What do we need to reflect on after the Bank of China crude oil treasury incident?
This is an unprecedented phenomenon in the international crude oil market, with the May futures settlement price at -37 per barrel.The $ 63 allows investors to appreciate the cruelty of the market, especially for investors who invest in the “crude oil treasure” of the Bank of China. It is even more painful. They are no longer being invested by the principal, but also bring additional debt to themselves.From the perspective of normal trading rules, May international crude oil futures become negative, and do not carry out such transactions as shifting positions and changing months, but choose delivery settlement, investors really need to bear all the losses and benefits brought by delivery settlement.Among them, the right and wrong between BOC and investors should be submitted to the judicial department and financial supervision department for replacement based on the contractual rights and obligations of the two parties and related laws and regulations, that is, if there is a contract dispute between the two parties, they should resort to the judicial institutionAnd financial regulators.The biggest significance of the “Crude Oil Treasure” incident of the Bank of China is that this is not a case. Other banks have similar products, but the Bank of China has a problem of customer “back-up money” to make this product more distinctive, and other banks have avoided this by moving positions.The extreme event of investors owing bank money happened.Reflecting on this typical event, it is not to judge which bank is doing well, which bank is not doing well, and whether other such products should exist in financial institutions such as banks.Judging from the content disclosed by the existing media, Crude Oil Bao is actually investing in overseas crude oil futures through the channel of the bank; however, this investment product is a high-risk product for anyone, and the investment target is a typical standardized product.The emergence of such standardized securities transactions in the domestic banking system should indeed arouse the reflection of all parties: from a regulatory perspective, it is necessary to reflect on how this type of cross-industry business occurs.After all, these products are securities products. From the perspective of product attributes, the regulatory agency is the Securities Regulatory Commission, and financial institutions engaged in such businesses should require certain qualifications and are also investors in standardized high-risk businesses.There is also information about a qualified investor.After all, futures investment is a high-risk transaction, and institutions that do not have the appropriate qualifications, and investors who do not have the appropriate knowledge and risk tolerance, should not participate in this market.At present, national financial institutions are still exploring from branching operations to comprehensive operations, but strictly speaking, the firewalls of the two still exist.Whether the Bank of China and others involved in the category of international futures through crude oil treasures requires qualifications and whether there is capital investment to carry out related businesses, the relevant regulatory authorities need to express this event.Or, banks such as Bank of China need to clarify whether a certain type of business they launch is a channel business or a physical operation business. A clear statement is required, that is, whether the legal body for launching such business is a bank or the company to which the bank belongs?If the bank only provides sales channels, then who is the real legal entity responsible for providing physical services such as transaction channels, and how to connect with the overseas market must clearly explain.The Cavaliers Regulatory Department can take the right medicine to prevent the situation from happening.After all, most of these banks are mostly fully-licensed financial institutions abroad, capable of providing customers with such trading systems and channels, and capable of opening up two internal markets, but the legal subjects that provide relevant services to investors may be different.Therefore, for regulators, this crude oil event may be a specific version of the new asset management event, so the current supervisory layer should in-depth study and supervision of this possible business of squaring the ball, analyzing the geographical areas clearly and clearlyPossible risks.From the perspective of financial institutions, it is necessary to reflect on whether they are truly capable of providing this product.According to the existing information, the trading time of the last trading day of the contract is 9:00?22:00 (Beijing time), but the transaction time of the transaction target is not Beijing time, which itself has a mismatch between the transaction time of the domestic investor and the transaction time of the transaction target, and this mismatch will directly lead to the factInvestor risk exposure, that is, the risk that occurs during the trading hours of the investment transaction target, it is difficult for investors to obtain immediate hedging. This overnight risk will directly make investors lose the means of risk management.Even in this case, investors have been notified on the contract, but from the perspective of product design, whether this is an immature financial product deserves serious reflection from all financial institutions that have launched similar businesses.From the perspective of investors, what needs to be reflected is whether they have the ability to fully understand the risks of investment products and the ability to bear risks.Why not invest in a futures company to invest in such commodity futures products, but instead invest in banks that do not provide professional futures services.After all, from the perspective of crude oil treasure’s business structure, it is 100% margin trading to buy international crude oil futures, not bank wealth management products linked to international crude oil futures.From this perspective, if an investor knows that he is directly investing in crude oil futures and knows that there is a trading time mismatch problem, then he is also liable for fault.In short, the Bank of China crude oil treasure incident once again warns us that financial institutions are honest and trustworthy, the current status of compliant operations, the ability of financial institutions to operate comprehensively, cross-regulation by regulatory agencies, and collaborative supervision need to be improved.Of experts.□ Liu Xiaozhong, editor of financial commentator Li Weijia Xu Chao proofreading Li Shihui