Dr. Sanjay Kumar Rastogi Associate Professor Faculty of Commerce Hindu College, Moradabad Ph.

0591-2311919, 2311959

Ph. No. 0591-2480015 Mob. 94126-34377 C2/126,Mansarovar Colony, Moradabad-244001 E-mail : aseem_ras@yahoo.com

Financial liquidity is an elusive notion, yet of paramount importance for the wellfunctioning of the financial system. Indeed a quick view into the financial market tensions since August 2000 stress this point. These tensions appeared as liquidity in money markets declined significantly following credit rationing in the interbank markets. This was due to the fact that banks refused to lend to each other because of funding liquidity problems relating to uncertainty over their exposure to structured products. The amount of exposure was a significant consideration because market liquidity of these structured assets had declined significantly, thereby reinforcing difficulties in valuing such products. As a result, central banks intervened and injected liquidity into the markets. This short exposition reveals important insights. To begin with, financial markets liquidity can take many different facets - such as market liquidity (interbank and asset market), funding liquidity and central bank liquidity. More importantly, in order to understand financial system liquidity, one needs to look closer at the various forms of liquidity in the financial system and the linkages among them. The academic literature up-to-date has looked at various liquidity types and has recorded broad linkages between them. However, it mainly treated the different concepts of liquidity in a rather fragmented way, because it aimed at explaining issues not necessarily related to financial liquidity and liquidity linkages1. In other words, it mainly used various notions of liquidity and fragmented parts of their linkages as input for the analysis of various other issues. As a result, it has yet to provide an analysis of the various liquidity types into a context focused only on liquidity. This research addresses this gap. It provides a structured and coherent approach of financial liquidity (risk) by concentrating, condensing and reinterpreting a broad spectrum of available literature results. More specifically this research presents a coherent liquidity framework where it differentiates between the various liquidity types, appropriately defines them and brings forward the linkages among them (i.e. describe the transmission channels and spill-over

i. In turbulent times (times of high liquidity risk) the linkages remain strong. it describes liquidity flows in the financial system by examining the linkages between three broad liquidity types: central bank liquidity. Liquidity linkages among the various liquidity types are strong. how liquidity risk is endemic in the financial system and how the central bank (liquidity) has an important. market liquidity and funding liquidity. but now become propagation channels of liquidity risk in the financial system.directions among these types). the second to the ability of trading in the markets. albeit limited role in mitigating liquidity risk. Liquidity The notion of liquidity in the economic literature relates to the ability of an economic agent to exchange his or her existing wealth for goods and services or for other assets. It then discusses the definitions and properties of each liquidity (risk) type. leading to a vicious circle which might end up destabilising the financial system. The current research is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the definitions and discusses the three types of liquidity and liquidity risk. Finally. create liquidity risk. Namely. We analyse the properties and empirical behaviour of each liquidity (risk) type. guaranteeing the smooth functioning of the financial system.e. asymmetric information and incomplete markets. The first relates to the liquidity provided by the central bank. The three main types are central bank liquidity. In normal times (times of low liquidity risk) such linkages promote a virtuous circle in the financial system liquidity. this research explains how departures from the classical economy paradigm. Section 3 discusses the linkages among the various liquidity types in normal periods and in turbulent periods. We also present measures of liquidity risk and discuss the relation between liquidity and liquidity risk. In . market liquidity and funding liquidity. and the third to the ability of banks to fund their positions. Section 4 describes the current turmoil and evaluates the relevance of the academic literature based on what was actually observed and Section 5 draws implications for policy makers and briefly concludes. Definitions In this section we identify and define three main types of liquidity pertaining to the liquidity analysis of the financial system and their respective risks. The role of central bank liquidity together with supervision and regulation are of paramount importance in restoring stability to the system. This research suggests two important policy implications.

It is typically measured as the liquidity supplied to the economy by the central bank. The reserves refer to balances owned by credit institutions and held with the central bank in order to meet settlement obligations from interbank transactions and to fulfil reserve requirements. As will become obvious below. liquidity will refer to the unhindered flows among the agents of the financial system.e. Thus. in accordance to the monetary policy stance. i. with a particular focus on the flows among the central bank. More technically. which refers to the amount of liquidity provided through the central bank auctions to the money market according to the “monetary policy stance”.this definition. commercial banks and markets. The autonomous factors contain transactions which are not controlled by the monetary policy function of the central bank. thereby making it reliant on refinancing from the central bank. liquidity can be understood in terms of flows (as opposed to stocks). two issues should be noted. It relates to “central bank operations liquidity”. Second. this ability can be hindered because of asymmetries in information and the existence of incomplete markets. results from managing the central bank assets in its balance sheet. central bank liquidity. being the monopoly provider of the monetary base. In the liabilities side. it is a flow concept. the main components are the autonomous factors and the reserves. the control variable of the central bank. Central bank liquidity Central bank liquidity is the ability of the central bank to supply the the liquidity needed to the financial system. provides liquidity to the financial system through its open market operations.e. The need for banknotes and the obligations of banks to fulfil the reserve requirements create an aggregate liquidity deficit in the system. the central bank uses its monetary policy instruments (conducts open market operations) to affect the liquidity in the money markets so that the interbank rate is closely aligned to the operational target rate set by the prevailing monetary policy stance. decides on the level of the operational target (usually the key policy rate). the minimum balances that banks are required to hold with the central bank. the central bank strategy determines the monetary policy stance. these operations appear in the asset side of the central bank’s balance sheet. First. In practice. in other words. liquidity refers to the “ability” of realising these flows. In our framework. a synonym for the supply of base money. i.e. the flow of monetary base from the central bank to the financial system. The latter reflects the prevailing value of the operational target. i. Inability of doing so would render the financial entity illiquid. The liquidity provided . that is. Consider the balance sheet of a central bank. In order to implement this target. The central bank.

i. It is therefore useful to consider the liquidity sources for banks. A second is the market. Finally. the bank can get liquidity from the interbank market13.by the central bank through its operations. Similarly. in its role as “originator and distributor”. who entrust their money to the bank. arguably the most important source of liquidity. at low cost and with little impact on its price. Moreover. this is possible by bidding in the open market operations of the RBI.e. However. investors and traders. 2008). until a consensus definition became available. where funding liquidity.e.] incorporates key . given their importance in distributing liquidity in the financial system. as Keynes noted [. It therefore becomes obvious that market liquidity should be judged on several grounds. Market liquidity The notion of market liquidity has been around at least since Keynes (1930). should balance the liquidity deficit of the system. All definitions are compatible. Namely. Therefore. references to funding liquidity have also been made from the point of view of traders or investors (Strahan. the central bank provides liquidity equal to the sum of the autonomous factors plus the reserves. being a flow concept. Moreover. its assets. A bank can always go to the asset market and sell its assets or generate liquidity through securitisation. The most obvious would be the ability to trade. its liabilities. the depositors. It took a long time. Fernandez (1999) points out that “(market) liquidity. where funding liquidity relates to their ability to raise funding (capital or cash) in short notice. A first one is.ows. a bank can also choose to get funding liquidity directly from the central bank. This paper mainly focuses on the funding liquidity of banks. This can be clearly seen in practice. can be understood in terms of a budget constraint. A number of recent studies define market liquidity as the ability to trade an asset at short notice. as already seen. the IMF provides a definition of funding liquidity as the ability of solvent institutions to make agreed upon payments in a timely fashion.nes funding liquidity as the ability of banks to meet their liabilities. an entity is liquid as long as inflows are bigger or at least equal to out. In the euro system. however. This can hold for firms. Funding liquidity The Basel Committee of Banking supervision de. banks. i.. loan syndication and the secondary market for loans. The central bank manages its market operations so that the inter-bank short-term lending rates remain closely aligned to the target policy rate.. unwind or settle their positions as they come due.

ned by three dimensions which incorporate these elements: depth. Liquidity risk Risk relates to the probability of having a realisation of a random variable different to the realisation preferred by the economic agent. Such commonalities have been grounded theoretically (Brunnemeier and Pedersen. When the probability equals unity (i. These dimensions ensure that any amount of assets can be sold anytime within market hours. Market liquidity risk relates to the inability of trading at a fair price with immediacy.elements of volume.able component of liquidity risk. non-diversi. In that sense.e. The larger the premium. An interesting finding is the remarkable commonalities in market liquidity. rapidly. given that the higher the liquidity risk. asset pricing models typically . This has two important implications. Namely. The second implication of systemic risk is that it should be priced. transaction costs as in Jarrow and Subramanian. with minimum loss of value and at competitive prices. time and transaction costs. In our context the economic agent would have a preference over liquidity. Moreover. 2005 and 2007) and recorded empirically across stocks and across bonds and equity markets (Chordia et al. it suggests commonalities in liquidity risk across markets. First. the higher the probability of becoming illiquid. In practical terms. In that sense. Chordia et al. the lower the liquidity. Academic interest has been broad regarding the properties of market liquidity and its importance on the functioning of markets. Brunnemeier and Pedersen (2005) provide a theoretical framework which rationalises commonality of liquidity across assets and markets in general through the microstructure analysis of the behaviour of traders. Liquidity then may be de. It is the systematic. (2000. namely across stocks and across stocks and bonds (see papers for a relevant literature review).e. More extensive propagation mechanisms can also transfer liquidity risk across interbank and asset markets. 1997). the higher the liquidity risk. There is a positive covariance between individual stock liquidity and overall market liquidity. the possibility becomes a certainty) liquidity risk reaches a maximum and illiquidity materialises. the probability of not being liquid would suggest that there is liquidity risk. there is a inverse relationship between (il)liquidity and liquidity risk. the higher the market liquidity risk. starting with the liquiditybased asset pricing model of Holmstrom and Tirole (2001). 2005) have documented that liquidity is correlated across markets. In fact.. market liquidity risk has been typically regarded as a cost or premium in the asset pricing literature. 2005). breadth (or tightness) and resiliency”. which affects the price of an asset in a positive way and market practices (i. and therefore. The higher the probability.

