{"title":"Leverage and Systemic Risk Pro-Cyclicality in the Chinese Financial System","authors":"Peter Cincinelli, Elisabetta Pellini, G. Urga","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3927318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we investigate the relationship between balance sheet size and leverage (i.e., leverage pro-cyclicality) and the pro-cyclicality of systemic risk using three systemic risk measures such as Δ C o V a R (Adrian and Brunnermeier (2016)), MES (Acharya et al. (2017)), SRISK (Brownlees and Engle (2016)). We conduct an extensive panel data analysis using a sample of 264 Chinese listed financial institutions (43 commercial banks, 74 finance services and 147 real estate finance services) over 2005:4–2019:4. We also study the impact of different phases of the financial turmoil by considering three subperiods, the “Global Financial Crisis” (2007:1–2009:4), the “Monetary Policy Restriction” (2010:1–2014:4), and the “2015 Chinese Stock Crash” (2015:1–2019:4). We find that leverage pro-cyclicality mainly affects CBs, in particular during the global financial crisis and the monetary policy restriction. We also find that larger financial institutions increase systemic risk, in particular commercial banks, which from 2016 started increasing shadow banking activities, and the real estate financial services with their activity closer to commercial banking.","PeriodicalId":153840,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Markets: Finance eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Markets: Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3927318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we investigate the relationship between balance sheet size and leverage (i.e., leverage pro-cyclicality) and the pro-cyclicality of systemic risk using three systemic risk measures such as Δ C o V a R (Adrian and Brunnermeier (2016)), MES (Acharya et al. (2017)), SRISK (Brownlees and Engle (2016)). We conduct an extensive panel data analysis using a sample of 264 Chinese listed financial institutions (43 commercial banks, 74 finance services and 147 real estate finance services) over 2005:4–2019:4. We also study the impact of different phases of the financial turmoil by considering three subperiods, the “Global Financial Crisis” (2007:1–2009:4), the “Monetary Policy Restriction” (2010:1–2014:4), and the “2015 Chinese Stock Crash” (2015:1–2019:4). We find that leverage pro-cyclicality mainly affects CBs, in particular during the global financial crisis and the monetary policy restriction. We also find that larger financial institutions increase systemic risk, in particular commercial banks, which from 2016 started increasing shadow banking activities, and the real estate financial services with their activity closer to commercial banking.
本文采用Δ C o V a R (Adrian and Brunnermeier(2016))、MES (Acharya et al.(2017))、SRISK (Brownlees and Engle(2016))三种系统风险指标,研究了资产负债表规模与杠杆(即杠杆顺周期性)以及系统风险的顺周期性之间的关系。我们对2005年至2019年期间的264家中国上市金融机构(43家商业银行、74家金融服务机构和147家房地产金融服务机构)进行了广泛的面板数据分析。我们还通过考虑三个子时期,即“全球金融危机”(2007:1-2009:4)、“货币政策限制”(2010:1-2014:4)和“2015年中国股灾”(2015:1 - 2019:4),研究了金融动荡不同阶段的影响。我们发现杠杆顺周期性主要影响商业银行,特别是在全球金融危机和货币政策限制时期。我们还发现,规模较大的金融机构增加了系统性风险,特别是商业银行,从2016年开始增加影子银行活动,以及与商业银行活动更接近的房地产金融服务。