[Direct answer]After the implementation of the new regulations on asset management in Beijing, financial products are not allowed to promise guaranteed principal and returns. This is a clear regulatory requirement. In practice, new guarantees of principal protection are generally no longer valid. Investors should evaluate risks based on the logic of net-value products. It is important to distinguish between different types of guarantees at different time points and of different nature. The first type is the guarantee of principal protection in product names or sales materials, such as promotional materials labeled as "principal-protected products". These guarantees may constitute sales misrepresentation, and investors can claim liability according to provisions of the "Measures for the Suitability Management of Securities and Futures Investors of the People's Republic of China" and corresponding civil law rules. The second type is specific backstop clauses in contracts, such as provisions requiring managers or related parties to bear losses. The validity of such clauses needs to be assessed based on whether they circumvent the inherent risks of asset management business and regulatory prohibitions. The third type is verbal promises made by sales personnel in non-compliant channels, which are often difficult to prove, but may still serve as a basis for claims if there is evidence such as audio and video recordings. According to Article 148 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (effective January 1, 2021), a civil legal act performed by a party under fraudulent means and against his true intention may be revoked by the party who was deceived. In practice, the key to investor protection lies in evidence: product brochures, risk disclosure documents and evaluation questionnaires, audio and video recordings and chat logs from the sales process, and fund transaction records and redemption records are all crucial materials for determining whether there was misrepresentation and causality. It should be noted that investment losses do not necessarily imply institutional default. A comprehensive assessment should be made based on whether risk disclosure was adequate, whether there was sales misrepresentation, and whether investors violated their own risk assessment requirements.Financial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesThe column provides specific instructions on how to handle disputes over asset management products.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Investors who consult on such issues are often in the stage of seeking relief after suffering losses on the product. Common concerns include: whether they can claim compensation if the product promised guaranteed returns but has now lost money, whether the salesperson's promises are valid, and how to prove that they were misled when purchasing the product. In practice, the most common problem is relying solely on the product name as a defense: while the guaranteed returns stated in the name or promotional materials are important, what matters more is whether the risk disclosure process was adequate, whether the investor completed a suitability assessment, and whether specific promises were made during the sales process. Therefore, before seeking legal protection, it is recommended to first organize the evidence chain, including screenshots of the product page before purchase, risk assessment results, a list of signed documents and the signing process, audio and video recordings of sales communications, and historical redemption and earnings records. Another common misconception is that investors can claim compensation as long as they suffer losses; in fact, the net value fluctuations of asset management products are inherent risks. The law requires that there be no false promises or concealment of important information, so whether compensation can be obtained depends on whether there are attributable violations or misleading behaviors. For advice on legal protection pathways and cost assessments, please refer to the following resources:Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementColumn.

II. Key points of dispute

The focus is on the following aspects: 1. Whether the product belongs to asset management products, deposits, or other financial products. 2. The specific content of the guaranteed return statement and the issuing entity. 3. The fulfillment of risk disclosure and suitability obligations. 4. The matching of the investor's risk assessment results with the product's risk level. 5. The causal relationship between losses and sales misrepresentation. 6. The validity of the agreed upon indemnity clauses. 7. The calculation method of loss amounts and joint fault. 8. The connection between administrative supervision complaints and civil litigation. In addition, attention should also be paid to product registration and manager qualification verification, the division of sales and agency responsibilities, and whether the agreed upon indemnity clauses evade inherent risks. The above specific rules are subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, supervisory norms, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

From the perspective of financial dispute practice, the handling of such cases depends on three aspects of preparation. First, product classification and clause review: It is necessary to clarify the product registration and manager's qualifications, the product's risk level, investment scope, whether there is a net value fluctuation mechanism, and whether there are statements of guaranteed returns, underwriting, or disguised guaranteed returns in the contract; this step often determines the basis for subsequent claims. Second, verification of suitability obligations: Check whether a risk assessment has been conducted, whether the assessment results match the product's risk level, whether investors have been fully informed about the product type and risks, and whether there are insufficient risk warnings or sales personnel acting on behalf of investors to conduct the assessment; the defects in the performance of suitability obligations are usually easier to prove than the product losses themselves. Third, demonstration of losses and causality: Since product net value fluctuations are inherent risks, it is necessary to demonstrate that if there were no misleading or suitability defects, investors would not have made the investment decision, or the scope of losses would be correspondingly reduced. When handling similar cases, our firm usually proceeds in parallel along three lines: product classification, obligation verification, and loss demonstration, and simultaneously assesses whether there are more efficient channels, such as filing complaints with regulatory authorities, mediating through industry associations, or initiating litigation. It should be noted that administrative complaints usually cannot directly lead to compensation, but the investigation conclusions formed therefrom can serve as important evidence in civil proceedings, so the coordination of the two paths is often more effective than proceeding separately.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action recommendations: First, fully collect the product pages, user manuals, and risk disclosure documents before purchase; Second, save the audio and video recordings and communication records of the sales process; Third, verify the match between the risk assessment results and the product risk level; Fourth, sort out the historical redemption and earnings records and calculate the losses; Fifth, assess whether to file a complaint with the regulatory authorities; Sixth, evaluate the path and cost of civil remedies. Legal basis: "Measures for the Suitability Management of Securities and Futures Investors of the People's Republic of China" (China Securities Regulatory Commission Order No. 130, implemented on July 1, 2017, and amended on March 20, 2020); "Guiding Opinions on Regulating Asset Management Business of Financial Institutions" (issued by the People's Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission on April 27, 2018); Articles 148 and 506 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (both implemented on January 1, 2021); The specific rules of asset management products shall be subject to the currently effective regulatory provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

The performance of the obligation of suitability is usually the key to judgment. Firstly, investment losses do not necessarily equal institutional default. Secondly, whether the risk disclosure is sufficient is the key to judgment. Thirdly, evidence such as audio and video recordings should be fixed as soon as possible. Fourthly, it is advisable to coordinate the progress of administrative complaints and civil procedures. Fifthly, attention should be paid to distinguishing the nature of the product and avoiding making fundamental mistakes in claims. Sixthly, attention should be paid to the method of calculating the amount of losses and the provision of evidence. Seventhly, attention should be paid to the statute of limitations requirements during the corresponding period. Eighthly, avoid seeking resolution through non-formal channels. For the method of reviewing the terms of financial contracts, you can refer to the relevant guidelines or documents.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn; For ideas on asset allocation and risk management, you can refer to the following for reference.Special services and other casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can wealth management products still guarantee principal protection after the implementation of the new regulations on asset management?

Regulatory requirements stipulate that asset management products must operate in a net value-based manner, and they are not allowed to promise guaranteed returns or principal protection. Newly issued asset management products do not include any guarantee of principal protection. Investors should evaluate the risks of net value-based products based on their logic, and they should no longer purchase products using the traditional mindset of guaranteed principal protection. Instead, they need to pay more attention to the product's risk level, investment scope, and the management team's capabilities.

Q2: If I lost money on the guaranteed-return wealth management product I bought before, can I still claim compensation?

It can be claimed according to the specific circumstances. It is necessary to first determine the nature of the product and the time of purchase, and then check whether there is sales misleading, insufficient risk disclosure, or defects in the performance of the obligation of suitability; if the above problems exist and have a causal relationship with the loss, the corresponding liability can be requested according to law. It should be noted that investment losses themselves are inherent risks, and the claim should focus on illegal and misleading behaviors.

Q3: Is it effective for salespeople to promise guaranteed returns over the phone?

Oral promises are difficult to prove in themselves, but if there are evidences such as audio and video recordings and chat records, they can be used as the basis for claiming sales misleading. In practice, it is recommended to keep the original carriers and complete contexts, and pay attention to the legality of the evidence-gathering methods; if there are only screenshots but no continuous conversations, the probative force is usually weaker, so it is recommended to save complete records as much as possible.

Q4: Which is more effective, complaining to the regulatory authorities or going to court?

Both have their own roles. Administrative complaints cannot directly lead to compensation, but they can form investigation conclusions and have evidentiary value in civil proceedings; civil litigation can directly claim compensation, but the process is relatively lengthy. In practice, it is usually first to file a complaint to obtain an investigation conclusion, and then to initiate civil proceedings based on it, which often achieves better results than doing it separately.

Q5: How is the amount of the loss calculated?

Generally, the calculation is based on the actual losses, that is, the difference between the principal and the realized gains, and the amount of the redeemed portion is deducted; at the same time, it is necessary to distinguish whether the losses are caused by market fluctuations or by violations of regulations, so as to avoid attributing all the inherent risks of the product to the institution. When calculating, the net value change records, redemption vouchers, and expense deductions should be taken into account. If necessary, an evaluation can be applied for.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces or cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limits.Financial capital legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.