Do you think alternative finance services are improving in South Africa? in %
4.5 Hypothesis testing
4.5.3 Relationship between mobile banking and alternative finance - H3 There is a relationship between mobile banking and alternative finance
161
Table 4.84: Homogeneity of variances test between alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance
Test of Homogeneity of Variances - alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance
Alternative finance
Levene’s Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
6.313 2 401 .002
The outcomes in Table 4.85 of the robust tests of equality of means are reflected. The given results in Table 4.85 show no significant variations where Welch p-value=0.778; Brown-Forsythe p-value=0.736 in alternative finance service improvement with alternative finance. For this reason, the statement of homogeneity of variances has not been violated.
Table 4.85: Robust tests of equality of means between alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance
Robust Tests of Equality of Means - alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance
Alternative finance
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch .252 2 61.887 .778
Brown-Forsythe .308 2 63.900 .736
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
The results in Table 4.86 indicate that there is a non-significant difference of mean scores of alternative finance service improvement within alternative finance because the p-value of 0.720 is greater than 0.05, thus the post hoc results are ignored.
Table 4.86: ANOVA test between alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance
ANOVA - alternative finance services improvement in South Africa and alternative finance Alternative finance
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between Groups .095 2 .048 .329 .720
Within Groups 58.019 401 .145
Total 58.114 403
4.5.3 Relationship between mobile banking and alternative finance - H3
162
Table 4.87: Group statistics on the relationship between alternative finance importance and mobile banking
Group Statistics Is alternative finance important to you?
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Conclusion
Mobile banking
Yes 127 3.1488 .24230 The average score of Mobile banking differs across Alternative finance importance.
No 294 3.1388 .33973
This shows that although mobile banking and alternative finance can both be accessed using online methods, participants have different views on each of them. The means in Table 4.35 are almost the same, showing the impartiality of participants. Further, the numbers do not favour alternative finance.
The Levene’s test as shown in Table 4.88 reveals that the equal variance is not presumed because the p-value is below 0.05 (sig = 0.011). Therefore, the evidence on the second row (equal variances not assumed) is accepted. The second part of Table 4.88 on the t-test for equality of means shows that there is no significant difference of mean scores in terms of mobile banking (p>0.05, t=0.344, ∆Mean=0.01004) between the group that finds alternative finance important and the group that does not find alternative finance important.
Table 4.88: Independent samples test on the relationship between alternative finance importance and mobile banking
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2- tailed)
Mean Differenc e
Std. Error Differenc e
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Mobile
bankin g
Equal varianc es assume d
6.530 .011 .302 419 .763 .01004 .03330 -.05542 .0755 1
Equal varianc es not assume d
.344 328.88
1
.731 .01004 .02924 -.04747 .0675 6
163
Furthermore, the importance of alternative finance is explored and the results are noted in Table 4.89 and confirms the unpopularity of alternative finance by users.
Table 4.89: Group statistics between alternative finance importance and alternative finance
Group Statistics - relationship between alternative finance importance and alternative finance Is alternative finance
important to you?
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Conclusion
Alternative finance
Yes 127 3.0228 .34416 The average score of Alternative finance differs across Alternative finance importance.
No 294 2.9432 .40450
In Table 4.90, the Levene’s test points out that the equal variance is not assumed as the p-value is below 0.05 (sig = 0.012). As a result, the data on the second row (equal variances not assumed) is considered. The test using the t-test for equality of means as shown in Table 4.90 indicates that there is a significant change in alternative finance for those that find alternative finance important and those that do not (p<0.05, t=-2.064, ∆Mean=0.07964).
Table 4.90: Independent samples test between alternative finance importance and alternative finance
Independent Samples Test - relationship between alternative finance importance and alternative finance
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2- tailed)
Mean Differenc e
Std.
Error Differenc e
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Alternati
ve finance
Equal varianc es assume d
6.36 7
.012 1.93 6
419 .054 .07964 .04113 - .0012 1
.1604 9
Equal varianc es not assume d
2.06
4
278.58 8
.040 .07964 .03859 .0036 7
.1556 0
This means that the average level of mobile banking differs between the respondents that find alternative finance important and the respondents that do not find alternative finance importance.
In other words, as much as it is an individual choice to choose the platform that gives the best
164
benefit and fits the customer needs, the challenge is still set on the service providers to win the majority of the users. This talks to how they present themselves and their brand to the potential users. The need to go back to the drawing board and review the old strategies and incorporate new turnaround strategies to achieve the desired outcome.
