jesp | Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan

Article Type: Research Paper

MEASURING CONTAGION RISK ON BANKING

SYSTEM IN THE DIGITAL ERA

Musdholifah*, Ulil Hartono, and Yulita Wulandari

Abstract: As an essential institution to the practice of national payment flow, banks

always confront with various risk exposures inherent in them. An interbank
interactions through interbank money market might yield higher systemic risks that
can lead to a default. This study aims at determining the contagion effects towards
AFFILIATION: Indonesian banks. This study used 18 bank samples who provided annual reports
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, from 2007 to 2016. The measurement of the systemic risks was performed by using
Surabaya, Indonesia. financial contagion risk index and was tested using Vector Autoregression method.
Results show that there was a one-way causality pattern between banks as the
*CORRESPONDENCE: research samples, covering BCA with Bank Mayapada, Bank Maybank, Bank Mega,
musdholifah@unesa.ac.id and Bank Resona Perdania and also Bank CIMB Niaga with BCA, BRI, BNI, BTN,
Commonwealth Bank, J-Trust Bank, Bank KEB Hana, Bank Mega, and Bank Permata.
THIS ARTICLE IS AVALILABLE IN:
Meanwhile, two-way causality occurs between Bank BCA and Bank Mandiri and
http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/esp
vice versa. In addition, the impact of the risk pressure of a bank is not always
DOI: 10.18196/jesp.20.2.5025 positive, however, it is also negative in some cases, which means that the bank can
take advantage of the shocked conditions experienced by other banks.
CITATION:
Musdholifah, Hartono, U., & Keywords: Contagion; Systemic Risk; Interbank Market; Banking Institution;
Wulandari, Y. (2019). Measuring Shock.
Contagion Risk on Banking System JEL Classification: G21; G01
in The Digital Era. Jurnal Ekonomi
& Studi Pembangunan, 20(2), 207-
220.

ARTICLE HISTORY Introduction

Received:
24 August 2019
Banks have an important position in the national economic system. Its role
Accepted: is getting broader with a variety of services offered that provides
29 October 2019 convenience to the public, especially in case of financial matters. Moreover,
a bank also has various risks inherent in it. In coping with the banking crisis
occurred, banks become a flimsy institution due to the various exposures
they have. Financial institutions have an exposure effect towards each
other that can be seen from the practice of interbank market. Meaning
that, a failure occurred in one institution will be contagious and cause
further failures in other institutions which run similar business models
(Kapoor, 2010; 19-20).

Ayomi and Hermanto (2013) explain that systemic risk causes failure of one
or several financial institutions as a result of systemic events due to
financial system imperfections such as asymmetric information, agency
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

problems, and moral hazard. Those things will cause excessive risk-taking behavior,
contagion risk (domino effect), and financial intermediation.

Zakaria (2015) explains that the contagion effects can come from finance and economics.
Financial contagion occurs because the agents in domestic and international financial
systems are interconnected through the transactions in the financial market, either
directly or indirectly. One condition that triggers systemic risk is bank run. Simorangkir
(2011) defines bank run as an event in which many customers simultaneously withdraw
funds on a large scale conducted as soon as possible in a certain bank because the
customer does not longer believe the bank’s performance. Consequently, this condition
might turn into a banking crisis if the bank run occurred in one bank has been transmitted
to another bank, known as a contagious effect. Schoenmaker (1996) defines banking
contagion risk as the condition of financial difficulties in one or more banks that are
transmitted to a number of other larger banks or financial systems. The contagion effect
can spread through information or credit channels.

Some researchers have undertaken research on banking contagion effects. Aharony and
Swary (1983) examined the possibility of a contagion effect using capital market when a
bank failure in the US occurred. The results show that there is little evidence of the
contagion due to the failure of three major banks in the US. It happened because during
the transmission period, the central bank played an active role as a lender of the last
resort so that the impact of transmission failure can be reduced. This caused doubts for
banking experts leading to the idea that the contagion effect had no significant impact
towards banking stability.

Meanwhile, Zakaria (2015) conveys that systemic risk is a big source of risk. There were
banks in Morocco have potential systemic problems, such as ATW and BMCE. Grais and
Rajhi (2015) also prove that Islamic financial institutions could potentially experience the
contagion risk in different degrees. The Islamic financial institutions face certain risks
related to Sharia principles in their business activities. Billio, Getmansky, Lo, and Pelizzon
(2010) explain that the banking sector can be a source of systemic risk compared to other
financial institutions. Bank liquidity and the fact that the banking sector is not designed to
withstand large and rapid losses, make this sector vulnerable to systemic risk. Gauthier,
He, and Souissi (2010) used bank liquidity to see its effect towards bank systemic risk and
found that the network effects and liquidity risk were the main causes of systemic risk in
the banking system.

