we-solve (beta)

Econ-197 · economics · Economics

Liquidity regulation and solvency

LLM status Open unverified

Statement

Original subject group: Banking, credit and financial stability

Audit classification: Published research agenda. The agenda addresses regulation interactions and resilience broadly. It does not supply the exact joint capital/liquidity objective or cross-partial. Those are editorial model choices, with local complementarity explicitly defined.

Definitions and precise research target

Fix banks holding assets with specified durations, deposit liabilities and borrowing facilities. Let a joint rule $a=(k,l)$ contain an equity requirement $k$ and a liquid-asset requirement $l$. A bank is solvent when its assets valued under the specified continuation allocation exceed liabilities; it is liquid when it can honor contemporaneous withdrawals without prohibited default. Interest-rate shocks change asset values, withdrawals affect financing needs and fire sales change market prices endogenously. Let $W(a)$ be discounted social welfare in the resulting equilibrium, including intermediation services and crisis externalities. The task is to characterize the feasible joint optimum and its interaction term, \[W_*=\sup_{a\in A}W(a),\qquad\chi=\frac{\partial^2W(k,l)}{\partial k\,\partial l},\] where $A$ is the legally and operationally feasible rule set and derivatives are interpreted only away from binding-regime boundaries. Identify whether capital and liquidity requirements are substitutes or complements in each state, and quantify changes when bank duration and deposit composition differ. Specify deposit-insurance and lender-of-last-resort arrangements because they affect both constraints. Resolve equilibrium feedbacks rather than imposing fixed fire-sale prices. Where the objective is non-smooth, report finite policy changes and an identified set of welfare-maximizing rules. A capital loss and a liquidity shortfall must not be treated as interchangeable outcomes.

Additional formal definitions and scope (editorial). Let liquidation value, continuation asset value and payment dates be distinct model objects. Solvency uses continuation value minus liabilities $\geq0$ under a fixed valuation convention; liquidity uses cash plus permitted contemporaneous borrowing and liquidation proceeds sufficient for payments due. Regulatory $k$ and $l$ are ratios with explicitly specified denominators and asset eligibility; the deposit maturity and withdrawal technology are primitives. A positive cross-partial $\chi$ means the marginal welfare benefit of raising $k$ increases with $l$, locally holding other rule components fixed. It is not a general statement that instruments are operational substitutes or complements across all objectives. If $W$ is nonsmooth use the cross-difference $W(k',l')-W(k',l)-W(k,l')+W(k,l)$ and report its steps. Welfare must include endogenous bank duration, funding and entry under each rule. For a nonempty feasible set and a finite optimal value, the design target is an $\varepsilon$-optimal feasible rule for each specified $\varepsilon>0$: its cost is at most the infimum plus $\varepsilon$, or its welfare is at least the supremum minus $\varepsilon$. Report infeasibility or an unbounded value separately. An exact optimizer is requested only under additional attainment assumptions; it need not exist for the general rule class.

Variants and assumption changes

  1. Fixed duration and insured deposits (editorial). Estimate capital/liquidity welfare cross-differences with asset portfolios held technologically fixed.
  2. Endogenous duration and runs (editorial). Banks choose asset duration and funding before shocks; compare joint rules under stated withdrawal and lender-of-last-resort assumptions.

References and source audit

  1. Official January 9, 2026 web version; locator: Prudential Architecture / Regulatory framework and Resilience (broad framework only). Broad agenda; exact model editorial. URL: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/bank-of-england-agenda-for-research.
  1. Bank of England. 2026. Bank of England Agenda for Research, 2025–2028. Prudential Architecture / Regulatory framework and Resilience (broad framework only). https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/bank-of-england-agenda-for-research.

Common conventions: Source mathematical conventions

These conventions apply to each entry unless explicitly replaced.

Models and identification. A primitive model $m$ specifies all probability laws, feasible choices, information, equilibrium and measurement rules used by its target. The admissible class $\mathcal M$ is fixed independently of outcomes. If $P_O(m)$ is its observable probability law and $\tau(m)$ the target, its identified set at observable law $P$ is \[ \mathcal I_\tau(P)=\{\tau(m):m\in\mathcal M,\ P_O(m)=P\}. \] Point identification means that this set is a singleton. An empty set signals incompatibility of data and assumptions. Coordinate bounds need not describe the joint set. Bounds are sharp only if every retained target is attainable or arbitrarily approachable by compatible models. Finite bounds require explicit restrictions on unobserved quantities; unrestricted confounding, hidden wealth, extrapolation or arbitrary equilibrium selection can yield uninformative sets.

