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.

In the Meraki integration project, the supply chain process required significant optimization of the entire flow. To achieve this, most of the shipping-related process needed to be modified. However, the team lacked sufficient time to complete the work because the planned use of an adapter did not work, requiring me to redesign the flow.

With limited time remaining before system integration testing (SIT), the cross-functional teams and other tracks were ready to test their code, and management was unwilling to postpone SIT and Cycle 1 testing. Since there was an additional round of SIT and Cycle 2 testing planned, I decided to proceed with the changes that the team had already completed. We migrated the completed code to the test instance and communicated that only Phase 1 of the changes would be released initially, while the remaining changes would be delivered during Cycle 2 testing.

I ensured the Phase 1 delivery was designed to avoid impacting the end-to-end flow, allowing the other teams to proceed with testing their portions of the code. This approach ensured that other teams' deadlines were not affected. I also informed the cross-functional teams that the OTM and GTM changes were completed, and the remaining shipping-related code optimization would be delivered before Cycle 2 testing, along with the next round of SIT.

By taking this approach, I ensured that complete testing was not impacted and that the project stayed on track.