Showing posts with label Banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banking. Show all posts

Monday, August 7, 2023

Enhancing AI Risk Management in Financial Services with Machine Learning

Introduction:

The realm of financial services is rapidly embracing the power of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to enhance risk management strategies. By leveraging advanced ML models, financial institutions can gain deeper insights into potential risks, make informed decisions, and ensure the stability of their operations. In this article, we'll explore how AI-driven risk management can be achieved using the best ML models in Python, complete with code examples.



AI Risk Management in Financial Services


Step 1: Data Collection and Preprocessing

To begin, gather historical financial data relevant to your risk management objectives. This could include market prices, economic indicators, credit scores, and more. Clean and preprocess the data by handling missing values, normalizing features, and encoding categorical variables.


Step 2: Import Libraries and Data

In your Python script, start by importing the necessary libraries:

import pandas as pd import numpy as np from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, classification_report from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier from xgboost import XGBClassifier

Load and preprocess your dataset:

data = pd.read_csv("financial_data.csv") X = data.drop("risk_label", axis=1) y = data["risk_label"]

Step 3: Train-Test Split and Data Scaling

Split the data into training and testing sets:

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

Scale the features for better model performance:

scaler = StandardScaler() X_train_scaled = scaler.fit_transform(X_train) X_test_scaled = scaler.transform(X_test)

Step 4: Implement ML Models

In this example, we'll use two powerful ML models: Random Forest and XGBoost.

  1. Random Forest Classifier:
rf_model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42) rf_model.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train) rf_predictions = rf_model.predict(X_test_scaled) rf_accuracy = accuracy_score(y_test, rf_predictions) print("Random Forest Accuracy:", rf_accuracy) print(classification_report(y_test, rf_predictions))
  1. XGBoost Classifier:
xgb_model = XGBClassifier(n_estimators=100, random_state=42) xgb_model.fit(X_train_scaled, y_train) xgb_predictions = xgb_model.predict(X_test_scaled) xgb_accuracy = accuracy_score(y_test, xgb_predictions) print("XGBoost Accuracy:", xgb_accuracy) print(classification_report(y_test, xgb_predictions))

Step 5: Evaluate and Compare

Evaluate the models' performance using accuracy and classification reports. Compare their results to determine which model is better suited for your risk management goals.


Conclusion:

AI-driven risk management is revolutionizing the financial services industry. By harnessing the capabilities of machine learning, financial institutions can accurately assess risks, make informed decisions, and ultimately ensure their stability and growth. In this article, we've demonstrated how to implement risk management using the best ML models in Python. Experiment with different models, fine-tune hyperparameters, and explore more advanced techniques to tailor the solution to your specific financial service needs. The future of risk management lies at the intersection of AI and finance, and now is the time to embrace its potential.


AI and Financial Risk Management – Critical Insights for Banking Leaders

I hope this article was helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment below.

Monday, June 21, 2021

Nifty50 Statistics and Snapshots (Jun 2021)



Past 5 Years (2021-06-21)
All Time (2019-05-02)
All Time (2021-06-21)
My Time
Monthly Saturday, May 4, 2019 In 136 months, the market had downfall, it was bearish. In 168 months, the market saw a rise, it was bullish. Bulls to bears ratio is: 1.23 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.81 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 147 Positive 183 Bulls to bears: 1.24 Bears to bulls: 0.803 Quarterly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the quarterly data, then we have the following results: In 43 quarters, the market had downfall, it was bearish. In 59 quarters, the market saw a rise, it was bullish. Bulls to bears ratio is: 1.37 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.76 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 46 Positive 64 Bulls to bears: 1.391304347826087 Bears to bulls: 0.71875 Half years Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the half years (i.e., Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec), then we have the following results: In 20 half-years, we had a bearish market. In 31 half-years, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 1.55 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.64 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 21 Positive 34 Bulls to bears: 1.61 Bears to bulls: 0.61 Yearly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the yearly figures (i.e., 1-Jan to 31-Dec), then we have the following results: In 8 years, we had a bearish market. In 18 years, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 2.25 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.44 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 8 Positive 20 Bulls to bears: 2.5 Bears to bulls: 0.4 Bi-yearly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the bi-yearly figures, then we have the following results: In 4 bi-yearly periods, we had a bearish market. In 9 bi-yearly periods, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 2.25 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.44 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 4 Positive 10 Bulls to bears: 2.5 Bears to bulls: 0.4 Tri-yearly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the tri-yearly figures, then we have the following results: In 2 tri-yearly periods, we had a bearish market. In 7 tri-yearly periods, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 3.5 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.28 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 2 Positive 8 Bulls to bears: 4.0 Bears to bulls: 0.25 Four-yearly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the four-yearly figures, then we have the following results: In 1 four-yearly periods, we had a bearish market. In 6 four-yearly periods, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 6 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.16 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 1 Positive 6 Bulls to bears: 6.0 Bears to bulls: 0.16 Five-yearly Saturday, May 4, 2019 If we look at the five-yearly figures, then we have the following results: In 1 five-yearly periods, we had a bearish market. In 5 five-yearly periods, we had a bullish market. Bulls to bears ratio is: 5 and bears to bulls ratio is: 0.2 Monday, Jun 21, 2021 Negative 1 Positive 5 Bulls to bears: 5.0 Bears to bulls: 0.2

