Nature of the agreement: structured products can be simply regarded as investing the vast majority of the principal to buy bonds with low risk and return and a tiny part of betting on high-risk products such as options. If you win, you will take the expected return of "best case" and "better case," and if you lose, there will be only a symbolic return or even the lower limit of the principal guarantee.
Therefore, the nature of the traditional financial management agreement is a trust relationship of entrusted investment, while the structured product agreement is somewhat like a bet with banks. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's a lot like gambling. When the linked variable reaches a particular value, you win the best-case return, and if you don't, you lose all your returns, even the principal loss.
I think one of the meanings of structured products may be to become your testing ground. Investment is best gradual, not from zero investment experience step by step into stock investment. If you have an essential judgment about a variety or index, you can buy structured products that link it, and the tuition may be less than what you pay directly.
Trust: according to the rigid payment of trust before this year, the risk of trust products can be compared with traditional bank financial management. From this trend, we can see that even the "just exchange" of priority products (in case of risk, priority guarantee payment) can not be superstitious. Trust risks have been forcibly covered up before, and the trend of future risk increases can not be stopped and is irreversible.
At present, the vast majority of trust products in China actually do not conform to the original intention of trust or are actually "reverse trust." Trust should be: investors trust assets to trust companies to operate, and then trust companies look for financing needs. Now our confidence is that the main body of financing (real estate owners, mineral owners, business owners) finds a trusted company to design and package and then finds investors. The opposite is true. "Reverse trust" essentially means that trust companies and financiers wear the same pants.
At present, the trust industry is undergoing transformation, and the "bad boy" in the financial sector will be more standardized in the future. Although King Kong will not be harmful in the future, the risk compensation of the trust is still reasonable and worth investing in.
It should be noted that trust investment is different from bank financing, which requires us to have a deeper understanding of investment projects. What is the strength of the financing subject, whether the repayment source is reliable, whether the collateral is worth enough, and how is the liquidity? This information requires us to continue to pay attention to it for a long time (usually 1 to 3 years). If the source of information is only public information, it is not enough, and it is better to have a unique channel of communication. Here, it shows the advantages of purchasing trusts from brokerage channels. Securities firms often profoundly participate in the confidence of consignment, and they know more information internally than banks.
