Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1611.03782

What do central counterparties default funds really cover? A network-based stress test answer

Abstract

In the last years, increasing efforts have been put into the development of effective stress tests to quantify the resilience of financial institutions. Here we propose a stress test methodology for central counterparties based on a network characterization of clearing members, whose links correspond to direct credits and debits. This network constitutes the ground for the propagation of financial distress: equity losses caused by an initial shock with both exogenous and endogenous components reverberate within the network and are amplified through credit and liquidity contagion channels. At the end of the dynamics, we determine the vulnerability of each clearing member, which represents its potential equity loss. We apply the proposed framework to the Fixed Income asset class of CC&G, the central counterparty operating in Italy whose main cleared securities are Italian Government Bonds. We consider two different scenarios: a distributed, plausible initial shock, as well as a shock corresponding to the cover 2 regulatory requirement (the simultaneous default of the two most exposed clearing members). Although the two situations lead to similar results after an unlimited reverberation of shocks on the network, the distress propagation is much more hasty in the latter case, with a large number of additional defaults triggered at early stages of the dynamics. Our results thus show that setting a default fund to cover insolvencies only on a cover 2 basis may not be adequate for taming systemic events, and only very conservative default funds, such as CC&G's one, can face total losses due to the shock propagation. Overall, our network-based stress test represents a refined tool for calibrating default fund amounts.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Giulia Poce, Giulio Cimini, Andrea Gabrielli, Andrea Zaccaria, Giuditta Baldacci, Marco Polito, Mariangela Rizzo, Silvia Sabatini. 2016-11-11. What do central counterparties default funds really cover? A network-based stress test answer. https://doi.org/10.21314/jntf.2018.047

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