Gain Per Day For a Monthly SIP of Rs 1000 Since The Inception in 1994

Saturday, May 6, 2019: 213.426 Monday, Jun 21, 2021: 268.35 Tags: Banking,Data Visualization,Management,Investment,Indian Politics,

Saturday, June 12, 2021

Corruption (Ann Mumo, 20210613)



Corruption 1) Governance: For our governments to be stable and effective, we must fight corruption. 2) Strong Judicial System: We should ensure that leaders and government agents became answerable to the taxpayer. 3) Education: The public should be educated on the ills of corruption. 4) Right to Information (RTI) Against The Corrupt Citizens: While those who have stolen public funds are made to return it and face the full force of the law. 5) Right to Information (RTI) Against The Tax Havens: Again, people known to have stashed money in foreign banks should be forced to repatriate that money so as to improve cash flow in our economies. This will put our countries on the road to prosperity. 6) Digitization of The Economy: Through digitization of the economy, we can bring in transparency, and corruption would reduce. Tags: Indian Politics,Politics,Banking,Investment,Kenya,Management,Technology,

Thursday, February 4, 2021

SMS Phishing is Here



Be Suspicious of:

1. Unknown sender and an 'external mail tag' (if you are recieving an email).
2. Generic subject lines and grammatical errors
3. Urgent requests or threats
4. Hyperlinks to fake websites
5. External emails containing attachments
6. Requests for sensitive information

SMS Phishing - Myths vs Facts

Phishing Signs in a Message
Some Examples of Phishing SMSs

Friday, January 8, 2021

Nearly 40% components of Nifty50 changed in a decade ending in Dec 2020



% Big names that are out of the index include BHEL, Sterlite Industries, Jindal Steel, Ambuja Cement, ACC, and SAIL.

% The new entrants comprise Asian Paints, Britannia, Titan, Nestlé, BAF (Bajaj Finance), and Bajaj Finserv. 

% RIL, Infosys, ICICI Bank, and HDFC feature among the top five heavyweights even after a decade.

% Twenty, or 40%, of components that were part of the Nifty50 in December 2010 are no longer part of the index today.

% Sector weighting has also changed — those with high weighting a decade ago were oil and gas (14.7%), private banks (14.5%), and IT (14.3%). Sectors with high weighting in 2020 were private banks (24.7%), IT (16.3%) and oil and gas (12.5%).

% Sectors which lost the most were metals (640 bps), and capital goods (610 bps); the biggest gainers were private banks (1,020 bps) and consumer (470 bps).

https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/nearly-40-components-of-nifty50-change-in-a-decade-shows-data-121010500039_1.html

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Domestic Systematically Important Banks of India as of Jan, 2021



What is a D-SIB?

1. Some banks, due to their size, cross-jurisdictional activities, complexity, lack of substitutability and interconnectedness, become systemically important. The disorderly failure of these banks has the potential to cause significant disruption to the essential services they provide to the banking system, and in turn, to the overall economic activity. Therefore, the continued functioning of Systemically Important Banks (SIBs) is critical for the uninterrupted availability of essential banking services to the real economy.

Lessons from recent global financial crisis:

2. It was observed during the recent global financial crisis that problems faced by certain large and highly interconnected financial institutions hampered the orderly functioning of the financial system, which in turn, negatively impacted the real economy. Government intervention was considered necessary to ensure financial stability in many jurisdictions. Cost of public sector intervention and consequential increase in moral hazard required that future regulatory policies should aim at reducing the probability of failure of SIBs and the impact of the failure of these banks.

3. As a response to the recent crisis, a series of reform measures were unveiled, broadly known as Basel III, to improve the resiliency of banks and banking systems. Basel III reform measures include: increase in the quality and quantity of regulatory capital of the banks, improving risk coverage, introduction of a leverage ratio to serve as a backstop to the risk-based capital regime, capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer as well as a global standard for liquidity risk management. These policy measures will cover all banks including SIBs. However, these policy measures are not adequate to deal with risks posed by SIBs. Therefore, additional policy measures for SIBs are necessary to counter the systemic risks and moral hazard issues posed by these banks, which other policy reforms do not address adequately.

