Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi Criteria Decision Making in Financial Risk Management with a Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm

  • Published:
Computational Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A huge amount of data is being collected and stored by financial institutions like banks during their operations. These data contain the most important facts about the institutions and its customers. A good and efficient data analytics system can find patterns in this huge data source that can be used in actionable knowledge creation. Actionable knowledge is the knowledge that can be put to decision making and take some positive action towards better performance of organizations. This actionable knowledge is termed Business Intelligence by data scientists. Business Intelligence and Analytics is the process of applying data mining techniques to organizational or corporate data to discover patterns. Business Intelligence and Business Analytics are emerging as important and essential fields both for data scientists and organizations. Risk analysis, fraud detection, customer retention, customer satisfaction analysis and actuarial analysis are some of the areas of application of business intelligence and analytics. Credit risk analysis is an important part of a successful financial institution particularly in the banking sector. The current study takes this risk analysis in financial institutions and reviews the state of the art in using data analytics or data mining techniques for financial risk analysis. The analysis of risk from financial data depends on several factors that are both objective and subjective. Hence it is a multi-criteria decision problem. The study also proposes a multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) for analyzing financial data for risk analysis and prediction. The proposed MOGA is different from other evolutionary systems in that a memory component to hold the rules is added to the system while other systems in the literature are memory less. The algorithm is applied to bench mark data sets for predicting the decision on credit card and credit applications. The preliminary results are encouraging and show light towards better decision making in reducing risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelmoula, A. K. (2015). Bank credit risk analysis with k-nearest-neighbor classifier: Case of Tunisian banks. Accounting and Mangement Information System, 14, 79–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bache, K., & Lichman, M. (2013). UCI machine learning repository. Irvine: University of California, School of Information. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/.

  • Beasley, M., Branson, B., & Pagach, D. (2015). An examination of the assessment of top risks on the horizon: Evidence from executives and risk professionals. The Journal of Enterprise Risk Management, 1, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwish, N. R., & Abdelghany, A. S. (2016). A Fuzzy logic model for credit risk rating of Egyptian commercial banks. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 14, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrijevic, M., & Bosnjak, Z. (2010). Discovering interesting association rules in the web log usage data. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 5, 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, J. (2016). Integrating market and credit risk: A simulation and optimisation perspective. International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 10, 21–32. doi:10.14257/ijsia.2016.10.4.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Azbari, M. E., & Choi, T. M. (2016). Optimal Bi-objective redundancy allocation for systems reliability and risk management. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 46, 1735–1748. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2014.2382666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, X. J. (2014). Business intelligence and big data analytics: An overview. Communications of the IIMA, 14, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, R., Puri, M., & Ryan, N. (2016). A tale of two runs: Depositor responses to bank solvency risk. The Journal of Finance, 71, 2687–2726. doi:10.1111/jofi.12424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izvercian, M., & Ivascu, L. (2014). Semantic assessment of the risk: A multidimensional data model for sustainable enterprise. Procedia Technology, 16, 598–605. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katal, A., Wazid, M., & Goudar, R. H. (2013). Big data: Issues, challenges, tools and good practices. In 2013 6th international conference on contemporary computing, IC3 2013. pp. 404–409. doi:10.1109/IC3.2013.6612229.

  • Kliegr, T., Kuchař, J., Sottara, D., & Vojíř, S. (2014). Learning business rules with association rule classifiers. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_18.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nath, B., Bhattacharyya, D. K., & Ghosh, A. (2013). Incremental association rule mining: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3, 157–169. doi:10.1002/widm.1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öner, S. C. (2014). Reformative financial risk management approach: A multistage decision support system with the assistance of Fuzzy goal programming and expertons method. Journal of Mathematics and System Science, 4, 620–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russom, P. (2011). Big data analytics. TDWI Best Practices Report, pp. 1–34. doi:10.1109/ICCICT.2012.6398180.

  • Sarlin, P. (2016). Macroprudential oversight, risk communication and visualization. Journal of Financial Stability, 27, 160–179. doi:10.1016/j.jfs.2015.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, M., Gama, J., & Brandão, E. (2016). A new dynamic modeling framework for credit risk assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 45, 341–351. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.09.055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Martens, D., Mues, C., & Baesens, B. (2011). Building comprehensible customer churn prediction models with advanced rule induction techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 2354–2364. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng, S.-S., Yang, M.-H., Koo, T.-L., & Hsiao, P.-I. (2016). Modeling the prediction of business intelligence system effectiveness. Springerplus, 5, 737. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2525-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., & Birge, J. R. (2016). Risk intelligence in big data era: A review and introduction to special issue. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 46, 1718–1720. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2016.2580239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D. D., Chen, S. H., & Olson, D. L. (2014). Business intelligence in risk management: Some recent progresses. Information Sciences (Ny), 256, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Applications and Information Technology, School of Computing Sciences, VELS University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Sujatha Srinivasan & T. Kamalakannan

Authors
  1. Sujatha Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Kamalakannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sujatha Srinivasan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srinivasan, S., Kamalakannan, T. Multi Criteria Decision Making in Financial Risk Management with a Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm. Comput Econ 52, 443–457 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-017-9683-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-017-9683-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation