1. bookAHEAD OF PRINT
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2444-8656
First Published
01 Jan 2016
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Mathematical modelling of enterprise financial risk assessment based on risk conduction model

Published Online: 15 Dec 2021
Page range: -
Received: 16 Jun 2021
Accepted: 24 Sep 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2444-8656
First Published
01 Jan 2016
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Risk transmission has three elements: risk source, risk flow and risk carrier. The paper quotes the asymmetric model and the joint asymmetric model to analyse the conduction effects of financial risks. At the same time, the article uses the elasticity coefficient to quantitatively calculate the risk transmission effect of the two supply chain financial financing modes. The research results prove that the risk transmission ability of each financial market has individual differences, and the foreign exchange market does not have significant risk transmission ability to other markets during the rising stage. The joint asymmetric model is more effective in predicting corporate financial risks.

Keywords

MSC 2010

Introduction

Since 2012, Chinese financial system reform has been further deepened, and the regulatory authorities have gradually loosened financial control. In particular, the interest rate marketisation reform has the most direct impact on Chinese financial institutions in two aspects: First, it can promote the transformation of traditional financial institutions from a single deposit and loan, premium and other business to various innovative profit models that can be harnessed by businesses. And through mergers and acquisitions, reorganisation of financial institutions and other means aimed at promoting the current financial system based on separate operations, the change is gradually being made towards mixed operations [1]. Second, it can promote the rapid development of various financial innovations and financial derivative products and connect different market participants such as banks, securities companies and insurance companies more closely. This significant change in the financial sector has brought about extensive relevance and crossover of financial service businesses, dramatically increasing systemic financial risks. At this stage, Chinese systemic financial risks are becoming increasingly prominent.

In contrast, the risk prevention awareness of relevant market entities is relatively weak, and the level of risk management is weak. Which sector of the Chinese financial market has the most substantial contagion effect on other markets? Which sector contributes the most to overall financial risk? What are the internal risk transmission laws and internal mechanisms of the financial system? These issues help investors make optimal investment portfolio decisions based on the correlation of sectors and provide a theoretical basis and practical guidance for policymakers and market regulators on preventing systemic risks more effectively.

Introduction to research methods
Empirical model

Some scholars believe that the market volatility is positively correlated with the value at risk, while the stock price in the financial market has a significant volatility clustering effect. Then the value at risk closely related to volatility should also have similar properties. For this reason, the author proposes a CAViaR model with autocorrelation characteristics based on the idea of quantile regression to directly measure the value at risk of financial markets [2]. However, the CAViaR model is mainly suitable for analysing the dynamic risk characteristics of a single sector. Still, it cannot capture the complex relationship of risk contagion between different sectors (or different markets). Some scholars have extended the traditional CAVi-aR model to the MVMQ-CAViaR model to overcome the shortcomings of the above models. This model extends the idea of single-equation quantile regression to the structured equation of vector autoregression. At the same time, the model reveals that the value at risk of a single sector (or a single market) is affected by its market and risk spillovers from other markets. The specific expression is as follows: {q1t(θ)=c1+a11|Y1t1|+a12|Y2t1|+b11q1t1(θ)+b12q2t1(θ)q2t(θ)=c2+a21|Y1t1|+a22|Y2t1|+b21q1t1(θ)+b22q2t1(θ) \left\{\begin{array}{l} q_{1 t}(\theta)=c_{1}+a_{11}\left|Y_{1 t-1}\right|+a_{12}\left|Y_{2 t-1}\right|+b_{11} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{12} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \\ q_{2 t}(\theta)=c_{2}+a_{21}\left|Y_{1 t-1}\right|+a_{22}\left|Y_{2 t-1}\right|+b_{21} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{22} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \end{array}\right.

qit(θ) represents the conditional quantile of the market rate of return Yit−1 under the θ probability. VaR represents the value-at-risk of the market rate of return corresponding to the probability of θ. |Yit−1| represents the absolute value of the return rate of the market index i. This parameter represents a market shock item and implies that a positive shock and a negative shock lagging have the same effect on the current VAR. qit−1 represents the lagged conditional quantile, which can well describe the autocorrelation of the financial market tail distribution. Taking the banking sector and the securities sector as examples, suppose q1t represents the Var of the bank and q2t represents the Var of the securities. Eq. (1) shows that the bank’s risk value q1t is affected by its market and the extreme risk q2t−1 of the securities sector and the market shock item |Y2t−1|.

