According to the civil judgment, on March 23, 2018, Wang Xiaoyu (fund investor) and Gu Yus then company (fund manager) and Minsheng Securities Co., Ltd. (comprehensive service agency) signed the private investment fund contract No The purchase amount is 3 million yuan.
It is recorded that Wang Xiaoyus purchase confirmation date is March 26, 2018, the net amount of confirmation is RMB 3000000, the confirmed share is 2605976.37, and the unit net value is RMB 1.1512.
It is reported that Wang Xiaoyus redemption was confirmed on July 5, 2018, with a net amount of 687000 yuan, a share of 2605976.37 and a unit net value of 0.2636 yuan. In other words, Wang Xiaoyu lost 2.313 million yuan in more than three months.
It is worth noting that Wang Xiaoyu actually applied for redemption of the fund on June 19, 2018, and the redemption confirmation date was June 21, 2018, when the unit net value was 0.9825 yuan. Results on June 27, 2018, Gu Yu informed Wang Xiaoyu that the redemption was invalid, because the market extreme situation led to a significant reduction of the companys net value on the day of confirming the net value, resulting in the product net value lower than the warning and stop loss line and facing liquidation, unable to pay the redemption money, the company launched the liquidation notice, and the liquidation settlement amount paid the redemption money according to the proportion of investors shares.
Promise to return the loss and repent
Faced with such a huge loss, Gu Yu and Wang Xiaoyu signed the repayment agreement at that time, which agreed:
In view of Wang Xiaoyus subscription to Guyus then private fund Guyu quantitative Jinxuan No.1 private investment fund on March 22, 2018, the net subscription value is 1.1512, the subscription amount is 3000000 yuan, and the confirmed share is 2605976.37; the subsequent investment of the fund has a large loss, which has been liquidated on June 28, 2018; because Wang Xiaoyus investment in the fund has a large loss, the two parties, through friendly consultation, agree to The agreement on related matters is as follows: at that time, Gu Yu promised to return the whole loss part of Wang Xiaoyus investment fund, totaling 2313000 yuan.
It seems that the problem has been solved. Unexpectedly, Gu Yu claimed that the repayment agreement belongs to the promise of disguised capital preservation, which violates the provisions of Article 15 of the Interim Measures for the supervision and management of private investment funds that private fund managers and private fund sales agencies shall not promise investors that their investment capital will not suffer losses or the minimum return, and shall be invalid.
Such a reversal is unexpected. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first instance is very clear:
It is verified that the background of the repayment agreement signed by Wang Xiaoyu and Gu Yu at that time was that the fund involved in the case had incurred losses, and Gu Yu at that time voluntarily assumed responsibility for the losses and agreed to make up the amount of Wang Xiaoyus losses.
However, Article 15 of the Interim Measures for the supervision and administration of private investment funds stipulates that the risk of investment is still uncertain at the stage of fund raising. If the private fund manager and the private fund sales agency promise the investors that the principal will not be lost or the minimum income will be guaranteed, the investors will be misled to ignore or underestimate the investment risk, and the wrong investment and the risk identification ability and risk acceptance of the investors will be misled Investment projects with mismatched capacity.
However, in this case, Gu Yu didnt promise Wang Xiaoyu that the investment principal would not be damaged at the time of fund raising, and the fund contract signed by both parties did not stipulate that the investment principal would not be damaged or the minimum income would be agreed. Both parties negotiated the aftermath and signed the repayment agreement when the fund actually suffered losses and the investment risk did occur u300bTherefore, the repayment agreement does not violate the provisions of Article 15 of the Interim Measures for the supervision and administration of private investment funds.
At that time, Gu Yu and Wang Xiaoyu signed the repayment agreement, which is the true intention of both parties. The content of the agreement does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and should be legal and effective. The court of first instance rejected Gu Yus plea that the agreement was invalid at that time.
To make a point, there were a lot of investors before. They met with the private placement manager to protect the principal and the income when raising, and when the result was a serious loss, they judged that the bargain was invalid. But at that time, Gu Yu signed a repayment agreement after the product actually suffered a loss, which was legal and effective, so Gu Yu still had to pay the rest of the money.
Risk control is the lifeblood of private equity
According to a large-scale quantitative private equity person in Shanghai, whether the net value of quantitative products can be stable or not mainly depends on the risk control of managers.
For example, when our companys products are withdrawn more than 5%, the system will automatically issue a position reduction order to stop loss, which is particularly cautious. If investors want to choose quantitative fund products, they must have a deep understanding of the team background of a private equity institution, and know that each quantitative strategy needs a period of trial run, some even take two or three years to polish, some do not Responsible private placement may absorb funds when the strategy is not mature.
A private equity researcher said that when choosing private equity products, investors should have a certain understanding of the product strategy and team, and it is better to rationalize the investment ideas of managers, and choose a core strategic product of private equity, so as to hold and harvest stable happiness.