Understanding Fiduciary Duty

What does this mean?

This passage profoundly reveals the core logic of financial markets—how 'credit' is born and sustained.

It extends the foundation of financial markets from the micro level of 'individuals' all the way to the macro level of 'institutions.' Simply put, this passage expresses a core viewpoint: The essence of finance is credit, and the establishment of credit relies on the combined effect of 'conscience' (fiduciary duty), 'transmission' (intermediary chain), and 'environment' (institutions and competition).

To help you understand more intuitively, we can break this passage down into three levels:

1. Micro Level: The Source of Credit is 'Fiduciary Duty'

"Only those who truly have fiduciary duty can generate credit"

• Meaning: The financial industry is essentially about managing other people's money (whether it's fund managers, bankers, or corporate executives).

• Key Concept: Fiduciary Duty. This is not just about being 'responsible'; it refers to a legal and moral obligation to put the client's interests above one's own.

• Interpretation: Only when the person in charge of funds is not merely chasing management fees, but genuinely respects others' wealth and guards it as if it were their own, can the most primitive form of 'trust' emerge. Without this professional ethics, no matter how perfect the contract, credit is hollow.

2. Meso Level: The Transmission of Credit Depends on 'Chain Integrity'

"Only when every link in the chain has a trustworthy intermediary can the overall credit of the financial market be established."

• Meaning: Financial transactions are often long and involve many links (e.g., investor -> bank -> auditor -> rating agency -> listed company).

• Interpretation: The financial market is an ecosystem.

• If a listed company commits fraud, but the auditor is trustworthy, the problem might be caught and eliminated.

• If the listed company is honest, but the investment bank misleads, investors still suffer.

• The Bucket Effect: As long as one intermediary in the chain (e.g., a rating agency giving false ratings, an accounting firm cooking the books) is untrustworthy, the entire market's credit system can collapse, leading to systemic risk (like the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis).

3. Macro Level: The Screening of Credit Relies on 'Competition and Rule of Law'

"Free competition, survival of the fittest, coupled with legal regulation and long-term practice, can produce a truly efficient and credible financial market."

• Meaning: Relying solely on individual morality (fiduciary duty) is not enough; there must be mechanisms to punish the bad and reward the good.

• Three Key Elements:

1. Free Competition / Survival of the Fittest: The market must be ruthless. Companies that cook the books must go bankrupt; funds that mismanage must fail. If the bad are not eliminated, due to 'bad money driving out good,' trustworthy people will be at a disadvantage.

2. Legal Regulation: There must be strict laws as a bottom line. The cost of wrongdoing must outweigh the benefits, making credit 'valuable.'

3. Long-term Practice: Credit is not built in a day; it requires time to accumulate. A market's maturity requires going through cycles.

---

Summary

This passage essentially criticizes or reflects on those financial phenomena that are 'superficially prosperous but lack a foundation'.

It tells us: A healthy financial market should not be judged by the volume of transactions, but by:

1. Whether people have professional conscience (fiduciary duty);

2. Whether institutions have checks at every level (intermediary chain);

3. Whether institutions can eliminate fraudsters (survival of the fittest and rule of law).

If any of these links is missing, so-called 'financial innovation' or 'market prosperity' may be a castle built on sand.

Are you studying financial regulatory policy, or did you come across this passage while analyzing a specific business case (like a financial product that collapsed)?

This is a very profound question that touches the core of finance—the 'Principal-Agent Problem'.

Simply put: Entrusting your money to someone else to manage (the essence of finance) is an extremely counterintuitive act. Only 'fiduciary duty' can solve this counterintuitive problem, thereby allowing 'credit' to be born.

Here is a breakdown of the underlying logic:

1. The Core Dilemma: Why Should We Fear 'The Person Managing Our Money'?

In the financial world, when you entrust your money to a fund manager, bank, or corporate executive, two huge black holes naturally exist that make you unable to trust them:

• Information Asymmetry: They are the expert; you are the layman. They know the investment is actually very risky, but they tell you it's 'a sure thing.' You cannot verify their words.

