Introduction

Banks in Malaysia performed well in 2019 as fintech disruptions are reshaping the industry and external disadvantages, as well as the uncertainty brought about Brexit and trade disputes among China and the USA. Outside causes do not only decelerated worldwide requests but also triggered fear of a recession and protectionism, affecting business confidence and ultimately affecting loan demand?

Rupeika-Apoga et al. (2018) found that despite these challenges, Malaysian banks have demonstrated reasonable takings and resource trait, with enough wealth shields to withstand likely pressures, despite falling profit borders and loan drawdowns.

Allawala, Allawala& Saadiq (2018) stated that there are around 12 investment banks, 16 Islamic banks, 25 commercial banks, and one global Islamic bank working in Malaysia. The growth rate of loans and revenue of these banks shown a remarkable number rise and helping the country`s economy. An expert from MIDF Amanah Investment Bank said that industry earning is raised to 3.5 this year as it has a slow down since 2018. We are also amazed to see the loan growth has also increased by 3% to 4%, which was less than 2% last year.

Ahamed & Mallick (2019) emphasized that said modest credit from industries has steered to lower-than-expected credit advance in the year, while mortgages and retail sales have remained stable, weakening overall performance. “Companies must either delay the release of approved loans or decide to repay existing loans due to economic uncertainty”. The revenue growth with the best performance of banks are AmBank Bhd, CIMB Bank Bhd, RHB Bank Bhd but the performance of Public Bank Bhd did not perform well in the market.

He said that relatively speaking, Islamic banks continue to outpace traditional banks, with double-digit growth in revenue this year. Also witnessed FinTech’s roots in traditional banking, including CIMB International, Hong Leong Bank, Affin Bank, and AMMB Holdings, and Technology Company Grab said they are interested in obtaining virtual banking licenses in the country.

Lipton & Pentland (2018) found that CIMB Group established an electronic bank in February in Philippines recently. Besides, around 50 non-banks can issue electronic money in Malaysia, of which four-quarters provide solutions for mobile pay, accounting for 86.6% of the sector’s deals. “Boost”, “GrabPay”, “Touchn Go (TnG)”were significant in Malaysia as e-wallets. The few names are “Lazada” wallets, “Samsung Pay”, “PayPal” TnG is 55% retained by “CIMB Group Holdings Bhd”.

Kerényi&Müller (2019) realized that in terms of monetary policy, the “National Bank of Malaysia (BNM)” reduced the overnight policy rate (OPR) from 27root points in May to 3% and cut the statutory reserve requirement (SRR) from 3.5% to 3.0 in November % to maintain the monetary policy. Sufficient liquidity in the financial system. The industry’s liquidity is still abundant, with an average liquidity coverage rate of 150% this year and payments more or less outpaced loan growth. He said that meeting the requirements of the Net Stable Fund Ratio (NFSR) stipulated by the State Bank is also a key factor for banks to accumulate deposits this year.

Wu & Duan (2019) stated that the bank’s choice of assets to buy will help stabilize asset quality and thus support the bank’s Lower credit costs. Given accommodative interest rates, household/retailer credit demand has been maintained amid weak corporate demand. Despite the more nervous capital market activity, another contributing factor to revenue is the elasticity of fee income. Fee-based elastic revenue comes from enhanced funding deedsby banks so they cut OPR capital in April.

Frost et al. (2019) pointed out that given that the normalization of interest net brim occurred intwo or three quarters, the OPR reduction of the State Bank had no significant impact. In 2020, the consumer sector will continue to support loan growth and the entire bank. He said that although the OPR may be further reduced in the first quarter of next year, it will not have a significant impact on bank earnings in 2020. The insurance industry remains stable.

Gnan &Masciandaro (2018) found that the takaful business’s insurance business income in 2019 remains relatively stable. An analyst with MIDF said that the acumenamount of domestic takafulis rising gradually. As of the first half of 2009, the takaful rate has risen from 9.3% in 2009 to 15.5% double-digit growth. He said Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd continues to be the best performing company, with its saturation increasing by 30% to 35% and net profit rising by approximately 40%.

Hamza & Jedidia (2020) said the same could be seen in the general business area of ​​takaful, which performs better than the traditional business due to the low bottom, even local intake, and climbingcustomer knowledge. The growth of the business of Takaful in Malaysia is superior in typical insurance, adding that the market is also partly targeted by BN’s goal to increase the proportion of Islamic financial structure drive.

“Total, the insurance of life sector did well than the insurance sector in 2019 as general, as the latter is in a phased opening of auto and fire tariffs. Customs liberalization began past year, but other insurancesthat were scheduled to yield upshot is happens this year has been deferred to next year, leaving certain room for businesses participants. In the general insurance sector, due to low penetration and increased claims, the industry declined in the first half of 2019 (the first half of 2019), a year-on-year decrease of 1.4%.

Phan, Narayan, Rahman & Hutabarat (2019) realized that the General Insurance Association of Malaysia said the industry faces a double blow, namely low penetration, and rising claims. Malaysia’s overall insurance dispersionratio has lasted to stagnate between 54% and 55% over the past five years. However, he remains optimistic about the outlook amid solidlocal request, with the growth comes from takaful of family and life insurance.

It is expect people who are non-policy owners can take advantage of the renewal and the 3,000 tax deductions in takaful.

With prudent underwriting, he is also optimistic about the general insurance sector. He continues to focus on a growing portfolio of gainful products of insurance, such as partnerships, retail, and medium-sized trades in non-automotive businesses. The sector may further consolidate in 2020, and if the government redoubles its efforts to implement the regulation, all foreign insurance companies are expected to meet Malaysia’s 30% ownership requirements.

Mester (2019) stated that the intensified competition caused by the phase-out of debt in the general insurance industry might also lead to possible mergers and acquisitions between public insurance companies.

Tech ambitions in Malaysia

As a developing country in Southeast Asia with a population of over 30 million, Malaysia has experienced quite a few turbulent years. After the previous prime minister was involved in an international corruption scandal, Mahathir, 92, was unexpectedly re-elected as the country’s leader and promised to advance several essential reforms.

Nguyen (2016) found that Around 1 trillion ringgit of Malaysia with some domestic obligations encourage people to donate funds to these banks. There are many crow funding activities made by these banks in Malaysia.

Therefore, the way of Fintech paves its roads in Malaysia. Fintech helps the country to fight corruption and enhance the economy. The political leaders of the country started to realize the importance of technology and recognized the critical role in the country`s progress. The blockchain can also improve the economy of the country if taken into consideration by authorities.

Ozili (2018) realized that according to the definition of the Journal of Innovation Management, “‘fintech’ is a new type of financial industry that uses technology to improve economic activities.”

Fintech companies include start-ups and traditional financial companies, all of which are trying to trade or improve the services of existing fiscal institutions, and the popularity of smartphones has boosted the industry’s growth.

Mavrakana&Psillaki (2019) found that in addition to startups, traditional financial institutions have also joined this industry revolution.Many banks have established their fintech innovation projects, seeking new ideas for success, and then changing the way people manage money.

Malaysia’s early incubator and investment company 1337 Ventures produced a map of Malaysia’s fintech ecosystem covering different market segments. From this picture, most of the country’s fintech companies are focusingon the field of payments and loans.

Nabilou (2019) stated that considering Malaysia’s demographic edifice more than half are Muslims, Islamic finance (financial transactions by Islamic regulations) also occupies an essential position in the country, with extensiveadvance ability.

Many articles point out that Malaysia’s fintech development is very uneven. Some segments of the market are left unattended, while others are a red sea. The company also recently launched a pre-incubation crash course specifically for the financial technology sector. The session lasts for four weeks and is a lecture by a senior local bank.

Borroni & Rossi (2019) found that in the field of e-wallets, KrASIA just stated on the e-wallet app launched by gaming company Razer and Malaysian giant Berjaya Corporation Berhad. At present, the deal has settled in more than 6,000 retail point offline. Although in Malaysia, the e-wallet field is already a market segment with many players, and there are even Chinese players-Alipay and WeChat Pay, Razer’s entry has caused waves. At the same time, Southeast Asia’s online ride-hailing platform Grab also entered the payment field last year, launched Grab Pay in Singapore, and grew its business to Malaysia in June this year.

