Meta description: Around two-thirds of organizations rely on one funder or a few banks, yet 26% don’t formally assess it at all. Use five questions to stress-test your funding model.
Around two-thirds of organizations depend on a single funder or just two or three banks to finance their working capital programs. Yet 26% don’t formally assess funding concentration at all, and only 4% have built it into ongoing risk reporting.
That gap between exposure and concern is one of the clearest findings in the 2026 Working Capital Risk & Resilience Report, published in October 2026 by GSCF and The Working Capital Forum and based on a survey of corporate, financial institution, non-bank funding, technology and advisory professionals. Funding concentration came up as one of the most common weaknesses in the research, and one of the least discussed.
So, what happens to your programs if your largest funder reduces capacity, changes eligibility requirements or steps back from your sector? If you can’t answer that quickly, start with these five questions.
5 questions to stress-test your working capital funding model
- How much of our funding depends on our largest provider? Answering usually means pulling limits and utilization from every program and every funder, often from separate bank portals and spreadsheets. A platform that connects programs across funders and administrators provides a consolidated view of exposure and utilization, reducing reliance on manually assembled reports.
- What happens to our liquidity if that provider cuts capacity tomorrow? The impact reaches supplier payments, receivables finance and growth plans, not just the facility itself. That modeling is far quicker when program data is already consolidated rather than assembled by hand each time. In the 2026 survey, no respondent reported full integration supported by analytics and scenario capability.
- Who are our second and third sources, and how quickly could they step in? Alternative capacity only helps if it is lined up before you need it. A partner that brings alternative (non-bank) capital alongside your house bank can help you identify those sources early, so eligibility, lead times and information requirements are understood in advance. Approval still rests with each funder’s own credit decision.
- Is our data ready for a new funder? Any new provider will ask for a consolidated view of programs, exposures and counterparties. If that view is already consolidated and current, it is ready when they ask. If it has to be built by hand, your contingency plan has a gap.
- Are we diversified by type of funder, or just by number? Banks, private credit and insurance-backed capital behave differently under stress, so adding another bank may not protect you from a sector-wide pullback. Reaching other types of funders usually takes a partner that already originates and services programs for them.
The report recommends giving each answer an accountable owner, a completion date and a measure of progress, such as the time required to access contingency funding.
What should you do if one funder dominates?
Illustrative scenario: Say your answers show that one bank provides around 70% of the capacity across your supplier finance programs. Here is how a treasury team might respond.
- Size the real gap. Work out how much capacity you would need to replace in the first 90 days to keep supplier payments on their current terms. That figure helps establish the immediate funding requirement your contingency plan needs to address.
- Line up second sources before you need them. Approach one or two alternative capital funders now. Share the data they would ask for, agree eligibility for your main suppliers or buyers and find out how long onboarding takes. A funder that needs three months to onboard can’t help in a three-week squeeze.
- Agree the trigger in advance. Decide which events would prompt you to draw on the alternative, such as a cut in limits, a pricing change above a set level or tighter eligibility in a key region. Name the person who makes that call.
Why is funding concentration so easy to overlook?
Funding concentration rarely feels urgent while programs are running smoothly. When respondents named their most significant working capital challenges, manual processes and fragmented data topped the list.
Part of the problem is that concentration is easy to confuse with credit risk. A program can have strong buyers and suppliers and still be exposed if a single funder provides most of its capacity. The 2026 Risk & Resilience Matrix captures this disconnect in its Digitized but Concentrated quadrant, which includes the 6% of respondents with strong systems but limited funding diversification.
What does a funder pullback look like in practice?
A funder pullback rarely arrives as a single dramatic event. It can take the form of reduced limits, higher pricing, tighter eligibility for certain buyers or geographies, or a decision to exit a sector entirely.
Speaking at the October 22, 2026 webinar From Research to Action: Building Greater Working Capital Resilience, GSCF’s Aiman Khammash described how quickly appetite can change: one event or one headline can be enough. “If that is your only funder, concentration isn’t a line on a risk heat map. It’s a liquidity event.”
Depending on how a program is structured, reduced capacity can put pressure on supplier payments, delay receivables financing or slow a planned expansion.
Why isn’t adding another bank enough?
Diversifying by number is not the same as diversifying by type. House bank relationships remain central, but alternative (non-bank) funders such as private credit, insurance-backed capital and asset managers can add capacity where banks are constrained, for example for non-investment-grade counterparties or non-core geographies.
At the webinar, Dennis Gillespie, CFO of PCS Wireless, described pairing short-term working capital finance from banks, private credit and insurance funders with longer-term financing commitments. “We’ve taken the view that a mix of longer-duration commitments and shorter-term finance across lender types is a more resilient and adaptive approach for us.”
This is the model GSCF’s Connected Capital ecosystem is built around: alternative capital through Blackstone-backed funding vehicles, often alongside the house banks clients already work with.
But every new funder also wants to see what it is financing. Contingency capacity only helps if you have the information needed to use it, which is why C4: Connected Capital Control Center brings programs and funders into one portfolio-level view.
Where does your organization stand?
As Mr. Khammash put it at the webinar: “Design your programs for the day your biggest funder says no.”
Take the Risk & Resilience assessment to see your position on the matrix in a few minutes.
Frequently asked questions
- What happens if a working capital funder pulls back? A funder can reduce limits, raise pricing, tighten eligibility or exit a sector. If that funder provides most of a program’s capacity, the result can be pressure on supplier payments, receivables held on the balance sheet longer and stalled program expansion.
- What is funding concentration in working capital? Funding concentration is the degree to which working capital programs depend on a single funder or a small number of banks. In the 2026 Working Capital Risk & Resilience survey, around two-thirds of respondents relied on one funding partner or two or three banks.
- How can an organization reduce funding concentration risk? Measure dependence on your largest provider, then test alternative funders for eligibility, lead times and information requirements. Diversify by type of funder, including alternative (non-bank) capital, and make sure your data can support a new funder quickly.