Model (1) assumes that the market shock item does not have a ‘leverage effect’. The positive shocks and adverse shocks of this market and other markets have equivalent effects on the value at risk. In real life, the investor’s utility function often puts a greater weight on the negative utility of losses while giving a smaller weight to the positive utility of returns. Therefore, this paper expands Eq. (1) to the asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model. The model is expressed as follows: {q1t(θ)=c1+a11(Y1t1)++a12(Y1t1)+d11(Y2t1)++d12(Y2t1)+b11q1t1(θ)+b12q2t1(θ)q2t(θ)=c2+a21(Y1t1)++a22(Y1t1)+d21(Y2t1)++d22(Y2t1)+b21q1t1(θ)+b22q2t1(θ) \left\{\begin{array}{l} q_{1 t}(\theta)=c_{1}+a_{11}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{+}+a_{12}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-}+d_{11}\left(\begin{array}{l} Y \\ 2 t-1 \end{array}\right)++d_{12}\left(\begin{array}{l} Y \\ 2 t-1 \end{array}\right)-+b_{11} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{12} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \\ q_{2 t}(\theta)=c_{2}+a_{21}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{+}+a_{22}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-}+d_{21}\left(\begin{array}{l} Y \\ 2 t-1 \end{array}\right)++d_{22}\left(\begin{array}{l} Y \\ 2 t-1 \end{array}\right)-+b_{21} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{22} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \end{array}\right.

(Y1t−1)+ and (Y1t−1), respectively, represent the positive and negative part of the slow rate of return. When the two plates negatively impact, it is likely to be a joint impact [3]. This kind of shock will undermine public investment confidence and investors’ panic, amplifying the original market risk. To further study the asymmetric effects on Var when different financial sectors are simultaneously subjected to adverse shocks, we further extend model (2) into a joint asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model. The specific model is as follows: {q1t(θ)=c1+a11(Y1t1)++a12(Y1t1)+d11(Y2t1)++d12(Y2t1)+e1(Y1t1)(Y2t1)+b11q1t1(θ)+b12q2t1(θ)q2t(θ)=c2+a21(Y1t1)++a22(Y1t1)+d21(Y2t1)++d22(Y2t1)+e2(Y1t1)(Y2t1)+b21q1t1(θ)+b22q2t1(θ) \left\{\begin{array}{l} q_{1 t}(\theta)=c_{1}+a_{11}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{+}+a_{12}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-}+d_{11}\left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{+}+d_{12}\left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{-}+e_{1}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-} \\ \left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{-}+b_{11} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{12} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \\ q_{2 t}(\theta)=c_{2}+a_{21}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{+}+a_{22}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-}+d_{21}\left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{+}+d_{22}\left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{-}+e_{2}\left(Y_{1 t-1}\right)^{-} \\ \left(Y_{2 t-1}\right)^{-}+b_{21} q_{1 t-1}(\theta)+b_{22} q_{2 t-1}(\theta) \end{array}\right.

Quantile impulse response analysis (QIRF)

From Eqs (1)–(3), we can see that risks between different financial industry sectors will be transmitted to each other. The market shock item (namely Yit) of a single market will directly affect the value at risk of itself and other markets. The current market shock will change investors’ expectations of the risk value of financial assets in the next period and directly lead to changes in size VaRt. In addition, since funds in the market can flow freely in different industries, investors will change their investment portfolios in different sectors according to changes in risk conditions [4]. Therefore, the linkage effect of this sector will indirectly cause changes in other markets VaRt. To investigate the interaction between variables, the more straightforward method is impulse response analysis. This article needs to examine the dynamic influence process of market shocks on the tail of the rate of return. Therefore, we use QIRF. The specific calculation steps of this method are as follows:

First, suppose that the formation process of the return rate data of two different sector indexes satisfies [Y1tY2t]=[at0βtγt][ε1tε2t]\left[\begin{array}{l} Y_{1 t} \\ Y_{2 t} \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{ll} a_{t} & 0 \\ \beta_{t} & \gamma_{t} \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{l} \varepsilon_{1 t} \\ \varepsilon_{2 t} \end{array}\right], and the intensity of the market shock depends on the Cholesky decomposition matrix [at0βtγt]\left[\begin{array}{ll} a_{t} & 0 \\ \beta_{t} & \gamma_{t} \end{array}\right].