Hartmann& Smets (2018) stated that price comparison sites are also popular in Malaysia, with significant players like“GoBear”and “iMoney” in Singapore. Both platforms provide users with identification and price comparison services for insurance and credit card financial products. Started in 2012, iMoney stated in ameeting in 2017 that although its business has covered entire Southeast Asia, more than half of the company’s revenue still comes from Malaysia.

Hakenes&Schliephake (2019) noted that they have a first-mover advantage in Malaysia for two years, so we have been growing. But in markets such as the Philippines and Indonesia, we are more or less in the stage of improving ourselves and covering so many areas,” said Lee Ching, CEO of iMoney Wei said.

1337 Ventures also lists those segments that are still the blue ocean today, including credit ratings, real estate websites, and capital market transactions.

The regulation of the Malaysian fintech industry is mainly related to financing and equity crowd funding.

Literature review

Cooperation or demise: what banks should do today, large banks are working with fintech companies in a type of styles. They want to shrink enduringcosts and defend their market share by providing clients with novel products in banking. But all failed. To work with fintech companies and truly realize value transformation, banks need to have a clear sympathy of the advance model, in addition to scope and licensing issues of the bank’s modernism, locating and retained technology purposes.

Nabilou (2019) stated that given the enormous variances in size and culture between banks, they also need to determine how best to work with Fintech companies. We believe that banks can unlock the full potential of fintech within their organizations in four steps. Banks have many groundbreaking concepts; the trail is to determine the right ideas from them and embed them in technology. The complexity, size, and isolation of banks themselves mean that it is often challenging to address this challenge effectively.

Develop a fintech framework that rewards innovation

Borroni& Rossi (2019) found that for banks, many innovation opportunities not only address structural cost challenges but also enable banks to achieve longer-term benefits. On the other hand, working evaluation and return series are frequently shorter. Therefore, when the economic environment is uncertain, it is understandable that people are concerned about agreeing on the surplus hazards of these prices of investment. Banks need to settle this internal issue. This means that banks requirements with clear plans in the context of fintech strategies.

Hartmann& Smets (2018) stated that process execution must be top-down while encouraging innovation and incorporating lessons learned. To support development, a framework for adopting innovation must be identified, with clear accountability, decision-making framework, and success criteria. Employees should be encouraged to come up with new ideas and innovative suggestions through internal social media. Also, the “hackathon” (note: technical creativity exchange activities involving corporate IT engineers) also provides a window for encouraging employees to propose and express concepts. We endorse that banks clarify the basis and processes of their intentions, and then segment related information with companies. Which like to share, causes of internal and external influences, end on processes and tolerance gages, and the drivers that support the innovation context.

Selecting the innovative business model to meet business needs

Hakenes&Schliephake (2019) noted that although there are many innovative business models currently in use, banks usually adopt one of the following three few types: central, not central, or mix of both. For the central model, the main novelty executive directs the focal advance unit to grow commercial answers. This prototype can identify not only specific innovation needs and provide new ideas and concepts for the organization, but also better coordinate work with the main tools executive and linkages with obtaining activities and supplier management and risk interests. However, one might think that the main innovation unit is far away from the corporate unit to know its wants fully. If the central pattern toils fine, Fintech companies can assist from the funding and architecture they provide. If the operation is not proper, the organization may face a longer decision-making cycle, and it will take more time to find the business initiator.

Kim, Park & Song (2016) found that the non-central classic is more common in local banks. Every unit of business controls its management process so that departments familiar with the business can catch real problems faster and find innovative institutions that can provide effective solutions. The disadvantages are duplication of work, the creation of social procedures, and a dearth of regularity. Although fintech companies work closely with many banks can work more quickly with business sponsors, it is challenging to link new ideas to business needs deprived the care and guidance of a chief unit. We like to say that, mix model is the best solution so far.

Campiglio et al. (2018) realized that we believe that a clear novelty units aids banks set the tenor and communicate the right point. At the same time, banks need clear leadership to defend innovation. We praise, however, that the void among purely innovative institutions and commercial teams wishes be as close as workable. Therefore, consider it necessary to ensure the transparency of the end-to-end innovation adoption process. The parties involved in acquiring bank innovation projects currently have little understanding of end course everything, so the confusion faced by fintech companies can be imagined.

Mavrakana&Psillaki (2019) researched that our research shows that when banks seek assistance from fintech companies to drive innovation, their preferred interaction strategy is a collaboration. Through cooperation, banks can work together to develop new technical standards for future adoption. We also pointed out in the analysis that in terms of internal product development, big banks in the region of Asia-Pacific. They are fixated than banks in the many different areas, especially in the field of digital payment. They use banks to provide services to customers who have insufficient banking services.

Junejo, Shah & Bachani (2019) noted that banks in North America tend to invest in new product development, and many large US banks choose to invest in fintech startups. European banks usually take a stable method, and they may be extra to incorporate M & A into fintech strategies. Generally, just a few of the 54 banks globally surveyed conducted extensive cooperation with fintech companies through collaboration, development of independent fintech products, investment in innovative companies, or acquisition of innovative companies.

Chol, Nthambi & Kamau (2019) found that banks have initiated or participated in numerous incubators, accelerators and programs for training to gain early entrée to tools and flair without having to rely too much on fintech companies. For fintech companies, such arrangements make it easy to get the capitals, funding,data, and social breaks they need to trail their products or services prototypes. The way to integrate with FinTech companies is not unique. However, while banks want to rely on fintech companies to drive innovation, it is often difficult for them to successfully implement new and innovative technologies, regardless of the type of integration they choose.

Zhao (2018) stated that the sooner the whole bank accepts creative ideas, the faster it will achieve sustainable change. Banks should wisely value many integration copies and select a hybrid model that can support their novelty standards and lasting development plans.

Malaysia is becoming a promising fintech market in Southeast Asia.

Kephart et al. (2018) stated that as a developing country in Southeast Asia with a population of more than 30 million, Malaysia have experienced quite a few turbulent years. After the previous prime minister was involved in an international corruption scandal, Mahathir, 92, was unexpectedly re-elected as the country’s leader and promised to advance several significant reforms.

Natarajan, Krause & Gradstein (2017) realized that when analyze the data for the years 2013 to 2017 we see how they are really very significant. In terms of investment in fintech startups in the Malaysia, $6.7 billion was raised compared to $ 4.4 billion in the rest of Europe. In terms of employment at the end of 2017, the UK already employed more than 60,000 people in this sector, more than in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia combined, generating more than £ 6.6 billion last year. In Spain, we barely exceed a thousand employees.
Safarzyńska & van den Bergh (2017) found that focusing on the main risk that I mentioned at the beginning of this article: minimizing regulatory risk. To this end, in 2013 they began to work within a legislative and supervisory framework that would allow them to create bodies adapted to the new business models developed by fintech companies.

Nyborg (2016) realized that Fintech companies include start-ups and traditional financial companies, all of which are trying to replace or improve the services of existing financial institutions, and the popularity of smartphones has boosted the industry’s growth.

Rahman (2018) found that in addition to startups, traditional financial institutions have also joined this industry revolution: many banks have established their fintech innovation projects, seeking new ideas for success, and then changing the way people manage money.

Kopp, Kaffenberger&Jenkinson (2017) researched that Malaysia’s early incubator and investment company 1337 Ventures produced a map of Malaysia’s fintech ecosystem covering different market segments. From this picture, most of the country’s fintech companies are put in the field of payments and loans.

Tsai & Kuan-Jung (2017) realized that considering Malaysia’s demographic structure-more than half are Muslims, Islamic finance (financial transactions following Islamic regulations) also occupies an essential position in the country, with considerable growth potential.

