Across many Middle Eastern banks, particularly in GCC markets, Treasury often operates as a hybrid of markets business and funding/ALM units. In a meaningful subset of institutions, the centre of gravity sits closer to front-office trading (FX, rates, credit, structured products) than to classic balance-sheet management (IRRBB, liquidity buffers, funding mix, FTP disciplines). This tends to shape the Treasury organisational charts, governance and talent profiles that fit.
So what does Treasury typically cover in Middle East banks?
In practice, Treasury includes a Treasury Markets/ Dealing Room where core products cover:
- FX (spot/forward/swaps)
- Money markets
- Rates trading (bonds, swaps)
- Structured Treasury sales and solutions (especially FX and rates for corporates). Proprietary positioning (within limits) alongside “flow” intermediation.
ALM analytics or Balance Sheet Management teams while much smaller in headcount than their dealing/markets counterparts will cover:
- IRRBB
- Liquidity management (LCR/NSFR)
- Funding Strategy/ Contingency Funding Planning
- Funds Transfer pricing (FTP) design and enforcement
- Structural Hedging
- Investment Portfolio (aligned to liquidity buffers and capital constraints)
Both these functions sit within the Global Markets division of domestic ME banks for the most part. Capital Management, ICAAPs are generally considered a risk (second line) or finance function responsibility. ILAAP’s will be introduced in parts of the region in 2027 as such there it is yet to be seen which division will take responsibility for this deliverable.
Treasury is then considered an extension of Financial Markets. The typical reporting line of a Treasurer/ Head of Treasury within Financial Markets would be in to a CEO/Deputy CEO and sometimes under Wholesale Banking. Dealing rooms drive the identity within the region and as a result hiring is geared towards profit generators across:
- FX & Derivatives Desks
- Money Market / Liquidity Desks (placements/borrowings, short tenor, sometimes treated as trading)
- Rates / Fixed Income Desks (bonds, swaps; often the “P&L engine”)
- Credit / Spread Desks (where allowed; sometimes integrated into FI)
- Sales/Structuring (corporates, FI clients)
Considering the evolution of Treasury in western global banks from 2008 onwards you might wonder why this structure persists? In many GCC banks, strong profitability cycles and high net interest margins can create tolerance for a less “utility-like” Treasury discipline, while markets income is still generally sought. Regulatory frameworks explicitly define trading book governance, which legitimises larger dealing-room footprints inside Treasury. ([rulebook.centralbank.ae][1]). In the UK, Europe and the US for the most part a split model exists (Markets Treasury vs ALM Treasury) to provide more balance. This model creates clearer accountability with trading P&L being managed like a markets business and ALM outcomes managed like a bank-wide utility. CFO-led treasuries (balance-sheet-forward model) are therefore less common where prop culture dominates.
So, what does all this mean for talent and leadership profiles in the region? Senior Treasury leaders have generally been hired from dealer/trading backgrounds with experience of taking market views, managing risk-taking frameworks and focused on short-term P&L generation. These treasuries disproportionately favour daily/weekly P&L, VaR utilisation, trading revenues and revenue attribution by desk/product.
Candidates with a more CFO aligned ALM background (IRRBB, Liquidity & Funding, FTP governance, structural hedging, behavioural modelling for deposits) may receive less attention by nature of the structure of the treasury function in the region. When incentives skew to front-office P&L, ALM teams often become more policy/checker functions rather than true decision-makers.
In conclusion many Middle Eastern banks Treasury structures are shaped as much by dealing-room DNA as by classical ALM principles. Where proprietary trading experience dominates leadership and incentives, Treasury tends to resemble a markets business with ALM as a secondary layer, therefore in the current climate we see less of a requirement for regulatory ALM profiles (cost centres) and more of a push for sales/structuring/prop trading professionals as revenue generators.
Is Treasury regulation coming in the region?
The recent strengthening of banking regulation in the region particularly under the supervision of the Central Banks is beginning to gently reshape Treasury functions, slowly shifting them from primarily funding and trading units toward formally governed balance sheets. Two central developments have been the introduction of the Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process (ILAAP), which requires banks to comprehensively assess liquidity risks under normal and stressed conditions, align risk appetite with funding strategy, and embed forward-looking stress testing into Treasury decision-making. In parallel, the regulator has enhanced the framework for Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB), imposing more rigorous measurement standards, stress scenarios, and board oversight expectations, further strengthening ALM discipline. This has elevated the role of the ALM function reducing tolerance for informal liquidity management practices and constraining excessive proprietary positioning that could impair liquidity resilience. As a result, treasuries are now expected to demonstrate not only market expertise but also robust governance, documentation, and board-level oversight of Treasury risk. This shift in policy and oversight from the central banks could signal future hiring requirements for the types of profiles that dominate western banking Treasury functions. Watch this space!
