Journal of Risk Model Validation

Risk.net

Measuring the systemic importance of Chinese banks: a comparison of different risk measurement models

Chunlin Cai

  • We use DebtRank, ΔCoVaR and MES to measure the systemic importance of banks.
  • The systemic risk of different banks measured by the three risk measurement models shows significant differences.
  • The systemic risk of different types of banks changes dynamically in different years.
  • DebtRank performs better in measuring the systemic importance of banks from the perspectives of size and interconnectedness.

We use the risk measurement models DebtRank, △CoVaR and marginal expected shortfall to measure systemic risk and compare their performance in measuring the systemic importance of banks. Our results show that the different risk measurement models yield significant differences in the systemic risk. The systemic risk measured by DebtRank and marginal expected shortfall shows monotonicity with the bank type, while that measured by △CoVaR does not. The systemic risk of different types of banks changes dynamically in different years. The systemic risk measured by DebtRank is positively correlated with both size and centrality, and of the three models, DebtRank performs best at measuring the systemic importance of banks from the perspectives of size and interconnectedness. The results of this paper provide empirical evidence for reference to aid banking system supervision and the measurement of the systemic importance of banks.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here