Tokyo Stock Exchange, Inc. (hereinafter “TSE”) will launch “CredNex,” a new platform supporting ETF (exchange-traded fund) creation and redemption operations, on September 29, 2025.1CredNex will overhaul the current ETF creation and redemption platform provided by Japan Securities Clearing Corporation (JSCC), enabling automation and acceleration of ETF creation and redemption operations. This is expected to further enhance the stability and liquidity of the ETF market. Background and Purpose The creation and redemption operations in the ETF market play a crucial role directly linked to providing market liquidity. When investors buy (or sell) ETFs, liquidity providers (such as market makers) execute creations (or redemptions), thereby increasing (or decreasing) the amount of ETFs circulating in the market. This ensures ETFs are always traded at prices reflecting the underlying asset value. Concerns arose that the existing platform's time-consuming creation and redemption processes hindered liquidity provision, potentially preventing investors from executing trades at their desired timing. Anticipating further growth in the ETF market, TSE has decided to overhaul the platform to establish an environment capable of swift creation and redemption operations. CredNex addresses these challenges by providing direct connectivity between user systems and CredNex, along with automated functions to verify creation and redemption applications. This significantly reduces manual operations, enabling the drastic shortening of traditional creation and redemption tasks—which previously took minutes—to just seconds. This enables swift creation and redemption even during periods when liquidity provision is currently difficult, such as just before the end of trading hours. This allows liquidity providers to offer price quotes and facilitates stable trading throughout the entire trading session. Impact on Investors CredNex not only improves creation and redemption processes, but through these improvements, enables stable liquidity provision as described above. This creates an environment where investors can buy and sell ETFs closer to their fair price than ever before. Specifically, we aim to deliver the following changes: ・Increased trading opportunities: Stable liquidity provision allows investors with any order type to access the market and smoothly trade the desired volume at their preferred timing. ・Promotion of fair price formation: Increased quote submission by liquidity providers enables investors to trade at more appropriate prices. ETF market is expected to see the emergence of more diverse and specialized products. To respond to this market evolution, it is essential to streamline and enhance the efficiency of the entire operational process, including creation and redemption. As the first step toward optimizing the entire ETF market, TSE focused on reforming the particularly labor-intensive creation and redemption processes. The introduction of CredNex enables liquidity providers to offer quotes for longer periods and with greater stability, while also reducing the operational burden on asset managers. This makes the listing of a greater number of ETF issues more feasible, establishing a solid foundation for market expansion. TSE positions CredNex as core infrastructure supporting the ETF market. We will continue to enhance its functionality and ensure flexible operation, thereby contributing to the sustainable growth of the ETF market and the development of its ecosystem.   [1] Depending on system operation status and user conditions, changes may occur. 

Click here to download Tehran Securities Exchange's weekly market snapshot.

WHAT: Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham to Speak at EastPoint:Seoul and Korea Blockchain Week 2025. WHEN: Panel on “Navigating Global Crypto Regulation in Practice: Institutional Readiness in a Fragmented World” Monday, Sept. 22, 2025 10:30 AM (KST / Seoul)  Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025 9:30 PM (EDT / USA)    Roundtable on “Seamless Settlement of Cross Border-Payment and On/Off-Ramps” Monday, Sept. 22, 2025 12:30 PM (KST / Seoul) Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025 11:30 PM (EDT / USA)   Panel on “Why Crypto Policy Around the World Is Rapidly Changing" Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025 11: 40 AM (KST / Seoul) Monday, Sept. 22, 2025 10:40 PM (EDT / USA) WHERE: EastPoint:Seoul Grand Hyatt Seoul 322 Sowol-ro Yongsan District Seoul South Korea  Additional Information: EastPoint:Seoul 2025   Korea Blockchain Week Walkerhill Hotels and Resorts 177 Walkerhill-ro Gwangjang-dong Gwangjin District Seoul South Korea Additional Information: Korea Blockchain Week        

The current reports for the week of September 16, 2025 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)

Today, after a nine-day trial and fewer than four hours of deliberation, a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found defendant Steven M. Gallagher liable for securities fraud and manipulative trading.  As demonstrated at trial, between December 2019 and October 2021, Gallagher used his Twitter account to encourage his numerous followers, including many retail investors, to buy stocks in which Gallagher had already amassed holdings. Gallagher then sold those stocks while he continued to recommend others buy them, never disclosing that he was selling the stocks. Gallagher repeated this pattern with over 30 microcap stocks, making illicit trading profits of over $2.6 million. For two of these stocks, Gallagher was also found to have engaged in manipulative trading by “marking the close” – a strategy involving placing end-of-day orders to buy stock at above-market prices to artificially increase the stock’s price. Statement of SEC Division of Enforcement Director Margaret A. Ryan: “We are pleased with the jury verdict holding Steven Gallagher liable for fraud and for manipulative trading of microcap stocks, including by using social media. As the hard work of the SEC trial team demonstrates, the SEC is committed to continuing to protect retail investors and holding accountable the perpetrators of manipulative trading schemes.”

