Bridging the AI governance gap: systematic weaknesses and targeted solutions in financial model risk management

Abstract Financial institutions increasingly deploy artificial intelligence (AI) models for critical decisions, yet traditional Model Risk Management (MRM) frameworks struggle to address AI-specific risks, including opacity, adaptive behaviour, and fairness, conduct, and accountability concerns. Based on a structured review of regulatory guidance, academic literature, and industry commentary, this study identifies twelve recurrent weaknesses in current AI model governance across MRM lifecycle domains, including governance and organisation, scope and model inventory, third-party models, model development and validation, deployment and monitoring, and change management. Key gaps include inadequate stakeholder identification due to the expanded scope of model use beyond traditional risk functions, insufficient AI-specific validation methods requiring hybrid outcome- and process-based approaches, and monitoring frameworks that are insufficiently adapted to dynamic AI models. We propose targeted governance enhancements aligned with emerging regulatory frameworks and supervisory guidance, including the EU AI Act, the European Central Bank’s Guide to internal models, and the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority’s Supervisory Statement SS1/23. These enhancements include clarifying model definitions, incorporating AI-specific tiering criteria, and establishing vendor governance protocols. Three case illustrations demonstrate context-sensitive application across market risk modelling, enterprise chatbot deployment, and strategic AI use-case discovery. These findings bridge the gap between high-level regulatory principles and lifecycle-level MRM implementation, offering financial institutions a structured basis for strengthening AI-related MRM while maintaining regulatory compliance and operational resilience.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Banking Regulation
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-026-00371-9
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bridging the AI governance gap: systematic weaknesses and targeted solutions in financial model risk management

Peter N. Posch, Patrick Spitzer
Journal of Banking Regulation
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Bridging the AI governance gap: systematic weaknesses and targeted solutions in financial model risk management

Peter N. Posch, Patrick Spitzer
article en

Abstract

Abstract Financial institutions increasingly deploy artificial intelligence (AI) models for critical decisions, yet traditional Model Risk Management (MRM) frameworks struggle to address AI-specific risks, including opacity, adaptive behaviour, and fairness, conduct, and accountability concerns. Based on a structured review of regulatory guidance, academic literature, and industry commentary, this study identifies twelve recurrent weaknesses in current AI model governance across MRM lifecycle domains, including governance and organisation, scope and model inventory, third-party models, model development and validation, deployment and monitoring, and change management. Key gaps include inadequate stakeholder identification due to the expanded scope of model use beyond traditional risk functions, insufficient AI-specific validation methods requiring hybrid outcome- and process-based approaches, and monitoring frameworks that are insufficiently adapted to dynamic AI models. We propose targeted governance enhancements aligned with emerging regulatory frameworks and supervisory guidance, including the EU AI Act, the European Central Bank’s Guide to internal models, and the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority’s Supervisory Statement SS1/23. These enhancements include clarifying model definitions, incorporating AI-specific tiering criteria, and establishing vendor governance protocols. Three case illustrations demonstrate context-sensitive application across market risk modelling, enterprise chatbot deployment, and strategic AI use-case discovery. These findings bridge the gap between high-level regulatory principles and lifecycle-level MRM implementation, offering financial institutions a structured basis for strengthening AI-related MRM while maintaining regulatory compliance and operational resilience.

Journal of Banking RegulationVol. 27(4)
TU Dortmund University (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Bridging the AI governance gap: systematic weaknesses and targeted solutions in financial model risk management — Peter N. Posch, Patrick Spitzer · Journal of Banking Regulation (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS