Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 6, Issue 6, 2019

Review Article

FINTECH AND DISRUPTIONS: AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT

H.S. PARAMESHWAR1, A. SRUTHIE2, MOUSSA CISSE3, M. AJAY KUMAR4, SIDDHARTH MISRA5*
1Assistant Professor, IFIM Business School, Bangalore. parameshwar.hs@ifimbschool.com
2PGDM Student, IFIM Business School, Bangalore. sruthie.a@ifimbschool.com
3PGDM Student, IFIM Business School, Bangalore. moussa.cisse@ifimbschool.com
4PGDM Student, IFIM Business School, Bangalore. ajay.kumar@ifimbschool.com
5*Adjunct Professor, IFIM Business School, Bangalore. siddharth.misra@accendere.co.in

Received: 13.08.2019 Revised: 12.09.2019 Accepted: 15.09.2019

Abstract
Purpose: Since last few years, Financial Institutions have emerged as a new arena with technological up gradation. Thus, the paramount purpose of this
study is to demonstrate the disruptions from Fintech practices on the traditional financial institutions.
Design/Methodology/ Approach: The study is mixed of exploratory and descriptive research in nature. The data has been collected from the global
fintech report for the three years from 2013 to 2017 and analysed using OLS regression analysis in SPSS and Gretl.
Finding: The traditional financial institutions have disruption priory on savings and number of financial accounts because of Fintech practices; services
like Mobile money account, Payment of utility bills, usage of mobile and internet to access financial institution account and also digital payments. In line
with this, the supporter of Fintech companies such as Venture capitalist, private equities have positive, while merger & acquisitions has negative impact
over GDP of Asian countries.
Originality/ Novelty: The Present research has broadly considered the impact of Fintech over traditional financial institution and GDP of selected Asian
countries by analysing challenges, investment and reasons behind disruption.
Keywords: Fintech, Traditional Institutions, Asian Countries, Disruption, Regression.

© 2019 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22159/jcr.06.06.13

INTRODUCTION
Financial institutions are established to accomplish a paramount goal
in each and every country, in a continent like Asia where the financial
technology is becoming inexorable to follow and its impact is having
effect from most developed countries of Asia to the least developed. Its
performance and success will lead the country’s economy to prosper
and to contribute to the world economy. Traditional financial
institutions are in the era which, they have to change with current
technology, the new proposition of financial technology called Fintech.
It is a finance combination with technology or computer-based
application to make and finance services accessible and more flexible
to the customer with or without the intervention of financial
institutions.
There is no doubt that traditional financial technologies have
undergone a huge transformation throughout the last decade, and the
new types of financial technologies, Fintech represent a currently
innovative and emerging field, which has attracted attention from the
media as well as investors.A study by ‘’Fintech Disruptor Report
(2017), found that financial institutions estimate that up to one-third
of their current revenues could be at risk from Fintech innovations’’.
This impact will make traditional institution to collaborate with
Fintech institutions (for not being out of functioning) or they also can
become Fintech solution provider to stay active. The nature of financial
services in banks, insurers and asset management companies are being
redefined by technologies like artificial intelligence and crypto
currencies (KMPG, 2015).
The Financial Services sector is transforming with the innovative
products and solutions. Customer expectations have primarily driven
those innovative ideas and also continued pressures on cost and
varying regulations have great impact on traditional
services.Addressing the organizational response to Fintech is proving
challenging to many institutions. Fintech is a weak signal to the
financial institution, with its rapid development along with disruptive
impact in traditional financial institutions.
To better understand how traditional financial institutions, including
banking services, insurance companies and asset managers, are
disrupted by emerging Financial Technologies(Fintech), Some of the
Articles, Books, Journals related to this, have been analysed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cornett, Adair, & Nofsinger, (2015) defined Financial Institutions as
any institutions that perform the essential function of channelling
funds from those with surplus funds to those with shortages of funds
[like the traditional one which does not use high-tech in doing so such
as Fintech uses]. These institutions are traditionally made without the
involvement of finance technology to fulfil the financial need in any
institutions.
According to Cornett et al., (2015) there are six types of financial
institutions which allows financial services flows from suppliers of
funds to demander of funds. These institutions are ‘’Commercial Banks,
thrifts, insurance companies, securities firms and investment banks,
finance companies, Mutual Funds, and pension funds’’.Kashyap (2016)
proved that ‘’financial institution is in the nascent stage of digital
disruption’’ [which is the positive impact to early adaptors of Fintech
services to satisfy customers need and negative impacts to those
traditional institutions which did not try to adopt Fintech (Chishti and
Barberis 2016, p.226).
Fintech was a weak signal to the financial institution but with its
rapidly rising with impactful disruption in traditional financial
institutions and it is a dominant area where all financial institution of
any country must look upon. With its dramatics rising in all over the
world from European countries to western countries, and to Asian and
African countries. Sleeves (2016) finds that ‘’the global village that
Fintech enables brings to market and consumers closer supports new

