Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finance Research Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/frl

The effect of fintech on banks’ credit provision to SMEs: Evidence

from China
Tianxiang Sheng
College of Finance, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study examines the impact of financial technology (fintech) on the ability of banks to offer
Small and medium enterprises credit to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). By analyzing the lending records of banks in
Financial technology Chinese provinces from 2011 to 2018, we demonstrate that fintech effectively facilitates the
Fintech banking sector's credit supply to SMEs. We also consider whether the impact of fintech varies
Bank credit
according to the size of the bank. Compared with small banks, fintech has a more significant
Sizes of banks
influence on the increase in credit for SMEs in large banks. Thus, maybe it is more important to
utilize fintech than to develop many small banks.
JEL Codes:
G21 G28 G38

1. Introduction

Due to poor information transparency, irregular financial management, and lack of collateral, small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) often face financing constraints (Berger and Udell, 2006). In recent years, the rapid development of financial technology
(fintech) has attracted attention from all areas of society. Fintech is a highly relevant force driving the credit supply to SMEs
(Sedunov, 2017; Jaksic and Marinc, 2019).
Existing studies on fintech and SME credit supply focus mainly on fintech lenders (such as peer-to-peer lending or crowdfunding)
and comparing fintech lenders and banks (Thakor, 2020). However, most studies show that bank credit is still the main external
financing channel for SMEs (Berger et al., 2014; Schweitzer and Barkley, 2017). Some studies discuss the theoretical basis of the
impact of fintech on SME credit supply (Livshits et al., 2016; Sutherland, 2018); however, few directly focus on how fintech affects
banks’ credit supply to SMEs. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature.
The Chinese government pays great attention to SME financing. Indirect financing has always dominated the financing of Chinese
enterprises; moreover, fintech is developing rapidly in China (Arner et al., 2015). Therefore, taking our study sample from China has
considerable merit. This study considers the credit situation of SMEs and banks in different Chinese provinces from 2011 to 2018 as
the research object. First, we determine whether fintech can promote the supply of credit to SMEs. Second, we consider previous
findings that the bank's size may make it more conducive to supplying credit to SMEs. We also investigate whether fintech will have
different effects on banks of different sizes to present new conclusions on these differences.
This study offers several contributions to the academic discussion. First, only a few studies investigate the impact of fintech on
banks of different sizes. This study provides new evidence on the “advantages of lending technology” considering banks of different

Funding Resources: This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 71803081); Foundation of the
National Ministry of Education of China (Grant numbers 18YJC790134, IRT_17R52); Research Funds for the Central Universities in Nanjing
Agricultural University (Grant numbers SKYZ2018026, KJQN201953).
E-mail address: shengtx@njau.edu.cn.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101558
Received 23 January 2020; Received in revised form 29 March 2020; Accepted 20 April 2020
1544-6123/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Tianxiang Sheng, Finance Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101558
T. Sheng Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

sizes. Second, the limited existing research on fintech and bank credit for SMEs is based mainly on microdata at either the enterprise
or bank-level (Schweitzer and Barkley, 2017; Mocetti et al., 2017; Sutherland, 2018). This study uses provincial annual macro data to
supply new evidence.
The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. We review the related literature and develop the hypotheses in Section 2. Section 3
introduces the methodology, and we report and discuss the empirical results in Section 4. We provide some concluding remarks in
Section 5.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

The comprehensive application of fintech to the supply of SME credit includes applications such as Internet information tech-
nology, big data, blockchain technology, and artificial intelligence (Jagtiani and Lemieux, 2017). Some scholars do not directly
examine the effects of fintech on banks’ supply of credit to SMEs, but focus on the impact of fintech on SMEs’ credit supply processes,
which provides some motivation for this study. First, fintech can help lending institutions improve the availability and accuracy of
the information, increase the number of information channels and sources, and reduce information friction between lending in-
stitutions and SMEs (Athreya et al., 2012; Sedunov, 2017; Sanchez, 2018). Second, the development of fintech led to the expansion of
information sharing in the credit market. Obtaining information-rich datasets from other lenders can reduce the cost of screening and
monitoring, and information sharing can also restrain borrowers’ behavior and reduce the risk associated with loans
(Sutherland, 2018). Third, fintech can help lenders improve their ability to process risk information and reduce processing costs
(DeYoung et al., 2011; Livshits et al., 2016). Based on the above analysis, we believe that fintech can alleviate the problem of
information asymmetry in bank credit for SMEs. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Overall, Fintech promotes the supply of bank credit to SMEs.
Numerous studies investigate whether bank size indicates an advantage in providing loans to SMEs. Most studies assert that small
banks have comparative advantages and can provide more loans to SMEs (Berger et al., 2005; Hasan et al., 2017; Berger et al., 2017).
The lending technology of banks that provide loans to SMEs consists of transaction lending and relationship lending.1 Prior studies
consider that small banks are better at relationship lending and more suitable for handling the soft information on SMEs. Moreover,
some studies propose that large banks gradually formed a comparative advantage in the SME lending market (DeYoung et al., 2004;
Berger et al., 2007), stating that SMEs are less willing to use small banks as their main banks. Berger et al. (2014) point out that the
main reason may be that the content of lending technology changed.
The development of fintech could provide fresh evidence concerning the different advantages of large and small banks. However,
there is little research that examines the actual effects. We made inferences based on some possibly relevant literature. On the one
hand, large banks can use fintech to improve their lending technology. Fintech can transform soft information into hard information,
eliminate data collection or real-time decision-making by humans, simplify information transfer, improve processing speed, reduce
cost, and promote the continuous improvement of transaction lending (Cenni et al., 2015; Liberti and Petersen, 2018). Since large
banks have more experience in transaction lending, the impacts above are more likely to upgrade large banks’ lending technology.
On the other hand, small banks were slower to take advantage of fintech, and the original organizational structure advantage
declined. Filip et al. (2017) believe that large banks accept and apply fintech faster than small regional banks do. Liberti (2018)
points out that fintech reduces the cost of obtaining information at a distance. Thus, large banks can decentralize loan decision-
making and imitate the organizational structure of small banks to collect soft information more effectively. Based on the above
analysis, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2. Fintech has a positive impact on the supply of credit to SMEs in large banks.
Hypothesis 3. Fintech has a negative impact on the advantage of small banks in lending to SMEs.

3. Methodology

3.1. Model

To focus on the overall effect of fintech on the credit provisions of banks to SMEs, we considered specific data characteristics. We
analyze provincial panel data and adopt some variable settings from the existing literature. To test hypothesis 1, we construct the
following regression model:
SMEPit = 0 + 1 FINTECHit 1 + C CONit 1 + it (1)
In Eq. (1), i and t represent the province and year, respectively. From the perspective of commercial banks’ credit business
practice, when other factors affect SMEs’ credit supply, there is often a certain lag; therefore, the core explanatory variables and
control variables use first-order lag terms. SMEP represents the credit supply of SMEs from banks, and FINTECH represents the fintech
development level.
CON represents the control variables adopted following prior research (Ryan et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016) and the correlations

1
Existing studies generally consider transaction lending to be based mainly on hard information that can be quantitatively measured, while
relationship lending is based on soft information that cannot be quantitatively measured.

2
T. Sheng Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

between variables. To minimize the multicollinearity problem, we add the following control variables: MARKET represents the credit
environment and controls for the influence of the business environment of SMEs on their credit supply. CITY represents the urba-
nization rate and controls for the impact of economic structure changes on the development of SMEs and their loans. FGDP represents
the development of the financial industry and controls for the impact of the overall business development of financial institutions on
loans to SMEs. Lastly, GDPGROW represents the level of economic growth and controls for the impact of economic growth on loans to
SMEs.
To test hypotheses 2 and 3, we construct the following regression model:
SMEPit = 0 + 1 BigBANK it 1 + 2 FINTECHit 1 × BigBANKit 1 + 3 FINTECHit 1 + C CONit 1 + it (2)

SMEPit = 0 + 1 MedANK it 1 + 2 FINTECHit 1 × MedBANKit 1 + 3 FINTECHit 1 + C CONit 1 + it (3)

SMEPit = 0 + 1 SmallBANK it 1 + 2 FINTECHit 1 × SmallBANKit 1 + 3 FINTECHit 1 + C CONit 1 + it (4)

In Eqs. (2) – (4), we follow Berger et al. (2017) and capture the information of different banks by the proportion of branches
belonging to banks of different sizes. BigBANK represents the proportion of large banks, MedBANK the proportion of medium banks,
and SmallBANK the proportion of small banks.2 The other variables have the same meaning as before. All variables are defined in
Appendix A.

