Systemically important banks in Asian emerging markets: Evidence from four systemic risk measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 101670
Author(s):  
Thach N. Pham ◽  
Robert Powell ◽  
Deepa Bannigidadmath
2020 ◽  
pp. 097215092097073
Author(s):  
Matteo Foglia ◽  
Eliana Angelini

Do you believe in Santa Claus (rally)? This study investigates the existence of the ‘Santa Claus rally’ in bank systemic risk. Christmas rally describes a persistent rise in the stock market during the final week of December through the first two trading days in January. In this article, we evaluate this calendar effect, focusing on systemic risk measures for global systemically important banks (GSIBs). First, we estimate the three popular systemic risk measures (DCoVaR, marginal expected shortfall [MES] and SRISK), and then we use an event study approach to analyse the reaction of risk. The results support the existence of Santa Claus. We find that the arrival of Santa Claus has a positive effect on systemic risk, that is, a reduction in bank systemic risk.


Author(s):  
Sheri Markose ◽  
Simone Giansante ◽  
Nicolas A. Eterovic ◽  
Mateusz Gatkowski

AbstractWe analyse systemic risk in the core global banking system using a new network-based spectral eigen-pair method, which treats network failure as a dynamical system stability problem. This is compared with market price-based Systemic Risk Indexes, viz. Marginal Expected Shortfall, Delta Conditional Value-at-Risk, and Conditional Capital Shortfall Measure of Systemic Risk in a cross-border setting. Unlike paradoxical market price based risk measures, which underestimate risk during periods of asset price booms, the eigen-pair method based on bilateral balance sheet data gives early-warning of instability in terms of the tipping point that is analogous to the R number in epidemic models. For this regulatory capital thresholds are used. Furthermore, network centrality measures identify systemically important and vulnerable banking systems. Market price-based SRIs are contemporaneous with the crisis and they are found to covary with risk measures like VaR and betas.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Brogi ◽  
Valentina Lagasio ◽  
Luca Riccetti

AbstractThe general consensus on the need to enhance the resilience of the financial system has led to the imposition of higher capital requirements for certain institutions, supposedly based on their contribution to systemic risk. Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) are divided into buckets based on their required additional capital buffers ranging from 1% to 3.5%. We measure the marginal contribution to systemic risk of 26 G-SIBs using the Distressed Insurance Premium methodology proposed by Huang et al. (J Bank Financ 33:2036–2049, 2009) and examine ranking consistency with that using the SRISK of Acharya et al. (Am Econ Rev 102:59–64, 2012). We then compare the bucketing using the two academic approaches and supervisory buckets. Because it leads to capital surcharges, bucketing should be consistent, irrespective of methodology. Instead, discrepancies in the allocation between buckets emerge and this suggests the complementary use of other methodologies.


Risks ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Syeda Hina Zaidi ◽  
Ramona Rupeika-Apoga

This study investigates the country-level determinants of liquidity synchronization and degrees of liquidity synchronization during economic growth volatility. As a non-diversifiable risk factor, liquidity co-movement shock spreads market-wide and thus disrupts the overall functioning of the financial market. Firms in Asian markets operate in legal and regulatory environments distinct from those of firms analyzed in the previous literature. Comprehensive analyses of liquidity synchronicity in emerging markets are limited. A major knowledge gap pertaining to Asian emerging markets serves as the primary motivation for this study. Seven Asian emerging economies are selected from the MSCI emerging market index: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and the Philippines for analysis from 2010 to 2019. The empirical findings show high levels of liquidity synchronicity in weaker economic and financial environments with low GDP growth, high inflation and interest rates and underdeveloped financial systems taking the form of low levels of private credit. Liquidity synchronicity is also affected by poor investor protection, political instability, weak rule of law and government ineffectiveness. Moreover, levels of liquidity synchronicity are higher in a period of economic growth volatility.


2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Durand ◽  
Yihui Lan ◽  
Andrew Ng

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document