Stemming the flow

Few banks hold capital against their liquidity risk exposures, arguing that liquidity risk makes no material contribution to potential unexpected loss. Bob Allen of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority disagrees, and proposes a possible approach to quantifying liquidity risk economic capital


The predominant view among both banks and prudential regulators internationally appears to be that banks do not need to hold capital - either regulatory or economic - against their liquidity risk exposures. There are very few dissenters. Pillar II of the new Basel II regulatory bank capital framework1 does say that "banks should evaluate the adequacy of capital given their own liquidity profile and the liquidity of the markets in which they operate", but that is all. No guidance is provided on

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here