“FinTech” and Academia: A Crucial Turning Point Moves Ever Closer

Today’s very short post reacts to a recent article in Reuters that discussed how some of the leading business schools across the United States are starting to embrace the demand to provide so-called ‘FinTech’ related course (‘FinTech’ being the amalgamation of Financial Technology, which covers a range of technologies). For this post, we will discuss how that demand is being met in a very varied way in terms of the ideology of FinTech, and also the importance of which ideology is championed by academia with regards to the wider effect of FinTech being used to facilitate predatory finance rather than, say, financial inclusion which is something discussed before here in Financial Regulation Matters; the role of academia, in this sense, is absolutely vital in determining the size of the next financial bubble.

Crudely, ‘FinTech’ can be understood as any technological innovation within the financial sector, which may apply to increasing financial literacy or to facilitating the development of ‘crypto-currencies’ like Bitcoin and everything in between. In terms of the global growth of the sector, it has been noted that the level of funding of FinTech endeavours has been growing steadily, which is seeing major economic players and regulators, like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, start to actively promote the development of FinTech. It is no wonder then that leading business schools are being forced to address the developing demand for FinTech-related studies. Yet, the reality of the situation is that ‘the burgeoning industry is so diverse that academics said it is difficult to construct a syllabus for financial technology… there are no textbooks and few professors have FinTech expertise’. The diversity within the sector is causing certain Universities to focus upon certain elements, with the Reuters article stating that MIT have a course that focuses on ‘blockchain’ technologies, whilst Stanford University focus on technologies that promote financial inclusion, for example. This sense of novelty that is attached to the study of FinTech has, therefore, dual characteristics – it can be used to promote real societal ‘goods’, but can also be used to syphon talent towards big business for the use of predatory finance.


Though those two extremes are, well, extremes, the choices facing the leading business schools around the world are, arguably, that stark. The growing demand can be educated in a way in which such societally-important endeavours such as the increase in financial inclusion and education, as discussed previously here in Financial Regulation Matters, are prioritised so that such endeavours are deemed central to societal advancement. Yet, there needs to be great vigilance with regards to the other extreme, because ‘big business’ has extensive form when it comes to monopolising talent to be used for profit maximisation, and not societal advancement – the Chinese Central Bank is currently investigating the potential for this within the FinTech arena. Academia, and particularly the field of Economics, came in for great criticism regarding the financial crisis, so it would be wise to temper our faith in the leasing business schools to prioritise societal advancement over profit maximisation but, in reality, there is the opportunity for business schools like Wharton, Stanford, Columbia, and the many other elite schools (in the U.S. alone) to institutionalise certain principles as finance moves forward into the 21st Century. It is hoped that the scorn from the failure to do this last time acts as encouragement for a different approach within leading and influential business schools – the reputation capital gained would far outweigh the short-term monetary reward for doing the opposite. Yet, the largest fear is with regard to predatory finance. The allure of huge remuneration packages that the financial elite can offer graduates can serve to increase predatory finance principles, but that can be counteracted by determining the ideology of FinTech and its potential effects at an earlier stage – in that sense, the responsibility facing the most influential business schools is incredible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lloyds Bank and the PPI Scandal: The Premature ‘Out of the Woods’ Rhetoric

Image
Today’s very short post focuses upon the news that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently extended the deadline to claim compensation for mis-sold ‘Payment Protection Insurance’ (PPI). Whilst a lot of financial institutions will have to prepare to offset the extended deadline, it is Lloyds that has grabbed the business headlines by apportioning an extra £350 million to offset any further claims that may be made of it – however, this comes only a week or two after the Bank posted its best performance figures in over a decade, as was previously discussed in Financial Regulation Matters . This post will therefore argue that the rhetoric being advanced recently regarding Lloyds – rhetoric like Lloyds represents ‘ a modern day success story ’ is wide of the mark and creates a false sense of security that we simply cannot afford to believe in. The ‘ robust recovery ’ was heralded far and wide upon the publication of Lloyds Bank’s financial performance for the previous fi
Read more

The Analytical Credit Rating Agency: A New Entrant That Will Further Enhance Russia’s Isolation

Image
This short post is based upon a forthcoming article by this author that examines the viability of the latest entrant into the credit rating arena, the Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA). The article, which is due to be published in the European Company Law Journal (and is available here in a pre-published version), looks at the chances of the ACRA succeeding when viewed within the parameters of perception , an aspect that underpins the credit rating sector. For this post, the focus will be upon introducing the ACRA, and then on examining the effect it may have upon the wider political issues affecting the Russian Federation. The Analytical Credit Rating Agency was established in November 2015 and comprises of 27 major Russian companies and financial institutions that serve as its shareholders. The agency, which became the first rating agency to receive accreditation from the Russian Central Bank under the new N 222-FZ Law which was designed to protect investors, has a re
Read more

The Case of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler Family, and the Opioid Crisis

Image
In the first of two short posts today, we will look at the case of the billionaire Sackler Family and their remarkable effect upon American society. The family, who own Purdue Pharma amongst a list of other ventures, have this week seen a massive legal action taken against them by the State of New York who argue that the company is ‘ responsible for the opioid epidemic ’ sweeping through the United States. The attorney-general for New York has called the lawsuit the ‘ nation’s most extensive ’ with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and comes right on the heels of a $270 million suit that was settled in the State of Oklahoma on exactly the same grounds. Whilst the company and the billionaire family who own it did not admit guilt (settling parties rarely do, hence why they settle outside of court) it has potentially opened the trapdoors for litigation. It comes as no surprise then that the company is reportedly considering bankruptcy proceedings in the face of such an onsl
Read more