Policy Statements

Key dates

2026-11-06

EBA publishes its policy statement on the post-consultation direction of the supervisory reporting simplification package.

2026-12-01

EBA is expected to publish the final report on the draft ITS package; the precise publication date was not specified.

2026-12-31

EBA expects to publish guidance on designing and making supervisory and resolution data requests by the end of 2026; the precise date was not specified.

2027-01-01

Firms should take into account the EBA consideration on application of the FRTB from this date during the transition.

2027-01-01

The EU-wide public repository of supervisory and resolution data requests is expected to become operational during Q1 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-06-30

The EBA expects to present further proposals on reporting change management in the first half of 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-12-01 Deadline

First reference date for the new supervisory reporting requirements, subject to finalisation, Commission adoption and the precise legal text; the announcement specifies December 2027 but not a day.

2028-12-01 Deadline

Expected reference period for deferred liquidity, asset-encumbrance, supervisory-benchmarking and ESG reporting changes; the announcement specifies December 2028 but not a day.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should continue submitting currently applicable supervisory reporting templates until the revised ITS and technical package are legally adopted and applicable, rather than treating the announced simplifications as immediately effective.
• Compliance and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to preserve existing reporting processes for operational-risk losses while removing or suppressing only data affected by the new granular operational-risk taxonomy, consistently with transition instructions.
• Institutions participating in credit-risk or IFRS 9 benchmarking should continue using the 2026 ITS on supervisory benchmarking reporting during the transition and confirm whether they remain within the relevant benchmarking population.
• Firms should assess the impact of the 1 January 2027 FRTB implementation position on reporting, capital, data lineage and systems, including whether existing interpretations need to be revised once the EBA consideration is final.
• Reporting owners should maintain separate implementation workstreams for requirements expected from December 2027 and deferred areas expected from December 2028, including liquidity, asset encumbrance, benchmarking and ESG reporting.
• Firms should monitor the EBA final ITS report in December 2026, the Commission adoption process and the technical package expected in early 2027, including the data point model, taxonomies and validation rules.
• Institutions may wish to inventory national and supervisory data requests and identify duplicative submissions in anticipation of the EBA data-request guidance and EU-wide repository.
• Change-management plans should account for possible revisions to templates, frequencies, thresholds, validation rules, reporting ownership and consolidated-level data aggregation once the final technical package is available.

What changed

The final package, scheduled for publication in December 2026, will further simplify reporting templates, reduce collateral, stress-testing and ESG data, remove selected reporting thresholds, reduce reporting frequencies and align reporting more closely with disclosure requirements. Credit-risk and IFRS 9 benchmarking reporting will be integrated into the supervisory reporting framework, with streamlined IFRS 9 requirements and greater emphasis on consolidated-level reporting.

Key dates

2025-06-12

The SFC launched the consultation on expanding section 34 of the SFO and introducing similar restrictions under the AMLO.

2025-08-11

The consultation period closed; the SFC reported receiving nine submissions from industry associations, professional bodies, a bank and other interested parties.

2026-11-06

The SFC published its consultation conclusions, updated the FAQs and announced its intention to introduce an amendment bill into LegCo.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory legal-entity names, business names, brands, websites, domains, mobile applications, social-media handles, product names and marketing descriptions against the SFC's proposed Table A and Table B titles.
• Firms should consider mapping each relevant name to the activities actually performed, including trading, brokerage, matching, exchange, clearing, settlement, custody and virtual-asset services, and documenting whether SFO or AMLO licensing could be required.
• Unregulated entities may wish to assess whether current names imply SFC licensing, regulated status or an association with a well-known exchange, clearing house or VATP, including through abbreviations, translated names and closely resembling wording.
• Licensed VATPs and financial groups may wish to review whether group-company names, partnerships, white-label arrangements, sponsorships or marketing references could create an apparent association with an established operation that does not exist.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the amendment bill, LegCo proceedings, commencement provisions, transitional arrangements, the final restricted-title list and any future mechanism for updating that list.
• Firms considering a new name or business launch may wish to obtain independent Hong Kong legal advice and, where appropriate, seek SFC authorisation before adopting a potentially restricted title; the SFC has not announced a final application deadline or commencement date.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may be updated to require enhanced review of terms such as "exchange", "trading platform", "clearing house", "virtual asset", "digital asset", "token" and "crypto" once the amendments are enacted.

What changed

The SFC will proceed with legislative amendments to expand the existing section 34 SFO restrictions beyond titles such as "stock exchange" and "commodity exchange". The expanded scope is intended to cover titles commonly used instead of "exchange", titles describing SFO-regulated products, titles referring specifically to clearing operations, and names or acronyms implying association with established or well-known exchanges, clearing houses, VATPs or similar operations, whether located in Hong Kong or elsewhere and whether regulated or unregulated.

Key dates

2025-11-05

FCA consultation CP25/30 opened on streamlining the UK EMIR intragroup regime.

2026-01-16

FCA consultation closed.

2026-10-21

HM Treasury made the Over-the-Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1117).

2026-11-02

FCA published PS26/21, final BTS and related EMIR Q&A changes.

2026-12-05 Deadline

FCA-recommended date by which firms seeking new exemptions under the current regime should submit complete notifications to support processing before transition.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Temporary Intragroup Exemption Regime expires.

2027-01-01 Deadline

The permanent streamlined intragroup regime takes effect; new notifications must use the Connect process and relevant overseas exemptions operate subject to the 30-calendar-day FCA non-objection period.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory all existing UK EMIR intragroup clearing and margin exemptions, identify whether each exemption remains effective immediately before 2027-01-01, and retain evidence that the Article 3 group, consolidation and centralised risk-control conditions remain satisfied.
• Firms currently relying on TIGER should assess the transitional conditions and document the basis on which each exemption will continue after 2026-12-31; firms should not assume that grandfathering expands the scope of an existing exemption.
• Counterparties seeking a new exemption before 2027-01-01 should consider submitting a complete notification under the current process before 2026-12-05 so that the FCA can process it before the temporary regime expires.
• Firms expecting to submit a notification between 2026-12-05 and 2026-12-31 should contact the FCA promptly regarding transition arrangements, particularly where the notification may not be processed before year-end.
• From 2027-01-01, firms seeking exemptions for UK-to-overseas or overseas-to-overseas intragroup transactions should use the new Connect notification process and allow for the FCA’s 30-calendar-day objection period, calculated from receipt of a complete notification.
• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, notification templates, controls and legal opinions to reflect the removal of the equivalence prerequisite, the material-impediment test for margin exemptions, the removal of public disclosure, and the revised evidence requirements.
• Firms should review existing public disclosures and websites for margin-exemption information and consider whether information made unnecessary by the new regime should be removed or retained for audit-trail purposes.
• Derivatives, legal and operations teams should reconcile the final FCA BTS with the Treasury SI and identify any changes to transaction documentation, exemption registers, counterparty representations and regulatory reporting procedures.

What changed

The Over-the-Counter Derivatives (Intragroup Transactions) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/1117), made on 21 October 2026, amend Article 3 of UK EMIR so that an intragroup transaction may involve entities in any jurisdiction, provided both counterparties are in the same group, included in the same consolidation on a full basis, and subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures. The reform removes the dependence of permanent intragroup exemptions on an Article 13 UK EMIR equivalence decision.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA publishes PS26/22 and final rules; the FEES amendment relating to the regime comes into force.

2027-02-01

FCA expects its Pre-Application Support Service for ESG rating authorisation applications to become available.

2027-06-24

FCA authorisation gateway opens for ESG rating providers.

2027-07-31 Deadline

Larger firms, defined by the FCA as firms expecting at least £500,000 of UK ESG-ratings revenue in the 12 months following application, should apply during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027.

2027-08-31 Deadline

Other firms should apply during the second month of the gateway, by the end of August 2027.

2028-06-29 Deadline

The ESG ratings regime comes into force. In-scope providers must have FCA authorisation and the relevant permission unless an exclusion or exemption applies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory every product, score, opinion, label, ranking, colour-coded category and platform output that assesses one or more environmental, social or governance factors, including products not marketed as ESG ratings.
• Compliance teams may wish to apply the PERG 19 decision framework to each product: whether the activity is carried on by way of business, whether the firm produces and makes the rating available, whether investment decisions are likely to be influenced, the territorial connection, and whether an exclusion or exemption applies.
• Firms should document the distinction between unranked ESG data and provider-produced ratings, including the methodology, default thresholds, categories and user-configurable outputs embedded in software or analytics platforms.
• Potential applicants should identify the legal entity requiring permission, assess whether the activity is standalone or embedded in another regulated service, and prepare a regulatory business plan, governance map, resources assessment and threshold-conditions evidence.
• Prospective applicants should use the FCA’s Pre-Application Support Service from February 2027 and consider submitting applications promptly after the 2027 gateway opens.
• Larger firms should plan to submit applications during the first month of the gateway, before the end of July 2027, where forecast UK ESG-ratings revenue is at least £500,000 in the 12 months following application. Other firms should plan to apply during the second month, by the end of August 2027.
• Firms should perform a gap analysis against PRIN, SYSC, SM&CR, GEN, DISP, ESG-sourcebook and financial-crime expectations, with particular attention to methodology governance, data quality, conflicts, complaints, records, outsourcing and senior-manager accountability.
• Providers should review commercial terms, marketing and distribution arrangements to determine whether products could reasonably be expected to influence specified investment decisions, including where outputs are supplied through third-party financial platforms.

What changed

Providing an ESG rating becomes a regulated activity under article 63U of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, as amended by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025. The activity generally requires a provider to produce and make available an opinion, score or combination based on an established methodology and defined ranking system, where the rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment.

Key dates

2026-07-23

EFRAG published the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft and opened a 100-day public consultation.

2026-10-28

The Government of Japan dated its comment letter on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft.

2026-10-31 Deadline

EFRAG's public consultation on the ESRS-40a Exposure Draft closes.

2027-01-01

EFRAG is expected to deliver technical advice on ESRS-40a to the European Commission.

2028-01-01

The first financial years to which the proposed Article 40a reporting framework is expected to apply are expected to begin on or after this date, subject to adoption of the final rules.

