Liquidity Creation Research Articles

Bank regulatory capital and liquidity creation: evidence from BRICS countries

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between bank regulatory capital and liquidity creation in banks of BIRCS countries.Design/methodology/approachData from all publicly listed banks of BRICS nations for the period 2003-2014 have been collected and analyzed. Two-stage least-squares regression has been used to control endogeneity. The econometric model includes different control variables that have been selected based on the extant literature.FindingsIncrease in bank capital negatively affects bank liquidity creation which implies that “financial fragility-crowding out” hypothesis holds for banks of BRICS countries.Originality/valueThis study provides the evidence of the inverse relationship between bank regulatory capital and liquidity creation from emerging economies. The findings show that there is a trade-off between curtailing bank risk taking and liquidity creation. Therefore, the regulators must formulate policies to strike a balance between the two.

Procyclical Finance: The Money View

Financial intermediaries issue the majority of liquid securities, and nonfinancial firms have become net savers, holding intermediaries' debt as cash. This paper shows that intermediaries' liquidity creation stimulates growth -- firms hold their debt for unhedgeable investment needs -- but also breeds instability through procyclical intermediary leverage. Introducing government debt as a competing source of liquidity is a double-edged sword: firms hold more liquidity in every state of the world, but by squeezing intermediaries' profits and amplifying their leverage cycle, public liquidity increases the frequency and duration of intermediation crises, raising the likelihood of states with less liquidity supplied by intermediaries. The latter force dominates and the overall impact of public liquidity is negative, when public liquidity cannot satiate firms' liquidity demand and intermediaries are still needed as the marginal liquidity suppliers.

Economic Policy Uncertainty and Bank Liquidity Creation

We examine the impact of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on bank liquidity hoarding. We create a comprehensive measure of bank liquidity hoarding that takes into account asset-, liability-, and off-balance sheet activities. Using over one million bank-quarter observations, we find that in response to EPU, banks hoard liquidity overall and through all three components. This behavior is more pronounced for banks with less liquidity, more peer-bank spillover effects, and more EPU exposure. Additional analyses of interest rate spreads on several bank products suggest that our findings reflect at least in part bank choices, rather than just the reactions of customers.

A Treatise on the TARGET2 Imbalances & Stagnation in Europe

Since the Global Financial Crisis, there have been two parallel issues faced by the Eurozone, Stagnation and TARGET2 imbalances. This study analyses the aspect of settling TARGET2 in an equitable and fair manner that could also resolve the issues of sluggish growth, deflation and high unemployment in Europe. It is proposed that the TARGET2 balances are settled by an adjustment to the monetary base in the EMU. Specifically, it implies that the Eurozone members are granted a right to settle their imbalances against Euro-system in proportion to their capital key weights. The proposed approach will have four order/tier effects which include, a) adjustment of monetary base at the EMU level, b) creation of additional liquidity in the Euros -system member states, c) creation of much needed fiscal space and d) cross-border spillovers among the EMU members. While keeping the bleak economic outlook of Eurozone in context, we analysed the implication of proposed mechanism at first tier using a Factor-Augmented VAR model on data from 2000Q1 to 2017Q1. Our key results suggest that such an approach would lead to a considerable increase in the real output growth, investment, consumption, gross fixed capital formation, stock markets as well as exports and imports of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The magnitude of the proposed mechanism is comparable to the stimulative stance taken by authorities since the GFC and qualitative easing of “whatever it takes”. Comparatively, there are substantial gains for the TARGET2 surplus countries like Germany than the deficit countries as the former can address its public expenditure needs as well as settle large external surplus without breaching balanced budget act (Schuldenbremse). Given that, the adjustment will be based on the capital key weights and existing arrangements, the proposed approach is equitable, fair, and can be used as an unconventional tool by the ECB.

