Prudential / Capital Requirements in International

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.

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.

Key dates

2026-10-14

CPMI and IOSCO published the final report on FMIs' management of general business risks and general business losses.

2026-02-06

The consultation period for the predecessor November 2025 report closed.

Suggested considerations

• FMIs should consider mapping their existing general business risk frameworks, loss taxonomies and financial resources against the final guidance and PFMI Principles 1, 15, 16 and 17.
• FMIs should reassess whether LNAFE is sufficient not only to meet the six-month operating-expense floor but also to cover credible one-time and recurring loss scenarios and the period needed for recovery or orderly wind-down.
• FMIs should review business continuity, recovery and orderly wind-down plans for explicit treatment of general business losses, including escalation and options for raising additional equity.
• FMIs should consider documenting the assumptions, scenarios, methodologies and governance approvals used to size LNAFE and distinguish general business losses from participant-default losses and other PFMI resources.
• FMIs should consider enhancing public and authority-facing disclosures on general business risk exposures, LNAFE, risk-management assumptions, governance responsibilities and available recovery or wind-down resources.
• Authorities should consider incorporating the supplemental guidance into supervisory assessments and reviewing whether local FMI rules, recovery plans and disclosure expectations remain aligned with the final report.
• FMI operators and participants should monitor national implementation because CPMI-IOSCO guidance is not directly binding and practical obligations will depend on the relevant jurisdiction's legal and supervisory framework.

What changed

The final report elaborates the existing PFMI requirements, especially Principle 15, rather than creating a new standalone binding standard. It provides guidance on identifying, monitoring and managing general business risks; determining the minimum LNAFE required to cover potential general business losses and support continued operations, recovery or orderly wind-down; and strengthening governance and transparency.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.