Coastal Agricultural Bank: Climate Risk in ICAAP and Lending
Coastal Agricultural Bank is a $9bn community lender in a low-lying region. Residential and commercial mortgages make up 70% of its loan book; 28% of collateral sits in a 100-year flood plain. In the past three years, two insurers have withdrawn from the region and premiums for remaining cover rose 45%. The bank's largest 12 borrowers are irrigated farms whose revenue depends on a single river basin and on exports to one trading partner. The regulator has issued climate-risk guidance requiring board-level appetite, scenario analysis and disclosure. The bank has no climate data team, uses a vendor score that rates most mortgages 'medium', and its ICAAP does not mention physical risk. The CFO worries that climate stress tests will force a capital raise and prefers to wait for better data. The board wants a practical plan that does not overstate certainty. The next ICAAP submission is in four months.
1. Distinguish physical and transition risks in the loan book and explain which are most material. Why are vendor scores insufficient?
Read the worked answer
Physical risks are the direct hazards: flooding, drought, heat and water scarcity affecting collateral and farm revenue. They are most material because 28% of collateral is in the 100-year flood plain and the largest 12 borrowers depend on one river basin. Transition risks are policy, technology, market and legal responses: carbon pricing, water regulation, export restrictions, consumer preferences and insurance retreat. Insurance retreat is a hybrid: it is a market response to physical risk that transmits through collateral values and recovery rates. Transition risk is also material for export-dependent farms if the trading partner imposes carbon or water standards. Vendor scores that rate most mortgages 'medium' are insufficient because they are not borrower-specific, do not reflect insurance withdrawal, and may not capture concentration in one basin. The bank should build an exposure map by geography, sector and borrower, then overlay flood, drought and insurance data.
2. Design a proportionate scenario analysis for ICAAP, including scenarios, horizons, data proxies, and treatment of insurance retreat. How should uncertainty be handled?
Read the worked answer
A proportionate scenario analysis for ICAAP should use at least three scenarios: a physical acute scenario (severe flood in the main basin), a physical chronic scenario (multi-year drought and heat), and a transition scenario (carbon or water regulation and export restrictions). Horizons should match the loan book: one to three years for insurance and cash-flow stress, five to ten years for collateral and structural change. Data proxies can include flood maps, historical loss rates, insurance availability, borrower revenue sensitivity and expert judgment. Insurance retreat should be modelled explicitly: assume non-renewal or higher premiums, then recalculate loss given default and collateral values. Uncertainty should be handled through ranges and sensitivity tables, not false precision. The bank should disclose assumptions and limitations. The ICAAP should show capital impacts under each scenario and management actions, such as tightening loan-to-value limits in flood zones, requiring insurance covenants and reducing concentration.
3. Advise the board on climate risk appetite and whether to wait for better data. Include disclosure and capital planning.
Read the worked answer
The board should set a climate risk appetite that is explicit about physical and transition risk, with quantitative triggers where possible: maximum exposure in high flood zones, insurance coverage thresholds, concentration limits by river basin, and annual scenario-loss limits. Waiting for better data is not acceptable because the bank already has enough information to act on concentration and insurance retreat; better data will improve calibration, not remove the risk. The CFO's fear of a capital raise should be separated from the risk decision: if the stress test shows a gap, the board needs to know and plan, not delay. Disclosure should be proportionate and explain data gaps. The board should approve a four-month ICAAP workplan, require climate risk in the risk register, and set a review cycle. The CRO should present both central and severe estimates so the board does not overstate certainty.