CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today announced it will conduct its 2026 annual meeting of shareholders at 10:00 a.m. Central Time on Thursday, May 14, 2026. Additional information will be provided in the company's proxy statement.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for October 2025.  The next release, which will report on data for November 2025, is scheduled for January 15, 2026.  The sum total in October of all net foreign acquisitions of long-term securities, short-term U.S. securities, and banking flows was a net TIC outflow of $37.3 billion.  Of this, net foreign private outflows were $18.1 billion, and net foreign official outflows were $19.2 billion. Foreign residents increased their holdings of long-term U.S. securities in October; their net purchases were $38.9 billion.  Net purchases by private foreign investors were $49.0 billion, and net sales by foreign official institutions were $10.1 billion. U.S. residents increased their holdings of long-term foreign securities, with net purchases of $21.4 billion. After including adjustments, such as estimated foreign portfolio acquisitions of U.S. stocks through stock swaps, overall net foreign purchases of long-term securities are estimated to have been $17.5 billion in October. Foreign residents increased their holdings of U.S. Treasury bills by $21.8 billion.  Foreign resident holdings of all dollar-denominated short-term U.S. securities and other custody liabilities increased by $21.5 billion. Banks’ own net dollar-denominated liabilities to foreign residents decreased by $76.3 billion. Complete data are available on the Treasury website here. ### About TIC Data The monthly data on holdings of long-term securities, as well as the monthly table on Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities, reflect foreign holdings of U.S. securities collected primarily on the basis of custodial data.  These data help provide a window into foreign ownership of U.S. securities, but they cannot attribute holdings of U.S. securities with complete accuracy.  For example, if a U.S. Treasury security purchased by a foreign resident is held in a custodial account in a third country, the true ownership of the security will not be reflected in the data.  The custodial data will also not properly attribute U.S. Treasury securities managed by foreign private portfolio managers who invest on behalf of residents of other countries.  In addition, foreign countries may hold dollars and other U.S. assets that are not captured in the TIC data.  For these reasons, it is difficult to draw precise conclusions from TIC data about changes in the foreign holdings of U.S. financial assets by individual countries. TIC Release for December       TIC Monthly Reports on Cross-Border Financial Flows       (Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)                 12 Months Through                     2023 2024 Oct-24 Oct-25 Jul Aug Sep Oct     Foreigners' Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities                                             1     Gross U.S. Sales of Domestic U.S. Securities 52720.3 70193.6 66790.7 85031.7 7029.0 6932.8 7766.0 8074.7 2     Gross U.S. Purchases of Domestic U.S. Securities 51631.2 69008.8 65577.7 83606.5 6960.8 6752.4 7563.2 8035.8 3     Domestic Securities, net U.S. sales (line 1 less line 2) /1 1089.1 1184.8 1213.0 1425.2 68.2 180.4 202.8 38.9                             4       Private, net /2 955.5 1190.3 1181.4 1525.7 71.9 195.8 204.9 49.0 5         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 544.5 516.6 674.4 382.0 37.6 57.2 41.5 -36.4 6         Gov't Agency Bonds, net 169.3 127.2 148.2 125.4 18.7 21.5 15.1 20.4 7         Corporate Bonds, net 269.5 264.3 286.7 303.9 22.2 25.9 32.3 24.9 8         Equities, net -27.9 282.2 72.1 714.4 -6.5 91.2 116.1 40.1                             9       Official, net /3 133.6 -5.5 31.6 -100.5 -3.7 -15.4 -2.2 -10.1 10         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 53.0 -26.8 5.8 -87.2 7.0 -8.7 -16.3 -24.8 11         Gov't Agency Bonds, net 40.0 -44.2 -46.3 -54.3 -4.5 -7.6 -5.5 5.6 12         Corporate Bonds, net 23.8 40.2 44.9 29.2 3.9 3.5 2.8 1.7 13         Equities, net 16.8 25.3 27.2 11.8 -10.1 -2.6 16.9 7.3                             14     Gross U.S. Sales of Foreign Securities 13799.3 18304.9 17218.8 22166.7 1947.1 1817.4 2144.5 2137.6 15     Gross U.S. Purchases of Foreign Securities 13883.7 18713.7 17588.6 22511.6 1977.3 1865.1 2174.1 2159.0 16     Foreign Securities, net U.S. sales (line 14 less line 15) /4 -84.4 -408.8 -369.7 -345.0 -30.3 -47.8 -29.6 -21.4 17         Foreign Bonds, net -89.0 -260.3 -229.5 -222.1 -7.4 -14.9 -11.7 -36.8 18         Foreign Equities, net 4.6 -148.5 -140.2 -122.8 -22.8 -32.9 -17.8 15.4                             19     Net Long-Term Securities Transactions (lines 3 and 16): 1004.7 776.1 843.2 1080.2 37.9 132.6 173.2 17.5                             20     Other Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities, net /5 -9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0                             21   Net Foreign Acquisition of Long-Term Securities                           (lines 19 and 20): 995.5 776.1 843.2 1080.2 37.9 132.6 173.2 17.5                             22   Increase in Foreign Holdings of Dollar-Denominated Short-Term                           U.S. Securities and Other Custody Liabilities: /6 -104.3 195.9 160.6 255.8 14.4 11.9 -7.6 21.5 23     U.S. Treasury Bills 133.1 222.3 222.0 180.1 -3.1 24.8 -21.3 21.8 24       Private, net 121.8 165.3 144.8 106.0 -10.1 23.1 18.6 7.0 25       Official, net 11.3 57.0 77.3 74.1 7.0 1.7 -40.0 14.8 26     Other Negotiable Instruments                           and Selected Other Liabilities: /7 -237.4 -26.4 -61.5 75.7 17.5 -12.9 13.7 -0.4 27       Private, net -221.0 -28.3 -67.5 81.1 17.7 -10.8 15.6 -0.5 28       Official, net -16.4 1.9 6.0 -5.4 -0.2 -2.2 -1.9 0.1                             29   Change in Banks' Own Net Dollar-Denominated Liabilities -51.4 249.9 245.0 -8.9 -61.0 41.4 18.8 -76.3                             30 Monthly Net Dollar-Denominated Portfolio Inflows (lines 21, 22, and 29) /8 /9 839.8 1221.9 1248.8 1327.2 -8.6 186.0 184.3 -37.3     of  which                   31     Private, net 667.9 1090.7 1013.3 1404.6 24.7 223.9 209.8 -18.1 32     Official, net 171.9 131.2 235.5 -77.4 -33.4 -37.9 -25.4 -19.2                                                         /1     Net U.S. sales = Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+).                 /2     Includes international and regional organizations.                 /3     The reported division of net U.S. sales of long-term securities between net sales to foreign official institutions and net sales               to other foreign investors is subject to a "transaction bias" described in Frequently Asked Questions 7 and 10.a.4 on the TIC website.   /4     Net transactions in foreign securities by U.S. residents. Foreign purchases of foreign securities = U.S. sales of foreign securities to foreigners.           Thus negative entries indicate net U.S. purchases of foreign securities, or an outflow of capital from the United States; positive entries           indicate net U.S. sales of foreign securities.                 /5     Minus estimated unrecorded principal repayments to foreigners on domestic corporate and agency asset-backed securities (zero after Jan. 2023) +          estimated foreign acquisitions of U.S. equity through stock swaps - estimated U.S. acquisitions of foreign equity through stock swaps +           increase in nonmarketable Treasury Bonds and Notes Issued to Official Institutions and Other Residents of Foreign Countries.      /6     These are primarily data on monthly changes in banks' and broker/dealers' custody liabilities. Data on custody claims are collected             quarterly and published in the TIC website.                 /7     "Selected Other Liabilities" are primarily the foreign liabilities of U.S. customers that are managed by U.S. banks or broker/dealers.     /8     TIC data cover most components of international financial flows, but do not include data on direct investment flows, which are collected           and published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. In addition to the monthly data summarized here, the           TIC collects quarterly data on some banking and nonbanking assets and liabilities. Frequently Asked Question 1 on the TIC website           describes the scope of TIC data collection.                 9/      Series break at February 2023 for lines 1-21 and the dependent lines 30-32; see TIC press releases of March 15 and April 15, 2023.

