Widespread concern is being expressed by all, including the Governor of the Bank of England, about the need to “get the banks lending again.” A core aspect of such lending is the provision of working capital to firms. An effective mechanism used to be in place specifically to provide working capital to trade and industry. A bank would accept bills of exchange drawn on the bank by its client “in respect of current trade”. Such “acceptances”, with both the bank and its client liable for the obligation, were readily taken as security for secured lending by other participants in the money markets. Acceptances by many banks were also eligible for re-discount at the Bank of England. Such “eligible bills” were used by the Bank of England as part of its open market operations until March 2005 when the Bank moved to index the rate at which it borrowed and lent to the Monetary Policy Committee’s repo rate. By then, use of bills had declined. At a peak in 1998 of £18 bn, the size of the eligible acceptance market fell below £1 bn in late 2004. By that time there was ready availability of unsecured, money market funding for large companies, with the banks also encouraging such customers to use commercial paper (CP) markets, in connection with which the banks provided “back up lines of credit” in case of CP market failure. A direct consequence was that acceptances were not missed at that time as a source of finance. Market conditions are now very different for the firms that are central to the strength of the UK economy. Given the Bank of England’s reluctance to take single name non-government paper – bank CDs (certificates of deposit) or CP – we think that a revival of the use of acceptances “in respect of current trade” may be in order. The two-name acceptances could again provide good collateral for secured borrowing generally. They could again be purchased (discounted) by the Bank of England in pursuit of policy objectives and at a discount rate and in quantities they determine. Such purchases automatically provide funds with the same maturity as the bills, normally one, three or six months, and the funding runs over month, quarter and year ends, which are the times of greatest illiquidity in money markets. By adjusting the rate at which it discounted acceptances, the Bank of England would add to its direct rate-setting influence further along the short-term yield curve. As the liquidity crisis has developed, much ‘thinking of the unthinkable’ has taken place. We urge that as a small positive step in ameliorating the situation thought be given to the re-introduction now of the acceptance instrument with which the City had been familiar for hundreds of years. We recognise that such a move would doubtless now be based on a dematerialised, electronic, rather than paper form. Re-introduction would not take legislation as it would only require an announcement by the Bank of England about its operations to set things in motion. Money market conditions would seem to provide clear incentives to banks and their customers to adjust their agreements and switch a proportion of borrowings into a new acceptance market.