2029-01-01

The first ESRS-40a reports are generally expected to be published in 2029 for financial years beginning on or after 2028-01-01, subject to the final delegated act and applicable publication timing.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map group and EU-entity turnover against the Article 40a thresholds, using the preceding financial year for the EUR 200 million subsidiary or branch test and each of the preceding two financial years for the EUR 450 million EU-turnover test.
• In-scope groups should monitor the outcome of the EFRAG consultation, the expected January 2027 technical advice and the European Commission's subsequent delegated act before treating any ESRS-40a exposure-draft provision as final.
• Reporting teams should compare existing ISSB-aligned or jurisdictionally mandated sustainability reporting with the ESRS-40a requirements and identify likely top-ups, particularly disclosures not covered by ISSB Standards.
• Groups may wish to model the data, governance and assurance consequences of global reporting, the proposed mixed approach and Japan's suggested EU-impact-focused alternative.
• EU subsidiaries and branches should clarify with their non-EU parent whether the reporting obligation will be met through an incorporated group report, an ESRS-40a report or another permitted equivalent, including arrangements for publication, accessibility and assurance.
• Stakeholders wishing to influence the final standard should consider submitting comments to EFRAG by the consultation deadline, including evidence on duplicative disclosures, EU-impact scoping and interoperability with ISSB-aligned standards.

What changed

The Government of Japan proposed that EFRAG clarify which ESRS-40a disclosure requirements would remain as top-ups where a non-EU group incorporates by reference a group sustainability report prepared under jurisdictionally mandated standards functionally aligned with ISSB Standards. Japan also proposed adding an alternative to the Exposure Draft's mixed approach that would reduce the reporting burden on non-EU companies while requiring reporting of all EU-related impacts. The Exposure Draft itself is a consultation proposal rather than a final binding standard.

Key dates

2026-06-08

The AMF launched its public consultation on the draft recommendation on MMF liquidity.

2026-10-30

The AMF published final Recommendation DOC-2026-07 on liquidity management for money market funds.

Suggested considerations

• Consider mapping each affected MMF’s current and stressed WLA against both the applicable MMFR minimum and the AMF market-resilience reference level of 20% or 40%.
• Consider documenting fund-specific liquidity calibration, including investor concentration, expected redemption patterns, dealing frequency, portfolio composition, currency exposure and market-liquidity assumptions, rather than relying only on a static WLA benchmark.
• Consider reviewing liquidity-risk dashboards and escalation triggers so that a fall below the relevant resilience level is identified promptly and escalated through strengthened internal governance.
• Consider establishing a documented process to determine when a breach has persisted for 10 business days and when a prolonged or significant deviation is reasonably anticipated.
• Consider preparing an AMF notification package containing the duration and scale of the deviation, its causes, remedial measures, portfolio and investor-liquidity analysis, and relevant stress-test results.
• Consider reviewing stress-testing scenarios and management information to ensure they support decisions to use or rebuild liquidity buffers without automatically activating liquidity-management tools solely because the resilience level is breached.
• Consider confirming that policies distinguish the AMF supervisory resilience levels from the binding 15% and 30% MMFR WLA minima and identify the different consequences of each threshold.
• Consider monitoring coordinated guidance from the Central Bank of Ireland, Luxembourg’s CSSF and the UK FCA because comparable 20% and 40% reference levels may affect cross-border group governance and supervisory expectations.

What changed

The AMF expects VNAV MMFs generally to maintain at least 20% WLA, compared with the 15% statutory minimum under Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 on money market funds (MMFR). Public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs are expected generally to maintain at least 40% WLA, compared with the 30% MMFR minimum. These are supervisory market-resilience levels rather than new statutory MMFR minimums. Where a fund falls sustainably below the relevant level, its management company is expected to apply heightened liquidity-risk vigilance, rapid escalation procedures and strengthened internal decision-making.

Key dates

2026-06-08

The Central Bank published Consultation Paper CP168 on Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset levels.

2026-08-03 Deadline

The consultation period for CP168 closed.

2026-10-30

The Central Bank published the CP168 Feedback Statement and final Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset levels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each affected fund's current and projected WLA against the 40% resilience level for Public Debt CNAV and LVNAV funds and the 20% level for VNAV funds.
• MMF managers may wish to update liquidity-risk frameworks, liquidity monitoring, stress-testing assumptions, escalation triggers and board or risk-committee reporting to reflect the resilience levels.
• Compliance and risk teams should document how temporary movements below a resilience level will be assessed in the context of the fund's overall liquidity position, redemption profile, asset liquidity and market conditions.
• Managers should establish or validate procedures for prompt escalation and notification to the Central Bank where WLA remains below the applicable resilience level for more than 10 business days or where a prolonged or substantial deviation is anticipated.
• Firms should retain evidence supporting WLA calculations, stress-test outputs, escalation decisions, explanations for deviations and communications with the Central Bank.
• Fund managers may wish to review liquidity-related disclosures and prospectus language, although independent commentary indicates that the Guidance is primarily expected to require internal liquidity-management changes rather than prospectus amendments.
• Irish MMF managers should monitor related developments from the European Commission, ESMA, the French AMF and Luxembourg CSSF because the Guidance forms part of a coordinated European supervisory approach.

What changed

The Guidance expects Public Debt Constant Net Asset Value (CNAV) and Low Volatility Net Asset Value (LVNAV) money market funds to maintain weekly liquid assets (WLA) at a market-resilience level of 40%, and Variable Net Asset Value (VNAV) money market funds to maintain WLA at 20%. These levels exceed the minimum WLA requirements in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1131, which are generally 30% for Public Debt CNAV and LVNAV funds and 15% for VNAV funds.

Key dates

2026-05-11

European Commission published its report on the adequacy of the MMFR and identified market-resilience WLA levels of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs.

2026-06-08

CSSF launched its consultation on Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels.

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation.

2026-10-30

CSSF published the IMMFA consultation response and final guidance, and announced a three-month implementation period.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each affected MMF by VNAV, public debt CNAV or LVNAV status and map the applicable 20% or 40% WLA resilience benchmark against the existing 15% or 30% MMFR minimum.
• MMF managers should update liquidity-risk policies, escalation thresholds, management information and governance records to evidence enhanced vigilance when WLA approaches or falls below the relevant benchmark.
• Risk teams should incorporate the 20% and 40% benchmarks into Article 28 MMFR stress-testing and assess whether investor concentration, redemption behaviour, market liquidity and portfolio composition require liquidity materially above the benchmark.
• Firms should establish controls to identify periods exceeding 10 business days below the applicable benchmark and procedures for timely CSSF notification, including documented explanations, justifications and any relevant Article 28(4) or (5) remedial measures.
• Boards and senior management should review whether the three-month implementation period announced by CSSF requires changes to investment guidelines, liquidity buffers, breach escalation and reporting calendars.
• Compliance teams may wish to document that the resilience benchmarks are supervisory reference points rather than replacements for the MMFR statutory ratios, while recognising the CSSF’s stated intention to increase supervisory engagement for prolonged deviations.
• Firms should monitor cross-border consistency with the parallel supervisory approaches of the French AMF and Central Bank of Ireland, particularly where groups manage MMFs in multiple EU jurisdictions.

What changed

The CSSF has finalised guidance, following the consultation that closed on 3 August 2026, with only slight clarifications. MMF managers are expected to incorporate 20% WLA for VNAV MMFs and 40% WLA for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs into liquidity-risk frameworks and Article 28 stress-testing processes. These benchmarks sit above the existing Regulation (EU) 2017/1131 minimum WLA requirements of 15% for VNAV MMFs and 30% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs.

Key dates

2026-08-03 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the CSSF consultation on the proposed MMF WLA guidance.

2026-10-30

CSSF published the final MMF WLA guidance, feedback statement and consultation responses, including ALFI’s response.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each in-scope MMF as VNAV, public debt CNAV or LVNAV and map the applicable 20% or 40% WLA resilience benchmark against the fund’s existing 15% or 30% MMFR minimum.
• MMF managers should review liquidity risk-management frameworks, redemption assumptions, escalation thresholds, governance documentation and management-information reporting to demonstrate how the relevant benchmark is considered as a risk-management reference point rather than treated automatically as a statutory minimum.
• Managers should incorporate the 20% and 40% benchmarks into Article 28 MMFR stress-testing methodology, scenario analysis and board or governing-body reporting, while documenting fund-specific reasons for maintaining lower or higher WLA levels where appropriate.
• Firms should establish reliable daily monitoring of WLA, a process for identifying periods exceeding 10 business days below the relevant benchmark, and controls for escalating prolonged or substantial deviations to senior management and the CSSF.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare the information expected in a CSSF notification, including the duration and magnitude of the deviation, its cause, investor and redemption characteristics, stress-test results, liquidity-management actions and the rationale for the manager’s response.
• Boards and depositaries should review whether oversight records, challenge processes and valuation or liquidity controls adequately address the potential supervisory consequences of persistent benchmark breaches.
• Firms should assess the interaction with Circular CSSF 26/911 and the 2025 ESMA MMF stress-test guidelines, which apply to CSSF-supervised MMFs and Luxembourg managers from the 30 June 2026 reporting date onward.
• Managers should avoid presenting the resilience benchmarks to investors as amended legal minimums unless the fund’s governing documents, disclosures or risk limits separately require that treatment; market commentary from respondents indicated concern that the 10-business-day trigger could operate as a de facto limit in practice.

What changed

The final guidance retains the European Commission’s market-resilience WLA benchmarks: 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs. These levels sit above the Money Market Funds Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1131) minimum WLA requirements of 15% for VNAV MMFs and 30% for public debt CNAV and LVNAV MMFs; the existing daily liquid asset minimums remain 7.5% and 10%, respectively.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission issued its call for technical advice to the European Supervisory Authorities on targeted simplification of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

2026-07-01

ESMA launched its consultation on selected Taxonomy KPIs and proposed simplification measures.

2026-08-12 Deadline

ESMA’s consultation period closed.

2026-10-29

ESMA submitted its Final Report and technical advice to the European Commission for consideration in the review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should continue applying the currently effective Taxonomy Regulation and Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act until any Commission amendment enters into force.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of the Disclosures Delegated Act and assess any subsequent delegated act, scrutiny period, entry-into-force date and transitional provisions before changing reporting controls.
• Corporate reporting teams may wish to model the effect of an R&D-only mandatory OpEx KPI, including the IAS 38 or national-GAAP population, numerator mapping and interaction with existing materiality reliefs.
• Groups should inventory parent and subsidiary business lines, assess whether secondary businesses could exceed a cumulative 10% consolidated-turnover threshold, and prepare for possible parent-regime and simplified secondary-business templates.
• Asset managers and other financial undertakings should avoid treating the proposed absence of voluntary OpEx reporting as current law and should document the basis for any voluntary Taxonomy metrics under existing disclosure and anti-greenwashing controls.
• Issuers and sustainability-reporting teams should review sustainable-bond, internal-sales, contextual-information and CapEx Type C data processes so they can adapt if the Commission adopts ESMA’s recommendations.
• Reporting governance should track whether any future voluntary alternative metric is reconciled to the mandatory KPI and subject to applicable ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures.

