Interbank funds transfer systems: liquidity needs, counterparty risks and collateral
Over the next few years, we will see a pronounced increase in the speed at which payment transactions are executed and in the share of cross-border transactions, particularly in the euro area. Counterparty risks and liquidity needs connected with the transfer of funds continue to evolve and to provoke discussion. The fact that funds transfers occur and systems operate on a real-time and gross basis will significantly alter the operational character and technical solutions in this field. Systems following a daily timetable are being replaced by continuously operating systems, which will have a significant impact on banks' liquidity management. The trend toward immediate real-time payment transactions seems inevitable in the light of present trends. It is generally presumed that RTGS systems operating on a gross basis require more liquidity than netting systems. Liquidity needs depend on payment system structures and payment flows. An even flow of payments requires less liquidity than an uneven flow. Liquidity needs can be significantly reduced by choosing an appropriate payment system structure, taking measures to even out payment flows and agreeing on market practices. The pricing, collateral and reserve requirement policies of the central bank affect also the efficiency of alternative payment systems. Thus the overall efficiency of a gross or net system depends on many factors. Factors arguing for a gross system are differences in counterparty risks, lack of reciprocity, steady interday payment flows and stable liquidity needs, both within and between days. Factors favouring net systems are the existence of small and varying counterparty risks and structurally unsteady payment flows that result in large interday variations in liquidity, even though overnight variations may be moderate. Current, daily-oriented practices have focused on overnight liquidity needs. In a continuously operating environment, liquidity needs are continuously monitored across time-period borders. This means that banks' liquidity management will in the future operate under a new and broader time perspective. Significant liquidity needs and large counterparty risks are inherent parts of Finland's present funds-transfer solutions. Liquidity can be freed for other uses and counterparty risks reduced by changing the structures. The necessary changes have been agreed and soon we will see fundamental changes in Finnish payment systems.
|Date of creation:||31 Jul 1998|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Bank of Finland, P.O. Box 160, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland|
Web page: http://www.suomenpankki.fi/en/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Angelini, P. & Giannini, C., 1993. "On the Economics of Interbank Payment Systems," Papers 193, Banca Italia - Servizio di Studi.
- Curzio Giannini & Carlo Monticelli, 1997. "Which TARGET for monetary policy in stage three? Issues in the shaping of the European payment system," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 657-682, December.
- repec:bof:bofrdp:1996_017 is not listed on IDEAS
- Dirk Schoenmaker & Peter M. Garber & D. F. I. Folkerts-Landau, 1996. "The Reform of Wholesale Payment Systems and its Impacton Financial Markets," IMF Working Papers 96/37, International Monetary Fund.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:bofrdp:1998_016. 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: (Minna Nyman)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.