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

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today issued an interpretation clarifying how the federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets. This is a major step in the Commission’s efforts to provide greater clarity regarding the Commission’s treatment of crypto assets, and complements Congressional endeavors to codify a comprehensive market structure framework into statute. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) joined the interpretation to provide guidance that the CFTC and its staff will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistent with the Commission’s interpretation. “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.” “For far too long, American builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs have awaited clear guidance on the status of crypto assets under the federal securities and commodity laws,” 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.” The Commission interpretation: 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. 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 SEC.gov and in the Federal Register.  Resources Fact Sheet Commission Interpretation

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) published a new report on security based swap dealers (SBSDs) and updated statistics and data visualizations on initial public offerings (IPOs), follow-on registered offerings, corporate bond offerings, Regulation A offerings, Regulation Crowdfunding offerings, Regulation D offerings, municipal advisors, transfer agents, SBSDs, and asset-backed securities (ABS) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) issuances. “We continue to provide increasing amounts of useful data to the public,” said Dr. Joshua T. White, Chief Economist and Director of the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. “These updates offer insight into how our markets are functioning and increase overall transparency for investors, issuers, and the public.” Market activity increased across several categories in 2025. The updated statistics show that in 2025 there were 374 IPOs raising over $70 billion in proceeds, up from 246 IPOs raising $39 billion in 2024. The number of follow-on registered offerings increased slightly in 2025, while the amount of capital raised in the offerings decreased slightly. Amounts raised in unregistered offerings also increased in 2025. There were 34,553 Regulation D offerings in 2025 compared to 32,554 Regulation D offerings in 2024. These offerings raised $2.1 trillion in capital in 2024 and $2.4 trillion in 2025.  In 2025, there was a slight decrease in the number of corporate bond offerings—from 1,795 to 1,694—but the amount raised increased slightly from $1.17 trillion to $1.25 trillion. There were 2,320 ABS issuances in 2025, an increase from 2,032 in 2024. The number of CMBS issuances also increased with 348 issuances in 2025 compared to 302 in 2024. These findings and other statistics can be found on the SEC’s public statistics and data visualizations webpage. The webpage provides statistics presented in time series charts to show market trends, pie charts to show distribution across different categories, as well as heat maps to show geographic distributions. The visuals are interactive and downloadable, thus allowing the public to explore the information they are interested in. In addition to the statistics updates, Commission staff also released a report on The Financial Conditions of Security-Based Swap Dealers. The report presents statistics on selected measures of SBSDs’ financial conditions, including statistics on assets held, cash, financial leverage, profitability, and aggregate positions in security-based swaps, swaps, and mixed swaps.  DERA integrates financial economics and rigorous data analytics into the SEC’s core mission. It conducts detailed, high-quality economic and statistical analyses to advise on Commission matters and helps identify and respond to issues, trends, and innovations in the marketplace.

ISDA has announced that LSEG has integrated ISDA’s Digital Regulatory Reporting (DRR) solution into its Post Trade Solutions business, TradeAgent, representing a significant milestone in the industry deployment of the ISDA DRR. The ISDA DRR converts an industry-agreed interpretation of reporting requirements into unambiguous, machine-readable code and has so far been applied to eight sets of reporting rules around the world. By integrating it within TradeAgent, the new market utility will have the certainty of a unified, mutualized industry interpretation of reporting rules. TradeAgent is a centralized over-the-counter derivatives post-trade processing platform designed to eliminate inefficiencies and streamline workflows through three services: trade confirmation and routing; a central authoritative data store; and calculation and settlement of bilateral cashflows. Like the ISDA DRR, TradeAgent is built on the Common Domain Model (CDM), an open‑source data standard for financial products, trades and lifecycle events, which provides the vital foundation to standardize and automate industry processes. “Integration of the ISDA DRR within the TradeAgent platform is an important step forward in the broad adoption of the CDM and ISDA DRR. By embedding the CDM and the DRR into post-trade platforms as LSEG has done, industry service providers can achieve greater standardization and automation, improve the accuracy and consistency of regulatory reporting and reduce operational complexity across the trade lifecycle,” said Scott O’Malia, ISDA’s Chief Executive. “Integrating ISDA’s Digital Regulatory Reporting solution into TradeAgent is a significant step in delivering greater consistency, accuracy and confidence in regulatory reporting for our customers,” said Annabel Harrison, Head of Agent Services, Post Trade Solutions, LSEG. “By combining the DRR with TradeAgent’s CDM‑based post‑trade processing platform, we are helping firms reduce operational complexity, achieve a single, reliable interpretation of reporting rules and advance the industry’s move towards more standardized, automated post‑trade processes.” “It is very exciting to see LSEG’s TradeAgent leveraging the CDM, reflecting years of industry collaboration to create a shared standard ready for production deployment. The CDM’s flexible, composable representation of trades supports a growing range of use cases. As adoption expands across banks, fintechs and market infrastructure providers, the transformative value of this shared data model will only continue to grow,” said Jane Gavronsky, Chief Operating Officer of the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS), which provides the open-source governance framework for the CDM. For more information on the ISDA DRR and the CDM, visit the ISDA Solutions InfoHub.

 The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) is warning Ontario investors that the following companies are not registered to deal or advise in securities in Ontario: FINAD-AI Prime Wealth dexfinexpro (new website variant: Dex Finex) At the OSC, we issue investor warnings and alerts about possible harmful or illegal activity in progress, and maintain a warning list of companies or individuals performing activities that may pose a risk to investors. A full list of OSC investor warnings and alerts is available on the OSC’s website. Investors can sign up for email notifications when new warnings and alerts are issued and can follow the OSC’s X feed at @OSC_News  . Ontarians who have been approached by any of the individuals or firms listed above, or any other unregistered company or individual, are advised to contact the OSC Contact Centre at 1-877-785-1555 or via email at inquiries@osc.gov.on.ca . Always check the registration of any person or business trying to sell you an investment or give you investment advice. This can be done by visiting the Check Before You Invest or the Crypto businesses pages on the OSC website. The mandate of the OSC is to provide protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices, to foster fair, efficient and competitive capital markets and confidence in the capital markets, to foster capital formation, and to contribute to the stability of the financial system and the reduction of systemic risk. Investors are urged to check the registration of any persons or company offering an investment opportunity and to review the OSC investor materials available at https://www.osc.ca.

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published proposals aimed at ensuring banks can monetise liquid assets quickly in a fast-paced stress event – such as the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.  Specifically, the PRA consultation to modernise liquidity standards proposes to: Require firms to evaluate their liquidity, identify barriers to monetising assets, and conduct internal stress tests on how they would react to rapid outflows within a week (alongside a month in current reporting); Remove an exemption for sovereign bonds and other “level 1 assets” for annual testing of monetising non-liquid assets, to provide further assurance that firms are able to quickly raise liquidity; Reduce data requests of firms in other areas around this topic, preventing an overall increase in reporting as a result of the changes;  Encourage firms to be operationally prepared to make use of central bank facilities when needed. The PRA’s proposals focus on preparedness for stress by ensuring liquidity is available, while not setting additional requirements to hold more liquid assets and minimising additional work for firms. Sam Woods, Deputy Governor for Prudential Regulation and Chief Executive Officer of the PRA, said:  “This proposed update of our liquidity requirements takes forward key lessons we’ve learnt from the past few years. We’ve focused the changes not on increasing the amount of liquid assets banks have to hold, but instead on making sure that those assets do what they say on the tin and really are usable in the event of a run.”  These proposals come in light of the significant advancement in banking, payment and communication technology since they were last updated in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. They also factor in significant lessons learnt from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse in March 2023. The changes sit alongside the PRA’s extensive work to maintain stability and promote growth and competitiveness in the financial sector. Recent changes include: The removal of the Building Societies Sourcebook alongside new measures to support the growth of the mutuals sector; Simplifying capital requirements for smaller firms through Strong and Simple, while simultaneously introducing Basel 3.1 for larger firms; Cutting red tape and supporting increased and rapid investment for insurance firms through Solvency UK and the Matching Adjustment Investment Accelerator; And offering tailored support to fast-growing and innovative financial firms through the Scale-up Unit. Background  Read the full consultation.

