An LCR That Looks Strong Until the Level 2 Cap Is Applied
Lakeshore Savings ($25bn assets) reports an LCR of 112%: $4.2bn HQLA against $3.75bn net outflows. HQLA is 55% Level 1, 40% Level 2A, and 5% Level 2B. The management report has not applied the Level 2 cap. A single fintech deposit partner provides $1.1bn of operational deposits; the bank assumes 30% run-off, but the contract allows withdrawal on five days' notice. $900m of wholesale funding matures in 20 days. NSFR is 103%. A reverse stress test shows that a two-notch downgrade plus a 20% deposit outflow would push LCR to 78% by day 30, below the 100% minimum. The ALCO wants to increase Level 2B holdings to improve yield and argues that the LCR buffer is 'well above requirement'. The CFO asks whether the bank can return $150m of capital next quarter.
1. Recalculate the LCR after applying the Level 2 cap and assess the quality of the buffer.
Read the worked answer
Level 1 is 55% of $4.2bn = $2.31bn; Level 2A is 40% = $1.68bn; Level 2B is 5% = $0.21bn. Level 2 assets total $1.89bn, or 45% of reported HQLA, above the 40% cap. The cap means total HQLA cannot exceed Level 1 divided by 0.6: $2.31bn / 0.6 = $3.85bn. Adjusted LCR is $3.85bn / $3.75bn = 102.7%, not 112%.
Headroom is therefore about 2.7 percentage points, not 12. A modest outflow increase or a haircut on Level 2 assets would breach the minimum. The buffer is also low quality: only 55% is Level 1, and the bank is relying on Level 2A and Level 2B, which are less liquid in stress. Level 2B is only 5% of HQLA, so the 15% sub-cap is not the binding constraint; the 40% Level 2 cap is. The ALCO's claim that the buffer is well above requirement is based on an unadjusted report and should be corrected before any decision.
2. Evaluate the fintech deposit concentration and the wholesale funding maturity. How should they affect the LCR and NSFR assessment?
Read the worked answer
The $1.1bn fintech deposit is 4.4% of assets and is assumed to run off at 30%. But the contract allows withdrawal on five days' notice, which is inside the 30-day LCR horizon. If the deposit is not genuinely operational, the correct run-off may be much higher, possibly 100%. A 100% run-off would add $770m of outflows relative to the 30% assumption, which would take the adjusted LCR far below 100%.
The $900m wholesale maturity at day 20 also falls inside the horizon. It must either be refinanced or treated as an outflow; the bank cannot assume rollover without evidence. NSFR at 103% leaves only three percentage points above the minimum and is vulnerable to a shift from long-term to short-term funding. The reverse stress result of 78% shows that the combined scenario is plausible, not remote. The assessment should include a five-day notice scenario, a fintech exit scenario, and a no-rollover scenario for the wholesale funding.
3. Advise the CFO on the $150m capital return and set out the contingency actions the bank should take first.
Read the worked answer
The capital return should be deferred. A $150m return consumes liquidity and reduces the buffer at a time when the adjusted LCR is 102.7% and the stress case is 78%. Even if the return is funded from capital rather than HQLA, it weakens the bank's ability to raise or retain funding in stress. The board should require a post-return LCR and NSFR that remain above internal buffers, not just the regulatory minimum, under both base and stress cases.
Before considering a return, the bank should: diversify the fintech deposit concentration and renegotiate notice terms; extend or refinance the $900m wholesale maturity; increase the Level 1 share of HQLA; and reduce reliance on Level 2B yield chasing. The contingency funding plan should identify pre-arranged repo capacity, committed lines, central bank eligibility, and deposit pricing actions. ALCO should approve a recovery plan with triggers, and the board should see the corrected LCR, the stress results, and the actions needed to restore a genuine buffer before any capital distribution.