Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorZWART, Sanne
dc.date.accessioned2007-10-23T10:31:10Z
dc.date.available2007-10-23T10:31:10Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Financial Stability, 2007, 3, 2, 149-174en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/7221
dc.description.abstractAlthough IMF support is supposed to benefit a country, it might be bad news that the IMF believes intervention is necessary. This paper analyzes a bank run model in which both the liquidity effect and the signalling effect of the intervention occur. The IMF strategically provides liquidity support to facilitate market functioning. When the IMF intervenes and has large resources, it uses the signalling to aim for a “half run” and off-sets the negative consequences with the liquidity support. For small IMF resources, the negative signalling effect might not be off-set and the IMF presence can be distorting.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Financial Stability
dc.titleThe mixed blessing of IMF intervention: Signalling versus liquidity supporten
dc.typeArticleen
dc.neeo.contributorZWART|Sanne|aut|
dc.identifier.volume3
dc.identifier.startpage149
dc.identifier.endpage174


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record