银行间网络的系统性风险:解除资产负债表和网络效应

Alessandro Ferracci, G. Cimini
{"title":"银行间网络的系统性风险:解除资产负债表和网络效应","authors":"Alessandro Ferracci, G. Cimini","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3933626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We study the difference between the level of systemic risk that is empirically measured on an interbank network and the risk that can be deduced from the balance sheets composition of the participating banks. Using generalised DebtRank dynamics, we measure observed systemic risk on e-MID network data (augmented by BankFocus information) and compare it with the expected systemic of a null model network -- obtained through an appropriate maximum-entropy approach constraining relevant balance sheet variables. We show that the aggregate levels of observed and expected systemic risks are usually compatible but differ significantly during turbulent times -- in our case, after the default of Lehman Brothers (2009) and the VLTRO implementation by the ECB (2012). At the individual level instead, banks are typically more or less risky than what their balance sheet prescribes due to their position in the network. Our results confirm on one hand that balance sheet information used within a proper maximum-entropy network model provides good systemic risk estimates, and on the other hand the importance of knowing the empirical details of the network for conducting precise stress tests of individual banks -- especially after systemic events.","PeriodicalId":11410,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systemic Risk in Interbank Networks: Disentangling Balance Sheets and Network Effects\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Ferracci, G. Cimini\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3933626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We study the difference between the level of systemic risk that is empirically measured on an interbank network and the risk that can be deduced from the balance sheets composition of the participating banks. Using generalised DebtRank dynamics, we measure observed systemic risk on e-MID network data (augmented by BankFocus information) and compare it with the expected systemic of a null model network -- obtained through an appropriate maximum-entropy approach constraining relevant balance sheet variables. We show that the aggregate levels of observed and expected systemic risks are usually compatible but differ significantly during turbulent times -- in our case, after the default of Lehman Brothers (2009) and the VLTRO implementation by the ECB (2012). At the individual level instead, banks are typically more or less risky than what their balance sheet prescribes due to their position in the network. Our results confirm on one hand that balance sheet information used within a proper maximum-entropy network model provides good systemic risk estimates, and on the other hand the importance of knowing the empirical details of the network for conducting precise stress tests of individual banks -- especially after systemic events.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3933626\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: Capital Markets - Risk eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3933626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们研究了在银行间网络上经验测量的系统风险水平与可以从参与银行的资产负债表构成中推断出的风险之间的差异。使用广义DebtRank动态,我们测量了e-MID网络数据(由BankFocus信息增强)上观察到的系统风险,并将其与零模型网络的预期系统进行比较——通过约束相关资产负债表变量的适当最大熵方法获得。我们表明,观察到的和预期的系统性风险的总水平通常是相容的,但在动荡时期存在显著差异——在我们的案例中,在雷曼兄弟违约(2009年)和欧洲央行实施VLTRO(2012年)之后。相反,在个人层面上,由于银行在网络中的地位,它们的风险通常高于或低于其资产负债表所规定的风险。我们的研究结果一方面证实,在适当的最大熵网络模型中使用的资产负债表信息提供了良好的系统风险估计,另一方面证实了了解网络的经验细节对于对单个银行进行精确压力测试的重要性——尤其是在系统性事件发生后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systemic Risk in Interbank Networks: Disentangling Balance Sheets and Network Effects
We study the difference between the level of systemic risk that is empirically measured on an interbank network and the risk that can be deduced from the balance sheets composition of the participating banks. Using generalised DebtRank dynamics, we measure observed systemic risk on e-MID network data (augmented by BankFocus information) and compare it with the expected systemic of a null model network -- obtained through an appropriate maximum-entropy approach constraining relevant balance sheet variables. We show that the aggregate levels of observed and expected systemic risks are usually compatible but differ significantly during turbulent times -- in our case, after the default of Lehman Brothers (2009) and the VLTRO implementation by the ECB (2012). At the individual level instead, banks are typically more or less risky than what their balance sheet prescribes due to their position in the network. Our results confirm on one hand that balance sheet information used within a proper maximum-entropy network model provides good systemic risk estimates, and on the other hand the importance of knowing the empirical details of the network for conducting precise stress tests of individual banks -- especially after systemic events.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信