Singapore’s Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to strengthen supervision of banks with operations across both financial centres. The MoU formalises deeper information-sharing and mutual assistance, reflecting the large footprint of Hong Kong and Singapore banks in each other’s markets. Regulators described the move as a reinforcement of longstanding ties, with practical implications for coordinated inspections, risk assessments, and crisis response affecting cross-border institutions. Consumers should not expect product changes overnight, but the framework may reduce frictions over time for multinational clients. info.gov.hk+1
Editor’s note: Educational news coverage. Policies can evolve; verify details with the authorities.
What happened
On 17 September 2025, the HKMA announced that it had exchanged a Memorandum of Understanding with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to enhance co-operation on banking supervision. The statement highlights two pillars: information exchange and mutual assistance for supervisory purposes. The release points to the “significant presence of Hong Kong and Singapore banks in both jurisdictions” as the practical driver. HKMA Chief Executive Eddie Yue called the two cities “leading international financial centres,” while MAS Managing Director Chia Der Jiun said the MoU “paves the way for deeper collaboration” and the sharing of best practices.
A separate industry note summarised the same development, emphasising that the MoU formalises already close working ties between the two supervisors and targets cross-border banking matters specifically.
Why it matters
For banks operating across both hubs—think Asia treasury centres, private banking desks, and trade finance operations—the MoU promises smoother supervisory co-ordination. In practice, that can translate into:
- More consistent expectations during on-site inspections or thematic reviews;
- Faster information flow when risk signals emerge (e.g., liquidity, conduct, AML/CFT);
- Clearer protocols for crisis management and recovery/resolution planning that spans both jurisdictions;
- Less duplication where both regulators can rely on each other’s work (subject to confidentiality rules).
None of this changes capital, liquidity or consumer rules overnight. But it does give compliance and risk teams a better map of how two major supervisors intend to interact—valuable for banks that run shared platforms or regional booking centres in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Context: two hubs, overlapping footprints
Singapore and Hong Kong house the regional headquarters of many global banks, while home-grown institutions from each market maintain sizeable branches and subsidiaries across the border. A bank booking a trade finance exposure in Hong Kong may rely on a shared risk engine or KYC utility run out of Singapore (or vice versa). The new MoU gives supervisors a faster lane to discuss those shared controls, request documentation, or coordinate remediation timelines without creating conflicting asks for the same bank teams.
What customers could notice (eventually)
Retail customers are unlikely to see immediate product or fee changes; the MoU targets supervision, not pricing. But corporate and private clients that maintain accounts or credit lines in both centres might see:
- More predictable onboarding where supervisory expectations are aligned on documentation and risk ratings;
- Cleaner remediation processes when institutions implement cross-border KYC upgrades;
- Fewer delays during supervisory reviews that once required duplicative responses.
What banks should do now
- Map where your material risk controls (KYC, transaction monitoring, model governance) are shared across HK–SG.
- Prepare joint artefacts—group policies, playbooks, and audit trails—that both supervisors can review without rework.
- Align language in board/committee minutes and Issue Tracking so remediation is expressed consistently in both jurisdictions.
- Revisit crisis communications plans to ensure counterpart protocols contemplate co-ordinated supervisory messaging.
What this is not
- Not a passporting regime: licences and local obligations remain local.
- Not a relaxation of AML/CFT or conduct standards—if anything, faster information-sharing can tighten expectations.
- Not a public commitment on timelines for any specific inspection or approval.
Looking ahead
Expect to see the MoU surface in joint statements around thematic risks (for example, scam flows, operational resilience, or credit risk in stressed sectors). It may also bolster cross-border innovation sandboxes, where supervisory cooperation is essential when banks test new payment rails or regtech that cut across geographies. For now, the document formalises what practitioners suspected: the two supervisors plan to move in step when cross-border risks are at stake.
Sources
• HKMA press release, “HKMA and MAS enhance co-operation on banking supervision,” 17 Sep 2025.
• The Asian Banker: summary of the MAS–HKMA MoU, 17 Sep 2025.
MAS, HKMA, banking supervision, cross-border banks, Singapore Hong Kong MoU, supervisory cooperation, information sharing, compliance
About the Author
Marks Toms – Editor-in-Chief
Marks oversees editorial policy, compliance, and fact-checking at bankaccountsopen.
Read more articles