Savings protection Warning Retail investors Journalists Listed companies and issuers AMF announces resumption of trading in Mexedia shares
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the AMF (French financial markets regulator) announces the resumption of trading in Mexedia shares, which is relevant for banking, capital markets, and wealth management firms.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today enhanced its efforts to assist broker-dealers and other market participants on the path to central clearing of U.S. Treasury securities, developing a one-stop webpage that puts the latest status updates, staff…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the SEC is relevant to broker-dealers and banks that participate in the U.S. Treasury securities market. It discusses the SEC's efforts to assist these firms with the implementation of central clearing rules for Treasury securities, which has implications for prudential requirements and...
This speech by Sarah Breeden of the Bank of England covers topics related to prudential requirements, operational resilience, and ESG/sustainability, which are relevant for banks, asset managers, and wealth managers.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued an order granting conditional exemptive relief related to certain requirements of the National Market System Plan governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT NMS Plan), Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, and…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the SEC relates to the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) requirements, which impact capital markets participants such as broker-dealers and asset managers.
This regulatory update relates to the profit and loss account of credit institutions, which is relevant for banking and investment management firms. The topics of prudential/capital requirements and reporting/disclosure are also applicable. The update is informational in nature, so the urgency is low.
PS15/25 introduces **new liquidity risk reporting requirements for major UK insurance firms**, closing data gaps identified during the March 2020 "dash for cash" and September 2022 LDI crisis. The policy mandates four new reporting templates for firms with significant derivatives or securities lending exposure, with implementation deferred to **30 September 2026** to allow adequate preparation time.
Key dates
30 September 2025
- PRA published PS15/25 (policy statement)
31 December 2025 Deadline
- Original implementation deadline (now superseded)
30 September 2026
- **Final implementation date for all liquidity reporting requirements**
First reporting reference date after 30 September 2026 Deadline
- Firms meeting threshold conditions must commence reporting
Three consecutive annual reporting reference dates
- Threshold for ceasing reporting once firms fall below thresholds
Suggested considerations
*Immediate Actions (by Q2 2026):
*Threshold Assessment: Determine whether your firm meets the £10 billion derivatives or £1 billion securities lending thresholds
*RFF Mapping: If applicable, identify ring-fenced funds with £500 million+ gross notional derivatives exposure
*System Readiness: Begin implementing technical infrastructure for monthly and daily reporting submissions
*Data Governance: Establish processes to capture and validate liquidity data in the required templates
What changed
The PRA's final policy establishes the following regulatory framework:
New Reporting Templates
Four new liquidity reporting templates have been introduced to capture previously unavailable data:
Annual committed facilities template
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template (short form)
Monthly cash-flow mismatch template for ring-fenced funds, matching adjustment portfolios, and remaining parts
Additional supervisory reporting requirements
Scope and Thresholds
Firms are subject to liquidity reporting if they meet both of the following conditions:
SS15/16 establishes the PRA's expectations for UK insurance firms using approved internal models to calculate their Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), requiring them to maintain the ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula and submit standard formula SCR calculations for regulatory monitoring purposes. This guidance is critical because it ensures capital requirements remain reflective of actual firm risks and protects policyholder security by preventing model drift—where internal models diverge from underlying risk realities over time.
Key dates
25 October 2016
- Original SS15/16 publication
31 December 2018
- Document updated (referenced in original guidance)
September 2025
- Most recent update to SS15/16 published, clarifying expectations for firms with material non-life technical provisions
30 September 2026 Deadline
- Implementation deadline for liquidity reporting rules (related Solvency II development)
Four weeks after annual quantitative reporting submission Deadline
- Deadline for standard formula SCR reporting
Suggested considerations
*Maintain Dual Calculation Capability: Preserve the technical ability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, regardless of internal model approval status.
*Establish Annual Reporting Process: Implement procedures to calculate and submit standard formula SCR results annually through XBRL-enabled Excel or full XBRL format via BEEDS portal.
*Integrate into Risk Management: Incorporate standard formula SCR calculations into own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA), risk management, and model validation cycles.
*Obtain Senior Management Approval: Ensure standard formula submissions are reviewed and approved by appropriately authorized senior management before submission.
*Maintain Supporting Documentation: Retain quantitative and qualitative documentation supporting standard formula calculations to demonstrate appropriateness for model drift monitoring purposes.
