The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for January 2026.  The next release, which will report on data for February 2026, is scheduled for April 15, 2026.  The sum total in January of all net foreign acquisitions of long-term securities, short-term U.S. securities, and banking flows was a net TIC outflow of $25.0 billion.  Of this, net foreign private outflows were $76.1 billion, and net foreign official inflows were $51.1 billion. Foreign residents increased their holdings of long-term U.S. securities in January; their net purchases were $63.5 billion.  Net purchases by private foreign investors were $42.0 billion, and net purchases by foreign official institutions were $21.4 billion. U.S. residents increased their holdings of long-term foreign securities, with net purchases of $47.9 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 $15.5 billion in January. Foreign residents decreased their holdings of U.S. Treasury bills by $10.2 billion.  Foreign resident holdings of all dollar-denominated short-term U.S. securities and other custody liabilities increased by $17.8 billion. Banks’ own net dollar-denominated liabilities to foreign residents decreased by $58.3 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 March       TIC Monthly Reports on Cross-Border Financial Flows       (Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)                 12 Months Through                     2024 2025 Jan-25 Jan-26 Oct Nov Dec Jan     Foreigners' Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities                                             1     Gross U.S. Sales of Domestic U.S. Securities 70193.6 89320.1 71400.4 91676.5 8134.8 7814.6 9092.4 8543.1 2     Gross U.S. Purchases of Domestic U.S. Securities 69008.8 87708.7 70174.9 90003.5 8081.7 7597.3 8971.0 8479.6 3     Domestic Securities, net U.S. sales (line 1 less line 2) /1 1184.9 1611.4 1225.5 1673.0 53.1 217.3 121.4 63.5                             4       Private, net /2 1190.3 1601.5 1294.2 1582.8 63.2 153.1 114.2 42.0 5         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 516.6 458.3 480.6 438.1 -33.1 45.2 -5.9 -0.7 6         Gov't Agency Bonds, net 127.2 112.9 120.7 122.7 20.4 -10.9 13.3 15.1 7         Corporate Bonds, net 264.3 347.6 277.9 332.8 23.0 47.5 17.2 10.6 8         Equities, net 282.2 682.7 415.1 689.2 53.0 71.4 89.6 17.0                             9       Official, net /3 -5.5 9.8 -68.7 90.2 -10.1 64.1 7.2 21.4 10         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net -26.8 -34.0 -48.2 40.9 -24.8 33.2 -21.1 50.6 11         Gov't Agency Bonds, net -44.2 -57.1 -49.4 -57.2 5.6 -2.6 -3.6 -5.2 12         Corporate Bonds, net 40.2 39.2 33.2 42.1 1.7 10.3 0.5 1.3 13         Equities, net 25.3 61.7 -4.4 64.4 7.3 23.2 31.4 -25.3                             14     Gross U.S. Sales of Foreign Securities 18304.9 23184.3 18608.7 24075.5 2137.6 2069.4 2244.6 2512.8 15     Gross U.S. Purchases of Foreign Securities 18713.7 23505.6 19038.0 24403.2 2158.8 2081.4 2269.5 2560.7 16     Foreign Securities, net U.S. sales (line 14 less line 15) /4 -408.8 -321.3 -429.3 -327.7 -21.2 -12.1 -24.9 -47.9 17         Foreign Bonds, net -260.3 -213.6 -272.9 -219.9 -36.6 -21.4 -19.7 -44.7 18         Foreign Equities, net -148.5 -107.7 -156.4 -107.8 15.4 9.3 -5.2 -3.3                             19     Net Long-Term Securities Transactions (lines 3 and 16): 776.1 1290.1 796.2 1345.3 31.9 205.2 96.5 15.5                             20     Other Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities, net /5 0.0 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): 776.1 1290.1 796.2 1345.3 31.9 205.2 96.5 15.5                             22   Increase in Foreign Holdings of Dollar-Denominated Short-Term                           U.S. Securities and Other Custody Liabilities: /6 196.5 199.9 284.3 161.8 21.5 -0.5 12.2 17.8 23     U.S. Treasury Bills 222.3 142.3 283.2 99.0 21.8 0.3 9.7 -10.2 24       Private, net 165.3 60.7 160.0 64.8 7.0 1.0 6.8 -29.4 25       Official, net 57.0 81.6 123.1 34.2 14.8 -0.6 2.9 19.2 26     Other Negotiable Instruments                           and Selected Other Liabilities: /7 -25.8 57.6 1.1 62.7 -0.4 -0.8 2.5 27.9 27       Private, net -27.8 63.7 -1.1 69.6 -0.5 0.0 3.7 27.6 28       Official, net 1.9 -6.2 2.3 -6.9 0.1 -0.8 -1.2 0.4                             29   Change in Banks' Own Net Dollar-Denominated Liabilities 243.0 -69.5 190.4 -58.6 -73.0 -1.7 5.1 -58.3                             30 Monthly Net Dollar-Denominated Portfolio Inflows (lines 21, 22, and 29) /8 /9 1215.5 1420.4 1270.9 1448.5 -19.6 203.0 113.9 -25.0     of  which                   31     Private, net 1084.3 1388.6 1131.0 1393.7 -0.4 156.6 103.2 -76.1 32     Official, net 131.2 31.8 139.8 54.8 -19.2 46.4 10.7 51.1                                                         /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.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released enforcement actions for March 2026. The OCC uses enforcement actions against an institution-affiliated party (IAP) to deter, encourage correction of, or prevent violations, unsafe or unsound practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty. Enforcement actions against IAPs reinforce the accountability of individuals for their conduct regarding the affairs of a bank. The term “institution-affiliated party,” or IAP, is defined in 12 USC 1813(u) and includes bank directors, officers, employees, and controlling shareholders. Orders of Prohibition prohibit an individual from any participation in the affairs of a bank or other institution as defined in 12 USC 1818(e)(7). The OCC has taken the following actions against IAPs: Order of Prohibition against Tabitha McCallister, former Client Service Representative at Old National Bank, Evansville, Indiana, for making unauthorized withdrawals from Bank customer accounts totaling over $19,000. (Docket No. AA-CE-2026-11) 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 Consent Order against Heritage Bank, National Association, Spicer, Minnesota, dated April 2, 2024 (Docket No. AA-WE-2024-24). (Docket No. AA-WE-2026-10) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with 1st National Bank, Lebanon, Ohio, dated July 25, 2024 (Docket No. AA-CE-2024-27). (Docket No. AA-CE-2026-1) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with Slovenian S&LA of Franklin-Conemaugh, Conemaugh, Pennsylvania, dated July 26, 2024 (Docket No. AA-CE-2024-65). (Docket No. AA-CE-2026-13) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with Touchmark National Bank, Alpharetta, Georgia, dated April 17, 2024 (Docket No. AA-SO-2024-25). (Docket No. AA-SO-2026-12) 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 Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority recently finalized its Basel 3.1 framework for implementation at the start of 2027. David Bailey, executive director for prudential policy, talks to IQ about the importance of global consistency and the need to strike a balance in regulating fast-changing markets. Click on the attached PDF to read the interview. Documents (1)for IQ Interview with David Bailey ISDA IQ Interview with David Bailey Bank of England(pdf)

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for the newly added adjusted symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading on MIAX Options, MIAX Pearl Options, and MIAX Sapphire Options beginning Thursday, March 19, 2026. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2026-36 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2026-36 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2026-37 Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.

The market opened for three trading days this week as the Federal Government declared Thursday March 19 and Friday March 20, 2026, as Public Holidays to commemorate the Eid-el-Fitr Celebration. A total turnover of 8.761 billion shares worth ₦267.253 billion in 193,473 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 3.321 billion shares valued at ₦164.845 billion that exchanged hands last week in 318,907 deals. Click here for full details.

The attached tables and charts released on Wednesday summarize the economic projections made by Federal Open Market Committee participants in conjunction with the March 17-18 meeting. Projections (PDF) | Accessible Materials

Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months. Inflation remains somewhat elevated. The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. The implications of developments in the Middle East for the U.S. economy are uncertain. The Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate. In support of its goals, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3‑1/2 to 3‑3/4 percent. In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective. In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee's goals. The Committee's assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments. Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michael S. Barr; Michelle W. Bowman; Lisa D. Cook; Beth M. Hammack; Philip N. Jefferson; Neel Kashkari; Lorie K. Logan; Anna Paulson; and Christopher J. Waller. Voting against this action was Stephen I. Miran, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point at this meeting. Implementation Note issued March 18, 2026

Parameta Solutions, the Data & Analytics division of TP ICAP Group, today announced a partnership with Surperformance, the operator of Zonebourse.com and Marketscreener.com, to significantly expand global access to its EUR and USD Interest Rate Swap Indices. The indices are widely used as reference rates across a broad range of investment products and risk management applications.  Parameta Solutions’ Swap Rate IndicesParameta Solutions Swap Rate Indices provide a transparent, daily snapshot of EUR and USD interest‑rate swap markets. They are relied upon across the financial ecosystem, from banks structuring interest‑rate‑linked products and insurers managing long‑term liabilities, to asset managers supporting valuation, portfolio analysis, and risk management. Built on high‑quality transaction data from TP ICAP’s leading interdealer broker desks, the indices are calculated using a robust methodology that delivers an 11am fixing. This provides market participants with a reliable foundation for pricing, hedging, and product design. Launched with Société Générale as an anchor client, the indices were quickly adopted by major European and US banks and approved for use by leading insurance companies. Their uptake demonstrates strong market demand for transparent benchmarks that reflect OTC market conditions. Silvina Aldeco-Martinez, Chief Executive Officer at Parameta Solutions:“Our approach at Parameta Solutions is grounded in delivering high‑integrity benchmarks. Partnering with Surperformance enables us to scale access to our swap rate indices, allowing more market participants to build on high‑quality, data‑driven foundations. This collaboration supports our long‑term goal of democratising access to robust OTC market benchmarks, reducing friction, and strengthening trust in reference rates. Ultimately, it helps institutions, issuers, and investors make better decisions in a complex interest rate environment.” A Strategic Role for SurperformanceUnder the partnership, Parameta Solutions’ Interest Rate Swap Indices will be published on Zonebourse.com and Marketscreener.com, significantly enhancing their visibility and accessibility for both institutional and retail market participants. As swap rate indices underpin the wide range of financial structures, ensuring stable, long-term access to them is critical. Surperformance provides a neutral, scalable, and unified distribution infrastructure, enabling frictionless access to critical index data. Franck Morel, CEO of Surperformance:“By publishing Parameta Solutions’ indices on MarketScreener.com and Zonebourse.com, Surperformance continues to strengthen its role as a strategic hub for financial information. Our unified and neutral infrastructure simplifies access to critical market data for institutional players, private investors, and issuers.” Professional Usage TermsProfessional use of the index access URL, including incorporation into product documentation, commercial materials, or contractual disclosures such as term sheets, brochures, or addenda, requires a prior formal agreement with Surperformance.

BPX, the UK FCA-authorised institutional venue for issuing, trading and lending traditional and tokenised alternative assets, today announced that Investec has joined as the first member of its digital securities marketplace. This milestone marks the beginning of institutional participation on BPX’s digital securities marketplace as the venue moves towards live market operations, with additional institutions progressing through onboarding. Ali Celiker, Founder and CEO of BPX, said: “BPX was created to reimagine how capital markets operate by enabling the creation, issuance, settlement and trading of securities through modern digital infrastructure. Achieving this vision requires forward-thinking institutions willing to engage with new market models and help shape the future. “ “We are delighted to welcome Investec as the first member of BPX and look forward to working closely together as we continue building a securities marketplace that is out of the ordinary.” Investec will connect to BPX through its electronic trading platform ZebrA-X, which provides clients with a single point of access to multiple trading venues and liquidity pools. The platform enables institutional investors to access markets through a unified electronic environment while maintaining familiar trading workflows. By integrating BPX with ZebrA-X, Investec’s clients will gain streamlined access to BPX’s securities marketplace, bridging the gap between traditional capital markets and the emerging digital financial ecosystem. Dominic Lowres, Head of Electronic Trading and Execution Strategy at Investec, said: “Markets are evolving quickly, but greater innovation can often mean greater complexity for investors. ZebrA-X is designed to simplify that landscape by giving clients efficient access to multiple venues and liquidity pools through a single connection, while preserving the trading workflows they know and trust.” “Joining BPX reflects Investec’s commitment to backing market infrastructure that can broaden access to new asset classes in a practical, transparent and client-focused way. By connecting BPX to ZebrA-X, we can help clients engage with emerging digital securities markets through a familiar execution environment.” Capital markets are undergoing structural change driven by advances in tokenisation, settlement technology and market connectivity. Initiatives such as the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox and accelerated settlement reforms are beginning to reshape how assets can be issued, traded and settled within regulated markets. BPX is among a select group of firms admitted to the joint Bank of England and FCA Digital Securities Sandbox, where it is developing infrastructure to support digital assets. Working alongside its members, BPX is helping lay the foundations for a more efficient, transparent and digitally native market structure.

ING has appointed Caue Todeschini as Global Lead Trade & Commodity Finance (TCF), effective immediately. He succeeds Maarten Koning, who recently stepped into the role of Global Head of Private Markets. Caue joined ING in 2010 and has since held key roles in São Paulo, Geneva, and the United States. In 2020, he became Head of TCF Houston, playing a pivotal role in establishing ING’s physical presence in the Gulf Coast. Since 2023, he has served as Head of TCF Americas. With more than 20 years of international experience in banking and finance, Caue brings deep sector knowledge and a strong track record of leadership. He is well‑positioned to continue strengthening ING’s global TCF franchise while preparing the business for the opportunities and challenges ahead. Caue will report to Paul‑Emmanuel Aerts, Global Head of Sector Commodities, Food & Agri, and he will be based in Geneva. A successor for his current role as Head of TCF Americas will be announced in due course.

GlobalBlock, part of GCEX Group, today launches its digital assets offering for UK clients, providing a clear, professional route to access crypto services with robust controls and institutional-grade support. GlobalBlock’s UK cryptoasset financial promotions have been approved for communication by Archax Limited (FRN 855171), an FCA-authorised firm, under the FCA’s cryptoasset financial promotions regime. The approval complements GCEX Group's existing licences and registrations across a number of jurisdictions, covering both traditional financial services and digital assets. This new offering complements the Group's existing FCA authorisation for FX and CFDs, its MiCA licence for crypto-asset services across the EU, and its Virtual Asset Service Provider licence in Dubai. GlobalBlock and GCEX Group are not authorised or regulated by the FCA for the provision of cryptoasset services, as cryptoassets are not regulated in the UK. Available via globalblock.co.uk, the offering combines OTC execution, portfolio solutions for eligible clients, and cryptoasset settlement and invoicing tools for businesses. It is supported by GCEX Group’s institutional-grade infrastructure, liquidity and global counterparty relationships, with governance and controls designed to meet the requirements applicable to the relevant entity and jurisdiction. The announcement marks a significant step in the integration of GlobalBlock into the GCEX Group ecosystem following the acquisition completed in September 2025 and underlines the Group's strategy to serve a growing global client base of high-net-worth individuals, family offices, asset managers and corporates seeking professional access to digital assets supported by a UK financial promotions approval arrangement and infrastructure operated by entities that are authorised or licenced in other relevant jurisdictions. David Thomas, Co-Founder of GlobalBlock, commented: “This launch is the culmination of everything we have been building, a genuinely complete digital assets offering for clients who want to trade, invest, and transact in crypto with confidence. Backed by GCEX Group’s depth of relationships, liquidity and infrastructure, GlobalBlock can now deliver that proposition at scale, within a framework designed to meet UK financial promotions requirements and supported by GCEX Group’s regulated entities and controls in relevant jurisdictions.” Ben Brown, Chief Compliance Officer at Archax, added: “It is a pleasure to welcome the GlobalBlock arm of GCEX to the list of clients on our FCA Section 21 Approval Service.  Through this service, our mission is to be the partner for leading names in crypto to enable them to navigate the complex FCA financial promotions regime effectively. We are pleased to support GlobalBlock in engaging with UK audiences in a fully Financial Promotions compliant manner, ensuring they can stay aligned to evolving rules and guidance while maintaining their credibility.” Lars Holst, Founder and CEO of GCEX Group, added: " Regulation is something we take seriously and invest in, and we believe that commitment reflects the standards our clients expect of us. Having GlobalBlock's UK financial promotions approved by Archax, alongside our MiCA authorisation, VARA licence and FCA registration for FX and CFDs, reflects the multi-jurisdictional regulatory framework within which different GCEX Group entities operate. Our clients, whether high-net-worth individuals, family offices, asset managers or corporates, can engage with us knowing that we seek to maintain strong governance and controls, aligned to the requirements of the relevant entity and jurisdiction in which we operate." Headquartered in London, with multiple offices across the globe, GCEX is authorised and regulated by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet) as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and as a Currency Exchange and has a Virtual Asset Service Provider licence by the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. GCEX is authorised and regulated by the UK FCA for the provision of FX and CFD products. True Global Ventures are investors in GCEX. For further information, please visit www.gc.exchange or www.globalblock.co.uk

London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSEG) announces today that it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each on the London Stock Exchange from Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc (Morgan Stanley) as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 26 February 2026: Ordinary Shares   Date of purchase: 17 March 2026 Number of ordinary shares purchased: 341,572 Highest price paid per share: 8,892.00p Lowest price paid per share: 8,702.00p Volume weighted average price per share: 8,781.69p   LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares. Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 501,072,207 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 21,451,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 501,072,207. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules. In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (as it forms part of the law of the United Kingdom by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter) a full breakdown of the individual trades made by the Morgan Stanley on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/0316X_1-2026-3-17.pdf This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction. Schedule of Purchases Shares purchased: 341,572 Date of purchases: 17 March 2026 Investment firm: Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc   Aggregate Information: Venue Volume weighted average price Aggregated Volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share XLON 8,783.69p 316,560 8,702.00p 8,892.00p TRQX 8,756.27p 25,012 8,712.00p 8,780.00p

ASIC is seeking feedback on options for increasing the net tangible assets (NTA) requirement for responsible entities of registered managed investment schemes.Consultation Paper 388 Net tangible assets requirement for responsible entities (CP 388) proposes changes to the current NTA requirement set out in ASIC Corporations (Financial Requirements for Responsible Entities, IDPS Operators and Corporate Directors of Retail CCIVs) Instrument 2023/647 (Instrument 2023/647).  This consultation is intended to ensure the requirement continues to meet its objectives.We are also seeking feedback on: increasing the NTA requirements that apply to other fund operators i.e. operators of investor directed portfolio services (IDPSs) and corporate directors of retail corporate collective investment schemes (CCIVs), and the NTA requirements for other categories of licensees as this will inform future ASIC work. ASIC will announce its final position by 31 July 2026. Providing feedback ASIC welcomes feedback from industry and interested stakeholders on CP 388. Please send your submissions to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au by 5.00 pm AEST on 17 April 2026. Download Consultation Paper 388 Net tangible assets requirement for responsible entities (CP 388) Background Responsible entities of registered managed investment schemes must meet the financial requirements (including the NTA requirement) in Instrument 2023/647. Operators of IDPSs and corporate directors of CCIVs are subject to similar requirements. See Regulatory Guide 166 AFS Licensing: Financial requirements (RG 166). ASIC last amended the financial thresholds in the NTA requirement for responsible entities in 2013. The NTA requirement aims to align the fund operator’s interests with members and ensure it can meet its operating costs and that money is available to transition the scheme if it fails. The requirement is not designed to prevent business failure or fully compensate investors who suffer loss from significant events.The Treasury is separately reviewing options for enhancing oversight and governance of managed investment schemes.