• Moral Hazard: If they make money, they get a bonus; if they lose money, you bear the loss (O.P.M. - Other People's Money). Without constraints, human instinct drives them to gamble rather than protect your principal.

Without 'fiduciary duty,' this is a zero-sum game or even a scam. In such an environment, no one dares to put their money out there, and credit naturally cannot emerge.

2. The Solution: Fiduciary Duty as the 'Preservative of Trust'

'Fiduciary Duty' is not a simple contract; it is the highest standard in law and morality. It creates credit by forcibly reversing the aforementioned imbalances:

A. Solving 'Why Should I Trust You?' — Duty of Loyalty

Fiduciary duty requires: The fiduciary must place the client's interests above their own.

• Ordinary Business Relationship: The seller can praise their own goods, and the buyer must beware (caveat emptor).

• Fiduciary Relationship: A doctor cannot prescribe unnecessary medicine just to sell drugs. If a financial fiduciary faces a conflict between 'making money for the client' and 'earning fees for themselves,' they must choose the former.

• Result: This legally enforced 'selflessness' allows the investor to confidently hand over their money with their eyes closed. Daring to hand over money is the birth of credit.

B. Solving 'Are You Messing Around?' — Duty of Care

Good intentions alone are not enough; competence is also required. Fiduciary duty requires the fiduciary to be as careful as if they were managing their own money.

• Result: This is not just a moral appeal but a legal bottom line. If a fiduciary makes reckless investments that cause losses, they face huge compensation claims or even jail time. This fear of messing up translates into a sense of security for the investor.

3. Visualizing the Logic: How Credit is 'Manufactured'

To help you understand this process more intuitively, I have drawn the following diagram, showing the transformation from 'distrust' to 'credit':

• Left side (No Fiduciary Duty): The capital owner (Principal) faces huge uncertainty and dares not lend/invest; the credit chain breaks.

• Right side (With Fiduciary Duty): Fiduciary Duty acts like a bridge. Through legal penalties and moral constraints, it eliminates the risk of 'messing around,' allowing capital to flow safely to the agent (Agent), and Credit is thus born.

4. Why Must Every Link Have It? (Systemic Credit)

Financial products are often complex, like a long chain: 储户 -> 银行 -> 基金公司 -> 托管行 -> 上市公司 -> 审计机构

• If the listed company has fiduciary duty (runs the business well), but the auditor does not (takes money and stamps without checking), then the financial statements are worthless, and investors still dare not invest.

• If the auditor is diligent, but the fund manager engages in front-running (private trading), the investor's money can still be stolen.

Conclusion: As long as one link in the chain feels 'I don't need to be responsible for others' money,' the trust in the entire chain collapses instantly (e.g., Enron, P2P crashes).

Summary

The statement 'Only those who truly have fiduciary duty can generate credit' means:

Finance does not run on 'money'; it runs on the belief 'I trust you won't screw me over.' And fiduciary duty is the legal and moral guarantee that allows you to dare to trust a stranger and entrust them with your life savings. Without it, the financial market is a casino.

Next step: If you are interested in a specific financial crash case (like a recent trust product or listed company scandal), I can help you analyze which link collapsed from the perspective of 'fiduciary duty.'

Your intuition is very sharp, and it even touches on the 'pain point' of this concept.

Fiduciary Duty is indeed not humanity's 'factory setting'; it was forced into existence.

Your feeling is correct because, biologically, humans are self-interested. Requiring someone to 'put others' interests above their own' completely goes against human nature. So, in the natural world, it is indeed 'rare.'

The reason it has become the cornerstone of finance is a history forced out by betrayal and bloodshed. The most classic origin story traces back to the medieval Crusades.

1. The Origin Story: Knights, Friends, and Betrayal

Fiduciary duty was not born because everyone was noble, but precisely because there were too many bad people.

Scene: 12th Century England

Imagine you are an English knight, answering the Pope's call to go fight in Jerusalem (the Crusades). You might be gone for three to five years, or even never return. What about your vast lands, castle, wife, and children?

• The Legal Bug at the Time: The English Common Law of that era was very rigid. Land ownership had to be under a specific name. If you left and wanted someone else to manage it, you had to temporarily transfer the title to them.

The Tragedy

You find your most trusted buddy, transfer the land to him, and say: 'Bro, I'm leaving. Collect the rent and take care of the family. When I come back, give the land back to me.' You return after surviving countless battles, only to find your buddy living in your castle, sleeping in your bed, and then he pulls out the title deed and says: 'This is my land. It's clearly written in the law.'

You go to court to sue him, but the Common Law judge throws up his hands: 'The title deed indeed has his name. I don't care about verbal promises; I only look at the documents.'

The Birth of an Institution: Equity

Too many knights were cheated, and they all went to the King to complain. The King delegated this to the Lord Chancellor, who was usually a clergyman (an archbishop). He looked at problems not just by the 'letter of the law' but by 'Conscience.'

The Lord Chancellor ruled:

'Although the title deed bears your name (legal ownership under Common Law), your conscience knows this land belongs to someone else. Therefore, you must hold this land as a Trustee, for the benefit of the knight and his family.'

This is the prototype of 'fiduciary duty.' It was not naturally occurring; it was forcibly created by 'Equity' to patch legal loopholes and combat human greed.

---

2. Why Do You Feel It Is 'Very Rare'?

You are right; people with this moral caliber are indeed scarce. But financial markets cannot rely on 'saints,' so modern law plays a 'bait and switch':

It forcibly turns a scarce 'moral quality' into a universal 'legal obligation.'

A. Survivorship Bias (Bad News Travels Fast)

You feel it's rare because 'normal performance' is not news.

• Every day, billions of trusts, funds, and corporate directors operate normally worldwide. They don't abscond with the money or make headlines, just like you don't notice traffic lights working properly every day.

• But once a Xu Jiayin or a Madoff violates fiduciary duty, it becomes a huge scandal. This gives you the illusion that 'the streets are full of swindlers.'

B. It Is Counterintuitive, So It Requires 'Draconian Laws'

Precisely because relying on conscience is rare, the law sets fiduciary duty as the highest level of civil obligation.

• Reversal of Burden of Proof: In ordinary lawsuits, the one who claims must prove. But in fiduciary duty lawsuits, if I suspect you messed with my money, you must prove your innocence, or you lose.

• Not Just Results, But Process: Even if you made money for me, if you took a kickback without telling me, you still violated fiduciary duty and must disgorge the kickback.

3. A Diagram to Understand How 'Trust' Is Forcibly Created

Since human nature is unreliable, how do we turn 'rare' conscience into 'universal' credit?

• Stage One (Natural Human Nature): Self-interest. The knight's friend wants to embezzle the land. Trust cannot naturally arise.

• Stage Two (Moral Appeal): The Church says 'You will go to hell.' But it's useless; the friend still embezzles.

• Stage Three (Legal Violence): Equity intervenes. The Lord Chancellor says 'You can embezzle, but I will throw you in prison until you give it back.'

• Result: The friend is forced to generate 'credit.' He doesn't need to be a good person; he just needs to fear the law.

Summary

Fiduciary duty is indeed very rare, if viewed as a character trait. But it is ubiquitous, if viewed as fear.

The financial market functions not because fund managers have all become saints, but because this legal system, evolved from the Crusades, has raised the cost of 'breach of trust' to a level ordinary people cannot bear.

So, rather than saying we are looking for 'people with fiduciary duty,' we are looking for 'people who, in a legally regulated environment, dare not be irresponsible.'

Let's get straight to the conclusion: On a scale of 100, China's 'fiduciary duty' currently scores about 50-60.

It is in an awkward adolescent stage where 'the legal provisions are already well-written, but actual practice and mindset haven't caught up yet.'