3.2. Data

To test our hypotheses, we use the annual data of 31 provinces in mainland China for the sample from 2011 to 2018. Table 1
presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. The credit supply of SMEs, the development level of fintech, and the development
of banks of various sizes all show great differences; moreover, the variables are mainly within a reasonable range, providing a good
sample basis for empirical analysis.

4. Results and discussion

After performing a Hausman test, we control for year and province fixed effects in all regressions and standard errors clustered at
the province level. Table 2 reports the estimation results. In column 1, the coefficient of FINTECH is significantly positive. In columns
2 to 4, the joint coefficients of FINTECH and FINTECHⅹBigBANK, FINTECHⅹMedBANK, and FINTECHⅹSmallBANK, are all significantly
positive, indicating that FINTECH can promote the supply of credit to SMEs. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is verified.
In column 2, the coefficient of BigBANK is significantly negative, while the coefficient of FINTECHⅹBigBANK is significantly
positive. We believe that prior to the appearance of fintech, the larger the proportion of large banks—due to their disadvantages in
lending technology—the more unfavorable it was for the credit supply of SMEs. However, fintech development improved the lending
technology of big banks and promoted the supply of credit to SMEs. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is verified.
In column 4, the coefficient of SmallBANK is significantly positive, while the coefficient of FINTECHⅹSmallBANK is significantly
negative. As highlighted in the hypothesis development section, the advantages of the organizational structure and lending tech-
nology of small banks are conducive to providing loans to SMEs. However, after the emergence of fintech, this original advantage of
small banks declined; thus, the effect of promoting the credit supply of SMEs also decreased. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is verified.
In column 3, the coefficients of MedBANK and FINTECHⅹMedBANK are not significant, indicating that the promotion effect of
medium banks on the credit supply of SMEs is not significant. Furthermore, FINTECH did not change this situation. Table 2 also shows
the influence of the other control variables. The higher Market and FGDP are, the higher the credit supply to SMEs from banks is. A
higher CITY also leads to a higher credit supply for SMEs. There was no significant correlation between GDPGROW and the supply of
bank credit to SMEs.
To ensure the robustness of the results, we conducted two additional tests.
First, considering the data characteristics of the explanatory variables, we used a fractional response model to make corre-
sponding estimates. In this test, the value of the explained variable SMEP is the proportional value, and the numerical distribution
range is between 0 and 1. Considering this type of case, Papke and Wooldridge (2008) believe that the conventional linear panel
model may not be accurate; therefore, they propose the fractional response model and use the quasi-maximum likelihood method to
estimate the corresponding value. Appendix B reports the estimation results, which are similar to those of the fixed-effect model,
meaning that this test also verifies hypotheses 1, 2 and 3.
Second, considering the potential endogeneity, we used the instrumental variable method for a two-stage least-squares (2SLS)
estimation. We could adopt the Internet penetration rate as an instrumental variable for the level of fintech development; how-
ever, the Internet—as the infrastructure for fintech—is closely related to the changes in fintech. Further, after controlling for the local
credit environment, urbanization rate, financial industry development, economic growth level, and other factors, there is no direct
correlation between Internet penetration and bank credit supply for SMEs, which makes the Internet penetration rate an effective
instrumental variable. The Hausman test shows that the instrumental variable method is appropriate. The Cragg–Donald Wald F and
Kleibergen–Paap Wald F statistics are significantly above the critical value of 10% provided by the Stock–Yogo tables (Stock and
Yogo, 2005). Therefore, the null hypothesis of weak instrument variables is significantly rejected, indicating that the model does not

2
Large banks refer to state-owned banks, medium banks to national joint-stock banks, and small banks to urban and rural banks.

