The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Preference shocks, liquidity, and central bank policy
Abstract
: We characterize the role of a central bank as a mechanism designer for risk-sharing across banks that are subject to privately observed “liquidity shocks.” The optimal mechanism involves borrowing/lending from a “discount window.” The optimal discount rate and the induced distortions in holdings of liquid assets suggest a rationale for subsidized lending and reserve requirements on the observable part of liquid asset holdings. Introduction Several recent papers have examined the micro-theoretic foundations for a theory of financial intermediation. The role of intermediaries as agents who provide delegated monitoring services has been developed in Leland and Pyle (1977) and Diamond (1984). More recently, Bryant (1980) and Diamond and Dybvig (1983) have considered issues pertaining to the optimal form of intermediary (deposit) contracts. They examine intertemporal models in which depositors are subject to privately observed preference shocks and the returns to investments depend on their time to maturity (liquidity). Within this framework, Bryant, Diamond-Dybvig and Jacklin (1986) have demonstrated the superiority of deposit contracts over Walrasian (mutual fund) trading mechanisms in providing agents with insurance for risks connected with preference shocks. The work on banking contracts has also served to focus attention on problems of coordination across agents who have private information on (risky) investments undertaken by the depository intermediaries or mutual funds. The pioneering study of Bryant (1980) considered the instabilities (panics) and imperfect risk-sharing that would arise if bank depositors (with fixed commitment contracts) make earlier withdrawals based on information about asset returns.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Private and Public Supply of Liquidity
Holmström, B., & Tirole, J. (1998) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/250001 · Cited by 1,822
Systemic Risk, Interbank Relations, and Liquidity Provision by the Central Bank
Freixas, X., Parigi, B. M., & Rochet, J.-C. (2000) · Journal of Money, Credit and Banking · doi:10.2307/2601198 · Cited by 1,379
Liquidity Shortages and Banking Crises
DIAMOND, D. W., & RAJAN, R. G. (2005) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00741.x · Cited by 874
Blocks, Liquidity, and Corporate Control
Bolton, P., & Von Thadden, E. (1998) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.15240 · Cited by 759
Collective Risk Management in a Flight to Quality Episode
CABALLERO, R. J., & KRISHNAMURTHY, A. (2008) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01394.x · Cited by 747
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhattacharya, S., & Gale, D.
- Venue
- New Approaches to Monetary Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1987-07-31
- Pages
- 69-88
- OpenAlex
- W163293550
- Cited by
- 510
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.36
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preference shocks, liquidity, and central bank policy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511759628.005
- The paper
- Bhattacharya, S., & Gale, D. (1987). Preference shocks, liquidity, and central bank policy. New Approaches to Monetary Economics. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511759628.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.