Background and why this matters

Reserve requirements historically set a floor on how much of a bank’s deposits must be held in cash or on deposit at the central bank instead of being lent out. For most of U.S. history they were a visible driver of lending capacity. Since March 2020 the Federal Reserve has set reserve requirement ratios to zero percent for all depository institutions, but the concept still matters because banks must meet other liquidity and supervisory constraints (for example, liquidity coverage and internal reserve policies) that affect how much they can lend to commercial real estate (CRE) borrowers (see the Federal Reserve’s explainer: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserverequirements.htm).

Why that historical change matters in practice: many lenders still stress-test lending capacity as if reserve buffers matter, and smaller community banks continue to manage precautionary cash and deposit volatility the same way they did before 2020. For larger banks, capital rules, supervisory guidance, and market funding costs now play a bigger role than statutory reserve ratios in limiting CRE loan size.

How reserve requirements (and modern equivalents) affect loan capacity

1) Direct mechanical limit (historical): reserve requirements reduce the fraction of deposits a bank can convert into loans. Under a positive reserve ratio, the larger the bank’s deposit base, the greater the absolute amount it must hold back — reducing available funds for new loans.

2) Indirect and current effects: with reserve ratios at 0% in the U.S., other rules fill the practical role:

  • Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and net stable funding expectations require banks to keep high-quality liquid assets and stable funding sources, which reduces appetite for large, illiquid CRE loans. (See FDIC and Basel III commentary.)
  • Internal liquidity buffers and stress tests: banks model deposit outflows and will hold or price loans to cover potential stress scenarios; this is especially true for community banks that rely on core deposits.
  • Capital requirements and risk-weighting: CRE loans carry risk-based capital charges. A larger loan can raise a bank’s risk-weighted assets and capital ratios, constraining additional lending capacity.

3) Pricing and structure effects: when reserve or liquidity constraints bite, lenders often respond by tightening pricing, reducing loan-to-value (LTV), adding guarantees, or requiring debt-service reserve accounts to protect against cash-flow interruptions.

Real-world examples and a practical framework

A realistic way to think about the impact is to layer three limits lenders use when sizing CRE loans:

  • Liquidity/Deposit-based limit: how much the bank can fund from available deposits and short-term funding without violating internal liquidity targets.
  • Capital/risk limit: how much the bank can add to risk-weighted assets without breaching capital targets.
  • Underwriting limit (DSCR, LTV, loan covenants): credit factors tied to the property and borrower ability to repay.

Example 1 — Community bank with deposit pressure: In my work advising middle-market borrowers, I saw a community bank pull back on a $1.5M acquisition loan after a local employer announced layoffs. The bank’s modeled deposit flight meant their liquid funding buffer would shrink, so they reduced the offered size and required a debt-service reserve account (DSRA). That action did not come from a statutory reserve requirement — it came from the bank’s liquidity management and conservative stress testing.

Example 2 — Regional bank constrained by capital: A regional lender priced a $10M loan more tightly and required a higher equity contribution from the sponsor because the additional risk-weighted assets would have pressured their Tier 1 leverage ratio. In effect, capital rules constrained loan size the same way a reserve requirement would have in the past.

Common lender responses that reduce loan size

  • Lowering maximum LTVs and increasing equity requirements.
  • Adding or increasing required reserves on the deal (e.g., DSRA), which effectively reduces the borrower’s usable proceeds.
  • Shortening amortization or requiring faster principal paydown to reduce long-term capital exposure.
  • Requiring recourse guaranties or stronger covenants.

Debt-Service Reserve Accounts and related tools

Lenders often offset liquidity uncertainty by requiring debt-service reserve accounts (DSRAs). A DSRA is cash set aside (typically in a blocked account) to cover several months of debt payments if the property’s cash flow falters. Requiring a DSRA reduces borrower proceeds but increases lender comfort — and therefore can allow a loan to be approved when otherwise liquidity constraints would block it. See our detailed guide to debt-service reserve accounts for more: Understanding Debt Service Reserve Accounts in Commercial Real Estate Loans (https://finhelp.io/glossary/understanding-debt-service-reserve-accounts-in-commercial-real-estate-loans/).

How reserve-style limits interact with core underwriting metrics

Underwriting metrics like debt-service coverage ratio (DSCR) and vacancy assumptions still drive approval and pricing. When liquidity or capital constraints bite, lenders may tighten DSCR requirements or assume higher vacancy to reduce eligible loan size. For how DSCR affects approval, see: How Debt-Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) Affects Commercial Loan Approval (https://finhelp.io/glossary/how-debt-service-coverage-ratio-dscr-affects-commercial-loan-approval/).

Who is affected

  • Borrowers: Sponsors, REITs, small businesses, and developers can all see loan size reduced or terms tightened when lenders face liquidity or capital constraints. Small and mid-sized borrowers who rely on community banks are most exposed to deposit-driven limits.
  • Lenders: Community banks and regional lenders must actively manage deposit volatility, pricing, and capital allocation; those constraints directly affect product availability.
  • Markets: In stressed economic conditions, reduced lending capacity can slow transactions, increase spreads, and push borrowers toward alternative capital sources (private lenders, life companies, CMBS, equity partners).

Practical tips for borrowers

1) Ask lenders how they model liquidity and capital when sizing loans. Use that language in term-sheet negotiations (e.g., “will you consider DSRA in lieu of lower LTV?”). In my practice, having the lender explain the binding constraint (liquidity vs. capital vs. underwriting) often created room for creative structuring.

2) Be ready with equity or credit enhancements. A borrower who can offer a larger equity injection, a longer amortization, or a DSRA will often secure a larger loan.

3) Consider alternative lenders for size or speed. Life insurance companies, CMBS lenders, debt funds, and private lenders have different balance-sheet rules and may offer larger or more flexible structures — typically at a higher cost or with different covenants.

4) Shop locally and regionally. Community banks may step up for smaller deals where they have relationship knowledge; regional or national lenders are better for larger, stabilized assets.

Table: simple illustrative mechanics (rounded numbers)

Fund Source Constraint Effect on loan size
Deposits (community bank) Liquidity buffer modeled for outflows Reduces available lendable funds; may require DSRA
Capital (regional bank) Risk-weighted assets limit capital ratios Limits incremental loan size or increases pricing
Alternative debt Different funding rules Larger loans possible but often pricier or with tighter covenants

Common misconceptions

  • Misconception: Reserve requirements are the only determinant of lending capacity. Reality: In the U.S. today, banks balance capital rules, liquidity standards, funding costs, and supervisory expectations alongside any statutory reserve rule (which is currently 0%).
  • Misconception: If the Fed sets reserve ratios to 0%, lending is unlimited. Reality: Other constraints (capital, funding, internal policies) still limit lending and often matter more.

FAQ (short answers)

Q: Are statutory reserve requirements still relevant? A: They matter conceptually and historically, but in the U.S. the Federal Reserve’s reserve requirement ratio for depository institutions has been 0% since March 26, 2020. Lender balance-sheet and regulatory constraints still influence loan sizing (Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserverequirements.htm).

Q: If my lender cites reserve constraints, what should I ask? A: Ask whether the constraint is liquidity (deposit runoff), capital (risk-weighted assets), or underwriting (DSCR, LTV). Each has different remedies (DSRA, higher equity, recourse, or different lender).

Q: Can I negotiate around these limits? A: Yes — common negotiation levers include offering equity, taking a higher interest rate, agreeing to covenants, or using a different lender.

Sources and further reading

Professional disclaimer

This article is educational and reflects general industry practice as of 2025. It is not financial or legal advice. For decisions about your transaction, consult a qualified lender, financial advisor, or attorney.

Author note

As a financial content editor and advisor, I’ve worked with borrowers and lenders to structure deals where balance-sheet constraints initially reduced loan size. Asking the right diagnostic questions — “Is the binding constraint liquidity, capital or underwriting?” — frequently unlocks a path to workable financing.

Internal resources