PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 27, 2026Journal of risk and financial management5 citationsOpen Access

Bubbles and the Pro-Cyclicality of Systemic Risk Measures in Shadow Banking

View Full Paper
ACAdrian Cantemir CălinRLRadu LupuACAndreea Elena Croicu

Key Points

  • The research aims to assess the impact of speculative bubbles in shadow banking on systemic risk levels.
  • Utilized the BSADF bubble detection methodology
  • Analyzed daily data from 17 U.S. shadow banking firms
  • Examined market-based systemic risk measures like ΔCoVaR and Expected Shortfall
  • Covered the period from 2010 to 2026
  • During bubble periods, firms showed a 4.9% increase in market exposure and a 7.9% rise in Expected Shortfall.
  • Contrarily, ΔCoVaR declined by 6.6% during bubbles, indicating underestimation of systemic risk.
  • Following bubble bursts, ΔCoVaR and MES increased by 7.9% and 8.6%, respectively, highlighting rapid systemic risk materialization.

Abstract

We examine whether speculative bubbles in shadow banking institutions contribute to the buildup and materialization of systemic risk. Using the Phillips–Shi–Yu (BSADF) bubble detection methodology and market-based systemic risk measures (ΔCoVaR and Marginal Expected Shortfall), we analyze daily data for 17 publicly listed U.S. shadow banking firms over the period 2010–2026. We document a pronounced pro-cyclical measurement puzzle. During bubble periods, firms exhibit higher market exposure and greater tail risk—Beta increases by 4.9% and Expected Shortfall by 7.9%—yet widely used systemic risk measures decline, with ΔCoVaR falling by 6.6%. This pattern suggests that conventional systemic risk metrics may underestimate vulnerabilities during speculative expansions. However, when bubbles burst, systemic risk materializes rapidly. During burst windows, ΔCoVaR increases by 7.9% and MES by 8.6%, indicating that vulnerabilities accumulated during bubble phases translate into significant systemic spillovers once speculative dynamics collapse. Our findings highlight a pro-cyclical bias in commonly used systemic risk indicators: these measures capture realized financial stress but fail to detect the buildup of fragility during expansion phases. Monitoring bubble dynamics in shadow banking may therefore provide valuable complementary signals for macroprudential surveillance.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Călin et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c6209315a0a509bde19150https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19040242
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper