Banking & Credit regulatory updates from International.
We track 72 Banking & Credit updates from International regulators, published by BIS and FSB. The archive covers 28 reports, 17 news items and 9 speeches. Most recent update: October 2026. Coverage runs from 2025 to 2026.
In this speech, Dominique Laboureix, Chair of the FSB Resolution Steering Group, discusses the importance of cross-border, cross-sectoral crisis preparedness.
Why this matters
The document is a speech by a named official delivered at a conference in Berlin. Its substance covers crisis preparedness, deposit insurance and resolution, stablecoins as a perimeter question, and operational incidents such as cloud and IT outages affecting banks.
In this speech at RiskLive Asia 2026, John Schindler, FSB Secretary General, addresses the importance of international organisations in a shifting geopolitical landscape.
Why this matters
The document is a keynote speech by the FSB Secretary General, so content_type is speech. It covers AI adoption risks, including third-party provider dependencies, cyber risk, and model governance, which supports Technology & Cyber and Operational Resilience / Outsourcing.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published final amendments to address window dressing in the G-SIB framework and a consultation on the G-SIB methodology review.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has finalised amendments requiring G-SIB assessment indicators to be reported and publicly disclosed using reporting-year averages rather than year-end values, with implementation by 2030. It has also raised the G-SIB reporting and disclosure threshold from EUR 200 billion to EUR 350 billion in leverage ratio exposure measure from 2027 and opened a consultation on incorporating the treatment of cross-border exposures within the European Banking Union; independent commentary indicates that the eventual capital impact cannot yet be quantified.
Key dates
2027-01-01
The increased G-SIB reporting and disclosure threshold of EUR 350 billion in leverage ratio exposure measure is to apply from 2027.
2027-01-14 Deadline
Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments on the consultation concerning treatment of cross-border exposures within the European Banking Union in the G-SIB methodology.
2030-01-01 Deadline
The requirement for in-scope banks to report and disclose stock G-SIB indicators using reporting-year average values is to be implemented.
Suggested considerations
Firms should assess whether their leverage ratio exposure measure could meet or exceed the EUR 350 billion reporting and disclosure threshold from 2027, including under normal seasonal and stressed balance-sheet conditions.
G-SIBs and other in-scope banks should map each stock G-SIB indicator to its underlying source systems and determine whether daily, monthly or other sufficiently frequent data capture will support a defensible reporting-year average by 1 January 2030.
Compliance, regulatory reporting and finance teams may wish to review controls over data lineage, aggregation, estimation, reconciliation, management sign-off and audit evidence for G-SIB indicators.
Risk and treasury functions should consider whether existing quarter-end or year-end balance-sheet management practices could create apparent window-dressing risk when indicators are assessed using annual averages.
Firms should monitor national and regional implementation measures because the Basel amendments are standards requiring transposition or supervisory adoption rather than directly applicable law in every jurisdiction.
Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments on the European Banking Union cross-border exposure proposal by 14 January 2027, particularly where the treatment could alter systemic-importance scores, reporting scope or capital surcharge outcomes.
Banks should avoid assuming that the final capital effect is known: independent commentary indicates that the impact cannot be quantified until detailed implementation provisions and resulting methodology calculations are available.
What changed
Banks participating in the G-SIB assessment exercise will be required to calculate, report and disclose all stock G-SIB indicators using average values over the reporting year instead of year-end values. The revised requirement is to be implemented by 1 January 2030, giving banks time to build reporting processes capable of collecting, validating, aggregating and evidencing data throughout the year. The threshold for G-SIB reporting and disclosure will increase from EUR 200 billion to EUR 350 billion of leverage ratio exposure measure from 2027.
Compliance impact
The change is a significant prudential reporting and disclosure obligation for G-SIBs and banks within the revised threshold, with potential consequences for G-SIB scores and related higher-loss-absorbency requirements. The Basel Committee characterises window-dressing as unacceptable because it undermines the policy objectives of the framework and may disrupt financial-market operations; however, the precise capital impact remains uncertain pending implementation and methodology details.
This document summarises the responses to the June 2026 public consultation on the Sound Practices for financial institutions’ responsible AI adoption.
AI Analysis
The FSB published its 15 October 2026 overview of approximately 160 consultation responses and finalised 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption by financial institutions. The practices are non-binding, technology-neutral recommendations, but the final text materially sharpens expectations for agentic AI, risk-based human approval, documentation, safe interruption, and third-party AI dependency management.
Key dates
2026-06-10
The FSB published the consultation report proposing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption.
2026-07-22
The FSB consultation closed; approximately 160 responses were received.
2026-10-15
The FSB published the overview of consultation responses and the final report containing the 12 sound practices.
Suggested considerations
Firms should consider mapping existing AI inventories, model-risk controls, operational-resilience arrangements, cyber controls, outsourcing registers, and board reporting against all 12 FSB practices.
Compliance teams may wish to introduce or validate a documented, risk-based materiality assessment for each AI use case at inception and throughout its lifecycle, including uses embedded in products or obtained from vendors.
Boards and senior management should consider whether AI adoption is aligned with business strategy, risk appetite, accountability structures, and existing risk-management frameworks.
Firms using generative or agentic AI should consider defining permitted actions, autonomy limits, escalation paths, human-approval triggers, monitoring thresholds, and tested stop or safe-interruption procedures.
Firms should consider retaining records sufficient to identify the AI system, data, model or vendor, intended purpose, materiality assessment, testing, approvals, monitoring results, changes, incidents, and reconstructed decisions or actions.
Procurement and third-party-risk teams may wish to assess AI providers for performance, transparency, data quality, supply-chain exposure, concentration risk, exit options, resilience, and business-continuity arrangements.
Technology and operational-resilience teams should consider adding AI-specific cyber and ICT scenarios to testing and exercises, including model manipulation, data poisoning, prompt or agent compromise, erroneous autonomous actions, provider outage, and loss of vendor access.
