Search results

Post 1991, given the advent of liberalization and economic reforms, the Indian telecom sector witnessed a remarkable growth in terms of subscriber base and reduced competitive tariff among the service providers. The purpose of this paper is to estimate the impact of regulatory announcements on systemic risk among the Indian telecom firms.

This study employed a two-step methodology to measure the impact of regulatory announcements on systemic risk. In the first step, CAPM along with the Kalman filter was used to estimate the daily β (systemic risk). In the second step, event study methodology was used to assess the impact of regulatory announcements on daily β derived from the first step.

The results of this study indicate that regulatory announcements did impact systemic risk among telecom firms. The study also found that regulatory announcements either increased or decreased systemic risk, depending upon the type of regulatory announcements. Further, this study estimated the market-perceived regulatory risk premiums for individual telecom firms.

The regulatory risk premium was either positive or negative, depending upon the different types of regulatory announcements for the telecom sector firms. Thus, this study contributes to the theory of literature by testing the buffering hypothesis in the context of Indian telecom firms.

The study findings will be useful for investors and policy-makers to estimate the regulatory risk premium as and when there is an anticipated regulatory announcement in the Indian telecom sector.

This is one of the first research studies in exploring regulatory risk among the Indian telecom firms. The research findings indicate that regulatory risk does exist in the telecom firms of India.

Systemic risk is of concern for economic welfare as it can lower the credit supply to all the sectors within an economy. This study examines for the first time the complete hierarchy of variables that drive systemic risk during normal and crisis periods in Pakistan, a developing economy.

Secondary data of the bank, sector and country variables are used for the purpose of the analysis spanning from 2000 to 2020. Systemic risk is computed using marginal expected shortfall (MES). One-step and two-step system GMM is performed to estimate the impact of firm, sector and country-level variables on systemic risk.

The findings of the study highlight that sector-level variables are also highly significant in explaining the systemic risk dynamics along with bank and country-level variables. In addition, economic sensitivity influences the significance level of variables across crisis and post-crisis periods and modifies the direction of relationships in some instances.

The study examines the systemic risk of a developing economy, and findings may not be generalizable to developed economies.

The outcome of the study provides a comprehensive framework for the central bank and other regulatory authorities that can be translated into timely policies to avoid systemic financial crisis.

The negative externalities generated by systemic risk also affect the general public. The study results can be used to avoid the systemic financial crisis and resultantly save the loss of the general public's hard-earned holdings.

The firm, sector and country-level variables are modeled for the first time to estimate systemic risk across different economic conditions in a developing economy, Pakistan. The study can also act as a reference for researchers in developed economies as well regarding the role of sector-level variables in explaining systemic risk.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance and systemic risk sensitivity of Chinese listed companies. From the consumer loyalty and investor structure perspectives, the relationship between ESG performance and systemic risk sensitivity is analyzed.

Since Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) ESG officially began to analyze and track China A-shares from 2018, 275 listed companies in the SynTao Green ESG testing list for 2015–2021 are selected as the initial model. To measure the systematic risk sensitivity, this study uses the beta coefficient, from capital asset pricing model (CPAM), employing statistics and data (STATA) software.

The study reveals that high ESG rating companies have high corresponding consumer loyalty and healthy trading structure of institutional investors, thereby the systemic risk sensitivity is lower. This paper reveals that companies with high ESG rating are significantly less sensitive to systemic risk than those with low ESG rating. At the same time, ESG has a weaker impact on the systemic risk of high-cap companies than low-cap companies.

The study helps the companies understand the influence of market value on the relationship between ESG performance and systemic risk sensitivity. Moreover, this paper explains explicitly why ESG performance insulates a firm’s stock from market downturns with the lens of consumer loyalty theory and investor structure theory.

The paper provides new insights on the company’s ESG performance that significantly affects the company’s systemic risk sensitivity.

This study investigates how this pandemic impacted the systemic risk in Indonesia’s Islamic commercial banks (ICBs) and conventional commercial banks (CCBs). The authors use quantitative methods, and systemic risk is measured using value at risk (VaR) and Conditional Value at Risk (CoVaR). This study provides empirical evidence regarding the estimation and determination of systemic risk. By using spillover measures, the authors find a significant increase in systemic risk among the sample banks. The novelty in this research is the measurement of the level of banking risk in the dual banking system in Indonesia. This study makes profound contributions to the literature and suggests various policy recommendations, including identifying essential institutions and testing the benefits of policy responses in containing systemic risk. These findings need to be considered by the government and financial authorities in making accurate regulations and policies.

This paper aims to investigate the drivers of systemic risk and contagion among European banks from 2007 to 2012. The authors explain why some banks are expected to contribute more to systemic events in the European financial system than others by analysing the tail co-movement of banks’ security prices.

First, the authors derive a systemic risk measure from the concepts of marginal expected shortfall and conditional value at risk analysing tail co-movements of daily bank stock returns. The authors then run panel regressions for the systemic risk measure using idiosyncratic bank characteristics and a set of country and policy control variables.

The results comprise highly significant drivers of systemic risk in the European banking sector with important implications for research and banking regulation. Using a set of panel regressions, the authors identify bank size, asset and income structure, loss and liquidity coverage, profitability and several macroeconomic conditions as drivers of systemic risk.

Analysing the tail co-movement of security prices excludes a number of “smaller” institutions without publicly listed securities. The other shortfall is that we do not assess the systemic impact of non-bank financial institutions.

Regulators have to consider a broad variety of indicators for assessing systemic risks. Existing microprudential-oriented rules are less effective, and policymakers may consider new measures like asset diversification to mitigate systemic risks in the banking system.

The authors contribute to existing empirical analyses in three ways. First, they propose a method to identify systemically important banks (SIBs). Second, they develop two measures to assess their potential negative impact on the system. Third, they contribute to the closing of the research gaps by analysing which macroprudential regulations for SIBs are most effective without hampering free market forces.

Technological process innovation (TPI) is a distinctive organizational phenomenon characterized by a firm-internal locus and underlying components such as mutual adaptation of new technology and existing organization, technological change, organizational change, and systemic impact. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the management of these components at different stages of the innovation lifecycle (ILC) in large manufacturing companies.

The authors adopt an exploratory case-based research design and conduct a multiple case study of five large successful manufacturing companies operating in different industries in Germany. The authors build the study on 55 semi-structured interviews, which yielded 91.5 hours of recorded interview data. The authors apply cross-case synthesis and replication logic to identify patterns of how companies address process innovation components at different ILC stages.

The study uncovers the content of four central TPI components across the ILC and identifies differences between the development of core and non-core processes. Based on the findings the authors describe asymmetric adaptation as a theoretical construct and propose that companies seek different levels of process standardization depending on the type of process they develop, which in turn affects whether there is a greater extent of technological or organizational change.

Awareness of existing structures, processes, and technologies, as well as their value in relation to the company’s core and non-core operations is imperative to determining the adequate structure of mutual adaptation.

The authors provide detailed insight on the management of mutual adaptation, technological, and organizational change, as well as systemic impact at the different stages of the ILC. The authors extend prior research by adopting an ILC perspective for the investigation of these four TPI components and by proposing a construct of asymmetric adaptation to capture key mechanisms of process development and implementation.

In this paper the interconnectedness among financial institutions and the level of systemic risks of four types of Chinese financial institutions are investigated.

By the means of RAS algorithm, the interconnection among financial institutions are illustrated. Different methods, including Linear Granger, Systemic impact index (SII), vulnerability index (VI), CoVaR, and MES are used to measure the systemic risk exposures across different institutions.

The results illustrate that big banks are more interconnected and hold the biggest scales of inter-bank transactions in the financial network. The institutions which have larger size tend to have more connection with others. Insurance and security companies contribute more to the systemic risk where as other institutions, such as trusts, financial companies, etc. may bring about severe loss and endanger the financial system as a whole.

Since other institutions with low levels of regulation may bring about higher extreme loss and suffer the whole system, it deserves more attention by regulators considering the contagion of potential risks in the financial system.

This study builds a valuable contribution by examine the systemic risks from the perspectives of both interconnection and tail risk measures. Furthermore; Four types financial institutions are investigated in this paper.

In recent years, the financial system has been changing rapidly. At the same time, macroeconomic volatility has fallen in developed countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine how these developments may have affected the nature of systemic crises. The paper also aims to discuss how central banks and other financial regulators might respond to these developments with a clearer, more rigorous, operational framework for their systemic financial stability work.

The paper describes analytical models developed at the Bank of England to assess how recent developments may have affected the probability and potential impact of systemic financial crises. The results from these models help to shape the practical framework for the Bank's financial stability work.

The models suggest that financial innovation and integration, coupled with greater macroeconomic stability, have served to make systemic crises in developed countries less likely than in the past, but potentially more severe. Implementing a practical framework for financial stability work in response to this raises many formidable challenges.

If individuals are risk‐averse, the recent change in the profile of crises could lower welfare and would suggest that policymakers should place a higher premium on actions to monitor and mitigate systemic risk. The analysis also highlights the importance of differentiating the probability of risks from their potential impact.

The paper will be of interest to academics interested in systemic risk, central bankers, financial regulators, and financial market participants.

This paper sheds light on the impact of market risk measures on systemic risk. Market risk, which is captured by the volatility of stock market returns, is also decomposed into systematic and idiosyncratic risks.

The author uses the five-factor asset pricing model and systemic risk methodologies to derive market and systemic risk measures, respectively. Using a sample of 2,667 US banks for over 30 years and employing panel data estimation techniques, the author tests the said relationship.

It is shown that idiosyncratic risk can surge systemic risk, while systematic risk plays a less important role. Results survive a battery of tests, including different systemic risk measures, controlling causality and interacting with bank size, market fear and crisis periods.

These findings call for regulatory intervention, especially for large banks with high idiosyncratic risk.

This is the first paper that provides a more granular picture of the relationship between market and systemic risk from the US banking industry for more than 30 years.