Systemic risk in the banking system: measuring and interpreting the results
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.14(3).2019.04
-
Article InfoVolume 14 2019, Issue #3, pp. 34-47
- Cited by
- 1728 Views
-
229 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Highly concentrated banking system risks and the cumulative effect due to their accumulation act as a driver for improving the macro-prudential policy implemented by central banks. For this reason, an effectively and comprehensively assessed systemic risk in the banking system is declared an express condition for the early detection of its production sources and blocking of potential spreading channels, reducing the possible implementation. In light of this, the article develops an approach to the aggregated systemic risk assessment and interpretation of its results. The proposed approach is based on the considered influence exerted by financial risks of systemically important banks on the destabilized banking system and interconnections between banks in the context of the possible crisis impulse spreading. The following steps should be accomplished to form an aggregated systemic risk indicator in the banking system. Firstly, the differentiation of systemically important banks by the degree of their systemic importance; secondly, an integral assessment of the bank operation riskiness within certain bank groups; thirdly, the cumulative composition of the corresponding integral indicators, taking into account their weighting coefficients based on two criteria, namely values of the systemic importance indicator differentiating the bank groups, and the correlation of their risks. Interpreting the quantitative measurement results with regard to the systemic risk in the banking system is followed by the recommendations below: the systemic risk grading into high, medium and low levels and the respective definition of the threshold aggregated systemic risk indicator value which informs about the possible systemic crisis when approached; justification of the selected supervision regime types (strengthened, moderate or weakened) for systemically important banks, depending on the riskiness level specific for their operation and the systemic importance degree. The developed approach to measuring the systemic risk by means of constructing an aggregated indicator and interpreting the obtained results was being tested considering the financial risk indicators of the systemically important banks in Ukraine during 2009–2018.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G01, G28
-
References45
-
Tables4
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Matrix of the selected supervision regime types for systemically important banks
- Figure 2. Dynamic changes in the aggregated systemic risk indicator in the Ukrainian banking system and the Bank assets to GDP
- Figure 3. Positioning of the Ukrainian systemically important banks in the matrix “SIB operation riskiness level – Degree of the SIB systemic importance”
-
- Table 1. Criteria for determining the relation of Ukrainian systemically important banks to three groups depending on the degree of their systemic importance
- Table 2. Findings illustrating quantitatively assessed operation riskiness of Ukrainian systemically important banks (within individual groups)
- Table 3. Determination of weighting coefficients for the aggregated systemic risk indicator components in the banking system
- Table 4. Findings illustrating qualitatively interpreted quantitative systemic risk assessment in the Ukrainian banking system
-
- Acharya, V. V., Pedersen, L. H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. P. (2010). Measuring systemic risk (AFA Denver Meetings Paper).
- Acharya, V., Pedersen, L., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2009). Regulating systemic risk (pp. 283-304). In Restoring financial stability: How to Repair a Failed System. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Adrian, T., & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2011). CoVaR (FRB of New York Staff Report No. 348).
- Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2018). Global systemically important banks: revised assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement.
- Bezrodna, O. S., & Lesik, V. O. (2017). Теоретико-методичні аспекти оцінювання фінансової стабільності банківської системи [Teoretyko-metodychni aspekty otsiniuvannia finansovoi stabilnosti bankivskoi systemy]. Problemy Ekonomiky, 2, 251-263.
- Borri, N., Caccavaio, M., Giorgio, Di G., & Sorrentino, A. M. (2012). Systemic risk in the European banking sector (CASMEF Working Paper Series No. 11).
- Brownlees, C. T., & Engle, R. F. (2012). Volatility, Correlation and Tails for Systemic Risk Measurement.
- Brownlees, C. T., & Engle, R. F. (2017). SRISK: a conditional capital shortfall measure of systemic risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 48-79.
- Capera, L., Gómez, E., Laverde, M., & Morales, M. Á. (2011). Measuring systemic risk in the Colombian financial system: a systemic contingent claims approach. Temas de Estabilidad Financiera, 60.
- Cerutti, E., Claessens, S., & McGuire, P. (2012). Systemic risk in global banking: what can available data tell us and what more data are needed? (BIS Working Papers No. 376).
- Cont, R., Moussa, A., & Santos, E. B. (2010). Network structure and systemic risk in banking systems. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- De Bandt, O., & Hartmann, P. (2000). Systemic risk a survey (ECB Working Paper No. 35).
- Di Cesare, A., & Picco, A. R. (2018). A survey of systemic risk indicators (Occasional Papers No. 458).
- Dumičić, M. (2016). Financial Stability Indicators – The Case of Croatia. Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, 5(1), 113-140.
- Dungey, M., Luciani, M., & Veredas, D. (2018). Systemic risk in the US: Interconnectedness as a circuit breaker. Economic Modelling, 71, 305-315.
- Fan, H., Amalia, A. A. L. L. & Gao, Q. Q. (2018). The Assessment of Systemic Risk in the Kenyan Banking Sector. Complexity, 2018, 1-15.
- Fishburn, P. (1970). Utility theory for decision making (224 p.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Foggitt, G. M., Heymans, A., Vuuren, G. W., & Pretorius, A. (2017). Measuring the systemic risk in the South African banking sector. (SAJEMS) South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 20(1), 1-9.
- Gerlach, S. (2009). Defining and measuring systemic risk. Brussels: European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
- Gudelytė, L., & Navickienė, O. (2013). Modelling of systemic risk of banking sector. Social Technologies, 3(2), 359-371.
- Hartmann, P., Straetmans, S., & de Vries, C (2005). Banking system stability: A crossatlantic perspective (NBER Working Paper No. 11698).
- Haubrich, J., & DeKoning, Ch. (2017). Sizing up systemic risk. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Economic Commentary.
- Holl’o D., Kremer, M., & Duca, M. L. (2012). A Composite Indicator of Systemic Stress in the Financial System (ECB Working Paper Series No. 1426).
- Hu, D., Zhao, J. L., Hua, Zh., & Wong, M. C. S. (2012). Network-based modeling and analysis of systemic risk in banking systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1269-1291.
- Huang, Q., de Haan, J., & Scholtens, B. (2015). Analyzing systemic risk in the Chinese banking system (CESifo Working Paper No. 5513).
- Huang, X., Zhou, H., & Zhu, H. (2009). A framework for assessing the systemic risk of major financial institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(11), 2036-2049.
- IMF. (2009). Guidance to assess the systemic importance of financial institutions, markets and instruments: initial considerations (Report to the G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors).
- Ivanets, O. (2017). Systemic Risk Index – Integrated Indicator of Financial Sustainability. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(4), 502-510.
- Karimalis, E. N., & Nomikos, N. K. (2014). Measuring systemic risk in the European banking sector: a copula CoVaR approach. The European Journal of Finance, 24(11), 944-975.
- Karkowska, R. (2015). What Kind Of Systemic Risks Do We Face In The European Banking Sector? The Approach of CoVaR Measure. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, 14(2), 114-124.
- Kaufman, G. (1992). Bank Contagion: Theory and Evidence (Working Paper Series WP-92-13). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Kaufman, G. G., & Scott, K. E. (2003). What is systemic risk, and do bank regulators retard or contribute to it? The Independent Review, 7(3), 33-50.
- Kuznyetsova, A., & Pogorelenko, N. (2018). Assessment of the banking system financial stability based on the differential approach. Banks and Bank Systems, 13(3), 120-133.
- Laeven, L., & Valencia, F. (2018). Systemic banking crises revisited (IMF Working Paper No. 18/206).
- Murphy, E. V. (2012). What is systemic risk? Does it apply to recent JP Morgan losses? (CRS Report for Congress). Congressional Research Service.
- National Bank of Ukraine. (2009–2018). Banking system indicators.
- National Bank of Ukraine. (n.d.a). Macro-prudential policy strategy.
- National Bank of Ukraine. (n.d.b). National Bank of Ukraine Strategy.
- Omelchenko, О., Dorokhov, О., Kolodiziev, O., & Dorokhovа, L. (2018). Fuzzy Modeling of Creditworthiness Assessments of Bank’s Potential Borrowers in Ukraine. Economic Studies, 27(4), 100-125.
- State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (n.d.). Gross Domestic Product.
- Sum, K. (2015). Basic indicators of systemic risk in the EU banking sector. Implications for banking regulation. International Journal of Management and Economic, 47(1), 36-55.
- Teply, P., Kvapilikova, I. (2017). Measuring systemic risk of the US banking sector in time-frequency domain. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 42, 461-472.
- Van Oordt, M., & Zhou, Ch. (2015). Systemic risk of European banks: Regulators and markets (Working Paper No. 478).
- Yun, J., & Moon, H. (2014). Measuring systemic risk in the Korean banking sector via dynamic conditional correlation models. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 27, 94-114.
- Zinchenko, N. (2007). Етапи визначення кредитно-реитингової оцінки підприємств-емітентів [Etapy vyznachennia kredytno-reitynhovoi otsinky pidpryiemstv-emitentiv]. Upravlinnia rozvytkom, 4, 48-49.