Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Political Economy.
http://www.jstor.org
Douglas W. Diamond
University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research
Raghuram G. Rajan
University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research
Should central banks alter interest rates to deal with episodes of illiq-
uidity and financial fragility? For instance, Greenspan (2002, 5) has
argued that while the Federal Reserve cannot recognize or prevent asset
We thank the National Science Foundation and the Center for Research on Securities
Prices at Chicago Booth for research support. Rajan also thanks the Initiative on Global
Markets at Chicago Booth for research support. We benefited from comments from Guido
Lorenzoni, Monika Piazzesi (the editor), Tano Santos, Jose Scheinkman, the referees, and
seminar participants at Harvard University, Princeton University, Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, the American Economic As-
sociation meetings at San Francisco in 2009, and the February 2009 Federal Reserve Bank
New York conference on Central Bank Liquidity Tools. An earlier version of this paper
was titled Illiquidity and Interest Rate Policy.
552
I. The Framework
A. Agents, Endowments, Technology, Preferences
Consider an economy with risk-neutral entrepreneurs and bankers and
risk-averse households, over three dates, 0, 1, and 2. Each household is
B. Financing Entrepreneurs
C. Financing Banks
Since bankers have no resources initially, they have to raise them from
households. But households have no collection skills, so how do banks
commit to repaying households? By issuing deposits of face value D,
repayable on demand. In our previous work (Diamond and Rajan 2001),
we argued that the demandable nature of deposit contracts introduces
a collective action problem for depositors that makes them run to de-
mand repayment whenever they anticipate that the banker cannot, or
will not, pay the promised amount. Because bankers will lose all rents
when their bank is run, they will repay the promised amount on deposits
whenever they can. Later we will detail plausible frictions that explain
why demandable deposits are the optimal contract.
Deposit financing introduces rigidity into the banks required repay-
ments. Ex ante, this enables the banker to commit to repay if he can
(i.e., avoid strategic defaults by passing through whatever he collects to
depositors), but it exposes the bank to destructive runs if he truly cannot
pay (it makes insolvency more costly): when depositors demand repay-
ment before projects have matured and the bank does not have the
means of payment, it will be forced to liquidate projects to get X1 im-
mediately instead of allowing them to mature and generate gY2.
We assume that each bank lends to enough entrepreneurs that the
distribution of Y 2 among the entrepreneurs it finances matches the
aggregate distribution of entrepreneurs and there is no aggregate un-
certainty about projects. Because the date 0 endowment is scarce relative
to projects, banks will compete to offer the most attractive promised
deposit payment D to households per unit of endowment deposited
(henceforth, all values will be per unit of endowment). Since this is the
face value repaid on a unit of good deposited, it is also the date 0 gross
promised deposit interest rate. The time line is shown in figure 1.
In what follows, we will start by solving the banks decision vis-a`-vis entre-
preneurs at date 1, then the households consumption and withdrawal
decisions, and, finally, the banks date 0 decision on what level of deposit
repayment D to offer to maximize household willingness to deposit.
s
shown to fall in r12.
B. Household Decisions
Once uncertainty is revealed at date 1, households decide how much
they want to withdraw and consume so as to maximize their expected
utility of consumption. If they anticipate that the bank will not be able
to meet its obligations, they will collectively run on the bank, in which
case all projects will be liquidated to pay households. We assume initially
that households can coordinate on a Pareto preferred Nash equilibrium
and thus rule out other, panic-based, runs (it will turn out that interest
rate policy can help eliminate panics). We start by considering situations
where the bank will meet its obligations.
