商业银行流动性压力测试应用与实证分析

银监会自2007年年底加大了对商业银行的流动性风险管理力度,并于2008年年初下发了《商业银行压力测试指引》,要求各商业银行开展流动性压力测试。流动性压力测试有助于商业银行预测在市场最严酷的情况下自身的流动性风险承受能力,并通过主动改变管理策略防范流动性风险。本文系统介绍了流动性风险管理与压力测试及两者间的关系,并以某商业银行为对象进行了流动性压力测试的实证分析,最后对流动性压力测试的推广运用提出了一些政策建议。     

金融

证券公司即将开展压力测试 中国证券业协会日前下发《证券公司压力测试指引（试行）》。从今年起,我国证券公司将开展定期和不定期的压力测试,全行业首次压力测试将于今年2季度完成。压力测试将涵盖证券公司面临的主要风险,包括经营风险、市场风险、信用风险、操作风险、流动性风险等风险类型。     

金融机构流动性风险压力测试实证研究——基于中小法人银行的两轮效应测试

本文认为,目前国内银行业流动性风险压力测试中还存在:风险因子的选择缺乏考虑市场风险以及信用风险,风险因子权重的设计缺乏科学性和经济意义,以及忽略传染效应等问题。本文在借鉴国际经验的基础上,针对我国实际,致力于解决以下问题:(1)如何设定风险因子和确定风险因子的权重,以及以什么标准来判断流动性风险;(2)自下而上地对单家银行及区域银行体系做流动性压力测试;(3)利用银行间市场,充分考虑冲击产生的第二轮效应。为开展压力测试及加强流动性风险管理提供了良好的借鉴。     

中国银行流动性风险压力测试实证研究

目前,国内商业银行流动性风险管理体系尚不够完善,因而存在一定流动性风险隐患。本文根据我国商业银行的实际情况,选取影响流动性风险因素,建立流动性风险压力测试模型,并在此基础上,以中国银行为例,设计不同压力测试情景,模拟其流动性风险状况。实证分析结果表明,在轻中度压力下,中国银行流动性风险较低,处于可控状态;而在重度压力下,其流动性风险急剧上升,甚至引发严重流动性风险问题。     

基于时变模型的商业银行流动性风险度量研究

流动性错配是流动性风险产生的根本,有必要从资产端和负债端研究和度量商业银行流动性风险。在综合外部因素的基础上,通过理论和实证两个层面构建我国商业银行流动性错配指数（LMI）,并对我国18家上市银行的流动性风险进行度量、识别和压力测试。研究表明：我国商业银行流动风险存在异质性和时变性,LMI的压力测试结果显示,不同类型银行压力测试和抵御风险的能力具有显著的异质性。为有效地管理和防范商业银行流动性风险,需要严格控制流动性错配程度,密切关注宏观经济形势和资产价格的波动,并建立相应的风险监测和管理机制。     

中国建设银行流动性压力测试报告

流动性是银行合理配置资产和应对债务到期的能力,是银行持续经营的关键。巴塞尔银行监管委员会（BCBS）将流动性风险分为资金流动性风险和市场流动性风险。中国银行业监督委员会（CBRC）认为：流动性风险是指商业银行虽有清偿能力却无法获得或以合理成本取得充足资金应对资产增长或到期债务的风险。流动性压力测试是以定量分析为主的风险分析方法。通过某些假定小概率极端不利事件的存在测算商业银行可能发生的损失,对商业银行流动性管理体系的脆弱性作出适当评价和建议。压力测试本质是预测极端风险信息的工具,流动性压力测试为流动性风险管理做好风险预警,使银行及时意识到自身流动性风险管理的不足,做到未雨绸缪。     

压力测试：城市商业银行流动性风险案例

流动性风险压力测试能帮助商业银行决策者科学判断金融体系可能面临的流动性冲击、承压能力及传染性风险,制定恰当的流动性管理决策,可以提高流动性风险管理能力。以城市商业银行为例,假定在存款准备金上升和存款流失的压力测试情景下,通过分析流动性缺口率、备付金率、存贷比等相关流动性指标变化对其影响程度来评估城市商业银行可能面临的流动性风险以及其管理防范流动性风险的能力。     

