Modeling Systemic Risk Dynamics in Iranian Financial Markets: A Multi Regime Framework Integrating ARIMA, DCC GARCH, GMM, and Markov Switching Models

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate in Finance–Banking, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: This study develops an advanced hybrid framework to model the dynamics of systemic risk in Iran’s financial markets. In structurally fragile economies characterized by acute political and economic volatility—as in Iran—the interdependencies among key assets and the intensity of risk spillovers vary significantly across different market behavior regimes. Consequently, the primary objective of this research is to analyze both the dependency structure and the transmission mechanisms of systemic risk across three major assets—gold, the free-market USD/IRR exchange rate, and the overall index of the Tehran Stock Exchange—within distinct behavioral regimes. To achieve this, we integrate multiple modeling approaches, enabling rigorous identification of latent regimes and precise measurement of systemic risk under varying market conditions.

Method: The proposed framework consists of five sequential stages. First, daily return series for the three assets were filtered through ARIMA models to remove linear trends and autocorrelations, isolating non-linear residuals. Second, GARCH(1,1) was employed on each series to estimate conditional volatilities. Third, DCC-GARCH was applied to capture time-varying conditional correlations between asset pairs. To detect regime shifts and structural breaks in market behavior, two complementary techniques were utilized: the Markov Switching model, which classifies observations into low- and high-volatility regimes based on transition probabilities, and the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), which probabilistically clusters observations into three behavioral regimes—tranquil, semi-unstable, and crisis—according to their statistical features. Finally, the Conditional Value-at-Risk (COVAR) metric was computed for each asset pair within each identified regime, providing a comprehensive assessment of systemic risk transmission intensity.

Findings: Analysis of daily data from March 21, 2015 to March 20, 2024 reveals that the intensity and structure of systemic risk transmission in Iran’s financial markets are highly regime-dependent. In the “tranquil” regime, conditional correlations between gold and the USD/IRR exchange rate, as well as between gold and the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) index, fall below 0.30, and average CoVaR values remain under 0.15. As volatility rises into the “semi-unstable” regime, these measures increase to roughly 0.40–0.50. During the “crisis” regime, gold–USD/IRR correlation exceeds 0.80 while gold–TSE correlation surpasses 0.30; COVAR for the gold⇄USD pair peaks at 0.78 and for gold⇄TSE at 0.30, reflecting flight-to-safety flows into currency and precious metals at times of acute stress. Notably, exchange rate⇄equity and exchange rate⇄gold linkages in intermediate regimes not only serve as early warning indicators but occasionally exhibit higher COVAR values in ostensibly tranquil periods than in semi-unstable ones—an outcome indicative of latent negative expectations or erratic policy shifts. Overall, integrating DCC-GARCH, Markov Switching, and GMM enabled a more granular regime classification and precise measurement of risk spillovers, underscoring the necessity of accounting for nonlinear, multi-layered contagion effects when analyzing systemic risk in volatile economies.

Conclusion: This study emphasizes that in economies marked by structural fragility and severe political–economic volatility, employing regime-sensitive and dynamic frameworks is essential for systemic risk analysis. This framework not only enables the early identification of high-risk and intermediate-risk periods but also serves as an effective tool for policymakers, regulatory authorities, and professional investors in designing macroprudential policies, optimizing capital allocation, and managing systemic risk.

