№ 9/2017

Fìnansi Ukr. 2017 (9): 29–52

MONETARY POLICY

KOZIUK Viktor ¹

¹West Ukrainian National University
OrcID ID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5715-2983

Last resort lending and weak institutions: a view from the position of game theory

The global financial crisis showed how vulnerable lender-of-last-resort function may be. Central banks went beyond classical Bagehot (1873) principles generating additional claims for transparency, consistency and prudence in their LOLR behavior. But weak institutions case should be taken as some doubts about possibilities of LOLR to improve the situation as first best. The paper formulates a hypothesis that weak institutions activate additional space for misbehavior among banks and the central bank and that deepening crisis and game theory may help understand the ways of how gamers’ behavior generates different modalities of macro-financial instability. It is shown that almost all lender-of-last-resort features, shaped during the global financial crisis, are under strong distortions by weak institutions. Related lending, oligarchical banking, shifting risks to outsiders, capital drain as well as additional demand on safe assets are structural features of weal institution economy. At the same time, such features constitute the logic of potential strategic behavior of the central bank and banks in different informational asymmetry sets. It is proved that game theory approach reflects better features of strategic behavior of the central bank and banks during the crisis. Comparison of game scenarios that the central bank is an active lender of last resort and that it avoids active liquidity provision during the first game step shows worse trade-off. The variant “first best” is viable in the first case but it is not feasible with weak institutions. The variant “second best” is achieved under the second scenario but the path to it is longer and brings with it additional shock. Information asymmetry about banking system conditions as well as probability of banks opportunistic behavior are the key factors that restrain central bank possibility to choose socially optimal game strategy. However, it is hard to predict which strategy is beneficial because lack of efficient ranging of different crisis modalities may misguide the central bank. It means that the regulator is always in a worse situation and may behave intuitively rather than consistently. At the same time, a more probable demand on save assets during crisis, a higher level of dollarization, stronger engagement in related lending, capital drain should be taken into account as motivators for less relaxed LOLR. The experience of Ukraine supports this view.

Keywords:central bank, lender of last resort, opportunistic behavior, weak institutions, game theory

JEL: E02, E44, E58

KOZIUK V. . Last resort lending and weak institutions: a view from the position of game theory / V. . KOZIUK // Фінанси України. - 2017. - № 9. - C. 29-52.

Article original in Ukrainian (pp. 29 - 52)

Download

Downloads :296

1. Bagehot, W. (1873). Lombard Street: A Description on the Money Market. London: Henry S. King and Co.
2. Holmstrom, B., Tirole, J. (1998). Private and Public Supply of Liquidity. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106, No.1, 1–40.
3. Solow, R. (1992). “On the Lender of Last Resort” in Financial Crises: Theory, History and Policy. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press.
4. Laidler, D. (2004). Central Banks as Lenders of Last Resort – Trendy or Passe? Economic Policy Research Working Paper, 8, 1–42.
5. He, D. (2000). Emergency Liquidity Support Facilities. IMF Working Paper, 79, 1–36.
6. Bauducco, S., Bulir, A. & Cihak, M. (2008). Taylor Rule under Financial Instability. IMF Working Paper, 18, 1–43.
7. Tucker, P. (2014). The Lender of Last Resort and Modern Central Banking: Principles and Reconstruction. Re-Thinking the Lender of Last Resort. BIS Paper, 79, 10–40.
8. Dobler, M. et al. (2016). The Lender of Last Resort Function after the Global Financial Crisis. IMF Working Paper, 10, 1–61.
9. Lavoie, S., Sebastian, A. & Traclet, V. (2011). Lessons from the Use of Extraordinary Central Bank Liquidity Facilities. Bank of Canada Spring Review, Spring, 27–36.
10. Calomiris, Ch. W., Haber, S. H. (2014). Fragile by Design: The Political Origins of Banking Crises and Scarce Credit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Acharya, V. (2015). Financial Stability in the Broader Mandate for Central Banks: A Political Economy Perspective. Hutchins Center Working Paper, 11, 1–19.
12. Balls, E., Howart, J. & Stansbury, A. (2016). Central Bank Independence Revisited: After the Financial Crisis, what should a Model Central Bank Look Like? Mossavar-Rahmani Center Working Paper, 67, 1–113.
13. Domanski, D., Sushko, V. (2014). Overview. Re-Thinking the Lender of Last Resort. BIS Paper, 79, 1–9.
14. Dagher, J. et al. (2016). Benefits and Costs of Bank Capital. IMF Staff Discussion Note, 4, 1–38.
15. Laeven, L., Valencia, F. (2012). Systemic Banking Crises Database: An Update. IMF Working Paper, 163, 1–32.
16. Giannini, C. (1999). Enemy of None but a Common Friend of All? An International Perspective on the Lender-of-Last-Resort Function. IMF Working Paper, 10, 1–58.
17. Jeanne, O., Wyplosz, Ch. (2001). The International Lender of Last Resort: How Large is Large Enough? IMF Working Paper, 76, 1–37.
18. Eichengreen, B., Kletzer, K. & Mody, A. (2005). The IMF in a World of Private Capital Markets. IMF Working Paper, 84, 1–34.
19. Obstfeld, M. (2009, May). The Immoderate World Economy. 3rd Annual Journal of International Money and Finance Conference (pp. 1–23). UC Santa Cruz.
20. Obstfeld, M. (2009, May 27–28). Lenders of Last Resort in a Globalized World: Keynote address prepared for the 2009 International Conference, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan (pp. 1–30). Tokyo.
21. Cihak, M. (2010). Price Stability, Financial Stability, and Central Bank Independence. Oesterreichische Nationalbank 38th Economic Conference (pp. 45–55). Wiena.
22. Kane, E., Klingebiel, D. (2004). Alternatives to Blanket Guarantees for Containing a Systemic Crisis. Journal of Financial Stability, 1, 31–63.
23. Kane, E. (2000). Dynamic Inconsistency of Capital Forbearance: Long-Run vs Short-Run Effects of Too-Big-to-Fail Policymaking. Boston College.
24. Kozyuk, V. V. (2016). Related lending: oligarchic banking and financial instability. Finance of Ukraine, 8, 38–58 [in Ukrainian].