Good morning.  Thank you [Gina-Gail] for the kind introduction and thank you to Better Markets for the invitation to speak with all of you today.  Before I begin, let me make my standard disclaimer – the views I express today are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.  While there’s been a lot of breathless coverage of crypto lately, today, I’d like to turn our attention to a different topic: private market access. American capital markets appeal to investors the world over because of their depth, liquidity, and the stability created by well-crafted, conscientious, and reliable regulation.  Underlying this complex ecosystem is the separation between public and private markets – and the regulations that draw those boundaries.  That separation is deliberate, time-honored, and intended to reflect real, important differences between public and private investment opportunities and the nature of underlying issuers.   While the United States can proudly claim the gold standard of financial markets across the globe, Germany’s Autobahn system is equally renowned as a feat of infrastructure.  Of course, the Autobahn is famous for its general lack of a speed limit.  But, much like the separation between the public and private financial markets in the U.S., the Autobahn is a distinct network, separate and apart from other roads.  Like private markets in the U.S., the Autobahn is available to those with a higher risk appetite – but it’s not open to just anyone with any vehicle and it is carefully regulated and monitored.  To drive on the Autobahn, cars must be able to meet a minimum speed requirement, obviously mopeds and bicycles aren’t allowed, and specific safety rules are diligently enforced by a specialized highway patrol.  There are also segments of the Autobahn that do have speed limits, and certain vehicles, like trucks, have lower speed limits.[1]  It’s also significantly more difficult – and more expensive – to get a driver’s license in Germany than in the U.S.[2]  So, while the Autobahn may sound like an unregulated public racetrack open for joyriding at will, it’s anything but.  And it is an intentionally separate experience from driving, say, on the streets of Berlin. As calls for retail investor access to private markets accelerate, I am concerned that we are headed for a high-speed collision – with main street retail investors left without airbags.  First, I worry that we are recklessly blurring the important separation between our public and private markets.  Second, I am concerned that this push for private market access is done without regard to the risks and current performance of those markets relative to public markets.  Finally, I fear that we have failed to right-size our regulatory approach to private markets in recent decades.  As a result, we are now increasingly exposing retail investors to dangerously bloated risks that they, and regulators, are not prepared to face.      Flooring It Through the Public-Private Markets Divide The divide between our public and private markets reflects one of the most basic principles of securities regulation: access to broader public markets requires more disclosure to investors and more oversight by regulators.[3]  This is true for operating companies as well as investment funds.  We know from almost a century of regulation since the Great Depression that this balance of more disclosure for more access to public capital markets – and retail investors – works.  Data have shown that more extensive disclosure requirements in equity markets, coupled with strong securities regulation and stricter enforcement mechanics, actually lower the cost of capital for investors.[4]  In recent years, conversations about increasing access to private markets sometimes include expressions of alarm about the decline in the IPO market since the 1990s and early 2000s.[5]  It seems some of this talk of decline may be hyperbolic.  The data actually show an ebb and flow over time, and, in fact, we saw a record-breaking twenty-year high in the number of IPOs in 2021.[6]  Either way, the topic of IPO activity inevitably leads to perturbations about increases in the regulatory burdens for public companies.[7]  But, a closer inspection of the private markets ecosystem suggests that there are other reasons why operating companies and funds have concluded the private markets are the right environment for their business.[8]  In fact, some argue that deregulation in the private markets has encouraged capital to skirt the public markets and its required transparency.[9]  Others note that market forces independent of regulation, such as increased M&A activity and greater availability of private capital, are the true cause of this shift.[10]    And yet, a lag in the IPO market is often used as evidence that growth opportunities for investors are far more plentiful in the private markets – where retail investor access is limited.  But, lagging IPO numbers are an odd justification for pushing even more capital into private markets.  If we are concerned about declines in public market participation, I doubt that driving more investors into private markets is the answer.  Instead, perhaps these developments should prompt us to revisit the equilibrium between public and private markets.[11]  It’s clear that the reason private markets are more attractive than public markets is, at least in part, that we have not adequately adapted our regulatory regime to address the private markets as they have grown to exist today.[12] And the proof is in the numbers.  Regulation D private placements have increased from $588B in 2009 to $2.15T in 2024 and gross reported assets under management for SEC-reporting private funds have increased from $8T in the first quarter of 2013 to $24.3T in the third quarter of 2024.[13]  I’ve spoken before about my concern that private markets were meant to be the exception to the transparency that is the hallmark of our public markets.[14]  Like the Autobahn, they were intended to serve as a separate infrastructure for operating companies, funds, and investors who meet certain criteria and who are prepared for heightened risk and reduced transparency. But now, we are taking the wheel and steering investors of all stripes into private markets as fast as we can.  And, regulators have been instructed to consider ways to facilitate access to private markets for American investors – in particular, retirees.[15]  Meanwhile the SEC has already taken steps to open private markets further, by (i) abandoning staff positions which limited the exposure closed-end funds have to private investments, and at the same time (ii) expanding existing relief that allows certain closed-end funds and business development companies to co-invest alongside affiliated private funds.[16]  There also may be upcoming changes to the definition of “Accredited Investor” and “Qualified Purchaser” to increase direct access to the private markets by retail investors and further disrupt and distort the public-private divide.[17] Amid all of this hype and momentum, it’s worth pumping the brakes and asking: “why now?”  Current market conditions make me deeply skeptical of calls to “democratize” access to private markets and forsake the public-private divide without the addition of corresponding protections for retail investors.  Current Traffic Jams in the Private Markets Comments touting the need for broader access to private markets spin a story to retail investors that they’re missing out on windfall investment opportunities in the private markets – financial FOMO, if you will.  They hear that the securities laws and our rules are all that’s standing in between them and guaranteed wealth and security in a land of milk and honey.  The sales pitch for this illusion comes at a time when many Americans are desperate for a sliver of economic hope.  Inflation persists, the labor market has slowed, and ongoing market volatility is unsettling.  But pitching private markets access as the key to financial security and prosperity perhaps only dangles false hope.[18]   First, the uncomfortable truth about this sudden push for greater retail-investor access to private markets may be – not that we are opening the gates because of investor demand – but rather that there is excess supply because many of the usual sources of private market capital are drying up.  In fact, recent data show a sector-wide contraction in private equity representing a seven-year low point in capital raising by private equity firms.[19]  And, the stock prices of major private equity firms are struggling despite the promise of imminent exposure to retail investor’s pockets.[20]  Private credit is also suffering from decreased borrower interest after several years of explosive growth.[21]  Indeed, some of the most highly sophisticated private investors – public pension funds – are paring back their private credit investments due to concerns about looser underwriting standards and rising credit risks.[22]  If these developments are concerning to large institutional investors, they should certainly be worrisome for small retail investors as well.     Second, there is good reason to doubt the promise of mammoth returns.  Recent data show that private markets have actually underperformed large-cap U.S. stocks on a one-, three-, and five-year basis.[23]  Even in more promising market conditions, retail funds with exposure to private investments come with higher fees and expenses that eat into any potential returns for investors.[24]  The race for retail exposure to notoriously high-cost private markets is especially puzzling since many traditional retail funds offer incredibly low, or even zero, expense ratios.[25]   Third, there is also the significant risk that retail investors would get access only to investments that more sophisticated investors have already turned down.[26]  The reality that retail investors will likely be served only “leftover” private investments for higher fees than traditional retail investments raises the specter that retail investors may be taken for a ride.[27]  All of this is to say, retail investors’ retirement savings will be used to prop up wobbling private markets purely to save private firms hungry for more capital and to benefit asset managers eager to collect the exorbitant fees.  But at what cost to retail investors?  At what cost to the economy?  At what cost to the country? But, putting that aside, let’s assume for a moment that there may be some performance upside for retail investors in funds with private markets exposure.  That sounds great – until a retail investor wants to get off the Autobahn. The assumption by those pushing for increased access to private markets is that retail investors buy-and-hold for decades when they invest long-term for retirement, so the decreased liquidity in private markets investments won’t be an issue.[28]  In reality, retail investor behavior isn’t that simple.  What about retirement account rollovers as investors change employers over time?  And what about non-retirement retail investments?  What if investors need quick access to their money for any number of reasons – like job loss, buying a house or large, unexpected expenses?  We have already had a glimpse of what happens when liquidity in a private fund screeches to a halt.[29]  In one recent example, investors nervous about rising interest rates flocked to redeem only to find that the fund had limited redemptions – and continued to limit them for over a year.[30]  Now imagine that type of turmoil on a much larger scale – beyond just the wealthy investors in a private fund.  The potential liquidity mismatch between retail investor needs and private investment duration may cause significant harm, not only to the individual investor, but on a more systemic basis in times of stress.  All of these efforts to blur the lines between our public and private markets will have consequences.[31]  So, you’d assume that the SEC is acting as the responsible highway patrol and ensuring that there are appropriate investor protections in place as we direct retail traffic.  And, surely, the SEC is also keeping a watchful eye on the systemic risk implications of these fundamental changes.  Right? The Commission’s Role as Highway Patrol Unfortunately, this expansion of private markets is coming at the same time the Commission has backed away from the prospect of meaningful oversight over the private markets.  In the discussions about expanding retail access to private markets, it’s curious – and concerning – that I haven’t heard much about the need for corresponding expansions in oversight.  Interestingly, in recent days, I have noticed some new talk about the need for “guardrails” from proponents of retail access to private markets.[32]  I certainly agree.  But I’ll admit I’m a little confused because some of those same voices actively opposed a prior Commission’s efforts to actually install those same guardrails.[33]  We cannot just give lip service to the importance of these protections.  And we cannot use the promise of some hypothetical future protections as an excuse to let retail investors ride into 100 mile per hour traffic today.[34]  After all, as we’ve discussed, the reason that the private markets are allowed to function with less oversight and less transparency than the public markets is precisely because they are not available to main street investors. This specific point is fresh in our minds given the private fund adviser rules that were adopted by the Commission in 2023.[35]  The rules would have enhanced the regulation of private fund advisers in several important ways, including by requiring quarterly statements, annual audits, and would have restricted certain activities with disclosure-based exceptions.[36]  The principal challenge that opponents to the rules raised was that Congress intended to draw a “sharp line” between private funds and funds that serve retail investors, and the petitioners argued that the rules crossed that line.[37]  And, ultimately, the rules were vacated by the Fifth Circuit.[38]  But where is the enthusiasm for that same sharp line now that private funds want retail investors’ money?  Apparently, to some, the public-private markets divide should exist only when it’s being used to resist regulatory oversight.  In facilitating retail access to private funds, it seems that this Commission has conveniently forgotten the basis for the Court’s ruling.  If we now intend to allow retail investors to be exposed to private funds, that change fundamentally alters the nature of those funds under the federal securities laws.  It’s worth asking whether that change would empower the Commission to more directly regulate those funds, as we sought to do with the private fund adviser rules.  The import of our public and private markets divide should be clear: if you let retail investors onto the Autobahn, there must be a highway patrol.    With retail access to private markets, one might also reasonably expect more focus on systemic risk issues posed by the expansion of those markets.  Currently, the Commission monitors for systemic risk posed by certain private funds by reviewing data submitted confidentially on Form PF.  In 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to the form that would enhance the quality of the data filed on the form.[39]  Opening up private markets to retail investors in the manner currently contemplated would fundamentally change how those markets function.  This seismic shift creates the real possibility of increased systemic risk to our entire financial system.[40]  Yet, in this exact same moment, the Commission is actively preventing those improvements to Form PF from coming online.  Just two days ago, the Commission voted to extend the compliance date of the amendments to Form PF for the third time.[41]  This latest extension is for one year and all but explicitly admits that it’s not really an extension at all: it’s a backdoor recission of the amendments.[42]  The amendments have been extended so many times that the extension is effectively indefinite and the Commission is currently exploring ways to “reconsider” the form in its entirety.[43]  I question the legality of these repeated extensions, and I am equally troubled that we are hamstringing the Commission’s ability to monitor for systemic risk at the same time we expand access to the private markets. To be sure, it’s an interesting time for the Commission to decline better data on systemic risk in the private markets.  In past crises, we have learned the hard way that distress in private funds can have catastrophic ripple effects throughout our markets.[44]  Better data about private fund strategies would help us identify those risks as they come down the road and respond with evasive maneuvers in the event of an approaching crisis.  Today, there are a multitude of risks in the private markets worthy of our attention, including private credit’s interconnectedness with banks and insurers[45] and the concentration of private fund assets in only a few large managers.[46]  These risks, among others, warrant a watchful eye – and that’s just the risks the private markets present before we introduce the added complexity of retail investor access.  The Commission seems dead set on ignoring even the possibility of systemic risk in private markets;[47] and we do so at our own (and retail investors’) peril. Conclusion So, buckle up.  It seems that we are all about to merge into some high-speed traffic.  Of course, this doesn’t have to be a white-knuckle ride.  There are actions the Commission could take to impose meaningful safeguards and oversight of the private markets – safeguards that are already long overdue.  I have shared my ideas for reforms to the Regulation D offering framework in detail before,[48] the Commission has prudent enhancements to Form PF already on the books (if we ever stop extending the compliance date…), and we have previously considered reasonable regulation of private fund advisers.  And these are just the ideas that we’ve already contemplated.  We must take the time to seriously consider additional measures to tackle notorious valuation issues, require important disclosure to investors, and manage rampant conflicts of interest.  If we want to explore adjustments to the longstanding public-private markets divide, we must do so with caution and we must be prepared to offer corresponding protections to investors.[49] After all, despite its high speeds and increased risks, the Autobahn is safe because it is far from lawless.[50]  Thank you. [1] European Union, Road Rules and Safety – Germany, Your Europe (Jan. 7, 2025). [2] U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Germany, Driving in Germany (Apr. 25, 2021). [3] See SEC v. Ralston Purina Co., 346 U.S. 119, 127 (1953) (providing that “focus of the inquiry” in determining whether registration is required “should be on the need of the offerees for the protections afforded by registration”). [4] See Luzi Hail & Christian Luz, International Differences in the Cost of Equity Capital: Do Legal Institutions and Securities Regulation Matter?, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 485-531 (2006) (“Our results support the conclusion that firms from countries with more extensive disclosure requirements, stronger securities regulation and stricter enforcement mechanisms have a significantly lower cost of capital.”). [5]Benjamin Bates, Retail Access to Private Markets at 19 (2025) (“The number of public companies peaked during the Dot-Com boom at more than 7,000, and it currently sits at around 4,000.”). [6] See SEC Statistics & Data Visualizations, IPOs: Number and Proceeds (last accessed on Sept. 18, 2025) (showing a significant increase in IPO activity in 2021 which constituted a twenty-year high). [7] See, e.g., Hal Scott & John Gulliver, Trump Plans to Give Your 401(k) a Boost, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 10, 2025). [8] Elisabeth de Fontenay & Gabriel V. Rauterberg, The New Public/Private Equilibrium and the Regulation of Public Companies, Columbia Bus. L. Rev., Vol. 2021, No. 3, 1200, 1220 (2022) (“[T]he original driving force for going public—capital raising—has materially diminished.  As noted, considerably more capital is now raised in exempt than registered offerings.  As a result, firms no longer share one leading reason for going public.”). [9] Elizabeth De Fontenay, The Deregulation of Private Capital and the Decline of the Public Company, 68 Hastings Law Journal 445, 448 (2017) (“[W]hile critics blame the increase in regulation for the decline of public equity, the ongoing deregulation of private capital raising arguably played the greater role.”); see also Press Release, SEC Harmonizes and Improves ‘Patchwork’ Exempt Offering Framework, SEC Press Release No. 2020-273 (Nov. 2, 2020) (announcing rule amendments to significantly revise the SEC’s exempt offering framework, including increasing key offering limits under Regulation A and Regulation D). [10] See George S. Georgiev, The Breakdown of the Public-Private Divide in Securities Law: Causes, Consequences, and Reforms 18 N.Y.U. J .L. & Bus. 221, 262 (2021) (explaining that the “over-regulation narrative” is incorrect and the decline in IPOs is due to other factors such as decreased institutional investor demand and increased M&A activity); see also Elizabeth De Fontenay, The Deregulation of Private Capital and the Decline of the Public Company, 68 Hastings Law Journal 445, 448 (2017) (“[E]ven if public company disclosure requirements had remained constant over the last three decades, there would likely still be a dearth of public companies today, due to the increasing ease of raising capital privately.”). [11] See, e.g., Recommendations of the Investor as Owner and Market Structure Subcommittees of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee: Retail Investor Access to Private Markets (Sept. 18, 2025) (“As an initial matter, the Committee finds that the rise of private markets necessitates a recalibration of the existing regulatory framework, which was designed for a world in which the public markets encompassed the vast majority of all investment opportunities.”); Peter Morris & Ludovic Phalippou, Time to Shrink the “Disclosure Gap” Between Private and Public Equity Markets, Research Handbook on the Structure of Private Equity and Venture Capital (July 25, 2024) (describing the “disclosure gap” between public and private markets as “sub-optimal”); Owen Davidson et al., SEC Oversight of Private Equity and Hedge Funds (June 26, 2025) (finding that SEC investigations of private fund advisers improve information for investors and facilitate capital formation). [12] Id.  See also Elisabeth de Fontenay & Gabriel V. Rauterberg, The New Public/Private Equilibrium and the Regulation of Public Companies, Columbia Bus. L. Rev., Vol. 2021, No. 3, 1200, 1212 (2022) (“Given that the disclosure and other securities law burdens on public companies have increased significantly over time, while private company burdens have long remained a null set, the public/private divide has become only sharper since its inception—at least, when it is conceived of solely as a legal distinction.”).    [13] Benjamin Bates, Retail Access to Private Markets at 19 (2025). [14] Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Big “Issues” in the Small Business Safe Harbor: Remarks at the 50th Annual Securities Regulation Institute(Jan. 30, 2023) (“Private markets were meant to be the exception to the proverbial rule.  But, through decades of legal, regulatory, and market developments, private companies now have access to increasing amounts of private capital, inflating their sizes and significance to investors and our economy, and all without the concomitant safeguards built into the public markets.”).   [15] Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(K) Investors, Executive Order No. 14330, 90 FR 38921 (Aug. 7, 2025) (“The SEC shall, in consultation with the Secretary, consider ways to facilitate access to investments in alternative assets by participants in participant-directed defined-contribution retirement savings plans.  Such facilitation may include, but not be limited to, consideration of revisions to existing SEC regulations and guidance relating to accredited investor and qualified purchaser status, to accomplish the policy objectives of this order.”). [16] Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Prepared Remarks Before SEC Speaks (May 19, 2025); FS Credit Opportunities Corp., et al. SEC Rel. No. IC-35561 (April 29, 2025). [17] See Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(K) Investors, Executive Order No. 14330, 90 FR 38921 (Aug. 7, 2025). [18] We know growth in those markets is already slowing, and we know that investors will only face higher fees and less transparency there.  Even during times of low-volatility and positive market conditions, the higher-risk, lower-transparency transparency investments in the private markets are not necessarily designed for retail investors.  But, there may be certain red flags or other signs of hazard indicating that now in particular is not a good time to open private markets to retail funds.  [19] Hannah Pedone et al., Private Equity Fundraising Slides as Sector’s Downturn Deepens, Financial Times (Aug. 24, 2025) (“Private equity groups raised just $592bn in the 12 months to June [2025]: their lowest tally for seven years, data from Prequin show.”). [20] Telis Demos, Private Equity Firms’ Stocks Are Struggling, Despite Getting Into 401(k)s, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 19, 2025). [21] Telis Demos, Private Credit Has a Problem: Too Much Money, Financial Times (May 22, 2025) (“Traditional asset managers, banks and alternative-asset managers have all launched direct-lending vehicles, expanded partnerships and sought more retail funding.  At the same time, appetite from borrowers has been more limited than hoped for.  This likely means that returns for investors, including the retail savers being courted by the private-credit industry, will be lower for some funds.”). [22] Sun Yu, US Public Pension Funds Pare Back Allocations to Private Credit, Financial Times (Sept. 7, 2025) (“A Financial Times analysis of public records shows 70 major US public pension funds reported an 18 percent decline in allocation to private credit in the first six months of 2025 from a year earlier.”). [23] Alexandra Heal, Private Market Funds Lag US Stocks Over Short and Long Term, Financial Times (July 10, 2025). [24] Jason Zweig, You’re Invited to Wall Street’s Private Party. Say You’re Busy., The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 20, 2024) (“[N]ow you can buy ETFs for 0.1% or less. […] On the other hand, expenses on alternative funds, often 2% annually, can range up to 6% or more.  Commissions, often 2% to 5%, can sometimes even exceed 10%.”). [25] See id. [26] Benjamin Bates, Retail Access to Private Markets at 19 (2025) (“A big concern is that the new retail funds might be a way for the private fund sector to bail itself out by using money from less discerning retail investors to buy investments that institutional investors increasingly will not touch.”). [27] Matt Wirz, Moody’s Sounds Alarm on Private Funds for Individuals, The Wall Street Journal (June 10, 2025) (“Some of the investments ‘funneled’ into retail funds may be leftover investments from funds previously sold to institutional investors who wanted to get out.  ‘That raises questions about alignment, transparency and product integrity.’”). [28] Sheila Bair, Retail Investors Should Stay Away from Private Funds, Financial Times (Aug. 20, 2025). [29] Chibuike Oguh and Herbert Lash, Blackstone's $69 bln REIT Curbs Redemptions in Blow to Property Empire, Reuters (Dec. 2, 2022). [30] Miriam Gottfried, Blackstone Limits Redemptions From Real Estate Vehicle, Stock Sinks, The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 1, 2022). [31] I am mostly focusing on retail access to private markets via registered closed-end funds.  As mentioned above, there is also interest in expanding direct access to private markets as well through other regulatory reforms to the Accredited Investor and the Qualified Purchaser definitions.  See Recommendations of the Investor as Owner and Market Structure Subcommittees of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee: Retail Investor Access to Private Markets (Sept. 18, 2025). [32] Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Remarks at the Investor Advisory Committee Meeting (Sept. 18, 2025) (“But, we also must have appropriate guardrails to guide proper investment of retirement and other funds into these private vehicles.  We must address the important issues and potential pitfalls inherent to this genre of investments, including liquidity, valuation, diversification, and strategy, terms, and conditions of investment such as investment priority and relative investment seniority in the capital stack.” (emphasis added)); Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, SIFMA’s Private Markets Valuation Roundtable (Sept. 4, 2025) (“With proper guardrails, retail investors should have the opportunity to obtain higher risk-adjusted returns on investments and build more resilient retirement portfolios.” (emphasis added)). [33] See, e.g., Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Statement on Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews (Aug. 23, 2023); Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Open Meeting Statement on Form PF Extension (Sept. 17, 2025); Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Statement on the Further Extension of the Compliance Date for the Amendments to Form PF (Sept. 17, 2025). [34] See Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Let Them Ride: Remarks at the Meeting of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee (Sept. 18, 2025). [35] See Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Registered Investment Adviser Compliance Reviews, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-6383, 88 F.R. 63206 (Sept. 14, 2023). [36] Id. [37] Nat’l Ass’n of Priv. Fund Managers v. SEC, 102 F.4th 1097, 1109 (5th Cir. 2024) (“[T]he crux of the Private Fund Managers’ argument is that Congress drew a ‘sharp line’ between private funds and funds that serve retail customers.”); see also Goldstein v. SEC, 451 F.3d 873, 875 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“Investment vehicles that remain private and available only to highly sophisticated investors have historically been understood not to present the same dangers to public markets as more widely available investment companies, like mutual funds.”). [38] Id. [39] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-6546, 89 Fed. Reg. 17,984 (Mar. 12, 2024). [40] Matt Wirz, Moody’s Sounds Alarm on Private Funds for Individuals, The Wall Street Journal (June 10, 2025) (“‘If growth outpaces the industry’s ability to manage such complexities, such challenges could have systemic consequences,’ the analysts said.  ‘Private asset managers also face reputational risk if—in a scramble to grow share—credit standards slip or risk management falter [sic].’”). [41] Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers; Extension of Compliance Date, Release No. IA-6838 (Jan. 29, 2025) [90 FR 9007 (Feb. 5, 2025)]; Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers; Further Extension of Compliance Date, Release No. IA-6883 (June 11, 2025) [90 FR 25140 (June 16, 2025)]; Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers; Further Extension of Compliance Date, Release No. IA-6919 (Sept. 17, 2025). [42] Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Repeal By Extension: Statement on Yet Another Extension of the Form PF Compliance Date (Sept. 17, 2025). [43] Id. [44] See William A. Birdthistle, How Private Funds Could Hurt Americans Under Trump, New York Times (Dec. 3, 2024) (“Depriving the market and regulators of [reasonable disclosure about private funds and their advisers] belies the systemic risk these funds generate, such as those that triggered the failure of the highly leveraged hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and a pair of Bear Stearns hedge funds that collapsed at the outset of the 2008 financial crisis.”). [45] Sujeet Indap & Eric Platt, Private Credit Could ‘Amplify’ Next Financial Crisis, Study Finds, Financial Times (June 3, 2025) (“Private credit is now so intertwined with big banks and insurers that it could become a ‘locus of contagion’ in the next financial crisis, a group of economists, bankers, and US officials has warned.”). [46] Matt Wirz, Moody’s Sounds Alarm on Private Funds for Individuals, The Wall Street Journal (June 10, 2025) (“A few large private-fund managers now dominate the market and they often invest in the same deals and in each other’s funds.  This makes it harder for individuals to diversify their investments and ‘this kind of interconnectedness can amplify systemic vulnerabilities.’”). [47] See Robbin Wigglesworth, “The ‘We’re Still Dancing’ Quote of Our Time,” Financial Times (July 2, 2024) (describing SEC Chairman Atkins’ statement that FSOC members agree that “non-bank financial institutions don’t pose systemic risk.”). [48] Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Big “Issues” in the Small Business Safe Harbor: Remarks at the 50th Annual Securities Regulation Institute (Jan. 30, 2023). [49] See Recommendations of the Investor as Owner and Market Structure Subcommittees of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee: Retail Investor Access to Private Markets (Sept. 18, 2025) (“As noted above, one of the chief criticisms of the existing accredited investor definition is the perception that it unfairly divides the U.S. population into segments that either get unlimited access to the private markets or no access at all.  The IAC agrees that this all-or-nothing approach is flawed.  It is important, however, to avoid going from “no access” to “full access.”). [50] See Rob Schmitz, Germany Might Ask Drivers to Pump the Brakes on the Autobahn, NPR (Mar. 21, 2023) (“According to road accident statistics from last year, 34 people per million Germans died in car accidents, but only 5% of those accidents occurred on the autobahn.  Germany's fatal car accident rate is among the lowest in Europe and is more than three times as low as the rate in the United States.”)

