11-Day Real Test of 200 Financial Products, Over 1/3 Showcase Most Attractive Returns

Open your mobile banking app, and you might be greeted with a variety of yield standards and dazzling yield figures. Why do the same series or similar financial products show different yield claims with inconsistent standards? Why is it necessary to carefully evaluate and compare when purchasing an ordinary bank financial product?

This scenario has become the norm since the full implementation of the “New Asset Management Regulations”—the “Guiding Opinions on Regulating Financial Institution Asset Management Business.” According to relevant regulations, bank wealth management products have moved away from the previous uniform expected return promotion model and shifted toward net value management. The yield standard expressed as the stage annualized return (referring to the return achieved over a certain period, such as recent months) has replaced the expected annualized return in bank financial products.

How to make effective decisions amid the digital fog has become a core challenge for hundreds of millions of individual investors. By the end of 2025, the scale of bank wealth management exceeds 33 trillion yuan, reaching a record high, with 141 million individual investors. Whether in terms of scale or number of investors, bank wealth management products are characterized by broad accessibility. At the same time, unlike equity investors who are more adept at market research, most bank wealth management clients prioritize “low volatility and stability.” However, the comprehensive push toward net value management has objectively increased the difficulty of identifying and selecting financial products.

Four years have passed since the full implementation of the net value transformation. What is the current situation of yield presentation in bank wealth management products? Is there room for improvement in lowering the barriers to product recognition? What methods can help investors select suitable products? The Southern Weekly New Financial Research Center conducted an 11-day continuous practical test on 200 wealth management products sold via mobile banking apps of 20 systemically important banks, along with interviews with several financial and legal experts.

The practical test found that, in the first impression on the homepage, 70 products (35% of the sample) disclosed the maximum value among the staged yields, showcasing the “best moment.” Some products displayed a maximum value that was significantly different from other stage yields; many banks used multiple yield standards, including “recent 1-month annualized yield,” “recent 6-month annualized yield,” “since inception annualized yield,” “performance benchmark,” and “unit net value,” resulting in a wide variety of standards; some banks even displayed inconsistent rules for products within the same series (often called “sister products”).

In response to these phenomena, Cai Dongliang, a member of the National Standard Committee for “Financial Practitioner Norms—Wealth Management” and professor at Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, told the Southern Weekly New Financial Research Center that in mobile sales scenarios, the homepage often serves as the primary decision interface. Inconsistent yield standards weaken the basic comparability among products. He believes that establishing a unified homepage display standard for bank wealth management products is both necessary and technically feasible.

Senior financial regulation expert Zhou Yiqin, who has long studied wealth management, also suggested that banks should select the same yield standard when displaying performance for the same series of products on their apps. The practice of “picking the most attractive standard” can lead investors to make irrational decisions based on “fragmented information carefully selected,” violating the principle of “duty of care” in asset management.

11 days, different periods, 3 dimensions

How to select the test objects?

The Southern Weekly New Financial Research Center selected 20 systemically important banks, which are industry leaders in asset scale and internal control systems.

How long was the testing period? To better record actual conditions, tests were conducted over 11 days from January 29 to February 8, 2026, at different times.

Was the testing process rigorous? The team logged into the mobile banking apps of these 20 banks, following a specific process to select a total of 200 wealth management products, and repeatedly verified any doubts at different frequencies.

What dimensions were used in the test?

The evaluation focused on three key aspects: whether the product prominently displayed the disclosed past stage yields (see Figure 1 red box), whether products within the same series used the same yield display standard, and whether there was risk warning in prominent positions (see Figure 2 blue box). These three dimensions are straightforward and significantly impact investment decisions.

During the test, the homepage and secondary interface areas of a single product were defined as “prominent positions” for display. The homepage is usually the most clicked but shortest-stay decision point; products within the same series were identified based on issuer, product name, and risk attributes, with three similar criteria considered as “same series.” The consistency of yield expression within the same series was also examined, including whether the yield display categories and disclosure frequency matched; risk warnings included statements like “Past performance is not indicative of future results” or “Actual returns may differ,” which are repeatedly emphasized in current regulations.

These evaluation dimensions are highly recognized by industry experts. Cai Dongliang told the survey team that in behavioral finance, investors heavily rely on “anchoring effects” and “heuristic judgments” when browsing on mobile devices, often taking homepage figures as the intuitive benchmark for product quality, rather than reviewing full performance intervals across different periods page by page. Therefore, paying attention to homepage and secondary interface details is crucial.

He added that after the implementation of the new asset management regulations, product yields shifted from expected returns to historical stage yields. Under this system, multiple historical yields serve as prominent marketing indicators. For commercial reasons, banks tend to display these in favorable positions to align with their interests. “It’s like a clever merchant placing the most eye-catching products in the window—though it may not be in the best interest of investors.”

Zhou Yiqin also pointed out that inconsistent yield display rules within the same series can lead to decision errors. Since products in the same series often have similar names, investors may make similar choices based on brand effects, lacking rationality. The “Management Measures for Agency Sales of Commercial Bank Wealth Management Products” emphasizes that “banks should formulate consistent sales display rules for similar products.” Although the regulations are not detailed, banks should pay attention to this to avoid compliance risks.

18 banks, 70 products, displaying the “most attractive yield”

According to the above rules, among the 200 products tested, 70 (35%) displayed the maximum disclosed stage yield on the homepage to showcase “attractive returns.” The number of products choosing the “minimum” or “non-extreme” (values between maximum and minimum) was 25 and 90, respectively, accounting for 12.5% and 45%. This indicates that only 12.5% of products displayed yields in a “modest and humble” manner.

Among 18 participating banks, the highest number and proportion of “maximum value” displays were from ICBC and CCB, each with 7 products, accounting for 70% of their tested products; followed by CIB and Jiangsu Bank, each with 6 products, 60%. Excluding these four banks’ 26 products, the remaining 14 banks averaged about 3 “maximum value” products each, making up 34% of their total tested products.

Only Minsheng Bank and Agricultural Bank did not show this pattern: Minsheng’s 10 tested products all displayed non-extreme past performance (excluding max and min), while ABC uniformly displayed the product’s performance benchmark. Further comparison found that ABC’s benchmark was not the maximum among the multiple stage yields disclosed for the 10 products, indicating no “careful selection.”

While displaying non-extreme stage yields is more mainstream, the fact that over one-third of products show the maximum value objectively challenges investors’ ability to recognize products. The team further compared and found that the banks with the most “maximum value” displays showed some differences between the maximum and other stage yields (see Figures 3 and 4 as examples). While this could be due to skillful timing by fund managers, investors should perform multi-dimensional comparisons before placing orders.

For example, the maximum value displayed for these products differs significantly from other stage yields, especially the recent 1-month annualized yield, which better reflects recent performance. Relying solely on the homepage’s “first impression” for decision-making may lead to actual holdings yielding less than the displayed yield.

8 yield standards

Besides yield figures, different yield standards also complicate product recognition. In this test, the 200 products displayed a total of 8 yield standards on the homepage, including 6 stage yields and 2 other types of performance indicators or descriptions.

The 6 stage yield standards are: “Recent 7-day annualized yield,” “Recent 1-month annualized yield,” “Recent 3-month annualized yield,” “Recent 6-month annualized yield,” “Recent 1-year annualized yield,” and “Since inception annualized yield.” The other two are daily unit net value and performance benchmark.

These different expression standards vary in calculation methods and data sources. Generally, excluding compounding effects, stage annualized yields reflect returns over a specific period, related to the start and end net values within the product’s interval, annualized by the difference. The calculation is straightforward but requires attention to the differences from the pre-regulation expected annualized yield, especially as longer product durations produce more stage yields.

The performance benchmark is set by the manager based on the product’s investment strategy, historical performance, and market environment. In practice, benchmarks are often adjusted (2025 saw a broad industry trend of lowering benchmark rates). However, the “Banking and Insurance Asset Management Product Information Disclosure Measures” issued by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission in December 2025 (effective September 1, 2026) stipulate that, in principle, the benchmark should not be adjusted, reinforcing its role as a yield indicator.

The test showed that “since inception annualized yield” was used frequently (117 products, nearly 60%), followed by “3-month annualized yield” (25 products, 12.5%) and “1-month annualized yield” (23 products, 11.5%). The frequent use of “since inception” is related to declining market interest rates and continuous drops in product yields.

13 products used “performance benchmark” to describe yields, with detailed explanations of calculation methods and data sources, complying with regulatory requirements.

Sister products, inconsistent yield standards, high recognition difficulty

Within the same series, the rules for yield display vary.

For marketing and internal statistics, wealth management firms often give products a name, some including words like “stable” or “安心” (“peace of mind”), reflecting product attributes. For example, among the 200 conservative products tested, 75 had “稳” (“stable”) in their names, indicating a close link between name and attribute. Since product attributes are the primary consideration for different investors (conservative investors usually avoid high-risk equity products), product names are crucial for decision-making.

Based on this, a scenario may occur during buying and selling. For instance, Mr. Wang, a customer, bought a stable product A and achieved expected returns. In subsequent investments, he might continue to buy similar products like A1 within the same series, trusting the brand. Under this background, A1, already endorsed in marketing, gains investor trust, which weakens the scrutiny of its past performance. Suppose A displays “3-month annualized yield,” but A1’s recent 3-month annualized yield is mediocre, while the bank chooses to highlight a more impressive “1-year annualized yield.” This could mislead decision-making.

The test found that some banks show “inconsistent homepage yield standards” and “discrepancies in stage yield disclosure frequency” within the same series. Due to limited samples, no clear “picking the most attractive standard” pattern was observed, but the “inconsistencies” seem more like inadvertent oversights.

For example, the products “Tian Tian Xin Zhong Short-term Bond 101” (101), “Tian Tian Xin Zhong Short-term Bond 102” (102), and “Tian Tian Xin Zhong Short-term Bond 106” (106) from SPD Bank. They share the same issuer, identical performance benchmarks, and similar names, thus classified as the same series. “101” and “102” both displayed “since inception annualized yield” (3.61% and 4.38%, respectively), with the disclosed stage yields being “non-extreme” and “maximum.” “106” chose “1-month annualized yield” (1.31%), which was the minimum among disclosed stage yields. The marketing motives are not obvious from the series.

Similarly, GF Bank’s “Tian Tiao Duo Strategy 14-day Hold 4” (4) belongs to the same series but lacks stage yields like “3-month” or “since inception” yields, only showing “1-month annualized yield” and “year-to-date yield.” The team checked the net value calculations on February 8 and found that the “3-month annualized yield” and “year-to-date yield” were 2.87% and 3.04%, respectively, with the latter exceeding the homepage display of 3.03%. Therefore, there’s no evidence of “deliberate concealment of poor performance.”

Regarding these cases, Zhou Yiqin said that wealth management data is complex, and system omissions are possible. Products within the same series should ideally use the same yield display standards. Allowing products to “pick the most favorable” standard could hide issues like unstable long-term returns. Using consistent display rules within a series reduces investor confusion. Especially with the “Banking and Insurance Asset Management Product Information Disclosure Measures” effective September 1, 2026, sales institutions will share disclosure responsibilities with product managers, making displays more standardized.

“Unified comparability” and “product differentiation”

Do these behaviors violate regulations?

Wu Wenran, senior partner at Dacheng (Shanghai) Law Firm specializing in asset management compliance, told the survey team that current laws, regulations, and industry self-discipline standards do not explicitly prohibit banks from displaying “maximum values” or using multiple yield standards on product homepage displays, so these practices do not directly infringe on consumer rights.

The “Measures for the Management of Appropriateness of Financial Institution Products” issued by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission in July 2025 explicitly prohibit financial institutions from “manipulating performance or misleading customers through improper display,” but do not specify what constitutes “improper display.” The “Commercial Bank Agency Sales of Wealth Management Products” also requires “consistent sales display rules for similar products,” but does not specify the elements of “consistency.” Whether detailed rules are needed in the future remains to be seen. Overall, these behaviors are still considered common marketing practices.

However, Wu Wenran believes that agencies can proactively develop more diverse evaluation systems for sales. In the era of full net value management, a single yield figure cannot fully reflect a product’s characteristics.

Wang Lingang, a partner at Jincheng Tongda Law Firm and former chief compliance officer at several foreign financial institutions, also told the team that displaying the “maximum yield” on the homepage does not violate consumer rights. As a professional financial institution, banks should leverage their information and expertise to strengthen investor education and risk warnings, especially given information asymmetry.

Compared to legal opinions, Cai Dongliang’s view is more “firm.” He states that wealth management is essentially a fiduciary business, where clients entrust funds to banks, which have a clear duty to fully disclose information. Even if regulations are not fully unified, banks can improve transparency through consistent standards, complete information, and clear expressions. This helps investors make more rational decisions and supports the long-term credibility of the industry, which is also a more stable development path for banks.

He believes that establishing a unified homepage yield display standard is necessary and technically feasible: since these products are based on net value accounting of standardized assets, their yield calculation methods, periods, and annualization can be uniformly defined without operational barriers. The key challenge is balancing “comparability” with “product differentiation.”

A possible approach is to establish a “unified baseline + category-specific supplements” industry standard—for example, requiring the homepage to display a set of standardized interval indicators, such as 3-month, 1-year, or since-inception yields, as a basis for comparison. Additional indicators can be added based on product types like cash management, fixed-term open, or enhanced fixed income, to preserve informational richness while ensuring fairness.

How to choose wealth management products: “Qualitative first, then quantitative”

How can ordinary investors cut through the digital fog to find suitable products?

Cai Dongliang suggests that identifying product quality is a process of “qualitative first, then quantitative.” First, investors should determine whether a product suits their needs, not just compare yields. Clarify liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and investment horizon—whether funds may be withdrawn at any time, whether they can withstand stage net value fluctuations, whether the investment period is three months or over three years. Only when risk and term are aligned does comparing yields make sense.

After matching risk, the second step is to focus on the product’s stability features rather than just high returns. A mature screening method is to observe whether the product performs consistently across different market conditions—avoiding excessive risk-taking in up markets and excessive retracement in down markets, with overall steady upward net value curves. This usually indicates disciplined asset allocation and prudent risk control, not relying on short-term trading or high-volatility assets for gains. From an asset management perspective, long-term funds should prefer products with controllable volatility and stable compounding, as the power of compounding depends more on time than short-term elasticity.

Third, evaluate returns using multi-period and relative methods, not just a single figure. Investors should look at the distribution of yields over short, medium, and long terms, comparing with similar products or benchmarks. If a product ranks above the median in most periods and has smaller drawdowns than average, it generally indicates higher quality. In summary, “consistently slightly better than average” is more valuable than “occasionally leading by a large margin.”

Finally, investors should focus on the management team itself. Wealth management products are not static assets; they depend on the ongoing operational capability of the manager. Attention should be paid to the institution’s investment research system, risk control mechanisms, and historical experience—such as whether they have a mature asset allocation framework, have weathered full market cycles, or frequently drift in style. Long-term performance reflects management ability, while short-term results are more influenced by market conditions. Choosing a reliable manager is crucial.

Overall, a rational product selection process should prioritize risk matching, stability, long-term performance, and management capability, with short-term yield figures serving as auxiliary references. Once this decision framework is established, additional yield display formats become tools for verification rather than decision-making, helping investors avoid marketing-driven metrics and fundamentally improve product choice quality.

(Note: The evaluation process and results are purely objective, aiming to improve residents’ financial product matching from an information disclosure perspective, without any evaluative intent. All proportions, rankings, and related statements are based on the actual tested samples.)

Southern Weekly New Financial Research Center Evaluation Team

Editor: Feng Yu