Transaction reporting requirements become smarter, simpler and more proportionate under new rules from the FCA. Transaction reports are critical to the FCA’s ability to detect and investigate market abuse, monitor market functioning and supervise firms effectively.The new rules are designed to ensure the FCA continues to receive accurate, high-quality data while eliminating duplicative or low-value reporting. By removing unnecessary reporting the changes will reduce regulatory burden and supp...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
Following an external recruitment process, the Bank of England (the Bank) has appointed Nicholas Segal as Chair of its Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC), and Peter King as Deputy Chair, with effect from 1 August 2026.
The Bank of England has appointed **Nicholas Segal** as Chair and **Peter King** as Deputy Chair of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC), effective 1 August 2026, following expiry of the terms of Sir William Blair and Philip Marsden. This is a governance and enforcement leadership change, not a change to the EDMC Procedures, but compliance teams should anticipate potential shifts in enforcement approach and decision‑making tone across prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties and note issuance.
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.
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.
Key Dates
- EDMC established by the Court of Directors to provide independent decision‑making in contested enforcement cases and functional separation from investigation teams
- EDMC Procedures published, setting out detailed processes for contested enforcement decisions, including panel composition and hearing arrangements
- Bank of England commences recruitment for additional EDMC members, including a new Chair and Deputy Chair, to join in summer 2026
- Closing date for applications for EDMC panel member roles, including potential Chair and Deputy Chair candidates
- Term of Sir William Blair as EDMC Chair and of Philip Marsden as EDMC Deputy Chair expires
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with BoE enforcement requirements within the EDMC’s remit can result in significant financial penalties, public censure, business restrictions and senior management consequences, which will be determined by the EDMC in contested cases. The independent nature of the EDMC heightens the need for robust evidentiary support and procedural discipline where firms decide to contest enforcement actions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
The FCA has published a package of reforms designed to improve transparency, strengthen access to market-wide information and support confidence in UK equity markets. The package confirms the framework for a future equity consolidated tape, consults on targeted market structure reforms and introduces an interim market activity reporting tool for shares.UK equity markets offer investors a wide choice of trading options. The FCA's assessment is that competition and innovation have delivered sig...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
On 30 July 2026, Lucy Beck attended Southwark Crown Court for a hearing in relation to unauthorised promotions on social media. Ms Beck entered a not guilty plea and the date of her trial has been set as 12 June 2028.It is alleged that Ms Beck promoted buying and selling Foreign Exchange Contracts for Difference through social media accounts and websites, without being authorised to do so, contrary to sections 21 and 25 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.Notes to editorsLucy Beck’...
All Firms
The Bank's Court of Directors acts as a unitary board, setting the organisation's strategy and budget and taking key decisions on resourcing and appointments. Required to meet a minimum seven times per year, it has five executive members from the Bank and up to nine non-executive members.
Bank
The FCA has censured Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited (EFG) for approving financial promotions relating to minibonds that were unfair, unclear and misleading. EFG approved financial promotions which failed to disclose very high commission fees charged by its appointed representatives and other introducers for marketing the minibonds to investors. Appointed representatives carry out regulated activities under the responsibility of an authorised firm, known as ‘the principal’.The promotio...
Broker DealerWealth Manager
Low Impact Amendments Finalisation July 2026
Bank
Think of the last time you made a payment, transferred money, used a banking app or logged on to online financial services. Did you give much thought to the infrastructure that makes those essential everyday transactions possible?Let’s be honest, you probably didn’t. Most people don’t – until something goes wrong.Financial services rely on a network of providers working behind the scenes – including technology, data and operational service providers.These are so important to the resilience of...
BankPayment ProviderAll Firms
The FCA and Bank of England (Bank) have appointed members to their Transaction and Post-trade Reporting Harmonisation Taskforce. The taskforce will inform our long-term approach to harmonising transaction and post-trade reporting requirements across UK Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (UK MiFIR), UK European Market Infrastructure Regulation (UK EMIR) and UK Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (UK SFTR).The taskforce comprises 3 separate working groups: a main Policy workin...
All Firms
Letter from Governor Andrew Bailey to the Daily Mail on the subject of AI and cyber-attacks
BankAll Firms
Anthropic will support the second group of firms in the FCA's Supercharged Sandbox. The Sandbox is a controlled environment where firms can safely experiment with advanced AI.Anthropic will provide access to Claude for participants – including Claude Code and Claude Cowork – to help speed up their development work.The second group of firms in the Supercharged Sandbox will explore a range of AI use cases. This includes testing solutions designed to:enable safer agent-led payments and commerced...
FintechPayment ProviderAll Firms
Given at OMFIF Economic and Monetary Policy Institute
BankAsset ManagerHedge Fund Policy statement 16/26
PRA Policy Statement PS16/26 finalises rule changes across multiple CRR-related parts of the PRA Rulebook and Pillar 2 materials to align UK prudential rules with HM Treasury’s new Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (OPRR), effective 1 January 2027. The changes are primarily technical and clarificatory but have direct implications for how UK banks and PRA-designated investment firms treat and report overseas exposures, including institutions, public sector entities, covered bonds, and large exposures, once CRR equivalence provisions are replaced by the OPRR.
What Changed
- - The PRA Rulebook is amended across core CRR Parts (including Glossary, Credit Risk – General Provisions, Standardised Approach, IRB, Credit Risk Mitigation, Securitisation, Counterparty Credit...
- Definitions of key exposure classes (such as “institution”, “credit institution”, “designated investment firm”, “central government”, “central bank”, “regional government”, “local authority”, “public...
- Under the Standardised Approach to credit risk, the treatment of exposures to overseas credit institutions and designated investment firms is aligned to OPRR designations so that favourable...
- The PRA restates and preserves the 100% risk-weight requirement for exposures to overseas public sector entities (PSEs) in non-designated (non‑equivalent) jurisdictions, maintaining alignment with...
- Large Exposures rules are amended so that exposures to overseas credit institutions and investment firms qualify as “institution” exposures only where HM Treasury has determined the jurisdiction’s...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update internal capital models and Standardised Approach calculations for credit risk to ensure the classification and risk‑weighting of overseas exposures reflect the new OPRR‑linked definitions (e.g. treatment as “institutions” versus “corporates”) from 01 January 2027.
- Update ICAAP methodologies, risk appetite statements, and SREP documentation (including for SDDTs) to reflect the continued 100% risk weight for overseas public sector entities in non‑designated jurisdictions and any changes to the treatment of overseas covered bonds, institutions, and exchanges.
- Amend Pillar 2 reporting processes and templates, including FSA076 Pillar 2 Credit Risk Standardised Approach returns, to align data capture and reporting with the revised definitions, risk weights, and categorisation of overseas exposures under the PRA’s updated Rulebook and Statements of Policy.
Key Dates
- PRA publishes PS16/26, confirming final rule changes to accommodate the OPRR and indicating that final rules have been made on the understanding that the OPRR statutory instrument will be made and in force prior to 1 January 2027
- HM Treasury is expected to make the OPRR statutory instrument, with the PRA indicating it will amend or revoke its final rules if the instrument is amended prior to being made or is not made
- HM Treasury lays before Parliament the Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026, which will replace relevant UK CRR equivalence provisions as the statutory OPRR framework
- The Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) Regulations 2026 come into force and the PRA’s new rules under PS16/26 take effect, coinciding with the PRA’s broader implementation of the Basel 3.1 standards; from this date, UK CRR equivalence provisions are revoked and replaced by the OPRR framework and associated PRA Rulebook changes
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance could result in mis-stated risk-weighted assets, incorrect large exposure reporting, and flawed ICAAP submissions, exposing firms to supervisory findings, remediation requirements, and potential capital add-ons. Given the changes apply at the core of credit risk, large exposures, and Pillar 2 frameworks, failure to implement them properly may materially affect firms’ regulatory capital ratios and their ability to demonstrate robust prudential management.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
The FCA Board has appointed Dan Lavender as a new member of its Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC). The RDC is responsible for taking certain regulatory decisions on behalf of the FCA relating to contested enforcement action. Committee members bring a broad range of professional experience to support fair, independent and evidence-based decision-making.Alison Potter, the Chair of the RDC, said: ‘I am delighted to welcome Dan to the committee. Dan has significant legal and leadership experie...
All Firms
The FCA has proposed a package of reforms that would tailor requirements proportionately for asset managers, cut costs for firms and give better data to supervise the sector more effectively. A large share of the £128m-a-year savings are expected to come from simpler Fund Reporting for Asset Management Entities (FRAME) requirements. These would be tailored to the specific circumstances of UK industry, delivering better data to make regulation more efficient.The package would also modernise an...
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
Given at UK Finance
Bank
The Bank of England (the Bank), the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the FCA will start overseeing the first critical third parties (CTPs) on Monday 13 July 2026, following designation by the Treasury. CTPs are technology and other service providers whose services underpin the UK financial system. Today, the Treasury has announced its first designations of 4 global cloud services and technology providers: Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Microsoft Ireland Ope...
The Bank of England, PRA and FCA will begin **direct, joint oversight of the first designated Critical Third Parties (CTPs) from 13 July 2026**, covering four major cloud and technology providers whose services underpin UK financial markets. This materially changes the operational resilience landscape: while regulated firms remain fully responsible for their own outsourcing and third‑party risk management, critical dependencies on AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft and Oracle will now sit within a separate supervisory regime focused on system‑level resilience and incident management.
What Changed
- - A new CTP oversight regime becomes operational on 13 July 2026, under which the Bank of England, PRA and FCA will jointly supervise certain technology and service providers whose failure could...
- HM Treasury has made the first formal CTP designations: Amazon Web Services EMEA SARL, Google Cloud EMEA Limited, Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd and Oracle Corporation UK Limited.
- Designated CTPs must identify and manage risks to their critical services effectively, including governance, risk management and operational resilience arrangements specifically focused on services...
- CTPs are required to maintain open, timely communication with regulators and with firms that rely on them, particularly during major incidents, implying strengthened incident reporting,...
- The three regulators will jointly oversee CTPs under a proportionate regime focused on resilience of “critical services”, including assessing and mitigating system‑level risks and reducing the risk...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update the firm’s operational resilience framework, including impact tolerances and scenario testing, to explicitly incorporate systemic risk arising from reliance on the designated CTPs and potential correlated failures affecting multiple services or regions.
- Re‑assess outsourcing and third‑party risk management policies to ensure they clearly distinguish between obligations placed on regulated firms and those placed directly on CTPs, while maintaining robust due diligence, ongoing monitoring and exit strategies for all CTP‑hosted services.
- Engage with designated CTPs (through account management, risk and security channels) to understand their approach to compliance with the CTP regime, including incident reporting arrangements, resilience testing, communication protocols and any new assurance artifacts they plan to provide.
- Update board and senior management reporting so that reliance on designated CTPs, associated systemic risk and regulatory developments under the CTP regime are regularly monitored and discussed at appropriate governance forums (e.g. risk committee, operational resilience committee).
- Review major incident management and crisis communication playbooks to ensure they include specific escalation paths, contact points and joint incident handling procedures with designated CTPs and relevant regulators.
Key Dates
- UK regulators publish final policy and supervisory materials setting out the CTP oversight regime, including Fundamental Rules and operational risk and resilience requirements
- CTP rules and oversight regime take legal effect, but only apply once a provider is designated as a CTP
- Regulations for CTP oversight come into effect for the first designated CTPs; Bank of England, PRA and FCA formally start supervising AWS EMEA, Google Cloud EMEA, Microsoft Ireland Operations and Oracle UK as CTPs
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance primarily affects regulated firms through weaknesses in operational resilience and third‑party risk management, rather than direct CTP rule breaches, but could result in supervisory findings, remediation programmes, restrictions on business growth and, in serious cases, enforcement action. For designated CTPs, failure to meet the regime’s requirements may trigger direct regulatory intervention, including directions on how services are provided, which can materially impact firms that rely on those services.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider The Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority will start overseeing the first Critical Third Parties on Monday 13 July 2026, following designation by HM Treasury.
All Firms
The FCA led an international crackdown on illegal finfluencer promotions – resulting in 3 arrests and 650 social media takedown requests. It also secured a combined 11 years in prison for 2 cases of insider dealing in the first year of its 5-year strategy, according to its Annual report and accounts published today. The FCA has focused its efforts on the most serious risks and harms. It has taken decisive action to protect consumers, fight financial crime and uphold market integrity, deliveri...
All Firms
Richard Bloomfield has been charged by the FCA with 5 counts of insider dealing. The FCA alleges that in his role as a solicitor at a law firm, Mr Bloomfield worked on an acquisition of Seraphine Group PLC and used inside information obtained through his role to deal in securities of Seraphine Group PLC on 5 occasions between 28 March 2022 and 10 January 2023.Mr Bloomfield appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court and gave no indication of plea. The case was sent to Southwark Crown Court...
All Firms
The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Speech by Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive, at a Breakfast Briefing at The Whitehall Industry Group. As everyone who has wrestled with a problem knows, getting to the right answer is about more than just understanding the question.It’s about having a firm grasp on your constants.We’re working with 2. And they are, admittedly, significant. The first is our vision: deepening trust, rebalancing risk, supporting growth and improving lives.We want to see a fair, thriving financial services ...
All Firms
The FCA has appointed members to its advisory committee on secondary markets for the period July 2026 to July 2028. The committee will increase from 25 to 27 members. The Secondary Markets Advisory Committee supports the FCA’s work in wholesale secondary markets in equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, and commodities markets across securities, futures, swaps, and options markets. The committee includes representatives from firms operating from across the different segments of financial m...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
Policy statement 17/26
PS17/26 confirms the Bank of England’s and PRA’s final **fees and levies rates for 2026/27**, including a 3% overall increase in the Bank’s core levies (within CPI) but a small **reduction** in the PRA levy and a clarified mechanism for the “Cost of Transition” away from the legacy Cash Ratio Deposit (CRD) model.
For compliance and finance teams in PRA‑regulated firms, this directly affects **prudential fee budgets, cost allocation models, and forecasting**, and requires understanding of the new transition adjustment that can materially change the Bank of England Levy as interest rates move.
What Changed
- - The Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy, and other core levies) are constrained to grow by no more than CPI in 2026/27, with the Bank’s operating costs and associated core...
- Within this 3% cap, the Bank of England Levy (operational policy cost component) is budgeted to increase from £328 million (2025/26 budget) to £353 million in 2026/27, an 8% year‑on‑year rise driven...
- The PRA Levy is set to decrease slightly from £350 million (2025/26) to £345 million in 2026/27, a 1% reduction reflecting the PRA’s lower overall Total Funding Requirement and a different investment...
- The FMI Levy is budgeted to increase from £17 million (2025/26 budget) to £18 million in 2026/27, representing a 3% rise in costs for financial market infrastructure supervision.
- Overall, the Bank’s core levies (Bank of England Levy, PRA Levy, FMI Levy) are forecast to move from £695 million (2025/26 budget) to £715 million in 2026/27, a £20 million (3%) increase within the...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the PS17/26 final numbers and tables to identify your firm’s applicable PRA fee‑block(s), the applicable Bank of England Levy and FMI Levy components, and quantify the 2026/27 impact relative to 2025/26.
- Update internal regulatory fee and levy forecasts, budgets, and accrual models to incorporate the 3% increase in core Bank levies, the 1% reduction in the PRA Levy, and any firm‑specific changes driven by business volumes or fee‑block allocations.
- For treasury and finance teams, model the Cost of Transition by stress‑testing scenarios where Bank Rate is above or below the legacy CRD gilt return, to understand potential upward or downward adjustments to the Bank of England Levy and reflect this in multi‑year financial planning.
- Ensure that board and relevant governance committees (e.g. Audit Committee, Risk Committee) are briefed on the 2026/27 levy changes, including the Cost of Transition mechanism, and that any material budget variances versus prior plans are explained and approved.
- For firms previously affected by the CRD scheme, update internal regulatory funding documentation and policies to remove references to CRD funding and to describe the new levy‑based and Cost of Transition arrangements, ensuring consistency with PS17/26 and the 2024 Bank of England Levy Framework.
Key Dates
– Legacy Cash Ratio Deposit (CRD) non‑interest‑bearing balances are converted into remunerated central bank reserves and the corresponding gilts portfolio is transferred to the Bank’s Banking Department, triggering the start of the Cost of Transition mechanism
– PRA publishes CP7/26 “Regulated fees and levies: Rates proposals 2026/27”, consulting on draft fee rates, AFR and TFR for the 2026/27 fee year
– Deadline for firms to submit consultation responses on CP7/26 to the PRA
– PRA publishes PS17/26 setting the final regulated fees and levies, including final 2026/27 PRA Levy, FMI Levy, Bank of England Levy amounts, and the application of the Cost of Transition mechanism for the 2026/27 fee year
– FCA/PRA joint invoicing cycle for 2026/27 periodic fees and levies begins; firms start to receive invoices incorporating the PRA Levy, Bank of England Levy, FMI Levy, and related statutory levies for the 2026/27 fee year
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with PRA and Bank of England fee and levy obligations, including late or non‑payment, can result in surcharges, debt collection, restrictions on permissions, and potentially enforcement action, with reputational and prudential supervision consequences.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAsset Manager Our Financial Policy Committee (FPC) meets to identify risks to financial stability and agree policy actions aimed at safeguarding the resilience of the UK financial system.
