What it means
The ratio was introduced after the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, when several banks failed despite being solvent on paper, simply because they ran out of cash faster than they could sell assets. The LCR addresses that specific failure by asking a narrow question: if funding dried up for a month, could the bank pay its way?
High quality liquid assets are defined tightly rather than left to the bank's judgement. Cash and central bank reserves count in full, high grade government bonds count in full or near to it, and lower grade assets such as corporate bonds and some equities count only after a haircut and only up to a capped share of the total buffer.
The outflow side applies standardised run-off rates to each type of funding, reflecting how likely each is to disappear under stress. Insured retail deposits might be assumed to lose only 3% to 5% over the month, while large uninsured corporate deposits and wholesale funding attract far heavier assumptions, which is why funding mix drives the ratio as much as the asset buffer does.
Expected inflows are subtracted from outflows to give the net figure, but they are capped at 75% of outflows. That cap forces every bank to hold a real buffer rather than relying on borrowers repaying exactly when needed, which is precisely what fails in a crisis.
For anyone outside a bank, the LCR is useful context rather than a metric to copy. It explains why banks compete hard for stable retail deposits, why large corporate balances can be priced unattractively, and why a bank's published LCR is worth glancing at before concentrating your company's cash with it.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A bank's treasury team turns away a $900 million short term corporate deposit because the outflow assumption applied to it would cost more in extra liquid asset holdings than the deposit earns.
Example
A regional lender reports an LCR of 108% and the board sets an internal floor of 120%, on the view that regulators expect the minimum to be a floor in a crisis rather than a target in calm conditions.
Example
A corporate treasurer choosing between two banks for a $50 million deposit reviews both published liquidity coverage ratios, and splits the balance rather than concentrating it with the weaker of the two.
Think of it
“LCR measures if you have enough liquid assets to survive a month of stress-short-term liquidity.
Formula
Calculation
LCR = (high quality liquid assets / net cash outflows over 30 days) x 100, where net cash outflows = total expected outflows - the lower of expected inflows or 75% of outflows
A mid sized bank holds $24 billion of high quality liquid assets, mostly central bank reserves and government bonds. Under the prescribed stress scenario it calculates total expected outflows of $32 billion over thirty days and expected inflows of $12 billion.
The inflow cap is 75% x $32 billion = $24 billion, and since $12 billion is below that cap the full amount counts. Net cash outflows = $32 billion - $12 billion = $20 billion.
LCR = ($24 billion / $20 billion) x 100 = 120%, comfortably above the 100% minimum. If a shift towards corporate deposits pushed expected outflows to $36 billion with inflows unchanged, net outflows would be $24 billion and the ratio would fall to exactly 100%, leaving no headroom at all.Case study
Seen in the real world.
The following is an illustrative and fictional example. Ravensgate Bank, an invented commercial lender, reported an LCR of 142% and treated liquidity as a solved problem. Its buffer was genuinely large, but nearly a third of its funding came from a handful of technology company deposits, each far above any insurance limit.
A treasury review modelled what would happen if those depositors moved together rather than independently. Applying the heavier run-off rates that concentrated uninsured funding deserves, the fictional ratio fell to 103%, and a single additional large withdrawal would have pushed it below the minimum.
Ravensgate's illustrative response was to change the liability side rather than buy more bonds. It ran a two year campaign for smaller business and retail deposits, cut its reliance on its five largest depositors from 31% to 14%, and rebuilt the ratio on a far steadier base.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Reading a high LCR as proof that a bank is safe, when it measures only thirty day liquidity and says nothing about capital, credit quality or longer term funding.
- Assuming any liquid looking asset counts, when the rules define eligible assets narrowly and apply haircuts to the lower grades.
- Forgetting the 75% cap on inflows, which is why a bank with large expected repayments still cannot run a thin asset buffer.
Questions
People also ask.
Is the LCR the same as the net stable funding ratio?
No; the LCR covers a thirty day stress window while the net stable funding ratio looks at funding stability over a full year.
Can a bank fall below 100%?
Regulators allow the buffer to be used in genuine stress, which is the point of holding it, but the bank must explain the shortfall and set out how it will rebuild.
Does this apply to non-banks?
Not as a rule, though the underlying discipline of stress testing thirty days of outflows is a sensible exercise for any company with concentrated funding.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%