Senior Managers / Governance regulatory updates from International.
We track 34 Senior Managers / Governance updates from International regulators, published by BIS and FSB. The archive covers 15 news items, 5 guidance notes and 5 reports. 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.
This document summarises the responses to the June 2026 public consultation on the Sound Practices for financial institutions’ responsible AI adoption.
AI Analysis
The FSB published its 15 October 2026 overview of approximately 160 consultation responses and finalised 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption by financial institutions. The practices are non-binding, technology-neutral recommendations, but the final text materially sharpens expectations for agentic AI, risk-based human approval, documentation, safe interruption, and third-party AI dependency management.
Key dates
2026-06-10
The FSB published the consultation report proposing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption.
2026-07-22
The FSB consultation closed; approximately 160 responses were received.
2026-10-15
The FSB published the overview of consultation responses and the final report containing the 12 sound practices.
Suggested considerations
Firms should consider mapping existing AI inventories, model-risk controls, operational-resilience arrangements, cyber controls, outsourcing registers, and board reporting against all 12 FSB practices.
Compliance teams may wish to introduce or validate a documented, risk-based materiality assessment for each AI use case at inception and throughout its lifecycle, including uses embedded in products or obtained from vendors.
Boards and senior management should consider whether AI adoption is aligned with business strategy, risk appetite, accountability structures, and existing risk-management frameworks.
Firms using generative or agentic AI should consider defining permitted actions, autonomy limits, escalation paths, human-approval triggers, monitoring thresholds, and tested stop or safe-interruption procedures.
Firms should consider retaining records sufficient to identify the AI system, data, model or vendor, intended purpose, materiality assessment, testing, approvals, monitoring results, changes, incidents, and reconstructed decisions or actions.
Procurement and third-party-risk teams may wish to assess AI providers for performance, transparency, data quality, supply-chain exposure, concentration risk, exit options, resilience, and business-continuity arrangements.
Technology and operational-resilience teams should consider adding AI-specific cyber and ICT scenarios to testing and exercises, including model manipulation, data poisoning, prompt or agent compromise, erroneous autonomous actions, provider outage, and loss of vendor access.
Firms should consider reviewing the interaction between the FSB practices and binding local requirements, including the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act, EU AI Act, sectoral outsourcing rules, model-risk requirements, data-protection law, and senior-management accountability regimes.
What changed
The final framework retains 12 practices covering board and senior-management oversight, governance and accountability, AI risk integration and documentation, organisational adaptability, materiality assessment, model selection, data governance, explainability and transparency, performance management, human oversight, cyber and ICT risk, and third-party AI risk.
Compliance impact
The publication does not itself impose binding obligations, penalties, or a compliance deadline, so its immediate legal impact is limited. Its supervisory significance is nevertheless material: the detailed expectations on governance, documentation, human oversight, AI lifecycle controls, cyber risk, and third-party dependencies provide a likely benchmark for supervisory reviews and for future domestic implementation, particularly in higher-risk or autonomous AI use cases.
FSB publishes sound practices for financial institutions to adopt, use, and innovate with AI in a responsible manner.
AI Analysis
The FSB published its final 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption on 15 October 2026, following its June 2026 consultation. The practices are non-binding, technology-neutral guidance, but they establish a clear supervisory benchmark for board accountability, AI risk integration, lifecycle controls, human oversight, cyber resilience and third-party dependency management; independent reporting highlights strengthened expectations for autonomous or agentic AI.
Key dates
2026-06-10
The FSB published its consultation report proposing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption by financial institutions.
2026-10-15
The FSB published the final report and consultation-response overview. The sound practices take effect as non-binding supervisory guidance with no stated implementation deadline.
Suggested considerations
Firms should inventory AI use cases, including embedded or shadow AI and autonomous or agentic functionality, and assign accountable owners for each use case.
Boards and senior management may wish to evidence how AI adoption aligns with the business model, strategy, risk appetite and existing governance framework.
Compliance and risk teams should consider adding AI-specific materiality, risk and approval assessments at inception and at defined review points after deployment or material model changes.
Firms should consider documenting model purpose, data sources, versions, limitations, testing, performance results, explainability assessments, human controls, incidents and changes sufficiently to reconstruct AI-supported decisions and actions.
For higher-risk or autonomous use cases, firms should consider setting risk-based human-approval triggers, access and action limits, real-time or periodic monitoring, escalation paths and tested intervention or shutdown mechanisms.
Existing cyber, ICT, operational resilience and third-party risk assessments may need to be extended to cover AI-specific threats, model manipulation, data leakage, outages, unsafe updates and concentration among common providers or models.
Procurement and legal teams should consider whether third-party AI contracts provide adequate monitoring, transparency, data-quality information, audit and access rights, change notification, incident cooperation, business continuity and exit arrangements.
Firms should map the FSB practices against applicable requirements under DORA, the EU AI Act, outsourcing rules, model-risk frameworks, conduct obligations and data-protection law, recording any gaps and the basis for proportionate controls.
What changed
The final report consolidates 12 proportionate practices into two areas: organisation-wide AI governance and risk management across the AI lifecycle. It strongly encourages boards and senior management to align AI adoption with business strategy and risk appetite, define responsibilities, incorporate AI risks into existing risk frameworks, document AI use cases, assess materiality at inception and thereafter, govern data, address explainability, evaluate performance, provide risk-based human oversight, manage AI-related cyber and ICT risks, and control third-party AI dependencies.
Compliance impact
The publication does not itself create directly enforceable obligations or a compliance deadline, so immediate legal-change severity is moderate. Its practical significance is nevertheless material: supervisors may use the practices as a reference point when assessing governance, operational resilience, outsourcing, model risk and senior-management oversight, particularly where autonomous AI causes customer, prudential, conduct, cyber or systemic-risk concerns.
FSB sets out 12 sound practices to facilitate responsible AI adoption by financial institutions.
AI Analysis
On 15 October 2026, the Financial Stability Board published final guidance containing 12 sound practices for responsible AI adoption across financial institutions, covering board oversight, risk assessment, the AI lifecycle, human oversight, cyber and ICT risk, and third-party dependencies. The guidance is non-binding and technology-neutral, but it provides a significant supervisory benchmark that firms may be expected to evidence through existing governance, model risk, operational resilience, outsourcing and cybersecurity frameworks, particularly for generative and agentic AI.
Key dates
2026-10-15
FSB published the final report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence.
Suggested considerations
Firms should consider inventorying all material AI use cases, including internally developed tools, vendor-provided models, embedded productivity tools, generative AI and agentic or multi-agent systems, with ownership, purpose, data sources, model dependencies and deployment status recorded.
Compliance teams may wish to map each use case to a documented materiality and risk classification performed at inception and refreshed after material model, data, vendor, scope or operating-environment changes.
Boards and senior management should consider whether AI governance, risk appetite statements, delegated authorities and management information clearly cover autonomous actions, prohibited uses, escalation thresholds and accountability for AI-supported decisions.
Firms should consider integrating AI-specific controls into existing model risk management, operational-risk, ICT-risk, cybersecurity, outsourcing and business-continuity frameworks rather than creating disconnected governance.
Model and technology teams may wish to maintain evidence of data provenance, data quality, testing, validation, performance metrics, drift monitoring, incident handling, explainability assessments and compensating controls where explainability is limited.
For higher-risk or autonomous use cases, firms should consider mandatory human approval triggers, bounded permissions, segregation of duties, real-time or near-real-time monitoring, complete audit trails, emergency stop or rollback capability and periodic reassessment of whether human oversight remains effective.
Procurement and third-party-risk functions should consider enhancing due diligence and contracts for AI providers to address model performance, transparency, training and input data, subcontracting, security, audit access, incident notification, portability, exit planning, concentration risk and service continuity.
