P2P網(wǎng)貸企業(yè)運營模式研究報告
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-05 12:12
【摘要】：P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸行業(yè)在我國最初是默默發(fā)展,但進入2010年后其獲得了爆發(fā)式的發(fā)展,數(shù)量由2010年的15家迅速增長到如今的1000多家以上,截止2014年二季度,中國有P2P網(wǎng)貸公司1184家,行業(yè)總成交額達964.46億元。由于缺乏監(jiān)管,中國的P2P網(wǎng)絡信貸行業(yè)魚龍混雜,P2P網(wǎng)貸公司運營模式層出不窮讓人眼花繚亂,如拍拍貸的純平臺模式、宜信的債權轉(zhuǎn)讓模式、紅嶺創(chuàng)投大額融資、陸金所信貸證券化模式等,因而造成P2P網(wǎng)貸公司跑路現(xiàn)象頻繁發(fā)生。面對如此多的P2P網(wǎng)貸公司各有利弊的運營模式,投資者應該如何抉擇呢?如今銀監(jiān)會已表明對P2P網(wǎng)貸行業(yè)進行監(jiān)管,正在研究制定運營細則,那么哪種運營模式利于P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸企業(yè)的長足發(fā)展,哪種運營模式更容易被政府監(jiān)管層所接受呢?這正是本文研究的內(nèi)容。本文主要采用文獻研究和比較分析法來探索哪種運營模式更適合在我國發(fā)展。本文主要有五章:緒論,P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸概述,P2P網(wǎng)貸企業(yè)運營模式及案例分析,P2P網(wǎng)貸企業(yè)存在的風險及監(jiān)管建議,結(jié)語。P2P網(wǎng)貸平臺運營模式及案例分析是本文的重點,在這部分,本文選擇了國外兩家P2P網(wǎng)貸公司(Zopa、Lending Club)以及國內(nèi)四家典型運營模式的P2P網(wǎng)貸公司(拍拍貸、宜信、紅嶺創(chuàng)投、陸金所)進行比較,從其借貸利率的生成、投資基金的來源、風險控制以及平臺收費方面入手分析,結(jié)合我國金融監(jiān)管部門公開的監(jiān)管消息,本文認為在我國陸金所模式最適宜長遠發(fā)展,由于其背靠金融大鱷有雄厚的金融資本以及專業(yè)的風險控制系統(tǒng),而且平臺運作規(guī)范,不僅能使民間借貸陽光化,還能保障投資人資金安全。針對目前行業(yè)整體情況,本文指出了我國P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸企業(yè)存在的共性及特性風險:而且針對這些風險提出了監(jiān)管建議。最后結(jié)語,得出了整篇文章的結(jié)論,認為陸金所模式是最適宜長遠發(fā)展的模式。
[Abstract]:The P2P network lending industry initially developed silently in our country, but after entering 2010, it got explosive development. The number of P2P network lending industry has increased rapidly from 15 in 2010 to more than 1000 now. As of the second quarter of 2014, there are 1184 P2P network loan companies in China. The total turnover of the industry amounted to 96.446 billion yuan. As a result of lack of supervision, China's P2P network credit industry is a mix of P2P network lending companies operating patterns are dazzling, such as PPDAI's pure platform model, Yi Xin's debt transfer model, Hongling venture capital large amount of financing, The lufax credit securitization mode, thus causes P2P network loan company to run the road phenomenon frequently. In the face of so many P2P network lending companies have their own advantages and disadvantages of the operation model, how should investors choose? Now the CBRC has made it clear to regulate the P2P lending industry, and is studying the development of operating rules. So which operation mode is conducive to the rapid development of P2P network lending enterprises, which operation model is more easily accepted by the government regulatory layer? This is the content of this paper. This paper mainly uses literature research and comparative analysis to explore which mode of operation is more suitable for development in China. There are five chapters in this paper: introduction to P2P network loan business operation model and case study on P2P network loan enterprise risk and supervision suggestion, conclusion. P2P network loan platform operation model and case analysis are the focus of this paper, in this part, In this paper, two foreign P2P network lending companies (ZopaA lending Club) and four typical domestic P2P network lending companies (PPDAI, Yixin, Hongling Venture, lufax) are selected for comparison. Based on the analysis of risk control and platform charges, combined with the open regulatory information of China's financial regulatory authorities, this paper believes that the lufax model is the most suitable for long-term development in China. Because of its strong financial capital and professional risk control system, and the platform operating standard, it can not only make private lending sunshine, but also ensure the safety of investors' funds. In view of the current situation of the industry, this paper points out the common and characteristic risks of P2P network lending enterprises in China, and puts forward some regulatory suggestions for these risks. Finally, the conclusion is drawn that lufax model is the most suitable model for long-term development.
