BANKING & PAYMENTS · SETTLEMENT & TRADE
Treasury & Liquidity
Desk Framework
A treasury desk is where a licence becomes a liquidity position: cash, funding, and foreign exchange managed against limits somebody has to own and defend. We build the function to be run, not improvised — policy and limit framework, cash and funding operations, foreign exchange and hedging execution, counterparty and settlement arrangements, and position and risk reporting.
THE SPECIFICATION
Architecture & Audience
A treasury desk manages the institution’s own balance sheet: where cash sits, how obligations are funded, and what currency exposure is carried. It exists to keep the institution solvent and liquid under stress. Where a treasury function drifts into taking positions for return, it has stopped being treasury — and that drift has ended more institutions than any external shock.
Licensed institutions whose balance sheet has outgrown ad hoc management; EMIs and brokers formalizing client-money and own-funds separation; and corporates with material multi-currency exposure.
What We Deliver
A complete architecture, designed, launched, and managed
We design the treasury policy that governs how the institution manages its cash, funding, and currency positions. Limits — for counterparty exposure, currency mismatch, and intraday liquidity — are set at levels the board owns and the regulator can examine.
We build the liquidity and funding model that maps the institution’s assets and liabilities against their maturities, identifies the funding gap under stress, and informs the liquidity buffer the institution is required to hold.
We design the currency exposure policy and hedging programme that keeps the institution’s foreign exchange positions within the limits the board has approved. Hedging instruments, counterparties, and execution standards are documented in advance of any position being taken.
We set the counterparty credit limits and concentration limits that govern where the institution places its cash and collateral. Limits reflect the institution’s risk appetite and the credit quality of available counterparties, not inherited convention.
We select and implement the treasury management system that captures positions, monitors limits, and produces the reporting the desk and the board need in real time. System selection is driven by the institution’s transaction volume and regulatory reporting requirements.
We implement the segregation of duties and dealing mandates that separate the dealing function from the confirmation and settlement functions. The controls satisfy the auditor and the regulator, and they are designed to hold under operational pressure rather than be bypassed when the desk is busy.
We build the liquidity stress testing framework that models the institution’s liquidity position under the scenarios the regulator prescribes and under institution-specific scenarios relevant to the business model. Stress test results inform the liquidity buffer, not the other way around.
We implement the cash and position reconciliation process that confirms the institution’s nostro balances, currency positions, and funding positions against counterparty statements daily. Breaks are identified, escalated, and resolved before they become audit findings.
We build the treasury reporting infrastructure that delivers the board’s management information pack and the regulator’s liquidity and capital returns on schedule. Both are produced from the treasury management system, not assembled manually for each submission.
What We Deliver
A complete architecture, designed, launched, and managed
We design the treasury policy that governs how the institution manages its cash, funding, and currency positions. Limits — for counterparty exposure, currency mismatch, and intraday liquidity — are set at levels the board owns and the regulator can examine.
We build the liquidity and funding model that maps the institution’s assets and liabilities against their maturities, identifies the funding gap under stress, and informs the liquidity buffer the institution is required to hold.
We design the currency exposure policy and hedging programme that keeps the institution’s foreign exchange positions within the limits the board has approved. Hedging instruments, counterparties, and execution standards are documented in advance of any position being taken.
We set the counterparty credit limits and concentration limits that govern where the institution places its cash and collateral. Limits reflect the institution’s risk appetite and the credit quality of available counterparties, not inherited convention.
We select and implement the treasury management system that captures positions, monitors limits, and produces the reporting the desk and the board need in real time. System selection is driven by the institution’s transaction volume and regulatory reporting requirements.
We implement the segregation of duties and dealing mandates that separate the dealing function from the confirmation and settlement functions. The controls satisfy the auditor and the regulator, and they are designed to hold under operational pressure rather than be bypassed when the desk is busy.
We build the liquidity stress testing framework that models the institution’s liquidity position under the scenarios the regulator prescribes and under institution-specific scenarios relevant to the business model. Stress test results inform the liquidity buffer, not the other way around.
We implement the cash and position reconciliation process that confirms the institution’s nostro balances, currency positions, and funding positions against counterparty statements daily. Breaks are identified, escalated, and resolved before they become audit findings.
We build the treasury reporting infrastructure that delivers the board’s management information pack and the regulator’s liquidity and capital returns on schedule. Both are produced from the treasury management system, not assembled manually for each submission.
Infrastructure Selection
X-CHASE holds no commercial interest in any provider, assessing them strictly on live performance, structural fit, and renewal terms. Providers are named exclusively under formal engagement, never on a public website.