21 Interview 丨Attractor founder Shi Lei and Qiao Jia: Wealth management should not rely on harvesting faith and traffic monetization

21st Century Business Herald reporter Wang Yuanyuan reported from Hangzhou

Shi Lei and Qiao Jia are "veterans" in the financial industry, the former was the executive general manager of the fixed income department of Ping An Securities and worked in the fixed income market for 15 years, and the latter first worked in overseas hedge funds and founded fixed income private equity funds after returning to China.

The two have a lot of experience in the fixed income market, and in 2016, the two sides hit it off and founded the fintech service company Attractor, because they predicted that the pain point that the asset management industry will face in the context of "breaking the rigid exchange" - asset managers still manage huge funds, but they cannot rely on license beliefs as before, but may need to communicate with customers about fluctuations, and the entire industry chain begins to need a lot of information and knowledge.

If communication is not in place, investors will "vote with their feet". How to build a stable and effective communication cognitive framework? Therefore, Shi Lei and Qiao Jia began to provide services for the bank's wealth management subsidiaries and wealth management departments at the beginning of their business.

At present, its service institutions include China Merchants Bank, China CITIC Bank, Everbright Bank, Allianz Insurance, Chinese Insurance and other financial institutions.

At the same time, in the 5 years of transformation of the large asset management industry, as a third-party service institution, they also have their own thinking on some hot spots in the industry.

They told the 21st Century Business Herald reporter: The current hot "fixed income +" products will eventually face upgrade pressure, multi-strategy asset management factories are a more compatible framework; financial institutions + Internet companies cooperate to develop financial technology, financial logic and the integration of technological industrialization is extremely difficult; the future of wealth management should not be a round of faith-style harvesting, but everyone can make decisions about their own asset allocation like buying a house to make independent decisions.

Pain points in the asset management industry: Under the background of net worth, it is difficult for trillions of capital managers to communicate with investors

21st Century: You say you are observing the pain point of the industry, and then the entrepreneur wants to solve this pain point. What is this pain point?

Shi Lei: I myself was the head of investment research in the fixed income department of the securities company, and I observed that the industry was very painful when it was transforming.

In fact, the previous fixed income industry, initially just exchanged, "spelling daddy", for investors, as long as you believe in me on the line, as long as I have a license, shareholders are very strong, is state-owned, you believe I bought, said 5% of the income will get 5%, the middle process is not important, do not need too much information and knowledge.

Then there are net worth products, which fluctuate every day. And ordinary investors do not know why it fluctuates, and every day they will ask: why did the fund rise, why did it fall, it fell for several days, should I sell it?

At the same time, the relationship between ordinary people and intermediate sales channels has changed. Ordinary people always feel that the sales channels are pitting themselves and letting themselves lose money. For example, in the recent week, the top few funds last year also fell by 10%, so some people in the live broadcast room were scolded by investors, and fund managers were also scolded.

Everyone in this chain is complaining, what is the problem? This amount is very large, and the wealth management stock of light fixed income is 40 trillion yuan, plus the trust has 60 trillion yuan. Now the transformation of net worth is actually to find a way for such a large stock of financial markets.

In fact, we just started positioning as a consulting company, and it was the needs of the industry that pushed us forward. Especially for the huge demand of bank wealth management subsidiaries, we have indeed designed a system to solve their problems.

How to solve it? One is to empower the multi-strategy asset management factory on the asset management end, and the other is to empower the wealth end account manager's knowledge-based auxiliary cognition.

Its essence is that the original just exchange, the customer does not need information. It's easiest to buy a product, search for whose product has how much revenue, how ranked, and that's it.

But now after the sudden fluctuations, there is more information, there is new information every day, but many people can't understand this information, he can only see the net value, but can't understand, can't make decisions, there will be fear, there will be greed.

So, we process the information into cognition that ordinary people can understand, and then people can make decisions, and you don't have to make decisions for them. Behind this is actually the fact that we provide a set of knowledge system, containing information + logic, to help investors recognize.

But now many of the fintech services in our market are still making decisions for others, including the previous generation of artificial intelligence-driven robot investment, so that customers do not have cognition, as long as they believe me, believe that my results will be good.

Their concept is to help customers do various operations every day, and this result will lead to customers still scolding you, because your results are also fluctuating every day, customers do not understand, and the experience is not good.

So our philosophy is to help you make decisions, not for you.

21st Century: What is the difference between the body of knowledge you provide and the attribution analysis of the daily net worth of the product?

