P2P Will Not Go All The Way From "Fighting Father" To "Fighting Strength".

P2P when China just got up, the market was not one-sided, and several began to insist on doing only information intermediary platform.

But in the era of Internet Financial savage growth, the P2P platform is facing fierce competition from the very beginning, and many platforms are grass-roots platforms. If we only do information intermediaries, it means that investors have to judge the risks of projects and take all responsibility for risks. They do not have enough motivation to invest in these platforms when information disclosure is not enough or investors lack the risk judgment ability.

Therefore, only the platform of information intermediaries is faced with the risk of the loss of investors, or it can not attract investors from the very beginning.

So some platforms began to provide various forms of guarantee for the project, which, on the surface, reduced the risk of investors. But I think the guarantee in fact, especially the guarantee of the small platform, is meaningless, because the platform itself does not have such guarantee ability, it only uses the new money to make up the hole in the front through the pool of funds.

But most investors do not have this awareness. Even a guarantee without any meaning can give investors the illusion of controllable project risk.

So, ignoring the potential risks, the small platforms that provide high returns begin to attract investors in batches.

Over the past few years, we may have described the market with words such as barbarism, chaos, high interest rates, fraud and running. In recent several major events, the P2P industry has almost reached the point where it has to be controlled.

So what will be the impact of the new regulatory policy that will soon be introduced on this trillion dollar market? Will the barbaric growth continue in the future? Will the future be a pattern of letting flowers bloom or monopolize big investors? Can investors still get such high returns?

In December 28, 2015, the CBRC, together with several ministries and commissions, issued the Interim Measures for the management of business activities of Internet lending intermediaries (Draft for solicitation). In the 5 years and 6 years in China, the P2P lending system finally came to the official supervision method.

Over the past few years, we may have described the market with barbarism, chaos, high interest rates, fraud, running and other negative words. After several major events in recent years, the P2P industry almost reached the point where it had to be controlled.

So what will be the impact of the new regulatory policy that will soon be introduced on this trillion dollar market? Will the barbaric growth continue in the future? Will the future be a pattern of letting flowers bloom or monopolize big investors? Can investors still get such high returns?

P2P network lending is like a bad boy entering the market from the beginning. It has greatly increased the market average yield of the traditional financial institutions, attracting a lot of investors' funds, and bringing the rise of the market's overall credit risk.

Due to the lack of proper supervision, the number of P2P platforms has increased exponentially at a time, but the quality of platforms has been mixed.

Several young people on the Internet can develop a platform website in a few months. The market will be promoted to various forums, from the media or offline, and with about 20% yield, the investment scale of the platform will soon come up.

However, many small platforms lack the proper risk control system. They do not segregate platform capital and customer capital and engage in capital pools, so customers face high liquidity risk, credit risk and moral hazard.

Hundreds of thousands of platforms are set up every year, but hundreds of platforms are closed or rolled out. Investors have made profits through high profits and have lost a lot of money.

According to the CBRC data, at the end of 11 in 2015, there were 2612 network lending institutions operating in the country, of which more than 1000 were the number of problem platforms, accounting for 30% of the total number of industry organizations.

The market has been in chaos for 5 or 6 years since the beginning of the market. As a matter of fact, for such a market regulator, it has already been put into practice. But why do regulators maintain such tolerance? I think there are two main reasons.

The first reason is also the most important reason. The P2P platform holds the sword of the Shang Dynasty. The sword is the central government's long-term solution to the financing difficulties of small and micro enterprises.

Starting from the 90s of last century or even earlier, the financing difficulties of small and micro enterprises have always been an important problem that plagued China's economy. The economic authorities have taken various approaches, such as raising the proportion of loans to small and micro businesses of commercial banks, and promoting small loan companies. However, no matter what way they are adopted, they can almost be failures as a whole.

Commercial banks are in the absolute dominant position in the indirect financing market. Small and micro enterprises have been in the state of being abandoned by commercial banks because of the small amount of single financing and the high risk of enterprises. Although small loan companies are under the banner of Inclusive Finance, they are faced with two problems. One is that lending funds are limited by capital and leverage, and the two is because of cost considerations. Many small loan companies are unwilling to make small and micro loans.

At this point, the emergence of P2P network lending in China has led the economic authorities to see a glimmer of hope for solving the financing difficulties of small and micro enterprises.

Under the Chinese system, small interests must give way to greater interests, and economic growth will always be at the top of the list.

Therefore, if we can really solve the financing problems of small and micro enterprises, even if there are some chaotic situations, the central government is willing to try.

Out of this logic, I say that the P2P net loan will not go to the end of the road any more.

The second reason is the lag of regulation.

Do regulators want to manage? I feel that although the high level of tolerance is relatively high, but from the perspective of regulators, less chaos is better than a mess.

