On 28 November 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued a public statement in relation to the technical specifications concerning the implementation of certain data standards and formats requirements under the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA). ESMA has also issued MiCA order book and records keeping message specifications

On 28 November 2025, the House of Commons’ Treasury Committee launched a new inquiry into the Government’s Financial Inclusion Strategy.The Treasury Committee will examine the Government’s Financial Inclusion Strategy, which sets out plans to improve access to financial products and services across the UK. The inquiry will examine whether the Financial Inclusion Strategy identifies and addresses the key barriers to inclusion, and whether its objectives, resources, and delivery plans are likely to achieve meaningful and measurable change.The Treasury Committee has issued a call for evidence which invites the submission of written evidence to assist its inquiry. The deadline is 12 January 2026.Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, said:“The Government has set out its stall on improving financial inclusion in this country, so now the Committee will have a closer look at whether it’s likely to make a meaningful difference to people’s lives.“Improving financial inclusion must not be a box-ticking exercise. Words must lead to action. The Treasury must have a strategic vision, supported by concrete, integrated plans with clear methods for measuring their impact, and they must work closely with the private sector on this. My Committee will work to ensure that happens.”

On 28 November 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) updated its webpage on Consultation Paper 25/29: Changes to the UK Short Selling Regime. The update provides that the FCA has now published a derivation and changes table to further support firms’ understanding of the proposals. This details how the FCA has proposed to transfer rules and guidance from the current short selling regime.

On 27 November 2025, the Financial Stability Board published the 2025 list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) using end-2024 data and applying the assessment methodology designed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee). The Basel Committee has also published material related to the identification of G-SIBs.The number of banks identified as G-SIBs remains at 29. There were no additions or removals from the list although there has been some movement between the buckets.FSB member authorities apply the following requirements to G-SIBs: Higher capital buffer: The G-SIBs are allocated to buckets corresponding to higher capital buffers that they are required to hold by national authorities in accordance with international standards. The capital buffer requirements established by the 2025 list will be effective beginning 1 January 2027.   Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC): G-SIBs are required to meet the TLAC standard, alongside the regulatory capital requirements set out in the Basel III framework. Resolvability: These requirements include group-wide resolution planning and regular resolvability assessments. The resolvability of each G-SIB is reviewed in the FSB Resolvability Assessment Process by senior regulators within the firms’ Crisis Management Groups. Higher supervisory expectations: These include supervisory expectations for risk management functions, risk data aggregation capabilities, risk governance and internal controls.

On 28 November 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published Policy Statement 25/17: The SI regime for bonds and derivatives including Discussion Paper on equity markets (PS25/17).BackgroundIn November 2024, the FCA published Policy Statement 24/14 which introduced new bond and derivative transparency rules for trading venues from 1 December 2025. The regulator also included in chapter 9 of the Policy Statement a short section for discussion on the future of the systematic internaliser (SI) regime.On 4 July 2025, the FCA issued Consultation Paper 25/20: Consultation Paper on the SI regime for bonds and derivatives including Discussion Paper on equity markets (CP25/20). In CP25/20 the FCA proposed the following changes: Removal of the SI regime for bonds and derivatives, as well as structured finance products and emission allowances. Removing the prohibition on an investment firm to execute clients’ trades on the multi-lateral trading facility (MTF) they operate on a matched principal trading (MPT) basis. Removal of the prohibition on an investment firm that is an SI from operating an organised trading facility (OTF). Permitting trading venues operating under the reference price waiver (RPW) to use a broader set of prices than just the primary market, or the most relevant market in terms of liquidity, to cross orders under their systems; this would also include allowing the use of the RPW within the same system where the price is derived from. The deadline for comments on CP25/20 was 10 September 2025.Final policyIn PS25/17 the FCA sets out its final policy and comments on the feedback it received to CP25/20.Key points include: The FCA is proceeding with its proposal to remove the SI regime for bonds, derivatives, structured finance products and emission allowances. It acknowledges the feedback and the support from the vast majority of respondents for this proposal. The FCA is removing the prohibition on MPT by appropriately permissioned investment firms operating an MTF.  The FCA is of the view that the potential risk arising from an MTF operator engaging in MPT can be managed through the arrangements required by the broader conflict management rules to which an MTF operator is subject to. The FCA also confirms that the use of MPT by an MTF needs to remain consistent with the objective and non-discriminatory rules that characterise the operation of MTFs. The FCA is removing the prohibition on an investment firm that is an SI from operating an OTF. The FCA will revise MAR 5A.3.1R(3) to reflect this change and clarify that firms may operate both an SI and an OTF within the same legal entity, subject to existing safeguards. The FCA also highlights that investment firms are already able to operate MTFs while being SIs in the same instruments. However, the main difference is that MTFs operate a multilateral system based on non-discretionary rules, whereas trades on OTFs are carried out on a discretionary basis. That said, the FCA would expect that clients of the OTF be made aware of activities that the operator carries out in a principal capacity outside the OTF and to manage any conflict in line with conflict management provisions, which may include providing transparency to clients where an OTF operator also carries out SI activity. The FCA is reforming the RPW to allow trading venues to source prices from a wider set of venues provided that the reference price is widely published and regarded by the market as reliable. The FCA notes that almost all respondents supported this. However, the FCA reports that there were mixed views regarding a further proposal to reformulate the waiver so that it applies to individual orders rather than entire systems, enabling mid-price dark orders to be placed within a lit order book from where the reference price is derived. The FCA will undertake further discussions on this and is proposing only to implement the change following consultation on how to best identify the execution of dark orders at a reference price within lit order books, including through the use of the appropriate flag or identifier so that there is no loss of information from post-trade transparency. The FCA will do this in 2026 as part of its planned consultation on equity market structure and transparency. Next stepsThe FCA states that the changes in PS25/17 are permissive and create no new obligations on firms unless they chose to avail themselves of the new opportunities afforded by the changes. Firms so choosing should review the final rules and assess any operational or compliance updates needed.From 1 December 2025, the SI regime for bonds, derivatives, structured finance products and emission allowances will be repealed. The other changes come into effect from 30 March 2026.Following on from chapter 4 of CP25/20 – the discussion paper on equity markets – the FCA will keep considering the responses. It will publish a consultation on equity markets in the first half of 2026.

