MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409216373 · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103950

Customer data access and fintech entry: Early evidence from open banking

2025· article· en· W4409216373 on OpenAlexafffund
Tania Babina, Saleem Bahaj, Greg Buchak, Filippo De Marco, Angus Foulis, Will Gornall, Francesco Mazzola, Tong Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaToulouse School of EconomicsBAFFI CAREFINUniversidad Carlos III de MadridEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WarwickMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyHealthcare Excellence CanadaUniversitat Pompeu FabraErasmus Universiteit RotterdamAlberta Foundation for the ArtsUniversiteit MaastrichtMountain-Plains ConsortiumCanadian Mennonite UniversityFederal Deposit Insurance CorporationStanford UniversityUniversity of PittsburghImperial College LondonUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Maryland
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open banking (OB) empowers bank customers to share their financial transaction data with fintechs and other banks. New cross-country data shows 49 countries adopted OB policies, privacy preferences predict policy adoption, and adoption spurs fintech entry. UK microdata shows that OB enables: (i) consumers to access both financial advice and credit; (ii) SMEs to establish new lending relationships. In a calibrated model, OB universally improves welfare through entry and product improvements when used for advice. When used for credit, OB promotes entry and competition by reducing adverse selection, but higher prices for costlier or privacy-conscious consumers partially offset these benefits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial EconomicsSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207