Solvency and Liquidity Level Trade-off: Does it Exist in Croatian Banking Sector?

Open access


We focus on 32 Croatian banks in the period 2002-2010 in order to investigate the solvency-liquidity nexus. Dynamic panel data analysis is applied on two basic models in which current liquidity ratio and equity to assets ratio are set as dependent variables, interchangeably, and other explanatory variables employed to capture the effect of bank size, profitability and asset quality as well as macroeconomic environment. We found two-way positive relationship between bank solvency and liquidity. However, bank size plays an important role in the capital and liquidity management, and trade-off between the solvency and liquidity level is found for the larger banks. Therefore, policymakers should take into consideration capital and liquidity interdependence, as well as the bank size effect when designing capital and liquidity requirements in order to downsize the regulatory burden for smaller banks, and increase them for larger banks. Namely, larger banks tend to minimize regulatory costs by avoiding simultaneous increase of liquidity and solvency. Small banks do exactly the opposite and stock both, capital and liquidity, what potentially makes their funds allocation sub-optimal, from their own as well as social point of view. Altogether, the paper contributes to scarce empirical evidence regarding bank solvency and liquidity interdependence, particularly when the post-transitional banking sectors are taken into consideration. It adds to knowledge on bank financial management in praxis, and bank managers and prudential authorities might find it relevant for their policies design and implementation.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Allen B. Chan K. K. Milne A. and Thomas S. 2012. Basel III: Is the cure worse than the disease? International Review of Financial Analysis 25 159-166. doi:

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 2015. Basel III monitoring report. March 2015: Bank for International Settlements.

  • Batavia B. Parameswar N. Murthy S. R. and Wague C. 2013. Avoiding a liquidity crunch: do pre-bear phase bank ratios matter? Evidence from a world-wide sample. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research 3(1) 1-13.

  • Berger A. N. and Bouwman C. H. S. 2009. Bank liquidity creation. Review of Financial Studies 22(9) 3779-3837. doi:

  • Bhattacharya S. and Thakor A. V. 1993. Contemporary banking theory. Journal of Financial Intermediation 3(1) 2-50. doi:

  • Căpraru B. and Ihnatov I. 2015. Determinants of Bank’s Profitability in EU15. Analele ştiinţifice ale Universităţii “Al.I. Cuza” din Iaşi. Ştiinţe economice / Scientific Annals of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi. Economic Sciences 62(1) 93-101. doi:

  • Diamond D. W. and Rajan R. G. 2000. A theory of bank capital. The Journal of Finance 55(6) 2431-2465. doi:

  • Distinguin I. Roulet C. and Tarazi A. 2013. Bank regulatory capital and liquidity: Evidence from US and European publicly traded banks. Journal of Banking & Finance 37(9) 3295-3317. doi:

  • Ercegovac R. and Kundid A. 2011. Sadržaj i posljedice novog uređenja kapitala u bankarstvu. Računovodstvo revizija i financije 21(8) 117-121.

  • French K. R. Baily M. N. Campbell J. Y. Cochrane J. H. Diamond D. W. Duffie D. . . . Stulz R. M. 2010. The Squam Lake report: fixing the financial system. USA: Princeton University Press.

  • Fungáčová Z. Turk Ariss R. and Weill L. 2013. Does excessive liquidity creation trigger bank failures? BOFIT Discussion Papers 2 1-34.

  • Horváth R. Siedler J. and Weill L. 2012. Bank capital and liquidity creation Granger-causality evidence. ECB Working paper series 1497(nov.) 30.

  • Imbierowicz B. and Rauch C. 2014. The relationship between liquidity risk and credit risk in banks. Journal of Banking & Finance 40 242-256. doi:

  • Kundid A. 2014. Heterogeneous funding patterns and income structure of Croatian banks: panel data evidence. Theoretical and Applied Economics 21(9) 23-42.

  • Kundid Novokmet A. 2015. Cyclicality of bank capital buffers in South-Eastern Europe: Endogenous and exogenous aspects. 39(2) 139-169. doi:

  • Kundid Novokmet A. Pečarić M. and Vukadin M. 2016. Strategije upravljanja likvidnošću banaka u Hrvatskoj: osvrt na pretkrizno razdoblje. In A. Stojanović and H. Šimović (Eds.) Aktualni problemi i izazovi razvoja financijskog sustava (pp. 43-62). Zagreb: Ekonomski fakultet.

  • Merkl C. and Stolz S. 2009. Banks' regulatory buffers liquidity networks and monetary policy transmission. Applied Economics 41(16) 2013-2024. doi:

  • Munteanu I. 2012. Bank liquidity and its determinants in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance 3 993-998. doi:

  • Pierret D. 2015. Systemic risk and the solvency-liquidity nexus of banks. 54. doi:

  • Rime B. 2001. Capital requirements and bank behaviour: Empirical evidence for Switzerland. Journal of Banking & Finance 25(4) 789-805. doi:

  • Rose P. S. and Hudgins S. C. 2013. Bank management & financial services (9th ed. ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.

  • Tarullo D. K. 2013. Evaluating Progress in Regulatory Reforms to Promote Financial Stability. Speeches.Retrieved 20 January 2016 from

  • Vodová P. 2011. Liquidity of Czech commercial banks and its determinants. International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 5(6) 1060-1067.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 306 153 9
PDF Downloads 218 135 7