ConvexPi

Econometric Measures of Connectedness and Systemic Risk in the Finance and Insurance Sectors

Monica Billio, Mila Getmansky, et al.

2012 · 2269 citations

Factor ZooOOS evidence
Community wiki✎ Edit⟲ History

Econometric Measures of Connectedness and Systemic Risk in the Finance and Insurance Sectors


Source: Billio, Getmansky, Lo & Pelizzon (2012) · Journal of Financial Economics 104(3), 535–559 · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.12.010


TL;DR

Proposes return-based econometric measures of connectedness among hedge funds, banks, broker/dealers, and insurers, built from principal-component analysis and Granger-causality networks. All four sectors became highly interrelated over the prior decade, raising systemic risk; the measures identify crisis periods, show out-of-sample predictive power, and reveal an asymmetry in which banks transmit shocks more than the other three sectors.


Problem it solves

Systemic risk is hard to define and balance-sheet/exposure data are often unavailable or lagged. The paper supplies model-light, market-data-only gauges of how tightly the financial system is linked and which institutions transmit shocks — usable for surveillance even without proprietary regulatory data.


The method

  • Principal-components analysis (PCA). The number and importance of common factors driving the institutions' returns measures commonality; rising variance explained by the top components signals higher connectedness. A derived statistic PCAS measures an institution's contribution to system risk conditional on the system being under stress.
  • Granger-causality networks. Pairwise linear Granger-causality tests (and, separately, nonlinear Granger-causality tests using a Markov-switching/regime approach to capture tail and nonlinear effects) determine directed links; aggregate network statistics (number of connections, degree of Granger causality, centrality) summarize systemic linkage and direction of transmission.

  • Assumptions & inputs

  • Monthly returns, 36-month rolling estimation windows. Hedge fund returns from the CS/Tremont database, January 1994 – December 2008 (asset-weighted indices and individual funds); banks, broker/dealers, and insurers from CRSP via SIC codes (6000–6199 banks, 6200–6299 broker/dealers, insurers).
  • The 25 largest institutions per sector are used for the individual-firm network analysis (largest by AUM for hedge funds, market cap otherwise).
  • Sub-periods analyzed: 1994–1996, 1996–1998, 1999–2001, 2002–2004, 2006–2008, spanning tranquil, boom, and crisis regimes.

  • How to use it

  • Track top-PCA variance share and Granger-network density over rolling windows to flag rising systemic connectedness.
  • Use directional Granger links and centrality to identify shock transmitters (here, banks are the most central) for targeted monitoring.
  • Treat current connectedness as a leading indicator: the measures contain predictive content for subsequent institution-level losses/distress.

  • Limitations & pitfalls

  • Granger causality captures predictive, not structural/causal, relations and is sensitive to lag choice and window length.
  • Return-based measures miss off-balance-sheet, funding, and OTC-derivative linkages; networks are noisier in calm periods.
  • Linear tests can miss tail dependence, motivating the supplementary nonlinear measure.

  • Key references

  • Billio, Getmansky, Lo & Pelizzon (2012) — Econometric Measures of Connectedness and Systemic Risk — Journal of Financial Economics
  • Diebold & Yilmaz (2014) — On the Network Topology of Variance Decompositions — Journal of Econometrics
  • Adrian & Brunnermeier (2016) — CoVaR — American Economic Review



  • Provenance: verified/generated from the paper's full text.


    Community-maintained wiki — anyone can suggest an edit or view its revision history. Not peer-reviewed; verify claims against the original paper.

    Wiki last updated: June 22, 2026