The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

Situation: During the first calibration of Non-Maturity Deposit (NMD) models, I was working with a senior colleague and a consultancy firm to implement these models. At that time, market rates were rising, and the consultancy firm suggested calibrating a key parameter, the "beta," to be highly sensitive to market rates. My manager agreed, but I disagreed, as I believed this high sensitivity could lead to inaccurate estimations in future calibrations.

Action: I engaged in discussions with my manager and the consultancy firm to fully understand their reasoning. They argued that a more sensitive beta could improve management of metrics like Delta EVE and Delta NII, which was valid. However, I pointed out that we lacked sufficient evidence to support such a high beta and that it might cause issues in future estimations. To address the disagreement, I conducted a sensitivity analysis, testing the model under various market rate scenarios.

Result: The sensitivity analysis helped us reach a compromise. We agreed to lower the beta, ensuring more stability in the model's performance. This adjustment allowed for a smoother transition of the parameter, ultimately improving the model's reliability while maintaining good risk management practices.

During my early days at Teradata in 2015, I received critical feedback from my manager and colleagues that, although I had strong technical skills, I wasn't very vocal in expressing my opinions during discussions. I initially found this feedback difficult to accept because I believed that my work alone should be enough to communicate my value.  The task was to enhance my communication skills, particularly during team discussions and design reviews, to ensure that my thoughts and ideas were being heard and valued, rather than relying solely on the quality of my technical work.  Taking the feedback to heart, I made a concerted effort to prepare thoroughly for design discussions and technical meetings. I started to actively participate by sharing my opinions on the designs, asking questions to gain clarity, and offering my technical insights. Additionally, I sought feedback from my colleagues to better understand how I could communicate more effectively in these settings.  By consistently engaging in discussions, I found that my opinions were appreciated and valued, which led to more productive conversations and collaborations. This not only helped me build stronger relationships with my teammates but also improved my overall presence in the team. Over time, I became more confident in expressing my ideas and saw growth in my ability to communicate complex technical concepts more clearly and effectively.

As a QA leader I had to choose between run a full check of a new functionality that wasnt very popular or use or let the change pass over with the aprove of the PM for some time saving. I choose run the full check, take a few days more, but when the functionality goes to production it works well, without any bugs.