On 12 December 2025, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published a Final Report on draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) on the treatment of structural foreign exchange (FX) positions under Article 104c of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).The structural FX provision in Article 352 of the CRR has been subject to various interpretations that have led to differences in its application between EU Member States and across institutions. To promote a harmonised approach within the EU, the EBA published in 2020 own-initiative guidelines (EBA/GL/2020/09) on the practical implementation of the ‘structural FX’ provision. Those guidelines are now transposed into the draft RTS set out in the Final Report, following a mandate provided to EBA in the context of the CRR3 legislative process (see Article 104c of CRR as amended by CRR3).Key elements of the draft RTS include: Maximum open position computation: institutions may consider only credit risk own funds requirements when determining the position that neutralises sensitivity to capital ratios, where credit risk is the main driver of ratio variability. Clarifications on risk positions: the RTS provide further guidance on how institutions should remove FX risk positions from own funds requirements. Policies for illiquid currencies:  dedicated provisions are introduced for currencies that are illiquid in the market, including those affected by Union restrictive measures. The draft RTS will be submitted to the European Commission for adoption following which they will be subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council before being published in the Official Journal of the EU.

On 12 December 2025, the Council of the EU published its conclusions on simplifying the Union’s financial services regulation.In the conclusions the Council calls on the European Commission to put forward ambitious simplification packages for the EU’s financial services regulation which should include clear priorities and timelines as well as planned initiatives. The Commission is also called on to consider improvements to the mandates of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), including with a view to ensure better reporting and greater accountability towards the co-legislators and to facilitate the ESAs to adhere to the above principles.

Following the announcement by HM Treasury in October that the Government has decided that the Financial Conduct Authority should become the single professional services supervisor for anti-money laundering/ countering the financing of terrorism (see our previous briefing), a Consultation Paper has now been published providing further details of the reform proposals and requesting responses by 24 December 2025. In our latest briefing we set out our key takeaways from the Consultation; the expected timeline for changes; and steps for impacted firms to consider taking now.

On 12 December, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published findings from its multi-firm review of how wholesale banks deliver best execution in UK listed cash equities.BackgroundThe FCA explained that it had last carried out a thematic review (TR14/13) of wholesale banks’ best execution practices in 2014 and that, in the context of regulation, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II), which came into force in 2018, has extended the best execution rules and regulatory framework for SIs in equities.Key findingsThe FCA highlighted key findings from this review, including: Scope: The FCA received feedback that assessing the scope of best execution obligations in quote-driven wholesale markets, where firms deal on their own account, can be complex, so it will consider this in any future review of our best execution rules. However, in terms of areas for improvement the FCA highlighted that in quote-driven markets, it found some banks inflexible in their best execution framework, but reminded firms that their frameworks should be flexible enough to ensure best execution is applied and evidenced. The FCA reminded firms that they should examine how and when they undertake reviews against their execution outcomes, using a flexible framework allowing easy adaption to market and client activity changes.  Governance and oversight: The FCA found areas for improvement in relation to committee scrutiny, challenge from compliance, the use of framework testing and insufficient data and evidence. The FCA found that at most banks, compliance typically focused on challenging processes rather than actual outcomes, but that it found examples of stronger and effective challenge at banks which had empowered compliance functions, supporting them with the right data and tools, and ensuring their voice was heard at all forums. The FCA also emphasised that banks should fully assessed how effectively their frameworks would operate under varying market conditions and ensure their arrangements are sufficiently tailored to all relevant asset classes so they can demonstrate their delivery of best execution across a range of market conditions and product types.   Monitoring and management information: The FCA made clear that it did not observe the same monitoring issues that were reported in the 2014 review and that in most cases, banks had well-established processes in place that covered a range of execution factors and enabled them to identify both good and bad outcomes. However, the FCA also highlighted some areas for improvement, for example in relation to how the results of the real-time and post-trade monitoring are reported to senior management decision-making forums at some banks. Managing conflicts of interest when internalising order flow: The FCA set out that as operating as a systematic internaliser allows a firm to internalise order flow by matching client orders against its own book it considers that this can create a potential conflict of interest between the firm’s obligation to provide best execution and its incentive to reduce execution costs and capture market share through internalisation. However, it further explained that as internalisation does not automatically guarantee the best execution outcome firms must consider all appropriate execution venues and route orders where they can get the best possible outcome. Next stepsThe FCA set out that it will continue discussions with wholesale banks on their approaches to best execution and that if it considers that proposing rule changes is appropriate, it will consult on those changes in the first half of 2026.

On 11 December 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a new webpage setting out its expectations of firms promoting investment products, and common misconceptions about risk warnings.BackgroundThe FCA explained that it is currently supporting a review of risk warnings, led by the Investment Association and supported by HM Treasury, and that it is outlining its expectations of firms and some common misunderstandings to support this work.OverviewThe FCA set out certain considerations for firms when promoting investment products, including: Financial promotions likely to be received by retail customers must meet requirements under the Consumer Duty. This means that they must support customer understanding, and be clear, fair and not misleading. When designing communications, firm should put themselves in the consumer’s shoes and think about what they would want or need to know. Where appropriate, this includes testing communications. The FCA also addressed certain misunderstandings about risk warnings, including by clarifying that: The FCA does not prescribe risk wording for mainstream investments. There is no requirement for mainstream investment promotions to include a separate risk warning. They must provide a balanced view of the benefits and risks, to give consumers a fair description of the product or service. The FCA don’t mandate how firms should order their promotions. Firms may order their messaging however best supports consumer understanding.   Firms should put themselves in customer’s shoes and consider how communication’s phrasing as a whole supports’ consumer understanding. Image advertising, such as branding, does not need information about risks. Promotions must be standalone compliant. Firms need to ensure consumers see the right information at the right time, and are equipped to make effective, timely and properly informed decisions. This does not require generic, repeated risk disclosure on every page. Finally, the FCA set out some it’s views on ways to meet the relevant requirements, including: Risk statements:  Firms should ensure that a financial promotion makes it clear if a product or service places a customer’s capital at risk (COBS 4.2.4G(1)). The FCA has seen firms introduce contextualised risk statements that explain both the potential benefits and risks of investing in their promotions and supports this approach. Diminishing or disguising information: Firms should make sure promotions do not disguise, diminish or obscure important information or warnings (COBS 4.5.2R(4) or COBS 4.5A.3R(2)(e)) and must not downplay key information you provide to consumers in a way which could be misleading.  That said, the FCA considered that explaining the potential benefits of a product can be done alongside explaining the risks and doing so doesn’t have to diminish the risks if done fairly, as this can be part of communicating a balanced promotion.   Cash comparisons: When communicating comparative information in relation to investments, firms must make sure that the comparison is meaningful and presented in a fair and balanced way (COBS 4.5.6R or COBS 4.5A.7R).  Firms can compare cash and investment products to help a consumer’s decision-making but must provide balanced information on the features of both, and equip consumers to make effective, timely, and properly informed decisions.

On 12 December 2025, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report that reviews the implementation of margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives. The report concludes that the framework has been effectively implemented and finds no evidence of material issues. As such the Basel Committee and IOSCO do not propose changes to the framework but recommend continued monitoring in the form of supervisory information exchange and the sharing of experiences among their members to address evolving market practices.

On 12 December 2025, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced that it will be assessing 110 directly supervised banks on the management of geopolitical risk.As a key driver of macroeconomic uncertainty, geopolitical risk remains at the centre of the ECB’s supervisory priorities for 2026-28.Reverse geopolitical risk stress testAs part of their 2026 internal capital adequacy assessment process the banks will conduct a reverse geopolitical risk stress test which will assess the extent to which their stress-testing capabilities take geopolitical risks into account. The stress test is intended to provide insights into the geopolitical risk-related scenarios that could materially affect banks, who should identify relevant geopolitical events and quantify their impact. In addition, they will be asked to describe how they would act to reduce that impact, if necessary, with a view to ensuring that they have robust governance and operational resilience frameworks in place.In particular, each bank will identify the most relevant geopolitical risk events that could lead to at least a 300-basis point depletion in its Common Equity Tier 1 capital. In addition to reporting on how the geopolitical risk scenario would affect their solvency positions, banks will also be asked to provide information about how it may affect their liquidity and funding conditions.Next stepsThe main aggregate conclusions of the reverse stress test will be communicated in the summer of 2026.Weaknesses revealed by the reverse geopolitical stress test will feed into the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process assessment.

On 12 December 2025, the National Audit Office (NAO) released a report which examined how the Bank of England (BoE) managed the Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) renewal programme to achieve a new system resilient to future developments and risks.BackgroundIn 2016, the BoE established the RTGS renewal programme (the programme). In April 2025, it successfully launched the new system. The NAO’s report examines whether the BoE managed the programme effectively and efficiently to achieve a new system resilient to future developments and risks, and whether it has identified wider learning from the programme.Findings and recommendationsOverall, the NAO found the BoE’s management of the programme demonstrated value for money, and good practice in digital transformation, offering lessons for other government projects and the BoE’s wider project management.The NAO sets out certain recommendations to help the BoE maximise the benefits from its management of the renewal programme and implementation of the new RTGS.  The report provides that the BoE should: Identify mechanisms for applying lessons from the programme to its other digital and business transformation projects to secure change, for example updating internal guidance or review processes. Set out clear plans for ensuring the right investment and resourcing at the right time to keep the system up to date (including for wider BoE services that the RTGS relies on). As it manages a more dynamic process of RTGS change, ensure it understands the impact of higher levels of change on all RTGS users, to minimise this where possible. Assess and, where possible, evaluate the effectiveness of potential interventions in widening access and reducing barriers to entry to the RTGS, including the introduction of alternative access routes to Swift, to ensure it puts the optimum mix in place.

On 11 December 2025, the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) published a report (dated 31 October 2025)  in which it identifies and lists the tasks assigned to it by EU legislation beyond the ESRB Regulation. It then categorises them from a content point of view, classifying them into four types according to their main purpose. Against this, the General Board of the ESRB has made changes to internal procedures aimed at streamlining the performance of certain ESRB tasks, without amendments to legislation, by adopting Decision ESRB/2025/7. Furthermore, the ESRB has also prepared a proposal for legislative amendments aimed at contributing to the simplification of its tasks, to be considered by the European Commission.

On 11 December 2025, the European Central Bank (ECB) issued a press release announcing that its Governing Council has endorsed the recommendations of its High-Level Task Force on Simplifications.The recommendations include: Reducing the number of elements in the risk-weighted and leverage ratio framework. Introducing a materially simpler prudential regime for smaller banks, which expands on the existing EU regime. Introducing a European governance mechanism that takes a holistic view of the overall level of capital. Finalising the Savings and Investment Union – including completion of the Banking Union – to foster cross-border integration and allow for more efficient capital markets. The ECB will present the proposals to the European Commission, which is preparing a report on the overall situation of the EU banking system that is due to be presented in 2026.

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.