Tradeweb Markets Inc. (Nasdaq: TW), a global leader in electronic trading across asset classes, today reported total trading volume for the month of April 2026 of $62.2 trillion (tn). Average daily volume ("ADV") for the month was $2.9tn[1], an increase of 7.7 percent (%) year-over-year (YoY). Record Highlights: For April of 2026, Tradeweb records included: ADV in fully electronic U.S. high yield credit ADV in U.S. high yield - electronically processed credit ADV in repurchase agreements April 2026 Highlights rates    U.S. government bond ADV was down 17.3% YoY to $240.2 billion (bn). European government bond ADV was up 5.2% YoY to $61.9bn. U.S. government bond ADV was lower YoY as industry volumes declined as compared to elevated volumes in April 2025. Despite that, institutional U.S. government bond volumes remained relatively flat YoY. Growth in European government bond ADV was driven by our institutional client channel, supported by ongoing geopolitical uncertainty across global markets. Trading activity across the U.S. and Europe remained resilient, with trading metrics remaining strong and clients engaging across a broad range of trading protocols. Mortgage ADV was up 7.0% YoY to $248.4bn. To-Be-Announced ("TBA") activity was primarily driven by real money accounts alongside heightened roll activity, even as rate volatility declined over the course of the month. Tradeweb’s specified pool platform saw increased volumes, supported by greater participation from the origination community and continued client adoption. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year ADV was up 9.8% YoY to $575.1bn and total rates derivatives ADV was up 12.4% YoY to $1.1tn. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year saw stable risk trading activity YoY, despite a tough comparison relative to April 2025, driven by ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, widening dispersion in monetary policy expectations affecting global interest rate markets and continued strong client engagement. This was supported by a 13% YoY increase in compression activity, which carries a relatively lower fee per million ("FPM"). April compression activity as a percentage of swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year was higher than 1Q26 credit  Fully electronic U.S. credit ADV was up 3.9% YoY to $9.2bn and European credit ADV was up 7.2% YoY to $2.9bn. U.S. credit volumes were driven by continued client adoption of trading protocols, most notably in Request-for-Quote ("RFQ"), Portfolio Trading ("PT"), and Tradeweb AllTrade®. Tradeweb captured 17.9% share of fully electronic U.S. high grade TRACE and 8.9% share of U.S. high yield TRACE, as measured by Tradeweb. We also reported 24.3% total share of U.S. high grade TRACE and 11.9% total share of U.S. high yield TRACE. European credit volumes were driven by a record proportion of trades and volume executed via our Automated Intelligent Execution ("AiEX") tool this month. Global cash credit PT ADV increased by 4.0% YoY, with non-comp PT[2] ADV up 23.4% YoY. PT carries a relatively lower FPM as compared to the broader cash credit average, with non-comp PT carrying a lower FPM than PT overall. Municipal bonds ADV was down 21.5% YoY to $432 million. Municipal bonds outperformed the broader market which was down 31.3%[3] Credit derivatives ADV was up3% YoY to $31.7bn. Increased hedge fund and systematic account activity YoY led to increased swap execution facility ("SEF") and multilateral trading facility ("MTF") credit default swaps activity. equities    U.S. ETF ADV was down 25.5% YoY to $9.4bn and International ETF ADV was down 9.0% YoY to $4.8bn. Equities volumes faced a tough comparison against strong April 2025 levels, when extreme volatility and elevated volumes followed the tariff announcements. Despite the relatively softer backdrop this month as compared to last year, active client count grew over 5.0% YoY, demonstrating continued platform momentum. money markets    Repo ADV was up 15.0% YoY to $881.4bn. Record global repo ADV was supported by increased client participation across the platform YoY. In the U.S., strong growth was driven by the effects of the Fed’s balance sheet unwind. Additionally, balances in the Fed’s reverse repo facility ("RRP") remained close to zero for the majority of the month, with a small spike at month end. In Europe, strong activity continued to be driven by geopolitical tensions which kept volatility and demand for funding high. Other Money Markets ADV was up 3.9% YoY to $279.1bn. Other money markets ADV was driven by Tradeweb ICD Portal activity from both existing and new client additions. This was partially offset by less client demand for commercial paper and discount notes YoY. Please refer to the report posted to https://www.tradeweb.com/newsroom/monthly-activity-reports/ for complete information and data related to our historical monthly, quarterly and yearly ADV and total trading volume across asset classes. [1] Day counts generally reflect all SIFMA trading days, where applicable. As recommended by SIFMA, Good Friday, April 3, 2026 was an official trading day for U.S. Fixed Income markets. However, due to holiday-abbreviated hours (markets closed at 12:00 PM EDT) and limited trading activity, we have excluded April 3, 2026 as a trading day for all U.S. products. All trading volume from the day is included in monthly totals. [2] Non-comp PT defined as a portfolio trade sent to a single dealer. [3] Based on data from MSRB.

ACER publishes its Opinions on requests from seven national regulatory authorities on derogations from applying EU gas network codes and guidelines at interconnection points with third countries. These requests have been submitted by the energy regulators of Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain, and are addressed to the European Commission and ACER (in line with the Gas Regulation). What is it about? The Regulation widens the scope of the existing EU gas network codes and guidelines, expanding their application to third countries’ entry and exit points, starting from 5 August 2026. If, for specific reasons the EU rules cannot be effectively implemented, national regulatory authorities can request a time-limited derogation. What is the role of ACER? After receiving the derogation requests, ACER had three months to provide its opinion to the European Commission. To inform its decision-making process, ACER conducted an extensive review of each request, held bilateral discussions with the relevant national regulatory authorities and applied a harmonised approach while considering the specifics of every Opinion. The European Commission will decide whether to grant the derogations, taking into consideration the input provided by ACER. Read more.

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX), the operator of a leading electronic trading platform for fixed-income securities, today announced trading volume and preliminary variable transaction fees per million (“FPM”) for April 2026.1 Select April 2026 Highlights* (See tables 1-1C and table 2) Elevated market volatility in April of last year, combined with a return to low volatility and tighter credit spreads in April 2026, were key drivers of the year-over-year declines in trading volumes. The Company estimates that duplicate trade reports inflated U.S. high-grade TRACE volumes by up to 8% in April 2026. Adjusting for these duplicates, consistent with FINRA’s recent proposal to suppress duplicate reporting, we believe our estimated U.S. high-grade market share would have been approximately 160 basis points higher in April 2026. April’s strong new issuance calendar further reduced our estimated U.S. high-grade market share. Despite the challenging April, we continued to make progress with our new initiatives across the client-initiated, portfolio trading and dealer-initiated channels. Client-Initiated Channel 12% decline in block trading ADV to $5.1 billion, with U.S. credit block ADV of $3.0 billion down 21%, emerging markets block ADV of $1.8 billion up 13% and eurobonds block ADV of $376 million down 24%. Portfolio Trading Channel 3% decline in total portfolio trading ADV to $1.7 billion, including U.S. high-grade ADV of $1.0 billion down 14%, U.S. high-yield ADV of $501 million up 52%, emerging markets ADV of $110 million up 33%, and eurobonds ADV of $174 million down 34%. Our estimated market share of U.S. credit portfolio trading was 20.2%, compared to 19.6% in the prior year. Dealer-Initiated Channel Dealer-initiated ADV of $1.7 billion declined 11% compared to the prior year. Total Mid-X trading volume was $6.7 billion, the second highest month since the launch in U.S. credit, representing an increase of 156%. April 2026 Variable Transaction Fees Per Million1 (See table 1D) The year-over-year decline in total credit FPM was driven by product and protocol mix, partially offset by the higher duration of bonds traded in U.S. high-grade. The month-over-month increase was driven by product mix. The year-over-year increase in total rates FPM was driven by the impact of protocolmix. The month-over-month decrease in total rates FPM was driven by client mix. *All comparisons versus April 2025 unless noted. Table 1: MarketAxess ADV     Month   % Change     Apr-26     Mar-26     Apr-25   MoM YoY MKTX ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade (incl. SD PT)2   $ 7,202     $ 9,627     $ 8,663     (25 ) %   (17 ) % U.S. High-Grade (excl. SD PT)2     6,802       9,159       8,595     (26 )     (21 )   U.S. High-Yield (incl. SD PT)2     1,852       2,110       2,051     (12 )     (10 )   U.S. High-Yield (excl. SD PT)2     1,541       1,839       1,968     (16 )     (22 )   Emerging Markets     4,374       5,194       4,273     (16 )     2     Eurobonds     2,549       2,992       2,785     (15 )     (8 )   Other Credit Products3     621       675       739     (8 )     (16 )   Municipal Bonds     621       675       737     (8 )     (16 )   Total MKTX Credit ADV (excl. SD PT)2   $ 15,887     $ 19,859     $ 18,360     (20 )     (13 )   Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds   $ 23,338     $ 32,879     $ 37,935     (29 ) %   (38 ) % Agencies and Other Government Bonds     2,394       2,582       1,141     (7 )     110     Total MKTX Rates ADV   $ 25,732     $ 35,461     $ 39,076     (27 )     (34 )   Total MKTX Trading ADV   $ 41,619     $ 55,320     $ 57,436     (25 )     (28 )                                   U.S. Trading Days4   21     22     21               U.K. Trading Days4   20     22     20               Table 1A: Market ADV     Month   % Change     Apr-26     Mar-26     Apr-25   MoM YoY MARKET ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade TRACE   $ 42,891     $ 51,422     $ 44,647     (17 ) %   (4 ) % U.S. High-Yield TRACE     13,603       13,742       14,565     (1 )     (7 )   Total U.S. Credit TRACE     56,494       65,164       59,212     (13 )     (5 )   Municipal Bonds MSRB     10,090       9,527       15,427     6       (35 )                                   Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds TRACE   $ 1,078,186     $ 1,448,791     $ 1,354,981     (26 ) %   (20 ) % Agency TRACE     2,785       3,681       4,064     (24 )     (31 )                                   U.S. Trading Days4   21     22     21               U.K. Trading Days4   20     22     20                                               Table 1B: Estimated Market Share     Month   Bps Change     Apr-26     Mar-26   Apr-25   MoM YoY MKTX ESTIMATED MARKET SHARE (%)                         U.S. High-Grade                         % of U.S. High-Grade TRACE2,5     16.8 % 2,5 18.7%     19.4 % (190)   bps (260)   bps U.S. High-Yield                             % of U.S. High-Yield TRACE2     13.6 % 2 15.4%     14.1 % (180)   bps (50)   bps Other Credit Products                             % of Municipal Bonds MSRB     6.2 %   7.1%     4.8 % (90)   bps +140   bps Rates                             % of U.S. Government Bonds TRACE     2.2 %   2.3%     2.8 % (10)   bps (60)   bps                           Table 1C: Strategic Priorities ADV     Month   % Change     Apr-26     Mar-26     Apr-25   MoM YoY STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ADV ($ millions)                               Client-Initiated Channel                               U.S. Credit Block Trading   $ 2,981     $ 4,112     $ 3,751     (28 ) %   (21 ) % Emerging Markets Block Trading     1,784       2,300       1,579     (22 )     13     Eurobonds Block Trading     376       546       497     (31 )     (24 )   Portfolio Trading Channel                               Total MKTX Portfolio Trading   $ 1,739     $ 2,254     $ 1,790     (23 ) %   (3 ) % Total MKTX U.S. Credit Portfolio Trading     1,453       1,859       1,441     (22 )     1     Total U.S. Credit TRACE Portfolio Trading     7,207       8,478       7,349     (15 )     (2 )   Dealer-Initiated Channel                               Total Dealer Initiated (DRFQ & Mid-X)   $ 1,706     $ 2,081     $ 1,916     (18 ) %   (11 ) % Other                               Open Trading   $ 4,944     $ 6,222     $ 5,739     (21 ) %   (14 ) % AxessIQ     173       212       181     (18 )     (4 )                                   U.S. Trading Days4   21     22     21               U.K. Trading Days4   20     22     20                                               Table 1D: Variable Transaction Fees Per Million (FPM)1     Month   % Change     Apr-26     Mar-26     Apr-25   MoM YoY AVG. VARIABLE TRANS. FEE PER MILLION (FPM)                           Total Credit   $ 134     $ 131     $ 138     2   %   (3 ) % Total Rates     4.31       4.05       3.76     6       15                                     1 The FPM for total credit and total rates for April 2026 is preliminary and may be revised in subsequent updates and public filings. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any fee information in future press releases.     2 Effective with the release of our January 2026 trading volume statistics, the Company revised certain aspects of its reporting methodology for estimated market share to provide a more comprehensive view of platform activity and enhance comparability with industry peers. The Company now highlights estimated market share for U.S. high-grade and U.S. high-yield on an all-in basis, which includes single-dealer portfolio trading activity, and the Company will no longer report estimated market share on an "excluding single-dealer portfolio trading" basis. Single-dealer portfolio trading activity continues to be excluded from the “Total MKTX Credit ADV (excl. SD PT)” line in Table 1, the “Total Credit” FPM calculation in Table 1D and the “Total Credit Trading” line in Table 2. “SD PT” is defined as single-dealer portfolio trades. As used in Table 1 to highlight the effect of single dealer portfolio trading on U.S. high-grade and U.S. high yield ADVs, “SD PT” means single-dealer portfolio trades.     3 “Other Credit Products” includes municipal bonds, leveraged loans, convertible bonds and structured products.     4 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar and the number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule.     5 The Company estimates that duplicate reports increased reported monthly TRACE volumes by up to 8% of U.S. high-grade TRACE in April 2026. Adjusting for these duplicates, consistent with FINRA’s recent proposal to suppress duplicate reporting, the Company believes its estimated U.S. high-grade market share would have been approximately 160 basis points higher in April 2026. General Notes Regarding the Data Presented Reported MarketAxess volume in all product categories includes only fully electronic trading volume. MarketAxess trading volumes and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) reported volumes are available on the Company’s website at investor.marketaxess.com/volume. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This press release may contain forward-looking statements, including statements about the outlook and prospects for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (the “Company” or “MarketAxess”), market conditions and industry growth, as well as statements about the Company’s future financial and operating performance. These and other statements that relate to future results and events are based on MarketAxess’ current expectations. The Company’s actual results in future periods may differ materially from those currently expected or desired because of a number of risks and uncertainties, including: global economic, political and market factors; the level of trading volume transacted on the MarketAxess platform; the rapidly evolving nature of the electronic financial services industry; the level and intensity of competition in the fixed-income electronic trading industry and the pricing pressures that may result; the variability of our growth rate; our ability to introduce new fee plans and our clients’ response; our ability to attract clients or adapt our technology and marketing strategy to new markets; risks related to our growing international operations; our dependence on our broker-dealer clients; the loss of any of our significant institutional investor clients; our exposure to risks resulting from non-performance by counterparties to transactions executed between our clients in which we act as an intermediary in matched principal trades; risks related to self-clearing; our dependence on third-party suppliers for key products and services; our ability to enter into strategic alliances and to acquire other businesses and successfully integrate them with our business; our dependence on our management team and our ability to attract and retain talent; risks related to sanctions levied against states or individuals that could expose us to operational or regulatory risks; the effects of climate change or other sustainability risks that could affect our operations or reputation; the effect of rapid market or technological changes on us and the users of our technology; issues related to the development and use of artificial intelligence; our ability to successfully maintain the integrity of our trading platform and our response to system failures, capacity constraints and business interruptions; the occurrence of design defects, errors, failures or delays with our platforms, products or services; our vulnerability to malicious cyber-attacks and attempted cybersecurity breaches; our actual or perceived failure to comply with privacy and data protection laws; our ability to protect our intellectual property rights or technology and defend against intellectual property infringement or other claims; our use of open-source software; limitations on our flexibility because we operate in a highly regulated industry; the increasing government regulation of us and our clients; our exposure to costs and penalties related to our extensive regulation; our risks of litigation and securities laws liability; our tax filing positions; our future capital needs and our ability to obtain capital when needed; limitations on our operating flexibility contained in our credit agreement; our exposure to financial institutions by holding cash in excess of federally insured limits; and other factors. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. More information about these and other factors affecting MarketAxess’ business and prospects is contained in MarketAxess’ periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and can be accessed at www.marketaxess.com. About MarketAxess MarketAxess (Nasdaq: MKTX) operates a leading electronic trading platform that delivers greater trading efficiency, a diversified pool of liquidity and significant cost savings to institutional investors and broker-dealers across the global fixed-income and other markets. Approximately 2,100 firms leverage MarketAxess’ patented technology to efficiently trade fixed-income securities. Our automated and algorithmic trading solutions, combined with our integrated and actionable data offerings, help our clients make faster, better-informed decisions on when and how to trade on our platform. MarketAxess’ award-winning Open Trading® marketplace is widely regarded as the preferred all-to-all trading solution in the global credit markets. Founded in 2000, MarketAxess connects a robust network of market participants through an advanced full trading lifecycle solution that includes automated trading solutions, intelligent data and index products and a range of post-trade services. Learn more at www.marketaxess.com and on X @MarketAxess. Table 2: Trading Volume Detail       Month Ended April 30,     In millions (unaudited)     2026     2025     % Change           Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Credit                                         High-grade     $ 142,843     $ 6,802     $ 180,504     $ 8,595       (21 ) %   (21 ) % High-yield       32,352       1,541       41,319       1,968       (22 )     (22 )   Emerging markets       91,858       4,374       89,728       4,273       2       2     Eurobonds       50,981       2,549       55,703       2,785       (8 )     (8 )   Other credit       13,053       621       15,516       739       (16 )     (16 )   Total credit trading1       331,087       15,887       382,770       18,360       (14 )     (13 )   Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       490,094       23,338       796,645       37,935       (38 )     (38 )   Agency and other government bonds1       47,949       2,394       22,936       1,141       109       110     Total rates trading       538,043       25,732       819,581       39,076       (34 )     (34 )   Total trading     $ 869,130     $ 41,619     $ 1,202,351     $ 57,436       (28 )     (28 )   Number of U.S. Trading Days3             21             21                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             20             20                                                                 Year-to-Date Ended April 30,     In millions (unaudited)     2026     2025     % Change           Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Credit                                         High-grade     $ 654,335     $ 7,980     $ 641,812     $ 7,827       2   %   2   % High-yield       132,761       1,619       131,316       1,601       1       1     Emerging markets       403,783       4,924       330,013       4,025       22       22     Eurobonds       229,143       2,761       203,620       2,453       13       13     Other credit       53,239       649       51,998       634       2       2     Total credit trading1       1,473,261       17,933       1,358,759       16,540       8       8     Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       2,290,244       27,930       2,378,726       29,009       (4 )     (4 )   Agency and other government bonds1       152,325       1,836       88,761       1,070       72       72     Total rates trading       2,442,569       29,766       2,467,487       30,079       (1 )     (1 )   Total trading     $ 3,915,830     $ 47,699     $ 3,826,246     $ 46,619       2       2     Number of U.S. Trading Days3             82             82                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             83             83                 1 Consistent with FINRA TRACE reporting standards, both sides of trades are included in the Company's reported volumes when the Company executes trades on a matched principal basis between two counterparties. 2 Consistent with industry standards, U.S. government bond trades are single-counted. 3 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar. 4 The number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule.

PNGX Markets Limited (PNGX or PNGX Markets), operator of Papua New Guinea’s national stock exchange, is today celebrated the successful listing of Papua New Guinea’s first wholesale corporate bond, a 235 million kina 10 year unsecured subordinated bond issued by Kina Securities Limited (KSL) (PNGX Code: KSL361). This landmark transaction represents a significant milestone in the continued development and diversification of Papua New Guinea’s capital markets. The listing marks the first utilisation of the wholesale corporate bond framework introduced in 2022, reflecting the combined efforts of PNGX, the Securities Commission of Papua New Guinea, and the International Finance Corporation to establish a fit-for-purpose regulatory and market structure for corporate debt issuance in Papua New Guinea. The introduction of a wholesale corporate bond market provides issuers with an alternative source of long-term funding beyond traditional bank lending and equity issuance while offering institutional and qualified investors access to new investment opportunities within the domestic market. It is expected to contribute to deeper capital markets, improved price discovery, and enhanced investor confidence. “The listing of the Kina Securities corporate bond represents a milestone day for the Papua New Guinea capital market and for PNGX” said PNGX Group Chairman, David Lawrence. “PNGX acknowledges the leadership of Minister for International Trade and Investment, Hon. Richard Maru, the support of the Securities Commission in establishing the regulatory framework underpinning the wholesale debt market, including the relevant exemptions and orders under the Capital Market Act 2015 (Capital Market Act)” Mr Lawrence said. “PNGX also recognises the substantial technical assistance provided by the International Finance Corporation in the design and implementation of the wholesale corporate bond market framework.” The wholesale corporate bond market is specifically designed for participation by eligible wholesale investors, including regulated financial institutions, institutional investors, qualifying companies, and high net worth individual investors who meet prescribed thresholds. This structure ensures that investment decisions are driven by informed and sophisticated participants, facilitating efficient capital allocation while supporting market integrity.  The minimum initial investment size for the KSL bond was 250,000 kina with tradable parcel size of 50,000 kina face value in the PNGX secondary market.  The wholesale corporate bond market is not open to retail investors. The wholesale bond market framework allows for streamlined issuance processes by providing exemptions from certain prospectus and regulatory requirements under the Capital Market Act, subject to strict eligibility and structural conditions. This enables issuers to access funding more efficiently while maintaining appropriate safeguards for investors. The listing of KSL’s bond demonstrates the practical operation of this framework and establishes an important precedent for future corporate debt issuance in Papua New Guinea. PNGX considers this development to be a foundational step in building a sustainable domestic bond market. As the market matures, it is expected to support increased private sector investment, economic growth, and job creation, while also providing a platform for the future introduction of green, social, and sustainable bonds. PNGX further acknowledges the ongoing collaboration between the Securities Commission, the International Finance Corporation, the Bank of Papua New Guinea, the PNG Green Finance Centre and PNGX to further advance the development of the wholesale bond market with sustainable finance instruments within the domestic market

Today, the Division of Trading and Markets granted no-action relief to facilitate the rollout of Trump Accounts while ensuring critical investor protections remain in place.[1] Trump Accounts present a historic opportunity to change the course of the lives of the next generation by helping Americans save and invest for the future. I look forward to continuing to advance this important priority of President Trump and supporting Secretary Bessent and my colleagues across the administration to help our next generation build wealth and access the American Dream. [1] https://www.sec.gov/files/tm/no-action/robinhood-form-crs-no-action-letter-050526.pdf

Staff in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued guidance addressing certain questions regarding the application of the federal securities laws to pooled employer plans (PEPs), which help American workers save for retirement. In 2019, Congress passed the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act. Through this legislation, Congress created PEPs, which enable multiple small businesses to band together to provide their employees with access to high-quality, low-cost retirement plans. PEPs allow multiple, unrelated employers to join a single retirement plan, thereby reducing some of the costs, administrative burdens, and potential liability attached to sponsoring a plan on their own. The SEC staff guidance provides the staff’s views on the applicability of the federal securities laws to these plans. The guidance from the Division of Investment Management states that the SEC staff will not object if PEPs avail themselves of the existing exemptions widely applicable to tax-qualified ERISA retirement plans. The Division of Corporation Finance also published guidance that PEPs may use a Form S-8 registration statement if employers choose to offer employees securities as part of these plans. “Commission staff has made it easier for Main Street employees to invest their retirement savings on Wall Street,” said SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda. “By providing straightforward guidance on pooled employer plans and related structures, we are helping sponsors and service providers navigate their obligations with confidence. Regulatory clarity strengthens markets, supports innovation, and ultimately expands access to retirement options for workers across the country. The SEC continues its efforts to support small businesses and President Trump’s agenda to strengthen retirement opportunities for American workers.” The coordinated staff actions addressing the treatment of PEPs under the federal securities laws should assist PEP sponsors, providers and participants as they seek to make use of these pooled investment vehicles, consistent with the SECURE Act and the administration’s broader policy goal of expanding access to retirement savings options for American workers.   Resources Division of Investment Management staff statement Division of Corporation Finance staff guidance - Section 118 Division of Corporation Finance staff guidance - Section 126.45

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today reported monthly volumes for April 2026 on its Investor Relations website. A data sheet showing this information can be found at: https://ir.nasdaq.com/financials/volume-statistics.

