War is already changing the operating conditions for banks faster than most planning systems can respond. This article uses banking as its primary lens, but the underlying challenge — planning systems that cannot absorb change fast enough — applies across most industries.
That is the real issue.
I have spent a large part of my career working on planning systems, portfolio decisions, and executive teams, trying to make sense of change while the ground was already moving beneath them. One lesson keeps repeating itself: organizations rarely fail because they did not produce a plan. They fail because reality changed faster than the planning system could absorb.
That is where banks find themselves today.
As of April 2026, war is no longer a geopolitical backdrop to financial services. It is a live, operating variable that shapes markets, liquidity, sanctions exposure, and cross-border payments in real time. In a Reuters interview, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said the war will mean “higher prices and slower growth” even if it ends soon, because the disruption to energy and supply channels is already feeding through the system. The same report noted that the disruption around the Strait of Hormuz is affecting a route that carries roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas flows.
For banks, that is not the macro context.
It is the operating environment.
Why static planning is now dangerous
Our current environment is why continuous scenario planning has moved from a good discipline to a core requirement. In wartime, annual planning is dangerous. Quarterly planning is slow. I would argue that anything less than weekly planning is now dangerous for globally exposed banks, because the variables that matter most can change inside a single board cycle.
The existing planning model was built for a different world. A bank could set an annual strategy, align budgets, review quarterly, run periodic stress tests, and treat disruptions as exceptions. But regulators and markets are now signaling that the exception has become the norm. The European Central Bank has made resilience to geopolitical risks and macro-financial uncertainty a supervisory priority. In 2026, it will conduct a reverse stress test on geopolitical risks across 110 directly supervised banks. That matters because the ECB is not simply handing banks a standard scenario and asking whether they survive. It is asking each institution to define the path by which geopolitical events could drive severe capital depletion.
That is a profound shift.
It means supervisors are effectively saying: do not just tell us you can survive a known shock. Show us that you can think dynamically about your own vulnerabilities before the next shock hits.
How shocks actually hit a bank
The problem with war-driven disruption is that it does not fall neatly into one category. It arrives as a chain reaction.
A conflict intensifies. Energy prices rise. Inflation expectations shift. Rate cuts get delayed. Funding assumptions change. Corporate borrowers in the transport, manufacturing, agriculture, and energy-intensive sectors are under greater pressure. Hedging behavior changes. Clients move money differently. Sanctions expand. Cross-border payment flows become more complex. Compliance teams must review exposures and counterparty relationships faster. Treasury, risk, operations, technology, and the business all need answers at once.
That is not a single issue.
It is a system problem.
And that is exactly where static planning breaks. The arithmetic is moving while the plan is standing still.
Take one realistic example. Reuters reported that UBS lowered its 2026 S&P 500 target because the Middle East conflict pushed oil prices higher, increased economic uncertainty, and delayed expected Federal Reserve cuts. Since the outbreak of the Iran war on February 28, the S&P 500 has fallen about 3.9 percent, according to that report.
Now translate that into a bank’s actual management problem.
If oil stays elevated for months, that is not simply a market call. It affects the credit quality outlook for specific sectors. It changes treasury assumptions. It alters customer behavior. It can simultaneously pressure deposit flows, lending appetite, capital allocation, and operating costs. That broader financial stability concern was echoed by ECB Governing Council member Fabio Panetta, who warned Reuters that the energy shock was raising financial stability risks. If the institution is also in the middle of a cost program, a core modernization effort, or a remediation exercise, the same scarce people may be required in multiple places simultaneously.
This is the kind of moment when the board asks a perfectly reasonable question:
What do we stop, what do we protect, what do we accelerate, and what is the consequence of each choice?
Traditional planning does not answer that question well. It usually answers a different question: what did we think the year would look like when we approved the budget?
What continuous scenario planning changes
Continuous scenario planning starts somewhere else. It asks what changed, which constraints moved, which dependencies are now binding, and what tradeoffs leadership has to make before the cost compounds.
Annual planning is calendar-based.
Continuous scenario planning is trigger-based.
Annual planning assumes the world will pause for review.
Continuous scenario planning assumes the world will not.
That matters because several of the pressures hitting banks now are not transient annoyances. They are structural conditions. The IMF is warning about slower growth and higher inflation from the current conflict. Andrew Bailey, speaking as chair of the Financial Stability Board, warned that “frictions in international payments have the potential to act as a driver of fragmentation of the global system” in a March FSB speech.
Put differently, banks are not dealing with one shock. They are dealing with a more fragmented operating order, a point the ECB and ESRB underscored when they warned that geopolitical shocks can lead banks and non-banks to reduce lending, especially cross-border exposures.
Sanctions and payments are now operational risk
That fragmentation shows up in sanctions and payments as clearly as anywhere and is no longer just a back-office compliance matter. When sanctions expand or diverge across jurisdictions, global banks have to think through counterparty exposure, corridor reliability, client obligations, correspondent relationships, liquidity flows, and operational bottlenecks together.
That is not theoretical. In February 2026, Reuters reported that U.S. regulators proposed cutting Swiss private bank MBaer off from the U.S. financial system over alleged links tied to Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, a reminder that sanctions risk can quickly become an existential operating issue for a bank. Bailey’s warning about payment friction matters because it points to something many leadership teams still underestimate: the plumbing itself is becoming geopolitical.
Imagine the practical version. A multinational bank with operations in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf wakes up to a sanctions escalation tied to a military event. Certain counterparties become restricted. Some clients need urgent payment rerouting. Compliance wants more review. Relationship managers want client continuity. Treasury wants to understand liquidity effects. Technology teams are suddenly dealing with workflow changes and control logic. The executive committee wants to know, by tomorrow morning, the revenue and risk impacts, and which commitments elsewhere in the portfolio need to be moved now.
That is not a better dashboard problem.
That is a scenario problem.
The CIO mandate is changing
Many banks still understate the CIO’s role here. This is not only a strategy issue or a risk issue. It is a systems issue. The current architecture in many institutions was not built to support live, cross-functional consequence modeling. Data sits in separate systems. Capacity is tracked in one place, financial assumptions in another, execution commitments in yet another, and regulatory obligations in yet another. During stable periods, the seams are tolerable. Under geopolitical pressure, they become expensive.
The CIO’s mandate is changing as a result. It is no longer enough to ensure that the bank has strong systems of record. The harder challenge is to make those systems usable when decisions are being made.
That means three things:
- Reduce the distance between risk, finance, payments, and portfolio data. If each function has to build its own answer after every shock, the bank is already late.
- Create a planning environment where leadership can test scenarios across the same set of constraints. Not treasury in one model, compliance in another, and transformation in a slide deck. One environment. Shared assumptions. Visible tradeoffs.
- Shift from reporting cycles to trigger cycles. If sanctions change, an energy shock, or a payments disruption can alter the bank’s risk posture in days, then the planning system has to move on that clock as well.
That is the directional answer for CIOs. Build the connective tissue that lets the institution compare consequences before separate functions lock in separate responses.
The good news is that most banks already have the raw ingredients. ERP systems hold the financial data. PPM or PMO platforms track the portfolio of change. SPM tools carry strategic priorities. Project plans, capacity models, and even well-structured spreadsheets contain the operational detail. The data problem in most institutions is not one of absence. It is one of fragmentation. What has changed is that the technology to connect those sources into a common planning environment now exists, and AI-driven interfaces mean that a CFO, CRO, or CEO can query that connected environment in plain language, asking the kind of questions that used to require a team of analysts and a week of lead time. The barrier is no longer technical. It is organizational will.
How banks actually build the capability
How do banks get there without turning this into another expensive transformation initiative?
In my experience, they do not start by modeling everything.
They start by choosing one decision arena where geopolitical shocks already create visible stress. It might be sanctions and payments. It might be energy-sensitive credit exposure. It might be liquidity and funding assumptions. The point is to begin where a shock can simultaneously move earnings, risk, and operations.
From there, the path is more practical than many leaders assume:
- Connect the few data streams that determine the decision. Risk, finance, payments, capacity, and the active change portfolio usually matter more than another round of presentation material.
- Define the triggers that force a scenario review. A sanctions change. A corridor disruption. A commodity spike. A rate shift. A supervisory action. If the trigger is real, the review should be immediate, not deferred to the next reporting cycle.
- Establish a weekly executive cadence for scenario comparison. Not a status meeting. A decision meeting. The question is not what changed in each silo. The question is: what does the bank now need to protect, slow, accelerate, or stop?
- Make tradeoffs explicit. If the institution prioritizes liquidity resilience, what gets delayed? If it protects payment continuity, which transformation resources move? If it accelerates one control program, what capacity disappears elsewhere?
Continuous scenario planning now becomes operational, not as a new planning religion, but as a repeatable discipline for making better decisions under pressure.
Banks do not need to perfect this across the entire enterprise on day one. They need to become faster and more coherent in the places where shocks are already forcing hard choices. That is usually how the capability starts.
The market is already moving
The question is not whether the bank has data. Of course it does. The question is whether it can connect the data quickly enough to calculate the next consequence before management is forced into guesswork.
The market examples from the last year should be sobering. Reuters reported that tariff turmoil cast a pall over European banks’ earnings outlook in 2025 as trade stress hit confidence, credit expectations, and sector valuations. And in March 2026, J.P. Morgan warned via Reuters that HSBC and Standard Chartered were among the European banks most exposed to the Middle East conflict, underscoring how unevenly geopolitical shocks can land across institutions and portfolios.
The market does not wait for the next planning cycle.
The stronger signal is operational, not rhetorical. Supervisors are forcing banks to design reverse-geopolitical stress scenarios because standardized exercises are no longer sufficient. Markets are repricing institutions unevenly when conflict exposure becomes clearer. And when trade shocks or sanctions changes hit, the effect does not stay inside one function. It considers earnings expectations, sector risk, payments, and capital allocation simultaneously.
What real-time scenario planning looks like in practice
What does that look like in practice?
It means a bank can stop arguing over whether a shock matters and start testing what it does.
Imagine a leadership team on a Tuesday morning after an overnight escalation. Oil is up. Sanctions lists are changing. A key payments corridor is slowing. The traditional response is a flurry of calls, separate spreadsheets, and each function building its own partial answer. Treasury models liquidity. Risk reviews sector exposure. Compliance checks counterparties. Technology assesses workflow impact. The executive committee gets fragments, not a usable picture.
Instead of asking each team for a static update, leadership can test a live set of scenarios. What happens if oil stays elevated for ninety days instead of thirty? Which client segments move from watchlist to immediate concern? What if sanctions are widened to include adjacent counterparties, or if a payment route becomes unreliable? Which programs lose capacity first because the same people are now needed for control changes, client support, and remediation work? Which commitments should be protected because they stabilize the bank, and which should be deferred because they consume scarce talent without improving resilience?
That is the difference. The point is not simply to produce a more elegant plan. The point is to give leadership a way to compare consequences before they commit.
A good continuous scenario discipline also forces hard choices into the open. If the bank protects liquidity and sanctions readiness, what gets delayed? If it accelerates one modernization program by reducing operational fragility, what other initiative costs people’s lives? If a region becomes harder to serve profitably under new risk assumptions, what does that mean for revenue plans, client coverage, and capital allocation? Those are painful questions, but they are far less painful when asked early.
This is why real-time scenario planning matters in wartime conditions. It helps banks move from narrative to arithmetic. From reaction to comparison. From isolated function views to system-level tradeoffs. And from vague resilience language to specific choices made today, this week, not next quarter. That urgency is consistent with what Reuters described as conflict-driven market repricing, elevated oil, and delayed expected Fed cuts.
It matters because the bank that can compare plausible paths quickly has a real advantage over the bank that can only defend last quarter’s assumptions more eloquently.
What the board should conclude now
In practical terms, continuous scenario planning lets leadership test questions that are now central to resilience:
- If energy stays elevated for two more quarters, which sectors deserve immediate credit scrutiny?
- If rates remain higher for longer, which transformation initiatives still deserve capital, and which should be slowed?
- If sanctions widen, which payment corridors become operationally fragile?
- If the same teams are needed for compliance changes, cost reduction, and modernization, where will overload appear first?
- And perhaps most importantly, what does management choose to protect when it cannot protect everything?
That is the heart of the issue. In times of war, the planning challenge is not prediction. It is prioritization under pressure.
If I were making the board-level case for urgency, I would put it this way: banks do not need another quarter of elegant commentary about uncertainty. They need a weekly discipline that shows which assumptions have broken, which exposures have changed, which commitments no longer hold, and which decisions cannot wait. Without that, the institution is not planning. It is narrating.
The institutions that handle this best will not be the ones that guessed the future most precisely. They will be the ones who built a planning discipline capable of absorbing change without freezing. They will recognize that resilience now depends on decision speed, not just capital strength. And they will understand that planning cannot remain an annual ritual in a world where geopolitical shocks are continuous.
War broke that model.
Banks now need one that moves.
This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?