Multilateralism, Utopia, and the Financial Stability Board

28 July 2026

Keynote speech by John Schindler, FSB Secretary General, at the Atlantic Council

The views expressed in these remarks are those of the speaker in their role as FSB Secretary General and do not necessarily reflect those of the FSB or its members.

Watch the speech and the following discussion

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about multilateralism, a topic that has become  particularly newsworthy these days.

Over five hundred years ago, Saint Thomas More published Utopia, a short book about a society that is governed by complete social and economic cooperation; what we might call perfect multilateralism. But More had no illusions about the achievability of Utopia, and a hint to that is in the title of the book. Utopia, in Greek, literally means “no place.” More knew that the perfection he was writing about did not exist in the world. But the lesson of Utopia is not to dismiss the ideal; it is to be inspired by it and to strive for it.

Fast forward five hundred years, and the news is replete with stories about the death of multilateralism. Canadian Prime Minister (and former FSB Chair) Mark Carney referred to a ‘rupture in the world order.’ I hear it on panels and in interviews: “Is it still possible to work together in the current environment?” “Can the FSB get anything done?” The questions surprise me, because I would argue that the FSB is as busy now as it ever has been. Our members are engaged. Our members remain eager for us to pursue work, and we continue to respond to G20 requests. In short, we are open for business.

In the next few minutes, rather than lamenting the demise of multilateralism, I want to explain why multilateralism remains essential in financial regulation, what the FSB’s experience has been, and outline some practical steps we can all take to keep multilateralism working.

What We Mean by Multilateralism

So, what is multilateralism? Let me begin with a working definition. For our purposes today, I will define it as a setting in which a group of countries works together to make joint decisions to help achieve common goals.

The FSB is an example of a multilateral organization. Established by the G20 (also a multilateral organization) after the Great Financial Crisis, the FSB’s mandate is to promote global financial stability. The crisis reinforced an inconvenient truth: financial shocks rarely respect country borders. Disruptions in one market or jurisdiction can spread to others. Financial instability is not an abstract concern; it undermines jobs, growth, savings, and the capacity of governments and businesses to pursue broader social and economic goals. That is why the FSB exists, and why its work matters.

Our seventy members are geographically and institutionally diverse. We bring together finance ministries, central banks, supervisors, market regulators, standard-setting bodies, and international organizations. Through our regional consultative groups, our reach extends well beyond the core membership. In short, we convene the practical diversity of the global financial system in one place, at one time, around one table. The kaleidoscopic perspectives our members bring to the table is our greatest strength.

The obituary of multilateralism that you often read about highlights withdrawals from international organizations or agreements, strains in the rules-based system of trade, and the breakdown of security arrangements that were long presumed to be robust. Those developments are real and consequential. But to project from those examples to the death of multilateralism everywhere, including at the FSB, exaggerates the issue.

The importance of multilateralism in finance

So why has the FSB continued to function as a vehicle for solving problems that transcend borders in a world where multilateralism elsewhere seems to be dying? The answer may lie in the nature of finance itself.

Financial markets trade in risk. They repackage it, sell it, combine it, and transfer it. Markets thrive on price discovery and arbitrage. That dynamism rewards innovation, but it also searches relentlessly for weakest links. If rules diverge too widely, risk migrates to the path of least resistance. Activities shift to jurisdictions, sectors, or entities where standards are lower, oversight is thinner, or enforcement is uneven. The result is not simply regulatory arbitrage; it is the build-up of vulnerabilities.

A level playing field is a risk-management tool for the system as a whole. If you go it alone, you either believe that your financial system is so different from others that a level playing field doesn’t matter, or that the financial system will not shift risk to or away from your borders in a significant way. For example, some developing economies might argue that their nonbank financial system is so underdeveloped that regulations pertaining to nonbanks are irrelevant to them. Or, an economy with a completely closed capital system might argue that adopting a level playing field is irrelevant given that capital can’t flow in and out. But for most FSB members – open economies with deep and globally interconnected financial systems – neither argument applies. Integration into the global financial system is a source of strength and it makes coordination a necessity. Our members recognize the need for multilateralism in financial regulation. They want international standards, implemented proportionately and consistently, that preserve some room for jurisdictions to tailor measures to their circumstances and that reduce the incentive for market participants to shop for the most permissive regime.

Has the FSB felt any effects from the “death” of multilateralism?

While I started by saying that multilateralism is alive and well at the FSB, I did not mean to imply that we have been unaffected. We have been, but the effect has not been the death knell some may have feared. What we have experienced is not a collapse of cooperation. It is a change in consensus.

Decisions at the FSB are taken by consensus. Consensus at the FSB has always evolved. Members change; the political leadership of countries changes; priorities and perspectives shift. That dynamism is built into the DNA of the FSB and reflects the FSB’s links, via members’ finance ministries, to their governments’ policy priorities. I highlighted the FSB’s membership earlier as a strength. It requires us to listen carefully, to constantly test assumptions, and to find common ground that is responsive to current realities while remaining anchored in our long-term objective of safeguarding global financial stability.

Perhaps the shifts in consensus over recent years have been larger or faster. But they have not stopped the FSB from working together to achieve common goals. The steps we take to do that might be different than they were a few years ago – the consensus has changed – but we still work together. That is multilateralism. The ideal we seek to achieve – global financial stability – remains the same; the route to that ideal adapts.

The FSB work priorities remain focused on areas where cross-border coordination adds the most value. We continue to place a strong emphasis on nonbank financial intermediation; digital innovation, including crypto assets, stablecoins, and artificial intelligence; cross border payments; ongoing assessments of vulnerabilities and monitoring of implementation of past recommendations; and work on supervisory and regulatory practices.

We continue to work on projects in support of the goals of the G20. We recently released a report for consultation on sound practices for financial institutions to use, adopt, and innovate with artificial intelligence (AI). AI has the potential to transform financial services globally, driving innovation, efficiency, and better risk management. However, its adoption raises challenges that transcend borders, such as ensuring transparency, accountability, resilience, and the secure use of data across jurisdictions. Our members recognize this and have made it a priority for our work.

We continue to work diligently and collaboratively on the cross-border payments roadmap that the G20 asked us to develop in 2020. Efficient, inclusive, and secure cross-border payments are essential for global commerce, remittances, and financial inclusion. We recently put out a call out for members to voluntarily develop jurisdiction-level action plans to take forward the Roadmap recommendations. The enthusiastic response – 29 jurisdictions agreed to develop these plans – demonstrates the shared commitment to improving cross-border payment systems, which are a cornerstone of the global financial architecture.

This is not an abstract list. It is a practical work program shaped by the experiences of our members, feedback from stakeholders, and the lessons of recent stress episodes. The initiatives on AI and cross-border payments, along with other work on nonbanks, crypto assets and stablecoins, and operational resilience, underscore the FSB’s crucial role in fostering international cooperation to address global challenges. FSB work in all of these areas reflects the essence of multilateralism: the recognition that no member can address these global challenges alone.

What lessons can we draw from the FSB experience?

So, having recognized that the consensus has shifted in some areas, how can we best ensure continued cooperation? Let me offer some practical advice from the FSB experience, most of which applies well beyond the FSB.

  • First: Accept reality. Consensus changes for a lot of reasons – new members, an evolving financial system, innovation – and the consensus has changed on a number of issues in recent years. You can pretend it hasn’t happened, which ignores the reality, or you can work with your colleagues to achieve the new consensus.
  • Second: Show up. Contribute to the strength of decision-making by sharing your perspective. The FSB Plenary does not meet often. It only meets in person twice a year, and in-person meetings are especially valuable when consensus is evolving. Place an even higher priority on attending those face-to-face meetings when the consensus is shifting. Physical presence builds trust, reduces miscommunication, and accelerates problem-solving. Prioritize being in the room when it matters.
  • Third: Show up at the right level. The FSB was designed as a principal-level body. As with many standard setters, there is a tendency for members to delegate down to the lowest level that will be accepted. Delegation is often necessary and appropriate, but it dilutes your message. When an issue is pivotal, senior voices carry weight, not because titles matter for their own sake, but because they signal commitment and they enable decisions. If you have a message to deliver, send your principal.
  • Third: Respectfully engage in the active exchange of ideas. When you are attending an in-person meeting, written statements and carefully drafted interventions have their place. But the most productive contributions come from those who listen as their colleagues speak and who incorporate the evolving consensus in the room into their talking points – reinforcing points that crystallize consensus or respectfully probing where differences remain. Respectful disagreement is not confrontational; it is an invitation to find a shared solution. Members who engage in this way advance the conversation. Even better is to also engage outside the meeting room. The coffee break, the hallway conversation, the call before the meeting. A former FSB Chair used to stress that the most important work happens between sessions, when colleagues can explore options candidly and find common ground. Talk to those whose position you don’t understand or who you disagree with. Figure out the common ground.
  • Fourth: Contribute positively (and I don’t mean you have to do everything with a smile on your face.) It is much more effective to come to a meeting with a proposal to do something than it is to come to a meeting arguing against something. If you think a proposal is off base, explain why and offer your own. If you think a proposal isn’t worth pursuing at all, offer one that is. Most members who are proposing something are doing so because they believe that something needs to be done. They are much more likely to be agreeable to another proposal than to a proposal to do nothing.
  • Fifth and finally: Don’t succumb to fatalism. The FSB remains open for business. If you buy into the rhetoric about the death of multilateralism, it is likely to bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Participation is the antidote for pessimism.

While I believe in these five common sense pieces of advice, I know that ensuring global financial stability is not easy. We operate in a world in which our members face diverse financial structures and legal frameworks, where innovation does not wait for us to catch up to it, and where financial activity is adept at finding its way to the other side of the regulatory perimeter.

So, what does success look like in that challenging environment and where consensus is always shifting? Success looks like steady progress on agreed priorities, even when the path to agreement is longer and the compromises more intricate. It looks like policies that are robust to uncertainty, because they are built on diverse perspectives and reflect different scenarios. It looks like implementation that is consistent and credible, because members own the outcomes that they helped to shape. And it builds on humility: the willingness to adapt as new evidence accumulates, to learn from experience, and to correct course when necessary.

This is the practical craft of multilateralism. It is iterative, patient, and anchored in the recognition that what happens in one part of the system can – and will – affect the rest.

Returning to Utopia

I began with Saint Thomas More’s Utopia, a book about an idealistic place that More wittily named “no place.” More was writing for an audience that he wanted to encourage to strive for the ideal, while acknowledging the need to balance idealism and pragmatism. In a famous passage, he said, “…if ill opinions cannot be quite rooted out, and you cannot cure some received vice according to your wishes, you must not, therefore, abandon the commonwealth, for the same reasons as you should not forsake the ship in a storm because you cannot command the winds.” That is the spirit in which I hope members approach multilateralism at the FSB (and elsewhere). Acknowledge the challenges, but continue to strive, together, for a resilient global financial system.

Thank you.

FSB Regional Consultative Group for Sub-Saharan Africa meets in Mauritius

16 July 2026

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) Regional Consultative Group for Sub-Saharan Africa (RCG SSA) met on 16-17 July 2026 in Mauritius, hosted by the Bank of Mauritius. The meeting brought together senior officials from central banks, financial authorities, and regulatory bodies in the region to discuss key financial stability topics. Co-chaired by Lesetja Kganyago, Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, and Denny Kalyalya, Governor of the Bank of Zambia, the meeting covered a range of topics, including:

  • global and regional financial vulnerabilities;
  • challenges and solutions for cross-border payments;
  • perspectives on global stablecoin arrangements and their implications for the region; and
  • vulnerabilities from extreme weather events and their impact on financial stability.

Members also discussed the FSB’s 2026 work priorities and regional contributions.

Exploring cross-sectoral interconnections in resolution planning

9 July 2026

Remarks by John Schindler, FSB Secretary General, at the Financial Stability Board ReSolve event for Cross-Border Crisis Management working groups.

The views expressed in these remarks are those of the speaker in their role as FSB Secretary General and do not necessarily reflect those of the FSB or its members.

Good morning everyone and welcome back to day two of ReSolve.

They say resolution planning is one of the few fields where bank, insurer, and financial market infrastructure experts all agree on something: nobody wants to be the one who actually needs to use the plan. As funny as that sentiment might be – it underscores a serious truth. These plans exist to build confidence in the system, so we hopefully never have to use them. But if we do, we must be ready.

So, why did the Financial Stability Board (FSB) bring all of you here today? Because well-functioning resolution regimes are critical to financial stability. Readiness to act is built before a crisis, not during one, and we have to cooperate to be able to enhance preparedness across the financial system. Resolvability is not just about having the right tools on paper; it is about ensuring that those tools can be deployed effectively under real-world conditions. This underscores the importance of vigilance, coordination, and proactive risk management to ensure the financial system remains resilient and that authorities are ready to act. The FSB brought you here today to work on those things.

Let me repeat my question now, with a different emphasis this time. Why did we bring ALL of you here today? We brought together the members of all three resolution working groups—covering banks, financial market infrastructures, and insurers—because it reflects how we think about the financial sector: not as isolated silos but as a deeply interconnected system.

After the adoption of the Key Attributes in 2011, the FSB worked to help authorities build their resolution frameworks sector by sector. That work has paid off. Foundational resolution frameworks are now largely in place across all three sectors, and our members continue to make real progress in operationalizing those frameworks. That is no small achievement, and everyone in this room has contributed to it.

However, the increasingly interconnected nature of the global financial system means that vulnerabilities in one area can quickly propagate to others, and often in new and unexpected ways. A cross-sectoral perspective is not optional; it needs to be integrated into our thinking.

A bank’s distress could show up on an insurer’s balance sheet. A failure in a central clearing counterparty’s default management process could ripple through to the banks that are its clearing members. Liquidity strains in one corner of the system could cascade across others. None of this is new, but collectively it underscores why we are here today. We are at a point where there is broad agreement that we need one conversation, rather than multiple parallel ones, on these interconnected issues.

This event takes place within the broader context of FSB work preparing for a crisis that may emerge from any corner of the financial system. Important to that, this year we launched a strategic review of our crisis preparedness activities. This review is an opportunity to step back and ask whether our approach across the sectors and across the continuum of crisis preparedness—from recovery through early intervention and resolution to post-stabilization restructuring—remains fit for purpose. Understanding the cross-sectoral interconnections and how they play out in a crisis will be central to that review.

To close, I want to come back to this event and the very clever name that the staff came up with for it: the word “resolve” carries dual meaning. On the one hand, it reflects the determination (or resolve) we bring to this critical work. On the other hand, it reminds us of the ultimate goal of resolution planning: to ensure that we are prepared to act decisively, effectively, and collaboratively when the system is tested.

I look forward to the insights from this event.

Thank you.

Cross-border payments: towards the next chapter

8 July 2026

Opening remarks by Martin Moloney, Deputy Secretary General of the Financial Stability Board, at the OMFIF virtual event on Global financial stability: navigating digital assets and next-generation cross-border payments.

The views expressed in these remarks are those of the speaker in their role as Deputy Secretary General of the Financial Stability Board and do not necessarily reflect those of the FSB or its members.

Watch the remarks and the full discussion

Thank you, Katie-Ann for setting this up. It’s very timely. I’m hoping that by making some slightly extended opening remarks I can give you all a sense of what is on our mind and that my fellow panellists can then add further to inspire our audience to be part of a debate over the next year that I think we really need.

Let me start by recalling that it was in 2020, that the G20 launched our Roadmap. The goal that has now become something of a mantra; it was “to make cross-border payments faster, cheaper, and more transparent and inclusive”. It rolls off the tongue, but making it a reality has proven challenging.

We understood from day one that this was going to be difficult. To calibrate the ambition and to create a degree of accountability, in 2021, we asked the G20 to endorse a set of global quantitative measures, most of which are set for end-2027. And those quantitative measures of what we are trying to achieve tell us we still have a way to go.

With the end of the Roadmap approaching, we have the opportunity to reflect on what we have achieved so far and what further steps would be helpful. And it’s not just for us in the FSB to ask those questions. I think it’s for every other stakeholder as well. We still have work to do under the current Roadmap, which we won’t get distracted from. But I think it is time to ask all our stakeholders to begin thinking about the lessons that can be drawn.

I also suspect the history of the Roadmap is full of lessons for us. The simple fact that we have had to update and reset the Roadmap a number of times is itself striking. This is not plain sailing.

To start the discussion, let me point to a number of reasons which seem relevant to why we are where we are:

The first challenge has to do with market structure and incentives: people will have different views, and payment specialists of course think their work is the most important in the world. But cross-border payments are somewhat marginal to the business model of most of the companies which provide this service. Furthermore, the sense in which there is a traditional competitive market driving quality and innovation is limited, because those markets are complex. Indeed, each major corridor sometimes seems to behave like its own market, with distinct frictions. Regions appear to behave differently from each other. And so on. We talk about global cross border payments, but its more complex than that phrase suggests.

Secondly, we face what I might call ‘exogenous dependencies’: for example, it has become clear that cross-border payments rely heavily on foreign exchange markets which are the largest markets in the world and outside the remit of our roadmap.

Thirdly, technology adoption dynamics are obviously important in cross border payments: we are constantly told that there is immense technological potential for efficiencies and new services; but it remains a fact that the market is dominated by participants who often appear to be seeking second- or even third-mover advantage.

Finally, the necessary political and regulatory authority is widely distributed: there is no global authority with a mandate to make this work well. Even at the domestic level, there is often limited effective coordination. Importantly, the issue cuts across the sensitive division of responsibilities between central banks and finance ministries. At the same time, there are many global standard setters and organisations with an interest. We have tried to work with all of them.

Adding all that up amounts to a real challenge for policy makers. On the one hand, it seems, we may not be able to rely as much as we hoped on competitive markets to resolve issues, even if we do everything we can to make space for competition to work as well as it can. On the other hand, we haven’t got well established global authorities to direct change. Neither the visible nor the invisible hand seems to have a strong grip on this issue.

But it is far from hopeless. Why do I say that? I suspect the FSB back in 2020 did something important in trying to find a way through these challenges. When we set up the Roadmap, we bought into an important simplifying idea: use the FSB’s convening power to smooth out as many as possible of the regulatory and policy impediments to see if market dynamics to improve cost, speed, transparency, and access. We have done that. It was important to do it. The thought was ‘let’s test what competition can achieve’.

As we move towards 2027, however, we now have to ask the difficult question of what the results are telling us about that approach. Has our focus on removing frictions been sufficient? Should we double down on it? Should we pivot to operational planning such as we are currently testing with the jurisdictional and regional action plans we are working on? Or should we step back and just let the technology innovators lead?

Turning to technology innovators first, a much talked about option is whether stablecoins could be the silver bullet. Let’s just remember the numbers. There are varying measures of the volume of cross-border payments, but let’s just say total payments in 2024 were at or around USD 200 trillion. In contrast, the volume of cross-border payments being made by stablecoins is estimated to be only a fraction of this – by some estimates less than 0.2 per cent of total cross border payments in 2025. The order of magnitude tells a clear story: today, stablecoin volumes remain a very small share of total cross-border flows. There is some evidence of exploration of large financial institutional use cases.  Their most immediate value may be as components in hybrid models – integrated with bank money and interoperable FX/settlement – rather than as stand-alone global rails. But neither is more than a possibility at this point.

Turning to our work to reduce frictions. The work has not just been about getting better policy frameworks, it has also been about technical frictions. Let me spend a moment on that. Poor data quality and limited standardisation of data exchange make cross-border payments more complex to process, in turn affecting their speed, price and transparency. Promoting the adoption of common message formats, including conversion and mapping from legacy formats and the use of Legal Entity Identifiers and common protocols for data exchange, does mitigate the frictions.

When ISO 20022 was first introduced in 2004, it marked the beginning of an important journey toward a new era of simpler, more data-rich payments for banks and their customers. One of the original building blocks of our Roadmap in 2020 (building block 14) was adopting ISO-harmonised message formats. Twenty plus years after the original version of the ISO standard, we are at 77% of fast payments systems and 53% of real time gross settlement systems reporting implementation of the messaging standard.

This is good. But it has taken very long time and it’s not complete. Without the extensive work of CPMI, I suspect what has been achieved, would not have been achieved. We also know that implementation is necessary but not sufficient. The value of the ISO standard comes from consistent usage, ensuring rich data and embedding the standard into end-to-end operations; for example, screening, reconciliation, fraud analytics and supervision, not just message conversion.

