The Influence of a Multilevel Information System and User Behavioural Attributes on

the Adaptation of Wealthtech Platforms

Abstract:
This study examines how behavioural characteristics and information systems influence the
intention and adoption of Fintech in the wealth management sector. An empirical study was
conducted among 398 respondents using a questionnaire-based approach among wealthtech
users in Malaysia. The study used PLS-SEM to find out the structural relationship between the
constructs. The study found that consumers' trust in a wealthtech platform depends heavily on
the quality of information, service, and the system or platform itself. At the same time, trust
affects the ease of use, usefulness, and adoption of the platform. Social influence increased the
intentions of users to use it. The study provides an integrated conceptual model based on
Information Systems Success Model (ISSM) and Technology Acceptance Model. The study
findings extend a profound understanding of the aspects that would be helpful for practitioners
to increase customer loyalty and develop a sustainable business model.
Keywords: Wealthtech, Fintech adoption, Trust, TAM, ISSM, PLS-SEM.
Paper type: Research paper.
1.0 Introduction:
Fintech is transforming the global financial services industry through the use of advanced and
innovative technologies (Ali et al., 2019; Mohamed & Ali, 2022). It has reshaped finance
through efficient and high-quality financial services, creating a new global economic landscape
(Mohamed & Ali, 2022). The ongoing process of merging finance and technology has resulted
in several incremental and disruptive innovations, such as digital banking, payment gateways,
digital wallets, P2P lending, and crowdfunding (Arner et al., 2015). This technologically driven
innovation is anticipated to have a wide range of innovative and potentially disruptive effects
(Ferreira et al., 2015; Heap & Pollari, 2015).
Though technological innovation in the financial industry evolved a long ago, Fintech headway
after the global recession of 2008 and became an indivisible means in traditional financial
services [WFR, 2021]. A major impact of fintech on financial inclusion and digital solutions
for financial transactions is primarily seen in investments, risk management, payment services,
and data privacy management (Kondraciuk & Zaleska, 2019). As of 2019, 75% of consumers
use money transfer and payment services. In other sectors like savings and investment,
insurance, and borrowing Fintech adoption observed significant growth from 2015 to 2019
(Statista, 2022). With the advancement of technology, the adoption of Fintech is more prevalent
in Malaysia. The majority of Malaysians own at least two cashless payment channels and use
them as part of their day-to-day payment transactions [TMR (a), 2022].
In the Fintech industry, wealth tech refers to a sub-segment that focuses on digital technologies
for the management of investments and client portfolios (Dziawgo, 2021). This can be
explained as the creation of cutting-edge technologies and services designed to transform
existing investment solutions (Chishti and Puschmann, 2018). With the help of machine
language and artificial intelligence, wealth tech provides suggestions to customers on how to
save and invest their money in a way that is most suitable and efficient (Howard, 2022).
A surge in financial fraud has resulted from Fintech platform adoption in Malaysia, including
investment scams. The Securities Commission Malaysia has received 1,800 reports of
investment scams in the first three quarters of 2022 [TMR (b), 2022], and the public has been
warned about the sharp increase in investment scams through different messaging applications
(FNM, 2022). Bank Negara Malaysia has collaborated with various key stakeholders in the
financial industry to combat these frauds and scams (Fintech Global, 2022). The UN principle
for responsible digital payments also emphasizes the importance of building trust by mitigating
risks (Better than Cash Alliance, 2021). Given these crises and the growing adoption of Fintech
on the investment platform, studying individuals' trust and reliability has become an urgent
issue.
The existing literature on Fintech adoption mainly focuses on e-wallets, online banking, loan
aggregator platforms, and open banking (Yang et al. 2021; Sharma & Sharma, 2019; Al
Nawayseh, 2020; Shahzad et al. 2022; Chan et al. 2022), etc. based on behavioural and
technological factors. There is, however, little research on how individual wealthtech platforms
are affected by the factors mentioned above (Xie et al. 2021). Keeping customers for the long
term is crucial to the success of wealthtech in any economy. Having a trusted provider and
using a convenient service will increase a consumer's likelihood of staying with the provider.
Though trust plays an important role in financial services adoption, little is known about how
trust influences wealthtech adoption. Accordingly, the current study examines Fintech adoption
among Malaysian consumers taking into account both technological and behavioural attributes.
It aims to examine consumers' perceptions of wealthtech adoption by exploring the factors that
drive their adoption. It presents a conceptual model of wealthtech adoption that incorporates
both the Information Systems Success Model (ISSM) and the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM). In particular, it examines how consumer trust based on technological attributes
influences behavioural outcomes such as usefulness, intention to use, and adoption of wealth
management platforms.
There are a number of contributions the study makes both theoretically and practically. It will
improve the current understanding of Fintech adoption and explain users' intention to adopt
Fintech platforms, adding a wider view of the ISSM in the wealth management sector in
Malaysia. Further, the results will help wealthtech companies understand the factors that attract
potential wealthtech users, thereby increasing customer loyalty and developing a more
sustainable business model.
2.0 Literature Review:
2.1 Wealthtech industry in Malaysia:
Wealthtech offers a diverse array of services, including but not limited to robo-advisors, robot
retirement planning, micro-investing, digital brokers, investment tools, portfolio management,
and financial services software. These services are facilitated through technological
advancements such as artificial intelligence and big data (Howard, 2022). As of 2022, Malaysia
has 25 wealthtech companies out of 294 Fintech companies, indicating a growing adoption of
wealthtech alongside other digital finance sectors. In 2020, approximately 175,000 new digital
