<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bank Liquidity Management</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/</link>
	<description>Risk Management in Australia</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/#comment-24398</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ozrisk.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/#comment-24398</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,<br />
IN practice, &#8220;call&#8221; 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.<br />
Even with these risks, they are quite valuable. This is why the branch networks are extending again after years of decline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Jacobson</title>
		<link>http://ozrisk.net/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/#comment-24395</link>
		<dc:creator>David Jacobson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ozrisk.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/bank-liquidity-management/#comment-24395</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If deposits come with stringent liquidity management obligations, then how do you &#8220;value&#8221; 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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
