ILAAP Risk Cube
Turn OJK ILAAP reporting data into liquidity insight, foresight and action. A transparent analytical and assurance layer linking SPM, scenario choice, funding profile, executable liquidity and report-ready outputs.
Used and adapted in engagements with several leading banks.
Client identities are confidential; engagement scope and adoption stage vary by bank.
Guidance exists; implementation remains bank-specific and judgement-intensive
OJK establishes the ILAAP framework and reporting components. Banks still need a repeatable way to validate data, compare scenarios, test executable liquidity and explain the resulting adequacy position.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
Why an analytical layer is needed
The regulatory framework is clear on the ILAAP obligation, while methodology and integration remain bank-specific.
OJK framework
Formal ILAAP process
proportionate to size, characteristics and complexity
Linked reports
SPM, Funding Profile, intraday and significant-currency LCR
Supervisory use
results inform liquidity-risk profile, bank soundness and LSREP
Bank judgement
methodology, scenarios, assumptions and conservatism remain bank-owned
What banks must build
One analytical chain
reconcile SPM, funding data, assumptions and scenario results
Binding-stress explanation
show when liquidity turns, the low point and the main drivers
Executable liquidity
test eligibility, encumbrance, haircuts, settlement and routes
Decision-ready outputs
translate results into dashboards, report exhibits and clear conclusions
One ILAAP story from connected data and analytics
SPM, Funding Rollover Analytics, CBC and HQLA, SFT, bank assumptions and management judgement converge in a bank-owned adequacy conclusion.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
One ILAAP story from connected data and analytics
SPM, funding data, analytical outputs and bank judgement converge in the bank-owned submission.
SPM overlay analytics
daily path • low point • survival • CBC • monetisation
Funding Rollover Analytics
maturing funds • validation • destination tenor • new money • concentration
CBC / HQLA and SFT
eligibility • haircuts • settlement • mobilisation
Bank assumptions and actions
Bobot • scenarios • constraints • recovery capacity
ILAAP
Analytics
Executive conclusion
liquidity adequacy and key qualifications
Risk appetite and scenarios
LCR anchor • Bank 1 • Bank 2 • Bank 3
Stress results and drivers
when vulnerability emerges and why
Funding profile and market access
rollover, concentration and strategy
CBC and monetisation
what is eligible, executable and timely
Recovery actions and residual risk
separate action layer • timing • remaining gap
See liquidity adequacy in three dimensions
Time shows when stress binds. Scenario makes the benchmark and bank-specific views explicit. Response distinguishes core liquidity capacity from separately assessed management actions.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
ILAAP Risk Cube: three dimensions of liquidity adequacy
A reusable analytical frame for website, white paper and management discussion.
Time
Day 1-30 granularity, selected outer horizons and a 365-day lens reveal early breaches and later cliff risks.
Scenario
Dasar is the LCR anchor. Bank 1 is the official SPM view; Bank 2 is the primary analytical lane and Bank 3 is the optional comparator.
Response
CBC and monetisation show core stress capacity. Recovery actions sit in a separate comparison layer.
Scenario exploration without disturbing the official SPM view
Skenario Bank 2 is the primary analytical lane and Skenario Bank 3 is an optional comparison. Each can independently use Manual Bobot, a named Scenario Library profile or a Scenario Studio profile.
Skenario Dasar
The regulatory benchmark every other lane is read against.
Skenario Bank 1
The bank's reported position, left untouched by analytical exploration.
Skenario Bank 2
Independently selects Manual Bobot, a Scenario Library profile or a Scenario Studio profile.
Skenario Bank 3
An optional comparison lane with a source choice of its own.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
One anchor, one official scenario and two analytical lanes
Scenario choice is explicit, independent by lane and protected from unintended Bobot writeback.
Reference anchor
Skenario Dasar (LCR)
Benchmark for interpreting bank-specific stresses
Official SPM view
Skenario Bank 1
Mandatory bank Bobot; unchanged during analytical exploration
Analytical source options
Chosen independently for Skenario Bank 2 and Skenario Bank 3
Manual Bobot
Bank-entered assumptions
Scenario Library
Named reference profiles
Scenario Studio
Bespoke working profiles
Effective-source
Bridge
validates the profile
assigns it by slot
protects Bobot
Skenario Bank 2
Primary analytical scenario
Default lane for advanced analysis
Skenario Bank 3
Optional comparison scenario
Independent source and calibration
Downstream analytics
Scenario routing. Dasar is the LCR anchor; Bank 1 is the official SPM view; Bank 2 and Bank 3 independently select Manual Bobot, a Scenario Library profile or a Scenario Studio profile. Valid choices feed downstream analytics without writing back to Bobot.
Safe exploration. A valid assignment recalculates the selected lane; an invalid assignment suppresses only that lane. Scenario exploration does not write back to Bobot.
A guided user experience for bank teams
The workflow moves from SPM population and data validation through source selection, analysis, interpretation and copy-ready reporting.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
A guided user journey - from SPM inputs to decision-ready outputs
Designed for Risk, Treasury, Finance, ALCO secretariat, Internal Audit and senior management.
- 1
Populate SPM
Input Bank • Bobot • Bank 1 official view
- 2
Validate & map
SPM • CBC/HQLA • SFT • funding rollover
- 3
Choose sources
Manual Bobot • Library • Studio by scenario slot
- 4
Run analytics
Bank 2 primary • Bank 3 comparison • daily path and survival
- 5
Interpret results
low point • survival • CBC • monetisation • residual need
- 6
Report & explain
copy-ready exhibits • narrative • official export
Designed for bank teams, with technical detail available when needed
A familiar Excel interface keeps the workflow clear while preserving traceable inputs, source choice and analytical detail.
Core capabilities
SPM and Funding Rollover assurance, per-slot scenario choice, daily survival, executable CBC, SFT, monetisation, Pillar 2 and report-ready exhibits form one transparent analytical chain.
Reporting assurance
Validate SPM and Funding Rollover mapping, completeness and reconciliation.
Scenario analytics
Choose sources by lane, apply tenorisation and calculate daily liquidity, low point and survival.
Executable liquidity
Connect CBC and HQLA usability, SFT, monetisation, Pillar 2 and residual need.
Reporting outputs
Use copy-ready charts, tables and structured narrative inputs.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
Core capabilities - from SPM inputs to a complete liquidity decision chain
Each module answers a practical analytical, assurance or reporting question.
SPM analytics & assurance
Preserves OJK structure while validating inputs, mapping and key totals.
Scenario sources & tenorisation
Compares Manual Bobot, Library or Studio profiles with timing re-allocation.
Daily low point & survival
Identifies first breach, lowest liquidity point and horizon profile.
CBC / HQLA usability
Separates gross stock from eligible, unencumbered and timely liquidity.
Repo / SFT & monetisation
Links cash, collateral, haircut, settlement and capacity without double count.
Funding Rollover analytics & assurance
Validates reporting and explains maturity, retention, new money and concentration.
Pillar 2 & residual need
Connects additional liquidity needs to risk drivers and unresolved gaps.
Report exhibits & narrative
Turns results into copy-ready charts, tables and structured ILAAP drafting.
A decision cockpit, not another static report
The illustrative guide case connects the Bank 2 and Bank 3 horizon profiles, first breach, final liquidity, remaining CBC, monetisation planning and separately assessed recovery capacity.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
One cockpit connects scenario choice, capacity and residual need
Synthetic guide case: Bank 2 uses severe intensity; Bank 3 uses extreme intensity. Not a bank assessment.
Primary liquidity path by horizon
IDR trillion; selected horizons
Bank 3 first breach
Day 15
Day-30 final NLP
-169.1T
Remaining recognised CBC
180.5T
Need-based monetisation
80.1T
Recognised action capacity
60.0T
Residual action shortfall
119.1T
Management prompt
When does stress bind, what is executable, and what remains after actions?
All figures are synthetic guide-case amounts. Need-based monetisation is a planning recommendation, not a separate scenario engine; remaining CBC is capacity, not automatic cash.
Skenario Bank 2
Primary analytical lane with a positive illustrative Day-30 liquidity position.
Skenario Bank 3
Optional comparison lane with a Day-15 first breach in the synthetic guide case.
Separate recovery layer
Recognised action capacity is compared after core results and does not rewrite them.
From analytics to a clear ILAAP narrative
BetterBankings helps the bank connect analytical signals with management interpretation, report exhibits, narrative direction and supporting actions.
- Explain when liquidity turns negative and which drivers bind.
- Connect rollover concentration to funding sustainability and market access.
- Distinguish gross CBC from timely executable liquidity.
- Describe residual need after separately assessed management actions.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
Analytics become a clear ILAAP narrative - not disconnected charts
BetterBankings helps the bank translate signals into interpretation, narrative direction and supporting actions.
Analytics signal
Management interpretation
Narrative direction
Supporting input / action
Analytics signal
Skenario Bank 3 first breach: Day 15
Management interpretation
Acute short-horizon vulnerability
Narrative direction
Explain when the position turns negative, the main drivers and trigger response.
Supporting input / action
Scenario definition • driver bridge • risk appetite • CFP trigger
Analytics signal
Rollover concentration in short tenors
Management interpretation
Dependency on rapid renewal and market confidence
Narrative direction
Explain funding sustainability, observed behaviour and planned tenor diversification.
Supporting input / action
Funding plan • limits • WAM • concentration • market-access assumptions
Analytics signal
Gross CBC exceeds timely executable CBC
Management interpretation
Not all reported liquidity can be mobilised in time
Narrative direction
Explain eligibility, encumbrance, haircuts, settlement routes and remaining buffer after use.
Supporting input / action
Asset register • operational readiness • settlement tests
Analytics signal
Actions cover only part of residual need
Management interpretation
Execution readiness matters more than headline capacity
Narrative direction
Explain which actions are recognised, when they settle and what risk remains.
Supporting input / action
Named owners • approval • timeline • residual remediation
Funding Rollover Analytics strengthens both assurance and insight
The analysis validates mapping and reconciliation, distinguishes retained funding, tenor migration, new money and external exit, and converts the results into a funding vulnerability and strategy narrative.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
Funding Rollover Analytics and assurance test whether the funding profile is durable
It validates reporting and connects funding behaviour, tenor, new money and concentration to ILAAP.
Maturing funding
Where does it go next?
Diagnostics
What it adds to ILAAP
Validated funding profile and vulnerability by segment and tenor
Rollover direction, weighted maturity and cliff-risk explanation
New-money dependence and market-access assumptions
Calibration input for stress scenarios and contingency actions
Mapping, reconciliation and reporting consistency for SPM and Funding Rollover
Used and adapted in engagements with several leading banks.
Client identities are confidential; engagement scope and adoption stage vary by bank.
Support across the full analytics-to-submission journey
BetterBankings supports interpretation, reporting assurance, configuration, analysis, report exhibits, drafting and recurring review. The bank retains judgement, approval and regulatory accountability.
BetterBankings | Prudential Technology
BetterBankings supports the full analytics-to-submission journey
From reporting assurance and configuration to scenario analytics, report exhibits and a bank-owned submission.
- 1
Interpret & design
Translate OJK requirements into a proportionate analytical and reporting approach.
Design note - 2
Validate & configure
Check SPM and Funding Rollover data; map CBC/HQLA, SFT and scenario sources.
Validated inputs - 3
Explore & compare
Run Bank 2 primary and optional Bank 3 scenarios; test timing, liquidity and residual need.
Analytics pack - 4
Report & draft
Prepare copy-ready exhibits and support the bank-owned ILAAP narrative.
Report pack - 5
Review & refresh
Support management interpretation, updates and repeatable future runs.
Review cycle
- 01
Interpret
Interpret the requirement and design the analytical approach.
- 02
Validate
Validate and configure SPM, Funding Rollover, CBC, HQLA and SFT inputs.
- 03
Analyse
Assign scenario sources and compare the analytical lanes.
- 04
Report
Prepare report exhibits and support the bank-owned narrative.
- 05
Review
Review, refresh and repeat the process.
Where the boundary sits
BetterBankings supports SPM and Funding Rollover reporting assurance, scenario analytics, report exhibits and drafting of the bank-owned ILAAP submission using bank-approved inputs. Final ownership, judgement and approval remain with the bank.
Use existing OJK ILAAP data more effectively
Start with a focused diagnostic, validate the current reporting, and build a transparent source-to-decision workflow.
The ILAAP Risk Cube is an analytics and management-support layer, not an OJK submission system or compliance certification. The bank retains calibration, judgement, approval and regulatory accountability.