We can dissect this current situation from three dimensions:

1. Legal Level: From 'No Law to Rely On' to 'Having a Gun but Not Using It'

If you had asked this question ten years ago, the answer would have been 'almost none.' But now, China's legal framework has actually been built quite well.

• Progress: The new 'Company Law' implemented in 2024, the previous revisions to the 'Securities Law,' and the famous 'New Asset Management Regulations' have all incorporated 'fiduciary duties' (including duty of loyalty and duty of care) into the statutes.

• The Awkward Point: Although the law stipulates that fiduciaries must be responsible, judicial precedents are still insufficient.

• In the US, if a director messes up, shareholders can file a class action lawsuit that could bankrupt them.

• In China, although the Kangmei Pharmaceutical case set a precedent for 'special representative litigation,' in most cases, when shareholders suffer losses due to managers who 'didn't break the law but were extremely irresponsible,' winning a lawsuit is still very difficult. Judges are still very cautious in deciding 'what is a business mistake and what is a breach of fiduciary duty.'

2. Market Level: The Biggest Oddity — 'Rigid Redemption'

This is the biggest obstacle to the development of fiduciary duty in China.

• Normal Logic: I give you my money (fiduciary), and you manage it diligently. If losses occur due to bad market conditions, I accept it; if losses occur due to your mismanagement, you compensate.

• China Logic (Rigid Redemption): Investors don't care about 'fiduciary duty' at all; they only care about 'guaranteed principal and interest.'

• To sell products, trust companies, even if a project has gone bad, will borrow new money to pay off old debts (i.e., 'rigid redemption').

• Result: Since the company will cover losses, the fund manager doesn't need to be 'honest' with investors; he only needs to be 'obedient' to the company. When 'diligence equals immunity' doesn't exist, and everyone is playing a game of 'passing the parcel,' fiduciary duty becomes a joke.

• Good News: The 'New Asset Management Regulations' are forcefully breaking rigid redemption, which is actually forcing the return of true fiduciary duty. Only by allowing 'seller fulfills duty, buyer bears risk' can fiduciary duty have a soil to exist.

3. Cultural Level: Still a 'Channel' Mentality, Not a 'Steward' Mentality

In many Chinese financial institutions, they see themselves not as 'stewards' but as 'pass-through treasurers.'

• Channel Business: Many banks, trusts, and securities firms merely lend their licenses to help others move money.

• Party A: I want to lend money to Party B, but regulations don't allow it.

• Party C (Trust/Asset Management): Give me a handling fee, I'll pretend to issue a product and help you transfer the money.

• Problem: In this type of business, the fiduciary is essentially just a stamping machine, with no talk of 'prudent management' or 'best interests.' Once something goes wrong, everyone starts arguing: 'I'm just a channel; why should I bear fiduciary duty?'

Summary: Where We Are Now

Using the earlier 'knight and friend' analogy for China's current situation:

1. Law (King): Has already issued a decree saying 'embezzling a friend's property leads to jail.'

2. Fiduciary (Friend): Agrees on the surface, but thinks 'judges rarely actually convict, and the neighbor next door does it too.'

3. Principal (Knight): Doesn't really care about the friend's character, only about 'Can you give me a guarantee that, win or lose the war, I'll get double the land back?'

When will it be considered 'well implemented'?

• When a fund manager doesn't need to apologize for 'doing his duty but incurring losses';

• And simultaneously, another fund manager is banned from the industry for 'making money but not even disclosing a conflict of interest';

• And investors can accept both outcomes.

China's fiduciary duty may still be 5-10 years away from that day.

This is a very heavy but also very realistic question. If fiduciary duty is the 'immune system' of the financial market, then China's current state of 'low immunity' is leading to various complications.

The lack of fiduciary duty is not just about 'investors losing money'; it is systematically dragging down the operational efficiency of the entire Chinese economy. We can look at these 'symptoms' from three levels: micro (individual), meso (industry), and macro (national):

1. Micro Level: Turning Investors into 'Gamblers' and 'Bag Holders'

When ordinary people don't believe that financial institutions will genuinely act in their best interest, investment behavior becomes distorted.