What changed

ESMA recommends that the mandatory Article 8 Taxonomy Regulation OpEx KPI focus on non-capitalised R&D expenditure, with the denominator based on expenditure recognised under IAS 38 or relevant national GAAP and the numerator drawn from the existing Annex I categories. It does not recommend introducing a mandatory voluntary OpEx+ metric, and advises against allowing financial undertakings, including asset managers, to use an OpEx KPI voluntarily for Taxonomy disclosures.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission requested technical advice from the ESAs on the review of Article 8 Taxonomy disclosures.

2026-10-29

The EBA published its final technical advice and submitted its report to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should treat the publication as forward-looking technical advice and should not cease reporting the Fees and Commissions KPI, Trading Book KPI or other existing disclosures unless and until the Commission adopts applicable amendments or transitional measures.
• Firms should map current Taxonomy data lineage, controls, templates and calculation logic against each proposed change so that implementation can be accelerated if the Commission follows the EBA advice.
• Banking groups should assess how parent-level KPIs and material secondary-activity KPIs could affect consolidation methodologies, entity-level data ownership and audit trails.
• Investment firms should inventory fees, commissions and other services currently included in the relevant KPIs, particularly capital-markets-related services, and model the effect of the proposed narrower approach.
• Credit institutions should review Green Asset Ratio template production and identify duplicated or low-value data points that may be removed or harmonised in a future delegated act.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178, the related Omnibus simplification measures and any final ESA or Commission guidance before updating policies, public disclosures or regulatory reporting systems.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to engage with the Commission consultation or legislative process and preserve evidence supporting current reporting interpretations during the transition.

What changed

The EBA recommends removing the Fees and Commissions KPI and the Trading Book KPI from Taxonomy disclosure requirements. It proposes simplifying the investment firms’ other-services KPI, including capital-markets-related services, and aligning grandfathering provisions with Regulation (EU) 2023/2631 on European Green Bonds, but only for bonds issued under that Regulation. The EBA advises against introducing the operational expenditure KPI of non-financial undertakings into financial undertakings’ KPI calculations.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2026-10-28

FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
• Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
• Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
• Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
• Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
• Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.

What changed

The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.

Key dates

2026-10-21

The French Treasury, AMF, Banque de France and ACPR published their joint response to the European Commission consultation on the MiCA review.

2026-09-30 Deadline

The European Commission consultation deadline identified in independent legal commentary; this date had passed before publication of the French authorities' response.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to maintain the existing MiCA control framework because this publication does not create an immediate amendment, authorisation requirement or prohibition.
• Firms should consider mapping each token, service and distribution channel against the definitions and perimeter provisions of MiCA, MiFID II and payment-services legislation, with particular attention to products that could require more than one authorisation.
• EU-authorised crypto-asset service providers should consider reviewing onboarding, asset-admission, execution, custody, trading and distribution controls for exposure to asset-referenced tokens or e-money tokens that may not satisfy MiCA requirements.
• Stablecoin issuers and groups using the same fungible token across EU and third-country markets should consider documenting issuance structures, reserve segregation, redemption rights, equivalence assumptions and supervisory-cooperation dependencies in anticipation of possible multi-issuance rules.
• Significant crypto-asset service providers and crypto-conglomerates should consider assessing governance, prudential, group-risk and supervisory-reporting readiness for a possible future shift of direct or enhanced oversight toward ESMA.
• Banks, payment firms and investment firms should consider assessing strategic opportunities and regulatory dependencies arising from euro-denominated e-money tokens and tokenised bank deposits without treating the French position as approval of any specific product.
• DeFi, staking and crypto-lending businesses should consider identifying responsible intermediaries, documenting due-diligence controls and preserving evidence of protocol governance and risk assessments pending any future EU framework.
• Industry participants may wish to monitor the Commission's MiCA review, subsequent legislative proposals, ESMA and EBA opinions, and national implementation developments before changing operating models.

What changed

No legal requirements changed on 2026-10-21. The French authorities proposed streamlining MiCA and clarifying when an activity falls under MiCA, the legislation governing financial instruments, or payment-services legislation, including where one business model could require multiple authorisations. They stated that a financial instrument should remain fully subject to the financial-instruments regime irrespective of the technology used for issuance or trading, and that the same principle should apply to payment instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-20

ESMA published its final report on the RTS specifying requirements for PTRR services using the EMIR 3 clearing-obligation exemption.

Suggested considerations

• PTRR providers should compare their existing compression, rebalancing and basis-risk-optimisation procedures with the final ESMA requirements, particularly participant disclosures, algorithm governance, execution controls, record retention and monitoring support.
• Firms should identify OTC derivative transactions processed through PTRR services that are currently expected to rely on the EMIR 3 conditional clearing exemption and document the legal and operational basis for that treatment.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to review contracts, client disclosures and service descriptions to ensure that participants receive adequate information about the exercise, its methodology, expected outcomes and relevant risks.
• Providers should consider preserving evidence that each exercise meets the applicable risk-reduction and market-risk-neutrality conditions and does not function as a means of avoiding the clearing obligation.
• Firms should prepare for possible changes when the European Commission endorses the RTS, including tracking the endorsement, publication and application dates and updating policies, controls, reporting procedures and staff guidance accordingly.
• Operations and records-management teams should assess whether existing books and records can identify the participants, transactions, algorithms, controls, results and decisions associated with each PTRR exercise for the required supervisory period.
• Users of third-party PTRR services should consider obtaining contractual assurances and sufficient information from providers to demonstrate that transactions claimed as exempt satisfy the final RTS conditions.
• Industry participants may wish to monitor Commission endorsement and any transitional provisions rather than treating the 20 October 2026 publication date as the effective date of the RTS.

What changed

The final report specifies the conditions under which transactions resulting from PTRR services may qualify for the EMIR 3 clearing-obligation exemption, including requirements concerning participant information, the conduct and execution of PTRR exercises, provider controls, record-keeping and supervisory monitoring. The framework addresses the main service types identified in ESMA's consultation: portfolio compression, portfolio rebalancing and basis risk optimisation, with requirements intended to demonstrate risk reduction and prevent circumvention of the clearing obligation.

Key dates

2026-10-16

SFC welcomed HKEX’s consultation conclusions on the proposed transition from T+2 to T+1; HKEX published the consultation conclusions on the same date.

2028-09-01

September 2028 is identified as HKEX’s target month for implementation within the broader second-half-of-2028 timetable, subject to market readiness, regulatory approval and final rule and procedure amendments.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all Hong Kong cash-market products, trading venues, settlement locations and transaction types that may fall within the final T+1 scope, including stock-option physical settlement where relevant.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to perform an end-to-end impact assessment covering trade capture, allocation, confirmation, affirmation, settlement-instruction creation and matching, funding, stock borrowing, corporate actions, reconciliations, fails management and client reporting.
• Firms should assess whether overseas time zones, foreign-exchange funding, cross-border custody arrangements and client approval processes will effectively create a T+0 operating deadline for US- and European-based investors.
• Broker-dealers, custodians and investment managers should review service-level agreements, settlement cut-offs, standing settlement instructions, client documentation, fail-allocation terms and contractual responsibility for late or failed settlement.
• Technology teams may wish to test automation, real-time or near-real-time status updates, API connectivity, matching, exception queues, reconciliation and management information against the compressed timetable.
• Firms should engage HKEX, HKSCC, executing brokers, custodians, prime brokers, fund administrators and other vendors on technical specifications, testing windows, training and readiness assessments as they become available.
• Risk and treasury functions may wish to reassess intraday liquidity, pre-funding, collateral, stock-borrow availability, overdraft capacity, settlement-fail exposure and related client-margin assumptions.
• Compliance teams should monitor the consequential amendments to HKEX and HKSCC rules and procedures, SFC communications, regulatory approvals and any final scope, cut-off, penalty or fail-management provisions before treating the September 2028 date as firm.

What changed

HKEX proposes to settle in-scope Hong Kong cash-market transactions one business day after trade date rather than two business days. The transition is subject to market readiness, regulatory approval and consequential amendments to applicable HKEX and settlement-system rules and procedures; the SFC says it will work with HKEX on those amendments and implementation arrangements.

Key dates

2025-12-08

FCA opened DP25/3, Expanding consumer access to investments.

2026-03-06

FCA closed the DP25/3 feedback period.

2026-10-16

FCA published FS26/3, summarising feedback and setting out next steps.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA's planned review of financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments and assess whether current product classifications and promotional controls would remain defensible if similar-risk products are brought into a more consistent regime.
• Firms may wish to inventory customer-facing risk information for mainstream investments and identify disclosures, digital journeys and governance processes that could require revision following the FCA's planned early-2027 consultation.
• Platform operators and distributors may wish to review appropriateness-testing journeys, including customer understanding, repeat transactions, exemptions, escalation and recordkeeping, in anticipation of FCA stakeholder engagement during 2027.
• Manufacturers and distributors of model portfolio services may wish to test product governance, target-market definitions, distribution strategy, cost and risk disclosures, and evidence of good consumer outcomes before the FCA publishes its multi-firm review findings in Q1 2027.
• Firms may wish to review whether digital interfaces, trading-app functionality, gamification features and other friction-reducing design choices support informed decision-making and remain consistent with Consumer Duty outcomes.
• Industry participants may wish to engage with the FCA's future consultations and stakeholder work, while avoiding treating FS26/3 as permission to relax existing financial-promotion, suitability, appropriateness or consumer-protection controls.

What changed

FS26/3 does not introduce new requirements, thresholds or effective dates for firms. The FCA will review whether financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments treat products with similar risks consistently; it plans to consult in early 2027 on changes to rules and guidance concerning risk information for mainstream investments; and it will review how appropriateness assessments operate in practice, including the merits of alternative models, with stakeholder engagement planned for 2027.

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.

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.

Key dates

2026-10-15

OSFI published its statement endorsing the FSB Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence; the FSB also published the final Sound Practices on this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the 12 FSB practices against existing controls under OSFI’s Corporate Governance Guideline, Integrity and Security Guideline, Guideline B-10, Guideline B-13, Guideline E-21 and Guideline E-23.
• Firms should consider maintaining an enterprise-wide inventory of AI use cases, including internally developed systems, embedded vendor functionality and generative or agentic AI, with documented owners, intended purposes, materiality assessments and lifecycle status.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review whether the institution’s business strategy, risk appetite and governance framework clearly address AI adoption, accountability, escalation and human oversight.
• Firms should consider assessing AI use cases for operational, technology, cyber, third-party, model, data, privacy, conduct and governance risks, with controls proportionate to the materiality and risk of each use case.
• Compliance and risk functions may wish to review AI development and deployment documentation, validation, monitoring, change management, testing, incident escalation, explainability and retirement processes, including for systems supplied by third parties.
• Institutions should consider evaluating whether existing B-10 outsourcing and third-party risk controls address vendor model changes, data access, subcontracting, concentration risk, resilience, audit rights and exit arrangements for AI-enabled services.
• Internal audit or an equivalent independent assurance function may wish to assess whether AI governance and lifecycle controls operate effectively and whether management reporting to the board is sufficiently complete.
• Firms may wish to monitor subsequent OSFI technology risk bulletins, supervisory communications and future revisions to the FSB practices, since OSFI stated that it will continue monitoring how AI changes the risk environment and institutional operations.

What changed

OSFI formally endorsed the FSB Sound Practices and identified them as complementary to existing OSFI expectations. The FSB practices cover organization-wide AI governance and management across the AI lifecycle, including strategic direction, accountability, risk management, human oversight, data governance, controls, adaptability and coordination. The publication is non-binding guidance rather than a new OSFI rule, capital requirement, reporting obligation or prescribed compliance deadline.

Key dates

2026-10-14

AFM publiceert de actualisering van het boetetoemetingsbeleid.

2026-10-15

Het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 treedt in werking en vervangt in beginsel het beleid van 2021, behoudens toepasselijke overgangsregimes.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each relevante overtreding tegen het toepasselijke wettelijke basisbedrag, de boetecategorie en het wettelijke omzetgerelateerde maximum onder de Wft, het Bbbfs en toepasselijke EU-regels.
• Grotere ondernemingen may wish to model exposure using three- to ten-times the applicable basisbedrag for potential zware zaken, followed by a documented proportionality assessment and review against the relevant percentage-of-turnover ceiling.
• Firms should consider strengthening evidence on remediation, cooperation, duration, limited impact, absence of recidive, financial position and any other mitigating circumstances, because the updated policy gives the AFM greater scope to move materially away from the basisbedrag.
• Boards and senior compliance owners may wish to review open investigations, pending enforcement matters and historic breaches to assess whether the 2026 policy or an applicable transitional regime is relevant.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to verify the final AFM 2026 policy and its transitional provisions, particularly where the alleged conduct occurred before 15 October 2026 or where the applicable legal maximum has recently changed.
• Firms may wish to update enforcement-risk scenarios, management information and provisions to reflect that a lower basisbedrag is not necessarily a reliable proxy for the final penalty in a serious case.

What changed

Het beleid blijft gebaseerd op het bestaande stappenplan, maar verduidelijkt dat het wettelijke basisbedrag slechts een globaal uitgangspunt is. De ernst van de overtreding kan aanleiding geven tot een aanzienlijke verhoging of verlaging, waardoor de AFM meer ruimte krijgt voor vergaand maatwerk in lijn met recente jurisprudentie.

Key dates

2026-10-14

AFM publishes the policy on fines for deficiencies in MiFIR transaction reporting that firms fail to report voluntarily.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should compare their transaction-reporting incident procedures with the new AFM thresholds, while recognising that the AFM’s existing incident process can require notification before those thresholds are reached.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish documented escalation triggers for missing or late reports exceeding 100,000 transactions or 25% over at least two weeks, and for incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports exceeding 500,000 transactions or 50% over at least four weeks.
• Firms should consider treating the thresholds as minimum enforcement indicators rather than safe harbours, because the AFM separately expects firms to report significant incidents immediately and requires firms to decide reportability based on all available information.
• Transaction-reporting owners may wish to monitor rejected reports, failed resubmissions, invalid or missing LEIs, duplicate or unnecessary reports, and data-field errors, with evidence of detection dates, affected populations, root cause and remediation.
• Firms should consider retaining a defensible audit trail for incidents not reported to the AFM, including the issue scope, the reportability assessment, root-cause analysis, corrective controls and management approval.
• Where notification is required, firms should consider using the AFM incident form promptly rather than waiting for the investigation to finish, updating the AFM as facts develop and documenting any request for additional time.
• Senior management and compliance committees may wish to review recurring incidents and prior infringements because a second infringement within five years has a stated starting fine of €50,000, twice the first-infringement amount.
• Firms should consider validating their procedures against Article 26 of MiFIR, Article 15(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 and the Dutch Wft framework, including the requirement to report transactions completely, accurately and no later than the end of the following working day.

What changed

The AFM has formalised when an unreported transaction-reporting deficiency will be treated as involving a substantial quantity of transactions. For missing or late reports, the threshold is more than 100,000 affected transactions or more than 25% of reportable transactions over a period of at least two weeks. For incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports, the threshold is more than 500,000 affected transactions or more than 50% of reportable transactions over a period of at least four weeks.

Key dates

2026-10-28 Deadline

The PRA amendments to the Housing Part of the PRA Rulebook and SS2/26 commence; the FCA replacement general guidance also comes into effect and prior FCA high-LTI guidance is replaced.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their high-LTI risk appetite, lending plans and business model support individual high-LTI flows above 15% from 28 October 2026.
• Firms should review and, where necessary, update board-approved policies, risk appetite statements, underwriting controls, affordability assessments, portfolio limits, stress testing and management information for high-LTI lending.
• Compliance teams may wish to map existing controls and reporting to the rolling four-quarter calculation for individual flows and distinguish this from the regulators’ single-quarter aggregate monitoring measure.
• Firms should establish a process to monitor the PRA’s quarterly aggregate high-LTI publication and the FCA’s notifications regarding expected adjustments, including escalation to senior management and the board where a reduction in lending may be required.
• Firms intending to operate above 15% should consider whether they can reduce high-LTI lending smoothly and predictably towards 15% if requested, including identifying practical management actions and avoiding abrupt changes to customer or intermediary pipelines.
• Firms should confirm that further advances and retirement interest-only mortgage contracts are correctly excluded from the relevant flow calculations and that other mortgage products are classified consistently with the final rules and guidance.
• Firms using the interim PRA modification by consent or FCA individual guidance should confirm that the relevant interim directions will fall away automatically on 28 October 2026 and align systems and procedures with the final framework.
• Senior managers and boards should document oversight of high-LTI strategy, risk appetite changes, portfolio performance, concentration risk and the potential effect of aggregate market developments on future lending.

What changed

The PRA will amend the Housing Part of the PRA Rulebook and the FCA will replace FG14/8, FG17/2 and FG25/4 with new general guidance. High-LTI lending remains lending at an LTI ratio of 4.5 times income or above, with the aggregate market limit remaining 15%; the individual firm-level 15% cap is removed. Individual firm high-LTI flows and any expected reductions will be assessed on a rolling four-quarter basis, while the regulators will monitor aggregate high-LTI flow using a single-calendar-quarter measure.

Key dates

2026-10-14

MAS published its October 2026 Monetary Policy Statement and maintained the rate of appreciation, width, and centre of the S$NEER policy band.

2027-06-01

MAS expects core inflation to begin easing more discernibly from around the middle of 2027; this is an economic forecast, not a compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams should record the statement as a macroeconomic policy development rather than a new regulatory obligation.
• Treasury, asset-liability management, investment-risk, and enterprise-risk functions should consider reviewing assumptions for SGD exchange rates, imported energy and food costs, interest rates, and liquidity under the stated upside-inflation and downside-growth scenarios.
• Firms with material foreign-currency exposures should consider reassessing hedging, stress-testing, valuation, and client-portfolio assumptions in light of the continued appreciating S$NEER policy band.
• Banks and other firms using 2026 or 2027 financial-crime, conduct, credit, capital, or liquidity scenarios may wish to document whether the revised inflation outlook and expected moderation of AI-related growth affect those scenarios.
• Compliance teams should monitor subsequent MAS statements and applicable supervisory communications because MAS expressly stated that it remains prepared to respond to risks to medium-term price stability.

What changed

No new binding compliance requirement, prudential rule, reporting obligation, or conduct standard was introduced. MAS retained the appreciating S$NEER policy band and left its slope, width, and centre unchanged. MAS reported that Singapore GDP grew 5.4% year-on-year in Q3 2026 and revised its 2026 MAS Core Inflation forecast to 1.5–2.0%, with CPI-All Items inflation around 2.0%; for 2027, both measures are projected at 1.5–2.5%.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Instruction DOC-2026-05 was published; it applies to the specified OPCIs and evergreen FCPRs, and the two-year transition period begins for funds established before this date.

2028-10-13 Deadline

End of the two-year transition period for OPCIs and evergreen FCPRs established before 2026-10-13. Management companies should have notified the AMF of compliance through ROSA and filed the prospectus or rules and required stress tests by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify every OPCI and evergreen FCPR in scope and map its redemption frequency, notice period, current liquid-asset holdings and applicable minimum cushion under Instruction DOC-2026-05.
• Management companies should calculate whether each fund satisfies the applicable permanent cushion and assess whether the potentially reduced regime for funds marketed exclusively through eligible insurance or savings products is available and properly evidenced.
• Compliance teams may wish to update prospectuses, evergreen FCPR rules and related investor disclosures to state the minimum liquid-asset cushion using the applicable Annex VII format.
• Firms should produce or refresh liquidity stress tests using all scenarios specified in DOC-2026-05, including evidence that redemption requests can be met, and establish governance for periodic review and escalation of shortfalls.
• Management companies should review whether any proposed change to redemption frequency or notice period would alter the required cushion and, if so, plan for prior AMF approval, specific investor notification and the applicable fee-free redemption right.
• For funds existing on 2026-10-13, firms should plan the ROSA filing of the amended prospectus or rules and compliant stress tests before the end of the two-year transition period.
• Product, distribution and insurance teams should verify that marketing materials and product documentation do not imply liquidity inconsistent with the fund’s redemption terms, liquid-asset cushion or stress-test assumptions.
• Firms should monitor the forthcoming French transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/927 and assess whether subsequent statutory liquidity-management-tool requirements impose additional controls beyond DOC-2026-05.

What changed

The former authorisation approach, under which management companies generally demonstrated liquid assets equal to 30% to 40% of net assets and submitted stress tests, is replaced or formalised through a permanent liquidity cushion calibrated to the fund’s redemption frequency or redemption notice period. The AMF gives a monthly-redemption fund as an example requiring at least 25% of net assets in liquid assets.