BankHedge FundAsset Manager Given at the Natixis CIB Private Debt Forum
BankAll Firms
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC), which is a forum for discussion of the wholesale foreign exchange market. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Legal Sub-Committee. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Operations and Legal Sub-Committees. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
The FCA has announced Kirsty Cooper will take up the role as Chair of the Listing Authority Advisory Panel (LAAP). Clare Woodman and Matt Hammerstein have been reappointed as Chair of the FCA Markets Practitioner Panel and Chair of the FCA Practitioner Panel. The panels play an important role helping the FCA develop policy – representing the interests of consumers and financial services firms, including smaller regulated firms.Welcoming the appointments, FCA Chair Ashley Alder said:'I am plea...
All Firms
The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.
Bank
Given at ECB Sintra Forum
All Firms
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Bank of England has announced changes to the **Form PL (Profit and Loss) definitions**, principally clarifying the treatment of tax line item PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600 to align more closely with ONS UK National Accounts requirements. This matters for compliance and regulatory reporting teams because it affects how income, expenditure and tax on production are classified and reported from Q1 2027, with downstream impacts on UK National Accounts, Balance of Payments statistics and firms’ regulatory reporting controls.
What Changed
- - The Bank of England will update the Form PL definitions to improve consistency and alignment with the ONS UK National Accounts requirements, specifically for income and expenditure reporting.
- The definition and reporting guidance for tax (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) are being revised to clarify the treatment of items classified as taxes on production and related charges.
- The updated definitions will apply to all Form PL line items, with particular emphasis on ensuring more precise classification of tax-related items within profit and loss reporting.
- The Bank of England does not anticipate major changes in reported figures but expects improved clarity and consistency in how firms map internal accounting data to Form PL categories.
- The updated definitions will replace the current Form PL guidance and become the operative standard for all reporting institutions from the Q1 2027 reporting period.
Suggested Considerations
- Review the updated Form PL definitions in full once they are published on 31 July 2026 to understand all changes to income, expenditure and tax classification.
- Map the revised Form PL tax definition (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) to internal chart of accounts and tax reporting structures, ensuring correct identification of taxes on production and related charges.
- Update internal regulatory reporting systems, data transformation rules and validation checks to reflect the new Form PL definitions ahead of the Q1 2027 reporting period.
- Revise internal reporting policies, procedures and documentation for Form PL to incorporate the updated tax treatment and any other definitional changes.
- Train finance, regulatory reporting and data teams on the revised Form PL guidance, with particular focus on the redefined tax items and their distinction from other tax and fee categories.
Key Dates
- Updated Form PL definitions are scheduled to be published by the Bank of England
- First reference period for which the updated Form PL definitions are effective
- Submission deadline for Q1 2027 Form PL reporting using the revised definitions and tax treatment
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with the updated Form PL definitions from Q1 2027 would constitute misreporting to the Bank of England, potentially triggering supervisory scrutiny, data quality queries and remediation requirements. Persistent or material misclassification of tax and income items could affect the integrity of UK macroeconomic statistics and lead to heightened regulatory attention on a firm’s reporting controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
When the FCA introduced the Consumer Duty, we set out to do something simple but transformative: ensure financial services work better for consumers. It was, by design, ambitious. And it is working. For example, most investment platforms have improved how they treat interest on clients’ cash and public confidence in banks has grown since the Duty was introduced. Wherever possible, it is also helping us to avoid prescriptive new rules.The Duty’s foundations are simple harmonising concepts that...
The FCA has announced a consultation to *refine the Consumer Duty* so that wholesale and largely business‑to‑business activities sit more clearly outside scope, while keeping the regime focused on retail consumer outcomes. This matters for compliance teams because it will reshape how the Duty applies to activities such as market making, custody, cross‑border business and multi‑party distribution chains, and will allow wholesale‑focused firms to recalibrate their frameworks, governance and monitoring obligations.
What Changed
- - The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
- The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
- The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
- The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
- The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
- Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
- Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
- Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
- Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.
Key Dates
- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12
- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains
- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope
- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty
- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance will remain serious for activities that truly affect retail consumer outcomes, with potential for enforcement action, redress requirements, supervisory scrutiny and reputational damage. However, for wholesale‑only and non‑UK business, firms that fail to realign their frameworks with the FCA’s refined scope may incur unnecessary compliance cost, competitive disadvantages and mis‑scoped regulatory risk.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager Wholesale financial businesses involved in retail markets will find it easier to comply with the Consumer Duty, following proposals from the FCA. The changes are part of the FCA's plans to give wholesale firms the confidence to apply the Duty proportionately. Under the proposals, firms will benefit from:Removing business for genuinely non-UK customers from the Duty’s scope where there is no clear UK link or reasonable expectation of UK protection.Clearer boundaries around what is out of scope...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank The FCA has published a consultation paper on proposed changes to its UK Listing Rules for closed‑ended investment funds, focused on the management of conflicts of interest. Closed‑ended investment funds have a distinct structure, operating as both listed companies and investment vehicles. Shareholders appoint a board, which in turn appoints and oversees the investment manager responsible for delivering returns. Shareholder rights are central to this model, enabling investors to hold boards t...
Asset ManagerBroker Dealer
This Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC) annual report covers the period of 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026.
The PRA’s EDMC annual report confirms that contested enforcement decisions remain structurally separated from investigation teams and executive decision-makers, with the EDMC acting as the independent final administrative decision-maker before any Upper Tribunal referral. For compliance teams, the key message is not a new rule change, but a reminder that PRA enforcement cases are handled through a formal, disclosure-heavy process with written and oral representations and an independent review of settled cases.
What Changed
- - The EDMC completed its annual reporting cycle for the period 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026, confirming the continued operation of the PRA’s contested-case decision framework.
- The report confirms that the EDMC continues to provide functional separation between investigation/enforcement staff and decision-makers in PRA contested enforcement cases.
- The report confirms that the EDMC’s role covers enforcement cases under the Bank’s statutory regimes for prudential regulation, financial market infrastructure, resolution, securitisation, wholesale...
- The EDMC confirms that contested enforcement decisions are made independently, with disclosure of relevant material and the opportunity for both written and oral representations.
- The EDMC confirms that its decision is the final stage of administrative decision-making in contested PRA enforcement cases, after which the subject may refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.
Suggested Considerations
- Review your firm’s PRA enforcement response plan to ensure it supports rapid collection, review, and production of material that may be disclosed in a contested case.
- Ensure legal and compliance teams are prepared to make both written and oral representations to the EDMC if the firm becomes subject to a contested enforcement matter.
- Confirm that internal governance provides for independent escalation and board-level oversight when a PRA investigation enters the decision stage.
- Maintain an updated settlement strategy for PRA matters, including documented positions on fairness, scope of admissions, and mitigation, because the EDMC may review settlement processes retrospectively.
- Map exposure across all PRA enforcement regimes relevant to the business, including prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties, and S&NI banknote matters.
Key Dates
- Start of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report
- Remaining EDMC members, including the incoming Chair and Deputy Chair, are due to be appointed
- End of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report
- As of this date, the PRA enforcement team was overseeing five cases, including investigations into five firms and five individuals
- The EDMC annual report for 2025/26 was published
Compliance Impact
The report reinforces that PRA enforcement remains procedurally rigorous and independent, so weaknesses in document preservation, internal escalation, or representation strategy can materially worsen outcomes in contested cases. While no new enforcement rule is introduced here, firms should treat the report as evidence that the PRA’s decision-making architecture is stable, formal, and capable of escalating to tribunal litigation if matters are not resolved early.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll FirmsInsurance
Given at the World Resources Institute, London
BankAll Firms
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive at techUK's Agents of Change: Generative and Agentic AI in Financial Services 2026. On joining the FCA over five years ago, I said we would become as much a data and tech regulator as financial services regulator.Being invited to speak here today reflects that.We’re building the future together, and nowhere is that clearer than on AI.Studies suggest more than 80% of financial services firms are already adopting AI.So the question now is about scale....
All Firms
The FCA is concerned 11 traders may have shared sensitive information or coordinated trades, potentially restricting competition. Following an investigation, the FCA is concerned 11 traders may have hindered competition in commodity futures markets and infringed competition law by exchanging potentially sensitive information about their trading and/or coordinating their trading strategies with each other.The traders have proposed commitments to change the way they handle sensitive information...
Broker Dealer
Given at the Barclays-CEPR Monetary Policy Forum, London
Bank
For the first time, investors and market participants can access a single, real-time source of prices and trading activity across the UK bond market, following the launch of its bond consolidated tape, operated by ETS Connect UK. Until now, data on bond trades was scattered across multiple sources, making it difficult to get a clear and complete picture of market activity. The new service brings it all together in one place.The launch builds on changes to the UK's bond market transparency rul...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
This Market Notice sets out the schedule for sales in Q3 2026 of gilts held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published a consultation on the internal model approach to market risk (IMA), which represents the final piece of Basel 3.1’s implementation in the UK.
The PRA has launched a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 internal model approach (IMA) for market risk**, confirming that IMA will still go live in the UK on 01 January 2028 while refining key aspects of profit-and-loss attribution (PLA), modellability, mixed IMA/standardised use, and operational requirements. These changes matter for compliance teams because they alter how trading book risks can qualify for IMA capital treatment, affect the transition path from standardised to IMA, and require updates to model governance, documentation, and implementation plans ahead of the Basel 3.1 go‑live dates in 2027 and 2028.
What Changed
- - The PRA confirms that the Basel 3.1 internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA) will be implemented in the UK on 01 January 2028, with no further delay to the already-announced date.
- The PRA proposes to extend the monitoring period for the profit and loss attribution (PLA) test from one year to three years before PLA outcomes are used to drive capital consequences for IMA trading...
- The PRA proposes a more targeted approach for positions with limited trading data, adjusting the identification of risks that cannot be modelled under IMA so that more positions can be treated as...
- The PRA proposes to modify the treatment of positions subject to a mix of IMA and standardised approaches, to avoid scenarios where capital requirements increase mechanically as firms gradually...
- The PRA proposes operational simplifications and amendments to the IMA rules to improve proportionality, including simplifications in how firms evidence modellability, run tests, and manage the...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the PRA consultation on the Basel 3.1 market risk internal model approach in detail and map each proposed change (PLA monitoring, modellability, mixed‑use treatment, operational simplifications) to current and planned IMA designs and policies.
- Update the Basel 3.1 implementation roadmap for market risk to reflect that all non‑IMA Basel 3.1 rules start in January 2027, while IMA goes live on 01 January 2028, ensuring dependencies between standardised and IMA implementations are clearly sequenced.
- Reassess the design, calibration, and governance of the profit and loss attribution framework to accommodate a three‑year monitoring period, including data retention, desk‑level analytics, exception management, and documentation of PRA engagement during the monitoring phase.
- Perform an inventory of trading book risk factors and positions with limited trading data and assess how the PRA’s more targeted approach to non‑modellable risks will change modellability classifications, capital impacts, and desk‑level model scope.
- Analyse current and planned use of mixed IMA and standardised approaches across desks to ensure that migration pathways do not inadvertently increase capital requirements and adjust transition plans, capital forecasts, and management information accordingly.
Key Dates
- All Basel 3.1 rules other than the internal model approach for market risk come into force in the UK, including the new market risk standardised approaches and trading book boundary rules
- The PRA’s adjusted internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA), as refined through this consultation, comes into effect; IMA capital requirements and associated reporting and testing obligations apply from this date
Compliance Impact
Failure to adapt Basel 3.1 IMA implementation plans to the PRA’s adjusted framework could result in higher than necessary capital requirements, delayed or refused IMA permissions, and potential supervisory findings on model risk management and governance. For firms with significant trading books, misalignment with the new IMA rules will have material prudential, profitability, and strategic implications.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
Consultation paper 9/26
The PRA has issued CP9/26, a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 market risk Internal Model Approach (IMA)** that was finalized in PS1/26. The main compliance significance is that it refines how firms can use market risk models, including capital caps, collective investment undertaking treatment, reporting/disclosure, and other operational clarifications, while preserving the PRA’s objective of robust model standards and closer international consistency.
What Changed
- - The PRA is consulting on a targeted set of adjustments to the market risk IMA rules and related policy materials that were finalized in PS1/26.
- The proposals include replacing the existing partial caps on IMA capital with a permission-based cap on IMA capital at the full ASA level.
- The PRA proposes to adjust the treatment of collective investment undertakings (CIUs) by introducing a 90% de minimis look-through threshold for IMA inclusion.
- The PRA proposes to extend the ASA treatment of index-tracking funds to IMA.
- The PRA proposes to update reporting and disclosure obligations so they align with the revised IMA framework.
Suggested Considerations
- Review the proposed IMA amendments in CP9/26 against current Basel 3.1 implementation plans and identify where trading desk, model, and capital calculations would change.
- Assess whether any current or planned IMA portfolios would be affected by the proposed permission-based cap at the full ASA level.
- Recalculate the implications of the proposed 90% CIU de minimis look-through threshold for portfolio classification and capital treatment.
- Check whether index-tracking fund positions should be re-mapped under the proposed extension of ASA treatment to IMA.
- Update reporting and disclosure implementation workstreams to reflect the PRA’s proposed alignment changes.
Key Dates
- PS1/26 finalized the PRA’s market risk IMA rules that this consultation seeks to adjust
- CP9/26 is in force as an open consultation for industry response
- Consultation responses are due to the PRA
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is material but targeted: firms using, or planning to use, the IMA must update model governance, capital methodology, and reporting/disclosure processes to match the revised framework. Failure to adapt could lead to miscalculated market risk capital, supervisory challenge, delayed approvals, or remediation expectations if a firm relies on outdated IMA assumptions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
The Bank's Court of Directors acts as a unitary board, setting the organisation's strategy and budget and taking key decisions on resourcing and appointments. Required to meet a minimum seven times per year, it has five executive members from the Bank and up to nine non-executive members.
Bank
Following the publication of the Monetary Policy Summary and minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting
BankAll Firms
Drax Group PLC (Drax) has announced the FCA has closed its investigation into the company.We undertook an extensive investigation following concerns raised regarding disclosures to the market about the sustainability of Drax’s Canadian biomass. We did not find evidence that justified any further action.Thousands of pages of complex material were reviewed as part of the investigation, and individuals from the company interviewed. Our focus was on areas within our remit, specifically whether Dr...
The FCA concluded its investigation into Drax without taking action after an extensive review of “thousands of pages” and interviews with company personnel, focused on whether Drax’s annual reports and accounts from 2021 to 2023 contained misleading statements or material omissions about biomass sustainability. This matters because it shows the FCA continues to scrutinize **listed-company disclosures** on ESG and sustainability claims, especially where prior regulatory findings or public controversies may indicate potential market disclosure risk.
What Changed
- - The FCA has closed its investigation into Drax Group PLC and will take no further action.
- The FCA confirmed that it reviewed whether Drax’s 2021, 2022 and 2023 annual reports and accounts contained misleading statements or omitted important information for investors.
- The FCA stated that its focus was limited to matters within its remit as a listed-company regulator, not a general review of Drax’s broader operations.
- The FCA’s approach confirms that sustainability-related market disclosures can be assessed under listed-company continuing disclosure obligations where they affect investor understanding.
- The FCA indicated that it will close cases where evidence does not support proportionate action, even after a substantial investigation.
Suggested Considerations
- Review annual report drafting controls to ensure sustainability statements are supported by underlying source data and governance evidence before publication.
- Map ESG and environmental claims to the exact disclosure obligations that apply to listed issuers, including continuing disclosure and annual report requirements.
- Test whether statements about biomass sourcing, carbon impact, or sustainability performance could be viewed as misleading without full context or qualifying information.
- Maintain a defensible audit trail showing how disputed environmental data, third-party evidence, and management judgments were validated before disclosure.
- Escalate any controversy involving regulator findings, whistleblower allegations, or media investigations to disclosure committees and legal counsel early in the reporting cycle.
Key Dates
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Ofgem announced conclusions on Drax’s reporting of biomass profiling data, which later formed the background to the FCA’s interest
- The FCA closed the investigation and confirmed that no further action would be taken
Compliance Impact
The practical severity is moderate to high for listed issuers because the FCA’s review shows it will investigate potentially misleading sustainability disclosures and expects accurate, investor-relevant reporting. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement exposure, remediation costs, reputational damage, and intensified scrutiny of future ESG statements even where no action is ultimately taken.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
Speech by Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, delivered at the International Bar Association (IBA) Anti-Corruption Conference. I’ve been practising law for over 3 decades now.Starting out, I thought every case would be like the ones on US television: dramatic, with a big reveal and resounding outcome, all packed into a single 30-minute episode. But real law looks nothing like television. Hollywood doesn’t show the months, if not years, of work befor...
All Firms
Index-linked treasury stocks are gilts issued by the UK Government. They pay out twice a year, with the amount indexed to the Retail Prices Index.
All Firms
The first meeting of the RTGS CHAPS Industry Forum
BankPayment ProviderAll Firms
This Market Notice covers changes to the Bank’s collateral eligibility framework for the Sterling Monetary Framework (SMF).
Broker DealerBankAsset Manager
We set out next steps on issuing new rules and guidance on Money Market Funds (MMFs), following Government plans to replace the current rules. On 15 May, the Government set out its expectation that it will lay legislation that will replace the UK Money Market Funds Regulation. Read the Government statement.Money Market Funds (MMFs) play an important role in the financial system. MMFs are widely used for cash management and provide an alternative or complement to bank deposits for a broad rang...
The FCA has confirmed its *updated approach* to UK money market fund (MMF) reforms, signalling that most detailed MMF requirements will move from retained EU law into FCA rules and guidance, with a new overarching “adequate resilience” liquidity rule and revised expectations for weekly liquid assets (WLA). The key compliance implication is a shift from hard, uniform liquidity minima to a combination of existing regulatory minima plus *supervisory expectations* of 40% WLA for stable NAV MMFs and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, alongside confirmation that “delinking” and enhanced KYC measures will proceed.
What Changed
- - The FCA will introduce a new overarching rule requiring that all UK‑domiciled MMFs must hold sufficient liquidity for “adequate resilience”, explicitly linking fund liquidity to financial stability...
- The FCA will retain the current minimum WLA requirements from the existing UK Money Market Fund Regulation (UK MMFR) in its rules, instead of the previously consulted increases to 50% WLA for all...
- The FCA will issue guidance setting out strong supervisory expectations that stable NAV MMFs should hold 40% WLA and variable NAV MMFs should hold 20% WLA to meet the new resilience requirement,...
- The FCA makes clear that falling below the 40%/20% WLA supervisory expectations should only occur to meet redemption requests or due to factors beyond the manager’s control, and should be rare, with...
- The FCA will retain existing minimum daily liquid asset (DLA) requirements from UK MMFR in rules and does not plan to issue new guidance on DLA levels, but expects DLA and WLA together to be...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current MMF liquidity management frameworks (DLA, WLA, and stress‑testing assumptions) against the forthcoming FCA “adequate resilience” rule and the 40% (stable NAV) / 20% (variable NAV) WLA supervisory expectations.
- Update MMF liquidity policies, board‑approved risk appetites, and internal limits to reflect the new WLA expectations, including documentation of when and how funds may temporarily operate below 40%/20% WLA and the governance required to approve such deviations.
- Implement enhancements to liquidity monitoring and MI reporting so that portfolio managers, risk, and compliance have near‑real‑time visibility of DLA and WLA levels, breaches of internal and supervisory thresholds, and redemption‑driven use of liquidity buffers.
- Review and update fund prospectuses, KIIDs/KIDs, and investor disclosures to ensure that descriptions of MMF liquidity management, the availability of liquidity management tools, and the operation of stable NAV structures are accurate under the new FCA regime.
- Revise and strengthen investor KYC procedures for MMFs to capture concentration risks and potential correlated outflows, including segmentation of investor types, monitoring of large holders, and scenario analysis around key client redemption behaviour.
Key Dates
– FCA publishes CP23/28 “Updating the regime for Money Market Funds,” consulting on higher liquidity minima (15% DLA and 50% WLA), delinking, enhanced KYC, and broader resilience measures
– HM Treasury and the FCA publish the joint policy statement “Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations,” confirming the Government’s intention to replace the UK MMFR with a new framework and that most MMF requirements will be set in FCA rules and guidance, including higher liquidity expectations
– FCA issues its statement “FCA update on reforms to the UK Money Market Fund Regulation,” setting out updated proposals, including retention of current minimum WLA in rules, the new “adequate resilience” liquidity rule, and supervisory expectations of 40% WLA for stable NAV and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, and indicating that CP23/28 measures such as delinking and enhanced KYC will largely be taken forward
– The UK’s new MMF regime is expected to be in place, subject to Parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, after which the detailed FCA rules and guidance (including the new resilience rule and WLA expectations) will apply
– HM Treasury will lay the statutory instrument replacing the UK MMFR with the new legislative framework under which FCA rules and guidance for MMFs will be made
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the new FCA MMF rules and supervisory expectations is likely to be treated as a significant prudential and conduct issue, exposing firms to supervisory intervention, potential restrictions on MMF operations, and enforcement action where governance or disclosure failures are identified. Given the explicit financial stability focus of these reforms, regulators can be expected to scrutinise outlier funds and firms that do not align internal practice with the 40%/20% WLA expectations or that cannot evidence robust liquidity and KYC frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBank Firms are using AI to drive efficiency, support decision-making and deliver better outcomes for consumers and markets. We want to support that innovation. But it must be safe, responsible and well governed.We have been clear that we are not going to introduce new regulations for AI. Instead, we’ll rely on existing frameworks, including the Consumer Duty, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR), and our expectations on governance and controls.We recognise that AI can raise new and...
All Firms
Investment firms could save around £20m a year under new proposals from the FCA to simplify climate reporting for investment products. The FCA estimates it could deliver these savings by replacing detailed product-level reports based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with simpler, more targeted information for retail investors, in line with the Consumer Duty.The changes aim to give investors clearer insight into how climate risks – such as floods, storms and ot...
Asset Manager
The Bank of England has published a joint review with the FCA on how the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for financial market infrastructure (FMI) is working. The Bank of England and the FCA (the authorities) cooperate on the supervision of FMIs.The authorities consulted with FMIs to assess the effectiveness of cooperation between the Bank and FCA over the past 12 months.Following the responses, the authorities have concluded that the arrangements for cooperation remain effective with appro...
The Bank of England and FCA have completed their 2025/26 joint review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) governing cooperation on the supervision of UK financial market infrastructures (FMIs) and have concluded that current arrangements remain effective, well‑coordinated and free from material duplication. For compliance teams at FMIs and connected firms, this confirms regulatory expectations around information‑sharing, supervisory engagement and coordinated oversight by the two authorities, but does not introduce new rules or materially change existing supervisory practice.
What Changed
- - The Bank of England and FCA confirm, following consultation with FMIs over the last 12 months, that the existing MoU framework for supervisory cooperation on financial market infrastructures...
- The authorities explicitly reaffirm their commitment to efficient coordination to enhance the effectiveness of supervision, signalling continued emphasis on timely, accurate and proactive information...
- The statement maintains, rather than revises, the current allocation of responsibilities between the Bank of England (as primary prudential and systemic supervisor for FMIs) and the FCA (as conduct,...
- The authorities confirm the continuation of an annual review process of the MoU, including consultation with supervised FMIs to obtain feedback on how coordination is working in practice, embedding...
- The publication sits alongside the underlying 2025 MoU text (and the broader multi‑regulator MoU framework with FCA, PRA and PSR), reinforcing that FMIs should align their governance, reporting and...
Suggested Considerations
- Confirm internally that your firm’s regulatory engagement framework recognises the Bank of England–FCA MoU and clearly allocates responsibilities for managing relationships with both authorities in line with their respective roles.
- Review and, where necessary, update internal regulatory communications and escalation procedures to ensure that information relevant to both the Bank of England and FCA can be shared consistently, accurately and on a timely basis, in anticipation of coordinated supervisory expectations.
- Prepare to continue providing structured, constructive feedback during the annual MoU review process by maintaining records of supervisory interactions with each authority, including instances of overlap, gaps, or divergent expectations.
- Align incident management, operational resilience and major change approval processes with the expectation that both authorities may need to be informed and coordinated, and verify that notification playbooks and contact trees reflect this dual‑regulator structure.
- For groups operating multiple FMIs or cross‑border infrastructures, map where other regulators rely on the Bank of England/FCA supervisory cooperation (for example, via substituted compliance or recognition regimes) and integrate this into your global regulatory engagement strategy.
Key Dates
– The Bank of England and FCA wrote to CCPs, RIEs and RCSDs to request feedback on the effectiveness of cooperation under the MoU based on firms’ interactions during 2024
– The authorities conducted the annual joint review of the MoU for FMIs, considering the responses received from supervised entities over the preceding 12 months and assessing the effectiveness of coordination and duplication
– The Bank of England and FCA will continue to review the MoU each year, including soliciting feedback from FMIs, to confirm that supervisory cooperation remains effective and to identify potential enhancements
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance would not typically arise directly from the MoU review outcome itself, but FMIs that fail to align with the coordinated expectations and information‑sharing practices of the Bank and FCA risk fragmented supervisory relationships, increased scrutiny, and potential enforcement where underlying prudential, conduct, or operational resilience requirements are not met. Effective engagement with both regulators remains critical to maintaining authorisation, recognition status and continued operation of systemically important market infrastructure.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager Joint statement from the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority
Broker DealerPayment Provider
The latest meeting of the Synchronisation thematic engagement working group
BankPayment ProviderFintech
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Bank of England (BoE) is implementing **Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1** for all LIVE statistical submissions relating to end‑May 2026 data, due from mid‑June 2026, replacing v1.3.0. Although reporting requirements and definitions do not change, the move to v1.3.1 is **mandatory for affected returns**, is **not backwards compatible**, and coincides with the **withdrawal of the BoE Statistical Utility tool**, making this a technology and operational‑resilience change for reporting teams.
What Changed
- - Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 replaces v1.3.0 for statistical reporting under the BoE Statistics Taxonomy framework.
- The new taxonomy applies to LIVE submissions of end‑May data due from mid‑June 2026, meaning firms must generate those returns using v1.3.1.
- Reporting requirements and published definition documents remain unchanged, with the update limited to technical implementation changes (validation fixes, data point model changes and related...
- Taxonomy v1.3.1 is not backwards compatible with v1.3.0, so XBRL instance documents created under v1.3.0 will not be valid for submission once v1.3.1 is in force.
- Filing indicators are standardised across statistics reporting and now follow the format XX.XX.XX (for example, FI.01.01), requiring alignment of internal mapping and validation rules.
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal reporting systems, data integration layers and XBRL engines so that all relevant BoE statistical returns are generated using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 for end‑May 2026 reporting onwards.
- Review and update all XBRL instance document templates and configuration to ensure they reference the correct v1.3.1 entry points and filing indicators (XX.XX.XX format, e.g. FI.01.01).
- Decommission or phase out any dependency on the BoE Statistical Utility tool, and implement an alternative XBRL generation solution (recognised software provider or internal tooling) capable of producing valid v1.3.1 files.
- Conduct a detailed review of the BoE‑published change log, taxonomy package, sample files and XBRL filing manual to understand validation changes, DPM updates and implementation nuances that could cause submission failures.
- Schedule and complete end‑to‑end testing in the BEEDS UAT environment (where available) and in internal test environments to validate that v1.3.1 submissions pass all technical and business validations.
Key Dates
– First LIVE submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 become due, covering **end‑May 2026** data; firms must use v1.3.1 for these returns and v1.3.0 instance documents will no longer be valid for submission
– BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window for firms and software houses to test submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 in a non‑production environment, running in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns
Compliance Impact
The change primarily affects technical implementation and operational processes but has high compliance significance, as submissions built on v1.3.0 or using unsupported tooling will be rejected. Persistent failures or delays in BoE statistical reporting can expose firms to supervisory scrutiny, remediation demands and potential enforcement where reporting obligations are not met.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechAll Firms
Football clubs have been warned not to put their fans’ cash at risk by signing sponsorship deals with financial firms that aren't allowed to operate in the UK. According to the FCA, a number of unauthorised firms, including crypto businesses and trading platforms, are using sponsorship to target unwitting football fans.These unauthorised firms may be breaching UK financial services laws by providing financial services in the UK without authorisation. Fans using these firms risk losing all the...
Crypto ExchangeFintechPayment Provider Financial firms have made progress in preventing sanctions breaches – with £37bn worth of assets frozen in the UK as of last year – but gaps remain, warns the FCA. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) implement financial and trade sanctions. The FCA supports them through its role supervising firms within the financial services sector. This includes checking they have adequate sanctions systems and controls.Since Februa...
All Firms
Policy statement 15/26
PS15/26 sets out the PRA’s final Phase 1 reforms to **Pillar 2A capital methodologies and reporting**, aligned with the UK’s Basel 3.1 implementation and intended to modernise how risks beyond Pillar 1 are captured. It introduces revised approaches and expectations across credit, operational, pension obligation, market and counterparty credit risk, plus substantial updates to ICAAP/SREP guidance and Pillar 2 reporting for both mainstream firms and SDDTs.
What Changed
- - The PRA finalises amendments to the Reporting Pillar 2 Part of the PRA Rulebook, including updated Pillar 2 data items (FSA072–FSA076 and FSA081) and an updated Pillar 2 reporting schedule, with...
- The PRA issues an updated Statement of Policy (SoP) 5/15 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital, providing revised methodologies across credit, operational, pension obligation, market...
- The PRA issues an updated SoP 5/25 – The PRA’s methodologies for setting Pillar 2 capital for Small Domestic Deposit Takers (SDDTs), tailoring Pillar 2A approaches and expectations for SDDTs.
- The PRA updates Supervisory Statement (SS) 31/15 – ICAAP and SREP, clarifying expectations on how firms should assess, document and justify Pillar 2A capital in ICAAPs, including how to reflect...
- The PRA updates SS 4/25 – ICAAP and SREP for SDDTs, setting proportionate ICAAP expectations and aligning SDDT guidance with the revised Pillar 2A framework.
Suggested Considerations
- Map your firm’s current Pillar 2A capital framework against the updated SoP 5/15 and, where applicable, SoP 5/25 to identify methodology changes across credit, operational, pension, market and counterparty credit risk.
- Update ICAAP methodologies, models and documentation to reflect revised PRA expectations, including new or enhanced use of credit risk and operational risk scenarios and any updated calibration standards.
- Review and, where necessary, redesign ICAAP governance (board oversight, senior management ownership, model risk and validation frameworks) to ensure that new scenario‑driven and systematic Pillar 2A methodologies are subject to appropriate challenge and approval.
- For firms with material sovereign, central bank, regional government or unconditionally cancellable retail exposures, implement the new systematic Pillar 2A credit risk methodologies and assess the impact on capital requirements and risk‑weighted exposure allocation.
- For firms with significant operational risk, enhance scenario analysis frameworks to capture low‑frequency, high‑severity loss events at the PRA’s expected soundness level, and embed these outputs into ICAAP capital quantification.
Key Dates
– PRA published CP12/25 launching Phase 1 of the Pillar 2A review and consulting on revised methodologies and reporting
– Consultation period for CP12/25 closed, with industry feedback informing PS15/26
– Changes relating to pension obligation risk and market/counterparty credit risk methodologies and associated reporting expectations take effect
– Basel 3.1 standards are implemented in the UK and the retirement of the refined Pillar 2A methodology takes effect; Phase 1 Pillar 2A changes for credit and operational risk are aligned to this Basel 3.1 implementation date
– PRA plans to publish a further consultation paper (Phase 2) on an in‑depth review of individual Pillar 2A methodologies
Compliance Impact
The impact is high: the reforms change how Pillar 2A capital is calculated, justified and reported, with direct consequences for total capital requirements, ICAAP content and supervisory dialogue. Failure to implement the new methodologies and reporting expectations on time can lead to higher capital add‑ons, adverse SREP outcomes, supervisory remediation programmes and potential restrictions on distributions or business growth.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
Firms that approve financial promotions should be doing more to protect consumers, an FCA review has found. The FCA found that the strongest firms were applying the Consumer Duty from the start of their processes. They were able to make sure that every promotion approved was accurate, clear and reached the right audience.However, the FCA also found that some firms approved adverts with unsubstantiated claims or allowed retail investors to see promotions intended for professional clients. In s...
All Firms
Policy statement 14/26
PRA Policy Statement PS14/26 finalises the restatement of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary, with consequential amendments across other Rulebook Parts and updates to SS15/13 on groups. For compliance teams, the key issue is transition planning: the remaining CRR definitions are being moved out of the CRR framework, and firms must ensure their policies, capital documentation, systems, and references align with the PRA Rulebook versions before the repeal of CRR Articles 4–5 takes effect on 1 January 2027.
What Changed
- - The PRA has finalised new and restated PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions that replace the CRR definitions previously found in Articles 4, 4A, 4B and 5 for PRA Rulebook purposes.
- The PRA has made consequential amendments across other Parts of the PRA Rulebook to align internal cross-references and terminology with the new glossary structure.
- The PRA has updated Supervisory Statement SS15/13 – Groups to reflect the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook framework.
- The PRA has stated that the vast majority of definitions are restated without substantive policy change, but some definitions were clarified for drafting consistency and readability.
- HM Treasury has set the legislative timetable so that the relevant CRR Articles 4–5 will be revoked from 1 January 2027, while the statutory restatement of selected definitions was made in April 2026.
Suggested Considerations
- Review all internal policies, manuals, and regulatory interpretation documents that currently cite CRR Articles 4, 4A, 4B, or 5 and replace those references with the corresponding PRA Rulebook Glossary definitions.
- Update capital adequacy, prudential reporting, and risk management systems to use the new PRA Rulebook terminology where definitions have moved from the CRR text.
- Reconcile group supervision materials, governance papers, and consolidation analyses against the revised SS15/13 wording to ensure group structures are assessed using the updated definitions.
- Map every affected business line and legal entity to determine which Rulebook Parts and counterparties rely on the transferred CRR definitions.
- Test template agreements, customer disclosures, and internal controls for terminology drift where contractual drafting depends on CRR-defined concepts.
Key Dates
- HM Treasury published its Policy Update on applying the FSMA model of regulation to the UK CRR and proposed revoking the remaining CRR provisions while restating only necessary definitions
- PRA published CP19/25 proposing the transfer of CRR definitions into the PRA Rulebook Glossary and consequential amendments across the Rulebook
- PRA published earlier final policy work on CRR restatement and related implementation measures, indicating the wider restatement programme was already underway
- HM Treasury published a policy update confirming it would proceed largely as consulted on, with a change to the statutory definition of “securitisation” for consistency with PRA Basel 3.1 rules
- The commencement statutory instrument revoking CRR Articles 4–5 was made, with effect from 1 January 2027
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because this is a definitional restatement rather than a wholesale policy rewrite, but it affects the legal basis of many prudential references and could create misstatement risk if firms continue to rely on revoked CRR text after 1 January 2027. Non-compliance may lead to inaccurate capital, governance, or perimeter analysis, and could trigger supervisory findings where firms have not updated systems, documentation, or controls to the new Rulebook structure.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer Given at City Week 2026, London
BankPayment ProviderFintech The Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England set out a shared vision and seek industry views on the future of UK wholesale markets
All Firms
UK financial firms can adopt tokenisation and distributed ledger technology (DLT) with greater confidence, as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England set out a shared vision and seek industry views on the future of UK wholesale markets. Tokenisation is the process of creating a digital representation of a real-world asset – such as a share, bond or unit of currency – on a digital ledger. It has the potential to streamline wholesale markets, making everything from issuing...
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager Letter to Chief Executive Officers of all banks and designated investment firms.
BankCrypto ExchangeAll Firms
The Prudential Regulation Authority has today announced plans to consult on reforming rules around shared operational services for ring-fenced banks.
Bank
Why frontier AI matters for firmsArtificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve rapidly. Frontier AI models represent a step-change in capability, with significant implications for cyber security and operational resilience.The cyber capabilities of current frontier AI models are already exceeding what a skilled practitioner could achieve, and at a significantly higher speed, greater scale, and lower cost. These capabilities, if used maliciously, amplify cyber threats to firms’ safety and so...
Bank
The FCA has announced 2 permanent appointments to its executive team, strengthening leadership at a pivotal time for UK and global financial markets. Simon Walls appointed executive director, marketsSimon Walls has been appointed permanent executive director, markets. Having taken on this role on a temporary basis since 2024, his appointment provides continuity at a vital and volatile time for the UK and global economy. Simon will be able to drive forward work he has already started to streng...
All Firms
The FCA has banned Frank Breuer from working in UK financial services and fined him £755,000 for repeatedly acting without integrity and putting customers at risk for personal financial gain. Mr Breuer was the joint owner and sole director of Bluesky Wealth Management Limited (Bluesky), which provided advice on investments and pensions. Although authorised to advise on defined benefit (DB) pension transfers, the firm did not have the appropriate professional insurance in place from April 2019...
Wealth ManagerCrypto ExchangeInsurance
Speech by Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive, at the Investment Association's Private Markets Summit 2026. Headlines are always a tough read when funds run into difficulty.And lately, the language has been stark.Some have even asked if private credit has a canary in the coal mine.That’ll make you sit up a bit straighter, won’t it?But in this moment, it’s important to remember that stress in markets is normal – and okay, as long as the system stays resilient.Private markets, done well, ca...
All Firms
A convicted money launderer has been sentenced to an additional 499 daysin prison for failing to fully pay the money owed under a Confiscation Order. In 2021,RichardFaithfull,now36,wassentenced to5 years and 10 monthsin prisonfor laundering £2.5 million, following a prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).He was part of a trans-national organised crime group which laundered the proceeds of at least 7 overseas investment frauds.Mr Faithfullis required topay back £529,961,b...
All Firms
Following the legal challenges to our motor finance compensation scheme, we are setting out further advice for firms and consumers. Our priorities remain to secure fair compensation for consumers as quickly as possible and ensure a healthy motor finance market.Our industry-wide scheme is the quickest, fairest and most cost-effective way to do this. As we have said, we welcome the commitment of most lenders to implement the scheme and will defend it robustly.We have summarised below the ground...
All Firms
The Market Participants Group (MPG) is a senior-level forum for financial market participants to share their views on relevant themes and narratives in financial markets with members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
Bank
On 6 May 2026, Kanda Products and Services Ltd (Kanda) entered liquidation. Philip Harris and Neville Side of FRP Advisory Trading Limited have been appointed as Joint Liquidators. Kanda is authorised by the FCA as a credit broker. It operated a network of around 700 introducer appointed representatives, mainly tradespeople who introduced consumers to finance for home improvement and other goods and services.On 16 February 2026, Kanda agreed to a voluntary requirement with the FCA which restr...
Broker Dealer
Following the publication of financial reporting by PayPal Holdings Inc, we can confirm we are investigating Mastercard, PayPal and Visa under Chapter I in the Competition Act 1998, and Mastercard and Visa under Chapter II in the Competition Act 1998, for suspected anti-competitive conduct linked to thefunding and usage of PayPal’s digital wallet.The FCA has reached no conclusions nor made any findings with regard to competition law having been broken.Notes to editorsThe Competition Act 1998 ...
Fintech
We are launching a review of the claims management market, following concerns that consumers are being failed by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms. The review will look at the root causes of poor practices across the market, like aggressive marketing, misleading advertising and unfair exit fees. Other concerns include consumers being signed up without their consent - without clear, upfront explanations of the implications of signing up or ticking a box, for example on soci...
All Firms
Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor
All Firms
Three people have been arrested as part of a crackdown on suspected illegal financial promotions. Two homes in the Chelmsford and Romford areas were searched, as part of an operation led by the FCA and the Eastern Regional Special Operations Unit (ERSOU), a specialist policing unit that tackles serious and organised crime.Adverts from firms that aren't FCA-regulated can be a warning sign of a scam. If something goes wrong, these firms aren't covered by the rules that protect people's money – ...
All Firms
Our objective has been, and remains, to ensure consumers receive fair compensation as quickly as possible and to maintain a healthy motor finance market. An industry-wide scheme is the fastest, simplest route for consumers and the most efficient way for firms to put things right and give certainty to their investors. Alternative approaches would be slower and much more costly for firms.We engaged widely in designing the scheme. While being clear not everyone would get everything they would li...
All Firms
The FCA has charged Shaun Lawrence for operating as a mortgage broker without authorisation. Mr Lawrence, who also goes by the names Shaun Lawrence-Bright and Shaun Bright, was previously authorised to give mortgage advice.However, in 2008 he had his permissions revoked and was fined. He was also banned from working in financial services.The FCA alleges that Mr Lawrence has breached the Financial Services and Markets Act by continuing to provide mortgage broking services when already banned.M...
Broker Dealer
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive, at the Association of Foreign Banks (AFB) luncheon. When I saw that a boxing ring had been temporarily installed in this room last autumn, I wasn’t quite sure whether it was a warning to us regulators…Or some kind of art installation commenting on the past few years in financial markets.At some points it has felt bruising, to say the least.Some pressures have been sharp and immediate – geopolitical shocks, sudden market events.Others slower but no ...
Bank
Asset managers will find it easier to unlock the benefits of fund tokenisation, following the publication of new guidance by the FCA. The guidance sets out how firms can use distributed ledger technology (DLT) within the regulator’s existing rules.New rules will also make fund dealing more efficient, including an optional Direct to Fund (D2F) model. This enables investors to deal directly with the fund, whether traditional or tokenised.Tokenisation is a way of representing an asset, or owners...
Asset Manager
We have written to people who complained about how we handled Wellesley & Co Ltd (WCL). Complainants raised concerns about our actions in relation to the wider Wellesley Group. WCL was the only FCA-regulated company in the Group and was responsible for approving financial promotions marketed to investors.We carefully reviewed all the complaints that were made and upheld one about how part of WCL's authorisation process was handled at the time. However, we found this did not cause investors' l...
All Firms
Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor
All Firms
Open finance has vast potential. It promises to transform financial services for millions of people through firms using customers’ data in bigger and better ways. But to make that promise a reality, we need to look at how it works in practice. How does sharing data solve real problems for people and businesses?That’s the question we want to answer with our Smart Data Accelerator, which enables firms to showcase open finance solutions in a digital testing environment to help shape policy makin...
Fintech
Our scheme is the quickest, fairest and most efficient way to compensate consumers. It is disappointing that some have decided to challenge it and delay consumers getting their money back, when for many the payouts would be very welcome this year as they face rising household bills. This also prolongs the uncertainty for all involved, which is not good for investment or a healthy motor finance market.We are considering our approach and will set out more later this week.
All Firms
The FCA is seeking views on proposals to change rules that govern the publication of research during the initial public offering (IPO) process. The FCA is consulting on removing the requirement for a 7-day delay before connected research on an IPO can be published. It also consults on removing rules that require firms to provide independent analysts with the same information as their own research analysts.These rules were introduced in 2018 to encourage the production of unconnected research,...
All Firms
The FCA has led international action to stop illegal finfluencers putting consumers' money at risk. Seventeen regulators worldwide took part in the 'week of action' which included enforcement activity, consumer awareness campaigns, and educational programmes for finfluencers who want to act responsibly. Activity started on 20 April 2026.In the UK, the FCA:Secured a guilty plea from Geordie Shore’s Aaron Chalmers for illegal promotions on social media. Criminal proceedings have been commenced ...
All Firms
Sapia has agreed to make a voluntary payment of £19,637,950 to WealthTek clients and the FCA has censured the firm. Sapia began working with WealthTek in 2013 and later appointed it as one of its appointed representatives. This resulted in Sapia holding and being responsible for protecting client money resulting from WealthTek’s activities.The FCA found Sapia did not put enough safeguards in place to protect this money.Sapia has admitted that it failed to properly separate key roles within it...
Wealth ManagerFintech
We’ve no vested interest in setting up a motor finance redress scheme. What matters to us is getting fair compensation for consumers as quickly as possible and supporting a healthy motor finance market for the future.That's what our scheme will do, and it's free for consumers to use.Learn more about our motor finance redress scheme.Any law firm or claims management company (CMC) involved in a potential challenge against the scheme that also has clients making motor finance claims should consi...
All Firms
We have published findings from our Financial Adviser Survey. The findings provide an updated picture of how the UK financial advice market is evolving and what this means for firms, consumers and future growth. The survey brings together responses from more than 4,100 financial advice firms; alongside analysis of data we already hold on around 31,000 advisers.Overall, it shows a market that remains broadly stable and continues to support millions of clients, even as firms adapt to consolidat...
All Firms
The FCA is looking for expressions of interest from market participants to join our advisory committee. The committee was established in 2022, and we are renewing the membership in line with our terms of reference.The purpose of the committee is to support our work in wholesale secondary markets for equities, derivatives, fixed income and commodity derivatives.The committee’s task is to:help develop reforms that improve market competition, increase consumer protection and enhance the integrit...
All Firms
Firms willbenefitfromreduced costs andgreater flexibility, andfind it easier tocomply with the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR),following reformsset outon 22 April by theFCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). The changes, which come as the first phase of a multi-stage package of reform from the Government and regulators, will maintain the core principle of senior leader accountability, and will benefit firms by:Giving more time to submit senior manager applications whe...
All Firms
The FCA has carried out its first operation with partners to disrupt illegal peer-to-peer crypto trading across multiple London locations. Working with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the South West Regional Organised Crime Unit (SWROCU), the FCA targeted 8 premises suspected of illegal peer-to-peer crypto trading. The FCA issued cease and desist letters at each site, notifying traders to stop illegal activity immediately. Evidence obtained during the on-site inspections is supporting a numbe...
Broker DealerCrypto Exchange
Speaking at UK FinTech Week, Jessica Rusu, chief data, information and intelligence officer at the FCA, has confirmed the second group of firms selected to join AI Live Testing. Eight new firms, including Barclays, Experian, Lloyds Banking Group (Scottish Widows), and UBS, have been chosen by the FCA to live test AI applications to support safe and responsible deployment.The FCA is working with its technical partner Advai, a London-based specialist in automated AI assurance, to provide AI Liv...
BankFintech
On 20 March 2026, the Bank of England hosted an event to gather evidence from a broad range of stakeholders as part of the Financial Policy Committee’s (FPC’s) assessment of bank capital requirements in the UK.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
The SONIA Stakeholder Advisory Group supports the Bank’s administration of SONIA by providing advice and technical input to the Bank and the SONIA Oversight Committee
Given at the HLS-PIFS Symposium on “Building the Financial System of the 21st Century: An Agenda for Europe and the United States”
BankAsset ManagerHedge Fund
The FCA has finalised a simpler UK short selling regime that reduces reporting burdens for firms, while maintaining regulatory oversight. Short selling plays an important role in financial markets by supporting price formation, providing liquidity, and facilitating risk management.The new rules follow legislative changes under the Government’s repeal and replace programme, which imply that the FCA will publish aggregated data showing the overall size of net short positions in each company rat...
Broker DealerAll Firms
The Artificial Intelligence Consortium (AIC) aims to provide a platform for public-private engagement to further dialogue on the capabilities, development, deployment, use, and potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in UK financial services.
BankFintechPayment Provider
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC), which is a forum for discussion of the wholesale foreign exchange market. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker Dealer
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Operations and Legal Sub-Committees. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
The FCA and Bank of England (Bank) invite expressions of interest from market participants to join a new taskforce. The purpose of this taskforce is to inform the design of our long-term approach to harmonising transaction and post-trade reporting requirements.The taskforce will be comprised of three separate working groups: a main Policy group, supported by a Strategy group and an Architecture group. The working groups will have the following individual objectives: Policy group:Identifying a...
The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.
Our Financial Policy Committee (FPC) meets to identify risks to financial stability and agree policy actions aimed at safeguarding the resilience of the UK financial system.
BankHedge FundAsset Manager
On 3 March 2026, we said we’d bring forward our planned review of the UK Listing Rules for Investment entities, including how they apply to board independence and related party provisions.Since then, there has been substantial debate over our role in relation to investment trusts, including calls for us to ‘get to grips’ with voting rules ‘that allow a minority shareholder to repeatedly attack an investment trust’.Much of this debate suggests there are misunderstandings about how investment t...
This FCA blog post announces an accelerated review of UK Listing Rules for investment entities, focusing on board independence, related party provisions, conflicts of interest, and shareholder rights amid debates over activist minority shareholders targeting investment trusts. It matters because it clarifies the FCA's limited role (rules apply to issuers, not shareholders), reinforces Companies Act protections, and signals upcoming proposals to ensure rules fit novel scenarios like concentrated ownership, potentially impacting governance and listing compliance for investment trusts.[FCA blog]
What Changed
- No immediate regulatory changes or new requirements are introduced; this is a consultation precursor outlining a planned review. The review will assess:
- Application of Listing Rules to board independence and related party transactions for investment entities.
- How rules, alongside company law, support shareholder rights, engagement, and conflict management (e.g., protecting against "back door takeovers" by minority activists like Saba).
Proposals will be...
Suggested Considerations
- Monitor and engage: Investment trust boards/managers should track the upcoming consultation (expected end-2026) and consider submitting responses on board independence, conflicts, and shareholder protections.[FCA blog]
- Review governance: Assess articles of association for voting enhancements (e.g., electronic voting, opt-ins) and ensure boards understand powers to challenge vexatious requisitions under Companies Act.[FCA blog]
- Enhance shareholder engagement: Platforms and intermediaries to digitize voting processes; firms to promote high turnout (recently >80%) and clear information on director nominations.[FCA blog]
- Conflict checks: Proactively manage related party issues and concentrated ownership risks in line with current Listing Rules, anticipating review focus.
Key Dates
- FCA to complete review and publish consultation paper with proposals.[FCA blog]
- FCA announces acceleration of planned Listing Rules review for investment entities.[FCA blog]
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium. This signals future changes via consultation but imposes no immediate obligations; however, it heightens scrutiny on investment trust governance amid activist pressures, risking enforcement if conflicts or independence lapses occur pre-review. Matters for compliance teams to audit current setups against Listing Rules and Companies Act, avoiding missteps in high-profile cases like Saba campaigns, while preparing for end-2026 proposals that could tighten related party and board rules.[FCA blog]
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerAll Firms
The FCA has fined Dinosaur Merchant Bank Limited (DMBL) £338,000 for failing to put in place effective systems and controls to detect and report suspicious trading in its contracts for difference (CFD) business. CFDs are sophisticated financial products that are used to speculate on various assets going up or down in value. Given their high-risk nature, firms must have strong and reliable surveillance arrangements to prevent insider dealing and market manipulation.In June 2024, DMBL introduce...
BankBroker Dealer
Supervisory Statement 9/17
**SS9/17 - Recovery Planning** is the PRA's supervisory statement establishing expectations for how UK banks, building societies, and designated investment firms must prepare and maintain recovery plans to ensure financial stability during periods of stress. This guidance supersedes the previous SS18/13 and represents a substantial tightening of recovery planning requirements, making credible, testable, and executable recovery plans a core component of prudential regulation rather than a compliance checkbox.
What Changed
SS9/17 introduced several material enhancements to recovery planning requirements:
Governance and Integration: Recovery planning must be embedded within firms' risk management frameworks, with board-level oversight and integration with stress testing and ICAAP processes. The PRA expects clear governance documentation showing how plans are produced, reviewed, signed off, and implemented.
Fire Drill Exercises: Firms must conduct regular fire drill exercises that simulate recovery scenarios in a live environment, testing governance arrangements, management information systems, and the...
Suggested Considerations
- *Develop comprehensive recovery plans containing all minimum elements specified in the Recovery Planning Part of the PRA Rulebook and detailed in SS9/17
- *Establish governance frameworks documenting how recovery plans are produced, reviewed, approved by the board, and how recovery options would be implemented
- *Conduct fire drill exercises that simulate recovery scenarios, test governance arrangements, and validate management information capabilities
- *Create implementation playbooks (for complex plans) that enable rapid execution by senior management during stress
- *Perform detailed impact analysis for each recovery option, quantifying capital and liquidity impacts with realistic timelines
Key Dates
- Proposed implementation date for superseding SS18/13 (achieved with December 2017 publication)
- PRA consultation deadline for CP9/17 (the consultation paper preceding this statement)
- SS9/17 first published and became effective
- Firms must maintain and test recovery plans continuously; the PRA notes this statement "may be revised as recovery planning becomes further embedded in firms' risk management practices"
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll Firms
Policy statement 11/26
PS11/26 finalizes PRA rules enhancing Pillar 3 disclosures on resolvability resources (MREL), capital distribution constraints (CDCs), and disclosure basis for UK banks and building societies. It matters because it standardizes information to boost market discipline, user comparability, and confidence in orderly resolution, directly impacting financial stability and compliance reporting. No substantive changes from CP16/25 consultation, with minor clarifications only.
