Skip to main content

Liquidity Risk Management in Banks: Economic and Regulatory Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Liquidity Risk Management in Banks

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Finance ((BRIEFSFINANCE))

Abstract

At the international level, a wide consensus has emerged over many years on the importance of liquidity monitoring and the need to mitigate the associated risk in order to preserve the stability of individual banks and the soundness of the entire banking system. However, many differences have also emerged regarding how this principle has been transposed into rules or guidelines. Although the changes that have occurred in the international banking system in these last decades have increased the technical solutions available to banks in managing liquidity risk, these changes have also led to an underestimation of the actual exposure to this risk. The crisis has highlighted the need for more efficient liquidity management by banks by involving all governing bodies and corporate management in monitoring and managing liquidity in both normal and stress conditions, integrating better treasury with other functions affecting the liquidity position, and increasing the importance of liquidity risk as a part of risk management. The crisis has also highlighted the weaknesses of self-regulation based on internal models and the need to integrate domestic and international regulations in order to take into account that the search for bank stability and the reduction of competitive inequalities also require defining common rules to limit banks’ appetite for liquidity risk. Liquidity risk is difficult to measure and depends on so many factors that a capital requirement is unsuitable to prevent it. Proper management policy requires examining the liquidity risk as a function of the impact area, the time horizon, the origin and the economic scenario where it occurs. After analysing these four aspects, it is necessary to define models of risk measurement, by identifying indicators to monitor, setting appropriate operating limits and related organisational issues. After reviewing the main economic aspects of liquidity risk, this study examines the new international regulations which will introduce, albeit gradually, a common framework for liquidity risk management in banks, and highlights the main economic and managerial consequences that these regulations will produce for bank management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The relation between liquidity and leverage can be found in: Adrian and Shin (2008).

  2. 2.

    Ruozi (2011).

  3. 3.

    Vento and La Ganga (2009).

  4. 4.

    On the relation between liquidity risk and the various subcategories of risk defined by Basel II, see: CEBS (2008), p. 12.

  5. 5.

    Senior Supervisors Group (2009).

  6. 6.

    IIF (2010), EBF (2010), Blundell-Wignall and Atkinson (2010).

  7. 7.

    Bruni and Llewellyn (2009).

  8. 8.

    Banks (2005).

  9. 9.

    Murphy (2008).

  10. 10.

    Ruozi (2011).

  11. 11.

    Adrian and Shin (2008), CEBS (2008).

  12. 12.

    The Joint Forum (2006).

  13. 13.

    Banks (2005).

  14. 14.

    For more detail on the so-called “liquidity spirals” that involve a closer interrelationship between funding liquidity risk and market liquidity risk, see: Garleanu and Pedersen (2007), Brunnermeier and Pedersen (2009), CEBS (2008).

  15. 15.

    Deutsche Bundesbank and Bafin (2008).

  16. 16.

    Bangia et al. (2001), Bervas (2006).

  17. 17.

    Matz and Neu (2007).

  18. 18.

    Murphy (2008).

  19. 19.

    Banque de France (2008).

  20. 20.

    The Joint Forum (2006).

  21. 21.

    Resti and Sironi (2007).

  22. 22.

    Matz and Neu (2007).

  23. 23.

    European Central Bank (2007).

  24. 24.

    Banks (2005).

  25. 25.

    Matz (2007).

  26. 26.

    Resti and Sironi (2007).

  27. 27.

    Bangia et al. (2001).

  28. 28.

    International Monetary Fund (2006), Bervas (2006).

  29. 29.

    Borio (2000).

  30. 30.

    Bervas (2006).

  31. 31.

    Bangia et al. (2001), Jarrow and Protter (2005), Amihud et al. (2005), Angelidis and Benos (2006), Stange and Kaserer (2008).

  32. 32.

    CEBS (2007).

  33. 33.

    European Central Bank (2007).

  34. 34.

