In July 2025, electricity transmission system operators (TSOs) submitted to ACER their proposal to amend how capacity calculation regions (CCRs) are defined across Europe. With its Decision 10-2025, ACER has approved the proposed amendments. What are capacity calculation regions and why are they important? CCRs are geographic areas across Europe that group neighbouring electricity bidding zones and their borders. Within each region, TSOs work together to determine how much electricity can safely flow across borders while ensuring security of supply. There are currently nine CCRs in the EU: Nordic, Hansa, Core, Italy North, Central Europe (CE), Greece-Italy (GRIT), South-West Europe (SWE), Baltic and South-East Europe (SEE). They are key to improving regional coordination, ensuring efficient electricity use and facilitating cross-border trade. What did ACER decide? ACER assessed whether the TSOs’ proposal supports market integration, non-discrimination, effective competition and the well-functioning of the EU electricity market. Following a public consultation in summer 2025, ACER has approved the TSOs’ proposal to: Merge two existing CCRs (Core and Italy North) into the Central Europe CCR for key regional processes like intraday coordination and congestion management. Expand the existing South-East Europe CCR and establish three new CCRs (East-Central Europe, Italy-Montenegro and Eastern Europe) to include the bidding zone borders and TSOs of the Energy Community Contracting Parties and neighbouring EU countries. Read more.

Tehran Securities Exchange (TSE) will set the Base Volume for all trading ISIN in its Main and Secondary Markets to one share, and cancel the "trading knot" regulatory mechanism from Monday, December 22, 2025. Dr. Mahmoud Goudarzi, TSE’s CEO hailed the move as historic, stating: "The landmark decision to eliminate the Base Volume requirement marks the beginning of fundamental reforms in Iran’s capital market microstructure." He added: "We hope this step and those that follow will gradually bring our market closer to international standards." This reform follows a proposal by TSE’s Board of Directors and has been formally approved by the Board of Securities and Exchange Organization (SEO). Starting December 22, 2025, the Base Volume for all listed securities on TSE’s Main and Secondary Markets will be uniformly set at one share, and the trading knot restriction will no longer apply. The recent change is expected to enhance price discovery, improve market liquidity, and strengthen alignment with global market practices. The Base Volume mechanism was first introduced on TSE in 2003, a period marked by severe volatility and irrational investor sentiment in a small market. This initiative was designed by the market authorities as a regulatory tool to prevent unreasonable price movements in illiquid or shallow trading sessions by capping daily price fluctuations, conditional upon reaching a predefined minimum trading volume. The main objective was to foster relative market stability and improve pricing efficiency in an environment lacking sufficient market depth. As the market has reached a certain level of maturity since the launching of the mechanism, it will be fully eliminated from 22 December 2025.

The Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment (CISI) has announced Rholo Mba, Chartered FCSI as president of the CISI’s Jersey branch. He takes over from Rhea Wright, Chartered FCSI, who served for two years. Rholo is an investment adviser at Barclays, with 14 years of experience in financial services. He started his career in corporate secretarial services and company administration for on and offshore tax-efficient structures. Prior to joining Barclays in 2020, Rholo held senior positions at independent, privately owned companies responsible for a select group of high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients, trusts, family offices, and corporate structures, providing wealth management, structuring, and financial advice. Rholo advocates for his local community – he is heavily involved in education, particularly as a Board governor for Highlands College, Jersey. He played an integral role on the Jersey branch committee in organising the annual CISI Insight Day with committee members to introduce and inform students in years 11, 12 and 13 about career paths available in finance. Commenting on his appointment, Rholo said: “I’m honoured to be nominated as president of the CISI Jersey branch. It is a privilege to lead an organisation that plays such an important role in supporting the professionalism, integrity and future of our industry. “My focus is on building on the success of our CISI Insight Days, providing students with a window into what it’s like to work within Jersey’s financial services sector. The event is essential in inspiring and preparing the next generation of leaders. I look forward to helping this initiative grow even further. “I am also incredibly proud of what we achieved at the 2025 Jersey annual dinner, where, together, we raised £5,000 – a record amount for our chosen charity. This success has reinforced my belief in the power of our membership to make a meaningful difference. With that in mind, I aim to establish a charity initiative that will enable us to continue to support impactful local projects by raising funds. “I am excited for the year ahead and grateful for the support of my fellow committee members as we continue to promote excellence, education and community across our industry.” Tracy Vegro OBE, CISI chief executive, said: “Rholo is a great advocate for the CISI and has been an integral part of the Jersey committee, alongside Rhea Wright, the outgoing president. We are delighted to support Rholo and expect his enthusiasm for promoting financial education initiatives to inspire the next generation, which is so important for the sector’s future. All thanks, too, to Rhea.”  

