Keep up to date with our blog articles, latest news and industry developments. See below for the latest posts or use the category listings to hone your search for stories of interest.
London’s FinTech reputation faces disruption of its own
China’s growth in the FinTech world is “indisputable”, while London loses its top-ten dominance.
China has been named as home to four of the five biggest FinTech innovators globally in 2016, while London represents only one company in the top ten.
The FinTech 100 list, published in the annual report by KPMG and H2 Ventures, is determined by the amount of capital raised by FinTech companies and the degree of traction the companies have with consumers. The report ranks China’s Ant Financial (which raised a FinTech record-breaking $4.5bn), Qufenqi, Lufax and ZhongAn in the top five FinTech investments of the year.
London remains home to thirteen of the FinTech companies in the top 100 list (second only to the USA) and can this year boast Atom Bank, the mobile-focused bank that received £45m investment, as featuring in the top ten.
London continues to be viewed as a serious FinTech powerhouse. However, with the continued dominance of the US (which still accounts for 25% of the top 100 list), China’s recent FinTech boom and the rise of the Philippines and India in the FinTech sector, London’s market position is being threatened.
Innovate Finance, the UK’s financial technology trade body, have cited Brexit as a main reason for London’s recent lack of dominance, creating a gap in the market for intensifying competition elsewhere. Warren Mead, global head of FinTech at KPMG, said the increasing globalisation of FinTech and the emergence of China as a market leader, means that UK policy makers and regulators will “have to work hard to maintain our position”.
Disclaimer: This article is produced for and on behalf of White & Black Limited, which is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales with registered number 06436665. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The contents of this article should be viewed as opinion and general guidance, and should not be treated as legal advice.