Abstract Conventional collateral requirements for derivatives are conservative, but not explicitly designed to buffer systemic risk. I explore collateral adequacy against systemic risk in the Canadian futures market during the 2008 crisis. I find that conventional collateral levels adequately absorb systemic risk, even allowing for an implausibly high level of stress, and that systemic risk spillovers do not exceed the effect of an approximately 1% downward stock price move. I also document that the largest systemic risk contributors are buffered relatively less than the rest, and that there is a large cross-country difference in the behavior of U.S. and Canadian institutions.

Is affiliation with a multibank holding company beneficial for bank stability? We revisit this question by examining the response of market-based risk measures of independent and multibank-holding-company banks to an exogenous negative shock (the 2005 US hurricane season). We find evidence consistent with bank holding companies playing an important role in mitigating negative shocks, with affiliates of more liquid holdings remaining more stable in terms of both systemic and individual stability. We also conduct an event study showing that markets perceive multibank-holding-company banks' dynamics after the shock as value-enhancing.