Introduction of alternative ongoing public float threshold to provide more flexibility for issuers’ capital management New public float reporting obligations for all issuers and additional disclosure requirements for issuers with public float shortfalls to enhance market transparency New ongoing public float requirements will come into effect on 1 January 2026 The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the Exchange), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX), published today (Wednesday) conclusions (Consultation Conclusions) to its consultation on ongoing public float requirements1 (Ongoing Public Float Consultation). The Exchange received 43 non-duplicate responses2 to the Ongoing Public Float Consultation from a broad range of respondents. All the proposals received support from a significant majority of respondents, which the Exchange will now adopt broadly as consulted, with minor modifications. HKEX Head of Listing, Katherine Ng, said: “We are pleased to have received strong support for our proposals. Enhancing the ongoing public float framework is part of HKEX’s continuous efforts to provide issuers with greater flexibility and efficiency in their capital management, whilst ensuring market transparency and continuous orderly trading. We believe these reforms will complement our earlier initiatives, including the introduction of the treasury share regime and the framework for automatic share buyback programme, further strengthening the vibrancy and attractiveness of our markets.” Ms Ng added: “At the same time, we are strengthening the reporting obligations on public float levels and adopting targeted, disclosure-based measures in place of trading suspensions. We are also maintaining a strong deterrent with potential delisting as the consequence for prolonged non-compliance. These measures seek to enhance market transparency and facilitate timely restoration of any public float shortfalls. The reform reflects our commitment to investor protection and market integrity, reinforcing Hong Kong’s position as a leading international financial centre.” The key reforms adopted include: An alternative ongoing public float threshold: issuers may choose to comply with an alternative threshold (instead of the percentage threshold prescribed at the time of listing) to maintain a public float representing (a) at least 10 per cent of total issued shares in the listed class and (b) a market value of over HK$1 billion, to have more flexibility to conduct transactions for capital management purposes (e.g. share repurchases); A bespoke ongoing public float requirement for A+H issuers: public float of H shares must represent at least 5 per cent of total issued shares in the class to which H shares belong (i.e. A shares and H shares), or have a market value of over HK$1 billion, to ensure a “critical mass” of H shares remains in public hands on an ongoing basis; New regular public float reporting requirements for all listed issuers, as well as additional public float disclosure obligations and a restriction from corporate actions for those issuers with public float shortfalls, to enhance transparency and encourage timely restoration of public float; and Identifying issuers with a significant public float shortfall3 with reference to their public float market value and percentage. These issuers will be identified by a stock marker (“-PF”) at the end of their stock name, instead of being suspended. Such issuers will be delisted if they fail to restore public float within 18 months (GEM: 12 months). The Listing Rule amendments to implement the above proposals will come into effect on 1 January 2026 and apply to all listed issuers4. The new requirements will supersede and replace the transitional ongoing public float requirements currently in effect5. A new Guidance Letter (HKEX-GL121-26) on public float requirements will also take effect on the same day to facilitate issuers’ compliance with the new Rule requirements. The Consultation Conclusions and copies of the respondents’ submissions to the Ongoing Public Float Consultation are available on the HKEX website.   Notes: The Exchange published the Conclusions and Further Consultation Paper on Proposals to Optimise IPO Price Discovery and Open Market Requirements (Conclusions and Further Consultation Paper) and launched a public consultation on ongoing public float requirements on 1 August 2025. The two-month consultation period ended on 1 October 2025. One response was found to duplicate another response and was not counted for the purpose of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses. See paragraphs 231 to 234 of the Consultation Conclusions for the meaning of a “significant public float shortfall.” Including issuers listed before 1 January 2026 and those that are to be listed on or after that date. See Section V of Chapter 2 of the Consultation Conclusions for further details. To ensure compatibility with the initial public float requirements, the Exchange made transitional consequential amendments to its ongoing public float requirements on 4 August 2025. These transitional arrangements are set out in paragraph 272 and Table 12 of the Conclusions and Further Consultation Paper.

Good morning, and welcome. My views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow commissioners. I want to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to all the panelists, to the University of Austin for your generous hospitality, and to the Commission staff, especially from the Division of Trading and Markets and the Office of Public Affairs, who pulled together this roundtable in record time. I also want to welcome the students in attendance – your presence adds a valuable perspective to our conversation and may even inspire some of you to dip your toes into the enticing waters of equity market structure. One important regulatory determinant of market structure in the United States is the order protection rule, also known as the trade-through rule, or Rule 611. If we were ranking whether to revisit Rule 611 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being definitely revisit the rule, my gut gives me the middle schoolers’ go-to answer these days: 6 . . . 7. But a 6 or 7 on redoing 611 is an answer without context. The necessary context consists of several factors. First, the U.S. equity markets are unmatched in depth and liquidity, which raises the stakes of any reform. Second, as many of the September 18 roundtable’s panelists noted, the distinctiveness of our markets means that lessons from other jurisdictions may not always be instructive — particularly in areas like best execution and volume thresholds. Third, Rule 611 is intertwined in a complex nest of rules within which equity markets live. Revisiting Rule 611 requires rethinking those other rules too. That message came through loud and clear at the September roundtable. While that roundtable featured robust debate over whether Rule 611 should be repealed, retained, or revised, it also reflected broad agreement that any changes to Rule 611 must be considered alongside related NMS rules, NMS plans, and FINRA regulations. Today we will talk about potential changes to access fee caps, the prohibition on locked and crossed markets, the fair access rule, the SIP revenue allocation model, FINRA’s best execution rule, and more.[1] Fourth, how we implement any changes, including how we sequence changes, will matter. Given the expertise our panelists bring, I anticipate that this roundtable will provide the context necessary to boost my interest in reconsidering Rule 611 all the way up from a 6 or 7 to a 10. I have been a skeptic of Rule 611 since its inception twenty years ago. Dictating how market participants execute trades has never seemed like an exercise for which the SEC is well-suited. People operating in free and transparent markets are good at figuring out how and where to execute trades or finding a professional to help them do so. Rule 611 rests for authority on Section 11A, a 1975 addition to the Securities Exchange Act, which directed the SEC to facilitate the establishment of a national markets system. The mandate is a relic of a time of active government interference in and distrust of markets. Rather than adopting Rule 611 thirty years after Congress gave us this authority, the SEC instead could have deferred to the technology that was eating away at market monopolies and facilitating cross-market arbitrage. Even those of you who disagree with me on this point might agree that Rule 611 has completed its work and may be causing more mischief than good. As emphasized in the previous roundtable, this moment presents a rare opportunity to strengthen our markets. While opinions differ on how well our current market structure serves investors, one trend is undeniable: off-exchange trading volumes are rising, yet new exchanges, many of which replicate existing ones, continue to proliferate. This dynamic points to misaligned incentives and suggests the need for reform. I am anticipating an organic conversation that requires little prompting, but I have a few questions that panelists may want to address: Given that some people view Rule 611 as a best execution backstop, if we eliminate it, how can we craft best execution amendments or guidance to offer clarity without being overly prescriptive? Are there any best execution clarifications that are needed now, independent of any changes to Rule 611? What is the optimal SIP revenue allocation between quoting and trading activity that will curb unnecessary exchange proliferation without foreclosing innovative new entrants in the exchange space? Is readjusting this allocation an interim step on the way to repealing Rule 611? What SEC and FINRA rules would need to be amended if Rule 611 were to be repealed? In the event we propose changes to Rule 611, how should changes to these other NMS rules, plans and FINRA rules be sequenced? Which changes must occur concurrently, which can follow, and which should precede any changes to Rule 611? As the SEC works with market participants experimenting with tokenization, can we draw any lessons that might be relevant to revisiting Rule 611? I look forward to a productive discussion. Thank you. [1] Still other issues may be appropriate for the Commission to tackle later, such as SRO fee filings, and of course, the options market, which is due its own roundtable.