The reason why regulation is not keeping up is that Internet finance is a new thing that is changing and exploding. Regulators need time to observe the market reaction and sort out the logic, so that we can formulate a policy of being able to manage and manage correctly on the basis of clear direction.

Today, however, the official regulatory opinion is late. I think the market has paid a heavy price. We have reason to question the ability of the regulators.

But due to the lag of supervision, it is possible for the P2P platform to avoid further regulation under the more stringent supervision conditions in the future. We will not discuss whether the direction of this "alternative path" is right or not. The key point is that this circumvention will give more life to the P2P industry.

New rules will be lowered

However, the difficulties in implementing supervision and regulation are very targeted to regulate the risks existing in many platforms, and these standardized methods or prohibition of sexual behavior will greatly reduce the risk of the platform.

I would like to take some of the most important analysis as follows:

First, we must prohibit the establishment of a pool of funds on the platform.

The establishment of the pool is the key reason for many high interest platforms to operate smoothly or suddenly.

The so-called pool of funds is the platform for investors and borrowers to set up a pool, investors put money into the pool, the pool to the borrower to fight money, the borrower's repayment into the pool, pool, and then repay the principal and interest to investors.

Therefore, when the borrower defaults, the platform can be cashed with other money in the pool. This mode is very dangerous. With the continuous increase of the total amount of breach, the payment pressure of the pool is increasing, until the zero point point collapses instantly.

This foreign capital pool also allows the platform to embezzle the clients' funds very conveniently, making it easy to cause moral hazard.

Therefore, the prohibition of the establishment of funds pool is absolutely an important means to purify the P2P industry.

Second, all platforms must be managed by third party customers.

The isolation of customer capital and platform ensures that the platform can not misappropriate customer funds.

Third, bankruptcy isolation system.

When the platform is bankrupt and liquidated, the funds of the lender and the borrower are not included in the liquidation property, that is to say, even if the platform collapses, the loan contract that borrows the two parties will not be affected.

There are also some aspects, such as banning the deadline for project financing, prohibiting the collection of lenders' funds, prohibiting fictitious and exaggerating the true situation of projects, etc., which are generally beneficial.

The operation has theoretically strengthened the protection of investors.

But at the same time, we have to admit that there are still some difficulties in implementing these regulatory measures. First, the platform itself is difficult in the process of pformation, and the two is the lack of supervision capacity.

For example, there are two problems in requiring P2P platform to open a custodian account in a bank.

First, who is the account opened in the bank? If it is the account of the P2P platform itself, the funds will be sent to your account to go out again, that is, the pool is absorbing deposits.

If the P2P platform wants to establish a direct financing bank hosting account, it is actually the P2P platform issuing instructions to the bank to pfer the money borrowed from a customer directly to the account of the b customer without the account of the platform.

The current regulatory authorities require the P2P platform to look for the hosting account of the bank, but many banks do not develop such a technology product, so the P2P platform has great technical obstacles in the bank capital custody. "

Second, from

From the point of view, in addition to some large platforms, people are reluctant to participate in the P2P platform, even if they only do fund trusteeship, only assume the form of consistency audit responsibility.

I feel very deeply about this in the bank, because Chinese investors are often unreasonable. For example, futures investment is losing money. They will look for banks, because banks are capital custodian; or, as long as they lose money, some banks will participate in it. No matter what way they take part, many investors will go to the CBRC to complain to banks. Banks are under the pressure of public opinion and reputation, and many times they can only swallow the bill to pay investors.

Now, for the high-risk investment mode of P2P platform, and investors are so immature and irrational, banks will be very cautious in making capital trusteeship, otherwise the consequences will be drowned by the mothers who are losing money.

Therefore, the future situation can be expected, after 18 months grace period, there are still many small platforms can not find the capital custodian bank, and ultimately because of the failure to comply with the rules and have to pform or close.

The other is the ability of regulators.

According to the draft, the local finance office is actually exercising its supervisory responsibilities.

One of the most familiar regulatory functions of local finance offices is the supervision of small loan companies. However, there are great differences between small loan companies and P2P platforms. For example, small loan companies are mainly local businesses, and the P2P platform is operated by the Internet. So the situation of cross regional operation is very common. There is doubt whether the financial offices in different regions can cooperate well in supervision. For example, the capital of small loan companies originates from the registered capital of shareholders, plus smaller leverage funds, while the P2P platform is a large investor oriented mode, which has higher requirements for regulatory powers.

In addition to the funds pool, bank trusteeship, platform classification rating, no guarantee and other supervision requirements are also a greater test of the supervision ability of the local financial office.

Finally, there is also a problem of regulatory differences. The degree of economic and financial development in different regions is different, and the supervision experience of financial institutions is different. How to ensure the regulation of different regions, especially in economically backward areas is also a problem.