【學位授予單位】：華中科技大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：F724.6;F832.4
本文編號：2165759
[Abstract]:The P2P network lending industry initially developed silently in our country, but after entering 2010, it got explosive development. The number of P2P network lending industry has increased rapidly from 15 in 2010 to more than 1000 now. As of the second quarter of 2014, there are 1184 P2P network loan companies in China. The total turnover of the industry amounted to 96.446 billion yuan. As a result of lack of supervision, China's P2P network credit industry is a mix of P2P network lending companies operating patterns are dazzling, such as PPDAI's pure platform model, Yi Xin's debt transfer model, Hongling venture capital large amount of financing, The lufax credit securitization mode, thus causes P2P network loan company to run the road phenomenon frequently. In the face of so many P2P network lending companies have their own advantages and disadvantages of the operation model, how should investors choose? Now the CBRC has made it clear to regulate the P2P lending industry, and is studying the development of operating rules. So which operation mode is conducive to the rapid development of P2P network lending enterprises, which operation model is more easily accepted by the government regulatory layer? This is the content of this paper. This paper mainly uses literature research and comparative analysis to explore which mode of operation is more suitable for development in China. There are five chapters in this paper: introduction to P2P network loan business operation model and case study on P2P network loan enterprise risk and supervision suggestion, conclusion. P2P network loan platform operation model and case analysis are the focus of this paper, in this part, In this paper, two foreign P2P network lending companies (ZopaA lending Club) and four typical domestic P2P network lending companies (PPDAI, Yixin, Hongling Venture, lufax) are selected for comparison. Based on the analysis of risk control and platform charges, combined with the open regulatory information of China's financial regulatory authorities, this paper believes that the lufax model is the most suitable for long-term development in China. Because of its strong financial capital and professional risk control system, and the platform operating standard, it can not only make private lending sunshine, but also ensure the safety of investors' funds. In view of the current situation of the industry, this paper points out the common and characteristic risks of P2P network lending enterprises in China, and puts forward some regulatory suggestions for these risks. Finally, the conclusion is drawn that lufax model is the most suitable model for long-term development.
【學位授予單位】：華中科技大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：F724.6;F832.4
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 葉湘榕;;P2P借貸的模式風險與監(jiān)管研究[J];金融監(jiān)管研究;2014年03期
2 楊姍媛;;P2P借貸平臺的信息安全風險分析[J];現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟信息;2014年01期
3 劉麗麗;;我國P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸的風險和監(jiān)管問題探討[J];征信;2013年11期
4 沈雅萍;;我國P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸債權流轉(zhuǎn)模式之法律分析——以唐寧模式為例[J];時代金融;2013年29期
5 趙精武;;P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸的債權人保護問題[J];法制與社會;2013年23期
6 王小麗;丁博;;P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸的分析及其策略建議[J];國際金融;2013年03期
7 于秀;;給P2P網(wǎng)貸上個安全閥[J];理財;2013年01期
8 王振;;P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸模式洗錢風險及應對措施探析[J];南方金融;2012年11期
9 邱峰;;村鎮(zhèn)銀行市場定位偏離及其矯正策略研究[J];金融會計;2012年05期
10 黃葉傝;齊曉雯;;網(wǎng)絡借貸中的風險控制[J];金融理論與實踐;2012年04期
相關重要報紙文章 前1條
1 杜峰;;P2P網(wǎng)貸監(jiān)管缺失存危機 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融管理需求迫切[N];通信信息報;2013年
相關碩士學位論文 前1條
1 白浩;P2P網(wǎng)絡借貸平臺問題及解決對策[D];河北大學;2013年
，本文編號：2165759
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/guojijinrong/2165759.html
最近更新
教材專著
