Bank of China will take money to compensate customers for the loss of crude oil treasure. Where does this money come from?

BOC is guilty of dereliction of duty and doesn't even have basic risk management. My relatives around me don't know that they have to move their positions in advance. The risk of poor liquidity on the last day is very high, and Chicago Futures announced in April that crude oil is allowed to be negative. Shouldn't we be vigilant at this time? Such a big bank knows to let customers make more transactions to earn fees regardless of such risks. Many people don't even know about futures, and they don't even know that they have to pay for the month. They think that if they don't have leverage, they will lose money at most. Who knows, they will be cut.

is it the written regulation at the beginning of the establishment of this stock or the result of temporary adjustment in the middle that the exchange announces that the transaction can be negative? If it is not stipulated at the time of its establishment, but it is amended halfway, the consent form of the large investor should not be just a revelation, and the stock trading should be suspended to warn of risks. However, if the rules are amended halfway, it should also be assessed that the exchange should be responsible for compensation for the untrustworthy party.

The problem of crude oil futures trading in China Bank has finally been properly solved. We should thank China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, China for his positive attitude and responsibility, as well as the decision made by the Financial Committee of China at its 18th meeting in 22-25. China Bank is required to handle international business and exchange rate business. It should be said that China Bank crude oil futures trading is the result of China Bank's re-decomposition and partial combination of American crude oil futures products. It should be said that the starting point of Bank of China should be good, but in the process of product design, it is not enough to consider risks, especially the market fluctuation caused by the epidemic is even more unexpected and unpredictable. In particular, when crude oil futures were bought for a long time, there was an incident of selling money backwards. This leads to the problem that crude oil futures of Bank of China broke through positions in 2242.

I believe that the initial attitude of Bank of China is extremely tough, requiring customers to return all the funds in other accounts of Bank of China to Bank of China, that is to say, it has broken through the crude oil futures margin system, which is the bottom line. Because the bottom line of the futures trading margin system is that when the margin is less than 2%, customers need insufficient margin. If this cannot be done, Bank of China, as a platform and counterparty, has the right to close the position. However, as the Bank of China, it failed to do what the law requires. Therefore, in the loss of China Bank's crude oil futures trading products, China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and the Financial Committee intervened, and the handling was quite different! This is the protection that the law gives investors! It is an effective case of investor's rights protection. Let us all remember our legal responsibility, or the responsibility of product design, risk description and education that banks, securities and futures companies should carry out.

At first, customers were very flustered when they said that they would be included in the credit report. Then, customers thought that it would be good to lose all the principal. For the next 2%, these customers with huge losses have to be grateful. If it is not a virtual disk, it will greatly harm the interests of bank shareholders. If it's just a virtual disk, you'll earn a lot of money and win a reputation, master.

the customers' mood of crude oil treasure has been painstakingly calmed down to some extent, and the losses of BOC have been borne by the majority of shareholders, and the income tax at the end of the year has also been affected. Among them, because the shareholders include Zhongjin and others, the tax is paid by the state and the whole people, so in the end, the shareholders pay the bill, the state pays the bill, and the whole people pay the bill. It's just that some crude oil treasures have become a broader group and political body to bear. Yes, banks operate risks, but they must establish risk control tact and avoid risks efficiently, instead of? Crude oil treasure A series of god operations in the incident did not fully prompt the risks, did not move the warehouse, closed the platform, etc., if it were not for these? God operation? Will there be such a big loss? Who is the decision maker? Why is the reflex arc so slow and long? So, we should be held accountable. Have we been held accountable? When to pursue the responsibility?

Personal opinion: BOC, a wealth management product, doesn't really buy crude oil futures, but is linked to the US crude oil futures price. In essence, it is spinach, just like a football lottery. We don't really play football, but also draw prizes based on the scores of the two teams. I think BOC is not the so-called intermediary or brokerage company in this market, but the banker. Under normal circumstances, there are people who buy more and buy less. Although the two sides may not be 5% each, the proportion gap should not be too wide. I didn't expect that the original oil price futures price fell by one point that day, so no one bought it short, because everyone subconsciously couldn't fall to a negative price. It is estimated that there is no such option in the system of Bank of China.

This means that when crude oil futures fall to negative numbers, then everyone loses money. Where did the money go? Did you really pay the crude oil buyer? However, the Bank of China only linked the price, and did not really buy crude oil. Obviously, the money went into BOC's pocket. At first, I think BOC made a lot of profits here. If we can explain the investors' losses through a piece of paper, BOC's income can be described as considerable. Now BOC has taken out money to compensate, which just shows that BOC is the biggest beneficiary, so it can easily compensate. If more than 3 billion yuan goes into the pockets of other investors, it is definitely a protracted tug-of-war to take it out again. Of course, this is just my layman's opinion.