  How, and to what extent, does an interconnected financial system endogenously
amplify external shocks? This paper attempts to reconcile some apparently
different views emerged after the 2008 crisis regarding the nature and the
relevance of contagion in financial networks. We develop a common framework
encompassing several network contagion models and show that, regardless of the
shock distribution and the network topology, precise ordering relationships on
the level of aggregate systemic losses hold among models. We argue that the
extent of contagion crucially depends on the amount of information that each
model assumes to be available to market players. Under no uncertainty about the
network structure and values of external assets, the well-known Eisenberg and
Noe (2001) model applies, which delivers the lowest level of contagion. This is
due to a property of loss conservation: aggregate losses after contagion are
equal to the losses incurred by those institutions initially hit by a shock.
This property implies that many contagion analyses rule out by construction any
loss amplification, treating de facto an interconnected system as a single
aggregate entity, where losses are simply mutualised. Under higher levels of
uncertainty, as captured for instance by the DebtRank model, losses become
non-conservative and get compounded through the network. This has important
policy implications: by reducing the levels of uncertainty in times of distress
(e.g. by obtaining specific data on the network) policymakers would be able to
move towards more conservative scenarios. Empirically, we compare the magnitude
of contagion across models on a sample of the largest European banks during the
years 2006-2016. In particular, we analyse contagion effects as a function of
the size of the shock and the type of external assets shocked.