Firms should consider reviewing the interaction between the FSB practices and binding local requirements, including the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act, EU AI Act, sectoral outsourcing rules, model-risk requirements, data-protection law, and senior-management accountability regimes.
What changed
The final framework retains 12 practices covering board and senior-management oversight, governance and accountability, AI risk integration and documentation, organisational adaptability, materiality assessment, model selection, data governance, explainability and transparency, performance management, human oversight, cyber and ICT risk, and third-party AI risk.
Compliance impact
The publication does not itself impose binding obligations, penalties, or a compliance deadline, so its immediate legal impact is limited. Its supervisory significance is nevertheless material: the detailed expectations on governance, documentation, human oversight, AI lifecycle controls, cyber risk, and third-party dependencies provide a likely benchmark for supervisory reviews and for future domestic implementation, particularly in higher-risk or autonomous AI use cases.
FSB sets out 12 sound practices to facilitate responsible AI adoption by financial institutions.
AI Analysis
On 15 October 2026, the Financial Stability Board published final guidance containing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption across financial institutions, covering board oversight, risk assessment, the AI lifecycle, human oversight, cyber and ICT risk, and third-party dependencies. The guidance is non-binding and technology-neutral, but it provides a significant supervisory benchmark that firms may be expected to evidence through existing governance, model risk, operational resilience, outsourcing and cybersecurity frameworks, particularly for generative and agentic AI.
Key dates
2026-10-15
FSB published the final report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence.
Suggested considerations
Firms should consider inventorying all material AI use cases, including internally developed tools, vendor-provided models, embedded productivity tools, generative AI and agentic or multi-agent systems, with ownership, purpose, data sources, model dependencies and deployment status recorded.
Compliance teams may wish to map each use case to a documented materiality and risk classification performed at inception and refreshed after material model, data, vendor, scope or operating-environment changes.
Boards and senior management should consider whether AI governance, risk appetite statements, delegated authorities and management information clearly cover autonomous actions, prohibited uses, escalation thresholds and accountability for AI-supported decisions.
Firms should consider integrating AI-specific controls into existing model risk management, operational-risk, ICT-risk, cybersecurity, outsourcing and business-continuity frameworks rather than creating disconnected governance.
Model and technology teams may wish to maintain evidence of data provenance, data quality, testing, validation, performance metrics, drift monitoring, incident handling, explainability assessments and compensating controls where explainability is limited.
For higher-risk or autonomous use cases, firms should consider mandatory human approval triggers, bounded permissions, segregation of duties, real-time or near-real-time monitoring, complete audit trails, emergency stop or rollback capability and periodic reassessment of whether human oversight remains effective.
Procurement and third-party-risk functions should consider enhancing due diligence and contracts for AI providers to address model performance, transparency, training and input data, subcontracting, security, audit access, incident notification, portability, exit planning, concentration risk and service continuity.
Cybersecurity teams should consider adding AI-enabled attacks, prompt injection, data poisoning, model manipulation, deepfakes, automated exploitation and misuse of AI-assisted coding or defensive tools to threat assessments, testing and exercises.
What changed
The FSB replaced its June 2026 consultation with a final framework of 12 proportionate sound practices. The practices require firms to align AI adoption with business strategy and risk appetite; define accountability; incorporate AI risks into enterprise risk management; document AI use and materiality assessments; select models according to business, technical and risk requirements; govern data quality and security; address explainability and stakeholder transparency; test and monitor performance; apply human oversight proportionate to autonomy, complexity, risk and explainability; manage...
Compliance impact
The immediate legal impact is limited because the FSB document is guidance rather than a binding rule and contains no specified implementation deadline, quantitative threshold or direct enforcement mechanism. Its practical supervisory impact is nevertheless material: regulators may use the practices as a reference when assessing governance, operational resilience, model risk, cybersecurity, outsourcing, conduct and senior-management accountability, with heightened scrutiny likely for high-impact, autonomous or poorly explainable AI.
As FSB members review their regulatory and supervisory frameworks, the proposed principles should contribute to efforts to keep such frameworks effective and efficient.
AI Analysis
The FSB published a consultation report on 14 October 2026 proposing eight high-level principles to help authorities modernise regulatory and supervisory frameworks while preserving or enhancing financial-system resilience. The report is not a binding rule for firms, but it signals potential future changes involving proportionality, risk prioritisation, impact analysis, supervisory technology, regulatory coherence and adaptation to new technologies and business models; independent commentary frames the initiative as a move toward more targeted, risk-based oversight and reduced burden, particularly for less complex institutions.
Key dates
2026-10-14
FSB published the consultation report proposing eight high-level regulatory and supervisory modernisation principles.
2027-01-08 Deadline
Deadline for submitting responses to the FSB consultation through the secure online form.
2027-01-01
FSB expects to publish the final report in the first half of 2027; the exact publication date is not specified.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to monitor the consultation and identify whether proposed approaches to proportionality, tailoring, materiality and impact analysis could affect the firm’s prudential, supervisory or reporting perimeter.
Firms should consider preparing evidence-based comments or case studies, directly or through trade associations, on regulatory duplication, cliff effects, implementation costs, resilience outcomes and the consequences of applying complex-institution requirements to simpler business models.
Regulatory affairs teams may wish to map current and planned consultations by home and host authorities against the FSB themes, particularly risk-based supervision, technology-enabled supervision, responsible innovation and framework coherence.
Prudential and risk functions may wish to assess whether current data can demonstrate the firm’s size, complexity, systemic relevance, business-model risks and resilience if authorities introduce more differentiated requirements.
Firms should not treat the consultation as permission to reduce existing controls or as a change to applicable law; existing internationally agreed standards and jurisdiction-specific requirements remain in force unless separately amended.
Stakeholder-relations teams may wish to review communications about any future tailoring proposals so that efficiency measures are not characterised as reducing resilience or supervisory safeguards.
What changed
The FSB has proposed eight principles addressed to financial authorities rather than directly applicable obligations for regulated firms. The principles seek to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, risk focus, coherence and forward-looking nature of regulatory and supervisory frameworks, while remaining consistent with internationally agreed standards, national legal frameworks and jurisdiction-specific circumstances.
Compliance impact
Immediate legal and operational impact is low because the report is consultative and imposes no direct obligations or thresholds on firms. Strategic impact is potentially material over time: authorities may use the final principles to redesign supervisory frameworks, tailor requirements by risk and complexity, remove unnecessary duplication, update thresholds, and alter reporting or supervisory practices, while the FSB states that existing resilience should be preserved or enhanced.
The Basel Committee has published assessment reports on the implementation of its leverage ratio framework (LEV) in Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Australia, Japan, Korea and Switzerland are assessed as compliant; Canada and the United Kingdom are assessed as largely compliant…
Why this matters
The document publishes assessment findings (compliant or largely compliant grades) on implementation of the Basel leverage ratio framework across Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the UK. That makes it a report of findings rather than a rule, consultation, or guidance.
Andrew Bailey delivers note on vulnerabilities and monitoring of global stablecoins and finalised sound practices on AI adoption.
Why this matters
The document is a letter from a named official (FSB Chair Andrew Bailey), which fits the speech category as an official statement. It covers AI adoption, stablecoin cross-border vulnerabilities, public sector backstop funding for banks in resolution, and regulatory modernisation.
Peer review finds that further work is needed to complete the implementation of Key Attribute 6 to ensure resolution remains a credible option to deal with the failure of large systemic banks.
Why this matters
The document is an FSB thematic peer review assessing whether jurisdictions have credible public sector backstop funding for bank resolution under Key Attribute 6. It is a findings-and-recommendations report, so it is classified as report.
Report finds that few FSB jurisdictions have a public sector backstop arranged in advance that can credibly meet the funding needs of large systemic banks in resolution or failure.
Why this matters
The document is an FSB thematic review (findings and recommendations), so it is classified as a report. It concerns public sector backstop funding for systemic banks in resolution, which falls under banking and prudential/resolution frameworks.
Three quarters of the Basel Committee’s 27 member jurisdictions have now published regulations implementing the full set of Basel III standards. Almost all member jurisdictions have publicly announced that banks must apply Basel III by April 2027 or earlier. The Committee will continue to closely monitor and assess…
Why this matters
This is a BIS media release reporting on implementation progress of Basel III standards across member jurisdictions. It is informational in nature, documenting that three-quarters of jurisdictions have published implementing regulations and almost all have announced April 2027 or earlier application dates.
Exchanges experiences and views on developments in artificial intelligence for the global banking system and supervisors, modernisation efforts and implications for the Committee’s future work programme...
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee policy statement announcing multiple final standards and consultations with concrete implementation timelines. The approval of final machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosure standards, G-SIB assessment framework revisions, and upcoming consultations on IRRBB Pillar 2 guidance and cryptoasset...
Almost 300 central bankers and banking supervisors attended the International Conference of Banking Supervisors (ICBS) to discuss the future of supervision and the digitalisation of finance...
Why this matters
This is a media release summarizing the 24th ICBS conference. It documents supervisory consensus on key regulatory themes: enhanced supervisory effectiveness through judgment-led approaches, simplification of regulation, digitalisation risks (AI, crypto, cyber), and bank-NBFI interlinkages.
BIS Americas Office hosts the FSB Americas group in Mexico City.
Why this matters
The content documents a regional meeting of the FSB's Americas consultative group discussing financial stability topics including geopolitical vulnerabilities, extreme weather impacts, stablecoins, AI/quantum computing resilience, and cyber crisis preparedness.
As of the end of 2025, Basel III risk-based capital and leverage ratios remained stable for large internationally active banks compared with June 2025. The average Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) of Group 1 banks improved slightly, while the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) decreased slightly. The average impact of the…
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee monitoring exercise report published by the BIS, presenting data on Basel III compliance as of end-2025. It is informational in nature (not a new rule or consultation), but carries significance as it tracks implementation of binding prudential standards across 149 banks including G-SIBs.
Roundtable to explore how collaboration efforts between the public and private sectors can be structured and applied to prepare for and manage significant operational disruptions.
Why this matters
This is a news item reporting on an FSB roundtable discussion focused on strengthening operational resilience through public-private collaboration. The content discusses practical steps, relationship-building, lessons learned, and interoperability across sectors and jurisdictions.
The potential impact of frontier AI on cyber risk is the most immediate concern to the financial system, says FSB Chair, Andrew Bailey.
Why this matters
This is a policy statement from the FSB Chair to G20 authorities identifying frontier AI and cyber risk as priority concerns requiring jurisdictional and institutional response. The letter calls for concrete steps on safe AI deployment and third-party resilience, indicating regulatory intent to develop standards.
In his letter to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, Andrew Bailey, warns that markets remain vulnerable to a potential disorderly correction and cautions on the risks posed by frontier AI models.
Why this matters
This is a speech/letter from the FSB Chair to G20 policymakers flagging frontier AI as an emerging systemic risk to financial stability, particularly through cyber vulnerabilities and market confidence impacts.
In this speech, John Schindler, FSB Secretary General, addresses the importance of international organisations in a shifting geopolitical landscape.
Why this matters
This is a speech by the FSB Secretary General addressing the state of multilateralism in financial regulation. While not a binding rule or consultation, it provides noteworthy regulatory signals about FSB priorities and approach.
Bank of Mauritius hosts FSB Sub-Saharan Africa group in Mauritius.
Why this matters
The content describes a regional FSB meeting in Mauritius covering financial stability topics including cross-border payments, stablecoins, and climate vulnerabilities.
In this speech, FSB Secretary General, John Schindler highlights the importance of resolve in resolution planning, emphasising collaboration, preparedness, in maintaining financial system resilience.
