See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331303690

Financial Technology in Banking Industry: Challenges and Opportunities

Conference Paper · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 7,231

2 authors, including:

Ahmed Taha Al Ajlouni

Qassim University
19 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

cooperative Finance View project

Cooperative Finance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Taha Al Ajlouni on 23 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Financial Technology in Banking Industry: Challenges and Opportunities

Ahmed T.Al Ajlouni* Monir Al-hakim**

An overwhelming interest is growing in financial technology (henceforth:

FinTech) in recent years. This contemporary financial phenomenon characterized
basically by heavy use of technology in communication, some called it network
economics. FinTech service encapsulates –but not restricted to- wide range of financial
services capitalising from the explosive developments in technology, it includes the
payments, clearing and settlement category, followed by credit, deposit and capital-
raising services.
Despite the fact that the FinTech players attract the global attention from the
financial industry leaders and legislators, the issue as a subject of study still in infant
stage, little scientific research has been conducted yet.
The paper aims at first place to shed light on this wave of development in
financial industry that combined with high technology, it aims also to clarify the role of
FinTech in the financial industry in general and banking sector in particular.
The paper obtained its goals in two main phases, firstly; background and
definition of the FiTech, in addition to outlining the current FinTech market segments
and landscape and some alternative financing FinTech platforms will be discussed. In
the second phase, we will identify the influence of FinTech on banking industry and the
required response to face it.
The paper suggested also some future research proposals about the effect of
FinTech on the financial industry and banking sector in the Arab countries.

Key words: Financial Technology, Banking Industry, Platform Competition, Network

Economics.

*
Associate Professor of Finance - Qassim University. KSA.
**Assistant Professor of Islamic Banking and Finance -Applies Private Science University -JORDAN

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 1

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

1. Introduction

Until recently, the financial sector remained largely untouched. This changed with the
breakthrough of the companies that use technology for different financial solutions such as
banking, payments, and personal financial management. These firms used to be called FinTech
firms.
FinTech firms aim to attract customers with products and services that are more user-
friendly, efficient, transparent, and automated than those currently available (Dorfleitner,
Hornuf, Schmitt, & Weber, 2017)
Different Examples of innovations that are central to FinTech today include crypto
currencies and the BlockChain, new digital advisory and trading systems, artificial intelligence
and machine learning, peer-to-peer lending, equity crowd funding and mobile payment
systems.
The challenge that new entrants to the financial industry create against banks through
FinTech is that it competes banks in the core of its business, i.e. credit, these global widespread
electronic platforms became countable rival for the traditional banks in providing credit
especially at the personal and household level, these new competitors have advantage and excel
the traditional banking system in many aspects. The contemporary financial services providers
that successfully target overlooked segments (as crowd funding, p2p, and lending clubs) have
the potential power through diverse modes of finance, these modes and ways in providing them
considered flexible, cost effective, less regulative requirements, and time saving.
The challenges not restricted to credit function, it includes the marketing strategies, high
response and flexibility in providing new services, access to greater number of clients, and
reaching the less banked or even unbanked people around the world.
According to Pierrakis and Collins (2013): "Such innovations can disrupt existing
industry structures and blur industry boundaries, facilitate strategic disintermediation,
revolutionize how existing firms create and deliver products and services, provide new
gateways for entrepreneurship, democratize access to financial services, but also create
significant privacy, regulatory and law enforcement challenges".

2. Background, FinTech definition and dissemination

"Through FinTech, issuers, investors, and intermediaries communicate, research,

socialize, share, cooperate, crowd source, compete and trade in ways that are very different
from the past, thereby challenging the regulatory paradigm. For example, on social trading
sites, investors can follow a lead trader; on angel investment sites, investors follow a lead
investor; on market data sites, artificial intelligence and social media analytics help inform
retail investors’ securities trading and investment decision making".(IOSCO, 2017)
2.1 FinTech Definition
Despite the fact that there's no consensus about the best definition of FinTech and
considering that premature to define a field that is rapidly evolving; tracking the different trials
to define it will give a good view about this contemporary term. The term “FinTech” denotes
companies or representatives of companies that combine financial services with modern,
innovative technologies (Dorfleitner et al., 2017). According to IOSCO (2017), The term

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 2

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Financial Technologies or“ Fintech ”is used to describe a variety of innovative business models
and emerging technologies that have the potential to transform the financial services industry.
Financial Stability Board defined FinTech as a "technology-enabled innovation in financial
services that could result in new business models, applications, processes or products with an
associated material effect on the provision of financial services"(Financial Stability Board,
2017)
2.2 Segments of the FinTech Industry and global landscape
As it is a new field, an official agreement at the segments that shape the borders of this
industry doesn't found yet. In spite of the different trials to segment this industry, most of them
focus on the firms that depend highly on the technology-enabled innovation in financial
services.
Dorfleitner et al. (2017) divided companies in the FinTech industry into four major
segments in accordance with their distinctive business models. By analogy with traditional
value-adding areas of a universal bank, FinTechs can be distinguished on the basis of their
involvement in financing, asset management, and payments, as well as other FinTechs, a loose
assortment of companies that perform other functions. Figure 1 illustrates this categorization.

