Heterogeneous Impact of Fintech on the Profitability of Commercial Banks: Competition and Spillover Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using annual panel data of 46 listed commercial banks in China from 2012 to 2021 and constructing a two-way fixed-effects model, this study empirically analyzed the competition and technology spillover effects of fintech on the profitability of commercial banks. The results showed the following: (1) In the early stages of fintech development, the competition effect was larger than the technology spillover effect; thus, it was negatively correlated with commercial banks’ profitability. However, with the spread of innovative fintech, technology spillover effects and commercial bank profitability will gradually improve. (2) The influence of fintech on the profitability of commercial banks differed. Compared with large commercial banks, fintech had more significant negative effects on small- and medium-sized commercial banks in the short run. However, the role of fintech for such banks will also grow in the future. The results of this study provide practical guidance for how commercial banks can respond to the fintech wave. To realize the sustainable development of the banking industry, commercial banks should change their business philosophy and revenue model, vigorously improve their fintech innovation capability, differentiate their choice of fintech development routes, develop personalized customization with a focus on users, and ultimately realize digital transformation and upgrading.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".