24%—36%年化利率助贷业务遭遇生死时刻

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations on internet lending, effective from October 1, 2025, are causing significant changes in the lending landscape, particularly affecting small and medium-sized lending institutions that primarily operate in the 24%-36% annual interest rate range [2][3][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Impact - The "New Lending Regulations" require banks to implement a list management system for lending partners, which has led to many small lending institutions being excluded from partnerships with major banks [2][3]. - Banks are increasingly cautious and are opting to collaborate only with top-tier, publicly listed lending platforms, leaving smaller institutions struggling to secure funding [7][8]. - The regulations stipulate that the comprehensive financing cost for lending must not exceed 24%, which threatens the viability of high-interest lending products [3][4]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - As banks withdraw from high-interest lending, the remaining institutions are raising their funding costs, with some offering rates as high as 8% for lending partnerships [3][8]. - Many small lending institutions are cutting marketing and operational costs to survive in a tightening market, while some are pivoting to selling customer traffic to licensed consumer finance companies [3][4]. - The overall lending landscape is shifting towards a concentration of resources among leading firms, as smaller players face increased compliance costs and pressure to meet stricter entry requirements [4][9]. Group 3: Future Outlook - There is a divide in the industry regarding the future of 24%-36% annual interest rate lending, with some believing it will be phased out entirely, while others think it may continue under different operational frameworks [10][11]. - The "dual guarantee" model, which has been a primary method for high-interest lending, is expected to face challenges due to regulatory scrutiny, potentially leading to its decline [12][13]. - Some smaller banks are still interested in high-interest lending as a means to expand their retail loan portfolios, but they are cautious about regulatory risks associated with cross-regional operations [13][14].