Liquidity Is Growing, Access Still Differs

Indonesia is not short of money at the aggregate level. Bank Indonesia reported broad money, or M2, at Rp10,448.1 trillion in August 2026, up 8.2% year on year. M1 grew 9.0%, while quasi-money increased 6.5%.[1]

Bank intermediation was expanding even faster. BI’s September policy release showed bank lending growing 13.65% year on year in August, compared with 13.58% in July, while third-party deposits increased 10.94%.[2]

The macro picture is therefore constructive. Yet one company can obtain a revolving facility relatively easily while another, despite growing sales, still faces short maturities, high collateral requirements or expensive pricing.

There is no contradiction. Economy-wide liquidity, bank liquidity and corporate liquidity are different things.

M2 Is Not Cash Waiting to Be Lent

M2 is a broad measure of money in the economy. It contains highly liquid transaction money as well as deposits and other instruments that function more like stores of value.[1]

The Rp10,448.1 trillion figure should therefore not be read as a pool of cash available for banks to lend tomorrow. Much of it already belongs to households, businesses and institutions and performs other economic functions.

M2 helps describe the monetary environment. It does not tell an individual company whether its next loan application will be approved.

Credit Is Growing Faster Than M2

One of August’s more interesting signals is the difference in growth rates. M2 expanded 8.2%, while bank lending in BI’s September policy release increased 13.65%.[1][2]

Investment loans grew particularly strongly at 25.11% year on year, followed by working-capital lending at 11.45% and consumer lending at 5.07%.[2]

This indicates that financing for productive activity remains active. What the aggregate number cannot show is how that credit is distributed across sectors, firm sizes, regions, risk profiles and individual banks.

Banks Do Not Share One Liquidity Pool

Bank Indonesia has repeatedly highlighted the need to reduce liquidity segmentation in money markets and banking.[3]

Different banks have different funding structures. Some enjoy strong low-cost deposit franchises. Others compete more aggressively for term deposits. CASA ratios, maturity profiles, customer bases and money-market access can vary materially.

Two similar borrowers can therefore receive different financing terms simply because they deal with different banks.

Macroprudential Incentives Help Transmission

BI uses its Macroprudential Liquidity Incentive Policy, KLM, to encourage lending toward priority sectors. As of the first week of September, incentives received by banks totalled approximately Rp461.2 trillion, including Rp338.2 trillion through the financing channel and Rp123.0 trillion through the money-market deepening channel.[2]

The objective is not only to increase available liquidity, but to improve how it moves through the system.

These incentives do not replace underwriting. Banks still assess cash flow, leverage, collateral, management quality and sector risk.

Ample Liquidity Does Not Eliminate Credit Risk

Consider two companies seeking Rp10 billion of working capital.

The first has diversified customers, recurring revenue, transparent accounts and high-quality receivables. The second depends heavily on one customer, operates with thin margins and has slow collections.

The amount of money in the system is identical for both. Their credit risks are not.

Financing therefore depends on more than the supply of money. It also depends on the quality of the risk seeking that money.

A Company Can Be Cash-Tight in a Liquid Economy

Businesses can face liquidity pressure even when M2 is large.

The explanation often lies in working capital. Inventory increases, customers demand longer payment terms, receivables accumulate or suppliers require faster payment.

Revenue growth can therefore coincide with tighter cash. Fast-growing companies may actually need more working capital than slow-growing ones.

Deposit Growth Still Has a Price

Third-party deposits increased 10.94% in August.[2] That provides a funding base for banks, but banks still care about the cost of attracting and retaining those deposits.

A bank paying aggressively for funding may need higher returns from lending. Competition for deposits can therefore affect loan pricing even when the banking system as a whole remains liquid.

Borrowers should monitor more than the BI policy rate.

The Policy Rate Is Not the Corporate Lending Rate

Bank Indonesia held the BI-Rate at 5.75% on September 23.[2]

Corporate lending rates are built from more than that benchmark. Banks incorporate funding cost, capital allocation, operating costs, expected credit losses, collateral, tenor and required margin.

For CFOs, the more useful question is not simply “What is the BI-Rate?” but “What is our all-in borrowing cost, and what drives it?”

Investment Lending Is Expanding Rapidly

Investment lending grew 25.11% year on year in August.[2]

That suggests continued financing appetite for assets and capacity expansion. It does not imply that every investment project should be funded.

Projects with contracted cash flows, strong sponsors and clear payback profiles remain very different from projects built mainly on optimistic demand assumptions.

Financing availability should follow the investment case, not create it.

Large Corporates and SMEs Experience Different Markets

Large companies often have multiple financing options: loans, bonds, supplier credit, retained cash, shareholder funding, trade finance or external borrowing.

Smaller businesses typically have fewer alternatives. They may lack collateral, formal financial statements or transaction records that banks can easily assess.

That is why a system can appear highly liquid while many SMEs still feel financing is difficult to obtain.

Access, Price, Tenor and Amount Are Different Problems

When companies say credit is “difficult”, they can mean several different things.

The loan may exist but be too small. The rate may be too high. The maturity may not match the project. Collateral requirements may be excessive relative to available assets.

Those problems require different responses.

Businesses should therefore assess whether financing terms actually fit the economics of the underlying need.

Corporate Liquidity Is a Stack

Rather than looking only at cash balances, CFOs should map the company’s full liquidity stack.

Operating cash, unused committed credit lines, receivables, supplier terms, short-term investments, inventory liquidity and refinancing access all matter.

A company with modest cash but significant committed facilities can be more resilient than a company with a large cash balance and no refinancing options when conditions change.

Liquidity is ultimately about accessing cash when it is needed.

Maturity Mismatch Can Matter More Than the Headline Amount

A company can have Rp100 billion in assets and Rp60 billion in debt yet face a liquidity problem if Rp20 billion falls due next month while customer receivables arrive three months later.

Liquidity management therefore needs a calendar, not only a balance sheet.

Short-term borrowing used to finance a five-year project can create refinancing risk even when the project remains profitable on paper.

What Businesses Should Monitor

M2 remains a useful macro indicator. But companies should read it alongside credit growth, deposit growth, bank pricing, maturity, sector appetite and their own working-capital cycle.

If the system looks liquid but corporate financing remains expensive, the more useful question is not “Where did the money go?” It is “Where is the friction?”

Funding cost, credit quality, collateral, information, maturity and project economics can all be part of the answer.

Plenty of Money Does Not Mean Cheap Money for Everyone

August’s data are broadly constructive. Broad money is growing, deposits are increasing, lending remains in double digits and BI continues to provide liquidity incentives.[1][2]

But system-wide liquidity is not the same as universal access.

Money still has to move through bank balance sheets, risk models, sector appetite and credit committees before it becomes usable corporate cash.

For businesses, the relevant question is whether the right liquidity is available to the right company at a price and maturity that match its cash flow.

That is the difference between an economy with abundant money and a company with genuine financial flexibility.