Core Viewpoint - The traditional "dual financing guarantee" model is being phased out as the "new lending regulations" come into full effect, leading to a significant reshaping of the lending industry [1][2] Group 1: New Lending Regulations - The new regulations set a cap on annualized interest rates for lending services at 24%, effectively rendering the previous "dual financing guarantee" model ineffective [2][8] - The regulations will be implemented on October 1, and the transition to compliance has been challenging for many institutions [2][8] Group 2: Shift to New Models - Many small and medium-sized institutions are transitioning to a "24% + notarization" model, particularly in the equipment rental sector [1][2] - Some rental platforms are bundling additional fees such as notarization and insurance, which increases the actual cost for users [3][4] Group 3: Notarization Practices - The notarization fees are often used for "strong notarization," which allows creditors to bypass lengthy litigation processes, thus improving recovery rates [3][5] - A new "composite notarization" model is being explored, which includes measures like deposit guarantees and evidence chain notarization to balance costs [4][6] Group 4: Challenges in Implementation - The industry faces challenges such as the judicial system's capacity to handle small, high-frequency cases and rising customer complaints regarding hidden fees [7][8] - The sustainability of the new business models is questioned, as institutions may need to forgo previous profit margins of 24%-36% to comply with the new regulations [8][9] Group 5: Industry Transformation - The industry is undergoing a critical transition from tentative adjustments to substantial changes, with many institutions initially attempting to repackage existing high-rate products as compliant [8][9] - The current asset scale of products with interest rates above 36% still exceeds 50%, indicating potential systemic risks if abrupt changes are made [9]

Core Viewpoint - The traditional "dual financing guarantee" model in the lending industry is being phased out due to the upcoming implementation of the "assisted lending regulations," leading to a significant reshaping of the industry as companies explore new compliance strategies to avoid regulatory pitfalls [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The "assisted lending regulations" set a cap on annualized interest rates at 24%, effectively rendering the previous "dual financing guarantee" model obsolete [2]. - The regulations require clear disclosure of service and guarantee fees in cooperation agreements, impacting the overall financing cost for borrowers [2]. Group 2: New Business Models - Companies are shifting towards a "24% + notarization" model, particularly in the equipment rental and auto loan sectors, as a way to navigate the regulatory landscape [1][2]. - Some rental platforms are bundling additional fees such as notarization and insurance, which increases the actual cost for users [1][3]. Group 3: Challenges in Implementation - The new notarization models face three main challenges: the judicial system's capacity to handle small, high-frequency cases, rising consumer complaints about hidden fees, and insufficient motivation for institutions to adapt under profit pressure [1][7]. - The effectiveness of "strong notarization" is being questioned, leading to the exploration of a "composite notarization" model that balances costs and risks [4][5]. Group 4: Consumer Experiences - Consumers have reported being charged additional fees on rental platforms, significantly increasing their overall costs, with one individual noting an extra cost of approximately 5,317 yuan for a rental transaction [3]. - Complaints about hidden fees are rising, with some platforms charging between 200 to 500 yuan for notarization fees [3][7]. Group 5: Industry Outlook - The industry is undergoing a critical transition from exploratory adjustments to substantial changes, with many small institutions initially attempting to repackage existing high-rate products as compliant offerings [8][9]. - The current asset scale of products with interest rates above 36% still exceeds 50%, indicating potential systemic risks if abrupt regulatory changes are enforced [9].

其一，此次征求意见稿明确指出，严禁通过"会员权益""增值权益"等方式变相提高综合融资成本。分支 机构应严格按照监管及总行要求，制定互联网助贷业务操作细则，严禁超授权开展业务。 仍在摸索合规化转型方向。 助贷新规将在10月正式实施，地方监管开始提前"备战"。第一财经记者近日从业内获悉，北京金融监管 局近期对辖区内银行业金融机构下发一份加强助贷业务管理通知的征求意见稿（下称"征求意见稿"）， 这也是4月国家金融监管总局发布《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》 （下称"助贷新规"）后，首个地方下发的"征求意见稿"。 征求意见稿中，首次提出"严禁通过'会员权益''增值权益'等方式变相提高综合融资成本"。对线下助贷 合作提出多项"禁令"，如严禁支付约定外费用、强制搭售金融产品、与无真实场景的信息中介合作等。 业内普遍认为，与助贷新规相比，这份征求意见稿规定更细、整改难度也更高。行业内部亦在积极反 馈、应对，有助贷机构评估缓冲垫情况、加急整改以满足监管要求，也有助贷机构筹划备选方案，摸 索"24%+公证""24%+保险""24%+AMC"等模式的可行性。 首个地区征求意见稿下发 近日，北京金融监管 ...

Core Viewpoint - The "24%+ equity" model in the lending industry is facing significant challenges as regulatory scrutiny increases, potentially leading to stricter regulations on equity services and fees [1][27]. Group 1: Overview of the "24%+ Equity" Model - The "24%+ equity" model allows borrowers to obtain consumer loans at an annual interest rate of 24% while also purchasing equity services from lending platforms or licensed consumer finance institutions [3][13]. - This model has become popular as lending institutions seek to increase non-interest income through equity services amid difficulties in earning interest spread [1][27]. Group 2: Regulatory Concerns and Industry Response - Recent regulatory notifications have prompted concerns among lending platforms and licensed consumer finance institutions about the sustainability of the "24%+ equity" model [5][6]. - The introduction of the "New Lending Regulations" in April has restricted platforms from charging interest fees in any form, raising fears that equity service fees may be viewed as disguised interest rate increases [7][11]. - Many lending institutions are preparing to exit the "24%+ equity" model, focusing instead on high-quality customer segments with interest rates below 24% [8][28]. Group 3: Financial Implications and Market Dynamics - The "24%+ equity" model has allowed some lending platforms to generate substantial revenue, with some platforms collecting hundreds of thousands of yuan in equity fees monthly [17]. - However, the model has also led to issues such as bundled sales and forced purchases, which have raised consumer complaints and could lead to increased regulatory scrutiny [19][20]. - The potential for regulatory changes has caused many lending institutions to reconsider their business strategies, with some halting plans to expand the "24%+ equity" model [25][26]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The future of the "24%+ equity" model remains uncertain, with industry players awaiting regulatory decisions that could significantly impact their operations [28]. - If the model is deemed unsustainable, lending platforms may need to adjust their focus to maintain profitability, potentially leading to a reduction in overall business scale [28][29].

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 actions in Ningxia reflect a tightening oversight of the lending assistance industry, aiming to eliminate irregularities and promote sustainable development within the sector [1][3][5] Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Ningxia Financial Bureau announced the cancellation of operating qualifications for 7 lending assistance institutions, including Yin Chuan Xin Rong Management Consulting Partnership [1][2] - These institutions are prohibited from conducting financial-related business without permission, although they can still engage in regular business activities [2] Group 2: Reasons for Regulatory Actions - The cancellation of qualifications is partly due to serious credit issues among the actual controllers of some institutions, with examples of legal actions against them for significant financial obligations [2][3] - The operational models of these institutions may not align with national regulatory standards, including issues like operating beyond permitted scopes and unclear funding sources [3] Group 3: Industry Trends - The tightening of regulations in the lending assistance sector has been ongoing since 2024, with efforts from the Ministry of Public Security and financial regulatory authorities to combat illegal financial activities [3] - The release of the "New Regulations on Internet Lending Assistance Business" in April 2025 aims to enhance the standardization and transparency of the industry [3] Group 4: Compliance and Future Outlook - Many consumer finance institutions are adapting to the new regulations by collaborating with major platforms like Ant Group, JD.com, and ByteDance, indicating that compliance is becoming essential for survival in the lending assistance sector [4] - The regulatory environment suggests that lending assistance institutions must develop in a compliant and orderly manner, enhancing internal governance and risk management capabilities [5]

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the new regulations on internet lending by commercial banks is prompting regulatory bodies to investigate the "24% + rights" model, which has raised concerns about its impact on borrowers' overall financing costs [1][3][4] Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The new regulations require lending institutions to include guarantee service fees in the comprehensive financing costs, effectively lowering the annualized interest rates in the lending industry to below 24% [1][3] - Regulatory bodies have issued questionnaires to several licensed consumer finance companies to understand the operational details of the "24% + rights" model and its implications for borrowers [1][2] Group 2: Industry Response - In response to the regulatory changes, consumer finance companies are exploring the "24% + rights" model as a way to cater to high-risk borrowers while remaining compliant [3][4] - The model involves adding value-added services linked to membership rights, which may inadvertently lead to increased costs for borrowers if not managed properly [3][4] Group 3: Consumer Complaints - There have been over 5000 complaints related to the "loan + rights" model, primarily concerning default selections for rights services and complex refund processes [4] - The complaints highlight two main issues: consumers being charged for services they did not knowingly opt into and the difficulties in obtaining refunds for these services [4]

Group 1 - The chairman of Dongrong Lending Group, Hu Yujian, praised the Jinan branch for its performance since its establishment in 2022, achieving over 10 consecutive months of exceeding monthly targets [1] - The Jinan branch is considered a key strategic point for the group, and there are expectations for it to continue to achieve record performance and contribute more to the group's development in the Jinan region [1] - The lending industry is still in an early development stage with low market share and insufficient standardization, presenting strategic opportunities for Dongrong to build a leading brand [1] Group 2 - Hu Yujian emphasized two main requirements for the Jinan branch's 2025 development goals: focusing on achieving high-quality monthly and annual targets, and enhancing customer service to build a strong reputation [2] - The second regional general manager, Li Ning, encouraged the Jinan team to maintain their current enthusiasm, improve professional skills, and strive for exceptional performance [2] - Dongrong Technology Group aims to strengthen team building, continuously innovate service models, and optimize customer experience to provide better financing solutions for those in need [2]

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].