Additional risks posed by SIBs:

4. SIBs are perceived as banks that are ‘Too Big To Fail (TBTF)’. This perception of TBTF creates an expectation of government support for these banks at the time of distress. Due to this perception, these banks enjoy certain advantages in the funding markets. However, the perceived expectation of government support amplifies risk-taking, reduces market discipline, creates competitive distortions, and increases the probability of distress in the future. These considerations require that SIBs should be subjected to additional policy measures to deal with the systemic risks and moral hazard issues posed by them.

5. In October 20101, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) recommended that all member countries needed to have in place a framework to reduce risks attributable to Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) in their jurisdictions. The FSB asked the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) to develop an assessment methodology comprising both quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess the systemic importance of Global SIFIs (G-SIFIs), along with an assessment of the extent of going-concern loss absorbency capital which could be provided by various proposed instruments. In response, BCBS came out with a framework in November, 2011 (since up-dated in July, 2013) for identifying the Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) and the magnitude of additional loss absorbency capital requirements applicable to these G-SIBs.

6. The BCBS is also considering proposals such as large exposure restrictions and liquidity measures which are referred to as “other prudential measures” in the FSB Recommendations and Time Lines. The G20 leaders had asked the BCBS and FSB in November 2011 to extend the G-SIBs framework to Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) expeditiously.

7. The methodology to be used to assess the systemic importance is largely based on the indicator based approach being used by BCBS to identify G-SIBs. The indicators to be used to assess domestic systemic importance of the banks are as follows:

i) Size;
ii) Interconnectedness;
iii) Lack of readily available substitutes or financial institution infrastructure; and
iv) Complexity.

What is CET1 (Common Equity Tier 1)?
% CET1 is a measure of bank solvency that gauges a bank’s capital strength.
% This measure is better captured by the CET1 ratio, which measures a bank’s capital against its assets. 
% Common equity Tier 1 ratio = common equity tier 1 capital / risk-weighted assets

According to Press Release of March 14, 2019 
RBI releases 2018 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs). SBI, ICICI Bank, and HDFC Bank continue to be identified as Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs), under the same bucketing structure as last year. The additional Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) requirement for D-SIBs has already been phased-in from April 1, 2016 and will become fully effective from April 1, 2019. The additional CET1 requirement will be in addition to the capital conservation buffer.

Background: The Reserve Bank had issued the Framework for dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) on July 22, 2014. The D-SIB framework requires the Reserve Bank to disclose the names of banks designated as D-SIBs starting from 2015 and place these banks in appropriate buckets depending upon their Systemic Importance Scores (SISs). Based on the bucket in which a D-SIB is placed, an additional common equity requirement has to be applied to it. In case a foreign bank having branch presence in India is a Global Systemically Important Bank (G-SIB), it has to maintain additional CET1 capital surcharge in India as applicable to it as a G-SIB, proportionate to its Risk Weighted Assets (RWAs) in India i.e. additional CET1 buffer prescribed by the home regulator (amount) multiplied by India RWA as per consolidated global Group books divided by Total consolidated global Group RWA. The higher capital requirements are applicable from April 1, 2016 in a phased manner and will become fully effective from April 1, 2019. The additional common equity requirement for different buckets over the four year phase-in period is as under:
Based on the methodology provided in the D-SIB framework and data collected from banks as on March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2016, the Reserve Bank had announced State Bank of India and ICICI Bank Ltd. as D-SIBs on August 31, 2015 and August 25, 2016, respectively. Based on data collected from banks as on March 31, 2017, the Reserve Bank had announced State Bank of India, ICICI Bank Ltd. and HDFC Bank Ltd. as D-SIBs on September 04, 2017. Current update is based on the data collected from banks as on March 31, 2018. Further the D-SIB framework requires that “The assessment methodology for assessing the systemic importance of banks and identifying D-SIBs will be reviewed on a regular basis. However, this review will be at least once in three years.” Current review and analysis of cross country practices do not warrant any change in the extant framework at present. References % Framework for Dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) % 2017 list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) (From: fsb.org) % RBI releases Framework for dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Jul 22, 2014 % RBI releases list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Aug 31, 2015 % RBI identifies SBI and ICICI Bank as D-SIBs in 2016 / Date : Aug 25, 2016 % RBI releases 2017 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Sep 04, 2017 % RBI releases 2018 list of Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) / Date : Mar 14, 2019 % Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1)