On the overhaul of the spillover index: connectedness amongst European financial institutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2026.2368Abstract
Quantifying systemic risk in interconnected financial markets remains a central challenge for regulators and policymakers, particularly in the aftermath of recurring financial crises. This paper proposes the Square Root Matrix (SQRTM) method as an orthogonalization technique within the Spillover Index framework, addressing the order-dependence of Cholesky decomposition and the economic inconsistency of Generalized Forecast Error Variance Decomposition (GFEVD). Mathematically, SQRTM is shown to yield a unique, order-invariant orthogonalization that preserves row-sum unity in the connectedness table – properties that neither Cholesky nor GFEVD-based Spillover Indices satisfy. Empirically, the method is applied to the volatility of 29 leading European financial institutions over the period 2007–2024. The results reveal an average connectedness of 67.8%, reaching a peak of 96.51% in the window ending March 2020, driven by overlapping European crises and the early COVID-19 market stress. A mean-reverting trend is observed throughout the sample, with no immediate signals of systemic financial distress as of 2024. The SQRTM-enhanced Spillover Index is recommended as a robust tool for systemic risk monitoring by central banks and regulatory bodies.
Keywords:
square root matrix orthogonalization, Cholesky orthogonalization, order-variant spillovers, Spillover Index, net dynamic connectednessHow to Cite
Alizadeh, S., Brandt, M. W., & Diebold, F. X. (2002). Range-based estimation of stochastic volatility models. The Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1047–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00454
Altomonte, C., & Pennings, E. (2005). Testing for marginal spillovers from foreign direct investment (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 05-101/4). Tinbergen Institute. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.846346
Bank for International Settlements. (1994). 64th annual report. https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/archive/
Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1986). The reaction of bank stock prices to the international debt crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 10(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(86)90020-8
Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2009). Measuring financial asset return and volatility spillovers, with application to global equity markets. The Economic Journal, 119(534), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02208.x
Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2012). Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2014). On the network topology of variance decompositions: Measuring the connectedness of financial firms. Journal of Econometrics, 182(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2014.04.012
Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2015). Financial and macroeconomic connectedness: A network approach to measurement and monitoring. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338290.001.0001
Garman, M. B., & Klass, M. J. (1980). On the estimation of security price volatilities from historical data. Journal of Business, 53(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/296072
Grossman, R. S. (1993). The macroeconomic consequences of bank failures under the national banking system. Explorations in Economic History, 30(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1006/exeh.1993.1012
International Monetary Fund. (2009). IMF annual report 2009: Fighting the global crisis. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781589068865.011
Kim, H. (2013). Generalized impulse response analysis: General or extreme? EconoQuantum, 10(2), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.18381/eq.v10i2.165
Klößner, S., & Wagner, S. (2014). Exploring all VAR orderings for calculating spillovers? Yes, we can! A note on Diebold and Yilmaz (2009). Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29(1), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2366
Lanne, M., & Nyberg, H. (2016). Generalized forecast error variance decomposition for linear and nonlinear multivariate models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12125
Maharramov, M. (2024). Evolution of SQRTM versus Cholesky in the context of Spillover Index. In Materials of the X International Scientific-Practical Conference “Quality Management: Search and Solutions” (Vol. 1, pp. 73–80). Austin, TX, USA.
Maharramov, M. (2025). The orthogonalization dilemma: A tale of two rulebooks in systemic risk measurement. In Materials of the XI International Scientific-Practical Conference “Quality Management: Search and Solutions” (Vol. 1, pp. 49–53). San Antonio, TX, USA.
Musumeci, J. J., & Sinkey, J. F. (1990). The international debt crisis, investor contagion, and bank security returns in 1987: The Brazilian experience. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 22(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1992308
Pesaran, H. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00214-0
Van Rijckeghem, C., & Weder di Mauro, B. (2000). Spillovers through banking centers: A panel data analysis (IMF Working Paper No. 00/88). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451851151.001
Wong, W. K. (2008). A unique orthogonal variance decomposition (Cardiff Economics Working Paper No. E2008/10). Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/65735
Downloads
Published
Conference Event
Section
Copyright
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
