This paper seeks to advance our understanding of global financial interconnectedness by (i) mapping aspects of the architecture of global finance and (ii) investigating critical fault lines related to interconnectedness along which systemic risks were built up and shocks transmitted in the crisis. It thus takes initial steps toward operationalizing enhanced financial sector and macro-financial surveillance called for by the IMF’s Executive Board and by experts such as de Larosiere et al. (2009). Getting a better handle on interconnectedness would strengthen the Fund‘s ability, together with the Financial Stability Board, to track systemic risk concentrations. It would also inform spillover and vulnerability analyses, and sharpen bilateral and multilateral surveillance.

This paper seeks to advance our understanding of global financial interconnectedness by (i) mapping aspects of the architecture of global finance and (ii) investigating critical fault lines related to interconnectedness along which systemic risks were built up and shocks transmitted in the crisis. It thus takes initial steps toward operationalizing enhanced financial sector and macro-financial surveillance called for by the IMF's Executive Board and by experts such as de Larosiere and others (2009). Getting a better handle on interconnectedness would strengthen the Fund's ability, together with the Financial Stability Board, to track systemic risk concentrations. It would also inform spillover and vulnerability analyses, and sharpen bilateral and multilateral surveillance.

The analysis of interconnectedness and contagion is an important part of the financial stability and risk assessment of a country’s financial system. This paper offers detailed and practical guidance on how to conduct a comprehensive analysis of interconnectedness and contagion for a country’s financial system under various circumstances. We survey current approaches at the IMF for analyzing interconnectedness within the interbank, cross-sector and cross-border dimensions through an overview and examples of the data and methodologies used in the Financial Sector Assessment Program. Finally, this paper offers practical advice on how to interpret results and discusses potential financial stability policy recommendations that can be drawn from this type of in-depth analysis.

This paper reviews tools used to identify and measure interconnectedness and raises the awareness of policymakers as to potential cross-sectional implications of prudential tools aimed at controlling interconnectedness. The paper examines two sets of tools—developed at the IMF and externally—to identify the implications of interconnectedness in systemic risk and how these tools have been applied in IMF surveillance. The paper then proposes a preliminary framework to analyze some key internationally-agreed-upon and national prudential tools and finds that while many prudential tools are effective in reducing interconnectedness, the interaction among these tools is far less clear cut.

The analysis of interconnectedness and contagion is an important part of the financial stability and risk assessment of a country’s financial system. This paper offers detailed and practical guidance on how to conduct a comprehensive analysis of interconnectedness and contagion for a country’s financial system under various circumstances. We survey current approaches at the IMF for analyzing interconnectedness within the interbank, cross-sector and cross-border dimensions through an overview and examples of the data and methodologies used in the Financial Sector Assessment Program. Finally, this paper offers practical advice on how to interpret results and discusses potential financial stability policy recommendations that can be drawn from this type of in-depth analysis.

Interconnectedness among global systemically important banks (GSIBs) and global systemically important insurers (GSIIs) has important financial stability implications. This paper examines connectedness among United States, European and Asian GSIBs and GSIIs, using publicly-available daily equity returns and intra-day volatility data from October 2007 to August 2016. Results reveal strong regional clusters of return and volatility connectedness amongst GSIBs and GSIIs. Compared to Asia, selected GSIBs and GSIIs headquartered in the United States and Europe appear to be main sources of market-based connectedness. Total system connectedness—i.e., among all GSIBs and GSIIs—tends to rise during financial stress, which is corroborated by a balance sheet oriented systemic risk measure. Lastly, the paper demonstrates significant influence of economic policy uncertainty and U.S. long-term interest rates on total connectedness among systemically important institutions, and the important role of bank profitability and asset quality in driving bank-specific return connectedness.

This relatively simple model attempts to capture and integrate four widely held views about financial crises. [1] Interconnectedness among financial institutions (banks) can play a major role in precipitating systemic financial crises. [2] Lack of information about the quality of bank portfolios also plays a role in precipitating systemic crises. [3] Financial crises, particularly systemic ones, are often followed by severe, lengthy recessions. [4] Loss of confidence in the financial system is partly responsible for the length and severity of these recessions. In the model, banks make decisions about initiating and liquidating risky loans. Interconnectedness among their asset portfolios can obscure information about these portfolios, causing them to make inefficient decisions about liquidation, and about retention of the managers who assess credit risk. These decisions can increase the depth of recessions, and they can produce systemic financial crises. They can also reduce the effectiveness of future bank risk assessment, increasing the probability of lengthy, severe recessions. The government, acting in the interest of current and future depositors, may wish to increase the transparency of bank portfolios by limiting interconnectedness. The optimal degree of regulation, which may depend on depositors’ degree of risk aversion, may not eliminate financial crises.