# Modeling Financial System with Interbank Flows, Borrowing, and Investing

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

**Remark**

**1.**

**Remark**

**2.**

#### 1.1. Existing Models and Contributions

- First, we extend the model in (Carmona et al. 2013) to include the central bank. This affects the response of the private banks who now make decisions considering the monetary policy of the central bank. Our model allows for the central bank to play a more active role in stabilizing the banking system. This important feature was missing in the work of (Carmona et al. 2013) where the central bank was considered merely as a clearing house.
- Second, we reformulate the problem discussed in (Carmona et al. 2013) as a principal–agent problem where both, the principal (central bank) and the agent (private banks) maximize their respective utility. We assume that the private banks are risk neutral and central bank as risk averse. This allows us to get closed form solutions for the optimal policy of both the players.
- Third, we generalize the flow rates in our model to be different for each pair of private banks. This generalization converts the representative agent model discussed in (Carmona et al. 2013) into a heterogeneous agent model. This heterogeneity demonstrates a unique feature of the banking system where banks with higher interbank flows are less likely to default than their counterparts with lower interbank flows.
- Finally, as we show in Section 2, the volatility of the wealth process of the private banks is controlled, in contrast to (Carmona et al. 2013) where the volatility is constant for each bank.

#### 1.2. Organization of the Paper

#### 1.3. Notation

## 2. Description of the Model

#### 2.1. Formal Description

**1.a**) All ${W}_{1},\dots ,{W}_{N}$ are independent. Then, the matrix A is diagonal:

**1.b**) All ${W}_{1},\dots ,{W}_{N}$ are the same: ${W}_{1}={W}_{2}=\dots ={W}_{N}$. This means that all banks, in fact, use the same portfolio, and they are perfectly correlated. Then, it makes sense to let ${\mu}_{1}=\dots ={\mu}_{N}$ and ${\sigma}_{1}=\dots ={\sigma}_{N}$.

**1.c**) An intermediate case: for some i.i.d. Brownian motions ${\tilde{W}}_{i},\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}i=0,\dots ,N$, and some coefficients ${\rho}_{0},{\tilde{\rho}}_{0}$ with ${\rho}_{0}^{2}+{\tilde{\rho}}_{0}^{2}=1$ we have:

#### 2.2. Main System of Driving Stochastic Equations

**Remark**

**3.**

**2.a**) All ${c}_{ij}(t)\equiv 0$. Then, there are no cash flows between banks.

**2.b**) All ${c}_{ij}(t)\equiv c(t)>0$. For a constant c, this is the model from (Carmona et al. 2013).

**2.c**) Let G be a graph on vertices $\{1,\dots ,N\}$. Fix a $c(t)>0$ for all $t>0$. Let

#### 2.3. Interpretation

## 3. Optimal Behavior of Private Banks

#### 3.1. Statement of the Problem

#### 3.2. Solution of the Problem

**Theorem**

**1.**

**Remark**

**4.**

**Remark**

**5.**

**Proof.**

#### 3.3. The Dynamics of Banks under Their Optimal Investment Choices

#### 3.4. Systemic Risk

## 4. Optimal Central Bank Policy

**Theorem**

**2.**

**Remark**

**6.**

**Proof.**

**3.a**) Assume ${S}_{1}=\dots ={S}_{N}$: all investments are the same. Then, we have:

**3.b**) Independent portfolio process: ${a}_{ij}={\sigma}_{i}^{2}{\delta}_{ij}$, where ${\delta}_{ij}$ is as defined in Equation (24). Then,

**3.c**) Correlated portfolio process with same growth rates $\mu ={\mu}_{i}$ and volatilities ${\sigma}^{2}={\sigma}_{i}^{2}$. Assume the driving Brownian motions of these portfolio process are correlated as in Equation (10). After calculation, we get:

**Remark**

**7.**

**Remark**

**8.**

## 5. Long-Term Stability

**Theorem**

**3.**

**Proof.**

**Lemma**

**1.**

**Proof.**

## 6. Concluding Remarks

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

CARA | Constant Relative Risk Aversion |

NSF | National Science Foundation |

SDE | Stochastic Differential Equation |

## Appendix A

**Lemma**

**A1.**

**Lemma**

**A2.**

**Lemma**

**A3.**

**Proof.**

**Lemma**

**A4.**

**Proof.**

## References

- Banerjee, Tathagata, Alex Bernstein, and Zachary Feinstein. 2018. Dynamic clearing and contagion in financial networks. arXiv, arXiv:1801.02091. [Google Scholar]
- Carmona, René. 2016. Lectures on BSDEs, Stochastic Control, and Stochastic Differential Games with Financial Applications. Philadelphia: SIAM Press. [Google Scholar]
- Carmona, René, François Delarue, and Daniel Lacker. 2016. Mean field games with common noise. The Annals of Probability 44: 3740–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, René, Jean-Pierre Fouque, Seyyed Mostafa Mousavi, and Li-Hsien Sun. 2018. Systemic risk and stochastic games with delay. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 179: 366–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, Rene, Jean-Pierre Fouque, and Li-Hsien Sun. 2013. Mean-Field Games and Systemic Risk. arXiv, arXiv:1308.2172. [Google Scholar]
- Carmona, René, and Daniel Lacker. 2015. A probabilistic weak formulation of mean field games and applications. The Annals of Applied Probability 25: 1189–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Down, Douglas, Sean P. Meyn, and Richard L. Tweedie. 1995. Exponential and uniform ergodicity for markov processes. The Annals of Probability 23: 1671–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberg, Larry, and Thomas H. Noe. 2001. Systemic risk in financial systems. Management Science 47: 236–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, David. 1992. Logarithmic preferences, myopic decisions, and incomplete information. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27: 619–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fouque, Jean-Pierre, and Joseph A. Langsam, eds. 2013. Handbook on Systemic Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Ichiba, Tomoyuki, Vassilios Papathanakos, Adrian Banner, Ioannis Karatzas, and Robert Fernholz. 2011. Hybrid atlas models. The Annals of Applied Probability 21: 609–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iosifescu, Marius. 2007. Finite Markov Processes and Their Applications. Mineola: Dover Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Khasminskii, Rafail. 2012. Stochastic Stability of Differential Equations. Stochastic Modeling and Applied Probability. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Kley, Oliver, Claudia Klüppelberg, and Lukas Reichel. 2015. Systemic risk through contagion in a core-periphery structured banking network. In Advances in Mathematics of Finance. Stettner Będlewo: Banach Center Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Lacker, Daniel. 2016. A general characterization of the mean field limit for stochastic differential games. Probability Theory and Related Fields 165: 581–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machina, Mark, and W. Kip Viscusi, eds. 2014. Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty. Amsterdam: North-Holland, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Meyn, Sean P., and Richard L. Tweedie. 1993a. Stability of Markovian processes II: Continuous-time processes and sampled chains. Advances in Applied Probability 25: 487–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyn, Sean P., and Richard L. Tweedie. 1993b. Stability of Markovian processes III: Foster-Lyapunov criteria for continuous-time processess. Advances in Applied Probability 25: 518–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarantsev, Andrey. 2016. Reflected Brownian motion in a convex polyhedral cone: Tail estimates for the stationary distribution. Journal of Theoretical Probability 30: 1200–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suhov, Yuri, and Mark Kelbert. 2008. Probability and Statistics by Example II. Markov Chains: A Primer in Random Processes and Their Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Li-Hsien. 2018. Systemic risk and interbank lending. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 179: 400–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**We use the following parameters for the simulations: $N=30$ bank, time horizon $T=1$, no correlation ${\rho}_{0}=0$, no interbank flows ${c}_{i,j}=0$, 1000 time steps and ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}i=1,\dots ,N$ i.i.d. uniform $[0.1,0.2]$.