What Changed
- - Standardized MREL disclosure templates: Replaces free-form disclosures with four new templates aligned to Basel BCBS TLAC formats (adapted for UK), expanding scope to more firms for consistency on...
- Qualitative CDC narrative: Added to UK CC1 template for firms subject to CDCs, enabling market assessment of restriction impacts; removes obsolete Systemic Risk Buffer (SRB) disclosure post-O-SII...
- Disclosure basis statement: Firms must specify their Pillar 3 regime (e.g., resolution entity, O-SII, large institution), frequency, and details like reference date, currency, LEI, accounting...
- Minor amendments: Reflects HMT's revocation of CRR Article 92a; updates to Disclosure (CRR) and Reporting (CRR) Parts of PRA Rulebook, with semi-annual key metrics for certain firms.
- No substantive policy changes post-consultation; costs/benefits assessment unchanged.
Suggested Considerations
- Update Pillar 3 processes to use new MREL templates (Annex XXVII instructions), UK CC1 with CDC narrative, and basis statement (e.g., reference date, LEI, scope).
- For CDC-subject firms: Prepare qualitative narrative on restriction impacts.
- Ensure semi-annual disclosure of key metrics (Article 447 points a-g) where required.
- Integrate into consolidated reporting for UK parents; test templates/instructions from appendices.
- Review for alignment with broader CRR changes (e.g., Article 92a revocation).
Key Dates
- PS11/26 and accompanying rule instruments (e.g., Disclosure (CRR) Instrument 2026) published
- Policy effective date; rules apply from this date
- First disclosures under new policy published, covering period ending **31 December 2026** (annual/semi-annual as applicable)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Effective 1 January 2027 requires immediate template/system updates for H1 2027 disclosures (year-end 2026 data), with standardized formats limiting flexibility and raising non-compliance risks to market discipline objectives. Impacts reporting teams, resolution planning, and investor relations; proportional design minimizes burden but demands proactive gap analysis given no transition grace beyond effective date.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
This Market Notice sets out the schedule for sales in Q2 2026 of gilts held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Policy statement 7/26
PS7/26 finalizes PRA rules for standardized reporting of operational incidents and material third-party (MTP) arrangements, responding to CP17/24 consultation feedback by reducing firm burden through simplified templates and exclusions. This matters for compliance professionals as it enhances PRA oversight of operational resilience risks amid rising threats and third-party reliance, aligning with international standards like DORA and FSB FIRE while supporting identification of critical third parties (CTPs).
What Changed
- - MTP Reporting: Amended notification rule for clarity; scope excludes credit unions with <£50m assets and all third-country branches; separated register and notification templates with reduced data...
- Operational Incident Reporting: Merged three-phased reports (initial, interim, final) into one simplified, aligned template across PRA/FCA/Bank; removed fields, made more optional; clarified...
- Guidance Enhancements: Updated SS2/21 with MTP identification examples; SS1/26 clarifies threshold interpretation, early-stage assessments, and systemic impact expectations.
- Alignment: Full harmonization with FCA/Bank and international standards (DORA, FSB FIRE).
| Aspect | CP17/24 Proposal | PS7/26 Final Policy |
|--------|------------------|---------------------|
|...
Suggested Considerations
- Identify and notify MTP arrangements via FCA Connect (excluding exemptions); maintain annual register with reduced fields.
- Monitor/assess operational incidents against clarified thresholds (e.g., contagion, reputation); submit single report if met, within specified timelines.
- Update policies per SS1/26 (thresholds) and SS2/21 (MTP identification).
- Align reporting with PRA/FCA/Bank templates; use data for resilience prioritization.
- For insurers: Integrate with ongoing operational resilience post-SS1/21 milestone (31 March 2025).
Key Dates
- CP17/24 consultation published
- Final PRA/FCA rules on operational incident and third-party reporting effective (per industry analysis)
incident resolution; - Submit final incident report update (extendable to 60 working days in complex cases)
- MTP register reporting (exact date not specified; aligns with notifications)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High - Mandates new reporting infrastructure and processes amid rising operational threats; non-compliance risks supervisory action on resilience vulnerabilities. Reduced burden from CP mitigates costs, but timely implementation critical for PRA oversight and CTP identification; benefits (e.g., thematic analysis) outweigh costs per PRA.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
Supervisory statement 1/26
SS1/26 outlines the PRA's expectations for firms to report operational incidents via a structured three-phase process (initial, intermediate, final) as mandated in the PRA Rulebook's Regulatory Reporting Part, Chapter 24, to enhance UK financial sector resilience by capturing incidents risking firm safety, policyholder protection, or stability. This matters because it standardizes reporting, enabling timely PRA oversight and reducing inconsistencies in incident data collection across regulated entities.
What Changed
- - Introduces clear reporting thresholds in Regulatory Reporting Rule 24.2: Firms must report if an incident poses risks to UK financial stability, firm safety/soundness, or (for insurers)...
- Mandates a phased reporting approach (Rule 24.1-24.4): Initial report as soon as practicable (expected within 24 hours of threshold determination); intermediate updates for significant changes (e.g.,...
- Excludes near-misses (potential events without disruption/data loss to external users); aligns with but does not replace Fundamental Rule 7 or Notification Part Chapter 2 obligations.
- Specifies reporting via a "Reporting Fields Document"; firms balance reporting with incident resolution.
Suggested Considerations
- Assess incidents against PRA thresholds (e.g., risk to stability/soundness/policyholders, considering contagion, disruptions > thresholds, data loss, media impact); report if met, even if internally high-priority.
- Submit phased reports using specified fields: Initial (basic details promptly); Intermediate (updates on changes like impact, strategy shifts, resolution); Final (full details post-resolution).
- Maintain processes for prompt classification, data gathering, and submission while prioritizing resolution; continue ad-hoc supervisory notifications if needed.
- Review internal policies to align severity ratings with PRA thresholds; document assessments.
- For critical third-party (CTP) incidents, both firms and CTPs report uniquely.
Key Dates
- Publication date of SS1/26
- Effective date; firms must comply with reporting requirements
- Expected submission of initial phase report after determining threshold met (as soon as practicable)
- Intermediate phase update(s), including at resolution
- Final phase report (extendable to 60 working days if impracticable)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – With effectiveness just over one year away (18 March 2027), firms must urgently map incident management frameworks to new thresholds/phases, update policies, train staff, and test reporting (e.g., via simulations), as non-compliance risks enforcement under PRA rules and heightened scrutiny on resilience amid rising cyber/operational threats. This elevates operational resilience from preparation (e.g., IMT testing by March 2025) to active reporting, demanding integrated tech/governance upgrades.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
The Prudential Regulation Authority has today published proposals aimed at ensuring banks can monetise liquid assets quickly in a fast-paced stress event – such as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.
The PRA has launched a three-month consultation on modernized liquidity standards designed to ensure banks can rapidly convert liquid assets to cash during stress events, responding directly to lessons from the 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse. Rather than requiring banks to hold more liquid assets, the reforms focus on **operationalizing existing liquidity** through enhanced stress testing, removal of exemptions for sovereign bonds, and improved preparedness for central bank facility access.
What Changed
- The consultation proposes four primary regulatory modifications:
- Weekly stress testing requirement: Firms must conduct internal stress tests evaluating rapid outflows within one week, supplementing the existing monthly reporting framework
- Removal of Level 1 asset exemption: Sovereign bonds and other "level 1 assets" will no longer be exempt from annual testing of monetization capability for non-liquid assets, closing a significant...
- Barrier identification mandate: Firms must systematically evaluate their liquidity, identify barriers to asset monetization, and document findings
- Central bank facility preparedness: Regulatory encouragement (not mandate) for operational readiness to access Bank of England facilities during stress
Critically, the PRA explicitly states these...
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate (by April 27, 2026):
- Review the full consultation document and impact assessment
- Identify internal stakeholders (Treasury, Risk, Operations, Compliance) for response coordination
- Assess current liquidity stress testing capabilities against proposed weekly timeframe requirement
- *Medium-term (post-consultation, pre-implementation):
Key Dates
- Consultation launch (today)
- Consultation closes (three-month window)
- Insurance liquidity reporting effective date (parallel reform)
- Implementation timeline for final rules (phased approach)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance
Policy statement 6/26
PS6/26 finalizes the PRA's policy on recognized exchanges (REs) under Article 4(1)(72)(c) of the UK CRR, shifting responsibility to firms for assessing exchange and asset liquidity conditions while restating main indices in the PRA Rulebook and revoking SS20/13. This matters for PRA-regulated firms as it enables more dynamic, risk-sensitive capital treatments for traded assets, potentially expanding eligible REs and supporting competitiveness without PRA pre-approval.
What Changed
- - New Recognised Exchanges (CRR) Part in the PRA Rulebook: Specifies conditions for REs focusing on (i) exchange/market structure risk (e.g., operational robustness of clearing/settlement) and (ii)...
- Restatement of main indices: List from Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/1646 moved to PRA Glossary without policy changes.
- Amendment to 'higher risk equity exposure' definition: Aligns with Basel 3.1 near-final rules, excluding qualifying listed equities from higher risk weights under the standardized approach (ties to...
- Revocation of SS20/13: Deletes the supervisory statement on third-country equivalence and REs; consequential amendments to Counterparty Credit Risk (CRR), Credit Risk Mitigation (CRR), and SDDT –...
- Minor clarifications: Edits to scope and assessment of clearing/settlement mechanisms for overseas exchanges.
Suggested Considerations
- Assess exchanges/assets: From 1 July 2026, evaluate overseas exchanges against new conditions (market structure, liquidity); document processes and update periodically; align with internal credit risk models.
- Update policies/systems: Revise credit risk, counterparty credit risk, and CRM frameworks to incorporate firm-led RE assessments; remove references to revoked SS20/13.
- Review exposures: Reassess equity exposures for Basel 3.1 alignment; test industry-shared assessments for accuracy and own-accountability.
- Governance: Embed in risk management; prepare for PRA thematic reviews on implementation.
- Reporting: No new forms, but ensure CRR disclosures reflect updated RE treatments.
Key Dates
- Consultation deadline for CP3/25 (closed; feedback incorporated in PS6/26)
- Implementation date for new RE rules, main indices restatement, SS20/13 revocation, and related Rulebook amendments
- Proposed implementation for Basel 3.1 changes, including higher risk equity exposure amendments (alongside broader standards)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Effective 1 July 2026 (approx. 4 months from now), requiring immediate gap analysis, policy updates, and assessor training to avoid capital miscalculations or supervisory findings. Impacts prudential calculations directly, with flexibility reducing PRA burden but increasing firm accountability and review risks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Bank
John Wood Group PLC (Wood Group) has been fined £12,993,700 for publishing inaccurate information in its financial results. Following the poor performance of certain projects, Wood Group’s accounting judgements were inappropriately influenced by its desire to maintain previously stated financial results. Wood Group did not have adequate systems, controls or procedures to prevent this from happening.This resulted in Wood Group publishing inaccurate information in its full-year 2022 and 2023 fi...
All Firms
We are bringing forward a review of some aspects of the UK Listing Rules to consider how they apply to specific types of investment entities. As part of the Primary Markets EffectivenessReviewwe explored which types of investment entities could be eligible to be listed. Since introducing the new listingruleswe have heard from stakeholders that these eligibility criteria, particularlyregardingrisk-spreading, may be unduly restrictive. We will use this review to assess if changes should be made...
The FCA is conducting a targeted review of UK Listing Rules applicable to investment entities, with particular focus on whether current risk-spreading eligibility criteria are unduly restrictive and how rules support shareholder rights and conflict management. This review represents a potential material shift in listing accessibility for alternative investment funds and closed-ended investment vehicles, with final proposals expected by end-2026.
What Changed
The FCA's review addresses three primary areas:
Risk-Spreading Eligibility Criteria
Stakeholders have flagged that current risk-spreading requirements in the new listing rules may be overly restrictive for certain investment entity types. The FCA will assess whether modifications are warranted to broaden eligibility for investment entities seeking primary market access.
Shareholder Rights and Board Governance
The review will examine how listing rules, in conjunction with company law, ensure boards adequately support shareholder rights, facilitate shareholder engagement, and manage conflicts...
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate (Q1 2026):
- *Monitor FCA consultation announcements for publication of the consultation paper on listing rules modifications
- *Assess current compliance posture against existing risk-spreading criteria to identify potential gaps or restrictive elements
- *Document shareholder engagement frameworks and conflict-of-interest management procedures to prepare for governance review
- *During consultation period:
Key Dates
- FCA to complete review and issue final rules
- Consultation paper publication (FCA indicates "proposals in a consultation paper" without specific date, but typical FCA consultation windows are 8-12 weeks)
- Final rules expected following consultation period
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive, at the Goldman Sachs EMEA Head of Trading conference 2026. And as we roll with the punches, we also shouldn’t sell ourselves short.We gained ground last year - London just one point behind New York in the latest Global Financial Centres Index.There is understandable focus on equities market share and listings, where we have delivered far-reaching regulatory reforms.But on FX trading, international debt issuance, OTC derivatives, parts of commoditie...
Broker DealerHedge FundBank Our clarification about forbearance following the introduction of the new Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations (POATRs) regime. On 19 January 2026, the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations (POATRs) regime and associated changes to our listing processes in the UK Listing Rules (UKLR) came into force. These changes introduced a requirement in the Prospectus Regime Manual (PRM 1.6.4R) for issuers to notify a Regulatory Information Service (RIS) of any admission to t...
The FCA's statement clarifies forbearance on overlapping notification requirements for admissions to trading under the new POATRs regime effective 19 January 2026, addressing confusion from removed block listing exemptions in UKLR. It matters because it provides temporary relief from duplicative RIS notifications for frequent issuers, preventing unintended supervisory burdens while the FCA consults on rule amendments.
What Changed
- - POATRs and UKLR Updates: Effective 19 January 2026, PRM 1.6.4R requires issuers to notify a Regulatory Information Service (RIS) of any admission to trading within 60 days, allowing grouping of...
- Overlapping UKLR Rules: Provisions in UKLR 6.4.4R(4), 13.3.20R(4), 14.3.17R(4), 16.3.16R(4), and 22.2.17R(4) require "as soon as possible" RIS notifications for new equity issues or public offers,...
- Forbearance Policy: FCA will not take enforcement action for non-compliance with the "as soon as possible" rules for securities under prior block listings (unissued/offered before 19 January 2026,...
- Upcoming Consultation: FCA intends to consult "shortly" on removing the conflicting UKLR provisions, aligning solely with PRM 1.6.4R's 60-day requirement.
Suggested Considerations
- Review ongoing/future issuances against former block listing criteria: confirm securities unissued pre-19 January 2026 and same purpose to rely on forbearance.
- Implement PRM 1.6.4R: Notify RIS within 60 days of any admission to trading, grouping where possible.
- Monitor FCA announcements for consultation launch and updates; prepare responses if issuing frequently.
- Document reliance on forbearance (e.g., internal memos linking to original block listing) for audit trails.
- No immediate "as soon as possible" notifications needed under forbearance for qualifying cases.
Key Dates
- POATRs regime and UKLR changes effective, including PRM 1.6.4R (60-day RIS notification) and deletion of UKLR 20.6 block listings
- Cut-off for securities under former block listings to qualify for forbearance (must not have been issued/offered prior)
- FCA consultation on removing UKLR 6.4.4R(4) and equivalents (no exact date specified)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium - Forbearance reduces immediate risk of enforcement for qualifying issuers, but ongoing POATRs compliance (60-day notifications) is mandatory. Matters for operational efficiency, as misalignment could lead to duplicative reporting costs; non-qualifying issuances risk breaches until consultation resolves.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
Consultation paper 3/26
The PRA's CP3/26 proposes rule amendments to align its Rulebook with HM Treasury's (HMT) Overseas Prudential Requirements Regime (OPRR), which restates and modifies existing CRR equivalence provisions for treating overseas entities' exposures as preferential "exposures to institutions." This matters for **PRA-authorised firms** as it clarifies capital treatment for cross-border exposures, reduces interpretive burdens, and ensures consistency post-Brexit, advancing the PRA's safety and soundness objective while facilitating HMT designations.
What Changed
- - Credit Risk Standardised Approach (SA): Exposures to overseas credit institutions, investment firms, or exchanges treated as "exposures to institutions" only if from UK or HMT-designated OPRR...
- IRB Approach: Preserves CRR Article 107(3) effect by aligning exposure class allocation with SA's updated "exposures to institutions" concept.
- Large Exposures: Amends Rule 1.3 definition of "institution" to limit preferential treatment to UK or OPRR-designated overseas entities.
- General Scope: Applies changes across PRA Rulebook for consistency; not relevant to credit unions or third-country branches.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and respond to consultation by 2 April 2026, indicating consent for name/organisation publication and any confidentiality claims.
- Assess current exposures to overseas institutions/exchanges against proposed OPRR criteria; model impacts on capital requirements under SA, IRB, and large exposures rules.
- Update internal policies on exposure classification once final rules published; monitor HMT OPRR designations for affected jurisdictions.
- Indicate response as individual or organisational; personal data handled per Bank of England privacy notice.
