the RRGS system performs similarly to a one-hour netting system at the 20 percent and 50 percent participation levels and more like a six-hour netting system at the 80 percent level.
A feature of the simulated RRGS mechanism is that the FIFO rule was strictly adhered to when settling queued payments.
The simulated RRGS mechanism outperforms the netting systems when both liquidity savings and payment delays are taken into account.
Because an RRGS system does not rely on a bank's balance, but only a bank's receipts to trigger the release of payments, the history of a bank's submission of RTGS payments does not affect the release of its payments from the queue.
We find that, unlike an RTGS system, both netting and RRGS queuing systems introduce delays to payments.
The simulations in this article indicate that an RRGS system reduces significantly more overdrafts than a six-hour netting system would, with considerably less delay in payments.