Após a crise financeira global de 2008/09 iniciou-se uma forte onda de inovação na oferta de produtos e serviços financeiros, tais como novos sistemas de pagamento através de computadores e celulares, infraestrutura para transações financeiras (Blockchain), empréstimos diretos entre as partes (P2PL), entre outras. Essas inovações foram trazidas por um novo tipo de negócio denominado FinTech (contração dos termos Finance e Technology - Finanças e Tecnologia, em inglês), caracterizadas pela entrega de produtos e serviços financeiros através de uma combinação de uso extensivo de tecnologia, estrutura operacional enxuta, foco no cliente e práticas flexíveis de negócios. Nesse sentido, o objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar as FinTechs com os intermediários financeiros tradicionais. Para se atingir este objetivo, foi realizada uma pesquisa sob a metodologia profissional a partir de uma abordagem multi-métodos, utilizando-se os métodos de pesquisa qualitativa e quantitativa. Na primeira parte da pesquisa, de caráter qualitativa e exploratória, foram levantadas as principais similaridades e diferenças entre as FinTechs e os intermediários financeiros tradicionais, diferenciadas as vantagens e desvantagens de cada modelo de negócio, comparados os aspectos operacionais de cada modelo, e identificado se a aptidão das FinTechs está mais para serem parceira ou concorrente dos intermediários financeiros tradicionais, de acordo com os objetivos secundários desta pesquisa. Na segunda parte, de caráter quantitativa descritiva, foi utilizada a técnica de análise comparativa com amostragem não probabilística, onde verificou-se que, na comparação com os intermediários financeiros tradicionais, as FinTechs possuem: (i) maior custo de intermediação financeira (FinTechs entre 12,5% a.a. e 20,0 % a.a. x Bancos entre 4,3% a.a. e 4,8% a.a.); (ii) maior despesa de intermediação financeira (FinTechs entre 15,3% a.a. e 20,6% a.a. x Bancos entre 1,0% a.a. e 3,3% a.a.); (iii) maior relação despesas/receitas (FinTechs entre 119,1% e 129,4% x Bancos entre 63,2% e 68,7%); e (iv) retorno negativo sobre o patrimônio líquido médio (FinTechs entre -11,9% a.a. e -10,4% a.a. x Bancos entre 3,8% a.a. e 10,6% a.a.). Essa diferença significativa entre os indicadores das FinTechs e dos intermediários financeiros tradicionais pode ser explicada pelos seguintes fatores: (i) as FinTechs ainda não possuem o mesmo nível de maturidade dos intermediários financeiros tradicionais; e (ii) as FinTechs ainda não possuem escala suficiente para atingir os mesmos níveis de eficiência operacional dos intermediários financeiros tradicionais. Este trabalho buscou contribuir para que as FinTechs e os intermediários financeiros tradicionais encontrem suas melhores aptidões como modelo de negócio, melhorando a concorrência entre os agentes do sistema financeiro e resultando na oferta e prestação de produtos e serviços financeiros de forma mais justa e eficiente para a sociedade em geral. / After the global financial crisis of 2008/09 started a new wave of innovation in the offering of products and financial services, such as new payment systems through computers and cell phones, infrastructure for financial transactions (Blockchain), peer-to-peer lending (P2PL), among others. These innovations were brought by a new type of startups denominated FinTech (contraction of the terms Finance and Technology), characterized by the deliverance of financial products and services through a combination of an extensive use of technology, lean operational structure, focus on the client and flexible business practices. In this sense, the objective of this work was to compare the FinTechs with the traditional financial intermediaries. To reach this objective, it was conducted a research under the professional methodology with a multi-methods approach, using both the qualitative and quantitative methods of research. In the first part of the research, under the qualitative exploratory approach, it was raised the main similarities and differences between FinTechs and traditional financial intermediaries, differentiated the advantages and disadvantages of each business model, compared the determinant aspects of each model and identified if the aptitude of the FinTechs is more to be a partner or a competitor of the traditional financial intermediaries, according to the secondary objectives of this study. In the second part, under the quantitative descriptive approach, it was used the comparative analysis technique with a non probabilistic sample, where was observed that, in comparison with the traditional financial intermediaries, the FinTechs have: (i) higher cost of financial intermediation (FinTechs between 12.5% p.a. and 20.0 % p.a. vs Banks between 4,3% p.a. and 4.8% p.a.); (ii) higher expense with financial intermediation (FinTechs between 15.3% p.a. and 20.6% p.a. vs. Banks between 1.0% p.a. and 3.3% p.a.); (iii) higher cost/income ratio (FinTechs between 119.1% and 129.4% vs. Banks between 63.2% and 68.7%); and (iv) negative return on average equity (FinTechs between -11,9% p.a. and -10,4% p.a. vs. Banks between 3.8% p.a. and 10.6% p.a.) This significant difference between the indicators of the FinTech and the traditional financial intermmediaries can be explained by the following factors: (i) FinTechs still do not have the same level of maturity of the traditional financial intermediaries; and (ii) FinTechs still do not have enough scale to reach the same levels of operational efficiency of the traditional financial intermediaries. This work aimed to contribute for the FinTechs and traditional financial intermediaries to find their best aptitude as business model, improving the competition among the agents of the financial system and resulting in the offering of more fair and efficient financial products and services to the society in general.

Despite its benefits, online peer-to-peer lending bears the risks associated with traditional forms of institutionalised lending. However, because individuals have taken over the role of the institutional lender, and the institutional participant in this form of lending takes a step back by acting only as an intermediary between the borrowers and lenders, ordinary individuals are left to bear the type of risks that institutions have traditionally borne, but without the same means of doing so. There has been little academic analysis of the role and form that regulation should take in the regulation of peer-to-peer lending and most discussions centre on the American regulatory experience. This thesis sets out to examine the theoretical classification of online peer-to-peer lending and the theoretical and practical justifications for regulating it. The aim is to ascertain the most appropriate way to regulate peer-to-peer lending, taking into account the underlying conceptual model which underpins it. The study adopts a theoretical analysis of P2PL participants and regulation based on the concepts of consumer protection and paternalism. It includes a doctrinal analysis of the UK peer-to-peer lending legislation and regulation to identify, describe and explain the rules pertaining to the industry. It also uses a comparative approach to compare P2PL with existing forms of financial lending and similar (dis)intermediated forms of transacting between individuals to show that online peer-to-peer lending is a unique form of intermediated transaction. The thesis argues that it is important that regulation displays an understanding of the underlying conceptual framework of the business model it aims to regulate. In doing so, it also argues that the peer-to-peer lending users are more than just ‘consumers’. They demonstrate a shift in the conception of individuals from consumers to prosumers because they participate in the production side of the services they receive. It goes further than existing discussions of prosumption by positing the concept of the ‘lendsumer’ to give a more accurate account of the role and experiences of peer-to-peer lenders and the effect this has on their transactional relationships and the risks they face because of this role. Based on this analysis, the thesis shows that the UK regulatory regime has limited suitability because it lacks awareness of the underlying prosumption model of peer-to-peer lending, focusing only on the business-to-consumer aspects. Consequently, it does not resolve all the issues resulting from the tripartite, participatory nature of the peer-to-peer lending transaction. In light of these findings, the thesis proposes the regulatory use of two main concepts and highlights their implications for peer-to-peer lending regulation. The first is the ‘lendsumer’ as a new paradigm of the consumer which has implications for the regulatory protections afforded to the P2P lenders. The second is the use of gatekeeper liability, adapted to online peer-to-peer lending, as a way to affect these protections in light of the particular vulnerabilities and risks experienced by the peer-to-peer lender.