On 28 November 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published Handbook Notice 135.This Handbook Notice describes the changes to the FCA Handbook and other material made by the FCA Board under their legislative and other statutory powers on 27 November 2025. Where relevant, it also refers to the development stages of that material, enabling readers to look back at the developmental documents if they wish.On this date the FCA Board approved the following: Markets in Financial Instruments (Systematic Internalisers Multilateral Trading Facilities and Equity Transparency) Instrument 2025. Technical Standards (Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation) (Equity Transparency) (Amendment) Instrument 2025. Berne Financial Services Agreement Instrument 2025. Dispute Resolution: Complaints Sourcebook (Eligibility of Complainants) Instrument 2025. Compensation Sourcebook (Assignments Under Scots Law) Instrument 2025.

On 28 November 2025, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published a letter setting out the key findings from its annual assessment of the credit union sector and the actions it expects credit unions to take. The letter has been sent to firms that belong to a group of credit unions with total assets up to £50 million.The letter identifies two key areas of risk, operational resilience and disorderly failure.The PRA’s thematic work during 2026 will focus on supporting credit unions to strengthen their operational resilience, including contingency planning for unexpected events and ensuring robust arrangements for replacing key staff and directors. The PRA has attached a separate letter, ‘Operational Risk and Resilience: A Proportionate Approach for Credit Unions’, which sets out its expectations in this area in more detail.The PRA expects the board of a credit union to proactively monitor their own credit union’s prudential position, its performance against financial forecasts and act in a timely manner in response to any emerging issues. Where the board identifies that the credit union’s activities are no longer sustainable, the PRA expect directors to consider alternatives, engage with the regulators and a trade body (where applicable) in order to reduce the risks of a disorderly failure.The letter adds that in additional to operational resilience and the risk of disorderly failure, the PRA’s supervision team’s work during 2026 will include a continued focus on risk management. Also, standards of governance remain an area of interest for the PRA.The letter concludes with a reminder of Fundamental Rule 7 and that should directors of a credit union become aware of any events that are likely toimpact the credit union’s prudential position or ability to continue to offer services to members, the PRA expects to be notified as soon as reasonably possible.

On 26 November 2025, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published a report setting out its findings of a peer review which assessed how Member State competent authorities (NCAs) supervise and implement gender diversity within the management bodies of financial institutions, specifically credit institutions (CIs).BackgroundThe Peer Review follows up on the EBA report on the benchmarking of diversity practices and the gender pay gap | Global Regulation Tomorrow (the EBA Report) published on 7 March 2023. The EBA Report found that despite the legal requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV) to incorporate diversity, a significant proportion of institutions had still not adopted a diversity policy and found more generally that further improvements of gender balance and diversity were needed at the management body level.The EBA therefore decided to carry out a peer review in this area to assess the supervisory practices of NCAs. The report sets out the findings of the peer review, undertaken by the Peer Review Committee (PRC), on the supervision by six NCAs of diversity policies and the implementation of gender diversity at the level of the management body of institutions under their remit. The NCAs assessed were Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Finland and the European Central Bank. The report focuses on the application of the respective requirements in CRD IV and EBA Guidelines across six major areas referred to as benchmarks: Effectiveness of integration by NCAs of the requirements on gender diversity policies. Effectiveness of arrangements by NCAs for supervising and reviewing gender diversity policies and their implementation in CIs. NCA’s effectiveness of implementation of processes for the collection of information on diversity policies. NCA’s own benchmarking of diversity policies. Measures taken by NCAs to follow-up on EBA’s report on the review of gender-neutral remuneration policies and the diversity benchmarking report. Effective supervision of the requirements on internal governance, aiming at the absence of discrimination, ensuring equal opportunities, reducing the gender-pay gap and improving diversity. Overview of the peer reviewThe peer review assessment of the six benchmarks and the application of the underlying requirements by the respective NCAs provided an overall positive outcome. Nonetheless several weaknesses were identified for some NCAs which included not having their own benchmarking of diversity policies and measures to be taken by NCAs to follow up on the EBA’s report on the review of gender-neutral remuneration policies only being partially applied. The report mentions this is due in part to limited national CRD IV implementation by the NCA or disclosed information, thematic reviews and the ECB’s own benchmarking exercises being relied upon.In addition, the peer review mentioned that 4 of the 6 NCAs assessed should ensure the supervision of robust governance arrangements and from time to time a high-level review of the implementation of measures and the setting up of organisational structures to avoid discrimination and ensure equal opportunities for staff. The report mentions that measures should reflect those outlined in paragraph 101 Final report on Guidelines on internal governance under CRD IV. The report also mentions concerns with larger banking markets on the effectiveness of supervising and reviewing gender diversity policies and their implementation in CIs. As for assessing effective supervision of the requirements of internal governance, the report mentions this was partially applied where the activities of the nomination committee were found to be problematic for two of the assessed NCAs.Next stepsThe EBA will conduct a follow-up peer review of the implementation of the measures included in the peer review report in two years.

On 27 November 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) announced proposals to update Regulatory Guide 234 Advertising financial products and services (including credit): Good practice guidance (RG 234).BackgroundRG 234 provides guidance to help relevant entities comply with their legal obligations to not make false or misleading statements or engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. These include promoters of financial products, financial advice services, credit products and credit services, and publishers of advertising for these products and services.ProposalsASIC proposes to provide guidance and examples that reflect its enforcement and regulatory action on advertising conduct, incorporating insights from Regulatory Guide 53 The use of past performance in promotional material (RG 53). ASIC intends to consolidate its general advertising guidance so that ASIC’s general advertising guidance is in once place. It will withdraw RG 53 after the updated RG 234 is published.ASIC has published a summary of the key changes. ASIC proposes to simplify and streamline the existing guidance where possible, including by removing duplication and modernising the scope to cover digital advertising channels like social media and “finfluencers.”Next stepsThe deadline for comments is 22 January 2026.

On 27 November 2025, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced that it was limiting high debt-to-income (DTI) home lending.APRA is taking this action to pre-emptively contain a build-up of housing-related vulnerabilities in the financial system. While overall bank lending standards remain sound, APRA has noticed a pick-up in some riskier forms of lending over recent months as interest rates have fallen, housing credit growth has picked up to above its longer-term average and housing prices have risen further.MeasuresThe DTI limit that APRA is introducing is effective from February 2026 and allows up to 20 per cent of authorised deposit-taking institutions’ (ADIs) new mortgage lending to be at a DTI greater or equal to six times income or more. The limit will apply to ADIs’ owner-occupier and investor portfolios separately and will be measured on a quarterly basis. Within the limit, banks retain discretion to lend to creditworthy high DTI borrowers, in line with their own risk appetite and lending policies.APRA is providing ADIs with certain exemptions from the DTI limit for bridging loans for owner-occupiers and loans for the purchase or construction of new dwellings. There is also a measure of proportionality for non-significant financial institutions so that they can apply the limit in a way that smooths through periods of volatility.Next stepsAPRA will be actively monitoring and engaging with lenders to ensure the DTI limit is working as intended and, if appropriate, adjust settings.

On November 13, 2025, the German regulator, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), issued version 5 of its Circular MaBail-in in the context of the resolution of institutions. The aim is to improve the resolvability of institutions for which the application of a bail-in resolution tool is planned.The circular is addressed to all institutions as defined in Article 2 of the SRM Regulation, as well as to institutions as defined in Sections 1(1) no. 1 to no. 3 of the German Act on the Restructuring and Resolution of Institutions and Financial Groups (Gesetz zur Sanierung und Abwicklung von Instituten und Finanzgruppen – SAG) in the Federal Republic of Germany, provided that they are not within the remit of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) pursuant to Articles 7(2), 7(4)(b) and 7(5) of the SRM Regulation. The circular does not apply to institutions or group companies for which the resolution plan provides for liquidation as part of insolvency proceedings.The new version focuses on aligning the MaBail-in with the SRB’s Minimum Bail-in Data Template (MBDT), including the Country Annex for Germany, to harmonise the two requirements and minimise transition effort for institutions changing jurisdiction from BaFin to the SRB.This new circular replaces its predecessor and should be read alongside other BaFin circulars relating to the resolution of institutions.

In September 2025, the consumer advocacy group Which? submitted a super-complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) setting out its concerns in relation to the poor outcomes it considers consumers are experiencing in the retail home insurance and retail travel insurance markets (the Complaint). On the basis of its research and investigations, Which? believes that, in these markets: (i) a large number of insurance firms are not complying with the relevant consumer and insurance laws and FCA rules, including the Consumer Duty; and (ii) existing consumer and insurance law frameworks may not be effective or sufficiently clear.In our latest briefing note, we set out an action plan for steps firms could consider taking in light of the Complaint, as well as further detail regarding the Complaint itself, including the possible next steps the FCA will be considering.

On 13 November 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) announced its 2026 enforcement priorities.ASIC identifies several new areas of focus for 2026 that will shape surveillance, investigations, and litigation strategy. These include: misleading pricing practices impacting cost of living; poor private credit practices; financial reporting misconduct, including failure to lodge financial reports; misconduct exploiting consumers facing financial difficulty including predatory credit practices; holding those responsible to account for the collapses of certain registered managed investment schemes; claims and complaint handling failures by insurers; unlawful practices seeking to evade small business creditors; holding super trustees to account for member services failures; strengthening investigation and prosecution of insider trading conduct; and auditor misconduct. These new priorities sit alongside enduring priorities, including the protection of First Nations and vulnerable consumers and upholding market integrity.

On 12 November 2025, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published the remarks made by Executive Director Carmen Beverley-Smith at the ASFA Conference 2025.The speech frames recent cyber incidents, operational disruptions and the high-profile collapse of two managed investment schemes offered through trustee-provided platforms as a stress test of public confidence. Trustees must focus on achieving three “baseline capabilities”: strong leadership and governance, operational resilience, and acting in members’ best financial interests. The message is candid: trust is not static, and funds must continuously strive to maintain member confidence in their super as the stewards of it.On strong leadership, APRA is currently engaging with the industry to uplift board governance standards relating to board member fitness and propriety, tenure and capabilities and skills, among other things. APRA foreshadowed that these draft governance standards and guidance will be released in the second quarter of next year.On operational resilience, APRA highlights the commencement of CPS 230 Operational Risk Management (launched in July) and the introduction of the Financial Accountability Regime for super this year. APRA expects trustees to intimately understand their key processes that deliver on commitments to members and to manage the risks and vulnerabilities in those processes regardless of who physically performs them.In parallel, APRA reiterates its message that multi-factor authentication is expected as a baseline. APRA requires trustees to review information security controls, including authentication, and to submit breach notifications where material weaknesses are identified. APRA also comments that compliance with CPS 234 Information Security represents minimum obligations, rather than an aspirational level of information security governance for well-managed funds.On member best financial interests, APRA has intensified scrutiny of discretionary expenditure. Using fund-level expenditure data, APRA reviewed spending on sponsorships, marketing, conferences, entertainment and related-party arrangements across 14 trustees. APRA has provided examples of better practice and areas for improvement and has made clear it will use the full range of powers where legal requirements are not met.

On 5 November 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) published Report 820 that summarises its observations from a review of private credit funds offered to retail and wholesale investors.The report will interest responsible entities and trustees of managed funds, investment management firms, portfolio managers, investment advisers and consultants, financial advisers, industry bodies, service providers and other regulators. It will also interest those considering investing in private credit markets, including retail, wholesale and institutional investors.Report 820 is based on ASIC’s thematic surveillance of 28 private credit funds (20 retail funds and 8 wholesale funds) which found inconsistent practices and, in some cases, material deficiencies in areas such as: inconsistent and unclear reporting and terms, masking portfolio risks and challenging investor decisions; opaque interest margins and fee structures, obscuring the risk and cost to investors; weak governance and poorly managed conflicts of interest, risking harm to investors and confidence; poor valuation practices, impacting entry and exit prices, performance and fees; and inadequate practices in key risk areas, indicating poor preparedness for stress scenarios ASIC sets out principles for “private credit done well”, highlights poor practices ASIC has already acted against, and foreshadows further surveillance and guidance updates (including for wholesale funds) in 2026.

On 11 November 2025, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published an updated version of its Guide on Climate Scenario Analysis.The Guide serves as a practical reference for authorities and financial institutions aiming to integrate climate scenario analysis into their risk management frameworks and decision-making processes. A key addition is the emphasis on short-term scenarios, which are gaining importance for evaluating near-term financial risks arising from climate change and evolving climate policy measures

On 13 November 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a multi-firm review in relation to how contracts for difference (CFD) providers comply with their obligations under the Consumer Duty ‘Price and Value’ outcome.BackgroundThe FCA explained that this review follows on from a portfolio letter sent to CFD firms in December 2024 and considers, in particular, how CFD firms deliver fair value in areas such as bid/offer spread pricing, commissions, and overnight funding charges, as well as how firms are using their Consumer Duty (the duty) fair value assessments to deliver against the price and value outcome.Key findingsThe FCA set out examples of good and poor practice, including: Applying the Consumer Duty and proportionality: The FCA explained that most firms were using the duty as an opportunity to review the products they offer and make improvements where necessary; however, it also found that while some firms had made changes in response to the duty that others had not and so may have failed to consider their obligations fully, and that a minority of firms’ annual board report required under the duty mainly restated requirements rather than analysing firm compliance. Fair Value Assessments (FVAs): The FCA found that most firms conducted peer comparisons against FCA authorised competitors and provided good reasons for selection, and that the most comprehensive FVAs covered scope, analysis and justification for their conclusions considering both monetary and non-monetary factors. That said, it also found that many firms’ FVAs only gave limited consideration to costs paid by consumers other than those for executing trades whereas other costs can be a significant part of the overall price paid; some firms’ assessments considered the wrong types of peer firms; that there was a wide range of effective interest rates paid by retail clients without adequate justification or disclosure; only a few firms were paying interest on retail clients margin deposits; many firms had not considered other key indicators of value beyond execution quality; and, some firms had not fully considered if they should make any changes to their appropriateness tests, particularly having poor controls in relation to vulnerable retail clients. Assessing the target market: The FCA highlighted that some firms had strengthened appropriateness testing as a result of the duty and that most firms considered the conflicts associated with allowing applicants who failed this test from proceeding but that some firms had made few or no duty related changes even after conducting reviews and therefore firms may want to consider how robust their current testing is. Vulnerable clients: The FCA set out that monitoring for vulnerability characteristics during onboarding seems to be widespread as is training for client facing staff in relation to this and that some firms that had accepted vulnerable clients have managed the risk by applying vulnerability measures. However, some firms had only implemented reactive measures rather than monitoring and some firms said they had only identified few or no vulnerable clients calling into question how effectively this is being considered. Fees and charges, including overnight funding fees: The FCA made clear that most firms had reviewed their overall charges and simplified fee structures in response; however, it also found that many firms should better consider all changes in the context of other fees and be able to demonstrate that overall costs are reasonable, that firms could improve their disclosure in relation to this to clients, that in relation to overnight funding charges specifically firms could improve how they are quoting interest rates to retail clients, and that firms may also consider reviewing key investors documents and other client communications to better highlight their charges. Matched/hedged client positions: The FCA had observed that some firms discourage clients from holding open hedged positions due to the potential for foreseeable harm but that there were a wide variety of approaches to margining hedged open positions and it also found that there were shortcomings with disclosures in relation to the cost of keeping open positions versus closing positions. Interest on clients’ accounts: Finally, the FCA explained that it had found that several firms had reviewed their approach on paying interest on CFD client balances but that firms may want to review if charging clients funding interest without also paying clients on margin deposits is providing fair value. Next StepsThe FCA made clear that it encourages all firms manufacturing or distributing CFDs to retail clients to consider these findings and address any gaps, and that it is considering further work in relation to some of the areas identified.

