网络借贷平台的风险保障金机制研究 (A Study of Risk Guaranty Fund Scheme in Online P2P Lending)
(2018) 12(6) 清华法学 [Tsinghua University Law Journal] 43-58
19 Pages Posted: 19 Aug 2019 Last revised: 31 Oct 2019
Date Written: August 15, 2018
Chinese Abstract: 网络借贷平台风险保障金机制是指网贷平台在借款人发生信贷违约时向出借人先行偿付的资金安排，其旨在保障出借人的投资本金与利息权益，控制出借人的信贷风险，以促进网贷交易的达成。目前我国立法禁止风险保障金，将网贷平台严格限定为信息中介，虽然这有利于防控风险保障金蕴含的相关金融风险，但其依循了传统的管控型监管理念，没有充分考虑到风险保障金促进资本形成的重要经济功能和我国网贷行业的现实发展需求。因此，纸面上严格的禁令在现实中无法得到有效执行，网贷平台变相引入了各种风险保障金制度，在资金构成、存管方式、保障力度与转让规则等方面不尽相同，成为网贷行业的潜在风险隐患。我国应当在借鉴国际经验和考量我国国情的基础上，对于风险保障金转变监管理念，既不能一概禁止，也不能完全放开，而是需要分类监管，疏堵结合，建立一个双轨制的创新型监管制度，提供不同的监管规则让网贷平台自由选择，即一方面继续采取以信息披露为基础而禁止风险保障金的监管路径，另一方面建立允许风险保障金的新轨，但引入最低资本要求等配套的监管规则，从而实现金融安全、金融发展和投资者保护的整体监管目标。
English Abstract: Risk guaranty fund scheme (RGFS) in online P2P lending refers to the arrangement under which the lending platform will pay the lender in the event of loan default by the borrower. It aims to protect the principal and interests of the borrower cum investor, thereby controlling the risk exposure of the borrower and facilitating the consummation of online P2P lending business. At present, China puts a blanket ban on RGFS, confining lending platforms strictly to the role of informational intermediaries. While this prohibition helps control the financial risks posed by the RGFS, it represents the traditional philosophy of command and control, with inadequate attention paid to the important economic function of the RGFS in facilitating capital formation as well as the practical need for the RGFS in China’s online P2P lending industry. As such, the strict prohibition on the books is not vigorously enforced in reality. Lending platforms have adopted various types of RGFS in disguise, with differences in capital composition, custodial modes, coverage degrees and transfer rules, which has become a source of latent risks. Drawing upon international experiences and taking into account the local conditions, China should change its regulatory paradigm. Specifically, China should not ban RGFS completely, nor allow the use of RGFS freely; rather, it is advisable to adopt a dual-track regulatory regime so that lending platforms can choose whether to adopt RGFS according to their own particular circumstances. If they choose to adopt, there will be additional regulatory requirements such as minimum capital requirements. The dual-track regime can help achieve the multiple objectives of financial regulation, including financial security, financial development and investor protection.
Note: Downloadable document is in Chinese.
Keywords: 网络借贷平台；风险保障金；信息披露；最低资本要求；监管创新 (online P2P lending; risk guaranty fund; information disclosure; minimum capital requirements; regulatory innovation)
JEL Classification: K22; O16
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation