{
  "title": "Global Market Conditions and Systemic Risk",
  "publication": "IMF Working Papers, October 1, 2009",
  "sourceUrl": "https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358",
  "canonical": "https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358",
  "overlayPath": "/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/index.md",
  "summary": "This paper examines several key global market conditions, such as a proxy for market uncertainty and measures of interbank funding stress, to assess financial volatility and the likelihood of crisis.",
  "sections": [
    {
      "heading": "Key findings and conclusions",
      "content": "- The paper examines several key global market conditions, such as a proxy for market uncertainty and measures of interbank funding stress, to assess financial volatility and the likelihood of crisis.\n- Using Markov regime-switching techniques, the authors show that the Lehman Brothers failure was a watershed event in the crisis.\n- Signs of heightened systemic risk could be detected as early as February 2007.\n- The analysis considers the role of global market conditions to help determine when governments should begin to exit their extraordinary public support measures."
    },
    {
      "heading": "Methodology",
      "content": "- Empirical approach: Markov regime-switching techniques.\n- Variables examined include a proxy for market uncertainty and measures of interbank funding stress (specific variable names and constructions are described in the paper)."
    },
    {
      "heading": "Policy implications and recommendations",
      "content": "- Global market conditions can inform timing for government exit from extraordinary public support measures.\n- Monitoring proxies for market uncertainty and interbank funding stress can provide early signals of heightened systemic risk (e.g., as early as February 2007).\n\n---\n\n Content in this bundle\n\n- wp09230\n  - wp09230 (Markdown version){rel=\"alternate\" type=\"text/markdown\"}\n  - wp09230 (PDF){rel=\"external\" type=\"application/pdf\"}\n\n---\n\nSource: https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358"
    }
  ],
  "bullets": [
    "[Markdown version](/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/index.md)",
    "[Structured JSON version](/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/index.json)",
    "[Bundle manifest](/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/bundle-manifest.json)",
    "Authors: Brenda Gonzalez-Hermosillo, Heiko Hesse",
    "Published: October 1, 2009",
    "Series: IMF Working Papers",
    "DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451873771.001",
    "The paper examines several key global market conditions, such as a proxy for market uncertainty and measures of interbank funding stress, to assess financial volatility and the likelihood of crisis.",
    "Using Markov regime-switching techniques, the authors show that the Lehman Brothers failure was a watershed event in the crisis.",
    "Signs of heightened systemic risk could be detected as early as February 2007.",
    "The analysis considers the role of global market conditions to help determine when governments should begin to exit their extraordinary public support measures.",
    "Empirical approach: Markov regime-switching techniques.",
    "Variables examined include a proxy for market uncertainty and measures of interbank funding stress (specific variable names and constructions are described in the paper).",
    "Global market conditions can inform timing for government exit from extraordinary public support measures.",
    "Monitoring proxies for market uncertainty and interbank funding stress can provide early signals of heightened systemic risk (e.g., as early as February 2007).",
    "**_wp09230**"
  ],
  "related": [
    {
      "title": "_wp09230",
      "role": "document",
      "sourceUrl": "https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09230.pdf",
      "summary": {
        "path": "/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09230.pdf.md",
        "mime": "text/markdown"
      },
      "binary": {
        "path": "/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09230.pdf",
        "mime": "application/pdf"
      }
    }
  ],
  "alternates": {
    "markdown": "/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/index.md",
    "json": "/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/index.json",
    "bundleManifest": "/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/global-market-conditions-and-systemic-risk-23358/bundle-manifest.json"
  },
  "generatedAtUtc": "2026-09-17T15:04:32.163Z"
}