Journal of critical reviews 89

 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

businesses and reduces reliance on the government in the process’’ [of
any country which involves in the so-called Fintech services]
The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions
(IOSCO) (2017) with their IOSCO committee on Emerging Risks (CER)
provided report on the evolution of financial technologies and they
conducted survey of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) along with
World Federation of Exchanges (WFE). In the same vein, Financial
Institutions need to quench the thirst of innovation in order to
withstand the changing digital environment. The study has focused on
the Innovative business models and emerging financial technologies
which would transform entire financial industries and pointed out the
increased growth of computer processing power. While others studies
found the current scenario in digital finance along with their potential
future by using multi stage process. The results reveal that evolution of
financial technology has impact over traditional performance and
practices (Gomber et al., 2017). Ironically it was proved long back that
the processing power of computer has more than doubled every 24
months. And its cost of processing has seen a reduction of 10 billion-
times in the first 50 years of the computer era, started emerging in
1950; It have been noticed a dramatic elevation in memory power of
memory cards in the past few decades; a laptop having one terabyte of
flash storage, which is a growth of 100,000 times in 30 years; and a
single smart phone now has more computing power than NASA had in
1969(Moore, 1965). Another recent report also discussed about the
risks and challenges of these emerging technologies like cross border
risk, malpractice and fraud by the platform and the users.The Financial
industry is growing rapidly with increasing risks and challenges. They
have provided the figure of global Fintech investments from 2005 to
2016 (IOSCO, 2017).

Source: The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) (2017)
Figure 1: Growth of Fintech Investments Till Today
globally to all the continents, which is affecting the current position of
RecentlyEY Fintech Adoption Index (2017) found that ‘’Fintech the world financial-economic.The survey reveals that the average
institutions have reached a tipping point and are poised for adoption rates across twenty (20) biggest markets is 33%, which is
mainstream adoption from 20 biggest markets across the globe’’. And between USA (33%) and South Africa (35%), the highest in China
they find out that those Fintech institutions share two characteristics (69%) and the lowest is Belgium and Luxemburg with (13%). After the
around the globe which are a ‘’laser-like focus on the customer survey predicts that ‘’the primary factor in such a high adoption is that
proposition and a willingness to apply technology in novel ways’’. The Fintech
institutions excel at tapping into this tech-literate but
study also approved that ‘’consumers are drawn to Fintech services financially underserved populations’’ EY Fintech Adoption Index
because of its, simpler, more transparent and more rapidly to (2017).
personalised’’. And it shows that the awareness of Fintech is going

