Using iterative reverse scenario logic to manage model risk in financial climate risk assessment
反復逆シナリオロジックを用いた金融気候リスク評価におけるモデルリスク管理 (AI 翻訳)
Michael D. Gerst, Cliff Rossi, Robert Brammer, Timothy Canty, Flannery Dolan, Robert Lempert, Elena Rovenskaya
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、金融機関の気候リスク評価におけるモデルリスク管理の課題を指摘し、既存の逆ストレステスト手法では気候シナリオの複雑性に対応できないと論じる。提案する「反復逆シナリオロジック」は、シナリオ探索と専門家判断を組み合わせ、モデル連鎖による複合リスクを軽減する。金融規制や実務への示唆に富む。
English
This paper argues that current model risk management is insufficient for financial climate risk assessment due to the complexity of global change scenarios. It proposes iterative reverse scenario logic, combining scenario discovery with expert judgment, to better manage model risk from chaining complex models under deep uncertainty. Offers practical implications for financial institutions and regulators.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ開示や金融庁の気候変動対応が進む中、金融機関の気候リスク管理の高度化が求められている。本論文の提案は、モデルリスク管理の枠組みを気候シナリオに適用する実践的な手法を示しており、邦銀や規制当局の参考になる。
In the global GX context
Globally, as TCFD/ISSB and regulatory stress testing evolve, financial institutions face challenges integrating climate scenarios into risk management. This paper bridges climate science and financial risk practice, offering a novel approach to model risk that is relevant for supervisors and firms under CSRD/SEC climate rules.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a conceptual framework for managing model risk in climate scenario analysis, useful for further methodological research.
🏢実務担当者:Offers a practical approach (iterative reverse scenario logic) to improve climate risk assessment and model risk management.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights gaps in current model risk management for climate risk, suggesting regulatory guidance may need updating.
📄 Abstract(原文)
Abstract As climate change and its impacts have become more pronounced, financial firms, investors, and regulatory supervisors are increasingly seeking to understand financial climate risks. One frequently mentioned barrier to using global change science is that information coming from global change scenarios and models may not match the needs of financial users. For example, there is often a spatial and temporal mismatch between scenarios and decisions. In addressing this barrier, much of the global change science literature has focused on further model advancement and communicating limitations. We argue that these efforts are insufficient because they do not adequately address that financial climate risk assessment will be subject to financial institutions’ model risk management processes, which mitigate the risk that modeling implementation errors, incomplete understanding of model adequacy, or inappropriate model use will lead to poor quality decisions. We argue that current model risk management is insufficient to ensure good financial decisions involving climate risk and then suggest a way forward. We cover three points. First, we outline why common issues of global change scenarios and models—data availability, deep uncertainty, and linking complex models—create problems for existing model risk management practices to mitigate risk due to incomplete understanding of model adequacy. Second, we note that the broader discourse around the use of global change scenarios, which feed global change information forward into risk models, has not kept pace with trends in model risk management. In particular, the financial industry’s reverse stress testing uses a risk model to discover plausible scenarios that lead to a pre-defined adverse outcome, such as insolvency. Finally, we outline why applying existing reverse stress testing methods to climate risk will not necessary address model risks introduced by global change scenarios, which usually require linking complex models. To adequately treat this model risk, we propose iterative reverse scenario logic, which couples scenario discovery with periodic expert judgment to check for scenario plausibility between and across models. We argue that the proposed method has the potential to better compartmentalize individual model risks and hence minimize the combined model risk of chaining difficult to validate models under conditions of deep uncertainty.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-026-04260-yfirst seen 2026-08-14 04:55:11
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録(無料・3キーワードまで)。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。