What changed
The supervisory statement introduces several core regulatory expectations:
Internal Model Maintenance Requirement: Firms with approved internal models must maintain the capability to calculate SCR using the standard formula, even if they primarily use internal models for...
Standard Formula SCR Reporting: Firms using approved internal models to calculate solo SCR are expected to report standard formula SCR results privately to the PRA on an annual basis.
Model Drift Monitoring Framework: The PRA uses model drift ratios calculated at model approval and re-based following material changes in risk profile or major model changes to monitor whether...
Submission Format and Timing: Standard formula SCR information must be submitted through XBRL-enabled Excel files or full XBRL format, four weeks following firms' annual quantitative reporting...
Letter to chief financial officers of selected PRA-regulated deposit-takers which provides thematic feedback from the PRA’s review of written auditor reports received in 2025 covering IFRS 9 expected credit loss accounting (ECL) and accounting for climate risk.
AI Analysis
The PRA's Dear CFO Letter, issued on 30 September 2025 by David Bailey, provides thematic feedback to selected PRA-regulated deposit-takers based on its 2025 review of auditor reports on IFRS 9 expected credit loss (ECL) accounting and climate risk integration. It matters because it highlights persistent supervisory concerns around timely credit risk recognition, model limitations, recovery assumptions, and climate impacts amid economic uncertainty, urging firms to strengthen ECL processes to ensure safety and soundness.
Key dates
2025
- Auditor reports reviewed by PRA (basis for this feedback)
30 September 2025
- PRA issues Dear CFO Letter with thematic feedback
2026
- Next round of written auditor reporting on firms' progress against areas of focus, including data aggregation and securitisation impacts; firms encouraged to self-assess now
Suggested considerations
Conduct self-assessments against annex "areas of focus" (model risk, recovery, climate) and share with auditors ahead of 2026 reporting.
Enhance PMAs: Challenge completeness for emerging risks (e.g., interest rates, sectors); link to emerging risk analysis.
Model improvements: Monitor redevelopment plans; ensure granular monitoring, comprehensive reviews, skilled independent assurance; define model boundaries.
Recovery processes: Strengthen challenges to LGD recovery assumptions for vulnerable exposures.
This is not a formal rule change or new regulation but thematic feedback building on prior years, with "areas of focus" for improvement:
Model risk: Elevated due to macroeconomic/geopolitical uncertainty; firms must enhance post-model adjustments (PMAs) for completeness (e.g., affordability risks, sector vulnerabilities), granular...
Recovery strategies: Ongoing risk of historical bias in Loss Given Default (LGD) estimates; challenge realism of recovery assumptions for vulnerable sectors/borrowers.
Climate risks: Greater emphasis on identifying/assessing/modelling climate drivers in ECL (e.g., via expert judgement, stress tests); align with PRA's SS1/23 on model risk and upcoming clarifications...
Compliance impact
Urgency: High – Persistent issues from prior years (e.g., 2024 feedback) indicate elevated model risk in uncertain conditions could lead to PRA scrutiny, auditor findings, or enforcement if unaddressed; 2026 auditor reports will benchmark progress, risking heightened supervision. Matters for prudential stability as ECL underpins capital requirements.
This speech from the CFTC Acting Chairman discusses regulatory harmonization efforts between the SEC and CFTC, which is relevant for firms operating in the banking, capital markets, and crypto/digital asset sectors.
Single Resolution Fund – Information request by the Single Resolution Board for the calculation of the 2026 contribution according to Articles 4 and 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
AI Analysis
Circular CSSF-CODERES 25/21, issued by the CSSF on 29 September 2025, mandates Luxembourg credit institutions to submit specific data via XBRL-formatted Data Reporting Forms (DRFs) to enable the Single Resolution Board (SRB) to calculate 2026 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) under Articles 4 and 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63. This matters because non-compliance risks SRB using estimates, applying the highest risk multiplier, or penalties, ensuring the financial sector funds resolution costs without taxpayer burden.
