Core Viewpoint - The emerging "24%+ equity" model in the lending industry is facing significant challenges and potential discontinuation due to regulatory scrutiny and operational concerns [2][11]. Regulatory Concerns - Regulatory bodies have issued surveys to licensed consumer finance institutions regarding their provision of equity services, raising concerns that the "24%+ equity" model may not be sustainable [2][10]. - The "24%+ equity" model includes benefits such as credit limit increases and rapid loan disbursement, which regulators may view as disguised fee increases for credit enhancement services [3][10]. Industry Response - Many lending platforms are preparing to exit the "24%+ equity" model, halting new local service partnerships and referral business to mitigate potential customer complaints [2][3]. - The industry is shifting focus towards high-quality customer segments, particularly those with loan interest rates below 24%, as competition intensifies and credit risk increases [3][6]. Financial Implications - The "24%+ equity" model has allowed lending platforms to lower the nominal financing costs for borrowers while generating additional revenue through equity service fees [6][13]. - Some platforms have reported substantial income from equity fees, with certain large platforms collecting hundreds of thousands of yuan monthly [7][13]. Consumer Issues - The model has faced criticism for practices such as bundled sales and forced purchases, which can lead to increased overall financing costs for consumers [9][10]. - Complaints related to the "24%+ equity" model have surged, highlighting issues such as automatic opt-ins for equity services and difficulties in obtaining refunds [9][10]. Future Outlook - The future viability of the "24%+ equity" model is uncertain, with many industry players anticipating stricter regulations that could limit its operational scope [11][12]. - Companies are preparing for potential regulatory changes by considering adjustments to their business strategies, including focusing on lower-risk customer segments [12][14].

Core Viewpoint - The major state-owned banks are expected to fully withdraw from the online lending market due to the implementation of the new regulations on internet lending, which will take effect in October 2023. This shift is seen as a silent announcement of their exit from the online lending business, despite the fact that their funding has already significantly decreased since 2023 [1][8]. Regulatory Changes - The new regulations require banks to manage their partnerships with online lending platforms through a whitelist system, mandating public disclosure of these partnerships on their official channels [1][2]. - The regulations also stipulate that banks must include "rights fees" in their overall financing costs and prohibit raising rates above 24% [2]. Current Market Dynamics - The tightening of regulations and internal approval processes have led to a near-complete cessation of online lending activities within state-owned banks [3][4]. - Despite the anticipated exit of major banks, the online lending market has already seen a significant reduction in their funding contributions, indicating that their withdrawal may not drastically reshape the market [8]. Shift to Smaller Banks - Smaller banks are not likely to abandon online lending easily, as they have begun to publicly disclose partnerships with various online lending platforms following the announcement of the new regulations [9]. - Examples include Guangzhou Bank, which has listed 17 cooperative institutions, and other smaller banks that are actively engaging with online lending platforms [9]. Financial Performance and Trends - The net interest margin for different types of banks has been declining, with rural commercial banks experiencing the largest drop, which pressures smaller banks to seek higher-risk, higher-yield products like online lending [9]. - The financing costs for consumer finance companies have reached historical lows, with new debt issuance rates below 2.2%, indicating a potential opportunity for these non-bank financial institutions as traditional banks withdraw [18]. Future Opportunities - Consumer finance companies and trust businesses are expected to benefit from the tightening of regulations on traditional banks, as they may capture more market share in the online lending space [17][19]. - Trust companies have been actively involved in online lending through various funding plans, indicating a shift in the funding landscape as traditional banks retreat [20].

