Summary:
The 2007 subprime crisis provides ample evidence of the inevitable consequences of systemic risk. The evidence has motivated researchers, academics, and regulators to recognize, measure, and prevent systemic risk. China's banking system occupies a very important place in its financial system. The banking system has a closer internal relationship and dependence structure than other financial sectors because of inter-bank borrowing, payment, and settlement. Therefore, studies that measure systemic risk in China's banking system, identify important and vulnerable systemic institutions, and prevent systemic financial risk are of great academic value and practical significance. An accurate model of institutional dependence structures is required for measuring systemic risk. The model captures the spillover effect between institutions. Studies have shown that the financial system's dependence structure is asymmetric and nonlinear, and that interaction increases during financial crises. Many studies have proposed indicators to measure systemic risk, but they have some shortcomings. First, classic indicators such as MES and CoVaR focus primarily on the relations between pairs of institutions or an individual firm and the market index. Consequently, they miss the dependency of the whole system. Second, network models based on tail risk can measure how institutions interact with each other in the system, but this kind of model is based on binary relations. Third, few studies focus on the balance of systemic importance and systemic vulnerability. We apply the time-varying factor copula model, which analyzes the banking system's idiosyncrasy and interconnectedness to 14 listed Chinese banks' return data from 2007 to 2019. This approach is suitable for high dimensions, and it can capture fat-tailed, time-varying, asymmetric, and nonlinear characteristics. It analyzes the dynamic dependence between the individual bank and the system according to dynamic factor loadings. The unified framework established by the joint distribution of the banking system, we propose indicators of systemic risk in China's banking system. First, the joint probability of distress (JPD) can be used as a measure for the probability that a majority of the financial institutions are in default. In addition, the Systemic Vulnerability Degree (SVD) and Systemic Importance Degree (SID) can identify systemically important institutions and systemically vulnerable institutions. The two categories account for the overall and local dependencies of the banking system. These indicators account for the individual bank's idiosyncrasy, local and overall dependence, and fat-tailed and asymmetric chrematistics of return data, capturing a range of information. This study's research results in two findings. First, the relationship between banks and the banking system increases as risk increases. The joint probability of distress accurately identifies the 2008 subprime crisis, the 2013 “money shortage,” and the 2015 stock market crash. The JPD shows that macro-prudential assessment lowers systemic risk and the 2018-2019 trade friction between China and US increases the risk. Second, big-five banks are most systemic stable and city commercial banks are most vulnerable in the sample period.The systemic importance indicator (SID) shows that big-five banks are most affected by spillover during the sample period, which implies that big-five banks are not only “too big to fail” but also “too connected to fail.”
Adrian T., and Brunnermeier, M. K. 2016. “CoVaR”. <i>American Economic Review</i>, 106(7):1705～1741.<br />
[23]
Banulescu G. D., and Dumitrescu E. I. 2015. “Which Are the SIFIs？ A Component Expected Shortfall Approach to Systemic Risk”. <i>Journal of Banking & Finance</i>, 50:575～588.<br />
[24]
Benoit S., Colliard J. E., Hurlin C., and Pérignon C. 2017. “Where the Risks Lie: A Survey on Systemic Risk”. <i>Review of Finance</i>, 21(1):109～152.<br />
[25]
Brownlees C. T., and Engle R. 2012. “Volatility, Correlation and Tails for Systemic Risk Measurement”. Available at SSRN, 1611229.<br />
[26]
Cardarelli R., Elekdag S., and Lall S. 2009. “Financial Stress, Downturns, and Recoveries”. <i>International Monetary Fund</i>.<br />
[27]
Creal D., Koopman S. J., and Lucas A. 2013. “Generalized Autoregressive Score Models with Applications”. <i>Journal of Applied Econometrics</i>, 28(5):777～795.<br />
[28]
Drehmann M., and Tarashev, N. A. 2011. “Systemic Importance: Some Simple Indicators”. <i>BIS Quarterly Review</i>.<br />
[29]
Gofman M. 2017. “Efficiency and Stability of a Financial Architecture with Too-Interconnected-To-Fail Institutions”. <i>Journal of Financial Economics</i>, 124(1):113～146.<br />
[30]
Fang L., Sun B., Li H., and Yu H. 2018. “Systemic Risk Network of Chinese Financial Institutions”. <i>Emerging Markets Review</i>, S1566014117305113.<br />
[31]
Gray, D., & Jobst, A. 2010. “Systemic CCA-A Model Approach to Systemic Risk”. In Deutsche Bundesbank/Technische Universit?t Dresden Conference: Beyond the Financial Crisis: Systemic Risk, Spillovers and Regulation, Dresden.<br />
[32]
Greenwood R., Landier, A., and Thesmar, D. 2015. “Vulnerable Banks”. <i>Journal of Financial Economics</i>, 115(3):471～485.<br />
[33]
Huang Qiubin, Jakob De Haan, and Bert Scholtens. 2019. “Analysing Systemic Risk in the Chinese Banking System”.<i> Pacific Economic Review</i>, 24(2):348～372.<br />
[34]
Islami M., and Kurz‐Kim J. R. 2014. “A Single Composite Financial Stress Indicator and Its Real Impact in the Euro Area”. <i>International Journal of Finance & Economics</i>, 19(3):204～211.<br />
[35]
Oh D. H., and Patton A. J. 2018. “Time-Varying Systemic Risk: Evidence from a Dynamic Copula Model of CDS Spreads”. <i>Journal of Business & Economic Statistics</i>, 36(2):181～195.<br />
[36]
Patton A. J. 2006. “Modelling Asymmetric Exchange Rate Dependence”. <i>International economic review</i>, 47(2):527～556.<br />
[37]
Segoviano M. A., and Goodhart C. A. E. 2009. “Banking Stability Measures”. <i>International Monetary Fund</i>.<br />
[38]
Xu S., In F., Forbes C., and Hwang, I. 2017. “Systemic Risk in the European Sovereign and Banking System”. <i>Quantitative Finance</i>, 17(4):633～656.<br />
[39]
Wang G. J., Jiang Z. Q., Lin M., Xie C., and Stanley H. E.. 2018. “Interconnectedness and Systemic Risk of China's Financial Institutions”. <i>Emerging Markets Review</i>, 35:1～18.<br />
[40]
Zhou C. 2010. “Are Banks Too Big to Fail？ Measuring Systemic Importance of Financial Institutions”. <i>Measuring Systemic Importance of Financial Institutions</i>.