Moreover, Upper (2011) describes the simulation method used to predict the potential
contagion found in the interbank loan market. Similarly, Chinazzi and Fagiolo (2013) used
a network theory to observe the contagion and systemic risk in the financial markets.
Results show that the relationship or interaction between banks and financial institutions
can strengthen the shock of the economic system during the crisis period.

Based on the description, this study aims at determining the causal relationship between
banks in Indonesia and examine whether shocks in a bank will cause similar effects to

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 208
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

other banks within the banking system in Indonesia. The study was conducted using the
Granger’s causality test method.

Globalization leads to the connections between financial institutions and money markets
both domestically and internationally. This causes the collapse of a financial institution in
one country, which might spread to other institutions or countries (Shah, 1997), of which
the phenomenon is often called as contagion or systemic risk. In the crisis period, the
probability of default from several financial institutions will increase the default on other
financial institutions. It means that when financial institutions experience distress, other
similar institutions will experience shocks, which is further contagious (Zakaria, 2015).
Such phenomenon is similar to the domino effect because the fall of an institution leads
to the fall of other institutions in a row. On a broader scale, the collapse of a certain bank
in a country will cause stress to the banking institutions and other financial institutions in
other countries. It can be seen in the 2008 US crisis which later spread becoming global
financial crisis.

Rescue costs for banks that experience stressed conditions in preventing the systemic
collapse are quite large. Shah (1997) states that these costs can reach millions to billions
of pounds, so there is a need for research in this field as an effort to prevent the
occurrence of systemic risk transmission. There are several studies that have been
conducted to determine the cause of the contagion effect. Most researchers realize that
the interbank market is the most important risk distribution channel for banks and other
financial institutions (Memmel & Sachs, 2013). Moreover, the distribution channel can
also occur in the context of liquidity and refinancing (Schoenmaker, 1996).

One of the studies examining transmission of shocks from the interbank market side was
conducted by Philippas, Koutelidakis, & Leontitsis (2015) who adapted the Barabási –
Albert model (BA model). The shocks in small banks caused huge losses in a whole so that
there was a need for a crisis restraint policy. The interbank networks can be used to
explain the shocks and the correlation between the banking sectors.

Gai, Haldane, and Kapadia (2011) and Gauthier, et al. (2010) empirically examined the
distribution channel from a banking crisis in terms of the liquidity. Gai, et al. (2011)
developed an interaction network model in order to find out how the channel of liquidity
shock spread in the banking system. The results show that the concentration and
complexity are the main causes of the fragility of the financial institutions until they are
able to be the channel which spread shocks in the economic cycle.

In general, Aharony and Swary (1983) distinguish the spread of contagion effects through
information and credit channels. The spread of contagion effects through information
channels is divided into pure and noisy contagion. Pure contagion occurs when negative
information such as fraud and investment losses on certain risks that occur in a bank
adversely affect all banks, including the banks that have no connection with the first bank.
Noisy contagion occurs when a bank's failure shows a bad signal for some other banks
with similar characteristics. If a bank fails, the other banks with similar asset structures
and liabilities will also likely experience bank runs. Meanwhile, the spread of contagion

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 209
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

effects through credit channels can occur due to the existence of interbank markets, over-
the-counter (OTC) derivative markets, and payment systems.

The spread of contagion risk can also occur through foreign exchange transactions in the
market and the fair value of financial assets (De Bandt & Hartmann, 2000). It is because
the foreign exchange and security transactions have two sides, namely the transfer of
assets on one hand and payments on the other, which both lead to the exposure of credit
and liquidity risks. The research framework in this study refers to the previous study
conducted by Christiawan and Arfianto (2013), which had similar subjects and research
methods. Therefore, based on the previous research and literary objectives, the
hypotheses proposed in this study are stated as follows:

H1 : There is a causal relationship between interbank banking pressures

H2 : There is an effect of shocks on bank i towards bank j

Research Method

This study aimed at determining the contagion risk in several banks in Indonesia. The
calculation of the contagion risk was done through the use of composite index taking
three variables into account:

The comparison between the placements to other banks and deposit

This variable indicated that the banks had account interactions with other banks
(interbank deposits) so that this indicator could be used to measure the bank's
vulnerability towards the contagion risk in the interbank market. The formula is:

𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠

𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡
The differences between the increase of fair-value financial asset and the total assets

This variable was used to assess the resilience of the bank through the total assets
towards the shocks that occurred in the securities market. The formula is:

differences between the increase of fair − value financial asset

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡

The differences between foreign exchange transactions and the total assets

This variable was used to measure the bank's resilience through its total assets in
responding to the shocks on the foreign exchange market. The formula is:

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 210
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

The differences between foreign exchange transactions

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡

Those three variables were used to measure the financial contagion risk indicator
(Christiawan & Arfianto, 2013). The indicator was in a form of an index used to measure
the systemic risk between banks and the channels of transmission through the interbank
money market, foreign exchange transactions, and the fair value of financial assets in the
banks. The research population covered all conventional banks in Indonesia. Meanwhile,
the samples used in this study were banks that provided financial reports from 2007-2016.
Therefore, based on that characteristic, there were 18 banks taken as the research
samples. The data used in this study were audited financial statements and were available
on each bank’s website or on the website of Indonesian Stock Exchange.

The method used in the present study was Vector Autoregression (VAR). An analysis with
the VAR method was carried out in sequence to answer the research hypotheses. Simple
VAR equation were presented as:

𝑦1𝑡 = 𝛽10 + 𝛽11 𝑦1𝑡−1 + 𝛼11 𝑦2𝑡−1 + 𝑢1𝑡

𝑦2𝑡 = 𝛽20 + 𝛽21 𝑦2𝑡−1 + 𝛼21 𝑦1𝑡−1 + 𝑢2𝑡

In Matrix form VAR equation were

𝑦1𝑡 𝛽 𝛽 𝛼 𝑦1𝑡−1 𝑢1𝑡

(𝑦 ) = ( 10 ) + ( 11 11 ) + (𝑦 ) = (𝑢 )
2𝑡 𝛽20 𝛼21 𝛽21 2𝑡−1 2𝑡
𝑦𝑡 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑦𝑡−1 + 𝑢1𝑡
2x1 2x1 (2x2) (2x1) (2x1)

In order to answer the first hypothesis, the Granger’s causality test was conducted. The
proposed H0 stated that there was no causal relationship between interbank pressures,
while Ha showed the contrary. H0 was rejected if the probability value was smaller than
the real values. To answer the second hypothesis, VAR test was conducted to see the
effect of shocks from one bank to other banks.

Result and Discussion

Granger’s Causality Test

To answer the first hypothesis, the granger Causality test was carried out by using α of
5%, showing a result that there was a causal relationship between banks in both one-way
and two-way causalities. Statistically, one-way causality occurred between Bank CIMB
Niaga which affected BTN, BCA, BRI, BNI, Commonwealth Bank Indonesia, Bank Permata,
Bank Mega, KEB Hana Bank, and J-Trust Indonesia Bank. Meanwhile, Bank BCA influenced
Bank Mayapada International, Maybank Indonesia, Bank Mega, and Bank Resona

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 211
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Perdania. BRI influenced BNI, Bank Ekspor Indonesia, Mayapada Bank, and Bank
Nusantara Parahyangan. Bank Mandiri affected BRI, BNI, and Commonwealth Indonesia.
Bank Commowealth Indonesia influenced BNI and Bank Mega. BTN affected BCA. BNI
affected Bank Danamon Indonesia. J-Trust Bank affected BNI. Mayapada International
Bank affected BNI. Bank Permata influenced Bank Mayapada International and BNI. Bank
Woori Saudara Indonesia influenced BNI. Finally, Bank Ekspor Indonesia affected
Maybank Indonesia and Bank Resona Perdania. In addition, the results of the granger test
also showed that, statically, there was a two-way relationship or causality between BCA
and Bank Mandiri.

Vector Auto Regression Analysis

Based on the granger causality test, it could be seen that there was an interbank causality
in both one-way and two-way causalities. Next, a VAR analysis was conducted to
determine the impact of shocks from bank j towards bank i. Although it was statistically
significant, the impact of shocks was not always positive. Based on the results of the tests,
there were many cases indicating that the impact of the shock was negative, which meant
that bank i could take advantage of the shock that occurred in bank j.

Large banks had large asset values so that they could reduce the risk of the shock impacts
that occurred in other banks. In some cases, the shock of other banks gave benefits to the
aforementioned banks. One of the banks with large assets was BNI. Based on the results
of the VAR analysis, if the risk in BCA four periods ago changed by 1%, it could reduce
BNI's risk in this period by 2.78837%. Moreover, if the BTN risk three periods ago
increased by 1%, it would reduce BNI’s risk at this period by 2.09282%. The same thing
happened with the increase in Bank Danamon's risk in the last period, Bank Ekspor
Indonesia a period ago and three periods ago, Indonesian J-Trust Bank one period and
three periods ago, KEB Hana Bank one period ago and three periods ago, Bank Mayapada
two periods ago and four periods ago, Maybank Bank last period and three periods ago,
Bank Mega four periods ago, Bank Nusantara Parahyangan two periods ago and four
periods ago, Bank Permata last period and three periods ago, and Bank Resona Perdania
two periods ago and four periods ago; would statistically reduce BNI’s risk by a percentage
reflected in Table 1 (Appendix).