Key dates

2025-03-28

The SFC issued its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the SMLR.

2025-05-23 Deadline

The consultation period for the proposed SMLR amendments closed.

2026-10-12

The SFC published consultation conclusions and announced that it would proceed with the amendments, subject to the legislative process.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams supporting IPO applicants should consider updating due-diligence, disclosure and governance processes to identify information that may need to be disclosed or remediated as a continuing post-listing condition.
• Listing applicants and sponsors should consider assessing whether proposed undertakings, disclosure controls and post-listing monitoring arrangements can satisfy conditions that may continue after listing.
• Listed issuers should consider strengthening escalation procedures for materially false, incomplete or misleading disclosures, and preparing documented remediation and disclosure plans that could support continued trading rather than suspension.
• Issuers and their advisers should consider monitoring the gazetted amendment text, Legislative Council negative-vetting materials and any SFC implementation guidance for differences from the consultation proposals and the final effective date.
• Brokers and market operators should consider reviewing controls for identifying and communicating SFC-imposed trading conditions, suspension directions and resumption conditions.
• Affected issuers should consider preserving decision records and legal analysis needed to evaluate a potential merits review before the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal once the expanded review jurisdiction takes effect.

What changed

The SMLR will be amended to expressly permit the SFC to impose conditions on listing applicants that continue to apply after listing, including continuing disclosure obligations. The SFC will also be able to impose conditions on listed issuers as an alternative to immediately suspending trading, with continued dealings conditional on compliance; potential conditions include clearer, more explicit and more complete disclosure to investors.

Key dates

2025-12-03

The EBA launched its consultation on the draft amendments to the CSD prudential RTS.

2026-03-03 Deadline

The EBA consultation closed.

2026-10-12

The EBA published the Final Report and submitted draft amendments to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Banking CSDs and designated credit institutions should map existing and planned cash, deposit, payment and foreign-exchange services against the CSDR Refit permissions and the draft RTS risk-management and notification framework.
• CSDs should assess whether providing or receiving these services creates additional intraday credit, liquidity, settlement, counterparty or concentration exposures, including exposures arising through foreign-currency settlement and increased inter-CSD interconnectedness.
• Compliance and regulatory-policy teams should compare current prudential policies, risk limits, management information, reporting and public-disclosure processes with the draft RTS once the EBA draft text has been reviewed in detail.
• Firms should monitor the European Commission's endorsement, any amendments made during adoption, publication in the Official Journal and the eventual application date before treating the draft requirements as binding.
• CSDs and designated credit institutions may wish to engage with their competent authorities early on the expected supervisory notifications, information flows and governance for arrangements involving participants of another CSD.
• Regulatory inventories and internal legal references should be updated for the amended CSDR terminology and relevant CRR changes after the final delegated act is adopted.

What changed

The draft RTS update the prudential framework under Article 59(5) of Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) for monitoring, measuring, managing, reporting and publicly disclosing credit and liquidity risks, including intraday risks. They address arrangements under which a banking CSD provides banking-type ancillary services to another, or designating, CSD, including cash accounts, deposits and payment services involving cash and foreign-exchange transactions, with particular attention to the effect on the banking CSD's risk profile and to notifications required by supervisors.

Key dates

2026-10-12

MAS announced the enhanced safeguards and published its response to the consultation on public prospecting activities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all roadshows, promotional booths and other public prospecting activities against the forthcoming restriction to designated areas at commercial premises.
• Firms should consider identifying suitably qualified event supervisors, defining their responsibilities and documenting escalation and intervention procedures for representative misconduct.
• Firms should consider revising scripts and training so representatives clearly state their marketing purpose before engagement and obtain consumer consent before proceeding.
• Firms may wish to establish monitoring, sampling and management-information controls to evidence that consent was obtained and that solicitation was not persistent or otherwise inappropriate.
• Firms should review policies, representative procedures, venue approval processes, third-party arrangements and supervisory testing for continued street canvassing or door-to-door activity, which remains prohibited.
• Compliance teams may wish to track the 2027 issuance of the updated Guidelines and calculate the applicable nine-month transition period from the actual issuance date rather than from this announcement.
• Firms should consider aligning physical prospecting controls with their existing controls for digital advertising activities introduced in September 2025.

What changed

Financial institutions will be expected to conduct public prospecting only in designated areas at commercial premises. They will need to appoint suitably qualified individuals to oversee representatives’ conduct at such events. Representatives must disclose at the outset that they intend to market financial products or services and obtain the consumer’s consent before continuing the engagement. Street canvassing and door-to-door prospecting remain prohibited.

Key dates

2027-01-17 Deadline

The current transitional regime for certain third-country CSD notary and central maintenance services is scheduled to expire; ESMA says access should nevertheless not be prevented after this date pending finalisation of the legislative extension.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify securities, issuer programmes, custody chains and settlement arrangements that depend directly or indirectly on a third-country CSD, including arrangements involving DTC or other non-EU infrastructure.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to document reliance on the transitional regime and assess the consequences of a delayed or unsuccessful legislative extension, including possible suspension, removal of securities from a CSD system, settlement disruption and trading interruption.
• Issuers should consider confirming with their third-country CSD, depositary, registrar, paying agent, custodian and trading venues how access is expected to be maintained after 17 January 2027 and what contingency arrangements exist.
• Firms should distinguish ESMA's policy statement from a binding legislative amendment or formal recognition decision and avoid treating it as confirmation that every third-country CSD may provide services indefinitely without satisfying CSDR requirements.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the final text and commencement date of the Market Integration and Supervision Package, together with any European Commission equivalence decisions and ESMA recognition decisions relevant to the CSDs used by the firm.
• Firms should review contractual, disclosure and operational-resilience documentation so that any dependency on third-country CSD access, alternative settlement routes or potential service suspension is appropriately reflected.

What changed

ESMA has provided a supervisory and market-access clarification that EU market participants should not be prevented from accessing the relevant notary and central maintenance services of third-country CSDs solely because the current transitional regime reaches its scheduled end on 17 January 2027. The clarification is intended to apply during the period after that date and until the EU finalises the proposed legislative extension under the Market Integration and Supervision Package.

Key dates

2025-10-22

The SFC published its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the UT Code.

2026-01-21

The consultation period closed.

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code and consequential revised PRF, MPF, ILAS and REIT codes are scheduled to be gazetted.

2026-11-01

The revised UT Code and consequential revised PRF, MPF, ILAS and REIT codes become effective.

2027-11-01 Deadline

The generally applicable 12-month transitional period for existing SFC-authorised funds is scheduled to end.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each SFC-authorised fund’s current derivative exposure methodology against the revised UT Code and assess whether adopting relative or absolute VaR would be operationally and commercially appropriate.
• Fund managers considering VaR may wish to validate reference-portfolio selection, VaR models, calibration, stress testing, back-testing, independent validation, governance approvals, limit monitoring and escalation procedures against the final revised UT Code and forthcoming SFC guidance.
• Managers may wish to review liquidity-risk frameworks, redemption terms, asset-liability liquidity matching, stress-testing scenarios, anti-dilution tools and disclosures, particularly for funds with exposure to less liquid assets.
• Money market fund managers may wish to test compliance with the 7.5% daily-liquid-assets and 15% weekly-liquid-assets thresholds and document monitoring of investor concentration, redemption behaviour, asset liquidity, days to trade, cost to trade and maturity profiles.
• Product, legal and disclosure teams may wish to update offering documents, constitutive documents, investment-management agreements, risk disclosures, derivatives policies and fund supplements where the revised requirements affect a fund’s strategy or operating model.
• Managers may wish to assess whether existing UCITS or other overseas risk-management documentation can be leveraged while confirming that Hong Kong-specific requirements and SFC-authorised-fund classifications are satisfied.
• Trustees, custodians and oversight committees may wish to confirm their revised oversight responsibilities, reporting arrangements and escalation processes before the transition period expires.
• Firms may wish to monitor the SFC’s forthcoming supplementary guidance, frequently asked questions and revised templates and incorporate them into implementation plans.

What changed

The revised UT Code will permit eligible retail funds to manage derivative exposure using either the existing net derivative exposure approach or a VaR approach. The proposed VaR framework uses a relative VaR limit of 200% of the VaR of a designated unleveraged reference portfolio or an absolute VaR limit of 20% of the fund’s NAV, together with associated governance, risk-management and monitoring requirements.

Key dates

2026-10-07

AFM and DNB published their joint policy statement and exploration on tokenisation of securities in the Netherlands.

2023-03-23

Applications became available under the EU DLT Pilot Regime as implemented and supervised in the Netherlands; this is relevant background for firms assessing DLT market-infrastructure models, not a new deadline arising from the AFM and DNB publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should classify each proposed tokenised instrument by its legal and regulatory characteristics, distinguishing securities or other MiFID II financial instruments from crypto-assets covered by MiCA and from non-financial crypto-assets.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to document whether the proposed arrangement is native tokenisation or a hybrid model, identify which record constitutes the legally authoritative record, and assess the resulting title, transfer, custody, settlement and insolvency risks under Dutch law.
• Market infrastructures and investment firms considering a DLT model should assess whether Regulation (EU) 2022/858 and the Dutch DLT Pilot Regime are available, including the need for specific permission and the eligibility limits applicable to DLT financial instruments and operators.
• Firms should continue applying existing requirements, including MiFID II conduct and organisational rules, the Prospectus Regulation where applicable, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse, Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 on central securities depositories where applicable, and relevant custody, client-asset and investor-protection controls; the AFM and DNB statement does not disapply them.
• Issuers, custodians, trading venues and service providers may wish to participate in or monitor the proposed government-supervisor-market follow-up and prepare concrete use cases that identify where statutory clarification, contractual documentation or a Dutch legislative amendment would be needed.
• Firms operating cross-border should compare the Dutch position with jurisdictions that have introduced specific legal recognition for electronic or DLT-based securities, while avoiding reliance on another jurisdiction's legal treatment without confirming Dutch offering, custody, settlement and investor-protection implications.
• Governance functions may wish to update technology, legal, operational-resilience and outsourcing risk assessments to account for the possibility that infrastructure and issuance activity migrate to jurisdictions offering greater legal certainty.

What changed

No legislation, regulatory technical standard, authorisation requirement or immediate compliance deadline was introduced. AFM and DNB jointly identified a legal gap: although EU and Dutch law do not generally prohibit DLT, market participants are commonly forced to maintain both a DLT-based record and a traditional legal administration, creating uncertainty about the legal significance of the token and limiting efficiency gains.

