Fixed-income bank wealth management products are "not selling well," with over 42 fundraising failures this year.

What are the structural reasons behind the surge in failed fundraising for AI and fixed-income financial products?

On various social media platforms and financial discussion groups, “interest rates are too low, there’s no need to buy” has become an intuitive evaluation among some investors of current bank fixed-income financial products.

According to incomplete statistics from Wind data, since 2026, more than 42 fixed-income financial products from over ten financial companies, including Ping An Wealth Management, CCB Wealth Management, Huaxia Wealth Management, Pudong Bank Wealth Management, Everbright Wealth Management, Bank of Communications Wealth Management, Bohai Bank Wealth Management, China Merchants Bank Wealth Management, and Xinying Wealth Management, have announced failure to raise funds due to not reaching the minimum subscription scale, a significant increase compared to previous years. Among them, Huaxia Wealth Management has about 20 products that failed to issue.

In comparison, only 3 fixed-income products failed to issue in the same period in 2025, about 7 in 2024, and about 9 in 2023. In just two or three years, this change in the indicator reflects a structural shift in the wealth management market.

Many frontline bank wealth management sales staff believe that this “lack of sales” feeling is becoming more real.

“A customer’s first question now isn’t about returns, but whether they can withdraw at any time,” said a wealth manager at a joint-stock bank. “As soon as I mention products with a lock-up period of over a year, many clients will skip over them.”

Industry insiders believe that in investors’ choices, returns are no longer the only decisive factor, and the industry should accelerate its transformation.

“Interest rates are too low, there’s no need to buy”

On social media platforms, voices like “interest rates are too low, there’s no need to buy” are common. Some investors openly state that the performance benchmarks of current fixed-income financial products generally hover around 2%, which is significantly below their psychological expectations.

“About 2% returns, and you have to lock in for a year or two, with poor liquidity—it’s better to put money in money market funds or keep it in a current account,” said an investor.

This change in perception is not an isolated phenomenon. From the product side, the current wealth management market still mainly consists of fixed-income assets, but against the backdrop of a continuous decline in the interest rate center, the yield space on the asset side is being compressed.

Data from PuYi Standard shows that as of February 2026, the average performance benchmark of newly issued closed-end fixed-income products has fallen to about 2.35%, and the average benchmark of open-ended wealth management products has also dropped to about 1.73%.

“In the current environment of overall declining interest rate centers, the performance benchmarks of newly issued products are generally decreasing, which creates a certain gap with investors’ previous expectations,” said Zhang Jinghan, a researcher at PuYi Standard.

From a product structure perspective, the current fundraising failures are mainly concentrated in closed-end fixed-income products.

For example, institutions like Ping An Wealth Management and Huaxia Wealth Management have recently announced that multiple closed-end products failed to establish because the fundraising amount did not meet the minimum threshold. The minimum subscription scale for some products is usually set around 5 million yuan, but in practice, the threshold was not reached.

On April 1, Ping An Wealth Management announced that its “New Voyage Phase 571 Three-Month Closed Fixed Income Product” and “Qiyuan Chunhe Closed Phase 18 Fixed Income Product,” issued on March 3, did not meet the minimum scale specified in the product prospectus after the fundraising period ended and ultimately were not established.

On March 19, Huaxia Wealth Management issued multiple notices stating that products such as “HeXiang Fixed Income Product No. 37” failed to meet the total fundraising amount required for issuance and were not established.

Additionally, institutions like Xinying Wealth Management, Pudong Bank Wealth Management, Bohai Bank Wealth Management, and Guangfa Bank Wealth Management have also announced fundraising failures. For example, a closed-end fixed-income product from Xinying Wealth Management failed to establish because the subscription amount did not reach 5 million yuan; some exclusive products from Pudong Bank Wealth Management also failed to meet issuance conditions due to insufficient fundraising.

Data from PuYi Standard shows that from March 23 to March 29, there were about 44,845 existing wealth management products in the market, a decrease of 264 compared to the previous period. Among them, fixed-income products still dominate with 41,910, but the overall number has also declined.

Investors re-evaluate returns and liquidity

Li, who works in Shanghai, has adjusted his wealth management allocations twice this year.

“Before, I cared more about returns, now I first look at whether I can withdraw anytime,” he said. He previously bought a two-year fixed-income product, treating it like a fixed deposit, but when he needed funds midway, he couldn’t redeem early, prompting him to reassess product structures.

Similar changes are especially evident among young investors.

Some investors now see wealth management as a “liquidity management tool” rather than just a return-generating tool. They pay more attention to the flexibility of fund use and the ability to adjust in different market environments. “If the returns are similar, I will definitely choose the more flexible one,” a post-90s investor told the reporter.

From the return perspective, the downward shift of the interest rate center is the core factor affecting the attractiveness of fixed-income wealth management. “Under the background of overall declining bond yields, the basic return space that wealth management products can obtain is compressed, which in turn leads to a downward adjustment of performance benchmarks,” said Zhao Ran, chief analyst of non-bank and financial technology at CITIC Securities.

Data also supports this. According to PuYi Standard, as of the end of February 2026, the average annualized yield of existing closed-end fixed-income wealth management products in the market was 3.03%, down 0.29 percentage points month-on-month; the three-month average annualized yield was 2.74%, down 0.07 percentage points.

At the industry level, the fundraising difficulties of fixed-income wealth management products essentially reflect a structural mismatch between supply and demand.

On one hand, product supply is highly homogeneous. Currently, fixed-income products mainly hold bonds and interbank certificates of deposit as underlying assets, with risk levels concentrated in the low to medium range, and limited structural differences. “Different products are essentially different combinations of the same type of assets,” said a bank wealth management practitioner. With asset allocation converging, the substitutability among products is strong.

On the other hand, the continuous decline of the yield center weakens the marginal attractiveness of products. Zhao Ran said that in the context of broad-based rate declines, high-quality assets are becoming scarcer, and wealth management institutions face greater challenges in obtaining excess returns. Even with ongoing optimization at the research and development level, overall yield levels remain constrained by macroeconomic conditions.

The industry is adjusting its path

Faced with fundraising difficulties, many wealth management companies are adjusting their strategies. Industry experts generally believe that the future competitive logic of the wealth management industry will shift from past scale expansion to focusing on research capabilities and customer needs.

Gao Zhengyang, a special researcher at Su Commercial Bank, said that on one hand, stability and resilience of returns can be improved through multi-asset allocation and duration management; on the other hand, product layering can be used to offer differentiated options tailored to different risk preferences and liquidity needs.

Meanwhile, the importance of research and development capabilities is rising. “In an environment of declining interest rate centers, relying solely on traditional bond allocation can no longer meet return targets. Wealth management firms need to enhance their abilities in asset allocation, credit risk identification, and portfolio management to strengthen product competitiveness,” Gao Zhengyang said.

For investors, industry insiders remind that in a low-interest-rate environment, they should adjust return expectations, pay attention to the underlying assets and risk characteristics of products, and prioritize institutions with full information disclosure and strong research capabilities. At the same time, they should avoid emotional decisions driven by short-term market fluctuations and aim for steady investment goals based on rational asset allocation.