Revolutionising the financial industry. The role of FinTech banks in the digital age

Term Paper, 2020

44 Pages, Grade: 1,3



Table of contents

1 Introduction
1.1 Objective and problem definition
1.2 The term “FinTech”
1.3 Approach and limitations

2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Digital transformation in the banking industry
2.2 Financial needs and behaviours in the digital age
2.3 Current offer in the digitised market

3 Research design
3.1 Research methodology
3.2 Conceptualisation of the questionnaire

4 Data analysis
4.1 Statistical evaluation of the survey results
4.2 Hypothesis testing
4.3 Discussion

5 Conclusion
5.1 Summary
5.2 Recommendation

6 Appendix
6.1 Some example definitions of FinTechs
6.2 German FinTechs on the rise
6.3 Different FinTech types
6.4 Questionnaire
6.4.1 Landing page of the questionnaire according to the TDM
6.4.2 Demographic section of the questionnaire
6.4.3 Subject-related section of the questionnaire
6.5 The generations defined
6.6 FinTechs with the largest customer base
6.7 Ten commandments of question formulation
6.8 Survey results
6.8.1 Question 1 + 2: Gender distribution by generation
6.8.2 Question 4: Separation FinTech-user & non-FinTech-user
6.8.3 Question 5: Necessity of FinTechs
6.8.4 Question 6: Appreciated characteristic of FinTechs
6.8.5 Question 7: Types of FinTechs
6.8.6 Question 8: Reasons for not using FinTechs
6.8.7 Question 9: Use of traditional banks
6.8.8 Question 10: Level of satisfaction with traditional banks
6.8.9 Question 9 + 10: Satisfaction based on the bank
6.8.10 Question 11: Main expectations from a bank
6.8.11 Question 12: Replacement of traditional banks
6.8.12 Question 13: Usage of bank branches
6.8.13 Question 14: Willingness to change the principle bank
6.9 Data analysis
6.9.1 Hypothesis tests for proportions
6.9.2 Hypothesis testing
6.9.3 Graphical representation of the hypothesis test


List of abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of figures

Fig. 1: Hypothesis test formula

Fig. 2: FinTech startups in Germany have risen

Fig. 3: The top 250 FinTech companies in categories

Fig. 4: Design of the questionnaire

Fig. 5: Demographic part of the questionnaire

Fig. 6: Subject related part of the questionnaire

Fig. 7: The generations defined

Fig. 8: FinTechs with the largest customer base

Fig. 9: Question 1 + 2: Gender distribution by generation

Fig. 10 Question 4: FinTech-users & non-Fintech-users

Fig. 11 Question 5: Necessity of FinTechs

Fig. 12 Question 6: Appreciated characteristic of FinTech

Fig. 13 Question 7: Types of FinTechs

Fig. 14 Question 8: Reasons for not using FinTechs

Fig. 15 Question 9: Use of traditional banks

Fig. 16 Question 10: Satisfaction for traditional banks

Fig. 17 Question 9 + 10: Satisfaction based on the bank

Fig. 18 Question 11: Main expectations from a bank

Fig. 19 Question 12: Replacement of traditional banks

Fig. 20 Question 13: Usage of bank branches

Fig. 21 Question 14: Willingness to change bank

Fig. 22 Hypothesis test for proportions

Fig. 23 Hypothesis testing

List of tables

Tab. 1: Some example definitions of Fintechs

Tab. 2: Ten commandments of question formulation

1 Introduction

1.1 Objective and problem definition

“Banking is necessary, banks are not”,1 Bill gates already stated in 1994.2 Internal factors, such as low margins and cost pressures, in addition to external factors, such as the financial crisis and the prioritisation of regulatory requirements, have alienated the banking sector from its customers.3 The traditional banking industry is increasingly obsolete4 and has failed to innovate over a long period of time.5 According to recent researches, traditional banks will not only lose 30% of its turnover;6 76% are even afraid of losing complete parts of its businesses to FinTechs.7

Since 2015, the use of FinTech banks have risen strongly.8 This has shaken the foun­dations of traditional institutions, as well as the earnings model,9 due to the technol­ogy-enabled concept of FinTechs, without physical branches.10 Nevertheless, some researchers evaluate the financial reshape as sceptical, on account of the inherent risk of applying technology to finance.11 With regards to having a point of contact, surveys have shown that individuals, including young people, continue to attach great importance to the ability to have personal contact in a branch setting.12

Whether Bill Gates' statement will take place in the next few years remains to be seen.13 The hypothesis that is tested in the following investigates present consumer preferences for financial services, main intensions for using FinTechs, as well as po­tential trust issues.

1.2 The term “FinTech”

The term “FinTech” is derived from the terms “financial services” and “technology”;14 however, it is defined differently in the literature, which makes an uniform definition difficult.15 Some definitions deal with channels, while others assume a product per- spectives.16 Other descriptions refer to FinTechs as internet-based non-banks that provide services like payment transaction solutions, social trading, crowdfunding and personal financial Management.17 In some sources, FinTechs are classified as direct banks due to their digital self-service nature, lack of physical branches and consumer- focus.18 FinTechs are also known as challenger banks,19 internet finance,20 mobile banks21 and digital banks.22

In the following, FinTechs are seen as ”financial service companies that were created on highly innovative and disruptive service technologies.”23 With this in mind, the writ­ten assignment considers the entirety of the FinTech industry, irrespective of chan­nels, products and banking licenses. The unified term “FinTech” is used throughout this research.

1.3 Approach and limitations

In light of the problems that FinTechs and corresponding changes in customer needs have caused traditional banks, the purpose of this written assignment is to evaluate the current conditions of the financial market and provide future predications. First, the theoretical framework is outlined to present an overview of digital transformation in the banking industry, as well as an insight into the historical changes that have occurred. A brief overview of the financial needs and behaviours in the digital age is subsequently set out, as well as the current offers in the digitised market, to receive an impression of different types of FinTechs. The third chapter deals with the conceptualisation of an online questionnaire that was used to supplement the sec­ondary sources with primary data to yield a more in-depth understanding of the above­mentioned issue. In the course of this development, the written assignment examines the following hypotheses:

- Null hypothesis: In Germany, 30% or less of the population are using FinTech banks: Ho: p < 30%
- Alternative hypothesis: In Germany, more than 30% of the population are us­ing FinTech banks: Hi: p > 30%

The data analysis of the primary material and the testing of the null hypothesis is described in chapter four. By means of a one-tail test for proportion, the null hypoth­esis is tested and either rejected or confirmed. A further set of analysed questions develops a more detailed view and predictions of future prospects. Moreover, the subchapter 4.3 discusses the limitations, the potential contradictions between the lit­erature and the survey, as well as contradictions within the survey itself. Finally, a conclusion is drawn, which additionally provides recommendations for future actions.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Digital transformation in the banking industry

The first financial transactions occurred 500 years before the birth of Christ, where metal objects were used as the first form of payment. Since then, the financial industry has continuously developed, from the first paper money, to the first bank card in i946, up to the digitalisation of payment.24 In particular, in the last few years, major changes have appeared in the consumer finance market, from brick and mortar to online busi­ness models.25 Since 20i0, numerous innovations that fall under the umbrella of FinTech have sought to meet specific customer needs.26 While banks have focused on regulatory requirements, FinTechs have focused on customer experiences27 and have disrupted the market.28 Due to their digitised business model and lack of physical subsidiaries, they can offer cheaper services.29 In the last few years, the subsidiaries of traditional banks in Germany have fallen by 3.9%,30 and the pace of branch clo­sures is rapidly increasing,31 while the number of FinTech start-ups in Germany has risen.32 Regulations have evolved to meet the needs of this changing market. New rules have been implemented, such as the EU's revised Payment Service Directive (PSD2) in 2018, which allows online retailer and non-banks to handle payments. This law simplifies the storage and sharing of data additionally.33