Key dates

2026-10-07

MAS published its written parliamentary reply stating that LIA’s next review of severe-stage critical illness definitions will commence in 2027 and that updated definitions will apply to new products sold.

2027-01-01

The LIA review is expected to commence during 2027; the publication does not specify an exact commencement date or impose a firm for firms to act by this date.

2025-10-01

The LIA Critical Illness Framework 2024 was required to be adopted for new products no later than this date, according to independent industry and LIA-related materials; this is relevant background rather than a new deadline created by the MAS reply.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the LIA’s 2027 review, consultation materials, final framework amendments, implementation dates, and any MAS communications that follow.
• Insurers should consider mapping current severe-stage definitions to the procedures and clinical severity criteria that may be affected, including identifying products whose claims triggers are particularly dependent on a named surgical procedure.
• Product governance, actuarial, underwriting, claims, legal, and compliance functions may wish to assess how alternative disease- and severity-based triggers could affect coverage scope, expected claims frequency, reserves, reinsurance, and pricing.
• Firms should consider documenting whether existing policy wordings can continue to be administered consistently with their contractual terms and should avoid treating any future framework revision as automatically applicable to in-force policies.
• Insurers developing new products should consider preparing customer disclosures explaining the relevant disease, severity, diagnostic evidence, exclusions, waiting periods, and any procedure-independent claims criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to review product approval and change-control processes so that future LIA definition changes are reflected consistently in policy documents, benefit illustrations, sales materials, claims manuals, staff training, and complaint-handling procedures.
• Actuarial and product teams should consider reassessing premiums and claims assumptions before launching products using revised definitions, since MAS expressly notes that premiums depend on the probability of claims materialising.

What changed

No immediate statutory requirement, product withdrawal, or mandatory amendment to existing policies was introduced. LIA’s 2027 review will consider procedure-neutral or less procedure-dependent definitions for certain medical conditions, while retaining the use of procedures where they provide objective evidence of severity, recovery duration, and financial impact. Any resulting changes will apply to new products sold; existing policies remain governed by their contractual definitions and terms.

Key dates

2026-10-07

MAS published the written parliamentary reply and stated that approximately 4,000 households could face cash shortfalls under the severe stress scenario.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and consumer-credit teams may wish to confirm that mortgage portfolios have documented processes for identifying deteriorating repayment performance and other early indicators of financial stress.
• Banks should consider reviewing whether frontline and collections staff consistently contact borrowers early, assess individual circumstances, and record the rationale for any restructuring, refinancing, forbearance, or other assistance offered.
• Mortgage lenders may wish to test whether vulnerable segments identified by the MAS stress test, including lower-income middle-aged HDB borrowers and borrowers with sizeable private-housing loan balances, are adequately represented in portfolio monitoring and scenario analysis.
• Firms should consider maintaining clear customer communications directing borrowers who anticipate repayment difficulty to contact the lender before arrears arise.
• Banks and relevant agencies may wish to review referral arrangements with HDB, Credit Counselling Singapore, and appropriate social-service agencies, including escalation and hand-off procedures.
• Risk committees may wish to retain evidence that severe interest-rate, income-reduction, unemployment, and liquidity-buffer scenarios are considered in mortgage portfolio risk management, while distinguishing scenario-based vulnerabilities from actual current borrower distress.
• Firms should avoid describing the approximately 4,000-household figure as a forecast of current arrears or as an individually identified list of affected customers.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, threshold, reporting obligation, or enforcement measure was introduced by this parliamentary reply. MAS confirmed that financial institutions monitor repayment performance and engage borrowers showing signs of financial stress, with assistance tailored to individual circumstances. HDB-financed borrowers may approach HDB for restructuring discussions, bank-financed borrowers may approach their banks, and borrowers already experiencing debt repayment difficulties may seek counselling and debt-management guidance from Credit Counselling Singapore.

Key dates

2026-07-09

DFSA issued Consultation Paper No. 174 for public consultation.

2026-08-24 Deadline

Public-comment deadline identified in independent commentary on CP 174.

2026-10-01

DFSA published the feedback statement and the relevant final rule-making instruments.

2026-10-02

PIB Rule-Making Instrument No. 443 of 2026 came into force, implementing final prudential-reporting amendments.

2027-01-01

COB Rule-Making Instrument No. 444 of 2026 comes into force, implementing final COB amendments relevant to the CP 174 workstream.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review PIB Rule-Making Instrument No. 443 of 2026 and its appendices, identifying changes to applicable prudential reporting forms, data fields, validation controls and submission procedures.
• Affected PIB firms should consider testing reporting systems and reconciliations against the amended requirements and documenting ownership for any revised regulatory returns that are already effective.
• Credit rating agencies may wish to map existing independence, conflict-of-interest, employee-related restriction and rating-announcement disclosure controls against COB Rule-Making Instrument No. 444 of 2026 before its 1 January 2027 commencement.
• Firms should distinguish the final PIB and COB amendments from the still-pending Crypto and Investment Token proposals and avoid treating the latter as current DFSA requirements.
• Governance and regulatory-change teams may wish to retain the CP 174 feedback statement, final instruments and archived prior rulebook versions to evidence implementation decisions and change impact assessments.

What changed

The DFSA published final rule-making instruments for amendments arising from CP 174. The PIB Rule-Making Instrument No. 443 of 2026, covering prudential reporting requirements, came into force on 2 October 2026. The COB Rule-Making Instrument No. 444 of 2026, which contains final amendments relevant to the credit rating agency framework, will come into force on 1 January 2027.

Key dates

2026-09-30

FCA published PS26/19 and the final UK Listing Rules (Sustainability Reporting Standards Disclosure) Instrument 2026.

2026-10-28 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA consultation on the proposed Technical Note supporting proportionate application of the comply-or-explain approach.

2027-01-01 Deadline

The final rules and UKLR TP 16 transitional provisions commence; they apply to accounting periods beginning on or after this date.

2028-01-01

First reporting year expected for issuers whose accounting periods begin on or after 1 January 2027, subject to the applicable accounting year-end and transitional reliefs.

2029-01-01 Deadline

For accounting periods beginning on or after this date, the Scope 3 and wider S1 climate-first transitional reliefs have expired and the full UK SRS comply-or-explain framework applies.

Suggested considerations

• Listed issuers should map their listing category to the applicable rules in UKLR 6.6, 14.3, 15.3, 16.3 or 22.2 and confirm whether any investment entity, shell-company or other exclusion applies.
• Compliance and reporting teams should perform a gap assessment against UK SRS S1 and UK SRS S2, including governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets, greenhouse-gas emissions and material sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
• Issuers should establish a documented comply-or-explain process capable of identifying each omitted or partial disclosure, the reason for the omission and the remediation steps planned.
• Finance and sustainability teams should plan for the one-year Scope 3 relief and the two-year S1 climate-first relief, including the required statement that the relevant UKLR and UK SRS transitional provisions are being used.
• Issuers should assess whether UK SRS disclosures can be incorporated by cross-reference under UK SRS S1 Appendix B paragraphs B45 to B47 and ensure referenced documents are accessible and consistently controlled.
• Governance teams should decide whether third-party assurance will be obtained and prepare the required assurance-provider, scope, level, standards and accessibility disclosures where assurance is used.
• Issuers should document their position on climate-related transition plans and prepare the required location statement or explanation for non-publication.
• Reporting teams should plan comparative information: no comparative information is required for the first period in which full or partial UK SRS disclosures are made, but comparatives are required from the immediately following accounting period.

What changed

The rules amend the FCA Handbook, including UKLR 6.6, 14.3, 15.3, 16.3 and 22.2, and ESG 2.2.6R. They require in-scope issuers to include UK SRS S2 climate-related disclosures and UK SRS S1 sustainability-related disclosures in their annual financial reports, or provide specified explanations where disclosures are absent or incomplete. Those explanations must identify the requirements or risks and opportunities not covered, explain why, and describe steps being taken or planned to enable future disclosure.

Key dates

2026-03-18

The FCA opened its call for input on whether FCA regulation affects SME access to finance.

2026-06-30

The FCA completed the call for input during Q2 2026.

2026-09-17

The FCA published Feedback Statement FS26/2: Supporting SME access to finance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to record that FS26/2 is a feedback statement rather than a rule change and does not itself require immediate changes to policies, systems or customer communications.
• Consumer-credit lenders may wish to map products involving sole traders and small partnerships against the £25,000 scope threshold and monitor HMT and FCA consultations on the reformed Consumer Credit Act framework.
• Lenders may wish to review repeated customer-information requests, broker-to-lender information flows, declined-application explanations and referral or signposting arrangements to identify avoidable SME application friction.
• Banks, building societies, lenders and brokers may wish to monitor the development of the voluntary UK Finance digital-verification service and assess whether proposed reliance models preserve customer due diligence, anti-money-laundering and other financial-crime obligations.
• Lenders and brokers may wish to review commission arrangements, product governance and disclosures where remuneration could influence referrals of micro-SMEs to high-cost or short-term alternative lending, even where the relevant lending or broker activity is outside the FCA perimeter.
• Accredited Growth Guarantee Scheme lenders may wish to monitor the mandatory code of conduct on personal guarantees and prepare to evidence clear communications and fair and transparent use of guarantees once applicable.
• Open-finance, data and lending businesses may wish to monitor the FCA discussion paper planned for early 2027 and the Government’s planned 2027 consultation, particularly on consent, data access, interoperability, customer authentication and financial-crime controls.
• Firms serving asset-light, newer, regional or underserved SMEs may wish to assess whether underwriting data, product design and application processes adequately address limited trading histories, intangible assets and restricted collateral.

What changed

FS26/2 introduces no new rules, reporting requirements, permissions or implementation deadlines. The FCA will monitor industry work on voluntary digital verification to reduce duplicated customer checks while preserving effective financial-crime controls and firms’ existing legal and regulatory obligations. It will support a more proportionate consumer-credit regime as part of Consumer Credit Act reform, including future consultation on FCA Handbook rules replacing or recasting certain statutory requirements.

Key dates

2026-09-16

The FCA published PS26/18 and its final cryptoasset perimeter guidance.

2026-09-30

The application window opened for firms seeking to use the transitional arrangements.

2027-02-28 Deadline

The application window closes for firms wishing to use the transitional arrangements.

2027-10-25

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 introduce the new regulated cryptoasset activities into the FCA perimeter.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map each current and planned cryptoasset service against the PERG 18 regulated-activity analysis, including whether the activity is conducted in the UK and by way of business.
• Firms registered under the Money Laundering Regulations should assess separately whether FCA authorisation or a variation of permission is required, because existing registration does not convert automatically into authorisation.
• Existing FCA-authorised firms should review their permissions and consider whether a variation of permission will be needed for cryptoasset activities.
• Firms intending to rely on transitional or savings arrangements should assess eligibility and submit an application within the 30 September 2026 to 28 February 2027 application window.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory custodial wallets, trading venues, brokerage and arranging models, staking services, stablecoin issuance, lending products, market-making and technology or infrastructure services.
• Firms should review UK territoriality, customer location, solicitation, marketing and operating-model assumptions, particularly for overseas businesses serving UK consumers.
• Firms should monitor the FCA's further consultation on amendments to the perimeter guidance and reassess their analysis when the underlying regulations and final amended guidance change.
• Applicants should prepare governance, business-model, financial, operational, safeguarding, systems and controls material expected for authorisation and may wish to obtain independent legal and compliance advice.

What changed

The FCA has finalised new PERG 18 guidance on determining whether a cryptoasset activity is regulated, whether it is carried on in the UK, whether it is carried on by way of business, and whether an exemption or transitional provision applies. The perimeter covers activities such as issuing qualifying stablecoins, operating cryptoasset trading platforms, dealing in or arranging deals in cryptoassets, safeguarding cryptoassets and arranging cryptoasset staking.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11, issued Bulletin 2026-41, and published the proposed rulemaking notice concerning substantive and technical violations. The proposed rule's 30-day comment period begins only upon Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open and recently closed MRAs and enforcement actions against the revised material-financial-risk threshold and the stated tailoring factors of capital structure, complexity, activities, and asset size.
• Banks should consider documenting objective facts, legal violations, financial-risk consequences, customer impact, duration, frequency, severity, and remediation status supporting the classification and closure of examination findings.
• Large and complex banks may wish to reassess escalation risk because the OCC expressly permits enforcement action for practices that might not produce the same response at a community bank.
• Banks should consider reviewing corrective-action plans to confirm that each action is directly tied to a specific deficiency and is proportionate to the risk, while preserving evidence of substantial compliance with existing orders.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish substantive violations from potential technical violations in issue-management inventories, including systemic or repeated conduct, customer restitution, books-and-records impacts, financial-condition effects, and insider misconduct.
• Banks should consider monitoring the Federal Register for publication of the proposed rule and calculating the 30-day comment period from that publication date; affected institutions may wish to submit comments on the proposed substantive-versus-technical framework.
• Examiners may identify lower-level weaknesses as supervisory observations rather than MRAs; banks should consider maintaining internal governance and risk records for such observations without assuming that the OCC may require a board action plan or track remediation in the same manner as an MRA.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3, Bank Enforcement Action and Related Matters, replaces the May 25, 2023 version and emphasizes escalation, tailoring, and focused corrective action. The OCC generally expects to provide a bank an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before taking an enforcement action under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The CFPB announced and implemented the cessation of discretionary publication of complaint narratives and associated visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database; previously published narratives remain subject to proactive FOIA Reading Room disclosure.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to continue treating CFPB complaints as supervisory and potential enforcement inputs, notwithstanding the removal of narratives from the public database.
• Firms should consider maintaining controls that support complete, accurate, and timely responses to CFPB complaints, including documented investigation, escalation, remediation, and quality-assurance procedures.
• Complaint-management owners may wish to monitor whether the removal of public narratives affects internal trend analysis and should preserve their own historical complaint records and supporting evidence.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider reviewing previously published complaint narratives concerning the firm in the CFPB FOIA Reading Room and assessing whether existing disclosure, litigation, reputation, and remediation processes remain appropriate.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence supporting complaint responses because complaint information may continue to be shared with prudential regulators, the FTC, and federal or state agencies, and may remain accessible through FOIA.
• Management may wish to avoid interpreting the change as a basis for reducing complaint-governance staffing, monitoring, root-cause analysis, or board and senior-management reporting.

What changed

The CFPB will no longer publish consumer-submitted complaint narratives or related data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau characterizes publication of these materials as discretionary rather than statutorily required and states that the materials are unverified, potentially misleading, and not necessarily evidence of legal violations.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Policy becomes effective for authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the stated commitment period for the agencies’ enforcement-policy non-action position

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether any Venezuela-related activity is specifically authorized under applicable OFAC sanctions licenses or other authorizations before relying on the policy.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA/AML compliance program is currently in place and that they continue to make reasonable efforts to meet applicable BSA Requirements during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to review whether they have had a final BSA-related enforcement action by FinCEN or their primary federal regulator within the prior 24 months, as that would disqualify reliance on the commitment.
• Operational teams may wish to document the basis for treating transactions as covered authorized financial services in Venezuela and retain evidence supporting reliance on the enforcement-policy statement.

What changed

The agencies announced a temporary enforcement-policy commitment covering authorized financial services provided to persons or entities located in Venezuela from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29. During that period, the agencies state they will not take supervisory action, including citing a violation of law, or pursue an enforcement action against a supervised financial institution for BSA Requirement issues arising from such authorized services. The commitment applies only if the institution is currently compliant with an applicable BSA compliance program requirement and continues to make...

Key dates

2026-06-24

Venezuela experienced a pair of strong earthquakes off the northern coast west of Caracas, triggering the humanitarian crisis referenced by the agencies.

2026-07-27

FinCEN issued a substantively similar statement of enforcement policy regarding Venezuela-related financial services.

2026-07-31

The OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA issued the joint enforcement policy.

2026-07-31

Start of the period during which authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela are covered by the enforcement commitment.

2027-01-29 Deadline

End of the covered period for the joint enforcement commitment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm whether current Venezuela-related activity falls within the scope of authorized financial services covered by the joint statement.
• Institutions may wish to verify that their BSA compliance program remains current and that ongoing controls reflect reasonable efforts to comply during the relief period.
• Firms may wish to check whether they have had any final FinCEN or OCC enforcement action involving BSA violations in the prior 24 months before relying on the policy.
• Sanctions teams may wish to confirm continued compliance with all applicable OFAC-administered sanctions regulations and authorizations.
• Institutions with Venezuela exposure may wish to document how they will evidence reliance on the policy and monitor the January 29, 2027 end date.

What changed

The agencies stated that eligible U.S. financial institutions that choose to provide authorized financial services to persons or entities in Venezuela will not be subject to supervisory action, including a citation for a violation of law, or enforcement action related to a Bank Secrecy Act requirement, for those services. The commitment is limited to authorized financial services provided from 2026-07-31 through 2027-01-29 and applies only to statutes or regulations specifically addressed in the joint statement.

Key dates

31 December 2024

– Solvency UK reporting and disclosure reforms (phase 2) come into effect for reporting and disclosure reference dates on or after 31 December 2024, including the new Bank of England insurance XBRL taxonomy and removal of the Regular Supervisory Report requirement

Year‑end 2026 reporting (reference date 31 December 2026)

– Implementation of PS18/26 reporting and disclosure changes and Own Funds consequential reporting via a **single updated insurance taxonomy**, covering all amended templates, instructions, MALIR XBRL submissions and new FSCS projected liabilities data for third‑country branches

30 September 2026

– Liquidity reporting requirements for UK Solvency UK insurers with large derivatives and securities financing transaction exposures come into force, requiring firms above specified thresholds to commence new liquidity reporting

31 December 2026 Deadline

– Revocation of certain Solvency UK Modifications by Consent (including the Reporting MbC) becomes effective; affected third‑country branches meeting premium or provisions thresholds must submit the full branch reporting suite

Suggested considerations

• Review and map existing Solvency UK reporting processes, systems and controls against the amended Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook and updated templates and instructions to identify required changes for year‑end 2026.
• Engage with finance, risk and actuarial functions to implement the new XBRL‑based MALIR submission process, including testing data extraction, validation and filing workflows aligned to the updated insurance taxonomy.
• Update internal Own Funds policies, classification procedures and governance documentation to reflect removal of specified permission requirements and the amended Own Funds Part and Group Supervision Part of the PRA Rulebook.
• Reconfigure regulatory reporting infrastructure and vendor solutions to adopt the single updated PRA insurance XBRL taxonomy, ensuring all Solvency UK quantitative reporting templates and narrative disclosures are correctly mapped and validated.
• For third‑country branch undertakings, design and implement processes to calculate and report projected FSCS liabilities data in line with PRA expectations, including data sourcing, modelling assumptions and internal review controls.

What changed

• - The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Part of the PRA Rulebook to implement post‑implementation clarifications, consistency improvements and data quality enhancements to Solvency UK...
• Reporting and disclosure templates and instructions are amended (including XBRL taxonomy changes) to reflect the refined Solvency UK reporting framework and consequential changes from the Own Funds...
• The PRA confirms transfer of the Matching Adjustment Asset and Liability Information Return (MALIR) templates from Excel to XBRL submission format, to be incorporated into the single insurance...
• The PRA updates Supervisory Statement 7/18 – Solvency II: Matching adjustment, including changes to the Matching Adjustment supplementary information form under Insurance rule permissions and...
• The PRA introduces a new collection of projected Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) liabilities data from third‑country branch undertakings to support enhanced branch supervision.

Key dates

22 July 2026

– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP

TBD (MISP legislative timeline)

– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision

Suggested considerations

• Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
• Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
• Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
• Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
• Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.

What changed

• - ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
• Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
• The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
• AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
• Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...

Key dates

2007

– Original Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD I) adopted, establishing a basic EU framework for shareholder rights in listed companies

2017

– Revised Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD II) adopted, introducing measures to promote long‑term engagement, improve governance transparency and regulate exercise of shareholder rights, particularly at general meetings

20 July 2026

– AMF publishes its response to the European Commission’s consultation on the SRD review, setting out its expectations and proposals on harmonisation, meeting formats and shareholder engagement

Suggested considerations

• Monitor the European Commission’s SRD review process closely, including the forthcoming legislative proposal and any related impact assessments, as these will determine concrete new obligations on meeting formats, shareholder identification and intermediaries’ duties.
• Map current practices for general meetings (physical, hybrid, virtual‑only) against the AMF’s positions and SRD II requirements, and assess the extent to which existing procedures depend on national options or flexibilities that may be removed in a revised SRD.
• For intermediaries and custodians, assess existing cross‑border voting, information transmission and shareholder identification processes to identify areas of fragmentation or reliance on local practices that may be affected by EU‑level harmonisation.
• Engage with industry associations and local regulators to provide practical feedback on operational challenges (e.g. complex custody chains, vote confirmation, cut‑off times) so that future SRD revisions reflect realistic implementation constraints.
• Update internal regulatory change logs and risk assessments to flag the SRD review as an emerging structural change to shareholder‑rights processes, with potential impacts on IT systems, contracts with intermediaries, and investor communications.

