MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413007853 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18080440

An Empirical Study on the Impact of Financial Technology on the Profitability of China’s Listed Commercial Banks

2025· article· en· W4413007853 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuan Xue, Chin‐Hong Puah, Dayang Affizzah Binti Awang Marikan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexChinaBusinessEmpirical researchFinanceFinancial systemAccountingGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper selects 50 listed commercial banks in China from 2012 to 2023 as research samples, and employs the fixed effects model and Hansen’s threshold regression method to systematically examine the impact mechanism and non-linear characteristics of FinTech development on the profitability of commercial banks. The key findings are summarized as follows: (1) FinTech significantly undermines the overall profitability of commercial banks by reshaping the competitive landscape of the industry and intensifying the technology substitution effect. This is primarily reflected in the reduction in traditional interest income and the erosion of market share in intermediary business. (2) Heterogeneity analysis indicates that large state-owned banks and joint-stock banks experience more pronounced negative impacts compared to small and medium-sized banks. (3) Additional research findings reveal a significant single-threshold effect between FinTech and bank profitability, with a critical value of 4.169. When the development level of FinTech surpasses this threshold, its inhibitory effect diminishes substantially, suggesting that after achieving a certain degree of technological integration, commercial banks may partially alleviate external competitive pressures through synergistic effects. This study offers crucial empirical evidence and theoretical support for commercial banks to develop differentiated technology strategies and for regulatory authorities to design dynamically adaptable policy frameworks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207