Managing Bank Liquidity in Real Time
Just a decade ago the concept of bank liquidity was for all intents and purposes only one for the Bank Regulator to really concern himself with. A bank had to remain liquid –critical if it were to enjoy the confidence of its depositors – but this criticality was an “after the event” issue.
Then banks enjoyed a high degree of anonymity and choice in how it managed its liquidity. This was as a result of the techniques then used for settling interbank obligations. These techniques had been devised and refined over two or more centuries. They had come from a pre-computer world that relied on manual transaction processing of instruments such as cheques. Early moves at computerization of bank processes simply mechanized the manual approach by using the batch processing system. So the critical factor that related to the measuring of a bank’s liquidity could only be determined after the end of the trading day had been completed and all the “ins” and the “outs” were matched up. Even then, a bank had a safety net, provided by the central bank, which in most countries was prepared to cover any shortfall, and PHILIPS FC-9174/01 then to backdate this cover to the previous trading day.
A growing understanding of settlement risk and the possible contagion to systemic failure led central banks, almost without exception, to implement payment systems, usually under their own direct control that ensured finality of settlement. HTC Touch Dual P5500 Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) especially where high value payments were involved has become the accepted mechanism of ensuring safety in national payment systems.
This was followed by the need to ensure that the settlement of stock exchange transactions also took place in a secure manner and that delivery of the shares was only against the exchange of a payment that was final and irrevocable. The RTGS approach fitted this need admirably.
Foreign exchange settlements were the next problem. The collapse of the Herrstadt Bank had caused major problems. The solution propsed by a group of major international banks was for the CLS (continuous linked settlement) system which won the approval of the major central banks. Again the RTGS system was Обитаемый остров (Трейлер) pressed into Garmin Nuvi 255W use to provide the secure payments leg. Additional factors such as straight through processing (STP) provided the reward of error free transactions. All this has added to the need to manage liquidity in real time.
Each new payment dimension (i.e. RTGS, DvP, CLS) adds to the complexity of the problem. Funds flows now involve domestic, foreign and securities payments as a minimum – each flow is really dependent on the other flows. There may be other dimensions too, depending on local arrangement and conditions, where other settlements may be require to be settled in real-time and on RTGS principles, such as ACH operations or cheque clearing operations.
The complexity of these requirements was the subject of an intensive study in 2000 by the Payments Risk Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Interday Liquidity in the Evolving Payment System: A study of the impact of the Euro, CLS Bank and CHIPS finality”). The study examined the potential implications for US dollar intraday liquidity risks that would come about from planned changes to payment systems in the US and elsewhere. In the words of the committee the report was “intended to stimulate dialogue on the issue Angels Camp homes and to suggest some possible best practices”. Even though the main focus was on the liquidity ROWENTA RO-4427 effect to banks in the US, the problems and the solutions are applicable to
(more…)