Next Article in Journal
Dataset Analysis of Pandemic Risks and Risk Management Prospects Based on Management and Marketing in Conditions of COVID-19 Recession
Next Article in Special Issue
The Risk Landscape in the Digital Transformation of Finance and Insurance
Previous Article in Journal
Formulating MCoVaR to Quantify Joint Transmissions of Systemic Risk across Crypto and Non-Crypto Markets: A Multivariate Copula Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Designing Stress Tests for UK Fast-Growing Firms and Fintech
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Risks
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/risks11020036
risks-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Literature Review of the Risk Landscape in Fintech

by
Ruchika Jain
1,
Satinder Kumar
2,
Kiran Sood
3,
Simon Grima
4,5 and
Ramona Rupeika-Apoga
5,*
1
Gobindgarh Public College, Khanna 147301, Punjab, India
2
School of Management Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala 147002, Punjab, India
3
Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, Rajpura 140401, Punjab, India
4
Department of Insurance, Faculty of Economics Management and Accountancy, University of Malta, MSD 2080 Msida, Malta
5
Faculty of Business, Management and Economics, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Risks 2023, 11(2), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020036
Submission received: 5 January 2023 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 February 2023 / Published: 8 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Risk Landscape in the Digital Transformation of Finance and Insurance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current study is primarily concerned with the developments in financial technology, or fintech, that have significantly altered traditional financial systems, focusing on several risk categories that have emerged in the financial technology sector’s digital ecosystem. This paper is a review of existing literature related to the risk landscape in fintech, particularly its publication trend, journal productivity, impact, affiliated organizations, and related themes. A bibliometric and content analysis of 84 articles collected through Scopus’ structured database is performed for a comprehensive review. It is revealed that financial technology development has decreased physical crime while simultaneously increasing cybercrime. Another challenge is the asymmetrical technology between financial markets and the relevant supervisors. These current issues necessitate the creation of an Act on Fintech to create a comprehensive legislative framework. The present study’s findings are helpful for academia and industry to aid their existing knowledge about fintech and associated risks, particularly its timeline, geographical spread, and development of coherent themes.

1. Introduction

In the present era, the world has seen a remarkable transformation. Organizations, authorities and the entire populace must act quickly and appropriately to counter the speed of change to avoid the negative outcomes of hazards that are growing along with these transformations. With a specific emphasis on repeatable and scalable business models, the industry 4.0 model adopts innovation and technology to change existing business models (Kijkasiwat 2021). Over the past ten years, there has been a substantial surge in innovation and competition in payment methods, giving consumers more options and better customer experiences (Gejke 2018; Mallekoote and Balraadjsing 2022). The global financial technology revolution is well underway and has produced significant potential in this area (Hollanders 2020; Mamonov and Malaga 2018; Murinde et al. 2022; Pantielieieva et al. 2022). Fintech frequently relies on software embedded in platforms and/or mobile applications that incorporates data mining techniques, algorithms, and machine learning to provide customers with automated and better financial services (Belozyorov et al. 2020). Financial technology has impacted almost all facets and divisions of the financial services sectors. Customers can communicate with financial institutions via increasingly automated channels thanks to fintech innovations (Milian et al. 2019). Over the past two decades, investments in fintech have risen sharply. There are astounding amounts of financial startups worldwide (Lu et al. 2021). As more and more technology companies enter finance, they can access a sizable customer database and provide distinct services that could not be possible otherwise (Chaudhry et al. 2022). Lack of services in the formal financial system and significant government backing for advancing financial inclusion through digitalization are key factors for fintech development (Rupeika-Apoga and Wendt 2021). Because fintech lending is a distinct innovation in the current financial and banking industries, it has grown rapidly in many economies and is becoming a potential business model for the future. Due to the availability of mobile-friendly applications, fintech lending has quickly developed and is now easily accessible to everyone and everywhere (Kaur et al. 2021). Peer-to-peer lending, commonly referred to as P2P lending, is another new type of online lending that utilizes digital and communication technology to connect potential borrowers with investors (Varma et al. 2022). Equity crowdsourcing has developed as a result of recent changes in financial legislation and may eventually replace more conventional sources of venture capital (Macchiavello 2018; Mamonov and Malaga 2018).
The current study primarily concerns the developments in financial technology, or fintech, which have significantly altered traditional financial systems. We focus on several categories of risk that have emerged in the financial technology sector’s digital ecosystem.
The digitization of finance has piqued the attention of researchers delving into the implications of fintech from several angles. In the present study, the authors conducted a systematic review using the PRISMA method. They conducted a content analysis on the resulting data because the primary aim of this study is to examine how digitization in finance has benefited this industry with a specific focus on various types of risks that have occurred as a result of this digitalization.
The objective of this review is to resolve the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What are the publications trends in the field of ‘Fintech and risks’?
Research Question 2: Who are the most well-known journals, authors, countries, and organizations contributing to research on ‘Fintech and risks’?
Research Question 3: Which risks have occurred due to digitalization in the field of finance?
Research Question 4: What are the major themes in the literature in the Fintech and Risks domain?
Research Question 5: What are the directions for future research?
Section 2 examines what has already been written on fintech and several risk categories that have emerged in the financial technology sector’s digital ecosystem. Section 3 contains a summary of the data and methods used. Section 4 presents the bibliometric analysis results, and Section 5 discusses the content analysis results. Section 6 concludes with some closing remarks.