Causal interventions. A potential outcome $Y_i(p)$ is the outcome under a complete policy regime $p$, including timing, financing, information and market spillovers. The target population and units are fixed before treatment. With interference, use the complete assignment vector or a justified exposure mapping; individual no-interference notation alone cannot identify an economy-wide intervention. A difference of mean potential outcomes does not require the cross-world joint distribution. Conditioning on post-treatment migration, survival, enrollment or employment changes the estimand and needs separate justification.

Statistical statements. An estimator, confidence set, forecast or test specifies a sampling law, model class and loss/coverage criterion. Uniform $(1-\alpha)$-coverage means $\inf_{m\in\mathcal M}\Pr_m\{\tau(m)\in C_n\}\geq1-\alpha$, or an explicitly asymptotic version. The whole parameter space trivially has coverage, so informativeness requires a stated width, risk or power objective. A forecasting improvement is relative to a named benchmark, information set and evaluation population.

Equilibrium and optimization. An equilibrium comprises feasible plans, optimality, beliefs where needed, budget constraints and all market/resource clearing. The primitives or a stated benchmark define each correspondence $\mathcal E(p;m)$. Nonemptiness is assumed or proved, never inferred just from compact policy sets. A selected-equilibrium target uses a declared selection rule; a robust target quantifies over all permitted equilibria. Use suprema or infima unless attainment is established. An $\varepsilon$-optimal policy is feasible and within $\varepsilon$ of the finite optimum value. Report an empty feasible set separately.

Welfare and accounting. Normative utility, interpersonal normalization, social weights, numeraire, discounting and the use of public receipts are primitives. Behavioral utility need not coincide with the welfare criterion. Household welfare includes ownership income and rents once; adding profits again to compensating variation generally double-counts them. A monetary equivalent is defined by an explicit transfer and price convention, with monotonicity and range conditions. Average effects, mechanism contributions, transfers and welfare losses are different targets. Infinite sums require convergence and dynamic feasible plans require terminal or no-Ponzi conditions.

Source versions. A working-paper date, revision date and journal publication year are distinguished. A DOI for a journal version is not automatically the DOI of an earlier manuscript. Locators refer to the stated version and printed pages where specified. A metadata-only check does not verify a claim about a full-text conclusion. Every entry's source subsection narrows the provenance claim accordingly.

Statement licence: CC-BY-4.0 · Source file

Contributions 1

Econ-197-A1 · Exploration · LLM-generated · gpt 6 astra ultra ·

GPT 6 Astra Ultra attempt on Econ-197

Liquidity regulation and solvency Endogenous fire-sale prices and state-dependent welfare interactions

Problem ID: G28-193. Status: Unresolved; restricted results and explicit gaps.

Scope and a fixed-duration banking system

The source agenda asks how financial regulations interact and how liquidity stress propagates. The Bank of England [boe], "The Prudential Architecture", especially "Regulatory framework" and "Resilience", provides that broad motivation, not the cross-partial derived here. We study the canonical fixed-duration variant with insured deposits and solve endogenous fire-sale prices. A further solvency-loss distribution shows that even this small model permits either sign of the capital--liquidity welfare interaction. Endogenous duration, bank entry and uninsured runs remain outside the proof.

A unit mass of identical banks has date-0 assets normalized to one, equity $k$, and insured deposits $1-k$. The regulator fixes cash $l$ and long assets $1-l$, where $k,l\in(0,1)$. A realized interest-rate state reduces the continuation value of a unit long asset to $v\in(0,1]$. A fraction $w\in(0,1]$ of deposits must be paid at date 1, independently of solvency; insurance prevents a strategic run in this benchmark. There is no lender-of-last-resort loan. Banks follow a mandated minimum-sale payment protocol, with deposit insurance and resolution covering any terminal insolvency. The cash gap is \[ x=w(1-k)-l. \] We first restrict attention to $x>0$ and sales below remaining holdings.

Outside buyers have decreasing productive values $v-\alpha s$ for the $s$th unit of the aggregate long asset, $\alpha>0$. Thus competitive inverse demand is $p=v-\alpha z$, where $z$ is aggregate sales. Given price $p>0$, the mandated minimum sale is $x/p$. Symmetry and market clearing impose \[ z(v-\alpha z)=x. \tag{1} \] The lower-sale branch is the equilibrium selector. Equivalently it is the strictly locally stable branch of the quantity iteration $z_{n+1}=x/(v-\alpha z_n)$. This explicit selection matters because (1) can have two positive solutions.

Liquidity clearing and continuation solvency

Theorem (Selected equilibrium and distinct balance-sheet losses): Suppose $0<x<v^2/(4\alpha)$ and \[ z=\frac{v-\sqrt{v^2-4\alpha x}}{2\alpha}<1-l. \tag{2} \] There is exactly one equilibrium of (1) with $0<z<v/(2\alpha)$; it is (2), has positive price, and is locally stable under the stated iteration. The other algebraic root is locally unstable whenever it is physically admissible. Put $D=v-2\alpha z>0$. The pre-sale continuation equity, post-sale continuation equity, and real misallocation loss are \[ E_0=l+v(1-l)-(1-k),\quad E=E_0-\alpha z^2,\quad F=\alpha z^2/2. \tag{3} \] Thus contemporaneous liquidity feasibility does not imply $E\geq0$. The bank's asset loss $\alpha z^2$ is not the real resource loss $F$.
Proof: The quadratic in (1) has the two roots $(v\mp\sqrt{v^2-4\alpha x})/(2\alpha)$. They lie strictly below and above $v/(2\alpha)$ respectively. Both have positive prices when $x>0$ and the discriminant is positive. The derivative of the iteration at a fixed point is $\alpha x/(v-\alpha z)^2=\alpha z/(v-\alpha z)$. It is below one precisely on the lower branch and above one on the upper. The holdings inequality in (2) makes the selected sale physically feasible.

After paying withdrawals, continuation equity is $v(1-l-z)-(1-w)(1-k)$. Subtracting $E_0$ gives $-vz+w(1-k)-l=-vz+x=-\alpha z^2$ by (1). Outside buyers produce total value $\int_0^z(v-\alpha s)\,ds=vz-\alpha z^2/2$, while retaining those assets at banks would have yielded $vz$. The difference is $F$. Payments between buyers and banks are transfers. Indeed buyer surplus is $\alpha z^2/2$, accounting for the other half of the bank's price loss. No equation in liquidity feasibility imposes the sign of $E$. ∎

For an explicit liquid but insolvent balance sheet, let $v=1/2$, $\alpha=1/10$, $w=1/2$, $k=1/10$, $l=1/10$. Then $x=7/20<v^2/(4\alpha)=5/8$, the lower root is less than $9/10=1-l$ (since the increasing revenue curve at $9/10$ yields $369/1000>7/20$), but $E_0=-7/20<0$ and hence $E<0$. This is precisely why deposit insurance and resolution rules must be specified rather than identifying liquidity with solvency.

A welfare cross-partial with endogenous prices

Let $C_k(k)$ and $C_l(l)$ be twice continuously differentiable resource costs of the requirements, including foregone intermediation services. They are separable here so that any interaction comes from stress losses. After date-1 sales, each bank suffers a random real asset impairment $\xi\geq0$, independent of $k,l$, with distribution function $H$ and continuously differentiable density $h$ near $E$. Its support is bounded by remaining continuation assets on the policy domain, so assets remain nonnegative. Terminal solvency is $E-\xi\geq0$. Insolvency causes real external loss $K\geq0$. The fixed mean impairment is a policy-independent resource loss, omitted from the following normalized welfare: \[ W(k,l)=-C_k(k)-C_l(l)-F(x)-K[1-H(E(k,l))]. \tag{4} \] Deposit-insurance payouts are domestic transfers; the cost $K$ captures only the declared extra insolvency externality. Prices and fiscal transfers are not counted as additional resource losses.
Theorem (No universal sign for the joint welfare interaction): On the interior selected branch, \begin{align} F''(x)&=\frac{\alpha v}{D^3},\tag{5}\\ E_k&=1+\frac{2\alpha wz}{D},\qquad E_l=1-v+\frac{2\alpha z}{D},\qquad E_{kl}=-\frac{2\alpha wv}{D^3},\tag{6}\\ W_{kl}&=-\frac{w\alpha v}{D^3} +K\{h'(E)E_kE_l+h(E)E_{kl}\}.\tag{7} \end{align} When $K=0$, the interaction is strictly negative. If $h(E)>0$, $E_l>0$, and \[ \frac{h'(E)}{h(E)}>\frac{-E_{kl}}{E_kE_l}, \tag{8} \] then it is strictly positive for all \[ K>\frac{w\alpha v/D^3} {h'(E)E_kE_l+h(E)E_{kl}}. \tag{9} \] Thus endogenous fire-sale prices alone yield substitutability in this welfare convention, but a sufficiently steep solvency-risk margin can reverse its sign.
Proof: Differentiate (1) on the selected branch to get $z'(x)=1/D$ and $z''(x)=2\alpha/D^3$. Since $F=\alpha z^2/2$, $F''=\alpha/D^2+2\alpha^2z/D^3=\alpha v/D^3$. Also $x_k=-w$, $x_l=-1$, while $(E_0)_k=1$, $(E_0)_l=1-v$. Differentiating $E=E_0-\alpha z^2$ gives the first two derivatives in (6). Because $d(z/D)/dz=v/D^2$ and $z_l=-1/D$, differentiating $E_k$ in $l$ yields the final expression in (6).

The resource-loss cross derivative is $-F''x_kx_l=-w\alpha v/D^3$, since $x_{kl}=0$. Differentiating $KH(E)$ twice gives the braces in (7); the separable costs have zero cross derivative. The first sign claim follows because $w,\alpha,v,D>0$. Under (8) the braces are positive, so (9) is exactly the inequality making (7) positive. ∎

The positive-sign conditions are nonempty. Choose \[ v=1,\quad\alpha=1/4,\quad w=3/4,\quad k=1/4,\quad l=1/8. \] Then $x=7/16$, $z=1/2$, $D=3/4$, $E=3/16$, $E_k=5/4$, $E_l=1/3$, and $E_{kl}=-8/9$. Remaining continuation assets are $3/8$. On $[0,1/4]$ take the density $h(u)=3e^{3u}/(e^{3/4}-1)$, so $h'/h=3$ at $E$ and \[ h'(E)E_kE_l+h(E)E_{kl}=\frac{13}{36}h(E)>0. \] A small policy neighborhood preserves the asset-support restriction and branch conditions. Any $K>16/[13h(3/16)]$ gives a strictly positive interaction there at the central policy. These exact calculations supply a mathematical example without claiming an empirical calibration.

Finite comparisons and a feasible optimization certificate

For a closed policy rectangle $\mathcal A$ wholly inside the above branch, assume costs and $H$ are continuous. Then welfare has a maximum on $\mathcal A$: a maximizing sequence has a convergent subsequence in the rectangle, and continuity gives attainment. Its interpretation is limited to the declared duration, deposit insurance and selector.
Proposition (Cross-differences and a finite search guarantee): Suppose $W$ is twice continuously differentiable on $\mathcal A$. For $k<k'$ and $l<l'$ in this rectangle, \[ W(k',l')-W(k',l)-W(k,l')+W(k,l) =\int_k^{k'}\int_l^{l'}W_{kl}(s,t)\,dt\,ds. \tag{10} \] If $|W_k|+|W_l|\leq L$ throughout $\mathcal A$ and a finite feasible set $\mathcal G$ is a $\delta$-net in the maximum norm, its welfare maximizer $a_\mathcal G$ satisfies $\max_{a\in\mathcal A}W(a)-W(a_\mathcal G)\leq L\delta$.
Proof: Apply the fundamental theorem of calculus first to the difference in $k$ and then to the difference in $l$; continuity of the mixed derivative justifies the iterated integral. For the second claim choose an attained maximizer $a^*$ and $g\in\mathcal G$ with $\|g-a^*\|_\infty\leq\delta$. The line segment lies in the rectangle. Integrating the directional derivative along it gives $|W(g)-W(a^*)|\leq L\delta$. The best grid point is at least as good as $g$, proving the bound. ∎
On a compact rectangle bounded away from $D=0$, the displayed derivatives provide finite values for $L$ whenever the primitive costs and density are bounded there. Near the price-collapse fold $D=0$, the bound can explode. A smooth approximation certificate that ignores this endogenous price sensitivity would therefore be misleading.

What remains unresolved

The sign in (7) is a local welfare statement under a fixed duration and withdrawal technology. It is not a general classification of capital and liquidity as operational substitutes. Entry, endogenous maturity, uninsured deposit flight and central-bank lending change the equilibrium system. Observations of $z,p$ at a single policy also do not reveal the density slope $h'(E)$ or external cost $K$, so they do not identify the welfare interaction. Solving and estimating those omitted responses is necessary for the original joint regulatory optimum. No empirical estimation or finite numerical experiment is claimed.

References

Completion Estimate

35%

Go to contribution →