When a household does not withdraw all its deposit, its utility is max-
imized when the marginal rate of substitution between consumption at
dates 1 and 2 is equal to the prevailing deposit rate, r12S , that is, when
[U (C 1)]/[U (C 2)] p C 2 /C 1 p r12S . If household H (with high date 2 en-
2 /C 1 p [e 2
H,s
dowment) withdraws amount w at date 1 then C H,s
1
H,s H
C. Equilibrium
Assume first that the bank can repay depositors without failing. In equi-
librium, markets for goods at date 1 and date 2 have to clear. At date
1, goods are produced when banks liquidate projects. Because all banks
have the same distribution of projects and will liquidate projects with
Ys
Y2 ! Y2s p r12S X 1 /g, date 1 liquidation proceeds are 1/Y 2 0 2 X 1dY2 p
[r12s (X 1)2 ]/gY 2. Because this should equal the goods consumed by with-
drawing households, it must be that
r12s (X 1)2
v sw 1H,s (1 v s)w 1L,s p , (1)
gY 2
where v s is the fraction of H households in state s. An equilibrium at
date 1 in state s is an interest rate r12s and withdrawals by the H and L
households, w 1H,s, w 1L,s such that the date 1 supply of goods equals the
date 1 consumption, banks liquidate enough projects to meet with-
drawals, and households do not want to, or cannot, withdraw more.
Theorem 1.
i. If it exists, the equilibrium is unique.
ii. If there is a set {r12 s
, w1H,s, w1L,s } that solves e2H/(e1 2w 1H,s
D) p r12 , e 2/(e 1 2w 1L,s D) p r12s , and (1), with r12s 1 return
s L
3
Note that we have assumed that the household marginal rates of substitution are not
so low that they would be below the return on storage. Were that to be the case, we would
have to examine the storage return as a candidate, with any excess deposits being stored
by the bank. The three equations would now solve for the withdrawal by high households,
the withdrawal by low households, and the amount invested by banks in the storage
technology.
interest rates high, will tend to push optimal promised payments lower.
The implication is that in the absence of intervention by the authorities,
banks will be more cautious about promising to supply liquidity when
liquidity is scarce and the interest rate is likely to increase. Promised
deposit payments are not procyclical because competition forces banks
to internalize the cost of runs to their depositors.
i. The planner knows the date 1 state of the world (perhaps after
the passage of time) and can alter its actions accordingly. The
planner cannot bind himself to a state-contingent plan, however,
and thus has no advantage in this respect over private contracts.
9
If the social planner cannot save a bank because its liabilities are too great given the
planners ability to tax and transfer, she will not have an ex post incentive to intervene.
Intervention will not change the expected net flows that go to households. However, the
distribution of run proceeds to households will be affected. If the authorities do intervene
in a run (by providing all of e1 to banks) but cannot prevent it, households who do not
succeed in withdrawing during the run will be left with zero consumption at date 1. This
is a terrible outcome when households have log utility (or any preferences where the
marginal utility of zero consumption is infinite).
11
Since bs1 e1, the lowest feasible interest rate is the maximum of the storage rate and
the interest that would prevail without such a floor and with bs1 p e1. The latter interest
rate is obtained by solving
eL2 bs1r12
S,i
(D w1L,s,i)r12
S,i
S,i
p r12
e1 bs1 wL,s,i
1
and
2
rs,i
12(X1)
vSD (1 vS)wL,s,i p bs1
gY 2
1
We saw that the key to intervening without undoing the private com-
mitment inherent in demand deposits is to require that the central bank
only make arms length loans, not grants, to solvent banks. This however,
can result in a multiplicity of equilibria, some of which result in excess
intervention and additional rents for the banks. The central bank can,
however, eliminate multiplicity and ensure that the unique equilibrium
is the household-friendly one where it lowers rates only if the banks are
insolvent and, even so, only to the point at which banks are just solvent.
12
Central banks typically frown upon bankers who borrow from its various facilities.
The cost d could be thought of as a loss of banker reputation or an impairment to the
bankers future career opportunities.
F. Ex Ante Promises
Let us turn finally to how anticipation of interest rate intervention will
affect date 0 promises. If the banker knows that the central bank will
drive rates lower, he has an incentive to set promised payments higher
to attract depositors. There is an externality here. Each banker sets
deposit rates considering only the benefits their depositors will get from
higher promised paymentsequally, in choosing a higher offered pay-
ment, depositors ignore the effect of the increased promise on the loans
they, as taxpayers, will have to provide to the bank in the future, because
13
Intuitively, the wedge between the central bank lending rate and the deposit market
rate creates the incentive and ability for a bank to deviate from any equilibrium interest
rate (where it is just solvent borrowing a blend of funds from the central bank and the
deposit market) and still remain solvent. When the penalty from central bank borrowing
is nonpecuniary, however, there is no wedge between the central bank rate and the deposit
market rate, and no bank has an incentive to deviate (by paying a higher deposit rate)
from an equilibrium where it is just solvent borrowing a blend of funds, because by doing
so, it will render itself insolvent and attract no deposits. We conjecture that richer models
of monopolistic competition for deposits can produce equilibria with Bagehot-like pe-
cuniary penalties, although this is left for future research.
