Małgorzata Solarz, Magdalena Swacha-Lech
According to the study by Ernst & Young entitled: “Global FinTech Adoption Index 2019”, the level of users taking advantage of FinTech services, expressed as a percentage of the digitally active population for 27 selected countries in 2019 presented the level of 64%. It is worth pointing out that for China this figure amounted to 87%, Great Britain 71%, Switzerland 64% and the USA 46% (Ernst & Young, 2019). As highlighted by Anderson (2015), people of different generations and demographic backgrounds incorporate new technology into their lives at different rates. This paper is focused on Millennials alone, also referred to as Generation Y. This generation includes people born in the period from 1980 to 1995. Millennials, along with Generation Z (also known as iGen and referring to people born in the years 1996–2010), belong to the generations which currently generate highly significant changes in the environment of modern financial institutions (Swacha-Lech, 2019).
Michal Mešťan, Ivan Králik, Leoš Šafár, Ján Šebo
Individuals in mandatory pension saving (MPS) scheme in Slovakia have their savings allocated mostly in one of the pension funds – equity or bond funds. Saving in only one of these funds will be considered as benchmark strategies. In our article, our goal is to compare the profitability that can be achieved with benchmark strategies compared to life-cycle savings strategies. In their case, the ratio of savings between equity and bond components changes dynamically, depending on the age and remaining savings period of 40 years (480 months). We deal with 3 types of individuals with different education level. In addition to comparing the potentially achievable returns at the end of the saving horizon, we will also be interested in the volatility of achievable returns and their spread from the average with the selected savings strategies. Savers are trying to get the best value for money, but they should also take into account the fact that higher potential appreciation also entails higher risk.
Nikola Šubová, Ladislav Mura, Ján Buleca
The financial crisis of 2007/2008, known as the global financial crisis, caused by a combination of an asset price bubble in the real estate sector and a credit bubble leading to excessive leverage, highlighted the importance of the household sector for financial stability of the whole economy. Easy to get a loan and the belief that the house prices would appreciate encouraged more borrowers to get into debt. American households and financial institutions became deeply indebted. At the end of 2007, American households’ total loans and debt securities relative to the GDP was 98.55% (International Monetary Fund, 2020). Mortgage defaults caused by the financial crisis affected financial stability also in European countries. The household sector can influence the economy mainly due to its size and position on the financial markets, but on the other hand, the economic situation of households is also affected by various social, economic, and political changes.
Šárka Sobotovičová, Beata Blechová
One of the thematic objectives of the European Union cohesion policy for 2014–2020 is to improve access to information and communication technologies and increase usability thereof, including the applications for the digitization of government. The digitization of all government areas has been among the European Union’s priorities since 2014. The objective is to create a fully operational unified EU digital market. The European Commission has adopted the EU eGovernment Action Plan for 2016–2020. The aim of this action plan is the modernization of public administration, establishment of a unified digital market and increased involvement of citizens and businesses for the purposes of providing high quality services. The EU eGovernment Action Plan defines specific measures for the acceleration of implementation of the existing legislation and the transition to online public services.
Milenko Radonić, Miloš Milosavljević, Snežana Knežević
Intellectual capital has been a widely discussed topic in the last few decades (Palaščáková et al., 2019). The early research was solely focused on human capital as a strategic resource of a company (Hermanson, 1964). Follow up studies included a myriad of different elements of intellectual capital, i.e. structural and relational capital (Edvinsson, 1997; Pulić, 1998; Sveiby, 1997). Even though these authors have presented the structure of the intellectual capital, the consensus on the classification still has not been clearly set. Some authors propose separating Innovation capital from structural capital in the IT industries (Wang & Chang, 2005). Therefore, this study has followed the overview and classification of intellectual capital into four categories: human capital, relational capital, structural capital and innovation capital.