Journal of critical reviews 90

 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment
Source: EY Fintech Adoption Index(2017)
Figure 2: Fintech Adoption Across the Globe
Looking from the above statistics, the adoption of Fintech may affect
the Traditional financial institutions. In line with these various studies
worked on challenges that the Traditional Financial Institutions are
facing and the strategies which they are feverishly using to adapt to the
current trends to survive along with Fintech. In spite of other societal
and regulatory pressures, the importance of digital ecosystem is being
recognized by banks and they are trying to devise strategies to find out
solutions to these problems(Dapp and Slomka, 2015).As study
conducted by Economic Forum (2015), said the ‘’Emerging innovations
[of Fintech] are streamlining or eliminating traditional institutions’
role as intermediaries, and offering lower prices and /or higher returns
to customers’’
Many banks' command of the global “language of the internet” is still
deficient”, Dapp mentioned. This research said that the most of non-
bank sectors are using strategies efficiently to dominate market across
the range of sectors. Traditional banks can do this too. They can utilize
the financial software platforms. The combination of automation and
self-learning systems will provide valuable services to future banking
eco-system.Supporting this, the Study conducted by ‘’Reserve Bank of
India (2017), said that financial institutions are craving for their
knowledge innovation in relation to technological development, both
through having partnerships with fintech companies and through the
acquisition of such companies. The traditional institutions are going to
be displaced with the Fintech disturbances from the way are doing
now. Along with those disruptions and challenges, it is found that we
are witnessing the two types of Fintech implications on traditional
Financial institutions due to its emergence. One is which are
complementing to the major players and the other one is disrupting
the Financial institutions because of its high innovation and
significantly more at odds with traditional functioning(Faid, 2016).
As mentioned in renowned consultancy report on Financial Services
and Technology, about the forces which are disrupting the financial
institutions and implications of technological advances on financial
services sector. Customers’ expectations are met by other industries
Journal of critical reviews
who are providing better services and more value for their money and
time by refreshing the existing strategies for 2020 and beyond
(Courbe, 2016).While another study by TAG Fintech report (2017)
show the degree to which Fintech organizations use data analytics and
big data technologies for revenue growth, gain more customers and
differentiation from the competition (TAG, 2017).
Moreover, according to EY Fintech Adoption Index (2017), Fintech is
using a combination of traditional and non-traditional tools which
helps in driving the country’s growth and sustainability to compete
with the faster growing world.On the contrary, it has been disproven
that the perception of banks in terms of slow-movement, conservation,
and change aversion, primarily the traditional banking sector is
learning that it needs to react and respond to the disruption instigated
by the Fintech sector’’ (as cited in Chishti and Barberis 2016,
p.179).This Research Update suggested some of the changes that
Financial Institutions need to update themselves towards data-centric
data monetizes which would also help banking institutions to mitigate
risks in case of Non-Performing Assets(NPA), Sleeves ,2016. Across the
globe, many financial institutions are updating themselves
technologically to survive in the competitive world.assessed about the
opportunities in Western Africa Financial sectors using Fintech. The
Research talked about the disruptions of the traditional financial
institutions and the solutions they could do along with the IT industry.
This Research totally tells about the process of redefining Financial
services like Remittance, Asset management, payments and so on, with
IT based platforms (Koffi, 2016).The Development such as electronic,
digital, Fintech services has advancement in increasing customer’s
expectations and also to gain market opportunities. These are the
Opportunities assessed in this research paper in West African Financial
Sector.
 Value proposition enhancement.
 Operating cost reduction.
 Loans can be accessed easily.
 Interest rates can be lower.
91
 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment
He, et.al, (2017) also assessed about the implications of Fintech on an
array of financial services and promotion of stability to International
Monetary System.The Research found some solutions of Fintech in
customer needs and services, security, privacy and competitive
landscape changes. This Research primarily focused on cross boundary
changes.Beforehand,the future of Fintech said that the traditional
financial institutions are competed by Fintech start-ups by offering
customer-centric services which serves better speed and flexibility.
And they are vigorously growing around the world.“Fintech companies
are involved in a process of ‘intermediation through innovation’: Big
data, Block-chain, robo-advisors, Internet of everything(IOE)”,
Nicoletti,2017. Hence, the financial services industry has to be
reshaped in order to compete the current digital ecosystem.
In this research, the two critical points for traditional institutions due
to disintermediation are discussed.
 Losing market shares due to the emergence of various new
start-ups.
Source: Evolution of the financial services industry  -  c/o FinTech by Avinash Swamy-WIP market specialist
Figure 3: Evolution of Financial Services with Fintech (Swamy 2015)
Although the researches have been done on financial technologies and
its risks on traditional financial institutions, there is a gap in finding
future potential problems. And worldwide analysis is not done till now.
And there is a requirement to develop a more comprehension of the
risks in-built in platform-based Fintech. There is dearth of research on
the positive and negative impact of Fintech in future perspectives and
relation to the traditional financial institutions. Thus, there is no study
has been conducted to detail how and what Fintech innovation is
having disruption and impact on the traditional financial institutions.
Thus, present research empirically address the Asian countries’
financial industries and about the disruptions what they have faced till
now due to Fintech.The Future potential problems, the traditional
financial institutions could face, will also be discussed in this research.
The major aim of this project is to demonstrate how disruption from
Fintech has dramatically came to change the way that traditional
Journal of critical reviews
 Need to adapt with digital innovations, on par with the
changing environment.
As well as, the emergence of Fintech companies has drawn much
speculation about their potential to disrupt incumbent financial
institutions and take as much as 20% of their earnings by 2020. While
time will tell about these predications, one emerging reality is that
Fintech is creating a new ecosystem where the structure has
incumbents, start-ups and tech firms forming alliances, partnerships,
and investments (Oshodin et al., 2017). The future financial institutions
must operate in a very different way from today’s structures if they
need a competitive advantage by satisfying demands of customers
which have high volatility with the changing world. These types of
institutions have to provide improved performance and user
experience at lower cost(Margaris,2016).The below figure shows the
evolution of financial services from old to new.
financial institutions were in practices and how this impact will lead to
future perspectives. The objectives of this project are:
 To demonstrate the disruption from Fintech, and the
traditional financial institutions no performance in today
technological scenarios. And to show how the progress of
financial institution is leaning in the area of Fintech.
 To demonstrate whether the future of Fintech will make the
traditional financial intuitions no performing institutions or
inadequate to meet current need of clients. And the analysis
of countries GDP growth in Fintech area.
 To demonstrate the investment in Fintech industry and the
pros and cons while looking in partnership with traditional
financial institution practices.
92
 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

