Liquidity Risk Maturity · COBAC Liquidity Regulation
Your liquidity risk management, measured against the COBAC framework and turned into a costed action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Liquidity Risk Maturity · COBAC Liquidity Regulation
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One COBAC regulation on the liquidity of credit institutions (CEMAC prudential framework) assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism, a level, a level above, and the action linking the two, that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Are liquidity stress scenarios defined, run and used in management decisions?
- N1
No stress scenario is run. Monitoring is limited to calculating the regulatory ratio for reporting purposes.
- N2
A scenario exists, built on an ad hoc basis for an inspection or an external request. Assumptions are not documented and the exercise is not repeated.
- N3
Documented scenarios are run at set intervals, with written assumptions on deposit withdrawals and the closure of funding sources. Results are presented to the ALCO.
- N4
Scenarios cover both an institution specific crisis and a market wide crisis, feed into internal limits and trigger traceable decisions to rebuild the liquid asset buffer.
- N5
Assumptions are recalibrated from market observations and recorded incidents, the revision is documented, and results are reconciled with the contingency funding plan after each exercise.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Formalise two stress scenarios with written deposit run-off assumptions by counterparty category, set their execution on a quarterly basis using reporting date data, and add the presentation of results to the ALCO’s standing agenda.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurementon COBAC.
What this framework covers
The prudential framework of the Central African Banking Commission governs the liquidity of CEMAC credit institutions on two fronts. First a quantitative requirement: a ratio of liquid assets to short term liabilities, calculated using weightings set by the regulator and reported periodically. Second a qualitative requirement: an internal framework for measuring, monitoring and controlling liquidity risk, including limits, cash flow gap monitoring, stress scenarios and a contingency funding plan. It is the second strand that supervision examines most closely.
In practice, day to day management runs into simple questions that few institutions answer clearly. Is the regulatory ratio a figure calculated once a month for reporting purposes, or an indicator tracked by treasury between reporting dates? Does the maturity schedule of flows rest on documented assumptions about the behaviour of sight deposits, or on inherited conventions nobody reviews? Do internal limits have an alert mechanism and a breach procedure, or are breaches only noticed after the fact? Has the contingency funding plan ever been tested, or does it remain a filed document?
The regional context sharpens these requirements. Deposit concentration among a handful of public depositors or large corporates, the limited depth of the sub-region’s interbank market, and dependence on BEAC refinancing all put liquidity at the centre of supervisory attention. Convergence work towards Basel III standards is also introducing a logic of high quality liquid asset buffers and funding stability that goes beyond the historical ratio alone. A common confusion persists: meeting the ratio is not the same as controlling liquidity risk.
A compliance audit asks a binary question: is the ratio met, are the returns submitted on time. A maturity assessment asks a different question: what level of control has each component of the framework reached, and what precise action moves it up a level. The two complement each other. The assessment prepares the ground for an on-site inspection and feeds the dialogue with the supervisor, the audit confirms it.
Within Datamensio, the framework is ready to use and remains yours. The AI adjusts themes, questions and levels to your institution’s profile, universal bank, group subsidiary or smaller institution, or builds a variant from your own internal procedures and prudential returns.
Reference standard: COBAC regulation on the liquidity of credit institutions (CEMAC prudential framework)
The themes assessed
Liquidity risk governance
Liquidity policy approved by the governing body, formalised risk appetite, roles of the ALCO and treasury, separation between position taking and control.
Regulatory ratio and returns
Production of the liquidity return, scope and weightings applied, quality of source data, compliance with submission deadlines, treatment of breaches.
Gap measurement and cash flow schedule
Construction of the liquidity gap by maturity band, run-off assumptions for sight deposits and savings, treatment of off balance sheet commitments, update frequency.
Internal limits and alert mechanism
System of limits by horizon and currency, early warning thresholds, breach procedure, escalation to senior management and the governing body.
Liquid asset buffer
Composition of the liquid asset buffer, eligibility for BEAC refinancing, encumbered assets, actual capacity to mobilise them under stress.
Funding structure and concentration
Diversification of resources by type and counterparty, monitoring of large depositors, stability of public deposits, use of the regional interbank market.
Stress scenarios and stress tests
Idiosyncratic and market wide scenarios, severity and horizon chosen, frequency of exercises, use of results in committee decisions.
Contingency funding plan
Formalisation of the plan, triggers, mobilisable liquidity sources, roles and decision chain in a crisis, tests and lessons learnt.
Foreign currency liquidity and FX operations
Monitoring of liquidity positions by currency, access to foreign currency, alignment with CEMAC exchange control regulations.
Internal control and management reporting
Second line controls over the liquidity chain, internal audit work, dashboards for senior management, follow up on supervisory recommendations.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does the assessment amount to a certificate of compliance with the COBAC regulation?
No. Datamensio measures the maturity of the framework and prepares for inspection, it does not issue any certificate. Only COBAC assesses the institution’s compliance, through desk based and on-site review. The assessment gives you the picture and the trajectory ahead of that milestone.
What is the difference between this assessment and a compliance audit?
An audit concludes with a gap or compliance finding on a given requirement. The assessment places each component of the framework on a progressive scale and indicates the action that moves it up a level. The audit records, the assessment guides decisions.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version can be completed in a single session by a risk officer or treasurer. The full version, run collaboratively across finance, risk, compliance and internal audit, typically takes one to two weeks, most of the time spent gathering supporting evidence.
Can the framework be adapted to our institution?
Yes. Themes, questions and levels can be changed, and the AI can build a variant from your liquidity policy and internal procedures. A microfinance institution, a group subsidiary and a universal bank do not read the same grid the same way.
Can several subsidiaries in the sub-region be compared?
Yes. The same framework applies to each entity, with a score by theme and a benchmark across business units as well as against previous assessments. A cross cutting roadmap consolidates subsidiaries’ action plans without duplicating shared workstreams.
How does this assessment link to solvency and credit risk?
Liquidity, solvency and credit risk share the same data chain and the same internal control framework. Assessing them on separate frameworks and then consolidating into a single roadmap avoids addressing the same governance or data quality gap three times over.
Do you need ALM expertise to answer?
The questions focus on management and governance practices, not calculation models. Some do require input from the treasurer or management control: the collaborative mode allows these questions to be assigned to the right person and answers to be tracked.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, backed up at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European solutions.