NZX Wealth Technologies (NZXWT) and Craigs Investment Partners (Craigs) are pleased to announce an agreement intended to extend the services NZXWT provides Craigs to include Craigs custody and private wealth business. NZXWT has administered Craigs’ clients investing in mySTART, Craigs KiwiSaver and Craigs Superannuation on the platform since 2018. Craigs is now entering an arrangement with NZXWT which seeks to expand this partnership to servicing its premium custody clients in support of its strategic business objectives. NZXWT Acting Chief Executive Robbie Douglas says it is pleased to explore how the NZXWT platform can support the Craigs’ strategy. “NZXWT is proud to partner with Craigs to further support its growth ambitions and assist with delivering quality service to its clients”, Mr Douglas says. Craigs’ Chief Executive Simon Tong says expanding the partnership is part of a broader commitment to finding, or building, the right tools to support the firm’s 190-plus investment advisers to keep delivering exceptional client outcomes in a dynamic environment. “Craigs has an ambitious growth strategy that requires innovation and the right technology support to deliver. We have a clearly defined roadmap to ensure we stay ahead of our technology needs as we grow the business and diversify our services, and extending our partnership with NZXWT reflects that. NZXWT has a proven record of delivery for our ‘START’ clients and we are excited to see how this partnership could support us to deliver for our premium clients, too.” NZX Chief Executive Mark Peterson says NZXWT continues to go from strength to strength in serving New Zealand’s investment and advisor community. “In 2024 NZXWT had a successful year marked by 11 new client onboardings, strong pipeline growth and achieving positive cashflow for the month of December from external client activity”, Mr Peterson says. “This year has seen NZXWT continue to make strong progress, migrating five new clients on to its platform with five additional onboardings underway. Annual recurring revenue has increased from $10.8 million in December 2024, to $13 million at November 2025 – an increase of 20%. Mr Peterson says NZXWT’s growth is indicative of the high level of confidence which financial advisers and investment managers place in the platform and associated client services which NZXWT provides. NZX Wealth Technologies is one of the fastest-growing investment platforms in the New Zealand market. Supporting wealth and investment managers and advisers to administer investment portfolios for thousands of investors, NZX Wealth Technologies is 100% owned by NZX Limited (NZX), New Zealand’s stock exchange. With best-in-class technology, governance, and a robust risk framework, NZX Wealth Technologies delivers a comprehensive custodial investment platform tailored to the needs of New Zealand financial advice businesses.

Release Dates  RSS DDP FRED The Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (SCOOS) is a quarterly survey providing information about the availability and terms of credit in securities financing and over-the counter (OTC) derivatives markets. The SCOOS is modeled after the long-established Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices, which provides qualitative information about changes in supply and demand for loans to households and businesses at commercial banks. The SCOOS collects qualitative information on credit terms and conditions in securities financing and OTC derivatives markets, which are important conduits for leverage in the financial system. The survey panel for the SCOOS began by including 20 dealers and over time has been expanded. These firms account for almost all of the dealer activity in dollar-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets. The survey is directed to senior credit officers responsible for maintaining a consolidated perspective on the management of credit risks. The HTML links below include the full report; the PDF links include the summary only. 2025 December* HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2024 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2023 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2022 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2021 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2020 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2019 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2018 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2017 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2016 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2015 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2014 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2013 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2012 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2011 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF March HTML | PDF 2010 December HTML | PDF September HTML | PDF June HTML | PDF *Current Release

Interactive Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR), an automated global electronic broker, today announced the launch of its redesigned IBKR GlobalTrader mobile app. The updated trading platform reflects the firm’s commitment to delivering intuitive, accessible tools for investors at every experience level. The new version offers a faster and more powerful interface with new capabilities, including integrated access to forecast contracts, AI-generated news summaries, and a redesigned Explore section that helps investors identify opportunities across global markets. Investors can trade stocks, ETFs, options, access cryptocurrencies, and more – all from a streamlined mobile app. IBKR GlobalTrader complements IBKR Mobile, the firm’s flagship mobile trading platform, by offering a streamlined experience for users who value simplicity. The redesign enhances usability while keeping the global reach and trading power that Interactive Brokers is known for. “We created IBKR GlobalTrader as a streamlined complement to our flagship IBKR Mobile, bringing the power of our comprehensive trading tools into a simpler, more intuitive experience,” said Milan Galik, Chief Executive Officer of Interactive Brokers. “The app makes it easy for novice investors who might be new to our platform to trade across global markets from one place. Our introducing brokers have already embraced it, recognizing how it simplifies global investing for their clients.” What’s New in IBKR GlobalTrader Access Forecast Contracts Trade forecast contracts directly in the app with an updated user-friendly interface Enhanced Watchlists and Portfolio Management Monitor intraday changes with spark charts Access order history, funding tools, and long-press controls in one place Identify Investments Discover trends through the redesigned Explore page, which highlights related instruments and markets to reveal possible new opportunities Use Investment Themes, which streamlines research by linking companies, products, competitors, and regions across the entire S&P 1500 universe Browse AI-generated news summaries on the Explore and Quote Details pages Simplified Order Ticket Use the new step-by-step “Focused” order view Switch to the advanced ticket when more control is needed The redesigned IBKR GlobalTrader app is available now for iOS and Android devices. It has already seen strong early adoption among introducing brokers and investors seeking a more streamlined trading experience. Additional enhancements will be released in upcoming updates. To explore the app or open an account, visit: United States and countries served by IB LLC: IBKR GlobalTrader Canada: IBKR GlobalTrader United Kingdom: IBKR GlobalTrader Europe: IBKR GlobalTrader Australia: IBKR GlobalTrader    Hong Kong: IBKR GlobalTrader India: IBKR GlobalTrader  Singapore: IBKR GlobalTrader Product availability may vary depending on the country of residence and the Interactive Brokers affiliate.   The best-informed investors choose Interactive Brokers

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) announced today the results of the semi-annual review of the First North 25™ Index, (Nasdaq Stockholm: FN25), which will become effective at market open on Friday, January 2, 2026. The following securities will be added to the lndex: Arlandastad Group AB (AGROUP), Devyser Diagnostics AB (DVYSR), EXSITEC HOLDING AB (EXS), Flat Capital AB ser. B (FLAT B), GomSpace Group AB (GOMX), Lyko Group AB ser. A (LYKO A), Subgen AI AB (SUBGEN). The First North 25™ Index measures the performance of a selection of the largest and most traded securities listed on the Nasdaq Nordic First North Growth Markets (First North Denmark, First North Finland, First North Iceland and First North Sweden). The Index is reviewed semi-annually in January and July. As a result of the semi-annual review, the following securities will be removed from the Index: Bredband2 i Skandinavien AB (BRE2), Intellego Technologies AB (INT), NYAB AB (NYAB), Siljansvik AB (SIVI) and Surgical Science Sweden AB (SUS). For a list of current Index Securities please refer to Nasdaq's Global Index Watch. For more information, please refer to the First North 25 Index Methodology.About Nasdaq Global IndexesNasdaq Global Indexes has been creating innovative, market-leading, transparent indexes since 1971. Today, our index offering spans geographies and asset classes and includes diverse families. We continuously offer new opportunities for financial product sponsors across a wide spectrum of investable products and for asset managers to measure risk and performance. Nasdaq also provides exchange listing, custom index, and design solutions to financial organizations worldwide.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released enforcement actions for December 2025. The enforcement actions released are terminations. The OCC terminates enforcement actions when a bank has demonstrated compliance with all articles of an enforcement action; or when the OCC determines that articles deemed “not in compliance” have become outdated or irrelevant to the bank’s current circumstances; or when the OCC incorporates the articles deemed “not in compliance” into a new action. The termination actions are: Order Terminating the Amendment to the Consent Order with Citibank, National Association, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, dated July 10, 2024 (Docket No. AMENDS AA-EC-2020-64). (Docket No. AA-ENF-2025-64) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with First National Bank of Lake Jackson, Lake Jackson, Texas, dated September 17, 2024 (Docket No. AA-SO-2024-70). (Docket No. AA-SO-2025-62) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with The First National Bank of Dennison, Dennison, Ohio, dated September 17, 2024 (Docket No. AA-CE-2024-49). (Docket No. AA-CE-2025-61) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with The Idabel National Bank, Idabel, Oklahoma, dated December 16, 2022 (Docket No. AA-SO-2022-55). (Docket No. AA-SO-2025-57) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with The National Bank of Coxsackie, Coxsackie, New York, dated October 16, 2024 (Docket No. AA-NE-2024-76). (Docket No. AA-NE-2025-59) Order Terminating the Cease-and-Desist Order against UBS AG, Stamford Branch, Stamford, Connecticut, dated May 31, 2018 (Docket No. AA-EC-2018-30). (Docket No. AA-ENF-2025-60) To receive alerts for news releases announcing public OCC enforcement actions, subscribe to OCC Email Updates. All OCC public enforcement actions taken since August 1989 are available for download by viewing the searchable enforcement actions database at https://apps.occ.gov/EASearch. Related Link Enforcement Action Types

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered a consent order against Wisconsin resident Robert Narvett in connection with a fraudulent scheme.  The order requires Narvett to pay more than $185,000 in restitution to defrauded victims. It also permanently bans him from trading and registering with the CFTC and prohibits him from further violating provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, as charged. The order resolves a CFTC enforcement action filed in March 2021, which charged Narvett with fraud, misappropriation, and engaging in prohibited activities as a commodity trading advisor. [See CFTC Press Release No. 8367-21.] According to the court’s findings, from at least December 2013 through March 2021, Narvett persuaded clients to let him manage their commodity futures trading accounts. He then abandoned them after losing money trading their accounts and misappropriating their investment funds. To solicit client funds, Narvett made numerous false and misleading statements about his trading successes and methods. He also failed to disclose that he was not registered with the CFTC as a commodity trading advisor as required by the Commodity Exchange Act, and that a Wisconsin federal court had previously entered a judgment against him in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving a fraudulent investment scheme.  In a related criminal case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin charged Narvett with wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft. [See United States v. Narvett, No. 21-cr-00050 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 2, 2021).]  In May 2022, he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. He was sentenced to 15 years and ordered to pay $1.68 million in restitution. The CFTC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the FBI. The Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are Dmitriy Vilenskiy, Julia C. Colarusso, and Paul G. Hayeck, along with former staff members Luke Marsh and A. Daniel Ullman II.  RELATED LINKS Consent Order: Robert Narvett

The following coefficients for Moscow Exchange indices come into force from December 19, 2025: № Index code Currency Index Name Divisor 1 IMOEX RUB MOEX Russia Index 2,617,906,972.6510 2 IMOEX RUB MOEX Russia Index all sessions 2,617,906,972.6510 3 RTSI USD RTS Index 83,102,415.2850 4 MOEXBC RUB MOEX Blue Chip Index 298,895,045.5521 5 MRBC RUB MOEX 15 Index 2,933,152,301.9065 6 MOEXBMI RUB MOEX Broad Market Index 4,016,245,925.6838 7 RUBMI USD RTS Broad Market Index 125,108,894.2128 8 MOEXOG RUB MOEX Oil and Gas Index 275,644,070.8739 9 RTSOG USD RTS Oil & Gas Index 141,978,387.1033 10 MOEXEU RUB MOEX Electric Utilities 82,513,023.8327 11 RTSEU USD RTS Electric Utilities Index 32,547,433.5664 12 MOEXTL RUB MOEX Telecommunication Index 11,286,221.6136 13 RTSTL USD RTS Telecom Index 3,681,126.7128 14 MOEXMM RUB MOEX Metals and Mining Index 86,777,114.8052 15 RTSMM USD RTS Metals & Mining Index 41,281,135.6152 16 MOEXFN RUB MOEX Financials Index 49,190,267.4581 17 RTSFN USD RTS Finances Index 28,292,334.5384 18 MOEXCN RUB MOEX Consumer Index 28,157,323.8964 19 RTSCR USD RTS Consumer & Retail Index 12,431,690.7683 20 MOEXCH RUB MOEX Chemicals Index 3,569,331.4411 21 RTSCH USD RTS Chemicals Index 3,422,768.3508 22 MOEXTN RUB MOEX Transportation Index 44,734,769.4402 23 RTSTN USD RTS Transport Index 18,307,975.5620 24 MOEXINN RUB MOEX Innovation Index 265,928,531.4973 25 MOEX10 RUB MOEX 10 Index 5,261.94 26 MOEXIT RUB MOEX IT Index 101,573,063.3340 27 RTSIT USD RTS IT Index 45,633,689.5301 28 MOEXRE RUB MOEX Real Estate Index 8,900,293.3348 29 RTSRE USD RTS Real Estate Index 3,734,388.9163 30 MCXSM RUB MOEX SMID Index 501,044,399.4198 31 RTSSM USD RTS SMID Index 10,664,646.9611 32 EPSI RUB Equity Subindex 7,290,083,026.1705 33 MXSHAR RUB MOEX SHARIAH INDEX 322,777,471.4663 34 IMOEXW RUB MOEX Active Management Index 2,148,259,945.0194 35 IMOEXCNY CNY MOEX Russia CNY Index 567,903,359.6790 36 MIPO RUB MOEX IPO Index 74,646,890.7060 Read more on the Moscow Exchange: https://www.moex.com/n96288

Today, ACER releases its report on the Polish gas transmission tariffs directed at GAZ-SYSTEM S.A., Poland’s transmission system operator (TSO), which manages the country’s two transmission systems. The report assesses the compliance of the proposed reference price methodology (RPM) with the requirements of the EU Network Code on Harmonised Transmission Tariff structures. What is the proposed tariff methodology? The Polish TSO proposes to: Apply a postage stamp reference price methodology with a 50-50 entry-exit split, combined with discounts for LNG terminals, biomethane producers and gas storage facilities. Merge the two existing entry-exit zones of the National Transmission Network (NTS) and the Transit Gas Pipeline System (SGT), the two Polish transmission systems, into a single national zone with uniform tariff rules. Continue recovering allowed revenues for transmission services through capacity-based tariffs only, meaning users pay based on the network capacity they book, not the volume of gas they transport. Maintain the current two gas sub-systems (for low-methane and high-methane gas) within the NTS. Keep two non-transmission services (gas pressure reduction and gas compression) in place. What are ACER’s main conclusions?  The proposed methodology meets EU requirements on transparency, cost-reflectivity, avoidance of cross-subsidisation, non-discrimination, volume risk and the prevention of cross-border trade distortions. The merger of Poland’s entry-exit zones will create a level playing field for all network users importing gas to the country. The Polish TSO considered ACER’s previous recommendations (for the NTS system and the SGT system), addressing past shortcomings and developing a methodology that complies with EU rules. Read more about ACER's findings and recommendations.

Capital Markets Gateway (CMG), a fintech firm modernizing the equity capital markets (ECM), today announced that TD Securities has joined its global underwriter network as both an investor and a client. TD Securities becomes part of CMG’s initiative to modernize global ECM workflows, joining existing investors that include Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Fidelity Investments, Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Canada and UBS. As one of North America's largest and most influential capital markets institutions, TD Securities brings deep expertise across ECM activities. By partnering with CMG, TD Securities will benefit from richer data intelligence and more efficient and collaborative workflows with partners and clients across North America. The strategic investment will support CMG’s continued global expansion and mark another significant milestone in the firm’s global growth strategy. This commitment follows the addition of RBC to CMG’s underwriter network and reinforces CMG’s mission to serving markets globally with modern technology and connected workflows. “Our global expansion is building momentum, and adding TD Securities reflects strong demand from industry-leading North American institutions for next-generation ECM technology,” said Greg Ingram, CMG CEO. “TD Securities’ involvement represents another meaningful milestone in our mission to modernize the global primary markets.” To learn more about CMG’s sell-side book building features or to join CMG’s buy-side investor network, contact us.

