Recently, COMEX gold futures prices briefly fell below $4,000 per ounce, and the sharp swings in gold prices are now being transmitted to bank wealth management products linked to gold.
Market data shows that as gold prices shifted from an early-year surge into a technical correction, the pace of issuance for gold-themed wealth products has changed noticeably: new product launches clustered in the first half of the year, while issuance nearly stalled in the second half, with only two products launched, showing a clear "hot first half, cold second half" pattern.
Alongside the cooling on the issuance side, there has also been clear divergence in product returns. Data shows that among the 28 bank gold-themed wealth products issued this year, only one product from Everbright Wealth Management achieved an annualized return of more than 2% over the past month, while five products recorded negative annualized returns over the past month, with the worst reaching -3.00%.
Overall, the performance volatility of gold wealth products is highly tied to the trend in gold prices. Several industry analysts noted that the timing of position building, gold asset exposure, income from the fixed-income base, and options structure design jointly caused significant performance divergence among similar products; meanwhile, the current market environment of unclear gold price direction and wide-range fluctuations has led wealth management companies to generally stay on the sidelines and wait for a more suitable issuance window.
Only Two Products Established in the Second Half, Issuance Pace Slows Markedly
Overall, the issuance pace of gold-themed wealth products is closely related to international gold price trends: when gold prices rise, product issuance is brisk; after gold prices shift into volatile correction, institutions become more cautious and new supply contracts quickly.
At the start of 2026, international gold prices continued to climb, market investment enthusiasm was high, and wealth management companies also accelerated issuance of gold-themed wealth products: from January to February, the upward trend in gold prices was clear, the return-enhancement logic of "fixed income + gold" products was evident, and the whole market saw a peak in gold-themed wealth product issuance, with 12 products issued over the two months combined, and issuance scale rising sharply from the same period last year.
After entering March, international gold prices shifted into a technical bear market, the one-way uptrend ended, and the risk of gold price volatility rose rapidly, after which the issuance frequency of gold wealth products began to slow continuously.
Data from Lianhe Zhiping dated October 29 shows that in 2026, wealth management companies newly established a total of 28 gold-themed wealth products, with issuance times showing extreme imbalance. Among them, 26 products were established before June 30 in the first half, accounting for more than 90% of total new issuance for the year; after entering the second half, gold wealth product issuance entered a long blank period, with only 2 new products established as of October 29, both launched by Bank of Beijing Wealth Management, established on September 16 and October 27 respectively.
Apart from Bank of Beijing Wealth Management, mainstream issuers such as CMB Wealth Management and Everbright Wealth Management did not add new gold-themed wealth products in the second half.
In response, Dong Ximiao, chief researcher at Zhaolian, told reporters that the timing of issuance has a major impact on performance; products established when gold prices are high have higher position-building costs and thinner safety cushions, while after a correction, building positions in batches may offer cost advantages; the current wide-range volatility and unclear direction make institutions inclined to wait for a better window.
Net Value Volatility Increases, Gold Wealth Product Returns Diverge
Amid a market of high-level pullbacks in gold prices and intensifying volatility, performance gaps among gold-themed wealth products have gradually widened, with some products posting negative returns during the gold price correction.
Looking at overall performance since establishment, data from Lianhe Zhiping shows that among the 28 wealth products established this year, a total of 5 products had annualized returns since establishment exceeding 2%, all from CMB Wealth Management; among them, the best performer was the Focus Linked Gold No. 13 fixed-income wealth management plan, established on January 6 and ending on June 26, with an annualized return since establishment reaching 2.25%.
Information shows that this product is a bullish shark fin structure product sold to private banking clients.
In addition, a total of 10 products had annualized returns since establishment exceeding 1%, with issuers covering CMB Wealth Management and Everbright Wealth Management; another 10 products had annualized returns since establishment below 1%, with overall return levels relatively low.
Narrowing the observation window to the past month, product return divergence becomes even more prominent. Data from Lianhe Zhiping shows that in terms of annualized return over the past month, only one product in the entire market, from Everbright Wealth Management, reached 2.3%, crossing the 2% threshold; 9 products had annualized returns over the past month in the 1% to 2% range; another 10 products had annualized returns below 1% over the past month; and 5 products fell into losses over the past month, with annualized returns turning negative.
Among them, the worst performer was the Sunshine Blue Private Enjoyment No. 43 Gold Automatic Trigger Strategy product, established on June 3 and structured as a bullish autocall product, with annualized return over the past month as low as -3.00%, significantly underperforming its performance benchmark of 0.01% to 3.00%, and its net value clearly hit by the gold price correction.
In fact, since the start of this year, the impact of gold price fluctuations on product returns has remained prominent. Data from Puyi Standard shows that as of June 15, 2026, the median annualized return over the past month for gold-themed wealth products across the market was 0.15%, and the median annualized return year-to-date was 1.71%, down 164 basis points and 156 basis points respectively from early March.
At the same time, the average maximum drawdown over the past three months widened to 0.16%, while in early March this figure was only 0.08%, with the decline in gold prices directly driving a clear increase in product drawdowns.
Qu Rui, senior deputy director of the research and development department at Orient Gold Credit, analyzed that multiple factors jointly widened the performance gap among gold wealth products. The first is differences in position-building timing; in February and March this year, gold prices fluctuated sharply, and products that completed position building at phased lows in gold prices had outstanding cost advantages and better return performance, while products that completed position building at gold price highs could easily fall into passive declines in net value afterward.
The second is different allocation ratios to gold assets, with obvious differences in gold exposure across products. The higher the gold asset exposure, the greater the net value fluctuation caused by a gold price correction.
The third is gaps in the income contribution from the fixed-income base; the safety cushion formed by fixed-income assets can offset losses caused by falling gold prices, and the higher the coupon from the base, the stronger the ability to withstand gold price fluctuations.
Dong Ximiao further added that returns from gold wealth products do not simply follow gold price rises and falls; ultimate performance is jointly determined by the proportion of gold exposure, the quality of the fixed-income base, and the options structure. Products with high gold exposure see larger drawdowns during gold price corrections; coupon income from the fixed-income base varies across products, so safety cushions differ in thickness; and different options structures perform completely differently in rising, falling, and range-bound gold markets. The combination of multiple variables directly causes significant gaps between the best and worst performers among similar gold wealth products, and product management difficulty continues to rise.
Comments