I don’t want to get into some ad hominem attacks but I don’t think Basel 3 says that. Anyway, this is simple arithmetic, Lloyds could not have such a large loan book if it wasn’t funded by deposits. There are simply just not enough wholesale funding and capital liabilities. And the liquidity requirements are only a fraction of the deposits, particularly for retail deposits which are assumed to be sticky.

My understanding is that deposits are really just a manifestation of a promise that a trusted party holds, so that the party making the deposit can make more promises to other parties. So, in banking a promise is often just as valid as holding a deposit. They aren't really lending you value, they are lending you verification of value.

They are unsecured liabilities. But like all liabilities the bank received an asset when it issued it (cash or else), and like all liabilities the bank must have sufficient assets to pay it back on demand. The bank may not have the necessary liquidity to pay back all deposits at once (some of these assets are 30y mortgages) but it has an asset (otherwise is not solvant).

It absolutely does say that. The whole of part 1, "Minimum capital requirements and buffers" is 100% based on capital, and deposits don't factor in to any of the definitions of Tier 1 capital. The leverage ratios also factor entirely from capital that doesn't include deposits.

100% is the conversion of a loan balance to leverage exposure. The capital requirements vary between banks and regulator, but they are typicaly 3-5% of the leverage exposure. A leverage ratio requirement of 100% would make lending uneconomical. To achieve a return on equity of 10%+, you would have to charge over 10% on your loans.