The Bank of England (BoE) published a paper that studies whether human or artificial intelligence is more conducive to a stable financial system. The study characterizes possibilities and challenges in designing partnerships that combine the strengths of both minds and machines. The insights derived from this are then leveraged to explain how the differences in human and artificial intelligence have driven the use of new techniques in financial markets, regulation, supervision, and policy making and to discuss their potential impact on financial stability. The paper also discusses how effective mind-machine partnerships might be able to reduce systemic risks.
While discussing how partnerships between human and artificial intelligence might operate in financial markets to reduce the risks of artificial intelligence applications, the paper focuses on applications in trading, portfolio management, and lending. The paper highlights that machine learning models may cut lending during a crisis, magnifying the downturn, whereas relationship banking protects customers from cutting back lending in response to a crisis and protects banks from runs during a crisis. However, the different strengths of human relationship lending and automated lending suggest that these two approaches should complement each other in a partnership of human and artificial intelligence. Similarly, the fundamental differences between human and artificial intelligence not only help to understand how applications of artificial intelligence affect financial stability risks in the financial market, but also in regulating and supervising the financial sector. A fully automated regulatory process based on machine-readable rules would bear great risks and human involvement is required to interpret legal requirements flexibly and to focus on the overarching goal of a stable financial system. Artificial intelligence tools can help to spot patterns and outliers in regulatory trends but bigger and more timely data does not necessarily make the financial system more stable.
With respect to the supervision in financial sector, the paper notes that artificial intelligence applications can be used for forecasting and systemic risk assessment and can help supervisors to work more efficiently and better discover risks buried in data. The paper, however, notes that trustworthiness is a major challenge for artificial intelligence systems as they do not know what is good and what is not and have no inherent values. This makes them prone to unethical behavior and the fact that artificial intelligence agents collude, or may discriminate, are examples of this. Regardless, several studies have shown that financial distress and failure of banks can be predicted using machine learning methods on the financial information of firms. Though humans cannot be expected to be much better at predicting shocks like COVID-19, their judgment is likely to be superior when responding to these extreme situations. Thus, artificial intelligence is very unlikely to replace regulators, supervisors, or policy makers in the near future, for reasons of robust decision-making in the face of uncertainty; however, these agencies/entities stand to profit from artificial intelligence tools that can assist them in making their decisions. Therefore, in an effective partnership, supervisors, regulators, and policy makers must not be threatened in their autonomy and should always be able to overrule an algorithmic assessment. Artificial intelligence can supplement, but is unlikely, any time soon, to supplant that information set and decision-making capacity.
Keywords: Europe, UK, Banking, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Systemic Risk, Financial Stability, Banking Supervision, Regtech, Fintech, Suptech, Lending, Big Data, BoE
Previous ArticleBIS Hub Launches Project Genesis to Explore Green Bond Tokenization
In a letter addressed to the industry, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) set out an updated schedule of policy priorities for the banking, insurance, and superannuation industries.
The European Commission (EC) adopted a comprehensive review package of Solvency II rules in the European Union.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Versions 1.0 of the "Earnings" and "Regulatory Reporting" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook.
The European Central Bank (ECB) published results of its economy-wide climate stress test, which aimed to assess the resilience of non-financial corporates and euro area banks to climate risks.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report on the use of digital platforms in the banking and payments sector in European Union.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) published updates on the policy measures that were announced in context of the ongoing pandemic.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), along with several other associations, submitted a joint response to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) consultation on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures.
BIS published the September issue of the Quarterly Review, which contains special features that analyze the rapid rise in equity funding for financial technology firms, the effectiveness of policy measures in response to pandemic, and the evolution of international banking.
The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) met in September 2021 and reviewed climate-related financial risks, discussed impact of digitalization, and welcomed efforts by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation to develop a common set of sustainability reporting standards
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Cease and Desist Order against MUFG Union Bank for deficiencies in technology and operational risk governance.