Explanation
The correct answer is choice 'd'
For settlement of interbank payments, there are broadly two kinds of systems: RTGS (Real Time Gross Systems) and Deferred Net Systems (DNS). RTGS process payments in real time, settlement by settlement, and each transaction is settled by the a clearing institution (mostly the central bank) on a gross basis without regard for other settlements affecting the counterparty. DNS systems, on the other hand, allow for debiting or crediting the accounts of counterparties at periodic intervals after netting all payments paid or received since the last settlement. The exact timing of the payments does not matter so long as a bank has sufficient funding on a net basis at settlement time. Implicit in the DNS system is the extension of credit and liquidity by the central bank to the participating banks as it is possible for a bank to issue payment instructions even without having funds so long as they can arrange for such funds prior to settlement at the end of the day. In RTGS, a bank needs to have funds to make a payment at any point, and cannot make a payment against moneys expected to be received later intra-day. RTGS systems therefore need more liquidity on the part of the participants, and consume far more liquidity than DNS arrangements. Of course, the 'liquidity' of the DNS arrangement has a cost - which is that someone is taking up settlement risk, and invariably it is the central bank. If a bank under DNS fails to settle, its transactions have to be 'unwound', ie all payments made by it have to be rolled back. This can cause other banks to trip, causing further unwinding transactions. RTGS systems do not carry this risk. Therefore statement I is not correct as RTGS consume more liquidity than DNS arrangements.
Statement II is correct. US Fedwire or European TARGET are RTGS while CHIPS is a DNS based payment system.
Statement III is not correct. Current Basel requirements do not require any disclosure in respect of liquidity risk management. A consultative paper was issued by BIS in Dec 2009 for comments from members, but it is far from final. The BIS is still reacting to the liquidity issues that arose during the 2007-09 credit crisis.
Statement IV is not correct as a CFP is like a disaster recovery plan for liquidity, ie it helps a bank plan for and think about what steps would be taken to deal with a liquidity disaster situation. It does not provide any access to central bank financing.