2.2 Financial needs and behaviours in the digital age

As discussed above, major transformation has taken place in the past few years. New technologies in the financial sector have not only changed the market, but have also transformed the consumer.34 A key reason for changing customer behaviours is the wide range of alternative services.35 In the payment sector, customer deem it self- evident that they have a broad choice of payment-methods. Furthermore, customers expect lower prices and detailed information about products, as well as recommen­dations from other customers.36

Millennials in particular use new technologies extensively,37 such as mobile banking,38 as it takes less time and is more affordable.39 A survey conducted by Ernst & Young showed that the adoption of FinTech banks was highest among the 25-34 year olds, though the 35-44 year age group also showed high adoption.40 Nevertheless, a main reasons why customers do not change their principle bank is the bureaucracy involved in informing all points of contact, such as employers and landlords. Therefore, the current trend is to rely on several different banks.41

2.3 Current offer in the digitised market

The change in customer behaviours and the presence of FinTechs have already and continue to force traditional banks to embrace digitisation.42 At the time of writing, 88% of the market are cooperating with FinTechs.43 For instance, while the Commerzbank is cooperating with 73 FinTechs, the Deutsche Bank cooperates with 63.44 In addition to these partnerships, some traditional banks also seek to compete with the new chal­lenger banks. For instance, Sparkasse and Volksbank have implemented a mobile­transfer-system called kwitt45 that enables customers to send money in real time, mostly without a security code or transaction number and free of charge.46 The FinTech companies Lendstar, Cookies and Cringle offered a similar service and were forced to file for insolvency due to the offer from established financial institutions.47 While 760,000 Sparkassen customers already use kwitt, only 110,000 Volksbank cus­tomers currently utilise the system.48

During the development of various FinTechs, some differences became apparent. Some seek to expand the traditional banking business model and improve its effi­ciency, while others wish to attack traditional banks through innovative customer-ori­ented solutions.49 The FinTech N26 is an example of an aggressive challenger.50 In 2019, the company was named the most successful start-up company, with a record valuation of 3.5 billion euros. In June, the company recorded a growth of 3.5 million customers,51 with customer deposits of over 2.4 billion euro.52

Besides N26, there are various types of FinTechs53 that focus on financing, banking, wealth management and payments.54 But even here, as for the term “FinTech”, no uniform categorization exists. Currently, the largest market segment is the digital payment sector, with a total volume of ii2,866 million euro.55 This segment includes alternative payment methods, such as mobile payment, peer-to-peer and instant pay­ment services, as well as e-wallets.56 Some sources distinguish e-wallets and pay­ment processors.57 An example of an innovative FinTech in the payment transaction field is Paypal. In contrast to traditional online banking, Paypal does not require a working day to execute an order.58 Circle is an example of a well-known mobile wallet that accepts euros, pounds and US dollars in 29 countries.59 The most original FinTech category is the lending segment. The company SoFi offers student loans as well as personal loans, while LendingClub offers personal and business loans.60 In addition, some FinTechs offer financial management tools (i.e. Dave), which supports customers in avoiding overdraft fees and helps them save money by monitoring their accounts.61

Nevertheless, FinTechs are still at an early stage, particularly as the future develop­ment of artificial intelligent, cloud computing and blockchain is not yet known. Most FinTechs do not have banking licenses as they are highly difficult to obtain. However, there are exceptions, such as N26 or Wirecard, which have acquired full banking li­censes; meanwhile, some FinTechs have obtained sub-bank licenses.62

3 Research design

3.1 Research methodology

The alternative hypothesis, “In Germany, more than 30% of the population are using FinTech banks”, is formulated on the basis of comprehensive research. The survey was conducted via the internet using the tool umfrageonline and was inspired by a 20i9 Statista survey about FinTechs and mobile payment in Germany.63 The author distributed a link to the survey (https://www.umfrageonline.eom/s/38689f9) through various channels, such as LinkedIn, Facebook and WhatsApp.

To achieve the best possible validity, the author decided to execute a pre-test to clarify inconsistencies64 and verify that the questions were logical.65 After the pre-test was conducted, the questionnaire was finalised and activated for participation. The pre­test and the general use of standardised questions were important prerequisites for the validity of the study.66

In a non-personal survey, the graphic representation of the survey is the only link between the researcher and the participant. According to the Tailored Design Method (TDM), questionnaires should be designed to the highest visual standard in term of reader-friendliness and design.67 Therefore, the survey was designed with an picture that matched the topic, and the colours used on the website were made to comple­ment the colours in the image to encourage participants to contribute.68

3.2 Conceptualisation of the questionnaire

First, the questionnaire was divided into two parts: the demographic section (ques­tions 1-3)69 and the subject-related section (question 4-14).70 The demographic sec­tion recorded the gender, age and country of residence of the participants. As the hypothesis related specifically to individuals living in Germany, the participants' coun­try of residence needed to be determined so that non-German participants could be eliminated before the final analysis. The possible answers to the age question were clustered in the following generational categories:

- 18-22 are the Generation Z
- 23-38 are the Millennials
- 39-54 are the Generation X
- 55-65 are the Boomers
- > 65 are the Boomers and the Silent71

This structured approach simplified the subsequent analysis, which enabled clear conclusions to be drawn about the differences between the generations.

These questions were designed to provide a comprehensible formulation and clear frame of reference72 and followed the “ten commandments of question formulation”. These commandments include the avoidance of complex questions, double nega­tions, unclear terms and more.73 As an example, chapter one identified the term “dig­ital banks” as a common synonym for “FinTechs”. Therefore, the term “digital banks” was used in the survey, as 76% of the German population never heard the term “FinTech” before.74 The questionnaire was written in English, as in 20i9, only 36.39% of the German population reported having little or no knowledge of English.75 Alto­gether, different question types were used. Nevertheless, the questionnaire mainly incorporated closed-questions, as this type of question is relatively quick to answer76, which can avoid a high dropout rate.77 Hence, only three minutes were required to complete the questionnaire conscientiously and in detail.

The first subject-related question was used to separate participants who had already used FinTechs from those who had never used a FinTech before. Non-FinTech-users were required to complete a different set of three questions and vice versa. This sub­division was important for the testing of the hypothesis. The following four questions, were answered by both groups of consumers. In total, every participant needed to answer eleven questions.78

The questions provided to the users of FinTechs aimed to determine consumers' rea­sons for using FinTechs, as well as to collect data on the type of FinTechs used. To ensure the requisite that the provided answer of the questionWhich types of digital banks do you use?(question 7) reflected the participants' situation, FinTechs with the largest customer bases were used, based on the list of FinTechs provided in chapter 2.3.79

The questions to non-FinTech-users are aimed to identify any potential issues sur­rounding FinTechs and assess the current degree of consumer satisfaction with tra­ditional banking. The questionWhich traditional banks do you use?(question 9) was asked, and the response options consisted of the most popular traditional banks in 2019.80 Following this, the participants reflected on how satisfied there were with their banking experience using a five-point scale. The scale went fromvery satisfied(0) tovery unsatisfied(100). The author decided to use the five-point scale, as most of the participants will not use the middle responds, but could exercise a legitimate response option if they want to.81

The following four questions for both consumer groups sought to reveal the current situation and general preferences in terms of banking. The participants were required to decide which main features they expected from a bank and state whether they still used bank branches. An additional five-point scale question was used to identify how likely the participants were to change their principle bank (0=very likely, 100=very unlikely). Moreover, a question on future predications in terms of whether digital banks could replace traditional banks was included.

