Identification of global systemically important stock exchanges

Abstract

Research background: Increased regulations reducing systemic risk are essentially underpinned by the understanding of the global nature and sources of instability of the financial system. In the economic literature, there are many arguments presented by critical supporters and opponents of measuring and reporting global systemically important entities.

Purpose of the article: In response to the requirements of regulators, the article seeks to identify systematically important regulated stock markets for selected global stock exchanges by developing a composite ratio. Additionally, it provides empirical evidence concerning their risk exploration.

Methods: The proposed method uses weighted average values of indicators grouped in four categories: (1) market size, (2) cross-jurisdictional activity and interconnectedness, (3) substitutability, (4) complexity. The research covers stock exchanges, reported to WFE, spanning the period 2008?2017.

Findings & Value added: The study finds that the problem of systemic risk on global stock exchanges is growing despite numerous prudential regulations. In order to obtain a more complete assessment of market systemic sensitivity, regulators should take into account a wider range of indicators and calculations such as cross-jurisdictional activity and market complexity.

Keywords

capital market, systemic risk, stock exchange, macroprudential policy, financial stability

References

1. Adrian, T., & Brunnermeier, M. (2011). CoVaR. NBER Working Paper, 17454.doi: 10.3386/w17454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w17454
   View in Google Scholar
2. Barth, J., Prabha, A., & Swagel, P. (2012). Just how big is the too-big-to-fail problem. Journal of Banking Regulation, 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2029131
   View in Google Scholar
3. Bijkerk, W., Tendulkar, R., Uddin, S., & Worner, S. (2012). Systemic risk identification in securities markets IOSCO Staff Working Paper, 1.
   View in Google Scholar
4. BIS (2013). Global systemically important banks: updated assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement.
   View in Google Scholar
5. BIS (2014). The G-SIB assessment methodology – score calculation.
   View in Google Scholar
6. Boss, M., Elsinger, H., Summer, M., & Thurner, S. (2004). An empirical analysis of the network structure of the Austrian interbank market. Oesterreichische Nationalbank Financial stability report. June.
   View in Google Scholar
7. CGFS (2016). Objective-setting and communication of macroprudential policies. CGFS Papers, 57.
   View in Google Scholar
8. Claessens, S. (2014) An overview of macroprudential policy tools. IMF Working Paper, 214. doi: 10.5089/9781484358115.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484358115.001
   View in Google Scholar
9. Craig, B., & Von Peter, G. (2010). Interbank tiering and money center banks. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 23(3). doi: 0.1016/j.jfi.2014.02.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2014.02.003
   View in Google Scholar
10. Degryse, H., & Nguyen, G. (2007). Interbank exposures: an empirical examination of contagion risk in the Belgian banking system. International Journal of Central Banking, 3(3). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1691645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1691645
    View in Google Scholar
11. EBA (2014). Guidelines on the criteria to determine the conditions of application of Article 131(3) of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD) in relation to the assessment of other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs).
    View in Google Scholar
12. ESRB (2013). Recommendation on intermediate objectives and instruments of macro-prudential policy.
    View in Google Scholar
13. European Parliament and European Council (2014). Directive on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (MiFID II).
    View in Google Scholar
14. Fang, L., Chen, B., Yu, H., & Qian, Y. (2017). Identifying systemic important markets from a global perspective: Using the ADCC ∆CoVaR approach with skewed-t distribution. Finance Research Letters, 24. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2017 .08.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.08.002
    View in Google Scholar
15. Fang, L., Sun, B., Li, H., & Yu, H. (2018). Systemic risk network of Chinese financial institutions. Emerging Markets Review, 35. doi: 1016/j.ememar.2018 .02.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2018.02.003
    View in Google Scholar
16. Forbes, K., & Rigobon, R. (2002). No contagion, only interdependence: measuring stock market comovements. Journal of Finance, 57. doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00494
    View in Google Scholar
17. Fricke, D., & Lux, T. (2015). Core-periphery structure in the overnight money market: evidence from the e-MID trading platform. Computational Economics, 45(3). doi:10.1007/s10614-014-9427-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-014-9427-x
    View in Google Scholar
18. FSB, & IOSCO (2015). Assessment methodologies for identifying non-bank non-insurer global systemically important financial institutions.
    View in Google Scholar
19. FSB, IMF, & BIS (2011). Macroprudential policy tools and frameworks. Update to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
    View in Google Scholar
20. FSB, IMF, & BIS (2016). Elements of effective macroprudential policies. Lessons from international experience.
    View in Google Scholar
21. Galati, G., & Moessner, R. (2011). Macroprudential policy – a literature review. BIS Working Papers, 337. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00729.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00729.x
    View in Google Scholar
22. Gravelle, T., & Li, F. (2013). Measuring systemic importance of financial institutions: an extreme value theory approach. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(7). doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.01.007
    View in Google Scholar
23. Hong, Y., Cheng, S., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2004). Extreme risk spillover between Chinese stock market and international stock markets. China Economic Quarterly, 3.
    View in Google Scholar
24. Huang, X., & Zhou, H., & Zhu, H. (2009). A framework for assessing the systemic risk of major financial institutions. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.017
    View in Google Scholar
25. IMF, BIS, & FSB (2009). Guidance to assess the systemic importance of financial institutions, markets and instruments: initial considerations.
    View in Google Scholar
26. In ’T Veld, D., & Van Lelyveld, I. (2012). Finding the core: network structure in interbank markets. Journal of Banking and Finance, 49. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin .2014.08.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.08.006
    View in Google Scholar
27. Iori, G., De Masi, G., Precup, O., Gabbi, G. & Caldarelli, G. (2008). A network analysis of the Italian overnight money market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.841607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2007.01.032
    View in Google Scholar
28. Kao, W. S., Kao, T. C., Changchien, C. C., Wang, L. H., & Yeh, K. T. (2018). Contagion in international stock markets after the subprime mortgage crisis. Chinese Economy, 51(2). doi: 10.1080/10971475.2018.1447822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2018.1447822
    View in Google Scholar
29. Kroszner, R., & Strahan, P., (2011). Financial regulatory reform: challenges ahead. American Economic Review, 101(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.3.242
    View in Google Scholar
30. Langfield, S., Liu, Z., & Ota, T. (2014). Mapping the UK interbank system. Journal of Banking and Finance, 45. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.031
    View in Google Scholar
31. López-Espinosa, G., Moreno, A., Rubia, A., & Valderrama, L. (2012). Short-term wholesale funding and systemic risk: a global CoVaR approach. Journal of Banking and Finance, 36. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.04.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012231
    View in Google Scholar
32. Morales, L., & Andreosso-O’Callaghan, B. (2012). The current global financial crisis: do Asian stock markets show contagion or interdependence effects? Journal of Asian Economics, 23. doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2012.09.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2012.09.002
    View in Google Scholar
33. Puhr, C., Seliger, R., & Sigmund, M. (2012). Contagiousness and vulnerability in the Austrian interbank market. Oesterreichische Nationalbank Financial Stability Report, 24.
    View in Google Scholar
34. Roengpitya, R., & Rungcharoenkitkul, P., (2011). Measuring systemic risk and financial linkages in the Thai banking system. Systemic Risk, Basel III, Financial Stability and Regulation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1773208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1773208
    View in Google Scholar
35. Ryan, S. (2008). Accounting in and for the subprime crisis. Accounting Review, 83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1115323
    View in Google Scholar
36. Schoenmaker, D. (2014). Macroprudentialism. London: CEPR Press.
    View in Google Scholar
37. Walesiak M., & Gatnar E. (2009) Statystyczna analiza danych z wykorzystaniem programu R. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    View in Google Scholar
38. Yu, H., Fang, L., Sun, B., & Du, D. (2018). Risk contribution of the Chinese stock market to developed markets in the post-crisis period. Emerging Markets Review, 34. doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2017.10.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2017.10.006
    View in Google Scholar