Raymond Cheung
Chartered Actuary · CRO · Board Adviser · Singapore
Parliament passed the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill on 6 October 2026, giving MAS the power to set total loss-absorbing capacity requirements for Singapore's domestic systemically important banks. It applies to the D-SIBs only. But every board of a Singapore financial institution should read it as a statement about how MAS now thinks about failure: planned for in advance, funded in advance, and owned by the board.
When I was a statutory CRO, the hardest board paper I ever wrote was not about a loss. It was about what we would do if the company could no longer survive one. Directors are comfortable discussing risk. They are far less comfortable discussing failure, and the recovery plan is usually the document that gets the least genuine board time of anything in the annual cycle.
That is why I paid attention when Parliament passed the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill on 6 October. The headline is narrow: MAS can now set total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements for Singapore's domestic systemically important banks, require them to hold additional loss-absorbing instruments for resolution, and require public disclosure of TLAC levels, composition and creditor ranking. Non-compliance carries fines of up to S$250,000, plus S$25,000 per day for continuing offences. MAS was careful to say the D-SIBs remain well capitalised and well managed. This is preparation, not alarm.
Why boards outside the D-SIBs should care
If you sit on the board of an insurer, a smaller bank or a payments firm, it is tempting to file this under 'not us'. I would not. The direction of travel is unmistakable. MAS wants failure to be orderly, which means the resources to absorb losses must exist before the crisis, the hierarchy of who takes the loss must be clear to investors in advance, and the board must have owned those choices while times were good.
“A recovery plan the board has never genuinely debated is not a plan. It is a filing.”
Insurers already sit inside MAS's resolution framework, and global standard setters have been pushing recovery planning for insurers for years. The same logic that produced TLAC for banks, that the capital structure must be designed for the bad day and not just the reporting date, applies directly to how an insurance board thinks about capital buffers, contingent funding and the credibility of its management actions under stress.
Three questions for your next board meeting
- When did the board last walk through the recovery plan as a live scenario rather than approve it as a document?
- If we needed to raise capital or cut risk within 90 days, which actions in our plan are genuinely executable, and which assume markets that would be closed?
- Do our investors and creditors understand where they rank if things go wrong, and would we be comfortable disclosing it?
The TLAC law will matter most to three banks. The thinking behind it should matter to every board MAS supervises.
Common Questions
What does Singapore's Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill 2026 do?
Passed on 6 October 2026, the amendments give MAS the power to set total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks, require them to hold additional loss-absorbing resources for resolution, and mandate public disclosure of TLAC levels and composition. They also strengthen MAS's supervisory powers over proliferation financing risk. The changes take effect when gazetted.
Do the new TLAC requirements apply to Singapore insurers?
No. The TLAC powers apply to domestic systemically important banks only. However, insurers already fall within MAS's broader recovery and resolution framework, and the same principle of pre-funding loss absorption and planning for orderly failure should shape how insurance boards review their recovery plans and capital buffers.
What should a Singapore financial institution board do in response to the TLAC law?
Use it as a prompt to test the recovery plan rather than simply reapprove it. Walk through a severe scenario as a board, challenge whether the planned management actions are executable in stressed markets, and confirm that creditor and investor ranking is clearly understood. Boards that treat recovery planning as a live governance exercise will be better placed as MAS's expectations continue to rise.
Related insights
About the author
Raymond Cheung is a Chartered Actuary, C-suite executive and board adviser with more than 20 years of experience across Asia in risk management, insurance, ESG and corporate governance. He is the CEO of CER Consultancy and an accredited trainer at SMU Academy and the Singapore College of Insurance.