Jack Ma Had It Right About One Thing, , on November 5, 2020 at 10:00 pm

By ILP
On 11/05/2020
Tags:

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Jack Ma was right: You can’t use rules for a railway station to run an airport. Or, regulate a cutting-edge online lending platform like a traditional bank.Chinese authorities effectively took the founder of e-commerce behemoth Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. to task for such views by suspending the $35 billion initial public offering of its fintech offspring, Ant Group Co., just before the scheduled launch. The move follows the release of new draft regulations on increasingly popular online consumer lending that will squeeze profits and raise the cost of compliance for fintech pioneers.The measures essentially put the up-and-comers on the same path as their traditional peers. And that’s where the problem lies. The risks Ant poses to the financial system aren’t nearly as large as the mammoth state-owned enterprises that are starved for credit, or the swathes of over-extended small lenders kept barely afloat with thinning capital buffers.As the balance sheets of China’s banks become less user-friendly and are put to work to support a post-Covid economy, other forms of financing for hundreds of millions of consumers will be required. The likes of Ant should play a crucial role. But it’s impossible if they’re stuffed into a bank-shaped box. The new regulations, for instance, cap leverage requirements close to levels for regular banks. That will hit the balance and profitability of loans online lenders take on at a time businesses and individuals need efficient credit.Unsurprisingly, conventional lenders aren’t huge fans of these new-era facilitators, even if working with several banks is a key part of Ant’s business model. Nomura Holdings Inc. analysts expect that the regulations will benefit traditional lenders by increasing their “bargaining power in cooperation with online lending platforms.”Perhaps taking Ma’s advice would be more helpful. What he said wasn’t so much an affront as a nudge for authorities to be more proactive about different sorts of financial animals. For example, the U.S. doesn’t regulate banks and consumer lending companies the same way, nor credit unions or card issuers.China’s yearslong deleveraging campaign to weed out bad actors in its financial underbelly should be a lesson. Non-bank institutions that typically fill financing gaps in most countries helped Chinese banks stash away bad loans that were often repackaged and sold onward. They became key players in the vast shadow banking network, perceived by Beijing as a problem that made it tougher to determine where actual risk lay and the true shape of bank balance sheets. Clamping down over the past four years didn’t solve the problem. Arguably, it’s grown worse as borrowers find other loopholes.Regulators would do better this time to let the online lenders be part of an overall solution, getting credit to places it doesn’t reach. Consider China’s fast and furious credit cycles. When authorities decide it’s time to rein in the largesse and cash becomes tight, everyone struggles – mom and pop investors, households, small and large businesses. The ensuing panic pressures the creaking financial system, and regulators end up giving way.But here’s the thing: Big tech credit is “less correlated to local economic conditions than unsecured bank credit,” a September study from the Bank of International Settlements found. It looked at the use of data,(1) versus collateral, to assess borrowers’ creditworthiness and do away with information asymmetry issues.  Usually, a shock to the economy is amplified by financial market conditions – the so-called financial accelerator mechanism. In China, because the bank lending market is deeply driven by collateral, any changes in the value of, say, land start hitting credit supply. With the big tech lenders, “this channel no longer operates,” the study says. That seems a good enough reason to let them operate.Ant helps banks originate and tap borrowers they wouldn’t otherwise. If they had it all figured out, we wouldn’t be seeing the rise of fintech. Instead of making the new era of lending prohibitive, the rules should make it easier to use the heaps of data generated by consumer behavior to manage loan risks and creditworthiness of borrowers. Accepting this basic point would enable officials to better regulate the future, not prop up the past. As Ma noted, it’s fairly normal for change to outpace rules, “but when innovation is far ahead of regulation, when the richness and depth of innovation far exceed the imagination of regulation, it is abnormal” and there is chaos.Sure, we can argue about capital buffers and all the post-global financial crisis accords. Fintech players shouldn’t be allowed to run wild. But though Ant is large, which worries regulators, it’s not China’s biggest problem. The focus should be less on size and more on lending practices, borrowers and recovery methods. China remains far ahead on the digital and online banking and payments front. To stay that way, its regulators need to take a page from Jack Ma and be more proactive.(1) The study says it used a dataset of more than 2 million Chinese firms that received credit from both an important big tech firm (Ant Group) and traditional commercial banks to investigate how different forms of credit correlate with local economic activity, house prices and firm characteristics.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Jack Ma Had It Right About One Thing(Bloomberg Opinion) — Jack Ma was right: You can’t use rules for a railway station to run an airport. Or, regulate a cutting-edge online lending platform like a traditional bank.Chinese authorities effectively took the founder of e-commerce behemoth Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. to task for such views by suspending the $35 billion initial public offering of its fintech offspring, Ant Group Co., just before the scheduled launch. The move follows the release of new draft regulations on increasingly popular online consumer lending that will squeeze profits and raise the cost of compliance for fintech pioneers.The measures essentially put the up-and-comers on the same path as their traditional peers. And that’s where the problem lies. The risks Ant poses to the financial system aren’t nearly as large as the mammoth state-owned enterprises that are starved for credit, or the swathes of over-extended small lenders kept barely afloat with thinning capital buffers.As the balance sheets of China’s banks become less user-friendly and are put to work to support a post-Covid economy, other forms of financing for hundreds of millions of consumers will be required. The likes of Ant should play a crucial role. But it’s impossible if they’re stuffed into a bank-shaped box. The new regulations, for instance, cap leverage requirements close to levels for regular banks. That will hit the balance and profitability of loans online lenders take on at a time businesses and individuals need efficient credit.Unsurprisingly, conventional lenders aren’t huge fans of these new-era facilitators, even if working with several banks is a key part of Ant’s business model. Nomura Holdings Inc. analysts expect that the regulations will benefit traditional lenders by increasing their “bargaining power in cooperation with online lending platforms.”Perhaps taking Ma’s advice would be more helpful. What he said wasn’t so much an affront as a nudge for authorities to be more proactive about different sorts of financial animals. For example, the U.S. doesn’t regulate banks and consumer lending companies the same way, nor credit unions or card issuers.China’s yearslong deleveraging campaign to weed out bad actors in its financial underbelly should be a lesson. Non-bank institutions that typically fill financing gaps in most countries helped Chinese banks stash away bad loans that were often repackaged and sold onward. They became key players in the vast shadow banking network, perceived by Beijing as a problem that made it tougher to determine where actual risk lay and the true shape of bank balance sheets. Clamping down over the past four years didn’t solve the problem. Arguably, it’s grown worse as borrowers find other loopholes.Regulators would do better this time to let the online lenders be part of an overall solution, getting credit to places it doesn’t reach. Consider China’s fast and furious credit cycles. When authorities decide it’s time to rein in the largesse and cash becomes tight, everyone struggles – mom and pop investors, households, small and large businesses. The ensuing panic pressures the creaking financial system, and regulators end up giving way.But here’s the thing: Big tech credit is “less correlated to local economic conditions than unsecured bank credit,” a September study from the Bank of International Settlements found. It looked at the use of data,(1) versus collateral, to assess borrowers’ creditworthiness and do away with information asymmetry issues.  Usually, a shock to the economy is amplified by financial market conditions – the so-called financial accelerator mechanism. In China, because the bank lending market is deeply driven by collateral, any changes in the value of, say, land start hitting credit supply. With the big tech lenders, “this channel no longer operates,” the study says. That seems a good enough reason to let them operate.Ant helps banks originate and tap borrowers they wouldn’t otherwise. If they had it all figured out, we wouldn’t be seeing the rise of fintech. Instead of making the new era of lending prohibitive, the rules should make it easier to use the heaps of data generated by consumer behavior to manage loan risks and creditworthiness of borrowers. Accepting this basic point would enable officials to better regulate the future, not prop up the past. As Ma noted, it’s fairly normal for change to outpace rules, “but when innovation is far ahead of regulation, when the richness and depth of innovation far exceed the imagination of regulation, it is abnormal” and there is chaos.Sure, we can argue about capital buffers and all the post-global financial crisis accords. Fintech players shouldn’t be allowed to run wild. But though Ant is large, which worries regulators, it’s not China’s biggest problem. The focus should be less on size and more on lending practices, borrowers and recovery methods. China remains far ahead on the digital and online banking and payments front. To stay that way, its regulators need to take a page from Jack Ma and be more proactive.(1) The study says it used a dataset of more than 2 million Chinese firms that received credit from both an important big tech firm (Ant Group) and traditional commercial banks to investigate how different forms of credit correlate with local economic activity, house prices and firm characteristics.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Contact Us

Please use our Instant Quote form to see if you're pre-qualified for a non-recourse stock loan, or if you have any questions or feedback, please email, call or chat with us.

deals@internationalliquiditypartners.com

+44 20 3994 1588

Headquarters: Hunkins Waterfront Plaza, Charlestown, Nevis

Open 24 hours a day / 7 days a week / 365 days a year

 

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is Securities-Based Lending?
Securities-based lending, or a stock loan, is the practice of using market investments such as stocks, ETF’s, warrants, bonds, or real estate investment trusts as collateral for a loan.
How much money can I get for my securities?
Borrow up to 80% of the value of your pledged investments giving you the capital you need to expand your business, purchase real estate, or tackle a costly project.
What happens if my securities lose value?
With a non-recourse stock loan, you can walk away from your securities at any time and keep the loan money with no negative credit consequences even if the investments lose value.
Is my information safe with ILP?
We pride ourselves on outstanding service and make client confidentiality our top priority. You can always be absolutely certain your information is safe with us.
How long does it take for the disbursement of funds?
Most of the transactions we process take less than 7 days from application to the disbursement of funds giving you cash quickly when you need it most.
What credit score do I need to qualify?
There are no credit checks or personal guarantees necessary with our services. Your pledged securities are the only collateral required for the loan you receive.

Instant Quote

Please fill out your information to see if you are pre-qualified.

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

International Liquidity Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

International Liquidity Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with International Liquidity Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. International Liquidity Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Nevis Office

Main Street
Hunkins Waterfront Plaza
Charlestown, Nevis

New York Office

Coming Soon!

Market Coverage