Key Dates
- Consultation response deadline; submit to CP3_26@bankofengland.co.uk or PRA at 20 Moorgate, London EC2R 6DA
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Firms must engage promptly on consultation (deadline ~10 weeks from publication) to influence outcomes; changes clarify but could increase capital for non-designated overseas exposures, impacting safety/soundness and competitiveness. Failure to adapt risks non-compliance with updated Rulebook and higher prudential burdens.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll Firms
Consultation paper 2/26
CP2/26 is a PRA consultation paper proposing targeted reforms to UK securitisation rules to reduce prescriptiveness and burden while maintaining prudential soundness, building on recent CRR restatements. It matters for compliance professionals as it streamlines due diligence, risk retention, disclosures, and capital treatments, potentially lowering costs for PRA-authorised firms in the securitisation market amid Basel 3.1 implementation. These changes aim to enhance proportionality without compromising investor protection or oversight.
What Changed
- The proposals amend PRA rules and supervisory guidance in the Securitisation Part of the PRA Rulebook, including:
- Due diligence: Remove prescriptive verification of credit-granting criteria (Chapter 2 Article 9), risk retention (Chapter 2 Article 6 and Chapter 4), STS criteria, specific information availability,...
- Risk retention: Introduce a new combined modality merging two existing ones.
- Market disclosure (transparency): Streamline for all securitisations; amend underlying documentation, delete PRA templates (use revised FCA Handbook templates), disapply templates for investor...
- Regulatory reporting: Disapply COREP C14.00/C14.01 for single-loan retail securitisations; introduce consistent non-performing exposure (NPE) definition.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and respond: Analyse proposals against current operations; submit feedback by 18 May 2026 to CP2_26@bankofengland.co.uk, indicating confidentiality and publication consent.
- Gap analysis: Assess due diligence processes, risk retention setups, disclosure templates, reporting (e.g., COREP), and capital models for resecuritisations/MGS loans; update for proportionality.
- Coordinate with FCA: Align on shared templates/transparency (per FCA CP26/6); prepare for repository shift.
- Policy updates: Revise internal policies, training, and systems for new risk retention modality, reduced verifications, and readability improvements post-final PS.
- Monitor legislation: Track HM Treasury SI and PRA policy statement for final rules.
Key Dates
- Related CRR/Solvency II restatement (PS12/25) already effective, preserving core securitisation requirements
- Consultation response deadline
- Expected implementation aligning with Basel 3.1 and CRR restatement (PS3/26), with transitional arrangements to 2030
SI (TBD); - Changes to repository requirements effective upon HM Treasury Statutory Instrument amending UK Securitisation Regulation 2024
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Proposals reduce burden (e.g., less prescriptive due diligence, streamlined disclosures) but require immediate review ahead of 18 May 2026 deadline and 1 January 2027 implementation, aligning with Basel 3.1. Non-response risks misaligned systems during CRR restatement transition; benefits include cost savings and proportionality, but firms must validate ongoing compliance with retained prudential standards.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
The Market Participants Group (MPG) is a senior-level forum for financial market participants to share their views on relevant themes and narratives in financial markets with members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer Given at the London School of Economics
BankInsuranceAll Firms
We have signed an Exchange of Letters with the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA). IFSCA is the unified regulator for financial institutions operating in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City), India’s first international financial services centre.This agreement affirms both authorities’ commitment to develop our regulatory relationship.Download our letter (PDF)The letters set out the intention to share regulatory knowledge and best practice to support the ...
The FCA has signed an Exchange of Letters with India's IFSCA, the regulator for GIFT City, to foster regulatory cooperation, knowledge sharing, and stronger links between UK financial markets and GIFT City. This matters for compliance professionals as it signals expanding cross-border ties, potentially easing market access and harmonizing standards for firms operating between the UK and India, amid the FCA's broader global outreach strategy. No binding rules are imposed, but it sets the stage for future alignment in areas like fintech and financial services.
What Changed
- There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements imposed by this Exchange of Letters. It is a non-binding agreement focused on:
- Sharing regulatory knowledge and best practices.
- Supporting financial services development in both jurisdictions.
- Promoting links between GIFT City and UK markets.
The letters affirm commitment to developing the regulatory relationship, with an additional step of posting an FCA Financial Services Attaché to the...
Suggested Considerations
- binding nature. Recommended proactive steps for compliance teams:
- Review and download the full Exchange of Letters (PDF available via FCA site) to understand shared priorities.
- Assess current India/GIFT City exposures and prepare for potential future information-sharing requests or aligned standards.
- Monitor FCA news for follow-up developments, such as joint guidance on fintech or market access https://www.fca.org.uk/news.
- Engage with FCA international teams if planning cross-border activities in GIFT City.
Key Dates
- Posting of FCA Financial Services Attaché to British Deputy High Commission in Mumbai to support regulatory relationship development [FCA publication]
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Low - This is a cooperative MoU-style letter exchange without immediate rules, penalties, or obligations, posing minimal disruption risk. It matters strategically for long-term planning, as it could lead to simplified compliance for UK-India activities (e.g., reduced dual-regulation friction) and aligns with FCA's pattern of global pacts that indirectly shape supervisory expectations. Firms with India exposure should note it for horizon scanning, but no urgent resourcing is needed.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechAll Firms
Not for distribution, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan or any other jurisdiction where it is unlawful to distribute this announcement
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The FCA has fined Dipesh Kerai and Bhavesh Hirani for insider dealing in shares of Bidstack Group Plc. Mr Kerai has been fined £52,731, and Mr Hirani has been fined £56,000.In December 2021, Mr Hirani was the interim Chief Financial Officer at Bidstack, a company that placed advertising inside video games. This meant he had access to inside information about a major upcoming deal between Bidstack and a large video game publisher.Before it was announced to the public, Mr Hirani passed this con...
Broker DealerAsset Manager
Not for distribution, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan or any other jurisdiction where it is unlawful to distribute this announcement
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
We have published a letter to trade associations to provide an update in the development of a Future Entity (FE) for open banking. The letter confirms the appointment of KPMG to provide an independent assessment of proposals to establish a standards-setting body for UK open banking APIs that is capable of becoming the Future Entity. It explains the purpose and scope of the assessment, the respective roles of the FCA, industry, trade associations and the independent assessor, and how firms can...
The FCA has appointed KPMG to conduct an independent assessment of proposals for establishing a **Future Entity** – a standards-setting body for UK open banking APIs that will replace Open Banking Limited. This initiative is critical because it establishes the governance framework for open banking ahead of new legislative powers the FCA will receive under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, with a statutory instrument expected by end-2026.
What Changed
- The regulatory landscape for UK open banking is undergoing fundamental restructuring:
- Transition of regulatory authority: The FCA is becoming the primary regulator for open banking, replacing the Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee (JROC).
- Future Entity establishment: A new standards-setting body will become the primary UK standard-setting organization for open banking APIs, responsible for setting and maintaining common standards for...
- Independent assessment process: KPMG will evaluate competing proposals from industry participants to determine which organization should lead the Future Entity establishment.
- Legislative framework: HM Treasury will introduce legislation granting the FCA new rulemaking powers for open banking under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Suggested Considerations
- *For industry participants and trade associations:
- *Engage with the assessment process: Participate in the independent assessment by submitting proposals or supporting existing proposals for Future Entity leadership
- *Arrange FCA Q&A sessions: Organizations interested in leading Future Entity establishment should contact the FCA directly to schedule one-hour Q&A sessions ahead of the independent consultancy process launch
- *Coalesce behind proposals: Industry should decide which proposal option should lead the next phase of work, with the FCA commissioning assessment of either multiple proposals or a single industry-supported proposal
- *Prepare for VRP implementation: Ensure systems and processes are ready for live Variable Recurring Payments transactions expected in Q1 2026
Key Dates
– Final design of Future Entity expected; live transactions expected through VRP scheme
– FCA expected to consult on Long-Term Regulatory Framework; statutory instrument for Open Banking expected to be laid by HM Treasury
– Independent assessment process begins; KPMG commences evaluation of proposals
– FCA's Open Finance roadmap due for publication
– KPMG delivers final assessment report; FCA publishes on its website
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankPayment ProviderFintech In October 2025, 25 financial institutions active in the UK foreign exchange (FX) market participated in the semi-annual turnover survey for the Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC).
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
Given at an event hosted by the Association of Foreign Banks
BankBroker DealerHedge Fund
Given at The Tokenisation Summit
BankFintechCrypto Exchange
We have signed a contract with Etrading Software (ETS) to deliver the UK bond consolidated tape. A high-quality tape will provide investors with a comprehensive overview of the bond market and support price formation and liquidity. It will help maintain the UK’s position as a highly competitive and compelling place to invest and grow.ETS has now launched a website that sets out key milestones and provides technical information for data contributors and users. We will continue to support ETS a...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank The latest Accelerated Settlement Taskforce (AST) report updates on the significant progress made towards the move to T+1. Read the AST report.Jamie Bell, head of capital markets at the FCA, said:'T+1 marks a major milestone in our drive to support growth and innovation. Faster settlement cycles will reduce risk, free up capital for faster reinvestment and align with other major markets.'We are delighted to see the great progress made last year highlighted in the AST’s report. By the end of t...
Broker DealerBankAsset Manager Guidance consultations
GC25/1 within Primary Market Bulletin No. 55 consults on targeted amendments to FCA Knowledge Base technical notes to align with UK Listing Rules (UKLR) changes effective 29 July 2024 and a new ESEF taxonomy for digital reporting. This matters for listed issuers and advisors as it updates formal guidance on periodic reporting, inside information handling, and position disclosures, ensuring compliance with post-reform listing regime requirements.
What Changed
- - Amendments to five technical notes: FCA/TN/506.2 (Periodic financial information and inside information), Primary Market/TN/507.1 (Structured digital reporting for IFRS annual statements,...
- Broader PMB 55 finalises 44 notes (e.g., TN/209.4 on Listing Principle 2 notifications, TN/305.3 on hostile takeovers, TN/307.2 on aggregating transactions for closed-ended funds) from prior...
- Changes are non-substantive, focusing on updating references to UKLR (PS24/6), removing outdated content, and maintaining guidance status under UK Listing Rules, Prospectus Regulation Rules, and...
Suggested Considerations
- Review blacklined amendments in GC25/1 and PMB 55; submit feedback by 15 May 2025 if impacted.
- Update internal policies, training, and procedures to reflect finalised notes (e.g., enhanced notification under Listing Principle 2, ESEF taxonomy for DTR 4.1 reporting) once published by July 2025.
- Until finalised, interpret existing guidance in light of UKLR; monitor for TN/710 update in future PMB.
- For digital reporting, prepare for new ESEF taxonomy in annual IFRS statements.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium – Past consultation deadline (15 May 2025) as of January 2026, but finalisation expected by July 2025 requires proactive policy reviews to avoid non-compliance with updated listing guidance. Matters for market integrity and operational alignment with UKLR reforms, with low immediate risk but potential enforcement exposure post-finalisation.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
Guidance consultations
The FCA's GC25/2: Primary Market Bulletin No. 57 (PMB 57), published 25 July 2025, consults on amendments to Technical Note 710.1 ('Sponsor Services: Principles for Sponsors') and a new Technical Note 638.1 on complex financial history and significant financial commitment rules for prospectuses. This matters as it updates the Knowledge Base to align with the new UK Listing Regime (UKLR) and Prospectus Rules, providing clarity for sponsors and issuers ahead of the PRM sourcebook effective January 2026, reducing compliance risks in primary markets.
What Changed
- - Amendments to TN 710.1 (Sponsor Services: Principles for Sponsors): Revisions clarify the scope of 'preparatory work' and sponsor obligations under UKLR 4, building on feedback from PMB 48, 53, and...
- New TN 638.1 (Guidance on complex financial history and significant financial commitment rules): Updated draft provides detailed guidance for prospectus applications by companies with complex...
- Other updates: Finalises five technical notes from PMB 55 (e.g., TN 506.3 on periodic financial information, TN 521.4 on inside information); National Storage Mechanism changes effective 3 November...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and respond: Analyse draft TN 710.1 and TN 638.1; submit feedback by 12/09/2025, focusing on sponsor obligations, complex history scenarios, and examples (e.g., AFME suggested clarifying 'significant acquisition' thresholds).
- Update policies/processes: Sponsors to align with clarified UKLR 4 principles; issuers to incorporate TN 638.1 guidance into prospectus preparation, especially for acquisitive businesses.
- Monitor finalisation: Track FG25/5 or subsequent PMBs for final notes; interpret existing Listing Rules in light of UKLR until all updates complete.
- Implement NSM changes: By 03/11/2025 for relevant disclosures.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Medium – Consultation closed 12/09/2025 (past deadline as of January 2026), but final notes (e.g., TN 710 by end-2025) and PRM effective 19/01/2026 require immediate policy reviews to avoid prospectus rejections or sponsor breaches. Matters for primary market competitiveness and investor protection under evolving UKLR/PRM, with no material CBA changes from CP23/31/CP24/12.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAll Firms
Consultation papers
The FCA's CP25/31 proposes a regulatory framework for introducing a UK equity Consolidated Tape (CT), operated by a Consolidated Tape Provider (CTP), to collate and distribute comprehensive post-trade data (prices and volumes) across trading venues and OTC trades in equities, including shares, ETFs, depository receipts, and similar instruments. This matters for compliance as it imposes new data contribution obligations on trading venues and APAs, aims to enhance market transparency and competitiveness under the FCA's 2025-2030 Strategy, and builds on FSMA 2023 powers for Data Reporting Services Providers (DRSPs). Firms must engage now to shape rules via consultation, with potential operations targeted for 2027.
What Changed
- - CTP Obligations: Proposed rules establish core regulatory requirements for CTPs, including governance, operational resiliency, data collation/distribution, competitive pricing, and simple licensing...
- Data Contributor Obligations: Trading venues and Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) must provide trade data (e.g., prices, volumes) to the CTP, covering trades across venues and OTC equity...
- Scope and Outcomes: CT focuses on post-trade data initially (with trade-offs on pre-trade inclusion); seeks to increase UK equity data usage, improve liquidity visibility, support innovation, and...
- Authorisation and Procurement: Streamlined process for CTP authorisation; FCA to run procurement for operator selection, balancing speed with robustness.
- Evidence-Based Design: Addresses complexities like number of CTPs, revenue sharing, resiliency standards; follows prior feedback from CP23/15 and Europe Economics report.
Suggested Considerations
- Respond to Consultation: Submit feedback by 13/02/2026 via FCA online form, email (equityct@fca.org.uk), post, or phone (020 7066 9758); focus on design trade-offs like pre-trade data, CTP numbers, revenue sharing, resiliency.
- Data Readiness: Trading venues/APAs assess internal systems for mandatory data provision to CTP (e.g., trade prices/volumes); prepare for authorisation/procurement processes if pursuing CTP status.
- Monitor Updates: Review full CP PDF (https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp25/31.pdf), January 2026 CBA methodology note, and linked docs like CP23/15, Europe Economics report, CP25/20.
- Engage Stakeholders: Potential CTPs express interest via FCA opportunities; data users provide input on accessibility/pricing.
- Compliance Mapping: Map proposals to existing DRSP/venue rules under FSMA 2023 and repealed DRSRs.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – While still in consultation (closes 13/02/2026), proposals mandate data contributions from trading venues/APAs and CTP setup, with 2027 operations targeted; non-engagement risks misaligned systems or missed CTP opportunities. Matters due to FSMA 2023 empowerment, links to equity transparency reforms (CP25/20), and strategic push for UK market competitiveness – firms face new reporting/resiliency burdens but gain liquidity/transparency benefits.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAll Firms
Given at the Resolution Foundation
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
We have issued a joint statement with the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) giving clarity on open banking pricing models. We and the PSR have issued the following statement (PDF).This confirms we will not, at this stage, prioritise a Competition Act 1998 (CA98) investigation into the centralised ‘access fee’ pricing model being developed by the UK Payments Initiative (UKPI) for commercial Variable Recurring Payments (cVRPs). cVRPs are an emerging open banking technology that allow consumers to...
The FCA and PSR have jointly confirmed they will not prioritize a Competition Act 1998 investigation into the UK Payments Initiative's (UKPI) centralized access fee pricing model for commercial Variable Recurring Payments (cVRPs), with the CMA's concurrent agreement. This regulatory clarity provides temporary certainty for cVRP development ahead of anticipated legislation by end-2026, creating a critical window for firms to develop compliant commercial models in this emerging open banking technology.
What Changed
- The regulatory statement establishes the following key positions:
- Non-prioritization of CA98 investigation: The FCA, PSR, and CMA have jointly confirmed they will not prioritize competition law enforcement against UKPI's centralized access fee model for Phase...
- Scope limitation: The regulatory clarity applies only to Phase 1/Wave 1 of UKPI's cVRP scheme, specifically addressing lower-risk payment use cases including regulated financial services, utilities,...
- Temporary framework: This is explicitly a temporary measure pending legislative implementation under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 or other relevant legislation.
- Regulatory monitoring obligations: During the interim period, the FCA and PSR will monitor market developments, review pricing methodology changes, and require UKPI to submit finalized governance...
