Performance and resilience to liquidity disruptions in interdependent RTGS payment systems
Download as PPT, PDF1 like588 views
The document discusses the interdependencies of Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) payment systems, particularly how liquidity disruptions in one system can impact another system through various channels. It presents a model examining the interactions and implications of these interdependencies, with findings indicating that crises propagate across systems affecting payment activities and liquidity. Key conclusions reveal that both payment versus payment (PVP) and non-PVP scenarios demonstrate this interconnectedness, leading to increased exposures during disruptions and recovery periods.
Performance and resilience to liquidity disruptions in interdependent RTGS payment systems
- 1. Performance and resilience to liquidity disruptions in interdependent RTGS payment systems Fabien Renault 1 Morten L. Bech 2 Walt Beyeler 3 Robert J. Glass 3 Kimmo Soram ä ki 4 1 Banque de France 2 Federal Reserve Bank of New York 3 Sandia National Laboratories 4 Helsinki University of Technology, www.soramaki.net Joint Banque de France / European Central Bank conference on "Liquidity in interdependent transfer systems" Paris, 9 June 2008 The views expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their respective institutions
- 2. Motivation The 2001 Group of Ten “Report on Consolidation in the Financial Sector” (the Ferguson report) noted a possible increased interdependence between the different systems due to: The emergence of global institutions that participate to many systems The emergence of global service providers offering services to many systems The development of DvP procedures linking RTGS and SSS The development of CLS The report suggested that these trends might accentuate the role of payment and settlement systems in the transmission of disruptions across the financial system. To complement this previous work, the CPSS (Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems) commissioned a working group to: describe the different interdependencies existing among the payment and settlement systems of CPSS countries analyze the risk implications of the different interdependencies
- 3. Could a modeling approach provide any useful additional information to the regulators ? So far, payment and settlement system modeling has been mainly limited to a single system, with a few exceptions We want to model the interactions between two payment systems and understand how interdependencies arise We wish to understand how disruptions in one system manifest in the other Motivation System-based Interdependencies System System Financial Institution Institution-based Interdependencies System System IT service provider Environmental Interdependencies System System Dealt with in this presentation
- 4. Two RTGS systems in two different currencies: $ and € Both systems are similar in structure with 100 banks Six “global banks”. Top three banks in each system have a presence also in the other system The global banks make FX trades (at constant exchange rate) among each other All banks make local payments Coupled RTGS model Model description RTGS € Extended core Core Smaller € local players E 20 E 4 E 21 E 22 E 5 E 23 E 6 E 3 E 1 E 2 E i E 97 RTGS $ Core Extended core Smaller $ local players A 3 A 1 A 2 A 5 A 6 A 23 A 21 A 4 A 22 A 20 A i A 97 E 3 E 1 E 2 A 3 A 2 A 1 FX market
- 5. Payment instructions arrive according to a non-homogenous Poisson process intuition: customers who have received funds issue payments more frequently than bank customers who have already sent many payments FX trades arrival is similar as above, now taking into account balances in both currencies E.g. banks with high euro positions are likely to sell euro and vice versa Those two systems are linked Via the dual participation of some global banks that can make FX trades (institution-based interdependency) Via a possible PvP (Payment versus Payment) constraint on the FX trades (system-based interdependency), the alternative being a non-PvP settlement Coupled RTGS model Model description
- 6. Correlation dynamics High liquidity PvP or non-PvP Correlation: 0.22 (institution-based interdependency) Low liquidity non-PvP Correlation: -0.02 (none) Low liquidity PvP Correlation: 0.83 (system-based interdependency)
- 7. Summary of main results PvP increases queues eliminates exposures Lower liquidity increases queues Increases exposures (in case of non-PvP) Liquidity differences in the two systems Reducing liquidity in one system increases queuing in the other (in case of PvP) Banks selling the more liquid currency face higher exposures (in case of non-PvP) Higher priority for FX trades Decreases queues in the more liquid system (in case of PvP) Does not affect queues when both systems have same liquidity Substantially reduces exposures (in case of non-PvP)
- 8. Operational disruption An operational disruption affects a significant local € bank The affected bank does not participate in RTGS $, nor engage in FX transactions The affected bank is unable to submit its € local payments for a certain duration The affected bank acts as a liquidity sink for RTGS € To which extent will the disruption affect RTGS $ ? Four different cases: PvP or non-PvP High Liquidity or Low Liquidity (the same in both systems) What are the channels of propagation through which the crisis spreads from one RTGS to the other ?
- 9. Operational disruption PvP High Liquidity A B C D E F G H
- 10. Operational disruption PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) A B C D E F G H
- 11. Operational disruption PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 12. Operational disruption Period A Steady state PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 13. Operational disruption Period A Steady state Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 14. Operational disruption Period A Steady state Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity Period C RTGS $ down to local activity PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 15. Operational disruption Period A Steady state Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity Period C RTGS $ down to local activity Period D Because of the queuing of FX trades (PvP), customers have lower $ funds and make fewer $ local payments Period E-F Queued € local payments settle Queued FX trades settle Period G Return to equilibrium generates extra trades PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 16. Operational disruption Period A Steady state Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity Period C RTGS $ down to local activity Period D Because of the queuing of FX trades (PvP), customers have lower $ funds and make fewer $ local payments Period E-F Queued € local payments settle Queued FX trades settle Period G Return to equilibrium generates extra trades PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 17. Operational disruption Period A Steady state Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity Period C RTGS $ down to local activity Period D Because of the queuing of FX trades (PvP), customers have lower $ funds and make fewer $ local payments Period E-F Queued € local payments settle Queued FX trades settle Period G Return to equilibrium generates extra trades PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-50 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F G H
- 18. Operational disruption PvP Low Liquidity A B C D E
- 19. Operational disruption PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-65 %) A B C D E
- 20. Operational disruption PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-65 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots (reaches maximum rate) A B C D E
- 21. Operational disruption Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued Both legs of FX trades are queued, RTGS $ deprived of FX activity Period C The queuing of FX trades decreases $ deposits. Agents are uncertain about their $ position, fewer $ local payments emitted The distribution of $ deposits is brought out of equilibrium because of the disruption. In this low liquidity context, this causes $ local payments to be queued Period D Queued € local payments settle Queued FX trades settle Queued $ local payments settle Period E Return to equilibrium marginally affects settlement rate PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-65 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots (reaches maximum rate) A B C D E
- 22. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity A B C D E F G
- 23. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-17 %) Recovery: no overshoot in RTGS $ A B C D E F G
- 24. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-17 %) Recovery: no overshoot in RTGS $ A B C D E F G
- 25. Operational disruption Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued € leg of FX trades are queued $ leg of FX trades still settle Period C The queuing of € local payments decreases € deposits. Agents are uncertain about their € position, fewer FX trades emitted. RTGS $ is deprived from FX activity Period D Only local activity in RTGS $ Period E Queued € local payments settle Queued € leg of FX trades settle Period F Return to equilibrium generates extra trades Non-PvP High Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-17 %) Recovery: no overshoot in RTGS $ A B C D E F G
- 26. Operational disruption Non-PvP Low Liquidity A B C D E F
- 27. Operational disruption Non-PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-25 %) A B C D E F
- 28. Operational disruption Non-PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-25 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F
- 29. Operational disruption Period B € balances vanish € local payments are queued € leg of FX trades are queued $ leg of FX trades still settle Period C The queuing of € local payments decreases € deposits. Agents are uncertain about their € position, fewer FX trades emitted. RTGS $ is deprived from FX activity Period D Only local activity in RTGS $ The distribution of $ deposits is brought out of equilibrium because of the disruption. In this low liquidity context, this causes $ local payments to be queued Period E Queued € local payments settle Queued FX trades settle Queued $ local payments settle Non-PvP Low Liquidity Outage: settlement rate in RTGS $ decreases (-25 %) Recovery: settlement rate in RTGS $ overshoots A B C D E F
