FDM.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding

X must pay 100 on day 7. Its unrestricted cash available on that date, after all other receipts and obligations but before this payment, is 20. Y holds 150 in its own account. They share a founder. These are supplied facts of a constructed case.

The founder-group view can show both members and their balances. It does not settle X’s ability to pay. X has an 80 shortfall under the stated cash premise.

Suppose a duly established support arrangement requires Y to transfer 80 to X, with conditions that make it due before day 7. The model now contains a support obligation whose timely performance could close the gap. Until adequate evidence establishes the transfer or another means of timely availability, “support committed” remains different from “funds available”.

If the arrangement instead provides only a guarantee exercisable after X fails to pay, the creditor may have a further route under those supplied terms. X still lacks day-7 cash in the facts given. FDM.3 models the guarantee’s actual trigger and timing; the model must not describe it as an earlier transfer.

If Y has no support commitment but the founder is expected to arrange a voluntary transfer, keep that event in the scenario that assumes it. For a portfolio-risk question, common dependence on that founder or on the same market can justify examining the members together even when no transfer is possible.