本文選題：P2P + 網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：面對(duì)借款者逾期不還,不同的P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)做出了不同的選擇:紅嶺創(chuàng)投按照事先的約定,利用平臺(tái)自有資金進(jìn)行了逾期墊付,這種剛性?xún)陡兜淖龇O大地吸引了人氣;盛融在線采取了限制投資者提現(xiàn)的手段,希望通過(guò)與其他平臺(tái)的合作化解危機(jī),投資者人心惶惶;貸幫網(wǎng)提出平臺(tái)僅作為借貸雙方的信息中介,沒(méi)有逾期墊付的義務(wù),堅(jiān)持通過(guò)合法的途徑解決危機(jī),這種做法被部分人稱(chēng)為“目光短淺,不識(shí)大局”。綜觀國(guó)內(nèi)P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的現(xiàn)狀,剛性?xún)陡冻蔀榱诵袠I(yè)的普遍選擇。這樣的做法促使著投資者逐步養(yǎng)成“只認(rèn)平臺(tái),不看具體借款標(biāo)的”的習(xí)慣。剛性?xún)陡兜哪Ｊ绞欠窨沙掷m(xù)發(fā)展?會(huì)不會(huì)造成劣幣驅(qū)逐良幣的局面?由于現(xiàn)有金融市場(chǎng)的產(chǎn)品未能充分滿足供需雙方的需求,加上相關(guān)監(jiān)管規(guī)則缺位造成的制度真空,P2P網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)在過(guò)去的幾年里快速發(fā)展�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)雖然提供了方便快捷的投資渠道,但是由于缺乏完善的信用評(píng)價(jià)體系,借貸雙方之間存在的嚴(yán)重信息不對(duì)稱(chēng)讓投資者有所顧慮。在這樣的背景下,催生了網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)的擔(dān)保模式。由于多方資本的參與,網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈,以至于提供剛性?xún)陡兜木W(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)脫穎而出,而沒(méi)有此項(xiàng)功能的網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)市場(chǎng)份額逐漸減少。隨著P2P網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)監(jiān)管的逐步完善,銀監(jiān)會(huì)提出了“平臺(tái)本身不能提供擔(dān)�！钡谋O(jiān)管原則。剛性?xún)陡兜木置媸欠駮?huì)就此被打破?我們需要具體分析網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)擔(dān)保的模式,從而預(yù)測(cè)不同模式下的剛性?xún)陡对谖磥?lái)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。本文將中國(guó)P2P網(wǎng)貸擔(dān)保的模式分為四種:自融型擔(dān)保模式、平臺(tái)擔(dān)保模式、第三方合作機(jī)構(gòu)擔(dān)保模式和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)準(zhǔn)備金擔(dān)保模式。本文結(jié)合具體案例的分析,以及比較法層面上對(duì)域外相關(guān)實(shí)踐的梳理,對(duì)上述不同模式的剛性?xún)陡短岢鋈缦卤O(jiān)管建議:應(yīng)當(dāng)禁止自融型擔(dān)保,因?yàn)檫@種擔(dān)保模式的實(shí)質(zhì)是一種變相地吸收公眾存款的行為,因而違反刑法的有關(guān)規(guī)定。應(yīng)當(dāng)完善關(guān)于第三方合作機(jī)構(gòu)擔(dān)保的規(guī)定,第三方擔(dān)保的規(guī)模應(yīng)當(dāng)控制在合理的范圍內(nèi),防止造成系統(tǒng)性的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。鼓勵(lì)建立風(fēng)險(xiǎn)準(zhǔn)備金模式,但應(yīng)將平臺(tái)的交易規(guī)模控制在合理的范圍內(nèi),否則無(wú)法做到真正意義上的擔(dān)保,對(duì)投資者的承諾將成為一紙空文,難以?xún)冬F(xiàn)。禁止網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)公開(kāi)宣稱(chēng)提供逾期墊付。在平臺(tái)沒(méi)有事先約定提供相關(guān)保證的情況下,平臺(tái)經(jīng)營(yíng)者為了維護(hù)自身的聲譽(yù),作為一種經(jīng)營(yíng)策略的考慮,利用自有資金或者股東追加資金提供逾期墊付,這種模式并沒(méi)有相應(yīng)的法律明文予以禁止,因此可以適當(dāng)允許。本文主體部分包括三章。第一章簡(jiǎn)述P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸行業(yè)發(fā)展的社會(huì)背景以及運(yùn)營(yíng)情況。對(duì)網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)面對(duì)逾期而采取的不同應(yīng)對(duì)方式進(jìn)行比較,分析剛性?xún)陡冻蔀樾袠I(yè)普遍選擇的原因。第二章介紹美國(guó)的Prosper和英國(guó)的Zopa的運(yùn)營(yíng)模式,分析國(guó)外網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的制度優(yōu)勢(shì)。基于典型平臺(tái)的操作現(xiàn)狀對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)P2P網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)擔(dān)保模式進(jìn)行分類(lèi),解析每種擔(dān)保模式的交易結(jié)構(gòu)。將國(guó)內(nèi)外網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)的經(jīng)營(yíng)情況做比較,分析不同模式的差異,為我國(guó)網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)的制度完善與技術(shù)革新提供借鑒。第三章對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)剛性?xún)陡赌Ｊ竭M(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)與監(jiān)管對(duì)策建言,提出應(yīng)禁止自融型網(wǎng)貸平臺(tái)和關(guān)聯(lián)擔(dān)保,鼓勵(lì)信息中介的網(wǎng)貸模式,將第三方擔(dān)保與平臺(tái)系統(tǒng)性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相分離,控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)準(zhǔn)備金模式平臺(tái)的交易規(guī)模,并根據(jù)相關(guān)法律的規(guī)定與平臺(tái)的實(shí)踐為網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)的完善提出建議。
[Abstract]:Facing the borrowers' overdue, different P2P network loan platforms have made different choices: the Hongling venture capital has made the overdue payment by using the platform's own funds in advance. This rigid cash payment method has greatly attracted the popularity; Sheng Rong online has adopted the means to limit the investors to cash in, and hope to cooperate with other platforms. In order to resolve the crisis, the investors are in a panic, and the loan help network puts forward the platform only as the information intermediary of the borrowers and the borrowers. There is no overdue obligation to settle the crisis. This practice is described by some people as "short-sighted and unaware". A comprehensive view of the domestic P2P network