Capital Adequacy Ratio and Systemic Risk: an Econometric Analysis of the Financial Risk Management of Chinese Commercial Banks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jbm.202409504

Author(s)

Wang Bo

Affiliation(s)

School of Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China

Abstract

The capital adequacy ratio and systemic risk are two interlinked core concepts within the financial system, playing a crucial role in the risk management and stability of the banking sector. This study rigorously analyzes the impact of capital adequacy ratios on systemic risk among Chinese commercial banks employing advanced econometric methods. Considering the complexities of the global financial system, traditional capital adequacy frameworks have struggled to comprehensively address the multifaceted risks present in contemporary financial markets. By constructing multiple econometric models and integrating recent financial market dynamics, this paper demonstrates the inhibitory effect of the capital adequacy ratio on banks' systemic risk and explores the mediating role of capital buffer mechanisms in this relationship. The findings indicate that enhancing capital adequacy ratios not only significantly reduces the transmission of systemic risks among banks, but also bolsters their resilience and capacity to navigate global uncertainties. The academic contribution of this research lies in reevaluating the role of capital adequacy from a dynamic, global perspective and providing regulators with a robust framework to refine capital regulation, particularly in an era of accelerated financial innovation aimed at effectively mitigating systemic financial risks. These insights offer fresh and profound theoretical support for banking capital management practices and policymaking.

Keywords

Capital Adequacy Ratio; Systemic Risk; Chinese Commercial Banks; Financial Risk Management; Econometrics

References

[1] Adrian, T., & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2016). CoVaR [J]. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1705-1741. [2] China Banking Association. (2023). China Banking Industry Development Report (2023). Beijing: China Financial Press, 45-51. [3] Brownlees, C. T., & Engle, R. F. (2017). SRISK: A conditional capital shortfall measure of systemic risk [J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 48-79. [4] Chen, Z., & Lu, X. (2016). Bank size and systemic risk: Chinese evidence [J]. Journal of Financial Stability, 23, 1-18. [5] Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations [J]. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. [6] Lown, C. S., & Morgan, D. P. (2006). The credit cycle and the business cycle: New findings using the loan officer opinion survey [J]. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 38(6), 1575-1597. [7] ICBC Inc. (2023). 2023 Capital adequacy Report (H shares) [J]. Official website of ICBC, 2023, 1-30. Retrieved from https://www.icbc-ltd.com/page/957347220947267584.html [8] Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited. (2024). Summary of the 2023 Annual Report [J]. Shanghai Securities News, March 28, 2024. [9] Bank of Communications Co., Ltd. (2024). Summary of the 2023 Annual Report [J]. Shanghai Securities News, March 28, 2024. [10] Bank of China Corporation Limited. (2024). Annual Report for 2023 [J]. Annual Report of Bank of China, 58(2), 277-297. Retrieved from: http://www.boc.cn. [11] Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. (2023). Annual Report for 2023 [J]. Everbright Bank Annual Report, 58(2), 277-297. Retrieved from: http://www.everbright.com. [12] Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (2010). Unstable banking [J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 97(3), 306-318. [13] Carney, M. (2023). Climate change, financial innovation, and systemic risk: A delicate balance [J]. International Finance Review, 19(2), 105-128. [14] Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2021). Fintech and systemic risk: Understanding the impact on financial stability [J].Journal of Financial Regulation, 7(1), 45-68.