Suggested Considerations
- *For UKPI and participating firms:
- *Governance documentation: Submit finalized governance documents to FCA/PSR as required during the interim period
- *Pricing methodology transparency: Maintain detailed records of access fee pricing methodology and be prepared to demonstrate compliance with the agreed model; notify regulators of any material changes
- *Phase 1/Wave 1 compliance: Ensure all cVRP offerings remain within the defined scope of lower-risk use cases during Phase 1/Wave 1
- *Market engagement: Participate in FCA industry consultations throughout 2026 regarding progress, service delivery, and identified blockers
Key Dates
- Expected first live UKPI cVRP payments
- Government anticipated to introduce legislative framework granting FCA new open banking powers
- FCA and PSR wrote to CMA setting out their non-prioritization position
- CMA confirmed alignment with FCA/PSR position on CA98 prioritization
- Joint FCA/PSR statement issued on open banking pricing models
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
The FCA and PSR have issued a joint statement providing clarity on open banking pricing models, specifically regarding the centralised 'access fee' pricing model for commercial Variable Recurring Payments (cVRPs). This statement confirms that they will not prioritize a Competition Act 1998 investigation into this model at this stage. The goal is to support the development of cVRPs, giving consumers more control over their payments and lowering processing fees for businesses.
What Changed
The FCA and PSR have clarified their enforcement position on the UKPI's proposal for a commercial model for cVRPs, indicating they will not prioritize a Competition Act 1998 investigation at this stage.
Suggested Considerations
- Monitor market developments and updates on the legislative framework for open banking
- Review and understand the implications of the centralised 'access fee' pricing model for cVRPs on your business operations
- Ensure compliance with existing competition laws and regulations
Key Dates
Expected implementation of the government's legislative framework for open banking
End of the temporary measure if the legislative framework is not implemented
Potential Consequences
Enforcement action, fines, or other regulatory penalties for non-compliance with competition laws and regulations
Related Regulations
Competition Act 1998Payment Services Directive (PSD2)
Confidence: high
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechPayment Provider Policy statement 1/26
PS1/26 represents the UK Prudential Regulation Authority's final implementation framework for the Basel 3.1 international banking standards, effective 1 January 2027 (with market risk internal models delayed to 1 January 2028). This policy statement establishes mandatory capital, credit risk, operational risk, and market risk requirements for UK-regulated banks, building societies, and investment firms, addressing post-financial crisis shortcomings in risk-weighted asset (RWA) calculations and capital adequacy frameworks.
What Changed
- Credit Risk Framework
- Implementation of restrictions on Internal Ratings-Based (IRB) approach scope, effective 1 January 2027, with firms required to reclassify certain exposures (e.g., slotting approach IPRE exposures)...
- Minor clarifications and amendments to the Standardised Approach and credit risk mitigation techniques.
Operational Risk
- Updated Business Indicator Component (BIC) calculation methodology requiring inclusion of the current financial year in the three-year average calculation (or an estimate if unavailable).
- Clarifications on legal risk treatment and loss data set dates.
Market Risk (Fundamental Review of the Trading Book – FRTB)
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate (by mid-2026)
- *Conduct impact assessment: Quantify RWA changes under Basel 3.1 across credit risk, operational risk, and market risk frameworks.
- *Review IRB permissions: Identify exposures requiring reclassification (e.g., IPRE to HVCRE) and prepare permission amendment applications.
- *Assess FRTB-IMA readiness: For firms with existing IMA permissions, evaluate transition strategy for out-of-scope positions moving to ASA/SSA during interim period (2027–2027).
- *Arrange board-level assurance: Establish governance framework for board oversight of RWA calculation accuracy and Basel 3.1 implementation.
Key Dates
– PRA publishes PS1/26 (final rules)
– Must include Basel 3.1/SDDT impact assessment
– Effective date for Basel 3.1 implementation (credit risk, operational risk, reporting/disclosure, IRB scope restrictions, SDDT regime)
– Interim period begins for FRTB-IMA transition; existing IMA permissions retained; out-of-scope positions move to ASA/SSA
– FRTB-IMA implementation effective date
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published the final rules for the implementation of Basel 3.1 standards in the UK, with an effective date of January 1, 2027. The rules aim to enhance the resilience of banks and improve the stability of the financial system. Firms must review and update their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the new requirements.
What Changed
The PRA has introduced new rules for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, including changes to the credit risk standardised approach, market risk framework, and operational risk requirements. The rules also include amendments to the definitions of probability of default, loss given default, and conversion factor.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update credit risk policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the new standardised approach
- Assess the impact of the new market risk framework on trading book positions and capital requirements
- Update operational risk management frameworks to reflect changes to the Business Indicator and subcomponents
Key Dates
Basel 3.1 rules take effect
Internal model approach for market risk takes effect
Potential Consequences
Non-compliance with the new rules may result in enforcement action, fines, or other regulatory penalties
Related Regulations
Basel 3.1Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR)Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2023
Confidence: high
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
Policy statement 3/26
PS3/26 is the PRA's final policy statement restating the remaining provisions of the UK Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) into the PRA Rulebook and related policy materials, effective 1 January 2027. This represents a critical step in the UK's transition away from assimilated EU law, consolidating fragmented regulatory requirements into a unified domestic framework while introducing targeted amendments to securitisation rules and External Credit Assessment Institution (ECAI) mapping.
What Changed
- Restatement of CRR Provisions
The PRA is transferring remaining CRR requirements from the UK CRR into the PRA Rulebook without material changes to policy substance, except for targeted securitisation...
- New: SS4/24 (Credit risk: Internal Ratings Based Approach), SS3/24 (Credit risk definition of default), SoP6/25 (Internal Model Method permissions), SoP7/25 (Securitisation waivers and permissions),...
- Amended: SS15/13 (Groups), SS9/13 (Securitisation: Significant Risk Transfer), SS10/18 (Securitisation: General requirements), and SS10/13 (Credit risk: Standardised Approach)
ECAI Mapping...
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate (by Q2 2026):
- *Review applicability: Determine whether your firm falls within the scope of PS3/26 (banks, building societies, designated investment firms, or financial holding companies)
- *Assess impact: Analyse how the restatement affects your current compliance framework, particularly regarding credit risk (IRB and standardised approaches), securitisation, and ECAI mapping
- *Identify policy changes: Review the new and amended supervisory statements (SS3/24, SS4/24, SoP6/25, SoP7/25, SoP8/25) to understand expectations for permissions, waivers, and model approvals
- *Medium-term (by Q3 2026):
Key Dates
- PS19/25 (near-final policy) published
- PS3/26 final policy statement published
- All policies take effect; HM Treasury commencement regulations revoke relevant CRR provisions and replace them with PRA Rulebook rules and policy materials
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published a policy statement (PS3/26) that restates the remaining relevant provisions in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) within the PRA Rulebook and other policy materials. This change aims to ensure that the PRA's rules and policies are consistent with the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The policy statement is relevant to PRA-authorised banks, building societies, and other financial institutions.
What Changed
The PRA has restated the remaining relevant provisions in the CRR within the PRA Rulebook and other policy materials, including amendments to supervisory statements and the introduction of new statements of policy. The changes include updates to the securitisation requirements and the introduction of new rules on credit risk and internal ratings-based approaches.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update internal policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the restated CRR provisions
- Ensure that risk management practices are aligned with the updated rules on credit risk and internal ratings-based approaches
- Review and update securitisation policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the amended requirements
Key Dates
The restated CRR provisions take effect
Potential Consequences
Failure to comply with the restated CRR provisions may result in enforcement action, fines, or other regulatory penalties
Related Regulations
Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR)Basel 3.1Solvency II
Confidence: high
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
We have opened applications for the second cohort of our AI Live Testing service. AI Live Testing is the first of its kind in the financial sector to help firms who are ready to use AI in UK financial markets. Participating firms receive tailored support from our regulatory team and our technical partner Advai to develop, assess and deploy safe and responsible AI.The service helps firms to consider key questions around evaluating AI including governance, risk management and monitoring to help...
BankFintechAsset Manager
The FCA has fined Russel Gerrity £309,843 for using inside information to net himself £128,765. As a consultant, Mr Gerrity had access to information about whether oil and gas had been discovered during the drilling of wells. Between October 2018 and January 2022, he took advantage of this and used inside information to buy shares in Chariot Oil & Gas Limited and Eco (Atlantic) Oil and Gas Plc ahead of announcements that increased their price. On another occasion, he used inside information t...
Broker DealerAsset Manager
The FCA, Bank of England and Prudential Regulation Authority have together signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the European Supervisory Authorities to enhance cooperation and oversight of critical third parties (CTPs) that fall under the UK’s CTP regime.The MoU establishes a framework for coordinating and sharing information on the oversight of CTPs under the UK regime and critical third party providers (CTPPs) under the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), including du...
The FCA, Bank of England (BoE), and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to coordinate oversight of critical third parties (CTPs) under the UK's CTP regime and critical third party providers (CTPPs) under the EU's Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). This matters because it enhances cross-border information sharing and cooperation during incidents like cyber-attacks, reducing regulatory duplication while bolstering financial stability and operational resilience for firms reliant on these providers.
What Changed
- - Establishes a framework for timely information sharing, coordination of oversight activities, and joint responses to incidents affecting CTPs/CTPPs, including power outages or cyber-attacks.
- Defines principles for cooperation on mutually designated CTPs/CTPPs, including notifications of investigations and best endeavors to share material information where legally and operationally...
- Complements the UK's CTP regime (effective 1 January 2025), which requires designated CTPs to provide regular assurance, conduct resilience testing, and report major incidents, without altering...
- Supported by a tripartite MoU among UK regulators for coordinated oversight via a joint CTP Consultation and Coordination Forum (CCF).
Suggested Considerations
- For CTPs/CTPPs: Once designated, implement regular assurance reporting to regulators, conduct resilience testing (e.g., scenario testing), and report major incidents promptly; prepare for cross-border information requests under the MoU.
- For financial firms/FMIs: Continue managing operational resilience and third-party risks per existing outsourcing rules (e.g., identify dependencies on potential CTPs); monitor HMT designations and enhance incident response coordination with regulators.
- Regulators' internal actions: Use CCF for coordination; notify counterparts of investigations or material developments per MoU Article 3 and 12.
- Firms should review contracts with third parties for compliance alignment and conduct gap analyses against CTP requirements.
Key Dates
UK CTP rules came into effect, applying to CTPs designated by HMT
2025); HMT designation process for CTPs, with regulators recommending based on concentration and materiality criteria; no fixed end date specified
EU CTPPs oversight under DORA aligns with UK regime; MoU signed to ensure compatibility (exact DORA timeline not in publication but supports post-2024 implementation)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – The MoU operationalizes the live UK CTP regime (effective January 2025), with designations underway, amplifying risks of non-compliance for firms using critical ICT providers amid rising cyber and resilience threats. It matters for cross-border firms as it enables regulator-to-regulator data sharing, potentially exposing gaps in outsourcing arrangements and increasing enforcement scrutiny without fines on CTPs yet possible future powers.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankPayment ProviderAll Firms
We reviewed how firms sell complex exchange traded products (ETPs) to retail consumers. Complex ETPs are a subset of the wider ETP market and include high-risk investment strategies that can be difficult for retail consumers to understand.We assessed how firms of different sizes and business models evaluate these products, communicate key risks and monitor outcomes under the Consumer Duty.Given the complexity and risk profile of ETPs, it is essential firms make sure investors have the knowled...
Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager
This Market Notice sets out amendment to the schedule for sales in Q1 2026 of gilts held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
This page contains information about fines published during 2026. The total amount of fines so far is £371,700. Firm or individual finedDateAmountReasonRichard Adam07/01/2026£232,800The Final Notice refers to knowing concern in breaches of Article 15 of the Market Abuse Regulations, Listing Rule 1.3.3R, Listing Principle 1 and Premium Listing Principle 2.Zafar Khan07/01/2026£138,900The Final Notice refers to knowing concern in breaches of Article 15 of the Market Abuse Regulations, Listing Ru...
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
This Market Notice sets out the schedule for sales in Q1 2026 of gilts held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
We confirm that the FCA has opened an investigation into WH Smith PLC. The investigation concerns potential breaches of UK Listing Principles and Rules and Disclosure and Transparency Rules in relation to the matters announced by WH Smith PLC on 19 November 2025.
The FCA has launched an investigation into WH Smith PLC for potential breaches of UK Listing Principles and Rules, as well as Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTRs), stemming from announcements made by the company on 19 November 2025. This underscores the FCA's heightened scrutiny of listed companies' disclosure practices and adherence to market conduct standards. Compliance professionals should note this as a signal of enforcement risk in timely and accurate market disclosures, potentially setting precedents for similar cases.
What Changed
- This is not a policy change or new rule; it is an enforcement investigation announcement with no immediate regulatory amendments. It highlights ongoing enforcement of existing rules:
- UK Listing Principles and Rules: These require listed issuers to act with integrity, provide accurate and timely information, and maintain effective systems for compliance (e.g., Principle 2 on...
- Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTRs): Specifically, DTR 4 mandates inside information disclosures via Regulatory Information Service (RIS), DTR 5 on periodic financial reporting, and DTR 2 on...
Suggested Considerations
- For WH Smith PLC: Cooperate fully with FCA requests for documents/interviews; conduct internal review of disclosure processes; prepare for potential enforcement outcomes (e.g., financial penalties under FSMA s.91 for listing rule breaches or DTR violations).
- For other listed firms:
1. Review disclosure policies against DTR 4 (inside information) and Listing Rule 9; stress-test recent announcements (post-19 Nov 2025).
- announcement sign-off processes involving legal/compliance/IR.
- plan profit warnings or material updates, documenting decision trails.
Key Dates
WH Smith PLC announcement triggering the investigation; (reference point for alleged breaches)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High. This matters due to the FCA's aggressive enforcement posture on market abuse/disclosures (e.g., post-SPPF reforms emphasizing individual accountability). Breaches can lead to multimillion-pound fines (e.g., 10% of annual revenue), director bans, and reputational damage, amplified by public naming. For listed firms, it signals rising risk in a volatile economic environment where trading updates are frequent; non-compliance could cascade to shareholder claims or delisting risks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
The FCA welcomes the Government’s consultation on a new benchmarks regime for the UK. Since the introduction of the current regulatory framework, the financial landscape has evolved significantly. We now have an opportunity to build a regime that is more targeted to current market conditions and to reduce unnecessary burdens on industry, without compromising high standards. We are working with the Government to reform the current benchmarks regime to ensure that the regulatory framework remai...
The FCA welcomes HM Treasury's consultation on reforming the UK Benchmarks Regulation (BMR) to create a narrower, risk-based **Specified Authorised Benchmarks Regime (SABR)**, reducing regulatory scope by 80-90% to target only systemically important benchmarks and administrators while easing burdens on industry. This matters for compliance professionals as it shifts from broad regulation of all benchmarks to targeted oversight, requiring firms to reassess benchmark usage, prepare for transition, and adapt to FCA rules on risk management, enhancing UK competitiveness post-FSMA 2023 repeal of assimilated laws.
What Changed
- - Narrower scope: Regulation limited to benchmarks/administrators designated by HM Treasury (HMT) on FCA advice, based on criteria like systemic impact on UK financial integrity, consumers, or...
- FCA-led firm-facing rules: HMT delegates requirements (governance, conflicts, oversight, methodology transparency, record-keeping) to FCA Handbook; removes legislative obligations on users to only...
- Overseas benchmarks: Replaces equivalence/endorsement with Overseas Recognition Regime (ORR); designated overseas administrators may avoid dual regulation if ORR-eligible.
- No opt-in: Non-designated benchmarks/administrators unregulated; contributor obligations shift to FCA rules.
- Enhanced FCA powers: Potential extension to intervene/wind-down designated benchmarks and direct firms to restrict usage; may cover non-price data like ESG metrics.
Suggested Considerations
- Review current benchmarks for potential designation risk (systemic impact criteria) and map usage across portfolios.
- Participate in HMT consultation (responses via gov.uk) and prepare for FCA consultation on rules.
- Develop/revise policies for benchmark risk management, including cessation/wind-down plans for regulated/non-regulated benchmarks per future FCA guidance.
- Assess transition from current authorisation (if non-designated, prepare for deregistration); overseas firms evaluate ORR eligibility.
- Update governance/conflicts frameworks for any designated activities; monitor ESG data inclusion in rules.
Key Dates
- HM Treasury publishes consultation on benchmarks regime reform
- Reforms take initial effect; UK becomes only jurisdiction regulating all local benchmarks pre-reform; EU BMR reforms effective, highlighting UK divergence
- FCA consults on regulatory requirements for designated administrators/users
- FCA expected to publish updated guidance on critical benchmarks and implement SABR refinements
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High - Significant scope reduction eases burdens but introduces transition risks, new FCA rules, and designation uncertainty; firms must act now on consultation (post-Dec 2025) and prep for 2026 FCA changes to avoid non-compliance during shift, especially with 1 Jan 2026 milestone amplifying competitiveness pressures.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer Index-linked treasury stocks are gilts issued by the UK Government. They pay out twice a year, with the amount indexed to the Retail Prices Index.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
We’re seeking feedback on whether tailored market risk rules for non-bank trading firms could remove unnecessary barriers, free up capital and attract new market participants, ultimately supporting economic growth. The rules in place today were originally designed for banks to ensure they held enough capital to absorb major trading losses and protect depositors.While that approach is sensible, it means non-bank trading firms face the same standards even though the potential harm from their fa...
Broker DealerHedge Fund
An update on our investigation into Mirabella Advisors LLP. On 4 May 2021, we announced that we had opened an investigation into the oversight of Greensill Capital Securities Limited, an appointed representative, by its principal, Mirabella Advisors LLP. Our investigation reviewed the nature, conduct and scope of Mirabella’s business. We did not identify breaches by Mirabella that require further action. The investigation has therefore now closed. Mirabella applied to have its authorisation c...
