Bank liquidity risk: From John Law (1705) to Walter Bagehot (1873)

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Pub Date : 2013-08-01 DOI:10.1080/09672567.2011.653878

Jérôme de Boyer des Roches

{"title":"Bank liquidity risk: From John Law (1705) to Walter Bagehot (1873)","authors":"Jérôme de Boyer des Roches","doi":"10.1080/09672567.2011.653878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By granting credit and issuing money, banks take a liquidity risk - that is, the risk of being unable to reimburse its notes in coins. Five different explanations of a bank liquidity crisis have been provided by different authors, since John Law and up to Walter Bagehot. First, according to Law (1703) and Steuart ([1767] [1998]), the distinction between money of account (the pound sterling) and money of payment (the guinea) may induce a bank run. Second, according to Cantillon (1730), Hume ([1752] 1972), Ricardo (1810-1823) and the Currency School (1837-1858), the bank reserve becomes insufficient as a consequence of a diminishing value of money allied with over issues. Third, according to Thornton ([1802] 1939, 1991) and the Banking School (1840-1857), it can occur as a consequence of a falling exchange rate that is not linked with over issues. Fourth, according to Smith (1776) and the Banking School, discounting of fictitious bills, by decreasing the shareholders' funds, leads to bank illiquidity. Lastly, according to Thornton ([1802] 1939, 1991) and Bagehot (1873), the liquidity crisis is a consequence of bank panics: a \"flight\" to money for Thornton, a \"flight\" to credit for Bagehot. The analysis of these five different explanations sheds new light on classical monetary controversies.","PeriodicalId":51791,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"20 1","pages":"547 - 571"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09672567.2011.653878","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2011.653878","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 10

Abstract

Abstract By granting credit and issuing money, banks take a liquidity risk - that is, the risk of being unable to reimburse its notes in coins. Five different explanations of a bank liquidity crisis have been provided by different authors, since John Law and up to Walter Bagehot. First, according to Law (1703) and Steuart ([1767] [1998]), the distinction between money of account (the pound sterling) and money of payment (the guinea) may induce a bank run. Second, according to Cantillon (1730), Hume ([1752] 1972), Ricardo (1810-1823) and the Currency School (1837-1858), the bank reserve becomes insufficient as a consequence of a diminishing value of money allied with over issues. Third, according to Thornton ([1802] 1939, 1991) and the Banking School (1840-1857), it can occur as a consequence of a falling exchange rate that is not linked with over issues. Fourth, according to Smith (1776) and the Banking School, discounting of fictitious bills, by decreasing the shareholders' funds, leads to bank illiquidity. Lastly, according to Thornton ([1802] 1939, 1991) and Bagehot (1873), the liquidity crisis is a consequence of bank panics: a "flight" to money for Thornton, a "flight" to credit for Bagehot. The analysis of these five different explanations sheds new light on classical monetary controversies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

银行流动性风险:从约翰·劳(1705)到沃尔特·白芝浩(1873)

通过发放信贷和发行货币，银行承担了流动性风险，即无法偿还硬币的风险。从约翰•劳(John Law)到沃尔特•白芝浩(Walter Bagehot)，不同的作者对银行流动性危机给出了五种不同的解释。首先，根据Law(1703)和Steuart([1767][1998])的观点，记帐货币(英镑)和支付货币(几内亚)之间的区别可能会导致银行挤兑。其次，根据Cantillon(1730)、Hume([1752] 1972)、Ricardo(1810-1823)和货币学派(1837-1858)的观点，银行储备不足是由于与过度发行相关的货币价值下降的结果。第三，根据桑顿([1802]39,1991)和银行学院(1840-1857)的观点，它可能是汇率下跌的结果，而汇率下跌与超额发行无关。第四，根据史密斯(1776)和银行学派的观点，通过减少股东的资金，虚拟票据的贴现导致银行流动性不足。最后，根据Thornton([1802] 399,1991)和Bagehot(1873)的观点，流动性危机是银行恐慌的结果:对Thornton来说，流动性危机是向货币的“外逃”，而对Bagehot来说，流动性危机是向信贷的“外逃”。对这五种不同解释的分析，为经典货币争议提供了新的视角。

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

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Multiple-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

28.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET), a peer-reviewed journal, has quickly established itself as a leading forum for lively discussion on a wide range of issues in the history of economic thought. With contributions from both established international scholars and younger academics, EJHET is entirely pluralist and non-partisan with regard to subjects and methodologies - it does not subscribe to any particular current of thought, nor relate to any one geographic zone. The Managing Editors and Editorial Board and Advisory Board members are drawn from throughout Europe and beyond, and are committed to encouraging scholars from around the world to contribute to international research and debate.