Utilizing a dataset from 2013 to 2022 on China’s listed companies, we explored whether a hedge fund network could help explain the occurrence of Chinese stock crash. First, this study constructs a hedge fund network based on common holdings. Then, from the perspective of network centrality, we examine the effect of hedge fund network on stock crash risk and its mechanism. Our findings show that companies with greater network centrality experience lower stock crash risk. Such results remain valid after alternating measures, using the propensity score matching method, and excluding other network effects. We further document that the centrality of hedge fund network reduces crash risk through three channels: information asymmetry, stock price information content and information delay. In addition, the negative effect of hedge fund network centrality on crash risk is more prominent for non-SOEs firms. In summary, our research shed light on the important role of hedge fund information network in curbing stock crash.

We conceptually identify and empirically verify the features distinguishing FinTech platforms from non-financial platforms using marketplace lending data. Specifically, we highlight three key features: (i) Long-term contracts introducing default risk at both the individual and platform levels; (ii) Lenders’ investment diversification to mitigate individual default risk; (iii) Platform-level default risk leading to greater asymmetric user stickiness and rendering platform-level cross-side network effects (p-CNEs), a novel metric we introduce, crucial for adoption and market dynamics. We incorporate these features into a model of two-sided FinTech platform with potential failures and endogenous participation and fee structures. Our model predicts lenders’ single-homing, occasional lower fees for borrowers, asymmetric p-CNEs, and the predictive power of lenders’ p-CNEs in forecasting platform failures. Empirical evidence from China’s marketplace lending industry, characterized by frequent market entries, exits, and strong network externalities, corroborates our theoretical predictions. We find that lenders’ p-CNEs are systematically lower on declining or well-established platforms compared to those on emerging or rapidly growing platforms. Furthermore, lenders’ p-CNEs serve as an early indicator of platform survival likelihood, even at the initial stages of market development. Our findings provide novel economic insights into the functioning of multi-sided FinTech platforms, offering valuable implications for both industry practitioners and financial regulators.

We propose a theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by linking it to a firm’s product market. In our model, the firm’s product exhibits network effects whereby its value increases with the number of consumers who purchase it. Moreover, with advancements in technology and big data, the firm can adopt personalized pricing for each consumer. We show that such a firm could use CSR as a commitment device for low product prices, which helps overcome the coordination problem among consumers and increases firm profits, thus supporting the notion of “doing well by doing good.”

The finance–growth nexus has been a central question in understanding the unprecedented success of the Chinese economy. With unique data on all the registered firms in China, we build extensive ownership networks, reflecting firm-to-firm equity investment relationships, and show that thesenetworks have been expanding rapidly since the 2000s, with more than five million firms in at least one network by 2017. Entering a network and increasing network centrality, both globally and locally, are associated with higher firm growth. Such positive network effects tend to be more pronounced for high productivity and privately owned firms. The RMB 4 trillion stimulus, mostly in the form of newly issued bank loans and launched by the Chinese government in November 2008 in response to the global financial crisis, partially ‘crowded out’ the positive network effects. Our analysis suggests that equity ownership networks and bank credit tend to act as substitutes for state-owned enterprises, but as complements for privately owned firms in promoting growth.

Over the past 150 years, finance has evolved into one of the world’s most globalized, digitized and regulated industries. Digitalization has transformed finance but also enabled new entrants over the past decade in the form of technology companies, especially FinTechs and BigTechs. As a highly digitized industry, incumbents and new entrants are increasingly pursuing similar approaches and models, focusing on the economies of scope and scale typical of finance and the network effects typical of data, with the predictable result of the emergence of increasingly large digital finance platforms. We argue that the combination of digitization, new entrants (especially BigTechs) and platformization of finance – which we describe as FinTech 4.0 and mark as beginning in 2019-2020 – brings massive benefits and an increasing range of risks to broader sustainable development. The platformization of finance poses challenges for societies and regulators around the world, apparent most clearly to date in the US and China. Existing regulatory frameworks for finance, competition, data, and technology are not designed to comprehensively address the challenges to these trends to broader sustainable development. We need to build new approaches domestically and internationally to maximize the benefits of network effects and economies of scope and scale in digital finance while monitoring and controlling the attendant risks of platformization of finance across the existing regulatory silos. We argue for a principles-based approach that brings together regulators responsible for different sectors and functions, regulating both on a functional activities based approach but also – as scale and interconnectedness increase – addressing specific entities as they emerge: a graduated proportional hybrid approach, appropriate both domestically in the US, China and elsewhere, as well as for cross-border groups, building on experiences of supervisory colleges and lead supervision developed for Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions (G-SIFIs) and Financial Market Infrastructures (FMIs). This will need to be combined with an appropriate strategic approach to data in finance, to enable the maximization of data benefits while constraining related risks.