BIS Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2026-06-23

BIS published the press release and pre-released the relevant Annual Economic Report 2026 chapter

2026-06-28

BIS plans to publish the full Annual Economic Report 2026 and the BIS Annual Report 2025/26

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether any stablecoin-related business line depends on assumptions about parity redeemability, interoperability, or reserve quality that BIS identifies as weak points.
• Firms involved in tokenisation initiatives may wish to map their proposed operating model against the two-tier framework BIS endorses, especially where central bank money, commercial bank money, and tokenised assets would interact on programmable platforms.
• Banks and payment providers may wish to review funding, liquidity, and settlement assumptions for any products that could materially increase stablecoin usage or tokenised-money circulation.
• Crypto-facing firms may wish to examine whether current controls for financial crime, ledger interoperability, and customer redemption rights would satisfy a more stringent supervisory approach if stablecoins are used at scale.
• Market infrastructure and capital markets firms may wish to consider whether a unified-ledger or tokenised-deposit architecture could reduce reconciliation and settlement frictions in cross-border or wholesale workflows.
• Risk and policy teams may wish to monitor BIS follow-on publications, including the full Annual Economic Report 2026, for more detailed supervisory or implementation signals when it is published on 2026-06-28.

What changed

The publication is a policy signal, not a binding rule. BIS argues that tokenisation—digital representation of assets on programmable platforms—can be embedded in the current monetary architecture, where central banks provide the monetary anchor and commercial banks provide services to the public, to enable programmable payments and other efficiencies. BIS also states that current stablecoin designs fall short of the key properties of money, particularly singleness, meaning the ability to redeem different forms of money exactly at par for central bank money.

Key dates

2026-05-06

CPMI-IOSCO published the consultation on updated CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosures

2026-06-30 Deadline

Deadline to submit consultation comments to the CPMI and IOSCO secretariats

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO initial margin report to map likely changes to CCP resilience guidance and PQD disclosure expectations.
• CCPs may wish to assess whether their current margin simulation tools, responsiveness metrics, override governance, and public disclosures could support the kind of targeted enhancements described in the consultation.
• Clearing members and clients may wish to evaluate how more detailed CCP disclosures could affect margin forecasting, model validation, and due diligence workflows.
• Firms may wish to prepare consultation submissions by the 30 June 2026 deadline, particularly if they have views on feasibility, data granularity, disclosure lags, or governance implications.
• Compliance and legal teams may wish to monitor whether the final amendments create new reporting or disclosure obligations under the revised CCP guidance and PQD standards.

What changed

The consultation proposes targeted additions to the CPMI-IOSCO 2017 guidance on the resilience of central counterparties and to the 2015 PQD standards for CCPs. The stated purpose is to incorporate relevant elements of the January 2025 BCBS-CPMI-IOSCO final report on transparency and responsiveness of initial margin in centrally cleared markets. The areas specifically addressed are simulation tools, the measurement of initial margin responsiveness, margin model governance frameworks, the use of margin model overrides, and CCP public disclosures.

Key dates

2025-06-01

Basel Committee consultation on the proposed technical amendment was issued in June 2025

2026-03-23

Basel Committee finalized the technical amendment and related FAQs

2029-03-23 Deadline

Latest date by which Basel Committee members agreed to implement the technical amendment

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the amended operational risk text into internal capital calculation policies and control documentation.
• Firms should consider whether any existing business indicator calculations or interpretations rely on the previously ambiguous operational risk wording.
• Risk and regulatory reporting teams may wish to review the finalized market risk FAQ and related FAQ updates for any knock-on effects on methodology documentation.
• Implementation planning may need to account for local transposition or supervisory timelines, with the Basel Committee indicating implementation within three years at the latest.

What changed

The technical amendment is limited to a clarification in the standardized approach to operational risk rather than a substantive policy rewrite. The source summary indicates the amendment addresses an ambiguity in the existing text that could not be resolved unambiguously under the prior wording, and it specifically relates to the operational risk standardized approach. The document also includes a finalized response to one FAQ on the standardized approach to market risk, together with consequential amendments to related FAQs.

Key dates

2026-02-26

Basel Committee published the consultation and launched the draft consolidated guidelines and sound practices website

2026-06-26 Deadline

Deadline for comments on the consultation

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultative document and assess whether the new modular structure affects internal policy libraries, control inventories, or regulatory mapping tools.
• Firms may wish to compare their current reliance on BIS guidelines and sound practices against the consolidated version to identify any content that has been removed as outdated, duplicative, or superseded.
• Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-06-26 if the draft structure, organization, or accessibility of the consolidated guidance would affect supervisory implementation or internal interpretive work.
• Supervisory liaison teams may wish to confirm that local or group-wide references to BIS guidance remain aligned with the consolidated presentation rather than legacy PDF documents.

What changed

The Committee has launched a draft consolidated version of its guidelines and sound practices in a modular format on a new BIS website section. It says the new structure reorganises existing guidance, mirrors the format used for the Basel Framework, and is intended to make the materials more user-friendly and easier to navigate. The Committee states there was no intention to introduce new expectations through this exercise.

Key dates

2025-12-10

Basel Committee publication date for the Principles for the sound management of third-party risk

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all third-party arrangements against the new lifecycle expectations, including non-traditional outsourcing and intra-group or technology-enabled arrangements.
• Firms should consider whether board-approved third-party risk appetite, tolerance for disruption, and reporting lines are documented clearly and align with current governance arrangements.
• Banks may wish to review due diligence, contracting, onboarding, monitoring, continuity, and exit procedures to confirm they address the principle-based expectations across the full relationship lifecycle.
• Supervisory liaison teams may wish to assess whether concentration risk, critical provider dependencies, and cross-border coordination issues are adequately captured in existing risk registers and escalation frameworks.