platform is the general selection of the industry. This has prompted investors to gradually develop the habit of "the platform only, not the specific loan mark". Is the rigid payment model sustainable? Will it cause bad currency to expel good money, because the products in the existing financial market fail to fully meet the demand and demand of supply and demand, and the absence of relevant regulation rules The system vacuum, the P2P net loan industry has developed rapidly in the past few years. Although the Internet provides a convenient and quick investment channel, but due to the lack of perfect credit evaluation system, the serious information asymmetry between the borrowers and the borrowers causes investors to worry. In this context, the guarantee mode of the net loan industry has been promoted. With the participation of multiparty capital, the competition of the net loan industry is so fierce that the net loan platform which provides the rigid cash payment stands out, and the market share of the net loan platform without this function is decreasing gradually. With the gradual improvement of the P2P net loan industry supervision, the Banking Regulatory Commission has put forward the supervision principle of "the platform itself can not provide guarantee". Will the surface be broken? We need to analyze the model of the net loan platform guarantee in detail, so as to predict the future development trend of the rigid cash payment under different modes. This paper divides the model of P2P loan guarantee in China into four types: the self finance guarantee model, the platform guarantee model, the third party cooperative institution guarantee model and the risk reserve guarantee This article, based on the analysis of specific cases and the combing of the relevant practice at the comparative law level, puts forward the following suggestions on the rigid payment of the above models: the self finance guarantee should be prohibited, because the essence of this guarantee model is to absorb the public deposit in a disguised manner, and therefore violates the relevant provisions of the criminal law. The provisions on the security of the third party cooperative institutions should be perfected. The scale of the third party guarantee should be controlled in a reasonable range to prevent the systemic risk. To encourage the establishment of the risk reserve model, the scale of the transaction of the platform should be controlled in a reasonable range, otherwise the real guarantee should not be achieved. In the absence of prior agreement provided by the platform, the platform operators, in order to maintain their own reputation, as a business strategy, use their own funds or shareholder additional funds to provide overdue advances. There are no relevant laws to be banned clearly, so it can be properly allowed. The main part of this article includes three chapters. The first chapter briefly describes the social background and operation situation of the development of P2P network lending industry. The two chapter introduces the operation mode of Prosper and Zopa in the United States and analyzes the institutional advantages of foreign net loan platform. Based on the operation status of the typical platform, this paper classifies the guarantee mode of domestic P2P net loan industry, analyzes the transaction structure of each guarantee mode, compares the operation of the domestic and foreign loan platform, and analyzes the differences in different modes, In order to provide reference for the system improvement and technological innovation of the net loan industry in China. The third chapter is to evaluate and supervise the rigid payment mode of the domestic net loan industry, and put forward that the self finance network loan platform and the related guarantee should be prohibited, the net loan mode of the information intermediary should be encouraged, the system risk of the third party support and the platform is separated and the risk control is controlled. The scale of transactions on the gold platform, and in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and the practice of the platform, put forward suggestions for the improvement of the net loan industry.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.28

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 宋鵬程;吳志國(guó);Melissa Guzy;;生存之道:P2P借貸平臺(tái)的業(yè)務(wù)模式研究[J];新金融;2013年11期

，

本文編號(hào)：2036089