Following on from the discussion in the previous post on whether bank1 deposits are money the question arises as to what happens when bank depositors try to convert their bank deposits into money – make a withdrawal, write out a cheque, pay a bill or uses any of the other methods to get at the funds. Will the bank be able to meet the demand for cold, hard, cash?
In short, how do banks manage liquidity?
The Problem
For banks, the problem is actually a fairly simple one to state. Long term, banks typically make money by borrowing short and lending long. As yield curves are typically upward sloping this works well – borrowing borrowing from people who want to deposit short and are prepared to receive between 0 and 4 or 5% to do so and then lending this to people who want to borrow to build homes and pay from 6 to 10%, run credit card balances at around 12% (or more) is a good business. With modern banking practice this even is profitable at a net interest margin of less than 2%.
Given that bank makes the most money by transforming short-dated liabilities into long dated loans the way to make the most money in the long term is to lend it all out and for as long as possible. Great strategy – with only one flaw. Some depositors are inconsiderate enough to want to be able to actually ask the bank to do what the bank has promised to do – pay their deposit at call.
The trick to making the most money, then, is to make sure that you only have enough liquid assets on hand to meet all your depositors calls on the funds and as little as possible more. This is because liquid assets pay little interest, with the most liquid, cash, paying none at all.
Getting this right is the responsibility of the ALM (Asset / Liability Management) function, usually headed by the (gloriously named) ALCO (Asset Liability Committee).
Get it wrong and, no matter how solvent your bank, if it cannot pay depositors calls you will very shortly not be a functioning institution.
Name Crisis
Mostly, a quick collapse is precipitated by a name crisis – in brief, your depositors no longer trust you to be able to make good on your promises. They then rush to be at the head of the queue to get “their money” out of the bank. Bank runs out of liquid assets, bank goes phut. In this instance it really does not matter if the bank’s net asset position is strong – if a bank cannot pay it is then in liquidation.
In many countries this risk is reduced through mechanisms like deposit insurance or guaranteed central bank facilities. Both of these have their problems – mostly moral hazard. If you want more on this go here. Suffice to say that, in Australia at least, we have not succumbed to the siren’s song as yet.
Australian Regulations
Legally speaking, Australian liquidity regulation is governed by APS 210 (Liquidity) and the associated guidance notes, AGN 210.1 Liquidity Management Strategy, AGN 210.2 Scenario Analysis and AGN 210.3 Minimum Liquidity Holdings. As far as regulations go, these are not too bad. They are principles based and flexible enough to cope with most approaches taken by banks. In brief, they mandate the following:
- A bank has to have a liquidity management strategy that is approved by the regulator;
- It has to analyse certain scenarios to show the regulator that they can be dealt with; and
- If a bank cannot satisfy the regulator that they can robustly model their liquidity requirements they have to hold a minimum of 9% of their assets in certain highly liquid forms.
For a small bank this sort of scheme is actually pretty good. Provided the regulator actually has a clue of what they are doing you could do a lot worse. The ALCO can normally take this as a baseline and then build a strategy on this.
International View
Oddly, given that liquidity management is one of the two principle risks facing banks, there are no international accords on liquidity management. It is all left to national regulators – although rumours have it that this may change with Basel III.
Generally, each regulator follows their own path.
Management Strategy
For smaller banks (and if you are with a bigger bank do not expect to get a full strategy off a blog – away with you) this needs some real time, thought and, yes, expense.
The first part of any decent liquidity strategy is simple – satisfy the regulations. You may think that this is an obvious point but I have seen this missed. No matter how silly the regulations you will need to satisfy them. If they are bad regulations, seek to change them. If the regulators will not listen, lobby in your parliament. Outright arguing with the regulators will get you into a bad place. Don’t try it. Doctors may say “First, do no harm”. I say “First, satisfy the regulations”.
The second part is to model your requirements. Spend a good amount of time (and money) getting this right. Even if you cannot use a model for regulatory purposes use one. If you start trying to run your bank to minimum regulatory standards it is probably well past time for you to retire. Still young? Cheer up – you may be able to get a job with one of the regulators. Probably only as a junior analyst, though.
Make sure you are able to meet your forecast requirements at least 99.99% of the time. This means that your model will not save you on one day every 2.74 years, worst case.
For those days the third part is crucial. This is having committed back up facilities available on, at worst, 24 hour call. These facilities should be structured to be big enough to get you through a once in a century event. Make sure they are with at least two other, large, banks. Pay the fees. They are worth it and you cannot put them in place when you need them – that is too late.
Lastly – and possibly most crucially, have a good name crisis plan. Review its operation frequently (at least once a year). Make sure the statements from the bank’s Chair are already drafted. Have your media and PR people briefed. Know all the financial journalists in your city well enough that not only do they answer your calls but they call you.
The worst possible way for news of a problem to get out is through rumour, followed by silence (perhaps with a rising background of prayer and panic) and then a rush followed by an announcement from the regulator. Make sure this will not happen to you.
1. As always, I use the term “bank” as a substitute for any deposit taking institution. In Australia, these are authorised deposit-taking institutions, licensed under the Banking Act 1959. In other countries they will be called other things. To the public, though, they are all banks.




