An economic analysis of liquidity-saving mechanisms
A recent innovation in large-value payments systems has been the design and implementation of liquidity-saving mechanisms (LSMs), tools used in conjunction with real-time gross settlement (RTGS) systems. LSMs give system participants, such as banks, an option not offered by RTGS alone: they can queue their outgoing payments. Queued payments are released if some prespecified event occurs. LSMs can reduce the amount of central bank balances necessary to operate a payments system as well as quicken settlement. This article analyzes the performance of RTGS systems with and without the addition of an LSM. The authors find that, in terms of settling payments early, these mechanisms typically outperform pure RTGS systems. However, there are times when RTGS systems can be preferable to LSMs, such as when many banks that send payments early in RTGS choose to queue their payments when an LSM is available. The authors also show that the design of a liquidity-saving mechanism has important implications for the welfare of system participants, even in the absence of payment netting. In particular, the parameters specified determine whether the addition of an LSM increases or decreases welfare.
Volume (Year): (2008)
Issue (Month): Sep ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 33 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10045-0001|
Web page: http://www.newyorkfed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/staff_rp/ Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David C. Mills & Travis D. Nesmith, 2007.
"Risk and concentration in payment and securities settlement systems,"
Finance and Economics Discussion Series
2007-62, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Mills Jr., David C. & Nesmith, Travis D., 2008. "Risk and concentration in payment and securities settlement systems," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 542-553, April.
- Antoine Martin & James J. McAndrews, 2007.
282, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Kurt Johnson & James J. McAndrews & Kimmo Soramaki, 2004. "Economizing on liquidity with deferred settlement mechanisms," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Dec, pages 51-72.
- Olivier Armantier & Jeffrey Arnold & James J. McAndrews, 2008. "Changes in the timing distribution of Fedwire funds transfers," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Sep, pages 83-112.
- Angelini, Paolo, 1998. "An analysis of competitive externalities in gross settlement systems," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18, January.
- Angelini, Paolo, 2000. "Are Banks Risk Averse? Intraday Timing of Operations in the Interbank Market," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(1), pages 54-73, February.
- Bech, Morten L. & Garratt, Rod, 2003.
"The intraday liquidity management game,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 198-219, April.
- Bech, Morten L. & Garratt, Rod, 2001. "The Intraday Liquidity Management Game," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt0m6035wg, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fednep:y:2008:i:sep:p:25-39:n:v.14no.2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Amy Farber)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.