G. Example (Continued)
First, consider the effects of central bank arms length lending with no
penalty (this case is termed unconstrained lending in the figures).
Market expectations can now drive outcomes. If the central bank is
expected to borrow e1 and lend to the maximum extent possible to
banks, competitive banks will promise even more at date 0. If the prob-
ability of state s is below 0.017 (see the solid line in fig. 2) banks choose
D p D Max I(s) p 1.16, which ensures that even the authorities cannot tax
and lend enough to save the banking system in the state s. Clearly, as
figure 3 suggests, the households are worse off (than with no interven-
tion) under these circumstances because not only is the system not safer
than without intervention, H households lend against their wishes in
state s. As the probability of state s increases, banks offer the lower
D Max I(s ) p 1.155 and can be rescued in both states. Household ex-
pected utility now improves relative to the no-intervention case as the
probability of the s state increases, because the bank would have been
run in that state under no intervention. Finally, when the probability
of state s is high, households are again better off with no interven-
tion (following lemma 4) because the banker sets deposit rates at
D Max (s ) p 1.039 if he anticipates no intervention.
Now consider what happens under the more limited interest rate
intervention. Banks will choose between D Max I(s ) p 1.155 and
D Max I(s) p 1.16. When D p 1.155 and s p s, the central banker pushes
down rates only to restore bank solvency and does not tax away the
entire household endowmentthis is the benefit of more limited in-
tervention with the additional penalty to central bank borrowing. So
household utility will be higher when D p 1.155 under interest rate
intervention. In fact, it is high enough that the banker never chooses
to set D p 1.16, a level that would prompt a bank run in state s even
with maximal intervention. As discussed above, without the penalty, the
banker would choose to set D p 1.16 when the probability of the state
s is low. So the more limited ex post central bank intervention when it
[ ]
s )
Y2(r12 2
Y
Z g
X 1dY2 Y2dY2 { V1(r12s , Z ).
Y 2 0 Zr12s s )
Y2(r12
The central bank can raise rates by essentially reversing the earlier mech-
anism to reduce rates; if (i) it can sell claims against date 2 taxes (i.e.,
sell government bonds) and transfer the receipts to households at date
1, (ii) it taxes household endowments at date 2 to repay bonds, (iii)
the no-intervention date 1 equilibrium interest rate is low enough (and
date 2 endowments different enough) that at least the H household
withdraws its deposits entirely from the banking system in the absence
of intervention.
This intervention works as follows. Because the marginal rate of
substitution of the H household, prior to intervention, is higher than
the pre-intervention market interest rate (which is why H households
withdraw all deposits), H households would fully consume any addi-
tional date 1 resources they are given. By contrast, L households would
not change consumption if the interest rate did not change. But this
would mean that overall consumption would be higher than without
intervention, which would require a higher market interest rate to
clear the date 1 goods market and draw forth the necessary amount
of liquidation. So it must be that in the new postintervention equilib-
rium, the interest rate is higher, L households consume less at date 1
than in the no-intervention equilibrium (so that their new marginal
rate of substitution equals the higher interest rate), while H house-
holds consume more.
Lemma 6. If the prevailing no-intervention equilibrium has w 1H,s p
D, then the central bank selling bonds to the bank (or L households)
and paying the collected resources to households (with date 2 repay-
ment of bonds financed by date 2 taxes on households) will increase
the interest rate, decrease bank net worth, and increase project liquid-
ation.