In accordance with its assessment in the most recent stability report, FI is leaving the countercyclical buffer rate unchanged in the first quarter. The buffer rate of 2 per cent, which was applied starting on 22 June 2023, shall thus continue to apply. The countercyclical buffer guide is calculated at 0 per cent. The table shows the current buffer rate as well as future buffer rates that have been decided. Current buffer rate New decided buffer rate Credit-to-GDP gap Buffer guide 2 per cent - -21 ppts 0 per cent The systemic risk indicator (d-SRI) provides an overall picture of the build-up of risks, see diagram in pdf below. According to the Capital Buffers Act (2014:966), FI must change or determine the countercyclical buffer rate when necessary. According to the same Act, FI must calculate a countercyclical buffer guide for each quarter. As of 1 April, the Riksbank will be responsible for setting the countercyclical capital buffer. Systemic risk indicator d-SRI (2026-03-18) ( < 1MB) Stability in the Financial System (2025:2)

Australians now have unprecedented access to consumer complaints data following the launch of ASIC’s new interactive dashboard. The Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) data dashboard enables users to compare the complaints reported by individual financial firms for the first time, including their handling of complaints associated with specific products like home loans, credit cards, life and general insurance, or financial advice. ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said the data dashboard would enhance transparency by providing valuable insights into complaints volumes and trends, giving greater visibility of consumer concerns and potential harm across the financial services industry. ‘Transparency is crucial to supporting a fair, strong, and efficient financial system. The launch of our new internal dispute resolution data dashboard marks a significant step in improving public scrutiny of the system,’ he said. Other key features of the dashboard include: an overview of complaints volumes and trends over specified reporting periods categorised breakdowns of complaints by issue and complaint outcome complaints resolution times for individual financial firms, and information about monetary remedies paid. Commissioner Kirkland added that in addition to empowering consumers, the public-facing dashboard promotes greater accountability within the financial services industry and provides ASIC with a valuable data set to inform regulatory decision making. 'Beyond providing for a comparison between individual firms, this dashboard provides a bird's-eye view of how the Australian financial sector handles complaints,' said Mr Kirkland. 'This makes it easier to identify key trends, including the reasons complaints are lodged, increases or decreases in complaints handling times, and the sorts of products that attract the most complaints. This in turn allows us to flag emerging issues for industry attention before they become serious problems.' The dashboard also includes important information for users about how to navigate the new dashboard, how to interpret the data, definitions of key terms, and an explanation of the methodology. This IDR data publication aligns with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s reporting of external dispute resolution (data to provide a complete picture of the financial dispute resolution framework. In October, ASIC also launched its Reportable Situations dashboard, which contains granular information about financial services and credit licensees’ self-reported breaches. Interactive dashboard Internal Dispute Resolution data dashboard Additional information ASIC outlines approach to breach and complaints data publications 25-054MR ASIC consults on plan to increase visibility of firms’ breach and complaints data Reportable situations insights 24-264MR ASIC flags key observations from inaugural IDR data publication How to complain Background The IDR regime requires certain financial firms to report all complaints received through their IDR processes. ASIC is empowered to publish firm level information about complaints received. In previous years, ASIC published thematic reports on IDR but has since foreshadowed the intention to publish more granular data following consultation. ASIC consulted on its proposed approach over April and May 2025, before publishing a summary of feedback in September 2025 outlining its final approach to the IDR data publication. The publication approach was determined following consideration of 47 submissions received in response to CP 383 Reportable situations and internal dispute resolution data publication (CP 383).

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and Financial Services Institute (FSI), released the following statement today regarding the order and final judgment entered in American Council of Life Insurers, et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The order vacates the Department of Labor’s 2024 Definition of Investment Advice Fiduciary rule and related prohibited transaction exemptions, and grants plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for entry of final judgment. SIFMA and FSI were Plaintiffs-Intervenors in the challenge to 2024 Rule. “Today’s decision rightly vacates and sets aside the 2024 Rule, which exceeded the DOL’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious.  The order ensures that financial advisors can continue to provide the services best suited for each individual client. The 2024 rule was materially indistinguishable from a 2016 DOL rule that was struck down by the Fifth Circuit in 2018. “As we explained in our complaint, ‘[l]ike the 2016 Rule, the 2024 Rule is inconsistent with the common law, contravenes the statutory text, and impermissibly attempts to regulate the provision of services to accounts over which the Labor Department has no regulatory authority.  Indeed, the illegality of the 2024 Rule is even clearer today….’ This decision is a win for investors because the unlawful expansion of the definition of a ‘fiduciary’ would have jeopardized investors’ access to advice and education.” Specifically, the court order vacated the Retirement Security Rule: Definition of an Investment Advice Fiduciary as well as the Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2020-02, Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24, and Amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemptions 75-1, 77-4, 80-83, 83-1, and 86-128. Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ complaint filed in this case, American Council of Life Insurers, et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor, can be found here: https://www.sifma.org/advocacy/court-filings/complaint-filed-in-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-northern-district-of-texas-worth-division

 Good afternoon. Before I begin, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission. It is an honor to be here and to speak with the builders, developers, and entrepreneurs who are helping to shape the next frontier of finance. Today, I want to talk about the profound shift we all see underway in our world, one that I hope can rebuild the trust that has been lost in recent years in two foundational pillars of American society: our financial systems and our information systems. Trust in Decentralization Let me begin with the idea of trust in decentralization.  For centuries, financial markets have required agreed-upon methods or rules to establish confidence and trust among market participants.  A farmer selling wheat futures must trust that the contract will settle, and a trader entering a derivatives position must trust that the counterparty will perform. Historically, these assurances were provided by requirements set by regulatory agencies and centralized “trusted” institutions like exchanges and clearinghouses.[1]   While those institutions remain essential, in recent years, an increasing number of people have started to question many of the practices and assurances made by those gatekeepers. Indeed, in recent years, much has been revealed.  We have seen a combination of new technology, poor foresight, and an undemocratic need for control undermine the stewardship placed in the establishment’s care for decades. We have seen regulatory agencies weaponized against innovative sectors like crypto, regulating through enforcement and driving American builders overseas. And we have seen major financial institutions debank companies and individuals who did nothing more than operate within a politically disfavored industry.[2] The formerly trusted guardians of financial prudence have lost face and lost the confidence of a broad swath of the American population. And they know it. Clearly, something needs to be done to rebuild our faith in the system and in our future as a nation. In response to this crisis, we must not be afraid to look forward to new technologies, and new thinking, because new technologies, when combined with the power of open markets and systems, have often been the catalysts that push institutions and regulators to modernize systems built for an earlier era. Breakthroughs in emerging technologies are enabling entirely new methods by which people can own and transfer assets and discover truth. Distributed ledgers allow transactions to be recorded on a transparent, shared infrastructure. Smart contracts allow obligations to be executed programmatically according to predefined rules. Open-source code allows market participants to inspect the architecture that governs how these transactions occur.  It is an American value to own your own property, and protocols developed for decentralized finance, or DeFi, are a prime example of a way Americans can own property and access the financial system without a middleman. Anyone with an internet connection can access lending, borrowing, or trading protocols that are transparent, auditable, and resistant to single points of failure.  This isn’t just efficiency; it’s democratization of finance, where trust emerges from verifiable code and consensus, rather than opaque institutions. This shift is profound.  And, if history is any guide, it is consistent with the long evolution of American commodity markets.  Our markets have always evolved with technology—from open pit trading to electronic platforms, to algorithmic execution.[3] Today, permissionless blockchain networks represent the next chapter in this story.  Trust in Markets In parallel, we see a similar revolution for trust within information systems. Prediction markets allow market participants to trade on the probability of future events. These markets aggregate information from many participants and harness collective intelligence to forecast outcomes, from elections to economic trends.  Accuracy is rewarded, and misinformation is penalized through economic incentives. Markets serve as powerful tools for information discovery, as participants reveal their beliefs through the action of economic risk-taking. As new information enters the system, prices adjust. And, over time, the market aggregates dispersed knowledge into a tangible signal of probability, usually in the form of a number or a percentage.  In an efficient market, asset prices react and reflect publicly available information about the asset.[4] And in the same way that we understand the value of market price signals, prediction markets can make clear the critical information influencing what later will be deemed to be true or false. In this sense, predication markets function as a forum for decentralized truth.  Prices, not political biases, signal the likelihood of a future outcome, and establish trust in the wisdom of the market.  At the same time, social media platforms are fostering a form of decentralized trust via user-driven content, where real-time verification by millions of participants uproots the dominance of traditional news outlets. No longer do we wait for news corporations and their army of editors, anointed in the dark and pushing slanted viewpoints, to dictate the narrative. Instead, truth bubbles up from diverse, decentralized voices, often faster and more reliably than legacy reporting. Yet, this progress in decentralized truth hasn’t come without challenges, particularly from politicians and even us regulators. For example, we saw the prior administration attempt to ban political prediction markets ahead of the 2024 elections.[5] With President Trump’s landslide victory, it is no surprise that they tried to do so.  We have also seen government regimes suppress particular viewpoints across news outlets and push what we now know as disinformation or “fake news”.  Protecting the freedom to transact in prediction markets should not be a controversial or partisan issue, it is essential.  Americans should have the freedom to transact in lawful derivatives markets and should trust in the reliability of their signals.  Instead of establishing rules to protect consumers and prevent manipulation, the prior administration tried to outlaw these markets and went so far as to raid the home of a founder in the weeks leading up to the 2024 election.[6]  This only served to further stifle the technology’s potential and undermine the dependability of the information that we consume each day.  And after the courts rejected the prior administration’s attempts to ban these markets,[7] it was caught flat-footed, without rules in place for the broad range of new contracts that were trading across the country. Thankfully, we live in a new reality where much more is possible. Last week, the CFTC and the SEC announced a Memorandum of Understanding that solidifies our agencies’ efforts to harmonize our regulatory initiatives and help unlock the full promise of these innovations.[8] Jurisdictional clarity is essential if innovators are going to build compliant products in the United States. For crypto, that means practical steps like a commonsense taxonomy to classify crypto assets sensibly and put the prior administration’s “ecosystem” theory of security status to bed, once and for all. This means directing staff to engage with market participants, including developers of onchain software systems, such as digital wallets and DeFi protocols, to better understand how existing regulatory requirements apply, if at all, to the emerging technologies they build. As financial markets move onchain, I believe the United States should serve as the base layer where builders choose to deploy the systems powering this new frontier of finance. We must also recognize that these systems are designed along a spectrum of decentralization. At one end of the spectrum, we see onchain systems that are centrally controlled and administered by a central actor or group of actors.  At the other end, we see onchain systems that are not controlled or administered by a central actor or group of actors acting in concert. It is long overdue for the Commission to clarify which onchain software systems are subject to registration and which are not. Restoring Trust Let me close by returning to where I began. The United States has long been the global leader in financial innovation.  Our derivatives markets are among the most sophisticated and liquid in the world.  They serve farmers managing crop risk, energy companies hedging price swings, manufacturers managing supply chains, and investors allocating capital.  That leadership did not happen by accident; it emerged from a regulatory philosophy that allowed markets to innovate while maintaining strong protections.  Fortunately, the United States—under President Trump’s leadership—has an opportunity to lead this transformation as the new frontier of finance rises towards us from below the horizon. In financial markets, permissionless public blockchains and DeFi protocols are introducing new ways to generate trust through transparent, open-source infrastructure.  In information systems, prediction markets are serving as a new tool for discovering truth, using price signals and economic incentives to aggregate dispersed knowledge.    These developments reflect a broader shift towards trust in decentralized and market-based systems.  Leadership matters, and our role as regulators is not to resist that shift or try to reorient activity to achieve some predetermined outcome—it is to provide a balanced framework for this shift to flourish. If we get the balance right, decentralized and market-based systems will prosper, and we, as a nation, can then embrace this new re-establishment of trust in our financial and information systems. And with that, let me hand it over to my friend, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins.  [1] See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. § 7 (Contract Markets) and 7 U.S.C. § 7a-1(Derivatives Clearing Organizations). [2] See, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/jpmorgan-concedes-it-closed-trumps-accounts-after-jan-6-attack.html. [3] See, https://commoditieshub.ch/en/fundamentals/the-history-of-commodity-trading/. [4] See, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/efficient-market-hypothesis-emh. [5] See, e.g., CFTC Release No. 8780–23, CFTC Disapproves KalshiEX LLC’s Congressional Control Contracts (Sept. 22, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8780-23. [6] See, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fbi-raids-polymarket-ceo-shayne-coplans-apartment-seizes-phone-source-rcna180180. [7] See, e.g., KalshiEx LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, No. 1:23-cv-03257, 2024 WL 4164694 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-5205, 2025 WL 1349979 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2025) [8] See, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9192-26.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Chairman Selig, for your insightful remarks. It is a pleasure to join you today to discuss a subject that sits at the center of American innovation, capital formation, and the enduring principles of our securities laws. Before I go any further, let me offer the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. For over a decade, market participants have operated without clear guidance on a fundamental question: when does a crypto asset implicate the federal securities laws? Today, I am pleased to announce that the SEC’s persistent failure to provide clarity on this question is over. As we speak, the Commission is implementing a token taxonomy and investment contract interpretation. Our interpretation—grounded in existing law and informed by extensive public input—establishes four asset categories that are not deemed securities: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act. With these categories in place, the interpretation then clarifies that only one crypto asset class remains subject to the securities laws: digital securities, namely traditional securities that are tokenized. This distinction returns the Commission to its core mission—and statutory authority—of protecting investors involved in securities transactions. Of course, even a crypto asset that is not a security may become subject to the Federal securities laws if it is offered and sold as part of an investment contract. Which is why, more importantly, our interpretation addresses how the investment contract ends, freeing the subject crypto asset from the SEC’s statutes. A key tenet of our interpretation is that the project team clearly discloses the representations or promises that they make, so investors understand the bundle of rights they are purchasing. We clarify that the representations or promises that generate reliance under Howey must be explicit and unambiguous as to the essential managerial efforts that the project team intends to undertake. While this interpretation provides long-needed clarity, I should like to assure this audience that today’s announcement amounts to a beginning, not an end. In just a few moments, I look forward to discussing how the SEC and CFTC plan to work together to implement this interpretation. But first, allow me to take some time to preview the broader framework that we are building. Of course, I would also like to recognize someone whose fingerprints are all over what I will describe today—my colleague, Commissioner Hester Peirce. For years, Commissioner Peirce has been a principled, and sometimes solitary, voice calling for clarity in the crypto asset markets. In fact, the proposal that I will discuss today, my vision for Regulation Crypto Assets, traces its lineage directly to the framework that she first introduced in February 2020 as the Token Safe Harbor.[1] So, to Commissioner Peirce, thank you for your inspired leadership on these issues. We would not be here today but for your efforts, and I am confident that the Commission will continue to make strides toward your vision in the coming years. Future-Proofing Against Rogue Regulation Before proceeding further, let me also emphasize one important point. Only Congress can ensure that regulation in this area is future-proofed through comprehensive market structure legislation. I strongly support the ongoing bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to establish a durable framework for these markets. Regulation Crypto Assets is a framework that would draw heavily from Congressional work over recent years, particularly the CLARITY Act. Any exemptive rulemaking that the Commission considers, as described below, would give us a head start implementing historic bipartisan market structure legislation that will soon reach President Trump’s desk. A Compliant Path Forward: Regulation Crypto Assets Now, I suspect that many in this audience are tired of hearing about the perils of uncertainty. Quite frankly, so am I. It is past time for us to stop diagnosing the problem and start delivering the solution. On that note, I would like to walk you through my thoughts for what a safe harbor proposal could consist of. Such a safe harbor would provide crypto innovators bespoke pathways to raise capital in the U.S., while providing appropriate investor protections. Startup Exemption First, I believe that the Commission should consider a fit-for-purpose “startup exemption,” which would be a time-limited registration exemption for offerings of investment contracts involving certain crypto assets. Such an exemption could last (say up to four years) and provide developers with a regulatory runway during which they could work to reach maturity. Importantly, this exemption could be non-exclusive, meaning that all other exemptions to raise capital under the Federal securities laws could remain available. The exemption could also allow entrepreneurs to raise up to a defined amount (say $5 million) during the four-year period, with notices to the Commission when relying on the exemption and when exiting. To avail themselves of this exemption, entrepreneurs could provide certain principles-based disclosures about the investment contract and the underlying crypto asset, similar to what we see in white papers today, which could be made available on a public website. Fundraising Exemption Second, what I have in mind is that the Commission could consider a “fundraising exemption,” which could be a new offering exemption for investment contracts involving certain crypto assets. Entrepreneurs could raise up to a defined amount (say $75 million) during any 12-month period while retaining the ability to rely on other exemptions from registration under the Federal securities laws. Issuers relying on the exemption could file a disclosure document with the Commission that could include (1) the same principles-based disclosure, as in the “startup exemption”; (2) a discussion of the issuer’s financial condition; and (3) the issuer’s financial statements. Investment Contract Safe Harbor Third, I would like for the Commission to consider an “investment contract safe harbor” from the definition of “security” for certain crypto assets. This safe harbor could apply once the issuer has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that the issuer represented or promised that it would engage in under the investment contract. What I have in mind here is a safe harbor that could provide a rule-based standard to give issuers and other market participants greater certainty about when a crypto asset is not subject to the Federal securities laws. The safe harbor could align with the principles articulated in the Commission’s interpretative release. Of course, the proposal would not require issuers to rely on this framework. A New Chapter for American Innovation In the coming weeks, I expect the Commission to consider releasing such a proposed rule for public comment. I look forward to hearing from investors, developers, academics, and market participants across the ecosystem. As we look toward the next chapter of our nation’s economic history, it behooves us to remember what has always made America exceptional. It is not merely the size of our markets or the sophistication of our financial institutions, but our willingness to trust individuals with the freedom to innovate. To take risks. To build new systems that expand opportunities for others. Our securities laws were designed to amplify that energy, not to suppress it. As regulators, we must ensure that our rules remain faithful to the principles that inspired them. If we succeed, then the next generation of entrepreneurs will not need to ask whether innovation is possible in America. They will know that it is possible. And they will build the future here. Thank you very much. I look forward to the work ahead—and to discussing these ideas further in the discussion to follow. Thank you. [1] http://sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-blockress-2020-02-06

Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), a leading global markets operator and pioneer in equity derivatives, will announce its financial results for the first quarter of 2026 before the market opens on Friday, May 1, 2026. A conference call with remarks by the company's senior management will begin at 7:30 a.m. CT (8:30 a.m. ET).  A live audio webcast for the conference call and the presentation that will be referenced during the call will be available on the Investor Relations section of Cboe's website at ir.cboe.com under Events. The presentation will be archived on the company's website for replay. A replay of the recording is expected to be available two hours after the conference call ends. To listen to the live conference call via telephone, please dial (800) 715-9871 (toll-free) or (646) 307-1963 (toll) and use the Conference ID 8939587.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission joined the Securities and Exchange Commission today in issuing an interpretation clarifying how the federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets. The CFTC joined the interpretation to provide guidance the CFTC and its staff will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistent with the SEC’s interpretation. This is a major step in the agencies’ efforts to provide greater clarity regarding the treatment of crypto assets, and complements Congressional endeavors to codify a comprehensive market structure framework into statute.  “For far too long, American builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs have awaited clear guidance on the status of crypto assets under the federal securities laws and Commodity Exchange Act,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “With today’s interpretation, the wait is over. Chairman Atkins and I are committed to fostering a regulatory environment that allows the crypto industry to flourish in the United States with clear and rational rules of the road. Today’s joint agency action reflects a shared commitment to developing workable, harmonized regulations for the new frontier of finance.” “After more than a decade of uncertainty, this interpretation will provide market participants with a clear understanding of how the Commission treats crypto assets under federal securities laws. This is what regulatory agencies are supposed to do: draw clear lines in clear terms,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “It also acknowledges what the former administration refused to recognize – that most crypto assets are not themselves securities. And it reflects the reality that investment contracts can come to an end. This effort serves as an important bridge for entrepreneurs and investors as Congress works to advance bipartisan market structure legislation, which I look forward to implementing with Chairman Selig in the near future.”  The SEC’s interpretation:  Provides an interpretation of the definition of “security” as applied to crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets as part of its efforts to provide greater clarity regarding the Commission’s treatment of crypto assets under the Federal securities laws. Provides a coherent token taxonomy for digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities.  Addresses how a “non-security crypto asset”—which is a crypto asset that itself is not a security—may become subject to, and how it may cease to be subject to, an investment contract.  Clarifies the application of federal securities laws to airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking, and the wrapping of a non-security crypto asset. The CFTC provides guidance the CFTC and its staff will administer the CEA consistent with the SEC’s interpretation, and that certain non-security crypto assets could meet the definition of “commodity” under the CEA. The interpretation discusses digital commodities in further detail. Market participants—from innovators and issuers to individual investors—should review this interpretation to better understand the regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC. The interpretation will be published on CFTC.gov and in the Federal Register.  RELATED LINKS Federal Register Fact Sheet