Fintech, Board of Directors and Corporate Performance in Saudi Arabia Financial Sector: Empirical Study

Reviewer 1:

 Comments

Answer

Page no.

In general , the topic of the article is interesting and shed new light on the impact of different characteristics of the board of directors and fintech index on financial firm’s performance in Saudi Arabia.

There are many parts of the article that can be improved because sometimes the general idea is confusing and the English needs to be reviewed by a native speaker to make it comprehensible for the reader. This English style revision will substantially improve the quality of the paper.

Thank you so much for your great writing. We have done all comments.

In addition, some revision of terms should be done because fintech is written like fintech, Fintech, FinTech and so forth...

Thank you so much for this great comment that will improve the paper. The recommended has been done.

Please refer to wholly paper.

References should also be reviewed because sometimes the Surname appears between brackets when should appear in the main text to follow the discourse (example line 254, 361 and so on).

Thank you so much for this great comment that will improve the paper. The recommended has been added.

Please refer to wholly paper. example line 254, 361

The abstract should clearly define what is the topic, the novelty of the work and avoid any mistakes like “board of directs”. It should be a summary of the contribution of the paper to the field of study.

Thank you so much for this comment. We have modified this comment. 

Please refer to page no. 1

Also, the results are not clear, it seems that only board score has significant association with performance, when this score has not yet been defined. The abstract should provide a general idea about the findings and details will be explained later in the paper.

Thank you so much for your great comment. We have revised as per request.  

Please refer to page no. 1.,11, 12, 13 and 14.

In some lines of the paper the message is not clear, for instance: 45, 100, 170 (this paragraph needs to be reordered and the sentence concluded), 194 (empirical evidence is not ordered according to the sign of the relationship, and it is quite misleading to be understood), 345 (confusing the aim of the study), 536 (you can explain better what do you mean), 537 (the first sentence seems unfinished), 610 (seems confusing).

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 45, 97, 169,  191, 343,  536 and 611.

Mistakes to be corrected,

- reference in line 51,

- reference in line 57 (&/ and). This reference is repeated three times in the same paragraph.

- The expression “is a must” is repeated across the paper several times.

- line 94 a link appears in the text

- line 188-189 “could lead” is repeated

- line 206 and 207 the reference is repeated

- line 267, I have doubts because it seems that the opposite hypothesis should be expected according to the review.

- line 330 “ON”

- line 493 should say H2a

- line 516, should say estimated results and H5a

- line 517 should conclude by saying that H5b is empirically validated

- line 530 ; “Coefficients” to be substituted by “coefficients”

- line 542, “The”

- line 562, explain if its significant or not.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line

48

57

81

150

187

203

328

490

514

528

-        Section 3.1 should include a description of the methodology procedure when defining the different models to be estimated. Also, the selected variables must be justified. For instance, why choosing ROA rather than ROE?

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 382.

-        Analysis and diagnosis of multicollinearity needs further explanation because for the reader is not clear whether or not there is a problem with the model.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 433.

-        Descriptive statistics do not include any reference to the standard deviation of the variables.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 450- 466.

-        489, instead of theory should  say hypothesis.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 487.

-        589; iteractive effect is more appropriate in this context

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 583-615.

-        593, I don´t know to which model do you refer now?

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 592-599.

-        596, if non-significant the sign doesn't matter, so it should not be mentioned

Thank you so much for these comments. But reading to outcome should be mentioned all.

-    616, if the model is identified in the title of tables should be easier to follow the discourse.

Thank you so much for these comments. We have already mentioned the model number on the table

Please refer to line 616

-   The section of conclusions does not clearly summarized the main findings and conclusions of the article. Please review deeply this part and verify that results are the same as those explained previously. The font style should be uniform.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 622-665.

Reviewer 2:

 Comments

Answer

Page no.

Very well-written original empirical study on the impact of the Board of directors characteristics and the Fintech on the corporate performance considering the case of Saudi Arabia financial sector.

Thank you so much for your great writing. We have done all comments.

In general, it is a valuable study contributing not only to the academic literature, but it has a number of practical implications. The author claims that the results of the study could be useful for a number of stakeholders, including regulators and policy makers. Please specify how.

Another minor issue: please specify the sources of all tables.

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Reviewer3:

 Comments

Answer

Page no.

Unfortunately, most of the hypotheses (H1-H5) have nothing to do with FinTech. H6 says "There is a relationship between FinTech and corporate performance." What relationship is it? Any relationship is a relationship. H7 is not clear either.

Thank you so much for your comment. We would like to explain that H1-H5 for board of directors’ characteristics with performance. Moreover, H6-H7 test the direct and non-direct relationship between fintech with performance.

Please refer to line 140-371.

Documenting a positive (or negative) correlation between FinTech and firm performance is meaningless. Better performing firms may be more ready to adopt FinTech vs. the other way around. 

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer to line 370-371.

The paper is also badly written and is full of factual errors and typos. See "Fanny Mae" and "Freddy Mac," etc. By the way, the financial crisis happened in 2008-2009, later than the governance issues highlighted by OECD (2006). But the first two paragraphs imply that the international organizations acted on governance after the financial crisis...

Thank you so much for these comments. we done all comments careful as per request.

Please refer wholly paper.