دانلود کتاب الگوهای آب و هوایی به تبادل ریسک فیزیکی

The banking world stands at a critical inflexion point. A threat more insidious than market volatility, more persistent than credit cycles, and more fundamental than technological disruption is reshaping the risk landscape. Once considered a future concern, physical risk has evolved into an immediate crisis that threatens the very foundations of our banking system. Consider this stark reality: The US property market, valued at $52.5 trillion and burdened by $13.6 trillion in debt, faces an unprecedented challenge. In 2024, we observed a mass exodus of insurers from coastal markets, with 42% of US coastal insurers withdrawing from Florida and the Carolinas. This situation left $4.2 trillion in mortgage collateral exposed and uninsured. The reduction in available insurance is not a gradual shift; flood insurance premiums skyrocketed 58% yearly, pricing out homeowners and destabilising property valuations across entire regions. The scale of exposure to the UK property market is staggering. Along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts alone, 7.3 million homes face the threat of storm surge flooding. Nationwide, 17% of all properties risk flood damage, with the highest concentrations in Florida, Louisiana, California, New York, and New Jersey. In California, 4.6 million properties stand in wildfire zones, while Texas faces approximately 137 tornadoes annually, affecting over 13 million people. These are not distant threats – they are present realities affecting properties that underpin mortgages, secure investments, and represent lifelong savings for millions of Americans. We face a fundamental mismatch in time horizons that threatens the stability of our banking system. Banks write mortgages with 30-year terms, while insurers underwrite policies annually. As physical risks intensify, insurers can and do retreat from markets they deem too risky, leaving banks exposed to decades-long commitments on potentially worthless assets. This temporal disconnect echoes the opacity that preceded the 2008 banking crisis, but with a crucial difference – physical risk is not a complex banking instrument that can be traded away. Flood risk is tied to the immutable realities of geography, weather patterns and infrastructure, and the risk of banking loss is tied to individual property value, flood resilience, and outstanding mortgage debt. More recently, banking regulators in various jurisdictions have been working on incorporating climate risk more explicitly into regulatory frameworks, but these are generally still developing and vary by region. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has published principles for the effective management and supervision of climate-related banking risks, but these haven’t yet translated into standardised capital requirements. However, there are concerns that individual regulators could use their discretionary powers under Pillar 2 to impose capital charges of up to 15% for unhedged physical climate risk exposures. Some countries are taking more direct approaches to managing climate-related physical risks. For instance, the Italian government has implemented measures requiring all corporations to obtain specific flood-related insurance coverage, shifting some of this risk management responsibility directly to businesses rather than leaving it entirely within the banking regulatory framework.