Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), one of the world's leading providers of financial market technology and data powering global capital markets, today released its May 2026 ICE Mortgage Monitor report. The analysis found that U.S. home prices rose 0.32% in April on a seasonally adjusted basis — the strongest single-month gain in nearly two years. While modest on the surface, that pace translates to a 3.9% seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR), illustrating significant momentum. Annual home price growth also accelerated to 0.9% in April. “Home price growth accelerated in April as softer interest rates raised the ceiling on borrower affordability,” said Andy Walden, Head of Mortgage and Housing Market Research at ICE. “While a 0.32% monthly increase may not sound like much, when annualized, it’s equivalent to home prices appreciating at nearly 4% if sustained over a 12-month period. The key question now is whether that momentum can withstand the recent upward pressure on interest rates heading into the heart of the spring buying season.” Key findings from the May Mortgage Monitor include: Home prices post firmest monthly gain in two yearsThe ICE Home Price Index showed home prices rose 0.32% in April on a seasonally adjusted basis, equivalent to a 3.9% seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR). The gain marks the strongest monthly increase since mid-2024 and signals strengthening price momentum heading into the spring market. Annual home price growth accelerated to 0.9% in April. Home price recovery broadens nationally, but regional divide sharpensNinety percent of markets saw home prices rise on a seasonally adjusted basis in April — also the largest share in nearly two years — with 70 of the 100 largest markets posted year-over-year (YoY) gains. The Northeast continued to lead appreciation, accounting for seven of the eight fastest-appreciating markets. All 30 markets posting YoY declines were localized in the South and West. First-time homebuyers accounted for highest share of mortgaged purchases since mid-2020First-time homebuyers accounted for more than half of all purchase loans closed in March — the highest share since June 2020 — supported by improved affordability earlier in the year and insulation from the rate lock-in effect constraining existing homeowners. Roughly two-thirds of FHA and VA loans went to first-time buyers, matching a five-year high. Q1 refinance lending hit a four-year highFirst-lien refinances totaling $242 billion closed in Q1 2026 — more than doubling YoY and marking the strongest quarterly total since early 2022. Refinances accounted for nearly 44% of all originations, the highest share in four years, with rate-and-term refinances representing 60% of all refi activity, a five-year high. The average rate-and-term refinancer reduced their monthly payment by $257 through a 97 basis point rate reduction. Purchase loans close at fastest pace on recordThe average purchase loan closed in 36.8 days in March — the fastest average closing time since ICE began tracking the metric in 2019 — down from 37.3 days a year ago. The typical purchase loan moved from application to rate lock in 11 days, then from rate lock to closing in an additional 26 days. Across all origination types, the average closing time of 38.2 days marked the third-fastest on record. “Recent mortgage trends highlight the importance of giving lenders and servicers the tools to respond quickly to changing borrower needs and market conditions,” said Bob Hart, President of ICE Mortgage Technology. “From helping first-time buyers navigate financing to supporting refinance opportunities and proactively managing portfolio risk, timely data and integrated technology are critical. ICE’s mortgage ecosystem is designed to help clients act on these market shifts with greater speed, insight and efficiency.” Further detail on mortgage performance, interest rate trends, origination activity, and home price and equity trends — including charts — can be found in the full Mortgage Monitor report at https://mortgagetech.ice.com/resources/data-reports. About the ICE Mortgage Monitor ICE manages the nation’s leading repository of loan-level residential mortgage data and performance information covering the majority of the overall market. The ICE Home Price Index provides one of the most complete, accurate and timely measures of home prices available, covering 95% of U.S. residential properties down to the ZIP code level. In addition, the company maintains one of the most robust public property records databases available, covering 99.9% of the U.S. population and households from more than 3,100 counties. ICE’s research experts carefully analyze this data to produce a summary supplemented by dozens of charts and graphs that reflect trend and point-in-time observations for the monthly Mortgage Monitor report.

TMX Group today announced its financing activity on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) for April 2026. TSX welcomed 29 new issuers in April 2026 compared with 31 in the previous month and 23 in April 2025. The new listings were 22 exchange traded funds, five mining companies, one life sciences company and one oil & gas company. Total financings raised in April 2026 decreased 63% compared to the previous month, and were down 39% compared to April 2025. The total number of financings in April 2026 was 41, compared with 44 the previous month and 52 in April 2025. For additional data relating to the number of transactions billed for TSX, please click on the following link: https://www.tmx.com/resource/en/440. There were three new issuers on TSXV in April 2026, compared with six in the previous month and two in April 2025. The new listings were three mining companies. Total financings raised in April 2026 decreased 56% compared to the previous month, but were up 4% compared to April 2025. There were 125 financings in April 2026, compared with 161 in the previous month and 97 in April 2025. TMX Group consolidated trading statistics for April 2026 can be viewed at www.tmx.com. Related Document:TMX Group Equity Financing Statistics – April 2026

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE:ICE), one of the world's leading providers of financial market technology and data powering global capital markets, and home to the largest and most liquid markets in the world to trade and clear energy derivatives, today announced that ICE has expanded its Value-at-Risk (VaR)-based portfolio margining methodology, IRM 2, to ICE’s U.S. ERCOT power markets. ICE’s U.S. ERCOT power futures and options allow market participants to manage electricity price risk in Texas. These contracts now join more than 1000 energy derivative contracts already margined under IRM 2, which includes ICE’s global power, oil and refined products, natural gas, LNG, emissions and freight markets. The IRM 2 model is designed to be responsive to changing market conditions, providing stability through different volatility conditions and avoiding “big step” margin changes through anti-procyclical features. The model is designed to be resilient against stress events and correlation breakdown, as well as adjusting for seasonality where appropriate. By utilizing a Filtered Historical Simulation VaR approach which models the behavior of a portfolio, IRM 2 is designed to capture all relationships and diversifying effects within a portfolio. ICE ERCOT futures and options are structured around specific locations on the Texas electricity grid, covering peak or off-peak hours, and are available across multi-hour blocks, daily, or monthly periods. ICE ERCOT futures and options open interest is up 23% year-over-year (y/y) with average daily volume up 14% y/y. “The expansion of IRM 2 to ICE ERCOT power is an important move for our customers who rely on capital-efficient risk management tools to trade and hedge effectively across U.S. power and wider energy markets,” said Brian Lewis, Senior Director, Head of North American Natural Gas and Power at ICE. “As U.S. power consumption hits new highs, customers can now benefit from IRM 2’s portfolio-based approach which captures the correlations across interconnected energy exposures and translates them into margin benefits when trading diversified or hedged portfolios across ICE.” ICE offers the most comprehensive suite of power derivative products in the U.S., including over 400 financially settled futures and 60 options contracts, allowing market participants to hedge and manage risk at scale. In Q1 2026, open interest across ICE’s U.S. power futures and options hit 1.55 billion megawatt hours, rising 10% over the quarter, while volumes during the quarter reached nearly 2 billion megawatt hours, up 9%. 2025 was a record year for U.S. power futures and options trading at ICE with a record 7.8 billion megawatt hours traded, up 30% versus 2024, as volumes in U.S. power options rose 96% y/y. For more information on IRM 2, please visit: www.ice.com/clearing/margin-models/irm-2.

