News related to
Bank

The implied volatility of Bitcoin has remained unusually elevated even as the equity-market gauge of fear, the S&P 500 Volatility Index, has receded to its usual levels. Data show Bitcoin’s 30-day implied volatility hovering above 50 % after the October 10 market shake-up, while the VIX slipped back below 20 %. This divergence signals a significant recalibration of risk within crypto markets.

Analysts point to a cluster of structural pressures within the crypto ecosystem that are now being priced in: chief among them are auto-deleveraging mechanisms on exchanges, thinning liquidity depth, and offshore funding stress. According to Wintermute co-founder Yoann Turpin, “Bitcoin volatility was subdued earlier… It has now become clear that new risks … such as ADL were underestimated and are now being fully priced in.” In practice, when an exchange triggers ADL it forces closure of profitable offsetting positions when an insurance fund is depleted—this introduces an additional risk vector not present in the mainstream equity markets. The residual impact of a major liquidation event on October 10–11, estimated at over billion, has sharpened market caution.

Liquidity concerns are compounded by the behaviour of market-makers during the crash. According to a recent study, market makers withdrew roughly million from key order-books within hours of the triggering event, creating a vacuum in bid-ask depth and amplifying price moves. Participants say that while the VIX drop reflects a return of calm to equity markets after the shock, Bitcoin’s elevated IV suggests the market is in a higher-volatility regime rather than merely bouncing back. Liquidity in offshore markets, which heavily influences Bitcoin trading, appears particularly tight: for example, the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate has returned to pre-May levels even as the U. S. dollar index has risen, signalling funding stress that tends to feed into crypto volatility.

Another factor cited is the rapid growth of exchange-traded funds and over-the-counter desks absorbing Bitcoin supply, creating a supply-shock risk for derivatives and making hedging more expensive. A report warned of a potential “liquidity crisis” within six months for Bitcoin ETF structures unless infrastructure adapts. Meanwhile, the macro backdrop of easing interest-rates and previously abundant liquidity has given way to tighter conditions, which amplify volatility across leveraged assets.

Institutional interest in hedging Bitcoin risk has surged. Following the liquidation that knocked Bitcoin from about to roughly, investors rushed into options contracts that bet on further price drops—put-buying spiked as a hedge against renewed turbulence. Such demand for protection keeps implied volatility elevated even if spot prices settle. At the same time, the VIX’s retreat suggests equity investors believe the shock has passed; crypto markets apparently disagree.

The divergence is significant because implied volatility represents the market’s expectation of future price swings. A 50 % annualised IV for Bitcoin implies expected one-month moves of roughly; by contrast, a 20 % IV for the S&P 500 implies one-month moves of around. Such a gap underscores the unique risk environment in which crypto operates—where leverage, thin liquidity and exchange-specific infrastructure risk matter significantly. Academic research supports this: a recent study found Bitcoin’s risk-premia vary across volatility regimes, and that downside risk is significantly more priced in than with equities.

Market makers and trading desks are adapting. Some are widening spreads, reducing inventory and limiting exposure during volatile episodes—actions that in effect undermine liquidity further and contribute to the “sticky” implied volatility. One trader said that “no one slept” during the weekend of October 10–11, as the cascade of liquidations forced hedge funds and desks to scramble for cover amid evaporating depth.

Moscow has authorised the use of cryptocurrencies in cross-border payments for trade, marking a significant departure from previous policy. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Bank of Russia have reached an agreement to legalise digital-asset settlements in foreign trade transactions, while simultaneously tightening regulatory oversight of the wider crypto market.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said the step was necessary because imports are already being paid for with crypto assets and the existing regulatory framework was inadequate. He emphasised that the legalisation would be accompanied by “proper legislative regulation” to restore order in the sector.

Under the new framework, firms engaged in exports and imports will be able to transact using cryptocurrencies—but only via authorised channels that meet stringent anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards. The shift builds on an earlier “experimental legal regime” that allowed limited crypto use in foreign trade and by select investors.

The Bank of Russia remains cautious. Its governor Elvira Nabiullina continues to resist full recognition of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment domestically, and proposed restricting use to cross-border trade and wealthy “qualified” investors under licensed firms.

