Letzte Suchanfragen

Ergebnisse für *

Zeige Ergebnisse 1 bis 3 von 3.

  1. The Regulation of AI Trading from an AI Life Cycle Perspective
    Erschienen: 2022
    Verlag:  SSRN, [S.l.]

    Among innovative technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often avouched as the game changerin the provision of financial services. In this regard, the algorithmic trading domain is no exception.The impact of AI in the industry is a catalyst for... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Resolving-System (kostenfrei)
    Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Universitätsbibliothek
    keine Fernleihe
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    keine Fernleihe

     

    Among innovative technologies, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often avouched as the game changerin the provision of financial services. In this regard, the algorithmic trading domain is no exception.The impact of AI in the industry is a catalyst for transformation in the operations and the structure ofcapital markets. In effect, AI adds a further layer of system complexity, given its potential to alter the composition and behaviour of market actors, as well as the relationships among them.Despite the many expected benefits, the wide use of AI could also impose new and unprecedented risks to market participants and financial stability. Specifically, owing to the potential of AI trading to disrupt markets and cause harm, global financial regulators are faced today with the daunting task of how best to approach its regulation in order to foster innovation and competition without sacrificing market stability and integrity. While there are common challenges, each market player faces problems unique to the context-specific use of AI. In other words, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for regulating AI in automated trading. Rather, any effective and future-proof AI-targeting regulation should be proportionate to the particular and additional risks arising from specific applications (eg, due to the specific AI methods applied with their respective capability, validity and criticality). Therefore, financial regulators face a multi-faceted challenge. They must first define the additional risks posed by specific use cases that call for more in-depth scrutiny and, hence, identify the technical specificities that can facilitate the occurrence of those risks. Based on this assessment, they finally need to determine which AI characteristics require special regulatory treatment.Inspired by the EU AI Act proposal, this paper examines the advantages of a ‘rule-based’ and ‘risk-oriented’ regulatory approach, combining both ex-ante and ex-post regulatory measures, that needs to be put in perspective with the ‘AI life cycle’. By advocating for a multi-stakeholder engagement in AI regulatory governance, it proposes a way forward to assist financial regulators and industry players – but even actors in public education – in understanding, identifying and mitigating the risks associated with automated trading through an engineering approach for the purpose of complexity mastering

     

    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Weitere Identifier:
    Schriftenreihe: European Banking Institute Working Paper Series ; 2022 - no. 130
    Schlagworte: algorithmic trading; artificial intelligence; regulatory governance; AI life cycle
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (38 p)
    Bemerkung(en):

    Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments October 27, 2022 erstellt

  2. Machine learning, market manipulation and collusion on capital markets
    Why the “Black Box” matters
    Erschienen: 19/02/2021
    Verlag:  European Banking Institute e.V., Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    This paper offers a novel perspective on the implications of increasingly autonomous and “black box” algorithms, within the ramification of algorithmic trading, for the integrity of capital markets. Artificial intelligence (AI) and particularly its... mehr

    Zugang:
    Resolving-System (kostenfrei)
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Universitätsbibliothek
    keine Fernleihe
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    VS 636
    keine Fernleihe

     

    This paper offers a novel perspective on the implications of increasingly autonomous and “black box” algorithms, within the ramification of algorithmic trading, for the integrity of capital markets. Artificial intelligence (AI) and particularly its subfield of machine learning (ML) methods have gained immense popularity among the great public and achieved tremendous success in many real-life applications by leading to vast efficiency gains. In the financial trading domain, ML can augment human capabilities in both price prediction, dynamic portfolio optimization, and other financial decision-making tasks. However, thanks to constant progress in the ML technology, the prospect of increasingly capable and autonomous agents to delegate operational tasks and even decision-making is now beyond mere imagination, thus opening up the possibility for approximating (truly) autonomous trading agents anytime soon.Given these spectacular developments, this paper argues that such autonomous algorithmic traders may involve significant risks to market integrity, independent from their human experts, thanks to self-learning capabilities offered by state-of-the-art and innovative ML methods. Using the proprietary trading industry as a case study, we explore emerging threats to the application of established market abuse laws in the event of algorithmic market abuse, by taking an interdisciplinary stance between financial regulation, law & economics, and computational finance. Specifically, our analysis focuses on two emerging market abuse risks by autonomous algorithms: market manipulation and “tacit” collusion. We explore their likelihood to arise on global capital markets and evaluate related social harm as forms of market failures.With these new risks in mind, this paper questions the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms, as well as current legal rules on the governance of algorithmic trading, to cope with increasingly autonomous and ubiquitous algorithmic trading systems. It shows how the “black box” nature of specific ML-powered algorithmic trading strategies can subvert existing market abuse laws, which are based upon traditional liability concepts and tests (such as “intent” and “causation”). In concluding, by addressing the shortcomings of the present legal framework, we develop a number of guiding principles to assist legal and policy reform in the spirit of promoting and safeguarding market integrity and safety

     

    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Weitere Identifier:
    Schriftenreihe: EBI working paper series ; no. 84 (2021)
    Schlagworte: artificial intelligence; algorithmic trading; market manipulation; collusion; black box
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (circa 45 Seiten)
  3. Navigating the Legal Landscape of AI-Enhanced Banking Supervision
    Protecting EU Fundamental Rights and Ensuring Good Administration
    Erschienen: [2023]
    Verlag:  SSRN, [S.l.]

    Banking supervisors worldwide recognise the pressing need to harness frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML), to enhance their efficiency and analytical capabilities. The European Central Bank... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Resolving-System (kostenfrei)
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    keine Fernleihe

     

    Banking supervisors worldwide recognise the pressing need to harness frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML), to enhance their efficiency and analytical capabilities. The European Central Bank (ECB) has similarly acknowledged the opportunities offered by supervisory technology (SupTech) and established a dedicated Suptech Hub. However, the adoption of automated technologies in banking supervision raises complex questions of legality, transparency, and accountability, particularly for the ECB, as a public institution within the EU’s democratic order founded on the rule of law.This study investigates how the use of AI systems to augment supervisory decision-making may impact EU fundamental rights, particularly the right to good administration. To this end, we first define the notion of good administration in the context of banking supervision, and explore what it entails for the ECB from legal and ethical perspectives. We then analyse the potential implications of AI-enhanced banking supervision for good administration and examine how the latter may inform the integration of AI/ML into supervisory processes and procedures.Drawing inspiration from the proposed EU AI Act, we develop a normative framework for regulating AI systems based on specific risks to good administration associated with different applications. Our framework prioritises transparency, auditability and accountability requirements to ensure that future AI-driven banking supervision is aligned with the principles of good administration. Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on the legal implications of AI and ML adoption by financial supervisors, underscoring the importance of a balanced approach that upholds fundamental rights while harnessing the benefits of technological progress

     

    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Weitere Identifier:
    Schriftenreihe: European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2023 - ; no. 140
    Schlagworte: artificial intelligence; machine learning; banking supervision; ECB; EU administrative law; good administration; fundamental rights; judicial review
    Weitere Schlagworte: Array
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (70 p)
    Bemerkung(en):

    Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments April 27, 2023 erstellt