Cybersecurity teams should consider adding AI-enabled attacks, prompt injection, data poisoning, model manipulation, deepfakes, automated exploitation and misuse of AI-assisted coding or defensive tools to threat assessments, testing and exercises.
What changed
The FSB replaced its June 2026 consultation with a final framework of 12 proportionate sound practices. The practices require firms to align AI adoption with business strategy and risk appetite; define accountability; incorporate AI risks into enterprise risk management; document AI use and materiality assessments; select models according to business, technical and risk requirements; govern data quality and security; address explainability and stakeholder transparency; test and monitor performance; apply human oversight proportionate to autonomy, complexity, risk and explainability; manage...
Compliance impact
The immediate legal impact is limited because the FSB document is guidance rather than a binding rule and contains no specified implementation deadline, quantitative threshold or direct enforcement mechanism. Its practical supervisory impact is nevertheless material: regulators may use the practices as a reference when assessing governance, operational resilience, model risk, cybersecurity, outsourcing, conduct and senior-management accountability, with heightened scrutiny likely for high-impact, autonomous or poorly explainable AI.
FSB seeks feedback on eight high-level principles to assist financial authorities in their modernisation efforts.
AI Analysis
The FSB published a consultation on eight high-level principles intended to help authorities modernise regulatory and supervisory frameworks while preserving or enhancing financial-system resilience. The consultation does not create binding obligations for firms, but it signals a more risk-focused, proportionate and forward-looking approach to future rulemaking; independent reporting also highlights the FSB's intention to prioritise genuinely cross-border, cross-sectoral and systemic vulnerabilities and to use high-level principles where risks are still emerging.
Key dates
2026-10-14
FSB published the consultation report on Regulatory and Supervisory Modernisation Principles and the 2026 G20 Implementation Monitoring Review.
2027-01-08 Deadline
Deadline for submitting comments on the consultation report and its questions through the FSB secure online form.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to determine whether their firm, trade association or parent group intends to submit feedback through the FSB's secure online form by 8 January 2027.
Firms should consider reviewing the consultation questions against their existing regulatory-change, horizon-scanning and risk-assessment processes, particularly for emerging technology, new financial offerings and changing market vulnerabilities.
Groups operating across jurisdictions may wish to map where differing legal frameworks, market structures or supervisory expectations could produce uneven implementation of future FSB-aligned measures.
Regulatory-policy teams should consider monitoring the final FSB report, expected in the first half of 2027, together with consultations and rulemaking by relevant national and regional authorities.
Firms may wish to retain evidence of material operational, prudential, technology and business-model risks that could inform proportionate, risk-based future regulation, without treating the consultation as a current change to applicable obligations.
What changed
The FSB proposed eight high-level principles for financial authorities in FSB member jurisdictions to apply when reviewing or modernising regulatory and supervisory frameworks. The principles are intended to improve effectiveness, efficiency, risk focus, coherence and responsiveness to new vulnerabilities, technologies, financial offerings and economic conditions.
Compliance impact
Immediate compliance impact is low because the publication is a consultation and introduces no directly binding requirements, thresholds or firm-level reporting duties. Its strategic impact is broader: the FSB describes slowing implementation as a potential threat to the financial system's ability to withstand future shocks, while the review signals that future international standards may be more targeted, proportionate, nationally adaptable and focused on cross-border systemic risks.
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.
Roundtable to explore how collaboration efforts between the public and private sectors can be structured and applied to prepare for and manage significant operational disruptions.
Why this matters
This is a news item reporting on an FSB roundtable discussion focused on strengthening operational resilience through public-private collaboration. The content discusses practical steps, relationship-building, lessons learned, and interoperability across sectors and jurisdictions.
FSB annual financial report for the 12-month period ending 31 March 2026.
