Recently, investors have raised concerns about Huatai Securities (Shanghai) Asset Management Co., Ltd.'s product "Huatai Zijin Value Selection Mixed A (019800)" being unavailable for purchase on major mainstream fund distribution platforms, with only China Merchants Bank Co.,Ltd. serving as the exclusive sales channel. The subscription fee reaches 1.5%, significantly higher than the industry standard discounted rate of 0.15%. This situation has sparked investor questioning: amid the public mutual fund industry's comprehensive push for fee reductions and benefit sharing, why would there be channel "exclusivity" and fee "counter-trends"?
According to investors, the product shows "unavailable for purchase" or remains unlisted on third-party platforms such as Ant Fortune and Tiantian Fund, while China Merchants Bank Co.,Ltd. serves as the exclusive distribution channel, implementing the original 1.5% subscription fee without offering any fee discounts. For a purchase of 500,000 yuan, investors would pay 7,500 yuan in handling fees, whereas with standard discount rates available on other platforms, they would only pay 750 yuan—a difference of 6,750 yuan. If the fund achieves significant fundraising scale, investors collectively might pay tens of millions of yuan in additional subscription costs.
In recent years, the public mutual fund industry has continuously promoted fee reforms, with multi-level fee reduction measures including management fees, custody fees, and sales service fees gradually being implemented. 2024 specifically required establishing floating fee mechanisms linked to performance to genuinely enhance investor satisfaction. However, some bank channels have restricted sales on other platforms through "exclusivity agreements" while maintaining high fees, clearly contradicting policy guidance and industry trends.
Analysts believe that pressure on bank fund distribution income may be the primary reason. Mid-year reports from major banks in 2024 showed year-over-year declines in agency fund income, coupled with high personnel costs for offline wealth managers. Banks may be attempting to compensate for revenue gaps by raising fees and implementing exclusive sales arrangements. However, this practice essentially transfers costs to investors.
"Exclusive sales" superficially creates product scarcity to attract specific customer groups, but in the long term, it damages investor trust and industry reputation. The essence of public mutual funds is inclusive finance, which should serve broad investors through low barriers, low costs, and high transparency. Allowing channel monopolization and reverse fee operations not only violates industry consensus but may also hinder the long-term process of deposit migration to equity markets and healthy capital market development.
As the A-share market gradually recovers, the trend of deposits moving into the stock market is forming. The public fund industry should seize this opportunity to attract incremental capital by optimizing services, lowering barriers, and improving investor experience, rather than squeezing each other in existing channels. Regulatory authorities have clearly included sales fee reform as a key focus for the next phase, calling on institutions to abandon short-sighted behavior and return to the fundamental principle of "investor interests first."
Risk Warning: This article was generated by AI large language model. Markets carry risks, and investment requires caution.