A quantitative analysis study of FinTech on banks’ operational efficiency and risk management based on Monte Carlo simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fintech has not only greatly improved the operational efficiency of banks by introducing cutting-edge technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, but also posed new challenges to banks’ risk management. This paper uses Monte Carlo simulation to explore the impact of fintech on banks’ operational efficiency and risk management. A VaR data model is used to analyze the impact of fintech on the operational efficiency of three types of commercial banks: big five banks, joint-stock banks, and city commercial banks. The non-performing loan ratio of China MS Bank is used as the empirical object for quantitative analysis of bank risk management. Monte Carlo simulation is used to realize the VaR calculation of banks’ NPL ratio. The empirical analysis finds that the impact of fintech on the operational efficiency of all three types of commercial banks is relatively significant, but there are differences in direction and lag period. Meanwhile, FinTech increases banks’ NPL ratio. It shows that fintech has a negative impact on bank risk management, for this reason, this paper develops relevant strategies to deal with the risk challenges brought by fintech according to bank types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".