The Technology Task Force (TTF), a Task Force of the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR), published "Use of technology in audits - Innovation and audit quality 2026" on the IFIAR website on Monday 20 April. Building on “Use of technology in audits - observations, risks and further evolution,” published in 2025, the report summarizes the latest trends in the use of technology tools such as AI in audit engagements, as well as the measures expected of audit firms and others to enhance audit quality. The Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board has participated in TTF and will continue to contribute to improve global audit quality. Please see the following documents for more details. Use of technology in audits - Innovation and audit quality 2026

The 26th Plenary Meeting of the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) was held in Paris, France from April 21 to 23, marking the 20th anniversary of its formation. Regulators from 50 Member jurisdictions including the Certified Public Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board (CPAAOB)/Financial Services Agency (FSA) attended the meeting. Please find the press release as follows. Press Release For further information about IFIAR and its activities, please visit https://www.ifiar.org.

Good morning. President Amiridis and Provost Fitzpatrick; members of the faculty and Board of Trustees; distinguished guests and graduates of the Class of 2026: thank you for the privilege of joining you on this wonderful occasion and for the honor that you have bestowed upon me today. Graduates, like so many of you, I hail from South Carolina. So I know that for centuries, USC has been the place where this state sends its most promising young people—and receives in return its most dedicated leaders. As I look out on the class before me, I have every confidence that USC’s newest alumni will fulfill its abiding commitment to “the good order” of the great state of South Carolina. Now, Provost Fitzpatrick, I am grateful for the generous citation you shared. But for those less familiar with the earlier chapters of my story, I was born in Conway and raised in Little River. It is fair to say that lifeguarding and bartending in Myrtle Beach scarcely seemed like it would give way to a career on Wall Street or in Washington. And yet it is the honor of a lifetime to stand before you as the seventy-ninth Secretary of the Treasury—and the first from the Palmetto State. Graduates, I can imagine that the immense pride you are feeling today is mingled with a sense of uncertainty. I remember my own commencement festivities, set against the anxieties of the Cold War and the advent of the technological age. The celebratory nature of these occasions can sometimes belie the unnerving specter of what comes next. This group has come of age alongside a different set of disruptions. Your grade school years coincided with the global financial crisis. Your high school years, likewise, with the global pandemic. Yet today here you sit as a college graduate. Economists tend to describe those with a capacity to absorb shocks as “resilient.” I, for one, picture my ninety-nine-year-old mother-in-law. Until recently, my family was fortunate enough to share our home with her in Charleston, making for a three-generation household. She was a French war bride who endured the deprivation of the Great Depression and then the occupation of the Second World War. I think about my mother-in-law often. I thought about her as I prepared these remarks. And I marvel at the sweep of her life, from watching the Nazis march into her country—and shoot and capture the young men in her village—to witnessing a man walk on the moon. The darkest chapter imaginable followed by something that defied imagination entirely. If you don't think change can happen quickly, you aren't paying attention. Yet what strikes me most about her story is not necessarily the hardships that she faced so much as the fact that she emerged from them with an uncommon attentiveness to possibility. Resilience, in her case, was both the capacity to absorb a set of circumstances and the insistence to see beyond them. To marry an American soldier. To begin life anew in a country that refuses to be bound by uncertainty. On the eve of our nation’s 250th anniversary, that distinctly American ethos has held since the time of our founding because every generation decided that it would.  Now, at this extraordinary moment to be an American under President Trump’s leadership, that inheritance belongs to you. Because while the disruptions that have defined the arc of your lives are substantial, so too are the possibilities that lie on the other side of them. Because, as the retrospect tends to reveal, the moments that can seem the most mired in uncertainty are often the ones where opportunity is most abundant. Indeed, opportunity is not scarce in times of disruption. What is scarce is the poise to recognize it before the path is fully visible. Opportunity, in short, is omnipresent—if only we summon the courage to find it. This nation has always known that. And now, as USC graduates, so do you. And, above all, you know that you are ready for what comes next, not necessarily because the path ahead is clear, but because you have already demonstrated that it need not be. You are strong, you are powerful of spirit, and you are tested. You are the University of South Carolina Class of 2026. Congratulations.

Today, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott K. H. Bessent convened a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in executive session at the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury).  During the meeting, the Council received a presentation from member agency staff on the recent work of the Council’s Market Resilience Working Group.  Staff discussed recent developments in short-term funding markets and implications for market structure and market resilience stemming from the implementation of the central clearing mandate in the U.S. Treasury securities market.  The Council also discussed cross-border interlinkages and considerations for the Council’s economic security framework.  The Council then heard a presentation from member agency staff on the Council’s Financial Market Utilities (FMU) Committee on the periodic review of the eight FMUs currently designated as systemically important by the Council.  Staff also updated the Council on crisis preparedness related to critical market infrastructure.  Finally, the Council discussed stablecoins, including member agencies’ recent progress in implementing the GENIUS Act and market considerations regarding stablecoin liquidity and reserves.  The Council also voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on March 25, 2026.  In attendance at the Council meeting at Treasury or virtually were the following members:   Scott K. H. Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury (Chairperson of the Council) Jerome H. Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Jonathan V. Gould, Comptroller of the Currency Geoffrey Gradler, Deputy Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (acting pursuant to delegated authority) Paul S. Atkins, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission Travis Hill, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Michael S. Selig, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission William J. Pulte, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency Kyle S. Hauptman, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration Steven Seitz, Director, Federal Insurance Office (non-voting member) Elizabeth K. Dwyer, Director, Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (non-voting member) Lise Kruse, Commissioner, North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions (non-voting member) Melanie Lubin, Securities Commissioner, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Securities Division (non-voting member) Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting minutes is available at http://www.fsoc.gov.  

Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to join you at the Hoover Institution's annual Monetary Policy Conference.1 As the Federal Reserve's Vice Chair for Supervision, I oversee the safety and soundness of banking institutions, responsibilities that are closely linked to another of the Fed's important duties, which is to safeguard financial stability. Instead of talking about monetary policy, my remarks will focus on this topic. Today, I will address a challenge that emerges at the intersection of these two responsibilities. That is, when regulatory requirements become disproportionately burdensome relative to risk and banks simply curtail the targeted activities. This leaves a deficit between demand for banking services and banks that are willing to provide them. When banks are no longer willing to provide specific services, nonbanks step in to meet those needs, and the activity is essentially pushed out of the regulated banking system. This includes the migration of corporate lending from banks to nonbanks. Therefore, my remarks will focus on private credit funds, and business development companies (BDCs), and will consider the circumstances that lead to this outmigration, the implications of banks exiting these services, and the Federal Reserve's policy response. The Recent Growth of Nondepository Financial Institution Corporate LendingOver the past ten years, we have seen a shift in how credit reaches businesses in the real economy. Since 2015, the bank share of corporate lending decreased from 48 percent to 29 percent in 2025. The private credit market is a significant driver of this shift. In the United States, the private credit market has grown significantly and currently accounts for about $1.4 trillion, similar in size to both the leveraged loan market and the high-yield bond market. But despite its recent rapid growth, private credit is still a small fraction of overall corporate borrowing in the U.S.—making up only about 10 percent. There is no mystery about what drove the shift in corporate lending away from banks.2 While post-2008 financial crisis reforms strengthened bank capital and liquidity—which were necessary to promote the safety and soundness of banks and U.S. financial stability—they did so with unintended consequences. Attempts to address legitimate gaps resulted in some requirements becoming excessive relative to underlying risk, forcing banks to pare back on some corporate lending activities or to raise the cost of credit to borrowers. The effects of the current framework become clear when we examine the incentive structure that it creates. Current capital rules create a perverse incentive—ironically, banks receive a more favorable treatment for lending to private credit funds than for lending directly to creditworthy corporations. This treatment encourages banks to finance intermediaries rather than directly serve end-borrowers. Understanding the Nondepository Financial Institution EcosystemThe broad definition of nondepository financial institution (NDFI) includes an array of diverse entities like private credit funds, BDCs, insurance companies, private equity firms, and broker-dealers. These entities differ in terms of the types of lending they offer, the effectiveness of their underwriting and risk management, their ability (or inability) to work with borrowers under stress, the stability of their funding sources, and their connections to the banking system. NDFIs also rely on diverse funding structures, with private credit funds and some BDCs primarily attracting capital from institutional investors including pension funds and insurance companies, and with other BDCs providing access to retail investors. NDFIs are also interconnected with the regulated banking sector through bank loans that typically include revolving credit lines and term loans. Over the past decade, growth in bank lending to NDFIs has outpaced growth in all other bank loan categories. Emerging Risks and VulnerabilitiesRecent bankruptcies that imposed losses on banks and NDFIs have raised concerns about the quality of loans made by private credit providers. More recently, worries about exposures to industries vulnerable to the implementation of AI, such as the software sector, have compounded these concerns. We have already seen one potential channel for the transmission of risk within the financial system—the withdrawal of private credit funding sources. As a result of private credit losses, and the failure to achieve targeted investment returns, some private credit funds have experienced a wave of redemptions, concentrated among BDCs that offer investors limited redemption rights. Despite these redemptions, banks have continued to extend credit to BDCs and other private credit vehicles, with loan commitments and outstanding amounts growing significantly over the past year.3 These loans generally appear to be well collateralized, which should help protect against bank losses in the event of borrower distress or default. Even though NDFIs generally lend to riskier borrowers, default and loss rates would need to be abnormally high for banks to be at risk. Three-Part Regulatory ResponseRecognizing these challenges, let's turn now to the Federal Reserve's approach. Our current approach relies on three complementary pillars. First, recently proposed changes to the Basel III framework address the punitive capital treatment imposed on traditional bank lending activity.4 Unfortunately, the banking regulatory and supervisory framework has created an environment in which traditional bank lending activity has migrated outside of the banking system to nonbanks. In the case of mortgage lending, our priority is to ensure that our capital regulations better align bank capital requirements with risk across multiple asset classes.5 For bank lending to corporations and businesses, the proposal would generally reduce the risk weight from 100 percent to 65 percent for corporates considered to be investment grade by the lending bank. These changes in the capital proposals will reduce the gap in risk weights between loans to nonfinancial businesses and loans to nonbank financial corporations. This will increase competition in ways that benefit borrowers and reduce risks to financial stability. The proposal enables banks to compete more effectively with NDFIs in serving creditworthy businesses. When banks receive a more favorable treatment for lending to private credit funds than for lending directly to creditworthy corporations, it can result in an undersupply of credit to traditional bank business borrowers. By properly calibrating capital requirements, we can allow banks to more effectively compete in providing credit to private businesses. Banks have deep experience underwriting loans to these borrowers and should not be excluded from serving their customers to meet this market demand. To be clear, the capital proposal maintains the strong banking sector capital while ensuring that regulatory requirements do not lead to activities leaving the regulated banking sector. Second, our approach recognizes that addressing the inappropriate risk weighting of certain activities doesn't mean eliminating private credit from the market. There is a role for both banks and NDFIs in providing credit to private companies. NDFIs serve legitimate functions through their specialization in narrow market segments, speed of origination, and flexibility in credit terms. They are well-suited to provide long-term loans to borrowers that may be unsuitable for banks—typically, smaller and riskier borrowers—financed with locked-in capital from institutional investors. BDCs, for instance, make most of their loans at spreads of 400 basis points or more, whereas large banks make most of their loans at 200 basis points or less. The optimal outcome preserves this division of credit provision. Private credit funds and banks can effectively serve different parts of the market. The long-term relationships banks have established with corporate clients gives them an advantage in underwriting and monitoring loans for their traditional customers. Banks are funded primarily by depositors and providers of short-term wholesale funding. NDFIs have different expertise and may have a greater tolerance for risk. Their model relies on funding from investors who accept relative illiquidity in exchange for higher expected returns. The question is not whether NDFIs should exist. Instead, we should ensure that the regulatory framework does not tilt the playing field to push activity outside of the regulatory perimeter for reasons unrelated to risk or efficiency. Some lending by nonbanks is riskier and is better kept outside of regulated financial institutions because it can be funded by investment structures that rely on more stable funding and less leverage. But when creditworthy businesses that could be served by banks instead turn to private credit primarily because of excessive regulatory burden, we should consider whether our rules are appropriately calibrated. Finally, even as the Fed seeks to level the playing field and preserve complementary roles for different segments of finance, we should improve our ability to understand the connections between these segments. One approach is to provide more transparency through regulatory reporting. Measuring and monitoring risks in bank lending to NDFIs requires effective supervision and data that can be collected through regulatory reporting. Our current data reporting relies on industry classification codes that are too broad to effectively measure these specific exposures. The current industry code for "Other Financial Vehicles" includes hedge funds, private equity funds, private credit funds, BDCs, special purpose entities, and asset-backed security issuers—without further distinction. This lack of granularity makes it difficult to assess concentration risks, measure interconnectedness, or calibrate capital requirements to actual risk. Therefore, the Board will update our regulatory reporting to ensure that supervisors have transparency into bank lending to NDFIs. The update requires the largest banks to report financial information about NDFIs to which they extend credit, including total assets, net income, and leverage that enable an analysis of credit underwriting and ongoing risk assessments. This enhanced transparency also supports other policy objectives. It will provide a better understanding of the risks associated with bank lending to NDFIs relative to other types of bank lending. It will ensure that supervisory stress test models are appropriately calibrated for these exposures, which will also benefit activities and processes related to capital planning. It will allow supervisors to independently evaluate risks and assess the condition of these borrowers on an ongoing basis. This can increase consistency and eliminate the need for ad hoc data