Why Liquidity Risk Is the Overlooked Blind Spot in Institutional Portfolios

When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, it wasn’t left unnoticed. The bank held a large share of its assets in long-term securities and couldn’t sell them quickly when tech startups rushed to withdraw deposits. In the end, this led to a huge liquidity shortfall and the operational failure of the entire institution. Although this was a clear illustration of what happens when liquidity risk is ignored, portfolio management discussions still tend to center on credit and market risks—the traditional factors of financial analysis. For years, investors assumed liquidity would always be there when needed. But after the shocks of recent years, that assumption is no longer safe. Liquidity should never be taken for granted, and recognizing that may be one of the most important lessons for institutional investors in 2025. 

Three global shocks that limit liquidity

The most significant constraint on liquidity today is political instability, which continues to weigh heavily on financial markets. Wars, geopolitical disputes and shifts within the current U.S. administration have created a highly uncertain global environment. As a result, political risk has become an important variable in every investment decision. Headlines are now driving market swings, and investors, seeking safety, are increasingly hedging and holding more defensive assets. That naturally drains liquidity from higher-risk industries of the market. 

The second factor that adds fuel to this fire is monetary policy. The Federal Reserve lowered rates in September for the first time in nine months, but they remain relatively high. When the rates fall, capital tends to flow more freely back into riskier segments as investors’ appetite increases. As a consequence, liquidity rises and associated risks go down. Until central banks signal a global shift toward easing, liquidity will remain constrained. 

The final nail in the liquidity coffin comes from regulation. Standards such as Basel III—a framework that sets global standards for bank capital requirements—and other post-2008-crisis reforms have imposed strict standards on how banks and institutional investors treat risk. These rules impose higher capital charges on less liquid or riskier assets. While intended to safeguard the system, they have also raised barriers to financing in private markets. Tier-one markets—those most transparent and regulated—continue to enjoy healthy liquidity, but Tier-two and alternative markets are becoming increasingly dry. 

Where liquidity risks hide in portfolios

Liquidity risk also hides inside portfolio construction. It’s not always a product of external shocks. Many large funds compound the problem by overweighting real estate and alternative assets. While these assets promise diversification and higher returns, they also carry an inherent liquidity tail: they can’t be easily sold when cash is needed urgently.   

Additionally, many portfolios hold illiquid ETFs or structured notes, assets that technically trade on public markets but lack continuous volume. During periods of stress, it can become difficult to find liquidity providers willing to price them. Exposure to such instruments should therefore remain limited, or institutional investors risk serious liquidity challenges when markets tighten.

The future of liquidity

There are, however, developments that could enhance liquidity in the long run. Trading hours are expanding toward a near 24/7 cycle, with more platforms offering round-the-clock trading. On one hand, this can broaden access and help smooth liquidity across time zones. On the other, continuous trading fragments volatility, creating thinner liquidity in some periods and sharper price jumps in others.

Meanwhile, asset tokenization is also changing how capital is allocated. More instruments are being digitized and represented on blockchain, promising faster transactions and potentially greater accessibility. Yet in practice, trading remains limited to a small circle of participants, as tokenized assets are not available to all investors. Liquidity is still thin, though this technology clearly represents a defining trend for this decade.

Finally, most institutional traders now rely on algorithmic and A.I.-driven tools. While these can indeed make trading faster and more automated, they also introduce a paradox. Instead of taking large positions in a particular asset, traders are splitting activities into smaller statistical bets across assets. That increases market fragmentation, making liquidity appear abundant on the surface but more fragile underneath, especially under stress. 

The lesson for institutional traders

Taken together, these dynamics reveal one truth: liquidity is not an infinite resource. It is finite, fragile and often the first to vanish in a crisis. Don’t treat it as though it will always be there, so as not to fall into the same trap as Silicon Valley Bank. 

To avoid that outcome, institutions should consistently ask one critical question when managing liquidity: Can we sell the asset when we need to?” Of course, “What’s the yield?” and “What’s the credit risk?” remain vital, but if liquidity takes a backseat, the results can be far worse.