Savings protection Warning Retail investors Journalists Listed companies and issuers AMF announces resumption of trading in Mexedia shares
Broker DealerWealth ManagerAll 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…
Broker DealerBank
Given at Cardiff Business School
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
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…
Broker DealerAsset Manager
Press release 25/15
Bank
Policy statement 15/25
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.
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:
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
Key Dates
- PRA published PS15/25 (policy statement)
- Original implementation deadline (now superseded)
- **Final implementation date for all liquidity reporting requirements**
- Firms meeting threshold conditions must commence reporting
- Threshold for ceasing reporting once firms fall below thresholds
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Insurance
Supervisory Statement 15/16
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.
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...
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.
Key Dates
- Original SS15/16 publication
- Document updated (referenced in original guidance)
- Most recent update to SS15/16 published, clarifying expectations for firms with material non-life technical provisions
- Implementation deadline for liquidity reporting rules (related Solvency II development)
- Deadline for standard formula SCR reporting
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Insurance
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.
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.
What Changed
- 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...
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.
- Climate integration: Improve risk identification, quantitative analysis, data/modelling, oversight; align governance with SS1/23.
Key Dates
- Auditor reports reviewed by PRA (basis for this feedback)
- PRA issues Dear CFO Letter with thematic feedback
- 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
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.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Bank
No description available.
BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange
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
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.
What Changed
- - 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).
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.
- Review Annex 1 (SRB kick-off letter), Annex 4 (2026 Guidance), and Annex 6 (ECB list).
Key Dates
- SRB decision deadline on whether to calculate/collect 2026 SRF contributions based on DRFs (triggers full additional assurance application)
- ECB-supervised institutions submit AUP or auditor reports on restatements to CSSF resolution department
- All institutions submit completed DRF in XBRL to CSSF; late/incomplete submissions lead to SRB estimates or highest risk multiplier
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.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Bank
Requirements for life insurers to manufacture and offer direct purchase insurance (DPI).
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.
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...
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.
Key Dates
- Publication and issuance of ID 11/25 amendments to MAS Notice 321
- Effective date for Notice 321 (Amendments) 2025
- MAS approval submission for industry-new DPI features; notification for insurer-new features
- Notification for no-new-features DPIs
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).
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original MAS source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Insurance
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…
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank
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 requirements. However, it needs to be better integrated in the resolution plan in the future and thus cannot currently be regarded as executable. As in 2024, FINMA’s review of the recov...
BankWealth Manager
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…
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Given at the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
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
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.
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...
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.
Key Dates
- AMF Enforcement Committee decision issued, imposing fines on Altaroc Partners, Maurice Tchenio, and Patrick de Giovanni
- French version of press release published
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
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.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original AMF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset Manager
Given at the Inaugural Pictet Research Institute Symposium 2025
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
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.
BankWealth ManagerFintech
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
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank
22 SEP 2025, 11:05 AM
Masaar: DFSA welcomes 2025 cohort of its graduate programme, helping to foster…
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank
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 opportunities in insurance and investment services.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance
Consultation paper 21/25
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.
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:
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
Key Dates
- CP21/25 consultation paper published
- PS27/25 (Policy Statement) published, confirming final policy
- Proposed implementation date to avoid firms submitting 2025 Q4 data for deleted templates
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Bank
Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF warns the public about group chats providing tips on shares
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer
Given at the Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG) conference
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
Given at the 30th Annual Bank of America Financials CEO Conference
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto ExchangeAll Firms
No description available.
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).
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.
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.
Key Dates
- CFTC issues order filing and settling charges against Shinhan, requiring immediate payment of $212,500 penalty and cease-and-desist order
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.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker Dealer
No description available.
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
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...
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank 16 SEP 2025, 02:18 PM
New DFSA Thematic Review: High-Growth Firms
Asset ManagerBankFintech
Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment management companies The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an asset management company for breaches of its professional obligations
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.
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.
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.
Key Dates
- AMF Enforcement Committee decision imposing €400,000 fine on Eternam for breaches
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.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original AMF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset Manager
Consultation paper 20/25
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.
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...
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.
Key Dates
- CP20/25 published by the PRA
- Consultation response deadline
- Statement of Policy (SoP) expected to be published; subsidiarisation threshold update anticipated upon SoP publication
- Planned implementation date for rulebook changes
Compliance Impact
Urgency Rating: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Insurance
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto ExchangeAll Firms
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintech
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
Crypto ExchangeFintechBank
On 1 July, the PRA and the Bank of England held a roundtable meeting with representatives of non-systemic UK banks and building societies.
Bank
10 SEP 2025, 11:01 AM
DFSA and Securities and Futures Commission bolster ties in supervising…
Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager
No description available.
Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintech
Savings protection Withdrawal of KOREGRAF's authorisation as a crowdfunding service provider
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerFintech
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto Exchange
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 duties of disclosure must continue to be complied with and provides clarifications.
BankCrypto Exchange
No description available.
BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange 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 necessary – based on findings from practical experience and academia. In addition, the FINMA Insolvency Ordinance implements the amendments made necessary by the revisions to th...
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto Exchange
03 SEP 2025, 03:20 PM
DFSA publishes FAQ on the annual AML Return and reminds Firms of 30 September…
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager
Given at the Bank of England and Warwick Business School Innovation in Money and Payments Conference
BankFintechCrypto Exchange
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 to increase their profits, reinsurers recorded a significant decline.
Insurance
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintech
No description available.
BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager
Press release 25/14
Asset ManagerWealth Manager