What Is Systemic Risk, and Do Bank Regulators Retard or Contribute to It?

Abstract

One of the most feared events in banking is the cry of risk. It matches the fear of a cry of fire in a crowded theater or other gatherings. But unlike fire, the term systemic is less clearly defined. Moreover, unlike fire fighters, who are rarely accused of sparking or spreading rather than extinguishing fires, bank regulators have at times been accused of, albeit unintentionally, contributing to rather than retarding risk. This paper discusses the alternative definitions and sources of risk, reviews briefly the historical evidence of risk in banking, describes how financial markets have traditionally protected themselves from risk, evaluates the regulations adopted by bank regulators to reduce both the probability of risk and the damage caused by it if and when it may occur, and makes recommendations for efficiently curtailing risk in banking. I Systemic Risk Systemic risk refers to the risk or probability of breakdowns in an entire system, as opposed to breakdowns in individual parts or components, and is evidenced by comovements (correlation) among most or all the parts. Thus, risk in banking is evidenced by high correlation and clustering of bank failures in a country, a number of countries, or globally. Systemic risk may also

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 280 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.