Sapphire Capital Partners LLP Blog

FCA's Liquidity Risk Review: Key Lessons for Investment Managers

Written by Boyd Carson | 25-Sep-2025 21:54:34

If you are in senior management of a regulated investment management firm (like Sapphire), your firm's liquidity is never far from your mind. We are very much aware that liquidity risk remains one of the most significant threats to the stability of UK wholesale trading firms.

In a recent discussion hosted by the compliance firm Ocorian, senior regulators from the Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA") shared their findings from a major review into liquidity risk management.  The conversation provided valuable insights into what the FCA expects from firms and what constitutes good practice, with the speakers illustrating their points through real-world anecdotes of stress events and firm failures.

 

Beyond Compliance: Focus on Practicality

The FCA’s message was clear: firms must move beyond a box-ticking exercise. It is not enough to simply comply with a “thin set of rules.” The priority is practical capability, whether a firm can genuinely survive a severe but plausible stress event. The starting point is assessing critical liquidity risks, evaluating controls, and applying robust stress tests (Assessment A). Firms must also calculate the liquidity needed for an orderly wind-down (Assessment B) and hold at least the higher of the two results as their threshold requirement. 

As one FCA speaker put it: “There’s no point in a review if the firm falls over the next day,” and the challenge to firms was clear: would senior managers feel confident that their liquidity framework would keep the business standing, and them still in a job, after a severe but plausible stress? 

This shift emphasises resilience over mere compliance, a point particularly important given the systemic importance of many wholesale firms.


Why Wholesale Firms Matter

Wholesale trading firms sit at the heart of the UK’s financial markets, trading products that directly affect gilts, energy markets, and metals. Their failure would have far-reaching consequences, potentially triggering contagion across the financial system. The FCA's review was therefore focused on the largest 26 firms in this space, including commodity clearing brokers, proprietary trading firms, and inter-dealer brokers, with findings that also offer lessons for smaller firms and other regulated entities.


The FCA’s Key Concerns

The review identified several scenarios that frequently cause liquidity stress:

  • Large margin calls and intraday outflows – Firms must be able to meet rapid, repeated calls for collateral when prices move against them.
  • Buy-ins of unsettled positions – When counterparties refuse to wait for late settlement, firms must be able to fund forced purchases, sometimes at significant cost.
  • Concentration risk – Many firms overestimate their diversification, only to find they are reliant on a handful of key clients or counterparties.
  • Over-optimistic assumptions about funding – Haircuts used in stress testing are often too conservative. Firms should model their own severe but plausible scenarios rather than rely on generic regulatory assumptions.
  • Withdrawal of client collateral – Clients can quickly recall “sleeper collateral” during firm-specific stress, leading to sudden outflows.

Perhaps most importantly, firms must recognise that liquidity risk is about gross flows, not net. It is no comfort to be “net flat” if cash is required at 9 a.m. but only arrives in the afternoon. 

Jackie Domanska, a Principal Consultant with Ocorian, emphasised the point that firms cannot ignore liquidity risk:

We often see firms ignoring liquidity risk, especially fund managers, because they assume they have predictable cash flows. However, recent events, such as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank or system issues with UK banks, mean there are times when firms and clients don’t have access to their bank accounts, and this can create liquidity stresses. Firms need to think about what they would do when they experience these kinds of issues, especially when key people in the firm may be on leave and there is no contingency plan in place.

The FCA’s recent feedback gives excellent practical advice, and many of the points apply to all firms.”

Jackie Domanska
Principal Consultant, Ocorian

Governance, Escalation, and Operational Readiness

The FCA’s review went beyond numbers, examining governance arrangements, board oversight, escalation processes, and operational plumbing. The regulator expects firms to have clear escalation triggers, robust governance forums, and a joined-up understanding between finance, risk, and operations teams. As one speaker noted, operational settlement processes are often treated as “boring” and ignored, until they fail, triggering real world liquidity crises.

Firms that impressed the FCA were those that monitored liquidity daily (T0 and T1), stress-tested for the first critical three days of a crisis, and had pre-approved communication plans to get ahead of negative news. This proactive approach helped avoid panic and protect client confidence. As one FCA speaker put it, best practice is to assume the worst will happen, because it already has. The strongest firms positioned themselves to get in front of bad news, rather than letting the market set the story for them.


Contingency Funding Plans: Non-Negotiable 

One question raised was whether firms are really expected to have a separate contingency funding plan ("CFP"). The FCA’s answer was unambiguous: yes, even the smallest firms should have some form of plan, even if it is “written on the back of a post-it note.” The CFP is vital not just for regulatory compliance but also for personal liability protection. It gives formal board delegation for key actions during stress, ensuring senior managers can act swiftly and within their authority. Without this, decision-makers risk personal exposure and may freeze in a crisis.

The FCA stressed that CFPs must be living documents, not an appendix buried in page 376 of the ICARA. In practice, it needs to be a document that sits under the fingertips of those authorised to act, dusted off and rehearsed well before the crisis arrives.


Good Practice vs. Weaknesses

The FCA observed a spectrum of performance across firms:

Good practice:
  • Daily monitoring of liquidity and gross cash flows.
  • Pre-positioning cash for critical payments.
  • Using both financial and non-financial triggers.
  • Scenario testing for both market and idiosyncratic stress events.
  • Timely mitigation actions and clear board delegation.
Weaknesses:
  • Over-reliance on parent funding without alternatives.
  • Poor integration between risk, treasury, and operations.
  • Lack of severe idiosyncratic stress scenarios.
  • CFPs that exist only on paper and are not operationalised.

Where material gaps were identified, the FCA required firms to maintain additional liquidity until the issues were resolved, supported by CEO attestations and internal audit assurance. 

 

The Core Message: Good Risk Management Protects Profitability

The FCA closed with a reminder that good liquidity risk management is not a regulatory burden — it is a profitability safeguard. Firms that cannot survive three days of stress cannot remain in business. The cost of holding extra liquidity or running stress scenarios pales in comparison to the cost of failure.

 

Next Steps:
If you would like to find out more about liquidity risk for investment firms or inquire more about how to set up an investment fund, pricing, and options, fill out this form, and we will be in touch right away.

A copy of the slides presented during the presentation can be found here.

 

Below is a video summary of this article