Bank liquidity,the maturity ladder,and regulation

We investigate the liquidity management of 62 Dutch banks between January 2004 and March 2010, when these banks were subject to a liquidity regulation that is very similar to Basel III’s Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). We find that most banks hold more liquid assets against their stock of liquid liabilities, such as demand deposits, than strictly required under the regulation. More solvent banks hold fewer liquid assets against their stock of liquid liabilities, suggesting an interaction between capital and liquidity buffers. However, this interaction turns out to be weaker during a crisis. Although not required, some banks consider cash flows scheduled beyond 1 month ahead when setting liquidity asset holdings, but they seldom look further ahead than 1 year.     

Self‐Fulfilling Liquidity Dry‐Ups

I analyze a model in which holding cash imposes a negative externality: it worsens future adverse selection in markets for long‐term assets, which impairs their role for liquidity provision. Adverse selection worsens when potential sellers of long‐term assets hold more cash because then fewer sales reflect cash needs, and proportionally more sales reflect private information. Moreover, future market illiquidity makes current cash holding more appealing. This feedback effect may result in hoarding behavior and a market breakdown, which I interpret as a self‐fulfilling liquidity dry‐up. This mechanism suggests that imposing liquidity requirements on financial institutions may backfire.     

Sources of Liquidity and Liquidity Shortages

We develop a model of liquidity shortages that incorporates a general equilibrium feature of liquidity: when banks hold more liquidity, other agents in the economy hold less of it and will supply less in times of crisis. We show that the private holdings of liquidity at banks are inefficient, with the direction of the bias being determined by the characteristics of the suppliers of liquidity to banks. Minimum liquidity requirements for banks may reduce welfare; in such cases interest rate policies that stimulate the ex-post supply of liquidity can restore efficiency. Overall, our results show that optimal liquidity policies critically depend on a financial institution’s (marginal) source of liquidity and will hence differ across institutions of different types.     

Bank market power,asset liquidity and funding liquidity: International evidence

Our investigation of the association between bank market power and liquidity in 101 countries reveals that a bank's initial gains of market power lead to increases in bank liquidity, but does so at a diminishing rate. Beyond an empirically determined threshold, further increases in market power are inversely associated with bank liquidity. From a cross-sectional viewpoint, banks that lack market power hold more liquid assets and are net lenders in the interbank market. In contrast, dominant banks hold less liquid assets and are net interbank borrowers. For a given level of market power, ceteris paribus, developed nation banks hold less asset liquidity and obtain more interbank funding liquidity than their developing country peers. These results remain equally relevant during the 2007–2009 global financial crisis (GFC).     

What determines the composition of a firm's cash reserves?

We investigate what determines variation in the composition of the financial assets that constitute corporate cash reserves and how this variation relates to other key liquidity management practices. The degree to which a firm invests its cash reserves in less liquid, longer-maturity financial assets that earn a higher yield is explained by financial constraints, the ability to accurately forecast short-term liquidity needs, and the firm's likelihood of defaulting on its debt. During years when a firm's cash reserves are required to fund increases in investment or operating expenses the firm transfers funds from less liquid to more liquid financial assets. A firm's decisions relating to the composition of its cash reserves interacts with other key liquidity management practices, such as relying on credit lines for liquidity, extending trade credit or using it as a source of financing, and holding large amounts of inventories. Our findings provide insights on an important component of corporate liquidity management decisions.     

Crises,Liquidity Shocks,and Fire Sales at Commercial Banks

If liquidity shortages cause financial crises, a lender of last resort can provide funds to banks facing potential fire sales. However, if funding problems primarily occur at banks with existing solvency problems, then government liquidity programs may not spur bank lending. We find that commercial bank funding does not typically dry up in a crisis, not even during the subprime crisis. Rather, weak banks are more likely to borrow less. Furthermore, banks rely more on deposits and newly issued equity than fire sales. When they do sell assets, they cherry pick assets in order to alleviate pressure from capital regulations.     

