MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515758639

The impact of the diffusion of a financial innovation on company performance: an analysis of SWIFT adoption

2010· preprint· en· W1515758639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Scott, Markos Zachariadis

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsProfitability indexSwiftBusinessFinancial servicesEarly adopterPanel dataFinanceEconomicsMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How does a major financial network innovation influence firm performance? Despite much speculation we have little hard quantitative evidence about the impact of technology diffusion in financial services. In this paper we use the entire adoption history for SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication- standards provider and messaging carrier) matched to bank-level panel data for the US, Canada and 27 European countries. Our dataset covers almost 7,000 banks (including 1,689 SWIFT adopters) between 1998 and 2005. We find that adoption appears to have large effects on profitability, but it takes several years before any positive return is discernible, consistent with the idea of significant complementarities between new technologies and firm organization. The profitability effect operates by both raising sales and decreasing operating costs and is greater for smaller firms than larger firms. Although the long-run effects are similar, US and UK banks appear to reap the benefits from adoption more quickly than their Continental European counterparts. This is consistent with the idea that the impact of information and communication technologies is stronger in the US than Europe due to lower adjustment costs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science)Same topicDigital Platforms and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207