Ant Financial packaged up and securitized the consumer loans that it gave out and sold the loan-backed securities to investors while taking a slice of the loan payments. In this way, Ant Financial transferred all loan default risks to investors while keeping a slice of the repayment stream. This meant that the incentive for Ant Financial was to create as much loans (risks) as it can since it did not bear any of the downside risks.One good example, and I still do know if it was good or not, was the government taking action against Jack Ma Ant Financial. I would assume a lot of small timers, who had no access credit, who now had access to credit, no longer had access to credit.
Now we can say something that type of lending could cause externalities, or be a threat to the banking system, or being unregulated could be an unfair playing field, but that sounds more like excuses.
To this day, no one can prove conclusively in any way that the restrictions on Ant Financial were good or not.
Who was the state trying to protect in the case of Ant Financial? I don't know.
This should be ringing alarm bells for anyone that witnessed the Great Financial Crisis as this was exactly what happened with securitized subprime mortgages in the US that nearly led to the collapse of the entire Western financial system. In the aftermath of the GFC, most nations (including China) issued regulations that required issuers of loan-backed securities to keep some fraction of the loan risks on their books. Ant Financial and Jack Ma knowingly broke these regulations and had no intentions of complying with the regulations until the government finally took action.
