我国的资产管理市场长期存在保本保收益的刚性兑付现象，《九民纪要》确立了“刚兑无效”的审判原则，《资管新规》对刚性兑付的常见情形进行了罗列和说明，但时至今日，关于第三方主体刚兑、事后刚兑、刚兑条款效力对整体合同的效力影响等问题，司法中存在类案不同判的现象。在学理中，《资管新规》等规范性文件影响刚性兑付条款效力的上位概念是金融司法监管化，故本文从金融司法监管化切入，就资产管理中刚性兑付条款的实质性效力认定问题作出探讨。本文先对刚性兑付的定义、类型、风险点进行阐述，以产品运作阶段、刚性兑付主体、刚兑方式为依据对刚性兑付进行分类。接着对我国的刚性兑付规制思路进行了梳理，并介绍了我国台湾地区、日本、英国、美国等地对刚性兑付条款的监管思路，由域外经验可以看到，资管产品中的刚性兑付行为有其存在的合理之处，域外金融监管也并未采取“一刀切”的态度。接着，本文探讨了司法中认定刚性兑付行为无效的依据。从私法意思自治角度出发，资产管理合同中的刚性兑付条款属于双方基于各自利益的考量所达成的合意，应属于当事人之间的意思自治范畴。目前约束刚性兑付条款的金融监管规定效力层级均不属于法律、行政法规，其效力位阶决定了无法通过《民法典》第153条来判定合同无效。实践中，金融监管规定介入刚性兑付司法裁判的路径多为借助“公序良俗”通道，以危害金融秩序、损害金融安全为由论证刚性兑付损害公共利益，进而判定其无效。在公序良俗价值的兜底下，原本未在法律所规定的位阶范围内的金融监管规则成为了刚性兑付效力判定的准据。本文结合司法案例分析了与刚性兑付相关的司法裁量因素，并从收益来源、承诺时点、承诺主体等视角出发归纳了刚性兑付行为的实质性认定规则。同时，本文认为，为完善当前的刚性兑付规制思路，可考虑引入合同效力判定的动态系统论；完善刚兑无效后的责任分配制度，防止不诚信当事人通过恶意撤销合同获利；同时，需明确司法和监管对刚性兑付的协同治理边界，在司法过程中，首先需要以金融监管规则的规范意旨为导向，明确其所保护的法益所在，以立法目的——危害结果——社会公共利益的逻辑展开论证，在论述危害结果时，可以以“系统性风险”的认定标准为抓手，精细化规制刚性兑付。

The rigid redemption phenomenon of capital preservation and income protection has long existed in China's asset management market. The Minutes of the National Court Work Conference for Civil and Commercial Trials established the judicial principle of "invalidity of rigid redemption", and the Guiding Opinions on Regulating Asset Management Business of Financial Institutions enumerated and explained common scenarios of rigid redemption. However, to this day, there are still inconsistencies in judicial rulings regarding issues such as rigid redemption by third-party entities, retroactive rigid redemption, and the impact of the validity of rigid redemption clauses on the validity of the overall contract.In academic theory, the superior concept that affects the validity of rigid redemption clauses in regulatory documents such as the Guiding Opinions on Regulating Asset Management Business of Financial Institutions is the judicial supervision of financial affairs. Therefore, this article starts with the judicial supervision of financial affairs to explore the substantive validity of rigid redemption clauses in asset management. This article first elaborates on the definition, types, and risk points of rigid redemption, classifying rigid redemption based on the product operation stage, the subject of rigid redemption, and the method of rigid redemption. Subsequently, it sorts out the regulatory approach to rigid redemption in China and introduces the regulatory approach to rigid redemption clauses in Taiwan, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other regions. It can be seen from the experience of other countries that rigid redemption in asset management products has its reasonable existence, and extraterritorial financial regulation has not taken a "one-size-fits-all" approach.Next, this article explores the basis for judicially determining the invalidity of rigid redemption behavior. From the perspective of autonomy of private law, the rigid redemption clause in the asset management contract is an agreement reached by both parties based on their respective interests, which should fall within the scope of autonomy of the parties. Currently, the effectiveness level of financial regulatory provisions that constrain rigid redemption clauses does not belong to laws or administrative regulations, and their effectiveness hierarchy determines that the contract cannot be invalidated through Article 153 of the Civil Code. In practice, the path for financial regulatory provisions to intervene in judicial decisions on rigid redemption mostly relies on the "public order and good customs" channel, arguing that rigid redemption harms public interests by endangering financial order and damaging financial security, and thus determining its invalidity. Under the aegis of public order and good customs, financial regulatory rules that were originally not within the scope prescribed by law have become the criteria for determining the effectiveness of rigid redemption, further restricting the freedom of private rights.This article analyzes judicial discretionary factors related to rigid redemption through judicial cases, including whether the subject of rigid redemption commitments affects their validity, whether the timing of rigid redemption commitments affects their validity, the impact of invalid rigid redemption clauses on the effectiveness of the overall contract, and so on. It also summarizes the substantive recognition rules for rigid redemption behavior from the perspectives of revenue sources, timing of commitments, and subjects of commitments. At the same time, this article believes that to improve the current regulatory approach to rigid redemption, consideration could be given to introducing a dynamic system theory for determining the validity of contracts; improving the responsibility allocation system after the invalidation of rigid redemption to prevent dishonest parties from profiting through malicious contract revocation; and clarifying the boundaries of coordinated governance between the judiciary and regulation regarding rigid redemption. In the judicial process, it is first necessary to be guided by the normative intent of financial regulatory rules, clarify the legal interests they protect, and argue in a logical sequence of legislative purpose - harmful consequences - social public interests. When discussing harmful consequences, the standard for identifying "systemic risk" can be used as a starting point to refine the regulation of rigid redemption.