5.(5) Liquidity Risk
-
Upload
nguyen-huu-thu -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
1/63
5. Key Risk Managemen Issues(5) Liquidity Risk
Sakamaki Tsuzuri
JICA Chief Advisor to the State Bank of Vietnam
1
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
2/63
The L iqu idi ty Coverage Ratio
This Basel proposal focuses on asset liquidityto ensure banks always have a 30-dayliquidity cover for emergency situations. TheBasel Committee is proposing a LiquidityCoverage Ratio (LCR) defined as:
LCR= (High Quality Assets)/(30 Day Net cashOutflows) 100%
where the value of assets and the outflowsrefer to those that would arise with a majorfinancial shock, a deposit run-off and a 3-notch downgrade in the credit rating.
2
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
3/63
High-quality assets can include those witha low correlation to risky assets, listed in
active stable markets, with market makers
and low concentration of buyers and
sellers; i.e. easily convertible to cash in
stressed markets (e.g. cash, central bank
reserves, marketable claims on sovereigns,
central banks, the BIS, IMF etc., andgovernment debt issued in the currency of
the country of operation).
3
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
4/63
Corporate and covered bonds may beeligibleafter a quantitative impactstudywith an appropriate haircut.
Cash outflows will be based on themodeling of funding run-offs: stable
and less stable deposits; unsecured
wholesale funding; and secured(collateralized) funding run-off.
Further clarifications are: (as follows)
4
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
5/63
Derivatives pose a problem asdowngrades require collateral to bepostedi.e. additional liquidity
requirements. The Basel Committee proposes that, if
collateral in the form of cash or high-quality debt is already posted, then no
additional LCR is required. But if other collateral is used, a 20%
collateral surcharge will apply.
5
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
6/63
For credit facilities extended, bankswill need to hold 10% of the drawdownin the shock scenario for retail and
non-financial corporate customers. For liquidity facilities to non-financial
corporates, 100% of the amount isrequired, and similarly for other
entities like banks, securities firms,insurance companies, SPVs,sovereigns, central banks etc.
6
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
7/63
On the cash inflow side, supervisorsand banks need to ensure no
concentration or dependence on a few
sources. No credit facilities extended to the
bank can be included as inflow.
7
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
8/63
The Net Stab le Fund ing Ratio
To ensure stable funding over a one-year horizon, the Basel Committee is
proposing that the liquidity
characteristics of banks asset andliability matching structure be
controlled through the Net Stable
Funding Ratio (NSFR):NSFR= (Available Stable Funding
$)/(Required Stable Funding) 100%
8
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
9/63
Available Stable Funding is definedas:
Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital (100%)
+ preferred stock not in Tier 2 withmaturity 1 year (100%)
+ liabilities1year (100%)
+ stable shorter-term retail & small
business funding (with 1m percustomer) (85%)
9
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
10/63
+ less stable (e.g. uninsured non-maturity) retail & small business
funding (70%)
+ unsecured wholesale funding(50%).
Central bank discounting is excluded
to avoid overreliance on central banks.
10
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
11/63
The Required Stable Funding (RSF) isbased on balance-sheet and off-
balance-sheet exposures, and is
defined as:Cash, securities 1year, loans to
financial firms 1year (0%)
+ unencumbered marketablesovereign, central bank, BIS, IMF etc
AA or higher with a 0% risk weight
(20%) 11
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
12/63
+ Gold, listed equities, corporatebonds AA- to A- 1year, loans tononfinancial corporate 1year (50%)
+ loans to retail clients (85%)+ all else (100%).
12
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
13/63
Off-balance-sheet exposures to beincluded are conditionally revocable &
irrevocable credit facilities to persons,
firms, SPVs and public sector entities:a 10% RSF of the currently undrawn
portion.
All other obligations will have an RSFset by the national supervisor.
13
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
14/63
Other mon i tor ing
The Basel Committee is also proposingto monitor key variables of concernrequiring disclosure to supervisors:
Contractual maturity mismatch onall on- and off-balance-sheet flowsmapped to various time framesdaily,weekly, monthly, etc. (e.g., overnight, 7
day, 14 day, 1, 2, 3 and 6 months, and1, 3, 5 and beyond 5 years) Bankshave to explain how any mismatchesare going to be bridged.
14
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
15/63
Concentrationof funding over differenttime horizons (less than one month, 1-to-3
months, 3-to-6 months, 6-to-12 months,
and for longer than 12 months):
(a) (Funding liability from significant
counterparties)/(Balance sheet total)
(b) (Funding liability from each significant
product)/(Balance sheet total)(c) List of assets and liabilities by
significant currency.
15
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
16/63
A significant counterparty, product orcurrency means 1% of the bankstotal liabilities.
These will provide a basis fordiscussion with supervisors and
possible action.
16
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
17/63
Available unencumbered assetswhich are marketable as collateral in
secondary markets and/or are
eligible for central bank standingfacilities will need to be disclosed by
significant currency.
17
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
18/63
Market-Related Monitoring Tools relates toearly warning indicators in monitoringpotential liquidity difficulties at banks.
They include market-wide information (forexample, equity prices and spreads in debtmarkets generally), information on thefinancial sector (for example, equity and debtmarket information for the financial sectorbroadly and for specific subsets of the
financial sector, including indices), and bank-specific information (for example, informationon the equity prices of the specific bank orcredit default swaps spreads for the bank).
18
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
19/63
19
Quantitative Frameworks for
Liquidity Risk Measurement
To assess liquidity riskquantitatively, banks apply threetypes of analysis:
(1) balance sheet liquidity analysis
(2) cash capital analysis
(3) maturity mismatch analysis
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
20/63
20
Whereas a balance sheet liquidityanalysisrequires only the evaluation ofliquidity of different balance sheet items,the maturity mismatch approachusesquite an amount of modeling andbehavioral adjustments.
Thus the degree of sophistication and,hopefully, the degree of accuracy increase
when going from the balance sheetliquidity analysis to the maturitymismatch approach.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
21/63
21
Balance Sheet Liquidity Analysis
The balance sheet liquidityapproach sets different balancesheet items on the asset side andthe liability side into relation,depending on whether assets areliquidor illiquid, and on whether
their funding is stable(sticky) orvolatile.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
22/63
22
To secure an appropriate balance sheetstructure with respect to liquidity risk,stickyassets should be funded by stableliabilities, and liquid assets can befunded by volatileliabilities.
The following exhibit shows balance sheetitems that are relevant for a liquidityanalysis.
Not included are intangibles, strategicinvestments and equity capital, which arenot at disposal for liquidation.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
23/63
23
Exhibit Balance sheet liquidity analysis for two exemplary banks
Liquefiable assets (US$) Bank A Bank B
Loans and receivables, investments, and others 50 100
Trading assets 30 10
Reverse repos 30 0
Liquefiable liabilities (US$) Bank A Bank B
Non-bank deposits 20 70
Certified liabilities 20 10
Equity 10 10
Unsecured bank deposits/others 20 15
Trading liabilities 30 5
Repos 10 0
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
24/63
24
Bank A is a large bank with a strongsecurity business and strongdependence on interbank andcapital markets funding.
Bank B is a small bank which holdssecurities only as stand-by liquidity
and relies mainly on deposit funding.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
25/63
25
One would imagine that Bank A,working in the volatile business ofcapital markets, has much more
liquidity risk in its balance sheetthan Bank B doing classical retailbanking.
However, from the pure balance
sheet structure the analysis revealsa different picture.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
26/63
26
Bank A has $50 of sticky assets in loansand receivables that perfectly match with$20 of stable funding from non-bankdeposits, $20 of stable funding fromcertified liabilities, and $10 of equity.
For Bank B the picture looks worse: thereare $100 of sticky assets in loans andreceivables that do not match with $70 of
stable funding from non-bank deposits,$10 of stable funding from certifiedliabilities, and $10 of equity.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
27/63
27
Analysis of liquid assets with volatilefunding gives the same result:
Bank As volatile liabilities in $20 ofunsecured bank deposits, $30 of trading
liabilities, and $10 of repos are coveredby $30 of trading assets and $30 ofreverse repos.
Again Bank B looks worse: there are $15in unsecured bank deposits and $5 in
trading liabilities that are not covered bythe stand-by liquidity of $10 in tradingassets.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
28/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
29/63
29
There are a few problems with thisanalysis.
(1) Missing time dimension
(2) Impact of accounting rules
(3) Off-balance sheet commitments
(4) Marketability of securities
(5) Commercial papers
(6) Non-bank deposits
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
30/63
30
Cash Capital Position
Moodys originally invented the cashcapital concept to analyze the liquiditystructure of a banks balance sheet aspart of its external rating process.
Its intention is to measure the banksability to fund its assets on a fullycollateralized basisassuming that theaccess to unsecured funding has been lost.
For example, such scenario can occurafter the downgrade of a banks (short-term) rating.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
31/63
31
Cash capital is the gap between thecollateral value of unencumbered assets,and the volume of short-term inter-bankfunding and non-core parts of non-bankdeposits.
Stated differently, cash capital is definedas the aggregate of long-term debt, coredeposits and equity (and contingency
funding capacities) minus firm-widehaircuts, contingent outflows and illiquidassets.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
32/63
32
Unencumbered assetsare defined asassets that are available to be used ascollateral.
Usually, unencumbered assets are
calculated as the market value of the netsecurity position after accounting forbond/equity financing transactions:
Unencumbered securities = longsecuritiesshort securities position +
reverse repod securitiesrepodsecurities + borrowed securities lentsecurities.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
33/63
33
The collateral value is thendetermined by subtracting haircutsfrom the current market value of
the unencumbered securities. These haircuts account for the
marketability of the securities.
Haircuts used by Moodys and forsecurities firms are given in thefollowing exhibit.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
34/63
34
Exhibit Examples of haircuts for marketability of securities fromMoodys and for securities firms
Asset class Moodys Securities firms
Government bonds 2% 5%Highly liquid mortgage-backedsecurities
2% 10%
Prime CPs and bank acceptances 10% 5%
Listed equities 15% 30%
Bank debt 33% 15%
Corporate debt 33% 20%
Money market instruments 2% 5%
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
35/63
35
It is important to note that borrowedsecuritiescan be counted asunencumbered securities in the cashcapital framework.
The reason is that they can be used ascollateral; for instance, in a repotransaction.
However, in the mismatch framework
discussed below, they only provideliquidity for the time window between theborrowing and returning of them.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
36/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
37/63
37
Maturity Mismatch Approach
In a quantitative approach tomeasuring liquidity risk, the netcumulative cash outflows (NCO)and the unencumbered assets(tocover the NCO) must be estimatedper time period and under different
scenarios.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
38/63
38
For this purpose liquidation cashflows from all liquefiable balancesheet and off-balance sheet items
are mapped to a maturity ladder. There are four categories to be
distinguished, depending onwhether the amountand the
timingof cash flows aredeterministic or stochastic:
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
39/63
39
Category I: Cash flow amount andcash flow timing are deterministic.Examples are: Coupon andamortization payments of fixed-rateloans and fixed-rate bonds, cashflows from secured and unsecured
money markets funds, and termdeposits.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
40/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
41/63
41
Category III: Cash flow amountdeterministic and cash flow timingis stochastic. Examples are:repayments of callable bonds,repayment of loans with flexibleamortization schedule, travelers
checks.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
42/63
42
Category IV: Cash flow amount andcash flow timing are stochastic.Examples are: sight (demand) and
saving deposits, drawdowns oncommitted credit lines and revolvingloans, collateral value of marketable
assets (bonds, stock, funds), andsettlement payments of Americanoptions.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
43/63
43
Whereas the cash flow mapping ofCategory I assets is fairly straightforward it only requires proper
data infrastructure that provides thecorrect balance sheet positionCategory II-IVassets requireadditional model assumptions and
behavioral adjustments independence of the scenario underconsideration.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
44/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
45/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
46/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
47/63
47
The net cumulative inflows comprise cashflows from:
the cash positionmodeled as inflow in
the overnight time bucket. Alternatively,one may consider it as working capitaland not count it as an inflow at all.
Committed backup linesat other banks
modeled as inflow in the overnight timebucket (Access to this source of funds isextremely scenario dependent.)
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
48/63
48
Unencumbered securitiesmodeledaccording to a liquidation scenariodepending on the credit quality,central bank and collateral marketseligibility, daily turnover, and marketdepth of each security. Liquid bondstypically generate short-term liquidityinflow irrespective of their interest
rate risk duration or maturity. Thematurity of a bond is only relevant inthat aspect as the liquidation periodcannot be longer than the finalmaturity of the bond.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
49/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
50/63
50
The net cumulative outflowcomprisescash inflows and outflows from:
Loans (coupon and notional) modeled
according to the coupon and amortizationschedule
Non-bank (retail) deposits modeledaccording to a core level model
Deposits from banks, corporations andgovernments, as well as CDs, modeledaccording to residual maturity
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
51/63
51
Own capital market funds (issuedbonds and private placements)modeled according to residual
maturity Off-balance sheet commitment in
revolving loans, committed creditlines, and other off-balance sheet
items modeled as short-termoutflow.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
52/63
52
new loans / funding rollover
One should emphasize that includingongoing new loan business also requires acertain assumption on a rollover rate forfunding.
Although this is certainly valid in a goingconcern scenario, it will add furtherassumption on the cash flow modelingside.
According to this, most banks only
consider a pure run-off gap profilewithout new loan and rolled over fundingtransactions.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
53/63
53
equity and participations
Not shown in the gap profile are equitycapital on the liability side and strategicinvestments (participations) on the assetside.
Both positions are not at the disposal of aTreasurers daily liquidity managementprocess, but require the strategic decisionof the Board.
Knowing the investment horizon of
participations, equity capital could bemodeled congruently in a rolling portfolioapproach.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
54/63
54
The cumulative sum comprises thenet cumulative outflows, which isthe liquidity risk measure analogous
to VaRbeing the risk measure formarket, credit or operational risks.
Subtracting the net cumulative
outflows from the net cumulativeinflows provides the net cumulativeliquidity gapper time bucket.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
55/63
55
A positive net cumulative gap indicatesthat the bank can cover all its outflows byliquidating its unencumbered assets.
A negative gap does not necessarily mean
that the bank is insolvent. It only indicates that the liquidation of its
inventory will not be sufficient to cover itsoutflows with respect to todays balancesheet positions; that is, without any
rollover of funding and new assets, andwith respect to the scenario assumed forthe cash flow modeling.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
56/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
57/63
57
Long Term Funding Ratio
The last box in the previous exhibitshows the long-term assets and theavailable term funding above one,
three, six and 10 years. The funding ratiois defined as:
Funding ratio above n years = (sumof available funding above n
years)/(sum of assets maturingabove n years).
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
58/63
58
The position in long-term assetsusually consists of loans.
Long-term funding is composed ofissued bonds and core deposits.
A funding ratio is a key figure toobserve the structural liquidity
riskin a banks balance sheet.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
59/63
59
In contrast to the interest rate riskpositioning of the balance sheet, whichcanthanks to a liquid interest-rateswap marketeasily be changed onshort notice, deficiencies in the liquidityrisk structure in the balance sheetcannot easily be fixed.
Management of liquidity risk requires a
long-term horizon. The funding ratiois a useful tool to
monitor the long-term funding structure.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
60/63
60
scenarios
A liquidity gap analysisis usuallydone under different scenarios.
Liquidity
Sc
enarios
normal operating scenario
general market disruptionscenario
national macroeconomic disruption scenario
banking industry-wide disruption scenario
bank-specificcrisis scenario
downgrade scenario
loss of a big investor scenario
bank run scenario, and so on
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
61/63
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
62/63
62
Similarly, in the market disruptionscenario, backup lines of creditmayhave to be funded, but in the normal
operating liquidity scenario, backup linesare unlikely to be drawn upon.
Generally, inflows in the liquidity gapprofile will be shifted to later time buckets
and outflows to earlier time buckets.
-
8/14/2019 5.(5) Liquidity Risk
63/63
Some banks also include new assetsand/or rollovers of fundingin their gapanalysis.
In this case the net cumulative gap mustalways be positive.
Although such an analysis is morerealistic, it requires even moreassumptions concerning future cash flows.
For other banks this is the reason to stayaway from such a setting and to use apure run-off profile.