Coelho, R., y Restoy, F., “Rethinking banks’ liquidity requirements”, FSI Briefs, No 25, BIS, Mayo 2025, 8 págs. [https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsibriefs25.pdf]
“Against this backdrop, it is a natural for some to advocate for the strengthening of regulatory requirements. While this response is understandable, it is important to recognise the limits of what minimum regulatory requirements can achieve, as excessive stringency could impair banks’ ability to perform their core intermediation functions. The case of SVB illustrates these challenges. The bank experienced deposit withdrawals amounting to 25% of its total deposits in a single day, with an additional 60% expected the following day. Arguably, if required to fully cover such extreme liquidity stress solely with liquid assets, most banks would be unable to continue to engage in meaningful commercial activity.
In more severe liquidity stress scenarios than those currently assumed in the LCR calibration, it is reasonable to expect that banks would seek central bank liquidity support, provided they met the eligibility conditions. In such cases, liquidity needs could be met using assets that, while not qualifying as HQLA, could still serve as collateral for central bank loans after the application of appropriate haircuts. This highlights the potential role of central bank liquidity facilities as a complement to self-insurance”.