The FCA has closed its investigation into Mirabella Advisors LLP's oversight of its appointed representative (AR), Greensill Capital Securities Limited, finding no breaches warranting further action. This closure, announced after reviewing Mirabella's business nature, conduct, and scope, signals effective AR oversight in this high-profile case tied to the Greensill collapse, while Mirabella voluntarily cancelled its authorisation effective 12 September 2025. It matters for compliance professionals as it reinforces FCA expectations on principal-AR relationships without imposing new penalties or rules, but underscores ongoing scrutiny in trade finance and supply chain finance sectors.
What Changed
There are no new regulatory changes, requirements, or rules introduced by this publication. The statement solely announces the closure of an existing investigation with no identified breaches by Mirabella, maintaining the status quo on AR oversight obligations under FCA rules such as SUP 12 (Appointed Representatives). The FCA reserves the right to reopen if new information emerges, but no policy shifts or guidance updates are provided.
Key Dates
- FCA announced opening of investigation into Mirabella's oversight of Greensill Capital Securities Limited as AR
- Mirabella's authorisation cancelled; firm no longer provides financial services
Compliance Impact
Urgency: Low - This is a positive closure with no findings of misconduct, new rules, or enforcement, reducing immediate compliance burdens. It matters indirectly by exemplifying robust AR oversight meeting FCA standards amid Greensill fallout, offering reassurance for similar firms while signaling continued vigilance (e.g., potential reopening). Compliance teams should note it for precedent in AR due diligence but prioritize higher-risk areas like ongoing FCA trade finance financial crime probes.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Operations Sub-Committee. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Legal Sub-Committee. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC), which is a forum for discussion of the wholesale foreign exchange market. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
Given at the ISDA Conference on Trading Book Capital
BankBroker Dealer
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Bank of England's Statistical Notice 2025/05 requires all reporting institutions to confirm their confidentiality permissions for publishing aggregate statistical data during the 2026 reporting year. This mandatory review streamlines data publication processes by seeking prior consent for aggregate data where firms are among fewer than three contributors, reducing administrative burden while maintaining data integrity.
What Changed
The notice introduces a streamlined confidentiality permission framework with four consent options for reporting institutions:
1. Blanket consent – Give prior approval for all statistical forms
2. Form-by-form consent – Approve permissions on individual forms
3. Selective consent – Approve all forms except specified data points
4. Case-by-case opt-out – Require explicit consent for each publication instance
The material change is the Bank's shift toward pre-approval for aggregate data publication where firms represent fewer than three contributors to an aggregate figure.
Suggested Considerations
- *Log into the BEEDS portal and access the confidentiality permission survey
- *Select one of four consent options (blanket, form-by-form, selective, or case-by-case)
- *For multi-entity groups: Complete a separate survey for each individual entity
- *Review prepopulated firm information and make adjustments as needed
- *Submit final preferences via the portal (latest submission version is treated as final)
Key Dates
– Deadline for completing confidentiality preference survey in BEEDS portal
– Reporting reference periods covered by granted permissions
– Consent remains valid for these periods unless explicitly withdrawn; applies to resubmissions and late submissions for 2026 reference periods
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll Firms
Policy statement 23/25
PS23/25 from the PRA and FCA finalizes amendments to Binding Technical Standards (BTS) 2016/2251 under UK EMIR, introducing an indefinite exemption for single-stock equity options and index options from bilateral margin requirements, removing IM obligations on legacy contracts for firms falling below thresholds, and allowing alignment with third-country jurisdictions' timelines for IM assessments. These changes reduce operational burdens and enhance competitiveness for UK firms trading non-centrally cleared derivatives, following feedback from CP5/25, while maintaining prudential standards.
What Changed
- - Indefinite exemption for equity options: Single-stock equity options and index options are permanently exempted from UK bilateral initial margin (IM) and variation margin (VM) requirements,...
- Legacy contracts relief: Firms falling below the Average Aggregate Notional Amount (AANA) threshold no longer need to exchange IM on outstanding legacy non-centrally cleared derivatives contracts.
- Third-country alignment: UK firms can adopt another jurisdiction’s threshold calculation periods and entry-into-scope dates for IM requirements when trading with counterparties subject to that...
- Minor drafting tweaks for consistency between PRA and FCA instruments, including FCA adding text on releasing collected IM, with no policy impact.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update internal policies, procedures, and systems to cease IM/VM exchange for exempted single-stock equity options and index options post-27 November 2025; confirm no ongoing obligations for legacy contracts if below AANA thresholds.
- Assess cross-border transactions: Document use of third-country jurisdictions’ timelines for IM thresholds where applicable, ensuring compliance with UK rules remains intact.
- Conduct gap analysis on margin calculations, collateral management, and reporting; train front-to-back office teams on changes.
- Retain records of AANA calculations and threshold monitoring to justify exemptions or relief.
- For firms with collected IM on now-exempt legacy positions, evaluate release options per updated FCA instrument language.
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Effective immediately since 27 November 2025 (over a month ago as of current date), firms risk non-compliance if systems still enforce outdated IM/VM for exemptions; operational fixes are needed urgently to avoid breaches, fines, or disputes, especially with phase-out of temporary equity options relief approaching 4 January 2026. Impacts cost savings but requires swift policy recalibration for ongoing UK EMIR adherence.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The Bank of England welcomes the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recognition of the 2024 versions of the FX Global Code and UK Money Markets Code under its code recognition scheme.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
The Bank of England, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the Bank of Thailand announced a collaboration to explore the technical and policy implications of settling foreign exchange (FX) transactions using synchronised settlement mechanisms.
This was the first meeting of the Market Participants Group (MPG), a senior-level forum for financial market participants to share their views on relevant themes and narratives in financial markets with members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
Given at AFME's 20th Annual European Government Bond Conference
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
Exchange of letters between the Governor and the Chancellor
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
The SONIA Stakeholder Advisory Group supports the Bank’s administration of SONIA by providing advice and technical input to the Bank and the SONIA Oversight Committee
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Elaborates on points made at the market panel of the ECB Conference on Money Markets 2025
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
This Market Notice confirms that the previously announced increase to the minimum spread over Bank Rate on bids against Level A collateral in the Indexed Long-Term Repo (ILTR) operation will take effect from 17 November 2025.
BankBroker Dealer
Policy statement 19/25
**PS19/25** is the PRA's near-final policy statement finalizing how remaining Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) provisions will be restated into the PRA Rulebook, effective January 1, 2027. This represents a critical step in the UK's transition away from assimilated EU law, giving the PRA expanded rule-making authority over UK banks, building societies, and investment firms while introducing targeted policy changes to securitisation, credit risk treatment, and ECAI mapping.
What Changed
- The near-final policy confirms and finalizes the following substantive amendments:
Securitisation Requirements
- Largely preserves current requirements and supervisory expectations with targeted policy changes
- Introduces a new formulaic p-factor for the standardised approach to securitisation
- Establishes new capital rules for certain mortgage exposures
- Clarifies supervisory expectations for unfunded credit protection in synthetic Significant Risk Transfer (SRT) securitisations by adding expectations to SS9/13
Level of Application of CRR...
Suggested Considerations
- *Review the final policy statement when published in Q1 2026 to understand specific rule changes applicable to your firm's business model
- *Assess securitisation impacts: If your firm engages in securitisation activities, particularly synthetic SRT structures with unfunded credit protection, evaluate compliance with clarified supervisory expectations in SS9/13
- *Evaluate mortgage capital treatment: Firms with significant mortgage lending should assess impact of new capital rules for certain mortgage exposures
- *Update ECAI mapping processes: Firms relying on external credit assessments must prepare for amendments reflecting Basel 3.1 implementation
- *Establish implementation timeline: Develop a project plan for January 1, 2027 implementation, including:
Key Dates
- PRA published near-final policy statement PS19/25
- PRA intends to publish final policies and rule instruments alongside or shortly after final Basel 3.1 package publication
- Implementation date for certain proposals finalized in PS12/25 (limited scope)
- Implementation date for policies and requirements in PS19/25 (primary implementation date)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
Supervisory statement 31/15
SS31/15 is the PRA's foundational supervisory statement establishing expectations for how UK-regulated banks and large investment firms must conduct their Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP) and how the PRA will evaluate these assessments through its Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP). This guidance is critical because it directly determines the capital requirements firms must maintain and establishes the supervisory framework through which the PRA assesses whether firms hold sufficient capital to cover material risks.
What Changed
- The supervisory statement establishes several core regulatory expectations:
ICAAP Requirements
- Firms must assess on an ongoing basis whether they hold sufficient capital to cover all material risks, including interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB), market risk, operational risk,...
- Firms must implement stress testing and scenario analysis as integral components of capital planning
- The management body must be actively involved and engaged in all relevant stages of the ICAAP process
SREP Assessment Framework
The PRA reviews and evaluates:
- Arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by a firm to comply with regulatory requirements
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate Compliance Actions
- *Establish ICAAP Framework: Implement a comprehensive ICAAP that covers all material risks identified by the firm and the PRA, including those specific to the firm's business model and risk profile
- *Risk Identification and Assessment: Conduct thorough identification of all material risks (IRRBB, market risk, operational risk, concentration risk, group risk, pension obligations, foreign currency lending) and assess capital adequacy against these risks
- *Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis: Develop and maintain robust stress testing and scenario analysis capabilities, including:
- Results of stress tests carried out in accordance with CRR requirements for firms using IRB approaches or internal models
Key Dates
- SS31/15 first published, replacing PRA SS5/13 and PRA SS6/13
- Effective date for updates to SS31/15 (as referenced in recent amendments)
- Firms must carry out ICAAP on a continuous basis in accordance with PRA ICAA rules
Compliance Impact
Urgency Rating: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
Statement of policy 8/25
BankAll Firms
Statement of policy 6/25
Bank
Statement of policy 7/25
BankAll Firms
Policy statement 17/25
PS17/25 establishes the **Matching Adjustment Investment Accelerator (MAIA) framework**, enabling PRA-regulated insurers to regularize and expand their use of matching adjustment (MA) in calculating capital requirements for certain long-duration insurance liabilities. This framework is significant because it provides a structured pathway for firms to optimize capital efficiency while maintaining prudential safeguards through exposure limits, eligibility assessments, and breach remediation mechanisms.
What Changed
- The MAIA framework introduces the following regulatory requirements:
Permission and Eligibility Framework
- Firms must obtain explicit MAIA permission from the PRA to use the accelerator
- Permission grants authority to regularize previously non-compliant MA assets and apply MA to new eligible assets within defined parameters
Exposure Limits
- Firms receive fixed monetary exposure limits calibrated using the Best Estimate of Liabilities (BEL) of the MA portfolio, net of reinsurance, at the time of permission grant
- Limits remain fixed until the next formal variation of MAIA permission
Asset Eligibility and Assessment
Suggested Considerations
- *Immediate (Q4 2025 - Q1 2026):
- *Assess eligibility for MAIA permission by reviewing current MA portfolio and prospective assets
- *Develop MAIA policy documenting asset eligibility criteria, governance structure, and risk management approach
- *Establish contingency plans for scenarios where MAIA assets become ineligible
- *Prepare MAIA permission application if pursuing the framework
Key Dates
- PS17/25 final rules and policy material took effect; firms could begin applying for MAIA permission
- Implementation deadline for changes to MALIR reporting template
end; - Annual MAIA use report submission deadline (ongoing, annually)
- Deadline to rectify breaches to avoid MA benefit reduction
Compliance Impact
Urgency: HIGH
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Insurance
Based on remarks given on the ‘Real World Assets Tokenisation: What Asset Classes Will Work – and Which Won’t’ panel at DC Fintech Week 2025
BankFintechCrypto Exchange
Policy statement 21/25
PS21/25 implements reforms to PRA remuneration rules for banks, building societies, and PRA-designated investment firms, simplifying Material Risk Taker (MRT) identification, aligning deferral periods with international standards (4 years for non-SMF MRTs and 5 years for SMFs), and enhancing links to individual accountability under the Senior Managers Regime (SMR). These changes matter as they reduce regulatory burden, increase flexibility in bonus structures (e.g., marginal deferral rates and cash payments), and promote competitiveness while maintaining risk alignment, potentially reversing trends toward higher fixed pay.
What Changed
- - MRT Identification: Simplified quantitative threshold to the top 0.3% of earners (assessed against risk impact); qualitative criteria unchanged; raised proportionality threshold for disapplying...
- Deferral Periods: 4-year minimum for non-SMF MRTs (previously varied); reduced to 5 years for SMFs (from 7 years); aligns with FCA and international practice.
- Deferral Rates: Marginal system—40% deferral on first £660,000 of variable remuneration, 60% above; replaces cliff-edge approach for proportionality.
- Upfront Cash Flexibility: Removed equal cash/instrument split requirement (Remuneration 15.16 deleted); deferred portion should have higher instrument share as good practice (new SS2/17 para 5.44B);...
- Individual Accountability: New rules/expectations for adjusting remuneration up the management chain for adverse outcomes; senior management accountable against PRA priorities; Remuneration...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update MRT identification processes, applying simplified top 0.3% threshold and new proportionality exemptions.
- Revise remuneration policies for deferral (4/5 years, marginal rates), upfront cash flexibility, and instrument expectations; update bonus award calculations.
- Embed SMR-linked adjustments: Define criteria for chain-wide pay reductions on adverse outcomes; align Remuneration Committee oversight with PRA priorities and risk events.
- For dual-regulated firms: Transition to PRA-cross-referenced FCA rules (SYSC 19D).
- Optional early adoption for specified changes on 2025/unvested awards; document governance for RemCo approvals and board policies.
Key Dates
Preceding joint consultation (CP16/24/PRA, CP24/23/FCA) closed prior to PS
Publication date; some changes (e.g., deferral periods, pro-rata vesting) may apply to ongoing 2025 performance year and unvested prior awards at firm discretion
Final rules and updated SS2/17 take effect; apply to performance years starting after this date (e.g., mandatory from 1 January 2026 for calendar-year firms)
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Mandatory from performance years post-16 October 2025 (e.g., 2026 for most), with immediate opt-in possible; impacts 2026 bonus cycles, requiring swift policy rewrites amid year-end planning. Matters due to simplified but ownership-heavy MRT processes, SMR-pay linkages raising accountability risks, and flexibility needing robust justification to avoid supervisory challenge; non-compliance risks enforcement under PRA accountability regimes.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerAll Firms
The Securities Lending Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK securities lending market.
Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer
Policy statement 16/25
PS16/25 is the PRA's policy statement restating firm-facing organisational requirements from the MiFID Org Reg (e.g., outsourcing, record-keeping, risk management, compliance, internal audit, and governance) into the PRA Rulebook, with no material changes, to align with HMT's revocation of the EU regulation under FSMA 2023. This matters because it ensures continuity of prudential oversight for PRA-authorised firms post-revocation, preventing enforcement gaps in systems and controls while adapting provisions (e.g., supervisory function) to UK governance structures.
What Changed
- - Restatement of requirements: Provisions from MiFID Org Reg Articles on outsourcing, record-keeping, control procedures, risk management, compliance, internal audit, and governance are transferred...
- Supervisory function adjustment: Following consultation feedback, PRA retained Article 25 provisions but substituted "governing body" for "supervisory function" to fit UK firm structures, preserving...
- Technical standards update: Minor amendment to algorithmic trading technical standards, replacing references to revoked MiFID Org Reg Article 23(2) with new PRA Rulebook rule 2.2D.
- No policy or scope changes; adjustments mainly reflect PRA drafting style and respond to feedback for clarity.
Suggested Considerations
- Review and map existing MiFID Org Reg compliance processes against restated PRA Rulebook provisions (e.g., update policies on outsourcing, risk management, governance).
- Confirm governing body oversight aligns with adapted Article 25 requirements; document any adjustments for UK structures.
- Update internal references in algorithmic trading governance documents to new rule 2.2D.
- Conduct gap analysis and training on minor clarifications; prepare for dual FCA/PRA alignment if applicable.
- Monitor HMT commencement order; if delayed, reassess implementation plans.
Key Dates
- PRA publishes PS16/25 with final rules and feedback to CP9/25 consultation
- New PRA rules and technical standards come into force, coinciding with HMT's anticipated revocation of MiFID Org Reg via commencement order (FCA rules align on same date)
- HMT expected to lay second Statutory Instrument revoking remaining MiFID Org Reg provisions; PRA may delay/revoke rules if not made
Compliance Impact
Urgency: High – Firms must act promptly as rules take effect on 23 October 2025 (past deadline as of current date), with no transition period; non-compliance risks enforcement gaps in core systems/controls post-revocation. Impact is low for substance (restatement only) but requires documentation updates to avoid supervisory scrutiny, especially for governance and outsourcing.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
Given at AFME OPTIC Conference, Amsterdam
BankFintechCrypto Exchange
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC), which is a forum for discussion of the wholesale foreign exchange market. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Legal Sub-Committee. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
The Bank of England chairs the London Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (FXJSC) Operations Sub-Committee. The FXJSC is made up of market participants, infrastructure providers and the UK financial regulators.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider
Our Financial Policy Committee (FPC) meets to identify risks to financial stability and agree policy actions aimed at safeguarding the resilience of the UK financial system.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Given at the Klaas Knot Farewell Symposium
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
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
Given at the 30th Annual Bank of America Financials CEO Conference
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Given at the 15th annual edition of City Week
BankFintechPayment Provider
Given at the Centre for Central Banking Studies 'Transforming monetary policy’ conference
BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange
Given at FIA International Derivative Expo
BankBroker DealerCrypto Exchange
Given at the Global Investment Management summit
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank