We track 21 General updates from International regulators, published by BIS and FSB. The archive covers 14 news items, 4 consultations and 1 speech. Most recent update: September 2026. Coverage runs from 2025 to 2026.
FSB annual financial report for the 12-month period ending 31 March 2026.
Why this matters
The FSB Annual Financial Report is a standard audited financial statement and governance disclosure document covering the 12-month period ending 31 March 2026. It contains financial statements, governance arrangements, and transparency/accountability mechanisms.
Report on the audit of the financial statements of the FSB Annual Financial Report 2025/2026.
Why this matters
The content is an auditor's report on the FSB's internal financial statements for 2025-2026. It is organizational/administrative in nature and does not contain regulatory requirements, guidance, enforcement actions, or policy signals directed at financial firms. The RSS summary provides minimal substantive detail.
In his role as FSB Regional Engagement Chair, Ayman M. Al-Sayari, Governor of the Saudi Central Bank (SAMA), will advise the FSB Chair and Plenary on how to enhance the Regional Consultative Groups’ contribution to the FSB’s work.
Why this matters
The update announces Ayman M. Al-Sayari's appointment as FSB Regional Engagement Chair. While it mentions FSB priority areas (crypto-assets, stablecoins, cross-border payments) and Regional Consultative Groups, the content is purely administrative—a leadership appointment.
Consultation responses to ‘Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation report‘.
AI Analysis
The FSB has published public responses to its consultation on sound practices for responsible AI adoption, following the 10 June 2026 consultation report and the 22 July 2026 comment deadline. This is a consultation-stage update, so it does not create binding obligations, but it signals the direction of emerging global expectations for AI governance in financial institutions.
Key dates
2026-06-10
FSB published the consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
2026-07-22 Deadline
Deadline for written comments on the consultation report
2026-08-06
FSB published the public responses to the consultation
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation responses to identify supervisory themes and likely refinements to the final FSB report.
Firms considering or already using AI may wish to map their current governance, risk, and lifecycle controls against the FSB’s 12 proposed sound practices.
Risk and model governance teams may wish to assess whether their controls address generative AI, agentic AI, and third-party or technology dependencies in a way that aligns with the consultation’s focus.
Public policy and regulatory affairs functions may wish to track the final report once published, as it may influence national supervisory expectations even if it remains non-binding soft law.
What changed
The publication makes available the written public comments received on the FSB’s consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The underlying consultation proposed a menu of 12 sound practices for financial institutions to apply across organisation-wide AI governance and the full AI lifecycle, including emerging forms such as generative AI and agentic AI.
Compliance impact
The immediate compliance impact is limited because this is a consultation-response publication and the underlying document is non-binding guidance. The practical consequence is that firms may see the direction of future international supervisory expectations on AI governance, lifecycle controls, and related technology and third-party risks.
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 her remarks, Michelle W. Bowman, Chair of the FSB Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC), discusses the FSB’s Consultation Report on the Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence.
AI Analysis
The FSB used this speech to signal that its consultation report on sound practices for responsible AI adoption is meant to guide, not hard-code, how financial institutions govern AI use. For compliance teams, the key message is that the draft framework is risk-based and proportional, with lighter-touch expectations for lower-risk uses and greater scrutiny where AI is material to business operations or legal and regulatory obligations.
Key dates
2026-06-10
FSB published the consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence
2026-07-07
FSB virtual outreach event and Michelle W. Bowman opening remarks on the consultation
2026-07-22 Deadline
Deadline for public comments on the consultation report
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map all AI use cases and classify which deployments are material to business operations, legal obligations, or regulatory obligations.
Firms should consider whether existing governance, model risk, and operational risk controls already cover AI lifecycle risks, including selection, data governance, monitoring, human oversight, and cyber/ICT exposures.
Institutions may wish to test whether AI governance is proportionate by business size and complexity, especially where lower-risk use cases could justify lighter controls.
Board and senior management teams should consider whether roles, responsibilities, and escalation paths for AI are clearly defined and documented.
Firms may wish to maintain a current inventory of AI systems and vendors so they can evidence oversight, dependency management, and remediation decisions if the final report adopts similar sound practices.
Compliance teams should monitor the final FSB report later in 2026 and compare any finalized practices against current internal policies, third-party controls, and incident response arrangements.
What changed
This publication does not impose new binding rules; it is an opening remark supporting the FSB’s June 2026 consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence. The speaker says the report is intended to be finalized later in 2026 as a U.S. G20 deliverable, and that feedback from the public comment process will shape the final text.
Compliance impact
The current publication is consultative and non-binding, so immediate legal impact is limited. The practical consequence is preparatory pressure: firms that use AI should expect a future FSB final report to reinforce risk-based governance, proportionality, and stronger controls for materially important AI deployments.
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...
AI Analysis
BIS published a 23 June 2026 press release summarizing a special chapter of its Annual Economic Report 2026 on the future monetary and financial system. The message for compliance teams is that BIS favors integrating tokenisation into the existing two-tier system rather than treating stablecoins as the core monetary instrument, because current stablecoin designs do not sufficiently preserve trust, singleness, redeemability, or financial integrity.
Key dates
2026-06-23
BIS published the press release and pre-released the relevant Annual Economic Report 2026 chapter
2026-06-28
BIS plans to publish the full Annual Economic Report 2026 and the BIS Annual Report 2025/26
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to assess whether any stablecoin-related business line depends on assumptions about parity redeemability, interoperability, or reserve quality that BIS identifies as weak points.
Firms involved in tokenisation initiatives may wish to map their proposed operating model against the two-tier framework BIS endorses, especially where central bank money, commercial bank money, and tokenised assets would interact on programmable platforms.
Banks and payment providers may wish to review funding, liquidity, and settlement assumptions for any products that could materially increase stablecoin usage or tokenised-money circulation.
Crypto-facing firms may wish to examine whether current controls for financial crime, ledger interoperability, and customer redemption rights would satisfy a more stringent supervisory approach if stablecoins are used at scale.
Market infrastructure and capital markets firms may wish to consider whether a unified-ledger or tokenised-deposit architecture could reduce reconciliation and settlement frictions in cross-border or wholesale workflows.
Risk and policy teams may wish to monitor BIS follow-on publications, including the full Annual Economic Report 2026, for more detailed supervisory or implementation signals when it is published on 2026-06-28.
What changed
The publication is a policy signal, not a binding rule. BIS argues that tokenisation—digital representation of assets on programmable platforms—can be embedded in the current monetary architecture, where central banks provide the monetary anchor and commercial banks provide services to the public, to enable programmable payments and other efficiencies.
BIS also states that current stablecoin designs fall short of the key properties of money, particularly singleness, meaning the ability to redeem different forms of money exactly at par for central bank money.
Compliance impact
The publication has strategic significance but no direct binding compliance obligations. Its practical impact is that supervisors and policymakers may increasingly scrutinize stablecoin redeemability, reserve quality, financial crime controls, and interoperability, while encouraging tokenised-money models that preserve central bank money as the anchor.
BIS Board of Directors elects Fabio Panetta, Governor of the Bank of Italy, as its new Chair Gabriel Galípolo, Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil, is appointed Chair of the meeting of Governors of major emerging market economies Michele Bullock, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, is appointed Chair of the…
Why this matters
The content is purely informational, announcing the election of central bank governors to leadership roles at the BIS and its committees. It contains no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or obligations affecting regulated firms.
Press release from May 12, 2026 on central bank governors appointed to lead the BIS board of directors, the meeting of governors of major emerging market economies, the asian consultative council and the committee of the global financial system.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing leadership appointments at the BIS (Fabio Panetta as Board Chair, and three other central bank governors to key BIS groups).
CPMI-IOSCO is seeking input from interested stakeholders on amendments to CCP-related resilience guidance and public quantitative disclosures requirements.
AI Analysis
CPMI and IOSCO have launched a consultation on targeted amendments to the 2017 CCP resilience guidance and the 2015 public quantitative disclosure (PQD) standards for central counterparties. The changes are intended to implement selected proposals from the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO report on initial margin transparency and responsiveness, with comments due by 30 June 2026.
Key dates
2026-05-06
CPMI-IOSCO published the consultation on updated CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosures
2026-06-30 Deadline
Deadline to submit consultation comments to the CPMI and IOSCO secretariats
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO initial margin report to map likely changes to CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosure expectations.
CCPs may wish to assess whether their current margin simulation tools, responsiveness metrics, override governance, and public disclosures could support the kind of targeted enhancements described in the consultation.
Clearing members and clients may wish to evaluate how more detailed CCP disclosures could affect margin forecasting, model validation, and due diligence workflows.
Firms may wish to prepare consultation submissions by the 30 June 2026 deadline, particularly if they have views on feasibility, data granularity, disclosure lags, or governance implications.
Compliance and legal teams may wish to monitor whether the final amendments create new reporting or disclosure obligations under the revised CCP guidance and PQD standards.
What changed
The consultation proposes targeted additions to the CPMI-IOSCO 2017 guidance on the resilience of central counterparties and to the 2015 PQD standards for CCPs. The stated purpose is to incorporate relevant elements of the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO final report on transparency and responsiveness of initial margin in centrally cleared markets.
The areas specifically addressed are simulation tools, the measurement of initial margin responsiveness, margin model governance frameworks, the use of margin model overrides, and CCP public disclosures.
Compliance impact
The publication is a consultation, so the immediate legal severity is moderate rather than binding, but it signals concrete supervisory direction on CCP margin transparency and governance. If adopted, the amendments could increase disclosure granularity and scrutiny of margin-model responsiveness, simulation tools, and override controls for CCPs and their clearing relationships.
Press release: Statement on the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and related internal BIS management changes. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, containing no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or obligations affecting regulated firms.
The General Manager of the BIS, Pablo Hernández de Cos, made the following statement today on the announcement that Hyun Song Shin has been appointed to serve as Governor of the Bank of Korea.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and related internal BIS management changes. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, containing no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or regulatory obligations.
John C. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is to continue as Chair of the Bank for International Settlements' Markets Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the extension of John C. Williams' term as Chair of the BIS Markets Committee for a second three-year term. This is a straightforward governance/personnel matter with no new regulatory requirements, policy guidance, or enforcement action.
John C. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is to continue as Chair of the Bank for International Settlements' Markets Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing the extension of John C. Williams' term as Chair of the BIS Markets Committee for a second three-year period. This is a straightforward governance/appointment matter with no new regulatory requirements, policy changes, or enforcement actions.
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.
Following the nomination of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea, the BIS today announced that Mr. Shin will step back from his duties with immediate effect. In the interim, the Monetary and Economic Department will be led by Frank Smets, who will serve as Acting Head.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the nomination of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and his consequent departure from the BIS, with interim leadership arrangements. This is administrative and personnel-related rather than substantive regulatory guidance or policy.
Hélène Rey, Professor of Economics at London Business School, appointed as Economic Adviser and Head of the Monetary and Economic Department of the BIS. Ms Rey is appointed for a five-year term, effective September 2026. She will lead the economics work of the Bank and join its Executive Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing Hélène Rey's appointment as Economic Adviser and Head of the Monetary and Economic Department at the BIS, effective September 2026. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, documenting a leadership transition at an international financial institution.
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 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.
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.
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.