Key dates
30 November 2025 Deadline
- SRB decision deadline on whether to calculate/collect 2026 SRF contributions based on DRFs (triggers full additional assurance application)
15 January 2026
- ECB-supervised institutions submit AUP or auditor reports on restatements to CSSF resolution department
16 January 2026, 24:00 CET
- All institutions submit completed DRF in XBRL to CSSF; late/incomplete submissions lead to SRB estimates or highest risk multiplier
Suggested considerations
Download and complete DRF using Annexes (e.g., Annex 3a PDF, Annex 5 User Guide v1.4); submit in XBRL format by deadline.
For ECB-supervised institutions: Provide additional assurances per Annex 7a/7b if SRB proceeds with collections; prepare restatement AUPs with auditor exceptions where applicable.
Align internal systems with CSSF templates early; validate data to avoid SRB assumptions under Article 17(1) DR.
- Introduces data collection for 2026 SRF contributions, conditional on SRB verifying SRF funds fall below 1% of covered deposits in the Banking Union by early 2026.
Mandates XBRL submission of DRFs (except restatements up to 2022 in Excel); provides templates in Annexes 3a, 4, 5 (User Guide), and 7a/7b for additional assurances.
Additional assurance requirements (e.g., auditor reports or Agreed-Upon Procedures - AUP) apply conditionally to ECB-supervised institutions unless under lump-sum payment; restatements require AUP by...
References SRB's 2026 kick-off letter (Annex 1) and ECB-supervised list (Annex 6 as of 24 September 2025).
Compliance impact
Urgency: High - The 16 January 2026 deadline is imminent (today is 25 January 2026), risking immediate SRB penalties like estimates or maximum risk multipliers if submissions are missed/inaccurate; affects capital planning as contributions directly impact prudential positions.
Requirements for life insurers to manufacture and offer direct purchase insurance (DPI).
AI Analysis
ID 11/25 announces amendments to MAS Notice 321, which mandates requirements for direct life insurers to manufacture and offer standardized Direct Purchase Insurance (DPI) products, such as term life and whole life policies with optional critical illness riders. These updates, effective 1 October 2025, refine product approval and notification processes to streamline launches while maintaining consumer protection and regulatory oversight for no-advice direct sales channels. This matters for compliance as it ensures insurers provide affordable, comparable direct options, reducing reliance on intermediaries amid Singapore's push for direct distribution under initiatives like FAIR.
Key dates
29 September 2025
- Publication and issuance of ID 11/25 amendments to MAS Notice 321
1 October 2025
- Effective date for Notice 321 (Amendments) 2025
At least 1 month before launch
- MAS approval submission for industry-new DPI features; notification for insurer-new features
Within 7 working days after launch
- Notification for no-new-features DPIs
Suggested considerations
Review and update DPI manufacturing processes to comply with standardized features in Appendix A of Notice 321, ensuring premiums ≤ non-DPI equivalents and benefits ≥ equivalents.
Implement streamlined filing: Seek MAS approval for novel products (1-month lead), notify for insurer-novel or standard products as specified.
For distribution: Deploy safeguards (affordability checks, info disclosure), non-advisory channels, and client query mechanisms (phone/email helplines).
Obtain MAS written approval before offering new/re-priced DPIs; adhere to any specified launch dates.
Update internal policies for pricing (no negating savings via margins), naming ("DIRECT" prefix), and risk assumptions matching non-DPIs.
What changed
The amendments primarily streamline approval processes for DPI products under Notice 321 and related Notice 302:
For new or re-priced DPIs with features entirely new to Singapore’s life insurance industry, insurers must seek MAS approval at least one month before launch.
For DPIs with features new only to the insurer, notify MAS at least one month prior to launch.
DPIs with no new features require notification within seven working days after launch.
These changes ease prior stringent requirements while upholding core DPI mandates: standardized products (term...
Compliance impact
Urgency: High - Effective over five months ago (1 Oct 2025), non-compliance risks enforcement under Insurance Act, including product withdrawal or penalties; impacts ongoing product launches and direct channels critical for retail access. Matters as it enforces consumer choice for lower-cost direct products, aligning with FAIR and direct distribution mandates (e.g., critical illness from 1 Jul 2018).
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published a concept release soliciting public comment on how to improve current SEC rules governing residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and certain aspects of asset-backed securities (ABS) generally…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the SEC is focused on improving rules governing residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and certain aspects of asset-backed securities (ABS).
