The cumulative effects of overspending and underfunding, as well as the extent to which the trésoriers were limiting payments according to their personal financial situations, caused the navy to become cash-flow insolvent over the course of 1707 to 1709. The diminishing levels of liquidity had disastrous consequences for naval procurement, and the inability to acquire essential materials translated short-term funding issues into years of operational paralysis. Procurement was a lengthy and complex process that drained the trésoriers’ cash and involved an extensive network of suppliers who relied on a schedule of regular payments in advance of delivery. This was particularly the case in the arms industry, where cash was needed to finance large capital investments. For example, a munitions order with the St Gervais foundry, which supplied Toulon's arsenal with 73 cannons, required 72 per cent of its value acquitted at least four to five months before the first consignment of cannons was delivered in October 1706. However, as the trésoriers had to devote a disproportionate amount of resources and time to addressing unsettled debts from previous exercices, the navy could no longer afford or keep up with these upfront payments and regular disbursements that contractors required. Increasing interruptions in the settlement of procurement bills damaged suppliers’ confidence and created further dysfunction: for instance, in two comparable deliveries of hemp from Auvergne to Nantes and Rochefort during the exercices of 1705 and 1706, the delay between the initial and final payments of the orders grew from nine to 22 months. Moreover, when the suppliers were paid, they increasingly received illiquid credit instruments that became untradeable as faith in the trésoriers’ credit eroded. Contractors thereafter sought cash guarantees or the ability to bypass the trésoriers and deal directly with the crown's revenue agents, but as these demands became prohibitive, naval administrators were left unable to sign many suppliers to new contracts, even with the enticement of price increases. This left the navy in an ‘unfortunate state’, as Pontchartrain described the situation in the spring of 1707, and contributed to a precipitous drop in procurement spending, which fell 44 per cent from 9.6 million l. to 5.4 million l. between 1705 and 1707.

The availability of cash to the navy was significantly reduced during the exercice of 1707.