4 Data analysis

4.1 Statistical evaluation of the survey results

As mentioned in chapter three, the website umfrageonline was used to execute the survey. After closing the survey, the raw data were downloaded into Microsoft Excel and was used for further analyses and evaluations. The excel file (“Data_analy- sis_Knecht_Tamara”) is attached to this written assignment.

The online survey was accessible from the 12.03.2020 to the 22.03.2020 and com­prised a sample size of 92 participants. Three were not living in Germany; therefore, a sample size of 89 people (n=89) remained.82 Of this sample, 55% werefemaleand 45% weremale.Regarding the participants' ages, 65.2% were Millennials (23-38 years old), representing the largest group of participants. The second largest group was the Generation X (39-54 years old) with i6.9%. But the Generation Z (i8-22 years old) comprised 9% and Boomers (55-65 years old) comprised 7.9% - a not inconsiderable share in this survey. One individual over 65 years of age took part in the survey, which meant that this group made up the final i%.83

The first subject-related question separated FinTech-users from the non-FinTech-us- ers. A little over half (55.i%) were non-FinTech-users who solely used traditional banks. Exactly 34.8% used FinTechs in an addition to their traditional bank, and even i0.i% used Fintech banks exclusively.84 The testing of the hypothesis was based on this question and is further explored in the following subchapter.

The majority of FinTech users (67.5%) indicated that using FinTechs was necessary as traditional banks did not offer the services they wanted. Almost the half (45%) thought that the offers of traditional banks were too expensive, and, therefore, they preferred to use cheaper FinTech alternatives, which correlates with the finding re­ported in chapter 2.2. A large proportion (32.5%) also indicated that traditional banks were not sufficiently consumer-oriented. With regards to the literature that is exactly the point FinTech banks have taken advantage of. Exceedingly few used FinTechs because they have less trust in traditional banks.85 The most valued characteristics of FinTech banks were the pace (77.5%), the convenience (65.5%) and the favourable prices (55%). Security was not a crucial issue for most respondents (i2.5%).86 A lot of them (72.5%) used payment processing FinTechs, such as Paypal or Klarna, or digital banks, such as N26 or Nubank (57.5%). The third most-used type of FinTechs (i5%) were mobile wallet providers. Moreover, i2.5% of the participants used the other-field to enter additional information.87 In this case, the FinTech Monzo was men­tioned twice. According to the categories outlined in chapter 2.3, Monzo is a digital bank that is similar to N26.88

Non-FinTech-users reported not using FinTechs for a variety of reasons, without any aspect standing out significantly. While 38.8% of the people had never given it any thought, 28.8% preferred to use only one bank. The remaining 24.5% were concerned about the security, and 8.2% did not need an offered service.89 The majority of non- Fintech-user were Sparkassen customers (61.2%), and the second largest group be­longed to Volksbank, with 38.8%. The rest were divided between Deutsche Bank (12.2%), Commerzbank (8.2%), Postbank (2%) and Santander (2%).90 By collecting these primary data, it could be concluded that, according to the arithmetic mean, the customers of a traditional banks were quite satisfied (x= 35,20).91 This high level of satisfaction could be due to the fact that, as mentioned in chapter 2.3, some traditional banks cooperate with FinTechs or provide their own innovations, such as Sparkasse and Volksbank. With regards to a continuative analysis, Sparkasse, where several customers are using kwitt, has the highest satisfaction rate.92

The total sum of participants (n=89) expect different characteristics from a bank, whereby one factor stands out significantly: security (68.5%). The next most fre­quently mentioned factors were convenience (14.6%) and speed (11.2%).93 Moreo­ver, 69.7% thought that FinTech banks would replace traditional banks in the future94 and less than half (40.4%) reported still using bank branches.95 The final question was designed to test participants' willingness to change their principle bank. The state­ments collected were highly diverse, which made determining a clear preference dif­ficult (x = 56,74, a= 31,70). However, a very slight preference to unlikely exists.96

4.2 Hypothesis testing

The hypothesis testing was performed with an upper-tail test as the alternative, or rather research hypothesis,97 indicates that in Germany more than 30% are using FinTech banks (H1: $ >30%). Therefore, the null hypothesis calls into question, whether 30% or less of the population are using FinTech banks (H0: p< 30%). In this context, the author used the fourth question:Nowadays, not only traditional banks also innovative digital banks offer financial services (so called “FinTechs”). Do you use them?, to test the hypothesis. The three possible answers were:

-No, I only use traditional banks (e.g. Commerzbank)
-Yes, I use them as an addition to traditional banks
-Yes, I solely use digital banks

First, the author performed the tests for proportion nn and (1-n), whether a normal distribution was present.98 In this case, both values were above five, which meant that a normal distribution was given.99 Regarding the further calculation, the null hypothe­sis was set at 30% (n=0.3) and a level of significance from 5% (%= 0.05) was as­sumed. This means the 5% was the maximum probability the author is rejecting the null hypothesis.100 The critical value was, due to the selected level of significance, i.645 and marked the rejection area. As mentioned in the chapter above, the sample size was 89, while the number of interests was 40. The number of interests contained the participants that used FinTechs as an addition to their principle bank as well as the ones that used FinTechs exclusively, without a traditional institution. In order to test the null hypothesis, the ZSTAT on the basis of the following formula was used:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fg. i: Hypothes s test formu a101

The outcome of the calculation was ZSTAT= 3.076 and therefore greater than the critical value, which resulted in a rejection of the null hypothesis. Furthermore, the author calculated the probability value of the test statistic z, as a smaller p-value is a conclu­sive proof to reject the null hypothesis.102 In this case the calculated p-value was 0.00i, while the level of significance was 0.05.103 Based on this evidence, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was confirmed.104

4.3 Discussion

In regard to the findings: The results confirmed the alternative hypothesis. It was shown that over 30% of the German population used FinTech banks. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a large proportion of the study participants were Millennials and, therefore, the results are not representative for all age groups. As stated in chapter 2.2, Millennials are the most open generation to new technologies of all generations and, as shown by a study conducted by Ernst & Young, represent the consumer group that is the most accepting of these new technologies. Furthermore, the second largest group in the present study was Generation X, who also showed high adoption.

Inconsistencies between the theoretical framework and the primary data were noted in relation to trust. Contrary to the theoretical framework, in the present study, a lower degree of trust in traditional banks was not a decisive factor in whether or not to change to a FinTech. This could be because the degree of trustworthiness in FinTechs has not been resolved yet. Concerning FinTech-users' primary data, secu­rity was not one of the most appreciated characteristics, though nearly % of non- FinTech-users expressed reservations about the safety of FinTechs. These results indicate that trust in relation to security is not a core competence of either business models. In addition, this research noted a degree of confusion among consumers in relation to the FinTech market. The existing literature offers no clear way of differen­tiating between different types of FinTechs, and the results of the present survey ap­pear to confirm this. For instance, two participants inserted an additional FinTech in the other-field, although this type of Fintech was mentioned in the given answers. This could be because the participants were unsure about the distinction between different types of FinTechs.

In regard to the general conditions: It should be noted that online surveys are not an optimal method of data collection for older populations. The increased participation of young generations in this study could be because the survey was written in English. For certain older participants, this could have led to language barrier issues. Notwith­standing, the cost-benefit aspect must be taken into account, which is why, as stated in chapter 3.2, the questionnaire was purposefully written in English. Furthermore, with a questionnaire dominated by closed-questions, the researcher provides clear answers and this format prevents participants from thinking up and providing different answers. The other-field, which provided participants with the opportunity to provide

additional information for some questions (6, 7, 9), was included as a means of coun­teracting this problem.105

5 Conclusion

5.1 Summary

In sum, the alternative hypothesis that more than 30% of the German population used FinTech banks could be confirmed. Surprisingly, some participants reported solely using FinTech banks, and nearly 70% thought that FinTechs could replace traditional banks in the future. Therefore, traditional institutions' fear of losing large parts of their business to FinTechs appears to be justified.

The objective of this written assignment was to investigate this current status-quo and preferences in the financial industry. The results showed that less than half of the German population continues to use bank branches, and most attach great im­portance to more favourable offers. Due to their cost-structure, FinTech banks can provide more generous offers and new regulations such as the PSD2, will enable FinTechs to realise their full potential. However, FinTechs are presently disadvan­taged in relation to trust, as consumer trust in FinTechs appears to be lacking. FinTechs are still early in their development, which means that the market is consid­ered complex by consumers. Nonetheless, consumer trust was also shown to be lack­ing for traditional bank. This indicates that the key reason why consumers choose to use FinTechs is because traditional banks lack certain services the customers want.

Finally, the current trend of relying on several banks appeared to be confirmed by the survey, as 35% use FinTechs as an addition to their principle, and only a small fraction of the participants reported that using only one bank was important to them.

Nevertheless, it can be stated that, on the basis of the secondary and the collected primary data, Millennials were the most open generation in terms of FinTechs. How­ever, Generation Z was also not unnoticeably active.


1 Deotte LLP 2016.

2 Cf. De o tte LLP 2016.

3 Cf. Beer et a. 2018, p. 3.

4 Cf. Grozdanovc 2017.

5 Cf. Bomstrom 2018, p. 21.

6 Cf. Beer et a. 2018, p. 3.

7 Cf. PWC 2016, p. 2.

8 Cf. EY 2017, p. 12.

9 Cf. T ber us/Rasche 2017, p. 54.

10 Cf. PWC 2016, p. 5.

11 Cf. Ryu 2018, p. 3864.

12 Cf. Sebe 2017.

13 Cf. De o tte LLP 2016.

14 Cf. Tberus/Rasche 2017, p. 2.

15 Cf. Ryu 2018, p. 3865. + See append x 6.1: Some examp e defntons of FnTechs.

16 Cf. Quevedo 2019, p. 12.

17 Cf. Wachte 2015, p. 10

18 Cf. Legters 2019.

19 Fusca do 2020.

20 Funk 2018, p. 48

21 N26 GmbH 2020.

22 Cuesta et a. 2015, p. 8.

23 Ryu 2018, p. 3865.

24 Cf. A t/Puschmann 20i6, p. 8.

25 Cf. Buchak 20i8, p. 2.

26 Cf. A t/Puschmann 20i6, p. 94f.

27 Cf. Bakstad/A en 20i8, p. 70.

28 Cf. Ph ppon 20i6, p. i5.

29 Cf. Fusca do 2020.

30 Cf. Stat sta 2017.

31 Cf. Zet On ne 2017.

32 See append x 6.2: German FnTechs on the rse.

33 Cf. Grozdanovc 2017.

34 Cf. Quevedo 2019, p. 1.

35 Cf. Bakstad/A en 2018, p. 236.

36 Cf. Bakstad/A en 2018, p. 254f.

37 Cf. Cuesta et a. 2015, p. 2.

38 Cf. Bakstad/A en 2018, p. 71.

39 Cf. Fusca do 2020.

40 Cf. EY 2017, p. 16.

41 Cf. Sebe 2017.

42 Cf. Cuesta et a. 2015, p. 9.

43 Cf. PWC 2018, p. 5.

44 Cf. Woheb 2019.

45 Cf. Atzer 2018a.

46 Cf. Atzer 2018b.

47 Cf. Atzer 2018a.

48 Cf. Atzer 2018b.

49 Cf. Beer et a. 2018, p. 2.

50 Cf. Rottw m 2018.

51 Cf. Schwär 2019.

52 Cf. Brandt 2019.

53 See append x 6.3: Dfferent F nTech types.

54 Cf. Gavn et a. 2018.

55 Cf. Stat sta 20i9a.

56 Cf. Dorfetner/Hornuf 20i9, p. 6.

57 Cf. CB Informat on Serv ces 20i8.

58 Cf. Wachte 20i5, p. i4f.

59 Cf. Ga ea-Pace 20i9.

60 Cf. Townsend 20i9.

61 Cf. Gran 2020.

62 Cf. Oh hausen 20i7.

63 Cf. Stat sta 20i9b.

64 Cf. Möhr ng/Sch ütz 2003, p. 21.

65 Cf. Doetsch 2016, p. 176.

66 Cf. Baur 2014, p. 612.

67 Cf. Möhrng/Schütz 2003, p. 183.

68 See append x 6.4.1: Land ng page of the quest onna re.

69 See append x 6.4.2: Demograph c sect on of the quest onna re.

70 See append x 6.4.3: Subject-re ated sect on of the questonnare.

71 See append x 6.5: The generat ons def ned.

72 Cf. Möhr ng/Sch ütz 2003, p. 74.

73 See append x 6.7: Ten commandments of quest on formuaton.

74 Cf. Stat sta Research Department 20i6.

75 Cf. Paw k 20i9a.

76 Cf. Hyman/S erra 20i6, p. 2.

77 Cf. Thesch/Wetzn 20i2, p. ii4.

78 See append x 6.5.4: Subject-re ated sect on of the questonnare.

79 See append x 6.6: F nTechs wth the argest customer base.

80 Cf. Paw k 2019b.

81 Cf. Bernhardt/Gese 2009 p. 40.

82 Knecht 2020a, p. i.

83 See append x 6.8.i: Quest on i + 2: Gender d str but on by generat on.

84 See append x 6.8.2: Quest on 4: Separat on F nTech-user & non-F nTech-user.

85 See append x 6.8.3: Quest on 5: Necess ty of F nTechs.

86 See append x 6.8.4: Apprec ated character st cs of F nTechs.

87 See append x 6.8.5: Quest on 7: Types of F nTechs.

88 See append x 6.3: Dfferent F nTech types.

89 See append x 6.8.6: Quest on 8: Reasons for not usng F nTechs.

90 See append x 6.8.7: Quest on 9: Use of tradtona banks.

91 See append x 6.8.8: Quest on 10: Leve of sat sfact on wth trad t ona banks.

92 See append x 6.8.9: Quest on 9 + 10: Sat sfact on based on the bank.

93 See append x 6.8.10: Quest on 11: Man expectatons from a bank.

94 See append x 6.8.11: Quest on 12: Rep acement of tradtona banks.

95 See append x 6.8.12: Usage of bank branches.

96 See append x 6.8.13: W ngness to change the prncpe bank.

97 Cf. Anderson et a. 2018, p. 407.

98 Cf. Mü er-Benedct 20ii, p. i48.

99 See append x 6.9.i: Hypothes s tests for proport ons.

100 Cf. Srvastava/Shenoy/Sharma i989, p. 220.

101 Anderson et a. 20i8, p. 439.

102 Cf. Anderson et a. 20i8, p. 4i6.

103 See append x 6.9.2: Hypothes s testng.

104 See append x 6.9.3: Graph ca representaton of the hypothes s test.

105 See append x 6.4.3: Subject-re ated sect on of the quest onna re.

Excerpt out of 44 pages


Revolutionising the financial industry. The role of FinTech banks in the digital age
accadis Hochschule Bad Homburg
Catalog Number
ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Book)
Fintech, BWL, financial industry, digital age, digital transformation, banks, management, survey, data collection, international management, digital business strategy, transformation
Quote paper
Anonymous, 2020, Revolutionising the financial industry. The role of FinTech banks in the digital age, Munich, GRIN Verlag,


  • No comments yet.
Read the ebook
Title: Revolutionising the financial industry. The role of FinTech banks in the digital age

Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free