investment accounts were opened, and as of October 2022, there are 0.58 million active users
with US$1.90 billion total transaction value in the digital investment sector of Malaysian
Fintech Industry (Fintech Malaysia, 2022; Mordor Intelligence, 2022; Statista, 2022).
2.2 Theoretical foundation
Streams of research on Fintech adoption have focused on individuals' access to new financial
technologies and their adoption behaviour (Xie et al., 2021; Shahzad et al., 2022). To
understand adoption behaviour, the most used model is Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM)(Kinis & Tanova, 2022; Shahzad et al., 2022; Aydin & Burnaz, 2016). Additionally,
numerous works also make use of the Diffusion of Invention (DOI) by Rogers (1962), the
theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), and UTAUT by Venkatesh
(2012). (Sharma & Sharma, 2020; Maciel & Wamba, 2019; Roh et al., 2022). Previous studies
exploring the adoption behaviour of financial products based on technology adoption theory
have contributed significantly to our understanding of Fintech platforms.
Since attitudes and behaviours are important factors to consider when analysing technology
adoption, information system quality is also crucial (Roh et al., 2022). However, existing
studies concentrate on the adoption of Fintech platforms from a technology-based standpoint.
With the rise of scams and public awareness of security, trust is a critical aspect affecting the
wealthtech platform. This gap is therefore addressed in the present study by providing a Fintech
adoption model based on trust, which focuses on the ISSM [DeLone & McLean, 1992] and the
TAM [DeLone & McLean, 1992]. The conceptual model includes the technological
perspective as well as the behavioural theory of acceptance and adoption of wealthtech
platforms due to the inclusion of ISSM.
Information systems success Model (ISSM)
The ISSM, created by H. Delone and Ephraim R. McLean, presents a multidimensional model
that highlights interdependencies and effects between various success factors in information
systems (DeLone & McLean, 2004). It has been corrected and empirically tested by many
researchers, and can be used to evaluate the success of electronic commerce systems in a more
accurate and empirical manner (Kamdjoug et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021; Roh et al., 2022;
Wang and Liao, 2008). Kim et al. (2021) perceived information and service quality are the
crucial features that boost users' perceived protection and satisfaction, ultimately leading to
customer loyalty.
Moreover, Suh et al. (2017) observed that adding information system maturity as a moderator
in the ISSM model showed that information system investment has a significant impact on
information system success. Therefore, system maturity plays a crucial role in maximizing the
effectiveness of information system investment. A study by Roh et al. (2021) on Fintech
adoption utilized the ISSM and found consumer perceptions of system security, information
privacy, and service quality positively correlated with trust.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM):
TAM can be used to learn more about the adoption and usage of tools by individuals. In 1989,
Davis created the TAM model in order to describe how computer technology is adopted. Two
key components of the model, perceived ease of use (EU) and usefulness (US), have a
substantial impact on users' views and plans towards adopting technology (Venkatesh & Davis,
1996). According to the paradigm, when users perceive a technology to be useful, they are
more likely to adopt and accept it. It evaluates a variety of IT platforms, including mobile
banking, internet banking, electronic payments, electronic wallets, and fintech applications
(Aydin & Burnaz, 2016; Shahzad et al., 2022; Kınış & Tanova, 2022; Singh et al., 2020).
Technological acceptance and use can be affected by external variables, such as prior
knowledge, social influence, and familiarity with new technology (Kınış & Tanova, 2022). To
examine whether social influence affects perceived usefulness and use intention, the study
added the external variable of social influence. Therefore, this study used the key predictors of
the ISSM and TAM and extended them by including social influence.
2.3 Development of Hypothesis
Information Quality (IQ):
Geebren et al., 2021; Roh et al., 2021) argue that IQ is a crucial component in customer trust,
satisfaction, and intent to use e-commerce, mobile banking, and other information services.
The quality of information is defined by factors such as accuracy, sufficiency, and relevance
(Ghasemaghaei & Hassanein, 2016). Having high-quality information reduces the amount of
time and effort required to process information (Roh et al., 2021), thereby improving the
evaluation of that information and building trust within the community. The same findings
were made by Roh et al. (2021) regarding IQ and consumer trust in Fintech. Hence, the
hypothesis proposed in the study was as follows:
H1: IQ in wealthtech affects users’ perceived trust.
System and Service Quality (SSQ)
Individual users' perceptions of system quality relate to how a system performs and how well
it meets their needs (DeLone and McLean, 1992). In the blockchain, e-commerce, and online-
to-offline-based mobile shopping application systems, quality is a key issue (Kim et al., 2021;
Ryu, 2018). In the existing literature, SSQ is defined as the ability of Fintech services (Roh et
al., 2021). When users perceive a Fintech platform as easy to use, navigate, and attractive, it is
expected to generate more trust (Geebren et al., 2021). Moreover, existing literature on Fintech
adoption demonstrates the effect of SSQ on customer trust (Roh et al., 2021; Sharma & Sharma,
2019). Similarly, in the case of e-commerce and online services, SSQ is observed as a positive
influencer of users' perceived trust (Roh et al., 2021). Therefore, the hypothesis is developed:
H2: In wealthtech, SSQ positively affect users' trust.
Perceived Trust (TR):
In online environments and e-commerce, trust plays an essential role (Lin et al., 2019). It refers
to users' expectations of certain actions to be fulfilled by the service provider. Consequently,
users' attitude towards fintech depends on their trust in Fintech services. Their trust in the
service provider ensures the adoption of the system. As a result, users' adoption of a product
depends on their trust in the source of information (Hoque & Alam, 2018; Sullivan et al., 2018;
Suk-Joo et al., 2018). Furthermore, it has been observed that a higher degree of trust in
informatics services requires a lower level of effort in evaluating authenticity. This makes it
easier to use (Roh et al., 2021; Singh, 2019).

A favourable link between perceived trust and platform acceptance has been found in previous
research on Fintech adoption (Yang et al., 2021; Knas & Tanova, 2022; Roh et al., 2021;
Shahzad et al., 2022; Al Nawayseh, 2020). Therefore, based on the aforementioned empirical
investigations, the following hypotheses are developed in this study:

H3: TR positively affects the ease of use of the wealthtech platform.

H4: TR positively affects the usefulness of the wealthtech platform.
H5: TR positively affects the adoption of wealthtech platforms.

Ease of use (EU):

Technology acceptance and attitudes are strongly influenced by EU. According to Davis
(1989), it refers to how users perceive new technology as easy to use. This construct is
commonly used to assess technological acceptance models. Existing studies on online
purchases, e-wallets, and e-commerce have identified EU as a construct to investigate its effect
on users' attitudes and intentions to use (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016; Grover et al., 2019; Kinis &
Tanova, 2022; Shahzad et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2021). According to these studies, perceived
EU influences attitudes toward online purchases, mobile payments, and financial portals. Thus,
the following hypothesis is assumed:
H6: Perceived EU of wealthtech is expected to positively affect the intention to use the
platform.
H7: Perceived EU is expected to positively affect the usefulness of the Wealthtech platform.
Usefulness (US):
The concept of usefulness refers to the understanding and application of the useful benefits of
a specific technology (Kanan & Tanova, 2022). The underlying assumption of the TAM model
is that when a system is found to be useful, the user develops a positive attitude towards it, and
intends to use the system to obtain the perceived benefits (Davis, 1989; Aydin & Burnaz, 2016).
This construct is used in different contexts to investigate the usefulness of a system or service
towards attitudes and usage intentions (Flavian et al., 2020; Leng & Lada, 2011; Liebana-
Cabanillas et al., 2017). Existing literature on e-wallets and Fintech indicates a positive
influence of US on attitudes and IU (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016; Kınış & Tanova, 2022; Liébana-
Cabanillas et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Therefore, the hypothesis assumed is:
H8: Perceived usefulness positively affects the intention to use the wealthtech platforms.
Social Influence:
Social influence (SI) is the influence of other’s real or perceived presence on people's intentions
to adopt new technologies (Cabrera-Sánchez et al., 2020). SI affects an individual's mindset
towards the use of new technology, and existing studies have found that it positively influences
behavioural outcomes (Xie, 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2022). The potential
influencers can be family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbours (Yang et al., 2021). In
the present study, SI is defined as individuals' perceptions of how their family and friends
influence them to adopt the wealthtech platform. In this regard, the following hypotheses are
presented:
Hypothesis 9: Social influence positively influences the perceived usefulness of the wealthtech
platform.
Hypothesis 10: Social influence is expected to positively influence individuals’ intention to use
the wealthtech platforms.
Intention to use and Adoption of Wealthtech
Fintech adoption and desire to use are strongly related concepts. Between a person's plans to
use technology and their real adoption of it, there is a distinction (Davis et al., 1989). Despite
having the best of intentions, people might not truly use wealthtech. Numerous studies have
looked into the connection between Fintech acceptance and desire to use. According to Kshetri
(2018), the desire to use has a favourable impact on fintech adoption. According to Yang et al.
(2021), the desire to use acts as a mediator between perceived usefulness and adoption. The
results imply that acceptance of new technologies is strongly predicted by good motives.
Thus, the adoption of new technologies is positively associated with behavioural intentions to
adopt them. Therefore, we can hypothesize:
Hypothesis 11: Intention to use is expected to positively affect the adoption of the wealthtech
platform.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework and hypothesis of the study.

ISSM TAM

Information Ease of Use (EU)

quality (IQ)
H7

Perceived Trust H8
(TR) Usefulness (US) Intention to use
H4 (IU)
Service and System
Quality (SSQ) H9
H11

Social Influence
(SI)

Adoption of
Wealthtech (AW)
H5

Fig 1: Framework of the study

3.0 Methodology
3.1 Data collection
This study was conducted in Malaysia. A self-administered online questionnaire was used to
collect data. As a convenience sampling method, Google Forms were used for data collection
(Yang et al., 2021). The questionnaire was disseminated through different social media and
online forums from July to November 2022 to the customers who have used any wealthtech
platform. A questionnaire was initially sent to 500 users. The respondents were reminded from
time to time to complete the form. A number of ethical guidelines were followed, such as
informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. Participation in the study was voluntary for
the respondents, and they were informed of the study's purpose. Finally, after excluding
incomplete or missing data, 398 completed responses were received. Among the 398
respondents, 39 % were female and 61% male and mostly in the age range of 21 to 40.
3.2 Measurement of variables
Based on existing literature on Fintech adoption, the items and scales have been developed.
The study's constructs and measurement items are presented in Annexes 1. According to the
Likert scale, each item was rated from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. From Roh et al.
(2022), information quality (IQ), service and system quality (SSQ), and perceived trust (TR)
items have been adopted. To measure EU, US, and SI, this study adopted Yang et al. (2022)
and Al Nawayseh (2020) items. Finally, the intention to use and adopt wealthtech items was
drawn from Chawla and Joshi (2020) and Yang et al. (2022).
3.3 Data analysis method
Using a partial least square structural equation model (PLS-SEM), the structural relationship
was estimated and the dependent variable was predicted. Using PLS-SEM, constructs and
underlying structural models can be examined simultaneously. PLS-SEM is favoured when
dealing with latent variables and numerous indicators because it seeks to optimise the variation
described by the dependent variable (Hair, 2017). Following Hair et al. (2019), this research
looked at the measurement model's reliability, discriminant validity, convergence validity, and
internal consistency reliability. Additionally, evaluations of predictive significance, path
coefficients, and coefficients of determination were employed to evaluate the structural model's
multicollinearity.
4.0 Data Analysis & Result
4.1 Measurement Model
Measurement models are evaluated for validity and reliability. Table 1 presents the model’s
validity and reliability. The Cronbach's alpha value ranges from 72 to 0.89, which is higher
than the threshold of 0.70 (Dijkstra, 2014). Consequently, the items used for measuring
differences are reliable.
A composite reliability of 0.81 to 0.92 indicates a high degree of correlation between the items
of the construct. Internal reliability is higher for IU, EU, US, and TR. The study examined the
average variance extracted (AVE) to determine convergent validity. AVE ranges from 0.5266
to 0.751, which is well above the limit of ≥0.50. The model, therefore, exhibits construct
validity and reliability.
 Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha, composite reliability and AVE
Cronbach's Alpha CR AVE
Adoption of wealthtech (AW) 0.805 0.873 0.632
Intention to use (IU) 0.878 0.915 0.730
Ease of use (EU) 0.890 0.924 0.751
Usefulness (US) 0.835 0.890 0.669
Social influence (SI) 0.723 0.812 0.526
Perceived trust (TR) 0.834 0.889 0.668
Information quality (IQ) 0.788 0.860 0.606
System and service quality (SSQ) 0.791 0.863 0.611

Discriminant validity test was performed using the Hetriot-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). The test
confirms that the constructs are distinct and unrelated. This model was found to have
discriminant validity since the construct's value for HTMT was less than 0.90 (Table 2).
Table 2: Discriminant Validity (HTMT)
AW EU IQ IU SI SSQ TR US
AW
EU 0.380
IQ 0.406 0.274
IU 0.494 0.373 0.369
SI 0.272 0.057 0.196 0.189
SSQ 0.271 0.216 0.327 0.176 0.097
TR 0.440 0.225 0.236 0.342 0.072 0.308
US 0.242 0.249 0.367 0.316 0.071 0.579 0.318

4.2 Hypothesis testing

In figure 2, the study's structural model is introduced. The structural model's general fit,
coefficient of determination, and predictive ability were assessed, among other things (Hair et
al. 2011). The model fit was assessed using the SRMR, which is a widely used measure suitable
for SEM (Chan et al., 2022). This final model has an SRMR of 0.097, indicating adequate fit.
The recommended benchmarks for R2, Q2 and f2 are ≥0.02, >0, and ≥0.02, respectively. In the
present study R2, Q2 and f2 meet the required values (Table 3).

