Volume 4 • Issue 1 • PP: 18–24 • 2024
Portfolio Maturity and Product-Category Headroom in Consumer FinTech Markets
Open Access & Copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by ASPG. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
View PDF Abstract
Consumer FinTech markets are commonly assessed through aggregate adoption rates, yet adoption alone does not indicate whether a market can support portfolio expansion, cross-selling, or durable customer-value creation. This paper proposes a portfolio maturity framework that separates market penetration from product-category headroom. Using a structured extract from a global consumer FinTech adoption survey, the study examines market dispersion, relative maturity, category-level adoption gaps, and tier-specific expansion opportunities. The findings show that payment and transfer services act as the principal entry point into consumer FinTech, while saving, investment, budgeting, insurance, and borrowing remain unevenly developed. High-adoption markets require strategies focused on relationship depth, ecosystem defense, retention, and responsible product broadening; lower-adoption markets require clearer value proof, trust formation, and reduction of onboarding friction. The study offers a business-oriented diagnostic approach for FinTech firms, banks, platform providers, and investors by translating adoption evidence into portfolio strategy, market-tier priorities, and risk-aware expansion choices.
Keywords
References
[1] P. Gomber, J.-A. Koch, and M. Siering, “Digital Finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions,” Journal of Business Economics, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 537–580, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11573-017-0852-x.
[2] I. Lee and Y. J. Shin, “FinTech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and challenges,” Business Horizons, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 35–46, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.003.
[3] K. Mahmud, M. M. A. Joarder, and K. Muheymin-Us- Sakib, “Adoption factors of FinTech: Evidence from an emerging economy country-wide representative sample,” International Journal of Financial Studies, vol. 11, no. 1, article 9, 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijfs11010009.
[4] A. A. Alsmadi, M. Al-Okaily, A. Alrawashdeh, and A. Al-Gasaymeh, “The adoption of fintech payment services: A technology acceptance perspective,” Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol. 16, no. 10, article 449, 2023, doi: 10.3390/jrfm16100449.
[5] C. Neves, T. Oliveira, F. Santini, and L. Gutman, “Adoption and use of digital financial services: A meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators,” International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, vol. 3, no. 2, article 100201, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100201.
[6] D. W. Arner, J. Barberis, and R. P. Buckley, “The evolution of FinTech: A new post-crisis paradigm?” Georgetown Journal of International Law, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1271–1319, 2016, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2676553.
[7] Financial Stability Board, BigTech in Finance: Market Developments and Potential Financial Stability Implications. Basel, Switzerland: Financial Stability Board, 2019.
Cite This Article
Choose your preferred format
Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions, and data presented in this article are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of ASPG, the journal, or its editors. ASPG and the editors disclaim responsibility for any harm arising from the use of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products described in this article, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.