METHODOLOGY The econometric result of the first model of regression analysis, where
saving is taken as dependent variable and paid utility bills, received
The paramount purpose of this study is to demonstrate the descriptive digital payment, mobile money account, use mobile or internet to
and exploratory study between traditional financial institutions access account, made or received digital payment, as independents
andFintech institutions. And to identify how disruption from Fintech Variable. This analysis shows that we reject null hypothesize since the
has dramatically come to change the way that traditional financial significance is 0.003 which less than the 0.05 and we accept alternative
institutions were in practice.The research design adopted for this hypotheses. As in general we often reject the null hypothesis if this
study is the exploratoryand descriptive research design under which, chance is smaller than 5% (p < .05) and this is universally accepted for
observation on survey of existing researchis explored and the any hypothesis testing. Means that, the independent variables have
described the relation between Traditional and fintech institutions. positive statistical significance and correct on the independent
The target population for this study is the evolution of Fintech industry variables on saving. The R and R 2 shows that we describe the
into the global financial sector around the world, though the sample of independent variables by the dependent at 1, which means at 100% of
the present study is emerging economies like the Asiancountries. The resembling level.
sample selection is based on economically related seven countries will
be selected in Asia. For this study, the sample size for data collection is Table 2: Regression Result on Coefficients
based on seven Asian countries viz., Nepal, Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Coefficients
Thailand, Philippines and Vietnam based on the likelihood or relevance
on the GDP growth; countries overall income level and Fintech Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
practices evolution in those countries. The sample frame adopted for Coefficients Coefficients
this study is at the level of which the disruption of Fintech technology B Std. Beta
is happened; where the adoption of Fintech is happening, and at which Error
level, the lower or middle-income countries can be described by the 1 (Constant) .047 .001 65.780 .010
evolution of Fintech.The data sources for this study is guided by
MPINt .374 .006 .350 62.399 .010
secondary sources, where relevant and reliable sources of data are
collected from World Bank data (2015-2017)and other relevant DGIpYm .342 .005 .641 62.283 .010
websites such as Global Fintech report (from 2013 to 2017), World RecdPYM .705 .007 .945 104.331 .006
Fintech Reports (2017) and PWC Global Fintech survey (2017).World MMA -2.864 .015 -.982 - .003
bank data were used to access data from traditional financial 188.682
institutions data with Fintech and non-Fintech practices (2015-2017)
PU -.047 .001 -.072 -40.501 .016
and selected countries’ GDP percentage growth (from 2013 to
2017).Global Fintech report were used to access Fintech investment on a. Dependent Variable: SV
private equity, venture capital merger and acquisition in Asia (from
2013 to 2017). The World Fintech Reports is used to access the data on In the coefficient result of the analysis,the R and R 2 have complete level
pros and cons of Fintechwhile partnering with traditional financial of values (1.0000), which indicate that 100% of variables in saving of
institution (from March 2017). And the PWC Global Fintech survey is traditional financial institutions can be explained by Fintech variables
used to access data on the incumbents’activities believed are already such as paid utility, received digital payment, mobile money account,
conducting with Fintech companies (from 2016 to 2017). and made or received digital payment. In another way, good
The dependent variables in this research study were based on Saving resemblance can be highly due to the strong relationship between
and financial institution account, whereas the independent variables dependent and independent variables.
were based on eight predictors viz., paid utility, mobile money account, The standardized coefficients,Beta of independent variables shows
made or received digital payment; debit card& credit card payment, that, received digital payment has the greatest impact on the
paid utility bills anduse of mobile phone or internet to access financial dependent variables since it is 0.945. Mobile or internet usage
institution.Data analysis process is a study on quantitative data. The (0.350)and made digital payment (0.641) have the minimum level on
information for this research are collected and then coded into the outcome on saving. And mobile money account (-0.982) and utility
computerized analysis method (in excel and then Tableau for paid (-0.072) has negative effect on the outcome the dependent
representation), through which information are entered in statistical variable.
software like IBM SPSS for linear regression analysis on traditional The significance levelof the independent variables isimpacting savings
financial institution data with Fintech data. Then Gretel is used to by usage of mobile or internet (0.10) and made digital payment (0.10)
analyse the ordinary least square (OLS) regression model on countries have the same significance level; received digital payment (0.006) and
GDP growth with Fintech investment. mobile payment (0.003) and utility paid (0.16).
Therefore, the result from the table 1 of regression analysis is
Data Analysis and Interpretation on the Results following alternative hypothesis implying that the linear effect from
paid utility, received digital payment, mobile money account, usage of
In this section interpretation of data analysis has been done with the mobile or internetto access account, and made digital payment on
results obtained in regression analysis. saving at financial institution cannot be rejected.
1) Regression Analysis
Table 3: Financial Institution with 3 Predictors
Table 1: Regression Result on Saving with 5 Predictors Model Summary
Model Summary Mo R R Adjus Std. Change Statistics
Mo R R Adjus Std. Change Statistics del Squ ted R Error R F df df Sig.
del Squa ted R Error R F df df Sig. are Squar of the Squa Chan 1 2 F
re Squar of the Squa Change 1 2 F e Estim
e Estim
re ge Chan
re Chan ate Chan ge
ate Chan ge ge
ge
1 .92 .855 .710 12.93 .855 5.88 3 3 .090
1 1.00 1.00 1.000 .0004 1.00 91081. 5 1 .003
0a 0 0 0 316
5a 500 9
a. Predictors: (Constant), PU, MPINt, RecdPYM, MMA, DGIpYm a. Predictors: (Constant), MIFIA, PUB, DC
b. Dependent Variable: SV b. Dependent Variable: FIA

Journal of critical reviews 93

 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

The econometric result of the second model of regression analysis, indicate 100% of variables in traditional financial institutions account
where financial institution account is taken as dependent Variable and can be explained by 100% correlation with Fintech variables.
debit card payment, paid utility bills and usage of mobile phone or the The standardized coefficients, Beta of independent variables shows
internet to access a financial institution account as independents that; debit card has the greater impact on the outcome on financial
Variable. This analysis shows that toreject null hypotheses since the institution account. And paid utility bills and usage of mobile or
significance of 0.090 is more than the 0.10 and to accept the alternative internet to access a financial institution account had negative
hypotheses. Therefore, the result from the regression model is coefficients. Therefore, the result from the table 3 of regression
alternative hypotheses. analysis is alternative hypothesis havinglinear effect from debit card,
paid utility bills and usage of mobile or internet to access account on
Table 4: Regression Result on Coefficients no. of financial institution account cannot be rejected.
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig. Table 2: Model Overall Summary
Coefficients Coefficients Sl. Dependant R Predictors
No variables Square
B Std. Beta
Error 1 Saved at 1.000 Paid Utility bills, Received Digital
financial Payment, Mobile money Account,
1 (Constant) 54.928 19.976 2.750 .071
institution Mobile or Internet to access account,
DC 2.090 .732 1.974 2.853 .065 account Made or Received Digital Payment
PUB -.745 .358 -.524 - .129 2 Having 0.855 Debit card, paid utility bills and the of
2.081 Financial used a mobile phone or the internet to
MIFIA -2.781 1.580 -1.209 - .177 institution access account
1.760 account
a. Dependent Variable: FIA
2) Data Analysis on Fintech in Partnership with Traditional
We can see in the second regression model that the R (0.925) and R 2 Financial Institution
(0.855), has more than 85% level on the dependent variable, which

