The Sweep That Left a Subsidiary Short
Northline Manufacturing runs a notional pooling structure with its bank across four Canadian operating subsidiaries. Each night the bank offsets positive and negative balances into a single header account, and the treasury team reviews a consolidated position each morning. On a Tuesday, the controller of the Alberta subsidiary reports that a supplier's pre-authorized debit of CAD 480,000 failed for insufficient funds, even though the group's consolidated statement showed a positive CAD 2.1 million position. The bank confirms the pooling arrangement is operating as contracted. The Alberta account held CAD 120,000 at the time of the debit, and the pool does not transfer funds into member accounts. Interest allocation is calculated on each subsidiary's own balance. The controller now questions whether the group is misreporting liquidity to the board, and the CFO wants to know why a solvent group missed a payment.
1. Explain why the group's consolidated positive position did not prevent the failed debit, and identify the structural feature of the arrangement responsible.
Read the worked answer
Notional pooling offsets balances for interest and reporting purposes only; it does not physically move cash between member accounts. Each subsidiary remains legally responsible for debits drawn on its own account, so the Alberta account needed CAD 480,000 on hand and held only CAD 120,000. The consolidated CAD 2.1 million figure is an aggregate view, not a statement that any single account can draw on group liquidity.
The responsible feature is the absence of a funding mechanism alongside the notional pool. The bank is performing exactly as contracted. The gap is internal: treasury saw a group number and assumed subsidiary-level coverage without checking individual balances against scheduled outflows.
The practical implication is that notional pooling improves interest economics but does not substitute for cash concentration or an intercompany funding process. A group can be cash-rich in aggregate and still fail a payment at the entity level.
2. Recommend the controls and structural changes treasury should implement, and explain the trade-offs of each.
Read the worked answer
Three changes address the gap, with different costs.
First, a daily subsidiary-level liquidity report that matches each account balance against the next two business days of scheduled debits. This is cheap and catches the failure mode directly, but it depends on timely data feeds from each entity and does not fix the underlying structure.
Second, an intercompany loan or cash concentration arrangement that physically sweeps surplus from cash-positive entities into deficit entities. This eliminates the problem but creates intercompany balances, transfer-pricing and withholding-tax considerations, and documentation requirements. It also reduces the interest benefit of notional pooling if the bank charges for physical sweeps.
Third, a standby overdraft or intraday facility on each operating account, sized to expected debit volatility. This is the simplest protection but carries commitment fees and may be priced per entity.
The trade-off is between administrative simplicity and legal robustness. Given a CAD 480,000 missed payment, a layered approach is defensible: concentration for predictable flows, overdraft for volatility, and reporting as the backstop. Interest allocation should also be reviewed, since charging each subsidiary on its own balance while the group benefits from offsetting is a governance question the controller has legitimately raised.