An individual has been convicted for breaching the Data Protection Act, but acquitted of fraud and unauthorised business offences, following a prosecution brought by the FCA. On Monday 1 September, Taunton-based Nicholas Harper, aged 26, pleaded guilty to encouraging or assisting an offence to be committed in breach of the Data Protection Act. Following a retrial at Southwark Crown Court, a jury today (19 September) found Harper not guilty of conspiracy to defraud and not guilty of an offence related to carrying out regulated activity in the UK without FCA authorisation. Harper was fined £100 and ordered to pay a £30 victim surcharge for the data protection breach. Raymondip Bedi and Patrick Mavanga were previously sentenced to a combined 12 years of imprisonment for their role in a scam which defrauded at least 65 investors out of £1,541,799. A further individual, Minas Filippidis, is wanted in relation to the same offences that Bedi and Mavanga were convicted for. Background Nicholas Harper’s date of birth is 21 December 1998. The FCA is unable to share further details about the breach of the Data Protection Act at this time. The individuals were charged in April 2023 - Four individuals face fraud charges. Harper was found not guilty of conspiracy to breach the general prohibition under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000. Under Section 19 of the FSMA, a person cannot carry on a regulated activity in the UK unless they are FCA authorised or exempt (this is the General Prohibition). Harper was found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud which is an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Fraud Act 2006. Find out more information about the FCA.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham today announced new members of the Global Markets Advisory Committee and subcommittees, which she sponsors. Scott Lucas, Managing Director, Head of Markets Digital Assets at J.P. Morgan, has been appointed co-chair of the GMAC’s Digital Asset Markets Subcommittee, together with co-chair Sandy Kaul, Executive Vice President at Franklin Templeton. “The Global Markets Advisory Committee continues to provide invaluable expertise that has not only shaped policy decisions at the CFTC, but has also added important context to global discussions about emerging trends in market structure and the regulatory treatment of digital assets,” Acting Chairman Pham said. “I’m thrilled to announce Scott Lucas, Head of Markets Digital Assets at J.P. Morgan, as the co-chair of the GMAC’s Digital Asset Markets Subcommittee. Scott will serve with Sandy Kaul, Franklin Templeton’s Executive Vice President, and Scott’s deep knowledge and experience with distributed ledger technology and the rapid evolution of digital asset market structure will be indispensable as the subcommittee continues to build on its impressive body of work. I also want to thank Caroline Butler for her service as co-chair. Together, Sandy and Caroline delivered the first-ever U.S. digital asset taxonomy and recommendations for tokenized non-cash collateral, both significant milestones for regulatory clarity. I am grateful to Sandy, Scott and all of our new and continuing members for their willingness to serve and contribute to the CFTC’s mission.” “We look forward to working with the Commission and broader industry partners to help shape clear and effective regulatory frameworks in a well-structured digital asset market,” said Scott Lucas, Head of Markets Digital Assets at J. P. Morgan. “I am proud of the contributions that GMAC and the Digital Asset Subcommittee provided to support the President’s Working Group and current regulatory agenda,” said Sandy Kaul, Executive Vice President at Franklin Templeton. “I look forward to continuing the work to bring these financial innovations into the mainstream with prudent and well-designed consumer protections, enabling greater efficiencies and opportunities for all investors.” Acting Chairman Pham also announced the following appointments to the GMAC and its subcommittees: New GMAC Member appointments: GMAC Member Firm Title Robbert Booij Eurex Chief Executive Officer, Eurex  New Global Market Structure Subcommittee (GMSS) Member appointments: GMSS Member Firm Title Laura Fuson Cboe Global Markets, Inc. Vice President, Head of Futures Digital Asset Markets Subcommittee (DAMS) Member appointments: DAMS Member Firm Title Katherine Minarik Uniswap Labs Chief Legal Officer Avery Ching Aptos Labs  CEO and Co-Founder James J. Hill BNY Managing Director and Head of Structural Innovation Product and Innovation Group  Ben Sherwin Chainlink Labs General Counsel Technical Issues Subcommittee (TISS) Member appointments: TISS Member Firm Title Brad Sullivan ICE Chief Operating Officer, ICE Futures U.S.

The Federal Reserve Board on Friday published the agenda for its community bank conference, which will take place on Thursday, October 9. The conference will bring together a range of interested parties to discuss key issues facing the community bank sector. "Community banks are the cornerstone of local economies—driving growth and creating jobs across the country," said Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman. "Yet they face many challenges in a rapidly changing landscape. Our conference will bring together leaders from across the economy to discuss the importance of these banks in their communities." The conference will feature discussions on several topics pertaining to community banks, including payments innovation, capital and liquidity standards, and the evolution of consumer demands. The "Community Banks: A Path Forward" conference will take place at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington, D.C., and will be livestreamed for the public at federalreserve.gov and on YouTube. In-person attendance will be limited and by invitation only. Please email SR-CommunityBankConference@frb.gov with general inquiries about the conference. Community Bank Conference Agenda

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for newly added symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Monday, September 22, 2025. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2025-70 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2025-71 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2025-69 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2025-90

A total turnover of 2.735 billion shares worth N85.197 billion in 127,284 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 3.188 billion shares valued at N99.685 billion that exchanged hands last week in 132,711 deals. Click here for full details.

The three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA - ESAs) today issued their Autumn 2025 Joint Committee Report on risks and vulnerabilities in the EU financial system. The Report highlights how tensions in global trade and the global security architecture have deepened geopolitical uncertainties. The authorities call for increased vigilance and urge financial entities to maintain adequate provisions in today’s tense and unpredictable environment. The ESAs caution that sudden structural changes in global trade and security have led to a deterioration in the economic outlook in the first half of 2025. Despite the initial moderate impact of the US–EU preliminary trade agreement, risks to financial stability and the risk of further corrections remain. The European financial system has demonstrated its resilience. Banks continue to generate solid profits, insurers hold strong solvency positions, and pension funds remain well-funded. Market infrastructures and money market funds have also proven robust in the face of volatility. Growing transatlantic tensions, however, are reshaping the risk landscape. Tariffs and currency shifts are impacting commodities and foreign exchange markets and create new channels through which risks can spread to financial institutions. Strong interlinkages with US financial markets deepen undertakings’ sensitivity to these risks.  Against this background, the ESAs advise national supervisors, financial institutions and market participants to: continue embedding geopolitical risks in their day-to-day business operations and risk assessments, including their dependencies on non-EU markets and service providers, prepare for short- and medium-term challenges amid high uncertainties, such as market corrections, by maintaining adequate provisions and stress testing their liquidity positions, strengthen vigilance against cyber risks and their potential impact on operational and financial stability, also via third-party service providers, monitor contagion risks from crypto assets as the market expands and interlinkages between crypto markets and the traditional financial sectors deepen, play an active role in supporting the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) initiative while duly considering the liquidity characteristics and risk profiles of alternative investments and their suitability for retail investors. Related Documents DateReferenceTitleDownloadSelect 19/09/2025 JC 2025 48 Joint Committee Report on Risks and Vulnerabilities in the EU Financial System – Autumn 2025

The following is the weekly trading summary for DFM Regulated Short Sell Transactions for the abovementioned period. Symbol Security Name Short Sell Trade Volume Short Sell Trade Value (AED) DIB Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC 155,689 1,473,967.21 DU Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company PJSC 101,603 962,180.41 DIC Dubai Investments PJSC 263,357 790,071.00 SALIK Salik Company PJSC 120,666 760,603.64 EMIRATESNBD Emirates NBD PJSC 77 2,021.25           For further information on RSS, please check the DFM Market Rules Module Three Membership, Trading, And Derivatives Rules &Operational Model and Procedures for Implementation of Regulated Short Selling available at  http://www.dfm.ae/the-exchange/regulation/market-rules This Dubai Financial Market Announcement will be available on the website at  https://www.dfm.ae/the-exchange/news-disclosures/market-announcements

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is meeting finance ministers from European countries, Canada and Ukraine in Copenhagen to talk about defence, trade and investment. Chancellor Rachel Reeves will today (Friday 18 September) attend the EU finance ministers meeting for the second time   UK set to deepen ties in defence and trade, to create a safer, more prosperous Europe  Chancellor will push for trade rules to help British business and the international investment needed to deliver growth and higher living standards for working people  Building on the hard work done to reset relationships with EU countries and the May UK-EU Summit, the Chancellor will take a seat at the table with the finance ministers responsible for economies within the UK’s biggest trading partner.   She will represent the UK as a sovereign nation acting in the national interest.   Chancellor Rachel Reeves said:  The EU remains our biggest trading partner. Our economic future is tied to Europe’s and we want to do more. More trade. More investment. More partnerships with countries that share our interests. Economic growth and UK security cannot be separated. Together, we are creating a safer, and more prosperous Europe.”  The Chancellor will recognise that the global economy has changed since last year’s meeting in Brussels. She will push for fair, enforceable trade rules and renewed shared action, noting that growth, productivity and higher living standards are collective goals.  Security challenges across Europe—including Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and ongoing tensions in the Middle East—make deeper defence partnerships more vital than ever. The UK-EU Security Partnership agreed in May will help create the preconditions for a safer, and more prosperous Europe.  Reeves will also reiterate that the UK remains committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, with £4.5 billion being spent on military support to Ukraine this year – the UK’s highest ever level. She will call for better coordinated action against Russian aggression by using UK and EU advantages in the global financial system to provide more support to Ukraine. The EU is the UK’s closest partner and biggest market. In 2024, almost half (46%) of the UK’s total trade was with the EU. Around 94,500 UK businesses exported goods to the EU, and around 157,000 businesses imported goods.  The UK-EU deal, announced on 19 May this year, follows a programme of reforms by the UK Government, which has made economic growth its number one mission. Reforms include backing a third runway at Heathrow Airport, greenlighting Europe’s largest theme park, ending a ban on onshore wind, and setting a target to build 1.5 million new homes.    Through the growth mission, the UK is delivering stability, reform, and investment, making the UK one of the most attractive destinations for international investment.

On 27 March 2025, ACER received the transmission system operators’ (TSOs’) proposal to amend the harmonised allocation rules (HAR) for long-term electricity transmission rights. The harmonised allocation rules apply to all long-term transmission rights allocations conducted within the European Union, specifying criteria for their auctioning. The TSOs’ proposal included various updates related to arrangements with market participants, reflecting upcoming market changes (e.g. introduction of 15-minute market time unit in the day-ahead electricity market) and recent incidents (e.g. single day-ahead market decoupling in June 2024). What did ACER decide? ACER approves the TSOs' proposal, while adding some clarifications and proposing further reviews on the: Usage of the day-ahead price for remunerating long-term transmission rights in case of decoupling: ACER recommends TSOs and national regulatory authorities to review the arrangements among nominated electricity market operators (NEMOs), which should set transparent rules for defining the single day-ahead reference price in case of decoupling. Relevant rules for the nomination of physical transmission rights: ACER recommends TSOs and national regulatory authorities to review the applicable nomination rules, considering the introduction of 15-minute market time unit in the day-ahead market. ACER agreed with TSOs to tackle improvements to the collateral requirements in long-term flow-based auctions separately. What are the next steps? TSOs and regulatory authorities should now review nomination rules and multiple NEMOs' arrangements to reflect the latest updates introduced by ACER. Read more.