**Figure 2.**Evolution of the logarithmic capital ${Y}_{i}(t)$ of banks, $i=1,\dots ,N$. We use the following parameters: interest rate $r=0$, $N=30$ banks, time horizon $T=1$, no correlation: ${\rho}_{0}=0$, interbank flows ${c}_{i,j}$ are as in Equation (38), 1000 time steps, and ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}i=1,\dots ,N$ are i.i.d. uniform on $[0.1,0.2]$.

**Figure 3.**Evolution of ${Y}_{i}(t)$, which represents the log capital of the ith bank. We use the following parameters: interest rate r = 8%, $N=30$ banks, time horizon $T=1$, correlation coefficient ${\rho}_{0}=0.5$, interbank flows ${c}_{i,j}$ as in Equation (38), 1000 time steps and ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}i=1,\dots ,N$ i.i.d. uniform $[0.1,0.2]$.

**Figure 4.**Number of banks in default, whose log capital ${Y}_{i}(t)$ at some time $t\in [0,T]$ goes below $D=-1$. We use the following parameters: $N=100$ banks, 1000 simulations, no correlation: ${a}_{ij}={\sigma}_{i}^{2}{\delta}_{ij}$, no interbank flows: ${c}_{ij}=0$ for $i,j=1,\dots ,N$, 100 time steps, and ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}i=1,\dots ,N$ are i.i.d. uniform on $[0.1,0.2]$.

**Figure 5.**Empirical CDF of $\mathfrak{D}$, the number of banks in default, with $N=100$ banks, 1000 simulations, ${\mu}_{i}={\sigma}_{i}=0.1$ for $i=1,\dots ,N$.

**Figure 6.**Histogram of the number of banks defaulting. We use the following parameters: $N=100$ banks, 1000 simulations, ${\mu}_{i}={\sigma}_{i}=0.1$ for $i=1,\dots ,N$, and no interbank flows: ${c}_{ij}=0$ for $i,j=1,\dots ,N$.

**Figure 7.**Empirical estimates of the probabilities of large and small defaults: $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{D}>60)$ and $\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{D}<5)$, respectively, as a function of correlation between portfolio process ${\rho}_{0}$ at different interest rates. We use the following parameters: $N=100$ banks, 5000 simulations, ${\mu}_{i}={\sigma}_{i}=0.1$ for $i=1,\dots ,N$, and interbank flow rates ${c}_{ij}=0$ for $i,j=1,\dots ,N$.

**Figure 8.**Empirical CDF of the number $\mathcal{D}$ of banks in default. We use the following parameters: $N=100$ banks, 1000 simulations, ${\mu}_{i}={\sigma}_{i}=0.1$ for $i=1,\dots ,N$, and constant interbank flows ${c}_{ij}=a$ for $i,j=1,\dots ,N$, where $a\in \{0,0.5,1\}$.

**Figure 9.**Optimal interest rate with $N=30$ uncorrelated portfolio process: ${\rho}_{0}=0$, with ${\mu}_{i}={\sigma}_{i}=0.1$ for $i=1,\dots ,N$.

**Figure 10.**Optimal interest rate with $N=30$ uncorrelated assets. with mean and standard deviation ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},i=1,\dots ,N$ i.i.d uniform on $[0.1,0.2]$.

**Figure 11.**Optimal interest rate with $N=30$ portfolio process, with correlation ${\rho}_{0}=0.8$ and ${\mu}_{i},{\sigma}_{i},i=1,\dots ,N$ i.i.d uniform on $[0.1,0.2]$.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Maheshwari, A.; Sarantsev, A.
Modeling Financial System with Interbank Flows, Borrowing, and Investing. *Risks* **2018**, *6*, 131.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks6040131

**AMA Style**

Maheshwari A, Sarantsev A.
Modeling Financial System with Interbank Flows, Borrowing, and Investing. *Risks*. 2018; 6(4):131.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks6040131

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Maheshwari, Aditya, and Andrey Sarantsev.
2018. "Modeling Financial System with Interbank Flows, Borrowing, and Investing" *Risks* 6, no. 4: 131.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks6040131