近期，多家地方性商业银行集体"瘦身"助贷业务合作。 据新京报记者不完全统计，乌鲁木齐银行、龙江银行、 贵阳银行 相继宣布暂停新增互联网 助贷合作业务，吉林亿联银行等多家银行则大幅缩减合作机构数量。 "共债风险"是银行收缩合作机构数量背后的顾虑所在。在《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"）出炉后，银行就已开始持续缩减腰 部以下的合作平台。与此同时，助贷平台展业压力有所增大。 有业内人士指出，银行之所以"急刹车"，反映出部分银行此前过于依赖于外部助贷机构而对 自身风险能力的建设有所懈怠。助贷新规对中小银行、助贷平台业务调整的"阵痛"仍将持续 一段时间。 新京报记者 姜樊 "万无一失"的兜底模式反成风险隐忧 "我们最大的担忧，是一些中小平台潜在的风险问题。"一位民营银行内部人士表示，其所在的银行今年 以来大幅减少了腰部以下平台合作的数量。目前仍在合作的平台，均是助贷领域的头部平台。 在助贷新规出台之前，作为资金提供方的银行可以从中小平台得到更多的优惠政策。相比于头部平台， 中小型助贷平台向银行收取的费率更低，且部分平台向银行承诺兜底。银行无须过于担忧助贷平台客户 产生不 ...

近期，多家地方性商业银行集体"瘦身"助贷业务合作。 据贝壳财经记者不完全统计，乌鲁木齐银行、龙江银行、贵阳银行（601997）相继宣布暂停新增互联网 助贷合作业务，吉林亿联银行等多家银行则大幅缩减合作机构数量。 "共债风险"是银行收缩合作机构数量背后的顾虑所在。在《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"）出炉后，银行就已开始持续缩减腰部以下的合作平台。与 此同时，助贷平台展业压力有所增大。 有业内人士指出，银行之所以"急刹车"，反映出了部分银行此前过于依赖于外部助贷机构而对自身风险 能力的建设有所懈怠。助贷新规对中小银行、助贷平台业务调整的"阵痛"仍将持续一段时间。 01 银行"断舍离"背后 "万无一失"的兜底模式 反成风险隐忧 "我们最大的担忧，是一些中小平台潜在的风险问题。"一位民营银行内部人士表示，其所在的银行今年 以来大幅减少了腰部以下平台合作的数量。目前仍在合作的平台，均是助贷领域的头部平台。 在助贷新规出台之前，作为资金提供方的银行可以从中小平台得到更多的优惠政策。相比于头部平台， 中小型助贷平台向银行收取的费率更低，且部分平台向银行承诺兜底。银行无须过于 ...

近期，多家地方性商业银行集体"瘦身"助贷业务合作。 据贝壳财经记者不完全统计，乌鲁木齐银行、龙江银行、贵阳银行（601997）相继宣布暂停新增互联网 助贷合作业务，吉林亿联银行等多家银行则大幅缩减合作机构数量。 "共债风险"是银行收缩合作机构数量背后的顾虑所在。在《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"）出炉后，银行就已开始持续缩减腰部以下的合作平台。与 此同时，助贷平台展业压力有所增大。 有业内人士指出，银行之所以"急刹车"，反映出了部分银行此前过于依赖于外部助贷机构而对自身风险 能力的建设有所懈怠。助贷新规对中小银行、助贷平台业务调整的"阵痛"仍将持续一段时间。 银行"断舍离"背后 "万无一失"的兜底模式反成风险隐忧 "我们最大的担忧，是一些中小平台潜在的风险问题。"一位民营银行内部人士表示，其所在的银行今年 以来大幅减少了腰部以下平台合作的数量。目前仍在合作的平台，均是助贷领域的头部平台。 在助贷新规出台之前，作为资金提供方的银行可以从中小平台得到更多的优惠政策。相比于头部平台， 中小型助贷平台向银行收取的费率更低，且部分平台向银行承诺兜底。银行无须过于担忧助贷 ...

◎记者 温婷 国家金融监管总局发布的《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》（简 称"助贷新规"）实施近两个月，助贷行业正经历一场深刻的"加减法"重塑。 近日，上海证券报记者从多家平台获悉，监管将进一步推动网贷息费披露规范，在息费披露上做"加 法"：拟强制披露的息费分为"确定性息费"和"或有息费"两大类别，目前已有蚂蚁、美团等7家头部平台 率先试点，以堵住隐性息费漏洞。 与此同时，自助贷新规实施以来，资金端的合作"减法"同步显现，龙江银行、乌鲁木齐银行等中小银行 密集收缩助贷合作，行业风险防控导向愈发清晰。这场双向调整，正推动助贷行业从规模扩张向质效提 升转型。 记者从多家平台获悉，近期监管拟进一步推动网贷息费披露规范，拟强制披露的息费分为"确定性息 费"和"或有息费"两大类别，目前已有包括蚂蚁、美团、京东在内的7家平台开启息费改造试点。 "申请10万元贷款，不仅能看到明确的利息和担保费，连逾期、提前还款等或有息费都要标注清晰。"某 头部助贷平台内部人士告诉记者，在监管的多轮调研推动下，经过前期多个平台的沟通和试点，互联网 个人贷款业务综合融资成本的公开披露即将有章可循。 此次新规的核心突 ...

Core Insights - The implementation of the new regulations on internet lending by commercial banks has led to a cautious approach among regional small and medium-sized banks, with many suspending new lending partnerships and reducing the number of cooperative institutions [1][2][5] Group 1: Regulatory Impact - The new regulations require banks to reassess their existing cooperation models due to stricter requirements on funding ratios, concentration management, and the qualifications of cooperative institutions [5][7] - Regional banks are facing dual pressures from regulatory compliance and cost considerations, leading to a rational choice to halt new business [5][7] Group 2: Business Adjustments - Several banks, such as Urumqi Bank and Guiyang Bank, have announced the suspension of new internet lending partnerships and are focusing on managing existing loans [4][5] - Jilin Yilian Bank has significantly reduced its cooperative institutions from 56 to just 10, indicating a shift towards partnerships with major platforms like Ant Group and JD [4][5] Group 3: Market Dynamics - The new regulations are expected to shift the competitive landscape of the lending market from a focus on scale and flow to risk management capabilities and financial technology strength [8] - Banks are encouraged to enhance their internal risk management systems and improve transparency in loan processes to comply with the new regulations [8][9] Group 4: Strategic Recommendations - Regional banks should focus on local market advantages and develop differentiated credit products tailored to specific regional needs [9] - Accelerating digital transformation and exploring collaborative development models among small banks can help share costs and improve efficiency [9]

无独有偶，龙江银行11月5日公布的最新互联网助贷业务合作机构名单显示，该行此前唯一合作的平台 运营机构是深圳首付宝金融科技有限公司，如今为停止合作状态。 此外，在贵阳银行2025年三季度业绩说明会上，该行副行长李松芸表示，该行基于市场环境和监管要 求，主动对业务策略进行了调整，目前与互联网银行合作已到期，无新增互联网平台业务，仅有存量业 务在正常管理。 《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》（业界称作"助贷新规"）自10月1 日施行以来，商业银行互联网助贷业务正经历深度调整。 中国证券报记者梳理发现，近期，乌鲁木齐银行、龙江银行、贵阳银行等多家区域性银行相继宣布暂停 新增互联网助贷合作业务，吉林亿联银行等机构则大幅缩减合作机构数量，行业呈现从广合作到严筛选 的转变。 业内人士认为，助贷新规之下，名单制管理与合规责任强化倒逼银行重构合作逻辑，推动业务从被动依 赖向主动协同深度转型，短期阵痛难免，长期来看将促使银行苦练内功，提升自主风控能力。未来助贷 市场竞争，将不再是简单的流量与规模之争，而是风险管理能力、金融科技实力、客户精细化运营能力 的综合较量。 密集调整助贷"朋友圈" 近日，多家银 ...

Core Insights - The implementation of new regulations for internet lending has shown significant results, with approximately 120 financial institutions disclosing their cooperation lists with over 500 technology and financial service companies by the end of October [1][2] - However, issues such as non-standard disclosure formats and inaccurate information have been identified, including hidden disclosure locations and lack of search functionality [1][2] Group 1 - As of the end of October, around 120 financial institutions have disclosed their internet lending cooperation lists, with nearly 4000 instances of disclosures [1] - The disclosed cooperation lists include over 500 companies, but the format and accuracy of the information remain problematic [1][2] - The China Internet Finance Association has proposed three initiatives to improve the disclosure process, emphasizing the need for clear and accessible information for consumers [2] Group 2 - The new regulations, effective from October 1, aim to address issues in the internet lending sector, including management inadequacies and consumer rights protection [2][3] - Financial institutions are required to manage their cooperation lists and disclose them through official channels, ensuring timely updates and accurate information [3] - The regulations prohibit banks from collaborating with institutions not included in the approved lists, reinforcing compliance and oversight [3]

Core Insights - The China Internet Finance Association released a report on the disclosure of internet lending business cooperation institutions by financial institutions, indicating that approximately 120 financial institutions have disclosed their cooperation lists as of October 31 [1] - Over 500 technology companies, financing guarantee companies, and insurance companies are included in the cooperation institutions, with nearly 4,000 instances of disclosures [1] - Some financial institutions have updated their lists dynamically, providing additional information such as product names and customer service numbers [1] Disclosure Issues - The association highlighted issues with the disclosure practices of financial institutions, noting that the format is often non-standard and the information provided is frequently inaccurate [1] - Problems include the hidden location of disclosures that lack search functionality, making it difficult to locate information [1] - Disclosures are typically titled simply as "announcement" without chronological sorting or indication of update times, and updates often overwrite previous announcements without clarity [1] - The names of cooperation institutions are sometimes presented in a non-standard manner, only showing the group name or including entities that have been renamed or deregistered [1]

Core Points - The China Internet Finance Association has released guidelines for financial institutions regarding the disclosure of their internet lending business cooperation partners [1] - The association emphasizes the importance of making this information easily accessible to financial consumers [1] Group 1 - Financial institutions are encouraged to display the list of internet lending business cooperation partners prominently on their official websites [1] - The disclosure should include the name of the cooperation partner, the type of partner, product names, and the duration of the cooperation as per the contract [1] - Institutions are advised to update the disclosed information regularly without overwriting the original announcement [1]

Core Viewpoint - The China Internet Finance Association (CIFA) has released a list of financial institutions involved in internet lending cooperation, highlighting the need for better transparency and accessibility for consumers [1][3]. Summary by Sections Current Disclosure Status - Approximately 120 financial institutions have disclosed their internet lending cooperation partners, totaling over 500 technology companies, guarantee companies, and insurance companies, with nearly 4,000 instances of disclosure [1]. - Some institutions have updated their lists dynamically, providing additional details such as product names and customer service numbers [1]. Issues Identified - CIFA noted issues with the current disclosure practices, including non-standardized formats and inaccurate information. For instance, disclosures are often hard to find, poorly titled, and lack chronological order [1][2]. - The names of disclosed partners are sometimes inaccurate, showing only the group name or including entities that have changed names or been deregistered [1]. Recommendations from CIFA - Financial institutions should disclose information in a manner that is easy for consumers to access, such as placing it prominently on their official websites [3]. - Accurate naming of partner institutions is essential, along with additional details like the type of cooperation, product names, and contract periods [3]. - Institutions should ensure timely updates to disclosures without simply overwriting previous announcements [4]. Participation Overview - A total of 119 financial institutions have publicly disclosed their internet lending cooperation partners, with no state-owned banks included in the disclosures. The participating institutions comprise 11 joint-stock banks, 39 city commercial banks, 16 private banks, 10 foreign banks, 1 direct bank, 5 rural commercial banks, 7 trust companies, and 30 consumer finance companies [4].