As a consequence. but it is also possible to predict future returns based on current liquidity risk estimates. further argue that financial links are established only when the benefits are greater than the costs. when such mechanisms function . Supervision and regulation are the fundamental weapons against systemic liquidity crises. when the possibility of a financial crisis (and therefore elevated liquidity risk) is limited. Nevertheless. it is the type of liquidity risk that immediately alerts policy makers. On this latter point.measure liquidity risk as the covariance (commonality) between a measure of liquidity (innovations) and market returns. a general view of the liquidity flows in the system is also needed to examine market liquidity risk. disrupt the allocation of resources and ultimately. the central bank liquidity. Given this behaviour of market liquidity risk. that is. Given the importance of market liquidity risk (i. However. which damage financial stability.ect liquidity costs. Liquidity risk commoves with contemporaneous returns. the implications of market (systemic) liquidity risk are important from a financial stability point of view. affect the real economy. given the intense linkages among the various liquidity types. The episodic nature can result from downward liquidity spirals due to mutually reinforcing funding and market illiquidity.e. systemic risk) to financial stability. This would also help markets become more complete. Liquidity risk is in most cases low and stable. individual liquidity risk (leading to single or few bank failures) might not be of consequence.e. The behaviour of market liquidity risk (i. which are linked to the existence of liquidity risk. Notably. it is possible to understand why liquidity is time varying and persistent in smooth periods. the related literature suggests that asset prices re. Elevated liquidity risk is rare and episodic. In the best case scenario. greater transparency of liquidity management practices is needed. systemic (market) liquidity risk can have serious repercussions for the financial system as a whole. crises and financial contagion are rare events. Overall. the funding liquidity and the market liquidity. and indeed might even be a helpful mechanism to restore financial health in certain parts of the system. Finally. it can lead to financial crises. In order to eliminate systemic liquidity risk. of the market liquidity premium) has also been recorded. Within the financial system one can distinguish three broad liquidity types. These practices can tackle the root of liquidity risks by minimising asymmetric information and moral hazard through effective monitoring mechanisms of the financial system. In this way it is easier to distinguish between solvent and illiquid agents and therefore impose liquidity cushions to the ones most in need. In fact. These liquidity types sufficiently capture the workings of the financial system (at an aggregate level).

845. the role of the central banks as a liquidity provider could be redundant (market discipline would be sufficient).77 51.60 .60 33.20 39.338. Investment of FIIs in India Purchase of FII for year 2006-07 Table no. due to the amount of information that needs to be gathered.506.1 Months Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 FII Purchase(Rs.014.146.20 27.60 24. be run by the most cost efficient and result-effective agent.552.104. 6.50 47.568.60 49.591.96 37. such mechanisms can be costly. they should be managed by the central bank. However.419. If market discipline is not enough to install its own peermonitoring rules and regulations at a lower cost. In Crores) 40.94 31.415.983. therefore.10 28.90 50.effectively. They should.

000. .1 SD for FII Gross Purchase = 9606. the FII purchase was made throughout the year. 24983.90 Crores .00 40.000.00 6-Apr 50.33 Crores.78 respectively.00 20. on the other hand the purchase was least for the month of july 2006 for Rs. In the same year value of Standard Deviation for FII purchase was 9606.000.00 FII Purchase Chart 6.00 30.00 10.784973 Mean for FII Gross Purchase = 38457.10 Crores During this period the average of FII purchase was 38457.60.33 CV for FII Gross Purchase = 0. It can be easily understood by the figures that FII purchase is constant. The Coefficient of Variance of FII was 24. 51568.9 respectively.000.00 0. FII was Purchased highest in the month of February 2007 for Rs.000.249 6-May 6-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 6-Sep 6-Oct 6-Nov 6-Dec 7-Jan 7-Feb 7-Mar During the year 2006-07.000.

00 80.988.574.437.000.223.10 20.000.70 140. 6.882.Purchase of FII for year 2007-08 Table no.20 58.00 80.50 51.90 54.000.701.00 0.00 60.748.50 80. In Crores) 44.000.20 70.00 120.10 103.000.694.30 89.322.60 124.2 7-Apr 7-May 7-Jun 7-Jul 7-Aug 7-Sep 7-Oct 7-Nov 7-Dec 8-Jan 8-Feb 8-Mar .510.2 Months Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 FII Purchase(Rs.00 100.216.00 76.00 40.00 FII Purchase Chart 6.

07822 Mean for FII Gross Purchase = 75. 124882.30 During the year 2007-08.30.SD for FII Gross Purchase = 22866.30 Crores .452. the FII purchase was made throughout the year. . It can be easily understood by the figures that FII purchase is more constant.34 Crores. FII was Purchased highest in the month of October 2007 for Rs. In the same year value of Standard Deviation for FII purchase 22866.50 Crores During this period the average of FII purchase was 75452.07 .34 CV for FII Gross Purchase = 30. 44701. on the other hand the purchase was least for the month of April 2007 for Rs. The Coefficient of Variance of FII 30.

80 29.863.339.Purchase of FII for year 2008-09 Table no. In Crores) 62.60 49.30 30.177.70 21.90 68.490.3 Months Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 FII Purchase(Rs.764.20 32.40 .60 64.029.30 46.60 60. 6.30 61.969.401.

FII was Purchased highest in the month of September 2008 for Rs. on the other hand the purchase was least for the month of February 2009 for Rs.73 During the year 2008-09. .00 0.00 8-Apr 60.000. the FII purchase was made throughout the year.000.306.20 Crores .00 50. In the same year value of Standard Deviation for FII purchase was 17011.3 SD for FII Gross Purchase = 17011.00 8-May 8-Jun 8-Jul 8-Aug 8-Sep 8-Oct 8-Nov 8-Dec 9-Jan 9-Feb 9-Mar 30.19 CV for FII Gross Purchase = FII Purchase Chart 6.000. 68029.19 Crores.44 .20 Crores During this period the average of FII purchase was 46306.00 20.00 40. Coefficient of Variance of FII was 36.000. It can be easily understood by the figures that FII purchase is more constant.000.44384 Mean for FII Gross Purchase = 46.00 10. 21863.000.70.

Purchase of FII for year 2009-10 Table no. 6.009.457.70 77.881.80 47.40 64.884.00 62.886.070.90 69.088.514.60 .795.40 51.4 Months Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 FII Purchase(Rs.256. In Crores) 40.90 69.250.30 40.10 49.979.70 60.00 70.

. FII was Purchased highest in the month of May 2009 for Rs.00 70.70 Crores During this period the average of FII purchase was 58672. the FII purchase was made throughout the year. In the same year value of Standard Deviation for FII purchase was 12393. .672.00 20. on the other hand the purchase was least for the month of February 2010 for Rs. The Coefficient of Variance of FII was 21.00 10.57 .000.00 50. 40795.00 30.00 9-Apr 9-May 9-Jun 9-Jul 9-Aug 9-Sep 9-Oct 9-Nov 9-Dec 10-Jan 10-Feb 10-Mar 40.00 0.000.00 60.00 FII Purchase Chart 6.12 .000.000.90 Crores. 77886.12 During the year 2009-10. It can be easily understood by the figures that FII purchase is more constant.000.40 Crores .57141 Mean for FII Gross Purchase = 58.90 CV for FII Gross Purchase = 21.4 SD for FII Gross Purchase = 12393.

20 89.60 59.024.949. In Crores) 61.40 49.082.332.5 Months Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 FII Purchase(Rs.80 54.602.475.90 50.80 85.973.490.40 61.00 .930.60 61.Purchase of FII for year 2010-11 Table no. 6.30 57.90 59.

90.00 0.000.00 .76813 Mean for FII Gross Purchase = 64.00 70.93 CV for FII Gross Purchase = 20.00 60.00 10-Apr 10-May 10-Jun 10-Jul 10-Aug 10-Sep 10-Oct 10-Nov 10-Dec 11-Jan 11-Feb 11-Mar 10.000.5 SD for FII Gross Purchase = 13339.00 FII Purchase Chart 6.312.000.00 40.000.00 30.00 50.00 80.000.000.

76.During the year 2010-11. 89082. the FII purchase was made throughout the year. .00 Crores During this period the average of FII purchase was 64312. The Coefficient of Variance of FII was 20. It can be easily understood by the figures that FII purchase is more constant. on the other hand the purchase was least for the month of March 2011 for Rs.74. In the same year value of Standard Deviation for FII purchase was 13339. 49276. FII was Purchased highest in the month of November 2010 for Rs.93 Crores.60 Crores .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful