Explore the vast range of titles available.

Employing a descriptive approach, this study intends to investigate the causal relationship between financial stability and liquidity creation and the effects of foreign ownership, local ownership, and financial stability on liquidity creation. The research sample included 35 banks listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange based on a purposive sampling technique (non-random sampling) and the observation period between 2013 and 2020 utilizing quarterly data. According to the Granger causality test results, there is no reciprocal relationship between the creation of liquidity and financial stability. This indicates that the research variables avoid endogeneity problems. Using static panel data analysis, we discovered that neither foreign ownership nor financial stability has any impact on the creation of bank liquidity; however, the interaction between foreign ownership and financial stability has a significant positive impact, suggesting that the interaction between the two could become stronger. The asset-side liquidity creation component is the only one that plays this role. Domestic ownership favors liquidity creation, but there is less of an effect when ownership and financial stability are combined. When the creation of liquidity increases, production activities increase, suggesting that economic activity increases. Thus, these findings are useful for regulators and central banks in making economic and banking policies by considering bank ownership and stability.

The goal of this paper is to examine the effect of high liquidity creation on systemic risk. We use a hand-collected dataset on 94 banks from 16 Western European countries over the 2004–2020 period, including the crisis (2008–2009) period and sound periods (2004–2007 and 2010–2020). We assess banks’ systemic risk using two different proxies: banks’ systemic risk exposure, measured by the marginal expected shortfall (MES), and banks’ systemic risk contribution, measured by the delta conditional value at risk (ΔCoVaR). Based on panel regressions, our results mainly show that, during calm periods, high liquidity creation is associated with high systemic risk exposure. Moreover, we show that the effect of liquidity creation on banks’ systemic risk exposure is stronger during turmoil periods. Interestingly, our results show that banks’ liquidity creation increases the systemic contribution only during the financial crisis of 2008–2009. Our findings contribute to the literature and the regulatory debate by suggesting that regulators should pay more attention to high liquidity-creating banks as they may cause aggregate financial fragility.

This study examines the relationship between banks’ liquidity creation and banking stability using a two-step System GMM approach on a global bank panel (2014–2023), distinguishing between Advanced Economies (AEs) and Emerging Market and Developing Economies (EMDEs). The aggregate results confirm that higher liquidity creation significantly weakens banking stability. Significantly, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance acts as a robust positive moderator, mitigating this fragility by enhancing financial resilience. However, mandatory ESG regulations are found to negate this stabilizing benefit, introducing compliance costs and complexities that erode the resilience derived from high ESG performance. Further analysis shows that while AEs replicate the negative liquidity creation-stability baseline, EMDEs exhibit a positive relationship, reflecting the role of banks in financial deepening. Crucially, the destabilizing effect of mandatory regulation is amplified in EMDEs. These findings underscore that the impact of ESG initiatives and regulatory frameworks is heavily contingent upon institutional context. The study provides critical insights for policymakers aiming for targeted, context-specific ESG initiatives to strengthen financial system resilience.

Using panel analysis for a large cross-section of countries, we find that liquidity creation by banks is positively associated with economic growth at country and industry levels. Liquidity creation boosts tangible, but not intangible investment and does not contribute to growth in countries with a high share of industries reliant on intangible assets. These findings are consistent with a theoretical model in which liquidity creation fosters investment only if it is sufficiently tangible. Our results shed light on important heterogeneities in the role of banks in the economic development process and their limited role in countries’ transition to knowledge economies.

Universal banking powers are permissions for a nation’s banks to provide financial services beyond “plain vanilla” banking activities. Some nations restrict banking activities to only services such as loans and deposits, while others permit commercial banks to also engage in investment banking, insurance underwriting, and/or real estate investment activities. Despite the research and policy importance of this issue, the literature essentially neglects how these powers affect the primary role of banks in creating liquidity for society. We formulate two competing hypotheses as to whether more universal banking powers increase versus decrease domestic bank liquidity creation based on theories of risk absorption, relationship banking, and scope economies/diseconomies. We test which hypothesis empirically dominates using data from 85 nations over 15 years. The data strongly support the hypothesis that universal powers boost domestic bank liquidity creation. These findings are robust to addressing endogeneity, controlling for bank regulations, macroeconomic conditions, and institutional variables, and conducting subsample analyses. We also test for international arbitrage – whether the foreign subsidiaries of banks from more restrictive countries create more liquidity in host countries with fewer restrictions – and find support for this arbitrage. Collectively, these results provide important research and policy implications.

This study aims to investigate the impact of banking-sector concentration on the banks' liquidity creation in GCC countries over the period from 2012 to 2018 by using a dynamic GMM panel procedure. The results suggest that increased bank competition reduces banks' liquidity creation across the GCC countries. The study's findings are in line with the 'financial fragility hypothesis\" according to which banks to reduce their lending activities when competition is high in the market. The evidence suggests that the banking industry is different from others, and pro-competitive policies in the banking industry can reduce liquidity provision by banks. In the context of policy implications, a concentrated banking system discourages capital provision to firms; hence, regulators have to take appropriate measures to resolve the problem of a reduced supply of capital. Government must regulate the banking sector by keeping in view their long-run goal as competition is a double-edged sword in banking.

To explore the real effect of banking globalisation on bank liquidity creation, we investigate plausibly exogenous variations in the expectation of further banking globalisation under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which further opens the gate to foreign investors. Using data from both listed and unlisted commercial banks in China from 2007 to 2022, we obtain the results showing that implementation of the BRI enhances the on‐balance sheet liquidity creation of banks with foreign investors. Further analysis shows that the BRI has more significant positive economic effects on state‐owned commercial banks and foreign banks. Additionally, banks with foreign ownership that are small, unlisted, or located in eastern coastal regions create more liquidity since the implementation of the BRI. Our findings indicate that deepening banking globalisation plays an outstanding role in China's banking industry.

We examine the relation between capital and liquidity creation. This issue is interesting because of the potential impact on liquidity creation from tighter capital requirements such as those in Basel III. We perform Granger-causality tests in a dynamic GMM panel estimator framework on an exhaustive data set of Czech banks, which mainly includes small banks from 2000 to 2010. We observe a strong expansion in liquidity creation until the financial crisis that was mainly driven by large banks. We show that capital negatively Granger-causes liquidity creation in this industry, where majority of banks are small. But we also observe that liquidity creation Granger-causes a reduction in capital. These findings support the view that Basel III can reduce liquidity creation, but also that greater liquidity creation can reduce banks’ solvency. Thus, we show that this reverse causality generates a trade-off between the benefits of financial stability induced by stronger capital requirements and the benefits of increased liquidity creation.

This paper aims to evaluate the relationship between capital and liquidity creation following the implementation of the Basel III rules. These regulatory measures target both increased capital ratios and a reduction of banks’ maturity transformation risk, which could result in excessive constraints on bank liquidity creation, thereby negatively affecting economic growth. Using a simultaneous equation model, we find a bi-causal negative relationship, which suggests that banks may reduce liquidity creation as capital increases; and when liquidity creation increases, banks reduce capital ratios. Our results therefore imply a trade-off between financial stability (higher capital, reduced risk) and economic growth (liquidity creation).