Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2024, Vol. 524 Issue (2): 38-56    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
风险传染、银行间市场骤冷及防范化解政策——基于金融网络模型视角
范中杰, 何平, 刘泽豪
对外经济贸易大学中国金融学院, 北京 100029;
清华大学经济管理学院,北京 100084;
中国人民大学财政金融学院,北京 100872
Financial Contagion, Market Freezes, and Prudential Policies in the Interbank Market—A Network Perspective
FAN Zhongjie, HE Ping, LIU Zehao
China School of Banking and Finance, University of International Business and Economics;
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University;
School of Finance, Renmin University of China
下载:  PDF (881KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 银行间市场的局部风险,可能经由借贷网络蔓延为全局性风险。本文构建基于银行间借贷博弈的金融网络模型,发现风险传染会导致银行间市场出现多重借贷均衡。在均衡跳跃的临界点处,流动性冲击发生概率的微小增加,会导致银行间市场借贷规模大幅下降。这一机制可以解释金融危机中银行间市场骤冷现象。本文进一步研究公开市场操作、流动性监管、窗口指导等政策,结果表明,抵押品注入有助于缓解风险传染影响,流动性注入有助于提高借贷金额,流动性监管和窗口指导可服务于市场均衡转换和避免硬着陆。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
范中杰
何平
刘泽豪
关键词:  银行间市场  风险传染  均衡跳跃  系统性风险  市场骤冷    
Summary:  As one of the most important components of the financial market, interbank market stability is crucial to maintaining stability throughout the financial system and guarding against systemic risks. Sudden freezes in the interbank market are precipitous declines or near-stagnation in transactional activity. Such freezes pose a significant threat to market stability, as demonstrated by historical financial events. In 2007, the subprime debt problem affecting some United States banks expanded to affect the whole market through the interbank lending network; consequently, the interbank market transaction scale shrank significantly, and interbank lending with a slightly longer maturity period almost disappeared, a typical sudden freeze phenomenon. The liquidity problem caused by this sudden freeze of the interbank market led to a rapid amplification of the financial crisis and, eventually, a serious negative impact on the whole financial system.
This paper establishes a financial network model to explicate the phenomenon of a sudden freeze in the interbank market through the lens of risk contagion. Within this network model, banks engage in mutual borrowing, with each bank facing independent liquidity shocks that may propagate throughout the banking system. Within the intricate structure of the lending network, banks internally negotiate and determine lending contracts. Our analysis reveals that risk contagion gives rise to multiple equilibria in the magnitude of bank lending. Notably, when the liquidity risk exceeds a threshold, the volume of transactions in the interbank market can decline suddenly and precipitously in response to a shift in the lending equilibrium. This finding offers a plausible explanation for the market freezes that occur during financial crises.
To effectively intervene in interbank market freezes, prudential authorities can actively adjust collateral and cash in the market through open market operations. Collateral plays a pivotal role in mitigating bankruptcy risk contagion. Replacing cash with collateral of equivalent value enhances banks' risk resilience, thus increasing the scale of interbank lending when the liquidity risk is high. However, the reduction in cash lowers the maximum amount of financing available, thereby constraining banks' borrowing capacity when the liquidity risk is low. Consequently, the optimal balance of collateral and cash is a crucial aspect of policy intervention in the interbank market. Prudential authorities should assess this balance and compare it with banks' initial endowments to decide whether to adopt collateral injection or liquidity injection policies as part of their intervention strategy.
Regulatory policies such as liquidity supervision and window guidance policies can also prevent interbank market freezes. Under liquidity supervision, banks must increase their proportion of cash. In a high lending equilibrium, banks spontaneously hold a low proportion of cash, increasing their susceptibility to regulatory constraints. Comparatively, in a low lending equilibrium, banks spontaneously hold a high proportion of cash and are thus less affected by such constraints. Thus, liquidity supervision causes banks to spontaneously choose the low lending equilibrium and focus increasingly on preventing risk contagion. Similarly, window guidance policies support market equilibrium transitions; they help avoid disruptive equilibrium jumps and hard landings in the market by moderating banks' investment return and contagion prevention incentives.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows. First, it introduces a novel mechanism underlying interbank market freezes, which is grounded in a financial network model. Building upon the established network framework, this paper internalizes the lending contract. Our analysis reveals that a contagious risk gives rise to multiple equilibria in the interbank market, where negative shocks can trigger abrupt shifts in lending equilibria and unexpected changes in market size. This theoretical framework offers an explanation for the sudden emergence of financial crises. Second, this paper provides crucial insights into risk prevention and mitigation policies by examining the impact of a contagious risk on banks' lending decisions. Specifically, it highlights the importance of the injection of collateral into the market by the central bank during times of heightened risk. Additionally, this paper revisits liquidity regulation and window guidance policies from the perspective of interbank lending equilibria. These insights offer a rich array of policy options for preventing and mitigating unexpected freezes in the interbank market.
Keywords:  Interbank Market    Financial Contagion    Equilibrium Jump    Systemic Risk    Market Freeze
JEL分类号:  G01   G33   D85  
基金资助: * 本文感谢对外经济贸易大学中央高校基本科研业务费用专项资金(21QD19,CXTD13-05)、国家自然科学基金面上项目及青年科学基金项目(72373147,72003189)的资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  刘泽豪,经济学博士,副教授,中国人民大学财政金融学院,E-mail:liuzehao@ruc.edu.cn.   
作者简介:  范中杰,经济学博士,讲师,对外经济贸易大学中国金融学院,E-mail:fanzhongjie@uibe.edu.cn.何 平,经济学博士,教授,清华大学经济管理学院,E-mail:heping@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn.
引用本文:    
范中杰, 何平, 刘泽豪. 风险传染、银行间市场骤冷及防范化解政策——基于金融网络模型视角[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 524(2): 38-56.
FAN Zhongjie, HE Ping, LIU Zehao. Financial Contagion, Market Freezes, and Prudential Policies in the Interbank Market—A Network Perspective. Journal of Financial Research, 2024, 524(2): 38-56.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2024/V524/I2/38
[1] 方意和黄丽灵,2019,《系统性风险、抛售博弈与宏观审慎政策》,《经济研究》第9期,第41~55页。
[2] 冯超和王银,2015,《我国商业银行系统性风险处置研究——基于银行间市场网络模型》,《金融研究》第1期,第166~176页。
[3] 宫晓莉和熊熊,2020,《波动溢出网络视角的金融风险传染研究》,《金融研究》第5期,第39~58页。
[4] 杨子晖、陈雨恬和林师涵,2022,《系统性金融风险文献综述:现状、发展与展望》,《金融研究》第1期,第185~217页。
[5] 杨子晖、陈雨恬和谢锐楷,2018,《我国金融机构系统性金融风险度量与跨部门风险溢出效应研究》,《金融研究》第10期,第19~37页。
[6] Acemoglu, D., A. Ozdaglar and A. Tahbaz-Salehi, 2015, “Systemic Risk and Stability in Financial Networks”, The American Economic Review, 105(2), pp. 564~608.
[7] Allen, F. and D. Gale, 2000, “Financial Contagion”, Journal of Political Economy, 108(1), pp. 1~33.
[8] Erol, S. and R. Vohra, 2022, “Network Formation and Systemic Risk”, European Economic Review, 148, pp. 1~24.
[9] Gorton, G. and A. Metrick, 2012, “Securitized Banking and the Run on Repo”, Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), pp. 425~451.
[10] Gorton, G. and P. He, 2023, “Optimal Monetary Policy in a Collateralized Economy”, Economic Theory, 75, pp. 55~89.
[11] Liu, X., 2016, “Interbank Market Freezes and Creditor Runs”, The Review of Financial Studies, 29(7), pp. 1860~1910.
[1] 张劲帆, 郭云瀚. 中国银行间回购市场微观结构研究[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 518(8): 94-111.
[2] 钟山, 林木材, 洪智武. 金融网络视角下的银行间市场基准利率体系与货币政策冲击传导[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 516(6): 20-37.
[3] 方意, 刘江龙. 银行关联性与系统性金融风险:传染还是分担?[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 516(6): 57-74.
[4] 李志辉, 朱明皓, 李源, 李政. 我国金融机构的系统性风险溢出研究:测度、渠道与防范对策[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 514(4): 55-73.
[5] 杨子晖, 王姝黛, 李东承, 冷铁成. 债务风险传染的多重网络研究[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 513(3): 38-56.
[6] 杨子晖, 张平淼, 林师涵. 系统性风险与企业财务危机预警——基于前沿机器学习的新视角[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 506(8): 152-170.
[7] 张伟平, 曹廷求. 中国房地产企业间系统性风险溢出效应分析——基于尾部风险网络模型[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 505(7): 94-114.
[8] 张琳, 廉永辉, 方意. 政策连续性与商业银行系统性风险[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 503(5): 95-113.
[9] 王永钦, 段白鸽, 钱佳辉. 中国的“影子保险”:来自监管自然实验的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 502(4): 18-38.
[10] 赵静, 郭晔. 金融产品持股与银行系统性风险——兼论《商业银行股权管理暂行办法》的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 499(1): 57-75.
[11] 马骏, 何晓贝. 金融风险传染机制研究—— 基于中国上市银行数据的模拟[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 495(9): 12-29.
[12] 徐国祥, 吴婷, 王莹. 基于共同冲击和异质风险叠加传导的风险传染研究——来自中国上市银行网络的传染模拟[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 490(4): 38-54.
[13] 陈国进, 蒋晓宇, 刘彦臻, 赵向琴. 资产透明度、监管套利与银行系统性风险[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 489(3): 18-37.
[14] 侯成琪, 黄彤彤. 流动性、银行间市场摩擦与借贷便利类货币政策工具[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 483(9): 78-96.
[15] 宫晓莉, 熊熊. 波动溢出网络视角的金融风险传染研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 479(5): 39-58.
[1] 李丹, 庞晓波, 方红生. 财政空间与中国政府债务可持续性[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 1 -17 .
[2] 潘彬, 王去非, 金雯雯. 时变视角下非正规借贷利率的货币政策反应研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 52 -67 .
[3] 刘啟仁, 黄建忠. 人民币汇率变动与出口企业研发[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 446(8): 19 -34 .
[4] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[5] 金宇超, 靳庆鲁, 李晓雪. 资本市场注意力总量是稀缺资源吗?[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 162 -177 .
[6] 步丹璐, 狄灵瑜. 治理环境、股权投资与政府补助[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 193 -206 .
[7] 邓路, 刘瑞琪, 江萍. 公司超额银行借款会导致过度投资吗?[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 115 -129 .
[8] 江娇, 刘红忠, 曾剑平. 中国股票网络论坛的信息含量分析段[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 178 -192 .
[9] 史永东, 王龑. 职务犯罪是否加剧了银行风险?——来自中国城商行和农商行的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 447(9): 99 -114 .
[10] 张成思, 党超. 基于双预期的前瞻性货币政策反应机制[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 447(9): 1 -17 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1