Risk Management Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis for Derivative Exchanges

During the global financial turmoil of 2007 and 2008, no major derivative clearing house in the world encountered distress while many banks were pushed to the brink and beyond. An important reason for this is that derivative exchanges have avoided using value at risk, normal distributions and linear correlations. This is an important lesson. The global financial crisis has also taught us that in risk management, robustness is more important than sophistication and that it is dangerous to use models that are over calibrated to short time series of market prices. The paper applies these lessons to the important exchange traded derivatives in India and recommends major changes to the current margining systems to improve their robustness. It also discusses directions in which global best practices in exchange risk management could be improved to take advantage of recent advances in computing power and finance theory. The paper argues that risk management should evolve towards explicit models based on coherent risk measures (like expected shortfall), fat tailed distributions and non linear dependence structures (copulas).

Spillover effects among financial institutions: a state-dependent sensitivity value-at-risk approach : [Version September 2012]

In this paper, we develop a state-dependent sensitivity value-at-risk (SDSVaR) approach that enables us to quantify the direction, size, and duration of risk spillovers among financial institutions as a function of the state of financial markets (tranquil, normal, and volatile). Within a system of quantile regressions for four sets of major financial institutions (commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies) we show that while small during normal times, equivalent shocks lead to considerable spillover effects in volatile market periods. Commercial banks and, especially, hedge funds appear to play a major role in the transmission of shocks to other financial institutions. Using daily data, we can trace out the spillover effects over time in a set of impulse response functions and find that they reach their peak after 10 to 15 days

Financial Risk Measurement for Financial Risk Management

Current practice largely follows restrictive approaches to market risk measurement, such as historical simulation or RiskMetrics. In contrast, we propose flexible methods that exploit recent developments in financial econometrics and are likely to produce more accurate risk assessments, treating both portfolio-level and asset-level analysis. Asset-level analysis is particularly challenging because the demands of real-world risk management in financial institutions - in particular, real-time risk tracking in very high-dimensional situations - impose strict limits on model complexity. Hence we stress powerful yet parsimonious models that are easily estimated. In addition, we emphasize the need for deeper understanding of the links between market risk and macroeconomic fundamentals, focusing primarily on links among equity return volatilities, real growth, and real growth volatilities. Throughout, we strive not only to deepen our scientific understanding of market risk, but also cross-fertilize the academic and practitioner communities, promoting improved market risk measurement technologies that draw on the best of both.Market risk, volatility, GARCH

The Risks of Financial Institutions

Over the last twenty years, the consensus view of systemic risk in the financial system that emerged in response to the banking crises of the 1930s and before has lost much of its relevance. This view held that the main systemic problem is runs on solvent banks leading to bank panics. But financial crises of the last two decades have not fit the mold. A new consensus has yet to emerge, but financial institutions and regulators have considerably broadened their assessment of the risks facing financial institutions. The dramatic rise of modern risk management has changed how the risks of financial institutions are measured and how these institutions are managed. However, modern risk management is not without weaknesses that will have to be addressed.

Systemic risk: A survey

This paper develops a broad concept of systemic risk, the basic economic concept for the understanding of financial crises. It is claimed that any such concept must integrate systemic events in banking and financial markets as well as in the related payment and settlement systems. At the heart of systemic risk are contagion effects, various forms of external effects. The concept also includes simultaneous financial instabilities following aggregate shocks. The quantitative literature on systemic risk, which was evolving swiftly in the last couple of years, is surveyed in the light of this concept. Various rigorous models of bank and payment system contagion have now been developed, although a general theoretical paradigm is still missing. Direct econometric tests of bank contagion effects seem to be mainly limited to the United States. Empirical studies of systemic risk in foreign exchange and security settlement systems appear to be non-existent. Moreover, the literature surveyed reflects the general difficulty to develop empirical tests that can make a clear distinction between contagion in the proper sense and joint crises caused by common shocks, rational revisions of depositor or investor expectations when information is asymmetric ('information-based' contagion) and 'pure' contagion as well as between 'efficient' and 'inefficient' systemic events. JEL Classification: G21, G29, G12, E49banking crises, Contagion, currency crises, financial markets, financial stability, payment and settlement systems, systemic risk

VaR and Liquidity Risk.Impact on Market Behaviour and Measurement Issues.

Current trends in international banking supervision following the 1996 Amendment to the Basel Accord emphasise market risk control based upon internal Value-at-risk (VaR) models. This paper discusses the merits and drawbacks of VaR models in the light of their impact on market liquidity. After a preliminary review of basic concepts and measures regarding market risk, market friction and liquidity risk, the arguments supporting the internal models approach to supervision on market risk are discussed, in the light of the debate on the limitations and possible enhancements of VaR models. In particular, adverse systemic effects of widespread risk management practices are considered. Risk measurement models dealing with liquidity risk are then examined in detail, in order to verify their potential for application in the field. We conclude that VaR models are still far from effectively treating market and liquidity risk in their multi-faceted aspects. Regulatory guidelines are right in recognising the importance of internal risk control systems. Implementation of those guidelines might inadvertently encourage mechanic application of VaR models, with adverse systemic effects.