Liquidity Management in Uncertain Times: Key Decisions for Banks

For a long time, bank liquidity management lived comfortably in the world of ratios. As long as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) remained well above regulatory thresholds, liquidity was considered “under control”. In stable environments, this approach worked reasonably well. But uncertainty changes the rules of the game.

This article explores how liquidity management evolves in uncertain environments: how discussions change at ALCO level, which early warning signals matter most, why the hardest decisions are often the most painful, and how senior management should be supported with information that goes far beyond regulatory ratios. 

  Audio Article

In practice, volatile environments—characterized by geopolitical risk, abrupt market closures, digitalized depositor behavior, and sudden shifts in confidence—mean that liquidity stops being a static number and becomes a dynamic decision-making process. When it comes to managing liquidity, compliance will always be important, but it is also about ensuring the bank can continue to function, day after day, under conditions that are difficult to predict and even harder to model using historical data.

Liquidity as a Dynamic System

A central insight of modern liquidity management is that liquidity is not a single figure, nor confined to a single time horizon. It is a dynamic system that evolves over time and across dimensions, typically analyzed through three complementary lenses:

• Structural liquidity, which reflects the long-term resilience of the balance sheet and must be consistent with the bank’s strategic vision for its business, including funding stability, maturity mismatches, concentration of funding sources, and the capacity of the bank to absorb prolonged periods of stress.

• Short-term or tactical liquidity, which spans horizons ranging from a few days to several weeks or months and is particularly sensitive to changes in market conditions and customer behavior, given the limited time available to react and the need to calibrate measures carefully while remaining consistent with the bank’s longer-term strategic vision.

• Intraday liquidity, which is primarily operational in nature and relates to the bank’s ability to meet payment and settlement obligations as they arise throughout the day, requires accurate and granular information on daily cash flows, as well as strong capabilities to identify potential operational or very short-term risks. Measures at this level must often be highly targeted, balancing their immediate effectiveness with potential impacts on medium- and long-term strategy and on other critical ratios. 

   

Under stable conditions, these dimensions can be managed within well-defined parameters, ratios and appropriately sizes liquidity buffers. Structural liquidity can be planned and optimized with a high degree of confidence, while intraday liquidity typically functions smoothly, supported by established processes and predictable flows. 

In periods of uncertainty, however, pressure tends to concentrate on the near-term liquidity horizon. It is within this window that behavioral assumptions are most likely to break down and where uncertainty becomes most disruptive.

When Uncertainty Emerges: How the ALCO Conversation Changes

In stable environments, liquidity discussions are generally structured, predictable and forward-looking. The agenda is often dominated by structural considerations, while intraday liquidity, though operationally critical, tends to remain in the background.

As uncertainty increases, attention shifts decisively towards the short-to medium-term horizon.

This uncertainty may be triggered by external factors—such as market volatility, political or geopolitical developments, economic stress, or other disruptive events—as well as by issues endogenous to the institution itself, ranging from challenges to strategic plans or solvency perceptions to reputational concerns arising from internal or external incidents, such as a significant cyberattack.

In such contexts, previously reliable assumptions may no longer hold. Wholesale investors may delay investment decisions, funding markets may become less accessible, and deposits that were historically rolled over may mature without renewal. What once appeared to be a manageable refinancing profile can quickly evolve into a significant liquidity gap.

In this context, the nature of the discussion at ALCO level changes fundamentally, with the focus moving towards:

1. Assessing whether the bank can continue operating normally if funding assumptions fail or if access to certain markets temporarily disappears,

2. Testing alternative scenarios for client behavior, market access and funding availability, rather than relying on historically stable patterns,

3. Using liquidity ratios as binding constraints within decision-making, rather than as objectives in their own right.

The central question becomes whether the bank can continue to function normally under multiple adverse scenarios, or at least whether it can limit the negative impacts and define a credible path back to normality, rather than whether it meets regulatory thresholds at a specific point in time. Addressing this question requires richer and more timely information, faster feedback loops, and a willingness to consider difficult trade-offs before circumstances make them unavoidable.

Beyond Ratios: Detecting Stress Before it Becomes Visible

One of the most dangerous aspects of liquidity risk is that it often materializes before it becomes visible in regulatory metrics. By the time an LCR breaches internal limits, the underlying problem may already be well advanced.

That is why early warning indicators are critical. Well-designed liquidity frameworks rely on a focused set of quantitative and qualitative signals that allow management to detect deterioration early enough to react.

In practice, these signals come from different parts of the balance sheet and the market, and together help form a broader picture:

• Market-based signals, such as bond spreads, CDS levels, equity price behavior, or secondary-market liquidity for high-quality liquid assets (HQLA).

• Funding indicators, including changes in rollover behavior, shortening maturities, or increasing concentration of funding sources.

• Asset-side signals, such as declining availability or rising prices of liquid assets as markets become more defensive.

• Behavioral indicators, reflecting changes in depositor behavior, especially among large or non-retail clients.

• Qualitative signals, including feedback from relationship managers, market counterparties, or clearing infrastructure.

Crucially, these indicators should not be confused with the problem itself. A deteriorating ratio is a symptom, not the disease.

The objective is not to “fix the indicator”, but to understand what is driving it and address the underlying liquidity dynamics. Too many indicators can be as dangerous as too few, creating noise rather than clarity. What matters is relevance, regular validation, and a clear link to potential management actions.

When warning signals start flashing, the focus must shift immediately to scenario analysis and decision preparation.

The Hardest Liquidity Decision: When Survival Conflicts with Strategy

Among all liquidity-related decisions, the most difficult ones are often those that directly affect the core business. Reducing or freezing lending activity is, in many cases, the fastest way to preserve liquidity, but it is also one of the most painful.

Cutting back on new lending protects short-term cash outflows, but it comes at a high cost:

• Immediate loss of revenue and profitability,

• Potential long-term damage to client relationships,

• Reputational signals to the market that the bank may be under stress,

• Internal resistance from commercial teams whose objectives are suddenly constrained.

• Once a bank starts stepping back from core clients, rebuilding those relationships can take years, if it is possible at all.

More structural measures, such as asset disposals or divestments of business units, may provide substantial liquidity, but they are rarely immediate. They require buyers, due diligence, regulatory approval, and time—luxuries that are often unavailable in acute stress situations.

This highlights a broader challenge: liquidity decisions cannot be reduced to isolated actions.

Banks need to be able to structure a coherent sequence of measures, ranging from lower-to-higher-impact interventions, that not only stabilize the situation in the short term but also support a credible return to normal operations and franchise stability over the medium and long term. Doing so requires the ability to dynamically simulate the impact of each measure under different assumptions about market conditions, client behavior, and funding availability. In this context, ALCO increasingly becomes a decision-making body that demands frequent, dynamic and sufficiently reliable information—not necessarily exact, but coherent enough to allow decisions to be taken and strategies to be continuously adjusted.

This creates a harsh reality: the most effective short-term liquidity actions are often those that cause the greatest long-term damage. These decisions require strong governance, clear escalation processes, and alignment across senior management. Without internal discipline and a shared understanding of priorities, even well-designed liquidity plans can fail in execution. 

Structural Weaknesses Versus Short-Term Shocks

At first glance, structural liquidity weaknesses may appear more threatening. They affect long-term resilience and, if left unaddressed, can amplify future shocks. However, experience shows that short-term liquidity disruptions are often more dangerous, particularly when they are underestimated. It happens not necessarily because they always stem from deep structural problems, but because they can act as powerful catalysts, rapidly precipitating the institution into much more severe scenarios and, in some cases, forcing the adoption of extreme measures to restore stability.

Structural weaknesses are usually visible, measurable and manageable over time. They can be addressed through funding strategy, balance sheet adjustments and gradual changes to the business model. Short-term shocks, by contrast, leave little room to maneuver.

Intraday or short-term liquidity crises compress decision timelines, increase operational risk, and can quickly erode confidence. Once confidence starts to deteriorate, even sound structural positions may become irrelevant. Banks rarely fail because they are insolvent; they fail because they run out of liquidity before corrective measures can take effect.

In extreme cases, institutions may hold sufficient assets but lack the immediate liquidity required to meet daily payment obligations. At that point, the situation becomes existential. This asymmetry explains why agility, operational readiness, and contingency planning are as important as long-term structural strength. 

Governance, Escalation and Decision-Making under Pressure

As conditions deteriorate, liquidity management becomes as much a governance challenge as a technical one. Meeting frequencies increase, escalation thresholds are crossed, and information must flow rapidly across the organization. In this context, ALCO becomes the central forum for integrating liquidity, capital and operational considerations, operating with greater intensity as conditions evolve.

At this stage, senior management, including the CEO, does not need more data, but clearer insight into how the situation is evolving, which scenarios are becoming more concerning, what actions are available and the trade-offs they imply, and how the internal assessment compares with regulatory metrics. To support this process, ALCO requires information that is accurate and tailored to the situation on a just-in-time basis—as mentioned before, not necessarily perfect, but sufficient to identify potential measures, assess their impacts, and adjust decisions day by day as conditions change.

Regulatory ratios remain essential, but they must be complemented by an internal perspective that reflects behavioral assumptions, operational realities and the bank’s specific risk profile. Near-real-time data becomes critical: in stressed environments, speed is often as important as accuracy, and delayed information can be as damaging as incorrect information.

Clear decision frameworks, predefined escalation paths and rehearsed crisis protocols allow senior leadership to focus on judgement rather than mechanics, even as supervisory expectations intensify. At the same time, these governance arrangements and decision processes support effective management actions and help ensure alignment with supervisory expectations during periods of stress.

Digitalization and the Acceleration of Liquidity Risk

One factor that has fundamentally changed liquidity dynamics is digitalization. The same technology that has made banking more efficient, scalable and customer-friendly has also accelerated the speed at which liquidity crises can unfold. Depositors no longer need to queue at branches; large volumes of funds can move within seconds through mobile applications.

This compression of time magnifies behavioral risk. Confidence shocks propagate faster, and traditional assumptions about deposit stickiness become less reliable.

As a result, banks must be prepared for liquidity scenarios that escalate far more quickly than in the past, even in the absence of underlying solvency issues. This reality reinforces the need for continuous preparedness rather than reactive crisis management.

Preparedness as a Core Capability

Liquidity crises are not hypothetical: they happen more often than institutions like to admit, and rarely unfold exactly as planned. That is why preparedness matters so much.

Many banks now run regular crisis simulations, bringing together senior leaders to rehearse responses to severe but plausible scenarios. These exercises function as a form of training, testing not only models and systems but also the full set of decision-making mechanisms and stakeholders involved, including governance arrangements, communication flows and the ability to make decisions under pressure.

Supervisors increasingly expect banks to demonstrate these capabilities, not just on paper, but in practice.

Ultimately, managing liquidity in uncertainty is about accepting that not all scenarios can be predicted, but many can be prepared for. Institutions that invest in robust data, integrated governance, and decision-oriented reporting do more than survive stress: they emerge stronger.

Liquidity management, at its core, is the art of buying time. And in uncertain environments, time is the most valuable asset a bank can have.  

 Uncertainty demands more than compliance-based liquidity management

When assumptions break down and timelines compress, ALCOs need more than regulatory metrics. They need a clear, cross-impact, and integrated view of liquidity dynamics, scenarios, and management options to support informed decisions under pressure.