Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the new regulations on internet lending by commercial banks marks a shift towards compliance and risk management, moving away from the previous unregulated growth phase in the industry [6][21][22]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The new regulations, effective from October 1, require commercial banks to manage their internet lending partnerships through a whitelist system, ensuring transparency and accountability in their collaborations [9][10]. - Banks and consumer finance companies are increasingly disclosing their partnered lending platforms, with major players like Ant Group, JD.com, and Tencent being preferred partners [4][8][12]. - The regulations aim to control the comprehensive financing costs for borrowers, with a focus on keeping them below 24%, which poses challenges for many lending platforms [15][20]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The market is currently in a state of observation regarding how to implement the new lending practices, with many platforms scaling back operations due to uncertainty [5][17]. - The shift towards compliance is expected to impact smaller banks more significantly, especially those that heavily rely on lending platforms for customer acquisition [22][24]. - The competition in the lending market is anticipated to evolve from a focus on scale and traffic to a focus on risk management capabilities and financial technology [23]. Group 3: Implications for Financial Institutions - Financial institutions are urged to enhance their risk management practices and ensure that their internal policies align with the new regulations [23]. - The new regulations may create a more challenging environment for smaller banks, which need to leverage their local advantages and avoid homogeneous competition [24]. - The emphasis on compliance and risk management is expected to drive banks to improve their operational capabilities and customer service standards [22][23].

Core Viewpoint - The "24% + rights" model is rapidly emerging as the mainstream transformation direction for lending platforms, replacing the "dual financing guarantee" model, amidst the impending implementation of new lending regulations in two months. However, the various tactics involved in rights services make it difficult for borrowers to navigate, as they still struggle to escape the underlying issue of circumventing the 24% interest rate cap [1][12][14]. Group 1: Current Trends in Lending Platforms - The "24% + rights" model has surfaced as a significant transformation strategy for lending platforms following the new regulations set to take effect on October 1 [12][14]. - Regulatory bodies are increasingly scrutinizing the "24% + rights" model, focusing on whether it involves disguised sales tactics or violates the 24% interest rate cap [12][13]. Group 2: Borrower Experiences - Borrowers are encountering various hidden fees and tactics, such as mandatory membership fees that are not clearly disclosed, leading to unexpected costs during the borrowing process [2][3][9]. - The "pay first, enjoy later" model, while seemingly more secure, often results in borrowers facing higher fees than anticipated, complicating their ability to seek refunds [7][10]. Group 3: Regulatory Concerns - Recent regulatory inquiries have targeted the practices of lending platforms, particularly regarding the transparency and legitimacy of membership fees and rights services [12][13]. - The regulatory focus aims to address the potential for platforms to circumvent the 24% interest rate cap through bundled services and unclear pricing [12][14]. Group 4: Industry Challenges - The sustainability of the "24% + rights" model is questioned, as it may not cover the operational costs of lending platforms if membership services are required to be transparent and voluntary [14][15]. - The ongoing tension between compliance with regulations and the pursuit of profitability is expected to continue, with no clear resolution in sight [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The regulatory body is conducting a special investigation into licensed consumer finance companies, focusing on the charging policies of membership rights services and whether they are forcibly bundled with loans, following the implementation of the "new lending regulations" [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Investigation - The investigation employs a questionnaire format to assess the operation of the "24% + rights" model, covering the current rights services offered by consumer finance companies and the issues faced [2][3]. - The "24% + rights" model emerged due to strict constraints on comprehensive financing costs imposed by the new regulations, leading some lending institutions to explore this combination to maintain profitability [2][3]. - The model separates the income previously included in loan interest into a "not exceeding 24% annual interest rate" and "independently priced rights services" [2][3]. Group 2: Consumer Complaints - There are significant consumer complaints regarding the bundling of rights services with loan approvals and limits, with many users reporting experiences of being forced to purchase rights packages to secure loans [4][5]. - Complaints include issues such as default selections for rights services leading to unexpected charges, high refund thresholds, and unfulfilled promises regarding the benefits of purchased rights [4][5]. - The lack of a standard for rights services has led to numerous complaints and concerns, including issues of bundling sales, false advertising, and discrepancies between price and quality [5]. Group 3: Industry Response and Challenges - Some leading consumer finance institutions claim that their rights services are voluntarily chosen by users and offer a 30-day no-reason refund policy [5]. - The challenge lies in balancing compliance with profitability, as relying solely on voluntary participation may not cover the costs associated with high-risk borrowers [5]. - Regulatory measures should focus on enhancing information disclosure, clarifying the value of rights, prohibiting forced bundling, and simplifying refund processes to address the ongoing issues [5].