This regulatory update from the CFTC involves a commodity pool fraud case, which impacts investment management firms, broker-dealers, and banks that offer commodity pool products.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA has identified further progress in UBS’s resolvability and continues to view a resolution as feasible. However, there is a need for greater optionality, which will also require legislative changes. UBS’s emergency plan largely fulfils the current statutory…
Why this matters
The regulatory update discusses progress in UBS's resolvability and the need for greater optionality, which will require legislative changes. This is relevant for banking and wealth management firms from a prudential and operational resilience perspective.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Ken Johnson, who has been serving as Chief Operating Officer (COO) since December 2017, will retire from the agency in December. “Ken has been an integral leader at the SEC for more than two…
Why this matters
This regulatory update announces the departure of the SEC's Chief Operating Officer, which is a senior leadership change at the regulator. It impacts firms across the banking, investment management, and capital markets sectors, particularly around reporting, governance, and operational resilience requirements.
Given at the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Why this matters
This speech by Megan Greene of the Bank of England discusses the importance of focusing on the supply side of the economy, which has implications for banking, investment management, and wealth management firms in terms of prudential requirements, operational resilience, and ESG/sustainability considerations.
Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Listed companies and issuers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an asset management company and its two managers a total of €1.3 million
AI Analysis
The AMF Enforcement Committee fined asset management company Altaroc Partners €600,000 and its senior managers Maurice Tchenio (€500,000) and Patrick de Giovanni (€200,000) a total of €1.3 million on 15 September 2025 for breaches of professional obligations, including non-operational investment procedures, inadequate AML/CFT due diligence, deficient marketing materials, and unproven benefits from fee retrocessions to distributors. This decision underscores the AMF's heightened scrutiny on operational controls and senior accountability in asset management, serving as a critical enforcement signal for firms to strengthen procedures amid a pattern of similar sanctions.
Key dates
15 September 2025
- AMF Enforcement Committee decision issued, imposing fines on Altaroc Partners, Maurice Tchenio, and Patrick de Giovanni
16 September 2025
- French version of press release published
Post
15 September 2025 (exact date unspecified); - Appeal lodged by Altaroc Partners, Tchenio, and de Giovanni before the Conseil d’État against decision SAN-2025-09
Suggested considerations
Audit procedures immediately: Review and document operational status of investment/divestment processes, ensuring traceability of lender checks, fund policy compliance, and AML/CFT due diligence on assets/liabilities.
Enhance AML/CFT systems: Formalize risk mapping, procedures, and systematic investor/transaction due diligence; test for operational effectiveness.
Validate marketing and fees: Audit fund materials for accuracy; gather evidence that fee retrocessions to distributors improve client services (e.g., via service level agreements or performance metrics).
Senior manager training: Conduct gap analysis on personal accountability; update governance frameworks to mitigate attribution of firm breaches.
Mock AMF inspections: Simulate Enforcement Committee reviews, focusing on procedure formalization, independent valuers (if applicable), and conflict systems.
What changed
This is an enforcement action rather than new legislation, but it reinforces and clarifies existing professional obligations under AMF regulations for asset managers (sociétés de gestion),...
Operational investment/divestment procedures: Must be fully implemented, with traceability of checks on lender authorizations and compliance with fund policies.
AML/CFT due diligence: Systematic verification required on fund assets and liabilities; non-operational procedures or risk mapping constitute breaches.
Marketing and fee retrocessions: Materials must be accurate; firms must prove retrocessions enhance client service quality.
Senior manager accountability: Breaches attributable to responsible managers, emphasizing personal liability for oversight failures.
No explicit regulatory changes, but the decision aligns with AMF's...
Compliance impact
Urgency: High – This fits a 2025 enforcement trend targeting asset managers' operational deficiencies (e.g., similar fines against Novaxia Investissement on 10 December 2025, M Capital Partners on 31 December 2025, and Eternam on 9 September 2025), signaling AMF's zero-tolerance for non-operational controls and AML gaps amid EU AIFMD reviews. Non-compliance risks personal fines up to €500,000+ for managers, reputational damage, and authorization challenges; proactive remediation is essential as appeals (like this one) do not suspend obligations.
Given at the Inaugural Pictet Research Institute Symposium 2025
Why this matters
This speech from the Bank of England covers topics related to prudential requirements, operational resilience, and technology/cyber risks, which are relevant for banks, asset managers, and wealth managers.