- 30. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity, FX exposures
- 31. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity, FX exposures Outage: huge increase in € owed (1 000 times normal exposures)
- 32. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity, FX exposures Outage: huge increase in € owed (1 000 times normal exposures) Recovery: large increase in $ owed (15 time normal exposure)
- 33. Operational disruption Non-PvP High Liquidity, FX exposures Outage: huge increase in € owed (1 000 times normal exposures) Recovery: large increase in $ owed (15 time normal exposure)
- 34. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 1: Low € balances at the CB prevent settlement of € leg of FX transactions (PvP) or create FX exposures (non-PVP)
- 35. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 1: Low € balances at the CB prevent settlement of € leg of FX transactions (PvP) or create FX exposures (non-PVP) PvP: All FX settlement activity stops, RTGS $ is deprived from FX settlement activity
- 36. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 1: Low € balances at the CB prevent settlement of € leg of FX transactions (PvP) or create FX exposures (non-PVP) PvP: All FX settlement activity stops, RTGS $ is deprived from FX settlement activity Because of the queuing of FX trades (PvP), customers have lower $ funds and make fewer $ local payments
- 37. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 1: Low € balances at the CB prevent settlement of € leg of FX transactions (PvP) or create FX exposures (non-PVP) PvP: All FX settlement activity stops, RTGS $ is deprived from FX settlement activity Because of the queuing of FX trades (PvP), customers have lower $ funds and make fewer $ local payments Non-PvP: Very high exposures (unsettled € legs) during crisis
- 38. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 2: Low € customer funds lead to fewer emitted FX trades Banks customers’ € liquidity is trapped within queued payments. Therefore, customers emit fewer FX trades
- 39. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 2: Low € customer funds lead to fewer emitted FX trades Banks customers’ € liquidity is trapped within queued payments. Therefore, customers emit fewer FX trades This leads to RTGS $ being eventually deprived of FX activity, even in the non-PvP case
- 40. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 3: As not all banks are similarly affected, the system becomes unbalanced The FX banks for which the disrupted bank is an important counterparty see their level of € customer funds decrease more rapidly. These banks become net € buyers ($ sellers) on the FX market. RTGS $ becomes unbalanced.
- 41. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 3: As not all banks are similarly affected, the system becomes unbalanced The FX banks for which the disrupted bank is an important counterparty see their level of € deposits decrease more rapidly. These banks become net € buyers ($ sellers) on the FX market. RTGS $ becomes unbalanced. Low Liquidity: this leads to the queuing of several $ local payments, even in the non-PvP case…
- 42. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 3: As not all banks are similarly affected, the system becomes unbalanced The FX banks for which the disrupted bank is an important counterparty see their level of € deposits decrease more rapidly. These banks become net € buyers ($ sellers) on the FX market. RTGS $ becomes unbalanced. Low Liquidity: this leads to the queuing of several $ local payments, even in the non-PvP case… And to an overshoot at recovery, even in non-PvP case
- 43. Cross-currency channels of disruption propagation Channel 3: As not all banks are similarly affected, the system becomes unbalanced The FX banks for which the operationally disrupted bank is an important counterparty see their level of € deposits decrease more rapidly. These banks become net € buyers ($ sellers) on the FX market. RTGS $ becomes unbalanced. Low Liquidity: this leads to the queuing of several $ local payments… And to an overshoot at recovery, even in non-PvP case Non-PvP: This creates a peak in $ owed exposures at recovery, event at high liquidity
- 44. Conclusions A simple model of interconnected RTGS was developed During normal operation, the two RTGS are shown to be interdependent When a liquidity crisis affects one RTGS, the crisis propagates to second RTGS in all considered cases PvP: sharp decrease in activity (local and FX) in second RTGS Non-PvP: Decrease in activity in second RTGS due to fewer FX trades emitted At low liquidity, local payments in second RTGS are also affected Large increase of FX exposures during crisis and recovery