Started By
Message

Great Idea To Stop These Bank Runs Going Forward

Posted on 4/29/23 at 5:24 pm
Posted by Timeoday
Easter Island
Member since Aug 2020
9128 posts
Posted on 4/29/23 at 5:24 pm
“Just as motorists are compelled to take out third-party car insurance to protect other road-users, so banks should be made to take out a certain amount of liquidity insurance in normal times so that they can access central bank provision of their liquidity needs in times of crisis,” he says. (Mervin King)

Required to take out liquidity insurance such that their liquid assets exceed deposits and other short-term liabilities, in return for guaranteed provision of central bank liquidity, banks would have to pre-assign enough collateral with the Federal Reserve to cover their liquidity requirements.

I know, I know it is probably too late for the current cycle. But I like the Idea.

LINK
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 8:58 am
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
27725 posts
Posted on 4/29/23 at 7:00 pm to
I've got this other crazy idea. How about banks just maintain an acceptable level of liquidity and manage risk? If they want to ignore risk, then they'd better maintain a higher level of liquidity.
Posted by theRealJesseD
Member since Nov 2021
2920 posts
Posted on 4/29/23 at 8:31 pm to
'liquidity Insurance'

Them insurance companies love new ways to suck excess liquidity from everyone
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32384 posts
Posted on 4/29/23 at 9:08 pm to
Lloyds wouldn't take on that kind of risk without an unaffordable premium for the banks.
Posted by Pvt Hudson
Member since Jan 2013
3591 posts
Posted on 4/29/23 at 10:43 pm to
quote:

In other words, requiring liquidity insurance when their liquid assets exceed deposits and other short-term liabilities


That doesn’t even make sense.
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15821 posts
Posted on 4/30/23 at 12:03 am to
quote:

In other words, requiring liquidity insurance when their liquid assets exceed deposits and other short-term liabilities, in return for guaranteed provision of central bank liquidity, banks would have to pre-assign enough collateral with the Federal Reserve to cover their liquidity requirements.


I think you mean when their illiquid assets exceed deposits. If they had liquid assets, bank runs wouldn’t be an issue.

To your intended point, the end result of this would basically be how FDIC insurance is structured now.

Fractional reserve banking is what it is. Someone else will always have to guarantee the deposits if you’re looking to transfer risk.

Consider this: If the Feds didn’t guarantee deposits, would depositors be able to demand higher rates to compensate them for letting banks use their money, leading to higher rates paid on savings accounts and CDs?
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15821 posts
Posted on 4/30/23 at 12:07 am to
quote:

“Just as motorists are compelled to take out third-party car insurance to protect other road-users, so banks should be made to take out a certain amount of liquidity insurance in normal times so that they can access central bank provision of their liquidity needs in times of crisis,” he says. (Mervin King)


A better idea would be to address the operational risk of allowing bank runs to happen digitally.

In these recent cases, word spread virally and people were able to transfer insane amounts immediately. Every bank and FI should review their outgoing ACH limits to help prevent these from happening entirely remotely.
Posted by HorseShoeHenry
Member since Jul 2021
307 posts
Posted on 4/30/23 at 12:10 am to
THIS banking crisis was caused by the government, not the banks.
Posted by Tarps99
Lafourche Parish
Member since Apr 2017
7588 posts
Posted on 4/30/23 at 12:32 am to
What does F D I C stands for?

F = Federal
D = Deposit
I = Insurance
C = Corporation

So there is already a mechanism for insuring the losses, backed by the Federal Reserve, ie the Federal Government.

Member banks which are pretty much all US banks will pay premiums to this organization to insure account losses to 250k or more depending on account(s).

Now it is the responsibility of that organization to maintain that banks are keeping enough liquidity to sustain to withdrawals or be placed under receivership as was done with the bank failures this year.

So we don’t need another layer of regulation or government bureaucracy.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:15 am
Posted by GhostOfFreedom
Member since Jan 2021
11840 posts
Posted on 4/30/23 at 9:09 am to
Also, require all bank executives to put all their own wealth on the line. If bank collapses, they have everything taken away to pay customers.

That will stop the incredibly stupid investments that SVB made.

Europe should do the same. Credit Suisse made some really bad bets, now UBS holds the bags.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram