Prudential / Capital Requirements in International
Prudential / Capital Requirements regulatory updates from International.
We track 44 Prudential / Capital Requirements updates from International regulators, published by BIS and FSB. The archive covers 36 news items, 4 consultations and 2 speeches. Most recent update: September 2026. Coverage runs from 2025 to 2026.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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...
CPMI-IOSCO is seeking input from interested stakeholders on amendments to CCP-related resilience guidance and public quantitative disclosures requirements.
Why this matters
This is a formal consultation by CPMI-IOSCO on proposed amendments to existing CCP resilience guidance (2017) and public quantitative disclosure standards (2015), incorporating proposals from the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO report on initial margin transparency.
The UK's framework for systemically important payment systems and central securities depositories/securities settlement systems is complete and consistent with the CPMI-IOSCO Principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI) in most aspects. The CPMI-IOSCO assessment identified some areas for improvement where…
Why this matters
This is a published assessment report from CPMI-IOSCO evaluating UK implementation of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures as of September 2023. The report confirms broad compliance for payment systems but identifies improvement areas for CSDs/SSSs, particularly in risk and governance principles.
The UK's framework for systemically important payment systems and central securities depositories/securities settlement systems is complete and consistent with the CPMI-IOSCO Principles for financial market infrastructures (PFMI) in most aspects.
Why this matters
This is a published assessment report evaluating UK implementation of international financial market infrastructure standards (PFMI) as of September 2023. The report confirms broad compliance but identifies improvement areas in risk and governance principles for payment systems and securities settlement...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.