Why this matters
The FSB Annual Financial Report is a standard audited financial statement and governance disclosure document covering the 12-month period ending 31 March 2026. It contains financial statements, governance arrangements, and transparency/accountability mechanisms.
Consultation responses to ‘Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation report‘.
AI Analysis
The FSB has published public responses to its consultation on sound practices for responsible AI adoption, following the 10 June 2026 consultation report and the 22 July 2026 comment deadline. This is a consultation-stage update, so it does not create binding obligations, but it signals the direction of emerging global expectations for AI governance in financial institutions.
Key dates
2026-06-10
FSB published the consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
2026-07-22 Deadline
Deadline for written comments on the consultation report
2026-08-06
FSB published the public responses to the consultation
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation responses to identify supervisory themes and likely refinements to the final FSB report.
Firms considering or already using AI may wish to map their current governance, risk, and lifecycle controls against the FSB’s 12 proposed sound practices.
Risk and model governance teams may wish to assess whether their controls address generative AI, agentic AI, and third-party or technology dependencies in a way that aligns with the consultation’s focus.
Public policy and regulatory affairs functions may wish to track the final report once published, as it may influence national supervisory expectations even if it remains non-binding soft law.
What changed
The publication makes available the written public comments received on the FSB’s consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The underlying consultation proposed a menu of 12 sound practices for financial institutions to apply across organisation-wide AI governance and the full AI lifecycle, including emerging forms such as generative AI and agentic AI.
Compliance impact
The immediate compliance impact is limited because this is a consultation-response publication and the underlying document is non-binding guidance. The practical consequence is that firms may see the direction of future international supervisory expectations on AI governance, lifecycle controls, and related technology and third-party risks.
In this speech, FSB Secretary General, John Schindler highlights the importance of resolve in resolution planning, emphasising collaboration, preparedness, in maintaining financial system resilience.
Why this matters
This is an informational speech (urgency: null) but carries noteworthy regulatory signals. The FSB Secretary General explicitly announces a strategic review of crisis preparedness and emphasizes a deliberate policy shift from sector-by-sector resolution frameworks to integrated cross-sectoral planning.
In this speech, Dominique Laboureix, Chair of the FSB Resolution Steering Group, discusses the importance of cross-border, cross-sectoral crisis preparedness.
Why this matters
This is a speech by the Chair of the FSB Resolution Steering Group at the ReSolve event, focused on cross-sectoral interconnections in financial stability and crisis management.
In her remarks, Michelle W. Bowman, Chair of the FSB Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC), discusses the FSB’s Consultation Report on the Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence.
AI Analysis
The FSB used this speech to signal that its consultation report on sound practices for responsible AI adoption is meant to guide, not hard-code, how financial institutions govern AI use. For compliance teams, the key message is that the draft framework is risk-based and proportional, with lighter-touch expectations for lower-risk uses and greater scrutiny where AI is material to business operations or legal and regulatory obligations.
Key dates
2026-06-10
FSB published the consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence
2026-07-07
FSB virtual outreach event and Michelle W. Bowman opening remarks on the consultation
2026-07-22 Deadline
Deadline for public comments on the consultation report
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map all AI use cases and classify which deployments are material to business operations, legal obligations, or regulatory obligations.
Firms should consider whether existing governance, model risk, and operational risk controls already cover AI lifecycle risks, including selection, data governance, monitoring, human oversight, and cyber/ICT exposures.
Institutions may wish to test whether AI governance is proportionate by business size and complexity, especially where lower-risk use cases could justify lighter controls.
Board and senior management teams should consider whether roles, responsibilities, and escalation paths for AI are clearly defined and documented.
Firms may wish to maintain a current inventory of AI systems and vendors so they can evidence oversight, dependency management, and remediation decisions if the final report adopts similar sound practices.
Compliance teams should monitor the final FSB report later in 2026 and compare any finalized practices against current internal policies, third-party controls, and incident response arrangements.
What changed
This publication does not impose new binding rules; it is an opening remark supporting the FSB’s June 2026 consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence. The speaker says the report is intended to be finalized later in 2026 as a U.S. G20 deliverable, and that feedback from the public comment process will shape the final text.
Compliance impact
The current publication is consultative and non-binding, so immediate legal impact is limited. The practical consequence is preparatory pressure: firms that use AI should expect a future FSB final report to reinforce risk-based governance, proportionality, and stronger controls for materially important AI deployments.
The FSB hosted a virtual outreach event on 7 July 2026.
Why this matters
This is an announcement of a virtual outreach event supporting an FSB consultation on responsible AI adoption. The underlying consultation report (published 10 June 2026) is substantive policy guidance on AI governance and risk management for financial institutions.
The sustainability of the AI boom, financial vulnerabilities and strained public finances are among pressure points facing the global economy, along with the return of inflation. The interplay of record-high public debt with the increasing role of highly-leveraged hedge funds creates a new sovereign-financial…
Why this matters
This is a BIS press release accompanying its Annual Economic Report 2026. It is informational/advisory in nature (not a binding rule, consultation, or enforcement action) but carries significant regulatory signals about emerging risks and policy priorities: fiscal-financial stability nexus, non-bank leverage (hedge...
Roundtable hosted by the Bank of Spain discusses external audit.
Why this matters
This is a news item reporting on an FSB convened roundtable discussion (not a binding rule, consultation, or enforcement action). The content addresses structural changes in the audit profession driven by technology (AI) and ownership shifts, with implications for audit quality and financial stability.
BIS Board of Directors elects Fabio Panetta, Governor of the Bank of Italy, as its new Chair Gabriel Galípolo, Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil, is appointed Chair of the meeting of Governors of major emerging market economies Michele Bullock, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, is appointed Chair of the…
Why this matters
The content is purely informational, announcing the election of central bank governors to leadership roles at the BIS and its committees. It contains no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or obligations affecting regulated firms.
Press release from May 12, 2026 on central bank governors appointed to lead the BIS board of directors, the meeting of governors of major emerging market economies, the asian consultative council and the committee of the global financial system.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing leadership appointments at the BIS (Fabio Panetta as Board Chair, and three other central bank governors to key BIS groups).
CPMI-IOSCO is seeking input from interested stakeholders on amendments to CCP-related resilience guidance and public quantitative disclosures requirements.
AI Analysis
CPMI and IOSCO have launched a consultation on targeted amendments to the 2017 CCP resilience guidance and the 2015 public quantitative disclosure (PQD) standards for central counterparties. The changes are intended to implement selected proposals from the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO report on initial margin transparency and responsiveness, with comments due by 30 June 2026.
Key dates
2026-05-06
CPMI-IOSCO published the consultation on updated CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosures
2026-06-30 Deadline
Deadline to submit consultation comments to the CPMI and IOSCO secretariats
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO initial margin report to map likely changes to CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosure expectations.
CCPs may wish to assess whether their current margin simulation tools, responsiveness metrics, override governance, and public disclosures could support the kind of targeted enhancements described in the consultation.
Clearing members and clients may wish to evaluate how more detailed CCP disclosures could affect margin forecasting, model validation, and due diligence workflows.
Firms may wish to prepare consultation submissions by the 30 June 2026 deadline, particularly if they have views on feasibility, data granularity, disclosure lags, or governance implications.
Compliance and legal teams may wish to monitor whether the final amendments create new reporting or disclosure obligations under the revised CCP guidance and PQD standards.
What changed
The consultation proposes targeted additions to the CPMI-IOSCO 2017 guidance on the resilience of central counterparties and to the 2015 PQD standards for CCPs. The stated purpose is to incorporate relevant elements of the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO final report on transparency and responsiveness of initial margin in centrally cleared markets. The areas specifically addressed are simulation tools, the measurement of initial margin responsiveness, margin model governance frameworks, the use of margin model overrides, and CCP public disclosures.
Compliance impact
The publication is a consultation, so the immediate legal severity is moderate rather than binding, but it signals concrete supervisory direction on CCP margin transparency and governance. If adopted, the amendments could increase disclosure granularity and scrutiny of margin-model responsiveness, simulation tools, and override controls for CCPs and their clearing relationships.
Press release: Statement on the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and related internal BIS management changes. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, containing no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or obligations affecting regulated firms.
The General Manager of the BIS, Pablo Hernández de Cos, made the following statement today on the announcement that Hyun Song Shin has been appointed to serve as Governor of the Bank of Korea.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing the appointment of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and related internal BIS management changes. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, containing no new rules, guidance, enforcement actions, or regulatory obligations.
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...
John C. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is to continue as Chair of the Bank for International Settlements' Markets Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the extension of John C. Williams' term as Chair of the BIS Markets Committee for a second three-year term. This is a straightforward governance/personnel matter with no new regulatory requirements, policy guidance, or enforcement action.
John C. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is to continue as Chair of the Bank for International Settlements' Markets Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a media release announcing the extension of John C. Williams' term as Chair of the BIS Markets Committee for a second three-year period. This is a straightforward governance/appointment matter with no new regulatory requirements, policy changes, or enforcement actions.
Following the nomination of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea, the BIS today announced that Mr. Shin will step back from his duties with immediate effect. In the interim, the Monetary and Economic Department will be led by Frank Smets, who will serve as Acting Head.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing the nomination of Hyun Song Shin as Governor of the Bank of Korea and his consequent departure from the BIS, with interim leadership arrangements. This is administrative and personnel-related rather than substantive regulatory guidance or policy.
Ben Gully will lead the international standard setter's Secretariat in Basel. Mr Gully has been appointed for a three-year term, starting in August. He is currently Deputy Superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) in Canada.
Why this matters
The content is purely administrative—announcing Ben Gully's appointment as Secretary General of the Basel Committee effective August 2026. While the Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for bank prudential regulation, this update contains no new rules, guidance, consultations, or enforcement actions.
Hélène Rey, Professor of Economics at London Business School, appointed as Economic Adviser and Head of the Monetary and Economic Department of the BIS. Ms Rey is appointed for a five-year term, effective September 2026. She will lead the economics work of the Bank and join its Executive Committee.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing Hélène Rey's appointment as Economic Adviser and Head of the Monetary and Economic Department at the BIS, effective September 2026. It is purely administrative and informational in nature, documenting a leadership transition at an international financial institution.
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.
François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Bank of France, today announced his decision to leave the Bank of France at the beginning of June to become President of the Fondation Apprentis d'Auteuil. Accordingly, he will step down from his position as Chair of the BIS Board of Directors.
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing François Villeroy de Galhau's resignation from his position as Chair of the BIS Board of Directors to pursue a role at a charitable foundation.
The Bank for International Settlements has reviewed the content of the FX Global Code and acknowledges that the Code represents a set of principles generally recognised as good practice in the wholesale foreign exchange (FX) market.
Why this matters
The BIS press release announces its commitment to conduct FX market activities consistent with the FX Global Code principles. This is an informational statement of compliance with a recognized voluntary code of conduct, not a new rule, consultation, or enforcement action.
Since its publication in 2013, BCBS 239 has become a foundational framework for data management and risk management practices in the banking sector. While its principles still apply, its implementation has evolved over the years, reflecting changes in the business, technology and risk landscape.
Why this matters
This is a Basel Committee newsletter providing thematic guidance on BCBS 239 principles implementation based on recent supervisory outreach. While it does not introduce new binding obligations, it offers noteworthy regulatory signals on current supervisory expectations regarding risk data aggregation, governance...
Since the banking turmoil of 2023, the Committee has worked to strengthen supervisory effectiveness in relation to material risks that could result in financial losses, impacting the safety and soundness of financial institutions.
Why this matters
This is an informational newsletter from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) documenting supervisory cooperation and best practices following the 2023 banking turmoil.
As part of its 2025-2026 work programme, the Basel Committee is advancing various supervisory initiatives related to the digitalisation of finance.
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee has published its Principles for the sound management of third-party risk, setting a common baseline for banks and supervisors as firms become more dependent on third-party service providers. The publication matters because it broadens the supervisory lens beyond traditional outsourcing to a wider range of third-party arrangements, with implications for governance, due diligence, contracts, monitoring, and exit planning.
Key dates
2025-12-10
Basel Committee publication date for the Principles for the sound management of third-party risk
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map all third-party arrangements against the new lifecycle expectations, including non-traditional outsourcing and intra-group or technology-enabled arrangements.
Firms should consider whether board-approved third-party risk appetite, tolerance for disruption, and reporting lines are documented clearly and align with current governance arrangements.
Banks may wish to review due diligence, contracting, onboarding, monitoring, continuity, and exit procedures to confirm they address the principle-based expectations across the full relationship lifecycle.
Supervisory liaison teams may wish to assess whether concentration risk, critical provider dependencies, and cross-border coordination issues are adequately captured in existing risk registers and escalation frameworks.
What changed
The document sets out 12 principles covering the full third-party service provider lifecycle, divided between bank-facing expectations and supervisor-facing expectations. For banks, the principles cover governance and strategy, board and senior management oversight, risk assessment, due diligence, legally binding contracts, onboarding, ongoing monitoring, business continuity, and termination/exit management.
Compliance impact
The publication is a material supervisory signal rather than a binding rule, but it raises the expected standard for how banks identify, manage, and oversee third-party dependencies. Institutions that rely heavily on external providers may face closer supervisory scrutiny of governance, resilience, and concentration risk, especially where critical services are involved.
The Basel Committee has published principles for the sound management of third-party risk in the banking sector. The principles establish a common baseline for banks and supervisors for the sound management of third-party risk. The Committee will continue to monitor developments related to the digitalisation of…
AI Analysis
The Basel Committee published final principles for the sound management of third-party risk in the banking sector on 2025-12-10. The publication matters because it creates a common prudential baseline for banks and supervisors and explicitly supersedes the Basel/Joint Forum 2005 outsourcing paper for banking-sector purposes.
Key dates
2025-12-10
Basel Committee published the principles for the sound management of third-party risk
2024-10-09 Deadline
Comment deadline for the consultative version of the principles
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to compare existing outsourcing and third-party risk frameworks against the new 12-principle baseline to identify gaps in governance, lifecycle controls, and supervisor-facing documentation.
Firms may wish to review board and senior management oversight arrangements for third-party risk to ensure responsibilities, risk appetite, escalation, and reporting are clearly assigned.
Banks should consider whether their third-party inventories, risk assessments, due diligence files, contracts, monitoring processes, and exit planning are aligned to a full lifecycle model rather than a narrow outsourcing model.
Supervisory relations teams may wish to map the principles against home and host jurisdiction requirements to identify where local rules are already aligned or where additional supervisory engagement may be needed.
Operational resilience teams may wish to test whether critical third-party dependencies, including cloud and technology providers, are sufficiently captured in business continuity and termination planning.
What changed
The Basel Committee replaced the older 2005 Joint Forum outsourcing guidance with a new 12-principle framework focused on third-party service provider arrangements in banking. The framework is broader than traditional outsourcing and is designed to cover the larger, more diverse third-party ecosystem created by digitalisation and financial technology.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is broad for banking-sector third-party risk management because the publication updates the prudential benchmark supervisors may use when assessing governance, controls, and resilience. The Committee does not describe legal sanctions, but firms that lag the baseline may face supervisory challenge, remediation expectations, or pressure to strengthen third-party oversight and lifecycle controls.