BIS Guidance

Key dates

2026-10-14

CPMI and IOSCO published the final report on FMIs' management of general business risks and general business losses.

2026-02-06

The consultation period for the predecessor November 2025 report closed.

Suggested considerations

• FMIs should consider mapping their existing general business risk frameworks, loss taxonomies and financial resources against the final guidance and PFMI Principles 1, 15, 16 and 17.
• FMIs should reassess whether LNAFE is sufficient not only to meet the six-month operating-expense floor but also to cover credible one-time and recurring loss scenarios and the period needed for recovery or orderly wind-down.
• FMIs should review business continuity, recovery and orderly wind-down plans for explicit treatment of general business losses, including escalation and options for raising additional equity.
• FMIs should consider documenting the assumptions, scenarios, methodologies and governance approvals used to size LNAFE and distinguish general business losses from participant-default losses and other PFMI resources.
• FMIs should consider enhancing public and authority-facing disclosures on general business risk exposures, LNAFE, risk-management assumptions, governance responsibilities and available recovery or wind-down resources.
• Authorities should consider incorporating the supplemental guidance into supervisory assessments and reviewing whether local FMI rules, recovery plans and disclosure expectations remain aligned with the final report.
• FMI operators and participants should monitor national implementation because CPMI-IOSCO guidance is not directly binding and practical obligations will depend on the relevant jurisdiction's legal and supervisory framework.

What changed

The final report elaborates the existing PFMI requirements, especially Principle 15, rather than creating a new standalone binding standard. It provides guidance on identifying, monitoring and managing general business risks; determining the minimum LNAFE required to cover potential general business losses and support continued operations, recovery or orderly wind-down; and strengthening governance and transparency.

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

2025-12-03

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.