MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414860953 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaf080

Collateral Effects: The Role of FinTech in Small Business Lending

2025· article· en· W4414860953 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Beaumont, Huan Tang, Éric Vansteenberghe

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeCollateralSmall businessPropensity score matchingBank credit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the impact of introducing junior unsecured loans (i.e., FinTech loans) into the small business lending market. Using French administrative data, we find that firms experience a 13% increase in bank credit after receiving a FinTech loan. We use propensity score matching procedures and a shift-share instrument to account for credit demand. The credit increase only occurs when FinTech borrowers invest in new assets, and Fintech borrowers are subsequently more likely to pledge collateral to banks. This suggests that firms use FinTech loans to acquire assets that they then pledge to banks, thereby increasing total borrowing capacity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207