An LCR of 128% That Cannot Survive Its Own Funding Structure
A bank reports an LCR of 128% and an NSFR of 112%. HQLA is $4.1bn against $3.2bn of 30-day net outflows. Deposits are the funding base: the top 20 depositors hold 34% of them, and 41% of corporate deposits come from property developers. $900m of term wholesale funding matures in five months, and a one-notch downgrade would require $250m of additional collateral. The bank classifies $1.1bn of corporate sweep accounts as operational deposits with a 25% run-off factor. Intraday payment peaks reach $600m against a $350m daylight facility. Under a combined idiosyncratic and market stress the LCR reaches 104% on day 18. The board is due to approve a $150m dividend and a $100m buyback.
1. Where does the reported LCR overstate resilience? Quantify where you can.
Read the worked answer
Four things inflate the 128%.
- Operational-deposit classification. $1.1bn of corporate sweeps at a 25% run-off assumes the balances are locked in by a service relationship. For leveraged property developers these are more likely liquidity buffers that move first. Reclassifying to 40-100% removes roughly $165m-$825m of assumed stability against a $3.2bn outflow base - material.
- Concentration is invisible to the ratio. 34% of deposits from 20 names and 41% of corporate deposits from one sector is single-event run risk that averaged run-off factors cannot see. The LCR describes a diversified bank; this is not one.
- The 30-day window hides the cliff. $900m matures in five months, outside the horizon, while a downgrade pulls $250m of collateral forward. NSFR at 112% is thin for this funding structure.
- HQLA quality and intraday. $4.1bn of HQLA must be checked for level 2 caps and duration; intraday peaks of $600m against a $350m facility are an unmeasured risk the LCR says nothing about.
The day-18 stress result of 104% confirms the buffer is thin, not comfortable.
2. What should the board decide on the dividend and buyback, and how should the decision be framed?
Read the worked answer
Recommend deferring the $100m buyback and reducing the dividend to a level that survives stress with headroom.
The buyback is discretionary and the cheapest item to stop; it also signals confidence the funding profile does not support. The test is not 'are we above 100% today' but 'what is the LCR after a plausible combination of a one-notch downgrade, a sector outflow and the term refinancing, and is there still a surplus?' At 104% on day 18 before those items, the answer is no.
Decision structure:
- Defer the buyback until the $900m is refinanced and top-20 deposit concentration is below 25%.
- Pay the dividend only from post-stress surplus, or pay a reduced amount, explained as a deliberate resilience decision rather than distress.
- Require ALCO to present 90-day and 12-month funding plans and a depositor diversification target with named owners and dates.
If the board overrides, record the dissent and the conditions in the minutes. Distributing capital while a plausible stress takes the ratio to the floor is a governance failure even where no rule is broken.
3. Design the contingency funding triggers and the metrics the board should see each month.
Read the worked answer
Triggers should be graduated, pre-agreed and tied to actions:
- Early warning: LCR below 115%; top-20 deposit share above 30%; single-sector corporate deposits above 35%; unsecured wholesale maturing within 90 days above 10% of liabilities; CDS spread widening; rating outlook change.
- Stress: LCR below 105% or the surviving-horizon test failing; intraday peak above 80% of facility; collateral calls above $100m.
- Severe: LCR below 100%, or two stress triggers simultaneously.
At each level: named owner, pre-authorised actions (deposit diversification campaign, drawing committed facilities, pre-positioning collateral at the central bank, restricting new lending, escalation to the board within 24-48 hours) and a communication plan.
Board reporting: LCR and NSFR alongside a concentration dashboard, a surviving-horizon metric beyond 30 days, intraday peak utilisation and available collateral. Report the ratio and the assumptions behind it - the committee needs to see the operational-deposit classification, not just the headline number.