AI Governance for Institutional Readiness in Finance
Irene Aldridge, Steve Krawciw
Abstract
Agentic AI is gaining acceptance in asset management, but governance has not kept pace: 88\% of surveyed finance professionals report no operational governance framework for agentic AI, and only 24 of 75 large U.S. money managers disclosing AI use in Form ADV filings report a formal governance policy. We argue this gap is architectural: governance built for static validation does not survive continuously retrained agentic policies. We propose a four-layer framework (Policy, Engineering, Composition, Systemic) grounded in two distinct kinds of evidence, kept explicitly separate: two calibrated synthetic illustrations (a regret-covariance drift monitor; a crowding simulation showing joint drawdown risk rising from 39.2\% to 79.3\%), and three real, documented cases (a deployed LLM-embedding trading strategy, a \$45 billion discretionary fund's forced-deleveraging blowup, and a tribunal ruling holding an airline liable for its chatbot). The synthetic examples demonstrate computability from observable data; the cases demonstrate that the failure modes are not hypothetical. We provide a 90-day implementation sequence spanning trading and payments/customer-facing systems.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Shrinkage Bayesian Causal Forest with Instrumental Variable
Lennard Maßmann, Jens Klenke
Conditionally linear, matrix normal state space models
Drew D. Creal, Marcelo C. Medeiros, Rodrigo Sarlo
Policy Targeting with Market Equilibrium
Gyungbae Park
What No First Stage Can Detect: Functional-Form Contamination in Linear IV
Parush Arora
Tensor-BEKK: Conditional Covariance Modeling and Inference for Tensor-Valued Time Series
Huan Gong, Feiyu Jiang
Profiled Anderson--Rubin Test: Robust Inference Allowing for Direct Effects of Instruments
Jung Hyub Lee