2. Risk Landscape in Fintech

Financial inclusion has given many small and medium-sized businesses, and low-income people, access to financial services and has become the greatest contribution of fintech to society (Bavoso 2020; Jain and Bansal 2022). The COVID-19 epidemic has sped up the fintech revolution and helped the banking industry adopt digital technologies more quickly (Rupeika-Apoga et al. 2022). Nowadays, people utilize these technologies excessively, particularly when making purchases, because digital payment systems are quick, accessible, and practical. Additionally, fintech promotes financial inclusion, adds to the economy, spurs creativity, and makes it easier to acquire financial services. The insurance business is benefiting from digitalization and developing cutting-edge insurance solutions. Peer-to-peer insurance is one of these products. It is a technology-based risk-sharing insurance concept that links policyholders and allows them to pool their premiums to insure against risk. However, this model is not yet well-liked (Clemente and Marano 2020). Technological progress opens up new possibilities for insurance risks (Jangir et al. 2022). Another study sought to understand how high-tech applications in the current supply chain insurance business digitalization took into consideration the dangers related to the employment of cutting-edge technologies (Prasolov et al. 2020). Based on the examination of the practices of the top insurance firms, it is seen that they adopt a few incremental and combinatorial innovations but do not actively engage with customers using contemporary communication channels. The findings demonstrate the necessity of collaboration between insurance and fintech businesses in the ecosystem of innovations (Yehorycheva et al. 2020).
Digital financial technologies’ growth and use have contributed to reshaping economic and financial processes worldwide, but they have also exposed people, systems, and administration to new risks that undermine the efficiency of procedures and current rules (Ashta and Herrmann 2021; Gąsiorkiewicz et al. 2020). Fintech offers more easy and efficient payment methods. However, there are risks linked with digital economic innovation (Khiaonarong and Goh 2020; Zhao and Chen 2022).
Without a doubt, technological advancements have benefited the financial industry globally (Bhatnagar et al. 2022), but they also carry several hazards related to competitiveness, privacy, and financial stability (Hollanders 2020; Mishchenko et al. 2021). As a result, many individuals are worried about privacy concerns, system reliability, cyber security, and any potential vulnerability to cyber-attacks. According to empirical evidence, the latest and possibly biggest hazard emerging in the current environment is cyber risk in the Fintech sector (Duran and Griffin 2021; Vučinić and Luburić 2022). The current global pandemic, a previously unheard-of occurrence, has profoundly impacted contemporary society. Due to the global pandemic-driven increase in cashless transactions and business digitization, cyber dangers are increasing (Fabris 2022).
Along with the rapid growth of internet lending, there was also an increase in reports of unethical and illegal business activities (Tritto et al. 2020). Another significant issue is the difficulty of cooperation between banks and Fintech startups (Pu et al. 2021). In their study, Duran and Griffin (2021) analyze the dangers posed by smart contracts, a revolutionary advancement in financial technology, and determine if they could one day jeopardize the stability of the world financial system. This industry’s other difficulties include regulatory uncertainty, unlawful activities, and data exploitation (Hua and Huang 2021). Perceiving four different types of risks, i.e., financial, legal, security, and operational risks, Ryu (2018) built a model to analyze users’ intention of digital financial technologies. He found that legal risk had the strongest negative impact on users’ intentions to continue using fintech. The study also discovered that early and late adopters frequently have different specific benefits and risk consequences.
Mascarenhas et al. (2021) enhanced the Ryu (2018) model to account for perceived risks and advantages that may affect the continued adoption of fintech and concluded that early adopters consider the operational risk to be the most significant. In contrast, late adopters are more worried about financial risk. Another study uses the TAM model to examine how demographic factors affect customers’ opinions regarding the risks involved and their propensity to use fintech services from banks (Alshari and Lokhande 2022). Gozman and Willcocks (2019) have outlined the risks associated with cloud-based financial technologies in their research and grouped them into distinct risk patterns with escalating repercussions for businesses and individuals. These dangers include cloud deployments that are opaque and difficult to manage, incompatible data rights and architectures, and resilient and long-lasting vendors. Another major concern for those involved in the fintech lending industry, according to Arkanuddin et al. (2021), is the rise in non-performing loans. She emphasized that if this issue is not resolved, the fintech ecosystem will be disrupted. Big Tech may threaten regulators’ control over the digital economy, businesses’ sizable advantage over consumers due to the use of cutting-edge technology for big data analysis, and the rise in cybercrime. Cryptocurrencies are making it easier for many risks connected to money laundering and financing terrorism to occur (Akartuna et al. 2022). Regtech solutions come with dangers such as dehumanization, algorithmic biases, and cyber risk (Lanfranchi and Grassi 2022). A USA study identified twenty risk factors in the fintech industry (Tritto et al. 2020). Another study empirically assesses the systemic and tail risks of technology enterprises, which could present new problems for financial stability (Chaudhry et al. 2022).
The institutional framework of the global financial system is overly complicated by the use of financial technologies. Normal functional linkages break down as a result, leading to the emergence of new institutions, interdependencies, and systemic risks. The most significant driver of the financial sector’s destabilization and the emergence of financial bubbles in various market areas is the absence of institutional backing for innovative financial technology (Azarenkova et al. 2018). It is discovered that the public sector is relatively safe in the current online lending market, while the risk is primarily concentrated in the private sector. Regulations must rigorously oversee all financial innovations as early as possible due to the evolution of default risk; otherwise, high costs are needed to recover the loss caused by risks (Rupeika-Apoga and Wendt 2022). The extant literature, however, does not go into enough detail about how supervisors must create new tools to address new risks brought on by emerging technologies in the digital financial world.
Table 1 depicts the major risks identified in the articles reviewed in this study.
The preceding literature shows that various researchers discuss various risks in the fintech industry. Some of the studies concentrated on cybersecurity risk, while others discussed regulatory risk. A few studies also addressed default risk and operational risks. However, no previous studies have been conducted to systematically analyze the available literature and identify all of the risks associated with fintech. In this regard, the current study is an attempt to summarize the main risks confronting fintech.

3. Materials and Methods

The researchers devised a plan to find the pertinent literature for this systematic review. Using the keywords Risks AND Fintech, literature from the structured database of Scopus was searched on 26 October 2022. Due to its strength and acceptance in emerging technology research, this database was chosen. The database had 341 results in total. The mapping of the body of literature is the search’s main objective. The 5-year search window, from 2018 to 2022, was set as the limit. ‘Business Management’, and ‘Accounting’, and ‘Economics, Econometrics’, and ‘Finance’ were the subject areas chosen for the study. The search approach is also restricted to journal articles exclusively. Only articles published in journals are included for a full examination. The new number was 148 when the research was restricted to only journal papers. Since some of the pieces were at the press stage rather than the final step, they had to be removed from the process, bringing the total to 95.
Additionally, papers written in languages other than English were eliminated. Six of these publications were removed after the researchers carefully examined the abstracts of these articles and discovered they had no relevance to the study’s goals. In all, 84 articles are ultimately chosen for evaluation. These articles have the qualities listed below.
All of the articles discuss the risks associated with digitalization in the domain of finance. Extracted articles were published between 2018 and 2022. The articles were released in journals that are listed in SCOPUS. The only language in which the articles are published is ‘English’. Figure 1 was created for a literature review using the Page et al. (2021) PRISMA model.

4. Bibliometric Analysis

Figure 2 depicts the annual trend of publications included in the present review. There is a very clear uptrend in publications in this field. Researchers started taking an interest in the research on fintech in 2018. In 2018 and 2019, there were only eight and six studies, respectively. Out of 84 analyzed scholarly articles, 22 are credited to each of the years 2020 and 2021. This is since, during that period, the features, implementation and research of fintech technologies in the finance domain were given more attention. The regression line and R square, equal to 0.8125, show a statistically significant and continuous increase in published articles. As a result, the area remains attractive in terms of study.
Figure 3 shows the ten most active journals with the total number of publications in the field of fintech during the period under study. The table also includes other useful information, such as the number of citations and H-index of the respective journals. ‘Electronic Commerce Research and Applications’ has four publications, 168 citations, and an H-index of 2. ‘Technological Forecasting and Social Change’ comes in second, based on citations with four publications, 97 citations, and the 3 H-index. The figure below shows the number of publications in each journal, total citations, and H-index.
The current study extracts author affiliations to identify the top nations supporting fintech research. The nations that contributed the most to fintech literature are China, Ukraine, the U.K., and Australia (see Table 2). Table 3 also lists the top universities engaged in the field of risks in fintech. The top-performing contributing institutions are Banking Universities, Peking University, St. Petersburg State University, and Vilnius University.

5. Content Analysis

VOSviewer analyzed the co-occurrence of terms between selected articles. The terms were taken from both the title and abstract fields. A total of 2509 terms were found. When the co-occurrence threshold limit was set at 5, 110 terms met this threshold. As per the default settings in the software, 66 terms (60%) came into the visualization. Some of the terms were found to be irrelevant to the present study. These were excluded from term analysis, and finally, the co-occurrence of 56 terms was studied. Based on the network, three clusters were identified. The reasoning behind clustering is that terms in a similar cluster reflect the same study themes. The term ‘framework’ occurred in 14 articles, followed by ‘process’, which occurred in 13 articles and ‘country’ in 12 articles. Table 4 depicts the occurrences, relevant scores, and link strength of all 56 terms analyzed in the content analysis. Link strength is the number of articles in which two key terms appear together, and the relevant score describes the relevance of each term in terms of average citations (van Eck and Waltman 2012).
A representation of the term co-occurrence network based on the frequency with which a specific term appears in the text of several articles is shown in Figure 4. The size of the circles shows how frequently certain terms occur. A word will appear in publications more frequently as the circle gets bigger. Circles of the same color indicate that the topics of the publications are comparable (Guo et al. 2019). If two terms are more frequently used together in publications, there will be a stronger correlation between the terms. In the network, terms with higher correlation and more co-occurrence are closer to one another than those with lower co-occurrence (Mbeng et al. 2021). In the network, five clusters are created based on how similar the topics are inside each cluster.
  • Cluster 1: Role and Risks of Financial Innovations during pandemic (Red)
The pandemic experience has rapidly driven the platform-based financial revolution expanding the fintech sector. Through several different avenues, the pandemic has impacted fintech businesses. While social isolation, lockdowns, and other limitations have strongly influenced the digitalization of payments and increased usage of financial innovation, the pandemic’s economic effects have also impacted the broader society and fintech businesses (Fabris 2022). As traditional instruments have been failing in hedging, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for hedging pandemic-induced market risks played a significant role at this time. ETFs were able to survive greater levels of uncertainty brought on by the pandemic, demonstrating the financial innovation’s hedging potential (Salisu et al. 2022). A cashless society has also been brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic (Fabris 2022). The rising use of mobile payments and different financial management apps has been influenced by social estrangement. During the pandemic, fintech companies substantially altered their business models (Al Nawayseh 2020). The development of private cryptocurrencies has been one of the most significant advances in the financial system. Digital payments spared consumers the trouble of carrying a wallet and protected them from theft and money loss. In nations with low levels of fintech adoption and borrowers with poorer credit ratings, the impact of COVID-19 risk is greater (Nigmonov and Shams 2021). The dark side of this innovation during the pandemic is the harmed financial stability due to increased cyber risk (Fabris 2022) and default risk (Nigmonov and Shams 2021) created by it.
  • Cluster 2: Risks of Financial Inclusion (Green)
Included in fintech are Digital innovations and business model advances enabled by technology. These advancements can remove existing boundaries between industries, promote strategic disintermediation, alter the methods by which current businesses deliver their services, open new doors for entrepreneurship, and democratize access to financial services (Kakinuma 2022). On the other side, they provide significant privacy, regulatory, and law enforcement challenges and might increase the likelihood of various forms of discrimination (Ozili 2021b). The fintech sector depends on innovations, including various blockchain applications, new digital trading systems, artificial intelligence, machine learning, peer-to-peer lending, equity crowd-funding, and mobile payment systems (Ashta and Herrmann 2021; Gao et al. 2020; Macchiavello 2018; Zhang 2020). Fintech is projected to lower financial intermediation costs while simultaneously generating new regulatory concerns. By easing restrictions and promoting quicker economic growth, less poverty, and less income disparity, the development of financial services may help maintain macroeconomic stability. The quick expansion of fintech may have advantages, but it also may jeopardize the financial system’s stability. Another major challenge is financial illiteracy in most developing economies (Ozili 2021a). International organizations and state entities consider fintech while assessing potential risks and developing regulatory frameworks to maintain financial stability and comprehend how they may be impacted by fintech operations (Vučinić 2020).
  • Cluster 3: Opportunities and Challenges for Fintech Development (Blue)
Due to rising smartphone adoption and artificial intelligence-based infrastructure, the fintech business is expanding at an exponential rate globally. The top 10 fintech nations, according to the Global Fintech Index City Rankings 2020, are the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Lithuania, and Switzerland (Demirgüç-Kunt et al. 2020). Online lending companies that quickly and digitally process loans for individuals and businesses are rising (Gąsiorkiewicz et al. 2020). Because of the disruption of the traditional lending process caused by these platforms, underserved and unbanked populations now have easier access to loans (Ferrari 2022). Fintech offers businesses, especially startups, cost-effective solutions that help them cut costs and streamline business operations. The financial sector is a very elusive yet significant part of society, and as a result, it is heavily regulated by regulators (Kijkasiwat 2021). Fintech adoption can contribute to increased economic growth, particularly in emerging nations. With stakeholders pushing the boundaries of product innovation and providing additional value-added services, the insurtech ecosystem is likewise rapidly changing (Lanfranchi and Grassi 2022). Fintech players are using blockchain to improve security and access newer technologies. Additionally, the government is accelerating the switch from paper to electronic payments through tax rebates and a decrease in transaction costs (Saba et al. 2019). However, regulatory compliance (Hua and Huang 2021), data security (Hollanders 2020), and creating a liaison with the legal system of banks (Pu et al. 2021) are major challenges for the development of the fintech industry.
  • Cluster 4: Risks of Fintech in Banking (Yellow)
The financial industry has seen technological advancements thanks to distributed ledger technologies, enabling firms worldwide to access enough funding. The development of the banking industry depends heavily on investments made in technological breakthroughs. Even in the banking industry, technical advancements have led to new study avenues (Zveryakov et al. 2019). Financial technology firms undoubtedly play a significant role in the growth of banks. Both the banks and their clients have profited from this technology. However, they have produced several new hazards, and developing cooperation between banks and financial technology firms is the main issue (Pu et al. 2021). To guarantee financial stability, fintech enterprises must be supervised and governed (Li 2022; Nabilou 2020).
  • Cluster 5: Occurrence of Systematic and Operational Risks in Fintech (Purple)
Technology improvements have undoubtedly benefited the financial sector globally, but they also pose several systematic (Bavoso 2020) as well as operational risks (Mascarenhas et al. 2021). As a result, many people are concerned about issues including privacy concerns, system dependability, cyber security, and any potential for cyberattacks (Duran and Griffin 2021). Technology and systemic risks may also create new stability issues for the financial system (Chaudhry et al. 2022). Additional significant dangers in the digital financial sector include data exploitation and regulatory uncertainty (Hua and Huang 2021).