Keywords


  1. Abbasi, A. Hadianejad, M. & Karimi, J. (2016). Dynamics of parallel market shocks on stock returns: A Markov-switching approach. Financial Management Perspectives and Economic Policies, (79), 123–144. [In Persian]
  2. Abuzayed, B. Bouri, E. Al-Fayoumi, N. & Jalkh, N. (2021). Systemic risk spillover across global and country stock markets during the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic Analysis & Policy, 71, 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.010
  3. Acharya, V. V. Pedersen, L. H. Philippon, T. & Richardson, M. (2017). Measuring systemic risk. Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw088
  4. Adrian, T. & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2011). CoVaR (Staff Report No. 348). Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1269446
  5. Adrian, T. & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2016). CoVaR. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1705–1741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120555
  6. Ahmadian-Yazdi, F. (2025). Dynamics of the relationship between stock markets and exchange rates during quantitative easing and tightening: Evidence from Iran. Applied Economics Research, 11(1), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00694-4
  7. Ahmadian-Yazdi, F. & Roudari, S. (2023). Investigating the dynamic spillover among exchange rate, stock market index, housing price and inflation in Iran: Does the severity of sanctions matter? Journal of Monetary and Banking Research, 16(2), 95–123. [In Persian]
  8. Amiri, M. Homayounifar, M. Karimzadeh, N. & Fallahi, S. (2015). Investigating dynamic correlations between oil price, exchange rate, gold coin price, and Tehran stock index using the DCC-GARCH model. Financial and Economic Research, 3(12), 81–102. [In Persian]
  9. Ang, A. & Bekaert, G. (2002). International asset allocation with regime shifts. Review of Financial Studies, 15(4), 1137–1187. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/15.4.1137
  10. Bernardi, M. & Catania, L. (2017). Systemic risk and dependence structures: A comparison of multiple CoVaR approaches. Journal of Econometrics, 197(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2017.01.005
  11. Bernardi, M. Maruotti, A. & Petrella, L. (2017). Multiple risk measures for multivariate dynamic heavy-tailed models. Journal of Empirical Finance, 43, 1–32.
  12. Billio, M. Getmansky, M. Lo, A. W. & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.12.010
  13. Bisias, D. Flood, M. Lo, A. W. & Valavanis, S. (2012). A survey of systemic risk analytics. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 4(1), 255–296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101754
  14. Boller, D. Czech, R. & Vogel, N. (2019). Systemic risk spillover between commodity markets and stock markets: A CoVaR perspective. Energy Economics, 81, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.05.011
  15. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
  16. Cappiello, L. Engle, R. F. & Sheppard, K. (2006). Asymmetric dynamics in the correlations of global equity and bond returns. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4(4), 537–572. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbl005
  17. Chen, C. Huang, D. & Liang, Y. (2023). High-frequency CoVaR estimation using realized GARCH models: Evidence from U.S. financial institutions. Journal of Financial Stability, 65, 101082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2022.101082
  18. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912773
  19. Frühwirth-Schnatter, S. (2006). Finite mixture and Markov switching models. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35768-3
  20. Girardi, G. & Ergün, A. T. (2013). Systemic risk measurement: Multivariate GARCH estimation of CoVaR. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), 3169–3180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.02.027
  21. Hamilton, J. D. (1989). A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle. Econometrica, 57(2), 357–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912559
  22. Ji, Q. Bouri, E. Lau, C. K. M. & Roubaud, D. (2021). Risk spillover from crude oil price to GCC stock market returns: Evidence from WTI–GCC linkages. Journal of Empirical Finance, 65, 127–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2021.03.004
  23. Lal-Khezri, S. R. & Ashna, M. (2024). Dynamic conditional correlation analysis of macroeconomic indicators and exchange rate volatility in Iran. Iranian Journal of Economic Research and Sustainable Growth, 25(1), 57–80. [In Persian]
  24. Naseri, J. Jalal-Abadi, S. & Parbār, B. (2021). Calculation of systemic risk in the Iranian banking system using ∆CoVaR based on a DCC-GARCH model. Iranian Economic Review, 25(4), 623–639. [In Persian]
  25. Raee, N. & Khami, M. (2019). Regime shifts in returns and volatility of the Tehran Stock Exchange using a Markov-switching Exponential GARCH with t-distribution. Financial Management Perspectives, (25), 36–52. [In Persian]
  26. Rostami, M. R. Naqvipour, M. & Moghaddas-Bayat, F. (2018). Modeling OPEC crude oil price volatility using Markov switching GARCH. Iranian Energy Economics Review, 7(27), 25–54. [In Persian]
  27. Taleblou, M. (2017). Measuring the sensitivity of Tehran Stock Exchange industries to exchange rate shocks using regime-switching CoVaR. Iranian Journal of Financial Studies, 20(4), 45–70. [In Persian]