Core Viewpoint - Beijing's financial regulatory authority has issued a notice to strengthen the management of assistive lending businesses, signaling a crackdown on the "membership rights" model that obscures borrowing costs [1][2][5] Group 1: Regulatory Changes - The notice requires clear agreements on comprehensive financing cost ranges between platform operators and credit enhancement service providers, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's regulations on maximum loan costs [2][6] - The regulatory focus is on eliminating the use of "membership rights" and "value-added rights" to indirectly increase financing costs, which has been a common practice among many consumer finance companies and assistive lending platforms [2][4] Group 2: Industry Impact - The "membership rights" model has been criticized for becoming a means to hide hidden fees in online loans, leading to numerous consumer complaints regarding forced payments and lack of transparency [4][5] - The implementation of the new regulations may lead to a consolidation of the assistive lending market, with smaller institutions potentially being eliminated due to their inability to adapt to the new compliance requirements [6][7] Group 3: Future Outlook - The regulatory framework aims for complete transparency and compliance in financing costs, which may limit the operational space for assistive lending platforms that cannot meet the 24% interest rate cap [6][7] - The new regulations are seen as a starting point for balancing compliance and profitability in the assistive lending industry, rather than a turning point [7]

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 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 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]