Rupeika-Apoga et al. (2018) found that the increase in Fintech newcomers in the sector does not have to provoke panic attacks on banks due to the challenges posed by the radical transformation of all their technological infrastructure in order to compete. The perpetual popularity of “us against them” debate does not provide an accurate picture of the relationship between Fintech innovators and banks. Let us make it clear, banks are the cornerstone on which our economies rest, they are the ways in which most Fintech companies operate, and they will not disappear in the near, even distant future.

Ahamed & Mallick (2019) emphasized that creating an essentially different way of seeing and focusing on the sector. Technology startups look at this landscape of financial services and, using the rationality of the internet, see poor customer service as a margin to introduce huge efficiencies. This logic has been applied to other sectors, such as music and telecommunications, which have also been transformed by new technologies and the internet. What a traditional bank can see as a threat in the digital age, its competitors can interpret as an opportunity.

Wu & Duan (2019) stated that many researchers also lists those segments that are still the blue ocean today, including credit ratings, real estate websites, and capital market transactions.

Regulatory environment

Frost et al. (2019) noted that the regulation of the Malaysian fintech industry is mainly related to financing and equity crowdfunding.

Gnan &Masciandaro (2018) found that Bank Negara Malaysia, which is also the country’s central bank, first released the fintech governing sandbox framework in 2016, which aims to create a friendly development setting for fintech and promote the advancement of Malaysia’s financial industry.

Hamza & Jedidia (2020) found that according to a 2016 report by Ernst & Young that explores fintech compliance and the regulatory environment, generally speaking, the role of the regulatory sandbox is to relax or even exempt existing private regulatory entities on a pilot basis.

Phan, Narayan, Rahman & Hutabarat (2019) realized that companies incorporated into the framework which have an advantage when it comes to personal and corporate customers. Of course, not all companies can become pilot units. The conditions to be met include, but are not limited to:

• There are products, services or solutions that can genuinely be called innovations that can increase the convenience, competence, safety factor and value of services for finance.

Mester (2019) stated that prove that the company has adequately and correctly assessed the effectiveness, functionality, and associated risks of the product, service, or solution

• Have the resources needed to conduct sandbox testing to mitigate and control the risks and losses associated with the products, services, and solutions provided by the company
• Have a realistic business plan to commercialize their products, services or solutions in Malaysia after exiting the sandbox framework

Nguyen (2016) found that participating in the regulatory sandbox project can help companies acquire customers who would want to give money to a company that has not been approved or recognized by the regulator?” Adrian Yap, CEO of Money Match, a fintech startup in Malaysia, said in an interview. Money Match was approved by the National Bank of Malaysia in mid-2017 and is one of four companies that have incorporate in the regulatory sandbox framework to date.

Ozili (2018) realized that the fields of remittance and currency exchange have also open. And some big players in the market have also started to look for cooperation with us. It is beneficial to join the sandbox.”

Mavrakana&Psillaki (2019) found that the National Bank of Malaysia has also established a FinTech Empowerment Organization, whose website shows that the organization is “mainly responsible for formulating.They also help improving regulatory strategies to increase the penetration of innovative technologies in Malaysia’s financial services industry.

Nabilou (2019) stated that in 2015, Malaysia issued regulations regulating equity crowd funding activities, becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to promulgate relevant laws. Equity crowd funding refers to private companies selling part of their shares to investors.

Borroni& Rossi (2019) found that according to a 2016 Invest Smart equity crowd funding report (Invest Smart is a project under the Malaysian Securities Commission’s Investor Protection Initiative), new regulations issued in 2015 include:

• The number of investors investing in a single company must not exceed 5,000 Malaysian ringgits (8381.5 Yuan)
• Investors enjoy a 6-day cooling-off period during which all investments can be withdraw by investor
• The total amount of investors participating in equity crowd funding within 12 months must not exceed 50,000 ringgits (83815 Yuan)

Hartmann & Smets (2018) stated that the result is a wave of Fintech companies seeking to optimize particular segments of the financial value chain (be it in international transfers, loans or the payment process) and offering their specialized services to other companies and banks via API. A company that wanted to support musicians could, for example, do it through a technology firm like Kickstarter to provide loans, and another Currency Cloud type to make the payment. The success of these participants is due in part to their ability to focus on a very specific niche in the sector, rather than trying to compete at all levels. Banks, on the other hand, have always tried to take ownership of all aspects of the range of financial services, and this is where they find themselves struggling, as alternative participants offer more sophisticated services to clients within a specific niche.