Liquidity and bank capital structure

Bank capital requirements reduce the probability of bank failure and help mitigate taxpayers’ sharing in the losses that result from bank failures. Under Basel III, direct capital requirements are supplemented with liquidity requirements. Our results suggest that liquidity provisions of banks are connected to bank capital and that changes in liquidity indirectly affect the capital structure of financial institutions. Liquidity appears to be another instrument for adjusting bank capital structure beyond just capital requirements. Consistent with Diamond and Rajan (2005), we find that liquidity and capital should be considered jointly for promoting financial stability.     

What drives the liquidity of sovereign bonds when markets are under stress? An assessment of the new Basel 3 rules on bank liquid assets

The new rules on bank liquidity set by the Basel Committee require banks to hold high-quality liquid assets (HQLAs) against future cash outflows in periods of market stress. Domestic government bonds are considered to be HQLAs. To assess the appropriateness of this rule, we investigate the liquidity of European government bonds in ordinary times and in periods of market turmoil. We find that the effect of adverse market conditions on liquidity strongly depends on individual bond’s characteristics. Our evidence argues for rules on HQLAs that should constrain the eligibility of government bonds depending on their characteristics (primarily, duration and rating).     

Productivity and liquidity management under costly financing

We explore theoretically and empirically the relationship between firm productivity and liquidity management in the presence of financial frictions. We build a dynamic investment model and show that, counter to basic economic intuition, more productive firms could demand less capital assets and hold more liquid assets compared to less productive firms when financing costs are sufficiently high. We empirically test this prediction using a comprehensive dataset of Chinese manufacturers and find that more productive firms indeed hold less capital and more cash. We do not, however, observe this for US manufacturers. Our study suggests a larger capital misallocation problem in markets with significant financing frictions than previously documented.     

Banks, Payments, and Coordination

Banks are modeled as Bryant/Diamond-Dybvig "insurers" against the risk of early consumption. Consumption claims must be verified by clearing and settlement. A clearinghouse does this efficiently as long as banks are sufficiently liquid. If liquidity requirements cannot be enforced against all banks then the threat of panics is necessary to induce banks to hold sufficient liquidity. If the clearinghouse can issue emergency currency, then banks can coexist with less liquid institutions. However, if banks′ return to holding reserves is low during "normal times," then there must be times when the return to liquidity is abnormally high. We associate these episodes with the panics of the National Banking Era. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: 042, 311, 314.     

Excess reserves,monetary policy and financial volatility

This paper examines the real and financial effects of reserves in a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model with monopoly banking and credit market imperfections. The framework explicitly accounts for the fact that commercial banks hold excess reserves and they incur costs in holding these assets. The model also accounts for imperfect substitutability between bank funding sources and it shows that this feature is an important channel through which reserve requirement shocks can affect real variables. Numerical experiments show that an increase in reserve requirements creates a countercyclical effect for real economic activity. The results also indicate that the combination of an augmented Taylor rule which responds to excess reserves and a countercyclical reserve requirement rule is optimal to mitigate macroeconomic and financial volatility associated with liquidity shocks.     

Commitment, banks and markets

We examine how banks and financial markets interact with one another to provide liquidity to investors. The critical assumption is that financial markets are characterized by limited enforcement of contracts, and in the event of default only a fraction of borrowers’ assets can be seized. Limited enforcement reduces the fraction of assets that can be used as collateral and thus individuals subject to liquidity shocks face borrowing constraints. We show how banks endogenously overcome these borrowing constraints by pooling resources across several depositors, and increase the liquidity provided by financial markets.     

Firm opacity and the opportunity cost of cash

This paper studies the causal effect of a reduction in firm opacity on asset liquidity and corporate expenditures. We employ the discontinuous requirement of financial reporting introduced by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 404, as a measure of the change in the firm's information environment. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show that firms that comply with Section 404 exhibit higher stock liquidity and increased access to external financing compared to observationally similar firms. Furthermore, compliant firms hold less liquid assets and exhibit higher R&D expenditures relative to noncompliant firms. This difference sheds light on the impact of SOX 404 on firm opacity and the magnitude of the opportunity costs of holding cash.     