Extensive efforts here have undoubtedly made a difference. But to fully realise the potential benefits of the ISO standard, continuous development is needed to align the messages to evolving market practices and embed them into operations. For example, whilst ISO 20022 includes enhanced data elements that can strengthen Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) measures, a recent study found that many financial institutions continue to rely on traditional screening methods developed for payment messages. ISO 20022 carries more data than legacy messaging formats, so banks could use it to create a fully integrated payments experience, giving them an end-to-end view of operations from initiation and delivery of the payment to exceptions, investigations and reporting. But this requires a pretty large investment.

Our work has also highlighted other challenges where we have sought to promote better practices, but we continue to hear about issues:

  • Data sharing to fight fraud;
  • Smooth processes where capital controls exist;
  • Efficient ways to do sanctions screening;
  • How foreign exchange access restrictions work;
  • Payment versus payment coverage;
  • Opening hours;

How do we get from identifying frictions to global implementation of solutions to those frictions? One of our key reflections is about leadership and regional organisation. This is an area that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have done a lot of work on. Don’t jurisdictions need to carefully assign responsibility, and don’t regions need effective regional cooperation structures?

Conclusion

My overall view is this: we are coming to the end of the Roadmap, but not yet the end of the journey. The Roadmap’s goals surely endure? Perhaps the lesson of recent years is that coordination is proving to be the scarce resource.

So, as we look beyond 2027, the question is not simply what we do next, but how we choose to organise ourselves to do it. Is continued friction-removal enough to unlock better outcomes, or do we need corridor-by-corridor or region by region operational plans with clear ownership?

If neither path is sufficient on its own, what blend would be credible and politically sustainable across jurisdictions?

How far should we push standardisation or integration without eroding domestic policy options or privacy protections? 

As technology evolves, should stablecoins and tokenised deposits be complements within integrated models, or catalysts for new rails?

Who will be the champions of a second Roadmap?  

And finally, what should success look like after 2027 – not just in metrics, but in lived experience for people and companies in every region? Maybe speed, cost and transparency are not all equally important to end-users?

I think we need the help of every stakeholder in the system to reflect on where we are and what we should achieve, to convene discussions, to send us submissions to engage with us and each other to make sure a further Roadmap really drives forward to substantive change.

I hope to hear a lot more on these questions today and over the coming months. Thank you for giving me the time to set out those thoughts.

Opening remarks for the FSB 2026 ReSolve Event: Exploring cross-sectoral interconnections and financial stability implications

Remarks by Dominique Laboureix, Chair of the Single Resolution Board, at an event for the Financial Stability Board Cross-Border Crisis Management working groups.

The views expressed in these remarks are those of the speaker in their role as Chair of FSB Resolution Steering Group and do not necessarily reflect those of the FSB or its members.

Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning,

It is a real pleasure to welcome you all today at this Financial Stability Board (FSB) ReSolve event.

I am particularly delighted that this event has finally become a reality. In fact, one of my priorities as the Chair of the Resolution Steering Group (ReSG) was to create more opportunities for the different Cross-Border Crisis Management (CBCMs) groups to come together, exchange experiences and learn from one another across sectors. Too often, we work within our own communities, despite facing many of the same challenges. Bringing together authorities responsible for banking, insurance and central counterparties in one forum was therefore an objective I felt strongly about, and I am very pleased to see it materialising today.

So, first of all, let me thank the Chairs of the three CBCM working groups and, of course, the colleagues at the FSB Secretariat for making this vision a reality. 

This is a unique gathering. For the first time, resolution authorities and members of the different CBCMs are meeting in a truly cross-sectoral setting. That matters because financial crises do not respect sectoral boundaries, and neither should our preparedness.

We have learned over the years that crises rarely remain confined to one institution, one jurisdiction or one market. They spread. They create spillovers across borders, across markets and, increasingly, across industries.

Many of us in this room remember how the global financial crisis unfolded in 2008. Within a matter of weeks, the failure of Lehman Brothers triggered an unprecedented loss of confidence across the financial system. Funding markets froze, liquidity evaporated and panic spread rapidly across borders. Yet it soon became clear that the crisis was not confined to the banking sector. The rescue of AIG demonstrated that vulnerabilities in the insurance sector could also pose systemic risks with global consequences. AIG had built up massive exposures through credit default swaps, effectively providing insurance on structured credit products held widely across the banking system. As the value of those underlying assets deteriorated, AIG faced escalating collateral calls from its counterparties, creating acute liquidity pressures. The risk was not only the failure of a single firm, but the transmission of stress through its extensive network of counterparties, which included major global banks.

Authorities were simultaneously working to preserve the functioning of financial market infrastructures to prevent the disruption from spreading even further. At the time, few fully understood how these contagion channels would operate or how quickly stress could propagate across sectors. That experience reminds us that future crises may again emerge through unexpected channels, and that strengthening our preparedness is essential to reduce the risk of being caught by surprise.

This is even more true today as the interconnectedness that characterises the financial system has only increased, meaning that vulnerabilities can propagate in even more unexpected ways.

