Restructuring

Liquidity assessment

Determine whether verified cash and drawable funding can meet operating, debt and contingent requirements across base and downside periods.

Quick answer

A liquidity assessment is a dated analysis of an entity's ability to meet expected and unexpected cash obligations as they fall due. It maps unrestricted cash, forecast receipts, committed facilities, asset-sale proceeds and other funding sources against operating payments, debt service, collateral calls, taxes, capital expenditure and contingencies. The assessment should identify timing gaps, legal-entity and currency restrictions, covenant or draw conditions, minimum cash needs and credible mitigating actions.

Use the worked example

Meaning and transaction use

The Basel Committee defines funding liquidity risk as the risk that a firm cannot meet expected and unexpected cash-flow and collateral needs efficiently without affecting operations or financial condition. [S1]

The Basel liquidity framework uses forward cash-flow projections, sources-and-uses analysis, alternative scenarios and cumulative liquidity gaps. Its regulatory requirements apply to banks; these analytical concepts can inform a corporate assessment when adapted to the entity. [S1]

IAS 1 requires management to assess going concern and consider available information about the future; accounting conclusions and disclosures require the applicable framework and professional judgment. [S2]

Worked example

Illustrative four-week sources-and-uses test only. Assume unrestricted opening cash of 5.0 million, a verified drawable facility of 10.0 million, forecast cash receipts of 18.0 million, operating outflows of 20.0 million, debt service of 6.0 million and required minimum operating cash of 3.0 million. In a downside case, receipts fall by 25.0% and only 8.0 million of the facility remains drawable.

Scroll the table horizontally to view all columns.

MeasureCalculationResult
Base available sources5.0 + 10.0 + 18.033.0m
Base uses including minimum cash20.0 + 6.0 + 3.029.0m
Base liquidity headroom33.0 - 29.04.0m
Downside receipts18.0 x (1 - 25.0%)13.5m
Downside available sources5.0 + 8.0 + 13.526.5m
Downside liquidity gap26.5 - 29.0-2.5m
Required additional liquidity29.0 - 26.52.5m

The illustrative base case has 4.0 million of headroom, while the downside case has a 2.5 million shortfall. The company would need a verified action with sufficient amount and timing before relying on the downside case as funded.

Proposed transaction review process

Set the perimeter and horizon

Define entities, currencies, bank accounts, restricted cash, forecast granularity and decision dates.

Verify sources and uses

Reconcile cash, receipts, payment obligations, facilities, covenants, security, draw conditions and contingencies.

Run base and stress cases

Test collection delays, revenue decline, margin pressure, funding withdrawal, collateral calls and one-off requirements.

Build the action plan

Assign owners, amounts, timing, approvals and trigger points for funding, cost, working-capital and stakeholder actions.

Evidence checklist

Cash and facilities

Bank statements, blocked or restricted cash, facility agreements, utilisation, covenants and draw notices.

Cash-flow forecast

Customer receipts, payroll, suppliers, tax, capital expenditure and reconciled opening balances.

Debt and contingencies

Maturity schedule, interest, collateral, guarantees, leases, litigation and off-balance-sheet commitments.

Mitigating actions

Approved waivers, committed funding, executable asset sales, documented cost actions and responsible owners.

Decision framework

SituationProposed action
A facility has unverified draw conditionsExclude it from available liquidity until the conditions and timing are evidenced.
A shortfall occurs before period endManage to the earliest daily or weekly trough rather than the later closing balance.
A mitigation depends on counterparty consentTreat it as contingent and maintain an alternative action until approval is documented.
Headroom is narrow under stressSet escalation triggers and increase monitoring frequency before the threshold is reached.

Common errors to check

  • Counting restricted cash or uncommitted facilities as immediately available.
  • Netting inflows and outflows in a way that hides an intraperiod cash trough.
  • Assuming refinancing, waiver or asset-sale proceeds without verified conditions and timing.
  • Using one optimistic scenario without covenant, contingency and downside tests.

Identify the earliest liquidity gap

Bring the cash forecast, bank evidence, debt schedule, facility terms, covenants and proposed mitigations to a liquidity review. Verify each source, locate the earliest stressed cash trough and assign actions before funding is required.

Discuss the transaction

Primary references and editorial scope

  1. Basel Committee, Liquidity risk management and supervision
    Funding-liquidity definition, cash-flow projection, stress scenarios and liquidity-gap analysis for banks. Reference checked 17 September 2026.
  2. IFRS Foundation, IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements
    Going-concern assessment and consideration of future information. Reference checked 17 September 2026.
Editorial qualification

General restructuring education. Figures are hypothetical. The Basel source is bank-specific; corporate use requires adaptation. Going-concern, insolvency, disclosure and director-duty conclusions depend on the entity, jurisdiction, accounting framework and current professional advice.

General business information. Obtain advice appropriate to the legal, tax, accounting and financing facts. No offer, lender commitment or transaction outcome is represented. All worked examples use expressly assumed figures. Editorial draft date: 17 September 2026.

WhatsApp