IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurjfi/v28y2022i3p261-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the ranking consistency of systemic risk measures: empirical evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Abendschein
  • Peter Grundke

Abstract

We empirically analyze the extent to which popular systemic risk measures (SRMs) yield comparable results regarding the systemic importance of a financial institution. More important, we also examine determinants of the degree of consistency in the classification according to the various SRMs. In general, rank correlations tend to be more associated with macroeconomic variables such as the unemployment rate than with bank-individual variables. Our results also reveal that rank correlations are particularly sensitive to the overall market conditions. During more volatile market phases, rank correlations are slightly larger than during less volatile phases. Furthermore, their association with bank-individual and macroeconomic variables changes with the market conditions. The less volatile the market, the more relevant the bank-individual variables become in explaining the rank correlations. Contrary, during less volatile market phases, the relevance of macroeconomic variables decreases. Overall, the analyses reveal a difficulty in detecting specific explanatory factors for the consistency in systemic risk rankings across settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Abendschein & Peter Grundke, 2022. "On the ranking consistency of systemic risk measures: empirical evidence," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 261-290, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurjfi:v:28:y:2022:i:3:p:261-290
    DOI: 10.1080/1351847X.2021.1946413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1351847X.2021.1946413
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1351847X.2021.1946413?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eurjfi:v:28:y:2022:i:3:p:261-290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJF20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.