Hakenes & Schliephake (2019) noted that despite their differences, Both Fintech participants and banks have a lot to gain by participating together. Fintech entities can benefit from the long history of banking operations and the base that banks offer. They are a vital part of the puzzle, as banks provide the financial instruments that Fintech companies offer packaged in different ways, while focusing on one specific use at a time. Banks can simultaneously gain value in new entrants, already either seeking to partner, or acquiring their advanced technology offerings. Using API capabilities provided in this way can help banks expand their services internationally, lower their development costs, and discover new modes of revenue without having to invest and create new structures. Fintech growth and pressure to open up access to financial data has been warned by the entire sector as the government continues to support Fintech entities and the development of the United Kingdom as the most groundbreaking financial hub. Not surprisingly, plans have recently been announced to create a consolidated and open API approach for banks. The government has pledged to launch a call for data on the best way to provide an open standard for APIs in the British banking sector and to ask whether further openness of data in banking could benefit consumers.

Kim, Park & Song (2016) found that the beginning of this process has been to talk about the products offered by banks, the next step is to know what Fintech companies are really interested in: fully opening transaction data from within banks. However, banks continue to be very cautious before giving external participants access to this type of data, and it will take many conversations before such a gesture becomes reality. These may not have been the breakthroughs we were initially hoping for when we started hearing about the open standard, but at least it’s a very good start. We have already seen how taking care of the API economy can endow the sector with a good dose of innovation, and with greater support, it will undoubtedly continue to produce new opportunities for both banks and alternative participants who are coming. The faith that the British government is showing that these effective newcomers will take the sector forward and into the twenty-first century further demonstrates that the alternative participants have done a wonderful job of showing their value to the sector.

Mavrakana&Psillaki (2019) researched that considering Malaysia’s demographic structure-more than half are Muslims, Islamic finance (financial transactions by Islamic regulations) also occupies an essential position in the country, with the considerable growth potential of finance.

Junejo, Shah & Bachani (2019) noted that for the past two years, Malaysia has become the leader in the fintech market, placing itself as the gateway for Chinese technology titans to the global market. Private investments in Malaysia fintech companies got $562 million in 2018, more than twice the investment recorded in 2017 ($246.3 million) and five times more than in 2016 ($ 135.6 million).

Currently, there are about 570 financial technology startups in Malaysia, as well as test settings and numerous industry-focused accelerators. The development of this trade is mostly due to the group of private investors with a position that keenly supports fintech companies. For example, the Malaysian government has established a fund of 500 million Malaysia dollars (about 64 million US dollars) for the development of the financial amenities sector for the next five years. Also, Malaysian authorities actively promote the event of an ecosystem of Fintech companies through the Foundation for Innovation and Technology (ITF).

References

Hamza, H., & Jedidia, K. B. (2020). Central Bank Digital Currency and Financial Stability in a Dual Banking System. In Impact of Financial Technology (FinTech) on Islamic Finance and Financial Stability (pp. 233-252). IGI Global.

Phan, D. H. B., Narayan, P. K., Rahman, R. E., & Hutabarat, A. R. (2019). Do financial technology firms influence bank performance?. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 101210.

Mester, L. J. (2019). Cybersecurity and Financial Stability; 2019 Financial Stability Conference–Financial Stability: Risks, Resilience, and Policy, 11.21. 19; Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and the Office of Financial Research, Cleveland, OH (No. 112).

Nguyen, Q. K. (2016, November). Blockchain-a financial technology for future sustainable development. In 2016 3rd International conference on green technology and sustainable development (GTSD) (pp. 51-54). IEEE.

Ozili, P. K. (2018). Impact of digital finance on financial inclusion and stability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 329-340.