Activities incumbents believe consumers are already

conducting with Fintech Companies
90%
80% 84%
70%
60% 68%
60%
50% 56%
40% 49%

30% 38% 38%

20%
10%
0%

Figure 4: Activities incumbents believe consumers are already conducting with Fintech Companies
started transferring funds with the help of Fintech companies. On the
This % denotes the customers already using Fintech for some of the other side, wealth Management is a service with least percentage that
above financial activities. As per the table, the higher percentage of customers have started conducting with Fintech, reducing the usage of
customers from financial institutions started using payments from traditional financial institution.
Fintech companies rather than the traditional financial
institutions.68% of customers from different financial institutions

Journal of critical reviews 94

 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

Key Reasons Fintech partner with Traditional Financial Services

Firm(%)(2017)
70.00% 66.40%
60.00% 59.10%
60.00% 55.50%

50.00%
40.00% 31.80% 30.00%
30.00%
20.90%
17.30%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Figure 5: Key Reasons Fintech partner with Traditional Financial Services Firm(%)(2017)
visibility by partnering with the established brand name. Secondly,
This % denotes the Fintech that have given a rating of more than 5 on a they would achieve the economies of scale thereby reducing operating
scale of 1-7 for each reason. The Maximum number of Fintechsaid expenses and thirdly, they could gain the customer trust if they partner
that the major reason why Fintech companies want to partner with with renowned traditional institutions.
traditional financial institutions is that it would provide enhanced

Challenges Fintech face while looking for a Partner

Distribution Mechanism 12.7%
Fear of losing control 17.3%
Terms of Partnership 18.2%
Scale of Business 21.8%
Product/Service Cannibilism 25.5%
IT Compatibility 29.1%
Regulatory Burden 30.9%
Cultural Fit 39.1%
Willingness of Partnering 59.1%
Traditional firm's lack of agility 70.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Figure 6: Challenges Fintech face while looking for a Partner
following traditional systems year by year. 59.1% of Fintech have given
This % denotes the Fintech that have given a rating of more than 5 on a more than 5 scale for lack of willingness in partnering with Fintech
scale of 1-7 for each of the challenges. The major challenges which companies. And 39.1% of Fintech have given more than 5 scale for
Fintech are facing while looking for a partnership with traditional difficulty in cultural fitness.
financial institutions are lack of agility fromFintech firm as they are

Journal of critical reviews 95

 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

Concerns when working in a partnership- Fintech

perspective(%)(2017)

22.70%
Aegis Implementation
61.80%
IT Engagement
37.30%
Cultural Fit
Business Engagement
37.30% Shared Investment
47.30%

Figure 7: Concerns when Working in a Partnership- Fintech Perspective(%)(2017)

