DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Total Guarantee Limit for Construction-related financial cooperatives Using the VaR

VaR 모형을 이용한 건설관련 공제조합의 총보증한도 추정

  • Kim, Mi Ri (Korea Research Institute of Mechanical Facilities Industry) ;
  • Kim, Yongkyu (Division of Economics, Hanyang University ERICA Campus) ;
  • Park, Sun Gu (Korea Research Institute for Construction Policy)
  • 김미리 (대한기계설비산업연구원) ;
  • 김용규 (한양대학교 경상대학 경제학부) ;
  • 박선구 (대한건설정책연구원)
  • Received : 2024.01.15
  • Accepted : 2024.04.08
  • Published : 2024.04.30

Abstract

In recent times, the construction guarantee market has experienced several transformations, including restructuring the construction production system and addressing the repayment of public funds by Seoul Guarantee Insurance. These changes are anticipated to shift the construction guarantee market structure from limited competition towards a more competitive environment. Consequently, there's an expected shift in the demand for guarantees from construction-related financial cooperatives. In response, these cooperatives must evaluate the provision of suitable guarantees. To address this, the study conducts an empirical analysis of the appropriate total guarantee limit for construction-related financial cooperatives, utilizing the Value at Risk model. This analysis suggested that the suitable total guarantee limit should range between two to four times higher than the current legally permitted multiples of 20 and 30 times for construction-related financial cooperatives. This underscores the necessity for a substantial increase in the total guarantee limit multiple for each cooperative. The significance of this study lies in being the first empirical analysis of the appropriate total guarantee limit for construction-related financial cooperatives. Additionally, it's noteworthy that the analysis employs the loss ratio scenario method, among the RBC internal model methods commonly used by private insurance companies.

Keywords

References

  1. Cha, I. K. (2007). A Study on the Maximum Guarantee Limit in Construction Bond Using the VaR. Korea Insurance Development Institute, 18(1), 73-101.
  2. Cho, T. K. (2010). Estimating the optimal leverage ratio of KODIT. Journal of SME Finance, 2010(Fall), 31-60.
  3. Hossack, I. B., Pollard, J. H., & Zehnwrith, B. (1983). Introductory Statistics with Applications in General Insurance. London, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Kang, J. C., & Lee, D. S. (2000). Estimating damages using the Monte Carlo method. Korea Insurance Development Institute, 11(3), 95-119.
  5. Kim, H. S., & Nam, J. W. (2006). Comparison and analysis of VaR(Value at Risk) estimation methods as a risk management tool. Financial Risk Review, 3(3), 109-126.
  6. Kim, J. I. (2014). Financial Risk Management: Theory and Practice. Seoul, Dasan Publishing Company. 386-388.
  7. Kim, S. I., Jang, C. K., & Yoou, H. J. (2021). Prediction Survey on Construction Guarantee Market Due to the Restructuring of the Construction Industry's Production System. Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 22(1), 63-71.
  8. Kim, Y. D., & Lee, K. C. (2017). An Empirical Study on Guarantee Risk Measurement of the Speciality Contractors Financial Cooperative. Korean Journal of Insurance, 111, 75-99. https://doi.org/10.17342/KIJ.2017.111.3
  9. Robbins, E. L., Cox, S. H., & Phillips, R. D. (1997). Applications of Risk Theory to Interpretation of Stochastic Cash Flow Testing Results. North American Actuarial Journal, 1(2), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.1997.10595614
  10. Suh, C. S., & Lee, B. G. (2006). A Study on the Optimal Credit Guarantee Fund Operation Model- Focused on Local Credit Guarantee Foundations. Korea Trade Review, 31(5), 197-217.
  11. Won, S. Y., & Lee, K. Y. (2015). A Study on the Relationship between Risk of Guarantee Insurance Industry and Systemic Risk. Financial Stability Studies, 16(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2014.11.001
  12. Yun, S. Y. (2014). A Study on An Appropriate Size of Public Credit Guarantee for Micro Enterprises. Journal of Korea Regional Economics, 27, 213-231.