That reality requires us to think beyond our traditional boundaries. If crises spill over between countries and sectors, then our readiness must also extend beyond countries and sectors. We need to move from individual preparedness towards what I would call “joint readiness”.

That, ultimately, is the ambition of this event.

Over the next two days, we are not simply exchanging presentations or comparing legal frameworks. We are building a common understanding of the practical challenges we face. We are learning from each other’s experiences. We are strengthening relationships that will prove invaluable when decisions have to be made under pressure. And we are reinforcing the trust that effective crisis management ultimately depends upon.

Cross-sector dialogue is such an important part of this effort. Understanding how different sectors approach preparedness, operational continuity, communication, valuation or cross-border cooperation makes all of us better equipped to deal with complex crises that may not fit neatly within institutional or sectoral boundaries.

In fact, there is one question that I personally hope we will begin to tackle over the next two days. It is perhaps not the most comfortable question, but I believe it is one of the most important. We devote significant attention to making resolution workable within each sector. But do we sufficiently understand the consequences of a resolution across sectors? Could the resolution of a bank generate spillover effects that put an insurer or a central counterparty under stress? Equally, could distress or the resolution of an insurer or a financial market infrastructure have unintended consequences for banks?

These are difficult questions precisely because our objective is not simply to make individual resolution regimes work. It is to ensure that the financial system as a whole remains resilient. If there are cross-sector transmission channels, we need to understand them. If there are unintended consequences, we need to identify them. And if there are gaps in our preparedness, we need to address them before the next crisis tests us.

I do not expect us to answer all these questions over the next two days. But if this event enables us to start that conversation, to challenge some of our assumptions, to learn from one another and to deepen our understanding of cross-sector interdependencies, I would already consider it a great success.

This also brings me to another important point: readiness.

We often speak about legal frameworks, resolution plans and policy standards. These are, of course, essential. They are the foundation upon which effective resolution regimes are built.

But frameworks alone are not enough.

Readiness is where those frameworks become operational. It is where plans are tested against reality. It is where legal powers are translated into practical action. And it is where institutions demonstrate that they can respond effectively under compressed timelines, incomplete information and the pressure that inevitably accompanies a real crisis.

In other words, credibility is built before a crisis, not during one.

Every resolvability assessment completed, every operational capability strengthened, every obstacle identified and addressed, and every cross-border exercise conducted contributes to that credibility. Conversely, every unresolved impediment weakens the confidence that markets and authorities place in our frameworks.

This is why implementation matters so much.

In that sense, the Financial Stability Board has played a fundamental role in establishing the international standards that underpin modern resolution regimes. The recommendations agreed by the FSB have fundamentally strengthened our collective ability to manage financial crises while reducing moral hazard and protecting financial stability.

But those recommendations only achieve their purpose if they are implemented consistently and effectively.

And this is where I would like to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by all of you.

While the decisions and recommendations adopted by the FSB Plenary rightly receive significant attention, it is the daily work carried out within the CBCM working group, and back home of course, that keeps those standards alive.

In many respects, you are the guardians of the FSB’s Key Attributes.

Your work ensures that high-level principles are translated into operational reality. You identify practical challenges, test assumptions, improve coordination, strengthen cooperation across authorities and help jurisdictions implement internationally agreed standards in ways that are effective and credible.

This is painstaking work.

It is highly technical. It often happens behind the scenes. It requires persistence, expertise and an unwavering attention to detail.

Quite simply, the FSB Plenary, supported by the ReSG, provides the strategic direction, but it is your work that transforms international standards into operational reality.

On behalf of the Resolution Steering Group, I would therefore like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude for everything you do. Your commitment is one of the main reasons why the international resolution framework continues to evolve and remains credible.

Over the next two days, I encourage all of you to make the most of this unique opportunity. Challenge each other. Share your practical experiences. Discuss not only what has worked well but also what has proved difficult. Some of the most valuable lessons come from understanding where implementation remains challenging and where collaboration can be strengthened.

If we leave this meeting with a deeper understanding of one another’s perspectives, stronger professional relationships and new practical insights that improve our collective preparedness, then this event will have achieved exactly what it set out to do.

Because ultimately, preparedness goes beyond trying to avoid incidents and crises. It is about assuming that they will happen and imagining solutions to fix them. This is a great forum to discuss just that!

And while crises may begin in one institution, it is impossible to know where they will go.

We must be ready together.

Thank you very much, and I wish you an engaging and productive ReSolve event.

Opening remarks on sound practices for artificial intelligence

7 July 2026

Remarks by Michelle W. Bowman, Vice Chair for Supervision, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, at Financial Stability Board Virtual Outreach Event.

The views expressed in these remarks are those of the speaker in their role as Chair of the FSB Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation and do not necessarily reflect those of the FSB or its members.

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today to discuss the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence. Both Federal Reserve staff and staff from the FSB Secretariat are eager to consider and incorporate feedback on the consultation report so that we can finalize the report later this year as a US G20 deliverable.

Before offering a few thoughts about the report itself, I want to thank Hern Shin Ho from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Hern Shin led the FSB work stream that produced this report in a very compressed timeframe, and I would also like to recognize and thank the FSB Secretariat staff who supported this work. Finally, I would like to thank our US colleagues at the Treasury and the SEC who also collaborated with us to produce this report.

