Abstract:<p>There are many types of bank risks and their basic characteristics vary greatly differently, therefore, how to effectively aggregate three or more risks is still a great challenge. This paper proposes a novel two-stage bank risk aggregation approach to solve this problem. The risks are firstly divided based on whether they have common factors or not, then the top-down approach and bottom-up approach are reasonably combined to aggregate them. It is applied to aggregate credit, market and operational risks of the Chinese banking industry. The comparison with other popular approaches shows that this approach leads to much larger diversification benefits.</p>
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper primarily focuses on addressing the issue of bank risk aggregation, particularly how to effectively aggregate three or more different types of risks (such as credit risk, market risk, and operational risk). The paper proposes a novel two-stage bank risk aggregation method to tackle this challenge.
Specifically, the method first categorizes risks based on whether they have common factors. For risks with common factors, a Bottom-Up Approach (BUA) is used for aggregation; for risks without common factors, a Top-Down Approach (TDA) is employed. This two-stage method combines the advantages of both approaches, enabling more accurate handling of different types of risks.
In the empirical analysis section, this method is applied to the aggregation of credit risk, market risk, and operational risk in the Chinese banking industry. The results show that at a 99.9% confidence level, the aggregated total risk VaR is -5.37%, which means that the Chinese banking industry needs to retain approximately 5676 billion RMB to withstand potential losses caused by credit, market, and operational risks.
Compared to several existing popular risk aggregation methods (simple summation method, variance-covariance method, and Copula method), this method produces a greater diversification benefit, specifically 41.57%, indicating that other methods may overestimate the total risk. Therefore, this method can provide financial institutions with a more accurate risk assessment tool and help regulators and practitioners better understand the interactions among multiple risks.