How does P2P Performance Insurance True Channel False Insurance end?

 How does P2P Performance Insurance True Channel False Insurance end?

Editor | Peng Jieyun

This time, the insurance company sent a text message asking us to report the case to the Public Security Bureau as soon as possible. Its amazing! Chen Dongxiang Interface Journalist said.

However, the P2P platform, which accounts for 40% of Sequoia Capital, has been investigated by the police.

On September 10, the Pudong Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau issued a circular that 23 suspects, such as Lu Mou, Vice President She Mou and so on, of Shanghai Houben Financial Information Services Co., Ltd. have been investigated on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits in recent days, and criminal compulsory measures have been taken to seize the relevant assets in accordance with the law.

The police said that thick-capital finance illegally absorbs deposits from the unspecified public through the thick-capital finance online financial management platform without the approval of relevant national financial qualifications. At present, the case is under further investigation.

Chen Dong felt relieved that the insurance did not endorse the company and its products. China Insurance, which provides insurance and compensation for heavy-capital finance, not only urges investors to report cases, but also refuses to pay thousands of P2P platform performance risks due on the grounds of investigative intervention, which seems to be throwing the pan.

How will this conspiracy of true channel and false insurance end?

Refusal to pay due policies

According to the short message notice received by many investors, on August 28, China United Insurance Company urged investors to report to the public security organs. The company, which once offered full-coverage and full-payment credit guarantee policies for P2P products such as Thick and Thin Baobao, Thick Intelligence Insurance and Thick Monthly Profit, refused to pay the expired credit guarantee insurance policies.

According to the Borrower Performance Guarantee Insurance Policy presented by Chen Dong to Interface News, Heavy Capital Finance insured 118,100,000 yuan of platform borrowersloans in 12 phases, with a premium rate of 2% per month. The premium was 2,363 yuan. The insurance period was from June 6, 2018 to June 6, 2019, with an additional 30-day compensation waiting period.

However, when the high-cost finance was investigated, insurance companies began to refuse to pay compensation. There are thousands of non-reimbursable policies due, and no one has received any reimbursement yet. Chen Dong said.

Interface journalists learned that although China Insurance has set up a special person in Shanghai to receive heavy-capital financial investors, there are different opinions about whether to pay compensation or not.

However, at the end of August, when the large-scale overdue of heavy-capital finance, the Customer Service Commissioner of China Insurance said: After the repayment needs to wait for the results of the investigation, we will pay the principal and interest according to the information of the investors insurance policy.

This paradox annoys investors.

We cant trust to buy it until we have an insurance company to underwrite it. Chen Dong had learned from senior financial executives that earlier this year, some of the borrowers of high-cost finance were overdue, which was also paid by the high-cost financial platform, and insurance had never been compensated.

So if the P2P platform is investigated by the public security organs, especially after the criminal case is formally filed on the P2P platform, will the criminal case investigation block the insurance companys obligation to pay compensation?

Peng Kai believes that the insurance companys obligation to pay still exists, unless it can prove that it belongs to the cause of exemption, it should still perform the relevant obligations in accordance with the insurance clause.

However, there are also views that, after the criminal case filed, whether the borrowing object matched by P2P platform itself has major defects needs to be investigated by the public security organs. If the borrowing object itself has problems and belongs to the scope of deductible, then the insurance company has reason to delay the payment of compensation.

But generally speaking, we investigate other similar cases of the platform where the case is filed. After the criminal case is filed, public security organs issue public announcements requiring borrowers and guarantors to fulfill their obligations of repayment and guarantee in time. There are also many cases where public security organs actively contact borrowers for repayment. Peng Kai said that criminal filing is no excuse for evading civil liability.

Interface News also learned that investors have complained to the CBRC about China Insurance and received a response.

According to the complaint form, on August 27, the Consumer Protection Bureau of the China Banking Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBRC) wrote back to the complaint that it had received complaints and that the complaints concerning the Shanghai Branch of China United Property Insurance Co., Ltd. had been submitted to the Shanghai Banking Insurance Regulatory Bureau for processing. Up to now, investors have not received the latest reply from the Shanghai Banking and Insurance Regulatory Bureau.

Conspiracy of True Channel and False Insurance

Credit guarantee insurance Zhongzhao P2P platform is not new, and the lessons from the past are not far away.

As early as mid-2018, Changan Liability Insurance Company was forced to pay a huge sum of money for providing performance insurance to six troubled P2P platforms.