3
T. Sheng Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
Variables Mean Std. Min. Max. Observations

SMEP 0.181 0.040 0.072 0.329 217

FINTECH 4.973 0.677 2.785 5.819 217
BigBANK 0.542 0.108 0.357 0.998 217
MedBANK 0.049 0.043 0.001 0.211 214
SmallBANK 0.409 0.117 0.001 0.601 217
CITY 0.555 0.133 0.227 0.896 217
FGDP 0.064 0.029 0.019 0.174 217
MARKET 6.318 2.152 −0.3 10.23 217
GDPGROW 9.247 2.546 −2.5 16.4 217

Table 2
The influence of fintech on the supply of credit to SMEs.
(1) (2) (3) (4)

FINTECHt − 1 0.033* −0.013 0.031* 0.055⁎⁎⁎

(0.0186) (0.022) (0.016) (0.013)
FINTECHt − 1 × BigBANKt − 1 0.061⁎⁎
(0.023)
BigBANKt − 1 −0.260⁎⁎
(0.105)
FINTECHt − 1 × MedBANKt − 1 0.175
(0.133)
MedBANKt − 1 −1.121
(0.794)
FINTECHt − 1 × SmallBANKt − 1 −0.062⁎⁎⁎
(0.022)
SmallBANKt − 1 0.283⁎⁎⁎
(0.102)
MARKETt − 1 0.012* 0.011* 0.012⁎⁎ 0.011*
(0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
CITYt − 1 0.325 0.441* 0.479⁎⁎ 0.475*
(0.209) (0.250) (0.239) (0.253)
FGDPt − 1 0.772⁎⁎ 0.687⁎⁎ 0.739⁎⁎ 0.679⁎⁎
(0.300) (0.276) (0.351) (0.279)
GDPGROWt − 1 −0.0003 −0.001 −0.001 −0.002
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)
Year effects YES YES YES YES
Province effects YES YES YES YES
Observations 217 217 214 217
Adj. R-squared 0.453 0.509 0.449 0.509

Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *, **, ***denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

have weak instrumental variables. Appendix C reports the estimation results, which are similar to those of the fixed effects model, and
verify both hypotheses.
Based on the results, we believe that fintech can promote banks’ supply of credit to SMEs. More notably, compared with small
banks, fintech is more conducive to increasing large banks’ credit to SMEs. The results show that fintech changed how banks
overcome information asymmetry, helping them gain access to more information and turning soft information into hard information,
which in turn reduces the technical advantage of small banks in lending. We also find the importance of the overall operations and
development of financial institutions and the external credit environment for credit supply to SMEs. Urbanization also promotes the
development of secondary and tertiary industries, drives the development of SMEs, and enables banks to increase the credit supply
correspondingly. However, we should note that economic growth may not directly boost the supply of bank credit to SMEs.

5. Conclusion

This study discusses the impact of fintech on banks’ supply of credit to SMEs, with a focus on bank size. Based on annual
provincial panel data from China for the period 2011 to 2018, our empirical analysis shows that fintech can promote the overall
supply of credit to SMEs from banks. Furthermore, compared with small banks, fintech plays a stronger role in promoting large banks’
credit supply to SMEs, mainly because of the decline in the original technical advantages of small banks due to fintech development.
This study's findings provide additional knowledge to the literature. Many previous studies state that meeting the credit needs of
SMEs requires the vigorous development of small banks. However, we believe that big banks are stronger overall and are more
capable of accepting technological innovations (such as big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and more.).

4
T. Sheng Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Therefore, it is easier for them to improve lending technology with the help of fintech.
Considering credit to SMEs from a practical perspective, our conclusions have some guiding significance. In countries that mainly
practice indirect financing, to increase the supply of credit to SMEs, the focus should be on banks of all sizes to strengthen the
application of fintech instead of establishing more small banks.
However, this study has a limitation. Due to data availability, we could not directly examine the intermediate process of fintech's
influence on banks’ supply of credit to SMEs. Although the study tries to use different testing methods, the limitations of the panel
data may have led to certain inaccuracies in the inferences. Future research can incorporate relevant intermediate variables to test the
mechanism more completely.

