Banks' Liquidity Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

D. Gounopoulos, Kaisheng Luo, Anamaria Nicolae, Nikos Paltalidis
{"title":"Banks' Liquidity Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"D. Gounopoulos, Kaisheng Luo, Anamaria Nicolae, Nikos Paltalidis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How banks managed the COVID-19 pandemic shock? The eruption of the financial crisis in 2007 evolved to a crisis of banks as liquidity providers (Acharya and Mora, 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic shock was associated with a surge in households’ deposits and a subsequent liquidity injection by the Federal Reserve. We show how the pandemic affected banks’ liquidity management and therefore by extension, the creation of new loans. We empirically evaluate the creation and management of banks’ liquidity through three well established mechanisms: market discipline (supply-side), internal capital markets (demand-side), and the balance-sheet mechanism which captures banks’ exposure to liquidity demand risk. We provide novel empirical evidence showing that households increased savings as a precaution against future declines in their income. Also, depositors did not discipline riskier banks, and the internal capital market mechanism was not in work during the pandemic. Hence, weakly-capitalized banks were not forced to offer higher deposit rates to stem deposit outflows. Furthermore, weakly-capitalized banks increased lending in the first phase of the pandemic, while in the midst of the pandemic, they cut back new lending origination and increased their exposure to Fed’s liquidity facilities. Well-capitalized banks on the other hand, increased lending in line with the increase in their deposits. Banks with higher exposure to liquidity risk were vulnerable to deposit outflows and increased their exposure in Fed’s liquidity facilities significantly more than low-commitments exposed banks.","PeriodicalId":331807,"journal":{"name":"Banking & Insurance eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Banking & Insurance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853985","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How banks managed the COVID-19 pandemic shock? The eruption of the financial crisis in 2007 evolved to a crisis of banks as liquidity providers (Acharya and Mora, 2015). The COVID-19 pandemic shock was associated with a surge in households’ deposits and a subsequent liquidity injection by the Federal Reserve. We show how the pandemic affected banks’ liquidity management and therefore by extension, the creation of new loans. We empirically evaluate the creation and management of banks’ liquidity through three well established mechanisms: market discipline (supply-side), internal capital markets (demand-side), and the balance-sheet mechanism which captures banks’ exposure to liquidity demand risk. We provide novel empirical evidence showing that households increased savings as a precaution against future declines in their income. Also, depositors did not discipline riskier banks, and the internal capital market mechanism was not in work during the pandemic. Hence, weakly-capitalized banks were not forced to offer higher deposit rates to stem deposit outflows. Furthermore, weakly-capitalized banks increased lending in the first phase of the pandemic, while in the midst of the pandemic, they cut back new lending origination and increased their exposure to Fed’s liquidity facilities. Well-capitalized banks on the other hand, increased lending in line with the increase in their deposits. Banks with higher exposure to liquidity risk were vulnerable to deposit outflows and increased their exposure in Fed’s liquidity facilities significantly more than low-commitments exposed banks.
COVID-19大流行期间银行流动性管理
银行如何应对COVID-19大流行带来的冲击?2007年金融危机的爆发演变为银行作为流动性提供者的危机(Acharya和Mora, 2015)。新冠肺炎大流行带来的冲击与家庭存款激增以及美联储随后注入的流动性有关。我们展示了疫情如何影响银行的流动性管理,进而影响新贷款的发放。我们通过三种完善的机制对银行流动性的创造和管理进行了实证评估:市场纪律(供应方)、内部资本市场(需求方)和资产负债表机制(反映银行对流动性需求风险的敞口)。我们提供了新的经验证据,表明家庭增加储蓄是为了预防未来收入下降。此外,存款人没有约束风险较高的银行,内部资本市场机制在疫情期间没有发挥作用。因此,资本薄弱的银行没有被迫提高存款利率以遏制存款外流。此外,资本薄弱的银行在大流行的第一阶段增加了贷款,而在大流行期间,它们减少了新的贷款发放,并增加了对美联储流动性工具的敞口。另一方面,资本充足的银行则随着存款的增加而增加贷款。流动性风险敞口较高的银行更容易受到存款外流的影响,与风险敞口较低的银行相比,它们在美联储流动性工具中的敞口明显增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信