22 comments
Comments feed for this article
10 October, 2007 at 6:27 am
David Jacobson
If deposits come with stringent liquidity management obligations, then how do you “value” deposits, especially at call funds? Is it the difference betweeen the cost of managing the funds and interest paid on the one hand and the cost of having to borrow funds to on-lend and what happens when the cost of borrowing dramatically changes as occurred recently?
10 October, 2007 at 8:50 am
Andrew
David,
IN practice, “call” funds are a relatively stable funding base except in the event of name crisis – they are also relatively cheap and do not expect day-to-day variability in the interest paid. To value them accurately depends on modelling their behaviour. You need to include in that valuation the risks of name crisis or any other panic event and also mitigating strategies.
Even with these risks, they are quite valuable. This is why the branch networks are extending again after years of decline.
12 February, 2009 at 9:51 pm
kanu uchendu
hello,
please i am writing a project on liquidity management in Nigeria commercial banks. send me articles to aid me
13 February, 2009 at 11:42 am
Andrew
Kanu,
Best place to look for articles would be at Google Scholar and then search for banking liquidity management if you are looking for research journal published articles.
28 February, 2009 at 3:50 am
victoria
hello,
pls am writing a project on ASSESSEMENT OF BANK LIQUIDATION IN NIGERIA (1994-2008). pls if any info or article pls send to the above email.
28 February, 2009 at 3:52 am
victoria
thanks
28 February, 2009 at 10:01 am
Andrew
There seem to be a lot of people in Nigeria wanting information on bank liquidity. Odd.
21 March, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Andrew Amedu
pls who can help me with any document on the impact of liquidity management on the profitabity of banks
22 March, 2009 at 2:36 am
Andrew
Guys,
Read further up the thread. I will not be emailing anyone any information of this sort.
26 March, 2009 at 3:37 am
Temitope Oyebanji
hello,
please i am writing a project on CASH DEPOSIT MANAGEMENT IN COMMERCIAL BANKING IN NIGERIA ( FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. AS A CASE STUDY). Could you pls assist me? send your replys to my email temimama@yahoo.co.uk
7 July, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Asset
Thank you very much
Nice post on bank liquidity management.
I think giving money on loan at higher interest and depositing money at low rate is the best possible way to manage liquidity.
But, I am not sure how bank manages cases where people fails to deposit the loan amount. What does banks do at that time?
7 July, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Andrew
Asset,
People rarely re-deposit the money they have borrowed. That is the whole point – if you are lent money you normally go out and spend it.
7 July, 2009 at 8:34 pm
ABOM
…which ends up in someone else’s bank account…unless that person is smart and buys silver instead…
7 July, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Andrew
ABOM, either way it is less than 100% likely to go back to the bank that issued the loan. Therefore, making a loan reduces the amount of liquidity available to the bank issuing the loan.
8 July, 2009 at 10:12 am
ABOM
…and that’s why you need central bankers with FRB…which is why I don’t recommend “reckless” FRB which is INHERENTLY “unstable and very volatile” (note: I did NOT say it was a Ponzi scheme Andrew so no need to delete this comment!)
9 July, 2009 at 12:56 am
Andrew
Oh – and the “Ponzi” bit was just on that thread. So far I have never deleted a comment on this blog except where it was obvious spam that got through the filter.
8 July, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Andrew
ABOM,
But anyone making a loan (i.e. if I lend some money to a mate) reduces the amount of liquidity available to them. Do I need a central bank to monitor my lending ability and provide me with funding in case I cannot get the funds back?
8 July, 2009 at 4:22 pm
ABOM
If you are a deposit-taking institution you do. If you just a sucker member of the non-bank public you don’t.
I think everyone should be in the same boat – lend only to credit worthy borrowers and don’t cry to mommy when you don’t get your money back.
So killing off the RBA and cutting the banks from mommy’s skirt strings would eliminate moral hazard in banking and make for a much more robust financial sector IN THE LONG RUN.
In the short run no doubt some would panic. But that’s the price that has to be paid.
If you’re for deregulation Andrew you should be for ending the RBA.
8 July, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Andrew
I am, ABOM. I just do not agree that this means that any new restrictions (such as banning FRB – if it is possible to do so) are needed in its place, as you seem to.
8 July, 2009 at 5:03 pm
ABOM
I don’t. You misunderstand me (and Rothbard). We both think FRB is embezzlement but Rothbard states the following in his seminal THe Mystery of Banking (and I agree with him 100%)
“Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.”
FullRB is impractical. So free banking is the best alternative.
Get rid of the RBA, allow me to trade in gold or silver if I want to (and if I can, I probably won’t bother, ironically) and I will buy you a Scotch (of any brand) and all will be well with the world…
8 July, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Andrew
I would disagree that FRB can be banned or even should be, but I would agree that free banking is where we should be headed, and under the condition that Rothbard states. if a bank cannot meet its liabilities then, like any other business, it should be put into receivership or liquidation. As a personal opinion I do not see why banks should be subject to any laws that the rest of the business community are not.
Again, personally, I think that this would make banks smaller and more risk adverse and allow more choice to consumers, with a genuine market for funds.
However, I would disagree that the best way to get there is to start by increasing regulation.
9 July, 2009 at 9:28 am
ABOM
Agreed.
If we can somehow turn the lights off at the RBA offices in Martin Place and blow up that appalling soulless filthy modernist monstrosity called the RBA’s head office, I would die a happy man.