Public Policy & Regulation

Regulation is constantly evolving. We aim to anticipate and address potential impacts on the loan markets, both broadly and within specific areas. By engaging in consultation responses, developing position papers, and maintaining dialogue with regulators and stakeholders, we contribute to shaping regulatory developments and supporting compliance and best practice across the loan markets.

Call to Action

The LMA is considering its response to these consultations and would like to hear from you with your views. Please contact Jesse Beardsworth or Evelien Alblas if you would like to be involved.

Latest News

LMA publishes paper examining the impact of Article 21c of CRD VI

The LMA is pleased to publish our new LMA Regulatory Insights paper examining the impact of Article 21c of CRD VI on cross‑border corporate lending into the EU.

The paper examines the impact of Article 21c on everyday loan markets activity, including:

  • co‑borrowing structures;
  • sponsored and syndicated transactions;
  • secondary market activity (including participations, assignments and novations); and
  • lifecycle events and the circumstances in which grandfathering may be lost.

Click Read More to access the paper. 

LMA publishes response to European Commission targeted consultation on the competitiveness of the EU banking sector

On 16 April 2026, the LMA submitted its response to the European Commission targeted consultation on competitiveness of the EU banking sector. 

Click here to access a copy of our response. 

Click here to view our press release. 

LMA publishes joint response to HM Treasury’s consultation on the future UK benchmarks regime

On 11 March 2026, the LMA submitted a joint response (along with ISDA, GFXD, UK Finance) to HM Treasury’s consultation on the future UK benchmarks regime.

We broadly support the proposed Specified Authorised Benchmarks Regime (SABR), recognising its aim of creating a more proportionate, internationally competitive framework focused on benchmarks whose failure could pose systemic risk. Our response emphasises that while the move toward a narrower, effects‑based regime is positive, aspects of the proposals risk creating ambiguity and unintended cliff‑edge consequences.