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory scrutiny on consumer finance companies and lending platforms regarding membership rights products is intensifying, focusing on potential violations such as bundled sales, false advertising, and hidden fees, particularly in the context of the "24% + rights" model that has emerged as a workaround to the 24% interest rate cap [1][4][5]. Regulatory Investigation - Regulatory bodies are conducting thorough investigations into the membership rights products offered by consumer finance companies and their partner lending platforms, aiming to understand the business models, fee structures, and any potential consumer harm [4][5][6]. - The investigation includes inquiries about hidden fees, binding conditions related to loan applications, and whether membership fees are being charged in a manner that violates existing regulations [4][7]. Market Impact - The anticipated regulatory changes are expected to significantly impact small to medium-sized lending platforms that rely on the "24% + rights" model, potentially accelerating market consolidation [2][11]. - The demand for "24%+" clientele remains uncertain, as institutions must adapt their business strategies in response to regulatory pressures [2][11]. Consumer Experience - Consumers have reported being charged additional membership fees alongside their loan repayments, leading to effective interest rates exceeding the legal limit of 24% [12][14]. - Complaints regarding undisclosed membership fees and the lack of clarity about the services provided have been prevalent, indicating potential violations of consumer rights [12][16]. Industry Trends - The "24% + rights" model has become widely adopted among lending platforms as a means to maintain profitability in light of regulatory constraints on interest rates [10][11]. - Many platforms are transitioning away from the previously common "dual guarantee" model, which often resulted in hidden fees, towards more compliant structures [10][11][18]. Compliance Challenges - The industry is facing significant challenges in achieving compliance with the new regulations, particularly for smaller platforms that may struggle to operate within the 24% interest rate cap [18][19]. - There is a call for clearer regulatory guidelines regarding the boundaries of membership fees and their integration into overall loan costs, as well as a potential transitional period for compliance [18][19].

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory body is conducting a survey on the membership rights service model ("24% + membership rights") provided by consumer finance companies, focusing on compliance and potential impacts on borrowers and the market [1][2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Focus - The survey covers four main areas: the provision of membership rights services by consumer finance companies, the timeline and specifics of such services, the fee structures, and the implications for borrowers [1]. - Key concerns include unreasonable fees, false advertising, and whether membership fees are bundled with loan applications or other services [2][3]. - The "24% + membership rights" model emerged after the Supreme People's Court lowered the judicial protection cap on private lending rates, leading to regulatory guidance for consumer finance companies to keep rates below 24% [2][3]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - Some lending platforms are attempting to bypass the 24% cap by charging fees under the guise of membership rights, which has led to a secondary market where companies sell higher-rate loans to banks or small loan companies [3]. - The new regulations clarify that any fees related to credit enhancement services must be included in the overall financing cost, reinforcing the 24% cap on comprehensive rates [3]. Group 3: Industry Challenges - The cost of acquiring customers has risen significantly, with reports indicating that the average cost has surpassed 2000 yuan, making it difficult for companies to cover these costs with traditional lending rates [4][5]. - Companies are focusing on enhancing user engagement and retention through value-added services, as many users do not spend much time on lending apps compared to other platforms [5]. - The repeat borrowing rate has become a critical metric, with leading platforms reporting rates around 80%, indicating a strong reliance on existing customers for sustained growth [5]. Group 4: Competitive Landscape - Consumer finance companies are competing not only with each other but also with e-commerce, live streaming, and other sectors for customer attention and engagement [6]. - Non-licensed institutions express concerns that while licensed banks can meet the 24% requirement, other platforms may struggle to serve clients needing higher rates, potentially leading to a shift in product offerings [6].