Appendices

Appendix A
Variable definitions
Variable Definition Source

SMEP Loan balance of SMEs in banks / total loan balance in banks in the province The People's Bank of China
FINTECH Peking University Digital Inclusive Financial Index* of the province (logarithm) Institute of Digital Finance, Peking University
BigBANK Number of large bank branches/total number of bank branches in the province Wind⁎⁎
MedBANK Number of medium bank branches/total number of bank branches in the province Wind
SmallBANK Number of small bank branches/total number of bank branches in the province Wind
MARKET Marketization index of the province Marketization Index of China's Provinces: Neri Report 2018
CITY Proportion of urban population in the province Wind
FGDP The financial sector's GDP as a share of the total GDP for each province Wind
GDPGROW GDP growth rate of the province Wind

⁎
The index combines the characteristics of the new situation of traditional financial services and Internet financial services (Guo et al., 2019).
The index is constructed from three dimensions: coverage breadth, usage depth, and digitization degree of digital financial services by combining
available data and considering data reliability. Usage depth involves sub-indices such as payment, credit, insurance, investment, and money funds.
⁎⁎
“Wind” is the market leader in China's financial information services industry. The Wind financial database provides complete information on
the Chinese economy.

Appendix B
Robustness test: The influence of fintech on the supply of credit to SMEs(Fractional response model)
(1) (2) (3) (4)

FINTECHt − 1 0.131* −0.040 0.177⁎⁎ 0.210⁎⁎⁎

(0.067) (0.077) (0.082) (0.040)
FINTECHt − 1 × BigBANKt − 1 0.222⁎⁎⁎
(0.071)
BigBANKt − 1 −0.957⁎⁎⁎
(0.325)
FINTECHt − 1 × MedBANKt − 1 0.708
(0.553)
MedBANKt − 1 −4.592
(3.297)
FINTECHt − 1 × SmallBANKt − 1 −0.229⁎⁎⁎
(0.067)
SmallBANKt − 1 1.048⁎⁎⁎
(0.305)
MARKETt − 1 0.048⁎⁎ 0.042⁎⁎ 0.049⁎⁎ 0.043⁎⁎
(0.023) (0.019) (0.022) (0.020)
CITYt − 1 1.091 1.495* 1.506* 1.621*
(0.785) (0.886) (0.773) (0.888)
FGDPt − 1 2.888⁎⁎⁎ 2.480⁎⁎⁎ 2.636⁎⁎ 2.449⁎⁎
(1.073) (0.945) (1.106) (0.969)
GDPGROWt − 1 −0.001 −0.005 −0.003 −0.006
(0.006) (0.004) (0.006) (0.004)
Year effects YES YES YES YES
Province effects YES YES YES YES
Observations 217 217 214 217

Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *, **, ***denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

5
T. Sheng Finance Research Letters xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix C
Robustness test: The influence of fintech on the supply of credit to SMEs (Instrumental variable method)
(1) (2) (3) (4)

FINTECHt − 1 0.0242* −0.0249 0.0166⁎⁎ 0.0737⁎⁎⁎

(0.0138) (0.0371) (0.0091) (0.0281)
FINTECHt − 1 × BigBANKt − 1 0.0806⁎⁎⁎
(0.0311)
BigBANKt − 1 −0.3603⁎⁎
(0.1489)
FINTECHt − 1 × MedBANKt − 1 0.0687
(0.0920)
MedBANKt − 1 −0.1928
(0.5431)
FINTECHt − 1 × SmallBANKt − 1 −0.0819⁎⁎⁎
(0.0296)
SmallBANKt − 1 0.3798⁎⁎⁎
(0.1423)
MARKETt − 1 0.0112⁎⁎ 0.0106⁎⁎ 0.0065 0.0122⁎⁎⁎
(0.0047) (0.0048) (0.0045) (0.0048)
CITYt − 1 0.3715⁎⁎ 0.4614⁎⁎ 0.4302⁎⁎⁎ 0.4643⁎⁎⁎
(0.1726) (0.1806) 0.1492 (0.1791)
FGDPt − 1 0.8116⁎⁎⁎ 0.6557⁎⁎⁎ 0.8916⁎⁎⁎ 0.6025⁎⁎⁎
(0.2704) (0.2147) (0.2328) (0.2193)
GDPGROWt − 1 −0.0003 −0.0016* −0.0010 −0.0018⁎⁎
(0.0011) (0.0009) (0.0012) (0.0009)
Year effects YES YES YES YES
Province effects YES YES YES YES
Observations 217 217 214 217

Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses. *, **, ***denote statistical significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

References

Arner, D., Barberis J., Buckley R., 2015. The evolution of fintech: a new post-crisis paradigm?The University of Hong Kong, Working Paper.
Athreya, K., Tam, X.S., Young, E.R., 2012. A quantitative theory of information and unsecured credit. Am. Econ. J. 4 (3), 153–183.
Berger, A.N., Bouwman, C.H.S., Kim, D., 2017. Small bank comparative advantages in alleviating financial constraints and providing liquidity insurance over time. Rev
Financ. Stud. 30 (10), 3416–3454.
Berger, A.N., Goulding, W., Rice, T., 2014. Do small businesses still prefer community banks. J. Bank.Financ. 44, 264–278.
Berger, A.N., Miller, N.H., Petersen, M.A., Rajan, R.G., Stein, J.C., 2005. Does function follow organizational form? Large and small banks. J. Financ. Econ. 76,
237–269.
Berger, A.N., Rosen, R.J., Udell, G.F., 2007. Does market size structure affect competition? The case of small business lending. J. Bank. Financ. 31 (1), 1133.
Berger, A.N., Udell, G.F., 2006. A more complete conceptual framework for SME finance. J. Bank. Financ. 30 (11), 29452966.
Cenni, S., Monferra, S., Salotti, V., Sangiorgi, M., Torluccio, G., 2015. Credit rationing and relationship lending. Does firm size matter. J. Bank. Financ. 53 (4),
249–265.
Deyoung, R., Frame, W.S., Glennon, D., Nigro, P., 2011. The information revolution and small business lending: the missing evidence. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 39 (1–2),
19–33.
DeYoung, R., Hunter, W.C., Udell, G.F., 2004. The past, present, and probable future for community banks. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 25, 85–133.
Filip, D., Jackowicz, K., Kozlowski, L., 2017. Influence of internet and social media presence on small, local banks' market power. Baltic J. Econ. 17 (2), 190–214.
Guo, F., Wang, J.Y., Wang, F., Kong, T., Zhang, X., Cheng, Z.Y., 2019. Measuring the development of digital financial inclusion in China: Index compilation and spatial
characteristics. China Econ. Q Forthcoming. In Chinese.
Hasan, I., Jackowicz, K., Kowalewski, O., 2017. Do local banking market structures matter for SME financing and performance? New evidence from an emerging
economy. J. Bank. Financ. 79 (6), 142–158.
Jagtiani, J., Lemieux, C., 2017. Fintech lending: financial inclusion, risk pricing, and alternative information. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper.
No.17.
Jaksic, M., Marinc, M., 2019. Relationship banking and information technology: the role of artificial intelligence and fintech. Risk Manag. 21 (1), 1–18.
Li, G.Z., Xiong, D.H., Liu, L., 2016. How does SMBs’ development affect SMEs’ financing. J. Financ. Res. 12, 78–94 In Chinese.
Liberti, J.M., 2018. Initiative, incentives, and soft information. Manag. Sci. 64 (8), 3714–3734.
Liberti, J.M., Petersen, M.A., 2018. Information: hard and soft. NBER Working Paper. No.25075.
Livshits, I., Mac Gee, J.C., Tertilt, M., 2016. The democratization of credit and the rise in consumer bankruptcies. R. Econ. Studies. 83 (4), 1673–1710.
Mocetti, S., Pagnini, M., Sette, E., 2017. Information technology and banking organization. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 51 (3), 313–338.
Papke, L.E., Wooldridge, J.M., 2008. Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates. J. Econ. 145, 121–133.
Ryan, R.M., O'Toole, C.M., McCann, F., 2014. Does bank market power affect SME financing constraints? J. Bank. Financ 49, 495–505.
Sanchez, J., 2018. The information technology revolution and the unsecured credit market. Econ. Inq. 56 (2), 914–930.
Schweitzer, M.E., Barkley, B., 2017. Is “fintech” good for small business borrowers? Impacts on firm growth and customer satisfaction. Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland Working Paper.No.1.
Sedunov, J., 2017. Does bank technology affect small business lending decisions. J. Financ.Res. 40 (1), 5–32.
Stock, J., Yogo, M., 2005. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: Andrews, D.W.K. (Ed.), Identification and Inference for Econometric Models.
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 80–108.
Sutherland, A., 2018. Does credit reporting lead to a decline in relationship lending? Evidence from information sharing technology. J. Account.Econ. 66 (1), 123–141.
Thakor, A.V., 2020. Fintech and banking: What do we know? J. Financ. Intermed. 41, 1–13.