Shi Lei: Attribution represents history, and investors are concerned about the future.

Our core is to make investors more aware of what tomorrow is, and to develop a language system that depicts tomorrow.

Depicting history is the rise and fall, the yield, the volatility, these are the common indicators in the market is enough. To depict tomorrow, we are indicators of two dimensions: good or bad, expensive or not?

The core is to be able to describe the winning percentage of different assets, and the above two dimensions can uniquely determine how much expected return is expected in the future.

After the net worth, it is an open product, when the customer does not know whether you can make money in the future, he feels the recent drawdown, he begins to hesitate, doubt, jealousy, and even feel that the asset manager is not capable, scolds you, and wants to redeem. The problem caused by redemption is that the original company may have managed one hundred million, and now that 20 million have been redeemed, it will be passively sold.

If you want to solve this problem, you need to increase everyone's mutual trust, and this mutual trust is not based on mutual trust that the net value must rise, but I understand what money you are making and whether you can still earn this money in the future.

This process of communication and forming mutual trust requires a set of languages. Asset managers can't give users very professional knowledge, they can't understand, this is not effective communication. It is necessary to have a good language environment and the same language system, so that asset managers can clearly express themselves and customers can understand.

So now many big institutions are learning our language system, fund managers, wealth management ends, private equity partners, etc., are learning.

We're now turning this language into a tool that can form a closed loop of business, so we started about 3 years ago and we had a tech team. From a corporate perspective, turning into a tool can help startups become better profitable.

Qiao Jia: We have been doing asset management for more than ten years, explaining this thing to everyone, and ordinary people can't understand it. Then this is my fault first and foremost, our problem.

This illustrates two points:

First, the professional content of asset management is often beyond the scope of ordinary people's understanding, there will be a knowledge gap between professionals and ordinary people, if there is no gap, then there is no demand in the service industry, and this industry does not even exist. If the doctor's ability is the same as that of ordinary people, then no one will see a doctor.

Second, we must consider how to make up for this gap, how to let everyone understand, benefit and reach consensus.

Therefore, what we do in the first stage is theoretical summary, system construction, and consensus at the business level, and we have actually reached a consensus in the industry; in the second stage, we will go down and try it at the C-end.

21st Century: What Does This Language System Look Like?

Shi Lei: All of our investment tools can be described in terms of 2 levels and 4 indicators.

There are two levels, one is fundamentals and the other is market.

All the fundamental information we can process to the two indicators of good or bad, expensive or not.

How to judge whether it is good or not, we will decompose all the sources of income of an asset, for example, why stocks can make money, that is, there are two sources of income: one is to be a shareholder, get the return on capital, we have charted it, the knowledge graph. Clients can get this realization at once when they don't need to understand such detailed knowledge, knowing whether the shareholder return is high or low; the second source of income is to make money through changes in valuation.

Not only stocks, in fact, all assets we will dig from the root of the source of income to judge its current state.

In terms of how to describe the state of an asset, we will analyze it from three levels: macro, meso and micro, including financial data, industry data, and macro data.

The barriers to this set of knowledge systems are still very high, and ordinary people generally do not have such capabilities, so we go to translate such complex information to the people.

In terms of whether it is expensive or not, we will compare it with another available asset and make a horizontal comparison between assets.

For example, Moutai, he and other other industry stock comparison, the normal valuation level in history should be how much, then it is now more expensive than the normal level, we can translate into a qualitative language, is more expensive, generally expensive or extremely expensive, the people can understand.

The above is already 2 indicators, which belong to fundamental analysis, we also have market-level analysis, but also 2 indicators, one is how the trend is, the other is how crowded.

In terms of trend, the simplest is the stock price of the stock, the trend strength of the candlestick chart, we use the quantity to index it, monitor the strength of the trend.

In terms of congestion, it is more complex, each asset is different, it is a different knowledge graph.

For example, stocks are easier to portray, and if they rise far away from its trend, they may be crowded. Then the deal and the change of hands are very high, and it can be judged how crowded it is.

Crowding is important because everyone is crowded here, and once there is a negative factor impact, then the funds inside will trample on each other and eventually cause a plunge. It is actually an indicator of market vulnerability, and if a market is crowded, its vulnerability is higher.

In fact, these 4 indicators are difficult for many professional investors to analyze well.

We have built a complete three-dimensional information map, and reduced the dimension into a less complex knowledge system, customers can see the cockpit of their own account, every day there is the latest information updated to tell the user how to hold the assets you hold.

For example, at the beginning of the year, our system will remind users that the liquor fund you hold is now the most crowded sector in the market, it will not tell you that it will definitely fall, but it will prompt you that the market is more crowded and vulnerable.

21st century: Now maybe all the big companies in the industry are doing fintech, when this pain point is discovered, why don't the big companies succeed first?

Shi Lei: Our core barrier is a dynamic investment and research system. Just like now we work with banks, they also think about moving our code over, but because our knowledge is dynamic, static knowledge can only explain the past, not the future, so even if a hacker steals all of our stuff, it doesn't matter.

All of our models are reworked at the beginning of each year, whether they need to be updated, whether the knowledge system needs to be developed.

The source of this knowledge system is the investment and research force of our own team and cooperative institutional partners, and we systematize and model knowledge to form a dynamic knowledge middle platform.

Our investment research team is now actually from the Department of Physics, the Department of Mathematics, the Department of Statistics, and there is not a single one with a financial background. However, this team is an investment research institute for different types of assets in the world, cooperating with the most advanced investment capabilities in the professional field, but it is a large financial investment strategy team.

In addition, compared with large companies, it mainly depends on whether an institution's focus is short-term or long-term, and if the main goal of a financial institution is short-term, rapid development, it is less willing to do this kind of thing.

Large companies, in particular, need cooperation between different departments, and many may be competitors in terms of interests, rather than collaborators. It may even be necessary to reorganize the department and change the original vested interests, models, and so on.

For example, there is now a combination of Cooperation between Internet companies and financial institutions in the market, and the media may be very concerned, feeling that the cooperation between the two large institutions and the prospects are promising.

But the information I've learned myself may not be so optimistic. Because their cooperation model is a combination of Internet companies providing traffic and financial institutions providing models, there is a lack of knowledge fusion. The model provided here by the financial institution is a black box, providing only the results, but not allowing users to have cognition, and lack of communication. It can only be said that this Internet company has a lot of traffic and a lot of room for imagination, but the customer experience may not be good.

For example, last year, when the market grew the fastest, the model of that financial institution would automatically guide you to sell the fund, and you might make 10% less in a week.

But is there something wrong with the model? There is nothing wrong with the model, it is based on a 20-year long-term investment philosophy to make a judgment, this thing is expensive and should indeed be sold, cheap should be bought.

But this trading strategy is the opposite of the human nature of ordinary people, so many people on that Internet platform have begun to scold.

This black box model does not communicate directly with users, and even hides what fund they buy at the deepest bottom, and it takes several pages to see what fund to buy.

Qiao Jia: In fact, the concept of these two companies is different, the Internet company thinks about how to have traffic and how to monetize quickly; financial institutions think about how to make a long-term product and manage money. We now understand that the financial institution originally wanted to cooperate first, give some investment advisory services, and then send its own fund. But the cooperation does not seem to be ideal, and the financial institutions themselves have retreated.

So when our company was doing its own entrepreneurial planning, this year decided to start doing the C-end market, take financial content to accompany users, and increase two-way communication and understanding. In the past, we were all doing B-end markets, serving bank wealth management subsidiaries, public offerings, and asset management.

In fact, the above case reflects a problem, that is, how deep the integration of financial and technological people can be, which is also a problem of our company, and the "fight" between financial and technological people is very strong.

Science and technology people feel that financial people are not rigorous, where are loopholes; financial people say that technology people are always nitpicking, and it is better to go in the general direction.

21st Century: Your clients seem to be bank wealth management, asset management, and wealth management, and you have not cooperated with brokers. Will brokers be a strong competitor to you? They not only invest money in the development of financial technology, but also have a huge team of investment advisers to "human sea war".

Qiao Jia: Brokers are always around trading, unlike our scenario, and few people will run to securities companies to make future financial plans for themselves.

Perhaps now many securities companies have obtained investment advisory licenses, claiming that they want to cultivate their investment advisers into individuals with asset management capabilities, including the account managers of private banks.

But there's a saying I particularly like – all those who say that if you want to train people on the front line into expert leaders, the business will die.

Because you want to become an expert in using tools and systems, but you want to quickly train front-line employees into asset allocation and asset management experts, how is this possible?

Others have been doing asset management for a lifetime, whether they are graduates of Peking University Tsinghua University, or from the trading room, they have been in the market for so many years, why can a newly graduated private bank account manager, or investment advisor, become an "expert" in one year?

