Author
Abstract
The integration of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into financial risk functions offers significant efficiency gains but introduces nondeterministic risks that challenge traditional supervisory oversight. Unlike traditional econometric models, GenAI systems use transformer-based architectures to synthesize unstructured data, potentially mitigating operational frictions in cross-jurisdictional risk data aggregation and reporting. However, the stochastic nature of these systems fundamentally disrupts the “static validation†and “periodic review†assumptions inherent in deterministic frameworks such as the Federal Reserve Guidance SR 11-7 and Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Standard 239. This study assesses GenAI applications across market, credit and operational risk stripes, utilizing a methodology grounded in organizational control theory and a global systemically important bank case study. We propose a six-pillar governance framework anchored in the theory underlying the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework and the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission Internal Control–Integrated Framework. Effective deployment requires an architectural shift from output-based backtesting to continuous supervisory overlays and radical prompt auditability. Empirical validation via a controlled pilot on 100 excerpts from publicly available financial risk documents – using a GPT-4-0613 snapshot to control for model drift – demonstrates that structured governance reduces the hallucination rate from 14.2% to 3.1% (p < 0:001). These findings suggest that while legacy infrastructure remains a primary hurdle to implementation, aligning GenAI with robust model risk management principles will facilitate the transition toward strategic, augmented risk oversight.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ3:7963308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-operational-risk .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.