Fig. 1: Segments of the FinTech industry


Detailed representation of the sub segments of the FinTech industry explained in (Dorfleitner et al.,
2017)pp 7-10.

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 3

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Figure 2 shows the Fintech landscape mapped across eight categories: payments, insurance,
planning, lending and crowdfunding, BlockChain, trading and investments, data and analytics,
and security. Of these, certain aspects of planning, lending and crowdfunding, BlockChain,
trading and investments, data analytics, and security can intersect with securities regulation.
United States has the largest FinTech industry as well as the highest number of FinTech
adopters, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, India, and Germany at a considerable
distance (Ernst, 2014 ; Haddad & Hornuf, 2016).
Fig. 2 the FinTech landscape

Source: Fintech Control Tower, Expand, November 2016

In a different way, adopted, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision categorized

this contemporary industry to three product sectors, as well as market support services, that
reflect the enabling technologies which support these innovative products. The three sectors
relate directly to core banking services, while the market support services relate to innovations
and new technologies that are not specific to the financial sector but also play a significant role
in fintech developments (BCBS, 2017).

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 4

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Fig 3: Sectors of innovative services

According to an informal survey conducted by the BCBS within its member countries,
asking them to identify the significant fintech products and services within their jurisdictions.
The number of fintech companies reported for each sector is shown in Graph 4

Fig 4: key providers per fintech activity

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 5

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

As the above figure shows, the highest number of fintech service providers is in the
payments, clearing and settlement category, followed by credit, deposit and capital-
raising services.

2.3 Volumes
Though it is not easy to quantifying the size and growth of fintech and its potential
impact on the banking industry, a trial to do so by the KPMG (KPMG, 2016)deserve to be seen.
In 2016, global investment in fintech companies hit $24.7 Billion across 1076 deals. One
growth measure that can be used is venture capital (VC) investment in fintech companies. A
KPMG report shows that, in 2016, global venture investment in fintech companies reached
$13.6 billion across 840 deals. A report of IOSCOA pointed to cumulative investments of over
$100 billion in more than 8,800 fintech companies as at November 2016(IOSCO, 2017).
In 2015, global FinTech investment grew by 75%, exceeding the high 22 billion USD
amount, and continues to rise(Skan, Dickerson, & Masood, 2015). This growing number
threatens incumbent retail banks as a new wave of digital banking start-ups has emerged.
The BCBS report pointed that despite the large size of investments and the significant number
of financial products and services derived from fintech innovations, volumes are currently still
low relative to the size of the global financial services sector(BCBS, 2017).

2.4 Alternative Financing FinTech Platforms

The emergence of online alternative financing platforms considered as one of the more
notable developments in recent years, it aimed at bringing together firms and individuals
looking for capital and others that have money to lend, invest or donate (IOSCO, 2017). The
general form of these platforms came through what commonly known as Crowd funding, it
implies raising financial resources from a large number of capital providers "the crowd"
without indicating the purpose of the funding (Moritz & Block, 2014).
(Schwienbacher, 2010)and Larraide defined crowd funding as "the financing of a
project or a venture by a group of individuals instead of professional parties (like, for instance,
banks, venture capitalists or business angels). According to Bradford (2012), crowd funding is
"the use of the Internet to raise money through small contributions from a large number of
investors".
As a common FinTech alternatives that offer credit in contemporary way through crowd
funding financing platforms the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending and equity crowd funding (ECF)

2.4.1 peer-to-peer (P2P) lending

As a substitute to banks in providing credit shoed promised potential, Peer-to-peer
finance (abbreviated frequently as P2P lending) approach one of these alternatives. Since its
first existence through "Zopa" in 2005, P2P platforms developed dramatically in that it
becomes a reliable choice to finance beyond individuals to business entities.
In its standard structure; P2P is a "platforms that facilitate financial services via direct, one-to-
one contracts between a single recipient and one or multiple providers" (Moenninghoff &
Wieandt, 2013).
This business model implies that financing may be obtained from many different
lenders/ investors whether individuals or institutional investors.

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 6

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Peer-to-peer lending can also involve platforms similar to micro financing in that
individuals directly provide capital to other individuals. Government and corporate accelerators
offer a variation of P2P lending by helping entrepreneurs gain access to modest initial amounts
of funding together with mentoring support(Bruton, Khavul, Siegel, & Wright, 2015) .
The P2P platforms as a contemporary FinTech premises disseminated around the globe,
in the developed and developing countries as a kind of crowd funding (Bradford, 2012;
Xusheng, 2014). In USA, personal credit developed in an institutional form is known as Circle
Lending. As of April 2013, the largest peer–to–peer business lending site in the UK."Funding
Circle" has facilitated approximately GBP100 million in loans to over 1,700 companies to date
(Pierrakis & Collins, 2013). The potential market indicates that the projected market of P2P
market in USA will be USD150 billion by 2025. (Price Waterhouse Coopers PWC, 2015)1
A newly established in 2010, exclusively focused on small businesses; "Funding circle"
managed GBP1bn (USD1.5bn) loans to 12,000 businesses in the UK, USA, Germany, Spain
and the Netherlands2.

2.4.2 Equity Crowd Funding (ECF)

ECF is a business model that allows individuals to invest in a company, typically a
start-up or early stage business, in exchange for shares of that company. This mode of FinTech
firms used to be limited to venture capitalists and angel investors(IOSCO, 2017). The platform
is the market-maker, regulated by the relevant financial services authority, and each offering of
shares by entrepreneurs (of fixed duration) is denoted a pitch(Estrin, Gozman, & Khavul,
2017).
Estrin and Khavul (2016) defined equity crowd funding as “an open marketplace for
entrepreneurial finance that takes place on a two-sided online platform and operates within a
social media environment”.
ECF has provided the small investors good opportunity to equity investing in private
companies. A smaller size of the companies involved in these platforms in comparison to those
typically associated with a public securities offering considered as a great addition of these
platforms, it provides entrepreneurs and investors access to an online social media marketplace
where they can trade equity finance for ownership stakes (Cumming & Zhang, 2016; IOSCO,
2017; Rossi & Vismara, 2017).
Though ECF platforms licensed in the developed countries about decade ago ( in
Europe, USA, and Australia), UK still the largest ECF marketplace(Estrin et al., 2017). The UK
regulatory environment has been more open to ECF than have regulators in much of continental
Europe and the USA(Hornuf & Schwienbacher, 2017).

3. FinTech challenge for banks and financial systems (Opportunities and

Threats)

FinTech firms considered as a real rival for the traditional banking system, this
challenging contender have different fronts to face banks; efficiency is one of these fronts.

1
http://www.pwc.com/us/en.html
2
Retrieved from: https://www.fundingcircle.com/uk/about-us/
Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 7
Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

FinTech firms' efficiency increases are mainly due to loan personalization and the
disintermediation of processes by eliminating middlemen, which significantly lowers
transaction costs for consumers (KPMG, 2016; Lines, 2016).
New technologies such as “BlockChain” also enhance efficiency(Peters & Panayi,
2016; Wood, 2015). As banks are usually less likely to adopt new technologies quickly due to
the regulatory environment (Hannan & McDowell, 1984) and often rely on decades-old IT
infrastructure these innovations expected to benefit FinTech firms more. According to Peters
and Panayi (2016), reducing counterparty and settlement risks in shortening the settlement
cycle from 3 days to 2 days will benefits several markets in reducing counterparty and
settlement risks, and BlockChain technologies have the potential to lead to near-instantaneous
settlement.
An opposite look at the FinTech asserts that advances in financial technology
have failed to reduce intermediation costs (Philippon, 2015).According to Buchak, Matvos,
Piskorski, and Seru (2017) FinTech lenders in fact offer higher interest rates than non- FinTech
lenders.
In order to provide a comprehensive look at the expected outcomes that
encapsulates the potential threats and opportunities that FinTech provides for the financial
markets and banking sector, we explored the reports and studies that conducted by the
important bodies interested in the financial markets and institutions in addition to published
studies. Some of these resources took the opportunities and threats of FinTech in general
(BCBS, 2017), others took it for particular segments of FinTech firms (IOSCO, 2017). Though
we focus mainly on banking industry, we believe that the FinTech have merely the influence on
the financial markets and banks with some slight differences. Keeping in mind that the benefit
of opportunities and the degree of exposure to the risks not equal to industry, it depends on
many factors as the local environment, management, and global environment changes. The
ability to Create Strategic Value utilizing Financial Technology is what makes the required
difference between banks.