    This refers specifically to “banking groups” since the presence of foreign direct branches, rather than the presence of local companies, is always associated with a centralised model. CEBS (2007).

  35. 35.

    European Central Bank (2007).

  36. 36.

    CGFS (2010).

  37. 37.

    CGFS (2010).

  38. 38.

    Deutsche Bundesbank (2008).

  39. 39.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (1992).

  40. 40.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2000).

  41. 41.

    The Joint Forum (2006).

  42. 42.

    The ICAAP can be decomposed into the following phases: (1) identification of risks to be evaluated, (2) measurement and evaluation of individual risks and the internal capital needed to meet them, (3) measurement of total internal capital in relation to the totality of risks borne, and (4) determining the total capital and reconciliation with the regulatory capital.

  43. 43.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2006).

  44. 44.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2008).

  45. 45.

    Among other studies on the management of liquidity risk particularly noteworthy is: Persaud (2003); IIF (2007); Senior Supervisors Group (2009).

  46. 46.

    Nikolaou (2009).

  47. 47.

    Bini Smaghi (2010).

  48. 48.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2010).

  49. 49.

    The goal is to prevent banks from exploiting double counting: if an asset is included in the stock of high-quality liquid assets, it cannot be computed as a possible source of cash inflows. For this reason, if the collateral is represented by ‘Level 1’ high quality liquid assets, the weighting factor is zero; if it is a ‘Level 2’ asset, the weighting factor is 15 %, and if it is an asset of another type, the factor is 100 %.

  50. 50.

    The total net cash outflows during the 30 calendar days are then calculated as follows:

    $$ Total \, net \, cash \, outflows\; = \; outflows - min \, \left\{ {inflows; \, 75\; \% \;of \, outflows} \right\} . $$

    This means that inflows are subject to an upper limit of 75 % of gross outflows, imposing in this way a requirement for banks to hold a minimum stock of high quality liquid assets at least equal to 25 % of gross outflows.

  51. 51.

    During the implementation of the guidelines agreed by the Basel Committee, there may be differences between individual jurisdictions.

  52. 52.

    Bindseil and Lamoot (2011).

  53. 53.

    Small business customers, consistent with the definition already taken by the regulatory portfolios in Basel II rules, include non-financial small business customers that are managed as retail exposures with an aggregated funding raised from one small business customer that is, even on a consolidated basis, less than one million euros.

  54. 54.

    This prediction requires that Government bonds or similar securities have a 0 % risk weight for credit risk under the Basel II standardised approach.

  55. 55.

    As with the LCR requirement, even in this case, in the implementation phase of the reform, there may be differences in individual jurisdictions.

  56. 56.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2010).

  57. 57.

    Blundell-Wignall and Atkinson (2010).

  58. 58.

    Resti (2011).

  59. 59.

    Bordeleau and Graham (2010).

  60. 60.

    This weighting factor operates for sovereign bonds or similar securities with a 0 % risk weight for credit risk under the Basel II standardised approach.

  61. 61.

    Otker-Robe and Pazarbasioglu (2010), IIF (2010), EBF (2010).

  62. 62.

    Resti (2011).

  63. 63.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2011).

  64. 64.

    Bonds issued by banks and financial companies with a maturity longer than 1 year are considered stable assets for 100 % of their value.

  65. 65.

    Sironi (2011).

  66. 66.

    Otker-Robe and Pazarbasioglu (2010).

  67. 67.

    Ruozi and Ferrari (2005).

  68. 68.

    Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2010).

  69. 69.

    The concept of customer migration, introduced by McKinsey, refers to all those cases of customers who, while not disrupting the relationship with the bank, move the bulk of their purchases to competing banks. These customers, while being “retained”, would create greater losses in certain sectors (including the banking sector) than those resulting from non-retained customers. Coyles and Gokey (2002).

  70. 70.

    Pozsar et al. (2010).

  71. 71.