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX), the operator of a leading electronic trading platform for fixed-income securities, and Moment, the AI platform for investment management, today announced the launch of a new interface that gives large wealth managers and registered investment advisors (RIAs) streamlined access to MarketAxess’s institutional liquidity and pricing directly on the Moment platform. Moment’s clients will now have access to liquidity from MarketAxess’ global network of more than 2,100 institutional investors and dealers. Moment’s platform seamlessly integrates retail order-driven markets with the traditional institutional RFQ market, enabling access to institutional liquidity. “Delivering the deepest liquidity and best pricing to our clients is core to what we're building at Moment, and this partnership with MarketAxess is a major step in delivering on that promise,” said Dylan Parker, CEO of Moment. “Providing access to institutional liquidity from MarketAxess within the Moment platform helps our mutual clients plug into a fundamentally deeper and more competitive fixed-income market than previously available to them.” “Institutional investors in fixed-income markets have historically benefitted from access to deeper liquidity and higher quality pricing,” said Chris Concannon, CEO of MarketAxess. “By partnering with Moment, we are extending that institutional liquidity to retail investors, helping improve execution quality and outcomes for end investors. This is an important step toward reducing the bifurcation between retail and institutional fixed-income markets.”

Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), a leading global markets operator and pioneer in equity derivatives, today reported April trading volume statistics across its global business lines. The data sheet "Cboe Global Markets Monthly Volume & RPC/Net Revenue Capture Report" contains an overview of certain April trading statistics and market share by business segment, volume in select index products, and RPC/net capture, which is reported on a one-month lag, across business lines. Average Daily Trading Volume (ADV) by Month Year-To-Date Apr 2026 Apr 2025 % Chg Mar2026 %  Chg Apr 2026 Apr 2025 %  Chg Multi-listed options (contracts, k) 14,374 13,260 8.4 % 14,203 1.2 % 14,051 13,372 5.1 % Index options (contracts, k) 6,257 5,087 23.0 % 6,876 -9.0 % 6,167 4,853 27.1 % Futures (contracts, k)1 222 309 -28.0 % 338 -34.1 % 268 265 1.1 % U.S. Equities - On-Exchange (matched shares, mn) 1,677 2,118 -20.8 % 2,048 -18.1 % 1,890 1,765 7.1 % U.S. Equities - Off-Exchange (matched shares, mn) 220 125 75.7 % 240 -8.4 % 242 100 142.8 % Canadian Equities (matched shares, k) 195,488 170,517 14.6 % 203,135 -3.8 % 210,630 162,357 29.7 % European Equities (€, mn) 16,624 17,410 -4.5 % 18,629 -10.8 % 17,122 14,684 16.6 % Australian Equities (AUD, mn) 1,125 1,047 7.4 % 1,318 -14.7 % 1,181 873 35.3 % Global FX ($, mn) 57,873 65,340 -11.4 % 79,865 -27.5 % 67,171 55,398 21.3 % Cboe Clear Europe Cleared Trades (k) 141,289 167,213 -15.5 % 169,513 -16.7 % 576,006 579,285 -0.6 % Cboe Clear Europe Net Settlements (k) 1,285 1,099 16.9 % 1,431 -10.2 % 5,216 4,300 21.3 % 1 In the second quarter of 2025, Digital futures products were transitioned to Cboe Futures Exchange. Futures metrics prior to the second quarter of 2025 exclude Digital futures products. April 2026 Trading Volume Highlights   U.S. Options Cboe's proprietary index options set a single-day record on April 14 with 9.0 million contracts traded. S&P 500 Index (SPX) options set a single-day record on April 17 with 6.7 million contracts traded. Several areas across the business saw the second-highest monthly ADV on record, including Cboe's proprietary index options (6.3 million), SPX options (5.0 million), mini-SPX options (XSP) (188 thousand contracts), and trading during Cboe's Global Trading Hours (GTH) session (8:15 p.m. to 9:25 a.m. ET) (175 thousand contracts).

Good afternoon. Andrej [Bolkovic], thank you for that kind introduction. Given the incredible, persistent growth in the options markets over the past decade, it is only fitting to hold your annual conference in the great state of Florida, an anchor participant in our Nation’s “Boom Belt.” Congratulations on that growth. And thank you for the meaningful investor education work dutifully done by the Options Industry Council. Your dedication to the promise and power that options products deliver to investors is valuable and welcome. And now, please accept my personal “ODD:” I speak today in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. My remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the Division’s staff. I intend these remarks to be “American-style,” and trust this wise audience to advise at the end if they expire “out-of-the-money.” Fischer Black was a giant of the options community. He rose to the top of both academia and industry, holding professorships at the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a partnership at Goldman Sachs. Along with Myron Scholes, he is best known for the Black-Scholes options pricing model, published in 1973.[1] This model established the mathematical relationship between an option’s price and its key characteristics, foremost among these the volatility of the asset underlying the option. Along with volatility, a suite of derivatives of the Black-Scholes equation – the so-called “greeks,” such as delta, gamma, vega, and theta – created a language for the options marketplace. More efficient communication led to more efficient prices—which led to massive industry growth that continues today. Fischer Black passed away in 1995. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but a graduate school classmate corresponded with him regularly on options problems in his final months. My friend describes Fischer Black’s responses to his inquiries as elegant, detailed, and—most of all—patient. When I interviewed for a derivatives job at Goldman Sachs in 1999, two of my thirty or so interrogators were Emanuel Derman and Bill Toy – along with Fischer Black, the authors of the Black-Derman-Toy model for interest rate derivatives.[2] My own mathematics were just so-so, but “Cool Hand Luke” proved to be a winning choice for favorite movie—at least to the trading desk. I joined a team led by Joanne Hill, an early index pioneer, and Sandy Rattray, co-inventor of the VIX. Joanne and Sandy themselves made foundational contributions to options market linguistics that drove efficiencies to the benefit of investors. Given the centrality of communication to efficiency and progress, it may surprise this audience that the Commission has not made a formal study of options markets since 2004.[3] That’s not to say that the Division hasn’t been focusing on the options markets and listening to your concerns. I understand that at last year’s conference, a number of attendees suggested to Commissioner Peirce that FINRA’s Pattern Day Trading Rule was past its prime, and that the Options Regulatory Fee was in desperate need of reform. I am therefore pleased to report that the Commission approved FINRA’s rescission of “PDT” on April 14, and that industry-led “ORF” reform will take effect on July 1. On April 16, the Commission held a roundtable on options market structure, which included a data presentation from the Division’s Office of Analytics and Research and three panel discussions.[4] Twenty-eight industry experts contributed to the panels, which focused on competition in a quote-driven market, the customer experience, and opportunities and challenges of growth. Chairman Atkins articulated the event’s purpose during his remarks: “I should note that this roundtable is neither a prelude to, nor a harbinger of, any options rulemakings in the immediate term. Rather, today is a chance to celebrate the strength of our options markets and to recognize the important place that they have come to occupy in the broader financial ecosystem. Today’s panel discussions also offer an opportunity for leading experts and practitioners to examine what is working, to identify where closer attention is warranted, and to consider the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.”[5] The Division was pleased by the depth and breadth of discussions, which created a valuable record and contributed to the investing public’s understanding of relevant, but nuanced, questions. In addition, the Commission opened a public comment file – file number 4-887 – and the Division’s staff will evaluate all submissions received. As this audience knows better than any, options are a growing business. The dynamic nature of the options marketplace was readily apparent from the staff presentation at the roundtable.[6] For example, between 2012 and 2025, the number of unique underliers grew by 144%, and the number of unique options series increased by 719%. In December 2025, the median OPRA message count was 131 billon – which is 3,275 times the daily average in 2000. Option activity on expiry, or “0DTEs,” has grown from nearly 20% of volume at the start of 2022 to 28% in 2025. On the other hand, the number of options market makers has dropped from 98 in 2012 to 51 in 2025. Yet market-wide payment-for-order-flow for options is now twice that of equities, illustrating the ever-growing interest in options from retail investors. In terms of the roundtable panels, the Division discerned an emerging consensus on three marketplace improvements: execution quality disclosure, containment of strike proliferation, and cross-market efficiencies for “clearly erroneous” policies to break errant trades. In addition, the Division noted interest in replacing lifetime specialist appointments with periodic competitive selection, a review of auction processes, an expansion of penny classes, and enhanced risk management to support clearing capacity. We welcome feedback on these ideas—and any others you may have. Beyond impressive growth, the options marketplace continues to innovate. Cboe has announced plans to offer binary options on the S&P 500 index, and last Thursday the Commission approved Nasdaq’s proposal to list and trade binaries on the Nasdaq-100 index. A core benefit of our harmonization work with the CFTC will be clear rules for new products, which drive innovation and investor choice—and I expect that the options marketplace will have an opportunity to play an important part in that process. Whether a matter of mathematics, indices, or roundtables, efficient conveyance of relevant ideas and information creates value. Our options markets have no rival globally, and any improvements we make will serve to lengthen our lead over the competition. The Division has re-established the lines of communication with the options marketplace. Let’s speak early and often about ways to deliver benefits to the investors we serve. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions, feedback, and ideas. [1] Black, Fischer and Scholes, Myron, “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities,” Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 637-654, May-June 1973. [2] Black, Fischer; Derman, Emanuel; and Toy, William, “A One-Factor Model of Interest Rates and Its Application to Treasury Bond Options,” Financial Analysts Journal, Association for Investment Management and Research, vol. 46(1), pages 33-39, Jan.-Feb. 1990. [3] SEC.gov | Competitive Developments in the Options Markets. [4] SEC.gov | Options Market Structure Roundtable. [5] SEC.gov | Remarks at the Options Market Structure Roundtable. [6] SEC.gov | Roundtable on Options Market Structure Supporting Data.

CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today announced plans to expand its digital asset suite with the launch of Bitcoin Volatility futures on June 1, pending regulatory review. These first-of-their-kind regulated futures contracts will allow investors to more precisely manage their market and portfolio positions by isolating their volatility risks from price direction. "Crypto market participants are seeking regulated products that provide opportunities to gain digital assets exposure when markets move," said Giovanni Vicioso, Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products at CME Group. "With our new Bitcoin volatility futures, traders will be able to invest or hedge against the future volatility of bitcoin, allowing them to access a critical new layer of risk management." Bitcoin Volatility futures will settle to the CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index (BVX), a 30-day forward-looking measure of implied volatility. Rather than tracking price, the index is derived from real-time CME Bitcoin options order books to isolate market expectations. Published every second (7 a.m.–4 p.m. CT), the BVX offers a transparent, responsive underlying for precision volatility trading. "As the digital asset complex continues to expand, Bitcoin volatility futures will be an important tool for market participants to better manage portfolio risk by directly trading volatility," said David Schlageter, Manager Director and Head of Derivatives Sales at Morgan Stanley. "The launch of Bitcoin Volatility futures contracts by CME Group marks another major step forward in the maturation of bitcoin as an asset suitable for investors of all stripes: from institutions to individuals," said Sui Chung, CEO of CF Benchmarks. "For years, the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (BRR) has served as the benchmark spot price, allowing regulated derivatives, ETFs and ETPs as well as lending markets to flourish. The CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index extended that infrastructure into a new dimension: forward-looking bitcoin volatility. With the launch of these CFTC-regulated futures contracts, we anticipate a similar flourishing of regulated financial products that will enable investors to more precisely harness the unique characteristics of bitcoin and express views on forward-looking sentiment and manage risks that have, until now, been difficult to implement." For more information on Bitcoin Volatility futures, please visit www.cmegroup.com/BVI.

Jenny Cosco, global head of government relations and regulatory strategy at LSEG, and Jason Granet, chief investment officer at BNY, speak with Tara Kruse, ISDA’s global head of derivative products and infrastructure, about how firms can manage liquidity pressures during periods of market volatility, the risks posed by sudden spikes in margin calls, and whether recent policy measures on margin preparedness go far enough to strengthen market resilience.

Today, the Commission proposed amendments to allow companies to file semiannual reports in lieu of quarterly reports. I am pleased to support this proposal and look forward to feedback from investors, issuers, and other interested parties. Periodic reporting is not new. Annual reports began shortly after the passage of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Semiannual reports arrived in 1955, and, fifteen years later, our current quarterly reporting framework materialized.[1] But today, Form 10-Q requires more detailed information than what was required by the previous semiannual framework.[2] Some companies may look at the frequency of reports, coupled with the extensive information these reports require, as just another reason to stay out of the public markets. By providing greater flexibility, today’s proposal, if adopted, could help to alleviate one facet of the reporting burden, and thus potentially make the public markets more attractive to companies. If the Commission adopts the proposal, however, companies may choose to retain their current disclosure cadence. They will do so in response to their investors’ demands or to remain aligned with peer companies. But a decision to remain a quarterly reporting company would not be a vote in favor of all Form 10-Q requirements. Many companies find them quite onerous. Accordingly, an approach that focuses on slimming down the Form 10-Q—instead of or in addition to making it optional—could be helpful. I welcome commenters’ responses to the following questions, as well as the questions in the proposing release: Should we adjust the reporting burden rather than adjusting whether that burden is quarterly? If so, is that exercise better undertaken in conjunction with this rulemaking or as part of the Commission’s broader project of assessing disclosure requirements? Thank you to the Commission staff in the Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, Division of Investment Management, Office of the General Counsel, and Office of the Chief Accountant for your excellent work on this release. [1] Semiannual Reporting, Release No. 33-11414 (May 5, 2026), pgs. 8-10, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11414.pdf. [2] Id. at 10.

Today, the Commission proposed amendments to provide public companies with the option of filing one semiannual report, on a new Form 10-S, in lieu of three quarterly reports on Form 10-Q.[1] This proposal is part of my Make IPOs Great Again agenda that is aimed at incentivizing companies to go and stay public. Public companies have an obligation under the federal securities laws to provide information that is material to investors. Yet, the rigidity of the SEC’s rules has prevented companies and their investors from determining for themselves the interim reporting frequency that best serves their business needs and investors. Today’s proposed amendments, if ultimately adopted, would provide companies with increased regulatory flexibility in this regard. In determining a company’s reporting cadence, a company might consider factors such as the costs and management time of preparing quarterly reports versus semiannual reports, expectations of its investors, potential effects on its cost of capital, the stage of its business development, the nature of its business model, other avenues of disclosure including earnings calls[2] and current reports on Form 8-K, and prospects of increased research coverage, all without undermining fundamental investor protections. Ultimately, this flexibility might reduce some of the burdens of being a public company and potentially influence a company’s decision to become or remain public. The proposal seeks public input on the optional semiannual reporting framework, and I look forward to the public feedback. Of course, the frequency of regulatory reporting is only part of the equation for incentivizing companies to go and stay public. Another significant part is ensuring that the disclosure—both financial and non-financial—mandated in interim reports, whether filed quarterly or semiannually, is guided by materiality as the north star. At the SEC, the Commission staff is well underway in exploring potential amendments to Regulation S-K,[3] generally and including the parts implicated by interim reports.[4] With respect to the financial statements required in interim reports, I also encourage the Financial Accounting Standards Board to evaluate potential amendments to its accounting standards, with the same goal of eliciting disclosure of material information and avoid compelling the disclosure of immaterial information. Today’s proposal is just the first step of the larger, comprehensive effort to review and reshape the current SEC rules governing public companies with respect to their ongoing reporting obligations and their ability to raise capital in the public markets. Over the next few months, I expect that the Commission will be considering a series of proposals that, if adopted, will not only redefine what it means to be a public company, but will make being public attractive again. Thank you to the following members of the Commission staff for their work on this proposal. Division of Corporation Finance Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Ted Yu, Heather Rosenberger, Mark Saltzburg, Ryan Milne, Steve Hearne, Luna Bloom, Valian Afshar, Adam Turk, Michael Reedich, Angie Kim, Anna Abramson, Jessica Ansart, Kayla Roberts, and Hodan Siad Office of the General Counsel J. Russell McGranahan, Bryant Morris, Dorothy McCuaig, Eduardo Aleman, Michael Killoy, and Rebecca Orban Division of Economic and Risk Analysis Lyndon Orton, Mattias Nilsson, Mahdi Mohseni, Tara Bhandari, Maclean Gaulin, Michael Pessin, Rob Girouard, and Don Edmonds Office of the Chief Accountant Kurt Hohl, Shaz Niazi, Michal Dusza, Sheri York, Gaurav Hiranandani, Erin Nelson, Taylor Pross, Polia Nair, and Andrea Willette Division of Investment Management Sarah ten Siethoff, Brian Johnson, and Brad Gude [1] Semiannual Reporting, Release No. 33-11414 (May 5, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11414.pdf. [2] Today’s proposal would not affect the frequency of a company’s earnings call and earnings release.  That frequency has been, and will continue to be, determined solely by the company. [3] Regulation S-K serves as the central repository for disclosure requirements outside of the financial statements. [4] See Statement on Reforming Regulation S-K, Chairman Paul S. Atkins (Jan. 13, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-statement-reforming-regulation-s-k-011326.

Quarterly reporting has its roots in post-World War II industrial recovery.[1] But is there any particular magic to quarterly reporting? Why not monthly? Or weekly? Or real-time reporting? Modern technology makes faster and more frequent reporting possible, but that does not necessarily mean it is better. On the other hand, should the Commission continue to mandate a quarterly reporting cycle at all? If investors are unsatisfied with the cycle of corporate financial reporting, they will attach higher risk to that company and raise the cost of capital. Today, the Commission proposes changes to our reporting framework to give companies more options in fulfilling their reporting obligations. A framework built nearly 75 years ago, when public companies tended to be in manufacturing and the roles of institutional investors and asset managers in the markets were different, should not be presumed to serve all companies optimally in 2026. This proposal would permit companies that go—and remain—public to be subject to a more flexible SEC reporting framework. Specifically, the Commission proposes to allow companies to meet their Exchange Act interim reporting obligations[2] by filing semiannual reports on new Form 10-S, rather than quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. The Commission is also proposing corresponding amendments to Regulation S-X to facilitate this change.  Our Rulebook Should Promote Flexibility: One Size Does Not Fit All Our proposal focuses on flexibility—ensuring companies and their investors can select reporting cadences that best reflect their business models. An established pharmaceutical company with a trillion-dollar market capitalization is markedly different from a pre-revenue biotech company pursuing approval of a single drug candidate.[3] Their financial rhythms, business milestones, and investor expectations might differ dramatically. For the former, quarterly financial developments may signal underlying business changes, whereas for the latter, the key information may relate to the successful scientific development and FDA approval of the drug. Our framework should allow market participants to select the optimal reporting period for their business. Issuers will select a reporting period, and investors and market intermediaries will signal whether such period aligns with their expectations—through their decision to buy or sell such securities. Companies are free to communicate important information through means other than the Form 10-Q, including press releases, blog posts, and social media. Further, companies remain subject to current report filing obligations on Form 8-K for certain material events. These events include, among others, entries into material definitive agreements, notices of delisting, unregistered sales of equity securities, and Regulation FD disclosures.[4] We Should Not Promote Short-termism Moreover, concerns have been raised that the Commission’s mandatory quarterly reporting scheme results in a greater emphasis on the short-term outlook. Nearly three decades ago, Chairman Arthur Levitt emphasized the need to look beyond short-term estimates, stating “Wall Street needs to focus less on quarterly earnings and more on the long-term health and viability of a company.”[5] Excessive focus on quarterly results can distract management from executing long‑term strategy. It can also impose compliance burdens that may not produce commensurate benefits for investors. To the extent that the Commission can reduce the amount of time spent managing regulatory obligations that do not add clear corresponding value to capital markets, we should rethink such obligations. I look forward to hearing the views of commenters as to whether the proposed approach would promote such an outlook, reduce compliance costs, and increase flexibility. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the staff of the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Economic Risk and Analysis as well as the Offices of the General Counsel and the Chief Accountant for their work on this proposal. I also appreciate the efforts of President Trump to improve the productivity and efficiency of American companies by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. [1] Semiannual Reporting, Release No. 33-11414 (May 5, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/33-11414.pdf [2] Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). [3] Refer to Remarks at the 53rd Annual Securities Regulation Institute, Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Coronado, CA, Jan. 26, 2026 available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-securities-regulation-institute-012626. [4] Form 8-K, Current Report, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/form8-k.pdf. [5] A Financial Partnership, Chairman Arthur Levitt, Chairman, Financial Executives Institute, (Nov. 16, 1998) available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch227.htm. 

It is a pleasure to open this conference on climate, nature and monetary policy – the first of its kind at the ECB and one that would have been hard to imagine even a decade ago. Christine Lagarde The President of the European Central Bank Not because climate risk was unrecognised at the time. The scientific community had long been clear about its seriousness, and the Paris Agreement set a common direction of travel for governments, which carry the primary responsibility for tackling climate change. Rather, the attention given to what climate change meant for central banks – in research and in policy – was still in its infancy. And where it did exist, it focused primarily on the consequences for financial stability, with landmark interventions as early as 2015.[1] The implications for monetary policy came into focus more slowly. For instance, it was only in 2018 that an ECB Executive Board member devoted a speech to the topic – and even then, the case made was largely hypothetical, reflecting, in part, the lack of substantive research at the time.[2] The consequences of nature risks for monetary policy took longer still to enter the policy conversation. Measured against those early days, the distance covered by researchers and monetary policymakers has been substantial – as this conference’s rich agenda shows. However, the journey of the past decade has also been bittersweet. Global efforts to tackle the climate and nature crises have not progressed nearly as well as many would have hoped. But this shortfall does not mean our efforts have been in vain. If anything, it sharpens the case for deeper analysis from the research and central banking communities – to better understand the risks that lie ahead, and to distinguish the signals of science from the noise of politics. A decade of progress If we look back on recent years, a virtuous circle has emerged between advances in knowledge and the institutional architecture that some central banks have built around it. Deeper understanding has made the case for, and led to the establishment of, that architecture. And that architecture has in turn created fertile ground for new knowledge to grow. This has enabled researchers and monetary policymakers, collectively, to become better at what they do. Take our advances in knowledge first. Our grasp of how climate change shapes the macroeconomic environment in which monetary policy operates has now grown considerably – though it remains far from complete. Extreme weather events offer a good illustration of this. We now have a greater appreciation that they can hit different parts of the economy differently – and the net impact on medium-term inflation is not always clear in advance. A weather event that disrupts agricultural production can put upward pressure on food prices. Last summer’s heatwave, for example, is estimated to have added up to 0.7 percentage points to unprocessed food prices in the euro area after one year.[3] But such events can also weigh on output, and probably more persistently so than was once thought. ECB research has found that four years after a drought or flood, regional output remains depressed by around 3 percentage points on average.[4] And if extreme weather shocks were to hit entire economies, the resulting weakness in activity and incomes could dampen demand – potentially putting downward pressure on headline inflation. As governments pursue the green transition, central banks have also been able to examine how decarbonisation shapes the macroeconomic environment – including its implications for inflation. One example of this is the rollout of ETS2, which extends carbon pricing across the EU to buildings and road transport for the first time. The ECB already factors ETS2 into its macroeconomic projections, estimating that it will add around 0.2 percentage points to headline inflation in the euro area in 2028. This growing body of knowledge has, in turn, provided the foundation for new networks, frameworks and measures. Some of these networks have blossomed. For example, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) launched in 2017 with just eight members. It now comprises over 150 central banks and supervisory authorities across 95 countries.[5] The NGFS itself has become an engine of collective learning. Its climate scenarios, now in their fifth iteration and each more sophisticated than the last, are testament to what pooling minds across so many institutions can produce. The same story has played out within individual institutions – including the ECB, where the progression has been from recognition to integration. Our 2021 strategy review was grounded in extensive analysis of how climate change interacts with our price stability mandate.[6] The outcome of that review was the Eurosystem’s commitment to incorporating climate change considerations systematically into our monetary policy and central banking.[7] Last year’s strategy assessment extended that commitment to nature.[8] The roadmap established by the 2021 review was ambitious in scope, spanning stress-testing exercises, risk assessment, corporate bond holdings and the collateral framework. And thanks to the dedicated work of ECB staff across the institution, coordinated by our Climate Change Centre, that roadmap has been substantially delivered upon. Building on that foundation, our recent climate and nature strategy illustrates how institutional efforts are in turn advancing knowledge and strengthening the symbiotic relationship between researchers and policymakers. Work on nature-related risks is a case in point. Last month, a collaboration between the ECB, the London School of Economics and the University of Oxford revealed how an extreme episode of water scarcity could put as much as 24% of euro area output at risk.[9] Cutting through the noise Findings like these underline the scale of the climate and nature risks we face. And yet the broader response, from governments and societies as a whole, has fallen short of what the moment demands. The past decade has thrown up a troubling paradox: every new data point tells us to accelerate the green transition – and yet it is losing pace. It has been the warmest decade on record. The rate of sea level rise has doubled since satellite measurements began.[10] And scientists now consider it likely that, within the next five years, the world will breach the 1.5°C limit set out in the Paris Agreement – far sooner than projections suggested in 2015. But sharper awareness has not been matched by sharper resolve. The green transition has, if anything, lost momentum. Last year global carbon emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high.[11] And although governments once showed a united resolve in Paris, we now see backtracking in certain jurisdictions. Part of the reason is that climate change – a phenomenon that strikes regardless of political disposition – has itself become a partisan issue. In recent years, we have even seen debates in Europe about whether the green transition has made the continent more vulnerable in today’s geopolitically volatile world by increasing energy bills. But the status quo is clearly unsustainable. Europe imports roughly 60% of its energy – almost all of it fossil fuels – and today’s surging energy prices are a reminder of the cost of that dependency. Alternative sources of energy offer the clearest path to minimising the trade-offs between Europe’s energy policy goals of security, sustainability and affordability.[12] Indeed, ECB analysis of the current energy shock shows that countries where a higher share of electricity is generated from non-fossil fuel sources, such as Spain and Portugal, have been more insulated from the rise in gas prices.[13] But how we approach the transition matters too – and getting it right means identifying the most economically efficient pathways, so as to maximise the opportunities for growth and decarbonisation to advance together. It is precisely in moments like these – when the climate debate grows louder and becomes less clear-eyed – that rigorous work on climate and nature risks by the research and central banking communities matters most. The world needs the kind of impartial, fact-based analysis that these communities provide – to cut through the noise and help policymakers and citizens alike understand the signals and what is at stake. That is why a conference such as this one is so welcome. The rich range of topics on the agenda, which a decade ago would have been hard to fill, is itself a measure of how far we have come. Climate and nature risks are, by their very nature, deeply uncertain – and, in the face of such uncertainty, chance favours the prepared mind, as Louis Pasteur once observed.[14] The research and central banking communities embody that preparation. And there is still much to do. Thank you. Carney, M. (2015), “Breaking the tragedy of the horizon - climate change and financial stability”, speech at Lloyd’s of London, 29 September. Cœuré, B. (2018), “Monetary policy and climate change”, speech at a conference on “Scaling up Green Finance: The Role of Central Banks”, organised by the Network for Greening the Financial System, the Deutsche Bundesbank and the Council on Economic Policies, Berlin, 8 November. Bates, C., Kuik, F., Wieland, E. and Zekaite, Z. (2025), “Inside the food basket: what is behind recent food inflation?”, Economic Bulletin, ECB, Issue 8. Usman, S., Guzmán, F. and Parker, M. (2025), “Going NUTS: The regional impact of extreme climate events over the medium term”, European Economic Review, Vol 178, September. See the membership page on the Network for Greening the Financial System’s website. For an overview of ECB research regarding the economic consequences of climate change and the green transition, see Lane, P. R. (2026), “Climate change and monetary policy”, speech at the ECB climate conference, 5 May. ECB (2021), “An overview of the ECB’s monetary policy strategy – 2021”; see also Eurosystem work stream on climate change (2021), “Climate change and monetary policy in the euro area”, Occasional Paper Series, No 271, ECB, September. ECB (2025), “An overview of the ECB’s monetary policy strategy – 2025”. Specifically, a drought event with a one-in-a-hundred-year risk of occurring. See Ceglar, A. et al. (2025), “Nature at risk: Implications for the euro area economy and financial stability – Economic and financial risks stemming from degradation of ecosystem services”, Occasional Paper Series, No 380, ECB. World Meteorological Organization (2025), “WMO report documents spiralling weather and climate impacts”, 19 March. Deng, Z. et al. (2026), “Global carbon emissions and decarbonization in 2025”, Nature Reviews: Earth & Environment, 14 April. As I argued last October. See Lagarde, C. (2025), “Europe’s road to renewables”, speech at Norges Bank’s Climate Conference in Oslo, Norway, 21 October. See Chart 8 in Lane, P. R. (2026), “Climate change and monetary policy”, speech at the ECB climate conference, 5 May. Pasteur, L. (1939), “Discours prononcé à Douai, le 7 décembre 1854, à l’occasion de l’installation solennelle de la Faculté des lettres de Douai et de la Faculté des sciences de Lille”, in Œuvres de Pasteur, réunies par Pasteur Vallery-Radot, Tome VII: Mélanges scientifiques et littéraires.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today launched a consultation on a new approach to updating the parameters for stress test scenarios under the Money Market Funds framework. ESMA proposes replacing the current annual amendments to Section 5 of the Guidelines with an annual web-based publication of the calibration parameters.  The Guidelines would continue to define the stress testing framework and methodology, while the website would serve as a single point of access for the latest annual calibrations. The proposed approach aims to simplify the update process and improve accessibility, allowing market participants to apply updated parameters immediately after approval. It is also intended to reduce compliance and supervisory burdens, in line with ESMA’s Simplification and Burden Reduction (SBR) initiative. Next steps Feedback should be submitted by 6 August 2026. ESMA will then consider the feedback received and expects to publish the corresponding final report in H2 2026. The new procedure for the update of the parameters will apply with the next update, which is expected at the end of 2026. Respond Related Documents DateReferenceTitleDownloadSelect 05/05/2026 ESMA34-1240783630-648 Consultation paper on the Guidelines on stress test scenarios under the MMF Regulation

