|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
Abstract 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.
|
|
Received: 18 October 2021
Published: 01 April 2023
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
柏满迎和孙禄杰,2007,《三种Copula-VaR计算方法与传统VaR方法的比较》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第2期,第154～160页。
|
| [2] |
柴尚蕾和周鹏,2019,《基于非参数Copula-CVaR模型的碳金融市场集成风险测度》,《中国管理科学》第8期,第1～13页。
|
| [3] |
杜莉、孙兆东和汪蓉,2015,《中国区域碳金融交易价格及市场风险分析》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》第2期,第86～93页。
|
| [4] |
傅京燕、章扬帆和谢子雄,2017,《制度设计影响了碳市场流动性吗——基于中国试点地区的研究》,《财贸经济》第8期,第129～143页。
|
| [5] |
胡珺、黄楠和沈洪涛,2020,《市场激励型环境规制可以推动企业技术创新吗?——基于中国碳排放权交易机制的自然实验》,《金融研究》第1期(总第475期),第171～189页。
|
| [6] |
刘红琴、胡淑慧,2022,《不同情境下中国碳排放权交易市场的风险度量》,《中国环境科学》第2期,第962～970页。
|
| [7] |
牛欢和严成樑,2021,《环境税率、双重红利与经济增长》,《金融研究》第7期(总第493期),第40～57页。
|
| [8] |
石广平、刘晓星和姚登宝,2020,《市场流动性与资产价格的非线性关系——基于MS-AR和TVP-SV-SVAR模型的时变分析》,《数理统计与管理》第2期,第308～322页。
|
| [9] |
王明涛和庄雅明,2011,《股票市场流动性风险计量模型研究》,《中国管理科学》第2期,第1～9页。
|
| [10] |
王倩和高翠云,2017,《我国碳市场的流动性困境问题》,《财经科学》第9期,第108～120页。
|
| [11] |
王遥和王文涛,2014,《碳金融市场的风险识别和监管体系设计》,《 中国人口·资源与环境》第3期,第25～31页。
|
| [12] |
王博和徐飘洋,2021,《碳定价、双重金融摩擦与“双支柱”调控》,《金融研究》第12期,第57～74页。
|
| [13] |
谢赤和曾志坚,2005,《股票市场流动性溢价的实证研究》,《数量经济技术研究》第9期,第144～155页。
|
| [14] |
谢里和郑新业,2020,《理性预期与能源投资——基于中国碳减排承诺的自然实验》,《金融研究》第5期(总第479期),第151～169页。
|
| [15] |
徐晓光、王含和郑尊信,2017,《我国新三板市场流动性风险测度及分析》,《当代经济研究》第11期,第82～89页。
|
| [16] |
徐国祥、吴婷和王莹,2021,《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》,《金融研究》第4期,第38～54页。
|
| [17] |
张金清和李徐,2008,《资产组合的集成风险度量及其应用——基于最优拟合Copula函数的VaR方法》,《系统工程理论与实践》第6期,第14～21页。
|
| [18] |
张金清和李徐,2009,《流动性风险与市场风险的集成度量方法研究》,《系统工程学报》第2期,第164～172页。
|
| [19] |
闫海洲和陈百助,2017,《气候变化、环境规制与公司碳排放信息披露的价值》,《金融研究》第6期,第142～157页。
|
| [20] |
张希良、张达和余润心,2021,《中国特色全国碳市场设计理论与实践》,《管理世界》第8期,第80～95页。
|
| [21] |
朱帮助、唐隽捷、江民星和王平,2022,《基于系统动力学的碳市场风险模拟与调控》,《系统工程理论与实践》,第7期,第1859～1872页。
|
| [22] |
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.
|
|
|
|
