On February 10, ISDA responded to the Bank of England’s (BoE) consultation on a proposed regulatory regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins. In the response, ISDA highlights that any regulatory framework should be assessed through the lens of prudent risk management and the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI) published by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and International Organization of Securities Commissions, with a particular focus on liquidity, credit risk, operational resilience and legal certainty. The response also addresses capital requirements, risk management frameworks for digital assets, and the importance of consistent haircut, custody and collateral eligibility standards in derivatives markets. ISDA emphasizes the need for cross-border regulatory coordination to avoid market fragmentation and reiterates that stablecoins should not compromise existing risk management standards or weaken established PFMIs.
Documents (1) for ISDA Responds to Bank of England Consultation on Systemic Stablecoins
Latest
Transition to Mandatory Central Clearing
US Treasury securities sit at the heart of global financial markets and serve as one of the primary forms of high-quality collateral across derivatives and securities financing markets. The transition to mandatory central clearing of US Treasuries therefore has implications...
ISDA Publishes Updated ISDA SIMM Governance
ISDA has published an updated version of the ISDA SIMM® Governance Framework, which sets out the principles under which the ISDA Standard Initial Margin Model® operates and the process through which it will be reviewed and amended on a consistent...
ISDA Response to PRA IMA Consultation
On September 18, ISDA, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Institute of International Finance and UK Finance submitted a joint response to the UK Prudential Regulation Authority consultation on adjustments to the internal model approach (IMA) for the...
Calibration Test – IQ September 2026
Calibrating capital requirements is a highly complex undertaking and getting it wrong can have serious consequences. Too much lenience might lead to banks holding insufficient capital to mitigate their risks. But excess conservatism can put balance sheets under strain, forcing...