气候风险压力测试:关键调查与分类

Henk Jan Reinders , Dirk Schoenmaker , Mathijs van Dijk
{"title":"气候风险压力测试:关键调查与分类","authors":"Henk Jan Reinders ,&nbsp;Dirk Schoenmaker ,&nbsp;Mathijs van Dijk","doi":"10.1016/j.jclimf.2025.100061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Climate Finance","volume":"10 ","pages":"Article 100061"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Climate risk stress testing: A critical survey and classification\",\"authors\":\"Henk Jan Reinders ,&nbsp;Dirk Schoenmaker ,&nbsp;Mathijs van Dijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclimf.2025.100061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Climate Finance\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100061\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Climate Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949728025000021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Climate Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949728025000021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们从概念上研究了气候风险压力测试(CRST)练习,以评估气候相关冲击对金融体系稳定性的影响。我们区分了气候、经济和金融建模步骤,并将CRST练习分为六种类型的气候冲击和四种不同的方法(宏观金融、微观金融、非结构性和灾害风险)。我们确定了当前CRST方法的几个关键局限性:(i)忽略了某些气候冲击类型(绿天鹅和明斯基事件);(ii)过度依赖宏观模型(低部门和空间粒度);(iii)建模不完整(缺乏反馈效应);(四)范围有限(因果渠道和资产类别的子集)。我们认为,这些限制可能导致严重低估潜在的全系统经济损失,并提出了改进CRST方法的建议。它们还导致CRST测试偏离了资本充足率这一传统压力测试目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Climate risk stress testing: A critical survey and classification
We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信