We model the interplay between trade in the interbank market and creditor runs on financial institutions. We show that the feedback between them can amplify a small shock into "interbank market freezing" with "liquidity evaporating." Credit crunches of the interbank market drive up the interbank rate. For an individual institution, a higher interbank rate — meaning a higher funding cost — results in more severe coordination problems among creditors in debt rollover decisions. Creditors thus behave more conservatively and run more often. Facing an increased chance of creditor runs, institutions demand more and supply less liquidity, tightening the interbank market.

We model the interplay between trade in the interbank market and creditor runs on financial institutions. We show that the feedback between them can amplify a small shock into “interbank market freezing” with “liquidity evaporating.” Credit crunches of the interbank market drive up the interbank rate. For an individual institution, a higher interbank rate — meaning a higher funding cost — results in more severe coordination problems among creditors in debt rollover decisions. Creditors thus behave more conservatively and run more often. Facing an increased chance of creditor runs, institutions demand more and supply less liquidity, tightening the interbank market.

Hundreds of papers and factors attempt to explain the cross-section of expected returns. Given this extensive data mining, it does not make sense to use the usual criteria for establishing significance. Which hurdle should be used for current research? Our paper introduces a new multiple testing framework and provides historical cutoffs from the first empirical tests in 1967 to today. A new factor needs to clear a much higher hurdle, with a t-statistic greater than 3.0. We argue that most claimed research findings in financial economics are likely false.