巴塞尔协议

Leader_Softer liquidity rule

The bone thrown by the Basel committee to the banks in relaxing the new “liquidity coverage ratio” at the weekend was largely what the industry had wanted. It was also a capitulation to good sense as much as one to sectoral interests.

The LCR requires banks to hold liquid assets at least equal to the amount of capital clients might be expected to withdraw over a 30-day period in a crisis. The collapse of Lehman Brothers – when the global financial system was brought to its knees by one bank running out of funds – showed why such a requirement is necessary.

But the draft LCR’s original definition of high-quality liquid assets was ill-designed. By treating government debt as the most liquid of assets, it echoed the earlier Basel error of treating it as risk-free. The painful lesson of the eurozone crisis is that sovereign debt need be neither. The banks were right, therefore, to push for a wider definition of liquid assets including blue-chip stocks and corporate bonds. If trading in such securities can remain liquid even when some sovereign debt markets freeze, including them – subject to proper haircuts – encourages more diversified and robust liquidity buffers.

您已阅读46%(1178字),剩余54%(1377字)包含更多重要信息,订阅以继续探索完整内容,并享受更多专属服务。
版权声明:本文版权归manbetx20客户端下载 所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×