Second, at time t, a one-time positive or negative impact of 1 unit of new interest ε1t will make the actual rate of return Yit become Y~it.Y~it=Yit+ΔYit\widetilde{Y}_{i t} . \widetilde{Y}_{i t}=Y_{i t}+\Delta Y_{i t} in the current period. However, the rate of return at other moments remains unchanged [5]. Similarly, when analysing the dynamic impact of the combined negative shock, we simultaneously apply 1 unit of a negative shock to ε1t and ε2t.

Finally, the ΔYit value is obtained according to the impact of different plates. At the same time, we use the coefficient values estimated by the models (1)–(3) to further analyse the dynamic influence process of the VaR on the value at risk of different sectors.

The estimation method of the model

The MVMQ-CAViaR model belongs to the category of multiple quantile regression. We can use the Least Absolute Deviation Method (LAD) estimation, and the objective function it needs to optimise is: mina1Tt=1Ti=1n[ρ(θi)(Yitqit(θi,a))] \min _{a} \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[\rho\left(\theta_{i}\right)\left(Y_{i t}-q_{i t}\left(\theta_{i}, a\right)\right)\right]

ρ(θi) = θiI(Yit < qit(θi, a)). I() is an indicative function, where n represents the number of financial markets, and T is the total number of samples. Eq. (4) shows that the absolute deviation of the structured equation is minimised overall. Compared with the parameter estimation method of multivariate joint distribution, this method has the following advantages. First of all, we don’t need to make any prior assumptions about the joint distribution of income data, which effectively avoids misconfiguration of the distribution. Second, quantile regression is to regress the data under a specific quantile, so it has relative robustness to the outliers in the data. Finally, it can directly measure the size of the tail risk in the dependent market, without the need to separately estimate the conditional mean and conditional volatility equations to solve indirectly [6]. This greatly simplifies the number of model estimation coefficients.

This article takes the conditional quantile of θ =5% for different sector indexes of the financial industry. We take the quantile corresponding to the first 100 observations to initialise qi1 and use the simplex algorithm and the quasi-Newton algorithm to optimise the model. This paper adopts a two-step estimation method to improve the estimation efficiency of the structured model [7]. The first step is to estimate the univariate quantile SAV model and use the estimated result as the initial trial estimated coefficient of the second step optimisation. In the second step, we optimise the multivariate quantile model (1)–(3) as a whole to minimise the objective function (4).

Model robustness test method

The in-sample performance of the model cannot simply be extended outside the sample. To further demonstrate the effect of this model on predicting VAR, we must also perform an out-of-sample robustness test. Some scholars have assumed that the model can effectively predict risk, proving that the sequence of ‘hit events’ obeys the Bernoulli distribution. Scholars construct unconditional test statistics of likelihood ratio as the following: LR=2ln[(1p)Nn×pn]+2ln[(1n/N)Nn×(n/N)nx2 L R=-2 \ln \left[(1-p)^{N-n} \times p^{n}\right]+2 \ln \left[(1-n / N)^{N-n} \times(n / N)^{n} x^{2}\right.

where p is the significance level, N is the total number of predicted samples and n is the number of hits in the prediction sample. When the LR statistic is greater than the critical value of the chi-square distribution under a given confidence level, the original model is rejected. On the contrary, when the statistic is less than the critical value, the model is accepted.

Eq. (5) shows that the Kupiec likelihood ratio test quantity is an index that characterises the degree to which the actual number of hits is close to the theoretical number of hits. In addition to testing the failure rate, it should also be tested whether there is a correlation between hit events. If there is a significant correlation between the observations that fail to predict the VaR, then a loss that continuously exceeds the VaR may occur. This will bring huge losses to investors [8]. The hit sequence of an accurate and reliable risk measurement model should be unbiased and non-autocorrelation. Therefore, some scholars proposed a dynamic quantile test. They used the bullish risk as an example to define a new hit sequence: HITθ,t=I(yt<VaRt)θ $HIT_{\theta ,t} = I\left( {y_t &lt; - VaR_t } \right) - \theta$

θ is the given quantile. When yt < −VaRt is HITθ, t = 1 − θ ; when yt < −VaRt is HITθ, t = −θ. If the model parameters are estimated correctly, then E(HITθ, tt−1) = 0. This shows that HITθ, t should not be relevant to any lagging HITθ, tk and predicted VaRtk. We construct the following regression equation: HITθ,t=β0+β1HITθ,t1+β2HITθ,t2++βpHITθ,tp+βp+1VaRt+ut H I T_{\theta, t}=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} H I T_{\theta, t-1}+\beta_{2} H I T_{\theta, t-2}+\cdots+\beta_{p} H I T_{\theta, t-p}+\beta_{p+1} V a R_{t}+u_{t}

We express the above model as a matrix form, HITθ, t = + ut, where X is the T × K matrix-vector, and we take p = 5, k = 7. In the case of the null hypothesis β =0, the DQ test statistic we constructed is: DQ=βolsXXβolsθ(1θ)x2(k) D Q=\frac{\beta_{o l s}{ }^{\prime} X^{\prime} X \beta_{o l s}}{\theta(1-\theta)} \rightarrow x^{2}(k)

Empirical results and analysis
Data sources and descriptive statistics

From the results in Table 1, we can see that in the sample interval selected in this article, the average yields of banks and securities are both positive. Among them, the average yield of securities reached 0.033, while the insurance industry was hostile. Thus, if the stock price index changes reflect the overall expectations of the industry’s operating performance, from this perspective, the securities industry is more prosperous than the insurance industry. At the same time, the standard deviation of the securities sector is relatively the largest, and the high risk also brings a higher risk premium [9]. This is in line with the ‘small-cap stock effect’ in finance.

Descriptive statistical results of the sample

Plate Mean Max Minimum Kurtosis JB inspection ADF value
bank 0.026 9.551 -10.506 6.32 0 0
Securities 0.033 9.531 -10.537 4.685 0 0
Insurance -0.006 9.545 -10.536 5.196 0 0

Furthermore, the three plate indices all have typical ‘negative bias’ and ‘sharp peaks and thick tails.’ Finally, according to the P-value of the J-B statistic and the ADF statistic, we further found that all the index returns are non-normal and stationary time series. Thus, the trends of banking, securities and insurance remained the same.

MVMQ-CAViaR model estimation results

Table 2 shows the mutual risk transmission results of banks and securities, securities and insurance, and banks and insurance at the 5% quantile level. All the coefficients b11 and b22 reject the null hypothesis at the 1% significance level, and the coefficient values are all greater than 0.8. This shows that the risk levels of different financial sectors have a high degree of serial correlation. Other specific results are as follows:

Estimated results of the MVMQ-CAViaR model in the financial industry

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 -0.013 -0.162 c1 0.005 -0.035 c1 -0.006 -0.031
a11 -0.106 -0.08 a11 -0.091 -0.05 a11 -0.068 -0.038
a12 -0.028 -0.04 a12 -0.007 -0.033 a12 -0.053 -0.068
b11 0.952 -0.161 b11 0.961 -0.028 b11 0.949 -0.082
b12 0.011 -0.142 b12 0.003 -0.027 b12 0.031 -0.023
c2 -0.042 -0.131 c2 -0.013 -0.033 c2 -0.022 -0.037
a21 -0.042 -0.033 a21 -0.039 -0.041 a21 0.01 -0.043
a22 -0.089 -0.048 a22 -0.047 -0.045 a22 -0.087 -0.083
b21 0.041 -0.022 b21 0.022 -0.012 b21 0.022 -0.133
b22 0.96 -0.114 b22 0.973 -0.029 b22 0.934 -0.179

First, the coefficient a11 in the multiple regression model of banks and securities reaches a significance level of 10%. This shows that the bank’s previous yield has a significant negative impact on Var, and the coefficient a22 is also significantly different from zero. This shows that the market impact of the securities sector will also increase the risk value of the market. In addition, we also found that the coefficients a21 and a21 have reached the 10% significance level. This shows that the banking sector’s extreme risks and market shocks will be transmitted to the securities sector, and the direction of influence will be harmful [10]. However, the securities sector does not have a significant risk transmission effect on the banking sector.

Second, for the regression results of banking and insurance, we can find that the coefficient a22 is not statistically significant. This shows that the insurance sector risk is not affected by previous market shocks. Coefficient a21 significantly indicates that extreme risks of banks will be transmitted to the insurance sector, while risks in the insurance industry have not been transmitted to banks.

Third, from the empirical results between securities and insurance, it can be seen that the extreme risks of insurance have a significant one-way spillover effect on securities, and securities do not have the function of actively transmitting risks.

Asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model estimation results

Table 2 does not distinguish between the different effects of the rise and fall of the sector index on Var. To further explore the leverage effect of VaR in the financial industry, Table 3 gives the empirical results of the asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model. It can be seen from this that the estimation results of the three multi-quantile regression models are consistent with Table 2, and the main difference is reflected in the asymmetric coefficient. From the significance of the coefficients a11, a12 and a21, a22, it is easy to know that the risk of the banking sector is significantly affected by its own negative market shock. In contrast, the impact of the positive market shock is not wholly significant. The securities sector was significantly affected by both positive and negative market shocks [11]. In addition, the insurance sector is also occasionally affected by adverse market shocks. And the absolute values of all parameters are not correspondingly equal. This means that the market shock of the Chinese financial industry has apparent asymmetric effects on the Var of different sectors, and the impact of the decline of the sector index is more significant than the rise of the sector index. From the estimation results of the coefficients a21, a22 and a11, a12, it can be seen that the negative market impact of banks will spread to the securities sector and the insurance sector and significantly increase the risk value of these two sectors. However, the positive market shock coefficients are not significant. Negative insurance information will also spread to the securities sector, and there is no risk spillover effect on other markets.

Estimated results of the asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 0.082 -0.245 c1 -0.013 -0.027 c1 -0.003 -0.023
a11 -0.058 -0.055 a11 -0.047 -0.03 a11 0.016 -0.013
a12 -0.178 -0.106 a12 -0.129 -0.078 a12 -0.072 -0.03
d11 -0.039 -0.035 d11 0.02 -0.026 d11 -0.011 -0.04
d12 -0.076 -0.128 d12 -0.052 -0.049 d12 -0.067 -0.04
b11 0.824 -0.112 b11 0.856 -0.011 b11 0.865 -0.022
b12 0.078 -0.182 b12 -0.005 -0.021 b12 0.018 -0.013
c2 -0.666 -0.419 c2 -0.025 -0.041 c2 -0.037 -0.032
a21 0.029 -0.147 a21 0.007 -0.049 a21 -0.019 -0.038
a22 -0.065 -0.043 a22 -0.073 -0.055 a22 0.028 -0.031
d21 -0.026 -0.02 d21 -0.054 -0.061 d21 0.001 -0.051
d22 -0.086 -0.029 d22 -0.038 -0.035 d22 -0.113 -0.069
b21 0.037 -0.022 b21 -0.015 -0.011 b21 -0.001 -0.034
b22 0.849 -0.09 b22 0.905 -0.03 b22 0.881 -0.047

Figures 1 and 2 show the quantile impulse response results of the banking and securities sectors, respectively. Whether it is a standard deviation information shock from the banking sector or the securities sector, we find that a negative information shock has a more significant impact on the original market than a positive information shock. The positive impact of the banking sector has an initial positive effect on securities and then quickly decays to negative [12]. Comparing Figures 1 and 2, we can find that when there is a joint negative information shock, the intensity of this shock is significantly greater than the negative shock of a single market. The risk expansion value of the more volatile securities sector is significantly greater than that of the bank.

Fig. 1

The impulse response process of the banking and securities market shocks.

Fig. 2

The impulse response process of the combined negative shock of banks and securities.

To summarise, this part explains the significant asymmetry of risk transmission between different sectors of the Chinese financial industry according to the two methods of coefficient value and quantile impulse response of the regression results. It is further discovered that Chinese banks have significant risk contagion effects on other sectors, while securities are at a disadvantageous position to receive risks from other sectors passively.

The estimation results of the joint asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 0.001 -0.045 c1 -0.001 -0.034 c1 -0.021 -0.04
a11 -0.04 -0.053 a11 -0.035 -0.02 a11 0.023 -0.015
a12 -0.173 -0.12 a12 -0.134 -0.044 a12 -0.075 -0.041
d11 -0.032 -0.033 d11 0.015 -0.02 d11 -0.03 -0.048
d12 -0.053 -0.056 d12 -0.072 -0.033 d12 -0.084 -0.045
e1 -0.081 -0.066 e1 -0.078 -0.05 e1 0.003 -0.013
b11 0.847 -0.023 b11 0.839 -0.009 b11 0.869 -0.06
b12 -0.013 -0.015 b12 -0.024 -0.016 b12 -0.016 -0.011
c2 -0.013 -0.034 c2 -0.032 -0.033 c2 -0.004 -0.109
a21 0.004 -0.045 a21 0.013 -0.029 a21 -0.08 -0.062
a22 -0.178 -0.047 a22 -0.093 -0.062 a22 -0.04 -0.09
d21 -0.012 -0.025 d21 -0.022 -0.017 d21 0.106 -0.095
d22 -0.062 -0.048 d22 -0.046 -0.058 d22 -0.140 -0.084
e2 -0.123 -0.074 e2 -0.095 -0.071 e2 -0.011 -0.033
b21 -0.028 -0.016 b21 -0.023 -0.011 b21 0.093 -0.09
b22 0.851 -0.017 b22 0.820 -0.013 b22 0.862 -0.092
The robustness test of the model

Table 5 shows the backtest results of different sectors under the 5% quantile. At the 5% significance level, the Kupiec likelihood ratio results of the three models all passed the robustness test. Judging from the accuracy of prediction, the asymmetric MVMQCAViaR model is significantly better than the original MVMQCAViaR model. The joint asymmetric MVMQCAViaR model is slightly better than the asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model. In addition, it can be seen from the DQ test that the traditional model rejected the null hypothesis three times, while the asymmetric MVMQCAViaR model rejected the null hypothesis only once. It can be seen from this that the joint asymmetric MVMQCAViaR model has wholly passed the DQ test in the statistical sense. In short, the two new models proposed in this paper can significantly improve the accuracy of risk prediction in different sectors of finance, and the joint asymmetric F model has relatively more competitive advantages. This shows that the leverage decomposition of market shock items has a theoretical basis and practical significance.

Backtest results of the model

MVMQ-CAViaR model Asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model Joint asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model
LR test DQ inspection LR test DQ inspection LR test DQ inspection
Bank-securities Bank 0.641 0.016 0.641 0.112 0.838 0.258
Securities 0.289 0.146 0.838 0.249 0.836 0.898
Bank- insurance Bank 0.838 0.428 0.838 0.562 0.838 0.862
Insurance 0.289 0.003 0.289 0.013 0.641 0.222
Securities-insurance Securities 0.678 0.16 0.678 0.351 0.678 0.331
Insurance 0.199 0.001 0.289 0.195 0.289 0.076
Conclusion

The relevant research conclusions have important policy implications for suggesting the means to prevent Chinese systemic financial risks. First, we conduct differentiated monitoring and prevention of financial institutions of different systems importance. Second, we view the risks of the entire Chinese financial system from a global perspective, strengthen macro-prudential regulatory requirements and establish an early warning system for different industries to respond to risks jointly. Finally, we must focus on monitoring the impact on the entire financial system when negative news is encountered in different financial industry sectors at the same time, and the impact of local risks is relatively small. However, the simultaneous occurrence of risk events in different financial sectors will severely damage the public’s investment confidence, thus easily causing market panic. It will drastically expand the risk level of the market.

Fig. 1

The impulse response process of the banking and securities market shocks.
The impulse response process of the banking and securities market shocks.

Fig. 2

The impulse response process of the combined negative shock of banks and securities.
The impulse response process of the combined negative shock of banks and securities.

The estimation results of the joint asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 0.001 -0.045 c1 -0.001 -0.034 c1 -0.021 -0.04
a11 -0.04 -0.053 a11 -0.035 -0.02 a11 0.023 -0.015
a12 -0.173 -0.12 a12 -0.134 -0.044 a12 -0.075 -0.041
d11 -0.032 -0.033 d11 0.015 -0.02 d11 -0.03 -0.048
d12 -0.053 -0.056 d12 -0.072 -0.033 d12 -0.084 -0.045
e1 -0.081 -0.066 e1 -0.078 -0.05 e1 0.003 -0.013
b11 0.847 -0.023 b11 0.839 -0.009 b11 0.869 -0.06
b12 -0.013 -0.015 b12 -0.024 -0.016 b12 -0.016 -0.011
c2 -0.013 -0.034 c2 -0.032 -0.033 c2 -0.004 -0.109
a21 0.004 -0.045 a21 0.013 -0.029 a21 -0.08 -0.062
a22 -0.178 -0.047 a22 -0.093 -0.062 a22 -0.04 -0.09
d21 -0.012 -0.025 d21 -0.022 -0.017 d21 0.106 -0.095
d22 -0.062 -0.048 d22 -0.046 -0.058 d22 -0.140 -0.084
e2 -0.123 -0.074 e2 -0.095 -0.071 e2 -0.011 -0.033
b21 -0.028 -0.016 b21 -0.023 -0.011 b21 0.093 -0.09
b22 0.851 -0.017 b22 0.820 -0.013 b22 0.862 -0.092