Market analysts interpret the decision in the context of pressures from Western sanctions, which have constrained access to global payment systems. The move is seen as part of Russia’s strategy to bolster trade flows, particularly in energy and commodities, by bypassing traditional channels.

Still, legalisation is selective rather than broad. The regime applies for now only to foreign-trade transactions; the domestic use of cryptocurrency for everyday payments or retail investments remains prohibited. The Bank of Russia argues allowing wide retail access poses “financial and social” risks.

For domestic investors, the path to broader engagement remains narrow. Earlier this year the regulator proposed allowing only those with assets above 100 million roubles or annual incomes above 50 million roubles to participate in a crypto-investment experiment.

Industry players say the legalisation will create new opportunities. Top banks—such as Sberbank and Alfa‑Bank—had warned that millions of Russians hold crypto assets despite being excluded from the formal regime. They argued the grey market status of holdings was a risk for the broader financial system.

Critics caution that regulatory oversight and enforcement will be key. The Prosecutor-General’s Office, under Alexander Gutsan, highlighted that the new framework includes tools to monitor transactions linked to corruption, terrorism, extremism, and illicit financial flows.

Observers outside Russia are weighing potential ripple effects. Some suggest the policy could encourage other sanctioned or emerging-market nations to adopt crypto-based trade settlement models, challenging the dominance of traditional systems such as SWIFT.

For Russian exporters and importers, the shift may offer relief from constrained access to Western-dominated financing and payment networks. Nonetheless, firms must still operate within Bank of Russia-endorsed platforms and are subject to rigorous compliance oversight—so adoption may remain cautious in the near term.

From the government’s perspective the move attempts to draw the large informal crypto-market inside the regulatory perimeter. Holding of crypto assets by Russian users has been estimated in the hundreds of billions of roubles, according to central bank data.

Global investment bank Goldman Sachs has secured the richest place in regional mergers and acquisitions activity in the Middle East and North Africa market, advising on 24 deals worth a combined US$104 billion in the first nine months of 2025, according to data from LSEG Deals Intelligence. The firm’s Co-head of Investment Banking for the Middle East & North Africa, Jassim AlSane, said the growth was driven by “national champions … with significant growth objectives” and government-backed strategies.

M&A volumes across the region have picked up substantially, supported by sovereign backing and major consolidation efforts. According to LSEG’s broader MENA investment banking review, M&A activity hit US$66.4 billion in the first quarter alone, illustrating a robust trajectory for the region. The strong performance underscores an increasingly active market for deals even amid global macro-economic headwinds.

Goldman’s dominance emerged as national-champion companies in the Gulf co-led big transactions. These firms often benefit from state support and predefined strategic mandates that accelerate investment decisions. AlSane highlighted that the top-10 deals for the firm in the region were “underpinned by an approved strategy” and “government-backed,” signalling a close alignment between private investment banks and states seeking large-scale diversification.

Key sectors powering the deal flow include energy-transition assets, infrastructure, and digital platforms. Observers note that the MENA region is embracing its role as a growth frontier for capital deployment, leveraging both private and sovereign funds to consolidate industries and build scale quickly. In particular, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates continue to push forward national frameworks that incentivise large transactions.

Despite the gains, the environment is not without uncertainty. Globally, deal volume has not uniformly increased — while deal value is up, the overall number of transactions in certain markets remains flat or declining. In the MENA context, some deals have faced delays or regulatory hurdles associated with cross‐border scrutiny and the need for state coordination. Critics argue that heavy reliance on government-backed mandates may reduce private-sector initiative and create hurdles in negotiation and valuation.

Goldman’s rise in the region also reflects wider trends in global investment banking. The firm posted a 42 per cent jump in investment-banking fees in the third quarter of 2025, citing advisory revenue jolts of 60 per cent year-on-year. While that data is global rather than specifically MENA-focused, it indicates that investment banking hunger for strategic transactions is rising and Goldman is benefiting. These elevated fee levels are the highest the firm has seen in years and point to a structural shift in deal-making dynamics.

