The bank consistently observes the prescribed liquidity requirements, including the thresholds that trigger supervisory action (for internationally active banks no lower than the Basel standards), reflecting its on- and off-balance sheet liquidity profile, and has a strategy for prudent liquidity management and compliance with policies to identify, measure, evaluate, monitor, report and control or mitigate liquidity risk over a set of time horizons. Its robust, board-approved liquidity management framework keeps enough liquidity to withstand a range of stress events and gives a bank-wide view consistent with its tolerance, profile and systemic importance, with a board-approved liquidity risk appetite, sound day-to-day and intraday management, comprehensive measurement of exposures and funding needs including active collateral management, board oversight, and at least annual board review. Funding strategies, policies and processes are established and regularly reviewed, considering how credit, market, operational and reputational risk affect liquidity, and include funding analysis under alternative scenarios, a cushion of high-quality unencumbered liquid assets usable without impediment, diversified sources and tenors with concentration limits, relationships with liability holders and assessment of capacity to monetise assets. A formally documented, regularly tested contingency funding plan addresses shortfalls in a range of stresses without relying on lender of last resort support, with clear responsibilities and communication plans including with the supervisor. Stress testing includes short-term and protracted, bank-specific and market-wide scenarios alone and combined, with conservative reviewed assumptions, and results adjust strategy, positions and contingency plans. Where foreign currency business is significant the bank analyses and monitors liquidity per significant currency with stress tests and mismatch limits, and it manages balance sheet encumbrance within limits with adequate disclosure.
This control maps to 3 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.