Liquidity remains one of the most critical elements of a bank’s financial stability, directly affecting its ability to meet short-term obligations, sustain operations, and manage through unexpected shocks. The appropriate level of liquidity depends on a bank’s size, business model, risk tolerance, and regulatory classification, but the common thread across institutions is that regulators, investors, and counterparties all view liquidity as a primary measure of resilience. In today’s environment of heightened supervisory scrutiny, rapid innovation in payments, and evolving funding markets, liquidity management has become both more complex and more consequential.
For decades, local retail deposits—checking and savings accounts—formed the foundation of bank funding. While these deposits remain important, the structure of bank balance sheets has changed significantly. Deposits have become more volatile, more concentrated, and more interest-rate sensitive than at any time since the 1980s. The failures of SVB, Signature, and First Republic in 2023 exposed the vulnerabilities of concentrated depositor bases, high levels of uninsured balances, and over-reliance on unstable funding.
In response, regulators have intensified their scrutiny. The U.S. liquidity framework, built around the Basel III Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), is under review. Supervisors are increasingly focused not only on 30-day liquidity coverage but also on intraday readiness, collateral management, and the operational ability to mobilize funding quickly. Emerging risks from digital assets, fintech partnerships, and instant payment systems have further complicated the supervisory agenda.
Examiners now routinely emphasize several themes when reviewing liquidity management:
A sound CFP has become essential. Modern CFPs must set explicit triggers—such as breaches in liquidity ratios or abnormal deposit outflows—while also mapping out governance, escalation protocols to the board and regulators, and communication strategies for counterparties. Banks are expected to pre-position collateral with the Federal Reserve and FHLBs, not only to expand borrowing capacity but also to ensure operational readiness when conditions deteriorate.
Among the many measures used by banks and regulators, two ratios remain central to current supervisory expectations.
The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) is the best-known international standard. It compares High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) to projected net cash outflows over 30 days. The minimum regulatory requirement is 100%, though most large institutions target buffers of 110–120% to avoid slipping below the threshold in stressed conditions. Smaller banks under $100 billion in assets are not formally subject to the LCR, but they are expected to conduct internal stress testing of liquidity coverage, often using uninsured deposit runoff and forced sales of securities as test cases. Basel III rules also cap cash inflows at 75% of outflows, ensuring that banks maintain a meaningful stock of HQLA rather than relying too heavily on projected inflows.
The definition of HQLA has careful attention paid to what qualifies as unencumbered and marketable. Assets pledged to the FHLB or Federal Reserve cannot be counted; nor can Held-to-Maturity securities unless reclassified to Available-for-Sale and marked to market. Haircuts apply under Basel standards: agency securities are discounted 15%, while investment-grade corporates and municipals are cut by 50%.
The On-Hand Liquidity Ratio, sometimes called the Primary Liquidity Ratio, measures a bank’s immediate ability to meet liabilities with on-balance sheet, unencumbered liquid assets. While examiners often use 15–25% as reference points, these are supervisory guideposts, not regulatory minimums.
The Total Liquidity Ratio measures a bank’s access to funding. It includes primary liquidity – on balance sheet assets that can be sold plus its access to available sources of funding (undrawn, so currently off balance sheet). When measuring total liquidity, it is critical to avoid double counting – the same securities can’t be counted as saleable and as collateral for new borrowings. Notably, total liquidity includes held to maturity securities to the extent that they can be pledged to increase funding. Further, haircuts should reflect the terms of a bank’s borrowing arrangements and may differ from the Basel III definition of HQLA.
These ratios illustrate the importance of understanding not only asset composition but also collateral encumbrance, operational readiness, and the speed with which assets can be converted into usable cash.
Supervisors also evaluate funding stability through metrics that are not regulatory requirements but nonetheless drive examiner conclusions. Two common examples are the Net Non-Core Funding Dependence Ratio and the Wholesale Funding Ratio.
The Net Non-Core Funding Dependence Ratio, developed through the FDIC’s Uniform Bank Performance Report, compares net non-core liabilities—such as jumbo CDs, brokered deposits, and borrowings, net of short term investments—to long-term assets. A level below 20% is generally considered healthy, while higher values suggest over-reliance on volatile funding.