Oil prices shot up by around 3% Thursday, driven by fresh US sanctions on Russia’s top oil producers and signs that major buyers are rethinking their purchases. Brent crude futures rose to approximately $64.53 per barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate climbed to about $60.39.

The sanctions, targeting Rosneft and Lukoil, mark a marked escalation by the US in response to Russia’s war-time exports. The measures were accompanied by a US warning that further action could follow unless Moscow commits to a cease-fire.

A key knock-on effect: Indian refiners, including state-owned entities, have begun reviewing trade documents to ensure they are not sourcing crude directly from the sanctioned suppliers. With India having become one of the largest importers of discounted Russian oil following Western withdrawals, the scale of this review is significant.

The sanctions underscore a new risk premium in the oil market. Unlike previous rounds of sanctions—which largely constrained financing, insurance and shipping without substantially affecting physical oil flows—this move seeks to directly curtail output from Russia’s two largest producers. Rosneft and Lukoil collectively account for a large share of Russian crude exports and fuel the Kremlin’s budget.

Analysts caution, however, that while the immediate reaction has been sharp, structural supply disruption is not guaranteed. Russia retains significant production capacity and a sophisticated network of intermediaries and a “shadow fleet” of tankers that have helped maintain exports despite earlier sanctions. Nevertheless, the combination of curtailed Russian supply and potential reductions in purchases by major refiners sets the scene for tighter market conditions.

In India, refiners such as Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation are scrutinising bills of lading and cargo origins to ensure compliance. India imported roughly 1.7 million barrels per day of Russian crude in the first nine months of the year, predominantly via intermediaries rather than directly from Rosneft or Lukoil. The new sanctions give insurers, banks and traders until 21 November to wind down transactions involving the sanctioned firms.

The US move also dovetails with other sanctions developments: the EU approved a 19th package targeting Russia’s energy exports, including a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas imports and restrictions on shadow-fleet tankers. The combined effect is to intensify pressure on Russia’s energy supply chains.

From a market-demand vantage point, the worry is whether alternative sources can swiftly fill any gap. OPEC+ producers have some spare capacity but not enough to instantly offset a major Russian shortfall. Meanwhile, the US inventory situation added fuel to the rally: US crude stockpiles declined unexpectedly, reinforcing supply-tightness perceptions.

Energy-market specialists say the key factors to watch include India’s crude-import strategy, China’s stock-building trends and how aggressive Russia’s response will be—whether via production cuts or leveraging its ties with China and others. One observer noted the sanctions could be “a knee-jerk reaction” rather than a structural pivot, given Russia’s past ability to maintain volumes despite sanctions.

Purchasers of Russian crude face a growing compliance burden. Firms must navigate insurance exclusions, shifting shipping patterns and potential secondary sanctions from the US. Some refiners may opt to ramp up purchases from the US Gulf and other non-Russian sources, which could reorient trade flows and raise Atlantic-coast pricing.

The Bank of England has committed to implementing a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins by the end of 2026, signalling a significant shift in the United Kingdom’s approach to digital assets. According to government and central-bank sources, a formal consultation is scheduled for 10 November and the regulation is expected to align closely with forthcoming U. S. standards.

The framework will establish new standards for so-called “qualifying stablecoins” issued in the UK, stipulating full backing by secure liquid assets held in trust, mandatory redemption at par, and authorisation under the Financial Conduct Authority. For stablecoins deemed systemic—particularly those used for payments at scale—the BoE will assume additional supervisory and resolution responsibilities. The FCA’s Consultation Paper CP25/14 sets out much of this detail.

In public remarks, BoE Governor Andrew Bailey argued that widely-used stablecoins must be regulated in the same way as banks if they function as money-substitutes. He said they should access Bank accounts and adhere to depositor-protection regimes. The BoE itself has described the future payments landscape as one of “multi-money” — where tokenised deposits, central bank money and stablecoins coexist—provided the framework protects trust and financial stability.

The proposed regulatory timetable is part of a broader drive by UK authorities to maintain competitive positioning in global fintech, particularly as stablecoins gain traction in cross-border payments and tokenised-asset ecosystems. Industry experts note that the UK wants to keep pace with U. S. regulation to avoid regulatory arbitrage.

Under the current design, issuers of qualifying stablecoins will need authorisation by the FCA, must safeguard assets backing the coins by placing them in statutory trust arrangements, and maintain daily reconciliation between issued coins and backing assets. The consultation suggests a two-tier backing-asset regime: “core” assets and “expanded” assets subject to extra disclosure and modelling requirements.

From a technical infrastructure perspective, the BoE highlights that stablecoins may reduce the banking sector’s dominance over payments, but that the central bank must remain the settlement asset for systemically important markets. This position underpins the planned consultations and policy work around stablecoins’ role in the UK payments system.

Industry reaction is mixed. Some fintech firms and crypto-asset service providers welcome clarity, saying that clear rules reduce uncertainty and support investment. Others worry that too heavy or complex regulation might deter innovation or prevent start-ups from competing with global incumbents. One blog commentary described the framework as “a huge deal … but a nagging worry that too much focus on compliance might throw a wet blanket on the very innovation they are meant to encourage.”

The stakes are high for tokenised deposit initiatives within the UK banking system. Leading lenders including HSBC, NatWest Group and Lloyds Banking Group are pushing ahead with pilots of tokenised deposits through 2026. Regulators have been clear that although such deposits may be permitted within the current system, the stablecoin regulatory regime must take into account the potential threat of massive deposit flows leaving the banking sector.

One key tension lies in the setting of holding limits. The BoE has proposed initial caps on stablecoin holdings—for individuals perhaps in the order of £10,000 to £20,000—and higher for business entities, on the grounds that a swift migration out of bank deposits could undermine credit flows to households and firms. The caps would remain until the BoE is confident the stablecoin sector does not pose a systemic threat.

In this regulated-fork approach, oversight will be shared: The BoE will supervise systemic stablecoin issuers; the FCA will regulate non-systemic stablecoins and issuers under the regulated activities order. The Treasury has indicated that stablecoin issuance will not, for now, be brought directly into payment-services regulation.

By Nantoo Banerjee     There is nothing to be particularly shocked about Tata Capital stocks declining 2.4 percent below the company’s IPO issue price of Rs. 326 per share a day after its debut in intraday trade on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Tata Capital, a Tata Sons subsidiary, made a flat debut on Dalal Street on […]

The article SEBI Fails To Prevent Aggressive IPO Pricing To Protect Investors appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

Dubai-based Emirates NBD PJSC is poised to acquire a 60 per cent stake in India’s RBL Bank via a $3 billion investment, marking the largest foreign direct investment ever recorded in India’s banking sector. The move, announced on 18 October 2025, is structured through a preferential share issuance of up to 959.04 million shares at ₹280 each and is subject to regulatory approvals.

RBL Bank’s management expects the deal to close within five to eight months, positioning the infusion within the current financial year, according to statements made by the lender’s leadership. Emirates NBD will assume promoter status at RBL, gaining board-nomination rights and solidifying its long-term presence in the Indian market.

The deal comes as India’s financial sector registers a surge in cross-border deals, with total deal-value reaching approximately $8 billion from January to September 2025—a 127 per cent increase over the same period last year. For its part, RBL Bank, a private lender headquartered in Mumbai with assets estimated at ₹1.46 trillion and a customer base of over 15 million, will benefit from the capital uplift and expanded ecosystem access.

Emirates NBD’s group chief executive, Shayne Nelson, said the investment underscores the bank’s confidence in India’s financial services growth trajectory and reflects its ambition to leverage RBL’s domestic franchise alongside Emirates NBD’s regional reach. RBL’s managing director & CEO, R Subramaniakumar, described the alliance as providing “an enormous opportunity” to move from mid-sized to large-bank status in India, reinforcing its ambitions to enter wealth management and strengthen corporate and retail lending.

Under the terms of the agreement, Emirates NBD will first subscribe to a preferential issue up to 60 per cent of RBL Bank, and then launch a mandatory open offer to public shareholders of up to 26 per cent at the same ₹280 per share price. The final stake will depend on maximum permissible foreign-investment limits and minimum public shareholding norms. The Indian regulatory framework allows up to 74 per cent foreign investment in private banks, but typically limits individual foreign investors to a maximum of 15 per cent unless an exemption is granted by the Reserve Bank of India, which is reported to have given informal backing to the deal.

Analysts say the deal is transformative for both parties: RBL stands to enhance its capital adequacy ratio—projected around 40 per cent post-transaction—and may scale up its corporate banking, digital payments and branch network expansion, tapping into ties between India and the Middle East. For Emirates NBD, the acquisition consolidates its Indian market access and complements its existing footprint in the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey.

Challenges remain. The transaction is subject to regulatory approvals in India and requires compliance with public-shareholding rules, which could complicate the open-offer structure. In addition, RBL has grappled with governance concerns in the past—its former CEO stepped down abruptly in 2021 following regulatory scrutiny—which means integrating under a foreign majority owner will require careful management of culture, controls and strategic alignment.

Observers suggest the deal may set a precedent for greater foreign involvement in India’s mid-sized banking sector, with implications for capital flows, market consolidation and competition. Brokers in Mumbai noted that the infusion of “confidence capital” into RBL could unlock higher credit growth and improve investor perception of the Indian private-banking sector. Meanwhile, the broader wave of cross-border activity, including Japanese and UAE groups entering Indian banks, highlights the shifting dynamics of the India-Middle East-Europe economic corridor.

Tokyo’s financial regulator is advancing a proposal that would permit domestic banks to directly invest in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and operate crypto exchanges, marking a significant shift from earlier restrictions. The Financial Services Agency is set to present its plans to the Financial System Council—an advisory body to the prime minister—later this month.

Under the existing regime promulgated in 2020, Japanese banks have been effectively barred from acquiring and holding digital assets for investment purposes, owing to concerns about volatility and financial-stability risk. The new regulatory blueprint would align crypto asset holdings by banks with traditional financial instruments such as stocks and government bonds, while introducing capital and risk-management requirements tailored to the asset class.

According to data cited by the FSA, Japan’s crypto account holdings have climbed past 12 million as of February 2025—a roughly 3.5-fold increase over five years. The surge in retail interest is growing pressure on regulators to provide greater clarity and institutional-grade infrastructure. Amid this backdrop, the proposed reforms aim to usher in a more integrated digital-asset ecosystem under the purview of regulated financial institutions.

The FSA’s initiative encompasses three key pillars: Firstly, banks would be authorised to purchase and hold unbacked crypto assets for trading or investment, subject to strict internal controls and exposure limits.  Secondly, bank groups may register as licensed “cryptocurrency exchange operators,” effectively allowing them to offer trading and custody services in-house rather than relying solely on third-party platforms.  Thirdly, the FSA plans to shift oversight of digital assets from the current Payment Services Act regime into the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act framework, thereby affording crypto the same legal mould as securities.

Banking groups in Japan are already responding. Three of the country’s largest financial institutions—Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and Mizuho Financial Group—have announced a joint plan to issue a yen-pegged stablecoin for corporate settlements, signalling a broader shift into digital assets.

Supporters of the reforms argue that allowing regulated banks to engage with crypto assets will bolster investor protections, improve custody and transactional infrastructure, and widen market access. “This reform will treat cryptocurrencies similar to other investible asset classes under bank supervision,” noted one industry analyst. However, sceptics caution that the volatility of cryptocurrencies remains elevated and that exposure must be managed carefully to prevent end-user or systemic risk.

Regulatory design will therefore place a heavy emphasis on limiting banks’ direct holdings of digital assets relative to their capital base, imposing heightened disclosure and governance mandates. One working-group paper recommends that banks maintain separate risk-allocations and stress-testing frameworks for crypto, akin to those used for foreign-exchange or commodity trading desks.

The tax and legal context are also evolving. Japan is preparing to introduce a flat 20 % capital-gains tax on crypto assets as part of its 2025 reforms, and certain tokens are slated to be reclassified as securities under the FIEA. These measures are designed to reduce uncertainty for institutional participants and global investors seeking regulated exposure to digital assets.