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 special investigation into licensed consumer finance companies, focusing on the charging policies of membership rights services and their potential mandatory bundling with loans, following the implementation of the new lending regulations [2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Investigation - The investigation employs a questionnaire format to assess the operation of the "24% + rights" model, including the services offered and the main issues faced by consumer finance companies [3]. - The "24% + rights" model emerged due to strict constraints on comprehensive financing costs, leading institutions to explore this combination to maintain profitability within regulatory limits [3][4]. - The model separates income into a "not exceeding 24% annual interest rate" and "independently priced rights services," which include various offerings such as e-commerce coupons and credit consulting [3][4]. Group 2: Industry Challenges - The current cooperation between financial institutions and lending agencies primarily involves fixed income guarantees and profit-sharing, with rights products becoming a means for lending agencies to increase revenue [4]. - The lack of standardization in membership rights services has led to varied charging policies and resource allocation among institutions, complicating the operational landscape [5]. - Complaints regarding forced bundling of rights services with loan approvals have surged, indicating a significant consumer protection issue [5][6]. Group 3: Consumer Complaints - Over 40,000 complaints related to "loan rights" have been recorded, highlighting issues such as default selections for rights services, high refund thresholds, and unfulfilled service promises [6]. - Some leading consumer finance institutions claim their rights services are voluntary and offer a 30-day no-reason refund policy, contrasting with the complaints from users [10]. - The absence of execution standards for rights products has led to rampant issues such as bundling sales and false advertising, raising concerns about whether these services increase the overall financing costs for borrowers [10]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - Regulatory measures should focus on enhancing information disclosure, clarifying the value of rights, prohibiting mandatory bundling, and simplifying refund processes to address the identified issues [10].

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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of a new lending model called "24% + Rights" in response to regulatory changes that lower annual interest rates from 36% to 24% for lending institutions, highlighting the challenges and complaints associated with this model [1][3][16]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The new regulations from the National Financial Regulatory Administration require lending institutions to clearly define service and guarantee fees, effectively lowering the annual interest rate to below 24% [3][4]. - The implementation of these regulations is set for October 1, leaving less than four months for the industry to adapt [3]. Group 2: New Lending Model - The "24% + Rights" model is characterized by two types of products: small rights products, which charge monthly fees for limited services, and large rights products, which tie fees to loan amounts and can cost from 199 to 1999 yuan [4][8]. - Many lending platforms are bundling these rights products to circumvent the interest rate cap, with some users reporting issues such as default fee selections and difficulties in obtaining refunds [1][16]. Group 3: Profitability and Competition - The profitability of the "24% + Rights" model comes from selling financial rights products and earning commissions from third-party rights suppliers [10][11]. - The competition among third-party rights suppliers is intensifying, with many suppliers focusing on price to win contracts, leading to a price war in the market [12][14]. Group 4: Compliance and Sustainability Concerns - The compliance and sustainability of the "24% + Rights" model are under scrutiny due to rising consumer complaints, particularly regarding default selections and complex refund processes [16][17]. - Industry insiders emphasize that resolving customer complaints is crucial for the model's longevity within regulatory frameworks, suggesting that true adherence to customer consent and transparent service models is necessary for sustainable development [18][19].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of a new lending model called "24%+ equity" in response to regulatory changes that lower annual interest rates from 36% to 24% for lending institutions. This model allows platforms to bundle additional services or memberships to circumvent interest rate limits, raising concerns about compliance and consumer complaints [1][4][17]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The new lending regulations, effective from October 1, require commercial banks to clarify service fees and include them in the total financing cost, effectively capping interest rates at 24% [4][17]. - Many lending institutions have begun transitioning to comply with these new regulations, with significant changes noted since May [4][5]. Group 2: Emergence of "24%+" Model - The "24%+" model has two main forms: small equity products, which charge monthly fees for limited services, and large equity products, where fees are tied to loan amounts and can exceed 1,000 yuan in a single charge [5][9]. - The small equity products offer various financial and lifestyle services for a monthly fee, while large equity products charge higher fees based on the loan amount, often without explicit consent from borrowers [6][9]. Group 3: Profitability and Business Dynamics - Platforms can profit from financial equity products and by purchasing third-party services at a discount, allowing them to sell at a higher price [11][12]. - The rise of third-party equity suppliers has created a competitive market, with these suppliers acting as intermediaries between lending platforms and service providers [13][15]. Group 4: Consumer Complaints and Compliance Issues - The "24%+ equity" model has led to a surge in consumer complaints, particularly regarding unauthorized charges and complicated refund processes, with over 5,000 complaints reported [17][18]. - Regulatory scrutiny is increasing, with past guidelines prohibiting disguised high-interest loans under the guise of service fees, raising questions about the sustainability of the new model [17][18]. Group 5: Future Outlook - The ability to address consumer complaints effectively will be crucial for the long-term viability of the "24%+ equity" model within regulatory frameworks [18]. - Industry experts suggest that merely relying on technology to navigate regulations is insufficient; a genuine commitment to transparency and customer consent is essential for sustainable growth [18].

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of new regulations in the lending industry is prompting institutions to shift from an annual interest rate of 36% to 24%, while a new model called "24% + Equity" is emerging as a workaround to these limits [1][10]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The new regulations from the National Financial Regulatory Administration, effective from October 1, require commercial banks to clarify service fees and include them in the comprehensive financing cost, effectively lowering the annual interest rate to below 24% [1][10]. - Many lending institutions have begun transitioning to comply with the new regulations since May, indicating a significant industry shift [1][10]. Group 2: Emergence of "24% + Equity" Model - The "24% + Equity" model is characterized by two types of products: small equity products, which charge monthly fees for limited financial and lifestyle services, and large equity products, which tie fees to the loan amount and can cost from 199 to 1999 yuan [2][5]. - The model allows institutions to maintain profitability by offering virtual services and leveraging third-party equity suppliers, creating a new revenue stream [7][9]. Group 3: Consumer Complaints and Issues - There has been a significant increase in consumer complaints related to the "24% + Equity" model, with over 5000 complaints reported, primarily concerning default selections for services and complicated refund processes [10][11]. - The model's compliance and sustainability are under scrutiny, as the regulatory environment may impose further restrictions on such practices [10][12]. Group 4: Third-Party Equity Suppliers - The rise of the "24% + Equity" model has led to the emergence of third-party equity suppliers, who act as intermediaries between lending platforms and service providers, earning commissions for their services [8][9]. - Competition among these suppliers is intensifying, with a focus on pricing as the primary factor for procurement decisions [9][10]. Group 5: Future Outlook - The sustainability of the "24% + Equity" model hinges on the ability to address consumer complaints effectively and adhere to regulatory requirements, emphasizing the need for transparency and customer consent [11][12].

一年一度的高考落下帷幕，助贷行业的"大考"也已进入倒计时。 4月3日，国家金融监管总局官网发布《关于加强商业银行互联网助贷业务管理提升金融服务质效的通知》 （以下简称"助贷新规"），推动商业银行互联网助贷业务规范有序发展。 "助贷新规"将于2025年10月1日起施行，留给商业银行、外国银行分行、信托公司、消费金融公司、汽车金 融公司以及其他助贷产业链玩家的时间已不到4个月。 21世纪经济报道记者调研多家助贷平台、提供资金的金融机构发现，从助贷新规正式发布的两个月来，行 业在信息披露、资金成本、运营模式等方面均已发生变化。 在面向资金方的强监管格局下，以符合合规要求的综合融资利率24%为界，助贷平台融资成本出现"分 层"：年化利率24%以上的贷款产品资金成本大涨，年化利率24%及以下贷款产品的资金成本下降。可见， 资金正在涌向24%以下的优质贷款客群。 但这并不意味着平台和资金方放弃了24%以上的客户群体。 记者注意到，"24%+权益"类的业务模式开始兴起，与以往通过虚高会员费、信息服务费推高借款人实际贷 款费用不同，这一模式通过提供免息、提额等金融权益，以及各类电商会员等生活权益，由平台与合作方 共同提供会员 ...