Rethinking liquidity creation: Banks, shadow banks and the elasticity of finance

ABSTRACTIn this article, the authors use the concept of the hierarchy of money found in the works of Minsky (2008[1986]), Foley (1987), Wray (1990), and Bell (2001) to analyze the process of liquidity creation in modern capitalist economies where shadow banks play an active role. They abandon the narrow focus on banks as the creators of money as well as the idea that nonbank financial institutions are mere intermediaries between savers and borrowers. Instead, the authors demonstrate that, similar to banks, nonbank financial institutions and foreign banks (through their cross-border activities) create liquidity endogenously by leveraging over the liabilities of entities hierarchically above them. The authors further elucidate Kregel’s concept of “fictitious” liquidity in the context of the hierarchy of financial liabilities, distinguishing it from “true” liquidity. By bringing shadow banks and the euro-currency markets into to the pyramid of financial liabilities, they develop a more complete framework of liquidity creation in modern capitalist economies. Their “extended” pyramid is useful for analyzing not only the fragility that may arise from the interactions between firms, households and banks, but also that which may originate through the interactions between banks, shadow banks and foreign banks.

Quantitative Easing (QE), Changes in Global Liquidity, and Financial Instability

This article argues that quantitative easing (QE) led to significant changes in the global financial system that are not conducive to greater financial stability. Through a policy of reserve accumulation, QE did not have a direct impact in the creation of global liquidity through bank lending. It rather reinforced the statistical decoupling between base money and the money supply and between deposits and loans. However, QE did have an effect on the composition of global liquidity by altering the relative profitability of investing in different assets and in this way exerted a positive effect on the performance of the international bond market, to which the decline in bank credit due to the deleveraging of global banks in the aftermath of the crisis contributed. The growing role of the international bond market facilitated the expansion of the debt of both the financial sector and the nonfinancial corporate sector in developing economies but also has reinforced the role of the asset management industry in financial markets. Due to its concentration and interconnectedness, illiquidity, and procyclicality, the asset management industry poses important risks to financial stability.

Dimensions of liquidity and their factors in the Slovenian banking sector

The present article focuses on the internal factors which have potential infl uence on the liquidity of the Slovenian banking sector. Unlike other studies, this paper uses multiple dependent variables, encompassing different views on liquidity and leading to higher complexity. These include the creation of liquidity, its outfl ow, net change and total reallocation, determined on the basis of a specifi c method of liquidity measurement – the gross liquidity fl ows. The chosen independent variables include various items of internal character such as loans, deposits, profi t, capital and the size of the bank. Robust regression analyses are performed. The results indicate that internal factors have the greatest infl uence on the creation of liquidity, where almost all the variables considered were signifi cant. Used factors do not only affect liquidity creation, often investigated by authors, but affect other dimensions of liquidity as well. A signifi cant item which played a role in multiple dimensions of liquidity was the value of loans and the size of the bank (total assets). The models have shown that any given factor only has an infl uence on the creation of liquidity without infl uencing its outfl ow and vice versa. Thus, when looking for determinants only for the creation or only for the outfl ow of liquidity, the results need not necessarily comprehensively show the infl uence of the given factors, and can lead to erroneous conclusions. It is therefore suitable to include multiple views on the value of liquidity, since the infl uence of a factor can be more dominant in a different dimension of liquidity and affect the fi nal value.

The Dark Side of Liquidity Creation: Leverage and Systemic Risk

We consider a model in which the threat of bank liquidations by creditors as well as equity-based compensation incentives both discipline bankers, but with different consequences. Greater use of equity leads to lower ex ante bank liquidity, whereas greater use of debt leads to a higher probability of inefficient bank liquidation. The bank’s privately-optimal capital structure trades off these two costs. With uncertainty about aggregate risk, bank creditors learn from other banks’ liquidation decisions. Such inference can lead to contagious liquidations, some of which are inefficient; this is a negative externality that is ignored in privately-optimal bank capital structures. Thus, under plausible conditions, banks choose excessive leverage relative to the socially optimal level, providing a rationale for bank capital regulation. While a blanket regulatory forbearance policy can eliminate contagion, it also eliminates all market discipline. However, a regulator generating its own information about aggregate risk, rather than relying on market signals, can restore efficiency by intervening selectively.

Liquidity creation through efficient M&As: A viable solution for vulnerable banking systems? Evidence from a stress test under a panel VAR methodology

According to the “cost efficiency - liquidity creation” hypothesis (CELCH), introduced in this paper, a rise in a bank’s cost efficiency level increases its liquidity creation. By employing a novel stress test scenario under a panel VAR methodology, the CELCH and the direction of causality between liquidity creation and cost efficiency are tested. Moreover, using new measures of liquidity creation (Berger and Bouwman, 2009), the question of whether potential bank mergers and acquisitions (M&As) can enhance liquidity creation and generate additional credit channels in the economy is addressed. The robustness of potential consolidation scenarios are evaluated and compared through the use of new “half-life” measures (Chortareas and Kapetanios, 2013). In line with CELCH, the positive impact of cost efficiency on liquidity creation is shown. The empirical evidence further suggests that potential consolidation activity can enhance the flow of credit in the economy. Bank shocks seem to have the most persistent effect on both liquidity creation and cost efficiency. Finally, doubts are cast on the strategies followed by policy authorities regarding the recent wave of M&As in the banking sector.

Bank liquidity creation, monetary policy, and financial crises

This paper examines the interplay among bank liquidity creation (which incorporates all bank on- and off-balance sheet activities), monetary policy, and financial crises. We find that: (1) high liquidity creation (relative to trend) – particularly off-balance sheet liquidity creation – helps predict crises, controlling for other factors; (2) monetary policy has statistically significant, but economically minor effects on liquidity creation by small banks during normal times, and these effects are even weaker during financial crises; (3) monetary policy has very little effects on medium and large bank liquidity creation during both normal times and crises. These findings suggest that authorities may wish to monitor bank liquidity creation closely in order to predict and perhaps lessen the likelihood of financial crises. They might also consider other tools to control bank liquidity creation, such as capital and liquidity requirements.

Bank capital and liquidity creation: evidence of relation from India

PurposeThis study analyzes the impact of changes in bank capital on liquidity creation. More specifically, it tests “financial fragility – crowding out” and “risk absorption” hypotheses for Indian banks.Design/methodology/approachIt uses the data of 136 listed and unlisted banks, ranging from the year 2000 to 2014. The analysis is based on panel data techniques.FindingsThere is negative relationship between narrow measure of bank liquidity creation and capital. Therefore, in the case of India, “financial fragility – crowding out” hypothesis holds for “cat nonfat” measure of liquidity creation. However, there is no relationship between “cat fat” measure of liquidity creation and capital, except for listed banks, and the banks in the pre-crisis period. In these two cases, “risk absorption” hypothesis holds. Furthermore, none of the hypotheses holds in the post-crisis period.Practical implicationsThe higher capital requirements posed by the Basel III will result in lower on-balance-sheet liquidity creation, which may result in lower profitability for the banks. However, increase in capital does not affect off-balance-sheet liquidity creation, rather enhances it in case of listed banks. So, the managers may use risky off-balance-sheet liquidity creation to improve profitability. Therefore, the regulators must be vigilant to the off-balance-sheet activities of banks to avoid banking turmoil.Originality/valueTo the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore which hypothesis regarding the relationship between bank capital and liquidity creation holds for Indian banks. It contributes to the existing literature by providing the empirical evidence that “financial fragility – crowding out” hypothesis holds for on-balance-sheet liquidity creation and “risk absorption” hypothesis holds for listed banks. It also points to the new direction that neither of the hypotheses holds in the post-crisis period in India.

Bank liquidity creation and real economic output

Abstract We find that bank liquidity creation ( LC ) is statistically and economically significantly positively related to real economic output ( GDP ). This is robust to using instrumental variables and many robustness checks. LC also beats bank assets in “horse races.” On-balance sheet LC matters more for small banks and off-balance sheet LC matters more for large banks. Small bank LC generates more GDP per dollar than large bank LC , but large bank LC matters more overall because large banks provide much more LC than small banks. The LC -output relation is strongest in bank-dependent industries, consistent with the hypothesized transmission mechanism.

Reinsurance Demand and Liquidity Creation

This paper analyzes the relation between insurers’ liquidity creation and reinsurance demand. The empirical measure of liquidity creation was developed for banks by Berger and Bouwman (2009), who distinguished two important bank activities: liquidity creation and risk transformation. Insurers also actively transform risk, but the extent of their engagement in liquidity creation is less clear. Because liquidity creation is a risky activity, it may affect the demand for reinsurance. The goal of this study is to analyze how liquidity creation affects demand for reinsurance.

Too Big to Care, Too Small to Matter: Macrofinancial Policy and Bank Liquidity Creation

We estimate the volume of liquidity creation by U.S. bank holding companies between 1997 and 2015, and examine the impact of changes in macrofinancial policies on the dynamics of this process. We focus on three major policy developments occurring in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 financial crisis: bank capital regulation reform, monetary stimulus through quantitative easing, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The dynamics of bank liquidity creation differ considerably between small and large institutions. The level of bank capital requirements and the stance of monetary policy affect the liquidity creation of small and medium-sized banks, but not the largest institutions which control over 80% of the banking system’s assets. In contrast, TARP has only short-term effects on small and medium banks, and leads to a long-term decline in liquidity provision per dollar of assets of the largest banks.

Securitization and Liquidity Creation in Markets with Adverse Selection

This paper provides an information-based theory of tranching, a practice in which sellers slice a financial asset into debt securities with different seniority. I use the price posting framework to analyze asset-backed security markets with adverse selection and find that tranching is a robust equilibrium outcome. Tranching decomposes the asset into “information insensitive” and “information sensitive” components. The expected cash flow of the information insensitive component is independent of the seller's private signal, whereas the expected cash flow of the information sensitive component varies with the signal. When buyers are restricted to trade shares of assets, they have to purchase both components proportionally. Tranching, however, allows buyers to disproportionately purchase the information insensitive component. As a result, buyers are less concerned about adverse selection, and total trading volume in the market increases. My model also generates testable predictions on the liquidity of individual debt securities: the selling probability of a debt security increases in its seniority, which is observable to buyers, yet decreases with its performance, which is ex-ante unobservable to buyers; these predictions are supported by my empirical analysis of the non-agency MBS market.

The role of governance on bank liquidity creation

This paper examines the impact of internal bank governance on bank liquidity creation in the U.S. before, during and after the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Using bank holding company level data, we analyze whether better-governed banks create higher levels of liquidity. We find that this effect is positive and significant but only for large bank holding companies. Further analysis reveals that specific internal governance categories: CEO education, compensation structure, progressive practices, and ownership have a significant effect on bank liquidity. However, this positive effect occurs mostly during the crisis period, and for large banks that are also high liquidity creators. Finally, we find that the effect of governance on liquidity creation increases during the crisis period. These findings are robust even while controlling for liquidity measures, bank size, and endogeneity problems between governance and liquidity creation.

Cyclicality of Bank Liquidity Creation

This paper investigates the cyclicality of bank liquidity creation. Since liquidity creation is a major economic function of banks, their liquidity creation behavior may amplify business cycle fluctuations. Using the methodology of Berger and Bouwman (2009) to compute liquidity creation measures, we analyze the relation between GDP growth and liquidity creation of Russian banks from 2004 to 2015. Detailed quarterly data on a very large sample of banks and coexistence of different bank ownership types (state-owned, domestic private and foreign banks), makes Russia an ideal natural laboratory for study of cyclicality of liquidity creation for banks. We find that liquidity creation of banks is procyclical. We show that the liquidity creation behavior of state-owned banks and foreign banks is similar to that of domestic private banks in terms of procyclicality. We further find that the magnitude of procyclicality is higher for liquidity creation than for lending. Thus, while ownership of banks does not influence the liquidity creation behavior of banks, such behavior can amplify business cycle fluctuations.

