Northern Rock Case Study

896 Words2 Pages

As mentioned above, the funding liquidity mainly refers to the liability part of the asset and the market liquidity concerns the asset side of the balance sheet. In the liability side, the term should be longer because long term liability requires less funding liquidity. The bank need not to roll over the liability to support the demand from the asset side (Shin, 2009). In the asset side, the term should be short because short term asset requires less market liquidity. The short term asset are usually more liquidity because these assets could be transformed to cash in the near future. However, as showing in Table 1, it could be found that Northern Rock has very high liquidity risk. On the liability side, it relies too much on the short term …show more content…

In this subsection, the interest rate risk is examined for the Northern bank. As mentioned above, the Northern Rock relies heavily on the short term liabilities to support its long run asset. The transforming from the short term liability to long run asset is in fact one of the functions for banks. However, too much reliance on the wholesale market finance would expose the bank heavily to the interest rate risk (Llewellyn, 2008). The deposit rate usually are stable over time but the short term liability rate could vary tremendously, especially in the bad times. And Figure 1 gives the annual deposit interest rate. Figure 2 gives the daily interbank interest rate and the official interest rate in UK. Both the time range for these two Figures are from January 1 2000 to January 1 …show more content…

This could be explained using Figure 3. For a portfolio, its returns usually follow a distribution. In the normal distribution case, as seeing in Figure 3, the shadow place refers to the Value at Risk. That is, the returns or the value of the portfolio hit to a critical value of the left tail of the distribution. This critical value is named as the value at risk. Given the confidence level (100-X)%, the losses would not exceed to this critical value. The Value at Risk could be calculated using the following formula (1). In equation (1), V is the portfolio value. In this study, it is assumed as £10,000. Formula (1) is based on the log normal distribution of the stock price which is widely adopted in the empirical and theoretical study. The parameter μ and σ are the expected returns and standard variance. And 1-X is the confidence level. It could be estimated using the historical price. The holding period is assumed to be 250. Thus, the holding period is roughly one year.
VaR=V*[μ+σN^(-1) (X)] (1)
Using the historical data from September 30 1997 to June 30 2007, it could be estimated the average daily return and standard variance for the stock of Northern Rock is 0.024% and 1.705% respectively. Using a holding period of 250, the expected return and the standard deviation is μ=0.024%*250=6.03% and σ=1.705%*√250=26.95%. If the confidence level is 99%,

More about Northern Rock Case Study

Open Document