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming implementation of the "New Regulations on Strengthening the Management of Internet Loan Business by Commercial Banks" has led to the rise of the "24% + Equity Services" business model in the consumer finance sector, prompting regulatory scrutiny on member rights and associated fees [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Focus - Regulatory authorities have issued a survey to 31 consumer finance companies regarding their member rights services, focusing on self-provided and partnered services, potential impacts, and existing issues [1][2]. - Key concerns include false advertising, binding member rights to loan approvals, and discrepancies between service quality and pricing [1][2][4]. Group 2: Fee Structure and Compliance - Consumer finance institutions are required to clarify their member rights service fees, including standards, collection methods, and any hidden charges or unreasonable conditions [2][4]. - The income from self-operated member rights services is categorized as off-balance-sheet income, included under fees and commissions, with one company reporting member service income of 53.49 million yuan in its 2024 annual report [2][3]. Group 3: Product Offerings - The "24% + Equity" products typically come in various subscription formats (monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual) and include financial rights (e.g., priority approval, interest-free loans) and lifestyle benefits (e.g., discounts on services) [3][5]. - Regulatory scrutiny extends to ensuring that member rights fees are included in the overall financing costs for borrowers, ensuring compliance with the 24% cap [4][5]. Group 4: Customer Complaints and Challenges - There is significant pressure on licensed financial institutions regarding customer complaints related to member rights, including issues of forced bundling, automatic renewals, and refund difficulties [7]. - Complaints on platforms highlight concerns over users being unaware of charges, mandatory membership for loan approval, and challenges in obtaining refunds [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the upcoming implementation of the "New Regulations on Internet Lending by Commercial Banks" on October 1, which aims to regulate the "24% + rights" model in the lending industry, focusing on the impact of membership fees on borrowers' overall financing costs [1][4]. Group 1: Regulatory Developments - Regulatory authorities are conducting surveys among licensed consumer finance companies to understand the operational specifics of the "24% + rights" model, particularly how membership fees affect overall financing costs [2][4]. - The new regulations require that guarantee service fees be included in the comprehensive financing costs, indicating a trend towards reducing annualized interest rates below 24% [1][4]. Group 2: Industry Challenges - The "24% + rights" model is emerging as a solution for consumer finance companies to serve high-risk borrowers while adhering to the new regulations, but it faces challenges in balancing compliance and profitability [4][5]. - There is a significant rise in consumer complaints related to the "loan + rights" model, with over 5000 complaints reported, primarily concerning default selections and complex refund processes [5]. Group 3: Market Reactions - Consumer finance companies are exploring business transformation paths to adapt to the new regulatory environment, with the "24% + rights" model being one of the key strategies [4]. - The industry is still searching for viable compliance solutions, as the current model raises concerns about whether it can effectively match service value with pricing while reducing complaint rates [5].

"消费需求扩容升级，金融服务空间巨大。"近日，在2025陆家嘴论坛开幕式上，国家金融监督管理总局 局长李云泽表示，随着扩大内需战略和"投资于人"政策落地，居民收入稳步提高，民生保障不断加强， 中国正在加速成为全球最大消费市场。 消费金融作为连接消费与金融的桥梁，在国家促消费扩内需的大背景下，正迎来属于自己的"黄金时 代"。 中国（深圳）综合开发研究院副院长刘国宏近日在接受南都湾财社记者专访时表示，目前消费金融行业 呈现多元金融服务主体、深度金融科技应用、紧密实体场景绑定的典型特征，但同时也面临资产质量趋 降、盈利空间压缩、社会认知不够、合规压力增大等挑战。从城市维度来看，大湾区城市发展消费金融 潜力巨大，未来应促进多元化消费金融主体设立和多层次消费金融服务发展，同时强化消费金融产业生 态和市场环境建设。 行业特征： 消费金融紧密绑定实体场景 当前，我国消费金融供给主体主要包括银行类机构，消费金融公司、汽车金融公司等非银类机构，以及 网络小贷等地方金融组织。 数据显示，截至2024年末，国内消费贷款余额（含短期和中长期）为57.98万亿元，其中住户消费性贷 款余额（不含个人住房贷款）21.01万亿元，同比增长6 ...

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the new lending regulations is set to reshape the landscape of the lending industry, with a significant focus on interest rate limits and compliance requirements [1][2]. Summary by Sections Lending Rate Dynamics - The annual interest rate of 24% is becoming a critical threshold in the lending industry, with many banks starting to reject loans in the 24%-36% range, leading to increased funding costs for smaller lending institutions [3][4]. - Loans with an annual comprehensive financing cost of 24% or below are legally protected, while competition in consumer loans has led banks to accept loans with rates between 24% and 36% [4][5]. Impact on Lending Institutions - Smaller lending institutions are experiencing a rapid increase in funding costs, while larger institutions are less affected due to their focus on loans below 24% and diverse funding sources [5][6]. - The tightening of loan approvals in the 24%-36% range is forcing smaller institutions to reconsider their business models, as they previously relied on higher-rate loans to cover costs [5][6]. Shift Towards Major Players and Cross-Industry Collaborations - Banks are increasingly collaborating with major lending platforms like Ant Group and JD.com, while also exploring partnerships with cross-industry players to enhance their customer acquisition strategies [8][9]. - New partnerships with non-traditional lending platforms, such as travel apps, are emerging as banks seek to leverage their user bases for more effective customer targeting [9][10]. Regulatory Compliance and Market Response - The new regulations require banks to enhance their due diligence and establish clear agreements with lending platforms, reflecting a shift towards stricter compliance and risk management [10]. - Recent penalties imposed on institutions for non-compliance highlight the regulatory scrutiny in the lending sector, emphasizing the need for adherence to the new guidelines [10].

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations on internet lending, referred to as the "Assistance Lending New Regulations," aim to enhance the management of commercial banks' internet lending businesses and improve financial service quality, with a significant impact expected on the trillion-level assistance lending market [1]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes and Market Impact - The new regulations have prompted leading lending platforms to develop compliance plans and restructure their business processes even before the regulations take effect [2]. - The introduction of a "white list" of compliant lending institutions marks a significant change in the industry, with major banks and consumer finance companies disclosing their approved partners [3]. - The current narrow definition of the assistance lending market in China has already surpassed one trillion yuan, with projections indicating it could reach 5.9 trillion yuan by 2028 [4]. Group 2: Changes in Funding and Risk Management - Some banks are beginning to reject funding requests for high-risk loans with interest rates between 24% and 36%, indicating a tightening of capital availability for these products [5][6]. - The new regulations enforce stricter oversight on the actual fees charged by credit enhancement service providers, effectively capping the comprehensive financing cost at the judicial protection limit of 24% [6][7]. - The regulations are expected to eliminate the practice of splitting loans into base rates and additional fees, thereby standardizing pricing mechanisms and reducing unhealthy competition among smaller platforms [7]. Group 3: Responsibilities of Banks and Lending Platforms - Both banks and lending institutions are under increasing pressure to lower overall funding costs in response to the new regulations, with some platforms reporting a 30 basis point decrease in funding costs in the first quarter of the year [8]. - The new regulations shift the balance of power in partnerships, requiring banks to conduct thorough due diligence and establish clear agreements with lending platforms, thereby enhancing their independent risk assessment capabilities [9][10]. - The regulations encourage lending platforms to improve their technological capabilities and strengthen collaboration with banks, particularly in areas such as data modeling and fraud prevention [11].

素喜智研高级研究员苏筱芮在接收21世纪经济报道记者采访时表示，在贷款风控尽调环节，监管部门多 次强调不得将核心风控进行外包。本次阳光消费金融罚单出现"未自主计算授信额度及贷款定价"这样的 细化受罚事由，需要引起持牌消金公司高度重视，也表明持牌消费金融公司需要遵照监管原则，在助贷 合作协议中厘清权责，对授信、定价这样的核心环节进行自主把控而不是交由其他第三方。 21世纪经济报道记者 郭聪聪 北京报道 2025年5月30日，国家金融监督管理总局北京监管局公布的行政处罚信息显示，北京阳光消费金融股份 有限公司（简称 "阳光消金"）因多项违法违规行为被处以140万元罚款。 这是继 2025年3月重庆蚂蚁消费金融有限公司被罚140万元后，本年度消费金融行业开出的第二张超百 万元的罚单，再次凸显出监管层对消费金融领域合规经营的严格要求。 根据5月30日公布的行政处罚信息公开表，阳光消金被罚事由主要集中在合作业务领域，具体包括："合 作模式存在不足，合作业务管控不到位；未自主计算授信额度及贷款定价；贷后管理有效性不足；合作 机构管理不到位"等。 从处罚事由来看，多项违规事由涉及与助贷公司等机构的合作业务。其中"合作模式存在 ...