Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1209.0959

How big is too big? Critical Shocks for Systemic Failure Cascades

Abstract

External or internal shocks may lead to the collapse of a system consisting of many agents. If the shock hits only one agent initially and causes it to fail, this can induce a cascade of failures among neighoring agents. Several critical constellations determine whether this cascade remains finite or reaches the size of the system, i.e. leads to systemic risk. We investigate the critical parameters for such cascades in a simple model, where agents are characterized by an individual threshold θ_i determining their capacity to handle a load αθ_i with 1-αbeing their safety margin. If agents fail, they redistribute their load equally to K neighboring agents in a regular network. For three different threshold distributions P(θ), we derive analytical results for the size of the cascade, X(t), which is regarded as a measure of systemic risk, and the time when it stops. We focus on two different regimes, (i) EEE, an external extreme event where the size of the shock is of the order of the total capacity of the network, and (ii) RIE, a random internal event where the size of the shock is of the order of the capacity of an agent. We find that even for large extreme events that exceed the capacity of the network finite cascades are still possible, if a power-law threshold distribution is assumed. On the other hand, even small random fluctuations may lead to full cascades if critical conditions are met. Most importantly, we demonstrate that the size of the "big" shock is not the problem, as the systemic risk only varies slightly for changes of 10 to 50 percent of the external shock. Systemic risk depends much more on ingredients such as the network topology, the safety margin and the threshold distribution, which gives hints on how to reduce systemic risk.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Claudio J. Tessone, Antonios Garas, Beniamino Guerra, Frank Schweitzer. 2013-04-15. How big is too big? Critical Shocks for Systemic Failure Cascades. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-013-0723-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Dynamic reinsurance via martingale transport

We formulate a dynamic reinsurance problem in which the insurer seeks to satisfy prescribed terminal moment or risk-based constraints while minimizing the $L^2$-norm of the ceded risk. As a tool for this analysis, we first use techniques from martingale optimal transport to study the auxiliary problem in which the insurer matches a given terminal distribution of the surplus process. We show that, under suitable assumptions, this auxiliary problem admits a tractable solution analogous to the Bass martingale. We then relax this condition by only requiring certain moment or risk-based constraints.

q-fin.RM

Risk Measures under Paired-Ambiguity: A Deep Learning Reflected BSDE Framework

We study optimal stopping under dynamic risk measures with simultaneous ambiguity in the probability model and the discount rate. We introduce a paired ambiguity framework combining Girsanov model uncertainty with cash subadditive risk evaluation and characterize the stopping value by an upper reflected backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE). We establish structural properties of the resulting stopping operator and study quadratic drivers associated with entropic risk measures, obtaining explicit stopping rules in several benchmark cases. We then develop a deep learning scheme for the reflected quadratic BSDE. The convergence analysis uses discrete reflection and truncation to reduce the quadratic problem to a globally Lipschitz system and combines reflected BSDE discretization estimates with neural network approximation errors. Numerical experiments for American options illustrate the effects of discount rate and entropic ambiguity on stopping values and exercise decisions.

q-fin.RM

When Is the Gini Loading More Prudent? Tail Structure and the Ordering of the Standard Deviation and the Gini Mean Difference

The standard deviation (SD) and the Gini mean difference (GMD) are the two canonical measures of variability used to load premiums, set risk margins and allocate capital, yet no universal ordering between them exists. We show that the comparison is \emph{equivalent} to asking whether the coefficient of variation of the spacing $|X-X'|$ generated by two independent copies of the risk exceeds unity, so that the exponential law -- whose spacing is again exponential -- is the universal knife-edge separating the two regimes. Reading the GMD as twice the maxiance, that is, as a second-order \emph{dual} moment in the sense of Yaari's dual theory, the problem becomes an explicit comparison of primal and dual second-order variability. We derive a closed-form representation of the mean excess function of the spacing in terms of the hazard and reverse hazard rates of $X$, and use it to prove that heavy-tailed behavior -- a decreasing hazard rate or an increasing reverse hazard rate -- yields SD dominance, whereas two-sided light tails yield GMD dominance; within the monotone aging classes, equality characterizes the exponential law. Both regimes are stable under truncation, convolution and mixing, which makes them operational in collective risk and frailty models. We classify the severity, lifetime and frequency distributions of actuarial practice accordingly, quantify the consequences for SD- and Gini-loaded premium principles and for Gini-type tail risk measures, and show that the sign of $\mathrm{SD}-\mathrm{GMD}$ across thresholds furnishes a simple diagnostic for tail aging.

q-fin.RM