Table 3: R2, Q2 and F2

Q² (=1- F2 SRMR
R2
SSE/SSO)
AW 0.238 0.146 0.238 Saturated Model: 0.055
IU 0.186 0.127 0.186 Estimated Model: 0.097
EU 0.039 0.027 0.039
US 0.103 0.064 0.103
TR 0.086 0.053 0.086
For the purpose of testing the hypotheses paths that affect customers' attitudes toward
wealthtech platforms and their intentions to adopt them, a number of factors were examined.
A summary of the model's results can be found in Table 4. The relationships between the
variables are illustrated in table 4 and figure 2.
Table 4 shows the model results. The result indicates that IQ and SSQ both have a statistically
significant relationship with perceived trust. Thus, all hypotheses except H9 are supported.

Figure 2: Assessment of the structural model

The findings indicate that trust had a more significant impact on wealthtech adoption (0.261,
p<0.00) than ease of use (0.198, p<0.00) and usefulness (0.236, p<0.00). A platform's US and
IU were influenced significantly by its EU. Consequently, EU and US will have a substantial
impact on the IU and the adoption of wealthtech platforms. The SI did not significantly
influence the US of the wealthtech platform. According to these statistics (0.163, p<0.001), SI
has a significant impact on the IU in wealth tech platforms. Finally, the study examined whether
wealth technologies adoption intention is related to their adoption. The results indicated that
IU significantly affected behavioural adoption (0.343, p = 0.000), indicating that higher
intentions generally lead to higher adoption rates.
 Table 4: Hypothesis Testing results
Sl. Path Standard Decision
Sample T P
Hypothesis Coefficie Deviatio
Mean Statistics Values
nt n
1. IQ -> TR Accepted
0.143 0.150 0.049 2.917 0.004
(H1)
2. SSQ -> TR Accepted
0.222 0.226 0.053 4.142 0.000
(H2)
3. TR -> EU Accepted
0.198 0.199 0.051 3.882 0.000
(H3)
4. TR -> US Accepted
0.236 0.237 0.047 5.069 0.000
(H4)
5. TR -> AW Accepted
0.261 0.262 0.044 5.886 0.000
(H5)
6. EU -> IU Accepted
0.288 0.285 0.056 5.164 0.000
(H6)
7. EU -> US Accepted
0.172 0.171 0.052 3.314 0.001
(H7)
8. US -> IU Accepted
0.210 0.210 0.046 4.582 0.000
(H8)
9. SI -> US Rejected
0.043 0.049 0.063 0.679 0.497
(H9)
10. SI -> IU Accepted
0.163 0.171 0.049 3.352 0.001
(H10)
11. IU -> AW Accepted
0.343 0.344 0.053 6.489 0.000
(H11)

5. Discussion and Findings

An application of the Fintech adoption framework is described within the framework of the
ISSM and TAM. The ISS model is found to be a valid explanation of wealthtech platform usage
based on the study findings. The ISS model's constructs, such as information quality, system
and service quality, and confidence, had a substantial impact on consumers' desire to use and
behavioural adoption. It has also been shown that the TAM model's notions of utility, usability,
and social impact affect users' intentions use the wealthtech platforms.
The results of this study highlight some factors influencing the intention and behaviour of the
wealthtech platform users. Researchers found that a greater level of perceived trust in
wealthtech platforms is associated with a greater level of information quality, as well as a
higher level of service and system quality. As a result, wealthtech platforms become easier to
use and more useful as trust is increased. These results support those of Shahzad et al. (2022),
Al Nawayseh (2020), and Roh et al. (2021). The wealthtech industry should therefore place a
high priority on providing accurate information to its customers, providing better customer
service, and improving the quality of its systems to maintain the trust of its customers. The
platform's trustworthiness will be enhanced by providing consumers with assurances regarding
their personal information and investment activities.
Empirical studies have demonstrated that ease of use and usefulness influence intent to use
significantly. This implies that consumers are more likely to use a platform that is easier to use.
This study's findings are in line with the findings of Yang et al. (2021) and Chawla and Joshi
(2020). Therefore, a simple and user-friendly interface will make the platform easier to use.
Furthermore, the wealthtech platform should be easily understood by a general investor.
Flexible interaction with the platform and guidance on how to use it would be beneficial to the
customers. As a result, wealthtech platforms would be more likely to be used and adopted by
a larger audience. Due to its impact on user perception of the platform's usefulness, ease of use
is an essential aspect of any Fintech platform.
The study hypothesized that social influence would positively influence the usefulness and
usage intentions of the wealthtech platform. In this study, SI positively influences the intention
to use a platform, despite not affecting its usefulness significantly. This study also confirms the
importance of social influence in usage intention, which has been supported by Chan et al.
(2022), Sharma and Sharma (2019), and Al Nawayseh (2020). It is argued that SI is not
practical for financial decisions because they are private (Lieber and Skimmyhorn, 2018;
Alalwan et al., 2017). However, the findings of the study reveal that social influence could be
effective.
Higher intentions to use wealthtech platforms are significantly associated with higher adoption
rates, as expected by the study. These findings reflect those of previous studies that examined
Fintech adoption across different platforms, such as Sharma and Sharma (2019), Singh et al.
(2020), and Yang et al. (2021).
6. Contribution and limitations
An integrated approach employs and integrates two distinct models in this study, namely ISSM
and TAM, in order to examine wealthtech platform adoption. This study validates the relevance
of ISS model constructs for wealthtech platform adoption. Furthermore, the TAM model
constructs and social influence are examined as factors that affect adoption.
Additionally, this study provides empirical evidence that the usefulness and ease of use of these
platforms are increased when information quality, system quality, service quality, and trust are
enhanced. The study also emphasizes the importance of social influence in influencing users'
intentions regarding the use of wealth technology platforms.
In addition, the empirical findings provide evidence regarding the factors influencing
individuals' intentions to utilize wealthtech in the Malaysian market. Based on the findings of
the study, wealthtech companies may consider adopting several policies in an effort to improve
user trust, ease of use, and platform adoption. It is important for companies to make sure they
provide high-quality information to consumers, offer superior customer service, and ensure
their systems are of high quality in order to strengthen consumer trust. Trustworthiness can
also be enhanced by ensuring the security of personal information and investment activities.
Additionally, the platform should provide investors without a financial background with an
easy-to-use interface that is intuitive and easy to understand. Furthermore, consumers may
benefit from flexible interaction with the platform and guidance on how to use it. A third
consideration is the utilization of social influence to positively influence the intention of a user
to use the platform. It is important for companies to focus on increasing user intention to use
the platform, as this is significantly correlated with higher adoption rates. The implementation
of these policies could lead to a broader base of consumers using and adopting wealthtech
platforms.
A number of limitations must be acknowledged, including the use of convenience sampling.
As a result, the findings may be limited in their generalizability. In addition, this study may be
subject to social desirability bias and self-report bias. Furthermore, the study also has a number
of limitations that provide avenues for further investigation. It should be noted that in this study,
perceptions of risk by the user have not been considered, which may have a significant impact
on trust. It is therefore possible to gain new insights into the picture by incorporating perceived
risk into the model. The adoption of wealth management platforms may also be affected by age
and gender, which could be investigated further. In regards to the adoption of wealthtech
platforms, millennials and post-millennials may have different attitudes. This will explore the
possibility of differences in adoption.

7. Conclusion
This study points out the importance of trust and convenience in the adoption of wealthtech
platforms by Malaysian consumers. The study findings suggest that the Information Systems
Success model and the Technology Acceptance Model are relevant in explaining the usage of
wealthtech platforms. The study contributes to the existing literature as well as to the practical
field. The results of this study can help wealthtech companies increase customer loyalty and
develop a more sustainable business model.

References:
Al Nawayseh, M. K. (2020), “Fintech in COVID-19 and beyond: what factors are affecting
customers’ choice of Fintech applications?” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market,
and Complexity, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp.153.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y. and Rana, N. (2017), “Factors influencing adoption of mobile
banking by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust”, International Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 99-110, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002
Ali, H., Mohamed, H., Hashmi, H. S., & Hassan, M. (2019), “Global landscape of the Islamic
Fintech: opportunities, challenges and future ahead” COMSATS Journal of Islamic
Finance, Vol. 4 No.2, pp. 29-53.
Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2015). The evolution of Fintech: A new post-
crisis paradigm. Geo. J. Int'l L., 47, 1271.
Aydin, G., & Burnaz, S. (2016), “Adoption of mobile payment systems: a study on mobile
wallets” Journal of Business Economics and Finance, Vol 5, No.1, pp. 73-92.
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015), “Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators” Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 418-430.
Better than Cash Alliance. (2021), UN principles for responsible digital payments. UN
Principles for Responsible Digital Payments, available at https://responsiblepayments.org/
(accessed on December 20, 2022)
Cabrera-Sánchez, J. P., Ramos-de-Luna, I., Carvajal-Trujillo, E., & Villarejo-Ramos, Á. F.
(2020), “Online recommendation systems: Factors influencing use in e-
commerce” Sustainability, Vol 12, No. 21, pp. 8888.
Chan, R., Troshani, I., Rao Hill, S., & Hoffmann, A. (2022), “Towards an understanding of
consumers’ Fintech adoption: The case of Open Banking” International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 886-917.
Chawla, D.; Joshi, H. (2020), “Role of Mediator in Examining the Influence of Antecedents of
Mobile Wallet Adoption on Attitude and Intention” Glob. Business Review.
Chishti, S., & Puschmann, T. (2018), The Wealthtech book: The FinTech handbook for
investors, entrepreneurs and finance visionaries, John Wiley & Sons.
Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology” MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems Vol. 13, pp. 319–
39.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992), “Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable” Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60–95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2004), “Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the
DeLone & McLean information systems success model” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31–47
Dijkstra, T. K. (2014), “PLS'Janus face–response to professor Rigdon's ‘rethinking partial least
squares modeling: in praise of simple methods” Long Range Planning, Vol 47 No. 3, pp.146-
153.
Dziawgo, T. (2021), “Wealth tech impact on wealth management sector” European Research
Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3B, pp. 141-151.
Ferreira, J. J. P., Mention, A.-L., & Torkkeli, M. (2015), “Illumination in times of Uncertainty:
Fifty Shades of Innovation for Societal Impact” Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Fintech Global. (2022), BNM teams with banks, law enforcement agencies to combat financial
fraud, available at: https://Fintech.global/2022/06/13/bnm-teams-with-banks-law-
enforcement-agencies-to-combat-financial-fraud/ (accessed on June 25, 2022)
Fintech News Malaysia [FNM] (2022), Securities commission cautions the public on rising
investment scams on telegram, available at: https://Fintechnews.my/30894/wealthtech-
malaysia/securities-commission-cautions-the-public-on-rising-investment-scams-on-
telegram/ (accessed on June 5, 2022).
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
Flavian, C.; Guinaliu, M.; Lu, Y. (2020), “Mobile payments adoption–introducing mindfulness
to better understand consumer behavior” International Journal of Bank Marketing. Vol. 38,
pp.1575–1599.
Geebren, A., Jabbar, A., & Luo, M. (2021), “Examining the role of consumer satisfaction
within mobile eco-systems: Evidence from mobile banking services” Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 114, pp. 106584
Ghasemaghaei, M., & Hassanein, K. (2016), “A macro model of online information quality
perceptions: A review and synthesis of the literature” Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55,
pp. 972–991.
Hair, J.F. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM),
2nd ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet”, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190202.
Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the
results of PLS-SEM” Eur. Bus. Rev., Vol. 31, pp. 2–24.
Heap, T., & Pollari, I. (2015). FINTECH 100 - Leading Global Fintech Innovators Report 2015,
available at: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/Fintech-100-leading-
innovators (accessed on November 16, 2022).
Hoque, M.Z.; Alam, M.N. (2018), “What determines the purchase intention of liquid milk
during a food security crisis? The role of perceived trust, knowledge, and risk” Sustainability
Vol. 10, pp. 3722.
Howard, G. (2022), What is WealthTech? Storm2, available at: https://storm2.com/ resources/
industry/wealthtech/what-is-wealthtech ( accessed on December 25, 2022)
Kamdjoug, J. R. K., Wamba-Taguimdje, S. L., Wamba, S. F., & Kake, I. B. E. (2021),
“Determining factors and impacts of the intention to adopt mobile banking app in Cameroon:
Case of SARA by Afriland First Bank” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 61,
pp.102509.
Kim, Y., Wang, Q., & Roh, T. (2021), “Do information and service quality affect perceived
privacy protection, satisfaction, and loyalty? Evidence from a Chinese O2O-based mobile
shopping application” Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 56, pp. 101483
Kinis, F., & Tanova, C. (2022), “Can I Trust My Phone to Replace My Wallet? The
Determinants of E-Wallet Adoption in North Cyprus” Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.1696-1715.
Kondraciuk, P., Zaleska, M. (2019), “Theory and practice of innovation development in the
banking sector, Financial Sciences - Nauki o finansach, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 76-87.
Kshetri, N. (2018), “Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives”
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 80-89. doi:
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.004
Leng, G., & Lada, S. (2011). “An Exploration of Social Networking Sites (SNS) Adoption in
Malaysia Using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
And Intrinsic Motivation”, Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce, Vol.16 No.2, pp. 1–27.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., García-Maroto, I., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Ramos-de-Luna, I. (2020),
“Mobile payment adoption in the age of digital transformation: The case of Apple
Pay” Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 13, pp. 5443.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; de Luna, I.R.; Montoro-Rıos, F. (2017), “Intention to use new mobile
payment systems: A comparative analysis of SMS and NFC payments” Economic Research,
Vol. 30, pp.892–910.
Lieber, E.M.J. and Skimmyhorn, W. (2018), “Peer effects in financial decision-making”,
Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 163, pp. 37-59, doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.05.001.
Lin, X., Sarker, S., & Featherman, M. (2019), “Users’ psychological perceptions of information
sharing in the context of social media: A comprehensive model” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 453–491.
Maciel M. Queiroz, & Wamba, S. F. (2019), “Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain:
An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA” International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 46, pp. 70-82.
Mohamed, H., & Ali, H. (2022), Blockchain, Fintech, and Islamic finance: Building the future
in the new Islamic digital economy. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Mordor Intelligence. (2022), Malaysia Fintech market analysis - industry report - trends, Size
& Share. Malaysia Fintech Market Analysis, available at https:// www.mordorintelligence.
com/industry-reports/malaysia-Fintech-market (accessed on January 5, 2023)
Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. (2015), Smart PLS 3, Smart PLS GmbH. Boenningstedt.
Available online: http://www.smartpls. com (accessed on 15 January 2023).
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe.
Roh, T., Yang, Y. S., Xiao, S., & Park, B. I. (2022), “What makes consumers trust and adopt
Fintech? An empirical investigation in China” Electronic Commerce Research, pp. 1-33.
Ryu, H. S. (2018), “What makes users willing or hesitant to use Fintech?: The moderating
effect of user type” Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 541–569.
Shahzad, A., Zahrullail, N., Akbar, A., Mohelska, H., & Hussain, A. (2022), “COVID-19’s
Impact on Fintech Adoption: Behavioral Intention to Use the Financial Portal” Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, Vol. 15, No. 10, pp. 428.
Sharma, R., Singh, G., & Sharma, S. (2020), “Modelling internet banking adoption in Fiji: A
developing country perspective” International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 53,
pp. 102116.
Sharma, S.K.; Sharma. M. (2019), “Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the
actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation” International Journal of
Information Management. Vol. 44, pp. 65–75.
Singh, D. D. (2019), “Blockchain: The emerging technology of digital trust” Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 45, pp. 101278
Singh, S., Sahni, M. M., & Kovid, R. K. (2020), “What drives Fintech adoption? A multi-
method evaluation using an adapted technology acceptance model” Management
Decision, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 1675-1697.
Smart Investor. (2022), RM5.2 billion lost to scams in Malaysia over two years. Smart Investor
Malaysia, available at: https://www.smartinvestor.com.my / rm5-2-billion-lost-to-scams-in-
Malaysia-over-two-years/ (Accessed on February 4, 2023).
Statista. (2022), Consumer Fintech adoption rates globally from 2015 to 2019, by category,
available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1055356/Fintech-adoption-rates-globally-
selected-countries-by-category/( accessed on December 25, 2022).
Suk-Joo Lee; Cheolhwi Ahn; Kelly Minjung Song; Hyunchul Ahn. (2018), “Trust and Distrust
in E-Commerce” Sustainability, Vol 10, pp. 1015.
Sullivan, Y.W.; Kim, D.J. (2018), “Assessing the effects of consumers’ product evaluations
and trust on repurchase intention in e-commerce environments” Int. J. Inf. Manag. Vol. 39, pp.
199–219.
The Malaysia Reserve. [ TMR (b)] (2022,). SC: Malaysia recorded 1,800 investment scams for
9m22, available at: https://themalaysianreserve.com/2022/10/19/sc-malaysia-recorded-1800-
investment-scams-for-9m22/ (accessed on December 25, 2022).
The Malaysian Reserve [TMR (a)] (2022) The adoption, evolution of e-wallets. Retrieved
February 1, 2023, available at: https://themalaysianreserve.com/2022/10/21/the-adoption-
evolution-of-e-wallets/( accessed on December 29, 2022).
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology” MIS quarterly,
pp. 157-178.
Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008), “Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation
of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success” Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 717–733.
World Fintech Report [WFR] (2021), available at https://Fintechworldreport.com/
resources/world-Fintech-report-2021/( accessed on November 16, 2022).
Xie, J.; Ye, L.; Huang, W.; Ye, M. (2021), “Understanding Fintech Platform Adoption: Impacts
of Perceived Value and Perceived Risk”, J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. Vol. 16, pp.
1893–1911.
Yang, M., Mamun, A. A., Mohiuddin, M., Nawi, N. C., & Zainol, N. R. (2021), “Cashless
transactions: A study on intention and adoption of e-wallets” Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.
831.
Annex 1:

Construct Items
Wealthtech provides me with accurate information
Wealthtech provides sufficient information
Information Quality (IQ)
Wealthtech provides relevant information
Wealthtech provides up-to-date information
Wealthtech is visually attractive
System and Service Wealthtech is easy to navigate
Quality (SSQ) Wealthtech is easy to access
Wealthtech provides dependable service
Wealthtech keeps its promise
Wealthtech services meet my needs
Perceived Trust (TR)
Wealthtech is concerned with the needs of the user
Overall, I trust wealthtech
The use of wealthtech makes it easier to conduct daily
transactions
Usefulness (US) The use of wealthtech makes me more efficient
The use of wealthtech improves my productivity
Wealthtech is more useful than traditional ways of payment
Learning the use of wealthtech is easy for me
Interaction with wealthtech is clear and understandable
Ease of Use (EU)
Wealthtech is easy to use
Payment with wealthtech requires minimum effort
My family and friends will value the use of Wealthtech
I expect the people who influence me would use wealthtech
Social Influence (SI) I expect the use of wealthtech would be trendy
I expect the use of wealthtech would make me look
professional in managing my finances
I intend to use wealthtech if the cost is reasonable for me
I intend to use wealthtech in the future
Intention to use (IU)
I intend to increase the use of Wealthtech in the future
I intend to use wealthtech in my daily life
I often use wealthtech to make payment
I often use wealthtech to transfer and remit money
Adoption of wealthtech I subscribe to financial products related to mobile banking
(AF)
On average, how often do you use wealthtech per month?
(Never, 1 -5 times, 6-10 times, 11-15 times, more than 15
times)