RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FINTECH INDUSTRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we review some recent developments in the field of Financial Technology or “FinTech.” We begin with an overview of what FinTech is and why it has become an important growth industry in the financial services area and therefore an important research topic in finance. In the next section, we review some of the academic literature in the FinTech area. In the subsequent section, we characterize the financing of FinTech startups, especially by venture capital firms. In the following section, we characterize innovation by FinTech firms as well as by incumbent financial intermediaries. In the next section, we move on to discuss potential sources of value creation by FinTech start-up firms relative to existing incumbent firms: we conjecture that one source of value creation may arise from FinTech startups being able to provide a superior customer experience relative to incumbent firms in various areas of consumer finance. In the following section, we discuss the regulatory environment facing FinTech firms, in their banking as well as in their financial market activities. In the penultimate section, we analyze the buy-versus-build decision facing firms choosing to enter the FinTech sector and discuss the trade-offs that may drive such decisions in practice. We conclude with some remarks about the future directions that may be taken by the FinTech industry.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".