The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday published the first of several staff manuals for the supervision of the largest and most complex banks. This will provide more transparency to the public about the supervision of these banks. The Board expects to release several other staff manuals for these banks early next year. "For many years, I have sought the public release of the Fed's large bank supervision manuals. Today, I am pleased to announce their release. This is another step in our efforts to improve transparency and public accountability for bank supervision," said Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman. "By enhancing our supervisory transparency, we are holding ourselves to high standards and ensuring that we execute our responsibilities appropriately and fairly." The staff manual published today has not yet been amended to reflect the recent name change of the Board's program for the largest and most complex banks from LISCC to GSIB. Nor has it been amended to reflect the statement of supervisory operating principles that was released by the Board in November. An updated version of the manual will be released when those amendments have been made. The other documents that the Board expects to release early next year include the manuals for the large bank operating committee, capital and liquidity planning, recovery and resolution planning, the large bank rating program, enforcement actions, and the large bank risk identification system. These manuals are currently used by supervisory staff but have been modified to redact any confidential supervisory information. LISCC refers to the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee and GSIB refers to the U.S. global systemically important banking organizations. LISCC Program Operating Manual (PDF)

Wizardsardine, the Bitcoin security provider, has partnered with insurance specialist Resolvr, for an integration that allows its Liana Business Bitcoin self-custody customers to access Bitcoin-denominated insurance. The integration of Liana’s secure, governance-ready Bitcoin custody with Resolvr and their BDIC™ (Bitcoin Denominated Insurance Collaborative) insurance marketplace enables organisations to turn on insurance for their bitcoin holdings in true self-custody, an industry first. This integration is designed for enterprises, funds, and regulated entities that require compliance-aligned self-custody but have faced internal barriers over perceived risk of loss.  Until now, Bitcoin insurance has been largely limited to custodial providers that pool client assets, creating centralised risk. The Liana Business BDIC™ integration challenges that model; by simplifying the process for organisations to hold their own keys while accessing insurance coverage, paying premiums in bitcoin, and receiving on-chain payouts if a covered loss occurs. The partnership brings together complementary risk-management capabilities. Wizardsardine’s Liana Business platform provides the self-custody infrastructure that enables organisations to hold bitcoin with verifiable ownership, auditability, governance, and secure recovery. Meanwhile Resolvr’s BDIC™ insurance marketplace connects Liana Business directly to regulated insurance carriers offering Bitcoin-denominated policies. The BDIC™ platform enables seamless policy issuance, premium collection and bitcoin-denominated claims settlement, creating a bridge between traditional insurance infrastructure and the Bitcoin economy.  Expanding on the partnership, Kevin Loaec, Chief Executive Officer at Wizardsardine, said: “Custodians concentrate billions in Bitcoin value in one place and call it security, but that’s exactly what makes them risky and uninsurable. When risk is centralised, one mistake, one policy failure, or one insider threat can bring the whole system down. With Liana, we flip that model on its head. Instead, businesses hold their own keys, their own bitcoin, and now, for the first time thanks to Resolvr, they can access insurance services too. Liana’s architecture minimises the risk of loss through time-locked recovery; ensures organisations remain in full control of their funds, and removes the counterparty risk that has made bitcoin insurance impractical until now.” Aaron Daniel, Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer of Resolvr added: “Liana's self-custody model proves what we've always believed: the future of Bitcoin insurance isn't about custodians holding keys: it's about insurance markets providing coverage wherever Bitcoin lives. Our BDIC™ marketplace connects Bitcoin holders directly to global insurance capacity through embedded, wallet-neutral integrations. With BDIC™, organizations using Liana now get what custodial solutions never could: true ownership of both their bitcoin and their insurance. We are proud to put insurance on the Bitcoin standard through our marketplace.”

Regnology, a leading provider in regulatory, risk, tax, and finance reporting, as well as supervisory technology, today announced it has signed an exclusive agreement for the acquisition of Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions business, inclusive of solutions for Basel III compliance, IFRS9 impairment accounting, large bank asset-liability management (ALM), Solvency II insurance reporting, and prudential and statistical regulatory reporting across more than 50 jurisdictions. By integrating Moody’s regulatory capital and liquidity capabilities with Regnology’s regulatory, risk, and finance offerings, the firm is creating a unified, scalable platform designed to meet the full spectrum of financial regulatory compliance and risk requirements. This combined strength positions Regnology as the partner of choice for financial institutions seeking future-ready solutions. At the core of this strategy is Regnology Risk Hub (RRiskHub), an integrated solution designed to deliver a single point of control for compliance, risk analytics, and strategic decision-making. RRiskHub will unite Regnology’s established regulatory reporting and core risk expertise with comprehensive risk quantification and ALM offerings acquired from Moody’s, combining specialized capabilities around financial risk measurement, capital, liquidity management, and multi-jurisdictional reporting. The combined offering sets a new standard for all-in-one regulatory and risk solutions. Built on the Regnology Granular Data (RGD) model for consistency, auditability, and scalability across risk and regulatory domains, supported by Regnology’s secure, cloud-native platform, the Regnology Risk Hub empowers Chief Risk Officers with actionable control and oversight through integrated automation, AI-driven insights for future-ready operations, and continuous innovation. Rob Mackay, CEO of Regnology, said: “The proposed acquisition of Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions is a bold step forward in our mission to be at the forefront of the regulatory and risk technology space. This acquisition strengthens our shared commitment to deliver transformative value and help Chief Risk Officers and Chief Financial Officers navigate an increasingly complex landscape with confidence. We are looking forward to further advancing our platform to empower financial institutions worldwide with innovative solutions, while opening new horizons for our customers and employees to thrive.” Fredrik Näslund, Partner, Nordic Capital Advisors, commented: “Nordic Capital is delighted to support Regnology as it continues its impressive growth journey. This acquisition underscores Regnology’s strong accelerating progress within the regulatory technology sector to further deliver outstanding solutions to financial institutions around the world.” Andrew Bockelman, Head of Banking Solutions for Moody’s, said: “We are grateful for the work of our teams that have built these solutions over the years, and we are confident they are joining an organization that will continue to provide top-rate service to customers and new growth opportunities for employees. Regnology is strategically positioned to build on the strengths of these product families, while Moody’s continues to focus on its core lending, credit modeling, KYC, financial crime, portfolio risk, and data-driven solutions.”  The proposed acquisition remains subject to consultation with the relevant works councils and is further subject to obtaining regulatory approvals in several jurisdictions.

This document series contains open letters between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer which are exchanged if inflation moves away from the target by more than 1 percentage point in either direction. The remit for the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) requires an exchange of open letters between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer if inflation moves away from the target by more than 1 percentage point in either direction. We believe that the open letter system, required in the remits for the MPC since 1997, provides a formal mechanism of transparency and accountability in the event of any appreciable deviations from target. The remit set in November 2025 requires that the open letter from the Governor should be published alongside the minutes of the following Monetary Policy Committee meeting. The letter should refer as necessary to the Bank’s latest Monetary Policy Report and forecasts. The reason for publishing the letter at that time is to allow the MPC time to form and communicate its strategy towards returning inflation to the target after consideration of the trade-offs, resulting in a more meaningful exchange about the MPC’s strategy. As has been the case since 1997, the Governor is required to send a further letter after 3 months if inflation remains more than 1 percentage point above or below the target. The Governor’s letter should set out: the outlook for inflation and the reasons why inflation has moved away from the target the policy action the committee is taking in response the horizon over which the committee judges it is appropriate to return inflation to the target the trade-off that has been made with regard to inflation and output variability in determining the scale and duration of any expected deviation of inflation from the target how this approach meets the government’s monetary policy objectives Documents Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2025 18 December 2025   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, September 2025 18 September 2025   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, June 2025 19 June 2025   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, March 2024 21 March 2024   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2023 14 December 2023   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England - September 2023 21 September 2023   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, June 2023 22 June 2023   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, March 2023 23 March 2023   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2022 15 December 2022   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, September 2022 22 September 2022   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, June 2022 16 June 2022   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, March 2022 17 March 2022   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2021 16 December 2021   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, September 2021 23 September 2021   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, May 2021 6 May 2021   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2020 17 December 2020   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, September 2020 21 October 2020   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, June 2020 18 June 2020   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, February 2018 8 February 2018   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, December 2016 15 December 2016   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, August 2016 4 August 2016   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, May 2016 12 May 2016   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, February 2016 4 February 2016   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, November 2015 5 November 2015   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, August 2015 6 August 2015   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, May 2015 13 May 2015   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, February 2015 12 February 2015   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, February 2012 14 February 2012   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, November 2011 15 November 2011   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, August 2011 16 August 2011   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, May 2011 17 May 2011   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, February 2011 15 February 2011   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, November 2010 16 November 2010   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, August 2010 17 August 2010   Correspondence Open letters between HM Treasury and Bank of England, May 2010 18 May 2010   Correspondence

Monetary Policy Summary, December 2025 At its meeting ending on 17 December 2025, the Monetary Policy Committee voted by a majority of 5–4 to reduce Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points, to 3.75%. Four members voted to maintain Bank Rate at 4%. CPI inflation has fallen since the previous meeting, to 3.2%. Although above the 2% target, it is now expected to fall back towards target more quickly in the near term. Reflecting restrictive monetary policy, and consistent with evidence of subdued economic growth and building slack in the labour market, pay growth and services price inflation have continued to ease. Monetary policy is being set to ensure CPI inflation settles sustainably at 2% in the medium term, which involves balancing the risks around achieving this. The risk from greater inflation persistence has become somewhat less pronounced since the previous meeting, while the risk to medium-term inflation from weaker demand remains. The extent of further easing in monetary policy will depend on the evolution of the outlook for inflation. The restrictiveness of policy has fallen as Bank Rate has been reduced by 150 basis points since August 2024. On the basis of the current evidence, Bank Rate is likely to continue on a gradual downward path. But judgements around further policy easing will become a closer call. Minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting ending on 17 December 2025 1: Before turning to its immediate policy decision, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) discussed key economic developments and its judgements around them, as well as its views on monetary policy strategy. Current economic conditions 2: Twelve-month CPI inflation had eased to 3.2% in November from 3.6% in October and 3.8% in September. This was below the short-term forecast published in the November Monetary Policy Report, largely reflecting downside news to food price inflation. The October release had triggered the exchange of open letters between the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that was being published alongside these minutes. 3: Services consumer price inflation was 4.4% in November, compared with the most recent peak of 5.4% in April. Measures of underlying services price inflation had pointed to the disinflation process continuing, as pay growth had eased. The impacts of one-off shocks to the price level, such as the employers’ National Insurance Contributions increases and unusually large increases in some administered prices earlier in the year, had continued to restrain this downward trend to a degree. 4: CPI inflation was expected to ease further in 2026 Q1, to around 3%. Before that, CPI inflation was expected to rise temporarily in December 2025, owing to an increase in tobacco duty and a pickup in airfares price inflation. 5: Some measures announced in the Budget, in particular one-off reductions to regulatory costs levied on households’ energy bills, and changes to fuel duty, were likely to lower CPI inflation in April by around ½ percentage point. This Budget news, in combination with other news in recent CPI data and with some downward moves in sterling oil and gas futures curves since November, had led Bank staff to lower their expectation for CPI inflation to closer to 2% in 2026 Q2. 6: There had been small movements in inflation expectations over recent months. Market measures of medium-term inflation compensation had been little changed since the MPC’s November meeting. The Bank/Ipsos and Citi/YouGov indicators of households’ short and medium-term inflation expectations had eased slightly in November, albeit remaining at elevated levels. The Decision Maker Panel (DMP) survey had reported that firms’ year-ahead own-price inflation expectations rose slightly to 3.7% in the three months to November and were close to realised own-price inflation, suggesting that firms continued to expect little change in inflation a year ahead. Intelligence from the Banks’ Agents suggested that firms did not expect to pass on fully increases in costs given the weak demand environment. 7: A range of indicators suggested that pay growth had continued to ease in the second half of 2025, particularly in the private sector. Annual growth in whole economy Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) had declined to 4.7% in the three months to October. AWE private sector regular pay growth had fallen to 3.9%, which was in line with the forecast in the November Report. While still elevated, this rate of pay growth could be broadly explained by economic fundamentals, in contrast to developments over the past few years when pay growth had been stronger than could be explained. Bank staff expected private sector regular AWE pay growth to ease to around 3½% in 2025 Q4, predominantly owing to base effects, which reflected the strength in pay growth at the end of 2024. A range of pay settlements data suggested that the median private-sector settlement had been around 3% in the three months to November, although fewer companies agreed their settlements at this time of the year. 8: Forward-looking wage indicators had remained elevated. Ahead of the Agents’ annual pay survey, which would be a key input into the February MPC round, the Agents’ contacts had suggested that pay settlements were expected to be around 3½% in 2026. This was still an elevated level, although it was nearly ½ percentage point lower than figures reported for 2025. The November DMP survey had reported a slight increase in firms’ twelve-month ahead pay expectations to 3.8%, suggesting that pay growth might not ease materially further into next year. 9: The labour market had loosened further. The LFS unemployment rate had risen to 5.1% in the three months to October, 0.2 percentage points above the expectation in the November Report. The LFS redundancy rate had risen to 5.3 per 1,000 employees, its highest level since 2013, outside of the Covid pandemic period. But this series was prone to volatility, and the latest increase had not been mirrored in HR1 redundancy notifications. In contrast, the level of vacancies had been broadly stable since the summer. Employment growth had remained subdued. An HMRC payrolls estimate of private sector employees had fallen even further than the headline HMRC estimate in the three months to November, extending a recent pattern of weakness. Public sector employment had been stronger. 10: GDP growth had eased to 0.1% in 2025 Q3, slightly below the rate expected in the November Report. Bank staff analysis had suggested that some of this softening was erratic, with underlying quarterly GDP growth closer to 0.2%. Monthly GDP had declined by 0.1% in October, due to a further fall in market sector output. This was weaker than had been expected in the November Report and Bank staff now expected zero growth in headline GDP in Q4. Business surveys had remained subdued, including the S&P Global UK PMI composite output index, although that had picked up in the flash December release and, more generally, had been above the no-change mark for the past eight months. The steer from business surveys suggested that underlying growth in Q4 would be stronger than headline GDP growth, but at a rate that was still below supply growth. 11: Domestic credit volumes had continued to be supported by reduced policy restriction, along with some improvement in credit supply conditions. The Bank’s latest Credit Conditions Survey had suggested that supply was continuing to improve for households and firms, and firms’ access to bank finance appeared resilient. Nevertheless, credit volumes growth had remained subdued relative to pre-pandemic norms in real terms. Households’ and non-financial corporations’ aggregate balance sheets had also remained resilient, according to the Financial Policy Committee’s latest Financial Stability Report. Alongside this, recent annual growth in broad money had remained in line with the rate seen in 2025 so far, with the ratio of money to nominal GDP remaining below levels implied by its pre-pandemic trend. 12: UK financial conditions were little changed relative to the November MPC meeting. Market pricing implied an expectation for a reduction in Bank Rate at this meeting. 13: Global activity indicators had been more resilient than expected at the time of the November Report. This was suggestive of tariffs and trade policy uncertainty not weighing on global economic activity to the extent that had been expected. Alongside this, Chinese export price deflation had increased, following a brief moderation earlier this year. The Autumn Budget 14: The Autumn Budget had taken place on 26 November, accompanied by an economic and fiscal outlook from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Additional fiscal measures had included: spending increases in the short term in the form of reversals to previously announced welfare cuts and the removal of the two-child limit within universal credit. Beyond the short term, these spending increases would be more than offset by future tax increases, primarily from extending the freezes to income tax thresholds out to 2030-31. Smaller contributions would come from increases to National Insurance Contributions on salary-sacrifice pension contributions and increases to property, savings and dividend taxes. 15: Relative to what had been assumed in the November Monetary Policy Report, Bank staff had provisionally estimated that these additional policy measures could increase the level of GDP by around 0.1–0.2% over the next couple of years, with the fiscal tightening through future tax increases weighing on the level of GDP beyond a three-year horizon. 16: The Budget had also included a set of policy measures that had a direct impact on inflation in the short term, which were likely to lower CPI inflation in April by around ½ percentage point. Subsequently, the impact of the direct and indirect effects of Budget policies were expected to push up on CPI inflation by around 0.1–0.2 percentage points in 2027 and 2028. 17: The Committee considered the total fiscal consolidation envisaged in the latest plans for forthcoming years. Cumulatively, fiscal policies announced to date were expected to widen the output gap by around 1 percentage point over the next three years. The Budget had made only a modest additional contribution to this expected widening beyond the next three years. 18: A fuller assessment of this fiscal news would be conducted as part of the February 2026 Monetary Policy Report round. Overview and the Committee’s discussions 19: The Monetary Policy Committee’s job is to ensure that CPI inflation falls all the way back to the 2% target and stays there. Monetary policy had helped to reduce inflationary pressures over the past three years. That had allowed the MPC to make policy less restrictive, by reducing Bank Rate since August 2024. 20: The MPC’s approach to setting Bank Rate outlined in the November Monetary Policy Report had been based on two key policy judgements. First, that underlying domestic wage and price pressures were continuing to ease, and that the risks to medium-term inflation from greater inflation persistence and weaker demand were more balanced. Second, that Bank Rate was likely to continue on a gradual downward path if progress on disinflation continued. 21: Since November, the risk from greater inflation persistence had become somewhat less pronounced, while the risk to medium-term inflation from weaker demand remained. 22: CPI inflation had fallen since the previous meeting, from 3.8% to 3.2%. This was above the 2% target but, following the Budget announcements on administered prices and indirect taxes, headline inflation was now expected to fall back more quickly in April, to closer to 2%. Reflecting restrictive monetary policy, and consistent with evidence of subdued economic growth and building slack in the labour market, pay growth and services price inflation had continued to ease, pointing to further underlying disinflation towards target. Looking forward, however, some indicators of wage and price-setting from the Bank’s Agents and the Decision Maker Panel appeared to have plateaued. 23: Although headline inflation was likely to fall back closer to target in the near term, the Committee would remain focused on ensuring that inflation settled sustainably at 2% in the medium term. The latest data were generally encouraging, but there continued to be risks around that in both directions. 24: The recent experience of high inflation could still be affecting the way wages and prices were being determined in the economy, including owing to structural factors. The hump in inflation earlier this year had not been expected to lead to additional second-round effects in previous central projections. So a faster near-term fall now, owing to similar factors, might be treated in an equivalent way. The Committee would nonetheless monitor carefully the response of still-elevated inflation expectations to recent downside news, including in response to developments in more salient prices such as energy and food. The MPC was also continuing to assess whether and how fast wage and services inflation would fall further towards more target-consistent rates. 25: At the same time, households and businesses could remain cautious about their spending and investment decisions, and the labour market could weaken significantly further. Both of these could lead to inflation falling below target in the medium term. There had been limited news on the demand outlook since the previous meeting. Although GDP growth in 2025 Q4 was likely to be weaker than expected, the flash PMI output index had increased in December. Most labour market data had not suggested a rapid opening up of slack in the economy, even though the unemployment rate had continued to move higher. 26: Different members continued to place different weights on the main risks to inflation. For some of those members who had been more concerned about second-round effects from recent high inflation, the news on near-term inflation from the Budget could lessen these risks to some extent. Nevertheless, other persistence risks remained, particularly in light of the long period of above-target inflation, and the signals from forward-looking indicators were that pay growth could remain elevated next year. For those members who had been less concerned about persistence previously, the remaining upside risks had diminished further, and were now more clearly outweighed by downside risks to demand and the possibility of a more rapid loosening in the labour market. 27: Regarding the second key policy judgement, the extent of further easing in monetary policy still depended on the evolution of the outlook for inflation, and how the evidence on persistence, and on the weakening in demand and the labour market, was playing out. A gradual approach to further easing allowed the Committee to assess carefully the balance of risks to inflation as the evidence evolved. 28: The restrictiveness of monetary policy had fallen as Bank Rate had been progressively reduced. Different members had different views on how, and with what degree of precision, an equilibrium, or neutral, level of Bank Rate could be identified. In the absence of new shocks to the economy, judgements for individual members around further policy easing would become a closer call. This could simply reflect the more limited scope to reduce rates for a given estimate of neutral, or alternatively that the policy approach should recognise the uncertainty around the level of equilibrium rates itself. It could also reflect a high bar for policy reversals, were Bank Rate to be reduced too quickly or by too much, which could undermine credibility. The immediate policy decision 29: The Committee turned to its policy decision at this meeting and the monetary stance required to achieve the 2% inflation target sustainably in the medium-term. 30: Five members (Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden, Swati Dhingra, Dave Ramsden and Alan Taylor) preferred to reduce Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points at this meeting. The disinflation process was on track and the key question was how sustainably inflation would settle at the 2% target. Three members in this group (Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden and Dave Ramsden) judged that upside risks to inflation had continued to recede, but they would continue to assess incoming evidence, particularly around labour market activity and wage growth. Two members in this group (Swati Dhingra and Alan Taylor) attached greater weight to downside risks to activity and inflation. Subdued consumption and rising unemployment were already sufficient to restrain inflation persistence. 31: Four members (Megan Greene, Clare Lombardelli, Catherine L Mann and Huw Pill) preferred to maintain Bank Rate at this meeting, placing greater weight on prolonged inflation persistence, including from structural factors. While acknowledging recent progress on disinflation, the current and forward-looking evidence on services inflation, wage growth and inflation expectations remained above target-consistent levels. This could be symptomatic of more lasting changes in wage and price-setting behaviour. These members were not convinced that the monetary policy stance was meaningfully restrictive. A more prolonged period of policy restriction was warranted to mitigate these upside risks. 32: The Chair invited the Committee to vote on the proposition that: Bank Rate should be reduced by 0.25 percentage points, to 3.75%. 33: Five members (Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden, Swati Dhingra, Dave Ramsden and Alan Taylor) voted in favour of the proposition. Four members (Megan Greene, Clare Lombardelli, Catherine L Mann and Huw Pill) voted against the proposition, preferring to maintain Bank Rate at 4%. MPC members’ views 34: Members set out the rationale underpinning their individual votes on Bank Rate. Members are listed alphabetically under each vote grouping. Votes to reduce Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points, to 3.75% Andrew Bailey: Data news since our latest meeting suggests that disinflation is now more established. CPI inflation has fallen from its recent peak and upside risks have eased. Measures in the Budget should reduce inflation further in the near term. The key question for me now is the extent to which inflation settles at the 2% target in an enduring way. Slack has continued to accumulate in the economy. Unemployment, underemployment and flows from employment to unemployment have all risen. While I do not yet see conclusive evidence of a sharper downturn in the labour market, we should be vigilant. On the other hand, inflation expectations have not yet shifted downward sufficiently following the past few years of persistent above-target inflation. And the strength in forward-looking wage growth indicators is hard to reconcile with the downward momentum in current indicators of inflation and pay as well as rising unemployment. I will continue to assess these risks as the evidence accumulates. While I see scope for some additional policy easing, the path for Bank Rate cannot be pre-judged with precision, recognising in part the more limited space as Bank Rate approaches a neutral level. Sarah Breeden: I judge that disinflation remains on track and that upside risks have diminished a little further since November. Inflation, underlying services inflation, wage growth and households’ inflation expectations have all moved down. Activity data are also consistent with building slack, with a further rise in unemployment and weak employment growth. Previous explanations for why inflation might remain stubbornly above target have become less likely. The Budget has clarified that administered price shocks should not repeat next year. I recognise risks from potential structural changes to the labour market, in particular that matching efficiency may have fallen, and forward‑looking pay surveys are somewhat higher than I would prefer. However, Agents’ reports suggest firms are taking action to contain total wage bills. This, and the weak demand environment, should limit cost pass‑through. Downside risks to the demand outlook remain prominent. As in November, I think it plausible that a structural change in household behaviour means the savings rate remains elevated. Combined with my view that policy remains restrictive and slack continues to build, this gives me enough confidence to cut now. Looking ahead, I will need a greater accumulation of evidence on disinflation as we feel our way towards neutral next year. Swati Dhingra: I see disinflation continuing and risks to activity skewed to the downside. Nominal indicators have been trending consistently in the right direction. Inflationary pressures have faded, with limited pass-through of global food price inflation to consumer prices, and the impact of domestic one-off factors having come through. Disinflation is particularly observable in underlying inflation measures. Moreover, the dynamics of household-led demand weakness, that have contributed to disinflation so far and contained second-round effects, are still very much at play. Weak household spending look set to continue, which should limit firms’ pricing power. The backdrop of a weak labour market is likely to restrain wage growth going forward. Unemployment has risen more rapidly than I expected, given how activity and real wages have evolved, and vacancies remain 10% below pre-pandemic levels. My outlook at this juncture is one of continued weakness in activity. And I am concerned that a protracted period of stagnation could impede supply-side growth. I favour easing policy now, and would not support a drawn-out normalisation of our policy stance given the balance of risks. Dave Ramsden: I view the risks around inflation returning sustainably to target late in 2026 as broadly balanced, which is somewhat earlier than in the November central projection. The disinflation process is on track as nominal indicators continue to normalise. Labour market loosening has anchored this disinflation, and against the backdrop of weak activity and subdued sentiment, a further easing to come should lean against any remaining persistence in wage growth. However, elevated forward-looking surveys of wage growth give me pause for thought, particularly as structural supply-side issues, such as labour market participation, that previously sustained inflation persistence appear to be resolving. I will be focused on the results of the 2026 Agents’ pay survey. I continue to see downside risks from weak demand and particularly consumption. Consistently weak consumer confidence and ongoing fiscal consolidation contribute to a sluggish growth outlook, even if the announcement of the Budget offers some certainty. This outlook supports an easing in monetary policy. Further ahead, as restrictiveness falls and with uncertainty around the neutral rate, there could be scope to slow this cadence of easing in due course. Alan Taylor: Recent developments align with my stated view of the medium-term trajectory: the two key trends are steadily mounting downside risks and inflation firmly on track towards target. The news implies a path for inflation next year that reaches target sooner than in the November central projection. The inflation hump is subsiding a bit earlier: tax and administered price increases drop from annual CPI by April and food inflation is abating faster than expected. High‑frequency CPI indicators, overall and core, are close to target. Wages are on a target‑consistent path, based on incoming settlements data; AWE follows with a lag. Labour market news shows continued loosening. Redundancies are now on the rise and unemployment keeps climbing, markedly so among cyclically-sensitive younger cohorts. Demand is subdued, with surveys signalling weak output, deteriorating investment intentions, and low consumer confidence. Company dissolutions are increasing. These worrying trends point to the risk of at least a costly undershoot on inflation, if not a sharper non-linear deterioration in activity and the labour market, should we brake too hard. I see neutral at about 3%. Given transmission lags, and with inflation expected near target by late 2026, we should be heading there sooner rather than later. Votes to maintain Bank Rate at 4% Megan Greene: I think risks to inflation have shifted to the downside since November. I put weight on threshold effects and the salience of food and energy prices in the inflation basket. The budget will mechanically reduce inflation below thresholds that feed into expectations largely because of lower energy prices. Recent food price and CPI price inflation surprised on the downside as well. This should reduce the risk of elevated inflation expectations generating second-round effects, but I remain concerned the disinflation process has slowed and may stall further. Forward‑looking indicators of wage growth from the Agents and Decision Maker Panel remain above target-consistent levels. This could buoy services inflation, while core goods inflation remains above pre-Covid averages. Financial and credit conditions are relatively easy, suggesting the monetary policy stance is not meaningfully restrictive. Labour market slack is rising and, while rising redundancies are a concern, there is little evidence a non-linear rise in unemployment is imminent. Labour market adjustments may also be buffered by resilient corporate balance sheets and loose credit conditions. As Bank Rate approaches neutral, the contribution of monetary policy versus structural factors to disinflation could become harder to discern. This warrants a more cautious cadence of easing. Clare Lombardelli: I continue to be more concerned by the upside risks to inflation, despite growth and inflation data since November having softened at the margin. The Budget should mechanically reduce annual inflation in salient categories, reducing the risk of second-round effects, but in absolute terms underlying inflation is still well above target-consistent rates. Disinflation in wage growth will be crucial in returning inflation sustainably to target, yet forward-looking indicators of wage growth from the DMP and Agents suggest little disinflation in wages over the next year. Elevated wage growth contrasts with softening labour market quantities. This could indicate structural issues in the economy which would sustain greater inflation persistence than embodied in the November central projection. I am also uncertain about the amount of restriction that our current policy stance is imparting, where signals across the data are mixed, and future policy reversal could be costly for policy credibility. This calls for retaining policy restriction and, all else equal, could require slowing the pace of future policy easing. Catherine L Mann: My decision was quite finely balanced, and made more challenging by the effect of various policies on wage and price dynamics. Two key judgements underpin my decision. First, despite the Budget’s expected mechanical reduction in near-term inflation, this may not be enough to rein-in elevated household inflation expectations that have formed during a prolonged high‑inflation environment. CPI inflation remains above target, services inflation remains high relative to international peers, and core goods inflation is well above historical target‑consistent rates. Second, despite soft private-sector activity, this has not yet sufficiently disciplined wage and price growth. Market sector output is indisputably soft, private employment is falling, and redundancies and business dissolutions are rising. I am particularly attentive to the possibility that these could be signs of a non-linear adjustment. Counterbalancing these data, forward‑looking wage measures are above target‑consistent ranges, government spending and employment has risen, and any potential fiscal overspend could reduce slack, as has been the case in the past. In light of these risks, and given that restrictiveness in financial conditions has already eased over the year, policy needs to remain restrictive for some time longer. Huw Pill: I continue to judge the risk of inflation stabilising at above-target levels owing to structural changes in price and wage-setting behaviour as greater than the risk of inflation undershooting the target owing to weak demand. Underlying inflationary pressures are stronger than expected a year ago. A number of key indicators of underlying inflationary momentum – such as one-year ahead own price and wage expectations in the Decision Maker Panel, and households’ medium-term inflation expectations – exhibit a shallow saucer-shaped profile, raising concerns about a slowing or stalling in disinflation towards target. While I am attentive to risks from weak demand, still resilient private‑sector balance sheets provide some reassurance against a sharp downturn owing to a corporate cash-flow squeeze. Given this balance of risks, the case for the further withdrawal of monetary policy restriction is becoming more finely balanced, and any additional steps in this direction should be cautious. Operational considerations 35: On 17 December, the stock of UK government bonds held for monetary policy purposes was £553 billion. 36: The following members of the Committee were present: Andrew Bailey, Chair Sarah Breeden Swati Dhingra Megan Greene Clare Lombardelli Catherine L Mann Huw Pill Dave Ramsden Alan Taylor Sam Beckett was present as the Treasury representative. On the occasion of her final meeting, the Chair expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Committee for her role as Treasury representative since 2023. David Roberts was present on 10 December and 15 December, as an observer for the purpose of exercising oversight functions in his role as a member of the Bank’s Court of Directors. Monetary Policy Committee voting history The Bank of England Act 1998 gives the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting monetary policy to meet the Government’s inflation target. Operational decisions are taken by the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee. The minutes of the Committee meeting ending on 4 February will be published on 5 February 2026.

We're expanding the significant work we had planned to improve standards in the home and travel insurance markets, following Which?’s super complaint. While 79% of consumers who make an insurance claim are satisfied with how it was handled, our work shows there's room for improvement - with 3 in 10 (31%) saying there isn’t enough information to judge the quality of different policies.   Over the next year, we will do more to:   Improve claims handling, by reviewing firms' customer service and delivery and how they oversee third parties that handle claims.   Improve consumer understanding of what their insurance covers, by analysing the different ways firms are selling products. We're already seeing industry act on our calls to improve customer understanding. We will use the findings from our reviews to continue working with firms, trade bodies and consumer groups, so people have the right information at the point of sale to make informed decisions.   We will continue to act against insurance firms where we have concerns. Since our review of home and travel insurers in July, we have: Opened 2 enforcement cases. Stopped 1 firm from doing business until it fixes the problems we identified.   Launched 3 independent reviews into firms' systems and controls. Made 3 senior managers agree to fix problems and consider whether redress is due. We use the best tools available to us to deliver the fastest results for consumers. That isn’t always through enforcement or market studies, which inevitably take time. Graeme Reynolds, director of competition and interim director of insurance said: 'We welcome Which? shining a light on issues we identified in home and travel insurance. 'We’ve set out more detail on the action we've already taken to fix problems, and we're expanding our existing workplan to improve the claims process and consumer understanding of their cover. 'We’ll be monitoring consumer outcomes and will continue to hold firms and their senior leaders to account for making improvements, to help build trust and make sure people get fair value insurance.'

The FTSE Mondo Visione Index demonstrated robust growth in November, closing the month at 94,312.68 points, a 3.6% increase from the previous month's close of 91,079.10. Global exchanges showcased resilience, with several markets posting significant gains. Brazil's B3 emerged as the top performer in U.S. dollar terms, recording a 19.1% increase in capital returns between November 1 and November 30, 2025. Following closely were the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, which rose by 17.1%, and India's BSE, with a 16.2% increase over the same period. The top five exchanges by market capitalisation at the end of November were: CME Group: $101.43 billion Intercontinental Exchange: $90.37 billion Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing: $66.93 billion London Stock Exchange Group: $62.47 billion Nasdaq:$52.20 billion Conversely, some markets faced downturns. Croatia's Zagrebacka Burza experienced the largest decrease, with a 20.9% fall in capital returns. It was followed by the Saudi Tadawul Group, which saw a 15.4% decline, and Tanzania's Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange PLC, with an 11.7% decrease. Herbie Skeete, Managing Director of Mondo Visione and Co-founder of the Index, commented on the month's performance: "Global exchanges showed stability in November, driven by increased trading volumes and heightened market volatility. CME Group remains well-positioned to capitalise on strong demand for risk management as institutions adapt to changing interest rates, currency fluctuations, and macroeconomic uncertainty." For a full breakdown of November 2025's performance, click here to download the report. 1-YEAR PERFORMANCE CHART OF THE FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX (USD CAPITAL RETURN) Source: FTSE Group, data as at 28 November 2025 Monthly FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index Performance (Capital Return, USD) July 2014 3.1% August 2014 2.3% September 2014 -3.6% October 2014 2.8% November 2014 2.5% December 2014 -0.5% January 2015 -1.0% February 2015 8.5% March 2015 0.0% April 2015 10.7% May 2015 0.1% June 2015 -3.2% July 2015 -2.7% August 2015 -5.3% September 2015 -2.1% October 2015 7.6% November 2015 0.4% December 2015 -2.2% January 2016 -4,7% February 2016 -0.7% March 2016 6.7% April 2016 0.4% May 2016 1.8% June 2016 -2.2% July 2016 5.3% August 2016 2.3% September 2016 -1.6% October 2016 -1.6% November 2016 2.1% December 2016 0.1% January 2017 6.0% February 2017 -0.8% March 2017 1.4% April 2017 0.8% May 2017 1.6% June 2017 5.6% July 2017 2.7% August 2017 0.3% September 2017 3.6% October 2017 -0.7% November 2017 6.4% December 2017 -0.7% January 2018 10% February 2018 -0.5% March 2018 -1.6% April 2018 -1.0% May 2018 -1.5% June 2018 -0.8% July 2018 -0.7% August 2018 2.4% September 2018 -1.7% October 2018 1.0% November 2018 3.1% December 2018 -4.2% January 2019 5.4% February 2019 1.7% March 2019 -2.6% April 2019 4.6% May 2019 1.5% June 2019 4.3% July 2019 2.2% August 2019 3.7% September 2019 -0.8% October 2019 2.0% November 2019 -0.5% December 2019 1.6% January 2020 5.0% February 2020 -7.4% March 2020 -11.5% April 2020 8.0% May 2020 6.7% June 2020 2.3% July 2020 6.6% August 2020 4.9% September 2020 -5.2% October 2020 -6.7% November 2020 8.9% December 2020 7.2% January 2021 0.8% February 2021 1.4% March 2021 -2.7% April 2021 3.3% May 2021 2.5% June 2021 0.4% July 2021 0.4% August 2021 0.1% September 2021 -4.2% October 2021 5.9% November 2021 -5.6% December 2021 4.9% January 2022 -2.2% February 2022 -3.5% March 2022 3.5% April 2022 -8.6% May 2022 -5.1% June 2022 -0.7% July 2022 2.4% August 2022 -3.9% September 2022 -8.8% October 2022 -1.1% November 2022 11.5% December 2022 -2.9% January 2023 3.8% February 2023 -4.1% March 2023 5.0% April 2023 0.9% May 2023 -3.9% June 2023 3.8% July 2023 4.6% August 2023 -2.3% September 2023 -3.0% October 2023 -0.6% November 2023 7.7% December 2023 3.8% January 2024 -2.7% February 2024 4.3% March 2024 -0.1% April 2024 -3.8% May 2024 1.3% June 2024 -0.4% July 2024 3.2% August 2024 8.2% September 2024 4.7% October 2024 -1.2% November 2024 2.6% December 2024 -3.1% January 2025 4.3% February 2025 5.6% March 2025 2.2% April 2025 3.5% May 2025 4.4% June 2025 0.8% July 2025 -2.9% August 2025 -0.7% September 2025 -3.1% October 2025 -3.2% November 2025 3.6%   About FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index, a joint venture between FTSE Group and Mondo Visione, was established in 2000. It is the first Index in the world to focus on listed exchanges and other trading venues. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index compares performance of individual exchanges and trading platforms and provides a reliable barometer of the health and performance of the exchange sector. It enables investors to track 33 publicly listed exchanges and trading floors and focuses attention of the market on this important sector. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index includes all publicly traded stock exchanges and trading floors: Australian Securities Exchange Ltd B3 SA Bolsa de Comercio Santiago Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SA Boursa Kuwait Securities BSE Bulgarian Stock Exchange Bursa de Valori Bucuresti SA Bursa Malaysia Cboe Global Markets CME Group Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange PLC Deutsche Bourse Dubai Financial Market Euronext Hellenic Exchanges SA Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd Intercontinental Exchange Inc Japan Exchange Group, Inc Johannesburg Stock Exchange Ltd London Stock Exchange Group Multi Commodity Exchange of India Nairobi Securities Exchange Nasdaq New Zealand Exchange Ltd Philippine Stock Exchange Saudi Tadawul Group Singapore Exchange Ltd Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TMX Group Warsaw Stock Exchange Zagreb Stock Exchange The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index is compiled by FTSE Group from data based on the share price performance of listed exchanges and trading platforms.