6. Conclusions

Financial technology development has decreased physical crime while simultaneously increasing cybercrime. In addition to cyber-security risk, this literature review identifies the presence of other types of risks, such as default risk, operational risk, financial stability risk, financial illiteracy risk, money laundering, financial crimes, and regulatory risk in the fintech industry. Government funding for developing fintech setups, especially for small businesses, is enormous. These businesses must utilize most of this funding to increase their compliance with regulatory requirements. There is a critical need to strengthen cutting-edge risk management strategies and raise the operational stability of financial institutions. Additional safeguards must be developed to safeguard and reimburse financial institutions for losses brought on by such risks.
In the case of fintech risks, the link between scientific research and industrial practice is that both can provide valuable insights into potential risks and how to mitigate them. Scientific research can identify potential technological risks and investigate the most recent security technologies and advances, whereas industrial practice can provide insights into the human side of risk management, such as social engineering, insider threats, and compliance. Businesses can develop effective fintech risk management strategies by combining insights from both areas.
Policymakers must pay more attention to issues such as data protection and privacy in the fintech era. Although privacy concerns have always existed, fintech’s increasing digitalization and interconnection have provided criminals with more access points and favorable circumstances to use personal data for illicit purposes. In the absence of effective regulations, the intermediary nature of some fintech applications, as well as the complexity of some fintech products, may encourage further illegal activity, price manipulation, and asymmetric information. As a result, proper regulatory measures must be implemented, as well as an environment where regulators and fintech firms can exchange specializations and engage in constructive discussions. This will eventually encourage regulators to propose effective and specific legislation to strengthen the fintech ecosystem for all parties, thereby helping to maintain financial system stability. It is also necessary to develop regulatory strategies that are specific to each country’s fintech characteristics, applications, and possibilities. The use of Regtech and Suptech may make it easier to implement these ideas quickly and effectively. One of the most serious risks today is asymmetrical technology between financial markets and relevant regulators. As a result, having a digital financial supervision system with a functional SupTech is one of the best risk management techniques in this regard. To create a comprehensive legislative framework, these current issues necessitate the creation of a Fintech Act. Regulators must seek strategies that balance expansion in the fintech industry while mitigating risks.
This study attempted to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature. As a result, more specialized topics such as fintech challenges in sustainable development and market-level variations in regulation are not adequately covered. Future research may expand on the findings of this paper by addressing its flaws and delving deeper into the themes discovered through content analysis. Data for this study were gathered solely from the ‘SCOPUS’ bibliometric database by applying filters such as publication type, year of publication, and research fields. Other organized worldwide databases, such as the Web of Science, may also be incorporated by future researchers. Only articles published in journals were considered for this study. Book publications, conference proceedings, and other sources of information can be examined further. Because of the limitations of the current evaluation, future research should include a complete content analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A.; methodology, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A.; validation, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A.; formal analysis, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A.; data curation, R.J., S.K., K.S. and S.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A.; writing—review and editing, R.J., S.K., K.S., S.G. and R.R.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akartuna, Eray Arda, Shane D. Johnson, and Amy Thornton. 2022. Preventing the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks of Emerging Technologies: An International Policy Delphi Study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 179: 121632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Al Nawayseh, Mohammad K. 2020. Fintech in COVID-19 and beyond: What Factors Are Affecting ‘Customers’ Choice of Fintech Applications? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alshari, Hussein Ahmed, and M. A. Lokhande. 2022. The Impact of Demographic Factors of ‘Clients’ Attitudes and Their Intentions to Use FinTech Services on the Banking Sector in the Least Developed Countries. Cogent Business and Management 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arkanuddin, Mohammad Fahmi, Ferdinand D. Saragih, and Bernardus Yuliarto Nugroho. 2021. The Key Role of the Financial Regulation in Fintech Ecosystem: A Model Validation. Estudios de Economia Aplicada 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ashta, Arvind, and Heinz Herrmann. 2021. Artificial Intelligence and Fintech: An Overview of Opportunities and Risks for Banking, Investments, and Microfinance. Strategic Change 30: 211–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Azarenkova, Galyna, Iryna Shkodina, Borys Samorodov, Maksym Babenko, and Iryna Onishchenko. 2018. The Influence of Financial Technologies on the Global Financial System Stability. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 15: 229–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bavoso, Vincenzo. 2020. The Promise and Perils of Alternative Market-Based Finance: The Case of P2P Lending in the U.K. Journal of Banking Regulation 21: 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Belozyorov, Sergey, Olena Sokolovska, and Young Sik Kim. 2020. Fintech as a Precondition of Transformations in Global Financial Markets. Foresight and STI Governance 14: 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bhatnagar, Mukul, Ercan Özen, Sanjay Taneja, Simon Grima, and Ramona Rupeika-Apoga. 2022. The Dynamic Connectedness between Risk and Return in the Fintech Market of India: Evidence Using the GARCH-M Approach. Risks 10: 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boulianne, Emilio, and Mélissa Fortin. 2020. Risks and Benefits of Initial Coin Offerings: Evidence from Impak Finance, a Regulated ICO. Accounting Perspectives 19: 413–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bu, Ya, Hui Li, and Xiaoqing Wu. 2022. Effective Regulations of FinTech Innovations: The Case of China. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 31: 751–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chaudhry, Sajid M., Rizwan Ahmed, Toan Luu Duc Huynh, and Chonlakan Benjasak. 2022. Tail Risk and Systemic Risk of Finance and Technology (FinTech) Firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clemente, Gian Paolo, and Pierpaolo Marano. 2020. The Broker Model for Peer-to-Peer Insurance: An Analysis of Its Value. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 45: 457–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Das, Sanjiv R. 2019. The Future of Fintech. Financial Management 48: 981–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, Saniya Ansar, and Jake Hess. 2020. The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring Financial Inclusion and Opportunities to Expand Access to and Use of Financial Services. World Bank Economic Review 34: S2–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duran, Randall E., and Paul Griffin. 2021. Smart Contracts: Will Fintech Be the Catalyst for the next Global Financial Crisis? Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 29: 104–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eskindarov, M. A., V. V. Maslennikov, and O. V. Maslennikov. 2019. Risks and Chances of the Digital Economy in Russia. Finance: Theory and Practice 23: 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fabris, Nikola. 2022. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Financial Innovation, Cashless Society, and Cyber Risk. Economics 10: 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferrari, Ms Valeria. 2022. The Platformisation of Digital Payments: The Fabrication of Consumer Interest in the E.U. FinTech Agenda. Computer Law and Security Review 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gao, Yu, Shih-Heng Yu, Ming Chen, and Yih-Chearng Shiue. 2020. A 2020 Perspective on the Performance of the P2P Finance Industry in China. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 40: 100940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gąsiorkiewicz, Lech, Jan Monkiewicz, and Marek Monkiewicz. 2020. Technology-Driven Innovations in Financial Services: The Rise of Alternative Finance. Foundations of Management 12: 137–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gejke, Cecilia. 2018. A New Season in the Risk Landscape: Connecting the Advancement in Technology with Changes in Customer Behaviour to Enhance the Way Risk Is Measured and Managed. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions 11: 148–55. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gozman, Daniel, and Leslie Willcocks. 2019. The Emerging Cloud Dilemma: Balancing Innovation with Cross-Border Privacy and Outsourcing Regulations. Journal of Business Research 97: 235–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Guo, Yi-Ming, Zhen-Ling Huang, Ji Guo, Hua Li, Xing-Rong Guo, and Mpeoane Judith Nkeli. 2019. Bibliometric Analysis on Smart Cities Research. Sustainability 11: 3606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hollanders, Marc. 2020. Page 315 Practice Papers Fintech and Financial Inclusion: Opportunities Challengesfintech and Financial Inclusion: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems 14: 315–25. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hsu, Sara, Jianjun Li, and Hong Bao. 2021. P2P Lending in China: Role and Prospects for the Future. Manchester School 89: 526–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hua, Xiuping, and Yiping Huang. 2021. Understanding ‘China’s Fintech Sector: Development, Impacts and Risks. European Journal of Finance 27: 321–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, Robin Hui, Demin Yang, and Ferdinand Fai Yang Loo. 2020. The Development and Regulation of Cryptoassets: Hong Kong Experiences and a Comparative Analysis. European Business Organization Law Review 21: 319–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Irwin, Angela S. M., and Caitlin Dawson. 2019. Following the Cyber Money Trail: Global Challenges When Investigating Ransomware Attacks and How Regulation Can Help. Journal of Money Laundering Control 22: 110–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jain, Ruchika, and Rajni Bansal. 2022. Fintech: Driving force for social good. The Management Accountant Journal 57: 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jamil, Ainul Huda, Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi, Najihah Marha Yaacob, Yusarina Mat Isa, and Tarjo Tarjo. 2022. The Covid-19 Impact on Financial Crime and Regulatory Compliance in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Crime 29: 491–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jangir, Kshitiz, Vikas Sharma, Sanjay Taneja, and Ramona Rupeika-Apoga. 2022. The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on ‘Users’ Continuance Intention for FinTech Services. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jonker, Nicole, and Anneke Kosse. 2022. The Interplay of Financial Education, Financial Inclusion and Financial Stability and the Role of Big Tech. Contemporary Economic Policy 40: 612–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kaigorodova, Gulnara, Alfiya Mustafina, Guzel Pyrkova, Mariola Grzebyk, and Larisa Belinskaja. 2021. Digitalization of the Insurance Business: Systematization of Net Effects through the Example of Russia. Insurance Markets and Companies 12: 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kakinuma, Yosuke. 2022. Financial Literacy and Quality of Life: A Moderated Mediation Approach of Fintech Adoption and Leisure. International Journal of Social Economics 49: 1713–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kaur, Balijinder, Sood Kiran, Simon Grima, and Ramona Rupeika-Apoga. 2021. Digital Banking in Northern India: The Risks on Customer Satisfaction. Risks 9: 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khiaonarong, Tanai, and Terry Goh. 2020. Fintech and Payments Regulation: An Analytical Framework. Journal of Payments Strategy and Systems 14: 157–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kijkasiwat, Ploypailin. 2021. Opportunities and Challenges for Fintech Startups: The Case Study of Thailand. ABAC Journal 41: 41–60. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lanfranchi, Davide, and Laura Grassi. 2022. Examining Insurance ‘Companies’ Use of Technology for Innovation. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 47: 520–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, Cangshu. 2022. Quantitative Measurement and Analysis of FinTech Risk in China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 35: 2596–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lu, Baile, Shuai Hao, Michael Pinedo, and Yuqian Xu. 2021. Frontiers in Service Science: Fintech Operations-an Overview of Recent Developments and Future Research Directions. Service Science 13: 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luo, Di, Tapas Mishra, Larisa Yarovaya, and Zhuang Zhang. 2021. Investing during a Fintech Revolution: Ambiguity and Return Risk in Cryptocurrencies. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Macchiavello, Eugenia. 2018. Financial-Return Crowdfunding and Regulatory Approaches in the Shadow Banking, FinTech and Collaborative Finance Era. European Company and Financial Law Review 14: 662–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mallekoote, Piet M., and Suren K. Balraadjsing. 2022. Oversight and Risk Man Age Ment of Pay Ments Schemes. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions 15: 418–28. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mamonov, Stanislav, and Ross Malaga. 2018. Success Factors in Title III Equity Crowdfunding in the United States. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 27: 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mascarenhas, Artur, Cristiane Perpétuo, Erika Barrote, and Maria Perides. 2021. The Influence of Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Continuity of Use of Fintech Services. Brazilian Business Review 18: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mbeng, Elisabeth Reine Debora, Qun Liang Song, and Elisabetta Raparelli. 2021. A Bibliometric Analysis on How Feed-In Tariff Played A Key Role in the Development of Renewable Energy in China. 28. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353515450_A_BIBLIOMETRIC_ANALYSIS_ON_HOW_FEED-IN_TARIFF_PLAYED_A_KEY_ROLE_IN_THE_DEVELOPMENT_OF_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_IN_CHINA (accessed on 13 December 2022).