As many of you know, I chair the FSB’s Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation. In setting out my priorities late last year, I initiated work on a set of sound practices for financial institutions to consider in the responsible adoption and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Since that time, AI has continued to rapidly evolve, and financial institution use of AI has expanded. In light of these ongoing developments, it is important to engage the public to discuss the potential benefits of AI and the risks and other challenges that could arise with its use in our report. The report also describes the ways in which financial institutions, including banks, are already successfully addressing and managing AI use risks, with the broader goal of responsible innovation that benefits financial institutions and their customers.

The Federal Reserve has been monitoring bank usage of AI for nearly a decade. We have seen a noticeable increase in the use of AI by banks of all sizes, and we have seen a variety of use cases. Our focus has been on supporting institutions that want to innovate responsibly by leveraging AI tools in their operations. Our work in the US has helped to inform the FSB’s report.

A central element of managing AI risks is understanding the specific use cases. In the FSB’s report, we provided a variety of examples, including some in-depth case studies, to illustrate the types of governance and controls that might be appropriate in similar situations. To be clear, these practices are not the only way to adopt and use AI responsibly or to manage AI risks.
Another important aspect to highlight in this report is whether the use of AI is material. From my perspective, financial institutions should be specific about how they use AI and whether it is material to their business operations or legal and regulatory obligations. That actual use and materiality will help inform the type and intensity of the governance and controls that should be applied for the specific AI deployment. In the report, we emphasized that lower-risk uses of AI should receive a lighter supervisory and regulatory touch.

Similarly, the report also includes a significant focus on proportionality. What works or is a consideration for larger institutions using AI in complex applications is not appropriate for smaller institutions with less complex AI uses. As I noted, our focus is on promoting innovation at financial institutions of all sizes, not just the largest ones. This report provides clear guidance to all institutions, including smaller institutions. So, I welcome feedback about whether the report strikes the appropriate balance on proportionality as it relates to AI adoption and use.

To close, this report is an important first step as we consider how financial institutions can use AI responsibly. As you provide feedback, I encourage you to identify areas where the sound practices may be too prescriptive or where they fail to adequately account for differences in institutional size, complexity, and risk profile. Equally important, help us identify where we may not have adequately addressed material risks or where additional clarity would help institutions manage AI-related risks more effectively. We need to ensure these practices support responsible innovation across the financial system while maintaining appropriate safeguards, especially for higher-risk applications.

The feedback we hear from you today and throughout the public comment period will help inform our final report delivered to the US G-20 presidency later this year. I am pleased with the international collaboration so far on this work and look forward to improving on this in the final report later this year.

Virtual outreach event on FSB sound practices for financial institutions’ responsible adoption of artificial intelligence

29 June 2026

Summary of document history

Summary of document history

On 7 July 2026 the FSB hosted a virtual event as part of the consultation process for its proposed sound practices for financial institutions’ responsible adoption of AI.

On 10 June 2026, the Financial Stability Board published a consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help financial institutions responsibly navigate AI adoption in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

As part of its consultation, the FSB hosted a virtual outreach event on Tuesday 7 July 2026. The event aimed to inform stakeholders about the consultation and to gather preliminary perspectives on the topics covered in the consultation report.

FSB holds a roundtable on audit quality and structural shifts in the global audit industry

18 June 2026

Rapid technological progress and shifts in the ownership of accountancy and audit firms bring both significant opportunities and financial stability risks.

On 18 June 2026, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) convened a roundtable to explore the potential financial stability implications of structural shifts in the global audit industry. In recent years, the adoption of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, has grown significantly in external audits, driving investment needs that have often resulted in changes to audit firm ownership. The roundtable aimed to enhance understanding of how these developments may impact audit quality, a critical factor in safeguarding financial stability.

FSB Roundtable on audit quality, Banco de España, 17-18 June 2026.

The meeting, which was hosted by the Bank of Spain in Madrid, was chaired by Soledad Núñez, Deputy Governor of the Bank of Spain. Participants included senior representatives from FSB member authorities and standard-setting bodies; audit oversight bodies; the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC); the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR); the Committee of European Auditing Oversight Bodies (CEAOB); the international standard-setting bodies for auditing, assurance, and ethics in accountancy and their oversight body, the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB); the six largest global audit networks and a local audit firm, as well as other key stakeholders.

Discussions focused on the implications of changes to audit firm ownership and the potential risks and opportunities arising from the emergence of new technologies in the accountancy and audit profession. Participants reviewed the major factors driving these trends and the practices observed in different parts of the world. They exchanged views on how these changes may affect standard-setting and the adequacy of existing standards. The discussion also covered ways to enhance audit quality against the backdrop of the adverse trend observed in audit inspection findings in the past few years.

Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Consultation report

10 June 2026 | PDF full text (985 KB)

Summary of document history

Summary of document history

Financial institutions are leveraging AI to transform operations and services, but its rapid adoption may also amplify or introduce risks that need to be identified and managed appropriately.

Responsible AI adoption allows financial institutions to harness opportunities and benefits while minimising associated risks. In particular, financial institutions need to understand and remain updated on the opportunities and risks of AI, and respond with the appropriate adoption strategy and guardrails to manage evolving associated risks. At the financial system level, responsible AI adoption reduces risks to financial stability. 

This report highlights the benefits and risks associated with AI use in the financial system.

To facilitate responsible AI adoption by financial institutions, the report proposes a menu of 12 sound practices that financial institutions could apply in their organisation-wide AI governance and management of the relevant stages of AI development and deployment (AI lifecycle). The report includes case studies drawn from real-world AI implementation practices by financial institutions. These case studies illustrate how the sound practices may be applied in practice and, where relevant, how they can be applied proportionately.

The sound practices aim to help the board and senior management of financial institutions as they consider business strategy, technology adoption, and risk management in an increasingly AI-enabled environment. The report builds on existing and ongoing work by the FSB and other standard-setting bodies, as well as national and regional financial authorities. It also incorporates insights from a range of stakeholders across the financial system, including financial institutions and their technology vendors.

Questions for consultation
  1. Do you agree with the benefits and risks of AI adoption by financial institutions described in this report? Are there any substantive benefits or risks not covered?
  2. Are the sound practices sufficiently comprehensive and clear to enable financial institutions’ responsible AI adoption?
  3. Do the sound practices strike an appropriate balance between managing risks relating to all forms of AI, and addressing some of the risks relating to emerging and new complex forms of AI, such as GenAI and agentic AI?
  4. Are the sound practices sufficiently flexible to accommodate and address newer types of AI and responsible adoption over time? 
  5. Do the case studies in this report sufficiently highlight how different types of financial institutions can benefit from responsible AI adoption? Are there additional case studies for inclusion in the report? If so, please provide such case studies, particularly for nonbanks.
  6. Do the case studies in this report provide actionable insights for financial institutions in their responsible AI adoption?
  7. Are the definitions in the glossary clear and aligned with industry sound practices, including recent developments in AI? 

FSB consults on sound practices for the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence (AI)

Press enquiries:
+41 61 280 8477
[email protected]
Ref: 9/2026

  • The FSB is seeking feedback on its proposed sound practices, which aim to help financial institutions responsibly navigate AI adoption in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
  • The 12 sound practices cover organisation-wide governance, as well as management of different stages of AI development and deployment.
  • The board and senior management of financial institutions are strongly encouraged to reference the sound practices as they consider business strategy, technology adoption, and risk management in an increasingly AI enabled environment.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) today published a consultation report on Sound Practices for Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The sound practices focus on AI-specific aspects and risks that are relevant to financial institutions and financial stability.

The FSB has identified 12 sound practices to help financial institutions responsibly adopt AI. The sound practices build on and are broadly compatible with existing and ongoing work by the FSB and other standard-setting bodies. They seek to foster coordination, cooperation and information-sharing among stakeholders, including financial institutions and supervisors, within and across jurisdictions. The sound practices cover:

  • organisation-wide AI governance (sound practices 1 to 4);
  • the management and mitigation of AI risks through the different stages of AI development and deployment (sound practices 5 to 10); and
  • the management of AI-related cyber, information and communication technology, and third-party risks (sound practices 11 and 12).

The FSB strongly encourages the board and senior management of financial institutions to reference this toolkit as they consider business strategy, technology adoption, and risk management in an increasingly AI enabled environment. The sound practices are not intended to establish an international standard, to impose a prescriptive approach for responsible AI adoption by financial institutions, nor to influence business decisions in adopting a certain AI technology. They are also not developed to address recent risks that have emerged related to frontier AI models, although some sound practices would help financial institutions respond to such risks.

Michelle Bowman, Chair of the FSB Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC) and Vice Chair for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States of America, said “This report establishes clear safeguards for financial institutions to adopt, innovate, and use AI responsibly. The report reflects significant collaboration among FSB members on an accelerated timeframe to keep pace with the rapid changes from advancements in AI. I look forward to receiving public feedback on this report, so that a final report can be issued later this year as a US G20 deliverable.”

Ho Hern Shin, Lead of the SRC Workstream on Artificial Intelligence and Deputy Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, said “The recent developments in frontier AI models highlight the dynamic nature of this technology and the rapid pace at which its capability evolves. The FSB’s sound practices are designed to help financial institutions navigate their AI adoption responsibly in a rapidly changing technology landscape.”

The FSB is inviting comments on this consultation report and the questions set out within it. Responses should be submitted via this secure online form by 22 July 2026. All responses will be published on the FSB website unless respondents request otherwise. The final report will be published in October 2026. 

Notes to editors

The FSB assessed the financial stability implications of AI in the financial system in 2017, followed by an update in 2024. This toolkit builds on and is broadly compatible with this and ongoing work by the FSB and other standard-setting bodies, as well as by national and regional financial authorities.

The FSB coordinates at the international level the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies and develops and promotes the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other financial sector policies in the interest of financial stability. It brings together national authorities responsible for financial stability in 24 countries and jurisdictions, international financial institutions, sector-specific international groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts. The FSB also conducts outreach with approximately 70 other jurisdictions through its six Regional Consultative Groups.

The FSB is chaired by Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England. The FSB Secretariat is located in Basel, Switzerland and hosted by the Bank for International Settlements.