After a rapid expansion of financial transactions, both the authorities and financial institutions became aware of the risk involved in interbank settlement systems. To cope with the risk the systems in most economies have been designed so that large-sized payments are settled in the real time gross settlement (RTGS) mode, whereas small ones are dealt with in the designated time net settlement system. Yet the introduction of the RTGS system imposes substantial costs of maintaining intraday liquidity on participants, which creates a fear among European as well as Japanese banking communities that they might lose competitiveness against their US counterparts whose main settlement system, Fedwire, does not require collateral. We first compare these different settlement systems from the participant’s cost-benefit perspective and see if this concern always holds. Second, we develop the same framework to analyse the net settlement system, and then suggest if there is a rationale behind the coexistence of both the RTGS and net settlement systems.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number
1667.
Find related papers by JEL classification: G29 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Other
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)