The Bank shocks could also be caused by the condition of the bank in the past. As an
example, for BNI, the shock occurring last period, two periods ago, and three periods ago,
led to the shocks in the current period. BCA, as one of the national private banks with
large assets, also experienced shocks due to the past conditions. In several banks with
not-too-large assets, the effects of shocks did not cause significant shock to other banks.
An example could be seen from Bank Mayapada International in which there were not
many banks affected by the shock. In addition, the interbank shocks, even though they
were statistically positive, were not too significant because the shock did not directly
cause default conditions to other banks. This condition also did not cause a systemic crisis
in banks in Indonesia. It supported a research conducted by Zakaria (2015) which stated
that contagion occurred due to the agents in financial systems that were connected
through financial market transactions directly or indirectly. This was also in line with the

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 212
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

results of the research done by Christiawan and Arfianto (2013) showing that there was
interbank causality, and the impact of shocks did not directly cause complacency to other
banks. The limitation of this study was that it only dealt with the contagion risk in terms
of the market risk as stated in the researches done by Memmel & Sachs (2013) and
Philippas, et al. (2015), and also it did not take the contagion risk into account in terms of
the liquidity as stated in Gai, Jenkinson, & Kapadia (2007), Gai, et al. (2011), Gauthier, et
al. (2010), Allen and Gale (2000), Allen, Carletti, and Gale, (2009), Chen, Chen, & Gerlach
(2013), Ahelegbey and Giudici (2014).

Conclusion
This study aims at analyzing the pressures and the impacts of the shock effect from one
bank to other banks. The spread of the contagion risk in this study was measured from
the interbank market risk channels by taking the bank vulnerabilities in interbank account
interactions, the risks of the securities market and foreign exchange market. The test
results show that there is one-way and two-way causalities, for two-way relationship or
causality it found that there is causality between BCA and Bank Mandiri. In addition, there
is also an impact of the shock from banks j towards bank i, of which the statistics are not
always positive. This shows that there is pressure among the banks in Indonesia. Although
statistically there are inter-bank shocks, the shock value tends to be small so that it does
not lead to direct systemic crisis. The limitation in this study is that it does not take the
distribution channel in terms of liquidity, therefore, the future studies are expected to
take the contagion risk assessment in terms of liquidity into account.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education.
We thank our colleagues from Unesa who provided insight and expertise that greatly
assisted the research.

Appendix
Table 1 VAR Analysis
Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon
BCA BCA (-2) -3.54 BNI BCA (-4) -2.79 BRI BCA (-2) -2.36
BCA (-3) -3.25 BNI (-1) -2.78 BCA (-3) -2.91
BRI (-1) 1.84 BNI (-2) -3.53 BNI (-1) -2.14
BRI (-2) -3.51 BNI (-3) -3.2 BRI (-2) -2.54
BRI (-3) -2.68 BRI (-2) 4.33 BRI (-4) -1.88
BRI (-4) -2.52 BRI (-3) 4.79 BTN (-1) 5.97
BTN (-1) 5.76 BTN (-3) -2.09 BTN (-4) -4.19
BTN (-2) -2.09 Danamon (- -2.04 CIMB Niaga 4.74
1) (-1)
BTN (-4) -4.01 Ekspor_Ind (- -2.6 CIMB Niaga 3.63
1) (-2)
CIMB Niaga 4.10 Ekspor_Ind (- 2.71 CIMB Niaga 3.1
(-1) 2) (-3)

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 213
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon

BCA CIMB Niaga (- 3.48 Ekspor_Ind -2.77 Mega (-1) 2.27
2) (-3) BTN
CIMB Niaga (- 2.86 Ekspor_Ind 2.76 Mega (-2) -2.02
3) (-4)
Danamon (-2) -2.24 Jtrust_Ind -2.65 Mega (-3) 1.71
(-1)
Ekspor_Ind (- 2.01 Jtrust_Ind 2.73 Resona_Perd 2.24
1) (-2) ania (-1)
Ekspor_Ind (- -1.95 Jtrust_Ind -2.74 Woori_SDRA 1.8
2) (-3) (-1)
Ekspor_Ind (- 1.92 Jtrust_Ind 2.7 Woori_SDRA -1.93
3) (-4) (-2)
Ekspor_Ind (- -1.93 KEBHana (- -2.94 Woori_SDRA 2.00
4) 1) (-3)
Mandiri (-4) -1.82 KEBHana (- 2.94 Woori_SDRA -2.09
2) (-4)
Maybank (-1) 2.07 KEBHana (- -2.88 BCA (-2) 2.12
3)
Maybank (-2) -2.05 KEBHana (- 2.76 BCA (-3) 2.99
4)
COMMO BCA (-2) -2.16 Nusantara_ -2.61 KEBHana (-1) -1.92
N Parahy (-4)
_WEALT
H
BCA (-3) -2.94 Permata (- -2.77 KEBHana (-2) 2.28
1)
BNI (-1) 1.98 Permata (- 2.84 KEBHana (-3) -2.39
2)
BRI (-2) -3.02 Permata (- -2.79 KEBHana (-4) 2.42
3)
BRI (-3) -2.89 Permata (- 2.71 Mandiri (-4) 1.9
4)
BTN (-1) 2.94 Resona_Per 1.90 Mayapada (- 1.86
dania (-1) 3)
BTN (-4) -2.47 Resona_Per -2.57 Mayapada (- -2.09
dania (-2) 4)
Ekspor_Ind (- 2.26 Resona_Per 2.53 Maybank (-1) -2.45
1) dania (-3)
Ekspor_Ind (- -2.30 Resona_Per -2.53 Maybank (-2) 2.52
2) dania (-4)
Ekspor_Ind (- 2.34 CIMB BCA (-2) -2.24 Maybank (-3) -2.58
3) NIAGA
Ekspor_Ind (- -2.37 BCA (-3) -2.98 Maybank (-4) 2.63
4)
KEBHana (-2) -1.7 BNI (-1) -3.04 Mega (-1) -2.35
KEBHana (-3) 1.81 BRI (-1) 2.23 Mega (-2) 1.89
KEBHana (-4) -1.83 BRI (-2) -2.45 Permata (-3) -1.69
Mandiri (-4) -1.68 BRI (-3) -2.13 Permata (-4) 1.9
Maybank (-1) 1.98 BRI (-4) -2.62 Woori_SDRA -2.83
(-1)
Maybank (-2) -2.04 BTN (-1) 3.44 Woori_SDRA 3.01
(-2)
Maybank (-3) 2.10 BTN (-4) -2.24 Woori_SDRA -3.18
(-3)
Maybank (-4) -2.16 CIMB_Niag 2.43 Woori_SDRA 3.32
a (-1) (-4)
Mega (-1) 2.38 Danamon (- -1.76 JTRUS BCA (-3) -2.11
4) T
INDON
ESIA
Mega (-2) -2.07 Ekspor_Ind 2.66 BNI (-1) -2.501
(-1)