Warning Identity theft The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) is warning professionals about the extensive fraudulent and malicious use of its name engaging people into running a malicious computer program.
Why this matters
This warning from the AMF relates to the fraudulent and malicious use of its name to engage people into running malicious computer programs, which poses significant risks around financial crime, consumer protection, and operational resilience for a range of financial firms.
Long term investment Sustainable Finance Retail investors Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers Sustainable finance: retail investors have higher expectations of their financial advisors
Why this matters
This regulatory update discusses how retail investors have higher expectations of their financial advisors when it comes to sustainable finance. This impacts investment management firms, wealth managers, and banks that provide advisory services to retail clients.
22 SEP 2025, 11:05 AM
Masaar: DFSA welcomes 2025 cohort of its graduate programme, helping to foster…
Why this matters
The article is an informational update about the launch of the 2025 cohort of the DFSA's graduate programme, which does not pose any immediate regulatory risks or requirements for firms.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA and the UK Financial Conduct Authority FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority PRA today signed a memorandum of understanding. The memorandum sets out details of the co-operation under the Berne Financial Services Agreement and opens up new cross-border…
Why this matters
This regulatory update covers cooperation between Swiss and UK financial regulators, which impacts firms in the banking, investment management, and insurance sectors. Key topics include prudential requirements, licensing, and consumer protection.
The PRA's CP21/25 proposes deletion of 37 banking regulatory reporting templates—primarily 34 FINREP templates representing approximately one-third of all FINREP collections—as the first phase of its Future Banking Data (FBD) programme. This initiative aims to reduce annual reporting burden by approximately £26 million while maintaining supervisory effectiveness by eliminating duplicative, outdated, or low-value data collections.
Key dates
September 2025
- CP21/25 consultation paper published
8 December 2025
- PS27/25 (Policy Statement) published, confirming final policy
31 December 2025
- Proposed implementation date to avoid firms submitting 2025 Q4 data for deleted templates
Suggested considerations
*Cease reporting on the 37 deleted templates effective 31 December 2025
*Update internal systems and processes to remove validation rules and submission workflows for deleted templates
*Revise compliance calendars to reflect aligned FINREP reporting remittance dates
*Review Pillar 3 disclosure obligations to identify any continued requirements based on deleted FINREP templates and assess whether disclosure obligations remain despite template deletion
*Implement rulebook changes reflecting consolidation of FINREP scoping provisions into the PRA Rulebook
What changed
The PRA proposes the following regulatory deletions:
FINREP Template Deletions:
Permanent deletion of 34 whole FINREP reporting templates (approximately one-third of all FINREP collections)
Consolidation of remaining FINREP requirements within a single section of the PRA Rulebook
Clarification of scoping conditions where current provisions are unclear, duplicative, or inconsistently applied
Alignment of reporting remittance dates for FINREP reporting
Other Template Deletions:
Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF warns the public about group chats providing tips on shares
Why this matters
This warning from the AMF is targeted at retail investors participating in group chats that provide investment tips, which could constitute market abuse and unauthorized investment advice. It is relevant for asset managers, wealth managers, and broker-dealers that serve retail clients.
Given at the Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG) conference
Why this matters
This speech from the Bank of England discusses operational resilience from a systemic risk perspective, covering topics relevant to banks, asset managers, and wealth managers such as prudential requirements, technology and cyber risks, and outsourcing.
Given at the 30th Annual Bank of America Financials CEO Conference
Why this matters
This speech by a Bank of England official discusses the need to balance innovation and risk in the financial sector, covering topics such as prudential requirements, operational resilience, and technology/cyber risks. It is relevant for a range of financial firms including banks, asset managers, and broker-dealers.
This regulatory update from the CFTC involves a commodity firm and its owner being ordered to pay $1.2M for fraud, indicating potential misconduct and consumer protection issues in the commodity trading/crypto space.