collections and other on-site supervisory efforts. Looking Ahead: Principles for Financial StabilityThese three elements—recalibrated capital requirements, preserved complementary roles for different segments of finance, and targeted data collection—are part of an integrated approach to supervision that serves multiple objectives. An approach that supports economic growth by enabling banks to deploy capital efficiently supports financial stability by improving risk monitoring of bank investments in NDFIs. And it maintains safety and soundness by ensuring that banks remain well capitalized, providing supervisors with necessary information to comprehensively assess risks. Together, these create a more efficient, stable financial system where banks return to providing traditional banking activities and credit, and other risks migrate to entities and investors better suited to bear them. Closing ThoughtsAs we consider these issues, we should remember that regulation always involves choices and tradeoffs. The Federal Reserve's approach represents an evolution in supervision and regulation. We recognize the changing landscape of credit intermediation, but preserve our commitment to safety and soundness. By calibrating capital requirements more closely to actual risk, we enable banks to compete on a more level playing field with nonbank lenders in serving creditworthy borrowers. Through targeted data collection, we can better understand and effectively supervise these relationships and their inherent risks. I will conclude by saying that I look forward to working together with my federal banking agency colleagues, as we continue to refine our approach to modernizing supervision of this evolving landscape. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. The migration in corporate lending has been documented in academic literature. See, for example, Tetiana Davydiuk, Tatyana Marchuk, and Samuel Rosen, "Direct Lenders in the U.S. Middle Market," Journal of Financial Economics 162 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103946; Sergey Chernenko, Isil Erel, and Robert Prilmeier, "Why Do Firms Borrow Directly from Nonbanks?," The Review of Financial Studies 35, no. 11 (2022): 4902–47, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac016; Rustom M. Irani, Rajkamal Iyer, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, and José-Luis Peydró, "The Rise of Shadow Banking: Evidence from Capital Regulation," The Review of Financial Studies 34, no. 5 (2021): 2181–2235, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa106.  3. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Stability Report.  4. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Agencies Request Comment on Proposals to Modernize the Regulatory Capital Framework and Maintain the Strength of the Banking System," press release, March 19, 2026.  5. Michelle W. Bowman, "Revitalizing Bank Mortgage Lending, One Step with Basel," speech delivered at the American Bankers Association 2026 Conference for Community Bankers, Orlando, FL, February 16, 2026. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.1 What I want to talk about is central bank independence but applied to Reserve Bank operations. The decentralized and regional design of the Federal Reserve helps reinforce our independence by ensuring that the full range of interests and views are represented in policy discussions, and that is something that should be preserved. But much of the day-to-day operations of the Reserve Banks are not connected to monetary policymaking, and I recently gave a speech at the Brookings Institution where I suggested some improvements to the efficiency of Reserve Bank operations. I believe that these improvements would keep the Fed's commitment to wisely use public resources in serving the American people and thus help support our independence in conducting monetary policy in the public's interest. In that speech I asked two questions: First, what are the functions and activities that are unique to a Reserve Bank District and need to be done by a Reserve Bank in a manner tailored to the local economy and local needs? Second, what functions and activities can be done anywhere, and in fact can be done better and more efficiently if standardized across the entire Federal Reserve System? The first question addresses functions where geography matters. The second focuses on functions for which geography does not matter. It is clear that there are responsibilities that belong in a District and, to be true to the genius of the Federal Reserve's design, locally run: The Presidents vote on monetary policy, having a research function to aid the President, community outreach, community development, supervision, and discount window operations. But I noted in my speech that most System employees are engaged in operations, providing critical services to the banking system, the U.S. Treasury, and, ultimately, the American public. Information technology (IT), human resources, financial management, enterprise risk management, and payments are essential to achieving those operational outcomes. But there is no obvious rationale to do these things in 12 different ways. These are certainly services needed by each Reserve Bank, but they do not need to be provided by each and every Bank. These are functions that can be done in a standardized or even centralized way and provided uniformly at scale across the System. The System, and ultimately the taxpayer, benefits from lower operating costs and better overall risk management, with services delivered consistently across the Reserve Banks. So I proposed centralizing and standardizing back-office functions and having the Reserve Banks focus on the things they uniquely provide to their Districts. Toward that end, the presidents have developed a framework that shows how to reap the risk and efficiency benefits of standardization and centralization. I want to applaud their efforts. It is a tremendous step forward for the Federal Reserve System. After I gave that speech, I have heard several comments that my proposal was somehow at odds with the fundamental, and time-tested, design of the Federal Reserve Act with its emphasis on regional perspective and Reserve Bank independence. So let me address that concern. The Federal Reserve System was designed as a federated system, expressly to meet the needs of a large and diverse country while avoiding the concentration of too much power of influence in places like Washington and Wall Street. The 12 Reserve Banks were designed to carry out most of the nonmonetary policy functions and services with oversight by the Board of Governors. In this sense, the Reserve Banks are able to make largely independent decisions on operations while being accountable to the Board and the American public. Day-to-day control is not exercised in Washington but by the Reserve Banks. This is how they have operated since the beginning of the Fed. But technology and legislative changes are driving us to rethink how we provide those services in a cost-efficient manner. How do we exploit those efficiencies while maintaining the spirit of regionalism and Reserve Bank independence that is at the heart of the Federal Reserve Act? The presidents have answered that question by developing a framework that has the Reserve Banks make independent decisions as a collective group, as opposed to making decisions on a bank-by-bank basis. There is still oversight of these decisions by the Board of Governors but it is just that—oversight, not decisionmaking. Regionalism is preserved via the activities I listed above that are unique to each District and ensures that the spirit of the Federal Reserve Act is maintained. Functions such as human resources will be centrally led by a single Reserve Bank who will then act like a "contractor" for the rest of the Reserve Banks to provide HR services with appropriate service-level agreements. Accountability is strengthened in the process. But the Reserve Bank responsible for a particular function will have the authority to allocate resources to operate in a cost-efficient way that achieves operational excellence for the System as a whole. Individual Banks must give up day-to-day decision rights over how the "contractor" Bank provides those services. The Board will maintain its oversight role to ensure that performance meets service expectations and costs are appropriate. But the key element of this design is that the Reserve Banks still have control over all operations—their operational independence is not diluted in this framework. Further, the presidents' plan distributes key responsibilities across the System, so that each Bank contributes in a manner consistent with its local expertise and capacity to the benefit of the System as a whole. But to make this new framework effective, as a collective group tasked with improving operations and at a lower cost, there has to be a change in mindset and a governance change. Bank presidents and first vice presidents need to adopt a "System first, Bank second" mindset. This is a change in mindset that I have been pushing since I was given my oversight role in 2022. Historically, there tended to be a "Bank first, System second" philosophy, which was fine when everything was done locally. But times have changed and so must our mindset. What also needs to change is the governance model. While striving for consensus is a great model for making difficult policy decision, it is not obviously successful when running complex and critical operations. Otherwise, one Bank can halt actions that are needed to move the System forward. Again, in the past, this was not uncommon. But moving to a model where consensus is not the modus operandi will require rethinking how decisions get made for the System. Banks will need to give up day-to-day control of many parts of their operations and delegate decisionmaking to a single Bank. That requires collective trust in the contractor Bank and a commitment by that Bank to deliver the services needed by all the other Banks. To conclude, over the last six months, the Board and the Reserve Banks have moved rapidly toward developing an approach that I am confident will modernize our operations to be more efficient while enhancing service delivery. There are still details to be worked out and all of us who play a role in System leadership understand the complexities of change management and execution. That is especially true given the criticality of the services that are provided by the Reserve Banks, including moving trillions of dollars in payments every day for commercial banks and the U.S. Treasury. But the foundation is now in place for driving an important transformation, and I look forward to working with all of the Reserve Bank presidents and first vice presidents to move this framework forward. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. 