Households are better off when rates that can be increased are indeed
increased, because it both improves the payoff to depositing as well as
narrows the gap between marginal rates of substitution across house-
holds, thus making the interest rate a better measure of the represen-
tative households marginal rate of substitution. Ex post, only a house-
hold-friendly central bank can be relied upon to raise rates when feasible
(the producer-friendly central bank will not do so). Ex ante, if the
household-friendly central bank is expected to raise rates sometimes
when the system is solvent, the banking system will make lower promises
of liquidity, holding more liquid assets or reducing the promises it makes
to depositors. This will move the system toward the central banks social
optimum.
VI. Conclusion
Our analysis shows why the structure of banks may necessitate ex post
interest rate intervention, which may be better than the alternatives,
but anticipation of persistently low short-term interest rates can lead to
socially excessive short-term leverage and incentives to hold excessively
illiquid assets relative to social optima. Even if regulatory liquidity and
capital requirements constrain bank actions ex ante, unregulated parts
of the financial system could benefit by setting up special vehicles that
replicated bank structures. Rather than relying on ex ante regulation
of banks, central banks may want to improve financial sector incentives
to curtail promises of liquidity by raising interest rates in normal times
more than strictly warranted by market conditionscentral banks may
need an additional form of credibility than just being averse to inflation.
While our entire model is couched in terms of real goods, we hope in
Appendix
Also, the banker has no incentive to pay more than he is forced to by the deposit
claim, so
max U(e 1 w 1t,s) U[e t2 (D t,s w 1t,s)r12s ] U(e 1 V1t,s) U(e t2 V2t,s).
w1t,s
Thus the two weak inequalities imply equality, and the demandable claim de-
termines the present value of what depositors get. Also feasibility requires
w 1H,s e 1 , w 1L,s e 1. It is clear then that with a state-contingent date 0 deposit
contract that results in date 1 household-type-specific state-contingent deposit
contracts D H,s p V1H,s (V2H,s/r12s ) and D L,s p V1L,s (V2L,s/r12s ), the first-best alloca-
tion can be attained, even with limited banker commitment.
Here is why: each household with deposit claims will maximize utility when
it withdraws enough that its marginal rate of substitution is equal to the marginal
rate of transformation r12s in that state. But a withdrawal by the H household of
w 1H,s p V1H,s will achieve precisely the required marginal rate of substitution (since
its date 2 demandable claim will then be (D H,s w 1H,s)r12s , which equals V2H,s by
construction, and payments of V1H,s, V2H,s achieve the required marginal rate of
substitution).17 Therefore, if we have demandable state- and type-contingent
deposits, we can address the bankers inability to commit to a stream of payments
16
If depositors could not trade with other banks or households, then the bank could
force a depositor to take only date 1 consumption if the depositor withdrew all of his
deposit at date 1. Allowing trade improves the depositors outside option but does not
prevent type- and state-contingent deposits from implementing the first best.
17
This is similar to the use of state-contingent deposit contracts in the Hellwig (1994)
analysis of interest rate uncertainty in the Diamond and Dybvig (1983) model.
Proof of Corollary 1
When both households are on their first-order condition, the H household
withdraws more than the L household. The H household withdraws D fully before
the L household withdraws. Hence it (weakly) withdraws more and w 1H,S w 1L,S.
(i) Totally differentiating (1) with respect to v S, we get
dw 1H,S dw 1L,S X 12 dr12S
(w 1H,S w 1L,S) v S S
(1 v S) S
p 0.
dv dv g(Y2) dv S
Now
dw 1H,S w 1H,S dr12S
p ,
dv S r12S dv S
where w 1H,S/r12S 0 from the expressions for w 1H,S. Similarly for dw 1L,S/dv S. Thus
v S.
Turning to the effect of D, we have on totally differentiating (1)
dw 1H,S dw L,S X 2 dr12S
vS (1 v S) 1 1 p 0.
dD dD g(Y2) dD
Now either dw,S
1/dD p 1 if the household is off its first-order condition and has
withdrawn everything, or it is given by
[ ]
2
1
2
1 e2 S ()
1 dr12S
r12 dD
.
S)
Y2(r12 2
Y
while the liabilities are D. The asset value falls in r12S , so it falls in v S and D. The
liabilities increase in D. Hence the net worth (p assets liabilities) falls in v S
and D.
Proof of Lemma 2
Let U(p, D) p s p sU s(D), where U s(D) is the utility of households in state s. Then
s
utility of households in state s when their bank is run and they hold deposits D.
Now consider a state t 1 s*. We have
s
p s[U s(D Max(s*)) U s(D Max(t))]
t1
p s[U s,Run(D Max(s*)) U s(D Max(t)].
Proof of Lemma 4
First, it is clear that both types of households are better off in state s if promised
deposits are raised without precipitating a run, that is, to D Max(s) . We then have
dU L,s
dD
p
1
( )
e 1 w 1 dD
L,s
dw 1LS
L
r12S
e 2 (D w 1 )r12 dD
L,s S
( )
dw 1L,s r12S (D w 1L,s)(dr12S /dD)
e 2L (D w 1L,s)r12S
.
Because
1 r12S
L p 0,
e1 w1
L,s
e 2 (D w 1L,s)r12S
the first two terms are zero. The last term is positive. So dU L,s/dD 1 0. Similarly,
if H households are on their first-order condition, we can show that
dU H,s/dD 1 0. If they are noteither they withdraw everything or leave everything
in the banktheir utility clearly increases in D.
Suppose now that we increase D from D Max(s) while lowering r12s to keep the
bank solvent.
Post intervention, U L,s p log(e 1 w 1L,s t) log(e 2L (D w 1L,s t)r12S ) such
that V(r12S ) p D, where V is the value of the bank at date 1 (before withdrawals).
We then have
dU L,s
dD
p
1
e 1 w 1 t dD
L,s (
dw 1L,s dt
dD )
r12S dw 1L,s dt
e (D w 1 t)r12 dD
L
2
L,s S
(
dD )
r12S (D w 1L,s t)(dr12S /dD)
.
e 2L (D w 1L,s t)r12S
Because the L households are on their first-order condition, the first two terms
sum to zero again. We also have from the requirement of solvency that
References
Acharya, Viral, and Tanjul Yorulmazer. 2007. Too Many to Fail: An Analysis of
Time-Inconsistency in Bank Closure Policies. J. Financial Intermediation 16 (1):
131.
Allen, Franklin, Elena Carletti, and Douglas Gale. 2009. Interbank Market Li-
quidity and Central Bank Intervention. J. Monetary Econ. 56 (July): 63952.
Bagehot, Walter. 1873. Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market. London:
H. S. King.
Barro, Robert. 1974. Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? J.P.E. 82:109517.
Bhattacharya, Sudipto, and Douglas Gale. 1987. Preference Shocks, Liquidity
and Central Bank Policy. In New Approaches to Monetary Economics, edited by
W. Barnett and K. Singleton. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bolton, Patrick, and David S. Scharfstein. 1996. Optimal Debt Structure and
the Number of Creditors. J.P.E. 104 (February): 125.
Borio, C., and P. Lowe. 2002. Asset Prices, Financial and Monetary Stability:
Exploring the Nexus. Working Paper no. 114 (July), Bank Internat. Settle-
ments, Basel.
. 2004. Securing Sustainable Price Stability: Should Credit Come Back
from the Wilderness? Working Paper no. 157, Bank Internat. Settlements,
Basel.
Calomiris, Charles W., and Charles M. Kahn. 1991. The Role of Demandable
Debt in Structuring Optimal Banking Arrangements. A.E.R. 81:497513.
Diamond, Douglas W. 1997. Liquidity, Banks, and Markets. J.P.E. 105 (5): 928
56.
. 2004. Presidential Address, Committing to Commit: Short-Term Debt
When Enforcement Is Costly. J. Finance 59 (4): 144779.
Diamond, Douglas W., and Philip H. Dybvig. 1983. Bank Runs, Deposit Insur-
ance, and Liquidity. J.P.E. 91:40119.
Diamond, Douglas W., and Raghuram Rajan. 2001. Liquidity Risk, Liquidity
Creation, and Financial Fragility: A Theory of Banking. J.P.E. 109:287327.