On 13 November 2025, the European Parliament issued a press release stating that MEPs had adopted their position on simplified sustainability reporting and due diligence. The updated rules are part of the Omnibus I simplification package proposed by the European Commission on 26 February 2025. Negotiations with EU governments, which have already adopted their position on the file, will start on 18 November 2025, with the aim of finalising the legislation by the end of 2025.

On 11 November 2025, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) published a report which contained a motion for a European Parliament Resolution on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the financial sector.OverviewThe report examines the use and impact of AI in the financial services sector and the regulatory landscape where the Rapporteur provides policy recommendations to enable the use of AI in financial services and clarify regulatory overlaps. It also addresses aspects specific to the financial services sector within the remit of ECON.The report highlights the deployment of AI in finance and the potential opportunities to balance innovation with regulation, ensuring compliance and high-quality data to address challenges related to cybersecurity, calling for the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to adapt and monitor the increasing use of AI in financial services and mitigate these risks for consumers and provide financial stability.Key recommendationsKey recommendations mentioned in the report to ensure the responsible use of AI in financial services include: The proposal to jump-start AI innovation and investment in Europe’s venture capital scene as part of the Savings and Investments Union (SIU). Calls for the European Commission (Commission) to provide clear and practical guidance developed in consultation with the ESAs and Member State competent authorities (NCAs) and stakeholders on the application of existing financial services legislation with regard to the use of AI. Simplification and consistency of the regulatory framework to avoid duplicated requirements including risk assessment reporting requirements and cautions against a one-size-fits-all approach. The report further mentions that continuous monitoring of AI deployment can help determine if there are duplications or deficiencies in current financial services legislation, strongly advising coordination between the Commission and Member States. Calls on the Commission to explore how AI-driven tools can be used in financial markets such as in intermediation, portfolio management and compliance automation to contribute to the objectives of the SIU which will require a technology-neutral regulatory framework. For the Commission and Member States to remove entry barriers within the EU for AI-driven innovative financial undertakings through streamlined licensing, cross border scale-ups and inclusion in supervisory innovation hubs. It also calls on the Commission and the NCAs to assess the added value of AI-specific regulatory sandboxes, innovation hubs and cross-border testing environments to explore new product-testing while safeguarding consumer protection and market integrity. The motion instructs the President to forward the resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of Member States.

On 12 November 2025 the Bank of England (BoE) published a speech by Lee Foulger (Director of Financial Stability Strategy and Risk) given at AFME’s 20th Annual European Government Bond Conference examining the effectiveness and potential impact of reforms to improve the resilience of the UK gilt repo market.Mr Foulger mentions that the BoE has strengthened its monitoring through its System-wide Exploratory Scenario exercise that has provided insight to the material changes in resilience of the gilt repo market in terms of liquidity needs, margin and counterparty credit risk. He highlights in this regard the structural dynamics of the gilt repo market and the importance of how market participants’ changing behaviours in core markets may affect UK financial stability, most notably the growing role of non-bank liquidity providers, increased electronic and high frequency trading, reduced reserves due to quantitative tightening and rising sovereign issuance. These changes challenge the traditional dealer-intermediated structure of the gilt repo market to which Mr Foulger mentions the BoE’s concerns on how liquidity might behave in stress, particularly if dealers’ capacity to intermediate is constrained by credit risk concerns of leverage built through near-zero haircut transactions.In light of monitoring the changing dynamics, Mr Foulger notes the BoE’s two potential initiatives as mentioned in its discussion paper to enhance the resilience of the gilt repo market: greater central clearing and the introduction of minimum haircuts or margin requirements in non-centrally cleared transactions. He highlights the importance of the adoption and use of central clearing in the government bond repo market to be tailored specifically to the UK taking into account different risk profiles and liquidity needs of different market participants. As for the introduction of minimum haircuts on non-centrally cleared transactions, Mr Foulger mentions the near-zero haircut approach and to better understand how prudent this approach is at both a portfolio and collective level shifting from a one size fits all approach to a risk-sensitive approach welcoming further feedback.In short, the Mr Foulger highlights the BoE’s shift from monitoring and reacting to adapting to the dynamics of the gilt repo market, expecting industry engagement and feedback on how these reforms might work in reality.