What changed

The document sets out 12 principles covering the full third-party service provider lifecycle, divided between bank-facing expectations and supervisor-facing expectations. For banks, the principles cover governance and strategy, board and senior management oversight, risk assessment, due diligence, legally binding contracts, onboarding, ongoing monitoring, business continuity, and termination/exit management.

Key dates

2025-12-10

Basel Committee published the principles for the sound management of third-party risk

2024-10-09 Deadline

Comment deadline for the consultative version of the principles

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to compare existing outsourcing and third-party risk frameworks against the new 12-principle baseline to identify gaps in governance, lifecycle controls, and supervisor-facing documentation.
• Firms may wish to review board and senior management oversight arrangements for third-party risk to ensure responsibilities, risk appetite, escalation, and reporting are clearly assigned.
• Banks should consider whether their third-party inventories, risk assessments, due diligence files, contracts, monitoring processes, and exit planning are aligned to a full lifecycle model rather than a narrow outsourcing model.
• Supervisory relations teams may wish to map the principles against home and host jurisdiction requirements to identify where local rules are already aligned or where additional supervisory engagement may be needed.
• Operational resilience teams may wish to test whether critical third-party dependencies, including cloud and technology providers, are sufficiently captured in business continuity and termination planning.

What changed

The Basel Committee replaced the older 2005 Joint Forum outsourcing guidance with a new 12-principle framework focused on third-party service provider arrangements in banking. The framework is broader than traditional outsourcing and is designed to cover the larger, more diverse third-party ecosystem created by digitalisation and financial technology.

Key dates

2025-12-05

Basel Committee publishes the consultation on machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosure

2026-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for comments on the consultative document

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current Pillar 3 disclosure production processes and determine whether quantitative disclosures can be generated in a machine-readable format.
• Banks may wish to map any existing PDF-based Pillar 3 outputs against likely technical data structure requirements, including whether disclosures could be published on a website or via a central repository.
• Supervisors and policy teams may wish to assess how local disclosure arrangements align with the proposed global standard and whether current formats already satisfy the envisaged approach.
• Firms subject to overlapping regional disclosure regimes may wish to compare current machine-readable standards with the Basel Committee proposal to identify expected implementation gaps.

What changed

The consultation proposes a new standard for machine-readable quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures across Basel Committee member jurisdictions. It would introduce both a requirement and technical specifications for producing disclosures in a machine-readable format, while leaving the substantive disclosure obligations unchanged. The consultation also contemplates that national supervisors would choose whether disclosures are posted on banks’ own websites or in a central repository.

Key dates

2025-12-05

Basel Committee publishes the consultative document on machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures

2026-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for comments on the proposed additions to the disclosure standard

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultative document and assess whether current Pillar 3 publication processes could support machine-readable output.
• Banks with existing machine-readable disclosure regimes may wish to map their current approach against the proposed global standard to identify any gaps or duplication.
• Supervisory affairs teams may wish to consider whether disclosures are currently hosted on bank websites or through a central repository model, since the proposal leaves that implementation choice to national supervisors.
• Stakeholders may wish to evaluate the technical specifications for the required machine-readable formats and the associated data taxonomy requirements.
• Interested firms may wish to submit comments by the consultation deadline if they want to influence the final standard.

What changed

The Committee is proposing additions to its disclosure standard that would require quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures to be available in standardised machine-readable formats across member jurisdictions. The proposal includes technical specifications for producing machine-readable disclosures, while leaving the substantive disclosure content unchanged. National supervisors would decide whether banks publish the machine-readable disclosures on their own websites or through a centralised data repository.

Key dates

2025-12-03

BIS published the revised RCAP Handbook for jurisdictional assessments.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether their jurisdiction’s Basel III implementation, especially risk-weighted assets and leverage ratio rules, aligns with the standards that RCAP assessors will evaluate.
• Supervisory liaison functions may wish to check the updated handbook when preparing for jurisdictional reviews or responding to RCAP questionnaires and evidence requests.
• Prudential policy teams may wish to map any domestic deviations from Basel standards and document the rationale, materiality, and implementation status for possible RCAP scrutiny.

What changed

The publication updates the Handbook that RCAP assessors, assessed jurisdictions, and other experts use to conduct jurisdictional reviews of domestic prudential regulations against Basel minimum requirements. The handbook is a flexible compendium, meaning its guidance and principles are revised or elaborated as RCAP evolves and as lessons from past assessments are incorporated. This revised version specifically adds guidance for assessments of the Basel III revisions to risk-weighted assets and the leverage ratio framework.

Key dates

2024-11-27

The technical amendment was published for consultation

2025-01-31 Deadline

Comment deadline on the consultation version

2025-10-28

The BIS page reflects the final consolidated standard

2028-11-01 Deadline

Committee members agreed to implement the revised standard by this date at the latest

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify derivative portfolios where fixed or capped guarantees or credit derivatives are used as CCR hedges under SA-CCR or IMM.
• Firms should consider reviewing capital calculation logic and documentation for protected and unprotected exposure portions to confirm the final Basel treatment is reflected.
• Banks may wish to assess whether any legacy policy, model, or reporting language still references the consultation version and needs updating ahead of implementation.
• Risk and capital teams should consider whether exclusions for securities financing transactions and securitisation exposures are correctly applied in governance, procedures, and systems.

What changed

The amendment clarifies the treatment of guarantees and credit derivatives that hedge counterparty credit risk of derivative exposures subject to the standardized approach to counterparty credit risk or the internal models method. The Basel text indicates the final standard aligns the treatment of fixed or capped protection more closely with the treatment of eligible collateral and residual risk to the original counterparty.