Abstract

In the context of globalization and increasing economic integration, systemic risk in the banking sector has emerged as a critical threat to the stability of modern economies, particularly in emerging markets like Vietnam. This study focuses on applying the CoVaR (Conditional Value-at-Risk) index to measure systemic risk in Vietnam's commercial banking system, a method chosen for its ability to capture spillover effects and market volatility during periods of financial instability. Utilizing daily stock price data from 18 listed commercial banks between 2015 and 2024, the research provides new empirical evidence on their systemic risk contributions. The findings reveal distinct phases of systemic risk, with a notable increase during the 2022 period, and identify specific institutions with higher contributions to systemic risk. From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the academic literature by providing empirical evidence on systemic risk using CoVaR in an emerging market context. From a practical standpoint, it offers evidence-based policy recommendations to enhance systemic risk monitoring and mitigation, particularly for identifying systemically important institutions, thereby supporting targeted supervision and the establishment of appropriate capital and liquidity requirements. These findings aim to bridge the gap between theory and practice in systemic risk management in Vietnam and provide a foundation for regulators to develop more effective control measures.

Keywords

  • MSMEs
  • Jember
  • BSC
  • OYII

References

  1. 1. Acharya, V.V., Pedersen, L.H., Philippon, T. and Richardson, M., 2017. Measuring systemic risk. The review of financial studies, 30(1), pp.2-47
  2. 2. Adrian, T. and Brunnermeier, M. (2011). Covar.. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17454
  3. 3. Adrian, T. and Brunnermeier, M.K., 2016. CoVaR. The American Economic Review, 106(7), p.1705
  4. 4. Ahmad, G., Rizwan, M., & Ashraf, D. (2021). Systemic risk and macroeconomic forecasting: a globally applicable copula‐based approach. Journal of Forecasting, 40(8), 1420-1443. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.2774
  5. 5. Bernoit, S., Colliard, J.E., Hurlin, C. and Pérignon, C., 2017. Where the risks lie: A survey on systemic risk. Review of Finance, 21(1), pp.109-152.
  6. 6. Biagini, F., Fouque, J., Frittelli, M., & Meyer‐Brandis, T. (2018). A unified approach to systemic risk measures via acceptance sets. Mathematical Finance, 29(1), 329-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12170
  7. 7. Biagini, F., Fouque, J., Frittelli, M., & Meyer‐Brandis, T. (2020). On fairness of systemic risk measures. Finance and Stochastics, 24(2), 513-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-020-00417-4
  8. 8. Brøgger, A. and Cokayne, G. (2018). Regulatory cliff effects and systemic risk. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301344
  9. 9. Chen, Y., Hu, J., & Zhang, W. (2020). Too connected to fail? evidence from a chinese financial risk spillover network. China & World Economy, 28(6), 78-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12357
  10. 10. Cimini, G., Squartini, T., Garlaschelli, D., & Gabrielli, A. (2015). Systemic risk analysis on reconstructed economic and financial networks. Scientific Reports, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15758
  11. 11. Dastkhan, H. and Gharneh, N. (2016). Determination of systemically important companies with cross-shareholding network analysis: a case study from an emerging market. International Journal of Financial Studies, 4(3), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs4030013
  12. 12. Dhaene, J., Laeven, R., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Systemic risk: conditional distortion risk measures.. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1901.04689
  13. 13. Ellis, S., Sharma, S., & Brzeszczyński, J. (2022). Systemic risk measures and regulatory challenges. Journal of Financial Stability, 61, 100960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2021.100960
  14. 14. Feng, Y., Min, M., & Fouque, J. (2022). Deep learning for systemic risk measures.. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2207.00739
  15. 15. Hochrainer‐Stigler, S., Pflug, G., Dieckmann, U., Rovenskaya, E., Thurner, S., Poledna, S., … & Brännström, Å. (2018). Integrating systemic risk and risk analysis using copulas. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 561-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0198-1
  16. 16. Hoffmann, H., Meyer‐Brandis, T., & Svindland, G. (2018). Strongly consistent multivariate conditional risk measures. Mathematics and Financial Economics, 12(3), 413-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11579-017-0210-3
  17. 17. Hüser, A. (2015). Too interconnected to fail: a survey of the interbank networks literature. The Journal of Network Theory in Finance, 1(3), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.21314/jntf.2015.001
  18. 18. Meuleman, E. and Vander Vennet, R., 2020, Macroprudential policy and bank systemic risk, Journal of Financial Stability, 47, p.100724
  19. 19. Poledna, S. and Thurner, S. (2016). Elimination of systemic risk in financial networks by means of a systemic risk transaction tax. Quantitative Finance, 16(10), 1599-1613. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2016.1156146
  20. 20. Serguieva, A. (2014). Systemic risk identification, modelling, analysis, and monitoring: an integrated approach., viii-viii. https://doi.org/10.1109/cifer.2014.6924043
  21. 21. Xuemin, R., Yuan, G., & Jiang, L. (2014). The framework of systemic risk related to contagion, recovery rate and capital requirement in an interbank network. Journal of Financial Engineering, 01(01), 1450004. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2345768614500044
  22. 22. Yalla, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Jain, K. (2018). Impact of regulatory announcements on systemic risk in the indian telecom sector. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(5), 1395-1416. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-08-2017-0307
  23. 23. Ye, X. and Douady, R. (2018). Systemic risk indicators based on nonlinear polymodel. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(1), 2.https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12010002