The creation of intangible assets’ value by Financial Technology and Firm survival

The creation of intangible assets’ value by Financial Technology and Firm survival | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The creation of intangible assets’ value by Financial Technology and Firm survival Satakoon Kaewmungkoon, Papapit Srisawangwong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the structural relationship between the creation of intangible asset value through financial technology (Fintech) and firm survival within the Thai financial services sector. Design/methodology/approach – Adopting a quantitative research design, this study utilized a structured survey administered to CFOs of SET-listed companies. The analytical framework leverages the Hayes PROCESS macro to conduct moderation analysis, testing the relationship between intangible asset value creation in the FinTech sector and firm survival. This approach facilitates a robust assessment of both direct effects and the statistical significance of moderating variables. Findings – Empirical results indicate that intangible asset valuation derived from financial technology (Fintech) significantly enhances firm survival within the Thai financial services sector. This relationship is mediated through three primary dimensions: FinTech Integration, Intangible Value Creation, and Digital Goodwill. The findings suggest that the strategic cultivation of intangible value through Fintech optimizes these critical pathways, thereby bolstering organizational resilience and long-term viability in a digital economy. Research limitations/implications – Study limitations include Thailand’s rigid regulatory focus on BIS ratios and NPLs, which fails to account for "soft" assets or innovation risk-weighting. Additionally, rapid digitalization outpaces policy adaptation, while high compliance costs burden SMEs. Finally, external shocks like geopolitical instability often overshadow regulatory frameworks, and restrictive licensing for intangible-heavy entities persists as a barrier to scaling resilient, idea-driven business models. Originality/value – This study demonstrates that FinTech integration is a strategic necessity for CFOs in the financial sector. Furthermore, it offers actionable policy insights, urging the Bank of Thailand to modernize frameworks through innovation-based risk-weighting and simplified licensing for intangible-heavy firms to strengthen national economic resilience. FinTech Integration Intangible Value Creation Digital Goodwill Regulatory Support Firm Survival & Resilience Figures Figure 1 I. INTRODUCTION In the transition from a traditional industrial economy to a digital-led knowledge economy, the primary drivers of corporate value have shifted from physical capital to intangible assets (Agboola et al., 2023 ). Assets such as intellectual property, brand equity, and proprietary software now account for a dominant share of market valuation, often creating a significant discrepancy between a firm’s book value and its market price (He and Zhang, 2024 ). While these assets provide a foundation for competitive advantage, their value is increasingly dependent on a firm’s ability to integrate modern technological frameworks. The emergence of Financial Technology (FinTech) has revolutionized how firms manage and monetize these non-physical resources. FinTech—encompassing artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data analytics—acts as a catalyst for value creation by reducing information asymmetry and optimizing resource allocation (Chen and Lin, 2023 ). By enhancing the transparency of financial transactions and providing sophisticated data-driven insights, FinTech allows firms to leverage their intangible holdings more efficiently, thereby improving operational performance and market positioning (Tan et al., 2024 ). Ultimately, the synergy between intangible asset development and FinTech adoption is a critical determinant of firm survival. In an increasingly volatile global market, digital financial tools provide the analytical resilience and risk-mitigation capabilities necessary for long-term sustainability (Hu et al., 2023 ). This is particularly evident among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), where FinTech integration has been shown to significantly improve survival rates by streamlining access to credit and fostering innovation (Zhou and Sun, 2024 ). Consequently, understanding the nexus between FinTech-driven intangible value and organizational longevity is essential for modern strategic management. The primary research question driving this study is: "To what extent does the creation of intangible asset value through FinTech integration determine the long-term survival and structural resilience of financial institutions within the Thai regulatory framework?" To address this, the study further explores how specific digital intangibles—such as proprietary algorithms, data capital, and cybersecurity infrastructure—contribute to the market valuation (Tobin’s Q) of firms listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) (Mohanlingam et al., 2021 ), and whether the Bank of Thailand’s (BOT) regulatory sandbox environment acts as a critical moderating factor in converting these technological investments into institutional stability. The research gap in the Thai context is characterized by a "performance paradox" where, despite rapid digital adoption and high investment in FinTech infrastructure, empirical evidence often shows a negligible or delayed impact on traditional profitability metrics like Return on Assets (ROA) (Setaputra and Kimbara, 2023 ). This suggests a significant disconnect in existing literature regarding how these investments are accounted for; current research frequently overlooks the unrecognized intangibles that contribute to long-term survival rather than immediate fiscal gains (Punyaporn, 2024 ). Furthermore, while global studies offer generalized frameworks, there is a distinct lack of localized evidence on how Thai financial firms navigate the transition from physical to digital-led capital under specific domestic constraints, such as the emergence of virtual bank licensing and the unique digital payment ecosystem of the ASEAN region (Phan et al., 2020 ). Consequently, a gap remains in quantifying "digital goodwill" and understanding its role in mitigating systemic risks for mid-tier Thai banks facing disruption from non-traditional financial entrants. II. THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES A. Theory Framework The primary theoretical foundation for this research is the Resource-Based View (RBV), which asserts that a firm’s competitive advantage and long-term survival are predicated on resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). In the Thai financial landscape, FinTech-driven intangible assets—such as proprietary data algorithms, specialized digital human capital, and advanced cybersecurity infrastructure—constitute high-value resources that meet these criteria. Recent empirical evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand suggests that such intangible asset intensity significantly drives market valuation, as investors perceive these non-physical resources as primary indicators of future earnings potential (Intarasit and Jaisuriyasilp, 2022). To explain how firms, navigate the rapid pace of digital disruption in Southeast Asia, this study also employs Dynamic Capabilities Theory. This framework suggests that firm survival depends on the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal competencies to address rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997). For Thai financial institutions, these capabilities are often fostered through participation in the Bank of Thailand’s regulatory sandbox, which allows incumbent banks to experiment with digital business models, thereby enhancing their organizational resilience and "digital goodwill" (Punyaporn, 2024). Furthermore, Signaling Theory provides a rationale for the market valuation of firms with high FinTech investment. Given the high degree of information asymmetry in emerging markets, Thai banks use digital transformation initiatives to signal their technological readiness and future viability to external stakeholders (Spence, 1978). This signaling effect is particularly critical in the Thai banking sector, where traditional performance metrics may not immediately reflect the value created by digital infrastructure, yet market-based indicators like Tobin’s Q respond positively to these strategic technological shifts (Vetchagool, 2023). Finally, Institutional Theory and Organizational Ecology offer a macro-level perspective on longevity. These theories suggest that firm survival is influenced by the institutional legitimacy gained through regulatory alignment and the adaptive fitness of the organization within its ecosystem (Hannan and Freeman, 1977). In Thailand, the survival of financial entities is increasingly tied to their ability to harmonize intangible asset development with the Bank of Thailand’s strategic shift toward a sustainable digital economy. B. The effect of Intangible assets on Firm Survival Based on the research questions and the identified gap within the Thai financial sector, the following hypotheses are proposed to test the relationship between FinTech, intangible assets, and firm longevity. The assertion that FinTech-driven intangible assets significantly augment market valuation (H 1 ) is supported by a growing body of evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET). Research indicates that for technology-intensive firms in Thailand, intangible asset intensity—particularly intellectual capital and proprietary digital systems—shows a strong positive correlation with Return on Equity (ROE) and Tobin’s Q (Mohanlingam et al., 2021). This suggests that investors in the Thai market apply a valuation premium to firms that successfully demonstrate technological readiness, even when these assets are not fully capitalized on traditional balance sheets (Pongsaporamat, 2023). H 1 : FinTech - driven intangible asset intensity has a significant positive impact on the market valuation of financial institutions in Thailand . Furthermore, the hypothesis suggests that while traditional accounting may not immediately reflect profits from digital transformation, the market recognizes these investments (e.g., proprietary algorithms and data capital) as creators of long-term intrinsic value. Regarding the temporal lag in performance realization (H 2 ), evidence from Thai commercial banks suggests that the transition to digital-first models involves high initial structural costs that can temporarily suppress traditional profitability ratios. However, longitudinal data indicates that Thailand’s financial sector historically realizes the benefits of intellectual and structural capital following a period of institutional adjustment, a trend observed since the post-1997 recovery era (Setaputra and Kimbara, 2023). This intangible value factor often results in statistically significant abnormal returns that manifest only after the market has fully digested the firm's digital trajectory (Punyaporn, 2025). H 2 : There is a significant time - lag between FinTech investment and the realization of firm survival benefits in the Thai banking sector . By addressing the performance paradox, this hypothesis proposes that the value created by intangible assets does not manifest in immediate Return on Assets (ROA) but rather accumulates to enhance structural resilience over a multi-year period. Additionally, the hypothesis tests whether the intangible value of customer experience and digital reputation acts as a protective buffer against competition from new virtual bank entrants. The role of "Digital Goodwill" as a survival mechanism (H 3 ) is further reinforced by the shifting competitive landscape in ASEAN. As traditional Thai banks face disruption from agile FinTech startups and incoming virtual bank licensees, their primary defensive asset is the brand equity and trust accumulated through secure, high-utility digital interfaces (Vives, 2020). This intangible reputation acts as a significant barrier to customer churn, thereby reducing the probability of insolvency or market exit during periods of intense digital rivalry (Patterson, 2023). H 3 : High levels of " Digital Goodwill " ( brand equity derived from FinTech UX / UI ) significantly reduce the probability of firm exit or insolvency for mid - tier Thai banks . Finally, for the keys moderating mechanisms of FinTech investment on Firm Survival, the hypothesis explores whether the institutional support and regulatory environment in Thailand accelerate the conversion of technological innovation into sustainable business models. Finally, the moderating influence of the regulatory environment (H 4 ) is exemplified by the Bank of Thailand’s strategic repositioning toward a sustainable digital economy." By providing a structured environment for innovation through the regulatory sandbox, the BOT reduces the innovation risk typically associated with intangible asset development. This institutional oversight ensures that FinTech advancements are integrated with robust risk management protocols, effectively accelerating the conversion of intangible innovation into long-term organizational survival and systemic stability. H 4 : Participation in the Bank of Thailand ’ s ( BOT ) regulatory sandbox positively moderates the relationship between intangible asset value and corporate sustainability . III. METHODS A. Sample Selection and Data Collection Procedures This study investigates the effect of intangible assets through FinTech on Firm survival within the Thai financial sector. The sampling frame was established using the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) database (https://www.set.or.th) as of September 30, 2025. The target population consisted of 71 companies meeting the inclusion criterial, comprising 12 banking institutions, 32 brokerage firms, and 27 insurance companies. Primary data were collected through a structured questionnaire, a methodological approach widely utilized in business research for efficient large-scale data acquisition. Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) were selected as key informants given their strategic oversight of FinTech functions and their central role in organizational policy-making. Their direct involvement in high-level decision-making processes enhances the content validity and accuracy of the data. The survey distribution commenced on December 31, 2025, with 71 instruments dispatched via postal mail. Following a two-month data collection period, 32 usable responses were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 45.07%. Consistent with Root and Blismas (2003), who state that response rates in organizational and industrial research typically range between 20% and 30%, the 45.07% rate achieved in this study is considered academically acceptable and provides a sufficient basis for robust descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. B. Test of Non-Response Bias Consistent with the methodology established by Armstrong and Overton (1977), non-response bias was evaluated by comparing early and late respondents. This approach utilizes late respondents as a proxy for non-respondents to identify potential systematic differences. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences ( p > 0 . 05 ) between the two groups across the primary research variables. These results indicate that the sample is representative of the broader population and that non-response bias does not pose a significant threat to the validity of the study’s findings. C. Variables Measurements Primary data were collected via a structured questionnaire. All model constructs were operationalized using multi-item scales to ensure measurement reliability. To ensure academic validity, our questionnaire use established Likert-type scales (1–5) rather than simple "Yes/No" questions. Each item was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The specific variables and their corresponding measurement items are categorized as follows: Firstly, for the FinTech Adoption Scale, we use a multidimensional scale measuring perceived utility, trust, attitude, and social impact. For institutional measurement, focus on dimensions like automation, alternative payment methods, and financial inclusion. Furthermore, for the Digital Goodwill & Brand Equity, we measure this via "Customer-Based Brand Equity" (CBBE) scales, focusing on brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty specific to digital interfaces. Additionally, the Intangible Asset Value, since these are often unrecorded, we use a scale that identifies "Intellectual Capital," focusing on human capital (staff expertise), structural capital (internal processes), and relational capital (customer relationships). Finally, the Firm Survival/Resilience, in our questionnaire, "survival" is often measured as financial resilience (the ability to withstand shocks) and innovation capacity. Independent Variable FinTech Integration ( FIN ) FinTech Integration (FIN) is defined in academic research as the strategic and systematic embedding of advanced technological innovations—such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and mobile systems—into traditional financial services to enhance operational efficiency, accessibility, and user experience (Bhatia et al., 2024). This variable represents a fundamental paradigm shift from manual, legacy-based processes toward technology-driven frameworks that modernize both backend financial infrastructures and frontend customer interactions. Conceptually, FIN is characterized as the convergence of technology-based systems with financial administrations to improve the proficiency of the global financial system (Sivakumar and Thamilselvan, 2019). Operationally, researchers frequently measure this variable using a multi-dimensional index that tracks digital payment volumes, the frequency of mobile banking adoption, e-commerce penetration, and the use of peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms (Bhatia et al., 2024; Takeda and Ito, 2021). Theoretically, the variable is often examined through the lens of the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework and the Disruptive Innovation Theory to explain how technological adoption shifts paradigms within the financial industry (Ozili, 2018). Furthermore, FIN acts as a critical driver for financial inclusion by lowering entry barriers for underserved populations and reducing transaction costs (Al-Smadi, 2023; Sivakumar and Thamilselvan, 2019). Intangible Value Creation ( IVC ) Intangible Value Creation (IVC) represents the strategic process by which an organization generates economic utility and competitive advantage through non-physical assets (Lev, 2001). Unlike tangible assets, which are subject to diminishing returns, intangible assets—such as intellectual property, brand equity, and human capital—often exhibit increasing returns to scale, making them the primary drivers of corporate growth in the modern knowledge economy (Teece, 2015). Theoretically, IVC is rooted in the Resource-Based View (RBV) of the firm, which posits that superior performance is derived from resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). In this framework, IVC is the mechanism through which "Knowledge Assets" are transformed into market value. Research generally categorizes the sources of this value into three pillars: human capital, representing the collective competencies and tacit knowledge of the workforce; structural capital, encompassing the institutionalized knowledge embedded in processes, patents, and corporate culture; and relational capital, which reflects the value inherent in external relationships and brand reputation (Bontis, 1998; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Kaplan and Norton, 2004). A critical challenge in academic research remains the "Value Gap"—the discrepancy between a firm’s book value and its market value. Traditional accounting standards often treat investments in intangibles as expenses rather than capital investments, leading to a significant understatement of a firm’s true worth (Lev and Gu, 2016). To address this, scholars utilize metrics such as Calculated Intangible Value (CIV), which identifies the "excess return" a firm earns above the industry average to estimate the total value of its intangibles (Stewart, 1997). In high-technology sectors, IVC often accounts for upwards of 90% of total enterprise value, making it a proactive requirement for long-term sustainability. Digital Goodwill ( DGW ) Digital Goodwill (DGW) is defined in contemporary economic and accounting literature as the intangible value a firm derives from its digital ecosystem, including its technological infrastructure, data assets, and online user experience. Unlike traditional goodwill, which focuses on general reputation and brand loyalty, DGW represents the "excess profit" potential specifically generated by a company’s digital transformation, scalable software, and network effects (Moro-Visconti, 2022). Scholarly discourse identifies DGW as a critical metric for evaluating firms in the digital economy, where market value is increasingly decoupled from physical assets and tied to proprietary algorithms and the assetization of user data (Birch and Cochrane, 2022; Tiesheva and Smyrnov, 2023). Consequently, the measurement of DGW necessitates specialized frameworks, such as the Edwards-Bell-Ohlson (EBO) model or the income-based approach, to capture the probabilistic nature of future economic benefits stemming from digital platforms and automated customer interactions (Zadorozhnyi et al., 2024). This variable serves as a catch-all for the synergistic value of digital intangibles that are not otherwise allocated to specific identifiable assets, yet significantly drive a firm’s competitive advantage in a digitized marketplace (Plotnikov and Plotnikova, 2019; Wan, 2024). Moderating Variable Regulatory Support ( REG ) In academic research, Regulatory Support (REG) is defined as the degree to which formal institutional frameworks, government policies, and legal environments facilitate or mandate specific organizational behaviors, such as technology adoption, entrepreneurial activity, or sustainability practices (Sperber and Linder, 2018). It is categorized as a critical external environmental factor that reduces perceived risk and provides the necessary resources or incentives for strategic shifts (Scott, 2014). From a resource-based perspective, Regulatory Support acts as an institutional asset. It encompasses not only the presence of clear legal guidelines but also the availability of financial incentives, tax exemptions, and administrative assistance provided by governing bodies to streamline compliance (Al-Shbiel et al., 2021). Within the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework, REG is a primary component of the "Environmental" context, representing the pressure or encouragement exerted by the state to promote innovation and standardized industry practices (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005). In the context of sustainability and governance, REG is often operationalized as the level of government commitment to enforcing international standards and providing the infrastructure necessary for firms to transition toward greener operations (Hassan et al., 2020). Conversely, a lack of Regulatory Support—characterized by bureaucratic hurdles or legal ambiguity—is cited as a significant barrier to market entry and organizational growth (North, 1990). Dependent Variable Firm Survival & Resilience ( SURV ) Firm Survival and Resilience (SURV) is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional performance construct that evaluates an organization's longitudinal capacity to endure external shocks and maintain operational continuity. Firm survival is defined as the ability of an enterprise to perform consistently and exist over an extended duration, often operationalized through the "going concern" principle (Liu & Pang, 2013; Liao et al., 2008). Complementing this, firm resilience is viewed as the latent capacity to withstand, absorb, and rebound from adversities (Battisti and Deakins, 2019). This resilience is further dimensionalized into robustness, agility, and integrity, representing the structural endurance and adaptive strategies required to mitigate disruptions (DesJardine et al., 2019). Within the SURV framework, resilience serves as the strategic mechanism that enables the ultimate outcome of survival, frequently measured in empirical research using survival analysis to estimate the probability of a firm’s continued existence following a crisis. Control Variables In the study of how Financial Technology (FinTech) drives the value of intangible assets and influences firm survival, several control variables are essential to isolate these effects. Firm Size, typically measured as the natural logarithm of total assets, accounts for the resources and economies of scale available to a company; Dang et al. (2018) and Pratama and Wiksuana (2018) note that larger firms often possess the capital and superior market access necessary to develop proprietary technology and withstand market shocks. Leverage, calculated as the ratio of total debt to total assets, reflects a firm’s financial risk and capital structure. While debt can fund innovation, Yilmaz and Acar (2022) and Huynh and Petrunia (2010) suggest that high leverage increases the probability of financial distress and failure hazards, potentially hindering a firm's survival during digital transitions. Firm Age, defined as the years since incorporation, controls for the "liability of newness"; while older firms may have established reputations, Loderer and Waelchli (2010) and Agarwal and Gort (2002) highlight that "corporate aging" can lead to organizational rigidities that slow down innovation compared to younger, more agile FinTech entities. Liquidity, often proxied by the current ratio, indicates a firm's ability to meet short-term obligations; Liargovas and Skandalis (2010) and Solihin (2019) emphasize that higher liquidity provides an essential financial buffer that supports survival when intangible investments do not yield immediate cash flows. Finally, Board Independence, measured as the proportion of independent directors, serves as a proxy for corporate governance quality. Fama and Jensen (1983) and Al-Tahqani and Boulanouar (2017) theorize that independent boards provide objective oversight and reduce information asymmetry, ensuring that FinTech investments are strategically sound and that long-term survival is prioritized over short-term managerial gains. D. Instrument Reliability and Validity To establish the psychometric integrity of the measurement scales, the instrument underwent rigorous reliability and validity testing. A pilot study involving 30 Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) from the Thai financial sector was conducted to evaluate internal consistency. Following the criteria proposed by Hair et al. (2012), reliability was assessed via Cronbach’s Alpha. As detailed in Table 1, all scales yielded coefficients exceeding the 0.70 threshold, indicating high internal consistency. Content validity was verified through a review by a panel of three subject matter experts in financial survival & resilience and intangible assets. Expert feedback was quantified using the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) (Turner & Carlson, 2003). All items achieved scores between 0.67 and 1.0, surpassing the minimum acceptance level of 0.50 and confirming strong conceptual alignment. Finally, construct validity was empirically validated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Factor loadings ranged from 0.566 to 0.859, significantly exceeding the 0.30 benchmark recommended by Shevlin and Miles (1998). These combined metrics provide robust empirical support for the instrument’s capacity to accurately measure the complexities of FinTech decision-making. Table 1 . Shown factor loadings and Cronbach ’ s alpha values Variables Factor loadings value Value of Cronbach ’ s alpha FinTech Integration (FIN) .683 - .741 .717 Intangible Value Creation (IVC) .640 - .857 .849 Digital Goodwill (DGW) .721 - .859 .858 Regulatory Support (REG) .566 - .790 .827 Firm Survival & Resilience (SURV) .580 - .855 .727 IV. RESULTS Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Matrix To evaluate the relationships between FinTech-driven intangible assets and firm survival within the Thai financial sector, this study utilizes Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This methodological approach is the established standard for analyzing complex frameworks where theoretical constructs, such as "Digital Goodwill," are latent and must be operationalized through multiple observed indicators. The measurement model defines these latent constructs through specific observed indicators derived from the survey instrument. FinTech Integration (FIN) is operationalized through AI implementation, blockchain utilization, and digital payment infrastructure. Intangible Value Creation (IVC) is measured by proprietary data assets, specialized human capital, and structural innovation. Digital Goodwill (DGW) captures digital brand trust, User Experience (UX) satisfaction, and customer loyalty. Finally, the dependent variable, Firm Survival & Resilience (SURV), is measured by the organization’s capacity to withstand market shocks, long-term strategic readiness, and competitive positioning. The structural model specifies the hypothesized causal pathways and interdependencies between these constructs. This framework allows for the simultaneous testing of the primary hypotheses (H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 ), identifying how technological integration and intangible asset accumulation contribute to sustained organizational resilience in a volatile market. SURV = β 1 + β 2 FIN + β 3 IVC + β 4 DGW + β 5 CONTROL + ε 1 …………….(1) Then, to evaluate the moderating role of institutional support, this study integrates a moderation model focusing on the Bank of Thailand (BOT) Regulatory Sandbox effect (H 4 ). Regulatory Support (REG) serves as the moderating variable, operationalized by firm participation in the BOT Regulatory Sandbox. This framework enables testing whether structured regulatory oversight and risk mitigation benefits amplify the impact of FinTech assets on organizational outcomes. To statistically assess this effect, the structural equation includes an interaction term ( X×M ), representing the product of the independent variable and the moderator. This approach allows for the determination of whether the strength or direction of the relationship between FinTech-driven intangible assets and firm survival is contingent upon active participation in the regulatory testing environment. SURV = β 6 + β 7 IVC + β 8 REG + β 9 (IVC × REG) + ε 2 ……………………(2) Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for all study variables. Preliminary analysis confirms that the associations between the independent, mediating, and dependent constructs align with the proposed theoretical framework. Specifically, Firm Survival & Resilience is significantly and positively correlated with FinTech Integration ( r = .399, p < .01 ), Intangible Value Creation ( r = .426, p < .01 ), and Regulatory Support ( r = .150, p < .01 ). To ensure the integrity of the subsequent regression analysis, multicollinearity was assessed by examining the correlation coefficients among the explanatory variables. All values fall well below the conservative threshold suggested by Hair et al. (2019), indicating that redundant variance is not a concern for the model’s predictive validity. Table 2 Correlations SURV FIN IVC DGW REG SURV Firm Survival & Resilience 1 Sig. (2-tailed) FIN FinTech Integration .399 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 IVC Intangible Value Creation .426 .724 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 DGW Digital Goodwill .036 .402 .447 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .534 .000 .000 REG Regulatory Support .150 .395 .550 .735 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .000 .000 .000 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Statistical Analysis This study investigated the impact of FinTech Integration (FIN), Intangible Value Creation (IVC), and Digital Goodwill (DGW) on Firm Survival and Resilience (SURV), while further examining the moderating influence of Regulatory Support (REG) on the relationship between IVC and SURV. Empirical analysis reveals that FIN ( β 2 = .351, p < .01 ), IVC ( β 3 = .459, p < .01 ), and DGW ( β 4 = − .391, p < .01 ) exert significant direct effects on SURV, thereby validating Hypotheses H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 . Notably, the results indicate that while FIN and IVC serve as positive drivers, DGW maintains a significant inverse relationship with firm resilience. Conversely, the interaction effect of REG on the link between IVC and SURV was found to be statistically non-significant, resulting in the rejection of H 4 . These findings suggest that while technological and intangible factors are critical determinants of firm longevity, regulatory support does not function as a significant moderator in this specific context. A detailed summary of the mediation analysis is presented in Table 3 . Table 3 The standardization of coefficient value for the effect of Firm Survival & Resilience Firm Survival & Resilience (SURV) Firm Survival & Resilience (SURV) Model 1 Model 2 Constant 2.577** .000 3.9016 .4381 FinTech Integration (FIN) .351** - .001 Intangible Value Creation (IVC) .459** .1909 .000 .8746 Digital Goodwill (DGW) − .391** - .000 Regulatory Support (REG) - − .5301 .6690 Intangible Value Creation (IVC) - .0919 x Regulatory Support (REG) .7540 Firm Size (FS) − .153** .004 Leverage (LEV) − .076 .059 Firm Age (FA) .067 .347 Liquidity (LIQ) .151* .026 Board Independence (BI) .026 .081 R-Squared .1944 N 71 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). V. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS In this study, our findings reveal an insignificant unexpected moderating of regulatory support for the relationship of intangible value creation and firm survival and resilience within the Thai financial services sector. The inability of regulatory support to moderate the relationship between intangible value creation and firm resilience in the Thai financial sector stems from a systemic misalignment between supervisory focus and the nature of intellectual assets. Current evidence suggests that Thai regulatory frameworks, led by the Bank of Thailand (BOT), remain anchored in a traditional prudential paradigm that prioritizes physical capital adequacy and tangible collateral over digital or human capital. Research on Thai-listed firms indicates that while intangible assets improve market perception, they do not correlate significantly with tangible firm growth, as the domestic market remains driven primarily by physical capital investment (Pattanakriangkrai et al., 2024 ). Furthermore, the IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment (2019) notes that institutional structures, such as the inclusion of ministerial authorities on the Financial Institutions Policy Committee (FIPC), can dilute the operational independence of regulators. This often results in a "stability-first" approach that fails to provide the agile, innovation-specific support required to turn intangible assets into survival-enhancing mechanisms (Rojanatrakul and Boonchoo, 2024). Consequently, the regulatory environment acts more as a compliance barrier than a catalyst for resilience driven by intangible value. These findings are subject to several critical limitations within the Thai context. A primary constraint is the lack of standardized regulatory mechanisms to quantify "soft" assets; because Thai regulations focus heavily on BIS ratios and NPL coverage, firms investing in innovation do not receive a commensurate reduction in risk-weighting. Additionally, the rapid pace of digital transformation often exceeds the speed of policy adaptation. High operating and opportunity costs associated with compliance can negate the efficiency gains of intangible value creation, particularly for SMEs where digital shifts are often "top-down" rather than organic (Zingel, 2024 ). In the Thai economy, resilience is also frequently dictated by severe external shocks—such as geopolitical instability or climate events—where immediate liquidity and fiscal buffers become the primary factors for survival, effectively overshadowing the long-term moderating potential of regulatory frameworks (Chaikulsareewath et al., 2024 ). Finally, restrictive regulations regarding preferred shares and licensing act as significant barriers for intangible-heavy entities, preventing the regulatory ecosystem from effectively supporting the transition from intangible ideas to resilient business models. VI. CONCLUSION In accordance with the Resource-Based View (RBV), this research underscores the strategic advancement of intangible asset investment as a fundamental mechanism for the financial sector to evaluate and ensure long-term corporate viability (Barney, 1991 ; Susanti et al., 2023). The empirical findings validate a robust correlation between FinTech integration, intangible value creation, and digital goodwill in fostering both firm survival and organizational resilience. Specifically, the study aligns with evidence that intangible assets—such as R&D and digital goodwill—serve as primary sources of future growth, significantly enhancing the resilience of firms to large economic shocks (Tahat et al., 2018). Furthermore, the integration of FinTech acts as a critical "shock absorber," strengthening operational resilience through improved liquidity management and risk forecasting (Banna et al., 2021 ). As technology-driven data increasingly replaces traditional accounting metrics in assessing corporate prospects (Lev, 2018 ), Digital Goodwill emerges as a scalable property that sustains modern business models and generates stable profits despite external environmental volatility. Consequently, these results provide a framework for stakeholders to leverage digital-first assets as critical determinants of stability and competitive endurance in an increasingly volatile economic landscape (Teece, 2009 ; Titisari et al., 2024 ). Declarations A statement of ethics approval Ethical Approval: “Ethical approval was obtained from the MSU Ethical Review Board (IRB protocol number 456-264/2025).” A statement on participant consent "Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all adult participants and the legal guardians of minors. For cases involving the publication of identifying clinical data or imagery, separate specific consent was obtained in accordance with institutional ethics guidelines. Author Contribution Dr. Satakoon Kaewmungkoon: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation.Assistant Professor Dr.Papapit Srisawangwong: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I, Dr. Satakoon Kaewmungkoon, would like to extend my sincere thanks to all who supported us in accomplishing this research. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, which made this project possible. My deepest appreciation goes to my parents, Mr. Vittaya and Mrs. Domma Kaewmungkoon, for fostering my commitment to education and research. I am deeply indebted to my family—specifically my father for his encouragement, and my mother, brother, and sister for their emotional support and care throughout this endeavor. Their encouragement helped me overcome various obstacles to complete this work. It is my hope that this research will serve as a valuable resource References Agarwal R, Gort M. The Evolution of Firm Survival After Entry. Review of Economics and Statistics; 2002. Agboola O, Adelugba IA, Eze BU. Effect of financial technology on the survival of micro-enterprises. Int J Entrepreneurial Knowl. 2023;11(1):1–13. Al-Shbiel SO et al. (2021). The Role of Regulatory Support in Enhancing Corporate Performance. (Focuses on the relationship between government backing and organizational efficiency). Al-Smadi A. Digital Finance and Financial Inclusion in the MENA Region. International Journal of Financial Research; 2023. Al-Tahqani S, Boulanouar Z. The influence of board size and board independence on firm performance. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research; 2017. Amihud Y. Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets; 2002. Armstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res. 1977;14(3):396–402. Banna et al. (2021) & Li (2022): Confirm that FinTech applications within banks reduce risk-taking by improving risk management capacity and internal governance. Barney, Susanti et al. (2023): Ground the study in the Resource-Based View (RBV), explaining how internal intangible resources that are valuable, rare, and inimitable provide sustained competitive advantage. Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag. 1991;17(1):99–120. Battisti M, Deakins D. (2019): In Surviving or thriving, the authors identify three patterns of resilient performance—sustained performance, stability, and survival—using longitudinal data from the New Zealand context. Bhatia S, et al. Impact of FinTech Integration on Banking Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Taylor & Francis Online / Cogent Business & Management; 2024. Birch K, Cochrane DT. Data as asset? The measurement, governance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. New Polit Econ. 2022;27(1):91–108. doi.org. Bontis N. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision; 1998. Chaikulsareewath et al. (2024). The impact of business resilience and sustainability for Thai-listed firms. Chen L, Lin Y. FinTech adoption and the efficiency of intangible asset management. J Financial Innov. 2023;9(2):112–30. Coad A, Segarra A, Teruel M. Like milk or wine: Does age improve or deteriorate firm performance? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics; 2013. Dang C, Li Z, Yang C. Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance. Journal of Banking & Finance; 2018. DesJardine et al. (2019): Define resilience as the ability of a firm to persist despite disruptions while simultaneously regenerating and maintaining existing operations. Edvinsson L, Malone MS. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value. HarperBusiness. Fama EF, Jensen MC. Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics; 1983. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. (2010/2012). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education. Haltiwanger J, Jarmin RS, Miranda J. Who creates jobs? Small vs. large vs. young. Review of Economics and Statistics; 2013. Hannan MT, Freeman J. The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol. 1977;82(5):929–64. Hassan A, et al. Institutional Support and Green Innovation. Examines REG as a driver for environmental sustainability); 2020. He X, Zhang T. Digital transformation and the valuation gap: The role of intellectual capital. Technol Soc. 2024;76:102451. Hu S, Zhu Q, Zhao X, Xu Z. Digital finance and corporate sustainability performance: promoting or restricting? Evidence from China’s listed companies. Sustainability. 2023;15(13):9855. Huynh KP, Petrunia RJ. Age effects, leverage and firm growth. Journal of Empirical Finance; 2010. Intarasit A, Jaisuriyasilp S. The impact of intangible assets on the financial performance of listed companies: Evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand. J Manage Sustain. 2022;12(2):88–102. Kaplan RS, Norton DP. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business School Press; 2004. Lev. (2018): Notes that technology-driven data and intangible indicators are increasingly replacing traditional accounting information in assessing corporate prospects. Lev B. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Brookings Institution; 2001. Lev B, Gu F. The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. Wiley; 2016. Liao et al. (2008): Cited for establishing the going concern principle as a proactive measure of firm survival. Liargovas P, Skandalis K. Factors affecting firms' financial performance: The Case of Greece. International Journal of Business and Management; 2010. Liu & Pang. (2013): Provide the foundational definition of survival as a firm's ability to perform consistently over long periods. Loderer C, Waelchli U. (2010). Firm Age and Performance. ECGI Working Paper. Merton RC. On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. The Journal of Finance; 1974. Mohanlingam S, Nguyen LTP, Mom R. The effects of intangible assets on financial performance and financial policies of listed technology firms in Thailand. Apheit Int J. 2021;10(1):1–17. Moro-Visconti R. (2022). Digital goodwill valuation. In The valuation of digital intangibles: Technology, marketing, and the metaverse (2nd ed., pp. 615–639). Springer Nature. doi.org. North DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press; 1990. (The foundational text on how formal rules/regulations shape economic behavior). Ozili PK. Impact of Digital Finance on Financial Inclusion and Stability. Borsa Istanbul Review; 2018. Pattanakriangkrai et al. (2024). The Impact of Intangible Assets on Firm Growth and Firm Value. Patterson J. Fintech firms' valuations: A cross-market analysis in Asia. J Risk Financial Manage. 2023;16(1):74. Phan DHB, et al. FinTech and financial stability: Evidence from the ASEAN region. Finance Res Lett. 2020;35:101304. Plotnikov V, Plotnikova N. (2019). Goodwill as an economic resource in the digital economy. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference on Digital Economy (ISCDE 2019). Atlantis Press. doi.org. Pongsaporamat P. The Impact of Intangible Assets on Firm Growth and Firm Value. J Roi Kaensarn Academi. 2023;8(6):586–96. Pratama IGS, Wiksuana IGB. The Influence of Firm Size and Leverage on Firm Value. E-Jurnal Manajemen Unud; 2018. Punyaporn T. Digital transformation and corporate resilience: A longitudinal study of Thai commercial banks. Asian J Finance Acc. 2024;16(1):45–67. Rojanatrakul & Boonchoo. (2024). The Relationships of FinTech with the Financial Industry in Thailand. Root D, Blismas NG. (2003). Increasing questionnaire responses from industry: practices surrounding the use of postal questionnaires. In 19th Annual ARCOM Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 623–631). Association of Researchers in Construction Management, University of Brighton. Setaputra P, Kimbara T. Intellectual capital and firm value: Empirical evidence from Thailand's banking sector. Int J Learn Intellect Capital. 2023;20(3):234–55. Shevlin M, Miles JNV. Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Pers Indiv Differ. 1998;25(1):85–90. Sivakumar M, Thamilselvan R. Role of Fintech in Financial Inclusion and Financial Integration. Research Review International Journal of Multidisciplinary; 2019. Solihin D. The Influence of Liquidity and Profitability on Firm Value. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science; 2019. Spence M. Job market signaling. Uncertainty in economics. Academic; 1978. pp. 281–306. Sperber S, Linder C. The Impact of Perceived Regulatory Support on Entrepreneurial Intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research; 2018. Tahat A, Alhadab. (2018): Demonstrates the positive association between a firm’s goodwill (brand) and R&D on both current and future financial performance. Takeda A, Ito Y. A Review of FinTech Research. Journal of Finance and Economics; 2021. Tan C, Mo L, Wu X, Zhou P. Fintech development and corporate credit risk: Evidence from an emerging market. Int Rev Financial Anal. 2024;92:103084. Teece. (2009): Extends RBV through the dynamic capabilities approach, emphasizing the need for firms to reconfigure resources in volatile environments to ensure sustained earnings. Teece DJ. Intangible Assets and a Theory of Heterogeneous Firms. In: Intangibles, Market Failure and Innovation Performance; 2015. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509–33. Tiesheva L, Smyrnov I. A company’s digital goodwill: The concept and valuation possibilities. Economic Affairs. 2023;68(2):1269–75. doi.org. Titisari et al. (2024): Highlights how digital-first intangibles like software and customer lists enhance a company's position in the global market. Turner RC, Carlson L. Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. Int J Test. 2003;3(2):163–71. Vetchagool W. The effect of intellectual capital on firm profitability and efficiency: evidence from Thai listed companies in the agriculture and food industry. Asia Social Issues. 2023;16(1):e253049–253049. Vives X. Digital disruption in banking and its impact on competition. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD); 2020. Wan LY. (2024). Digital transformation and goodwill impairment: The mediating role of customer relationship quality. J Enterp Inform Manage. Advance online publication. doi.org. Yilmaz A, Acar G. The effect of financial leverage on corporate financial performance. Accounting and Financial Reports; 2022. Zadorozhnyi Z-M, Ometsinska I, Muravskyi V. The essence of goodwill in disclosing the intangible value of business in the context of digital transformation. Financial Credit Activity: Probl Theory Pract. 2024;4(57):98–113. doi.org. Zelalem et al. (2022) & Marsal (2020): Affirm that intangible assets directly contribute to the enhancement of corporate performance and sustainability. Zhou N, Sun R. Coping with the storm: The role of fintech in SME survival. Int Rev Financial Anal. 2024;93:103157. Zhu K, Kraemer KL. Post-Adoption Variations in Usage and Value of E-Business by Organizations: Cross-Country Evidence from the Retail Industry. Information Systems Research; 2005. (Foundational for the TOE framework). Zingel. (2024). Financial Stratification and Digital Transformation in Thai SMEs. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9446425","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":629295456,"identity":"2c95e2cc-6870-4cf8-8e28-102e41f017c3","order_by":0,"name":"Satakoon Kaewmungkoon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Mahasarakham University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Satakoon","middleName":"","lastName":"Kaewmungkoon","suffix":""},{"id":629295457,"identity":"1b6dcc92-57d4-40a5-84c5-667da793c38d","order_by":1,"name":"Papapit Srisawangwong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Rajabhat Mahasarakham University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Papapit","middleName":"","lastName":"Srisawangwong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-17 08:40:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108044320,"identity":"37b79c92-0346-48fa-b85d-02b1ed4a00cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-28 19:04:45","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe conceptual model the antecedents and the moderator of Firm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9446425/v1/777b0fe4148ddde0d65b64cb.jpg"},{"id":108608877,"identity":"eeb328e7-9f0d-41d4-9f90-9c2530b5eef4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 12:42:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":466087,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9446425/v1/ae3afc40-84dd-49fb-bd97-a1240b1d4292.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The creation of intangible assets’ value by Financial Technology and Firm survival","fulltext":[{"header":"I. INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the transition from a traditional industrial economy to a digital-led knowledge economy, the primary drivers of corporate value have shifted from physical capital to intangible assets (Agboola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Assets such as intellectual property, brand equity, and proprietary software now account for a dominant share of market valuation, often creating a significant discrepancy between a firm\u0026rsquo;s book value and its market price (He and Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these assets provide a foundation for competitive advantage, their value is increasingly dependent on a firm\u0026rsquo;s ability to integrate modern technological frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe emergence of Financial Technology (FinTech) has revolutionized how firms manage and monetize these non-physical resources. FinTech\u0026mdash;encompassing artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data analytics\u0026mdash;acts as a catalyst for value creation by reducing information asymmetry and optimizing resource allocation (Chen and Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). By enhancing the transparency of financial transactions and providing sophisticated data-driven insights, FinTech allows firms to leverage their intangible holdings more efficiently, thereby improving operational performance and market positioning (Tan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, the synergy between intangible asset development and FinTech adoption is a critical determinant of firm survival. In an increasingly volatile global market, digital financial tools provide the analytical resilience and risk-mitigation capabilities necessary for long-term sustainability (Hu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This is particularly evident among Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), where FinTech integration has been shown to significantly improve survival rates by streamlining access to credit and fostering innovation (Zhou and Sun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, understanding the nexus between FinTech-driven intangible value and organizational longevity is essential for modern strategic management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary research question driving this study is: \"To what extent does the creation of intangible asset value through FinTech integration determine the long-term survival and structural resilience of financial institutions within the Thai regulatory framework?\" To address this, the study further explores how specific digital intangibles\u0026mdash;such as proprietary algorithms, data capital, and cybersecurity infrastructure\u0026mdash;contribute to the market valuation (Tobin\u0026rsquo;s Q) of firms listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) (Mohanlingam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and whether the Bank of Thailand\u0026rsquo;s (BOT) regulatory sandbox environment acts as a critical moderating factor in converting these technological investments into institutional stability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research gap in the Thai context is characterized by a \"performance paradox\" where, despite rapid digital adoption and high investment in FinTech infrastructure, empirical evidence often shows a negligible or delayed impact on traditional profitability metrics like Return on Assets (ROA) (Setaputra and Kimbara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests a significant disconnect in existing literature regarding how these investments are accounted for; current research frequently overlooks the unrecognized intangibles that contribute to long-term survival rather than immediate fiscal gains (Punyaporn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, while global studies offer generalized frameworks, there is a distinct lack of localized evidence on how Thai financial firms navigate the transition from physical to digital-led capital under specific domestic constraints, such as the emergence of virtual bank licensing and the unique digital payment ecosystem of the ASEAN region (Phan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, a gap remains in quantifying \"digital goodwill\" and understanding its role in mitigating systemic risks for mid-tier Thai banks facing disruption from non-traditional financial entrants.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"II. THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES","content":"\u003cp\u003eA. \u003cu\u003eTheory Framework\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary theoretical foundation for this research is the Resource-Based View\u0026nbsp;(RBV), which asserts that a firm’s competitive advantage and long-term survival are predicated on resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable\u0026nbsp;(Barney, 1991).\u0026nbsp;In the Thai financial landscape, FinTech-driven intangible assets—such as proprietary data algorithms, specialized digital human capital, and advanced cybersecurity infrastructure—constitute high-value resources that meet these criteria.\u0026nbsp;Recent empirical evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand suggests that such intangible asset intensity significantly drives market valuation, as investors perceive these non-physical resources as primary indicators of future earnings potential\u0026nbsp;(Intarasit and Jaisuriyasilp, 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explain how firms, navigate the rapid pace of digital disruption in Southeast Asia, this study also employs Dynamic Capabilities Theory.\u0026nbsp;This framework suggests that firm survival depends on the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal competencies to address rapidly changing environments\u0026nbsp;(Teece et al., 1997).\u0026nbsp;For Thai financial institutions, these capabilities are often fostered through participation in the Bank of Thailand’s regulatory sandbox, which allows incumbent banks to experiment with digital business models, thereby enhancing their organizational resilience and\u0026nbsp;\"digital goodwill\" (Punyaporn, 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, Signaling Theory provides a rationale for the market valuation of firms with high FinTech investment.\u0026nbsp;Given the high degree of information asymmetry in emerging markets, Thai banks use digital transformation initiatives to signal their technological readiness and future viability to external stakeholders\u0026nbsp;(Spence, 1978).\u0026nbsp;This signaling effect is particularly critical in the Thai banking sector, where traditional performance metrics may not immediately reflect the value created by digital infrastructure, yet market-based indicators like Tobin’s Q respond positively to these strategic technological shifts\u0026nbsp;(Vetchagool, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, Institutional Theory and Organizational Ecology offer a macro-level perspective on longevity.\u0026nbsp;These theories suggest that firm survival is influenced by the institutional legitimacy gained through regulatory alignment and the adaptive fitness of the organization within its ecosystem\u0026nbsp;(Hannan and Freeman, 1977).\u0026nbsp;In Thailand, the survival of financial entities is increasingly tied to their ability to harmonize intangible asset development with the Bank of Thailand’s strategic shift toward a sustainable digital economy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eB. \u003cu\u003eThe effect of Intangible assets on Firm Survival\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the research questions and the identified gap within the Thai financial sector, the following hypotheses are proposed to test the relationship between FinTech, intangible assets, and firm longevity.