Can banks default overnight? Modelling endogenous contagion on the O/N interbank market

We propose a new model of the liquidity-driven banking system focusing on overnight interbank loans. This significant branch of the interbank market is commonly neglected in the banking system modelling and systemic risk analysis. We construct a model where banks are allowed to use both the interbank and the securities markets to manage their liquidity demand and supply as driven by prudential requirements in a volatile environment. The network of interbank loans is dynamic and simulated every day. We show how the intrasystem cash fluctuations alone, without any external shocks, may lead to systemic defaults, and what may be a symptom of the self-organized criticality of the system. We also analyze the impact of different prudential regulations and market conditions on the interbank market resilience. We confirm that the central bank’s asset purchase programmes, limiting the declines in government bond prices, can successfully stabilize banks’ liquidity demands. The model can be used to analyze the interbank market impact of macroprudential tools.     

宏观审慎政策理论基础解析

宏观审慎政策是在本次金融危机后由国际清算银行牵头,于2010年在G20国家峰会上通过的未来全球金融监管通行规则。现有中文文献多将目光聚焦在对宏观审慎政策的目标、工具与有效性的认识和解释上,本文则是从宏观审慎政策的理论基础出发,从不同的角度和侧面来描述刻画宏观审慎政策的目标和内容,厘清其完整脉络,为全面实施宏观审慎监管提供理论依据。     

宏观审慎与货币政策双支柱框架研究——基于系统性风险视角

本轮国际金融危机之后,建立“宏观审慎政策专门盯住金融稳定目标,货币政策主要关注经济稳定目标”的双支柱成为国际社会的普遍共识。本文基于系统性风险视角,深入剖析系统性风险的累积和实现机制,从时间和空间两个维度梳理宏观审慎政策实现金融稳定的有效性,以及货币政策对系统性风险造成的潜在溢出性。目前从系统性风险的时间维度探讨双支柱政策的研究已较为丰富,可以总结为宏观审慎政策的“逆周期调节”机制和货币政策的“资本缺口”机制。从系统性风险的空间维度探讨双支柱政策的研究,也即对双支柱政策如何作用和改变金融机构内部关联网络的研究正成为研究热点。本文从政策工具和影响机制上对空间维度双支柱政策进行了系统梳理。基于以上分析,本文对双支柱政策的制定提出如下建议:时间维度宏观审慎政策要关注并消除货币政策对时间维度系统性风险的溢出性,同时要加强空间维度宏观审慎政策工具的创新力度。     

宏观审慎政策的国际协调问题研究--基于我国的DSGE模拟分析

本文在两国模型的DSGE框架下引入宏观审慎政策监管机制,把金融摩擦、国际资本流动和宏观审慎政策纳入同一个一般均衡分析框架。通过国际贸易和国际资本流动机制,考察宏观审慎政策的国际影响机制。基于我国的模拟分析结果表明,第一,对于我国来说,宏观审慎政策的国际合作不仅能够有效地应对国内经济冲击,也有助于抵御外部经济冲击。第二,我国推动构建国际宏观审慎政策长效合作机制,有助于积极应对国际资本流动,促进我国资本市场进一步开放。第三,我国宏观审慎政策存在国际溢出效应,但是对其他国家的影响并不明显。     

How likely is contagion in financial networks?

Interconnections among financial institutions create potential channels for contagion and amplification of shocks to the financial system. We estimate the extent to which interconnections increase expected losses and defaults under a wide range of shock distributions. In contrast to most work on financial networks, we assume only minimal information about network structure and rely instead on information about the individual institutions that are the nodes of the network. The key node-level quantities are asset size, leverage, and a financial connectivity measure given by the fraction of a financial institution’s liabilities held by other financial institutions. We combine these measures to derive explicit bounds on the potential magnitude of network effects on contagion and loss amplification. Spillover effects are most significant when node sizes are heterogeneous and the originating node is highly leveraged and has high financial connectivity. Our results also highlight the importance of mechanisms that go beyond simple spillover effects to magnify shocks; these include bankruptcy costs, and mark-to-market losses resulting from credit quality deterioration or a loss of confidence. We illustrate the results with data on the European banking system.     

Do institutions prevent contagion in financial markets? Evidence from the European debt crisis

ABSTRACT

The recent European Sovereign Debt Crisis brought in attention a number of structural problems in the European Union. Part of the effort to correct these problems in the countries that were mostly affected by the crisis were a number of policy responses from the European Union, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Local Governments. In this study, we attempt to assess the success of these responses to constrain the contagion of the crisis from the banking sector to the real economy sectors of the Eurozone countries. Our results show that policy announcements from the EU/ECB/IMF affect the transmission of shocks generated in the banking sector to the market. Moreover, policy responses of the national governments also seem to play a role in the contagion of the crisis.     

货币政策与宏观审慎政策的协调

本文在梳理学术文献和国际经验基础上,讨论了货币政策与宏观审慎政策之间的潜在冲突和协调机制。国际文献的初步结论是,为了同时实现价格稳定和金融稳定目标,大部分情况下需要货币政策与宏观审慎政策反向操作(由于政策的替代性),但有时也需要两者同向操作(由于政策的互补性),最优政策组合取决于宏观冲击的类别和风险的来源。本文认为,选择最优组合是一个复杂的理论和实证问题,除了冲击类别和风险来源外,不同的金融体制和经济周期阶段也会影响选择结果。因此,货币政策当局与宏观审慎当局之间需要建立有效的协调机制,并加强对货币政策和宏观审慎政策“溢出效应”的分析能力。基于上述理论,针对我国“双支柱”决策的现状和问题提出如下改革建议:一是从法律上明确中央银行的金融稳定职责。二是建立在同一框架内分析货币政策与宏观审慎政策的方法和工具。三是将金融监管部门的主要宏观审慎政策决策权集中至中央银行。四是建立货币政策与宏观审慎政策的协调流程与机制。     

Assessing systemic risk using interbank exposures in the global banking system

This paper contributes to the literature on systemic risk by examining the network structure of bilateral exposures in the global banking system. The global interbank market constitutes a major part of the global banking system. The market has a hierarchical network structure, composed of the national or jurisdictional area's local markets and the cross-border interbank market. First, we estimate the bilateral exposures matrix using aggregate financial data on loans and deposits from Bankscope and analyze the interconnectedness in the market using network centrality measures. Subsequently, for the model analysis, we apply the Eisenberg–Noe framework to a multi-period setting. In this framework, bank defaults are classified into stand-alone defaults and contagious defaults. The banks in our sample (i.e., the top 202 banks with more than $50 billion in total assets) comprise a major part of this global banking system. The main findings are as follows: The theoretical network analysis using network centrality measures showed that most of the banks designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) play a central role in the global interbank market. The theoretical default analysis showed a few contagious defaults triggered by the basic defaults during and after the global financial crisis. Our stress test proved that many G-SIBs theoretically caused 1–6 contagious defaults. Our methodology would assist in the development of a monitoring system by the respective supervisory authorities as well as in the implementation of bank-internal stress tests of default contagion.     

货币、财政和宏观审慎政策的协调搭配研究

本文通过构建包含多部门和多元宏观政策的DSGE模型,对货币政策、财政政策和宏观审慎政策的最优反应规则及其协调组合问题进行了分析。分析结果显示:(1)从社会福利最大化的角度,货币政策可继续盯住通胀和产出的稳定,政府支出和税收政策可分别重点盯住产出稳定和债务稳定,而宏观审慎政策则可重点关注以信贷利差和信贷波动为代表的关键金融变量;(2)货币政策、财政政策和宏观审慎政策,通过合理的搭配和组合使用,能比任何单一政策工具都具有更好的经济金融稳定效应;反之,政策之间的不协调将显著削弱彼此的调控效应,加大经济和金融波动,从而导致显著的社会福利损失;(3)从多种政策协调搭配产生“合力”的内在机制来看,财政政策主要通过增加对产出、通胀、就业和债务等变量的稳定效应,对货币政策产生额外助力,而宏观审慎政策则主要通过稳定金融体系和降低金融风险对货币政策产生助力。上述结论表明,在多种经济金融政策并存的情况下,基于良好设定的政策规则,同时加强政策各部门之间的协调合作,是确保多元政策产生积极合力的重要基础。     

Benchmarking macroprudential policies: An initial assessment

In recognition of the severe consequences of the recent international financial crisis, the topic of macroprudential policy has elicited considerable research effort. The present study constructs, for 46 economies around the globe, an index of the capacity to deploy macroprudential policies. Building on elements that have been the subject of recent research, we develop an index that aims to represent the essence of what constitutes a macroprudential regime. Specifically, the index quantifies: (1) how existing macroprudential frameworks are organized; and (2) how far a particular jurisdiction is from reaching the goals established by the Group of Twenty (G20) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The latter is a benchmark that has not been considered in the burgeoning literature that seeks to quantify the role of macroprudential policies.     

Systemic risk of insurers around the globe

We study the exposure and contribution of 253 international life and non-life insurers to systemic risk between 2000 and 2012. For our full sample period, we find systemic risk in the international insurance sector to be small. In contrast, the contribution of insurers to the fragility of the financial system peaked during the recent financial crisis. In our panel regressions, we find the interconnectedness of large insurers with the insurance sector to be a significant driver of the insurers’ exposure to systemic risk. In contrast, the contribution of insurers to systemic risk appears to be primarily driven by the insurers’ leverage.