Prudential / Capital Requirements

Key dates

2026-08-27

The FDIC Board unanimously approved the final rule on unsafe or unsound practices and MRAs and the interim final rule on Road to Housing Act reciprocal deposits by notational vote.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, and section 8 enforcement matters and assess whether each matter satisfies the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, prudent-operation, or legal-violation criteria.
• Banks should consider mapping existing policies, procedures, reporting controls, documentation findings, and governance issues to the new distinction between MRAs, supervisory observations, and other violations, while retaining controls for matters that could affect capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, market-risk sensitivity, consumer outcomes, or receivership risk.
• Management and board committees may wish to prepare for examiner requests for the objective facts, risk analysis, and reasoning supporting any MRA or unsafe-or-unsound-practice conclusion, including evidence of how the bank assessed reasonably foreseeable conditions.
• Banks using reciprocal deposits should consider recalculating their permissible nonbrokered reciprocal-deposit capacity under the tiered liability formula and updating brokered-deposit classification, liquidity, deposit reporting, internal limits, and regulatory reporting controls.
• Potential agent institutions should verify their eligibility under the revised definition, including the applicable capital and examination-rating requirements and the broadened CAMELS-based criteria.
• Treasury, balance-sheet management, and deposit operations teams may wish to model the effect of the expanded reciprocal-deposit exclusion on funding concentration, liquidity stress assumptions, deposit pricing, and brokered-deposit monitoring.
• Legal and regulatory-affairs teams should monitor the Federal Register publication of both rules, confirm the effective dates, review any interim-final-rule comment opportunity, and determine whether implementation or comments are appropriate.
• Banks should consider reviewing examiner lookback requests and suspicious-activity review scopes against the related OCC examination guidance, which generally limits lookbacks involving failures to detect or report suspicious activity to one year or less unless heightened approval is obtained.

What changed

The final supervisory rule defines an unsafe or unsound practice as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and that, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank's financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or that has materially harmed the bank's financial condition.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC issued revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11; PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 manual, PPM 5400-11 replaces the February 27, 2026 version, and OCC Bulletin 2023-16 is rescinded.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open MRAs, enforcement orders, capital directives, and supervisory findings against the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, and substantive-violation thresholds.
• Banks should consider reviewing issue-management taxonomies and governance procedures so that MRAs, other violations, and supervisory observations are recorded and escalated according to their distinct consequences.
• Board and committee reporting processes may warrant review because supervisory observations do not automatically require board presentation or a corrective-action plan, whereas MRAs and enforcement actions remain subject to formal remediation and validation expectations.
• Large and complex banks should consider reassessing whether deficiencies that might previously have produced a community-bank-level supervisory response could receive faster escalation under the revised tailoring framework.
• Banks with existing enforcement actions may wish to assess whether their remediation evidence demonstrates substantial compliance with the essential requirements of each order and whether remaining issues are minor and isolated.
• Capital management teams may wish to review procedures for the institution of and termination of individual minimum capital ratios under the revised enforcement manual.
• Legal and regulatory change teams should monitor Federal Register publication of the joint OCC-FDIC final rule and calculate the actual effective date rather than relying on the bulletin date.
• Internal audit and compliance functions may wish to preserve objective factual support for responses to MRAs and other supervisory communications, particularly where the bank believes an issue does not meet the new risk-based threshold.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 version and structures the OCC enforcement framework around escalation, tailoring, and focus. The OCC generally intends to provide banks an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before initiating a Section 8 enforcement action, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable and warranted.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the joint final rule through OCC Bulletin 2026-40. The bulletin applies to all OCC-supervised banks; it does not state the Federal Register publication date, effective date, or a firm compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify the final rule’s Federal Register publication and effective date, because the OCC bulletin itself does not state either date or a compliance deadline, and should monitor OCC and FDIC implementation guidance before relying on any transition treatment.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, enforcement matters, and examination findings and map each item to the final rule’s material-financial-risk, DIF-risk, actual-violation, or already-caused-harm criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level MRA remediation obligations from discretionary management responses to supervisory observations and documenting why a weakness is treated under one category rather than another.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to enhance evidence files supporting assessments of likelihood, materiality, current and reasonably foreseeable conditions, and impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and market-risk sensitivity.
• Banks should consider documenting how supervisory requirements and remediation plans are tailored to asset size, complexity, activities, capital structure, and other financial-risk factors, particularly where the institution has heightened systemic, concentration, liquidity, or operational complexity.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to distinguish actual violations of banking or banking-related laws and regulations from prudential weaknesses, because an actual violation can support an MRA without separately satisfying the prudent-operation and material-risk test.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing governance procedures so that MRAs receive required escalation and tracking while supervisory observations are clearly identified as non-binding potential enhancements.
• Firms should consider preparing a process for requesting and retaining the objective facts and reasoning underlying an MRA or unsafe-and-unsound-practice determination, as the rule requires examiners to share that basis.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either is likely, if continued, to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. “Likely” requires more than a merely possible risk; relevant financial-condition effects include impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the final rule and OCC published Bulletin 2026-40 describing its application to OCC-supervised banks.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and anticipated MRAs, enforcement commitments, supervisory recommendations, and examination findings against the new material-financial-risk and actual-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level corrective-action items from nonbinding supervisory observations and documenting why each issue does or does not meet the MRA threshold.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to update issue-taxonomy and escalation procedures to assess impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the Deposit Insurance Fund.
• Banks should consider retaining objective evidence and documented reasoning supporting materiality assessments, including institution-specific factors such as asset size, complexity, activities, and capital structure.
• Management and boards may wish to review outstanding policies, process, and documentation findings to determine whether they remain mandatory remediation matters, are better treated as supervisory observations, or independently constitute violations of banking or banking-related law.
• OCC-supervised banks should monitor the related examination guidance and assess whether planned lookbacks, independent-consultant requirements, or suspicious-activity review scopes are affected by the revised supervisory approach described in industry reporting.
• Firms should track Federal Register publication and calculate the 60-day effective date once publication occurs; the August 27, 2026 announcement date is not itself the effective date.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. Relevant financial-condition impacts include capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk; reputation concerns unrelated to financial condition are excluded.

Key dates

2026-08-26

EBA consultation launched and consultation period opened.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline to register for the EBA virtual public hearing, at 16:00 CEST.

2026-09-29

EBA virtual public hearing from 10:00 to 12:00 CEST (Paris time).

2026-12-31 Deadline

Deadline for submitting consultation responses to the EBA, at 23:59 CEST.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and operational-risk teams should obtain and map the consultation draft against Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR and identify requirements that would require changes to policies, committee mandates, controls or management information.
• Institutions should determine their business indicator and assess whether it is below the proposed EUR 750 million proportionality threshold, while treating that threshold as proposed rather than final.
• Firms should inventory operational-risk data sources, loss-event thresholds, taxonomies, reporting processes, validation controls and audit coverage, and assess whether data granularity is sufficient for the proposed framework.
• Management-body and senior-management responsibilities should be compared with existing governance arrangements, including the independence, authority and resourcing of the operational risk management function.
• Firms should assess alignment between the proposed RTS, CRR3 operational-risk capital and reporting implementation, the EBA Guidelines on internal governance and DORA, avoiding duplication or gaps for ICT-related risk.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments to the EBA by 31 December 2026; compliance teams may wish to coordinate responses with risk, finance, internal audit and industry associations.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by 25 September 2026 at 16:00 CEST and prepare questions on proportionality, data granularity, thresholds, reporting frequency and implementation timing.
• Institutions should monitor the EBA’s final draft, the European Commission’s endorsement process and the eventual application date before treating the consultation text as a binding requirement.

What changed

The proposed RTS would give detailed effect to Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR by requiring three framework components: governance arrangements, an operational risk management process and an operational risk assessment system. They clarify responsibilities of the management body, senior management and the independent operational risk management function, and address operational risk data and taxonomy, the business indicator component, reporting, validation and audit. ICT risk requirements are intended to remain governed primarily by Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA).

Key dates

2026-08-25

EBA launched the consultation on three draft RTS.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline at 16:00 CEST to register for the EBA virtual public hearing.

2026-09-30

EBA virtual public hearing scheduled from 10:00 CEST.

2026-11-25 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments on the consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their solo and group-level asset populations capture all entities and activities covered by the CRD amendments, including the potential effect of EU branches and consolidated group assets.
• Compliance and finance teams may wish to reconcile the proposed threshold methodology against regulatory reporting, audited financial statements and internal management information, using a rolling 12-month monitoring process where relevant.
• Investment firms above EUR 5 billion should review the draft reporting templates and instructions and identify data, governance, validation and submission gaps before the RTS become applicable.
• Firms near the EUR 30 billion threshold should model the consequences of credit institution authorisation, including CRD and CRR application, supervisory engagement, capital and liquidity requirements, governance expectations and implementation timelines.
• Groups potentially affected by the group test should consider submitting comments on the geographic scope of assets, treatment of branches, consolidation methodology and any disproportionate effects on cross-border business models.
• Potentially eligible firms may wish to prepare evidence against the proposed waiver factors and engage early with their competent authority, while recognising that a waiver is discretionary and not guaranteed.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by the stated registration deadline and firms wishing to influence the final RTS should submit consultation responses by 25 November 2026.

What changed

The EBA is revising its draft RTS following the 2024 amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive, including clarifications on which entities and assets must be included in the threshold calculation at solo and group level. The package addresses the methodology for calculating total assets against the EUR 30 billion threshold, reporting requirements for investment firms whose total assets exceed EUR 5 billion under Article 55(5) of the Investment Firms Regulation, and the factors competent authorities must consider when deciding whether to grant a waiver under Article 8a(7) of the CRD.

Key dates

2016-06-01

Approximate start of the Relevant Period during which Keptain’s liquid capital was window dressed and deficiencies arose.

2018-03-31

Approximate end of the Relevant Period identified by the SFC.

2026-08-24

SFC revoked Chan’s licence and RO approval and began his 10-year prohibition on re-entering the industry.

2036-08-23

Chan’s 10-year industry ban ends.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reconciling every FRR return to bank statements, cleared funds, and post-period dishonour or reversal information rather than relying solely on month-end account balances.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether cheques, related-party funding, temporary transfers, overdrafts, unsettled receipts, and other non-cash or conditional items meet the applicable FRR eligibility and valuation requirements before inclusion in liquid capital.
• ROs and managers-in-charge should consider documenting their review and challenge of each FRR return, including explanations for material month-end movements and evidence that reported funds were genuinely available and not temporary window dressing.
• Firms should consider implementing daily or intraday escalation triggers that identify actual or foreseeable breaches of the minimum liquid-capital requirement and the 120% notification threshold.
• Where a deficiency occurs or is reasonably identified, firms should consider assessing and documenting whether notification is required under SFO section 146(1) and FRR Rule 55(1), including the one-business-day outer limit under Rule 55(1).
• Compliance teams may wish to review historical FRR returns and supporting bank evidence for similar patterns, particularly where funds were received from connected companies or were reversed shortly after reporting dates.
• Licensed corporations should consider reminding ROs that signing regulatory returns can create personal fitness-and-properness consequences, including licence revocation and a lengthy industry ban, and should ensure that responsibility cannot be reduced to a nominal or administrative role.

What changed

This is a final enforcement action rather than a change to the underlying rules. The SFC applied Rules 4 and 6 of the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules, under which Keptain was required to maintain at least HK$3 million in liquid capital at all times. The SFC found that cheques deposited at or around month-end but dishonoured before the returns were submitted should not have been included in the liquid-capital calculations; excluding them would have produced deficiencies ranging from HK$731,000 to HK$3,473,000 over 20 months.

Key dates

2026-08-18

ESMA launched the consultation on draft EMIR RTS and ITS for annual reporting of clearing activity at recognised third-country CCPs.

2026-10-12 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to provide feedback on the reporting framework, templates and format.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to submit comments on the proposed framework, templates and reporting format by 2026-10-12.
• Firms should consider identifying every recognised third-country CCP used by their EU entities and distinguishing direct clearing-member activity from client clearing activity.
• Reporting owners may wish to map the proposed Article 7d data points to existing EMIR Article 9 transaction reporting, margin, collateral, default-fund and treasury or payments data to determine what can be reused and what new data controls are needed.
• Groups should consider determining whether reporting will be performed by each EU entity or by the EU parent undertaking on a consolidated basis.
• Firms may wish to assess data availability by asset class and Union currency, calculation methodologies for annual average cleared values, and controls for margins, default-fund contributions and largest payment obligations.
• Technology and regulatory-reporting teams should consider designing provisional data lineage, reconciliation and governance processes, while treating implementation dates and final fields as subject to the final RTS and ITS.
• Firms should monitor ESMA’s Final Report and the subsequent adoption, endorsement and publication of the technical standards before treating the proposed reporting model as a final operative obligation.

What changed

This is a consultation rather than a final binding rule. ESMA proposes the reporting framework, templates and format required under EMIR 3 Article 7d for clearing members and clients that clear transactions through recognised third-country CCPs. Firms established in the EU and not part of an EU-consolidated-supervision group would report to their competent authority; where the firm belongs to such a group, the EU parent undertaking would report on a consolidated basis.

Key dates

2026-03-25

NCUA issued the proposed rule to remove the prescriptive requirements

2026-05-26 Deadline

Public comment period closed

2026-08-06

Final rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50677

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current indirect vehicle lending policies to confirm they no longer reference the removed 50% and 100% net-worth limits.
• Boards may wish to document a board-approved risk appetite and concentration framework for third-party serviced indirect vehicle loans.
• Credit unions may wish to align vendor oversight, due diligence, and servicing controls with their internal policies since the prior waiver pathway is no longer the operative framework.
• State-chartered federally insured credit unions may wish to verify any conforming updates needed to insurance-related procedures and governance materials.
• Compliance functions may wish to update training, policy manuals, and examination binders to reflect that supervision will now focus on principles-based oversight rather than the deleted rule text.

What changed

The final rule removes 12 CFR 701.21(h) in full, eliminating the existing concentration limits, the 30-month step-up to a higher limit, the waiver process to a Regional Director, the related response timeline, and the embedded definition framework tied to that paragraph. NCUA also states that it removed the parallel requirement in 12 CFR 741.203(c) and the related citation in 12 CFR 746.201(c), as part of the same deregulatory package.

Key dates

2026-08-06

Federal Register publication of the final rule at 91 FR 50661

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, and product templates that still reference the former segregated deposit and collateral formulas in 12 CFR 701.20.
• Institutions may wish to review surety and guaranty programs to ensure the obligation remains fixed in amount and duration and is structured as an otherwise permissible loan under the applicable lending regulations.
• FCUs may wish to confirm that any related lending analysis still addresses member lending limits and other applicable provisions, including where commercial lending rules apply.
• FISCUs may wish to confirm continued state-law authority to act as surety or guarantor and verify any state-specific constraints or approvals before offering these arrangements.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to reassess collateral practices for these products in light of the new flexibility while preserving safety-and-soundness controls.

What changed

The final rule deletes the specific segregated deposit requirement in 12 CFR 701.20(c)(3) for suretyship and guaranty agreements. It also removes the detailed collateral standards in 12 CFR 701.20(d), including the prior 100 percent and 110 percent collateral categories and the requirement for a perfected security interest tied to those prescribed values.

Key dates

2026-03-01

EBA central validation function for pro forma initial margin models under EMIR became operational

2026-08-05

Publication date of the EBA consultation on the reporting framework for validation and monitoring of ISDA SIMM

2026-11-02 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on ISDA SIMM reporting

2026-12-31

Indicative target for EBA adoption of a Decision establishing the collection of relevant information for ISDA SIMM validation reporting by end of 2026

2027-03-31

Expected release of the final EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2, incorporating the new reporting requirements

2027-12-31

Expected first reporting reference date for ISDA SIMM-related information under the new framework

2028-03-31

Expected first quarter of 2028 window for collection of initial ISDA SIMM validation and monitoring data based on the December 2027 reference date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation paper, IMMV reporting instructions and templates to understand the proposed data fields, frequency and proportional thresholds for ISDA SIMM-related reporting under EMIR.
• Firms using or planning to use ISDA SIMM for non-centrally cleared OTC derivative initial margin calculations should consider whether they will fall under the more intensive or lighter reporting category based on the significance of their OTC trading activity and assess system readiness for the expected December 2027 reference date reporting in Q1 2028.
• Risk and collateral management functions may wish to map the proposed reporting requirements to existing SIMM backtesting, model performance, risk factor sensitivity and margin monitoring processes to identify gaps and necessary enhancements.
• Regulatory reporting and IT teams should consider planning for integration of the new IMMV reporting templates into their infrastructure, taking into account the incorporation of these requirements into the EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2 and the planned final technical release in March 2027.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to assess the implications of Article 11(12a) EMIR and EMIR 3 for their use of pro forma initial margin models, including governance around EBA’s central validation function and associated fee obligations, and prepare internal feedback on the consultation by the 2 November 2026 deadline.
• Firms intending to rely on ISDA SIMM should consider engaging with the consultation process to comment on the proportionality of the proposed reporting frequency and content, especially where OTC trading activity is limited but compliance costs could be significant.
• Supervisory liaison teams at affected groups may wish to coordinate with competent authorities to understand how the EBA’s data collection will be used in authorisation and ongoing supervision of ISDA SIMM-based initial margin models.

What changed

The consultation sets out a proposed standardised reporting framework for counterparties seeking validation to use ISDA SIMM as a pro forma initial margin model under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). From 1 March 2026, the EBA acts as the central validator of the elements and general aspects of pro forma initial margin models pursuant to Article 11(12a) EMIR, and this proposal defines the information that must be submitted on a regular basis to enable validation and ongoing performance monitoring.

Key dates

2026-08-04

Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
• Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
• Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
• Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
• Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
• Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
• All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
• Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.

What changed

The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.

Key dates

03 August 2026

- ESAs publish the Final Report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 to simplify bilateral margin requirements for counterparties below the EUR 8 billion initial margin threshold

TBD (European Commission adoption)

- The European Commission reviews and, if satisfied, endorses the draft RTS amending the EMIR bilateral margin Delegated Regulation; exact date to be set by the Commission’s internal process

TBD (European Parliament and Council scrutiny)

- Following Commission endorsement, the RTS are subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council under the standard RTS procedure before publication in the Official Journal

TBD (Entry into force – OJ publication + 20 days)

- The amended RTS enter into force on the date specified in the Official Journal (typically 20 days after publication), from which firms can legally apply the new exemption regime

TBD (Three years after entry into force) Deadline

- By the date three years after entry into force, the ESAs must complete a review of the application and impact of the exemption from initial margin requirements in Article 28(1), potentially informing further changes

Suggested considerations

• Map all EMIR in-scope entities within the group and identify those whose AANA of non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives is close to or below the EUR 8 billion threshold, to assess which relationships may benefit from the expanded exemption.
• Review current collateral and margin frameworks to identify legacy contracts where initial margin is still being exchanged solely because the regime requires continuation despite the counterparty having fallen below the EUR 8 billion threshold.
• Prepare an internal policy update so that, once the RTS enter into force, initial margin requirements are switched off for counterparties below the EUR 8 billion threshold on both new and existing uncleared OTC derivatives, subject to group risk appetite.
• Update EMIR margin procedures and AANA calculation processes to ensure accurate annual determination of whether each counterparty is above or below the EUR 8 billion threshold, including documentation of the March–May calculation methodology.
• Review and amend collateral agreements, credit support annexes (CSAs) and associated legal documentation to incorporate the revised treatment for below-threshold counterparties, including terms for stopping margin exchange and potentially releasing segregated collateral.

What changed

• - Counterparties whose average aggregate notional amount (AANA) of non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives falls below the EUR 8 billion threshold will no longer be required to exchange initial margin...
• The current framework, under which below-threshold counterparties are exempt from initial margin for new trades but must continue to exchange initial margin for pre-existing “legacy” contracts, will...
• Article 28(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 will be amended to explicitly extend the exemption from initial margin requirements to outstanding contracts where one of the two counterparties...
• The RTS introduce a clearer operational framework for entry into and exit from the initial margin regime based on the annual AANA calculation for March–May, including scenarios where one or both...
• Once a counterparty falls below the EUR 8 billion threshold under the revised rules, firms will be permitted to terminate related initial margin processes, including ceasing ongoing calculation,...

Key dates

2026-06-04

European Commission adoption of the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act under Article 461a CRR modifying own funds requirements for market risk for a three-year period

2026-08-03

EBA publication of no-action letter on the trading/banking book boundary and internal risk transfers, and technical considerations on FRTB application

2027-01-01

Start of modified calculation of own funds requirements for market risk under the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act for a three-year period

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU banks should consider reviewing the EBA no-action letter to understand which aspects of the FRTB boundary between banking book and trading book, internal risk transfers, and related reporting are currently deprioritised for supervisory or enforcement action, and how this interacts with national competent authority expectations.
• Risk and regulatory capital teams may wish to map their existing and planned FRTB implementation (standardised and internal models approaches) against the technical considerations published by the EBA, focusing on how the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act’s institution-specific multiplier and related boundary rules affect market risk capital calculations from 2027-01-01.
• Firms should consider identifying whether they fall within the scope of "multiplier banks" under the Delegated Act and assess operational implications, including whether their systems and data architecture can support a single, harmonised boundary framework rather than multiple versions during the three-year transitional period.
• Supervisory reporting and Pillar 3 disclosure teams may wish to analyse the EBA’s clarifications on reporting requirements linked to the trading/non-trading book boundary and internal risk transfers to determine whether current templates, data points, and governance need adjustment ahead of the Delegated Act’s entry into force.
• Institutions participating in the EBA supervisory benchmarking exercise should consider reviewing the clarified treatment of institutions in that exercise under the revised FRTB framework, and ensure their benchmarking submissions and internal controls are aligned with the EBA’s technical considerations.
• Legal and regulatory policy teams may wish to monitor the scrutiny process of the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act by the European Parliament and Council, as the practical relevance of the no-action letter and technical considerations is contingent on the Delegated Act entering into force as adopted on 2026-06-04.

What changed

The EBA has formally issued a no-action letter recommending that competent authorities do not prioritise supervisory or enforcement action regarding provisions of the FRTB framework that govern: (i) the boundary between the banking book and the trading book; (ii) internal risk transfers between these books; and (iii) certain related reporting requirements, during the transition to the revised market risk regime.

Key dates

2026-08-03

ESAs publish final report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 bilateral margin requirements

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current EMIR margin frameworks and inventories of uncleared OTC derivatives to identify portfolios and counterparties that are below the €8 billion initial margin threshold and could be affected by the proposed phase-out of initial margin exchange.
• Risk and collateral management functions should consider assessing the operational processes, documentation and systems currently used to calculate, call and exchange initial margin on legacy uncleared OTC derivative contracts, to understand the potential impact of a removal of these obligations on collateral flows and counterparty risk management.
• Legal and documentation teams may wish to map existing credit support annexes (CSAs) and collateral agreements to EMIR margin requirements, evaluating whether standard terms referencing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 would need amendment if the RTS are endorsed and the obligation to exchange initial margin for below-threshold portfolios is removed.
• Regulatory affairs and policy teams should consider monitoring the European Commission’s endorsement process and subsequent scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council, tracking any changes to the draft RTS text that could affect scope, thresholds or transitional arrangements.
• Firms subject to EMIR in multiple jurisdictions may wish to compare the proposed EU treatment of below-threshold initial margin portfolios with requirements in other key jurisdictions (e.g. US, UK) to ensure consistent cross-border collateral and margin policies and avoid regulatory arbitrage or misalignment.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare briefing materials for senior management and boards outlining the anticipated simplification and burden reduction, alongside any residual risks or supervisory expectations that could accompany the phase-out of initial margin for below-threshold counterparties.

What changed

Under the current EU bilateral margin framework in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, counterparties with an aggregate average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives below the €8 billion initial margin threshold specified in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) are exempt from exchanging initial margin on new uncleared OTC derivative contracts, but must continue to exchange initial margin on existing contracts.

Key dates

August 2018

- EDMC established by the Court of Directors to provide independent decision‑making in contested enforcement cases and functional separation from investigation teams

January 2024

- EDMC Procedures published, setting out detailed processes for contested enforcement decisions, including panel composition and hearing arrangements

October 2025

- Bank of England commences recruitment for additional EDMC members, including a new Chair and Deputy Chair, to join in summer 2026

11 November 2025

- Closing date for applications for EDMC panel member roles, including potential Chair and Deputy Chair candidates

End of July 2026

- Term of Sir William Blair as EDMC Chair and of Philip Marsden as EDMC Deputy Chair expires

Suggested considerations

• Map all existing and potential enforcement exposures to the EDMC’s statutory remit, covering prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties and notes issuance.
• Review internal enforcement‑response playbooks to ensure they explicitly recognise the EDMC’s independent role and the January 2024 EDMC Procedures, including how contested cases will be heard and decided.
• Update board and senior management briefings on BoE/PRA enforcement to reflect the change in EDMC leadership and likely implications for contested case strategy and settlement versus contest decisions.
• Assess ongoing and anticipated enforcement matters for which the firm might contemplate contesting; incorporate the EDMC’s composition and procedures into litigation and regulatory strategy planning.
• Train Legal, Compliance and relevant business teams on the practical implications of the EDMC Procedures (panel size, hearing processes, written and oral representations, decision timelines) with scenario‑based exercises for contested cases.

What changed

• - The EDMC now has a new Chair (Nicholas Segal) and Deputy Chair (Peter King), replacing Sir William Blair and Philip Marsden whose terms ended in July 2026.
• The appointments are the outcome of an external recruitment process commenced in October 2025, aligned with the EDMC’s governance framework and five‑year renewable term structure.
• The scope of the EDMC’s remit continues to cover contested enforcement decisions across the Bank’s statutory regimes: Prudential Regulation, Financial Market Infrastructures, Resolution,...
• The EDMC Procedures, published in January 2024, remain the operative framework for how contested enforcement cases are handled, including panel constitution, hearing processes, and decision‑making...
• The EDMC continues to operate with functional separation from investigation teams and the Bank’s executive, preserving independence in contested enforcement decisions.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board issued the request for comment on the proposal.