Doral Group has entered into an agreement with the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under a dedicated Tailor‑Made market making program for the Company’s shares, within which the Exchange enables listed companies to register for a track specifically tailored to the individual needs of each company. The dedicated market making program is expanding into additional sectors, with Doral Group being the first renewable energy company in the TA‑90 Index to join it. To date, seven companies are registered in the program, all of which are part of the TA‑35 Index. The renewable energy sector is among the fastest‑growing sectors on the local exchange, standing out in its performance since the beginning of the year and generating significant investor interest. Doral’s share records an average daily trading volume of approximately NIS 30 million over the past 90 trading days and is included in the TA‑Israel Energy Index, which was launched recently. The Company is joining the program with the objective of increasing the tradability and liquidity of its shares and strengthening its position among local and international investors. As part of the dedicated program for Doral Group, the Exchange will approach entities with experience in providing liquidity in securities and financial instruments who are interested in being appointed as market makers for the Company’s shares. The program will be managed by the Exchange in full coordination with Doral Group and in accordance with the defined objectives. The Exchange will engage with the market makers selected through the process and will provide the Company with ongoing liquidity reports regarding activity under the program. The deadline for submitting applications to the Exchange by prospective market makers is Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Ben Gully will lead the international standard setter's Secretariat in Basel. Mr Gully has been appointed for a three-year term, starting in August. He is currently Deputy Superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) in Canada. The Chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Erik Thedéen, today announced the appointment of Ben Gully as the Committee's next Secretary General for a term of three years, effective 14 August 2026. The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its 45 members comprise central banks and bank supervisors from 28 jurisdictions. The Secretary General is responsible for managing the operations of the Secretariat and assisting the Chair in representing the Committee externally. Mr Gully is currently the Deputy Superintendent at OSFI, where he manages the Supervision Sector. He has more than 25 years' experience in bank regulation and supervision on three continents. In his current capacity, Mr Gully serves as OSFI's representative to the Basel Committee and is co-chair of the Committee's Supervisory Cooperation Group. He has also served on several working groups at the Financial Stability Board. He was previously the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's Chief Risk Officer and began his career as an analyst in the Bank of England's financial stability area. Mr Gully holds both a Doctorate and a Master of Arts in economics from the University of St Andrews as well as a Master of Science in economics from the University of Glasgow. He succeeds Neil Esho, who has served as Secretary General since February 2022 and is retiring on 31 March 2026. Deputy Secretary General Toshio Tsuiki will serve as Acting Secretary General until Mr Gully assumes his new role.   Ben has extensive experience in prudential regulation and supervision in multiple jurisdictions and has been an active and highly respected member of the Committee for the last six years. His broad and deep knowledge of the regulatory and supervisory landscape, global perspective and proven leadership skills make him the ideal candidate to lead the Secretariat.   Erik Thedéen, Chair of the Basel Committee and Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank Tiff Macklem, Chair of the Basel Committee's oversight body, the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision, and Governor of the Bank of Canada, thanked Mr Esho.  "Neil has made a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee over the last 20 years. He was instrumental in supporting the development of standards such as the Basel III framework and has shown excellent leadership as Secretary General for the last four years. We wish him all the best for the future." Related information Basel Committee organisation and governance

LSEG Risk Intelligence global study of 21,000 people finds scams leave lasting psychological scars, changing behaviour and eroding trust in the digital economy Women more likely than men to experience anxiety or fear after being scammed Baby Boomers more likely to feel emotional impact than younger generation Financial fraud is inflicting a deep and lasting emotional toll on consumers worldwide, with anger, anxiety and shame emerging as the most common responses among victims, according to new research from LSEG Risk Intelligence. The global study and report, After the scam: The emotional and financial impact of global fraud, surveyed more than 21,000 adults across 14 countries and found that the impact of scams extends far beyond financial loss. It fundamentally alters how people feel, behave and trust others. David Wilson, Group Head at LSEG Risk Intelligence, comments: “Every transaction has a story - and too often, that story is one of anger, anxiety or shame. Our research shows that fraud leaves a lasting emotional impact that changes how people behave and whom they trust. “The emotional damage caused by scams creates a wider trust deficit. When people no longer feel confident engaging digitally, the effects ripple across the financial system and the wider economy. “Tackling fraud effectively means understanding its human impact. Raising awareness, improving education and clearly communicating available protections are essential not just to reduce losses, but to help rebuild confidence and trust.” Among those who have been targeted by a financial scam, more than half (52%) report feelings of anger or frustration, making it the most common emotional response. 34% experienced anxiety or fear around money, while 32% reported embarrassment or shame, and feelings of helplessness or loss of control. Respondents also reported guilt (28%), feelings of helplessness or loss of control (28%), and stress or sleep difficulties (25%), underlining the psychological toll scams can take on victims. Emotional harm accompanies widespread exposure The findings come as scam exposure becomes increasingly common. More than half of adults globally (54%) say they have either been personally targeted by a scam or know someone who has, reinforcing the fact that fraud is now becoming increasingly common. Direct victimisation remains significant. 26% of adults say they have personally been targeted by a scam in the past two years, and among those targeted, 20% say they lost money as a result. Overall, 11% of all adults globally report having lost money to a financial scam in that same period. The research also highlights gender and generational differences in emotional impact. Women are far more likely than men to experience anxiety or fear after being scammed, with 40% reporting financial anxiety compared with 29% of men. Feelings of embarrassment and shame are particularly acute among older victims, affecting 39% of Baby Boomers compared to 32% of all victims. Scams change behaviour and erode trust The emotional effects of fraud translate directly into behavioural change. Nearly all scam victims (97%) say the experience changed how they behave, with many becoming more cautious about online payments, more reluctant to share personal information, and more suspicious of digital communications. Following a scam: 46% say they are now more cautious when making online payments 41% are more careful about where and how they share financial details 37% double‑check the legitimacy of companies more often 29% say they have lost trust in people or companies Confidence masks vulnerability Despite the scale of emotional harm, many consumers believe they are well prepared to protect themselves. 78% of adults globally say they feel educated about how to spot and avoid scams, with a quarter of those believing they are very well educated. However, this confidence contrasts sharply with awareness of support after a scam occurs. Only 13% of adults say they are fully aware of the protections, reimbursements or support available if they are scammed, while 28% say they are not aware of any protections at all. This gap suggests many victims may be left dealing with the emotional fallout of fraud without clear knowledge of where to turn for help. A growing need to address the human cost of fraud The findings highlight the need for a broader response to financial crime - one that recognises and addresses its psychological as well as financial consequences. The full report is available here.

David Arnold, CFO of TMX Group, and Luc Fortin, President and CEO of TMX Global Markets and Post Trade, will present at the 24th annual National Bank Financial Services Conference on Wednesday, March 25, 2026 from 11:30 - 11:55 a.m. ET. A link to the webcast will be available and archived in TMX's shareholder events section.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), one of the world's leading providers of financial market technology and data powering global capital markets, today at its ICE Experience (X26) annual mortgage conference unveiled AI voice and chat agents currently in beta testing for its mortgage servicing solutions. The agents are designed to help homeowners answer questions about their loans and execute loan management actions within governed processes. Simultaneously, ICE also announced the launch of more than a dozen exception-based servicing automation agents. “Last month we announced the transformation of MSP’s user experience. Now we are building on that with responsible automation- and AI-driven productivity agents that work for both homeowners and the teams supporting them,” said Bob Hart, President of ICE Mortgage Technology. “These agents are purpose-built to make it easier for homeowners to manage their mortgages, for servicing teams to manage fluctuating call volumes and for servicers to reduce their cost per loan serviced — all while supporting compliance requirements for mortgage servicing." Voice agent for ICE Customer Service The ICE Customer Service voice agent is an AI call center support agent. Integrated with MSP®, ICE’s servicing system, it can answer common homeowner questions about topics such as escrow, private mortgage insurance and servicing transfers, and it can assist with actions like making payments and managing autopay enrollment. The voice agent can manage thousands of simultaneous interactions, and when a situation requires human intervention, it transfers the call to customer service representative along with loan details and situational context. Chat agent for ICE Servicing Digital The ICE Servicing Digital chat agent is a chatbot embedded within ICE’s servicing portal for homeowners. Integrated with MSP, the chat agent can help homeowners learn about their mortgage by explaining escrow, principal and interest details, retrieving documents and more. Through natural language conversation, homeowners can instruct the chat agent to perform common tasks like managing payments and adjusting account settings. Additionally, it supports retention by helping homeowners explore rate-and-term and cashout refinance options. ICE BI servicing automation agents ICE also announced the immediate availability of 16 exception-based automation agents for servicing that are built within ICE Business Intelligence (BI) and integrated with MSP. The agents apply predefined business rules to automate highly complex operational tasks. Newly available automations include disaster-tracking updates that identify and update loans affected by FEMA disasters, and HELOC credit score-based line adjustments that review customer credit scores and update available HELOC lines accordingly. ICE’s AI solutions are powered by ICE Aurora, ICE’s enterprise AI framework for embedding responsible AI into complex, data-intensive workflows across its businesses, including mortgage technology. “ICE is building AI into mortgage on the principle that it must be both powerful and responsible,” said Mayur Kapani, ICE Mortgage Technology. “By embedding agentic, explainable AI directly into origination and servicing workflows, we’re helping customers move from manual, repetitive tasks to exception-based operations while maintaining transparency, governance and trust.” The newly released agents build on a series of recent servicing solution updates, including an enhanced MSP user experience, AI-based call prediction and account summarization capabilities, and an integration between ICE’s servicing and origination solutions that allows homeowners to apply for home equity and refinance loans directly through their servicing portal. ICE plans to systematically introduce more enhanced automations and productivity agents across its servicing solutions.

Fiserv, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISV), a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology, today announced an agent bank partnership with Western Alliance Bank (NYSE: WAL) that will bring preeminent commerce and business management technology, including Clover, to the bank’s clients. Together, Western Alliance Bank’s tailored banking experience with the scale of the Fiserv product ecosystem will establish a new benchmark for how leading financial institutions deliver specialized, tech-forward merchant solutions to complex commercial industries. “Banks differentiate themselves by the technology they put in their clients’ hands,” said Chris Foskett, Vice Chairman at Fiserv. “Our alliance with Western Alliance Bank extends proven, scalable commerce capabilities to businesses that demand reliability, performance, and growth at scale.” Uniquely positioned at the intersection of financial institutions and small businesses, Fiserv provides market-leading merchant technology that will empower Western Alliance Bank to offer a high-performance commerce experience to its client base, which ranges from small businesses to large-scale national enterprises. This collaboration marks the largest agent bank partnership in Fiserv’s history by asset size and expands its regional bank footprint in the Western United States, where Western Alliance Bank’s national commercial banking operations are headquartered. “Aligning with Fiserv enables us to bring best-in-class merchant solutions to our clients while maintaining the high-touch relationship and specialized industry expertise Western Alliance is known for,” said Steve Curley, Chief Banking Officer, National Business Lines at Western Alliance Bank. “This collaboration strengthens our ability to support businesses with secure, modern payment technology while offering scalable solutions across in-store, online and mobile payment channels.”