Rupeika-Apoga, R., Zaidi, H. S., Thalassinos, E. Y., & Thalassinos, I. E. (2018). Bank stability: The Case of Nordic and non-Nordic banks in Latv

Ahamed, M. M., & Mallick, S. K. (2019). Is financial inclusion good for bank stability? International evidence. Journal of Economic Behaviour& Organization, 157, 403-427.

Lipton, A., & Pentland, A. (2018). Breaking the bank. Scientific American, 318(1), 26-31.

Kerényi, Á.& Müller, J. (2019). Brave New Digital World?–Financial Technology and the Power of Information. Financial and Economic Review, 18(1), 5-32.

Wu, B., & Duan, T. (2019, June). The Advantages of Blockchain Technology in Commercial Bank Operation and Management. In Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on Machine Learning Technologies (pp. 83-87).

Frost, J., Gambacorta, L., Huang, Y., Shin, H. S., & Zbinden, P. (2019). BigTech and the changing structure of financial intermediation.

Gnan, E., & Masciandaro, D. (2018). Do we need central bank digital currency? Economics, technology and institutions. Vienna: SUERF-The European Money and Finance Forum.

Mavrakana, C., & Psillaki, M. (2019). Do economic freedom and board structure matter for bank stability and bank performance?

Nabilou, H. (2019). Central Bank digital currencies: Preliminary legal observations. Available at SSRN.

Borroni, M., & Rossi, S. (2019). Bank Management after the Great Crisis. In Banking in Europe (pp. 1-22). Palgrave Pivot, Cham.

Hartmann, P., & Smets, F. (2018, September). The first 20 years of the European Central Bank: Monetary policy. In Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Conference Draft, fall.

Hakenes, H., & Schliephake, E. (2019). The Deposit Base–Multitasking and Bank Stability.

Kim, H., Park, K., & Song, S. (2016). Banking market size structure and financial stability: evidence from eight Asian countries. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52(4), 975-990.

Campiglio, E., Deforms, Y., Mooning, P., Ryan-Collins, J., Shorten, G., & Tanaka, M. (2018). Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 462-468.

Mavrakana, C., & Psillaki, M. (2019). Do board structure and compensation matter for bank stability and bank performance? Evidence from European banks.

Junejo, I., Shah, A. A., & Bachani, A. (2019). Influence of Fin-tech on Customer Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Allied Bank of Pakistan. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 1-13.

Chol, B. B., Nthambi, E. K., & Kamau, J. (2019). Influence of bank stability on the financial performance of commercial banks in South Sudan. American Journal of Finance, 4(1), 20-30.

Zhao, D. (2018, August). The Influence of Internet Finance on the Choice of Bank Technology Innovation Mode Based the Perspective of Technology Spillover. In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 303-312). Springer, Cham.

Kephart, A. D., Howie, C. C., Glover, D. K., Nutter, D., Lewis, G. M., & Price, J. A. (2018). U.S. Patent No. 10,067,984. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Natarajan, H., Krause, S., & Gradstein, H. (2017). Distributed ledger technology and blockchain. World Bank.

Safarzyńska, K., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2017). Financial stability at risk due to investing rapidly in renewable energy. Energy Policy, 108, 12-20.

Nyborg, K. G. (2016). Central Bank Collateral Policy and Financial Fragility. Working Paper.

Rahman, Z. A. (2018). National financial inclusion strategies and measurement framework. IFC Bulletins chapters, 47.

Kopp, E., Kaffenberger, L., & Jenkinson, N. (2017). Cyber risk, market failures, and financial stability. International Monetary Fund.

Tsai, C. H., & Kuan-Jung, P. (2017). The FinTech revolution and financial regulation: the case of online supply-chain financing. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 109-132.

Allawala, A., Allawala, A., & Saadiq Berhad. (2018, April 27). Five reasons why Malaysia’s Islamic banking sector is taking off. Retrieved from https://www.sc.com/en/trade-beyond-borders/five-reasons-why-malaysias-islamic-banking-sector-is-taking-off/