Long Finance is pleased to present a short update on the progress being made in the Busan Finance Center (BFC). BFC is a member of Z/Yen’s Vantage Financial Centres network. The aim of this update is to provide readers with news about the progress being made by the city of Busan. Since 2009, Busan Metropolitan City has been developing a financial services hub specialising in maritime finance and derivatives. With its strategic location in the center of an economic bloc in South East Korea at the crossroads of a global logistics route, Busan envisions growing into an international financial city in Northeast Asia. BFC sets and implements strategies to develop Busan into an international financial city, by fostering Busan as the financial hub and promoting the financial industry. BFC was established as an incorporated association through the efforts of the city of Busan and seven local financial institutions and companies as founding sponsors. The main mission of BFC is to promote Busan as a financial hub and bolster the financial industry in Busan, by developing and implementing strategies to foster Busan as an international financial city and conducting mid-to-long term finance-related surveys and research. BFC works to promote relevant policies, attract financial institutions, create a financial ecosystem, conduct research and study into Busan’s development, and to facilitate internal and external cooperation. BFC is very happy to assist you to identify opportunities in Busan, one of the fastest developing cities in Asia. Download The Report

DataBP, LLC today announced that DataCT has been selected by the Operating Committee of the Consolidated Tape Plan (CT Plan) to serve as its Independent Administrator, pending the outcome of negotiations. The new CT Plan, which is expected to launch in early 2027, will be the unified successor to the three existing consolidated equity market data plans for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities in the U.S.In accordance with the CT Plan’s independence requirements, the Administrator function will be delivered through DataBP’s new independent affiliate, DataCT LLC; established specifically to operate the CT Plan Administrator role. DataCT is structured with its own governance, management, controls, and accountability, and operates independently under the direction and oversight of the CT Plan Operating Committee.The appointment follows a competitive selection process conducted pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approval of the CT Plan.During the transition period, Mark Schaedel, Chief Executive Officer of DataBP, will serve as Acting Chief Executive Officer of DataCT, providing executive continuity and oversight as DataCT completes staffing and operational readiness. This role is transitional and supports the planned handover to a permanent DataCT Chief Administrative Officer in line with CT Plan governance requirements.To support a disciplined transition and ongoing operational resilience, DataCT has entered into a services arrangement with Deloitte, under which Deloitte will support the transition program and provide ongoing shared services. Deloitte acts solely in a service-provider capacity and does not participate in CT Plan governance, policy-setting, or administrative decision-making.Through DataCT, the Independent Administrator will be responsible for subscriber onboarding and account management, licensing administration, usage reporting, billing and collections, audit and compliance oversight, revenue allocation administration, public and subscriber communications, and coordination with the Securities Information Processors (SIPs). While SIP processing functions will remain with the existing processors, the new Independent Administrator will be responsible for managing the transition from the current CTA/CQ and UTP Plan Administrators, which are expected to be retired following CT Plan’s go-live.“This appointment reflects the need for an administrator with deep operational experience and the ability to execute a complex transition without disruption to the market,” said Mark Schaedel, CEO of DataBP and Acting CEO of DataCT. “DataCT was established to provide a neutral, purpose-built administrative vehicle, combining independence, operational rigor, and modernized infrastructure, while remaining fully accountable to the Operating Committee.”The transition to the new unified CT Plan Administrator will proceed in defined phases, with full operational cutover occurring in accordance with the SEC-approved CT Plan timeline.