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 214
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon

Woori_SDRA 2.75 Ekspor_Ind -2.7 BRI (-2) -3.06
(-1) (-2)
Woori_SDRA -2.87 Ekspor_Ind 2.74 BRI (-3) -2.72
(-2) (-3)
Woori_SDRA 3.01 Ekspor_Ind -2.8 BRI (-4) -1.99
(-3) (-4)
Woori_SDRA -3.16 Jtrust_Ind 1.84 BTN (-1) 4.49
(-4) (-3)
EKSPOR BCA (-2) -1.7 Jtrust_Ind -2.11 BTN (-4) -3.52
INDONES (-4)
IA
BNI (-1) 2.6 KEBHana (- 2.16 CIMB Niaga (- 4.34
1) 1)
CIMB Niaga (- -3.18 KEBHana (- -2.43 CIMB Niaga (- 2.63
1) 2) 2)
CIMB Niaga (- -2.67 KEBHana (- 2.52 CIMB Niaga (- 2.29
2) 3) 3)
CIMB Niaga (- -2.31 KEBHana (- -2.54 Danamon (-4) -1.88
3) 4)
Danamon (-1) 1.9 Mandiri (-4) -2.61 Ekspor_Ind (- 2.09
1)
Danamon (-2) 3.36 Mayapada 1.90 Ekspor_Ind (- -2.08
(-2) 2)
Danamon (-3) 2.19 Mayapada -2.12 Ekspor_Ind (- 2.09
(-3) 3)
Jtrust_Ind (-1) 1.81 Mayapada 2.31 Ekspor_Ind (- -2.12
(-4) 4)
Jtrust_Ind (-2) -1.7 Maybank (- 2.44 KEBHana (-1) -1.68
1)
Mega (-1) -2.99 Maybank (- -2.53 KEBHana (-3) 1.76
2)
Mega (-2) 2.77 Maybank (- 2.64 KEBHana (-4) -1.76
3)
Mega (-3) -2.52 Maybank (- -2.73 Maybank (-1) 1.83
4)
Mega (-4) 2.17 Nusantara_ 1.89 Maybank (-2) -1.87
Parahy (-4)
Nusantara_Pa -2.27 Permata (- -1.73 Maybank (-3) 1.91
rahy (-1) 2)
Nusantara_Pa 2.09 Permata (- 2.01 Maybank (-4) -1.94
rahy (-2) 3)
Nusantara_Pa -1.85 Permata (- -2.16 Woori_SDRA -1.82
rahy (-3) 4) (-2)
Resona_Perd 2.20 Resona_Per 1.7 Woori_SDRA 1.96
ania (-2) dania (-4) (-3)
Resona_Perd -1.99 Woori_SDR 1.99 Woori_SDRA -2.06
ania (-3) A (-1) (-4)
Resona_Perd 1.72 Woori_SDR -2.13 KEB BCA (-3) 1.67
ania (-4) A (-2) HANA
INDON
ESIA
Woori_SDRA -2.82 Woori_SDR -2.28 BRI (-2) 3.00
(-1) A (-3)
Woori_SDRA 2.49 Woori_SDR -2.42 BRI (-3) 3.18
(-2) A (-4)
Woori_SDRA -2.11 DANAM BNI (-1) 2.56 BRI (-4) 1.95
(-3) ON
Woori_SDRA 1.77 BRI (-3) 2.15 Commonweal -1.96
(-4) th (-1)
C -2.29 Danamon -1.83 Commonweal 1.912
(-1) th (-2)
MANDIRI BCA (-2) 1.96 Ekspor_Ind -2.41 Commonweal -1.89
(-1) th (-3)