This report summarizes the Federal Reserve Board’s framework for assessing the resilience of the U.S. financial system and presents the Board’s current assessment. By publishing this report, the Board intends to promote public understanding and increase transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve’s views on this topic. 2026 May: PDF 2025 November: HTML |  PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions April: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2024 November: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions April: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2023 October: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions May: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2022 November: HTML | PDF | Statement by Vice Chair Brainard | Chart Data and Descriptions May: HTML | PDF | Statement by Governor Brainard | Chart Data and Descriptions 2021 November: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions May:  HTML | PDF | Statement by Governor Brainard | Chart Data and Descriptions 2020 November: HTML | PDF | Statement by Governor Brainard | Chart Data and Descriptions May: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2019 November: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions May: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2018 November: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions

The current reports for the week of May 05, 2026 are now available. Report data is also available in the CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE), which allows users to search, filter, customize and download report data. Additional information on Commitments of Traders (COT) | CFTC.gov Historical Viewable Historical Compressed COT Release Schedule CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE) PRE User Guide PRE Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The latest reports for March 2026 are now available. Additional information on Financial Data for FCMs market reports: Historical FCMs Reports

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today issued a report to identify criminal regulatory offenses consistent with section 4 of Executive Order 14294, “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Statutes.” The report contains a list of criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by the OCC or the Department of Justice. Related Link Report (Excel)