DISCUSSION
This % denotes the Fintech that have given more than 5 on a scale of 1-
7 for each concerns when working in a partnership with traditional From the above analysis, the relationship between traditional variable
financial institutions. They said in this pie chart that 61.80% of Fintech like savings in financial institution account and Fintech variable like
have given more than 5 scale for Aegis implementation and 47.30% for payment of utility bills, usage of internet and mobile to access financial
IT engagement since this is a huge process to convert on a whole. institution account, made or received digital payments in last year and
mobile money account is analysed. And, it is found that Fintech have
3) Regression Analysis Models: Impact of Private Equity, Venture greater impact over traditional financial account. Among all, we have
Capital on GDP of Countries in Asia found mobile money account and paid utility had a great negative
impact on traditional financial institution savings which reflects the
Table 3: Model 1: OLS, using observations 2012-2017 Fintech disruption from Fintech on traditional financial institutions. Other
investment with GDP growth traditional financial institution variables like Withdrawal and No
Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p- R2 withdrawal & No deposit in past years have no significant level with
value those Fintech variables.
PE 0.708341 0.135796 5.216 0.006 ** The relationship between traditional financial account variable like
4 * 0.87183 people having financial institution account and Fintech variable like
2 debit cards, usage of internet and mobile to access financial institution
VC 0.280144 0.028142 9.955 0.000 ** 0.96120 account and payment of utility bills is analysed. It is found that usage of
3 6 * 0 internet and mobile to access financial institution account has a greater
M −0.0012517 0.028823 −0.0434 0.968 0.00062 impact on having financial institution account which implies higher the
A 9 3 3 1 8 usage of internet and mobiles, lesser the people having financial
institution account. People are more likely to use mobile or internet
Private Equity banking facility rather than traditional financial account. Withdrawal
Here, the significant value, p is 0.0064 which is very less than 0.5 and Deposit in Traditional financial account have very less confidence
thereby we can reject null hypothesis.And the value of R2 is 0.8718 level with the above Fintech variables reflecting no effect over
which is also describing 87% of relationship between private equity withdrawal and deposit from Fintech.This study described about the
and GDP. The co-efficient of private equity is 0.7083 which represent customers of traditional financial institutions who are already
the impact on GDP on per unit change in private equity. conducting services with Fintech. In that chart, services like payments
and fund transfer are heavily disrupted in traditional financial
Venture Capital institutions by Fintech.
The significant value, p of venture capital is 0.0006 which is very less Along with the above-mentioned disruptions, the research has found
than 0.5 thereby we can reject null hypothesis. And the value of R2 is that Fintech companies are willing to partner with traditional financial
0.9612 which is also describing 96% of relationship between venture account for the benefits of risk mitigation, product efficiency and for
capital and GDP. Per unit change in Venture capital will impact GDP innovative solutions. From the figure 2, the research explained how
0.2801 times since the co-efficient of venture capital is 0.2801. Fintech companies are willing to merge up with traditional institutions
and some of the major positive considerations Fintech companies hope
Merger and Acquisition they could have in merging and acquisitions. They believed to have an
From the above table the p value is 0.9681 which is greater than 0.5 enhanced visibility by partnering with the established brand name and
therefore it has no significance. And the value of R 2is 0.000628 which also to achieve economies of scale including customer engagement.
cannot describe the relationship between merger and acquisition and This research has shown the challenges that Fintech companies are
GDP. facing in partnering with traditional financial institutions. From the
data, it is understood that the traditional financial institutions lack
agility and are not willing to partner with Fintech companies.
Regulatory burdens and IT compatibility are also the challenges; they
Journal of critical reviews 96
 Fintech And Disruptions: An Impact Assessment

are facing in partnering.The factors affecting interest of Fintech in REFERENCES

partnering with traditional financial institutions. Traditional firm’s lack
of agility, IT engagement and cultural fit are the major concerns for 1. Campbell, et.al, (2017). Technology Association of Georgia,
Fintech companies in partnering with traditional firms. Georgia Institute of Technology and Raymond James, 2016
This Research has tried to explain how deals of Venture Capital, Private Research update.
equity and Merger & Acquisitions are impacting GDP of a country. 2. Chishti, S., & Barberis, J. (2016). The Fintech book: the financial
From analysis 3, the relationship of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of technologyhandbook for investors, entrepreneurs and
seven Asian countries from 2012 to 2017 with the data of merger & visionaries.John Wiley & Sons. (1st ed.pp.51-226-238-232)
acquisitions, private equity and venture capital in Asia is analysed. 3. Cornett, M, M., Adair, T, A., Nofsinger, J. (2015). Finance:
Private equity and Venture capital have positively impacted the GDP. Application & Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Education (3rd ed.,
On the other side, Merger and Acquisitions (MA) have negative impact pp.197-198)
over GDP which implies higher the MA, lower will be the GDP since it 4. Courbe (2016).Financial Services Technology 2020 and Beyond:
has greater impact on employment and growth. Embracing disruption. PwC’s 19th Annual Global CEO Survey, Jan
2016.
CONCLUSION 5. Dapp, T., & Slomka, L. (2015). Fintech reloaded–Traditional banks
as digital ecosystems. Publication of the German original.
The major aim of this study is to demonstrate how disruption from 6. Faid, N. (2016). Luxembourg, a Future FinTech Hub?. The FinTech
Fintech has dramatically came to change the way that traditional Book: The Financial Technology Handbook for Investors,
financial institutions were in practices. And how these practices Entrepreneurs and Visionaries, 51-52.
influenced the overall growth of selected Asian countries in term of 7. Fintech Disruptor Report (2017). Innovation, distributed:
GDP and investment in Fintech of private equity, venture capital and mapping the Fintech Bridge in open source era.
merger and acquisition in Asia as a whole.Based on the historical data, Magnacartacomms. (pp. 16).
it is discovered that Saving at traditional financial institution is 8. Gomber, P., Koch, J. A., & Siering, M. (2017). Digital Finance and
significantly impactedby paid utility, received digital payment, mobile Fintech: current research and future research directions. Journal
money account, usage of mobile or internet to access account, Made of Business Economics, 87(5), 537-580.
Digital Payment and also financial institution account is impactedby 9. He, M. D., Leckow, M. R. B., Haksar, M. V., Griffoli, M. T. M.,
the usage of debit card, the received digital payment, usage of mobile Jenkinson, N., Kashima, M. M., ... & Tourpe, H. (2017). Fintech and
or internet to access account and paid utility bills. Thus, in overall the Financial Services: Initial Considerations. International Monetary
study has demonstrated the disruption from Fintechon traditional Fund.
financial institutions implies no performance in today technological 10. IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (Fintech).2017.
era. This study found that the progress of financial institution is leaning Retrieved from https://www.iosco.org>IOSCOPD554
in the area of Fintech and the future of Fintech can make the traditional 11. Kashyap (2016). The Fintech book: the financial
financial intuitions no performing institutions or inadequate to meet technologyhandbook for investors, entrepreneurs and
current need of clients. The impact of the investment on private equity, visionaries.John Wiley & Sons. (1st ed.p.-22)
venture capital and merger and acquisition in Fintech industry on 12. Koffi, H.W.S. (2016) The Fintech Revolution: An Opportunity for
Asian country’s GDP growth and the key reasons and challenges the West African Financial Sector. Open Journal of Applied
Fintech companies are facing while looking for partnership with Sciences, 6, 771-782.
traditional financial institution practices are discussed. 13. KPMG. (2015a). “Fintech 100 - Leading Global FinTech Innovators
Report 2015,”.
To conclude, this study attempted in bringing Fintech practices or 14. Margaris, S. (2016). The FinTech Supermarket–The Bank is Dead,
applications and their performance in today scenario. The outcomeof Long Live the Bank!. The FinTech Book: The Financial Technology
this study is to create awareness on how Fintech is changing the Handbook for Investors, Entrepreneurs and Visionaries, 238-240.
traditional financial institutions and its disruptive impact on the future 15. Nicoletti, B. (2017). The Future of Fintech: Integrating Finance and
of Asianfinancial intuitions. Since nowadays Fintech has become an Technology in Financial Services. Springer.
inexorable way to follow in all financial institutions and its impact is 16. Oshodin, O., Molla, A., Karanasios, S., & Ong, C. E. (2017). Is
having a paramount goal for the success of all financial institutions. FinTech a Disruption or a New Eco-system? An Exploratory
Thus, the research has described the disruptions of Fintech on Investigation of Banksr Response to FinTech in Australia.
traditional financial institutions. The major limitation of this study is In Proceeding of Australasian Conference on Information
based on the selection of seven Asian countries out of the 48 (forty- Systems (pp. 1-11).
eight) counties. It is due to difficulty in finding data, cost and short 17. Reserve Bank of India (2017). Report of the Working Group on
timeframe.For future research, it is suggested to do an analysis on how Fintech and Digital Banking (p.2- 5-7). Retrieved
future disruption will be; why Fintech investment is having a From:https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs PublicationReport/
downward sloping in the past 3 years and what are the different Pdfs/WGFR68A A1890D7334D8F8F72CC2399A27F4A.
Fintech technologies that are developing in the near future in 18. Sleeves (2016). The Fintech book: the financial
traditional financial institution. technologyhandbook for investors, entrepreneurs and
visionaries.John Wiley & Sons. (1st ed.pp.51-179)
19. Swamy, A. (2015). Evolution of Financial Services with Fintech.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 20. TAGFintech report (2017). Data analytics/Big data in financial
The satiation and euphoria that accompany the successful completion services. Retrieved from
of this research would be incomplete without the mention of the https://www.tagonline.org/files/documents/TAG-FinTech-2017-
people who made it possible. We thank the research team of Accendere Data-Analytics-Big-Data-Research-Report.pdf
Knowledge Management Services, CL Educate Ltd. for their unflinching 21. World Economic Forum Report (2015). The future of financial
guidance, continuous encouragement and support to successfully services. Retrieved
complete this research work. fromhttp://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_future__of_finan
cial_services.pdf
22. World Fintech Report (2017). Capgemini. (pp. 23-22-24,).

Journal of critical reviews 97