2026-08-04

Federal Register publication date referenced in the available materials.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after Federal Register publication, according to secondary reporting and the referenced publication timeline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether the institution falls within the mutual banking organization or mutual holding company framework and assess whether the proposal would affect capital planning.
• Firms may wish to evaluate existing and planned capital instruments to determine whether they could qualify as regulatory capital under the proposed clarification.
• Institutions may wish to review dividend-waiver, conversion, and other mutual-structure processes for possible operational or governance changes under the proposal.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comment letters on capital treatment, loss-absorption, conflicts of interest, accountability, and competition effects, consistent with the issues highlighted by the Board statement.

What changed

The proposal would modernize the Board’s rules applicable to mutual banking organizations, including mutual holding companies, for the first time in about 30 years. It would clarify which instruments may count as regulatory capital, expand flexibility for certain mutual banks to raise capital, and reduce procedural burdens. The Board’s memo says the proposal would amend Regulation MM and the capital rule to address limited access to equity and costly, unclear requirements.

Key dates

2026-07-01

Revisions to the CBLR framework became effective, including the lower 8% threshold and revised grace-period rules

2026-07-30

OCC Bulletin 2026-34 published the updated Community Bank Compliance Guide

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether current capital planning and reporting processes reflect the revised 8% CBLR entry threshold.
• Firms that use or may elect the CBLR framework may wish to reassess whether they can remain above the 7% grace-period floor during any temporary noncompliance.
• Banks may wish to confirm how the four-quarter cure period and the eight-quarter cap over five years would operate in their internal capital contingency planning.
• Community banking organizations may wish to reconcile the updated guide with the text of the capital rule, since the guide is only a summary and not binding legal text.

What changed

The agencies revised the non-binding compliance guide to align with the updated CBLR framework in the capital rule. The key substantive change is the minimum leverage ratio for CBLR qualification, which was lowered from greater than 9% to greater than 8%. The grace period for a bank that elects the CBLR framework but temporarily fails to meet the qualifying criteria was revised from two quarters to four quarters, provided the bank maintains a leverage ratio greater than 7% and does not exceed eight quarters in grace-period status over a five-year period.

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

11 September 2026

- Consultation end date for proposals to amend SS25/15, SS26/15, IM.03 instructions, and the PRA liquidity rules (Liquidity (CRR) Part and LCR (CRR) Part)

31 December 2026 Deadline

- Proposed implementation date for the SS25/15 and SS26/15 changes and removal of Lloyd’s syndicates from IMO reporting, so syndicates are not required to report IMOs as part of their 2026 year‑end results

01 January 2027

- Proposed implementation date for amendments to the Liquidity (CRR) Part and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (CRR) Part, aligned with Basel 3.1 implementation, CRR restatement in the PRA Rulebook, and the expected entry into force of the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026

Suggested considerations

• Review existing IMO reporting processes and systems for Lloyd’s syndicates and prepare to decommission IMO submissions to the PRA for 2026 year‑end, ensuring all dependent internal reports and controls are updated.
• Map all uses of IMOs in ORSA processes and supervisory reporting for non‑life firms, and update ORSA documentation and methodologies to reflect that the IMO‑based option applies only to firms that remain in scope of IMO reporting.
• Update internal reporting manuals and instructions for IM.03 and related Solvency UK templates to reflect the revised PRA wording, removal of outdated EU references, and alignment with the PRA’s Solvency UK framework.
• For Lloyd’s managing agents and syndicates, confirm alternative data channels and reporting obligations to the PRA (via Lloyd’s or Solvency UK templates) that will replace the supervisory reliance previously placed on IMO reporting.
• Conduct an inventory of non‑UK covered bonds currently recognised as Level 2A HQLA in LCR calculations and assess how the proposed amendments to Article 11(1)(d)(ii) would change eligibility, haircuts, or caps from 1 January 2027.

What changed

• - Lloyd’s syndicates would be removed from the scope of Internal Model Output (IMO) reporting to the PRA via amendments to SS25/15 (Solvency II: Regulatory reporting, internal model outputs),...
• SS26/15 (Solvency II: ORSA and the ultimate time horizon – non‑life firms) would be amended to clarify that the option to use IMO outputs in ORSA reporting applies only to firms still required to...
• The IM.03 reporting instructions (section “General Comment”) would be amended to align the reporting template guidance with the removal of Lloyd’s syndicates from IMO reporting, avoiding inconsistent...
• SS25/15 and SS26/15 would receive non‑substantive drafting updates to improve clarity and consistency, remove outdated EU references, and align terminology and framing with the PRA’s current Solvency...
• For 2026 year‑end, Lloyd’s syndicates would no longer be required to submit IMOs to the PRA, with supervisory reliance instead on other Solvency UK reporting streams and data provided through the...

Key dates

2026-07-24

EBA published the draft technical package for reporting framework 4.4 and opened the consultation

2026-08-24 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments and suggestions on the draft technical package 4.4 and new glossary

2026-09-30

EBA expects to publish the final technical package for reporting framework 4.4

2026-12-31

First reference date for amended Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures; technical amendments for resolution planning, MREL decisions, Pillar 3 disclosure templates; and AMLA eligibility templates

2027-03-31

First reference date for new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and FRTB-related disclosure templates

2027-12-31

First reference date for Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures for SNCIs

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess the draft 4.4 package against current reporting architecture, especially where FINREP, Pillar 3, FRTB, resolution planning, MREL, or AMLA templates rely on local mapping or vendor implementation.
• Firms may wish to review the new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and identify any chart-of-accounts, data lineage, or consolidation changes needed ahead of the 2027-03-31 first reference date.
• Reporting teams may wish to map the updated Pillar 3 ESG, equity exposure, and shadow banking disclosures to the 2026-12-31 reporting cycle, and to 2027-12-31 for SNCIs.
• Institutions may wish to compare their DPM 1.0 to DPM 2.0 conversion controls against the new glossary conversion file and plan for taxonomy or validation rule changes in downstream reporting tools.
• Affected firms may wish to submit comments on the draft technical package and glossary by 2026-08-24 if they have implementation concerns, data gaps, or interpretation issues.
• Compliance functions may wish to monitor the expected September 2026 final publication for changes to validation rules, AML eligibility elements, and the AMLA risk assessment 2027 templates.

What changed

The draft technical package for release 4.4 includes validation rules, the Data Point Model, XBRL taxonomies, and a new conversion file between DPM 1.0 and the DPM 2.0 glossary. It introduces amendments to the ITS on Pillar 3 disclosures on ESG risks, equity exposures and shadow banking exposures, with first reference dates of 2026-12-31 and 2027-12-31 for SNCIs. It also adds new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates, with a first reference date of 2027-03-31, and integrates FRTB-related disclosure templates into the DPM, also with a first reference date of 2027-03-31.

Key dates

2026-07-23

EBA launches consultations on draft ITS on depositor information, ITS on information exchange, RTS on DGS payouts of client funds deposits, and Guidelines on investment of available financial means under DGSD3

2026-09-21 Deadline

Registration deadline (12:00 CEST) for public hearing on all four regulatory products

2026-09-24

Public hearing on the four DGSD3-related regulatory products (10:00–13:00 CEST)

2026-10-23 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the four consultation papers

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions should consider reviewing existing depositor information sheets, account-opening documentation and ongoing communications to assess alignment with the emerging harmonised formats and content envisaged by the draft ITS on depositor information, particularly for merger and failure scenarios.
• DGSs and banks may wish to map current data flows and reporting processes for covered deposits, available financial means and bank failure events against the proposed ITS on information exchange, to identify gaps in data granularity, timeliness, and standardisation that could require system and process changes.
• Firms that hold client funds in pooled or intermediary deposit accounts (such as investment firms or payment institutions) should consider analysing how client identification and segregation data are captured and shared with DGSs, in light of the draft RTS on client funds that aim to ensure accurate and timely reimbursement of underlying clients and avoidance of duplicate payouts.
• DGS operators and finance teams may wish to review investment policies, risk limits, eligible instruments and liquidity management frameworks for DGS financial means, to anticipate adjustments needed to comply with the forthcoming Guidelines on diversification, low risk and liquidity, including readiness to support resolution financing within the DGSD3 mandate.
• All affected stakeholders should consider preparing internal positions and impact assessments and submit consultation responses to the EBA by the stated deadline, highlighting operational challenges, data availability issues, and any potential conflicts with existing national frameworks for depositor protection and crisis management.
• Risk and treasury functions in banks may wish to engage with DGSs and supervisors to understand how enhanced reporting on covered deposits and DGS financial means under the ITS on information exchange could affect crisis-preparedness expectations, stress-testing assumptions and disclosure practices.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider monitoring the progression of these four draft instruments alongside the remaining eight technical standards and guidelines mandated by DGSD3, to plan for a coordinated implementation programme once final texts and application dates are confirmed.

What changed

The publication launches consultations on four draft regulatory products mandated by DGSD3: (i) Implementing Technical Standards on depositor information, which define harmonised content and format for depositor information sheets at account opening and on a regular basis, and specify communication requirements in special situations such as bank mergers or failures; (ii) Implementing Technical Standards on information exchange between credit institutions, Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGSs) and other relevant authorities, introducing standardised procedures, templates and minimum information...

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / early 2027)

– Expected PRA policy statement and finalised amendments to the Statement of Policy on insurance business transfers, following consultation feedback (exact date not specified in the CP)

Early July 2026

– PRA publishes CP12/26 “Insurance friendly societies, amalgamations and transfers”, launching the consultation on proposed codified guidance and Statement of Policy amendments

Suggested considerations

• Map all current and planned amalgamations or transfers involving friendly societies against the proposed five‑part process (planning, analysis, member engagement and votes, application/notifications/representations, confirmation meetings) and identify procedural and evidential gaps.
• Review internal policies, governance frameworks, and transaction playbooks for friendly society restructurings to ensure they reflect the PRA’s codified expectations under Part VIII of the Friendly Societies Act 1992, including early regulatory engagement and documentation standards.
• Develop or enhance internal guidance for actuaries and finance teams on the required actuarial analysis for Part VIII transfers, ensuring the ability to evidence that preclusion grounds are not met and that the transaction is in the interests of members and policyholders.
• Implement procedures to identify all classes of members and policyholders affected by proposed amalgamations or transfers, assess whether their existing terms and conditions are preserved or materially changed, and document the implications for benefit levels and distribution.
• For partial transfers, establish a formal framework to assess and document how the interests of members remaining with the transferor society are considered, including any continuing obligations, capital support, and benefit expectations.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes a more detailed, codified description of the end‑to‑end Part VIII process for friendly society amalgamations and transfers, organised into stages such as planning and preparation,...
• The PRA intends to update and integrate its Statement of Policy on insurance business transfers to explicitly cover friendly society amalgamations and transfers under the Friendly Societies Act 1992,...
• For transfers, the PRA sets out circumstances in which it may exercise its statutory discretion to dispense with the requirement for the transferee friendly society to hold a member vote, subject to...
• The PRA proposes to clarify when it may direct the transferor and/or transferee to appoint an independent actuary to report on the proposed transfer’s effects on members and policyholders, including...
• Firms undertaking a Part VIII transfer will be expected to provide robust actuarial analysis and supporting evidence demonstrating that statutory preclusion grounds are not met and that the transfer...

Key dates

August 2021

- Start of the relevant period during which HDI Global SE submitted incorrect FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data to the PRA

Summer 2023

- By this point, HDI Global SE had still not checked the PRA Rulebook or guidance on FSCS coverage and fee tariff methodology, illustrating the duration of governance and diligence failures

January 2024

- The Early Account Scheme (EAS) becomes part of the Bank of England’s enforcement policy for PRA firms and FMIs

August 2024

- End of the relevant period of misreporting, including errors in data submitted as purported remediation of earlier incorrect returns

November 2024

- The Bank of England updates its statutory statements of policy and procedure on enforcement, setting out the PRA’s approach to exercising enforcement powers under FSMA 2000

Suggested considerations

• Review and map all FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff reporting obligations under the PRA Rulebook and applicable guidance, ensuring the firm’s methodology aligns with regulatory definitions of FSCS-covered liabilities.
• Conduct a detailed end-to-end review of regulatory reporting processes for FSCS data, including data sourcing, calculations, validations, and submission workflows, to identify and remediate control weaknesses.
• Develop and document formal, robust written procedures that govern the calculation and validation of FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data, including change-control processes for methodologies.
• Assign clear ownership and accountability for FSCS-related reporting within the firm’s governance framework, ensuring named individuals or functions are responsible for accuracy, completeness, and timely submission.
• Strengthen internal oversight, challenge and review mechanisms over prudential and FSCS-related reporting, including regular independent checks by risk, compliance or internal audit.

What changed

• - The PRA has explicitly reinforced that FSCS Liabilities and FSCS Fee Tariff data are core prudential reporting metrics, and misreporting them may both impede risk assessment and cause underpayment...
• The enforcement action clarifies that failures to consult the PRA Rulebook and applicable guidance on FSCS coverage and fee tariff methodologies constitute a breach of Fundamental Rule 2 (due skill,...
• The PRA has signalled that the absence of effective written processes for calculating regulatory data, and lack of clear accountability, internal oversight, and challenge over those calculations,...
• The case demonstrates that remediation submissions are subject to the same accuracy and governance expectations as original returns, and that errors in purported remediation will be treated as...
• The PRA’s Early Account Scheme (EAS), formally incorporated into its enforcement policy in January 2024, is now clearly positioned as a mechanism that can materially reduce penalties where firms...

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA published the final draft RTS and ITS on material acquisitions, material transfers, mergers and divisions under the CRD

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map proposed acquisition, transfer, merger, and division workflows against the draft minimum-information template and identify which data points are already held by competent authorities.
• Firms may wish to review whether planned intra-group transactions could qualify for the simplified treatment described in the draft RTS, including any discretion not to assess certain transactions.
• Groups planning mergers or divisions may wish to check which documentation can be reused from Company Law Directive processes and where CRD-specific supplements will still be needed.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to assess how multiple-notification scenarios are handled today and whether internal controls need to align with the proposed harmonised terminology and coordination timelines.
• Firms may wish to prepare for supervisory coordination across jurisdictions by identifying the authorities likely to be involved in cross-border transactions and the likely sequence of notifications.

What changed

The EBA’s final draft RTS would specify the minimum information to be provided for material acquisitions, material transfers of assets and liabilities, mergers, and divisions, together with a common assessment methodology for the prudential scrutiny of those transactions. The draft RTS also streamline notifications by excluding information already held by competent authorities and by allowing reliance on documentation prepared under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (the Company Law Directive) for mergers and divisions.

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA launches consultation on amendments to ITS for the 2027 market risk benchmarking exercise

2026-07-27 Deadline

Deadline (16:00 CEST) for registration to the public hearing on the consultation

2026-07-28

Public hearing on the consultation (14:00–15:30 CEST)

2026-09-03 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on the 2027 market risk benchmarking ITS amendments

2027-01-01

Application date of the European Commission’s FRTB Delegated Act referenced in the amended ITS

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions using market risk internal models or the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach may wish to review the consultation paper and annexes (booking instructions, relevant dates, instruments and portfolios, template instructions, and templates) to understand proposed changes to the 2027 benchmarking data collection and reporting requirements.
• Firms applying or planning to apply CRR2 Internal Model Approach for market risk should consider the implications of the resumption of CRR2-IMA data collection and assess whether existing reporting processes and systems can be reactivated or need updating to meet the revised ITS templates.
• Institutions intending to use the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach for market risk may wish to assess the impact of being newly in scope of the EBA market risk benchmarking exercise, including internal governance, data availability, and operational readiness for participation in the second half of 2027.
• Firms that anticipate using the CRR3 Alternative Internal Model Approach may wish to monitor the postponement of AIMA data collection and evaluate how the uncertainty in the effective implementation date interacts with their internal model development timelines and supervisory expectations.
• Regulatory and reporting functions may wish to map current market risk reporting templates to the proposed reorganised and rationalised templates, identifying data gaps and system changes required once the final ITS enter into force.
• Compliance teams may wish to coordinate with risk and reporting teams to prepare a response to the EBA consultation by the 3 September 2026 deadline, particularly on practical aspects of template design, data availability, and timing of the 2027 benchmarking exercise.
• Institutions newly included in scope by virtue of using CRR3 ASA should consider whether additional internal documentation, model validation, and supervisory engagement are needed ahead of the second-half 2027 benchmarking exercise, given the EBA’s intention to adopt the final ITS earlier to give such institutions more preparation time.

What changed

The consultation proposes amendments to the ITS on supervisory benchmarking of market risk models for the 2027 exercise, updating the data collection framework and reporting templates used by institutions and competent authorities under Article 78 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD). The scope of the market risk benchmarking exercise would be expanded to include institutions applying the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach (ASA) for market risk, irrespective of whether they also use an Internal Model Approach (IMA).

Key dates

2026-07-17

Federal Register publication date for the final rule

2026-08-17 Deadline

Final rule effective date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether any counterparties qualify as eligible seeded funds under the revised margin-affiliate definition and document the three-year trading-inception window.
• Firms may wish to refresh margin threshold calculations to reflect the exclusion of qualifying seeded funds from margin-affiliate aggregation.
• Operational teams may wish to update collateral eligibility schedules so that money market and similar fund securities are assessed under the expanded eligible-collateral framework.
• Risk and valuation teams may wish to confirm haircut logic under Commission Regulation 23.156(a)(3) for money market and similar funds.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to map the final rule against existing IM procedures, counterparty onboarding language, and margin agreements to determine whether amendments are needed before the effective date.
• Firms may wish to coordinate with fund sponsors and asset managers to verify the fund's start-up capital structure, independence, support limitations, and commencement of trading for any seeded-fund analysis.

What changed

['The Commission revised the definition of "margin affiliate" so that certain collective investment vehicles that receive start-up capital from a sponsor entity, referred to as "seeded funds," are treated as having no margin affiliates or as not constituting margin affiliates of another entity for purposes of the initial margin threshold calculation.', "For eligible seeded funds, swap dealers and major swap participants subject to the CFTC uncleared swaps margin rules are relieved from the requirement to post and collect initial margin for up to three years from the fund's trading inception...

Key dates

15 March (annually from 2025 onward) Deadline

- Recurring annual deadline for submission of the core ICAAP and ILAAP packages, including the Capital Adequacy Statement, Liquidity Adequacy Statement, risk inventory, stress testing information and liquidity stressed assumptions template

10 February 2025

- ECB publishes the clarification paper on ICAAPs and ILAAPs and respective package submissions, setting out new expectations on governance, content and submission processes

14 March 2025 Deadline

- For the SREP 2025 cycle only, general transition date by which all documents foreseen for annual submission must be provided to the ECB, marking the first application of the new two‑leg submission process and shortened deadline

15 March 2025 Deadline

- New general submission date for ICAAP and ILAAP information becomes effective, replacing the former 31 March deadline for annual packages and applying to ICAAP quantifications, ILAAP templates and other annual information

Continuous (from SREP 2025 cycle onward)

- Ongoing, year‑round obligation to submit to the ECB any new or significantly updated ICAAP/ILAAP‑relevant documents, together with a description and justification of changes and their implications for capital and liquidity adequacy

Suggested considerations

• Review existing ICAAP and ILAAP submission calendars and internal governance timelines and formally reset them to ensure core packages can be prepared, approved by the management body, and submitted by 15 March each year.
• Design and implement a documented two‑step submission process, including procedures for continuous, year‑round identification, approval and transmission to the ECB of any new or materially updated ICAAP/ILAAP‑relevant documents.
• Develop, approve and embed the new Capital Adequacy Statement and Liquidity Adequacy Statement, ensuring they reflect the management body’s signed‑off view on adequacy and are supported by clear references to ICAAP/ILAAP analyses and results.
• Update ICAAP and ILAAP governance frameworks to reflect ECB expectations, including explicit roles and responsibilities, escalation paths, periodic reviews triggered by external developments, and Board‑level oversight of capital and liquidity planning.
• Compile and maintain a comprehensive risk inventory covering both normative and economic perspectives, and ensure it is aligned with business models, risk appetite frameworks, recovery plans, stress testing programmes and SREP submissions.

What changed

• - Introduced a two‑step ICAAP/ILAAP submission model under the SREP: (1) annual submission of the main “ICAAP & ILAAP package” by 15 March and (2) continuous, year‑round submission of any new or...
• Shortened the standard annual deadline for ICAAP/ILAAP information from 31 March to 15 March, reducing the preparation and governance window by roughly two weeks versus prior practice.
• Confirmed that the clarifications apply from the SREP 2025 cycle onwards, with a general transition approach for 2025 and limited transitional flexibilities for banks whose internal processes cannot...
• Required inclusion of two distinct, concise documents within the annual packages: a “Capital Adequacy Statement” and a “Liquidity Adequacy Statement” reflecting the management body’s formal view on...
• Clarified governance expectations around capital and liquidity planning, including regular updates of governance frameworks to reflect external conditions and the submission of a complete risk...

Key dates

Summer 2026

– PRA and FCA consultations expected to be issued on detailed rules for the new UK captive insurance regime

16 June 2026

– PRA speech by Shoib Khan outlining policy approach, boundaries of captive activity, and expectation of a consultation in summer 2026

14 October 2026

– Consultation closing date for responses to the PRA/FCA captive regime proposals

Summer 2027

– Target **launch of the new captive insurance regime**, following consideration of consultation feedback and finalisation of PRA/FCA rules and guidance

Mid‑2027

– Consistent target implementation window indicated in government and regulator communications for the new captive framework to become operational

Suggested considerations

• Assess whether existing or planned group risk‑financing strategies would benefit from establishing a UK single‑parent captive under the proposed regime and document the strategic rationale.
• Map current and planned intra‑group insurance and reinsurance arrangements, including any employee benefits‑related policies, to confirm which risks can be written directly and which must only be written on a reinsurance basis.
• Engage early with internal stakeholders (risk, treasury, legal, tax, and senior management) to determine preferred captive structures (standalone vs future PCC) and governance arrangements aligned with PRA expectations.
• Prepare to participate in the PRA and FCA consultations by drafting detailed, technical responses on authorisation processes, capital methodologies, reporting templates, and conduct requirements for captives.
• Review existing Solvency UK and Consumer Duty compliance frameworks and identify which elements would no longer apply to captives under the proposed regime, while ensuring that any remaining protections and safeguards are maintained where appropriate.

What changed

• - Introduction of a tailored regulatory framework for single‑parent captive insurers in the UK, distinct from the regimes applicable to traditional insurers and reinsurers.
• Creation of a streamlined dual PRA/FCA authorisation process for captives, with an explicit target decision timeline of 4–6 weeks from application.
• Exclusion of captives from Solvency UK requirements, with a move to a separate, flexible capital resources framework rather than Solvency II‑style minimum capital requirements.
• Exclusion of captives from the FCA Consumer Duty, recognising that captives primarily insure intra‑group risks and have limited direct retail customer exposure.
• Introduction of proportionately lower capital requirements for captives, reflecting their lower risk profile and group‑risk‑financing purpose.

Key dates

14 October 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting responses to PRA Consultation Paper CP10/26 on the deletion of the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter and related changes to the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part

Suggested considerations

• Assess the current use of the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter in the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part within your firm’s ring‑fencing policies, procedures, contracts and governance, and identify all controls that explicitly rely on those rules.
• Prepare and submit a considered response to CP10/26 by 14 October 2026, addressing the practical impact of deleting the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter, any residual areas of concern, and suggestions for guidance or transitional arrangements.
• Coordinate with group entities acting as permitted suppliers or critical service providers to ensure their OCIR documentation, service catalogues, TSAs and liquidity arrangements remain aligned with the ring‑fenced body’s continuity requirements in the absence of the deleted chapter.
• Monitor for the subsequent PRA policy statement that will follow CP10/26, and be prepared to implement any final rule changes, transitional provisions or clarifications on how ring‑fencing continuity expectations intersect with OCIR and operational resilience regimes.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes to delete in full the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter in the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part of the PRA Rulebook, removing the specific ring‑fencing continuity‑of‑services...
• The PRA will make consequential amendments to the Ring‑fenced Bodies Part to remove or adjust cross‑references, defined terms and obligations that are linked to the deleted Continuity of Provision of...
• The proposal effectively retires the bespoke continuity‑of‑services construct that was introduced when ring‑fencing was implemented (including detailed constraints on termination, suspension or...
• The consultation paper explains how the PRA intends to align ring‑fenced bodies’ continuity‑of‑services expectations with existing supervisory statements on operational continuity in resolution (for...
• The PRA invites stakeholders to comment on whether deleting the Continuity of Provision of Services Chapter, and relying on the broader operational continuity regime, still adequately protects the...

Key dates

Summer 2026

– PRA (and FCA) indicated they would consult on a new UK captive insurance regime as part of their 2026 supervisory priorities and joint statements

14 October 2026 Deadline

– Deadline for responses to CP11/26 “A tailored regime for captive insurance”

Mid 2027

– Target implementation date for the new UK captive insurance regime, as indicated in prior PRA policy communications and government consultation responses

Suggested considerations

• Review CP11/26 in detail and perform an internal impact assessment on how the proposed captive regime would affect your group’s current or planned captive insurance structures, including domicile and regulatory capital profile.
• Identify whether any existing insurance entities within the group may fall within the PRA’s proposed definition of a captive and assess whether reclassification would be beneficial or would trigger additional compliance work.
• Prepare and submit a coordinated consultation response by 14 October 2026, addressing eligibility criteria, proportionality of capital and reporting requirements, and any operational or tax implications for your captive strategy.
• Map existing governance, risk management, and internal control frameworks for captives against PRA’s proposed expectations and identify gaps that would need remediation ahead of the regime’s expected go‑live in mid‑2027.
• Engage with group legal, tax, and treasury teams to evaluate whether onshoring an offshore captive to the UK, or establishing a new UK captive, becomes strategically attractive under the tailored regime, and model scenarios accordingly.

What changed

• - The PRA proposes to establish a dedicated UK regulatory regime for captive insurers, separate from the standard Solvency UK treatment for commercial (non‑captive) insurers.
• Captive insurers would benefit from proportionate prudential requirements (for example simplified capital, reporting, and risk management expectations) reflecting their limited and group-focused risk...
• The consultation seeks views on eligibility criteria for captives, likely including ownership (group‑owned), purpose (insuring or reinsuring parent/group risks), and restrictions on third‑party...
• PRA proposes a UK authorisation and licensing pathway specifically tailored to captives, with adjusted expectations for business plans, risk appetites, and use of reinsurance and fronting structures.
• The regime is intended to sit within Solvency UK rather than as a completely separate legislative framework, implying changes to the PRA Rulebook and supervisory statements rather than primary...