2025年10月1日，《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")将落地实施。该规定第一条即明确了"互联网助贷属于互联网贷款，应当严格遵守《商业银行互联 网贷款管理暂行办法》(下称"《网贷管理办法》")等监管规章制度。"今年中开始，不少受理法院开始认 可网贷平台(主要为小贷公司)的金融机构身份，并参照24%利率作为量裁标准裁定违约金、逾期罚息。 这对于尚存36%利率产品的大型网贷平台来说，如何取舍将成为重要选择。 公布网贷合作方 民营银行龙头微众银行合作方达382家 外资银行中富邦华一银行合作机构最多 例如，裁判文书网9月13日披露的一份判决文书显示，借款人吴某在深圳市某小额贷款公司借款利率 35.98%，在将吴某告上法庭后，小贷公司将利息及罚息支付要求降低至24%。对此，安徽省蚌埠市淮上 区人民法院认为，该小贷公司系具备放贷性质的金融机构，故借款利率应以年利率24%为限。 同时，南都记者不完全统计，今年7月以来，至少有8家外资银行公布了相关合作方，分别是富邦华一银 行、渣打银行、东亚银行、韩亚银行、开泰银行、友利银行、国民银行、南洋商业银行。合作方分为商 业银行、保险公 ...

Group 1 - The article highlights the expansion of high-interest online lending products, with rates approaching 36%, amidst a backdrop of declining consumer loan rates from banks [1][3] - Financing guarantee companies play a crucial role in the online lending ecosystem, providing credit enhancement services such as risk sharing and compensation guarantees [1][6] - The "dual guarantee" model is emerging in the industry, allowing lenders to circumvent the 24% interest rate cap by splitting the pricing into two parts, which increases borrower debt vulnerability [1][7] Group 2 - The proliferation of online lending access points through various apps reflects a strong market demand for financial services, particularly in areas underserved by traditional financial institutions [2][3] - Many online lending platforms are now offering loans with interest rates that can exceed the legal cap of 24%, particularly in the case of licensed financial institutions [3][4] - The high fees associated with financing guarantees are often not disclosed upfront to borrowers, leading to consumer complaints about unexpected costs [8][9] Group 3 - The "dual guarantee" model, while expanding financial service coverage, raises concerns about compliance and consumer protection due to its complexity and potential for high costs [7][9] - Regulatory oversight is needed to address issues such as excessive borrowing, misleading marketing practices, and inadequate risk disclosures by online lending platforms [9][10] - Financial institutions and lending platforms must prioritize data security and transparency in their operations to protect consumer information and rights [10]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the pervasive issue of online lending targeting university students, emphasizing the psychological and financial consequences faced by this demographic due to high-interest loans and predatory lending practices [3][10][29]. Group 1: Online Lending Landscape - Online lending has evolved from campus loans to a broader online loan market, which continues to thrive despite regulatory efforts to curb it [10][30]. - Regulatory bodies have issued multiple directives to prohibit online lending to students, yet these measures have been largely ineffective due to loopholes and lack of enforcement [9][30]. - The online lending industry has become a lucrative business, with companies like Qifu Technology and Xinyi Technology reporting significant profits and high sales margins [22]. Group 2: Target Demographic - University students, despite being legally adults, are often ill-equipped to handle financial responsibilities, making them prime targets for online lenders [23][29]. - The lack of financial literacy among students leads to a high acceptance of loans with exorbitant interest rates, often exceeding 36% when hidden fees are included [17][21]. - The ease of access to loans through popular apps and platforms creates a false sense of security, encouraging students to borrow without fully understanding the implications [24][14]. Group 3: Psychological Impact - Many students experience severe psychological distress due to overwhelming debt, with some developing conditions like severe depression [5][29]. - The societal shift towards a culture of borrowing rather than saving is concerning, as it may lead to long-term financial instability for young adults [36][38]. - The article warns that the normalization of debt among the younger generation could mirror the financial crises seen in other countries, particularly the U.S. [38][39]. Group 4: Regulatory Challenges - The fragmented regulatory framework surrounding online lending creates a vacuum where predatory practices can flourish [30]. - Key concepts related to responsible lending, such as "excessive borrowing" and "proper identification of borrowers," remain poorly defined, allowing lenders to exploit these ambiguities [31]. - The article calls for more stringent regulations and clearer definitions to protect vulnerable populations, particularly students, from falling into debt traps [35][31].