This idea is completely wrong. The unreliable online lending platform may have something to do with his shareholder background, but it also has a little relationship. Those who fry ore will still fry, and those who push pots will still push pots. Irresponsible or irresponsible.
1. Wanying Finance, the online lending platform of Wuliangye, a listed company. His shareholders are all powerful, such as Sinopharm Group and Wuliangye, a listed company. From the background of shareholders, it is not easy to pay investors' investment, is it? But?
2. Hebei Jijinbao Online Loan, the shareholders behind it are Hebei Gold Exchange, a subordinate unit of the institution, and Hebei property rights market. Moreover, the pages of the state-owned government websites have a large publicity of Ji Jinbao.
3. Shanghai Lettuce Finance has been approved by Ang Lee of Shanghai Pudong Public Security Bureau. The operating company is in harmony. Com is supported by Shanghai Science and Technology Venture Capital Group and Shanghai Yidian, which is controlled by Shanghai State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Whether the enterprise will go bankrupt is related to the genetic status of the same period, which does not mean that it can always stand with a reliable shareholder.
1. The difference between real state-owned assets and fake state-owned assets. The so-called state-owned shareholders of some online lending platforms are all fake, or only occupy a little share, and do not participate in operation, decision-making and management. You put the shareholder in charge, how can he be responsible?
2. From the perspective of enterprise law, shareholders are only responsible for their capital contribution. In other words, if the investment enterprise is not well managed, shareholders will lose their capital contribution, even if they have done their duty. If a shareholder does not participate in illegal activities such as self-financing of online lending platforms, then he does not need to be responsible.
3. Sudden withdrawal and transfer of equity. For the sake of their reputation, many state-owned enterprises will transfer all their shares before finding out that there is a problem with the online lending platform, and then get rid of the shareholder responsibility. The follow-up accountability is more complicated.
Now the policy supervision is clear. Before the filing is completed, the existing online lending platforms cannot be said to be reliable. After the filing is completed, it can only be said that they have carried out compliance operations.
Just a few days ago, Director He of Guangdong Financial Supervision Bureau stated that only a few peer-to-peer lending matching platforms can start filing in the future, and even fewer will eventually pass the filing! Don't be superstitious about state-owned background companies
1. The shareholder background should be strong enough! How to understand it is that you have the money and the ability to take responsibility and handle things. This is not limited to the nature of shareholders;
2. The platform has a high degree of compliance and strong ability of continuous compliance. How to understand, high configuration team, inventory management, everything is completely compliant, can not do illegal business;
3. Strong profitability! If it can continue to make profits, then there is basically no chance for online lending platforms that have lost money in history.
4. Strong sustainable management ability. The paid-in capital should be high, and the net capital should be at least 500 million yuan. Shareholders are willing to support unconditionally and can bear overdue and advance funds.
Don't pin your fate on guarantees and shareholders, be responsible for your own investment, carefully analyze the platform, and avoid risks appropriately.
Online loans and routine loans seriously violate national financial laws and regulations, resulting in a series of gangs with black social nature such as violent collection, compensation for meat and intimidation. , causing many people's families to break up and their lives to be destroyed, seriously endangering society and people. Resolutely support the public security organs to crack down on online lending and routine lending gangs, strictly investigate the sources of funds for online lending and routine lending and their support platforms, and restore social peace and order and people's happy lives.
No, it can be said that the so-called state-owned assets, if not fake, may be stuck by state-owned assets, also called state-owned assets, or there is something wrong, and state-owned enterprises are far away from you. The most important thing for p2p is to see whether the underlying assets are small and scattered. This is the core. See if you do it in a down-to-earth manner. After several rounds of financing, it has nothing to do with Mao. Looking at the state-owned assets department is nothing more than thinking that there is something wrong with state-owned enterprises. You have seen banks buy wealth management, and there is a problem. Did his bank admit it? You don't even admit yourself and expect others to support you?
There are risks in the online lending platform, not because who is the shareholder will be more responsible, but because the business logic based on the online lending platform is flawed and implies multiple traps:
Closed-loop risk management trap
In the traditional bank-centered credit transaction, banks have established a fair exchange model among borrowers, lenders and bank credit intermediaries, and banks bear both information production and default risk. The responsibility of risk burden is stipulated in the system, and there is no problem of unclear boundary between the borrower and the intermediary. The reason is that the bank is responsible for producing the borrower's information and will bear the borrower's default risk. With the disintermediation of finance, the function of banks to produce borrower information has declined, and they no longer have the advantages of information production and exclusive borrower information, and the risks of banking industry have suddenly increased. To this end, the banking industry seeks the path of risk transfer: first, transfer to borrowers and third parties in the form of mortgage, pledge and guarantee; Second, strengthen the management of its own capital and transfer it to shareholders; Thirdly, transfer technologies and tools such as asset securitization and derivatives to the market, so as to build an open risk management mechanism.
Let's look at the P2P online lending platform. Because the platform does not assume the borrower's information production responsibility, there is no market mechanism to ensure the fairness and authenticity of the borrower's information, and there is no export to transfer risks. Once the borrower defaults, this risk flows among the lender, the platform and the borrower, forming a closed loop. Usually, the platform will find that although it is legally an information intermediary platform, it is only responsible for transmitting information, but it is actually difficult to escape responsibility because there is no exit for risk transfer in this closed loop.
Rigid redemption trap
When the platform found that there was no export with risk transfer when the default occurred, it returned to the traditional banking practice, adding credit guarantees and upgrading measures such as mortgage, guarantee, insurance and risk reserve, which was equivalent to adding a promise to the lender. If you have a promise, you must honor it, because mortgage, guarantee and insurance are all guarantees, not to mention the risk reserve. If there is a problem with the platform, liquidity risk is inevitable. In the end, everyone will find that there is no other way but to escape.
