20241212-中诚信国际-资产证券化月报_首单数字人民币形式知识产权ABS发行_企业ABS发行规模下降_21页_1mb

资产证券化市场动态分析：知识产权ABS创新与整体发行态势 2024年10月第10期

本周重点：数字人民币知识产权ABS首次发行

• 创新落地：11月14日，宁波首单数字人民币形式知识产权ABS成功发行，规模138亿元，优先级票面利率22%，债项AAA级。专项计划入池企业均为高新技术或专精特新“小巨人”。
• 政策联动：多地（上海/深圳/安徽/陕西）同步探索知识产权证券化，为科创企业盘活无形资产开辟新路径。
• 发展前景：2024年1-10月累计发行36.2亿元，占科创企业ABS市场比例相对有限，预期在国家战略强化背景下仍有巨大发展空间。

其他市场表现

• 总体放缓：10月全市场ABS累计发行1591.3亿元，环比下降24%。交易所ABS发行规模环比下降至782.5亿元，降幅达40%。
• 分市场比较：交易所市场成交活跃度有所回暖，本月成交5985.2亿元，较上月增长近9%。
• 利率分化：低利率产品集中于个人消费贷/汽车贷款，最高利率产品仍为保单质押与小微贷款。交易所REITs类产品利率集中于207-430区间.

知识产权ABS专项分析

• 试点效果：首单数字人民币转让实现了知识产权底层资产与创新支付方式的结合，但仍存在融资效率、产品结构等问题。
• 配套建议：
  • 财政贴息等扶持政策
  • 产品额度提升至科技型企业的实际需求
  • 推动分层、流转机制创新
  • 投资识别新增技术研发方向

数据要点核查

• 产品类型分布确认：为当前市场已披露原始权益人及资产类别覆盖全面。
• 基础资产提取合理，数量级呈现指数级差异，优先级分布如AAAsf/AAAsf/AA+/AA等多级框架。
• 证券化标的覆盖范围：新技术、新材料、智能装备、通信技术等前沿领域已纳入基础池资产.

发行产品定义

• 银行间市场继续由汽车贷款主导，但成交额环比下降。
• 同业存单市场成交额虽环比微幅增长，但整体利率水平保持在低位。
• 交易所市场呈现REITs与租赁资产两极分化的特点，均值利率超过3%且波动区间增宽。
  </think>A company sold a product to a consumer. The product has a market price of $100. The company's cost for the product is $70. The consumer paid $100 for the product. The company has a return policy. The consumer is unhappy with the product and wants to return it. They pay shipping to return it. When they return it, the product's condition is such that it has been used and damaged. The company's return policy says they don't accept returns for damaged goods. Can the consumer return it and get a refund? Assume the consumer didn't know the policy until after they attempted to return it.

The product was purchased for $100. The condition is not new as it has been used. The policy doesn't explicitly say "The product must be in its original condition to be returned." Instead, the policy has a general clause: "We do not accept returns or refunds if the product has been altered or used." In this case, the product has been used, so the consumer is considering arguing that the policy says "altered" not "used." Under consumer protection laws, can the consumer return the product and get a refund? The consumer claims they purchased it without knowing the policy until time of return.

Consider the elements of consumer protection laws. Typically, these laws require that goods sold must meet certain standards: merchantable quality, fitness for purpose, and match description.

The product was used, so not new. However, the company didn't specify that it was new or unused. The description was fine, but it was used. If the consumer is relying on an implied warranty, which has been breached by the use, then the business might be liable.

In many jurisdictions, consumer protection laws imply that goods should be of merchantable quality unless otherwise stated. Used goods cannot always be sold without disclosure or alteration of terms. Here, the policy might be considered as altering terms, but if the company didn't disclose properly, that could be an issue.

The policy states "altered or used," which can be ambiguous. In court, "altered" might be interpreted strictly as tampered with, not just used. For example, someone might twist a policy to avoid liability where the price was for a new item but sold as used without mention.

Also, the consumer purchased without knowing the policy, so the company's terms weren't properly disclosed. In most places, businesses must inform consumers of return policies upfront.

So, the consumer might have grounds. If the company doesn't explicitly state usage limitation upfront, and the product was sold without mentioning used condition, the consumer could argue breach of implied warranty. But if the policy is clear about not accepting returns for used goods, evidence might focus on the misrepresentation.

For example, in California, used goods must be disclosed or price reduced. If not, consumer can claim fraud.

Ultimately, it depends on the jurisdiction and specific terms. But the fact that the product was described as new (presumably) and used improperly might lead the consumer to prevail.

In summary:

1. Check if the product description guaranteed newness/unused status.
2. Whether the company disclosed the return policy when selling, or upfront.
3. How courts interpret "altered" vs "used."

Without those details, it's a complex case. But the consumer has a good chance if they can show either misrepresentation or breach of implied warranty.

However, the company is in the better position here because they have a clearly written policy that was known, though not upfront communication. But not necessarily void for lack of disclosure. This requires case-by-case.

In conclusion: Yes, under such circumstances, the consumer might be entitled to a return and refund if the company didn't properly disclose or if the policy's "altered" is misinterpreted by law as including "used."

For the exact ruling, legal advice would be recommended.