Welcome to everyone here at our Roundtable on Trade-Through Prohibitions, including those watching online.  The Division of Trading and Markets is pleased to host you today.  We thank Chairman Atkins for his leadership on these issues and look forward to his remarks later today.  We also thank the Commissioners for their remarks and valuable input on this event.  I thank my capable Division teammates, who worked diligently on today’s program, and in particular Ted Venuti, Arisa Kettig, David Liu, and Kevin Brennan.  Most importantly, we thank our moderators and panelists, who will contribute a variety of expertise and experiences today to benefit the Commission and the investing public we serve.  We are confident that your contributions will meaningfully inform the Commission’s next steps with respect to trade-through prohibitions.  Before I begin, I must remind you all that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, but they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. Our Division was the Commission’s first, and it was initially known as the “Division of Trading and Exchange.”  Our first Director, David Saperstein, was appointed by Joseph Kennedy on August 1, 1934.  Speaking to the National Securities Traders Association on August 4, 1936 in Los Angeles, Director Saperstein asked the following regarding the two-year-old Securities Exchange Act of 1934: “In what direction has it moved?  What progress has it made toward the goal of protecting the investor?  These questions ought to be answered frequently, honestly, without heat and without dogma.  The answers are of paramount importance – to you in the securities business, to us in the business of government and to that great, amorphous, myriad-minded entity that we designate ‘the public.’”[1] Seventy years later, Reg NMS was adopted.  The Division of Trading and Exchange was now called “Market Regulation” and the National Securities Traders Association had dropped its descriptor.  Speaking to this group in New York on April 19, 2007, then-Commissioner Paul Atkins said the following of Reg NMS: “The trouble is that the real consequences for our markets will not be known for years, after the damage has been done and after trading patterns have shifted in unpredictable ways and perhaps to other venues.”[2] Today’s Roundtable is an important marker along the path that the markets have taken since Regulation NMS was adopted some 20 years ago.  Our national market system has seen substantial change since that time.  We have gone from markets dominated by a small number of venues to trading dispersed across many registered exchanges and, for equities, off-exchange venues.  Indeed, we have seen a proliferation in the number of registered equity and options exchanges over the last 20 years, and, over this time, trading volumes have increased many fold and latencies have become ever smaller.  As Chairman Atkins foretold, many of these changes have been unpredictable, and the consequences and costs have been hard to discern.  But as Director Saperstein urged, the Commission has a duty to evaluate its handiwork—frequently and honestly. For example, Rule 611 focuses on price priority, but also includes a number of exceptions that recognize market participants may have other priorities when executing orders.  Have trade-though prohibitions with their numerous exceptions and exemptions made our markets more competitive to the benefit of investors?  Are there more efficient, less prescriptive means to enable competition and foster innovation in our markets?  As a means to protect investors, how do trade-through prohibitions compare to the duty of best execution? Trade-through prohibitions necessitate additional policy choices, such as access fee restrictions and market data standardization.  We appreciate that Rule 611 cannot be analyzed in a vacuum, and we look forward to exploring related questions with the benefit of public comment and, possibly, additional roundtables.  To borrow from another Kennedy, we begin today with Rule 611 not because it is easy, but because it is hard.  Your input is valuable and we thank those who have already submitted comments.  We hope to hear from as many market participants as possible—our goal is to ensure that we continue to have the best securities market possible—competitive, fair, efficient, and the model for the world. Today, we will first hear from the Division’s Office of Analytics and Research, which will present highlights from recently-published data intended to support today’s discussion.  This work is available on the Roundtable website and on the Commission’s market structure analytics page.  For NMS stocks, the data describes trade-through rates, the number of broker-dealers trading directly on exchanges compared with those that route to exchanges via other brokers, and changes in displayed liquidity over the last ten years.  For listed options, the data describes trade-through rates as well as related changes in options market structure over the last several decades. Following the presentation, the first panel will focus on market participants’ experience with trade-through prohibitions over the past 20 years.  After a break for lunch, the second panel will discuss a trade-through prohibition’s role in today’s highly automated and connected market structure.  Next, Chairman Atkins will give his remarks.  Finally, the third panel will consider potential paths forward for trade-through prohibitions. Again, thank you all for participating in today’s Roundtable.  We look forward to hearing everyone’s views on how to ensure that our markets remain the envy of the world for the benefit of the great, amorphous, myriad-minded investing public.   [1] Speech: Current Aspects of Federal Regulation of the Securities Markets, August 4, 1936. [2] Speech: Remarks Before the Security Traders Association of New York, April 19, 2007.

Click here to download Malawi Stock Exchange's  weekly summary report.

Exchange Data International (EDI), a leading provider of global securities data, proudly announces its recognition as Best Corporate Actions Data Provider USA 2025 at the prestigious Data Management Insight Awards USA 2025. This award marks the fourth consecutive year that EDI has earned top honors for delivering trusted, timely, and comprehensive corporate actions data to the financial industry. The award highlights EDI’s commitment to helping financial institutions navigate complex and fast-moving markets. In 2025, the company strengthened its leadership by expanding its corporate actions service to seven daily feeds (03:30, 07:00, 09:00, 11:00, 13:00, 15:00, and 17:15 GMT). As a result, clients now receive faster, event-driven updates aligned with global trading cycles. Jonathan Bloch, CEO of Exchange Data International, commented:“We are honored to be recognized once again by the Data Management Insight Awards USA 2025. This award reflects the dedication of our global team and our ability to anticipate client needs in a 24-hour market. By expanding to seven daily feeds, we ensure clients gain the most timely and reliable data, enabling them to make faster, better-informed decisions.”   Angela Wilbraham, CEO of A-Team Group, stated:“Congratulations to Exchange Data International for receiving the Best Corporate Actions Data Provider award at the Data Management Insight Awards USA 2025. These awards recognise outstanding achievements in data management solutions, services, and consultancy within the capital markets sector across the USA. The winners are chosen by our Data Management Insight and showcase remarkable innovation in developing solutions that address critical data challenges. You should feel proud of this achievement.”   With financial markets accelerating and same-day announcements becoming more common, access to frequent and accurate corporate actions data is now essential. Timely data reduces operational risk and improves responsiveness. In addition, EDI’s service offers flexible delivery methods such as API, SFTP feeds, and customizable alerts. Therefore, clients can integrate data seamlessly into their existing workflows. This latest recognition continues EDI’s strong record of industry success. Since 2022, the company has repeatedly earned Best Corporate Actions Data Provider at both the U.S. and European editions of the Data Management Insight Awards.

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

We are delighted to announce that BMLL has been awarded ‘Best Analytics Data Provider’ at the Data Management Insight Awards USA 2025. These awards recognise vendors providing leading data management solutions, services and consultancy to capital markets participants across the USA. BMLL won ‘Best Analytics Data Provider’ following a year of significant milestones and delivering on their ambitious strategic growth plans to democratise access to high-quality, historical data and analytics, at scale.  Milestones include:  BMLL’s historical market data covers more than 100 trading venues, spanning global equities, ETFs, futures, and US equity options. Its equities offering now covers 100% of the MSCI World Index. 40+ global datasets were added in the last 12 months, covering APAC, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Europe, India and the Middle East; all available within the BMLL suite of products. In November 2024, BMLL expanded its data coverage to include OPRA options data. Six years of nanosecond unconflated OPRA options data is available globally, via BMLL Data Lab and BMLL Data Feed, via AWS S3, and at multiple levels of conflation that suit clients’ specific requirements.  In addition, in October 2024, BMLL secured a $21 million strategic investment in a round led by Optiver, with participation from CTC Venture Capital and existing investors. Optiver also joined BMLL’s ever-expanding universe of customers. Paul Humphrey, Chief Executive Officer, BMLL, said: “Winning ‘Best Analytics Data Provider’ at the Data Management Insight Awards USA recognises the innovation and dedication of the BMLL team. The US is a key growth market for us, and this award highlights the impact of our expanded coverage and continued investment in the region. We bring high-quality data and analytics to more market participants than ever, helping them understand market behaviour, optimise strategies, and generate alpha more predictably."