Market participants appear cautiously optimistic. Some regional banks are exploring pilot custody services for institutional clients, while fintech firms anticipate greater collaboration with mainstream banks as eligibility expands. On the flip side, legacy concerns persist: past hacks and exchange failures have left regulators and consumers wary of governance failures and inadequate transparency.

Bitcoin’s price dropped below $105,000 early Friday in London trading, recovering marginally later but signalling mounting pressure in crypto markets. Bloomberg data showed a fall of as much as 3 percent before a modest bounce. The slide comes after a week of heightened volatility that has dragged digital-asset valuations lower.

The crypto sector has shed billions. Total market capitalisation fell to its lowest point since July, as institutional and leveraged positions faced heavy liquidations. Ethereum, the second-largest token, also fell sharply, trading under $3,800.

One key driver has been intensifying stress in U. S. regional banks. Shares of Zions Bancorp plunged after it disclosed a $50 million loan impairment, while Western Alliance is embroiled in fraud allegations tied to borrowers. Those troubles have sparked a “flight to safety” across risk assets, nudging investors away from speculative trades.

The collapse in derivatives markets was steep: over $1 billion in long and short positions were wiped out in rolling liquidations, especially on exchanges with aggressive leverage mechanics. The drop below the 200-day moving average—around $107,500—has undermined a long-term support zone, fuelling further anxiety among traders.

At the same time, trading volume surged. Weekly volume for Bitcoin hit its highest level since March, suggesting heavy participation even amid panic. Some analysts see that as a sign of re-accumulation by institutional players, though it remains unclear whether those inflows will stabilise prices.

Technical watchers are eyeing potential floor zones near $100,000, while others suggest $88,000 could act as an “open target” if selling accelerates. Meanwhile, on-chain data reveals that wallets holding between 100 and 1,000 BTC—sometimes called “shark wallets”—are accumulating aggressively, marking the fastest rate of inflow since 2013. Those trends echo previous panic phases, which often preceded longer rallies.

Some observers caution that Bitcoin’s repeated failure to behave as a “safe harbour” during market stress undermines one of its selling points. Still, others argue that the fundamentals remain intact—citing diminishing supply on exchanges, renewed institutional interest, and the durability of blockchain infrastructure.

Volatility is unlikely to subside soon. The week ahead includes major U. S. economic data releases and potential policy statements from central banks that could sway risk sentiment. In parallel, geopolitical frictions—particularly over trade and supply chains—may further rattle markets already in flux.

Abu Dhabi’s MDGH GMTN priced a one-billion dirham Reg S five-year bond at par, carrying a coupon of 4.20 per cent. The issuer tightened guidance from an initial 4.45 per cent, and book orders surpassed AED 4.7 billion, not counting joint lead manager interest, signalling strong investor demand.

The unsecured bond is guaranteed by Mamoura Diversified Global Holding, with settlement set for 23 October and a planned listing on the London Stock Exchange Main Market. Fitch is expected to assign an “AA” rating in line with Mamoura’s sovereign backing. The issuance was led by a syndicate including Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, Bank of China, Citi, Emirates NBD Capital, First Abu Dhabi Bank, Goldman Sachs International, HSBC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, National Bank of Kuwait and Standard Chartered.

This city-currency issue follows a $750 million ten-year dollar bond issued less than ten days earlier by MDGH, priced at about 55 basis points over U. S. Treasuries under the same guarantee structure. That transaction underlined the group’s growing presence in global markets.

MDGH is wholly owned by Mubadala Investment Company and plays a central role in Abu Dhabi’s strategy to diversify its economic base. In its 2024 financials, the company reported revenues of AED 39,528 million and a net profit attributable to owners of AED 37,376 million, with total assets reaching AED 596,168 million.

Credit agencies currently align Mamoura’s rating with the sovereign, with Fitch affirming an “AA” rating and stable outlook in late 2023. Moody’s and S&P assign comparable ratings of Aa2 and AA respectively.

Analysts note that the new issue shows how Abu Dhabi-linked issuers are able to tap demand for high-grade Gulf debt amid tighter global credit markets. The bond’s tight pricing and oversubscription point to strong appetite among fixed-income investors for Gulf credits backed by sovereign guarantees.