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 215
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon

BCA (-3) 2.82 Ekspor_Ind 2.56 Commonweal 1.9
(-2) th (-4)
BRI (-1) -2.19 Ekspor_Ind -2.67 Ekspor_Ind (- -3.22
(-3) 1)
BRI (-2) 3.01 Ekspor_Ind 2.75 Ekspor_Ind (- 3.36
(-4) 2)
BRI (-3) 2.78 Jtrust_Ind -2.88 Ekspor_Ind (- -3.48
(-1) 3)
BRI (-4) 2.57 Jtrust_Ind 3.05 Ekspor_Ind (- 3.578
(-2) 4)
BTN (-1) -3.31 Jtrust_Ind -3.11 Jtrust_Ind (-1) -2.33
(-3)
BTN (-4) 2.52 Jtrust_Ind 3.12 Jtrust_Ind (-2) 2.75
(-4)
CIMB Niaga (- -2.81 KEBHana (- -2.93 Jtrust_Ind (-3) -3.02
1) 1)
CIMB Niaga (- -2.06 KEBHana (- 2.93 Jtrust_Ind (-4) 3.21
2) 2)
Commonweal -2.01 KEBHana (- -2.95 KEBHana (-1) -3.23
th (-1) 3)
Commonweal 1.84 KEBHana (- 2.95 KEBHana (-2) 3.43
th (-2) 4)
Commonweal -1.71 Mandiri (-4) 1.96 KEBHana (-3) -3.48
th (-3)
Ekspor_Ind (- -3.04 Mayapada 3.01 KEBHana (-4) 3.48
1) (-1)
Ekspor_Ind (- 3.05 Mayapada -3.09 Mandiri (-2) 1.77
2) (-2)
Ekspor_Ind (- -3.07 Mayapada 3.1 Mandiri (-4) 2.53
3) (-3)
Ekspor_Ind (- 3.10 Mayapada -3.1 Mayapada (- 2.78
4) (-4) 1)
Jtrust_Ind (-4) 1.89 Maybank (- -2.07 Mayapada (- -3.08
1) 2)
KEBHana (-1) -2.24 Maybank (- 2.22 Mayapada (- 3.24
2) 3)
KEBHana (-2) 2.54 Maybank (- -2.36 Mayapada (- -3.35
3) 4)
KEBHana (-3) -2.62 Maybank (- 2.46 Maybank (-1) -3.01
4)
KEBHana (-4) 2.60 Mega (-2) -1.96 Maybank (-2) 3.16
Mandiri (-4) 2.131 Mega (-3) 2.40 Maybank (-3) -3.32
Mayapada (- -1.69 Mega (-4) -2.68 Maybank (-4) 3.44
2)
Mayapada (- 1.98 Nusantara_ 2.59 Mega (-4) -1.76
3) Parahy (-1)
Mayapada (- -2.20 Nusantara_ -2.87 Nusantara_Pa 1.72
4) Parahy (-2) rahy (-1)
Maybank (-1) -2.88 Nusantara_ 3.03 Nusantara_Pa -2.29
Parahy (-3) rahy (-2)
Maybank (-2) 2.95 Nusantara_ -3.11 Nusantara_Pa 2.73
Parahy (-4) rahy (-3)
Maybank (-3) -3.01 Permata (- -2.96 Nusantara_Pa -3.05
1) rahy (-4)
Maybank (-4) 3.05 Permata (- 3.09 Permata (-1) -2.46
2)
Mega (-1) -2.18 Permata (- -3.10 Permata (-2) 2.95
3)
Mega (-2) 1.74 Permata (- 3.085 Permata (-3) -3.15
4)
Permata (-3) -1.80 Resona_Per -2.83 Permata (-4) 3.25
dania (-2)

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 216
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon

Permata (-4) 2.01 Resona_Per 3.01 Resona_Perd -2.05
dania (-3) ania (-2)
Woori_SDRA -3.01 Resona_Per -3.08 Resona_Perd 2.58
(-1) dania (-4) ania (-3)
Woori_SDRA 3.17 MAYBA BNI (-1) -5.06 Resona_Perd -2.90
(-2) NK ania (-4)
INDONE
SIA
Woori_SDRA -3.34 BNI (-2) -2.62 Woori_SDRA -1.88
(-3) (-3)
Woori_SDRA 3.51 BNI (-3) -2.54 Woori_SDRA 2.11
(-4) (-4)
C -1.85 BTN (-1) 3.15 MEGA BCA (-2) -1.82
BNI (-1) -2.01 CIMB Niaga 4.46 BCA (-3) -2.55
(-1)
BTN (-1) 2.59 CIMB Niaga 2.85 BRI (-2) -2.19
(-2)
BTN (-4) -1.68 CIMB Niaga 2.50 BTN (-1) 4.52
(-3)
CIMB Niaga (- 2.89 Danamon (- -1.87 BTN (-2) -1.77
1) 2)
CIMB Niaga (- 1.92 Danamon (- -2.14 BTN (-4) -3.29
2) 4)
CIMB Niaga (- 1.76 Resona_Per -1.84 CIMB Niaga (- 2.53
3) dania (-1) 1)
NUSANT BCA (-3) -1.99 RESON Jtrust_Ind 4.22 CIMB Niaga (- 3.18
ARA A (-1) 2)
PARAH- PERDA
YANGAN NIA
BNI (-1) -3.33 Jtrust_Ind -3.66 CIMB Niaga (- 2.54
(-2) 3)
BRI (-1) 2.05 Jtrust_Ind 3.23 CIMB Niaga (- 1.95
(-3) 4)
BRI (-2) -3.38 Jtrust_Ind -2.89 Danamon (-2) -2.38
(-4)
BRI (-3) -3.29 KEBHana (- 2.31 Jtrust_Ind (-1) -1.83
1)
BRI (-4) -2.59 KEBHana (- -1.92 Mega (-1) 4.12
2)
BTN (-1) 3.74 KEBHana (- 1.78 Mega (-2) -3.84
3)
BTN (-4) -2.89 KEBHana (- -1.75 Mega (-3) 3.35
4)
CIMB Niaga (- 3.73 Mayapada -3.60 Mega (-4) -2.65
1) (-1)
CIMB Niaga (- 1.72 Mayapada 3.09 Nusantara_Pa 2.48
2) (-2) rahy (-1)
Danamon (-4) -2.03 Mayapada -2.75 Nusantara_Pa -1.88
(-3) rahy (-2)
Ekspor_Ind (- 3.45 Mayapada 2.52 Permata (-1) -1.76
1) (-4)
Ekspor_Ind (- -3.51 Mega (-1) -4.92 Resona_Perd 2.72
2) ania (-1)
Ekspor_Ind (- 3.57 Mega (-2) 5.09 Resona_Perd -2.49
3) ania (-2)
Ekspor_Ind (- -3.63 Mega (-3) -4.85 Woori_SDRA 3.63
4) (-1)
Jtrust_Ind (-1) 2.02 Mega (-4) 4.27 Woori_SDRA -3.53
(-2)
Jtrust_Ind (-2) -2.47 Nusantara_ -4.62 Woori_SDRA 3.41
Parahy (-1) (-3)
Jtrust_Ind (-3) 2.79 Nusantara_ 4.09 Woori_SDRA -3.37
Parahy (-2) (-4)

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 217
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon Bank Bank Respon

Jtrust_Ind (-4) -3.04 Nusantara_ -3.62 PERM BNI (-1) -4.69
Parahy (-3) ATA
KEBHana (-1) 3.04 Nusantara_ 3.19 BNI (-3) -2.01
Parahy (-4)
KEBHana (-2) -3.29 Permata (- 4.06 CIMB Niaga (- 1.82
1) 1)
KEBHana (-3) -3.36 Permata (- -3.37 Resona_Perd -1.83
2) ania (-1)
KEBHana (-4) -3.36 Permata (- 2.94 WOOR Ekspor_Ind (- 1.69
3) I 2)
SAUDA
RA
Mandiri (-2) -1.80 Permata (- -2.67 Ekspor_Ind (- -1.76
4) 3)
Mandiri (-4) -2.56 Resona_Per -5.11 Ekspor_Ind (- 1.81
dania (-1) 4)
Mayapada (- -2.57 Resona_Per 4.57 Mandiri (-4) 1.67
1) dania (-2)
Mayapada (- 2.87 Resona_Per -3.89 Woori_SDRA -1.69
2) dania (-3) (-3)
Mayapada (- -3.07 Resona_Per 3.35 Woori_SDRA 1.79
3) dania (-4) (-4)
Mayapada (- 3.23 Woori_SDR -3.72
4) A (-1)
Maybank (-1) 3.06 Woori_SDR 3.44
A (-2)
Maybank (-2) -3.17 Woori_SDR -3.17
A (-3)
Maybank (-3) 3.27 Woori_SDR 2.98
A (-4)
Maybank (-4) -3.34
Nusantara_Pa 1.95
rahy (-2)
Nusantara_Pa -2.46
rahy (-3)
Nusantara_Pa 2.83
rahy (-4)
Permata (-1) 2.08
Permata (-2) -2.69
Permata (-3) 2.96
Permata (-4) -3.07
Resona_Perd -2.26
ania (-3)
Resona_Perd 2.60
ania (-4)
Woori_SDRA 1.88
(-1)
Woori_SDRA -2.11
(-2)
Woori_SDRA 2.34
(-3)
Woori_SDRA -2.51
(-4)
C 2.04

