Discipline and Liquidity in the Interbank Market
Thomas B. King
Abstract
Thomas B. King
Abstract
Using 20 years of panel data, I demonstrate that high‐risk banks have consistently paid more than safe banks for interbank loans and have been less likely to use these loans as a source of liquidity. The economic importance of this effect was relatively small until the mid‐1990s, when regulatory and institutional changes began to impose more of the costs of bank failure on uninsured creditors. Subsequently, interbank‐market price discipline roughly doubled, and risk‐based rationing effects increased by a factor of six. In imposing this discipline, lenders seem to care most about credit risk at borrowing institutions.
OpenAlex reports 92 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Using 20 years of panel data, I demonstrate that high‐risk banks have consistently paid more than safe banks for interbank loans and have been less likely to use these loans as a source of liquidity. The economic importance of this effect was relatively small until the mid‐1990s, when regulatory and institutional changes began to impose more of the costs of bank failure on uninsured creditors. Subsequently, interbank‐market price discipline roughly doubled, and risk‐based rationing effects increased by a factor of six. In imposing this discipline, lenders seem to care most about credit risk at borrowing institutions.
Key concepts: Interbank lending market, Market liquidity, Market discipline, Creditor, Credit rationing, Financial system, Liquidity risk, Business