What we doAdvisory & ConsultancyLiquidity & ILAAP
Liquidity adequacy your treasury can defend under questioning.
Liquidity frameworks fail quietly. The behavioural assumptions were inherited, not evidenced; the buffer was sized by template; the ILAAP is an annual document sprint the treasury dreads. Then a supervisor — or a stressed market — asks one precise question, and the framework has no answer. BIZENIUS builds liquidity adequacy the other way: assumptions your treasurer can defend line by line, buffers priced to your funding reality, and an ILAAP the supervisor reads as evidence of control.
Where this begins
The moments that bring treasuries to us.
The assumptions have no author
Deposit stickiness, rollover rates, drawdown behaviour — the numbers drive everything and nobody can say where they came from. The supervisor has started asking.
The buffer is a guess wearing a ratio
LCR and NSFR are green, yet no one can show the board why the buffer is the right size for this balance sheet — only that it clears the minimum.
The ILAAP is a season, not a system
Six weeks of document assembly every year, then silence. Nothing in the daily management of liquidity traces back to what the document claims.
What we deliver
The working parts of liquidity control.
An ILAAP engagement rebuilds the machinery under the document — so the annual submission becomes a report on a framework that runs all year, not a construction project.
The behavioural assumption book
Every material assumption — deposit behaviour, rollover, drawdown, encumbrance — evidenced from your own data, documented with its owner and its review trigger.
Buffer calibration & survival horizons
The buffer sized to your funding concentrations and stress horizons, with the analysis that shows the board why this number and not another.
The contingency funding plan
Triggers wired to real indicators, actions with named owners and tested operational steps — a plan that works at 6 p.m. on a Thursday, not only in the annex.
The ILAAP document set
The board document and supervisory submission, written as evidence of a running framework — governance, testing history, and the numbers that carry it.
ALCO integration
Liquidity risk reporting that reaches ALCO in decision form — limits, early-warning indicators and the escalation path rehearsed with the committee itself.
How the engagement runs
Diagnose. Design. Build. Embed.
Diagnose
Assumptions, buffer logic and CFP read against your funding profile — and against what your supervisor now expects.
Design
The target framework: assumption governance, buffer methodology, stress horizons, reporting lines to ALCO and board.
Build
With your treasury and risk teams — evidence packs, calibrations and documents produced together, on your data.
Embed
CFP rehearsal, ALCO walkthrough and training through the Capability Arc — the framework runs before we leave.
Perimeter and fee are fixed at the diagnostic — including which assumptions we rebuild and which we validate.
Proof
Judged by what changes.
National
our ILAAP programme was adopted as the template for a national supervisory regulation
African banking regulator
Mandate Nº 01
The training programme that became national regulation
An African banking regulator · Africa
Mandate Nº 03
Training the examiners: liquidity supervision for a MENA regulator
A MENA banking regulator · MENA
Asked before engaging
The questions treasurers put to us first.
Our ratios are compliant. Why would we need this?
Compliance and control are different states. LCR and NSFR clear the minimum; they do not tell you whether your behavioural assumptions would hold in a name-specific stress, or whether your board could explain the buffer it approves. Supervisors across the region have moved from checking ratios to questioning frameworks — that is the gap this practice closes.
How long does an ILAAP engagement take?
Fixed at the diagnostic. A full framework rebuild typically spans one to two quarters depending on how many behavioural assumptions must be rebuilt from data rather than validated; a focused remediation runs shorter. The perimeter — and therefore the duration — is agreed before we begin.
Who does the work?
Former treasurers and central-bank supervisors — practitioners who have sat on both sides of the ILAAP conversation. The same bench wrote the ILAAP curriculum that a national regulator adopted as its supervisory template.
What data do you need from us?
Deposit and funding histories, the current assumption set and its documentation, the last submission and any supervisory correspondence on it. We work inside your perimeter — data does not leave your institution.
How is confidentiality handled?
Confidential by default. Our published mandates are anonymised to client shape, and nothing about your institution is published without written permission.
The Capability Arc™
This practice is one point on the arc.
Treasuries that rebuild the framework usually pair it with the masterclass their team learns it from — and the reporting that makes it visible daily.
The ask
Request a confidential framework review.
A former treasurer reads your ILAAP and assumption set the way the supervisor will — and tells you, privately, which questions it cannot yet answer.
Confidential by default; under NDA on request. A senior practitioner responds within two working days.
Liquidity & ILAAP
Leave the question with us.
Two lines on the mandate is enough — a senior practitioner replies within one business day.