Liquidity Holdings, Diversification, and Aggregate Shocks

This paper shows that US banks’ increased geographic diversification is an important explanation for the decline of their liquidity buffers from 1976 to the 2008 crisis. Diversified banks also hold more illiquid small business loans, less liquid mortgages, and have higher net liquidity creation. During the crisis, however, better diversified banks hoard more liquidity. These results suggest that diversification increases liquidity risk-taking capacity in normal times, and that exploiting this advantage leaves banks more exposed to aggregate shocks.

Determinants of different types of bank liquidity: evidence from BRICS countries

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the determinants of three different types of bank liquidity: funding liquidity, liquidity creation, and stock liquidity in emerging markets.Design/methodology/approachIt uses an extensive set of data from all the listed banks of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, collectively known as the BRICS countries, spanning the period 2002-2014. Multiple linear regression has been used to estimate the coefficients of the determinants.FindingsIn case of emerging markets, bank size is not a determinant of different types of liquidity, except funding liquidity. Besides, the recent financial crisis had an impact on funding liquidity as well as “cat nonfat” measure of liquidity creation but it did not affect “cat fat” measure and stock liquidity. The variation in funding liquidity is also explained by the profitability and the riskiness of the bank. Effective interest rate, national savings rate, and inflation rate are also the determinants of funding liquidity. Bank-specific determinants of liquidity creation include bank leverage and profitability, and macroeconomic determinants include stock market index, effective interest rate, and unemployment rate. The variation in stock liquidity of the bank is explained by profitability and price of stocks, trading volume, volatility of stock returns, and percentage change in real gross domestic product. Neither market capitalization nor stock market index is the determinant of stock liquidity of the banks.Research limitations/implicationsThis study uses the data from publically listed banks only.Practical implicationsThe findings of this study may be used by the policy makers and bank managers in the emerging markets to design better policies and to strengthen the banking system to avoid financial turmoil in future.Originality/valueMost of the existing studies focus on bank liquidity in developed countries and studies aiming on emerging countries are rare. The existing studies focus more on funding liquidity and liquidity creation but to the best of the authors’ knowledge, none of the studies analyze the determinants of banks’ stock liquidity. So, this study bridges the above mentioned gaps by focusing on bank liquidity in emerging markets, and exploring the determinants of the stock liquidity of the banks.

Interaction among funding liquidity, liquidity creation and stock liquidity of banks

PurposeThis study aims to explore the relationship between three different kinds of bank liquidity: funding liquidity; liquidity creation; and stock liquidity.Design/methodology/approachIt used the data from listed banks of BRICS countries spanning the period 2007-2014. Simultaneous equations model and three-stage least square estimation were used for analysis.FindingsFirst of all, increase in liquidity creation is linked to decline in funding liquidity, but variation in funding liquidity does not describe changes in liquidity creation. Second, higher stock illiquidity is associated with greater liquidity creation, but liquidity creation does not determine variation in stock liquidity. Lastly, there is no direct relationship between funding liquidity and stock liquidity; however, stock liquidity indirectly affects funding liquidity through liquidity creation.Practical implicationsThe findings highlight the fact that capital is not the only determinant of liquidity creation, rather stock liquidity is an equally important determinant in the case of listed banks of BRICS countries. This fact has been highlighted by the recent financial crisis. Furthermore, funding liquidity depends on liquidity creation which depends on stock liquidity. However, the stock liquidity of banks neither depends on liquidity creation nor funding liquidity.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first one to provide the empirical evidence for the relationship between three different kinds of bank liquidity.