure Rules”) and changes in the market yield environment. It not only reflects strengthened regulatory requirements but is also reshaping the competitive logic of the wealth management industry—from competition based on benchmark attractiveness to a focus on investment management capabilities, thereby promoting a return to the core of client-focused wealth management.

Several wealth management companies adjust product benchmarks

A senior market analyst told Shanghai Securities News that currently, the performance comparison benchmarks for wealth management products can be roughly divided into four categories: First, single-value type, using a fixed annualized return as the benchmark, e.g., “3.2%”; second, interval type, based on an annualized return range, e.g., “2.4% to 3.6%”; third, market interest rate type, set as a benchmark rate plus a spread, e.g., “1-year fixed deposit rate + 1.5%”; fourth, index-linked type, constructed using a single index or a weighted combination of multiple indices, e.g., “ChinaBond - Comprehensive Full Price (less than 1 year) index yield + 0.05%.”

Market data shows that since July 2025, the number of index-linked benchmark products has significantly increased, rising from less than 0.1% to about 5%. Many wealth management companies have gradually adjusted their product benchmarks, shifting from fixed interval types to index-linked or market interest rate types.

For example, China Merchants Bank Wealth Management adjusted the benchmark for the “Zhaorui Daily Open 30-Day Rolling Hold No. 1” product from an annualized 2% to 3.7% to “30% × People’s Bank of China current deposit rate + 70% × ChinaBond 0-3 month Treasury bond wealth (total value) index yield,” effective from March 10.

From the wording of several companies’ announcements, the reasons for adjustments are often related to “changes in market yield environment” or “according to contractual agreements.” However, industry insiders believe that the deeper driving force behind this is not merely market fluctuations but changes in regulatory environment. The shift from single-value and interval benchmarks to index-linked or market interest rate benchmarks is a significant current trend in the industry.

Regarding the reasons behind this change, Zhou Yiqin, founder of Shanghai Guantao Information Consulting, told Shanghai Securities News that the main motivation is that after the “Draft for Comments on the Asset Management Product Information Disclosure Management Measures of Banking and Insurance Institutions” ended on June 23, 2025, the wealth management industry began to proactively adapt to the new rules.

Article 13 of the new disclosure rules clearly states: “When disclosing performance comparison benchmarks, asset management product managers should maintain the continuity of the benchmarks and generally should not adjust them.” Under this context, frequent adjustments of interval or value-based benchmarks will face higher compliance pressures.

Zhou Yiqin said that compared to other types, index-linked benchmarks have three advantages: First, they better align with the actual investment strategies and market trends of the products, especially for products with options or diversified asset allocations, as anchoring to market indices or interest rate indicators can dynamically reflect yield fluctuations; second, they are more stable, requiring fewer adjustments, and meet regulatory requirements for benchmark continuity; third, they are more transparent, allowing investors to intuitively judge product performance by comparing to the index, and helping managers strengthen investment discipline and risk management.

Industry competition logic is being reshaped

The structural change in performance benchmarks is not just a technical adjustment but is gradually extending to the competitive landscape of the industry.

In recent years, during the initial phase of wealth management value transformation, some products attracted customers by setting higher value-based benchmarks. In a relatively relaxed market environment, product yields could generally match the benchmarks. But as yields declined, the gap between actual performance and benchmarks began to appear, with some products even experiencing “performance flips,” raising investor doubts.

“This not only damages brand image but also affects industry credibility. The promotion of index-linked benchmarks from a systemic level reduces the space for arbitrarily setting inflated benchmarks, pushing managers to focus more on investment research capabilities,” Zhou Yiqin said.

A bank wealth management investment manager told Shanghai Securities News: “Even fixed-income products do not have absolutely stable returns, as they are also affected by interest rate fluctuations and credit risks. Single-value or interval benchmarks can easily deviate from actual yields in changing market conditions, making them less adaptable.”

A channel manager at a wealth management firm told Shanghai Securities News that the change in benchmark structure helps promote the industry from “competing on benchmarks” to “competing on capabilities.” In the long run, product yields will more closely reflect actual investment performance, and the industry will become more standardized and transparent, returning to the core of client-focused wealth management.