\u0026nbsp;The assertion that FinTech-driven intangible assets significantly augment market valuation\u0026nbsp;(H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026nbsp;is supported by a growing body of evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand\u0026nbsp;(SET).\u0026nbsp;Research indicates that for technology-intensive firms in Thailand, intangible asset intensity—particularly intellectual capital and proprietary digital systems—shows a strong positive correlation with Return on Equity\u0026nbsp;(ROE)\u0026nbsp;and Tobin’s Q\u0026nbsp;(Mohanlingam et al., 2021).\u0026nbsp;This suggests that investors in the Thai market apply a valuation premium to firms that successfully demonstrate technological readiness, even when these assets are not fully capitalized on traditional balance sheets\u0026nbsp;(Pongsaporamat, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinTech\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003edriven intangible asset intensity has a significant positive impact on the market valuation of financial institutions in Thailand\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the hypothesis suggests that while traditional accounting may not immediately reflect profits from digital transformation, the market recognizes these investments\u0026nbsp;(e.g., proprietary algorithms and data capital)\u0026nbsp;as creators of long-term intrinsic value.\u0026nbsp;Regarding the temporal lag in performance realization\u0026nbsp;(H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), evidence from Thai commercial banks suggests that the transition to digital-first models involves high initial structural costs that can temporarily suppress traditional profitability ratios.\u0026nbsp;However, longitudinal data indicates that Thailand’s financial sector historically realizes the benefits of intellectual and structural capital following a period of institutional adjustment, a trend observed since the post-1997 recovery era\u0026nbsp;(Setaputra and Kimbara, 2023).\u0026nbsp;This intangible value factor often results in statistically significant abnormal returns that manifest only after the market has fully digested the firm's digital trajectory\u0026nbsp;(Punyaporn, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eThere is a significant time\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003elag between FinTech investment and the realization of firm survival benefits in the Thai banking sector\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy addressing the performance paradox, this hypothesis proposes that the value created by intangible assets does not manifest in immediate Return on Assets\u0026nbsp;(ROA)\u0026nbsp;but rather accumulates to enhance structural resilience over a multi-year period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the hypothesis tests whether the intangible value of customer experience and digital reputation acts as a protective buffer against competition from new virtual bank entrants.\u0026nbsp;The role of\u0026nbsp;\"Digital Goodwill\"\u0026nbsp;as a survival mechanism\u0026nbsp;(H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026nbsp;is further reinforced by the shifting competitive landscape in ASEAN.\u0026nbsp;As traditional Thai banks face disruption from agile FinTech startups and incoming virtual bank licensees, their primary defensive asset is the brand equity and trust accumulated through secure, high-utility digital interfaces\u0026nbsp;(Vives, 2020).\u0026nbsp;This intangible reputation acts as a significant barrier to customer churn, thereby reducing the probability of insolvency or market exit during periods of intense digital rivalry\u0026nbsp;(Patterson, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh levels of\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Goodwill\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\" (\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ebrand equity derived from FinTech UX\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e/\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eUI\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003esignificantly reduce the probability of firm exit or insolvency for mid\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003etier Thai banks\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, for the keys moderating mechanisms of FinTech investment on Firm Survival, the hypothesis explores whether the institutional support and regulatory environment in Thailand accelerate the conversion of technological innovation into sustainable business models.\u0026nbsp;Finally, the moderating influence of the regulatory environment\u0026nbsp;(H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026nbsp;is exemplified by the Bank of Thailand’s strategic repositioning toward a sustainable digital economy.\"\u0026nbsp;By providing a structured environment for innovation through the regulatory sandbox, the BOT reduces the innovation risk typically associated with intangible asset development.\u0026nbsp;This institutional oversight ensures that FinTech advancements are integrated with robust risk management protocols, effectively accelerating the conversion of intangible innovation into long-term organizational survival and systemic stability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipation in the Bank of Thailand\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e’\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003es\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBOT\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eregulatory sandbox positively moderates the relationship between intangible asset value and corporate sustainability\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"III.\tMETHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eA.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Sample Selection and Data Collection Procedures\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the effect of intangible assets through FinTech on Firm survival within the Thai financial sector.\u0026nbsp;The sampling frame was established using the Stock Exchange of Thailand\u0026nbsp;(SET)\u0026nbsp;database\u0026nbsp;(https://www.set.or.th)\u0026nbsp;as of September 30, 2025.\u0026nbsp;The target population consisted of 71 companies meeting the inclusion criterial, comprising 12 banking institutions, 32 brokerage firms, and 27 insurance companies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrimary data were collected through a structured questionnaire, a methodological approach widely utilized in business research for efficient large-scale data acquisition.\u0026nbsp;Chief Financial Officers\u0026nbsp;(CFOs)\u0026nbsp;were selected as key informants given their strategic oversight of FinTech functions and their central role in organizational policy-making.\u0026nbsp;Their direct involvement in high-level decision-making processes enhances the content validity and accuracy of the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey distribution commenced on December 31, 2025, with 71 instruments dispatched via postal mail.\u0026nbsp;Following a two-month data collection period, 32 usable responses were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 45.07%.\u0026nbsp;Consistent with Root and Blismas\u0026nbsp;(2003), who state that response rates in organizational and industrial research typically range between 20%\u0026nbsp;and 30%, the 45.07%\u0026nbsp;rate achieved in this study is considered academically acceptable and provides a sufficient basis for robust descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eB. Test of Non-Response Bias\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with the methodology established by Armstrong and Overton\u0026nbsp;(1977), non-response bias was evaluated by comparing early and late respondents.\u0026nbsp;This approach utilizes late respondents as a proxy for non-respondents to identify potential systematic differences.\u0026nbsp;Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ep \u0026gt; 0\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e05\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e between the two groups across the primary research variables.\u0026nbsp;These results indicate that the sample is representative of the broader population and that non-response bias does not pose a significant threat to the validity of the study\u0026rsquo;s findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eC.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Variables Measurements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrimary data were collected via a structured questionnaire.\u0026nbsp;All model constructs were operationalized using multi-item scales to ensure measurement reliability.\u0026nbsp;To ensure academic validity, our questionnaire use established Likert-type scales\u0026nbsp;(1\u0026ndash;5)\u0026nbsp;rather than simple\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Yes/No\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;questions.\u0026nbsp;Each item was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1\u0026nbsp;(strongly disagree)\u0026nbsp;to 5\u0026nbsp;(strongly agree).\u0026nbsp;The specific variables and their corresponding measurement items are categorized as follows:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, for the FinTech Adoption Scale, we use a multidimensional scale measuring perceived utility, trust, attitude, and social impact.\u0026nbsp;For institutional measurement, focus on dimensions like automation, alternative payment methods, and financial inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, for the Digital Goodwill \u0026amp; Brand Equity, we measure this via\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Customer-Based Brand Equity\u0026quot; (CBBE)\u0026nbsp;scales, focusing on brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty specific to digital interfaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the Intangible Asset Value,\u0026nbsp;since these are often unrecorded, we use a scale that identifies\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Intellectual Capital,\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;focusing on human capital\u0026nbsp;(staff expertise), structural capital\u0026nbsp;(internal processes), and relational capital\u0026nbsp;(customer relationships).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the Firm Survival/Resilience, in our\u0026nbsp;questionnaire,\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;survival\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;is often measured as financial resilience\u0026nbsp;(the ability to withstand shocks)\u0026nbsp;and innovation capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eIndependent Variable\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinTech Integration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFIN\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinTech Integration\u0026nbsp;(FIN)\u0026nbsp;is defined in academic research as the strategic and systematic embedding of advanced technological innovations\u0026mdash;such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and mobile systems\u0026mdash;into traditional financial services to enhance operational efficiency, accessibility, and user experience\u0026nbsp;(Bhatia et al., 2024).\u0026nbsp;This variable represents a fundamental paradigm shift from manual, legacy-based processes toward technology-driven frameworks that modernize both backend financial infrastructures and frontend customer interactions.\u0026nbsp;Conceptually, FIN is characterized as the convergence of technology-based systems with financial administrations to improve the proficiency of the global financial system\u0026nbsp;(Sivakumar and Thamilselvan, 2019).\u0026nbsp;Operationally, researchers frequently measure this variable using a multi-dimensional index that tracks digital payment volumes, the frequency of mobile banking adoption, e-commerce penetration, and the use of peer-to-peer\u0026nbsp;(P2P)\u0026nbsp;lending platforms\u0026nbsp;(Bhatia et al., 2024; Takeda and Ito, 2021).\u0026nbsp;Theoretically, the variable is often examined through the lens of the Technology-Organization-Environment\u0026nbsp;(TOE)\u0026nbsp;framework and the Disruptive Innovation Theory to explain how technological adoption shifts paradigms within the financial industry\u0026nbsp;(Ozili, 2018).\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, FIN acts as a critical driver for financial inclusion by lowering entry barriers for underserved populations and reducing transaction costs\u0026nbsp;(Al-Smadi, 2023; Sivakumar and Thamilselvan, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntangible Value Creation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eIVC\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntangible Value Creation\u0026nbsp;(IVC)\u0026nbsp;represents the strategic process by which an organization generates economic utility and competitive advantage through non-physical assets\u0026nbsp;(Lev, 2001).\u0026nbsp;Unlike tangible assets, which are subject to diminishing returns, intangible assets\u0026mdash;such as intellectual property, brand equity, and human capital\u0026mdash;often exhibit increasing returns to scale, making them the primary drivers of corporate growth in the modern knowledge economy\u0026nbsp;(Teece, 2015).\u0026nbsp;Theoretically, IVC is rooted in the Resource-Based View\u0026nbsp;(RBV)\u0026nbsp;of the firm, which posits that superior performance is derived from resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable\u0026nbsp;(Barney, 1991).\u0026nbsp;In this framework, IVC is the mechanism through which\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Knowledge Assets\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;are transformed into market value.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch generally categorizes the sources of this value into three pillars:\u0026nbsp;human capital, representing the collective competencies and tacit knowledge of the workforce; structural capital, encompassing the institutionalized knowledge embedded in processes, patents, and corporate culture; and relational capital, which reflects the value inherent in external relationships and brand reputation\u0026nbsp;(Bontis, 1998; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Kaplan and Norton, 2004).\u0026nbsp;A critical challenge in academic research remains the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Value Gap\u0026quot;\u0026mdash;the discrepancy between a firm\u0026rsquo;s book value and its market value.\u0026nbsp;Traditional accounting standards often treat investments in intangibles as expenses rather than capital investments, leading to a significant understatement of a firm\u0026rsquo;s true worth\u0026nbsp;(Lev and Gu, 2016).\u0026nbsp;To address this, scholars utilize metrics such as Calculated Intangible Value\u0026nbsp;(CIV), which identifies the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;excess return\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;a firm earns above the industry average to estimate the total value of its intangibles\u0026nbsp;(Stewart, 1997).\u0026nbsp;In high-technology sectors, IVC often accounts for upwards of 90%\u0026nbsp;of total enterprise value, making it a proactive requirement for long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Goodwill\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDGW\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital Goodwill\u0026nbsp;(DGW)\u0026nbsp;is defined in contemporary economic and accounting literature as the intangible value a firm derives from its digital ecosystem, including its technological infrastructure, data assets, and online user experience.\u0026nbsp;Unlike traditional goodwill, which focuses on general reputation and brand loyalty, DGW represents the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;excess profit\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;potential specifically generated by a company\u0026rsquo;s digital transformation, scalable software, and network effects\u0026nbsp;(Moro-Visconti, 2022).\u0026nbsp;Scholarly discourse identifies DGW as a critical metric for evaluating firms in the digital economy, where market value is increasingly decoupled from physical assets and tied to proprietary algorithms and the assetization of user data\u0026nbsp;(Birch and Cochrane, 2022; Tiesheva and Smyrnov, 2023).\u0026nbsp;Consequently, the measurement of DGW necessitates specialized frameworks, such as the Edwards-Bell-Ohlson\u0026nbsp;(EBO)\u0026nbsp;model or the income-based approach, to capture the probabilistic nature of future economic benefits stemming from digital platforms and automated customer interactions\u0026nbsp;(Zadorozhnyi et al., 2024).\u0026nbsp;This variable serves as a catch-all for the synergistic value of digital intangibles that are not otherwise allocated to specific identifiable assets, yet significantly drive a firm\u0026rsquo;s competitive advantage in a digitized marketplace\u0026nbsp;(Plotnikov and Plotnikova, 2019; Wan, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eModerating Variable\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegulatory Support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eREG\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn academic research, Regulatory Support\u0026nbsp;(REG)\u0026nbsp;is defined as the degree to which formal institutional frameworks, government policies, and legal environments facilitate or mandate specific organizational behaviors, such as technology adoption, entrepreneurial activity, or sustainability practices\u0026nbsp;(Sperber and Linder, 2018).\u0026nbsp;It is categorized as a critical external environmental factor that reduces perceived risk and provides the necessary resources or incentives for strategic shifts\u0026nbsp;(Scott, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a resource-based perspective, Regulatory Support acts as an institutional asset.\u0026nbsp;It encompasses not only the presence of clear legal guidelines but also the availability of financial incentives, tax exemptions, and administrative assistance provided by governing bodies to streamline compliance\u0026nbsp;(Al-Shbiel et al., 2021).\u0026nbsp;Within the Technology-Organization-Environment\u0026nbsp;(TOE)\u0026nbsp;framework, REG is a primary component of the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;Environmental\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;context, representing the pressure or encouragement exerted by the state to promote innovation and standardized industry practices\u0026nbsp;(Zhu and Kraemer, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of sustainability and governance, REG is often operationalized as the level of government commitment to enforcing international standards and providing the infrastructure necessary for firms to transition toward greener operations\u0026nbsp;(Hassan et al., 2020).\u0026nbsp;Conversely, a lack of Regulatory Support\u0026mdash;characterized by bureaucratic hurdles or legal ambiguity\u0026mdash;is cited as a significant barrier to market entry and organizational growth\u0026nbsp;(North, 1990).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eDependent Variable\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eSURV\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirm Survival and Resilience\u0026nbsp;(SURV)\u0026nbsp;is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional performance construct that evaluates an organization\u0026apos;s longitudinal capacity to endure external shocks and maintain operational continuity.\u0026nbsp;Firm survival is defined as the ability of an enterprise to perform consistently and exist over an extended duration, often operationalized through the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;going concern\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;principle\u0026nbsp;(Liu \u0026amp; Pang, 2013; Liao et al., 2008).\u0026nbsp;Complementing this, firm resilience is viewed as the latent capacity to withstand, absorb, and rebound from adversities\u0026nbsp;(Battisti and Deakins, 2019).\u0026nbsp;This resilience is further dimensionalized into robustness, agility, and integrity, representing the structural endurance and adaptive strategies required to mitigate disruptions\u0026nbsp;(DesJardine et al., 2019).\u0026nbsp;Within the SURV framework, resilience serves as the strategic mechanism that enables the ultimate outcome of survival, frequently measured in empirical research using survival analysis to estimate the probability of a firm\u0026rsquo;s continued existence following a crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eControl Variables\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the study of how Financial Technology\u0026nbsp;(FinTech)\u0026nbsp;drives the value of intangible assets and influences firm survival, several control variables are essential to isolate these effects.\u0026nbsp;Firm Size, typically measured as the natural logarithm of total assets, accounts for the resources and economies of scale available to a company; Dang et al. (2018)\u0026nbsp;and Pratama and Wiksuana\u0026nbsp;(2018)\u0026nbsp;note that larger firms often possess the capital and superior market access necessary to develop proprietary technology and withstand market shocks.\u0026nbsp;Leverage, calculated as the ratio of total debt to total assets, reflects a firm\u0026rsquo;s financial risk and capital structure.\u0026nbsp;While debt can fund innovation, Yilmaz and Acar\u0026nbsp;(2022)\u0026nbsp;and Huynh and Petrunia\u0026nbsp;(2010)\u0026nbsp;suggest that high leverage increases the probability of financial distress and failure hazards, potentially hindering a firm\u0026apos;s survival during digital transitions.\u0026nbsp;Firm Age, defined as the years since incorporation, controls for the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;liability of newness\u0026quot;; while older firms may have established reputations, Loderer and Waelchli\u0026nbsp;(2010)\u0026nbsp;and Agarwal and Gort\u0026nbsp;(2002)\u0026nbsp;highlight that\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;corporate aging\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;can lead to organizational rigidities that slow down innovation compared to younger, more agile FinTech entities.\u0026nbsp;Liquidity, often proxied by the current ratio, indicates a firm\u0026apos;s ability to meet short-term obligations; Liargovas and Skandalis\u0026nbsp;(2010)\u0026nbsp;and Solihin\u0026nbsp;(2019)\u0026nbsp;emphasize that higher liquidity provides an essential financial buffer that supports survival when intangible investments do not yield immediate cash flows.\u0026nbsp;Finally, Board Independence, measured as the proportion of independent directors, serves as a proxy for corporate governance quality.\u0026nbsp;Fama and Jensen\u0026nbsp;(1983)\u0026nbsp;and Al-Tahqani and Boulanouar\u0026nbsp;(2017)\u0026nbsp;theorize that independent boards provide objective oversight and reduce information asymmetry, ensuring that FinTech investments are strategically sound and that long-term survival is prioritized over short-term managerial gains.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eD.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Instrument Reliability and Validity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo establish the psychometric integrity of the measurement scales, the instrument underwent rigorous reliability and validity testing.\u0026nbsp;A pilot study involving 30 Chief Financial Officers\u0026nbsp;(CFOs)\u0026nbsp;from the Thai financial sector was conducted to evaluate internal consistency.\u0026nbsp;Following the criteria proposed by Hair et al. (2012), reliability was assessed via Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha.\u0026nbsp;As detailed in Table 1, all scales yielded coefficients exceeding the 0.70 threshold, indicating high internal consistency.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContent validity was verified through a review by a panel of three subject matter experts in financial survival \u0026amp; resilience and intangible assets.\u0026nbsp;Expert feedback was quantified using the Index of Item-Objective Congruence\u0026nbsp;(IOC) (Turner \u0026amp; Carlson, 2003).\u0026nbsp;All items achieved scores between 0.67 and 1.0, surpassing the minimum acceptance level of 0.50 and confirming strong conceptual alignment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, construct validity was empirically validated through Exploratory Factor Analysis\u0026nbsp;(EFA).\u0026nbsp;Factor loadings ranged from 0.566 to 0.859, significantly exceeding the 0.30 benchmark recommended by Shevlin and Miles\u0026nbsp;(1998).\u0026nbsp;These combined metrics provide robust empirical support for the instrument\u0026rsquo;s capacity to accurately measure the complexities of FinTech decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShown factor loadings and Cronbach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003es alpha values\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor loadings value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValue of Cronbach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003es alpha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinTech Integration\u0026nbsp;(FIN)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.683\u0026nbsp;- .741\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.717\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntangible Value Creation\u0026nbsp;(IVC)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.640\u0026nbsp;- .857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.849\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital Goodwill\u0026nbsp;(DGW)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.721\u0026nbsp;- .859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulatory Support\u0026nbsp;(REG)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.566\u0026nbsp;- .790\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.827\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u0026nbsp;(SURV)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.580\u0026nbsp;- .855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.727\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"IV. RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations Matrix\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the relationships between FinTech-driven intangible assets and firm survival within the Thai financial sector, this study utilizes Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This methodological approach is the established standard for analyzing complex frameworks where theoretical constructs, such as \"Digital Goodwill,\" are latent and must be operationalized through multiple observed indicators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe measurement model defines these latent constructs through specific observed indicators derived from the survey instrument. FinTech Integration (FIN) is operationalized through AI implementation, blockchain utilization, and digital payment infrastructure. Intangible Value Creation (IVC) is measured by proprietary data assets, specialized human capital, and structural innovation. Digital Goodwill (DGW) captures digital brand trust, User Experience (UX) satisfaction, and customer loyalty. Finally, the dependent variable, Firm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience (SURV), is measured by the organization\u0026rsquo;s capacity to withstand market shocks, long-term strategic readiness, and competitive positioning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural model specifies the hypothesized causal pathways and interdependencies between these constructs. This framework allows for the simultaneous testing of the primary hypotheses (H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e), identifying how technological integration and intangible asset accumulation contribute to sustained organizational resilience in a volatile market.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSURV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eFIN\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003eIVC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003eDGW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003eCONTROL\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ε\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;.