THE LIQUIDITY TRAP-that awkward condition in which monetary policy loses its grip because the nominal interest rate is essentially zero, in which the quantity of money becomes irrelevant because money and bonds are essentially perfect substitutes-played a central role in the early years of macroeconomics as a discipline. John Hicks, in introducing both the IS-LM model and the liquidity trap, identified the assumption that monetary policy is ineffective, rather than the assumed downward inflexibility of prices, as the central difference between Mr. Keynes and the classics. ' It has often been pointed out that the Alice in Wonderland character of early Keynesianism-with its paradoxes of thrift, widows ' cruses, and so on-depended on the explicit or implicit assumption of an accommodative monetary policy; it has less often been pointed out that in the late 1930s and early 1940s it seemed quite natural to assume that money was irrelevant at the margin. After all, at the end of the 1930s interest rates were hard up against the zero constraint; the average rate on U.S. Treasury bills during 1940 was 0.014 percent. Since then, however, the liquidity trap has steadily receded both as a memory and as a subject of economic research. In part, this is because in the generally inflationary decades after World War II nominal interest rates have stayed comfortably above zero, and therefore central banks have no longer found themselves "pushing on a string." Also, the experience of the 1930s itself has been reinterpreted, most notably by

Abstract not found

WDI. We express our gratitude to the editor, John McMillan and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions. Kornai is grateful to János Varga, Brian McLean and Julianna Parti for their devoted research and editorial assistance and

An endogenous growth model with multiple assets is developed. Agents who face random future liquidity needs accumulate capital and a liquid, but unproductive asset. The effects of introducing financial intermediation into this environment are considered. Conditions are pro-vided under which the introduction of intermediaries shifts the composition of savings toward capital, causing intermediation to be growth promoting. In addition, intermediaries generally reduce socially unnecessary capital liquidation, again tending to promote growth. 1.

What ties together the traditional commercial banking activities of deposittaking and lending? We argue that since banks often lend via commitments, their lending and deposit-taking may be two manifestations of one primitive function: the provision of liquidity on demand. There will be synergies between the two activities to the extent that both require banks to hold large balances of liquid assets: If deposit withdrawals and commitment takedowns are imperfectly correlated, the two activities can share the costs of the liquid-asset stockpile. We develop this idea with a simple model, and use a variety of data to test the model empirically. WHAT ARE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS of a bank? Both the legal definition in the United States and the standard answer from economists is that commercial banks are institutions that engage in two distinct types of activities, one on each side of the balance sheet—deposit-taking and lending. More precisely, deposit-taking involves issuing claims that are riskless and demandable, that is, claims that can be redeemed for a fixed value at any time. Lending involves acquiring costly information about opaque borrowers, and extending credit based on this information. A great deal of theoretical and empirical analysis has been devoted to understanding the circumstances under which each of these two activities might require the services of an intermediary, as opposed to being implemented in arm’s-length securities markets. While much has been learned from this work, with few exceptions it has not addressed a fundamental question: why is it important that one institution carry out both functions * Kashyap and Rajan are from the University of Chicago and Stein is from Harvard University. We thank Eric Bettinger, Qi Chen, and Jeremy Nalewaik for excellent research assistance, and Melissa Cunniffe and Ann Richards for help in preparing the manuscript. We are also grateful for helpful comments from Gary Gorton, George Pennacchi, René Stulz, the referee,

The classical doctrine of the Lender of Last Resort, elaborated by Bagehot (1873), asserts that the central bank should lend to “illiquid but solvent” banks under certain conditions. Several authors have argued that this view is now obsolete: when interbank markets are efficient, a solvent bank cannot be illiquid. This paper provides a possible theoretical foundation for rescuing Bagehot’s view. Our theory does not rely on the multiplicity of equilibria that arises in classical models of bank runs. We build a model of banks’ liquidity crises that possesses a unique Bayesian equilibrium. In this equilibrium, there is a positive probability that a solvent bank cannot find liquidity assistance in the market. We derive policy implications about banking regulation (solvency and liquidity ratios) and interventions of the Lender of Last Resort. Furthermore, we find that public (bail-out) and private (bail-in) involvement are complementary in implementing the incentive efficient solution and that Bagehot’s Lender of Last Resort facility has to work together with institutions providing prompt corrective action and orderly failure resolution. Finally, we derive similar implications for an international Lender of Last Resort.

the problems and opportunities facing the financial services industry in its search for competitive excellence. The Center's research focuses on the issues related to managing risk at the firm level as well as ways to improve productivity and performance. The Center fosters the development of a community of faculty, visiting scholars and Ph.D. candidates whose research interests complement and support the mission of the Center. The Center works closely with industry executives and practitioners to ensure that its research is informed by the operating realities and competitive demands facing industry participants as they pursue competitive excellence. Copies of the working papers summarized here are available from the Center. If you would like to learn more about the Center or become a member of our research community, please let us know of your interest.

This paper summarizes and explains the main events of the liquidity and credit crunch in 2007-08. Starting with the trends leading up to the crisis, I explain how these events unfolded and how four different amplification mechanisms magnified losses in the mortgage market into large dislocations and turmoil in financial markets.

We develop a canonical framework to think about credit market frictions and aggregate economic activity in the context of the current crisis. We use the framework to address two issues in particular: first, how disruptions in financial intermediation can induce a crisis that affects real activity; and second, how various credit market interventions by the central bank and the Treasury of the type we have seen recently, might work to mitigate the crisis. We make use of earlier literature to develop our framework and characterize how very recent literature is incorporating insights from the crisis.

How will banks evolve as competition increases from other banks and from the capital market? Will banks become more like capital market underwriters and offer passive transaction loans or return to their roots as relationship lending experts? These are the questions we address. Our key result is that as interbank competition increases, banks make more relationship loans, but each has lower added value for borrowers. Capital market competition reduces relationship lending ~and bank lending shrinks!, but each relationship loan has greater added value for borrowers. In both cases, welfare increases for some borrowers but not necessarily for all. RAPID CHANGES IN FINANCIAL SERVICES ARE threatening commercial banks. In the United States, mutual funds such as Fidelity and Merrill Lynch compete for banks ’ core deposits. Investment banks, armed with a variety of financial market innovations, challenge banks ’ traditional lending products. Banks also find themselves in greater competition with one another as globalization