Future of Global Fintech Second Edition 2025

Assessment of regulatory and supervisory aspects Fintechs were asked to assess the regulation and supervision in their jurisdictions based on five key qualities: clarity of the regulatory approach, reporting and compliance processes, fintech licensing and registration, coordination of financial authorities overseeing fintechs, and financial authority staff knowledge and capacity. Overall, surveyed fintechs assessed regulatory and supervisory aspects as adequate (Figure 18). They saw room for improvement, however, in financial authority knowledge and capacity (24%) and fintech licensing and registration processes (23%), which received the highest proportion of poor ratings. In contrast, reporting and compliance processes were rated most positively, with nearly 85% of fintechs considering them adequate or strong. Shifts in perception from the first study were noted. In that study, issues of coordination between regulatory authorities and licensing and registration processes topped as the most poorly rated aspects.21 In the current study, fintechs expressed greater confidence, and poor ratings for coordination dropped to 21% (a 6% improvement), while poor ratings for licensing decreased to 23% (a 4% improvement). Perceptions of financial authority staff knowledge and regulatory clarity remained largely unchanged. Clarity of the regulatory approach: Fintechs across regions and income groups generally perceived clarity of the regulatory approach applicable to their vertical as positive, with 82% of firms rating it as strong or adequate. Fintechs in AEs were less likely to indicate a poor rating compared to firms in EMDEs (13% in AEs against 24% in EMDEs). Regionally, fintechs in LAC (32%) and SSA (29%) were more likely to perceive the clarity of the regulatory approach as poor. A comparison by vertical indicated that digital capital raising firms were more likely to rate the quality of the regulatory approach as poor (34%). On the other hand, only 11% of insurtech firms expressed discontentment with it. Reporting and compliance processes: Globally, fintechs perceived reporting and compliance processes as favourable, with only 15% of responding fintechs rating these processes as poor. Nonetheless, discontent with existing reporting and compliance processes was significantly higher in SSA (31%). It was lowest in APAC, where only 9% of respondents described reporting and compliance processes as poor. Digital capital raising firms (28%) were likelier to rate reporting and compliance processes as poor. This vertical also showed above-average discontent with the regulatory environment, deeming it excessive and inadequate (see Figure 17). Coordination of financial authorities: Fintechs seemed more comfortable coordinating efforts between financial authorities in their jurisdictions than in the first edition. Despite this apparent Rating of key regulatory aspects overall FIGURE 18 Reporting and compliance processes Coordination of financial authorities overseeing fintechClarity in regulatory approach to our sector Strong Adequate PoorFinancial authority staff knowledge and capacity relating to fintech Fintech licensing and registration process35% 47% 18% 29% 56% 15% 27% 52% 21% 25% 51% 24% 22% 55% 23% The Future of Global Fintech: From Rapid Expansion to Sustainable Growth 25