References
Aharony, J., & Swary, I. (1983). Contagion Effects of Bank Failures: Evidence from Capital
Markets. The Journal of Business, 56(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1086/296203

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 218
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Ahelegbey, D. F., & Giudici, P. (2014). Bayesian Selection of Systemic Risk Networks.
Bayesian Model Comaprison Advances in Econometrics, 34, 117–153.
https://doi.org/10.1108/s0731-905320140000034007
Allen, F., & Gale, D. (2000). Financial Contagion. Journal of Political Economy, 108(1), 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1086/262109
Allen, F., Carletti, E., & Gale, D. (2009). Interbank Market Liquidity and Central Bank
Intervention. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(5), 639–652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2009.04.003
Ayomi, S., & Hermanto, B. (2013). Mengukur Risiko Sistemik dan Keterkaitan Finansial
Perbankan di Indonesia. Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan, 103–126.
Billio, M., Getmansky, M., Lo, A. W., & Pelizzon, L. (2010). Measuring Systemic Risk in the
Finance and Insurance Sectors. MIT Sloan School Working Paper 4774-10. Retrieved
from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1573902
Chen, H., Chen, Q., & Gerlach, S. (2013). The Implementation of Monetary Policy in China:
The Interbank Market and Bank Lending. Global Banking, Financial Markets and Crises
(International Finance Review, 14). 31-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1569-
3767(2013)0000014005
Chinazzi, M., & Fagiolo, G. (2013). Systemic Risk, Contagion, and Financial Networks: A
Survey. LEM Working Paper Series, No. 2013/08. Retrieved from
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/89353/1/740929119.pdf
Christiawan, N. G., & Arfianto, E. D. (2013). Interbank Contagious : Sistemik Market Risk
Kasus pada Perbankan Indonesia. Jurnal Studi Manajemen dan Organisasi, 10(1), 38–48.
https://doi.org/10.14710/jsmo.v10i1.5575
De Bandt, O., & Hartmann, P. (2000). Systemic Risk: A Survey. European Central Bank
Working Paper Series. Retrieved from
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp035.pdf
Gai, P., Haldane, A., & Kapadia, S. (2011). Complexity , concentration and contagion. Journal
of Monetary Economics, 58(5), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2011.05.005
Gai, P., Jenkinson, N., & Kapadia, S. (2007). Systemic Risk in Modern Financial Systems:
Analytics and Policy Design. Journal of Risk Finance, 8(2), 156–165.
https://doi.org/10.1108/15265940710732387
Gauthier, C., He, Z., & Souissi, M. (2010). Understanding Systemic Risk: The Trade-Offs
between Capital, Short-Term Funding and Liquid Asset Holdings. Bank of Canada
Working Paper 2010-29. Retrieved from https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/wp10-29.pdf
Grais, W., & Rajhi, W. (2015). Islamic Finance, Contagion Effects , Spillovers and Monetary
Policy. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 6(2), 208–221.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-12-2012-0079
Kapoor, S. (2010). The Financial Crisis – Causes & Cures. In FES Brüssel
Bertelsmannstiftung ETUI (pp. 19–20). Brussels: FES Brüssel Bertelsmannstiftung
ETUI.
Memmel, C., & Sachs, A. (2013). Contagion in the Interbank Market and its Determinants.
Journal of Financial Stability, 9, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2013.01.001
Philippas, D., Koutelidakis, Y., & Leontitsis, A. (2015). Insights into European Interbank
Network Contagion. Managerial Finance, 41(8). https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-03-2014-
0095
Schoenmaker, D. (1996). Contagion Risk in Banking. Ministry of Finance, The Netherlands.
Retrieved from https://web.actuaries.ie/sites/default/files/erm-
resources/345_contagion_risk_in_banking.pdf

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 219
 Musdholifah, Hartono, & Wulandari
Measuring Contagion Risk on Banking System in The Digital Era

Shah, A. K. (1997). Analysing Systemic Risk in Banking and Financial Markets. Journal of
Financial Regulation and Compliance, 5(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024903
Simorangkir, I. (2011). Penyebab Bank Runs di Indonesia : Bad Luck atau Fundamental?
Buletin Ekonomi Moneter dan Perbankan 14(1), 51–78.
https://doi.org/10.21098/bemp.v14i1.456
Upper, C. (2011). Simulation Methods to Assess the Danger of Contagion in Interbank
Markets. Journal of Financial Stability, 7, 111–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2010.12.001
Zakaria, F. (2015). Systemic Risk and Financial Contagion in Morocco: New Approaches of
Quantification. In Overlaps of Private Sector with Public Sector around the Globe,
141–171. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0196-382120150000031007

Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, Vol 20 No. 2, Oktober 2019 | 220