  48. Miglo, Anton. 2022. Choice between IEO and ICO: Speed vs. Liquidity vs. Risk. FinTech 1: 276–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Milian, Eduardo Z., Mauro de M. Spinola, and Marly M. de Carvalho. 2019. Fintechs: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mishchenko, Svitlana, Svitlana Naumenkova, Volodymyr Mishchenko, and Dmytro Dorofeiev. 2021. Innovation Risk Management in Financial Institutions. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 18: 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Murinde, Victor, Efthymios Rizopoulos, and Markos Zachariadis. 2022. The Impact of the FinTech Revolution on the Future of Banking: Opportunities and Risks. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 102103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Muryanto, Yudho Taruno, Dona Budi Kharisma, and Anjar Sri Ciptorukmi Ciptorukmi Nugraheni. 2022. Prospects and Challenges of Islamic Fintech in Indonesia: A Legal Viewpoint. International Journal of Law and Management 64: 239–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nabilou, Hossein. 2020. Testing the Waters of the Rubicon: The European Central Bank and Central Bank Digital Currencies. Journal of Banking Regulation 21: 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nigmonov, Asror, and Syed Shams. 2021. COVID-19 Pandemic Risk and Probability of Loan Default: Evidence from Marketplace Lending Market. Financial Innovation 7: 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ozili, Peterson K. 2018. Impact of Digital Finance on Financial Inclusion and Stability. Borsa Istanbul Review 18: 329–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ozili, Peterson K. 2021a. Financial Inclusion Research around the World: A Review. Forum for Social Economics 50: 457–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ozili, Peterson K. 2021b. Has Financial Inclusion Made the Financial Sector Riskier? Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 29: 237–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, and et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pantielieieva, Kseniia, Natalia Tretiak, Yuliia Zhezherun, Svitlana Zaporozhets, Nataliya Rogova, and Nataliia Pantielieieva. 2022. Current Stage of Formation of the Financial Intermediation Ecosystem in the Context of Digitalization. Ekonomski Pregled 73: 215–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Prasolov, Valeriy, Seymur Hajiyev, Zarema Sharifyanova, and Yuliia Diachkova. 2020. Supply Chain in Insurance of High-Tech Companies: Formation Characteristics. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 9: 519–26. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pu, Ruihui, Deimante Teresiene, Ina Pieczulis, Jie Kong, and Xiao-Guang Yue. 2021. The Interaction between Banking Sector and Financial Technology Companies: Qualitative Assessment—A Case of Lithuania. Risks 9: 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rupeika-Apoga, Ramona, and Stefan Wendt. 2021. FinTech in Latvia: Status Quo, Current Developments, and Challenges Ahead. Risks 9: 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rupeika-Apoga, Ramona, and Stefan Wendt. 2022. FinTech Development and Regulatory Scrutiny: A Contradiction? The Case of Latvia. Risks 10: 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rupeika-Apoga, Ramona, Kristine Petrovska, and Larisa Bule. 2022. The Effect of Digital Orientation and Digital Capability on Digital Transformation of SMEs during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 17: 669–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ryu, Hyun-Sun. 2018. What Makes Users Willing or Hesitant to Use Fintech?: The Moderating Effect of User Type. Industrial Management and Data Systems 118: 541–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Saba, Irum, Rehana Kouser, and Imran Sharif Chaudhry. 2019. FinTech and Islamic Finance-Challenges and Opportunities. Review of Economics and Development Studies 5: 581–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Saliba, Brandon, Jonathan Spiteri, and Dominic Cortis. 2022. Insurance and Wearables as Tools in Managing Risk in Sports: Determinants of Technology Take-up and Propensity to Insure and Share Data. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 47: 499–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Salisu, Afees A., Abdulsalam Abidemi Sikiru, and Philip C. Omoke. 2022. COVID-19 Pandemic and Financial Innovations. Quality & Quantity. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Šapkauskienė, Alfreda, and Ingrida Višinskaitė. 2020. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs): Benefits, Risks and Success Measures. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 1472–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thakor, Anjan V. 2020. Fintech and Banking: What Do We Know? Journal of Financial Intermediation 41: 100833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tritto, Angela, Yujia He, and Victoria Amanda Junaedi. 2020. Governing the Gold Rush into Emerging Markets: A Case Study of ‘Indonesia’s Regulatory Responses to the Expansion of Chinese-Backed Online P2P Lending. Financial Innovation 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2012. VOSviewer Manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden, p. 54. [Google Scholar]
  73. Varma, Parminder, Shivinder Nijjer, Kiran Sood, Simon Grima, and Ramona Rupeika-Apoga. 2022. Thematic Analysis of Financial Technology (Fintech) Influence on the Banking Industry. Risks 10: 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vučinić, Milena. 2020. Fintech and Financial Stability Potential Influence of FinTech on Financial Stability, Risks and Benefits. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice 9: 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vučinić, Milena, and Radoica Luburić. 2022. Fintech, Risk-Based Thinking and Cyber Risk. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice 11: 27–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wei, Lu, Yuqi Deng, Jie Huang, Chen Han, and Zhongbo Jing. 2022. Identification and Analysis of Financial Technology Risk Factors Based on Textual Risk Disclosures. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 17: 590–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, Wuqing, Dongliang Xu, Yue Zhao, and Xinhai Liu. 2020. Do Consumer Internet Behaviours Provide Incremental Information to Predict Credit Default Risk? Economic and Political Studies 8: 482–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Xia, Yufei, Yinguo Li, Lingyun He, Yixin Xu, and Yiqun Meng. 2021. Incorporating Multilevel Macroeconomic Variables into Credit Scoring for Online Consumer Lending. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, Dong, and Min Li. 2018. Evolutionary Approaches and the Construction of Technology-Driven Regulations. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54: 3256–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yehorycheva, Svitlana, Iryna Fysun, Tetiana Hudz, Oksana Palchuk, and Natalia Boiko. 2020. Innovations in the Insurance Market of a Developing Country: Case of Ukraine. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 17: 175–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, Dehua. 2020. The Innovation Research of Contract Farming Financing Mode under the Block Chain Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production 270: 122194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhao, Yang, and Xiaohui Chen. 2022. The Relationship between the Withdrawal of the Digital ‘Economy’s Innovators, Government Interventions, the Marketization Level and Market Size Based on Big Data. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35: 1202–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zveryakov, Mikhail, Victoria Kovalenko, Sergii Sheludko, and Elena Sharah. 2019. FinTech Sector and Banking Business: Competition or Symbiosis? Economic Annals-XXI 175: 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Risks 11 00036 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.
Risks 11 00036 g001
Risks 11 00036 g002 550
Figure 2. Publication Trend.
Figure 2. Publication Trend.
Risks 11 00036 g002
Risks 11 00036 g003 550
Figure 3. Journal Impact (‘Authors’ compilation).
Figure 3. Journal Impact (‘Authors’ compilation).
Risks 11 00036 g003
Risks 11 00036 g004 550
Figure 4. Co-occurrence of Terms (‘Authors’ compilation through VOSviewer).
Figure 4. Co-occurrence of Terms (‘Authors’ compilation through VOSviewer).
Risks 11 00036 g004
Table
Table 1. Major risks faced by fintech.
Table 1. Major risks faced by fintech.
Type of RiskDescriptionSources
Cyber-security riskThe risk of information’s integrity, availability, or secrecy.(Duran and Griffin 2021; Boulianne and Fortin 2020; Lanfranchi and Grassi 2022; Eskindarov et al. 2019; Mishchenko et al. 2021; Fabris 2022; Irwin and Dawson 2019; Vučinić and Luburić 2022; Kaigorodova et al. 2021)
Loss of Privacy and Data-rightsThe danger of clients allowing fintech companies to access their bank account information to do tasks on their behalf.(Hua and Huang 2021; Hollanders 2020; Saliba et al. 2022)
Financial Crimes and lack of investor protectionAs it is simpler to assume false identities online, fintech channels are prone to far higher fraud rates.(Jamil et al. 2022; Šapkauskienė and Višinskaitė 2020; Hollanders 2020)
High CostThe high cost of digitalization restrains banks and insurers from using digital financial technologies.(Kaigorodova et al. 2021)
Lack of Financial LiteracyDue to financial illiteracy, customers in developing countries fear using financial technologies and prefer traditional methods.(Demirgüç-Kunt et al. 2020; Eskindarov et al. 2019; Kijkasiwat 2021; Ozili 2021a)
Systematic/Financial Stability RiskFinancial technologies lead to the instability of the entire financial system in an economy.(Bavoso 2020; Azarenkova et al. 2018; Chaudhry et al. 2022; Li 2022; Khiaonarong and Goh 2020; Yang and Li 2018; Jonker and Kosse 2022; Mascarenhas et al. 2021; Alshari and Lokhande 2022; Nabilou 2020; Ozili 2018; Vučinić 2020; Gąsiorkiewicz et al. 2020; Thakor 2020; Das 2019)
Operational RiskFintech companies face the risk of inefficient internal systems, procedures, and personnel.(Zhao and Chen 2022; Mascarenhas et al. 2021; Hsu et al. 2021; Wei et al. 2022; Gao et al. 2020)
Default RiskLoan defaults are increased in digital lending as compared to traditional lending.(Arkanuddin et al. 2021; Mallekoote and Balraadjsing 2022; Xia et al. 2021; Mascarenhas et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2020; Nigmonov and Shams 2021)
Lack of Interaction between Banking/Insurance and Fintech CompaniesBanks and insurance companies face the challenges of digitalization while interacting with fintech companies.(Pu et al. 2021; Yehorycheva et al. 2020; Zveryakov et al. 2019)
Volatility in Crypto-currenciesHuge volatility in crypto assets creates financial instability in the fintech industry.(Huang et al. 2020; Boulianne and Fortin 2020; Luo et al. 2021; Miglo 2022)
Regulatory compliance and Legal riskThe Fintech industry requires strict adherence to laws and regulations due to its online functioning, but still, no specific laws prevail regulating this industry.(Ryu 2018; Hua and Huang 2021; Bavoso 2020; Murinde et al. 2022; Gozman and Willcocks 2019; Clemente and Marano 2020; Boulianne and Fortin 2020; Kijkasiwat 2021; Milian et al. 2019; Bu et al. 2022)
Money Laundering and Finance TerrorismDue to accessibility through the internet, criminals have developed advanced technologies for money laundering.(Akartuna et al. 2022; Muryanto et al. 2022)
Table
Table 2. Contributing Countries (‘Authors’ compilation).
Table 2. Contributing Countries (‘Authors’ compilation).
CountryFrequency
China40
Ukraine18
UK13
Australia12
USA9
Italy6
Poland5
Canada4
Indonesia4
Lithuania4
Table
Table 3. Top universities engaged in the field of risks in fintech (‘Authors’ compilation).
Table 3. Top universities engaged in the field of risks in fintech (‘Authors’ compilation).
AffiliationArticles
Banking Universities4
Peking University4
St. Petersburg State University3
Vilnius University3
Central University of Finance and Economics2
Financial Universities2
Jiangsu Normal University2
Kharkiv Educational and Scientific Institute of Shei Banking University2
Law School of Renmin University of China2
Lviv Banking Institute of Banking University2
Table
Table 4. Co-occurrence of Terms (‘Authors’ compilation).
Table 4. Co-occurrence of Terms (‘Authors’ compilation).
IdTermOccurrencesRelevance ScoreLink StrengthCluster
1access715.4286282
2artificial intelligence56.8203
3banking99.4444394
4banking sector75.5714364
5blockchain818.625283
6control66.5172
7covid67201
8cryptoassets616.3333191
9customer76.7143283
10digitalization62.5214
11financial inclusion119.5455482
12financial innovation99.3333411
13financial institution711.1429341
14financial literacy56.4212
15financial market87.25293
16financial regulation713.5714332
17financial stability74.8571301
18financial system1018.7443
19fintech development68.8333323
20government64321
21growth96.3333451
22implementation87.25414
23information asymmetry510.4171
24investment812.25344
25investor78.2857321
26lending114.3636425
27new technology612222
28operational risk63.3333235
29opportunity1615.0625693
30pandemic66.8333291
31peer85.25265
32platform117.3636465
33possibility79.4286334
34potential risk77.4286282
35practical implication51.8232
36problem95.4444351
37process135.6154554
38relationship96.6667402
39stability613295
40stakeholder82.25413
41survey917282
42systemic risk710.4286325
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jain, R.; Kumar, S.; Sood, K.; Grima, S.; Rupeika-Apoga, R. A Systematic Literature Review of the Risk Landscape in Fintech. Risks 2023, 11, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020036

AMA Style

Jain R, Kumar S, Sood K, Grima S, Rupeika-Apoga R. A Systematic Literature Review of the Risk Landscape in Fintech. Risks. 2023; 11(2):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jain, Ruchika, Satinder Kumar, Kiran Sood, Simon Grima, and Ramona Rupeika-Apoga. 2023. "A Systematic Literature Review of the Risk Landscape in Fintech" Risks 11, no. 2: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020036

APA Style

Jain, R., Kumar, S., Sood, K., Grima, S., & Rupeika-Apoga, R. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review of the Risk Landscape in Fintech. Risks, 11(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11020036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop