Reporting & Disclosure regulatory updates from International.
We track 25 Reporting & Disclosure updates from International regulators, published by BIS and FSB. The archive covers 10 reports, 8 consultations and 3 final rules. Most recent update: October 2026. Coverage runs from 2025 to 2026.
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.
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 Bank for International Settlements’ Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) today published a final report on financial market infrastructures’ (FMIs) management of general business risks and general business losses.
AI Analysis
CPMI and IOSCO published final supplemental guidance on 14 October 2026 for financial market infrastructures (FMIs) managing general business risks and general business losses. It matters because the guidance responds to implementation weaknesses identified across 34 FMIs in 27 jurisdictions, particularly inconsistent sizing of liquid net assets funded by equity (LNAFE), recovery and orderly wind-down planning, and arrangements for raising additional equity.
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.
Compliance impact
The impact is material for FMIs because supervisors are likely to use the guidance to assess existing PFMI Principle 15 implementation, particularly LNAFE calibration, risk scenarios, recovery and orderly wind-down planning, governance and transparency. It is not a directly binding rule or a new capital requirement, but deficiencies may lead to supervisory findings, remediation expectations and pressure to increase equity-funded liquid resources or improve recovery and wind-down arrangements.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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 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.
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.
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.