Big data trap
Financial industry belongs to information industry in industrial classification. Big data is an indispensable condition for the financial industry, because from the most traditional banking industry, it was born because it solved the problem of poor information between borrowers and borrowers, and its business model is to operate borrower information on a large scale. It can be said that the emergence of the banking industry is based on big data. Based on big data, banks know where depositors are. Where is the borrower? Based on big data, banks know which customers need what kind of services and which customers need what kind of products. Based on big data, banks know who has the greatest risk and who has the best conditions. The advantage of the Internet is the aggregation of big data, which provides unprecedented advantages for the development of the financial industry.
However, big data aggregation does not mean the emergence of financial behavior. For example, Sina's P2P online loan, in order to aggregate big data, adopted the current Internet business model of sacrificing profits. Everything is just big data, thinking that with big data, there will be financial business, and the result will definitely fail. Because financial business is different from internet business, the most unsuccessful internet business is to sacrifice its own investment. You can stop playing if you have no money. If you don't play, no one will ask you for debts. P2P online lending is different. You use other people's money to make money, and this money is not for your own use. This requires: on the one hand, you should be responsible for other people's money, on the other hand, you should use the money to make money for people who can make money. When money is useless, it is natural that those who use it have no money to pay it back, and those who pay it ask you for it.
Information intermediary trap
For P2P online lending, it is obviously engaged in financial business, but the regulatory authorities are unwilling to classify it as a financial institution and position it as an information intermediary. I guess the logic of the regulatory authorities is that if I stipulate that you are an information intermediary, you are not a financial institution, and it is illegal for you to do what a financial institution can do. P2P online lending platform takes it as its responsibility to prove that it is only an information intermediary, and its logic is still: as long as I am an information intermediary, it is not illegal.
But the reality is that it is difficult to be a real information intermediary. As an information intermediary, there are two problems to be solved. First, how can the platform ensure that all the borrower information published here is true and reliable? Second, if the information is wrong, how is the platform responsible? Let's look at information security first. In order to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the borrower's information, access to the central bank's credit information system is always reliable! However, the platform will still find problems through the credit information system and screen out some bad borrowers, but default will still occur, and with the increase of scale, the probability of default will also increase. Let's look at the problem of information responsibility. If the borrower's information is confirmed by the central bank's credit information system, if the borrower still breaches the contract, the investor, that is, the lender, should have nothing to say, because I have disclosed the borrower's information released by the authoritative department to you. The investment is your own decision, and the risk has nothing to do with the platform. But at present, the platform company seems to have forgotten that there are two contents in the review of any loan. One is to review the repayment willingness of the loan, that is, to confirm whether the borrower has the repayment willingness by analyzing the borrower's past trustworthiness, and the central bank's credit information system will play this role; The second is to review the borrower's repayment ability, that is, the borrower's financial and operating conditions, the feasibility of financing projects and future profitability. How to ensure the authenticity and reliability of this information is also the responsibility that the platform must bear. How to guarantee? The platform will find that it is not enough to do offline investigation, so many platforms have to return to offline. Back offline, it shoulders the function of information production. Information is produced by the platform, which not only undertakes the responsibility of risk protection, but also loses the information cost advantage of the Internet platform. This means that it is absolutely difficult to maintain the P2P online lending platform only as an information intermediary.
Diaosi trap
There are two important and sacred reasons for touting the P2P online lending platform: First, it is believed that the low interest rate of the banking industry has exploited investors, and Internet finance is a channel for investors to obtain high returns. The second is that the banking industry is unwilling to provide financing for the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises, depriving them of the right to obtain financial services. Internet finance allows everyone to enjoy modern financial services equally. Therefore, P2P online lending platform is an investment and financing platform tailored for diaosi, and the platform is dedicated to the business that banks are unwilling to do!
Analyzing the survival logic of P2P online lending platform, we will find that there are two relationships: First, P2P online lending platform distributes scattered investors from banks at an interest rate higher than the bank deposit rate and distributes them to the demanders of microfinance. This is equivalent to pairing the financier with the greatest risk in the lending market with the small investor with the least risk-taking ability. Secondly, the P2P online lending platform builds a secondary market, applies the venture capital model to lending transactions, regards scattered small investors as venture capitalists, and focuses on the investment of subprime loans. In this logical relationship of existence, diaosi people seem to be the owners of investment, and they can freely choose their own investment products according to their own risk preferences. However, because they are diaosi, they only come for your high income, but they never want to take the risks that match your high income. When the risk occurs, although the small amount does not have the right to vote by hand, it can vote with its feet. Running is an inevitable trap of the platform, which is also the power of diaosi.
It can only be said that it is more reliable, but it is not absolutely reliable. No matter how good the platform is, there are two risks that cannot be resisted. One is policy risk, and the other is a run.
Why is p2p so miserable now? Because there were too many fakes in more than 6,000 companies in the past, but there were really many. But because there are too many fakes, it is really in trouble.
For example, because of the saying that eggs are not put in one basket, you invested in two companies, and one of them ran away. What would you do? You will try your best to get the money back from another company. Even if the company is still stable, good companies will face a run. Everyone will ask for money, which leads to slow payment. If the payment is slow, everyone will panic and the other company will be abolished.
I think this industry is still very good, but there will not be too many companies left in the end, and the interest left will not be very high.
There are several views available: 1, the background of state-owned assets, the first thing that comes to mind is state-owned assets, of course, it is strong, which is beyond doubt. 2, the platform will be relatively standardized, the risk control will be stricter, and most of them have high credibility. 3. Platform brands have greater influence and more resources. Will be favored by more "stable" investors. . The above are a few points of view, welcome to add.