What changed

• * The AMF advocates removal of many existing “Member State options” in SRD in order to achieve greater harmonisation of shareholder rights and issuer–shareholder interactions across the EU, reducing...
• The AMF reiterates that long‑term shareholder engagement should remain a core objective of the revised SRD and that the framework should explicitly facilitate ongoing dialogue between issuers and...
• The AMF supports the development of hybrid general meetings with real‑time remote voting as a structural feature of EU listed company governance, in line with the digitalisation of the economy and...
• The AMF considers “closed‑door” general meetings (with no in‑person or remote shareholder participation) to be incompatible with SRD objectives and proposes that such formats be prohibited in the...
• The AMF proposes that “virtual‑only” general meetings should remain possible but be subject to tighter regulation at EU level, including a requirement to obtain shareholders’ approval on a regular...

Key dates

2026-07-16

FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and OCC issued the joint statement on handling highly sensitive information during examinations

2026-07-16 Deadline

Affected banks must be notified of any potential or confirmed material data breach involving confidential supervisory information no later than 72 hours after discovery, unless legal restrictions apply

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review examination response procedures for materials that could be treated as highly sensitive, including technology diagrams, penetration test results, detailed control-weakness reports, and similar data.
• Banks may wish to establish an internal process for flagging sensitive examination materials to examiners and documenting the basis for the sensitivity designation.
• Firms may wish to confirm that exam-response playbooks address on-site review, direct-from-system access, redaction, and summarization options for especially sensitive documents.
• Compliance and information security teams may wish to ensure escalation paths are ready if examiners disagree about whether information should receive enhanced handling.
• Firms may wish to verify incident-response and supervisory-notification procedures can support rapid engagement if a material supervisory-information breach is suspected.

What changed

The agencies said they will use a coordinated approach to identify highly sensitive data and documents during examinations and will apply enhanced handling procedures to reduce cybersecurity risk while preserving examiner access. The statement says review may occur on-site rather than by transferring materials onto agency systems, and the agencies may use other protective methods such as direct digital review from the bank's own systems or review of redacted or summarized materials where appropriate.

Key dates

Early July 2026

- PRA publishes PS16/26, confirming final rule changes to accommodate the OPRR and indicating that final rules have been made on the understanding that the OPRR statutory instrument will be made and in force prior to 1 January 2027

Q3 2026

- HM Treasury is expected to make the OPRR statutory instrument, with the PRA indicating it will amend or revoke its final rules if the instrument is amended prior to being made or is not made

02 July 2026

- HM Treasury lays before Parliament the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026, which will replace relevant UK CRR equivalence provisions as the statutory OPRR framework

01 January 2027

- The Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 come into force and the PRA’s new rules under PS16/26 take effect, coinciding with the PRA’s broader implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards; from this date, UK CRR equivalence provisions are revoked and replaced by the OPRR framework and associated PRA Rulebook changes

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal capital models and Standardised Approach calculations for credit risk to ensure the classification and risk‑weighting of overseas exposures reflect the new OPRR‑linked definitions (e.g. treatment as “institutions” versus “corporates”) from 01 January 2027.
• Update ICAAP methodologies, risk appetite statements, and SREP documentation (including for SDDTs) to reflect the continued 100% risk weight for overseas public sector entities in non‑designated jurisdictions and any changes to the treatment of overseas covered bonds, institutions, and exchanges.
• Amend Pillar 2 reporting processes and templates, including FSA076 Pillar 2 Credit Risk Standardised Approach returns, to align data capture and reporting with the revised definitions, risk weights, and categorisation of overseas exposures under the PRA’s updated Rulebook and Statements of Policy.

What changed

• - The PRA Rulebook is amended across core CRR Parts (including Glossary, Credit Risk – General Provisions, Standardised Approach, IRB, Credit Risk Mitigation, Securitisation, Counterparty Credit...
• Definitions of key exposure classes (such as “institution”, “credit institution”, “designated investment firm”, “central government”, “central bank”, “regional government”, “local authority”, “public...
• Under the Standardised Approach to credit risk, the treatment of exposures to overseas credit institutions and designated investment firms is aligned to OPRR designations so that favourable...
• The PRA restates and preserves the 100% risk-weight requirement for exposures to overseas public sector entities (PSEs) in non-designated (non‑equivalent) jurisdictions, maintaining alignment with...
• Large Exposures rules are amended so that exposures to overseas credit institutions and investment firms qualify as “institution” exposures only where HM Treasury has determined the jurisdiction’s...

Key dates

March 2024

– Legacy Cash Ratio Deposit (CRD) non‑interest‑bearing balances are converted into remunerated central bank reserves and the corresponding gilts portfolio is transferred to the Bank’s Banking Department, triggering the start of the Cost of Transition mechanism

17 April 2026

– PRA publishes CP7/26 “Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27”, consulting on draft fee rates, AFR and TFR for the 2026/27 fee year

15 May 2026 Deadline

– Deadline for firms to submit consultation responses on CP7/26 to the PRA

Early July 2026

– PRA publishes PS17/26 setting the final regulated fees and levies, including final 2026/27 PRA Levy, FMI Levy, Bank of England Levy amounts, and the application of the Cost of Transition mechanism for the 2026/27 fee year

From July 2026

– FCA/PRA joint invoicing cycle for 2026/27 periodic fees and levies begins; firms start to receive invoices incorporating the PRA Levy, Bank of England Levy, FMI Levy, and related statutory levies for the 2026/27 fee year

Suggested considerations

• Review the PS17/26 final numbers and tables to identify your firm’s applicable PRA fee‑block(s), the applicable Bank of England Levy and FMI Levy components, and quantify the 2026/27 impact relative to 2025/26.
• Update internal regulatory fee and levy forecasts, budgets, and accrual models to incorporate the 3% increase in core Bank levies, the 1% reduction in the PRA Levy, and any firm‑specific changes driven by business volumes or fee‑block allocations.
• For treasury and finance teams, model the Cost of Transition by stress‑testing scenarios where Bank Rate is above or below the legacy CRD gilt return, to understand potential upward or downward adjustments to the Bank of England Levy and reflect this in multi‑year financial planning.
• Ensure that board and relevant governance committees (e.g. Audit Committee, Risk Committee) are briefed on the 2026/27 levy changes, including the Cost of Transition mechanism, and that any material budget variances versus prior plans are explained and approved.
• For firms previously affected by the CRD scheme, update internal regulatory funding documentation and policies to remove references to CRD funding and to describe the new levy‑based and Cost of Transition arrangements, ensuring consistency with PS17/26 and the 2024 Bank of England Levy Framework.

What changed

• - The Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy, and other core levies) are constrained to grow by no more than CPI in 2026/27, with the Bank’s operating costs and associated core...
• Within this 3% cap, the Bank of England Levy (operational policy cost component) is budgeted to increase from £328 million (2025/26 budget) to £353 million in 2026/27, an 8% year‑on‑year rise driven...
• The PRA Levy is set to decrease slightly from £350 million (2025/26) to £345 million in 2026/27, a 1% reduction reflecting the PRA’s lower overall Total Funding Requirement and a different investment...
• The FMI Levy is budgeted to increase from £17 million (2025/26 budget) to £18 million in 2026/27, representing a 3% rise in costs for financial market infrastructure supervision.
• Overall, the Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy) are forecast to move from £695 million (2025/26 budget) to £715 million in 2026/27, a £20 million (3%) increase within the...

Key dates

10 November 2025

- Bank of England consultation paper issued on the proposed regulatory framework for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins and systemic payment system operators

Late 2026

- Bank of England intends to finalise the Code of Practice and supporting materials by the end of 2026, confirming the prudential and structural regime for systemic stablecoins

From 2026

- UK introduces new regulatory authorisation requirements for stablecoin issuers, including FCA authorisation for qualifying issuance and custody activities

10 February 2026

- Consultation period closes for the Bank of England’s systemic stablecoin regime proposals

June 2026

- Bank of England publishes its policy statement and draft Code of Practice for systemic stablecoin issuers, setting out detailed prudential and backing‑asset rules and confirming joint work with the FCA on an end‑to‑end regime

Suggested considerations

• Map all existing and planned sterling‑denominated stablecoin products against the UK’s systemic and non‑systemic regimes and assess whether their intended use in UK payments could trigger HM Treasury systemic recognition.
• Initiate or update FCA authorisation applications for stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody activities, ensuring business models, governance and safeguarding arrangements align with CP25/14 and the forthcoming stablecoin regime.
• Design and implement reserve‑management frameworks capable of maintaining backing assets equal to outstanding coins, in the proposed 70/30 mix between short‑term UK government debt and Bank of England deposits, with appropriate stress testing and liquidity risk oversight.
• Establish statutory trust and segregation structures for backing assets and liquid‑asset reserves, including appointing UK‑authorised third‑party custodians and aligning documentation with FCA client‑asset‑style protections and coinholder proprietary claims.
• Develop capital planning processes and ICAAP‑style assessments to meet the Bank of England’s requirements for capital against general business risk and dedicated reserves for financial risk and wind‑down costs.

What changed

• - UK stablecoin issuance will be subject to a dual regulatory regime: non‑systemic stablecoins will be supervised solely by the FCA, while systemic stablecoins used for payments will be jointly...
• Issuing a qualifying sterling‑denominated stablecoin in the UK will become a regulated activity, requiring FCA authorisation for non‑bank issuers and bringing them within the FCA’s prudential,...
• HM Treasury will apply statutory systemic tests under the Banking Act (e.g. scale, interconnectedness, substitutability, impact on confidence in sterling) to decide whether a stablecoin payment...
• Once recognised as systemic, stablecoin issuers and systemic payment system providers will fall under the Bank of England’s remit under the Banking Act 2009, including powers to obtain information,...
• Systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoin issuers will be required to maintain backing reserves equal to all outstanding coins, with backing assets held on statutory trust in the UK and ring‑fenced...

Key dates

31 July 2022

- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12

31 July 2023

- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains

First half of 2026

- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope

Late 2026 (TBD)

- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty

June 2026 (indicative)

- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms

Suggested considerations

• Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
• Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
• Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
• Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
• Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.

What changed

• - The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
• The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
• The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
• The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
• The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...