Time subordination: Difference between revisions
From ACT Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>Doug Williamson (Create the page. Source: ABI response to CESR consultation https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Consultation%20papers/2012/09/ABI%20response%20to%20HMT%20consultation%20%20-%20Financial%20sector%20resolution%20FINAL.pdf) |
imported>Doug Williamson (Add link.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
From an individual depositor's perspective, it is rational to withdraw a deposit once the run has begun. | From an individual depositor's perspective, it is rational to withdraw a deposit once the run has begun. | ||
(Even if the original reason for the run was not rational.) | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Liquidity risk]] | |||
*[[Run]] | *[[Run]] | ||
*[[Stability]] | *[[Stability]] | ||
*[[Subordination]] | *[[Subordination]] | ||
[[Category:The_business_context]] | |||
[[Category:Identify_and_assess_risks]] | |||
[[Category:Manage_risks]] | |||
Latest revision as of 23:28, 17 March 2023
An effective ranking of claims or losses according to a time factor.
For example, the potential losses suffered by depositors during a bank run.
Those who withdraw their deposits first are the least likely to suffer losses.
This is one reason why bank runs can be self-perpetuating once they have started.
From an individual depositor's perspective, it is rational to withdraw a deposit once the run has begun.
(Even if the original reason for the run was not rational.)