The CFTC issued an order on September 17, 2025, sanctioning Shinhan Securities Co. Ltd. with a $212,500 civil monetary penalty for engaging in wash sales and non-competitive transactions on NYMEX, involving near-simultaneous bids and offers for the same futures contracts under the same beneficial owner to avoid risk and price competition. This enforcement action underscores the CFTC's ongoing focus on market manipulation practices that undermine open and competitive trading, serving as a reminder for firms to enhance trade surveillance and compliance programs. Compliance professionals should note this as evidence of active CFTC scrutiny on wash trading violations under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
Key dates
September 17, 2025
- CFTC issues order filing and settling charges against Shinhan, requiring immediate payment of $212,500 penalty and cease-and-desist order
Suggested considerations
Enhance trade surveillance: Implement or upgrade systems to detect near-simultaneous bids/offers for identical futures contracts across related accounts, flagging same-beneficial-owner trades.
Conduct gap analysis: Review historical trades for wash sale patterns, including non-competitive executions that offset risk; remediate via training and policy updates.
Strengthen internal controls: Ensure separation of buy/sell orders to maintain genuine price competition; document beneficial ownership to avoid inadvertent violations.
Self-reporting consideration: If potential violations identified, evaluate voluntary disclosure per CFTC's February 25, 2025, Enforcement Advisory for mitigation credit, including immediate remediation steps like gap analyses and prevention plans.
Training and recordkeeping: Train traders on CEA prohibitions (e.g., Sections 6(c)(2), 9(a)(2)); maintain detailed trade logs for CFTC audits.
What changed
This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements introduced. It reaffirms existing prohibitions under CEA Section 6(c)(2) against wash sales (fictitious sales) and non-competitive transactions that negate risk or price competition in futures markets. The case highlights CFTC's interpretation of wash sales as including trades where buy and sell orders for identical quantities of the same contract are executed near-simultaneously for accounts with the same beneficial owner, even if enhancing execution likelihood.
Compliance impact
Urgency: Medium - This action signals sustained CFTC enforcement on wash sales amid broader anti-manipulation priorities, with penalties reflecting cooperation but still material ($212,500). It matters because wash trades erode market integrity, and recent advisories incentivize proactive remediation to reduce penalties; firms with similar trading patterns face heightened exam risk, especially post-2025 enforcement shifts toward disruptive practices like spoofing and wash trading.
This regulatory update from the ECB appears to be focused on supervisory banking statistics for significant institutions, which would be relevant for banks, asset managers, and wealth managers in terms of prudential requirements, reporting, and operational resilience.
Supervision Other professionals Fintech Market Infrastructures Professional investors Journalists Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers European supervision of capital markets: the AMF calls for an enhanced...
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the AMF discusses the European supervision of capital markets, calling for an enhanced role for ESMA to promote a Savings and Investments Union. This impacts investment management firms, wealth managers, banks, and fintechs operating in the European capital markets.
The update is an informational report from the DFSA, providing insights and recommendations for high-growth firms operating in the DIFC, without any immediate regulatory requirements or deadlines.
Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an asset management company for breaches of its professional obligations
AI Analysis
The AMF Enforcement Committee fined an asset management company €400,000 on 9 September 2025 for multiple breaches of professional obligations, including deficient marketing disclosures, inadequate conflict of interest systems, non-operational valuation procedures, failure to oversee external experts, and deficient AML/CFT systems in managing AIFs and club deals. This enforcement action underscores the AMF's focus on operational robustness and investor protection in asset management, serving as a critical reminder for firms to ensure procedures are not only documented but fully operational and effective. Compliance teams should review this to benchmark internal controls, as it highlights personal accountability for senior managers and recurring AMF priorities in recent sanctions.
Key dates
9 September 2025
- AMF Enforcement Committee decision imposing €400,000 fine on Eternam for breaches
Suggested considerations
Conduct immediate gap analysis of investment procedures, marketing materials, conflict of interest policies, valuation processes, external expert oversight, and AML/CFT systems to ensure they are operational, documented, and traceable.
Verify investor disclosures on fee retrocessions are comprehensive and understandable; update marketing materials for AIFs and club deals accordingly.
Formalize independent valuer roles and implement monitoring for external experts per activity programs.
Enhance AML/CFT due diligence on fund assets/liabilities, including risk mapping and procedure testing.
Senior managers: Document personal oversight of compliance; train on attribution of breaches.
What changed
This is an enforcement decision, not a regulatory change introducing new rules; it enforces existing professional obligations under AMF jurisdiction for asset managers.
Providing comprehensive, accurate, and understandable information to investors on fee retrocessions to distributors in AIF marketing.