3.1 Opportunities.
Different studies and specialized reports discussed the suggested the
opportunities and benefits of Fintech for the financial industry from different perspectives,
these opportunities related to consumer and investor protection, market integrity, competition
and financial inclusion, in addition to coordination and cooperation to avoid duplication of
work and reap synergies from the various efforts at the international level (Financial Stability
Board, 2017).
According to the global specialized reports and studies (BCBS, 2017; Financial
Stability Board, 2017; IOSCO, 2017; Peters & Panayi, 2016), we summarized the main
opportunities as follows:
1. Greater access to capital: This appears in the P2P and ECF platforms in providing
credit to borrowers, especially SMEs, who do not have access to bank loans and
opening new possibilities of access to equity finance.

2. Financial inclusion: Digital finance has improved access to financial services by under-
served groups. Technology can reach remote locations. FinTech Platforms are

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 8

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

increasingly targeting larger sized trades and are shifting to firm and executable orders.
Inclusion of new asset classes is another side of this opportunity, as example, many
Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) experts note that one of the benefits of DLT is
that assets that are expensive to source, transact, and deliver such as commodities,
energy products, art pieces, real estate, and private equities can be “tokenized” for
securitization, which in turn makes them available for trading and as collateral.
3. Better and more tailored banking services: banks can benefit from the specialization of
FinTech firms to improve their traditional offerings to deliver them in a cost effective
and flexible way. Banks may, for example, white-label robo-advisors to help customers
navigate the investment world and create a better and tailored customer experience.
4. Cost advantage: this comes from the fact that Fintech firms offers Lower transaction
costs and faster banking services. fintech players may speed up transfers and payments
and cut their costs, as the case of cross-border transfers, fintech companies can provide
faster banking services at lower cost. Several markets have experienced benefits in
reducing counterparty and settlement risks in shortening the settlement cycle from 3
days to 2 days, and blockchain technologies have the potential to lead to near-
instantaneous settlement.
5. Potential positive impact on financial stability due to increased competition: The entry
of new players competing with incumbent banks could eventually fragment the banking
services market and reduce the systemic risk associated with players of systemic size.
6. Regulation Technology (Regtech): Contemporary innovative technologies can help
financial institutions comply with regulatory requirements and pursue regulatory
objectives (as prudential requirements including reporting, consumer protection). banks
can benefit from regTech with more effective ways to improve their compliance and
risk management. It may also be a means of coping with change in the regulatory
environment and driving down the costs involved in meeting the corresponding
requirements.
7. Enhancement in security: For one of the core developments ik FinTech, security is built
into the blockchain through encryption of the blocks and the linkages between the
blocks. Furthermore, attacking every node in a blockchain is more difficult with present
state technology than to attack a central database. FinTech Platforms also providing
various methods to protect anonymity and prevent information leakage.

It is extremely important to note that the clear benefits from fintech, should not be at the
expense of safety and soundness, and consumer protection. Banks and bank supervisors need
to maintain the same level of risk management, control standards and protections to new
emerging delivery channels and services being introduced by financial institutions through
fintech.
Banking standards and expectations should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate new
innovations within the appropriate statutory authorities of jurisdictions; nonetheless, the high
standards for safety and soundness and consumer protection objectives required in the
banking industry need to be maintained(BCBS, 2017).

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 9

 Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

3.2 Threats
Like any development, the Fintech encapsulate not only benefits and opportunities, it
presents a wide variety of risks that cut across various sectors and often blend both tactical
and strategic risk elements. The FinTech risks and threats come mainly from concerns about
the operational risk, compliance, liquidity and volatility of bank funding sources, and the
severe competition. The following risk associated with FinTech, particularly in the banking
sector.
1. Competition on market share (Strategic risk): The potential for rapid unbundling of
bank services to non-bank fintech or BigTech firms increases risks to profitability at
individual banks. Existing financial institutions stand to lose a substantial part of their
market share or profit margin if new entrants are able to use innovation more efficiently
and deliver less expensive services that better meet customer expectations.
2. Risk of collapse, fraud or malpractice by the platform or some of its users: certain cases
of platform fraud have materialized3. Fraud can occur with parties offering (and
buying) securities on the platform.

