Overview
This series explains why the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) is evidence of modeled 30-day resilience, not a universal cash guarantee. It moves from HQLA, haircuts, inflow caps, and the regulatory floor to bank-borrower evidence from the acute March 2020 credit-line shock, where higher buffers supported utilization selectively and temporarily. It then examines covenants and syndicates, before turning to BIS evidence that greater pre-regulation LCR gaps improved money-market-fund funding costs, maturities, and quantities. The combined test is regulatory room, contractual and operational drawability, and creditor confidence; the working-paper evidence is setting-specific and does not establish that every commitment or liability is fundable.
Learning outcomes
- A compliant LCR measures modeled 30-day resilience; it does not guarantee that every asset or commitment is immediately usable.
- Usable liquidity requires room above the applicable floor, a contractual and operational path to funding, and creditor confidence.
- Federal Reserve working-paper evidence from March 2020 links higher buffers to selective, temporary credit-line accommodation, especially for Prime Borrowers.
- BIS working-paper evidence links greater pre-regulation LCR gaps to cheaper, longer, and more abundant money-market-fund funding within its sample.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
What does the Liquidity Coverage Ratio actually measure?
The Liquidity Coverage Ratio compares recognized high-quality liquid assets with modeled net cash outflows over 30 days. It is a standardized resilience test, not a guarantee that every asset or credit line can be funded.
Why can a bank with a high LCR still restrict lending?
A bank can restrict lending despite a high LCR when its buffer above the applicable floor is thin, simultaneous draws raise outflows, or using the buffer could signal weakness. Borrower covenants and syndicate allocation can narrow access further.
Did higher LCR buffers support corporate borrowers during March 2020?
In the Federal Reserve working paper, higher-buffer banks accommodated more credit-line utilization for high-undrawn, especially Prime, Borrowers during the acute 2020Q1 shock. The differential disappeared in 2020Q2 and describes active relationships, not universal access.
How did the LCR affect banks' wholesale funding?
In the BIS working paper's pre-2016 money-market-fund sample, banks with larger pre-regulation LCR gaps later paid about 8% less, borrowed at longer maturities, and increased borrowing quantities. The estimates are conditional and do not cover every liability or crisis.