Good morning. It is a pleasure to join you for the annual Women in Housing and Finance Symposium.1 As a woman in finance, I appreciate this organization's focus on women in the industry. Thank you for the invitation to join you. Today I would like to discuss an issue that is critical to ensuring the financial security of all Americans, but especially those who are most financially vulnerable—consumer fraud. Obviously, this is not a new topic, in fact, it has been around as long as money itself. Since people have transacted things of value, there have been those who seek to exploit trust for profit. From ancient Greece to the Ponzi schemes of the 1920s to the telemarketing scams of the 1990s, fraud has always evolved alongside commerce.2 But in today's environment of rapid technological advances, what we are seeing today is different in scale, sophistication, and impact. Many of us have heard about, or even experienced, these scenarios firsthand. When you last visited your financial institution, did you see signs at the teller window prohibiting the use of a phone during a transaction? A state commissioner recently shared a common example of how customers get defrauded right in front of their bank teller. The customer stands at the bank counter, phone pressed to their ear, as a scammer on the other end walks them through each step of a fraudulent transaction at the teller window. Despite concerns the bank employee raises, the customer proceeds with the transaction, trusting the voice on the phone, and absolutely convinced they are doing the right thing. These types of scams have become common, everyday occurrences across the financial sector. Among the most common scenarios is the impersonation of a family member over a social media platform or by phone, urgently requesting funds by a person-to-person funds transfer application. Or a social media advertising campaign convincing a consumer to share bank account credentials and other personally identifiable information that is subsequently used to steal funds. Text messages that include an active link, claiming the United States Postal Service needs an immediate response about a package delivery, which leads to a click and the target downloading malware that is used to compromise a bank account. In some cases, a fraudulent alert from an impersonated Amazon representative states that there is a problem with the customer's account, perhaps an unauthorized purchase that's caused them to freeze the account. The target is asked to "verify" login credentials or credit card details to "fix" the issue. The consistent theme is that the messages seem authentic. The links appear legitimate and often mimic the retailer's actual website. But that personal information is later used for unauthorized purchases. These sophisticated fraud attempts are occurring at an increasing velocity on a scale that targets significant numbers of consumers. It may not seem obvious why, as a member of the Board and as the vice chair for supervision, I am raising consumer fraud as a priority issue for the Federal Reserve. The reason is that in addition to the individual harm to consumers, ultimately fraud threatens the integrity and reliability of our financial system. One of the Federal Reserve's most important roles is to regulate banks and payments, and fraud poses a significant risk for both. At its foundation, nearly every fraud affects a bank account or is tied to a payment that involves a bank account. Banks of all sizes are working to identify, mitigate, and address circumstances that result from or lead to fraud. In fact, fraud losses are one of the largest expenses for community banks.3 Smaller regional banks also experience significant financial impact from fraud—one bank estimated its annual fraud costs at $40 million. The financial impact of fraud is increasing industrywide, with losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the largest institutions. This issue extends far beyond banks. Consumer fraud and scams pose increasing risks to the financial system as noted in the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) 2025 annual report, which highlighted concerns about fraud, including cyber-enabled fraud. Fraud was also a topic discussed during the FSOC's March meeting in the context of the impact of fraud on household balance sheets. Starting with the DataOur own data, as shown in the 2025 Survey of Household Economics and Decision making—the SHED—indicated that one in five American adults experienced financial fraud or scams in 2024.4 To put that into context, that's 21 percent of the adult population. While credit card fraud was the most common type of financial fraud, the impact to the consumer is less direct as individuals are not typically required to bear these financial losses. Other types of financial products, including bank accounts, investment accounts, or other financial products were involved in fraudulent activity for 8 percent of households. With these products, in many cases there is no automatic protection and no guarantee of recovery. The total loss from non-credit card fraud across the financial system was $84 billion in 2024. Of this amount, only $21 billion was recovered, resulting in an estimated net loss of $63 billion in losses for individual consumers. What does this mean in practice for individual households? According to the SHED survey, on average, the median loss for victims was $500, before any recovery. Even when victims were successfully able to recover funds, about half of those victims still lost money. In the broader context of Americans' financial capacity, 13 percent of Americans cannot cover a $400 emergency expense using cash or its equivalent. Let that sink in—thirteen percent of Americans don't have $400 in cash on hand for an emergency. The median fraud loss before recovery is $500. Therefore, it should not be surprising that 30 percent of Americans who lost money in an online scam said that it negatively impacted their financial condition.5 For financially vulnerable households, a fraud loss can quickly escalate from an inconvenience to a crisis affecting their ability to cover essential expenses. Given these devastating impacts on individual households, you might expect certain groups to be more vulnerable than others. But here's what the data actually shows. Adults aged 45 and older were more likely to experience fraud, largely due to higher credit card usage among these consumers. And elderly consumers are more likely to lose large amounts of money to fraud.6 But when we examined income levels, race, ethnicity, and gender, we found that the incidence of fraud was similar across all groups.7 This threat cuts across all demographic lines. No particular individual is insulated from these threats. Our banking system runs on trust—the belief that accounts are secure and customers can transfer money safely and reliably. When one in five adults experiences fraud and $63 billion disappears from household accounts, that trust erodes. But here's the challenge: The payment tools banks provide that allow customers to manage their financial lives—checks, debit cards, credit cards, and electronic payments—are instrumental for criminals trying to perpetrate fraud. More than half of non-credit card fraud involved a bank account product. Bank transfers and payments were the mechanism for almost 40 percent of aggregate reported losses from fraud in 2024. Criminals are exploiting vulnerabilities in payment systems, authentication processes, and the security measures designed to protect households. In response, banks are making unprecedented investments in security and consumer education. Yet instances of fraud continue to increase as fraudsters exploit new vulnerabilities and new technologies, while the industry works to create more effective mechanisms to identify, prevent, and remediate fraud. For example, many fraud operations are conducted in overseas scam centers beyond U.S. law enforcement reach, which complicates the ability to combat these schemes. The Path ForwardEffectively addressing payments fraud is a complex and wide-ranging challenge that extends well beyond the Federal Reserve Board, and beyond the broader responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System. To be effective, this effort requires a comprehensive, multifaceted response and no single agency or private-sector entity can address this threat alone. Effective solutions demand coordinated action. With that said, the Federal Reserve is committed to a comprehensive strategy that leverages our unique authorities to prevent payments fraud and protect consumers, businesses, and supervised institutions. The Board has carefully reviewed over 250 comments received in response to a Request for Information we jointly issued with the FDIC and OCC last June. These insights are now informing our approach to this issue and our work together. In our capacity as bank supervisors, we are evaluating a range of responses, including enhanced guidance and resources for banks, as well as broader stakeholder engagement to advance innovative fraud solutions. As a payment system operator, the Federal Reserve continues to enhance the fraud detection, prevention, and mitigation tools and services we provide to banks across our payment platforms. For example, our operations team continues engagement with the industry on fraud and scam classifier models that are integrated into our payment platforms. Right now, the same scam gets labeled differently—one may call it "online shopping fraud" another "imposter scam." A shared vocabulary around fraud types, scams, and prevention tools facilitates a better understanding of their prevalence and impact. Promoting and standardizing a common language can also aid in better sharing of consistent data and identifying fraud schemes that are being repeated across payment methods and institutions, allowing for the development of more-informed, holistic strategies. Success in combating payments fraud also requires strong partnerships. We are committed to working closely with state and federal partners, including law enforcement, to address this evolving threat together. That's why Secretary Bessent, FCC Chair Brendan Carr, and I will soon build on our ongoing collaboration through a public-private roundtable. This isn't our first conversation—it is the next step in sustained engagement focused on actionable solutions. We'll be asking participants to share what they are currently doing to combat payments fraud, what informal data-sharing practices have proven effective, what prevention mechanisms they have seen that work, and what additional cross-sector or government efforts would be most helpful in this fight. We must also strengthen bank defenses and improve victim recovery. We must examine whether our regulations address modern fraud and are positioned for the threats consumers will face in the future. And we must ensure the financial system serves everyone safely and securely. The criminals are sophisticated, organized, and relentless. Our approach must be equally robust. I look forward to the next steps in our work—coordinating with banks, fellow regulators, law enforcement, consumer advocates, and policymakers to confront this crisis and to preserve and enhance the public's trust in the financial system. Thank you for the invitation to join you today. 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. For tales of fraud in the ancient world, see https://www.trulioo.com/blog/fraud-prevention/history-fraud.  3. See Federal Reserve Financial Services, "Key Findings From the Annual Federal Reserve Financial Services (FRFS) Financial Institution Risk Officer Survey," (PDF) Survey (Federal Reserve Financial Services, 2024).  4. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2024 (PDF).  5. See Monica Anderson, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Eugenie Park, Online Scams and Attacks in America Today (PDF) (Pew Research Center, July 2025).  6. See "Scams: Relatively Common and Anxiety-Inducing for Americans," Gallup, November 21, 2023, Scams: Relatively Common and Anxiety-Inducing for Americans, https://news.gallup.com/poll/544643/scams-relatively-common-anxiety-inducing-americans.aspx.  7. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households. 

ACER and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Energy are organising their annual workshop to present and discuss key developments and challenges in implementing the Regulation on Energy Market Integrity and Transparency (REMIT). When? Thursday 11 June 2026, from 9:30 to 16:00 CEST, online. What is it about? REMIT is the EU-wide framework to detect and deter market manipulation and abuse in wholesale energy markets. It enhances transparency and trust in the integrity of Europe’s energy markets. Since the 2024 revision of the REMIT Regulation, implementation has advanced on three main fronts: Updates to its secondary legislation, establishing more detailed rules for data reporting and supervision of reporting entities. Expanded ACER’s cross-border investigatory powers (which will move into action from the second half of 2026), enabling more coordinated oversight across the EU. Strengthened market surveillance and processing of suspicious transactions through the ongoing assessment of current practices (two ACER’s reports on the topic will be published on 8 May 2026).  Why should you join the event? In this joint workshop, participants will: Get an annual update on REMIT implementation and latest developments. Engage directly with the European Commission and ACER on recent REMIT updates, including the process for adopting secondary legislation. Gain insights from industry, regulators and policymakers into the impact and benefits of the updated REMIT data reporting framework, as well as current and future challenges for market integrity and effective market surveillance. Learn more about the implementation of ACER’s investigatory powers. Read more and register.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed rule and form amendments that would give public companies the option of filing semiannual reports in lieu of quarterly reports to meet their interim reporting obligations under the federal securities laws. Public companies, subject to Exchange Act Section 13(a) or 15(d), are currently required to file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would allow these public companies to elect to file semiannual reports on new Form 10-S instead of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. As a result, companies that elect to file semiannual reports would file one semiannual report and one annual report for each fiscal year in lieu of three quarterly reports and one annual report. The flexibility provided under proposed amendments would enable public companies to choose the interim reporting frequency that would best serve the company and its investors. “Public companies have an obligation under the federal securities laws to provide information that is material to investors. Yet, the rigidity of the SEC’s rules has prevented companies and their investors from determining for themselves the interim reporting frequency that best serves their business needs and investors. Today’s proposed amendments, if ultimately adopted, would provide companies with increased regulatory flexibility in this regard,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins in a statement. Under the proposal, the filing deadline for semiannual reports on Form 10-S would be 40 or 45 days, depending on the company’s filer status, after the end of the first semiannual period of the fiscal year. The proposal also would amend Regulation S-X, which governs the financial statement requirements for periodic reports, registration statements, and proxy statements, to reflect the new semiannual reporting option and simplify the existing financial statement requirements. The proposing release will be published on SEC.gov and in the Federal Register. The public comment period will remain open until 60 days after the date of publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register. Resources SEC Proposed Rule Fact Sheet Submit Public Comment