A Study of the Superposition Risk of China's Carbon Market Based on the Copula Model
ZENG Shihong, JIA Jingmin, YAO Shujie, WEI Kailei, ZHONG Zhen
College of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology; Gansu Branch, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China; Li Anmin Institute of Economic Research, Liaoning University; School of Management, Hainan University; Department of Development Strategy and Regional Economy, Development Research Center of the State Council
Summary:
Carbon trading is a major institutional innovation that uses market mechanisms to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus enabling green and low-carbon development. Compared with other financial markets, the carbon market has unique characteristics and functions. It also has more uncertainties and higher risks than other financial markets. Different risk factors are interdependent and interactive, resulting in potential losses for investors. Therefore, it is urgent to identify various kinds of risks in the carbon market and build a carbon market risk-assessment system. In the carbon market, liquidity risk and market risk affect investors' potential losses. In addition, the two risks have a close relationship with one another, affecting the market efficiency of the carbon market. The traditional concept of market risk assumes that market price is not affected by market participants' liquidation of assets. However, it is relatively common in the carbon market to see a large number of carbon quotas traded simultaneously, which is likely to cause large fluctuations in the market price, increase the market's liquidity, and affect the market's efficiency. Therefore, an analysis of risks from a single source cannot effectively measure the potential trading losses suffered by participants in the carbon market. Furthermore, it is necessary to explore the interaction between liquidity risks and market risks in the carbon market to better reveal the risk linkage mechanism of the carbon market and to comprehensively and effectively manage the market's risks. The literature on the single risk of the carbon market is deep, but it has two deficiencies. First, studies tend to ignore the multiple sources of carbon market risks, and the effects and costs of carbon market risk management are not explored in a manner that is adequately comprehensive. Second, in the study of superposition risks in the carbon market, scholars only consider risks such as price, exchange rate, and interest rate and do not consider the important factor of liquidity risk. Our results show negative dependence on liquidity risk and market risk in China's carbon pilot, and the liquidity premium theory is applicable to China's carbon market. Therefore, ignoring the risk dependence between risk factors can lead to an overestimation of the overall risk of carbon pilot projects and increase the cost of risk management. Measurements of the superposition risk of China's carbon pilot projects reveal regional differences between projects in Fujian, Shenzhen, Hubei, Guangdong, and elsewhere. In addition, our empirical results, which should not be ignored, show that liquidity risk plays a dominant role in the superposition risks of China's carbon pilot projects. Our main innovative contributions are as follows. First, we find that the level of carbon pilot liquidity in China does not completely correspond to the liquidity risk. Specifically, we use the GARCH-VaR method to find that the Hubei carbon pilot project has the lowest liquidity risk, whereas the Fujian and Shenzhen carbon pilot projects have the highest liquidity risks. There are differences in the order of the liquidity risk of carbon pilot projects under different confidence levels, indicating that the liquidity risk of the carbon market is more complex. Second, we find that the risk of China's carbon market is generally overestimated if only market risk is considered. We select the optimal Copula function system to analyze how different risk factors interact with each other in China's carbon market. Our results show that the correlation between liquidity risk and market risk in the carbon market is negative and the two risks offset each other, thus reducing the overall risk of carbon pilot projects. Third, this paper includes liquidity risk in the scope of superposition risk management in China's carbon trading market and constructs an assessment model of superposition risk in China's carbon market. The results show that liquidity risk dominates superposition risk in China's carbon market. Fourth, our study theoretically expands the research literature on carbon market risks, providing a practical basis for the unified and coordinated management of multiple risks in China's carbon market.
曾诗鸿, 贾婧敏, 姚树洁, 韦开蕾, 钟震. 基于Copula模型的中国碳市场叠加风险度量[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 513(3): 93-111.
ZENG Shihong, JIA Jingmin, YAO Shujie, WEI Kailei, ZHONG Zhen. A Study of the Superposition Risk of China's Carbon Market Based on the Copula Model. Journal of Financial Research, 2023, 513(3): 93-111.
Amihud Y., 2002, “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-section and Time-series Effects”,Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31～56.
[23]
Amihud Y. and H. Mendelson, 1986, “Asset pricing and Bid-ask Spread”, Journal of Financial Economics, 2(17): 223～240.
[24]
Chai Z. and P. Zhou, 2018, “The Minimum-CVaR Strategy with Semi-parametric Estimation in Carbon Market Hedging Problems”, Energy Economics, 76, 64～75.
[25]
Chang K., R. Chen and J. Chevallier, 2018a, “Market Fragmentation, Liquidity Measures and Improvement Perspectives from China's Emissions Trading Scheme Pilots”, Energy Economics, 75, 249～260.
[26]
Chang K., S. Lu and X. Song, 2018b, “The Impacts of Liquidity Dynamics on Emissions Allowances Price: Different Evidence from China's Emissions Trading Pilots”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 786～796.
[27]
Chen Z., Y. Yu and Y. Po, 2020, “Risk Measurement of International Carbon Market based on Multiple Risk Factors Heterogeneous Dependence”, Finance Research Letters, 32, 101083.
[28]
Jiao L., Y. Liao and Q. Zhou, 2018, “Predicting Carbon Market Risk Using Information from Macroeconomic Fundamentals”, Energy Economics, 73, 212～227.
[29]
Jondeau E. and M. Rockinge, 2006, “The Copula-GARCH Model of Conditional Dependencies: An International Stock Market Application”,Journal of International Money and Finance, 25(5): 827～853.
[30]
Kalaitzoglou I. A. and B. M. Ibrahim, 2015, “Liquidity and Resolution of Uncertainty in the European Carbon Futures Market”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 37, 89～102.
[31]
Ramos H. P. and M. B. Righi, 2020, “Liquidity, Implied Volatility and Tail Risk: A Comparison of Liquidity Measures”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 69, 101463.
[32]
Song Y., T. Liu, B. Ye, Y. Zhu, Y. Li and X. Song, 2019, “Improving the Liquidity of China's Carbon Market: Insight from the Effect of Carbon Price Transmission under the Policy Release”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, 118049.
[33]
Tarun C., S. Avanidhar and A.V. Ravi, 2001, “Trading Activity and Expected Stock Returns”, Journal of Financial Economics, 59(1):3～32.
[34]
Wang H., Z. Chen, X. Wu and X. Nie, 2019, “Can a Carbon Trading System Promote the Transformation of a Low-carbon Economy under the Framework of the Porter Hypothesis? —Empirical Analysis based on the PSM-DID Method”, Energy Policy, 129, 930～938.
[35]
Wu R. and Z. Qin, 2021, “Assessing Market Efficiency and Liquidity: Evidence from China's Emissions Trading Scheme Pilots”, Science of the Total Environment, 769, 144707.
[36]
Yang X., C. Zhang, Y. Yang, W. Wang and Z. A. Wagan, 2022, “A New Risk Measurement Method for China's Carbon Market”, International Journal of Finance ＆ Economics, 27(1):1280～1290.