3. High operational risk – systemic dimension: The rise of fintech leads to more IT
interdependencies between market players (banks, fintech and others) and market
infrastructures, which could cause an IT risk event to escalate into a systemic crisis,
particularly where services are concentrated in one or a few dominant players. The
entrance of fintech firms to the banking industry increases the complexity of the system
and introduces new players which may have limited expertise and experience in
managing IT risks.
4. High operational risk – idiosyncratic dimension: A proliferation of innovative products
and services may increase the complexity of financial services delivery, making it more
difficult to manage and control operational risk. Legacy bank IT systems may not be
sufficiently adaptable or implementation practices, such as change management, may be
inadequate. This kind of risk mainly attributed to the dependence on the robo-advisers,
which cause technical dilemmas like errors in algorithms, overly complex algorithms,
overly simplistic algorithms, and static client information.
5. Increased difficulties in meeting compliance requirements and especially Anti-money
laundering and countering the financing of terrorism AML/CFT obligations: The higher
level of automation and distribution of the product or service among banks and fintech
companies can result in less transparency on how transactions are executed and who has
compliance responsibilities. The Risk of conducting general solicitation/ unlicensed
activities became more than before, platforms may contend that they do not engage in
regulated activities because they only offer execution-only services, information
services, and matching services. Besides, many FinTech platforms may lack
standardization and provide less detail than securities in the public markets.
6. Compliance risk with regard to data privacy: The risk of not complying with data
privacy rules may increase with the development of big data, more outsourcing due to

3
For example, see the CBRC focus in respect to Ezubao: http://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2016/03/83063-chinese-
regulators-vow-to-get-tough-on-online-lending/. The fraud case involved approximately USD7.6 billion and 900,000 investors,
mostly retail, over the span of 18 months.
Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 11
Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

tie-ups with fintech firms, and the associated competition for ownership of the customer
relationship. The availability of platform being operated by unregistered entities could
increase this risk.
7. Cyber-risk: Heavier reliance on application programming interface (APIs), cloud
computing and other new technologies facilitating increased interconnectivity could
potentially make the banking system more vulnerable to cyber-threats, and expose large
volumes of sensitive data to potential breaches.
8. Liquidity risk and volatility of bank funding sources: The use of new technology and
aggregators creates opportunities for customers to automatically change between
different savings accounts or mutual funds to obtain a better return. While this can
increase efficiency, it can also affect customer loyalty and increase the volatility of
deposits. This in turn could lead to higher liquidity risk for banks.

Table 1: List of risks and opportunities emanating from financial technologies and
innovation (BCBS, 2017)
Risks Opportunities
Impact on A. Data privacy A. Financial inclusion
consumer B. Data security B. Better and more tailored banking services
sector C. Discontinuity of banking services C. Lower transaction costs and faster banking
D. Inappropriate marketing practices services
Impact on A. Strategic and profitability risks A. Improved and more efficient banking
banks and B. Increased interconnectedness between financial parties processes
banking C. High operational risk – systemic B. Innovative use of data for marketing and
system D. High operational risk – idiosyncratic risk management purposes
E. Third-party/vendor management risk C. Potential positive impact on financial
F. Compliance risk including failure to protect consumers and stability due to increased competition15
data protection regulation D. Regtech
G. Money laundering – terrorism financing risk
H. Liquidity risk and volatility of bank funding sources
Source: BCBS.

4. Future expectations for the FinTech growth and Banks' strategic response to
deal with it
The strategic and long term direction of FinTech is subject to different expectations;
these expectations differ according to the backgrounds and experiences of the experts. Some
argue that the FinTech firms will gobble up key parts of the franchise of traditional retail banks.
Others suggesting either that the digital banking start-ups will simply fail, or that the traditional
banks will contain these firms and acquire them.
As a new development in the marketplace; the FinTech and its firms represents
challenge that banks should face to capitalize from the opportunities and benefits it provides,
and minimize to the largest degree the threats and risks associated with it.
4.1 Scenarios
As a core global institution interested in banks, the BIS through its Consultative
Document prepared by the Committee on Banking Supervision developed five stylized
scenarios (which are not mutually exclusive) which have drawn mainly from the following

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 11

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

sources. These scenarios describing the potential impact of fintech on banks, as figure 5 shows,
followed by short description of each of scenario(BCBS, 2017):

Fig 5: Overview of the five scenarios and the role players

- The better bank: modernisation and digitisation of incumbent players: In this scenario the
incumbent banks digitise and modernise themselves to retain the customer relationship and core
banking services, leveraging enabling technologies to change their current business models.
The new bank: replacement of incumbents by challenger banks: The new banks apply advanced
technology to provide banking services in a more cost-effective and innovative way. The new
players obtain banking licences under existing regulatory regimes and own the customer
relationship.
- The distributed bank: fragmentation of financial services among fintech firms and banks: In
the distributed bank scenario, financial services become increasingly modularised, but
incumbents can carve out enough of a niche to survive. Financial services may be provided by
the incumbents or other financial service providers, whether fintech or bigtech, who can “plug
and play” on the digital customer interface, which itself may be owned by any of the players in
the market.
- The relegated bank: incumbent banks become commoditised service providers and customer
relationships are owned by new intermediaries: In the relegated bank scenario, incumbent
banks become commoditised service providers and cede the direct customer relationship to
other financial services providers, such as fintech and bigtech companies.
- The disintermediated bank: Banks have become irrelevant as customers interact directly with
individual financial services providers, for instance, using DLT: Incumbent banks are no
longer a significant player in the disintermediated bank scenario, because the need for balance
sheet intermediation or for a trusted third party is removed. Banks are displaced from customer

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 12

 Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

financial transactions by more agile platforms and technologies, which ensure a direct matching
of final consumers depending on their financial needs (borrowing, making a payment, raising
capital etc).

4.2 Suggested response required by banks to deal with FinTech

In spite of the rising wave of FinTech and aggressiveness in taking place in the global
financial and banking system, traditional banks have not yet exhausted the possibilities for
improvements along these lines (Mackenzey, 2015). As it's discussed earlier; FinTech as a
challenge encapsulates many challenges for the traditional providers of financial services in
general and banking industry in particular.
Many bank leaders around the globe looking at FinTech shows it as an opportunity to
"pump" new blood to the traditional banking system as a complement to the retail banking
services. This can be obtained through joint partnerships, service outsourcing, venture capital
funding, or acquisitions. For these banks, FinTechs seem to benefit them more than disrupt
them (Lines, 2016). Moreover, collaborations between banks and different FinTech firms as
start-ups also benefit these firms, it may get access to global payment systems and the banks’
own customer base. This lowers the barriers of entry for FinTech firms to the financial sector
and enables them to gain more trust from their customers (Juengerkes, 2016)
Existing banks may also acquire FinTech companies to gain access to new technology,
which would make it more difficult to find a direct relationship between FinTech funding and
incumbent retail bank stock returns. For example, Capital One, the tenth largest bank in the US
in terms of total assets and market capitalization, acquired FinTech start-up Level Money in
2015(Li, Spigt, & Swinkels, 2017). According to Mackenzey (2015); "an overarching
challenge for banks is how to “open up” structurally – both in terms of how they leverage
partnerships and how they permit other entities to access their capabilities. Those banks that
pursue a thoughtful approach to meeting this challenge will be best positioned to evolve their
business models and find new sources of value for their customers, while performing well
financially".
Different institutions suggested required response of banks to benefit from the
accelerating wave of FinTech to maximize the opportunities and minimize the treats that
FinTech firms represent for the banking industry or the risks associated with adopting Fintech
solutions in banking works. Ten key observations identified by BCBS (2017) and ten
recommendations suggested to deal with FinTech base on these recommendations, they
concentrated on the required actions to be taken by the banks' management, such as ensuring
the safety and soundness of the banking system with minimising the risk of inadvertently
inhibiting beneficial innovation in the financial sector, acquiring effective governance
structures and risk management processes and effective IT and other risk management
processes. In addition to investigating and exploring the potential of new technologies to
improve their methods and processes and review their current regulatory, supervisory and
licensing frameworks in light of new and evolving risks arising from innovative products and
business models.
Six priorities/advices to face the FinTech challenge developed by (Courbe, 2017):
I. Update your IT operating model to get ready for the ‘new normal’

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 13

 Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

II. Slash costs by simplifying legacy systems, taking Software as a service SaaS beyond the
cloud, and adopting robotics.
III. Build the technology capabilities to get more intelligent about your customers’ needs.
IV. Prepare your architecture to connect to anything, anywhere.
V. You can’t pay enough attention to cyber-security.
VI. Make sure you have access to the necessary talent and skills to execute and win.
As the FinTech nature "digital challenge", we find that the most proper priorities that
Mackenzey (2015) suggested through six digital imperatives as exhibited in figure 6

Fig 6: Banks' digital imperatives

1) Use data-driven insights and analytics holistically across the bank.

Competitor FinTech providers powered by data and analytics, large consumer
ecosystems (e.g. Facebook, Google, Apple), or some of the more progressive financial
institutions are opening up new battlegrounds in areas like customer acquisition, customer
servicing, credit provision, relationship deepening through cross-sell, and customer retention
and loyalty. Consider the provision of credit - one of banking’s last big moats.
The large-scale availability of new and big data (and the fact that banks no longer have
a monopoly on such data which they have built and leveraged over centuries) is pushing banks
to radically transform just to keep up. Building a comprehensive data ecosystem to access
customer data from within and beyond the bank; creating a 360-degree view of customer
activities; creating a robust analytics and data infrastructure; and leveraging these to drive
scientific (versus case law-based) decisions across a broad range of activities from customer
acquisition to servicing to cross selling to collections - all are critical to a bank’s future success.
Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 14
Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

2) Create a well-designed, segmented and integrated customer experience, rather than one-
size-fits-all distribution.
The days of banking being dominated by physical distribution are rapidly coming to an
end.
The proliferation of mobile devices and shifting preferences among demographic
groups mean that customers expect more real-time, cross-channel capabilities (e.g. status
inquiries, problem- resolution) than ever before. Physical distribution will still be relevant, but
far less important, and banks must learn to deliver services with a compelling design and a
seamless unconventional customer experience.

3) Build digital marketing capabilities that equal E Commerce giants.

Today, banks are in a fight for the customer, not only with other banks but also non-
banks. In order to fill the gap in marketing skills that currently exists between e commerce
players and banks, banks should mastering digital media, content marketing, digital customer
lifecycle management and marketing. Building these capabilities and recruiting and retaining
digital marketing talent will require considerable time and investment.

4) Aggressively mitigate the potential cost advantage of attackers through radical

simplification, process digitization and streamlining.
After the last dot-com boom, banks successfully electronified core processes. Now they
must digitize them.
This will be a multi-year process for banks, as it will require the integration of multiple legacy
systems and potential re-platforming to enable truly digitized processes. Simplification,
digitization and streamlining opportunities exist across large swaths of banking operations.

5) Rapidly leverage and deploy the next generation of technologies, from mobile to agile to
cloud.
The technology agenda for banks and bank CIOs has become even more demanding and
complex. First and foremost, “mobile-first” is not just a buzzword – it is the clearest directive
banks could receive from consumers about how they want to interact with their service
providers. Secondly, banks must fortify not only their technologies, but also their internal
processes and cultures, to defend customers’ data from breaches. Third, the pace of innovation
in banking is accelerating rapidly, requiring banks to increase their speed to keep up, including
software development through techniques such as agile and continuous delivery. Finally,
significantly faster, more nimble and dramatically lower-cost versions of processing and
storage technologies are now commonplace.
Banks need to move onto such platforms, retiring and replacing legacy systems quickly.
Since such systems are neither easily nor quickly replaced, many banks may choose to move to
a “two-speed architecture” approach that builds more flexible layers of technology on top of
existing systems, but still draws on and interacts with those systems to provide the next
generation of technology agility and seamless customer experiences.
From providing truly scalable application architecture with a particular emphasis on
mobile to addressing the cyber security threats they face every day to learning agile delivery

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 15

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

and modernizing their infrastructure, banks have a challenging but important road ahead in
building next-generation technology capabilities.

6) Rethink legacy organizational structures and decision rights to support a digital

environment.
The typical organization chart of any bank will show a matrix of products and channels, with
physical distribution usually leading in size and scope. The P&Ls that accompany these
matrices vest power in the owners of the channels and products that are most likely to be in the
firing line of FinTech attackers.
These attackers are typically oriented to customer metrics tied directly to their financial
performance. In contrast, most banks have consensus oriented cultures that require a long time
to build alignment. Banks must complement their existing P&Ls with approaches that enable
faster adaptability to external changes and foster cultures that support speedier decision
making. Banks must think hard about how best to organize to support the five preceding
imperatives.

4. Concluding remarks and future research

We tried through this paper to shed light on FinTech as a wave of development in
financial industry that combined with high telecommunication and information technology by
clarify the role of FinTech in the financial industry in general and banking sector in particular.
Despite the fact that the FinTech players attract the global attention from the financial
industry leaders and legislators, the issue as a subject of study still in infant stage, little
scientific research has been conducted yet.
The paper aims at first place to shed light on this wave of development in financial
industry that combined with high technology, it aims also to clarify the role of FinTech in the
financial industry in general and banking sector in particular.
The paper obtained its goals through giving an introduction to know the nature of this
movement; in addition to find out how it defined by the specialists.
We also outlined the current FinTech market segments and landscape around the world by
referring to the most recent professional reports and studies that issued by the global bodies
interested in the financial industry in general and banking sector in particular. An example of
the alternative financing FinTech platforms were discussed also.
In the second phase of this paper, we tried to identify the influence of FinTech on
banking industry and the required response to face it. The future scenarios that may shape the
situation for the banks, the opportunities and threats that encapsulated in the Fintech, and the
recommended responses to face the new challenge of the Fin tech.
At the end, we recommend some proposal for further research in the Arab countries.
The expected influence of FinTech on the banking industry, the suggested response of Arabian
banks to face the Fintech Challenge, preparing banks to the Fitech era, customer willingness to
deal with Fintech firms.

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 16

Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

References
BCBS, B. C. o. B. S. (2017). Sound Practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank
supervisors. Retrieved from Basel-Switzerland: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d415.htm
Bradford, C. S. (2012). Crowdfunding and the federal securities laws.
Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding
entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer‐to‐peer innovations.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9-26.
Buchak, G., Matvos, G., Piskorski, T., & Seru, A. (2017). Fintech, regulatory arbitrage, and the rise of
shadow banks. Retrieved from
Courbe, J. (2017). Financial Services Technology 2020 and Beyond:Embracing disruption. Retrieved
from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/assets/pdf/technology2020-and-
beyond.pdf
Cumming, D. J., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Are Crowdfunding Platforms Active and Effective Intermediaries?
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=28822026
Dorfleitner, G., Hornuf, L., Schmitt, M., & Weber, M. (2017). Definition of FinTech and Description of
the FinTech Industry FinTech in Germany (pp. 5-10): Springer.
Ernst, Y. ( 2014 ). Landscaping UK Fintech. Retrieved from London:
Estrin, S., Gozman, D., & Khavul, S. (2017). Equity Crowdfunding and Early Stage Entrepreneurial
Finance: Damaging or Disruptive? Retrieved from
Estrin, S., & Khavul, S. (2016). Equity Crowdfunding and the socialization of entrepreneurial finance.
Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Financial Stability Board, F. (2017). Financial Stability Implications from FinTech: Supervisory and
Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention. Retrieved from http://www.fsb.org/wp-
content/uploads/R270617.pdf
Haddad, C., & Hornuf, L. (2016). The emergence of the global fintech market: Economic and
technological determinants.
Hannan, T. H., & McDowell, J. M. (1984). The determinants of technology adoption: The case of the
banking firm. The RAND Journal of Economics, 328-335.
Hornuf, L., & Schwienbacher, A. (2017). Should securities regulation promote equity crowdfunding?
Small Business Economics, 49(3), 579-593.
IOSCO. (2017). Research Report on Financial Technologies (Fintech) Retrieved from
https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD554.pdf:
Juengerkes, B. E. (2016). FinTechs and Banks–Collaboration is Key. The FinTech Book: The Financial
Technology Handbook for Investors, Entrepreneurs and Visionaries, 179-182.
KPMG. (2016). The Pulse of Fintech. Retrieved from London:
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/02/pulse-of-fintech-q4-2016.pdf
Li, Y., Spigt, R., & Swinkels, L. (2017). The impact of FinTech start-ups on incumbent retail banks’ share
prices. Financial Innovation, 3(1), 26.
Lines, B. (2016). How FinTech Is Shaping Financial Services: PwC Global Fin-Tech Report.
Mackenzey, A. (2015). The fintech revolution. London Business School Review, 26(3), 50-53.
Moenninghoff, S. C., & Wieandt, A. (2013). The future of peer-to-peer finance. Schmalenbachs
Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 65(5), 466-487.
Moritz, A., & Block, J. H. (2014). Crowdfunding: A literature review and research directions.

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 17

 Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS2018

Peters, G. W., & Panayi, E. (2016). Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain
technologies: Future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money
Banking Beyond Banks and Money (pp. 239-278): Springer.
Philippon, T. (2015). Has the US finance industry become less efficient? On the theory and
measurement of financial intermediation. The American Economic Review, 105(4), 1408-1438.
Pierrakis, Y., & Collins, L. (2013). Banking on Each Other: Peer-to-peer lending to business: evidence
from funding circle.
Rossi, A., & Vismara, S. (2017). What do crowdfunding platforms do? A comparison between
investment-based platforms in Europe. Eurasian Business Review, 1-26.
Schwienbacher, A. L., B. (2010). Crowdfunding of small entrepreneurial ventures
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skan, J., Dickerson, J., & Masood, S. (2015). The future of fintech and banking: digitally disrupted or
reimagined. Accenture, London.
Wood, G. a. B., A (2015). Advancing Egalitarianism. In L. K. D. e. Chuen (Ed.), Handbook of Digital
Currency: Bitcoin,Innovation, Financial Instruments, and Big Data (pp. 385-401). Elsevier:
London.
Xusheng, Y. (2014). Inside China: Reining in P2P lending. International Financial Law Review, 33(6),
224.

Applied Sciences University, Jordan. 11-12 April 2018. 18

View publication stats