压力测试:城市商业银行流动性风险案例

流动性风险压力测试能帮助商业银行决策者科学判断金融体系可能面临的流动性冲击、承压能力及传染性风险,制定恰当的流动性管理决策,可以提高流动性风险管理能力。以城市商业银行为例,假定在存款准备金上升和存款流失的压力测试情景下,通过分析流动性缺口率、备付金率、存贷比等相关流动性指标变化对其影响程度来评估城市商业银行可能面临的流动性风险以及其管理防范流动性风险的能力。     

财经要闻

人行发布《支付机构预付卡业务管理办法(征求意见稿)》银监会拟要求商业银行逐季测试流动性风险压力银监会日前就《商业银行流动性风险管理办法(试行)》(下称《办法》)公开征求意见。《办法》要求商业银行建立流动性风险压力测试制度,至少每季度进行一次常规压力测试,分析银行承受压力事件的能力。出现市场剧烈波动等情况时,应当加大压力测试频度。     

地方法人银行流动性风险评估与思考——基于34家机构流动性压力测试实证分析

压力测试是金融危机后监管改革的重要组成部分,已成为银行业监管的基石。当前国内发生的"包商银行接管事件"、"锦州银行重组事件"也深刻表明新常态下我国银行业风险较为严峻。根据人民银行金融稳定局开展压力测试的工作部署,本文选取了湖北省内38家地方法人银行机构开展流动性压力测试,对压力测试流程进行详细介绍,对压力测试中发现的相关问题进行思考,最后从监管和银行两个层面给出相关建议。     

Do stress tests affect bank liquidity creation?

We examine the impact of Federal Reserve stress tests from 2009 to 2016 on U.S. bank liquidity creation. Empirical results show that regulatory stress tests have a negative effect on both on-and off-balance sheet bank liquidity creation and asset-side liquidity creation. As banks enter the stress tests, they reduce their liquidity creation to avoid failing the stress tests. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that banks manage their risk exposures to meet higher capital requirements. The negative effect of stress testing on liquidity creation continues to persist in the quarters after the stress tests. Finally, stress test banks appear to increase liability-side liquidity creation. These findings highlight that the enhanced financial stability from greater regulatory scrutiny may be achieved at the expense of financial intermediation.     

Reprint of: Market liquidity in the financial crisis: The role of liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality

We examine the dynamics and the drivers of market liquidity during the financial crisis, using a unique volume-weighted spread measure. According to the literature we find that market liquidity is impaired when stock markets decline, implying a positive relation between market and liquidity risk. Moreover, this relationship is the stronger the deeper one digs into the order book. Even more interestingly, this paper sheds further light on so far puzzling features of market liquidity: liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality. We show that liquidity commonality varies over time, increases during market downturns, peaks at major crisis events and becomes weaker the deeper we look into the limit order book. Consistent with recent theoretical models that argue for a spiral effect between the financial sector’s funding liquidity and an asset’s market liquidity, we find that funding liquidity tightness induces an increase in liquidity commonality which then leads to market-wide liquidity dry-ups. Therefore our findings corroborate the view that market liquidity can be a driving force for financial contagion. Finally, we show that there is a positive relationship between credit risk and liquidity risk, i.e., there is a spread between liquidity costs of high and low credit quality stocks, and that in times of increased market uncertainty the impact of credit risk on liquidity risk intensifies. This corroborates the existence of a flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity phenomenon also on the stock markets.     

The composition of CMBS risk

This paper identifies the put-option, liquidity availability proportion, and shadow liquidity risk premia embedded within commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) using reduced form and structural generalization models. These risk values are then interpreted as trading signals which are tested with automated trading strategies that buy undervalued and sell overvalued CMBS from November 2007 through June 2015. All three signals generate substantial positive trading profits in testing for the reduced form model but not for the structural generalization. The risk signals constructed independently of market pricing provide more profitable automated trading insights than those constructed from interactions between modeled risk measures and market spreads. In my tests of the information content of the risk signals with respect to future macroeconomic indicators, I find statistically significant evidence in keeping with recent studies. While I cannot reject CMBS efficiency, this paper’s disclosure of new risk measures, the profitability of automated strategies based on those risk measures, and the statistical significance of their forward guidance capabilities, together contributes to our understanding of CMBS risk and the credit spread puzzle debate.     

Survive the droughts,I wish you well: Principles and cases of liquidity risk management

Short‐term, liquid assets are highly valued by lenders, but pose liquidity risk management challenges to borrowers. Basic principles to meet those challenges are to conduct liquidity stress scenario analysis; to form business plans for each stress scenario; to hold enough capital to sustain the planned, post‐shock balance sheet; and to hold a large enough liquidity reserve to survive the transition from the pre‐ to the post‐shock balance sheet. Historical failures, like Northern Rock, Bear Stearns, and MF Global have a lot to teach about implementing these principles. While regulatory frameworks constrain liquidity positions, they are no substitute for firm‐specific liquidity risk management.     

Market liquidity in the financial crisis: The role of liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality

We examine the dynamics and the drivers of market liquidity during the financial crisis, using a unique volume-weighted spread measure. According to the literature we find that market liquidity is impaired when stock markets decline, implying a positive relation between market and liquidity risk. Moreover, this relationship is the stronger the deeper one digs into the order book. Even more interestingly, this paper sheds further light on so far puzzling features of market liquidity: liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality. We show that liquidity commonality varies over time, increases during market downturns, peaks at major crisis events and becomes weaker the deeper we look into the limit order book. Consistent with recent theoretical models that argue for a spiral effect between the financial sector’s funding liquidity and an asset’s market liquidity, we find that funding liquidity tightness induces an increase in liquidity commonality which then leads to market-wide liquidity dry-ups. Therefore our findings corroborate the view that market liquidity can be a driving force for financial contagion. Finally, we show that there is a positive relationship between credit risk and liquidity risk, i.e., there is a spread between liquidity costs of high and low credit quality stocks, and that in times of increased market uncertainty the impact of credit risk on liquidity risk intensifies. This corroborates the existence of a flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity phenomenon also on the stock markets.     

The dark side of liquidity regulation: Bank opacity and funding liquidity risk

We evaluate how the liquidity coverage rule affects US banks’ opacity and funding liquidity risk. Banks subject to the rule become significantly more opaque and funding liquidity risk increases by $245 million per quarter. Higher funding liquidity risk is more pronounced among banks that are subject to the rule’s more stringent liquidity buffers, and systemically riskier banks. Rising opacity reflects an increase in banks’ holdings of complex assets whose value is difficult to communicate to investors. The evidence highlights the unintended consequences of liquidity regulation and is consistent with theoretical models’ predictions of a trade-off between liquidity buffers and bank opacity that exacerbates funding liquidity risk.     

Credit and liquidity components of corporate CDS spreads

This paper investigates the role of credit and liquidity factors in explaining corporate CDS price changes during normal and crisis periods. We find that liquidity risk is more important than firm-specific credit risk regardless of market conditions. Moreover, in the period prior to the recent “Great Recession” credit risk plays no role in explaining CDS price changes. The dominance of liquidity effects casts serious doubts on the relevance of CDS price changes as an indicator of default risk dynamics. Our results show how multiple liquidity factors including firm specific and aggregate liquidity proxies as well as an asymmetric information measure are critical determinants of CDS price variations. In particular, the impact of informed traders on the CDS price increases when markets are characterised by higher uncertainty, which supports concerns of insider trading during the crisis.     

Liquidity Risk and Venture Capital Finance

This article provides theory and evidence in support of the proposition that venture capitalists adjust their investment decisions according to liquidity conditions on IPO exit markets. We refer to technological risk as a choice variable in terms of the characteristics of the entrepreneurial firm in which the venture capitalist invests, and liquidity risk as the current and expected future external exit market conditions. We show that in times of expected illiquidity of exit markets (high liquidity risk), venture capitalists invest proportionately more in new high-tech and early-stage projects (high technology risk) in order to postpone exit requirements. When exit markets are liquid, venture capitalists rush to exit by investing more in later-stage projects. We further provide complementary evidence that shows that conditions of low liquidity risk give rise to less syndication. Our theory and supporting empirical results facilitate a unifying theme that links related research on illiquidity in private equity.     

基于违约强度的固定收益证券风险敏感性分析与压力测试

固定收益证券存在单券投资和组合持仓规模较大的特殊性,势必面临着一定的市场风险、信用风险和流动性风险。本文通过实践方面的探索和尝试,改变了原有仅用收益率曲线平移的敏感性分析和压力测试方法,提出了利用基于违约强度的模型结合Vasicek利率模型的方法,以中债估值数据为例,对我国固定收益证券组合的市场(利率)风险和信用风险的敏感性分析和压力测试进行了检验。研究发现,在精确校准估值模型的前提下,均衡长期利率水平和均衡长期违约率越高,债券价格越低,均值回复速度越大和波动率越小,债券价格越低。