Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T20:44:18.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systemic Risk and Collateral Adequacy: Evidence from the Futures Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2021

Radoslav Raykov Open the ORCID record for Radoslav Raykov [Opens in a new window]
Radoslav Raykov*
Affiliation:
Bank of Canada Financial Stability Department
*
RRaykov@bankofcanada.ca (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional collateral requirements for derivatives are conservative, but not explicitly designed to buffer systemic risk. I explore collateral adequacy against systemic risk in the Canadian futures market during the 2008 crisis. I find that conventional collateral levels adequately absorb systemic risk, even allowing for an implausibly high level of stress, and that systemic risk spillovers do not exceed the effect of an approximately 1% downward stock price move. I also document that the largest systemic risk contributors are buffered relatively less than the rest, and that there is a large cross-country difference in the behavior of U.S. and Canadian institutions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , May 2022 , pp. 1142 - 1173
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author thanks two anonymous referees, Jennifer Conrad (the editor), Gerardo Ferrara, Rod Garratt, Charlie Kahn, Miguel Molico, Hector Perez-Saiz, and Maarten van Oordt for valuable comments, and CDCC for providing the data. Marion Boddy, Alexander Chaudhry, and Nick Kazaka provided excellent research assistance. All views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Bank of Canada.

References

Acharya, V. V.; Pedersen, L. H.; Philippon, T.; and Richardson, M.. “Measuring Systemic Risk.” Review of Financial Studies, 30 (2017), 2–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agarwal, S.; Lucca, D.; Seru, A.; and Trebbi, F.. “Inconsistent Regulators: Evidence from Banking.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (2014), 889–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, A., and Davies, S.. “The Information Content of Bank Examinations.” Journal of Financial Services Research, 14 (1998), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunnermeier, M., and Pedersen, L. H.. “Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity.” Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2009), 2201–2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B., and Chung, C.. “CGB: Poised for Takeoff. An Analysis of the Ten-Year Government of Canada Bond Future Based on Intraday Trading Data.” Working Paper, CIRANO (2003).Google Scholar
Chicago Mercantile Exchange. CME SPAN: Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk. Chicago, IL: Chicago Mercantile Exchange (2019).Google Scholar
Cole, R., and Gunther, J.. “Predicting Bank Failures: A Comparison of On- and Off-Site Monitoring Systems.” Journal of Financial Services Research, 13 (1998), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz Lopez, J.; Harris, J.; Hurlin, C.; and Perignon, C.. “CoMargin.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52 (2017), 2183–2215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, L., and Ferreira, A.. Extreme Value Theory: An Introduction. New York, NY: Springer Verlag (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, L., Jansen, D., Koedijk, K., and De Vries, C.. “Safety First Portfolio Selection, Extreme Value Theory and Long Run Asset Risks.” In Extreme Value Theory and Applications, Galambos, J., Lechner, J., and Simiu, E., eds. Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (1994), 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonghe, O. “Back to the Basics in Banking? A Micro-analysis of banking System Stability.” Journal of Financial Intermediation, 19 (2010), 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffie, D., and Zhou, H.. “Does a Central Clearing Counterparty Reduce Counterparty Risk?” Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 1 (2011), 74–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, M. “Using Market Information in Prudential Bank Supervision: A Review of the U.S. Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 30 (1998), 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, A.; Kelly, G.; Manning, M.; Markose, S.; Rais, A.; and Shaghaghi, A.. “CCPs and Network Stability in OTC Derivatives Markets.” Journal of Financial Stability, 27 (2016), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, B. “A Simple General Approach to Inference about the Tail of a Distribution.” Annals of Statistics, 3 (1975), 1163–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, W.; Menkveld, A.; and Yu, S.. “Central Counterparty Exposure in Stressed Markets.” Management Science, 67 (2021), 3321–3984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huisman, R.; Koedijk, K. G.; Kool, C.; and Palm, F.. “Tail-Index Estimates in Small Samples.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 19 (2001), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkveld, A. “Systemic Risk in Central Clearing: Should Crowded Trades Be Avoided?” Working Paper, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2016).Google Scholar
Menkveld, A. “Crowded Positions: An Overlooked Systemic Risk for Central Clearing Counterparties.” Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 7 (2017), 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez-Saiz, H., and Li, F.. “Measuring Systemic Risk Across Financial Market Infrastructures.” Journal of Financial Stability, 34 (2018), 1–11.Google Scholar
TMX Montreal Exchange. BAX Three-Month Canadian Bankers’ Acceptance Futures Descriptive Brochure. Montreal, QC: TMX Group (2013a).Google Scholar
TMX Montreal Exchange. Government of Canada Bond Futures and Options on Futures Reference Manual. Montreal, QC: TMX Group (2013b).Google Scholar
TMX Montreal Exchange. Index Derivatives Reference Manual. Montreal, QC: TMX Group (2013c).Google Scholar