Relationship between the use of alternative finance and mobile banking
The different drivers that lead to the use of alternative finance and mobile banking are explored in Table 4.91. Users use these platforms because of trust and easy access for the needs they have at a particular point. This was confirmed in a study by Malaquias & Hwang (2016), where trust was noted to be one of the critical factors affecting the use of mobile banking and alternative finance. Some users opt for alternative finance because the banks decline their applications, while the businesses’ needs of cash flow would have not been met.
Table 4.91: Descriptive statistics on use of alternative finance and mobile banking Descriptives - use of alternative finance and mobile banking
Mobile banking
N Mean Std.
Deviatio n
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Conclusion Lower
Bound
Upper Bound Bank declined
application
43 3.1302 .20878 .03184 3.0660 3.1945 The average score of mobile banking differs across the use of alternative finance.
Need cash flow for my
business
32 3.1000 .27474 .04857 3.0009 3.1991
Trust the platform
6 3.1833 .37639 .15366 2.7883 3.5783 Easily
accessible
62 3.1210 .25934 .03294 3.0551 3.1868 None of the
above
260 3.1677 .34601 .02146 3.1254 3.2099 Total 403 3.1514 .31633 .01576 3.1204 3.1823
Table 4.92 reveals that the hypothesis of homogeneity of variances has been disturbed as the p- value is less than 0.05 (p= 0.013). This means that there are no similarities detected, hence further testing required.
Table 4.92: Homogeneity of variances test on use of alternative finance and mobile banking
Test of Homogeneity of Variances - use of alternative finance and mobile banking Mobile banking
Levene’s Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
3.207 4 398 .013
165
As a result, Table 4.93 of the robust tests of equality of means is reflected, where further tests on Welch and Brown-Forsythe were completed. Shown in Table 4.93 is the non-significant variation of Welch where the p-value is 0.628 and Brown-Forsythe p-value equalling to 0.611 in the use of alternative finance within mobile banking, thus the postulation of homogeneity of variances has not been disrupted.
Table 4.93: Robust tests of equality of means on use of alternative finance and mobile banking
Robust Tests of Equality of Means - use of alternative finance and mobile banking Mobile banking
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch .655 4 32.144 .628
Brown-Forsythe .680 4 29.097 .611
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
The results in Table 4.94 indicate a non-significant difference of mean scores use of alternative finance platforms within mobile banking as the p-value is greater than 0.05 (p=0.671). For that reason, the post hoc effects are disregarded.
Table 4.94: ANOVA test on use of alternative finance and mobile banking ANOVA - use of alternative finance and mobile banking Mobile banking
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .236 4 .059 .588 .671
Within Groups 39.990 398 .100
Total 40.227 402
Alternative finance forms and mobile banking
Relationship between alternative finance forms and mobile banking
The different forms of alternative finance have differing uptake, depending on the individual preference and need. Therefore, crowdfunding, online marketplace lending, merchant cash advance and factoring were noted to be common to users although the majority (336) of the respondents did not have a clue about alternative finance forms as shown in Table 4.95. This was in comparison to mobile banking, and the difference was noted across noted forms.
166
Table 4.95: Descriptive statistics on alternative finance forms and mobile banking Descriptives - alternative finance forms and mobile banking
Mobile banking
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Conclusion Lower
Bound
Upper Bound
Crowdfunding 34 3.0794 .32453 .05566 2.9662 3.1926 The average score of Mobile banking differs across alternative finance forms.
Online marketplace lending
14 3.2000 .16172 .04322 3.1066 3.2934
Merchant cash advance
20 3.1850 .31334 .07007 3.0384 3.3316 Factoring 3 3.4667 .23094 .13333 2.8930 4.0404 None of the above 336 3.1408 .31751 .01732 3.1067 3.1748 Total 407 3.1423 .31425 .01558 3.1116 3.1729
The supposition of homogeneity of variances has not been disturbed as the p-value is greater than 0.05 (p=0.510) as shown in Table 4.96.
Table 4.96: Homogeneity of variances test on alternative finance forms and mobile banking
Test of Homogeneity of Variances - alternative finance forms and mobile banking Mobile banking
Levene’s Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
.825 4 402 .510
Table 4.97 indicates that there is a non-significant difference of mean scores on the usage of alternative finance platforms within mobile banking. For the reason that the p-value is 0.248 which is greater than the 0.05 set standard, the post hoc results are ignored.
Table 4.97: ANOVA relationship between alternative finance forms and mobile banking ANOVA - alternative finance forms and mobile banking
Mobile banking
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .534 4 .133 1.357 .248
Within Groups 39.559 402 .098
Relationship between alternative finance forms and alternative finance
Alternative finance forms were further compared in relation to alternative finance and the differences were noted from corner to corner. This is shown in Table 4.98.
167
Table 4.98: Descriptive statistics on alternative finance forms and alternative finance Descriptives - alternative finance forms and alternative finance
Alternative finance
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Conclusion Lower
Bound
Upper Bound
Crowdfunding 34 2.9706 .28126 .04824 2.8725 3.0687 The average score of Alternative finance differs across alternative finance forms.
Online marketplace
lending
14 3.0214 .55217 .14757 2.7026 3.3402 Merchant cash
advance
20 2.6450 .60304 .13484 2.3628 2.9272 Factoring 3 2.9000 .26458 .15275 2.2428 3.5572 None of the above 336 2.9890 .36979 .02017 2.9493 3.0287 Total 407 2.9710 .38989 .01933 2.9330 3.0090
According to Table 4.99, the statement of homogeneity of variances has been violated as indicated by the p-value which is less than 0.05 (p=0.006).
Table 4.99: Homogeneity of variances test between alternative finance forms and alternative finance
Test of Homogeneity of Variances - alternative finance forms and alternative finance Alternative finance
Levene’s Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
3.635 4 402 .006
For the violated homogeneity of variances in Table 4.100, then the robust tests of equality of means is deliberated as shown in Table 4.100. There is no significant differences in alternative finance forms within alternative finance as noted on Welch test where the p-value is 0.272, thus the notion of homogeneity of variances has not been disturbed.
Table 4.100: Robust test of equality of means between alternative finance forms and alternative finance
Robust Tests of Equality of Means - alternative finance forms and alternative finance Alternative finance
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 1.459 4 12.624 .272
Brown-Forsythe 2.835 4 41.820 .036
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 4.101 indicates a significant difference of mean scores across the different alternative finance forms utilised within alternative finance as the p-value is 0.004 which is less than 0.05.
168
Table 4.101: ANOVA relationship between alternative finance forms and alternative finance
ANOVA - alternative finance forms and alternative finance Alternative finance
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 2.285 4 .571 3.864 .004
Within Groups 59.433 402 .148
Total 61.718 406
The demonstration of post hoc test results in Table 4.102 reveals that the alternative finance average score of the participants that use crowdfunding is significantly higher (p=0.023 <0.05) than the average score of the participants who use merchant cash advance. Furthermore, the alternative finance average score of the participants who use online marketplace lending is considerably higher (p= 0.041< 0.05) than the average score of the participants who use merchant cash advance. Additionally, the alternative finance average score of the participants who use none of the alternative finance forms is considerably higher (p=0.001 < 0.05) than the average score of the participants who use merchant cash advance. The corrected alpha is less than the p-value which signifies the significance.
Table 4.102: Multiple comparisons between alternative finance forms and alternative finance
Multiple Comparisons - alternative finance forms and alternative finance Dependent
Variable:
Alternative finance
α_corrected
Tukey HSD
(I) Which of the following alternative finance forms do you use?
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95%
Confidence Interval Lower Bound
Upper Bound Crowdfunding Online
marketplace lending
-.05084 .12210 .994 -.3854 .2837 0,010
Merchant cash advance
.32559* .10835 .023 .0287 .6225 0,010
Factoring .07059 .23158 .998 -.5640 .7052 0,010 None of the
above
-.01840 .06920 .999 -.2080 .1712 0,010
Online marketplace lending
Crowdfunding .05084 .12210 .994 -.2837 .3854 0,010 Merchant cash
advance
.37643* .13399 .041 .0093 .7436 0,010
Factoring .12143 .24462 .988 -.5489 .7917 0,010 None of the
above
.03244 .10488 .998 -.2550 .3198 0,010
Crowdfunding -.32559* .10835 .023 -.6225 -.0287 0,010
169
Merchant cash advance
Online marketplace lending
-.37643* .13399 .041 -.7436 -.0093 0,010
Factoring -.25500 .23806 .821 -.9073 .3973 0,010 None of the
above
-.34399* .08850 .001 -.5865 -.1015 0,010
Factoring Crowdfunding -.07059 .23158 .998 -.7052 .5640 0,010 Online
marketplace lending
-.12143 .24462 .988 -.7917 .5489 0,010
Merchant cash advance
.25500 .23806 .821 -.3973 .9073 0,010
None of the above
-.08899 .22298 .995 -.7000 .5220 0,010
None of the above Crowdfunding .01840 .06920 .999 -.1712 .2080 0,010 Online
marketplace lending
-.03244 .10488 .998 -.3198 .2550 0,010
Merchant cash advance
.34399* .08850 .001 .1015 .5865 0,010
Factoring .08899 .22298 .995 -.5220 .7000 0,010
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
This leads to the next chapter which focuses on the qualitative data analysis outcomes from the interviews conducted with the participants from the bank, Fintech and individual participants.
170
CHAPTER FIVE
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS