Abstract
In this work we propose the use of a nonparametric procedure to investigate the relationship between the Regulator’s Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) classification and the equity-based systemic risk measures. The proposed procedure combines several permutation tests to investigate the equality of the multivariate distribution of two groups and assumes only the hypothesis of exchangeability of variables. In our novel approach, the weights used in the combination of tests are obtained using the Particle Swarm Optimization heuristic and quantify the informativeness about the selection. Finally, the p value of the combined test measures the reliability of the result. Empirical results about the selection of G-SIBs show how considering the systematic (\(\beta \)), stress (\(\varDelta \)CoVaR) and connectedness components (in–out connection) of systemic risk cover more than \(70\%\) of weight in all the considered years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analyzed dataset is available on request.
The complete list of included institutions is available upon request.
References
Acharya VV, Pedersen LH, Philippon T, Richardson MP (2010) Measuring systemic risk. Technical report, Department of Finance, NYU
Acharya V, Engle R, Richardson M (2012) Capital shortfall: a new approach to ranking and regulating systemic risks. Am Econ Rev 102(3):59–64
Adrian T, Brunnermeier MK (2016) Covar. Am Econ Rev 106(7):1705–41
Benoit S, Colliard JE, Hurlin C, Pérignon C (2017) Where the risks lie: a survey on systemic risk. Rev Finance 21(1):109–152
Billio M, Getmanski M, Lo A, Pelizzon L (2012) Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. J Financ Econ 104:535–559
BIS (2013) Global systemically important banks: updated assessment methodology and the higher loss absorbency requirement. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs255.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2013
BIS (2014) The G-SIB assessment methodology—score calculation. http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d296.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2014
Brownlees CT, Engle R (2017) SRISK: a conditional capital shortfall measure of systemic risk. Rev Financ Stud 30:48–79
Campbell G (1994) Advances in statistical methodology for the evaluation of diagnostic and laboratory tests. Stat Med 13(5–7):499–508
Demirer M, Diebold FX, Liu L, Yilmaz K (2015) Estimating global bank network connectedness. Working paper 1512, KoU̧niversity–TUSIAD Economic Research Forum, SSRN 2631479
Diebold FX, Yılmaz K (2014) On the network topology of variance decompositions: measuring the connectedness of financial firms. J Econom 182(1):119–134
Frattarolo L, Parpinel F, Pizzi C (2016) Systemically important banks: a permutation test approach. Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica LXX:41–52
FSB (2010) Reducing the moral hazard posed by systemically important financial institutions. http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/r_101111a.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2010
Giglio S, Kelly B, Pruitt S (2016) Systemic risk and the macroeconomy: an empirical evaluation. J Financ Econ 119(3):457–471
Girardi G, Ergün AT (2013) Systemic risk measurement: multivariate GARCH estimation of CoVaR. J Bank Finance 37(8):3169–3180
Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on neural networks, vol 4, pp 1942–1948. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968
Kinlaw W, Kritzman M, Turkington D (2012) Toward determining systemic importance. J Portf Manag 38(4):100–111
Kritzman M, Li Y, Page S, Rigobon R (2011) Principal components as a measure of systemic risk. J Portf Manag 37(4):112–126
Li J, Tseng GC (2011) An adaptively weighted statistic for detecting differential gene expression when combining multiple transcriptomic studies. Ann Appl Stat 5(2A):994–1019
Moenninghoff SC, Ongena S, Wieandt A (2015) The perennial challenge to counter too-big-to-fail in banking: empirical evidence from the new international regulation dealing with global systemically important banks. J Bank Finance 61(Supplement C):221–236
Pesarin F, Salmaso L (2010) Permutation tests for complex data: theory. Applications and Software. Wiley, West Sussex
Silva W, Kimura H, Sobreiro VA (2017) An analysis of the literature on systemic financial risk: a survey. J Financ Stab 28:91–114
Winkler AM, Webster MA, Brooks JC, Tracey I, Smith SM, Nichols TE (2016) Non-parametric combination and related permutation tests for neuroimaging. Hum Brain Mapp 37(4):1486–1511
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Editor and two anonymous referees for very useful comments and suggestions which have helped to improve and develop the paper further. The authors are also grateful to The System for Scientific Computing of Ca’ Foscari (SCSCF) for computations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frattarolo, L., Parpinel, F. & Pizzi, C. Combining permutation tests to rank systemically important banks. Stat Methods Appl 29, 581–596 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-019-00494-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-019-00494-6