Skip to content

FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Liquidity Risk

Under the Basel III LCR framework, which treatment of a retail deposit is most appropriate?

Stable retail deposits, especially those covered by effective deposit insurance, carry lower LCR run-off rates than less stable retail deposits, which have higher minimum rates of at least 10%. Basel differentiates because behavior under stress differs, so retail funding is neither fully excluded nor fully run off.

  1. AStable retail deposits covered by effective deposit insurance receive a lower run-off rate (minimum 3%) than less stable retail deposits (minimum 10%)Correct
  2. BAll retail deposits run off at 100% in the 30-day stress scenario
  3. CRetail deposits are excluded from outflows because they are insured
  4. DRetail deposits run off at the same rate as unsecured wholesale funding from financial institutions

Explanation

Basel III assigns stable retail deposits a minimum run-off of 5% (3% in some insured regimes) and less stable deposits at least 10%, reflecting lower run-off behavior. The distractors ignore this differentiation; financial-institution wholesale funding runs off much more heavily (100% for some).

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Liquidity Risk shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Liquidity Risk questions