Affected by this, the core solvency adequacy rate of Changan Liability Insurance dropped directly from 76.1% to - 41.5% in a quarter, and the comprehensive risk rating was D. At the same time, it was heavily punished by the Banking Insurance Regulatory Commission. In the second quarter of 2019, the comprehensive solvency adequacy rate and core solvency adequacy rate of Changan Liability Insurance fell to - 222.27%. It was not until August 2019 that Changan Liability Insurance began to introduce new shareholders to solve the solvency dilemma.

In addition to the unclear assets of the P2P platform itself, there is no surplus grain in the insurance company, and the solvency is negative, the opportunity for P2P investors to get insurance compensation is even more slim.

There are also reassuring property insurance and P2P platform meter cylinder finance.

In January 2019, Mi Tan financial investors sued the CBRC for performance insurance which was not repaid in time. However, the Notice of Decision on Processing Insurance Consumption Complaints presented by the CBRC to investors showed that after receiving the claim settlement application, Mi Tan financial investors asked for the latest final list of investors with overdue claims. And each investor invests the capital flow certificate and other claim information. Because Mi Tan Finance has not been able to provide the necessary materials for Mi Tan Finance Insurance, leading to the failure to verify the identity of beneficiaries of its insurance contract, leading to the failure of Mi Tan Finance Insurance to start the claims settlement process. So far, Mi Tan Finance Performance Insurance Policy has not been paid by Mi Tan Finance.

According to statistics, there are at least 15 insurance companies involved in online loans or loan performance insurance business. On the one hand, several insurance companies have suffered huge losses and continuous fines. On the other hand, the scale of premiums in this kind of insurance industry has shown double-digit rapid growth. In an uncertain environment, why are insurance companies willing to underwrite for the P2P platform?

As far as insurance companies are concerned, due to the fierce competition in the market, insurance profits of property insurance companies are becoming thinner and slower. Some small and medium-sized property insurance companies with radical style have raised the non-car business to a strategic level, while the financing credit guarantee insurance business cooperating with the P2P platform and the lending platform is borrowed. With the dividends in the period of the outbreak of consumer finance, the scale of insurance has been expanding and the profits are relatively abundant.

From the perspective of P2P platform, the strength, reputation of insurance companies, even endorsement by state-owned enterprises, can become a propaganda tool to attract investors to invest more and more. In addition, performance insurance can also reduce the financing cost of P2P platform appropriately.

In 2016, 2017 and 2018, the net profit of China Property Insurance Company was 907 million yuan, 1.346 billion yuan and 1.138 billion yuan, respectively. The net profit of China Property Insurance Company increased by 48.40% in 2017 and decreased by 15.45% in 2018.

On September 5, China Insurance released solvency report data showing that in the first half of 2019, China United Insurance Groups insurance business revenue was 27 billion yuan, an increase of 11.54% compared with the same period last year, and its net profit was 150 million yuan, a decrease of 29.81% compared with the same period last year.

There are many deficiencies in company strategy and management, and the market share of premium income is declining. According to statistics, in the first half of 2019, China Insurance has received 14 regulatory fines, a total of 5.29 million, becoming one of the most fined insurance companies in the first half of this year.

Peng Kai said that, apart from the heavy capital and the Chinese insurance incident itself, it is worth considering whether the P2P + performance insurance model can really withstand deliberation, the industry to explore the model, there are many true and false insurance debates, whether there is a counter-guarantee of the P2P platform to insurance companies? Does the insurance company play the role of channel? Only when the tide fades can we know who is swimming naked.

Behind the seemingly fierce cooperation between the two sides, most insurance companies probably dont know what they underwrite at all. At present, more than 80% of the insurance companies that provide performance insurance in the market will not control these assets, let alone penetrate the underlying assets, a chief technology officer of P2P platform who works in the performance insurance business told the interface journalists. The reason is that the vast majority of insurance companies do not have the relevant technology and wind control capabilities, and the P2P platform is also reluctant to share asset data.

The aforementioned reassurance property insurance refused to pay because the P2P platform could not provide the latest list of the final investors of overdue claims, which was supported by the Banking Insurance Regulatory Commission.

Interface journalists also learned that in the cooperation between P2P platform and insurance, there is often a financing guarantee company or a more covert drawer agreement that actually sets up counter-guarantee measures for insurance companies to ensure that the P2P platform actually carries out the ultimate bad debts. Payment in full.

This means that insurance companies only endorse the P2P platform on face, while inside is a risk-free passage fee in essence.

In the case of constant accidents of P2P platform, will the farce of false insurance channel like thick-capitalized finance and China Insurance continue? And how will it end?

Source: Responsible Editor of Interface News: Yang Bin_NF4368