This document summarizes feedback on a paper that investigates the impact of Basel III liquidity requirements on risk-taking in dual banking systems after the global financial crisis. The discussant provides suggestions in several areas: improving the abstract, introduction, literature review, justification of methodology and time period, descriptive and results analysis, citations, robustness tests, conclusion, and presentation of tables. Overall, the discussant finds that the paper would benefit from language improvements, a clearer motivation and contribution, more robust methodology, deeper analysis of results, and stronger policy implications.

1. Discussant for :
Basel III liquidity requirements and risk-taking in dual banking
systems after the GFC
Mohsin Ali
Monash University Malaysia

2. Paper Overview
• Investigates the impact of Basel III liquidity requirements and risk-taking in
dual banking systems after the GFC
• Time Period – 2010-2021.
• GMM Panel Data - OIC
• Findings suggest that NSFR weakens banking stability; LCR promotes banking
stability.

3. Suggestion/Comments
• Major improvement in writing required.
• Abstract
• Needs to be more crisp.
• The introduction section needs some improvements.
• Your introduction should start off with your contribution, followed by
• Motivation of the research should be right up front.
• It is not clear that for whom is this study relevant.
• Then the Usefulness of this research
• Why do you want to study Dual Banking Economies

4. Suggestion/Comments
• Literature Review is not well synchronized.
• Many recent papers are missing
• Data Issues.
• Justification of the time span is critical.
• No mention of criteria of bank selection
• Methodology section.
• Whats the main reason for their choice of GMM?
• Why not have more methods as robustness? What the need for a dynamic model?

5. Suggestion/Comments
• The analysis section needs some improvements.
• Descriptive analysis section needs to be shortened, just a paragraph.
• The economic meanings of coefficients are missing.
• The results need detailed explanation
• Needs more citations.
• Ensure findings link with earlier literature.
• Its not clear what is reported for Hansen test, is it p-value?
• Robustness tests needs justification
• Conclusion
• Policy implications are superficial
• What is the benefit to different stakeholders?

6. General Comments
• Refer to the recent issue of BMEB for sample of tables.
• The tables need to have detailed notes at the bottom, defining items that
aren’t clear to the reader.
• Language improvement and editing is required.

7. Thanks