Implementing effective systems for preventing and managing conflicts of interest, particularly in joint investments like club deals classified as Other AIFs.
Maintaining operational procedures for valuing real estate assets, including formalizing independent valuer work.
Adhering to programs of activity for selecting, evaluating, overseeing, and periodically assessing external experts.
Compliance impact
Urgency: High – This recent (2025) decision aligns with a pattern of AMF fines on asset managers for similar operational and AML failures (e.g., €1.3M on Altaroc Partners for lacking investment procedures and AML due diligence; €200K+ on M Capital for non-operational systems and AML deficiencies). It matters because AMF increasingly attributes breaches to individuals, escalating personal liability, and emphasizes "operational" procedures over mere documentation—firms with AIFs/club deals face elevated scrutiny amid rising enforcement volume.
CP20/25 is a PRA consultation paper published on 16 September 2025 that proposes targeted updates to the regulatory framework governing third-country insurance branches operating in the UK. The consultation addresses inconsistencies introduced during the Solvency II review, clarifies supervisory expectations, and increases the subsidiarisation threshold—matters that directly affect the operational and compliance costs of non-UK insurers seeking to maintain branch operations rather than establish subsidiaries in the UK market.
Key dates
16 September 2025
- CP20/25 published by the PRA
16 December 2025 Deadline
- Consultation response deadline
H1 2026
- Statement of Policy (SoP) expected to be published; subsidiarisation threshold update anticipated upon SoP publication
31 December 2026
- Planned implementation date for rulebook changes
Suggested considerations
*Threshold Assessment: Larger third-country branches must reassess whether their liabilities, forecast for the coming three years, mean they need to become subsidiaries given the proposed increased subsidiarisation threshold.
*Reporting Requirement Review: Branches should review updated guidance on ORSA submissions to ensure they provide the undertaking-level ORSA (rather than branch-specific ORSA) with required high-level summaries of solvency position, capital buffer rationale, and stress testing results.
*Quantitative Metrics Compliance: Given new quantitative metrics replacing previous PRA firm categorisation, branches should review what requirements will apply to them to ensure they do not inadvertently misreport.
*Three-Year Notification Obligation: Branches should establish processes to notify the PRA where it is projected that they may exceed the subsidiarisation threshold within the next three years.
*Asset Holding Verification: Confirm that branch assets are held in respect of branch provisions and that assets backing direct insurance liabilities are available, as required by the new rule.
What changed
The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications:
Subsidiarisation Threshold Increase
The PRA proposes raising the FSCS liability threshold above which third-country branches must establish a UK subsidiary from £500 million to £600 million. The PRA attributes this increase to inflation rather than organic growth, aiming to prevent branches from artificially approaching the current threshold and incurring unnecessary subsidiarisation costs.
ORSA Reporting Clarification
Current guidance will be updated to clarify that third-country branches must submit an Own Risk and Self...
This regulatory update from the CFTC involves a restitution order against individuals and firms related to metals fraud, which impacts banking, capital markets, and crypto firms. It covers AML/financial crime, consumer protection, and licensing issues, making it relevant for a wide range of financial firms.
This regulatory update from the CFTC relates to a fraud action involving Voyager, a crypto platform. It involves the return of funds to affected customers, which is a consumer protection issue. The update also touches on authorization and licensing requirements for crypto firms.
MiCA Other professionals Fintech Journalists Listed companies and issuers The French, Austrian and Italian markets authorities call for a stronger European framework for crypto-asset markets
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the French, Austrian and Italian markets authorities calls for a stronger European framework for crypto-asset markets, which impacts crypto exchanges, fintechs and banks operating in this space. It covers topics related to authorization, consumer protection and prudential requirements.
On 1 July, the PRA and the Bank of England held a roundtable meeting with representatives of non-systemic UK banks and building societies.
Why this matters
This roundtable discussion with non-systemic UK banks and building societies is likely focused on prudential requirements, operational resilience, and authorization/licensing issues relevant to these types of firms.
10 SEP 2025, 11:01 AM
DFSA and Securities and Futures Commission bolster ties in supervising…
Why this matters
The article is an informational update about a Memorandum of Understanding between the DFSA and SFC, with no immediate regulatory implications or deadlines.
This appears to be a general news update from CBI covering regulatory developments across multiple financial sectors and topics. The lack of a detailed description suggests this is informational content rather than a critical regulatory change.
This speech by the CFTC Acting Chairman discusses digital assets policy and regulation, which is relevant to crypto exchanges and fintech firms operating in the digital asset space. The topics of authorization/licensing and technology/cyber are likely to be covered.
Savings protection Withdrawal of KOREGRAF's authorisation as a crowdfunding service provider
Why this matters
This regulatory update relates to the withdrawal of authorization for a crowdfunding service provider, which impacts firms in the banking, investment management, and wealth management sectors. It involves topics of authorization/licensing and consumer protection.
CloneFraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm. Almost all firms and individuals must be authorised or registered by us to carry out or promote financial services in the UK. This firm is not authorised…
Why this matters
The FCA warning targets a specific fraudulent clone impersonating Societe Generale to deceive consumers. While administratively routine (clone warnings are standard FCA practice), the urgency is elevated because it alerts consumers to an active scam with specific contact details and requires immediate protective...
CloneFraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm. Almost all firms and individuals must be authorised or registered by us to carry out or promote financial services in the UK. This firm is not authorised…
Why this matters
The FCA warning identifies fraudulent clone websites impersonating Societe Generale to conduct financial scams. The content is administrative in nature—a standard consumer alert about unauthorised firms—but carries high urgency due to active fraud risk.
This joint statement from the SEC and CFTC likely contains information relevant to capital markets participants, particularly those involved in crypto and digital asset activities.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA is today publishing guidance on the disclosure of cryptobased assets in the annual financial statements of banks and securities firms. It is thereby addressing ambiguities that have arisen since the DLT Act entered into force. FINMA emphasises that the existing…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from FINMA provides guidance on the disclosure of crypto-based assets in the annual financial statements of banks and securities firms. It is relevant for banks and crypto exchanges as it clarifies existing disclosure requirements in this emerging asset class.
This appears to be a regulatory update from the CFTC regarding the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda. It is likely to impact a range of financial firms including banks, broker-dealers, crypto exchanges, and fintechs, particularly in areas related to licensing, reporting, and technology/cyber issues.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA is transferring the FINMA Banking Insolvency Ordinance, FINMA Insurance Bankruptcy Ordinance and FINMA Collective Investment Schemes Bankruptcy Ordinance to a new consolidated FINMA Insolvency Ordinance. The existing regulations have been revised and adapted where…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from FINMA consolidates insolvency proceedings for financial institutions, including banks, asset managers, and wealth managers. It revises existing regulations based on practical experience, which impacts prudential requirements, operational resilience, and authorization/licensing for these...
This appears to be a farewell speech from a CFTC commissioner, which would be of interest to firms in the capital markets and crypto/digital assets sectors. The topics of authorization/licensing and senior management/governance are likely to be discussed, as these are key regulatory areas overseen by the CFTC.
03 SEP 2025, 03:20 PM
DFSA publishes FAQ on the annual AML Return and reminds Firms of 30 September…
Why this matters
The regulatory update is informational and does not require immediate action from firms. It provides guidance on the annual AML Return and reminds firms of the submission deadline.
Given at the Bank of England and Warwick Business School Innovation in Money and Payments Conference
Why this matters
This speech by the Bank of England covers topics related to building trust and supporting innovation in the multi-moneyverse, which spans banking, payments, and crypto/digital assets.
The 2024 insurance market report, which was published today by FINMA, offers an overview of the Swiss insurance market last year. Swiss insurance companies achieved aggregate annual profits of CHF 10.4 billion in 2024, which represents a 24% decrease over the previous year. While life and non-life insurers were able…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from FINMA provides an overview of the 2024 financial performance of the Swiss insurance sector, including details on profitability and trends across life, non-life, and reinsurance segments.
This joint statement from the CFTC and SEC appears to be related to the regulation and oversight of crypto-related activities, which is a key focus area for both agencies.
This letter from the ECB Supervisory Board Chair to an MEP likely contains information relevant to banking supervision, including prudential requirements, operational resilience, and governance. It is informational in nature.
This press release from the CSSF provides an update on the global situation of undertakings for collective investment at the end of July 2025, which is relevant for investment management and wealth management firms.