What drives corporate liquidity? An international survey of cash holdings and lines of credit

We survey chief financial officers from 29 countries to examine whether and why firms use lines of credit versus non-operational (excess) cash for their corporate liquidity. We find that these two liquidity sources are employed to hedge against different risks. Non-operational cash guards against future cash flow shocks in bad times, while credit lines give firms the option to exploit future business opportunities available in good times. Lines of credit are the dominant source of liquidity for companies around the world, comprising about 15% of assets, while less than half of the cash held by companies is held for non-operational purposes, comprising about 2% of assets. Across countries, firms make greater use of lines of credit when external credit markets are poorly developed.     

The impact of sovereign rating changes on the activity of European banks

We verify the effects of sovereign rating revisions on the activity of European banks, in terms of their regulatory capital ratio, profitability, liquidity, and lending supply. First, we find that a sovereign downgrade has a significant impact, primarily on capital ratios and lending supply. In contrast, upgrades do not have a significant impact, indicating an asymmetric effect of sovereign rating changes. Second, we find that three transmission channels (assets channel, funding channel, and rating channel) explain a relevant part of the impact of a sovereign downgrade. Finally, we find strong evidence that the rating-based regulation affects all measures of the activity of domestic banks, causing negative externalities for financial institutions. Our results hold also controlling for sovereign risk, estimating a GMM system, and employing an instrumental variable approach.     

国内商业银行流动性选择的行为分析

银行愿意用流动性资产形式保持自己投资基于如下心理因素:在一定的资产总量下,银行的流动性偏好越强,对中长期资产要求的流动性溢价水平就越高,贷款利率定价就越高。当前,商业银行持有大量流动性资产和中长期贷款的低流动性溢价并存。商业银行的流动性选择行为,受来自于央行的政策压力的影响大于来自于市场的经济压力的影响。     

Reserve Requirements,Liquidity Risk,and Bank Lending Behavior

Although reserve requirements (RR) have been used in emerging markets to smooth credit cycles, the transmission mechanism remains blurry. Using bank‐level data, we unveil the interaction of RR with bank lending. We identify a new channel that works through a decline in banks’ liquid assets and loan supply due to an increase in RR. “Quantitative tightening” through RR raises the short‐term funding needs of the banking system, which is met by collateralized central bank lending, thus depleting banks’ unencumbered liquid assets. Our results suggest that such a shift in bank liquidity is associated with a significant change in lending.     

Sovereign Default,Domestic Banks,and Financial Institutions

We present a model of sovereign debt in which, contrary to conventional wisdom, government defaults are costly because they destroy the balance sheets of domestic banks. In our model, better financial institutions allow banks to be more leveraged, thereby making them more vulnerable to sovereign defaults. Our predictions: government defaults should lead to declines in private credit, and these declines should be larger in countries where financial institutions are more developed and banks hold more government bonds. In these same countries, government defaults should be less likely. Using a large panel of countries, we find evidence consistent with these predictions.     

Liquid asset sheltering,or cost of capital? The effect of political corruption on corporate cash holdings

I posit that political corruption affects firms through an entrenchment between entrepreneurs and politicians instead of coercive extortion. Based on this postulate, I refute the claim that firms in a more corrupt environment hold less cash due to liquid assets sheltering from political extraction. Instead, I propose that firms in a more corrupt environment hold less cash because of the high cost of capital. In fact, I find that firms in more corrupt countries hold cash beyond their optimum for the given cost of carry due to severe financial constraints. This excess cash results in value destruction. I call this phenomenon the financial effect of corruption. Thus, I challenge the conventional wisdom and argue that the effects of political corruption on corporate cash holdings are primarily indirect through financial mechanisms.     

Securitization and Bank Performance

Using predominantly precrisis U.S. commercial bank data, this paper employs a propensity score matching approach to analyze whether individual banks did improve their performance through securitization. On average, our results show that securitizing banks tend to be more profitable institutions, with higher credit risk exposure. Despite a more diversified funding structure, they face higher funding costs. We also find that securitizing banks tend to hold larger and less diversified loan portfolios, have less liquidity, and hold less capital. However, our analysis does not provide evidence to suggest that securitization had an impact upon bank performance.