This article surveys research on the effects of digitalization on access to finance. We focus the review on access through fintech. We review the growth of three main fintech technologies, fintech lending (incl. peer-to-peer lending), crowdfunding and initial coin offerings. We discuss existing evidence on how fintech affects access to finance for firms and investors and consider the regulatory challenges it poses. We incorporate the papers in this special issue, underlining their significant contributions to our understanding of the digitalization of finance and its effects. Finally, we discuss the challenges of research in the digital finance area and propose some new avenues for future research

We examine how fintech development affects corporate innovation. Using the city-level fintech index that includes 331 cities, which is constructed based on data from Ant Finance Service Group, we identify the economic mechanisms through which fintech development affects technological innovation. We show that firms that are more financially constrained exhibit a disproportionally higher innovation level in cities with better developed fintech services. We further find that fintech development promotes lending to firms and stimulates R&D investment because internet credit intensifies bank loan competition. Our paper provides new insights into the effects of fintech development on the real economy

This paper is a review of the literature on fintech and its interaction with banking. Included in fintech are innovations in payment systems (including cryptocurrencies), credit markets (including P2P lending), and insurance, with Blockchain-assisted smart contracts playing a role. The paper provides a definition of fintech, examines some statistics and stylized facts, and then reviews the theoretical and empirical literature. The review is organized around four main research questions. The paper summarizes our knowledge on these questions and concludes with questions for future research

We study the personal credit market using unique individual-level data covering fintech and traditional lenders. We show that fintech lenders acquire market share by lending first to higher-risk borrowers and then to safer borrowers, and rely mainly on hard information to make credit decisions. Fintech borrowers are significantly more likely to default than neighbor individuals with the same characteristics borrowing from traditional financial institutions. Furthermore, they tend to experience a short-lived reduction in the cost of credit, because their indebtedness increases more than non-fintech borrowers after loan origination. However, fintech lenders’ pricing strategies are likely to take this into account

We study the impact of FinTech competition in payment services when a monopolist bank uses payment data to learn about consumers’ credit quality. Competition from FinTech payment providers disrupts this information spillover. The bank’s price for payment services and its loan offers are affected. FinTech competition promotes financial inclusion, may hurt consumers with a strong bank preference, and has an ambiguous effect on the loan market. Both FinTech data sales and consumer data portability increase bank lending, but the effects on consumer welfare are ambiguous. Under mild conditions, consumer welfare is higher under data sales than with data portability

We investigate the patterns and performance of banks’ investments in fintech ventures in the United States. We document that banks, as compared to independent venture capitalists (IVCs), invest a larger proportion in fintech startups and achieve a higher IPO exit rate. The better exit performance is neither explained by banks’ tendency to invest in later-round or larger deals, nor contributed by banks’ following successful peer IVCs. Banks’ outperformance is mainly concentrated in fin-native fintech startups and those whose business operations overlap with banks’ core business segments, which is consistent with the corporate venture capital (CVC) literature and the conjecture that banks possess unique industry expertise that facilitates their selection of fintech startups. In addition, banks participate more on the boards of fintech startups than of other ventures, implying that the better investment performance is not purely driven by selection

Motivated by its rapid growth, this paper investigates how FinTech activities influence risk-taking by financial intermediaries (FIs). In this context, the paper revisits an ongoing debate on the impact of competition on financial stability: on one side, it is argued that greater competition encourages greater risk-taking (competition-fragility hypothesis), while the other side asserts that more competition can increase financial stability (competition-stability hypothesis). Using a curated database covering over 10,000 FIs and global FinTech activities, we find a robust relationship whereby greater FinTech presence is associated with heightened risk-taking by FIs, offering support for the competition-fragility hypothesis. However, the inclusion of bank-, industry, and country-specific characteristics can alter this relationship. Importantly, there is suggestive evidence indicating that in certain cases, greater FinTech presence may be associated with less FI risk-taking amid stronger domestic institutions. Notwithstanding the relevance for policy, this paper presents a novel framework that may help reconcile some of the conflicting results in the literature, which have found supportive evidence for each of the two competing hypotheses

After exogenous demand shocks caused by natural disasters, FinTech lenders are more responsive to increased demand for reconstruction mortgages than traditional banks and non-FinTech shadow banks. Both FinTech and traditional banks increase credit supply, but FinTech supply is more elastic without increases in risk-adjusted interest rates or delinquency rates. Comparing lending supply channels, banks respond to regulatory incentives to lend to damaged areas, whereas FinTech lenders supply more credit when traditional banks rely more on balance sheet financing and physical branch networks. Compared to traditional banks, FinTech lenders increase supply elasticity more aggressively in response to local competitive pressure

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

Small business lending (SBL) plays an important role in funding productive investment and fostering local economic growth. Recently, nonbank lenders have gained market share in the SBL market in the United States, especially relative to community banks. Among nonbanks, fintech lenders have become particularly active, leveraging alternative data and complex modeling for their own internal credit scoring. We use proprietary loan-level data from two fintech SBL platforms (Funding Circle and LendingClub) to explore the characteristics of loans originated pre-pandemic (20162019). Our results show that these fintech SBL platforms lent relatively more in zip codes with higher unemployment rates and higher business bankruptcy filings. Moreover, fintech platforms’ internal credit scores were able to predict future loan performance more accurately than traditional credit scores, particularly in areas with high unemployment. Using Y-14 M loan-level bank data, we compare fintech SBL with traditional bank business cards in terms of credit access and interest rates. Overall, while not all fintech firms follow the same approach, we find that fintech lenders could help close the credit gap, allowing small businesses that were less likely to receive credit through traditional lenders to access credit and potentially at lower cost