Abstract:Abstract The paper analyzes structural differences in banks' ability and willingness to supply liquidity in the interbank market given the existing prudential regulation using a partial equilibrium model. The results show differences in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) effectiveness for two types of banks' business models. First, for the more traditional one (with structural liquidity surplus), the LCR measure enables banks to lend more in the interbank market (by letting them subtract possible cash inflows from the expected outflows under a liquidity stress scenario) but at the cost of allowing them to maintain lower default limits (thresholds on the maximum liquidity shock the banks can withstand without entering default). Second, banks with structural liquidity deficits that need other funding sources than retail deposits, like subsidiaries that receive finance from their parent banks, face tighter requirements on high-quality liquid assets, keep higher default limits and lend less in the interbank market. For this business model, often seen in emerging markets, including Romania, the LCR measure fosters banks' resilience to liquidity shocks. However, this LCR functionality might encourage them to overlook contagion risk from their parent and parent banks' economies, especially under favorable financial conditions. Prudential authorities should complement the LCR measure with other instruments (like liquidity stress test) that better assess banks' liquidity risk due to maturity mismatch. Banks' liquidity risk management can partially mitigate the differences in LCR effectiveness through precautionary holdings of additional liquidity buffers. Banks with higher risk aversion prefer maintaining a higher no-penalty limit (the maximum liquidity shock the bank can accommodate without a penalty fee) and an increased default threshold and are less willing to lend in the interbank market.

Liquidity Provider Incentives in Fragmented Securities Markets

Liquidity provider incentives in fragmented securities markets

dYdX: Liquidity Providers' Incentive Programme Review

Fragmentation and optimal liquidity supply on decentralized exchanges

Liquidity Provision Payoff on Automated Market Makers

COMPETITION BETWEEN EQUITY MARKETS: A REVIEW OF THE CONSOLIDATION VERSUS FRAGMENTATION DEBATE

Game Theoretic Liquidity Provisioning in Concentrated Liquidity Market Makers

Optimal incentives in a limit order book: a SPDE control approach

Fragmentation and Strategic Market-Making

Discretionary liquidity trading, information production and market efficiency

Stock Liquidity, Heterogenous Institutional Investors and Investment Efficiency

Strategic Liquidity Provision in Uniswap v3

The Paradox Of Just-in-Time Liquidity in Decentralized Exchanges: More Providers Can Sometimes Mean Less Liquidity

Efficient Liquidity Providing via Margin Liquidity

Decentralized Exchanges: The Profitability Frontier of Constant Product Market Makers

Equilibria and incentives for illiquid auction markets

The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity

Decentralised Finance and Automated Market Making: Predictable Loss and Optimal Liquidity Provision

Liquidity Costs, Return Smoothing, and Investor Flows: Evidence from a Separate Account Platform

Banks as Liquidity Providers in the Interbank Market

Risks and Returns of Uniswap V3 Liquidity Providers