这一个月不仅标志着本年度四季度的开启，更是业内关注已久的"助贷新规"——《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》的实 施首月。新规明确划出年化利率不超过24%的"红线"，推动全行业进入产品整改与模式调整的深度洗牌期。 10月，对助贷行业来说，将是一个不寻常的开始。 随着各家银行及其他持牌机构陆续公布合作"白名单"，资金与流量资源加速向头部助贷平台集中，未入围的中小机构面临严峻生存挑战。 21世纪经济报道记者调查了解到，为抢占24%以下的优质客群，各大平台纷纷加大投流力度，获客成本持续攀升。与此同时，过去常与借款流程捆绑 的"权益类产品"也在严监管下全面"解绑"，行业在合规压力下探索新的盈利模式。 在这场暗流涌动的Q4战役中，交易额下滑、资产质量承压、流量价格高企正在成为助贷机构面临的普遍挑战。 机构投流竞速 10月1日起，助贷行业迎来明确"利率红线"：年化利率不得超过24%（记者注：若无特别注明，以下利率均为单利）。 利率红线划定，综合年化利率下调成为助贷机构的首要整改任务。 21世纪经济报道记者调查发现，目前已有大量助贷平台停止投放年化利率超过24%的产品，合规整改效果初步显现。 以"榕 ...

◎记者 温婷 《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"新规"）将于10月1日起施 行。随着新规落地进入倒计时，已有逾20家金融机构（截至9月25日）公布了助贷业务合作名单，以贯 彻新规对于合作机构"名单制管理"的要求。其中，合作机构的"头部效应"明显，高度集中于头部平台， 如蚂蚁智信、支付宝、网商银行等蚂蚁集团关联公司，云瀚信息科技等京东关联公司等；合作模式除了 导流外，还包括联合贷款、担保增信、逾期清收等环节。 "合规调整已是大势所趋，但10月1日不是'临界点'。"多家助贷机构内部人士向上海证券报记者表示， 对于他们来说，名单制与利率限制的行业规则已经明确，更多依赖动态调整。可以确定的是，助贷机构 三四季度的业绩将受到影响，特别是权益类收入占比较大的机构，短期业绩可能迎来阵痛。 逾20家机构晒名单 据记者不完全统计，截至9月25日，已有24家金融机构公示了合作名单。其中，外资银行6家，股份制银 行6家，城商行4家，农商行3家，此外还包括1家民营银行和4家消费金融公司。 从已披露的合作机构数量来看，富邦华一银行披露的合作机构数量超过50家，而渣打银行（中国）、友 利银行（中国）、北 ...

黑灰产与正规广告并行的局面，使平台面临形象与合规双重风险。 近日，互联网社交平台上出现一批以"代理退保""信用贷款"为名发布的虚假宣传信息，诱导消费者转移资金，严重扰乱金融秩序。监管 在风险提示中再次点名此类乱象，强调将严厉打击中介机构及网络渠道的违规行为。 这已是监管部门连续两年多次就此类问题发出警示。多地金融监管局指出，部分代理退保机构"以维权为名，行牟利之实"，不仅侵害消 费者权益，也破坏保险市场稳定；而一些助贷广告则涉嫌将用户引流至高息贷款甚至非法集资活动。 尽管监管三令五申，但实际问题仍未彻底遏制。第一财经记者注意到，生活分享平台小红书等正成为金融黑灰产新的渗透土壤。 "经验分享"里的隐秘生意 在小红书平台搜索"保险退保""征信不好贷款""逾期还不上"等关键词，仍可发现大量相关笔记。记者注意到，这些内容多以"过来人"口 吻撰写：开头通常以对保险产品的质疑或贷款困难描述引发读者共鸣，逐步激发焦虑情绪，随后暗示可通过私信或添加微信获取"解决方 案"。 笔记评论区常见"求联系方式""可以帮帮我吗"等互动。对普通用户而言，这类内容看似是同龄人的"避坑指南"，实则为退保代理、助贷 中介的高效获客渠道。 "操作 ...

Core Insights - Ping An Consumer Finance has updated its list of partner marketing and credit enhancement service institutions, adding the well-known loan assistance platform, Xinyongfei [1] - Shanghai Xiaotu Network Technology Co., Ltd. has been added to the marketing acquisition list, while Shanghai Ersu Information Technology Co., Ltd. has been removed [1] - The marketing acquisition list highlights partnerships with Chongqing Liangxin Jincheng Technology Co., Ltd. for loan assistance and Chongqing Meituan Sankuai Small Loan Co., Ltd. for joint loans, both of which are affiliated with Meituan [1] - In the credit enhancement service institutions, Tianjin Xinfly Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. has been added, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shanghai Xiaotu [1] Marketing Acquisition Institutions - The updated list includes various institutions such as Shenzhen Zhiling Haohai Technology Co., Ltd., Du Xiaoman Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., and others [2] - Notable additions and removals include Shanghai Xiaotu Network Technology Co., Ltd. being added and Shanghai Ersu Information Technology Co., Ltd. being removed from the list [1][2] Credit Enhancement Service Institutions - The updated list of credit enhancement service institutions includes Tianjin Xinfly Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. as a new addition [1][3] - Other institutions in the list include Ping An Rongyi (Jiangsu) Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Zhongzhi Credit Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. [3] Regulatory Context - The update aligns with the guidelines issued by the National Financial Regulatory Administration in April, which mandates that commercial banks manage platform operators and credit enhancement service institutions through a list system [4] - The regulation emphasizes that banks should not engage in cooperation with institutions outside the approved list for internet loan assistance business [4]

Core Insights - Q2 2025 performance of Qifu Technology shows revenue of 5.216 billion, a year-on-year increase of 25.38% and a quarter-on-quarter increase of 11.2% [1] - Net profit for the same period is 1.731 billion, reflecting a year-on-year increase of 25.72% but a quarter-on-quarter decrease of 3.68% [1] Financial Performance - Total loan facilitation in Q2 reached 84.609 billion, a quarter-on-quarter decrease of 4.81% but a year-on-year increase of 16.12% [2] - As of June 30, 2025, the loan balance stood at 1400.80 billion, showing a slight decrease from 1402.73 billion at the end of March but a year-on-year increase of 13.38% from 1235.51 billion [3] Business Strategy - Qifu Technology's strategy remains cautious, with a focus on balancing growth and risk [4] - The company has diversified its business model, allowing for flexibility in asset allocation between heavy and light capital [5] Revenue Breakdown - In Q2, revenue from heavy capital loan facilitation reached 0.461 billion, a year-on-year increase of 205.1% [7] - Financing income accounted for the largest share of total revenue at 2.205 billion, representing 42% of total revenue [10] - The company issued bonds totaling 14.4 billion in the first half of 2025, a 45% increase year-on-year [12] Regulatory Impact - The "Assisted Loan New Regulations" are expected to have a positive long-term impact on the industry, promoting a healthier ecosystem [13][14] - Qifu Technology is preparing alternative plans in response to the new regulations, ensuring compliance and operational stability [20][21] International Expansion - Qifu has initiated small-scale operations in the UK, with positive early indicators [24] - The company aims to understand local markets and refine its risk models as part of its international strategy [25] Cost Management - Customer acquisition costs decreased to 370 yuan in Q2 from 384 yuan in the previous quarter [30] - Marketing expenses increased to 6.63 billion, a 12% quarter-on-quarter rise [33] Risk Management - The company has increased its risk provisions, with new provisions for risk-bearing loans totaling approximately 2.5 billion in Q2 [8] - The D1 delinquency rate remained stable, but recovery rates declined from 88.1% to 87.3% [35] - Qifu is tightening risk management measures in response to industry-wide pressures and regulatory changes [42][43] Future Outlook - The company maintains a cautious outlook due to ongoing macroeconomic uncertainties, projecting Q3 net profit between 1.52 billion and 1.72 billion, reflecting a potential year-on-year decline [44][45]

Core Viewpoint - The new regulations on internet lending by commercial banks, set to be fully implemented by October 1, aim to reshape the lending industry through "penetrating supervision," requiring all service fees to be included in the borrower's comprehensive financing costs, directly impacting the controversial interest rate range of 24% to 36% [2][12]. Group 1: Borrowers and Their Characteristics - The borrower demographic primarily consists of young individuals aged 25 to 35, particularly those born in the 1990s, who often face unstable incomes and pressing financial obligations such as rent and emergency expenses [5][6]. - Many borrowers are classified as "grey credit" individuals or small business owners with credit issues, making them ineligible for traditional bank loans [6]. - A significant portion of borrowers comes from second and third-tier cities, with a majority holding a college degree or lower, indicating a lack of financial literacy and reliance on lending platforms [6][8]. Group 2: Borrowing Needs and Market Dynamics - The primary borrowing needs stem from urgent financial pressures, with 52% of stable employment individuals and 69% of flexible employment individuals reporting difficulties in obtaining loans [7]. - There is a notable imbalance in supply and demand for loans among small businesses, with 66% expressing a need for loans but only 21% receiving support from banks [8]. - The existence of the 36% interest rate is seen as a "risk pricing" mechanism for high-risk borrowers, reflecting the challenges they face in accessing traditional financial services [8]. Group 3: Regulatory Implications and Industry Concerns - The impending regulations raise concerns about a potential "one-size-fits-all" approach that could push borrowers towards higher-risk underground lending options, exacerbating their financial burdens [12][14]. - Many small businesses and individuals rely on the 24% to 36% interest rate range as a last resort; cutting off this legal channel may lead them to seek out unregulated intermediaries [14][15]. - The regulatory changes could significantly impact mid-tier lending platforms that depend on the higher interest rate range for their operations, potentially leading to business closures and liquidity risks for banks involved in lending [17][18]. Group 4: Addressing Industry Malpractices - The high interest rates, while serving a purpose, have led to numerous consumer complaints regarding misleading advertising and hidden fees, necessitating regulatory intervention to address these issues [21][22]. - Recommendations for regulation include mandatory disclosure of comprehensive annualized interest rates, clear contract management, and restrictions on misleading advertising practices [23]. - Establishing a dynamic regulatory mechanism is essential to monitor borrower demographics and default rates, ensuring that high-risk borrowers are not disproportionately affected by the new regulations [23][24].

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]