    FSB (2011a).

  72. 72.

    FSB (2011b).

  73. 73.

    European Commission (2012).

References

  • Adrian T, Shin HS (2008) Liquidity and leverage. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Staff Report, n. 238, May, revised December 2010 http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr328.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Amihud Y, Mendelson H, Pedersen LH (2005) Liquidity and asset prices. Found Trends Financ 1(4):269–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelidis T, Benos A (2006) Liquidity adjusted value-at-risk based on the components of the bid-ask spread. Appl Financ Econ 16(11):835–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangia A, Diebold FX, Schuermann T, Stroughair J (2001) Modeling liquidity risk, with implications for traditional market risk measurement and management. In: Figlewski S, Levich R (eds) Risk management: the state of the art. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks E (2005) Liquidity risk. Managing asset and funding risk. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  • Banque de France (2008) Special issue on liquidity. Financ Stab Rev 11:1–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (1992) A framework for measuring and managing bank liquidity. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, September. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs10b.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • BCBS-Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2000) Sound practices for managing liquidity in banking organisations. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, February. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs69.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • BCBS-Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2008) Liquidity risk. Management and supervisory challenges. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, February. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs136.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • BCBS-Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2010) Basel III—international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, December. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs188.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • BCBS-Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2011) Basel III framework for liquidity—frequently asked questions. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, December. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs211.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • BCBS-Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Basel II (2006) International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards: a revised framework—comprehensive version. Bank for International Settlements, Basel, June. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Bervas A (2006) Market liquidity and its incorporation into risk management. Banque de France. Financ Stab Rev 8:63–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindseil U, Lamoot J (2011) The Basel III framework for liquidity standards and monetary policy implementation. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2011-041. http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2011-041.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Bini Smaghi L (2010) Basel III and monetary policy, international banking conference “matching stability and performance: the impact of new regulations on financial intermediary management. Milan, 29 Sept

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell-Wignall A, Atkinson P (2010) Thinking beyond Basel III: necessary solutions for capital and liquidity. OECD J Financ Mark Trends 1:9–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordeleau E, Graham C (2010) The impact of liquidity on bank profitability. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2010-38, December. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/wp10-38.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Borio C (2000) Market liquidity and stress: selected issues and policy implications. BIS Quart Rev 11:38–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni F, Llewellyn D (eds) (2009) The failure of northern rock: a multi-dimensional case study. SUERF—The European Money and Finance Forum, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier MK, Pedersen LH (2009) Market liquidity and funding liquidity. Rev Financ Stud 22:2201–2238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesbank Deutsche (2008) Liquidity risk management at credit institutions, Deutsche Bundesbank. Mon Rep 9:57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • CEBS-Committee of European Banking Supervisors (2007) First part of CEBS’s technical advice to the European Commission on liquidity risk management. http://www.eba.europa.eu/getdoc/35ae99ee-dcee-4106-bd9b-cbf0ef8ad051/CfA_8_LiquidityStockTakesurvey.aspx. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • CEBS-Committee of European Banking Supervisors (2008) Second part of CEBS’s technical advice to the European Commission on liquidity risk management. http://www.eba.europa.eu/getdoc/bcadd664-d06b-42bb-b6d5-67c8ff48d11d/20081809CEBS_2008_147_(Advice-on-liquidity_2nd-par.aspx. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • CGFS-Committee on the Global Financial System (2010) Funding patterns and liquidity management of international active banks, Basel, May. http://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs39.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Coyles S, Gokey TC (2002) Customer retention Is not enough. McKinsey Quart 2:81–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Bundesbank, BaFin (2008) Liquidity risk management practices at selected German Credit Institutions. http://www.bundesbank.de/download/bankenaufsicht/pdf/liquiditaetsrisikomanagement.en.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • EBF-European Banking Federation (2010) EBF comments on the Basel Committee’s consultative document entitled “international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring. 16 April. http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs165/ebfl.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • ECB-European Central Bank (2007) Liquidity risk management of cross-border banking groups in the EU. EU Bank Struct 10:19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Green paper, shadow banking, Brussels, 19 March. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/shadow/green-paper_en.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • FSB-Financial Stability Board (2011a) Shadow banking: scoping the issues. A background note of the financial stability board, 12 April. http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_110412a.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • FSB-Financial Stability Board (2011b) Shadow banking: strengthening oversight and regulation. recommendations of the financial stability board, 27 October. http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_111027a.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Garleanu N, Pedersen LH (2007) Liquidity and risk management. Am Econ Rev 97(2):193–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IIF-Institute of International Finance (2007) Principles of liquidity risk management. Washington, March

    Google Scholar 

  • IIF-Institute of International Finance (2010) Comments by the Institute of International Finance on the Basel Committee for banking supervision’s consultative documents strengthening the resilience of the banking sector and international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring, Washington, April

    Google Scholar 

  • IMF-International Monetary Fund (2006) Financial soundness indicators, Washington. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fsi/guide/2006/pdf/chp8.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Jarrow RA, Protter PE (2005) Liquidity risk and risk measure computation. Rev Futures Mark 11(1):27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz L (2007) Scenario analysis and stress testing. In: Matz L, Neu P (eds) Liquidity risk management. Wiley, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz L, Neu P (eds) (2007) Liquidity risk management. Wiley, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy D (2008) Understanding risk. The theory and practice of financial risk management. Chapman & Hall/CRC Financial Mathematics Series, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaou K (2009) Liquidity (risk) Concepts: definitions and interactions. Working Paper Series, European Central Bank, n. 1008, February. http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1008.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Onado M (2009) Northern Rock: Just the tip of the iceberg. In: Bruni F, Llewellyn D (eds) The failure of northern rock: a multi-dimensional case study. SUERF—The European Money and Finance Forum, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Otker-Robe I, Pazarbasioglu C (2010) Impact of regulatory reform on large and complex financial institutions. IMF Staff Position Note, International Monetary Fund, Washington, November. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1016.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Persaud A (ed) (2003) Liquidity black holes. Understanding, quantifying and managing financial liquidity risk. Risk Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozsar Z, Adrian T, Ashcraft A, Boesky H (2010) Shadow banking. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report No. 458, July, revised February 2012. http://www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr458.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Resti A (2011) Liquidità e capitale delle banche: le nuove regole, i loro impatti gestionali. Bancaria 11:14–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Resti A, Sironi A (2007) Risk management and shareholders’ value in banking. From Risk Measurement Models to Capital Allocation Policies. Wiley Finance, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruozi R (ed) (2011) Economia della banca. Egea, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruozi R, Ferrari P (2005) La raccolta bancaria diretta. Tendenze evolutive, politiche, strumenti e dinamiche gestionali. Bancaria Editrice, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Sironi A (2011) L’industria bancaria europea fra crisi economica e ri-regolamentazione. Quali strategie per il futuro? Economia Manage 5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • SSG-Senior Supervisors Group (2009) Risk management lessons from the global banking crisis of 2008, October. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/SSG_risk_management_lessons.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Stange S, Kaserer C (2008) The impact of order size on stock liquidity: a representative study. CEFS working paper No. 9. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1292304. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • The Joint Forum (2006) The management of liquidity risk in financial groups, Bank for International Settlements, Basel. http://www.bis.org/publ/joint16.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2012

  • Vento GA, La Ganga P (2009) Bank liquidity risk management and supervision: which lessons from recent market turmoil? J Money Invest Bank 10:79–126

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Ruozi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruozi, R., Ferrari, P. (2013). Liquidity Risk Management in Banks: Economic and Regulatory Issues. In: Liquidity Risk Management in Banks. SpringerBriefs in Finance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29581-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29581-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-29580-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-29581-2

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics