Examine how responsibility for intraday liquidity risk management is organised and overseen.
The idea
Sound practice assigns intraday liquidity responsibility in layers. The board approves the bank's tolerance for liquidity risk, intraday included. Senior management turns it into strategy, policies, limits, procedures and the systems and staff needed to measure and control flows. Treasury, working with payments operations, runs the position day to day: forecasting gross inflows and outflows, arranging funding, mobilising collateral, prioritising time-specific obligations and controlling when payments are released. Business lines that generate payment flows should see the cost of the liquidity they use through internal pricing. An independent risk function measures, stress tests and reports, and internal audit reviews the whole framework. In groups, responsibilities must reach each legal entity, currency and payment system. A typical failure is ownership left implicit inside operations with no escalation path. Exam point: separate approving, managing, measuring and assuring.
A practice question
Under sound liquidity risk governance, which body approves the bank's tolerance for liquidity risk, including intraday liquidity risk?
- The payments operations team, because it sees the flows in real timeWhy not: Operations executes and monitors payments; it does not set the bank's risk tolerance.
- Internal audit, because it reviews the control environmentWhy not: Internal audit gives independent assurance; setting tolerance would compromise that independence.
- The central bank, because it supplies intraday creditWhy not: The central bank sets access terms but the bank's own board sets its liquidity risk tolerance.
- The board of directors - correct
The board approves risk tolerance; senior management implements it through strategy, policies and limits; treasury and operations run positions; risk measures; audit assures.
A harder one
A regional subsidiary's payments operations team releases large batches of customer payments at the start of each day, drawing heavily on central bank intraday credit. Group treasury learns about the usage only the next morning. Which governance weakness does this best illustrate?
- Ownership of payment timing and real-time information flows between operations and treasury is undefined - correct
- The board has not approved a tolerance for credit risk on its loan bookWhy not: Credit risk tolerance is a different matter; the issue here is who controls payment timing and sees positions.
- Internal audit is not releasing the payments itselfWhy not: Audit is meant to be independent of execution; it should not be releasing payments.
- There is no weakness, because intraday credit is repaid by day end and only the overnight position matters for riskWhy not: Treats intraday as irrelevant if the end-of-day position is clean, ignoring that intraday usage carries its own risk and needs control.
Sound governance defines who manages intraday positions and gives treasury timely data and authority over release timing. The failure here is a gap in ownership and information, not in audit or credit policy.
The hardest tier
A bank's intraday monitoring is produced by the same treasury desk that decides when to release payments and that sets its own limits. Which change best strengthens oversight while keeping day-to-day management where it belongs?
- Move payment release authority to the independent risk function so that it both manages and measures the position, with treasury only advisingWhy not: Combining management and measurement in one function removes the independence the change is meant to create.
- Let an independent risk function set the methodology, test limits and escalate breaches while treasury keeps managing - correct
- Replace intraday limits with end-of-day net position reporting to the boardWhy not: End-of-day reporting cannot detect intraday usage, so the board would lose sight of the risk it is meant to oversee.
- Require internal audit to approve every payment above a size thresholdWhy not: Audit approving individual payments makes it part of execution and undermines its role as independent assurance.
Good governance separates managing (treasury), measuring and challenging (independent risk) and assuring (audit). Neither merging manager and measurer nor using audit as an operational approver achieves that.
In the app: 6 practice questions on this outcome, spaced review that brings it back before you forget it.
Start free →