All the people who do finance in China want to help others manage money, and I think this is problematic. Our company doesn't want to manage money.

Because managing money is a very subjective judgment and consciousness, what he buys is based on his "thinking" that something is good and something can be mastered, and everyone feels that the energy and knowledge used by Wang Yawei and the old lady who buys vegetables to make judgments seem to be similar, and they always think that there is no threshold and that anyone can do it.

Most commonly, many investors online, often scold fund managers, you are not as good as me. This is the most bizarre thing in China's financial world.

No one says they can do a bridge surgery or heart opening for themselves, but it takes about the same amount of time to train a doctor and a fund manager, but everyone thinks that the financial industry is particularly simple. In the past, retail investors had this idea, and now brokers and private banks that want to build first-line investment advisors into asset allocation experts have this idea, and it is meaningless to turn front-line people into experts, and it is impossible to do it at all.

<h4>The Future of the Asset Management Industry: The possible exit of "Fixed Income+" and the end of "faith-based" wealth management</h4>

21st Century: How to understand the view you put forward that the current hot "fixed income +" may not be popular in the future?

Shi Lei: "Fixed Income +" is a transitional product, it is a transitional form from the original pure rigid exchange, everyone does not accept any fluctuations, and now everyone can gradually accept some fluctuations.

But it has shortcomings. Because "fixed income +" is a fixed income as the bottom, plus a risk asset fluctuations, its risk budget is by fixed income + risk assets, so there is a safety cushion to raise risk assets.

When you allocate a lot of money on a very low interest rate safety cushion, especially this low interest rate environment is not suitable for the future, for example, if the future is a high inflation environment, assets on both sides may collapse.

That's a core question because fixed income must be stable and safe, but what if there's a ray in it? What if interest rates keep rising in the future? It's actually going to fall.

A lot of people really understand bond assets as fixed income, which is wrong. When we had a stock market crash, our bond assets fell by more than ten percent in a month, which was actually not much at all, so this was a wrong positioning.

Adding a risk asset to such a positioning may be wrong for both.

On the wealth side, or investors understand fixed income as fixed income, at the asset management end, or asset managers think that fixed income actually refers to bonds.

Fix Income is actually a term invented by Merrill Lynch to sell bonds to retail investors. In the 1970s, Merrill Lynch, who was doing more retail at that time, invented a word called fixed income, which was implanted to the people. But in fact, there has never been a fixed income, which is a complete rhetoric.

But over time, most people on the wealth side have equated bonds with fixed income.

Jogar: To put it bluntly, if you don't take the risk, you may gain a few bucks later. If you take a risk, the return may be a little higher, but the higher gain is also volatile.

How to take the risk? That is, you buy something with no credit risk, if there is a credit risk, the yield will be higher, and it will be rationalized slowly.

Now when it comes to fixed income, everyone is guaranteed principal and interest, and then fight for interest rates. But there will be no more in the future, because this is a huge cost to the country and financial institutions, there is no reason, you take money from a government platform to do constructive investment, and then pay the people a rate of seven points, it is impossible, the cost of taking money (interest rate) in the future may be a little, at most two points.

But if there is only a little return, even if the stock investment is added, its overall yield will not be high, because only 1% of the funds in the entire product may be used to buy stocks, and the return is too small.

Shi Lei: When we do fixed income, the cost performance of fixed income assets is particularly high. The so-called cost performance is that you take the same risk, and the return is particularly high. You don't look at bonds at that time, it seemed that there was a general return of only 6%-7%, but the returns we made were more than 100%, through the cycle. At that time, China's fixed income assets were very cost-effective, but now it is just the opposite, and the return you get by taking the same risk is a little bit.

So taking this as the bottom line is equivalent to allocating a lot of money to an asset with a particularly poor risk-reward ratio.

When we compare bonds to other assets, we don't think bonds are always low-risk.

This is closely related to the environment, and now China's environment has changed.

Why do we all want to invest in funds and equity? First, because after the supply-side reform of China's industry in 2016, good enterprises have developed better, and the ROE of stocks and equities invested in good enterprises has been systematically improved. Because our production capacity is tight, production capacity is actually capital, and the rate of return on capital has risen systematically.

Second, after 2018, after we went through financial supply-side reforms, the liquidity contraction has ended, and the money has actually become more. Future bond yields, even if they are high, may not outperform inflation.

Both of these aspects are beneficial to equity.

Bonds are a time when the company has high leverage, serious mismatches, and urgent need for money to continue his life, he may have to borrow "usury", and at this time, he will make more money doing bonds, that is, in 2010-2012.

But what is the situation now? Good companies are not short of money, bad companies you dare not borrow, so in the bond market, most of them are poor companies.

So when you see that companies in the stock market and companies in the bond market are two kinds of companies, companies that are financing in the stock market do not appear in the bond market, and it feels like it is not a China.

Therefore, the entire economic environment in China is pushing fixed income assets downward, at least 5 years, or 10 years, 20 years such a medium- and long-term stage.

Until we usher in a cycle of overcapacity, the leverage ratio of enterprises is particularly high, and the government is also very highly leveraged, at this time the return rate of stocks will naturally decline. Just like in 2012, when everyone borrowed very expensive assets and very expensive interest rate money, basically the enterprise would perish, but the fixed income became the most beneficial person.

So to be precise, we believe that the management method of "fixed income +" will gradually become a multi-strategy configuration product in the future, which includes "fixed income +".

The way it will be managed will change in the future. In fact, you only need to look overseas, "fixed income +" is a method called "insurance portfolio investment" that emerged overseas in the late 80s, which directly caused the stock market crash in 87 years, because it is an option-like investment, and now there is no "fixed income +" overseas.

"Fixed income +" is a multi-strategy management method passed down from overseas, which is actually relatively rudimentary.

21st Century: So how do you evaluate the fact that many asset management institutions are now focusing on such a track as "fixed income +"? Or even take "fixed income +" as their starting point in the asset management industry?

Shi Lei: There may be a transformation in the future, but in fact, many institutions are already in transition now. Although they are all called "fixed income +", the management method is different.

"Fixed income +" is only converging on the wealth side, because it is easy to sell, and the people feel that "fixed income +" is a more practical investment product with a little flexibility on it.

But this is just what the people think, how to really manage this product, each institution is different, and many institutions that do "fixed income +" products have begun to transform, bank wealth management subsidiaries, public funds, etc., have.

For example, a head public fund, their "fixed income +" department called multi-asset allocation department, is now in the transformation to FOF 3.0. We call this the Multi-Strategy Asset Management Factory.

FOF 1.0 is the star fund manager platter, rub traffic, but there is no meaning, and the effect is not good; then FOF 2.0 is a person who does configuration, from top to bottom to allocate some different assets, generally from the top down macro perspective to configure, such as a head brokerage investment advisory system, this has been advanced; FOF 3.0 is top-down, bottom-up combination, industrialized strategy packaged into modules, according to the needs of wealth management to assemble modules, This is actually the multi-strategy asset management factory we are doing.

Bottom-up, that is, we observe from every source of revenue that there is no opportunity in this place, whether every company is getting better, and whether the industry is improving. From the top down, it is more about the macro strategy aspect.

The information to be processed in this process will be longer and more complex, and it will require more communication, because a lot of knowledge is in each researcher. We need to have a system where these very good, even a little bit of chilly people work together, and that's our goal.

21st Century: You have served so many wealth management subsidiaries of banks, what kind of investment model does the industry tend to do now? What kind of companies do you think can do a good job of multi-strategy asset allocation?

Shi Lei: In fact, they all want to do it in a multi-strategy configuration, but they all feel that it is difficult, and they have to break their own existing management system.

I personally feel that the wealth management subsidiaries can only be a large number of conquered people in the end, and most wealth management subsidiaries cannot be transformed.

The end customer will make a choice, and the wealth manager will always be affected by the wealth side of the customer and his own investment performance. I think everyone will not all develop towards the same road, it should be diverse, according to the model of standing on the top of the mountain and looking for their own investment path, but in the end, there will definitely be some people who will be frustrated.

Do a good job, do the right multi-strategy asset allocation, first of all, it is difficult; the second is an investment, can always be allocated, there is no winning general, for example, recently some views that Dalio's recent asset allocation is also wrong, because the performance is not optimistic.

Why did Blackstone become the world's largest asset management company? A company without a point of view can manage $9 trillion, and those companies with views and initiatives can't go up to the scale of hundreds of billions?

Because Blackstone does not rely on its own judgment of right and wrong, it is actually a thorough study of how to obtain customers, why do customers always use my products? And he gives more of the power to make investment decisions to his clients.

Qiao Jia: In fact, you just expressed a problem that runs through China's asset management industry - managing money for others and investing for others, which is not the whole of financial services.

In the entire financial industry, in fact, there should be only one subdivision of asset management that manages money for others, and the entire financial service should be "helping" others manage money, rather than "managing" money for others. For example, if you go to the exchange to trade, the exchange provides services, this is "help", which is also a financial service.

The financial services industry may have 95% of the content, which should help you improve efficiency and reduce costs, and 5% of the content is asset management, making decisions for you.

So I don't think we should always be in the 5% of this line. Now many people want to manage money, asset management thinking, but we want to remind everyone that 95% of financial service content is not to make decisions on behalf of others. So we will make a system ourselves, from the perspective of asset allocation, for institutions and individuals to use, improve their efficiency.

21st century: Now that many securities companies' asset management is developing towards public offering, what do you think the future asset management industry or wealth management industry should be?

Qiao Jia: From birth, public funds have been a variety of strong supervision and strong regulation, and other asset management has grown up barbarically and then standardized.

This means that other children must be like this child, growing up in a state of equal standards, regulating it according to the norms, and the so-called all products are publicly funded. This is actually the perspective of policy guidance, from the regulatory system to regulate, as for what it will develop in the future, it is to show its own magic, but it is said that the foundation given now is different.

What we are doing now is to enable more ordinary people to understand financial products and quickly form self-judgment after reading.

We hope that every reader can judge on their own and be responsible for the judgment they make, which is the color that future wealth management should have - that is, users, you can choose who to manage a certain type of product, but you can't give the money to whom, let others operate for you in the black box, this is a faith-style commission, it is not right.

Wealth management should be differentiated and rational, users should decide what to invest in, and we provide them with information to quickly identify the underlying assets and evaluate the assets.

Just like buying a house, it has always been our own decision whether to buy it and where to buy it, rather than giving the money to whom, letting others buy a house and come back, and then doubling the profit after 5 years.

Buying such an important capital as buying a house we all have to make our own decisions, how can wealth management have so many assets entrusted.

So we want more people to really participate in wealth management, rather than being managed by wealth.

Shi Lei: There are many faith-based investments in finance.

For example, most of us go to buy a car, in fact, most people do not know how to build a car, but we have a lot of tools, there are a lot of evaluations, comparison software, articles to help you choose a car.

But now there is no such tool in the financial industry, everyone relies on faith to buy financial products, in the past it was faith licenses and shareholders, now it is faith in historical performance, and these have been proved unreliable.

So we want to produce assessment tools to help you choose assets in the dimension of your own cognition.

21st Century: Helping people manage money is a very cost-effective business, it sounds like you are moving other people's cheese?

Qiao Jia: You said that we have affected the interests of some people in existing asset management institutions, and you are also right. Because we give everyone a tool to identify assets more quickly, and then some bad coins are eliminated.

For example, we have a customer, is a large private bank customer, he with the help of our tools, a more active understanding of many assets, he can now point out the bank private bank account manager, he can guide the account manager, how to analyze, judge an asset.

Therefore, in practice, it is possible to do it, especially many wealth management institutions focus on high-net-worth people, and the learning ability of high-net-worth people is enough to use our tools and have a clearer understanding of different assets.

You see now many asset management institutions say transformation, but in fact, it is a superficial transformation, in fact, there is no transformation, they push a product is still using the "star fund manager" way to push. For example, there are sales and selling funds, and it is still saying how good the effect of this fund manager making money last year, but our users will directly fear: last year's first, this year's first ah? Is there any logical connection between last year's performance and this year's?

Buy a fund manager's fund, you need to know what style the person has, what is the source of performance income, what is his risk point, whether to hold the group or not to hold the group, and so on. Our users can directly ask these 4 questions, then if you can't answer a sales, sorry, you should be eliminated.

Our banking customers, who are recognized as going faster and willing to try new things, have their own systems and fintechs that are quite advanced, and then find us, think we are good, and work together.

What about other institutions, they don't think about innovation, they don't want to change, but they go elsewhere to find growth. For example, some banks, whose aum growth is now sinking into the countryside, because they feel they can't grab the market in the city.

But this treatment is not a cure, the core is that your entire system still has some backward places, such as first, backward sales concept, do not know how to convince others; secondly, backward performance.

If you do not have a correct and stable theoretical background and stable framework in an area of sufficient net worth and competition, and your performance is not good and your words are not right, it is difficult to continue to make the scale bigger.

For more information, please download the 21 Finance APP