(1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, to evaluate the moderating role of institutional support, this study integrates a moderation model focusing on the Bank of Thailand (BOT) Regulatory Sandbox effect (H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e). Regulatory Support (REG) serves as the moderating variable, operationalized by firm participation in the BOT Regulatory Sandbox. This framework enables testing whether structured regulatory oversight and risk mitigation benefits amplify the impact of FinTech assets on organizational outcomes. To statistically assess this effect, the structural equation includes an interaction term (\u003cem\u003eX\u0026times;M\u003c/em\u003e), representing the product of the independent variable and the moderator. This approach allows for the determination of whether the strength or direction of the relationship between FinTech-driven intangible assets and firm survival is contingent upon active participation in the regulatory testing environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSURV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e7\u003c/sub\u003eIVC\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e8\u003c/sub\u003eREG\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;β\u003csub\u003e9\u003c/sub\u003e(IVC \u0026times; REG) + ε\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;(2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for all study variables. Preliminary analysis confirms that the associations between the independent, mediating, and dependent constructs align with the proposed theoretical framework. Specifically, Firm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience is significantly and positively correlated with FinTech Integration (\u003cem\u003er = .399, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e), Intangible Value Creation (\u003cem\u003er = .426, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e), and Regulatory Support (\u003cem\u003er = .150, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure the integrity of the subsequent regression analysis, multicollinearity was assessed by examining the correlation coefficients among the explanatory variables. All values fall well below the conservative threshold suggested by Hair et al. (2019), indicating that redundant variance is not a concern for the model\u0026rsquo;s predictive validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSURV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIVC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDGW\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eREG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSURV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFIN\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinTech Integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.399\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIVC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntangible Value Creation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.426\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDGW\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Goodwill\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.402\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.447\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.534\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eREG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.395\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.550\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.735\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the impact of FinTech Integration (FIN), Intangible Value Creation (IVC), and Digital Goodwill (DGW) on Firm Survival and Resilience (SURV), while further examining the moderating influence of Regulatory Support (REG) on the relationship between IVC and SURV.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical analysis reveals that FIN (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.351, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e), IVC (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.459, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e), and DGW (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003e=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.391, p \u0026lt; .01\u003c/em\u003e) exert significant direct effects on SURV, thereby validating Hypotheses H\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e. Notably, the results indicate that while FIN and IVC serve as positive drivers, DGW maintains a significant inverse relationship with firm resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, the interaction effect of REG on the link between IVC and SURV was found to be statistically non-significant, resulting in the rejection of H\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e. These findings suggest that while technological and intangible factors are critical determinants of firm longevity, regulatory support does not function as a significant moderator in this specific context. A detailed summary of the mediation analysis is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe standardization of coefficient value for the effect of Firm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(SURV)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirm Survival \u0026amp; Resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(SURV)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConstant\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.577**\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9016\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.4381\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFinTech Integration (FIN)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.351**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntangible Value Creation (IVC)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.459**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.1909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.8746\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDigital Goodwill (DGW)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.391**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegulatory Support (REG)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.5301\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.6690\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIntangible Value Creation (IVC)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.0919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ex Regulatory Support (REG)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.7540\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFirm Size (FS)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.153**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLeverage (LEV)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFirm Age (FA)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.347\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLiquidity (LIQ)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.151*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBoard Independence (BI)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.081\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eR-Squared\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.1944\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eN\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"V. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, our findings reveal an insignificant unexpected moderating of regulatory support for the relationship of intangible value creation and firm survival and resilience within the Thai financial services sector. The inability of regulatory support to moderate the relationship between intangible value creation and firm resilience in the Thai financial sector stems from a systemic misalignment between supervisory focus and the nature of intellectual assets. Current evidence suggests that Thai regulatory frameworks, led by the Bank of Thailand (BOT), remain anchored in a traditional prudential paradigm that prioritizes physical capital adequacy and tangible collateral over digital or human capital. Research on Thai-listed firms indicates that while intangible assets improve market perception, they do not correlate significantly with tangible firm growth, as the domestic market remains driven primarily by physical capital investment (Pattanakriangkrai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the IMF\u0026rsquo;s Financial Sector Assessment (2019) notes that institutional structures, such as the inclusion of ministerial authorities on the Financial Institutions Policy Committee (FIPC), can dilute the operational independence of regulators. This often results in a \"stability-first\" approach that fails to provide the agile, innovation-specific support required to turn intangible assets into survival-enhancing mechanisms (Rojanatrakul and Boonchoo, 2024). Consequently, the regulatory environment acts more as a compliance barrier than a catalyst for resilience driven by intangible value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings are subject to several critical limitations within the Thai context. A primary constraint is the lack of standardized regulatory mechanisms to quantify \"soft\" assets; because Thai regulations focus heavily on BIS ratios and NPL coverage, firms investing in innovation do not receive a commensurate reduction in risk-weighting. Additionally, the rapid pace of digital transformation often exceeds the speed of policy adaptation. High operating and opportunity costs associated with compliance can negate the efficiency gains of intangible value creation, particularly for SMEs where digital shifts are often \"top-down\" rather than organic (Zingel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the Thai economy, resilience is also frequently dictated by severe external shocks\u0026mdash;such as geopolitical instability or climate events\u0026mdash;where immediate liquidity and fiscal buffers become the primary factors for survival, effectively overshadowing the long-term moderating potential of regulatory frameworks (Chaikulsareewath et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, restrictive regulations regarding preferred shares and licensing act as significant barriers for intangible-heavy entities, preventing the regulatory ecosystem from effectively supporting the transition from intangible ideas to resilient business models.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"VI. CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with the Resource-Based View (RBV), this research underscores the strategic advancement of intangible asset investment as a fundamental mechanism for the financial sector to evaluate and ensure long-term corporate viability (Barney, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Susanti et al., 2023). The empirical findings validate a robust correlation between FinTech integration, intangible value creation, and digital goodwill in fostering both firm survival and organizational resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the study aligns with evidence that intangible assets\u0026mdash;such as R\u0026amp;D and digital goodwill\u0026mdash;serve as primary sources of future growth, significantly enhancing the resilience of firms to large economic shocks (Tahat et al., 2018). Furthermore, the integration of FinTech acts as a critical \"shock absorber,\" strengthening operational resilience through improved liquidity management and risk forecasting (Banna et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As technology-driven data increasingly replaces traditional accounting metrics in assessing corporate prospects (Lev, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), Digital Goodwill emerges as a scalable property that sustains modern business models and generates stable profits despite external environmental volatility. Consequently, these results provide a framework for stakeholders to leverage digital-first assets as critical determinants of stability and competitive endurance in an increasingly volatile economic landscape (Teece, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Titisari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eA statement of ethics approval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthical Approval: \u0026ldquo;Ethical approval was obtained from the MSU Ethical Review Board (IRB protocol number 456-264/2025).\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA statement on participant consent \u0026quot;Prior to data collection, written informed consent was secured from all adult participants and the legal guardians of minors. For cases involving the publication of identifying clinical data or imagery, separate specific consent was obtained in accordance with institutional ethics guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDr. Satakoon Kaewmungkoon: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation.Assistant Professor Dr.Papapit Srisawangwong: Resources, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eACKNOWLEDGMENT\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eI, Dr. Satakoon Kaewmungkoon, would like to extend my sincere thanks to all who supported us in accomplishing this research. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, which made this project possible. My deepest appreciation goes to my parents, Mr. Vittaya and Mrs. Domma Kaewmungkoon, for fostering my commitment to education and research. I am deeply indebted to my family\u0026mdash;specifically my father for his encouragement, and my mother, brother, and sister for their emotional support and care throughout this endeavor. Their encouragement helped me overcome various obstacles to complete this work. It is my hope that this research will serve as a valuable resource\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgarwal R, Gort M. The Evolution of Firm Survival After Entry. Review of Economics and Statistics; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgboola O, Adelugba IA, Eze BU. Effect of financial technology on the survival of micro-enterprises. Int J Entrepreneurial Knowl. 2023;11(1):1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Shbiel SO et al. (2021). The Role of Regulatory Support in Enhancing Corporate Performance. (Focuses on the relationship between government backing and organizational efficiency).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Smadi A. Digital Finance and Financial Inclusion in the MENA Region. International Journal of Financial Research; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Tahqani S, Boulanouar Z. The influence of board size and board independence on firm performance. Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmihud Y. Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArmstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res. 1977;14(3):396\u0026ndash;402.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanna et al. (2021) \u0026amp; Li (2022): Confirm that FinTech applications within banks reduce risk-taking by improving risk management capacity and internal governance.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarney, Susanti et al. (2023): Ground the study in the Resource-Based View (RBV), explaining how internal intangible resources that are valuable, rare, and inimitable provide sustained competitive advantage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag. 1991;17(1):99\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBattisti M, Deakins D. (2019): In Surviving or thriving, the authors identify three patterns of resilient performance\u0026mdash;sustained performance, stability, and survival\u0026mdash;using longitudinal data from the New Zealand context.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhatia S, et al. Impact of FinTech Integration on Banking Performance: An Empirical Analysis. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Online / Cogent Business \u0026amp; Management; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBirch K, Cochrane DT. Data as asset? The measurement, governance, and valuation of digital personal data by Big Tech. New Polit Econ. 2022;27(1):91\u0026ndash;108. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBontis N. Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision; 1998.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChaikulsareewath et al. (2024). The impact of business resilience and sustainability for Thai-listed firms.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Lin Y. FinTech adoption and the efficiency of intangible asset management. J Financial Innov. 2023;9(2):112\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoad A, Segarra A, Teruel M. Like milk or wine: Does age improve or deteriorate firm performance? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDang C, Li Z, Yang C. Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance. Journal of Banking \u0026amp; Finance; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDesJardine et al. (2019): Define resilience as the ability of a firm to persist despite disruptions while simultaneously regenerating and maintaining existing operations.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdvinsson L, Malone MS. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company's True Value. HarperBusiness.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFama EF, Jensen MC. Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics; 1983.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. (2010/2012). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaltiwanger J, Jarmin RS, Miranda J. Who creates jobs? Small vs. large vs. young. Review of Economics and Statistics; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHannan MT, Freeman J. The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol. 1977;82(5):929\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHassan A, et al. Institutional Support and Green Innovation. Examines REG as a driver for environmental sustainability); 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe X, Zhang T. Digital transformation and the valuation gap: The role of intellectual capital. Technol Soc. 2024;76:102451.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu S, Zhu Q, Zhao X, Xu Z. Digital finance and corporate sustainability performance: promoting or restricting? Evidence from China\u0026rsquo;s listed companies. Sustainability. 2023;15(13):9855.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuynh KP, Petrunia RJ. Age effects, leverage and firm growth. Journal of Empirical Finance; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIntarasit A, Jaisuriyasilp S. The impact of intangible assets on the financial performance of listed companies: Evidence from the Stock Exchange of Thailand. J Manage Sustain. 2022;12(2):88\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaplan RS, Norton DP. Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business School Press; 2004.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLev. (2018): Notes that technology-driven data and intangible indicators are increasingly replacing traditional accounting information in assessing corporate prospects.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLev B. Intangibles: Management, Measurement, and Reporting. Brookings Institution; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLev B, Gu F. The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers. Wiley; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiao et al. (2008): Cited for establishing the going concern principle as a proactive measure of firm survival.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiargovas P, Skandalis K. Factors affecting firms' financial performance: The Case of Greece. International Journal of Business and Management; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu \u0026amp; Pang. (2013): Provide the foundational definition of survival as a firm's ability to perform consistently over long periods.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoderer C, Waelchli U. (2010). Firm Age and Performance. ECGI Working Paper.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerton RC. On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. The Journal of Finance; 1974.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohanlingam S, Nguyen LTP, Mom R. The effects of intangible assets on financial performance and financial policies of listed technology firms in Thailand. Apheit Int J. 2021;10(1):1\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoro-Visconti R. (2022). Digital goodwill valuation. In The valuation of digital intangibles: Technology, marketing, and the metaverse (2nd ed., pp. 615\u0026ndash;639). Springer Nature. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorth DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press; 1990. (The foundational text on how formal rules/regulations shape economic behavior).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzili PK. Impact of Digital Finance on Financial Inclusion and Stability. Borsa Istanbul Review; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePattanakriangkrai et al. (2024). The Impact of Intangible Assets on Firm Growth and Firm Value.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatterson J. Fintech firms' valuations: A cross-market analysis in Asia. J Risk Financial Manage. 2023;16(1):74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhan DHB, et al. FinTech and financial stability: Evidence from the ASEAN region. Finance Res Lett. 2020;35:101304.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlotnikov V, Plotnikova N. (2019). Goodwill as an economic resource in the digital economy. Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference on Digital Economy (ISCDE 2019). Atlantis Press. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePongsaporamat P. The Impact of Intangible Assets on Firm Growth and Firm Value. J Roi Kaensarn Academi. 2023;8(6):586\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePratama IGS, Wiksuana IGB. The Influence of Firm Size and Leverage on Firm Value. E-Jurnal Manajemen Unud; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePunyaporn T. Digital transformation and corporate resilience: A longitudinal study of Thai commercial banks. Asian J Finance Acc. 2024;16(1):45\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRojanatrakul \u0026amp; Boonchoo. (2024). The Relationships of FinTech with the Financial Industry in Thailand.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoot D, Blismas NG. (2003). Increasing questionnaire responses from industry: practices surrounding the use of postal questionnaires. In 19th Annual ARCOM Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 623\u0026ndash;631). Association of Researchers in Construction Management, University of Brighton.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSetaputra P, Kimbara T. Intellectual capital and firm value: Empirical evidence from Thailand's banking sector. Int J Learn Intellect Capital. 2023;20(3):234\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShevlin M, Miles JNV. Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Pers Indiv Differ. 1998;25(1):85\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSivakumar M, Thamilselvan R. Role of Fintech in Financial Inclusion and Financial Integration. Research Review International Journal of Multidisciplinary; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolihin D. The Influence of Liquidity and Profitability on Firm Value. Dinasti International Journal of Management Science; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpence M. Job market signaling. Uncertainty in economics. Academic; 1978. pp. 281\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSperber S, Linder C. The Impact of Perceived Regulatory Support on Entrepreneurial Intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior \u0026amp; Research; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTahat A, Alhadab. (2018): Demonstrates the positive association between a firm\u0026rsquo;s goodwill (brand) and R\u0026amp;D on both current and future financial performance.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTakeda A, Ito Y. A Review of FinTech Research. Journal of Finance and Economics; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan C, Mo L, Wu X, Zhou P. Fintech development and corporate credit risk: Evidence from an emerging market. Int Rev Financial Anal. 2024;92:103084.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece. (2009): Extends RBV through the dynamic capabilities approach, emphasizing the need for firms to reconfigure resources in volatile environments to ensure sustained earnings.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ. Intangible Assets and a Theory of Heterogeneous Firms. In: Intangibles, Market Failure and Innovation Performance; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(7):509\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTiesheva L, Smyrnov I. A company\u0026rsquo;s digital goodwill: The concept and valuation possibilities. Economic Affairs. 2023;68(2):1269\u0026ndash;75. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTitisari et al. (2024): Highlights how digital-first intangibles like software and customer lists enhance a company's position in the global market.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner RC, Carlson L. Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. Int J Test. 2003;3(2):163\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVetchagool W. The effect of intellectual capital on firm profitability and efficiency: evidence from Thai listed companies in the agriculture and food industry. Asia Social Issues. 2023;16(1):e253049\u0026ndash;253049.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVives X. Digital disruption in banking and its impact on competition. Organisation for Economic Co-operation \u0026amp; Development (OECD); 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWan LY. (2024). Digital transformation and goodwill impairment: The mediating role of customer relationship quality. J Enterp Inform Manage. Advance online publication. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYilmaz A, Acar G. The effect of financial leverage on corporate financial performance. Accounting and Financial Reports; 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZadorozhnyi Z-M, Ometsinska I, Muravskyi V. The essence of goodwill in disclosing the intangible value of business in the context of digital transformation. Financial Credit Activity: Probl Theory Pract. 2024;4(57):98\u0026ndash;113. doi.org.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZelalem et al. (2022) \u0026amp; Marsal (2020): Affirm that intangible assets directly contribute to the enhancement of corporate performance and sustainability.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou N, Sun R. Coping with the storm: The role of fintech in SME survival. Int Rev Financial Anal. 2024;93:103157.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu K, Kraemer KL. Post-Adoption Variations in Usage and Value of E-Business by Organizations: Cross-Country Evidence from the Retail Industry. Information Systems Research; 2005. (Foundational for the TOE framework).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZingel. (2024). Financial Stratification and Digital Transformation in Thai SMEs.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"FinTech Integration, Intangible Value Creation, Digital Goodwill, Regulatory Support, Firm Survival \u0026 Resilience","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e– The purpose of this study is to investigate the structural relationship between the creation of intangible asset value through financial technology (Fintech) and firm survival within the Thai financial services sector.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e – Adopting a quantitative research design, this study utilized a structured survey administered to CFOs of SET-listed companies. The analytical framework leverages the Hayes PROCESS macro to conduct moderation analysis, testing the relationship between intangible asset value creation in the FinTech sector and firm survival. This approach facilitates a robust assessment of both direct effects and the statistical significance of moderating variables.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e – Empirical results indicate that intangible asset valuation derived from financial technology (Fintech) significantly enhances firm survival within the Thai financial services sector. This relationship is mediated through three primary dimensions: FinTech Integration, Intangible Value Creation, and Digital Goodwill. The findings suggest that the strategic cultivation of intangible value through Fintech optimizes these critical pathways, thereby bolstering organizational resilience and long-term viability in a digital economy.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch limitations/implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e – Study limitations include Thailand’s rigid regulatory focus on BIS ratios and NPLs, which fails to account for \"soft\" assets or innovation risk-weighting. Additionally, rapid digitalization outpaces policy adaptation, while high compliance costs burden SMEs. Finally, external shocks like geopolitical instability often overshadow regulatory frameworks, and restrictive licensing for intangible-heavy entities persists as a barrier to scaling resilient, idea-driven business models.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e – This study demonstrates that FinTech integration is a strategic necessity for CFOs in the financial sector. Furthermore, it offers actionable policy insights, urging the Bank of Thailand to modernize frameworks through innovation-based risk-weighting and simplified licensing for intangible-heavy firms to strengthen national economic resilience.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The creation of intangible assets’ value by Financial Technology and Firm survival","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-28 19:04:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9446425/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4abd47ac-ba2a-47f6-af10-5d9445bed193","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 28th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Withdrawn","date":"2026-05-06T12:33:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T12:41:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-28 19:04:40","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9446425","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9446425","identity":"rs-9446425","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}