Why this matters
This is an informational speech (urgency: null) but carries noteworthy regulatory signals. The FSB Secretary General explicitly announces a strategic review of crisis preparedness and emphasizes a deliberate policy shift from sector-by-sector resolution frameworks to integrated cross-sectoral planning.
At the virtual event, hosted by OMFIF, FSB Deputy Secretary General calls for a debate on the next steps for cross-border payments beyond 2027.
Why this matters
This is an opening remarks speech at a virtual event, not a binding obligation or final rule. However, it carries concrete regulatory signals about the FSB's thinking on cross-border payments policy beyond 2027, including questions about standardization (ISO 20022), stablecoins, regional coordination, and...
In this speech, Dominique Laboureix, Chair of the FSB Resolution Steering Group, discusses the importance of cross-border, cross-sectoral crisis preparedness.
Why this matters
This is a speech by the Chair of the FSB Resolution Steering Group at the ReSolve event, focused on cross-sectoral interconnections in financial stability and crisis management.
The FSB hosted a virtual outreach event on 7 July 2026.
Why this matters
This is an announcement of a virtual outreach event supporting an FSB consultation on responsible AI adoption. The underlying consultation report (published 10 June 2026) is substantive policy guidance on AI governance and risk management for financial institutions.
The sustainability of the AI boom, financial vulnerabilities and strained public finances are among pressure points facing the global economy, along with the return of inflation. The interplay of record-high public debt with the increasing role of highly-leveraged hedge funds creates a new sovereign-financial…
Why this matters
This is a BIS press release accompanying its Annual Economic Report 2026. It is informational/advisory in nature (not a binding rule, consultation, or enforcement action) but carries significant regulatory signals about emerging risks and policy priorities: fiscal-financial stability nexus, non-bank leverage (hedge...
The sustainability of the AI boom, financial vulnerabilities and strained public finances are among pressure points facing the global economy, along with the return of inflation.
Why this matters
This is a BIS media release accompanying its Annual Economic Report 2026. It identifies four pressure points (inflation, AI sustainability, financial vulnerabilities, fiscal strain) and emphasizes policy priorities including price stability, financial stability beyond banking, and fiscal discipline.
Digital innovation is transforming finance, potentially enabling greater competition and efficiency in payment systems and financial intermediation. However, it also poses new macro-financial challenges and raises the broader question of how to preserve trust in money in the digital age.
Why this matters
This is a BIS media release accompanying a special chapter of the Annual Economic Report 2026. It articulates high-level policy direction on stablecoins and tokenisation, identifies structural weaknesses in current stablecoin designs, and calls for coordinated global regulatory efforts on two fronts: near-term...
Roundtable hosted by the Bank of Spain discusses external audit.
Why this matters
This is a news item reporting on an FSB convened roundtable discussion (not a binding rule, consultation, or enforcement action). The content addresses structural changes in the audit profession driven by technology (AI) and ownership shifts, with implications for audit quality and financial stability.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published a range of practices report on information and communication technology (ICT) risk management. ICT is a key component of operational risk management, playing a vital role in supporting the broader goal of achieving operational resilience.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee publication of a range of practices report (not binding rules, but authoritative guidance) addressing ICT risk management as a component of operational resilience. The content is informational/guidance-focused rather than a consultation or final rule, and targets banks specifically.
Basel Committee publishes report on information and communication technology risk management.
Why this matters
This is a published report from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) analyzing ICT risk management practices across jurisdictions. The content explicitly addresses operational resilience and ICT/cyber risk in banking.
The Basel Committee has published a report describing a range of observed information and communication technology (ICT) risk management practices across jurisdictions to address non-malicious ICT incidents.
Why this matters
This is a media release announcing publication of a Basel Committee range of practices report on ICT risk management. The report documents observed practices across jurisdictions and is intended as a reference for banks and supervisory authorities.
The Project Agorá prototype demonstrates how tokenisation and programmable technologies can address long-standing inefficiencies in wholesale cross-border payments at scale, while preserving the safety and integrity of settlement in central bank reserves.
Why this matters
This is a press release and research report from the BIS announcing Project Agorá findings on tokenisation for wholesale payments. It is informational and exploratory in nature (explicitly noted as experimental), not a binding obligation or final rule.
The Project Agorá prototype demonstrates how tokenisation and programmable technologies can address long-standing inefficiencies in wholesale cross-border payments at scale, while preserving the safety and integrity of settlement in central bank reserves.
Why this matters
The content is a media release and research report from the BIS Innovation Hub detailing Project Agorá's exploratory findings on tokenised wholesale cross-border payments.
Agrees to publish range of practices report on information and communication technology risk management. Progresses its targeted review of the prudential standard for banks' cryptoasset exposures. Considers targeted updates of its principles on liquidity risk.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee press release documenting meeting outcomes and regulatory work in progress. The Committee approved publication of an ICT risk management practices report (addressing operational resilience), is progressing a targeted review of cryptoasset prudential standards, and is considering updates to...
Agrees to publish range of practices report on information and communication technology risk management. Progresses its targeted review of the prudential standard for banks' cryptoasset exposures. Considers targeted updates of its principles on liquidity risk.
Why this matters
This is a media release documenting Basel Committee meeting outcomes. The content supports three primary regulatory initiatives: (1) publication of ICT risk management practices report addressing operational resilience, (2) ongoing targeted review of cryptoasset prudential standards with updates promised later in...
Banks' liquidity ratios increased slightly while Basel III risk-based capital and leverage ratios are stable in the first half of 2025. The average impact of the Basel III framework on the Tier 1 minimum required capital (MRC) of Group 1 banks decreased, driven by implementation progress. The newly expanded…
Why this matters
This is a BIS Basel III monitoring exercise publication reporting on H1 2025 data for large internationally active banks (Group 1) and smaller banks (Group 2). The content covers liquidity ratios (LCR, NSFR), risk-based capital, leverage ratios, and introduces expanded cryptoasset exposure reporting.
The report sets out the impact of the Basel III framework, including the December 2017 finalisation of the Basel III reforms and the January 2019 finalisation of the market risk framework.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee monitoring report (QIS - Quantitative Impact Study) analyzing the impact of Basel III framework reforms on large internationally active banks.
This document sets out a final technical amendment to the Basel Framework. Technical amendments are defined as changes in standards that are not substantial in nature but that cannot be unambiguously resolved based on the current text. The amendment relates to the standardised approach to operational risk.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee finalized a technical amendment to the Basel Framework on the standardized approach to operational risk, following consultation in June 2025. It also finalized an FAQ on the standardized approach to market risk and made consequential FAQ updates, with the revised text incorporated into the consolidated Basel Framework.
Key dates
2025-06-01
Basel Committee consultation on the proposed technical amendment was issued in June 2025
2026-03-23
Basel Committee finalized the technical amendment and related FAQs
2029-03-23 Deadline
Latest date by which Basel Committee members agreed to implement the technical amendment
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map the amended operational risk text into internal capital calculation policies and control documentation.
Firms should consider whether any existing business indicator calculations or interpretations rely on the previously ambiguous operational risk wording.
Risk and regulatory reporting teams may wish to review the finalized market risk FAQ and related FAQ updates for any knock-on effects on methodology documentation.
Implementation planning may need to account for local transposition or supervisory timelines, with the Basel Committee indicating implementation within three years at the latest.
What changed
The technical amendment is limited to a clarification in the standardized approach to operational risk rather than a substantive policy rewrite. The source summary indicates the amendment addresses an ambiguity in the existing text that could not be resolved unambiguously under the prior wording, and it specifically relates to the operational risk standardized approach. The document also includes a finalized response to one FAQ on the standardized approach to market risk, together with consequential amendments to related FAQs.
Compliance impact
The practical impact appears moderate rather than transformative because the Basel Committee characterizes the change as a technical amendment, not a substantial new standard. However, because it affects the Basel Framework text used for operational risk capital calculations, firms may need to adjust methodology interpretation and documentation to avoid inconsistencies with supervisory expectations.
Ben Gully will lead the international standard setter's Secretariat in Basel. Mr Gully has been appointed for a three-year term, starting in August. He is currently Deputy Superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) in Canada.
Why this matters
The content is purely administrative—announcing Ben Gully's appointment as Secretary General of the Basel Committee effective August 2026. While the Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for bank prudential regulation, this update contains no new rules, guidance, consultations, or enforcement actions.
Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS) welcome the progress to fully implement Basel III. GHOS endorsed targeted reviews of the Committee's prudential standards for cryptoassets and global systemically important banks.
Why this matters
This is a GHOS press release announcing implementation progress on Basel III (affecting prudential capital requirements for banks globally) and endorsing two targeted reviews: one on cryptoasset exposures and one on G-SIB assessment methodology.
The Basel Committee has published a consultation on a consolidated version of its guidelines and sound practices. The consolidated version aims to improve accessibility and substantially streamline guidance materials. Comments on the consultation are requested by 26 June 2026.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has opened a consultation on a new consolidated website version of its guidelines and sound practices for banks and supervisors, with comments due by 2026-06-26. The key compliance significance is structural rather than substantive: the Committee says the exercise is intended to improve accessibility and streamline existing guidance, not introduce new expectations.
Key dates
2026-02-26
Basel Committee published the consultation and launched the draft consolidated guidelines and sound practices website
2026-06-26 Deadline
Deadline for comments on the consultation
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the consultative document and assess whether the new modular structure affects internal policy libraries, control inventories, or regulatory mapping tools.
Firms may wish to compare their current reliance on BIS guidelines and sound practices against the consolidated version to identify any content that has been removed as outdated, duplicative, or superseded.
Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-06-26 if the draft structure, organization, or accessibility of the consolidated guidance would affect supervisory implementation or internal interpretive work.
Supervisory liaison teams may wish to confirm that local or group-wide references to BIS guidance remain aligned with the consolidated presentation rather than legacy PDF documents.
What changed
The Committee has launched a draft consolidated version of its guidelines and sound practices in a modular format on a new BIS website section. It says the new structure reorganises existing guidance, mirrors the format used for the Basel Framework, and is intended to make the materials more user-friendly and easier to navigate. The Committee states there was no intention to introduce new expectations through this exercise.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is moderate because the Basel Committee explicitly says the exercise does not create new expectations. The main consequence is that firms and supervisors may need to re-map references to legacy guidance, since the Committee has restructured and materially reduced the volume of published materials.
The Basel Committee on Banking supervision has launched a new section of its website that sets out a consolidated version of its guidelines and sound practices for banks and supervisors.
Why this matters
This is a news item announcing a website redesign consolidating existing Basel Committee guidelines and sound practices into modular format. The content describes an accessibility improvement to already-published materials, with a closed consultation period.
Discusses vulnerabilities in government bond-backed repo markets. Discusses progress of a targeted review of the prudential standard for banks' cryptoasset exposures. Announces date and location of the International Conference of Banking Supervisors.
Why this matters
This is a press release announcing Basel Committee meeting outcomes. The text explicitly discusses an expedited review of cryptoasset exposure standards (with update promised later in 2026), approved technical amendments to operational risk standardised approach (publishing March 2026), and vulnerabilities in repo...
This is a BIS working paper (informational/research content, not a binding rule or consultation) analyzing non-maturity deposit stability in response to the 2023 banking turmoil.
Synthetic risk transfers (SRT) transactions involve transferring all or a portion of the credit risk of a pool of assets to a counterparty while the bank retains ownership of the underlying assets.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee monitoring report on synthetic risk transfers, a capital relief mechanism used primarily by banks with NBFI investors. The content explicitly addresses credit risk management, capital requirements implications, and systemic interconnection risks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published a report on synthetic risk transfer (SRT) transactions. The economic importance of SRT markets has grown rapidly over the last decade and they have become an important source of capital relief for corporate credit risk.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee report publication analyzing synthetic risk transfer markets. The content is informational and analytical rather than prescriptive or binding.
François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Bank of France, today announced his decision to leave the Bank of France at the beginning of June to become President of the Fondation Apprentis d'Auteuil. Accordingly, he will step down from his position as Chair of the BIS Board of Directors.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing François Villeroy de Galhau's resignation from his position as Chair of the BIS Board of Directors to pursue a role at a charitable foundation.
The Bank for International Settlements has reviewed the content of the FX Global Code and acknowledges that the Code represents a set of principles generally recognised as good practice in the wholesale foreign exchange (FX) market.
Why this matters
The BIS press release announces its commitment to conduct FX market activities consistent with the FX Global Code principles. This is an informational statement of compliance with a recognized voluntary code of conduct, not a new rule, consultation, or enforcement action.
Since its publication in 2013, BCBS 239 has become a foundational framework for data management and risk management practices in the banking sector. While its principles still apply, its implementation has evolved over the years, reflecting changes in the business, technology and risk landscape.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee newsletter providing thematic guidance on BCBS 239 principles implementation based on recent supervisory outreach. While it does not introduce new binding obligations, it offers noteworthy regulatory signals on current supervisory expectations regarding risk data aggregation, governance...
Since the banking turmoil of 2023, the Committee has worked to strengthen supervisory effectiveness in relation to material risks that could result in financial losses, impacting the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Why this matters
This is an informational newsletter from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) documenting supervisory cooperation and best practices following the 2023 banking turmoil.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) today published a report that reviews the implementation of margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
Why this matters
This is a published assessment by BCBS and IOSCO reviewing implementation of the 2013 margin requirements standard for non-centrally cleared derivatives. The report confirms the framework is working effectively, finds no material issues, and proposes no changes—making it informational rather than prescriptive.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) today published a review of the implementation of the framework for margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives.
Why this matters
The BCBS and IOSCO review of margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives is a substantive assessment of an existing post-2008 framework. The finding of no material issues and recommendation for continued supervisory monitoring represents concrete regulatory guidance, but the absence of new obligations or...
As part of its 2025-2026 work programme, the Basel Committee is advancing various supervisory initiatives related to the digitalisation of finance.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has published its Principles for the sound management of third-party risk, setting a common baseline for banks and supervisors as firms become more dependent on third-party service providers. The publication matters because it broadens the supervisory lens beyond traditional outsourcing to a wider range of third-party arrangements, with implications for governance, due diligence, contracts, monitoring, and exit planning.
Key dates
2025-12-10
Basel Committee publication date for the Principles for the sound management of third-party risk
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map all third-party arrangements against the new lifecycle expectations, including non-traditional outsourcing and intra-group or technology-enabled arrangements.
Firms should consider whether board-approved third-party risk appetite, tolerance for disruption, and reporting lines are documented clearly and align with current governance arrangements.
Banks may wish to review due diligence, contracting, onboarding, monitoring, continuity, and exit procedures to confirm they address the principle-based expectations across the full relationship lifecycle.
Supervisory liaison teams may wish to assess whether concentration risk, critical provider dependencies, and cross-border coordination issues are adequately captured in existing risk registers and escalation frameworks.
What changed
The document sets out 12 principles covering the full third-party service provider lifecycle, divided between bank-facing expectations and supervisor-facing expectations. For banks, the principles cover governance and strategy, board and senior management oversight, risk assessment, due diligence, legally binding contracts, onboarding, ongoing monitoring, business continuity, and termination/exit management.
Compliance impact
The publication is a material supervisory signal rather than a binding rule, but it raises the expected standard for how banks identify, manage, and oversee third-party dependencies. Institutions that rely heavily on external providers may face closer supervisory scrutiny of governance, resilience, and concentration risk, especially where critical services are involved.
The Basel Committee has published principles for the sound management of third-party risk in the banking sector. The principles establish a common baseline for banks and supervisors for the sound management of third-party risk. The Committee will continue to monitor developments related to the digitalisation of…
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee published final principles for the sound management of third-party risk in the banking sector on 2025-12-10. The publication matters because it creates a common prudential baseline for banks and supervisors and explicitly supersedes the Basel/Joint Forum 2005 outsourcing paper for banking-sector purposes.
Key dates
2025-12-10
Basel Committee published the principles for the sound management of third-party risk
2024-10-09 Deadline
Comment deadline for the consultative version of the principles
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to compare existing outsourcing and third-party risk frameworks against the new 12-principle baseline to identify gaps in governance, lifecycle controls, and supervisor-facing documentation.
Firms may wish to review board and senior management oversight arrangements for third-party risk to ensure responsibilities, risk appetite, escalation, and reporting are clearly assigned.
Banks should consider whether their third-party inventories, risk assessments, due diligence files, contracts, monitoring processes, and exit planning are aligned to a full lifecycle model rather than a narrow outsourcing model.
Supervisory relations teams may wish to map the principles against home and host jurisdiction requirements to identify where local rules are already aligned or where additional supervisory engagement may be needed.
Operational resilience teams may wish to test whether critical third-party dependencies, including cloud and technology providers, are sufficiently captured in business continuity and termination planning.
What changed
The Basel Committee replaced the older 2005 Joint Forum outsourcing guidance with a new 12-principle framework focused on third-party service provider arrangements in banking. The framework is broader than traditional outsourcing and is designed to cover the larger, more diverse third-party ecosystem created by digitalisation and financial technology.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is broad for banking-sector third-party risk management because the publication updates the prudential benchmark supervisors may use when assessing governance, controls, and resilience. The Committee does not describe legal sanctions, but firms that lag the baseline may face supervisory challenge, remediation expectations, or pressure to strengthen third-party oversight and lifecycle controls.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has issued a consultation on Machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosure. The consultation proposes to make the data disclosed by banks (so-called Pillar 3 disclosures) available in a machine-readable format.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee issued a consultation proposing a standard for machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures, aimed at making banks’ quantitative prudential disclosures easier to aggregate, process, and compare across jurisdictions. The proposal matters because it adds technical format requirements without changing the underlying disclosure content, signaling a move toward standardized supervisory data infrastructure.
Key dates
2025-12-05
Basel Committee publishes the consultation on machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosure
2026-03-05 Deadline
Deadline for comments on the consultative document
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review current Pillar 3 disclosure production processes and determine whether quantitative disclosures can be generated in a machine-readable format.
Banks may wish to map any existing PDF-based Pillar 3 outputs against likely technical data structure requirements, including whether disclosures could be published on a website or via a central repository.
Supervisors and policy teams may wish to assess how local disclosure arrangements align with the proposed global standard and whether current formats already satisfy the envisaged approach.
Firms subject to overlapping regional disclosure regimes may wish to compare current machine-readable standards with the Basel Committee proposal to identify expected implementation gaps.
What changed
The consultation proposes a new standard for machine-readable quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures across Basel Committee member jurisdictions. It would introduce both a requirement and technical specifications for producing disclosures in a machine-readable format, while leaving the substantive disclosure obligations unchanged. The consultation also contemplates that national supervisors would choose whether disclosures are posted on banks’ own websites or in a central repository.
Compliance impact
The Basel Committee describes the issue as a practical transparency and data-usability problem, because many banks currently publish Pillar 3 information only in PDF format, making cross-bank comparison difficult. The proposal is not a new prudential capital requirement, but it could materially affect disclosure production, data governance, and supervisory reporting processes for affected banks.
The Basel Committee has published a consultation on a standard format for machine-readable disclosures by banks. The proposed standard format would make existing disclosure by banks more accessible and easier to aggregate. Comments on the proposals are requested by 5 March 2026.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has opened a consultation on adding a standard format for machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures by banks. The proposal is designed to make existing disclosure data easier to access, process, aggregate, and compare across banks, without changing the underlying disclosure requirements.
Key dates
2025-12-05
Basel Committee publishes the consultative document on machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures
2026-03-05 Deadline
Deadline for comments on the proposed additions to the disclosure standard
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the consultative document and assess whether current Pillar 3 publication processes could support machine-readable output.
Banks with existing machine-readable disclosure regimes may wish to map their current approach against the proposed global standard to identify any gaps or duplication.
Supervisory affairs teams may wish to consider whether disclosures are currently hosted on bank websites or through a central repository model, since the proposal leaves that implementation choice to national supervisors.
Stakeholders may wish to evaluate the technical specifications for the required machine-readable formats and the associated data taxonomy requirements.
Interested firms may wish to submit comments by the consultation deadline if they want to influence the final standard.
What changed
The Committee is proposing additions to its disclosure standard that would require quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures to be available in standardised machine-readable formats across member jurisdictions. The proposal includes technical specifications for producing machine-readable disclosures, while leaving the substantive disclosure content unchanged. National supervisors would decide whether banks publish the machine-readable disclosures on their own websites or through a centralised data repository.
Compliance impact
The consultation is materially relevant for banks because it could change the format in which Pillar 3 disclosures must be published, including technical delivery and accessibility requirements. The Basel Committee says the goal is not to change substantive disclosure obligations, but it does expect more standardisation and broader comparability across jurisdictions.
This is a Basel Committee assessment report on the UK's implementation of global prudential standards. The content is informational in nature—publishing compliance assessment results rather than imposing new obligations or enforcement actions.
This report describes the Committee's assessment of the implementation of the Basel Committee's large exposures framework (LEX) in the UK. The UK LEX regulations have been assessed as largely compliant.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee RCAP assessment report evaluating UK implementation of the large exposures framework. The content explicitly addresses credit risk and supervisory cooperation through a compliance assessment. The report confirms the UK is 'largely compliant' with the Basel Framework's LEX requirements.
This report describes the Committee's assessment of the implementation of the Basel Committee's Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) standard in the UK. The UK NSFR regulations have been assessed as largely compliant.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee RCAP assessment report confirming the UK's implementation of the Net Stable Funding Ratio standard. The content is informational and retrospective (assessing past compliance), not prescriptive or imposing new obligations.
This revised version of the Handbook includes specific guidance for the assessments of the Basel III revisions to risk weighted assets and the leverage ratio framework.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee updated its RCAP Handbook for jurisdictional assessments to reflect how assessors should evaluate domestic prudential rules for consistency and completeness against the Basel framework. The revised handbook matters because it adds specific guidance for assessing the Basel III revisions to risk-weighted assets and the leverage ratio framework, which are core bank capital and leverage standards.
Key dates
2025-12-03
BIS published the revised RCAP Handbook for jurisdictional assessments.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review whether their jurisdiction’s Basel III implementation, especially risk-weighted assets and leverage ratio rules, aligns with the standards that RCAP assessors will evaluate.
Supervisory liaison functions may wish to check the updated handbook when preparing for jurisdictional reviews or responding to RCAP questionnaires and evidence requests.
Prudential policy teams may wish to map any domestic deviations from Basel standards and document the rationale, materiality, and implementation status for possible RCAP scrutiny.
What changed
The publication updates the Handbook that RCAP assessors, assessed jurisdictions, and other experts use to conduct jurisdictional reviews of domestic prudential regulations against Basel minimum requirements. The handbook is a flexible compendium, meaning its guidance and principles are revised or elaborated as RCAP evolves and as lessons from past assessments are incorporated. This revised version specifically adds guidance for assessments of the Basel III revisions to risk-weighted assets and the leverage ratio framework.
Compliance impact
The publication is procedurally significant because RCAP findings can identify material gaps between domestic prudential rules and Basel minimum standards. It does not itself impose sanctions or deadlines, but it can increase supervisory scrutiny and highlight inconsistencies that jurisdictions may need to address.
Basel Committee provides additional information regarding the 2025 G-SIB assessment. Further details include global denominators and individual bank indicators. The release accompanies the Financial Stability Board's updated G-SIB list.
Why this matters
This is an informational release accompanying the FSB's updated G-SIB list. The Basel Committee has published additional transparency on its 2025 assessment methodology, denominators, individual bank indicators, cut-off scores, and bucket thresholds.
This document sets out a technical amendment to the Basel Framework. The amendment relates to the circumstance where a bank uses a guarantee or credit derivative to hedge the counterparty credit risk (CCR) of a derivative exposure subject to the standardised approach to counterparty credit risk or the internal models…
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has finalized a technical amendment to the Basel Framework clarifying how banks should treat guarantees and credit derivatives used to hedge counterparty credit risk on derivative exposures. The change matters because it affects exposure measurement and capital treatment under SA-CCR and the internal models method, especially where protection is fixed, capped, or only partially covers the exposure.
Key dates
2024-11-27
The technical amendment was published for consultation
2025-01-31 Deadline
Comment deadline on the consultation version
2025-10-28
The BIS page reflects the final consolidated standard
2028-11-01 Deadline
Committee members agreed to implement the revised standard by this date at the latest
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to identify derivative portfolios where fixed or capped guarantees or credit derivatives are used as CCR hedges under SA-CCR or IMM.
Firms should consider reviewing capital calculation logic and documentation for protected and unprotected exposure portions to confirm the final Basel treatment is reflected.
Banks may wish to assess whether any legacy policy, model, or reporting language still references the consultation version and needs updating ahead of implementation.
Risk and capital teams should consider whether exclusions for securities financing transactions and securitisation exposures are correctly applied in governance, procedures, and systems.
What changed
The amendment clarifies the treatment of guarantees and credit derivatives that hedge counterparty credit risk of derivative exposures subject to the standardized approach to counterparty credit risk or the internal models method. The Basel text indicates the final standard aligns the treatment of fixed or capped protection more closely with the treatment of eligible collateral and residual risk to the original counterparty.
Compliance impact
The impact is moderate to high for banks with material derivative CCR portfolios because the amendment changes how certain hedges are recognized in capital calculations. The regulator describes the change as technical rather than substantial, but it is still a binding Basel Framework adjustment that firms will need to implement consistently to avoid misstatement of CCR capital requirements.
Basel III risk-based capital ratios increase while leverage ratio and Net Stable Funding Ratio remain stable for large internationally active banks.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) quantitative impact study (QIS) monitoring report on Basel III framework implementation as of end-December 2024.
This paper studies how banks manage their equity capital in the short run, particularly during periods of distress, based on Basel III monitoring data. The findings challenge the conventional assumption that bank capital is largely exogenous in the short run, meaning that banks cannot adjust their capital level in a…
Why this matters
This is a BIS/BCBS working paper (research publication) analyzing how banks actively manage capital in the short run using Basel III monitoring data. It challenges conventional assumptions and provides evidence-based insights into bank capital dynamics during distress periods.
This literature review aims to support the work of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision by providing insights from academic and policy work (including policy notes and speeches). It also draws on lessons from observed bank failures and supervisory practices.
Why this matters
This is a working paper and literature review from the BCBS that synthesizes academic and policy lessons on banking supervision effectiveness. It is informational and forward-looking rather than prescriptive, supporting the Committee's work on supervisory frameworks.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision horizon scanning report on banks' interconnections with non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs).
Why this matters
This is a published horizon scanning report from the Basel Committee analyzing interconnections between banks and non-bank financial intermediaries. The report describes direct and indirect linkages, discusses risks and vulnerabilities, includes case studies and stylised failure scenarios, and emphasizes data...
This voluntary framework for the disclosure of climate-related financial risks includes both qualitative and quantitative information. The Committee has agreed this framework will be voluntary in nature, with jurisdictions to consider whether to implement it domestically.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee framework document on voluntary disclosure of climate-related financial risks. The content explicitly targets banks and establishes a framework (both qualitative and quantitative) for disclosure. It is informational/guidance in nature (voluntary, not binding), making urgency null.
Technical amendment issued for comment by 25 July 2025, June 2025
Why this matters
This is a BCBS consultative document (closed status as of 10 June 2025) addressing technical amendments and interpretative issues under the Basel Framework, specifically for standardised approaches to operational risk and credit risk.
This is a BCBS guidelines update revising principles for credit risk management first issued 25 years ago. The content describes four key areas of credit risk governance (environment, granting, administration/monitoring, controls) and alignment with Basel Framework.
This report describes the Committee's assessment of the implementation of the Basel Committee's large exposures framework (LEX) in Türkiye. The Turkish LEX regulations have been assessed as compliant.
Why this matters
This is an RCAP assessment report confirming Türkiye's compliance with the Basel large exposures framework. It is informational in nature (assessment/monitoring outcome rather than new obligation), but carries significance as it documents regulatory consistency monitoring by the Basel Committee.
This report presents the findings of an RCAP Assessment Team (Assessment Team) on the adoption of the Basel Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) standard in Türkiye as of 15 January 2025.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee RCAP assessment report confirming Türkiye's compliant implementation of the Net Stable Funding Ratio standard. The content is informational and retrospective (assessing past implementation), not introducing new obligations. It addresses liquidity risk prudential requirements for banks.
Basel III risk-based capital ratios increase while leverage ratio and NSFR remain stable for large internationally active banks
Why this matters
This is a Basel III monitoring report (QIS) from the BIS/BCBS dated 26 March 2025, presenting end-June 2024 data on capital ratios, leverage ratios, and NSFR for large internationally active banks.