I am delighted to be part of the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation and Josh White’s first as director of the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (“DERA”). Thank you to DERA and the conference’s other hosts: Lehigh University’s Center for Financial Services and the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. As you know, my comments are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners. That disclaimer is especially applicable to jokes, which is how I prefer to begin speeches to economists—a habit for which my father undoubtedly is to blame. My Dad is an old-school economist; he combines a deep interest in everything—history, political economy, law, theology, engineering, sociology, natural sciences, poetry, and more—with an encyclopedic knowledge of economic theory and the history of economic thought, a profound understanding of how economic principles operate in the real world, and an erudite sense of humor. My joke is not erudite or even particularly funny, but it may be timely. What do economists, regulators, and prediction markets traders have in common and not have in common? They are all unduly confident that they can forecast truth, but only the first two get compensated for their bad forecasts. Speaking of prediction markets, if someone had asked me in 2018 at the start of my tenure as a Commissioner to predict which market would be dominating the headlines in 2026, the prediction market would not have been it. By 2018, the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit predictions market run out of the University of Iowa, had existed for three decades,[1] but I did not see commercial prediction markets on the horizon. In 2022, when the Commission proposed extensive climate reporting rules, I predicted that were such a regime adopted, “the demand for widespread access to prediction markets in the United States [would] likely . . . rise.”[2] I thought that the disclosure requirements under that rule would force firms to make guesses about future climate policy, and that they might find prediction markets helpful in making better guesses. Oh, how things have changed! Commercial prediction markets have taken off (albeit not the ones I anticipated) and show no sign of slowing down. And the SEC is proposing to rescind the climate rules—a fact that showed up several days ago on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) dashboard, the website that Washington lobbyists visit as often as college fraternity brothers hit up sports prediction markets.[3] The fascination with trading is not limited to prediction markets. The options market, a favorite of many retail investors, has expanded dramatically in recent years. As the number of options proliferates, message volumes jumped from 9 billion a day in 2017 to 247 billion a day in 2025.[4] Trading in options on expiration day (“Zero-Day-to-Expiration” or “0DTE”), the topic of one of yesterday’s papers,[5] has increased from approximately 20 percent in 2022 to 28 percent of volume today, and largely driven by retail traders.[6] A paper being discussed this afternoon concludes that retail investors also enthusiastically trade in active exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), to “chas[e] extreme performance, in either direction, over short-term horizons.”[7] And, of course, retail investor participation in equity markets remains high well after the end of the COVID lockdowns and relief payments that first inspired many retail traders to download trading apps.[8] Retail investors like trading all of these asset classes and more, including crypto, gold, silver, and perpetual futures. Many of these assets are not securities, but they are finding their way into ETFs as well. Well-designed user interfaces make trading fun and easy. And AI bots are awake and eager to trade for us when we sleep. Old products and new fads combine in a dizzying melee intermediated by new technologies, and an enthusiastic class of retail traders with access to sophisticated trading tools rubs elbows with institutional investors scouring social media for clues of where the market is heading. All that trading, all those new products, all those types of traders, and all that innovation in infrastructure create endless opportunities for people like you who study markets for a living. The trading generates lots of market data, which I know you all love. You can compare products and look at changes over time. You can study whether entertainment trading markets serve as a gateway for retail investors into more traditional investing markets. You can observe interactions among different groups of market participants. The co-existence of similar products in different regulatory wrappers cries out to you for academic inquiry. You can study how integrating new technologies into traditional markets will influence market dynamics. With zero commissions, you can even afford to engage in large-scale trading of your own as part of your research. Modern markets offer a cornucopia for the academic crowd to feast upon. But what is a regulator to make of these markets with their staggering trading volumes, complicated technologies accessible through simple-to-use interfaces, and ever-growing list of products—many of which look like they belong in the sports, entertainment, politics, or bizarre-story-of-the-day sections of the newspaper rather than in the dry financial pages? Before drawing any conclusions or taking any actions, regulators need to understand what is happening in today’s markets. To this end, the many conversations I and my colleagues have with market participants are essential. Conferences like this one and last month’s options roundtable[9] also give us important insights. I appreciate that this conference is addressing timely issues, such as after-hours trading, fund voting, where money is flowing and why, and investor-driven conflicts in ratings. I urge all of you to continue researching, and providing us your insights about, what is happening in the markets and why. We also need to draw on expertise from outside the agency to determine whether a regulatory response is needed and, if so, what that response should be. Here too, interactions with the public and conferences like this one are helpful. I appreciate that during this conference you are considering issues such as SEC enforcement, crypto regulation, and the conflict between the goals of banking and securities regulation. These discussions are helpful to regulators like me as we think about whether and how to use our regulatory tools. Bound as we appropriately are by statutory limits on our jurisdiction, the SEC may not be able to solve the problems you identify or adopt the solutions you recommend. The jurisdictional lines Congress set out in governing statutes determine whether and how regulators can react to new products or new technologies. No matter how egregious the facts, for example, the SEC cannot pursue fraud of any type without a cause of action grounded in the securities law. As another example, if a new ETF’s sponsor adheres to the rules, gets its disclosures right, and finds an exchange to list it, the SEC cannot block the ETF from going to market. Even when we have authority to act in response to new market developments, we should be careful because regulations often impose heavy and persistent costs. Complying with regulatory mandates eats up hours and dollars that could be devoted to other purposes, and even well-crafted regulations are frustratingly inflexible in the face of changing circumstances. Less often measured but even more important, regulations deprive people of choice. Regulations uniquely constrain human action  by subjecting a person who does not comply to civil and potentially criminal consequences. Moreover, market participants, who face the consequences of their bad decisions, generally are better informed about the facts on the ground than a regulator, even a regulator who has consulted smart academics and powerful datasets. The proper regulatory response, therefore, to the phenomena we are seeing in today’s markets may be quite muted. Don’t expect to see a flurry of prescriptive rulemakings. However, regulatory restraint grounded in the law coupled with a healthy dose of deference to the market is not a regulatory seal of approval of any particular product or activity. To the contrary, the fact that we do not screen products for merit means that people should read absolutely nothing about what the SEC or anyone who works here thinks about a product’s usefulness or longevity from the fact that it has gone live on SEC-regulated markets. Likewise, the fact that we do not dictate what, whether, or how often retail investors can trade (except in private securities markets which are subject to the paternalistic accredited investor rules) does not mean the SEC blesses any particular trading or investment strategy. Re-upping my disclaimer that I am not speaking for the rest of the Commission, I do not celebrate everything that is going on in the markets now. Financial products that fan a momentary hope of great riches in the same way lottery tickets do are dull and uninteresting to me. I expect that some of these novelties will fade away as investors lose interest, and their legal, technological, and market infrastructure will be repurposed for more durable investment and risk management products. The financial markets innovations that give me an adrenaline rush are those that help capital markets fulfill their core objective of serving investors, entrepreneurs, growing companies, the economy, and society at large. I love seeing new products and services that enable people to build resilient investment portfolios to provide security for them and their families. Another favorite is innovative products and services that make it easy and fun for retail investors to understand their investments and the associated expenses. I welcome market developments that facilitate the matching of people with great ideas and promising companies with investors—including people who come from different backgrounds, geographies, and social circles than the entrepreneurs. I champion innovations that enable investors to buy or sell when they want to with low transaction costs. These aspects of the capital markets drew me to this job and remain the ones that inspire me still to be here eight years later. I suspect that a similar belief in the magnificent power of the capital markets to transform people’s lives for the better motivates your academic work. I encourage you, in addition to studying particular facets of the market, to think bigger. Studying trading in a particular asset class or the effect of an existing regulation on a certain market practice is useful. But we all can get distracted by the latest shiny objects driving trading volumes. Sometimes, it helps to step back and rekindle our appreciation for the markets. The heavily quantitative analyses of modern economics are impressive, but old school economists like my father also asked the conceptual questions: how can we make sure the economy is empowering as many people as possible to make the greatest use of their talents in service of society and rewarding them for doing so? These questions go to the heart of the matter, and I invite you to join me in that inquiry. Let me close with one more joke: How many financial economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, because their work sheds a brilliant light of its own. May your lights shine brightly in today’s coming discussions.   [1]See Iowa Electronic Markets, What is the IEM, https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/about-iem/what-is-the-iem/ (last visited May 8, 2026). [2] Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission – At Least Not Yet (March 21, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-climate-disclosure-20220321, at note 37. [3] Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Actions Currently Under Review by Agency,   https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/eoDashboard.myjsp (last visited May 8, 2026). [4]See Roundtable on Options Market Structure Supporting Data, https://www.sec.gov/files/roundtable-options-market-structure.pdf at 3 (“Supporting Data”). [5]See Jonathan Brogaard, Jaehee Han & Peter Y. Won, Does 0DTE Options Trading Increase Volatility? (Apr. 26, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=4426358. [6] Supporting Data at 22-23. [7]See Da Huang, Vasudha Nair, & Christopher Schwarz, Active ETFs as Attention Assets: Retail Trading Meets Managed Funds (Sep. 10, 2025), FEB-RN Research Paper No. 134/2025, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5426275 at 1. [8] See, e.g., J.P. Morgan: Making Sense Podcast, How are Retail Investor Dynamics Shaping Equity Markets? (Apr. 29, 2026), https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/podcast-hub/making-sense/retail-investor-dynamics-shaping-equity-markets (“[O]ne constant throughout this year, and in fact, throughout the last five or six years, has been the presence of the retail investor still making up around 20% of volumes in U.S. markets and even greater shares of volumes in much of Asia.”). [9] Options Market Structure Roundtable, https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/options-market-structure-roundtable (last visited May 8, 2026).   

A total turnover of 7.075 billion shares worth ₦324.351 billion in 474,436 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 4.842 billion shares valued at ₦287.756 billion that exchanged hands last week in 332,453 deals. Click here for full details.

SIFMA confirmed its previous recommendations for the U.S., the U.K., and Japan in observance of the U.S. Memorial Day holiday. United States SIFMA recommends an early close at 2:00 p.m. EST on Friday, May 22, 2026, and a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. United Kingdom SIFMA recommends a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. Japan SIFMA recommends a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. These recommendations apply to trading of U.S. dollar-denominated government securities, mortgage- and asset-backed securities, over-the-counter investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, municipal bonds and secondary money market trading in bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper and Yankee and Euro certificates of deposit. SIFMA’s recommended early and full market closes are recommendations only; each member firm should decide for itself whether its fixed income departments remain open for trading. All SIFMA recommendations are subject to change due to market conditions.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners. Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference—especially the organizers: Amy Edwards, Vlad Ivanov, Katie Fox, Harmony Yang, and Robert Miller from the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis; Meg Wolf and Kathleen Hanley from Lehigh University; and Ian Appel and Caitlin Boyer from the University of Virginia. Your work to bring together scholars, researchers, and practitioners comes at a consequential moment for the Commission—and for the broader financial system—a moment in which economic analysis is more central than ever to the conduct and durability of sound financial regulation. You all know better than most that the quality of our work is only as high as the rigor of our inquiry. This rings true in our rulemaking, of course, but no less in the integrity of our enforcement program—especially as we work to return it to its principled roots and original Congressional intent. The mission that Congress set for the SEC is clear: to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Yet often over the years, the agency’s enforcement program drifted from that missional anchor. The Commission began wielding enforcement more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel—not to remedy demonstrable harm with precision, but to signal regulatory displeasure and expand agency jurisdiction. Over the past year, however, we have recalibrated that approach. We have empowered the talented, hardworking enforcement staff to pursue cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity—cases grounded in fact and careful analysis, in principle rather than in personal preference and regulation through enforcement. Today, we no longer measure the success of our program by the quantity of enforcement actions or the headlines that they generate, but by the quality and credibility of the actions that we take. And with our new Enforcement Director David Woodcock at the helm, I am confident that his decades of enforcement experience—in both public service and the private sector—will position him and the staff well to effectively carry this mission forward. At the crux of the course correction that we have undertaken rests methodical economic analysis. Economic scrutiny is not merely a best practice or an optional procedure when considering the appropriate corporate penalties in an enforcement action—though some past Commissions have treated it as such; rather, it is a principled imperative. By looking through the lens of economic evidence, we can assess a corporation’s benefit from a violation of the federal securities laws and ensure that the penalties are proportionate to the conduct at issue. Economic analysis is also crucial to understanding whether or not a violation of the federal securities laws occurred for certain types of cases, and the scope of that violation—for example, in preferential allocation or “cherry-picking” cases. And even after an enforcement case is complete, high-caliber economic analysis is critical to determining how to distribute recovered funds to harmed investors accurately, transparently, and fairly. In short, just as the Commission evaluates proposed rules through rigorous economic inquiry, often drawing on the data that researchers in this room provide, so too must our enforcement work be grounded in—and commensurate with—the economic evidence at hand. I expect that our economists at the SEC should play a vital role in helping our enforcement staff separate the wheat from the chaff through sound analysis and factual research. Fraud, manipulation, and trading on material non-public information cause real harm to real people, and we will pursue those cases with vigor. But we will do so with the discipline and analytical diligence that the gravity of enforcement demands. The Commission could not keep that commitment without the caliber of talent gathered across this room. Academic research is indispensable in helping us identify the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of regulatory decisions—both retrospectively and prospectively. The dedicated work done by those assembled here and in institutions across the country gives us the empirical foundation upon which sound regulatory policy and sensible law enforcement must be built. When the Commission acts without that foundation, it risks the very outcomes that it seeks to prevent—markets that are less fair, less efficient, and less capable of serving the investors and innovators who depend on them. Indeed, we value the research that you do. And I say that not as a pleasantry, but as a proclamation of institutional commitment. The Division of Economic and Risk Analysis exists precisely to ensure that the insights that you generate are considered in the decisions that we make. I intend to continue to strengthen that function—not to diminish it. My comments at last year’s conference endure in relevance: that regulation is a bit like golf.[1] It requires careful, precise strokes and meticulous analysis of shot selection to achieve the intended result. If you choose the wrong club, or swing too hard, you risk overshooting the green. In the end, it is the short game—precision, patience, discipline—that most reliably sinks the ball in the hole. The Commission’s integrity—and the strength of our capital markets—depends on our willingness to pursue precise analytical work before we act, and to continuously reevaluate that work as we move forward. It depends on our confidence in what we do know, and our inquiry into what we do not. And it depends on our commitment to letting the evidence, rather than the impulse to regulate or enforce, guide our hand. At the SEC, economic rigor has an abiding place at the table of regulatory decisions. Policy is no longer set by ad hoc enforcement actions. And, with your engagement, we will police the market by prioritizing cases that further our investor protection goals rather than by amplifying technical rule violations to achieve a policy goal. Now, let me close where I began—with the consequential moment in which we meet. Today, the relationship between the federal government and the capital markets that the Commission oversees is being renegotiated in real time—not in seminar rooms alone, but in courtrooms, on trading floors, and in the corridors of this Commission. The work that you do matters beyond productive discussions like today’s. It matters to the investors who trust that the market that they participate in is honest, and to the entrepreneurs who trust that the risk of innovation can prove worth it in a system that seeks to reward it. Economic analysis is not removed from those realities. It is, at its best, the lantern by which we navigate them. So, thank you for the work that you do toward that end. You have been a patient and indulgent audience, and I wish you a successful and enjoyable remainder of your conference. Thank you. [1] See Paul Atkins, Remarks Before the Securities Traders Association (Oct. 7, 2004), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch100704psa.htm.

Euronext, the leading European capital market infrastructure, today announced trading volumes for April 2026. Monthly and historical volume tables are available at this address: euronext.com/investor-relations#monthly-volumes

A convicted money launderer has been sentenced to an additional 499 days in prison for failing to fully pay the money owed under a Confiscation Order. In 2021, Richard Faithfull, now 36, was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison for laundering £2.5 million, following a prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). He was part of a trans-national organised crime group which laundered the proceeds of at least 7 overseas investment frauds. Mr Faithfull is required to pay back £529,961, based on the Court’s findings on his available assets. However, he has only paid £349,214.37. When he was originally sentenced, the Judge remarked that Mr Faithfull’s was 'serious offending' linked to the 'human misery caused by boiler room fraud' and that 'money coming in (to accounts controlled by Faithfull) was not being invested, it was simply being slaughtered'. Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Faithfull’s crimes enabled millions of pounds to be scammed from innocent victims. He tried to evade justice. Now, having failed to repay what he should, it’s right he is put back behind bars.' The additional prison sentence was activated on Friday 8 May at a City of London Magistrates’ Court hearing. Mr Faithfull had been released from custody in June 2025. Even after serving the sentence in default of payment, Mr Faithfull will continue to be liable for the outstanding debt. Money recovered from Mr Faithfull will be used to compensate the victims of his crimes. Fighting financial crime is a priority under the FCA’s 5-year strategy. Background Richard Faithfull (D.O.B 15/03/1990). Richard Faithfull sentenced to over 5 years imprisonment for money laundering. A Confiscation Order was made on 23 July 2023. Mr Faithfull was originally ordered to pay the sum of £562,636 within 3 months to satisfy the Confiscation Order or face four further years of imprisonment. The Order was subsequently varied downwards to £529,961 on 12 March 2024 and the further sentence was moved downwards to 45 months of imprisonment. Mr Faithfull’s outstanding balance is accruing interest at the daily rate of £39.62. This interest will not contribute to the compensation for victims. The FCA enables a fair and thriving financial services market for the good of consumers and the economy. Find out more about the FCA.

The EU-wide framework that protects consumers and businesses from energy market manipulation and insider trading is commonly known as “REMIT”. This framework counts on many parties collecting and monitoring data, all working together to ensure the integrity of Europe’s wholesale energy markets. National regulators are responsible for enforcing REMIT. Today, ACER releases its annual reports on energy market surveillance, concerning: Persons professionally arranging transactions (PPATs): analysing their preparedness to detect and report suspicious energy market activities. PPATs are trading intermediaries such as energy exchanges, organised market places (OMPs) or brokers, who arrange or facilitate transactions in wholesale energy products. National energy regulatory authorities (NRAs), focusing on their analysis of suspicious transaction and order reports (STORs) submitted by PPATs, their enforcement actions and penalties. Both reports are mandated by the 2024 revised REMIT Regulation  which also expanded obligations for PPATs. What are ACER’s key findings and recommendations? ACER highlights the important role of PPAT market surveillance and NRA enforcement under the REMIT framework. ACER’s analysis shows that the number and quality of suspicious breaches submitted by PPATs in 2025 increased significantly, reaching 204 reports - double the previous year’s figure. In parallel, NRAs made steady progress in screening, prioritising and closing cases. For persons professionally arranging transactions (PPATs), ACER identified key areas in their surveillance practices where further improvements are needed: Strengthen functional independence and professionalisation of surveillance teams, including through appropriate training. Reduce over-reliance on basic monitoring tools in favour of more targeted ones. Expand surveillance coverage to potential breaches under REMIT Articles 3 and 4 (in addition to Article 5), across all markets and products. Proactively engage with market participants. Ensure timely and complete reporting of suspicious behaviour, focusing on effectiveness rather than formal compliance alone. For follow-ups by national regulators, ACER recommends: Strengthening PPATs’ analysis of market behaviour by providing more detailed assessments of market participants’ conduct and its impact on the market. Further enhancing NRAs’ capacity (staff and IT resources) to manage the growing volume and complexity of cases. Maintaining and expanding engagement between NRAs and PPATs to further improve reporting quality. Ensuring timely communication with ACER to support effective coordination and case handling. Read more.