The Wholesale Funding Ratio, meanwhile, measures reliance on brokered deposits and borrowed funds relative to total funding sources. Supervisors typically flag ratios above 15% and rarely tolerate reliance above 30%. While some bankers argue brokered deposits should be treated as core, regulators remain concerned that wholesale markets can disappear quickly, particularly if the bank’s condition or reputation deteriorates.
Liquidity risk cannot be captured by ratios alone. Stress testing has become a central tool, with best practice covering multiple horizons: overnight, seven days, thirty days, and ninety days. Each horizon reveals different vulnerabilities—from intraday settlement mismatches to prolonged deposit outflows.
Intraday liquidity is now a priority. Faster payments through FedNow and The Clearing House’s RTP system have shortened settlement cycles, meaning banks must be able to meet liquidity needs on a continuous basis rather than only at end of day. Supervisors increasingly reference the Basel Committee’s BCBS 248 guidance, which requires banks to measure same-day liquidity inflows and outflows.
Collateral management is equally vital. A bank’s ability to borrow often hinges not on theoretical asset values but on the practical ability to pledge collateral at the Fed or FHLB. Regulators now expect detailed tracking of pledged and unencumbered assets, updated haircuts, and operational readiness to mobilize collateral in stress conditions. Several banks caught short in 2023 had miscalculated collateral encumbrance and the time required to move collateral from one lender (e.g., the FHLB) to another (e.g., the Fed), leaving them unable to borrow when they needed it most.
Liquidity management is also being reshaped by technology and policy discussions. Tokenized deposits and stablecoins promise greater efficiency, particularly for cross-border payments, but they also introduce risks of deposit disintermediation, programmable runs, and smart contract vulnerabilities. With no clear regulatory framework in place, supervisors are likely to require banks to treat digital assets conservatively, incorporating them into stress testing scenarios but not counting them as core liquidity.
At the same time, U.S. policymakers are debating reforms to deposit insurance, including raising limits or offering targeted business coverage. Such changes could materially alter depositor behavior, potentially reducing uninsured deposit flight risk but also reshaping funding costs. Regulators continue to encourage banks to normalize use of the Federal Reserve’s discount window, pre-positioning collateral to reduce stigma and ensure borrowing capacity under stress, or even on a short-term basis when markets are volatile.
There is no universal formula for the right level of liquidity, but the principles are consistent: strong governance, robust stress testing, diversified funding, accurate collateral tracking, and preparedness for intraday settlement risks. Supervisory findings in 2025 continue to highlight liquidity weaknesses, with MRIAs, MRBAs, MOUs, and Consent Orders issued to banks that fall short.
The lesson is clear: liquidity is not just a balance sheet metric but an operational discipline. Banks that invest in proactive planning and execution will be best positioned to weather shocks and maintain the confidence of regulators, counterparties, and depositors alike.
Founded in 2009, Endurance Advisory Partners has guided more than 70 banks, boards, and investor groups through liquidity challenges, regulatory actions, and strategic transitions. Our team integrates expertise in risk management, technology, regulatory relations, and corporate finance to help financial institutions build resilient liquidity frameworks. By focusing on execution and long-term relationships, we deliver solutions that position banks to navigate uncertainty and sustain stability over time.
This presentation is being furnished on a confidential basis to provide preliminary summary information. The information, tools and material (collectively, information) contained herein is not directed to or intended for distribution or use by any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would subject Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC, to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.
The information presented herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not to be used or considered as an offer to sell, or buy securities or other financial instruments, or any advice or recommendation with respect to such securities or other financial instruments. The information may not be reproduced in whole or in part or otherwise made available without the prior written consent of Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC. Information and opinions presented have been obtained or derived from sources believed to be reliable, but Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC makes no representation as to their accuracy or completeness. Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC, accepts no liability for any loss arising from the use of the information contained herein.
This information is subject to periodic update and revision. Materials should only be considered current as of the date of the initial publication, without regard to the date on which you may access the information. Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC, maintains the right to delete or modify the information without prior notice.
Under no circumstances and under no theory of law, tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from access or use of, or inability to access or use, this information regardless of whether they are dire, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character, including damages for trading losses or lost profits, or for any claim or demand by any third party, even if Endurance Advisory Partners, LLC knew or had reason to know of the possibility of such damages, claim or demand.
5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1940
Dallas, TX 75240
