I think this is also a good thing. After all, P2P is a loan, and it is money-centered. It has a strong financial attribute, and the financial risk is really terrible. Once it breaks out, it will go down the mountain like a tiger, unstoppable.
At present, the industry is at such a critical moment, and the platform should also make great efforts.
However, some platforms will pretend to be dead, do not run away, do not liquidate, do not repay, and do not announce. Today we will talk about one of them-financial management model.
Since the beginning of August, the loan repayment fund management model has aroused widespread concern of lenders. The core problem is that the loan is due, that is, it is not repaid.
The above picture is the comments of the lender of the financial management model I saw on the third-party website. From August 1 1, it was all overdue, the customer service phone was not answered, and the executive information on the APP was deleted.
This is a picture I cut casually in the fan community of official website, and the lender on it is overdue for more than one month.
At the same time, the old lender who has been with the platform for four years also hopes that Heye of the platform can reveal the current difficulties and problems of the platform. Lenders also hope to tide over the difficulties with the platform, which reflects the kindness of lenders and their trust in the platform.
But it is disappointing that the financial management model does not give any substantive and effective answers and explanations.
I searched the official website for its announcement, but none of them explained the lender's overdue. They are all announcements that avoid important parts. What's the use? The lender wants to repay the principal and interest on time.
And there are also comments on the Internet that are suspected of financial management Fan Shuijun:
I think the platform is good, and I don't think there is anything wrong with saying good things about the platform.
However, one said that Li Caifan paid back the money on time and brought a screenshot:
But Qingfeng just wants to ask, since you are so supportive and trust the financial management model, how did you take out this 1.8 million, but reinvest it and take over the subject of the transfer of creditor's rights? It is really a dragon!
Second, next, LAM Raymond will take a look at the financial management mode with everyone.
Li Caifan is affiliated to Beijing Netrong Tianxia Financial Information Service Co., Ltd., which was established on 20 14, and it is considered as an old platform for four years. The equity structure of the inquiry company is as follows:
According to the equity structure diagram of Cai Lifeng Machinery, Cai Lifeng Machinery has six corporate shareholders, of which Shandong Ying Da Steel Structure Co., Ltd. has become the major shareholder of Cai Lifeng Machinery with 565,438+0% shares. What kind of enterprise is Ying Da Steel Structure?
Let's take a look at the steel structure in Ying Da:
As can be seen from the above figure, the actual controller of Shandong Yingda Steel Structure Co., Ltd. is Feng, and Yingda Steel Structure holds or shares in several companies at the same time, among which Steyr Power Co., Ltd., a listed A-share company, looks very powerful.
However, in June this year, 5438+ 10, Shenzhen Stock Exchange publicly condemned Yingda Steel Structure and Feng.
In June of 20 15, Steyr signed the Profit Compensation Agreement with Yingda Steel, and Yingda Steel promised that Steyr's net profit after deducting non-recurring gains and losses in 20 14, 20 15, 20 16 was not less than 230 million yuan, 340 million yuan, and 2016 respectively.
However, by 20 18 and 1, Yingda Steel and Feng failed to pay Steyr nearly 500 million in cash, so they were publicly condemned by Shenzhen Stock Exchange.
But this is just the beginning.
Through public information inquiry, we can see that Yingda Steel Structure Company is not as beautiful as it looks.
Yingda Steel Structure Company has been executed for six times, and it is deeply involved in litigation, and there are many judicial risks.
Let's take a closer look:
It can be seen that the lawsuits involved in Yingda Steel Structure are all debt disputes with a large amount, of which the largest amount reaches 580 million yuan.
Open case details 1 7 August1:
Yingda Steel Structure and Fengfeng were classified as untrustworthy, with an outstanding amount of HK$ 654.38+0.2 billion.
In other words, from the second half of 17, the capital chain of Ying Da Steel Structure was very tight and it was unable to pay its debts.
This year, Yingda Steel Structure frequently became the defendant due to debt problems.
In this way, the company that is deeply involved in the debt crisis has become the largest shareholder of the financial management model!
Let's take a look at the platform products. I saw three kinds of products: microfinance, automobile supply chain finance and consumer finance.
Judging from the spot check, these three types of products all meet the regulatory requirements that corporate loans should not exceed 6.5438+0 million and personal loans should not exceed 200,000.
In addition, I also focused on the information disclosure of the platform to borrowers.
First look at microfinance:
Here, I have a question: Is it reasonable for this enterprise whose annual income exceeds 654.38+0 billion yuan to borrow 654.38+0 million yuan from the financial management mode? I don't believe it anyway.
Look at automobile supply chain finance again;
Then there is personal consumption finance:
Generally speaking, the information disclosure of these three types of loan targets is too simple. There is no identity document, business license photo and other information except a few photos of cars in auto finance. Through Li Caifan's information disclosure, no relevant borrowing enterprises and individuals can be found. I personally doubt the authenticity of the IOUs.
Third, in order to further check the platform, I registered a financial model and intend to invest in it. However, I ran into a problem again and couldn't open the repository.
I use a CCB card, which can be opened according to the platform, but the following figure:
I tried to contact the customer service of the platform many times (no less than ten times) to solve the problem, and found that I could not contact the customer service like the lender of the financial management model.
So I called the Bank of Shang Hui directly, the depository and depository cooperative bank of financial management mode, hoping to solve the problem.
But the problem has not been solved, but new problems have been discovered.
The following information was repeatedly confirmed by the customer service phone of Shang Hui Bank. If in doubt, you can also contact to confirm: Li Caifan does have a depository cooperation relationship with Shang Hui Bank; However, the lender's liquidity is too great. When a lender invests, the funds first enter the Bank of Shang Hui. After the fundraising is completed, Shang Hui Bank will transfer the lender's funds to the financial model account.
What's the use of this deposit method?
Interestingly, the above-mentioned lenders happened to have 13 subject due within 3 days, but none of them repaid. As the lender said, 13 is it so coincidental that the borrowers don't agree together?
Conclusion: From the current point of view, the financial management mode does not run away, does not liquidate, does not pay back money, does not announce, the platform funds are opaque, and the deposit and management of funds is not reasonable. Platform shareholders become untrustworthy executors and are deeply involved in the debt crisis. These are not optimistic. Thirdly, the platform lenders are unified, advance and retreat together, check the authenticity of the platform target, and be ready to report rights protection at any time.