• Short-term Speculation (Bag Holder Mentality): Since I don't believe you will manage my money for the long term as if it were your own, I dare not hold for the long term either. The result is that fund holding periods in China are extremely short, and everyone is 'trading the swings.'

• Consequence: 'Funds make money, but fund holders lose money.' Because the fiduciary (the distribution channel) wants to earn subscription fees, they even induce clients to frequently 'redeem old and buy new.'

• Bad Money Drives Out Good: Those 'honest' fiduciaries doing deep research and sticking to value investing, because their short-term performance isn't explosive, end up with no buyers; while those aggressive fund managers, even those gambling on the edge (betting on sectors, herding), are put on a pedestal.

• Consequence: The market rewards 'gambling' and punishes 'rationality.'

2. Meso Level: Financial Institutions Degenerate into 'Pawnshops' and 'Pimps'

Due to the lack of 'trust' based on fiduciary duty, financial institutions lose their core pricing power and can only rely on 'hard assets' for risk control.

• Pawnshop Mentality (Heavy on Collateral, Light on Credit): Banks don't trust a company's business prospects (don't believe the fiduciary will repay diligently), so they only look at how many houses or land you have as collateral.

• Consequence: Those asset-light high-tech companies and innovative enterprises (precisely the direction the country urgently needs to transition to) find it very difficult to get financing because they have no houses to mortgage.

• Channel Business Prevails (Pimp Mentality): As mentioned before, many trusts and securities firms become mere 'channels.' No one wants to bear fiduciary duty; everyone just wants to make quick money.

• Consequence: Money circulates idly within the financial system, with layers skimming off the top, and by the time it reaches real enterprises, the financing cost is exorbitantly high (even 10%-15%). How can the real economy thrive?

3. Macro Level: Accumulation of Systemic Risk

This is the most frightening aspect. The lack of fiduciary duty leads to risks being 'covered up' rather than 'resolved.'

• The 'Barrier Lake' of Rigid Redemption: Because the fiduciary (e.g., wealth manager) didn't fulfill their duty, and when trouble arises they fear being protested, they use 'fund pools' (borrowing new money to pay old debts) to cover up bad debts.

• Consequence: Bad debts snowball, growing larger and larger. On the surface, everything looks peaceful, but once the capital chain breaks, it's a nuclear-level explosion (refer to the collapse of some large wealth management companies, where hundreds of billions vanished in an instant).

• Misallocation of Resources: Money does not flow to the most efficient enterprises but to places with 'rigid redemption faith' (like real estate in previous years, local government financing platforms).

• Consequence: The real estate bubble is inflated, while companies genuinely engaged in R&D are starved of funds. This directly slows down the transformation and upgrading of China's economic structure.

Summary: Diagram of the Vicious Cycle

To illustrate this logic more clearly, we can look at the following vicious cycle:

1. Absence of Fiduciary: Institutions are not responsible for clients, only for sales volume.

2. Collapse of Trust: Capital holders (public/banks) dare not trust people, only 'rigid redemption' or 'collateral.'

3. Distorted Actions: Capital flows to real estate (has collateral) or Ponzi schemes (fake rigid redemption).

4. Real Economy Damaged: Truly good enterprises cannot get financing, innovation stagnates.

5. Declining Returns: Eventually, market returns decrease, exacerbating the speculative mentality from step one.

In a nutshell: The lack of fiduciary duty keeps China's financial market, despite its size, stuck in a state of 'big but not strong,' with a 'Damocles sword' of systemic financial risk always hanging overhead.

What can we do? As an ordinary investor, since we know the macro environment is like this, we must learn to 'protect ourselves.' Would you like to know how ordinary people can identify those 'slightly more reliable' fiduciaries (fund managers or financial advisors) in the current environment?