Descriptive statistical results of the sample

Plate Mean Max Minimum Kurtosis JB inspection ADF value
bank 0.026 9.551 -10.506 6.32 0 0
Securities 0.033 9.531 -10.537 4.685 0 0
Insurance -0.006 9.545 -10.536 5.196 0 0

Estimated results of the asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 0.082 -0.245 c1 -0.013 -0.027 c1 -0.003 -0.023
a11 -0.058 -0.055 a11 -0.047 -0.03 a11 0.016 -0.013
a12 -0.178 -0.106 a12 -0.129 -0.078 a12 -0.072 -0.03
d11 -0.039 -0.035 d11 0.02 -0.026 d11 -0.011 -0.04
d12 -0.076 -0.128 d12 -0.052 -0.049 d12 -0.067 -0.04
b11 0.824 -0.112 b11 0.856 -0.011 b11 0.865 -0.022
b12 0.078 -0.182 b12 -0.005 -0.021 b12 0.018 -0.013
c2 -0.666 -0.419 c2 -0.025 -0.041 c2 -0.037 -0.032
a21 0.029 -0.147 a21 0.007 -0.049 a21 -0.019 -0.038
a22 -0.065 -0.043 a22 -0.073 -0.055 a22 0.028 -0.031
d21 -0.026 -0.02 d21 -0.054 -0.061 d21 0.001 -0.051
d22 -0.086 -0.029 d22 -0.038 -0.035 d22 -0.113 -0.069
b21 0.037 -0.022 b21 -0.015 -0.011 b21 -0.001 -0.034
b22 0.849 -0.09 b22 0.905 -0.03 b22 0.881 -0.047

Estimated results of the MVMQ-CAViaR model in the financial industry

Bank-securities Bank- insurance Securities-insurance
c1 -0.013 -0.162 c1 0.005 -0.035 c1 -0.006 -0.031
a11 -0.106 -0.08 a11 -0.091 -0.05 a11 -0.068 -0.038
a12 -0.028 -0.04 a12 -0.007 -0.033 a12 -0.053 -0.068
b11 0.952 -0.161 b11 0.961 -0.028 b11 0.949 -0.082
b12 0.011 -0.142 b12 0.003 -0.027 b12 0.031 -0.023
c2 -0.042 -0.131 c2 -0.013 -0.033 c2 -0.022 -0.037
a21 -0.042 -0.033 a21 -0.039 -0.041 a21 0.01 -0.043
a22 -0.089 -0.048 a22 -0.047 -0.045 a22 -0.087 -0.083
b21 0.041 -0.022 b21 0.022 -0.012 b21 0.022 -0.133
b22 0.96 -0.114 b22 0.973 -0.029 b22 0.934 -0.179

Backtest results of the model

MVMQ-CAViaR model Asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model Joint asymmetric MVMQ-CAViaR model
LR test DQ inspection LR test DQ inspection LR test DQ inspection
Bank-securities Bank 0.641 0.016 0.641 0.112 0.838 0.258
Securities 0.289 0.146 0.838 0.249 0.836 0.898
Bank- insurance Bank 0.838 0.428 0.838 0.562 0.838 0.862
Insurance 0.289 0.003 0.289 0.013 0.641 0.222
Securities-insurance Securities 0.678 0.16 0.678 0.351 0.678 0.331
Insurance 0.199 0.001 0.289 0.195 0.289 0.076

[1] Liu, C., & Arunkumar, N. Risk prediction and evaluation of transnational transmission of financial crisis based on complex network. Cluster Computing.,2019. 22(2): 4307-4313 Liu C. Arunkumar N. Risk prediction and evaluation of transnational transmission of financial crisis based on complex network Cluster Computing 2019 22 2 4307 4313 10.1007/s10586-018-1870-3 Search in Google Scholar

[2] Kabundi, A., & Rapapali, M. The transmission of monetary policy in South Africa before and after the global financial crisis. South African Journal of Economics.,2019. 87(4): 464-489 Kabundi A. Rapapali M. The transmission of monetary policy in South Africa before and after the global financial crisis South African Journal of Economics 2019 87 4 464 489 10.1111/saje.12238 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Lei, Z., Lim, M. K., Cui, L., & Wang, Y. Modelling of risk transmission and control strategy in the transnational supply chain. International Journal of Production Research.,2021. 59(1): 148-167 Lei Z. Lim M. K. Cui L. Wang Y. Modelling of risk transmission and control strategy in the transnational supply chain International Journal of Production Research 2021 59 1 148 167 10.1080/00207543.2019.1698782 Search in Google Scholar

[4] Giese, G., Lee, L. E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management.,2019. 45(5): 69-83 Giese G. Lee L. E. Melas D. Nagy Z. Nishikawa L. Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance The Journal of Portfolio Management 2019 45 5 69 83 10.3905/jpm.2019.45.5.069 Search in Google Scholar

[5] Kou, G., Chao, X., Peng, Y., Alsaadi, F. E., & Herrera-Viedma, E. Machine learning methods for systemic risk analysis in financial sectors. Technological and Economic Development of Economy.,2019. 25(5): 716-742 Kou G. Chao X. Peng Y. Alsaadi F. E. Herrera-Viedma E. Machine learning methods for systemic risk analysis in financial sectors Technological and Economic Development of Economy 2019 25 5 716 742 10.3846/tede.2019.8740 Search in Google Scholar

[6] Sarwar, G. Transmission of risk between US And emerging equity markets. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade.,2019. 55(5): 1171-1183 Sarwar G. Transmission of risk between US And emerging equity markets Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 2019 55 5 1171 1183 10.1080/1540496X.2018.1468248 Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hafezian, F., Zamanian, G., & Shahraki, J. financial constraint and investment and the firm balance sheet channel of monetary policy transmission. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics.,2021. 17(4): 113-136 Hafezian F. Zamanian G. Shahraki J. financial constraint and investment and the firm balance sheet channel of monetary policy transmission Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics 2021 17 4 113 136 Search in Google Scholar

[8] Aghili, A. Complete Solution For The Time Fractional Diffusion Problem With Mixed Boundary Conditions by Operational Method. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences.,2020. 6(1): 9-20 Aghili A. Complete Solution For The Time Fractional Diffusion Problem With Mixed Boundary Conditions by Operational Method Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 2020 6 1 9 20 10.2478/amns.2020.2.00002 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Ruiz-Fernández, J., Benlloch, J., López, M. & Valverde-Gascueña, N. Influence of seasonal factors in the earned value of construction. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences.,2019. 4(1): 21-34 Ruiz-Fernández J. Benlloch J. López M. Valverde-Gascueña N. Influence of seasonal factors in the earned value of construction Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 2019 4 1 21 34 10.2478/AMNS.2019.1.00003 Search in Google Scholar

[10] Baek, S., & Lee, K. Y. The risk transmission of COVID-19 in the US stock market. Applied Economics.,2021. 53(17): 1976-1990 Baek S. Lee K. Y. The risk transmission of COVID-19 in the US stock market Applied Economics 2021 53 17 1976 1990 10.1080/00036846.2020.1854668 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Acharya, V. V., Imbierowicz, B., Steffen, S., & Teichmann, D. Does the lack of financial stability impair the transmission of monetary policy?. Journal of Financial Economics.,2020. 138(2): 342-365 Acharya V. V. Imbierowicz B. Steffen S. Teichmann D. Does the lack of financial stability impair the transmission of monetary policy? Journal of Financial Economics 2020 138 2 342 365 10.3386/w26479 Search in Google Scholar

[12] Cordero, A., Jaiswal, J. & Torregrosa, J. Stability analysis of fourth-order iterative method for finding multiple roots of non-linear equations. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences.,2019. 4(1): 43-56 Cordero A. Jaiswal J. Torregrosa J. Stability analysis of fourth-order iterative method for finding multiple roots of non-linear equations Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 2019 4 1 43 56 10.2478/AMNS.2019.1.00005 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo