analyzing-liquidity-risk
Assesses portfolio liquidity with redemption stress testing and market impact estimation. Use when analyzing liquidity risk, stress testing redemptions, or evaluating market impact.
Best use case
analyzing-liquidity-risk is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Assesses portfolio liquidity with redemption stress testing and market impact estimation. Use when analyzing liquidity risk, stress testing redemptions, or evaluating market impact.
Teams using analyzing-liquidity-risk should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/analyzing-liquidity-risk/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How analyzing-liquidity-risk Compares
| Feature / Agent | analyzing-liquidity-risk | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Assesses portfolio liquidity with redemption stress testing and market impact estimation. Use when analyzing liquidity risk, stress testing redemptions, or evaluating market impact.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Analyzing Liquidity Risk ## When To Use - Evaluating whether a fund or portfolio can meet redemption requests under normal and stressed conditions - Sizing position-level liquidation costs and timeframes before rebalancing or exiting concentrated holdings - Preparing liquidity risk sections for regulatory filings, fund board reports, or investor due diligence responses - Stress testing a portfolio against historical or hypothetical redemption scenarios (e.g., 10% weekly outflow, 25% monthly gate breach) - Assessing market impact of unwinding positions in thin or fragmented markets ## Inputs To Gather - **Holdings data**: Position-level detail including asset class, notional/market value, currency, exchange/venue, and any lock-up or side-pocket designations - **Volume & depth metrics**: Average daily trading volume (ADV), bid-ask spreads, order-book depth, and days-to-liquidate estimates per position - **Fund terms**: Redemption frequency, notice periods, gate provisions, lock-up schedules, and any swing pricing or anti-dilution mechanisms - **Liability profile**: Investor concentration (top-10 holders as % of AUM), historical redemption patterns, and committed but uncalled capital obligations - **Stress parameters**: Redemption shock sizes (e.g., 5%/10%/25% of NAV), market stress multipliers for spread widening, and any regulatory-prescribed scenarios [VERIFY — scenario requirements vary by jurisdiction: SEC, FCA, ESMA, MAS] ## Workflow 1. **Classify holdings by liquidity tier** - Bucket each position into tiers (e.g., Highly Liquid / Liquid / Less Liquid / Illiquid) using ADV, bid-ask spread, and settlement cycle - For fixed income, factor in issue size, credit rating, and dealer inventory availability - For alternatives (PE, real assets, private credit), use contractual terms and secondary-market pricing frequency 2. **Calculate time-to-liquidation and cost-to-liquidate** - Estimate days to liquidate each position at ≤20% of ADV without material price impact - Compute market-impact cost using a participation-rate model (e.g., Almgren-Chriss framework or square-root model) - Aggregate at portfolio level to produce a liquidation cost curve (% of portfolio vs. days) 3. **Run redemption stress tests** - Model at least three scenarios: normal redemption cadence, moderate stress (historical worst-quarter outflow), severe stress (gate-threshold breach) - For each scenario, determine whether liquid-tier assets cover the outflow without forced selling of illiquid positions - Calculate the residual portfolio's liquidity profile post-redemption (watch for concentration drift toward illiquid holdings) 4. **Assess liability-side risks** - Evaluate investor concentration — flag if any single investor or affiliated group exceeds 10% of AUM - Cross-reference redemption notice periods against position liquidation timelines - Identify maturity or commitment mismatches (e.g., open-ended fund holding closed-end assets) 5. **Quantify market-impact under stress** - Apply spread-widening multipliers (2x–5x normal bid-ask) to reflect crisis conditions - Re-run cost-to-liquidate with stressed spreads to determine incremental liquidation cost - Compare stressed liquidation cost against the fund's swing pricing threshold or redemption fee trigger [VERIFY — applicable fee/swing mechanisms depend on fund domicile and prospectus terms] 6. **Compile findings and flag breaches** - Map results against internal risk limits, regulatory thresholds, and fund prospectus constraints - Highlight any positions where days-to-liquidate exceed the fund's redemption frequency - Recommend remedial actions: position trimming, liquidity buffer sizing, redemption gate adjustments, or credit facility drawdowns ## Output Produce a **Liquidity Risk Analysis Report** containing: - **Executive summary**: Portfolio-level liquidity score, key vulnerabilities, and headline stress-test results - **Liquidity tiering table**: Each position with tier classification, ADV, bid-ask, days-to-liquidate, and estimated market-impact cost - **Liquidation cost curve**: Chart showing cumulative portfolio value recoverable over 1/5/10/20/30 trading days under normal and stressed conditions - **Redemption stress-test results**: For each scenario — outflow amount, liquid coverage ratio, residual illiquid concentration, and any gate/limit breaches - **Investor concentration analysis**: Top-holder breakdown and single-investor redemption impact - **Risk limit dashboard**: Current metrics vs. internal limits and regulatory thresholds, with breach/near-breach flags - **Recommendations**: Prioritized actions ranked by urgency and implementation complexity ## Quality Checks - Confirm holdings data is as-of a consistent date and reconciles to NAV - Verify ADV and spread data sources are recent (stale data in illiquid markets can severely understate risk) - Ensure stress scenarios cover both asset-side (spread widening, volume collapse) and liability-side (concentrated redemptions) shocks simultaneously - Cross-check liquidity tier assignments against any regulatory tier definitions applicable to the fund [VERIFY — SEC Rule 22e-4 defines specific liquidity classification requirements for US registered funds; non-US funds follow local regulator guidance] - Validate that market-impact model assumptions (participation rate, decay parameters) are documented and defensible - Flag any position where estimated liquidation cost exceeds 2% of position value as a material liquidity concern - Mark all jurisdiction-dependent thresholds and regulatory references with [VERIFY]