Xceptor, a global leader in data automation for capital markets, today announced significant AI-powered enhancements to its solution delivery operations, designed to speed up deployment and minimise associated risk. The new capabilities include an enhanced upgrade toolkit for on-premises environments and ai-exceptions-bot, an AI agent for SaaS updates within the Xceptor Data Automation Platform. By streamlining solution delivery, Xceptor enables financial institutions to access innovation and reduce technical debt faster, while strengthening operational resilience, agility, and compliance across the trade lifecycle.     Built with AI, the upgrade toolkit performs a precise analysis of Xceptor configuration files and automates over 30 manual checks to identify potential breaking changes before upgrades occur. This proactive approach reduces risk and manual effort, improves accuracy, and decreases time to market, delivering a smoother upgrade experience for clients.     ai-exceptions-bot transforms exceptions handling and increases confidence in SaaS deployments. Acting autonomously, the agent detects software regressions and recommends fixes for an Xceptor engineer to review and implement. This accelerates release cycles while reducing manual checks, bringing faster updates to clients without compromising quality. As part of Xceptor’s advanced quality assurance toolkit for SaaS, ai-exceptions-bot leverages platform telemetry to deliver updates efficiently and minimise delivery risk.    “AI has long been part of Xceptor’s DNA, and we see enormous value in using it to deliver faster innovation to our clients,” said Dan Reid, CTO and Founder at Xceptor. “This is particularly impactful in capital markets, where institutions often struggle to move at speed due to complex infrastructure and stringent regulatory requirements. Being able to respond rapidly to our clients’ needs enables them to transform their operations and meet new demands faster. This is a good example of how we apply AI only where it truly excels - solving real-world challenges today without compromising transparency or control.” 

EDX Markets, a leading digital asset technology firm that combines an institutional-only trading venue with a central clearinghouse, today announced a strategic partnership with the Canton Network, the public, permissionless blockchain purpose-built for institutional finance. Both EDX and the Canton Network are backed and leveraged by leading blue-chip institutions in traditional finance. EDX Markets will list Canton Coin on its spot exchange for its clients to trade and settle, as well as support settlement in stablecoins on the Canton Network, enabling institutions to trade with greater speed and capital efficiency while providing the regulatory safeguards and operational oversight they expect. EDX will also operate as a validator on Canton, further strengthening the network’s security and governance as it continues to scale adoption across global financial markets. “Partnering with the Canton Network is a natural extension of our commitment to deliver high-performance, institution-ready infrastructure to the digital asset marketplace,” said David Olsson, Chief Commercial Officer for EDX Markets. “By supporting stablecoin settlement on Canton and participating directly in network validation, we’re advancing our mission to provide secure, compliant and efficient solutions that meet the needs of institutional investors.” The partnership underscores the shared mission of EDX Markets and Canton to accelerate the institutional adoption of digital assets. Together, the firms provide market participants with industry-leading infrastructure to securely engage with tokenized assets, modernize legacy workflows and unlock new trading opportunities. “We’re delighted to welcome EDX Markets as both a validator and a strategic partner,” said Melvis Langyintuo, Head of Canton Foundation. “EDX shares our commitment to meeting institutional requirements for privacy, security, compliance and scalability. Their involvement will help accelerate the development of new capabilities for institutions building on Canton.” EDX and Canton will continue to collaborate on new initiatives to advance the institutional adoption of digital assets, with additional integrations and joint programs anticipated in the coming months.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today reported the key issues facing the federal banking system in the Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2025. The OCC reported that the strength of the federal banking system remains sound. Balance sheets remain satisfactory with high capital and liquidity ratios that are well-positioned to absorb potential stress. Financial innovation presents banking opportunities. A lack of investment in new technologies, products, and services may present material risks to long-term bank performance and viability of institutions. The OCC fosters a regulatory environment that enables banks to advance their businesses and client interests while managing financial risks and operating in a safe and sound manner. The OCC highlighted credit, market, operational, and compliance risks, as key risk themes in the report. Highlights from the report include: Commercial and retail loan portfolio delinquencies, loss rates, and noncurrent and classified levels remain manageable. Liquidity remains sound. The OCC has observed an increase in threats posed by foreign state-sponsored actors and sophisticated cybercriminal groups, targeting the financial sector. Banks continue to face challenges from elevated levels and sophistication of fraud, including scams. Related Link OCC Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2025 (PDF)

SIFMA and the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council (FSSCC) today published an updated version of The Financial Services Sector Reconnection Framework, which is designed be used by a firm which has been compromised by a cyber incident. The SIFMA Framework has been updated jointly by both organizations, addressing the scope of reconnection issues across the industry in order to produce a product suitable for broader adoption by the financial services sector. The document provides a five-step mitigation framework – assess, remediate, assure, reconnect and recover – and is intended to support and inform a technical view of reconnection as well as broader resilience planning. “There are many issues that a firm compromised by a cyber incident must first address in order to reconnect to the financial ecosystem after a cyber event has been contained and mitigated,” said Tom Wagner, managing director, Financial Services Operations at SIFMA. “Most importantly is how the firm should communicate, coordinate and provide assurance to what could be dozens of trading partners in the most efficient and effective way to convey that the problem has been resolved and will not recur. This is crucial so the firm and its trading partners can resume normal business as usual operations.” SIFMA’s Reconnection Framework was originally published in 2020 with the endorsement of U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Analysis and Resilience Center for Systemic Risk (ARC), the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), FSSCC, sector trade organizations such as the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and over thirty financial services firms. The original document set out expectations the financial sector has on global systemically important financial institutions in the event of a cyber incident that disrupts critical business operations. Since then, the complexity of the financial services supply chain and the role of relatively small, but nonetheless critical, third-party providers have only increased. At the same time, the world is experiencing a more hostile cybersecurity environment than at any other time in modern history. Through this period, the sector has continued to experience incidents resulting in the disconnection of third parties and the subsequent process of attempting to gain enough assurances about the status of their security to allow for reconnection. As a result, SIFMA responded to broader concerns about third-party resilience by working with its members to update the Framework in 2023. “The Financial Services Sector Reconnection Framework marks an important step on our sector’s preparedness journey,” said FSSCC Chair and PNC Head of Technology Debbie Guild. “This tool will empower firms of all sizes to confidently shape their own reconnection strategies and provides clarity around the sector’s expectations for third party providers. It will help our industry remain resilient and adaptable in the face of an evolving threat landscape.” SIFMA’s Framework has gained wide recognition across the financial sector, including internationally, where the United Kingdom Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG) and other systemically important financial institutions used it as the basis for their own Reconnection frameworks. The SIFMA/FSSCC and CMORG frameworks are now highly aligned, which demonstrates the demand for a holistic framework usable across the entire financial sector. The Framework is available here.

Thank you to the Division of Trading and Markets for organizing this Roundtable on equity market structure and, more specifically, Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. I have been at the SEC for nearly twenty years, and one of my observations is that people often will be more open with their thoughts when meeting outside of Washington, D.C. However, these events take more effort, and I appreciate the contributions of the University of Austin for making this Roundtable possible in Texas. Regulation NMS may have been well‑intentioned, but its implementation has coincided with shrinking displayed size, a significant increase in the number of execution venues, and complex routing behavior that is often difficult to explain to investors. Thus, I commend Chairman Atkins for initiating this review of Rule 611 and inviting market participants to help the SEC evaluate whether the Regulation NMS framework is truly serving investors and our markets. By revisiting the trade‑through regime, we have an opportunity to move to a less costly, more resilient, and more transparent market structure—which would make our markets even stronger. This is not an easy task. My predecessor, Commissioner Elad Roisman, likened our equity market structure rules to the threads of a sweater: pull on one, and you inevitably stress the others—sometimes in unexpected ways.[1] I hope that these Roundtable sessions, and the public comments submitted, help identify many of the other “threads” in Regulation NMS that interconnect with Rule 611, so that we can assess the consequences that might result from potential regulatory changes. One discussion that I look forward to hearing today is on the topic of best execution. A broker-dealer’s obligation to seek best execution of customer orders is one of the “cornerstones of market integrity.” [2] As I noted when the Commission proposed new rules in this area two years ago, best execution is a concept that has been developed by court holdings and specific rules from self-regulatory organizations.[3] But to what extent does our current best execution regime presuppose or rely on entities’ fulfillment of Rule 611? Are there other considerations that should be required if this rule is altered? The Commission should have compelling evidence of need before adding layers on top of the best execution regime already imposed by FINRA.[4] Do panelists think that such a need would arise if Rule 611 were to change and, if so, why? Relatedly, are there further ways that the Commission could increase transparency so that investors, counterparties, and regulators could observe execution quality across venues and enhance private ordering in this area? In 2024, the Commission adopted rule changes to modernize the reports required by Rule 605 to reflect how trading occurs in microseconds across multiple venues.[5] In what other areas would transparency be needed for market participants to have the tools to assess execution quality on their own? Once again, I appreciate the thoughtful approach taken by the Commission staff to consider the entire regulatory framework holistically. This undertaking presents an opportunity for a serious retrospective review of Regulation NMS and Rule 611. With the public’s input, I hope that the Commission can tackle these hard problems with evidence‑based proposals so that our market structure regulations can most effectively serve investors, intermediaries, and issuers. [1] Commissioner Elad L. Roisman, “Remarks at the SIFMA Equity Market Structure Conference: The Dynamics of our Markets and the Changing Structure on which they are Built” (Sept. 19, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/roisman-remarks-sifma-equity-market-structure-conference-091919. [2] See Division of Market Regulation, Market 2000: An Examination of Current Equity Market Developments, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/market2000.pdf. See also Regulation NMS Adopting Release at 37537, note 338. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (Sept. 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (Sept. 12, 1996). [3] See FINRA Rule 5310 and MSRB Rule G-18. See also Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, “Statement on Proposed Rule Regarding Best Execution” (Dec. 14, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-best-excution-20221214#_ftnref2. [4] See Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, “Statement on Proposed Rule Regarding Best Execution” (Dec. 14, 2022), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-best-excution-20221214#_ftnref2. [5] See Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, “Statement on Rule Amendments Regarding Disclosure of Order Execution Information” (Mar. 6, 2024), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-statement-order-execution-quality-030624.

The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) has issued a Notice of Hearing alleging that Calgary residents Dean Labbe and Julie Labbe engaged in illegal insider trading. According to the Notice of Hearing, between May 2018 and June 2024, Dean Labbe worked on mergers and acquisitions, and other business transactions, at an investment bank. Through his employment, he acquired material non-public information (MNPI) about publicly-traded companies. It is alleged that he and his mother Julie Labbe used this MNPI for highly-profitable trading. It is further alleged that, on one occasion, while in possession of MNPI about a specific company, Dean Labbe recommended or encouraged two individuals to purchase shares of that company. These are allegations and have not been proven in a hearing. An appearance to set a date for a hearing will be held on December 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in the ASC Hearing Room, located on the 5th floor, 250 – 5 Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta. A copy of the Notice of Hearing can be found on the ASC website. The ASC gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) in this matter. The ASC is the regulatory agency responsible for administering the province’s securities laws. It is entrusted with fostering a fair and efficient capital market in Alberta and with protecting investors. As a member of the Canadian Securities Administrators, the ASC works to improve, coordinate and harmonize the regulation of Canada’s capital markets.

Please be advised the MIAX Options Exchange, MIAX Pearl Options Exchange, MIAX Emerald Options Exchange, MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange and MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange will be closed on Thursday, December 25, 2025 for Christmas Day and Thursday, January 1, 2026 for New Year’s Day.On Wednesday, December 24, 2025, the MIAX Exchanges will have an abbreviated trading session. Trading in all option classes and equity issues will close 3 hours early.

Good morning. Welcome to our second Roundtable on the Trade-Through Prohibitions of Regulation NMS, including those watching online. I’m Jamie Selway, the Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. Thank you, Chairman Atkins for your remarks and for your leadership on a policy issue that is central to equity market structure. Thank you, Commissioners Peirce, Crenshaw and Uyeda, for your remarks as well. Thank you to my dedicated Division colleagues, including Ted Venuti, Arisa Kettig, David Liu and Kevin Brennan for gathering us here today and Jon Kroeper, Kelly Riley, Peggy Sullivan, and David Dimitrious, who join me as moderators. Thank you to the University of Austin, a new institution successfully bringing two of our favorite forces – innovation and competition – to bear to disrupt the market for undergraduate education, for allowing us to use its facilities for today’s event. And most importantly, thank you to our panelists. Today’s participants represent a wide variety of expert perspectives in equity markets shaped by nearly twenty years of operational experience with Regulation NMS. We are confident that your contributions will meaningfully inform the Commission’s next steps. Before proceeding further, please note that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. This disclaimer also applies to the comments of my Division colleagues who will join me to moderate today’s panels. On November 4, the citizens of the great state of Texas approved a ballot measure to make certain securities transaction taxes unconstitutional. Now, to anyone whose professional life, or private enthusiasms, involves “trading” or “markets,” this was a welcome development. Our Nation’s laboratories of democracy are a potent force for progress. The free air of Texas inspires and invigorates—and reminds us that markets work. Today’s event continues a journey that the Division began earlier this year. In July, we invited public comment on the trade-through prohibitions applicable to the equities and options markets. In September, we hosted a Roundtable to discuss the issues associated with such prohibitions. We heard informed points of view and received thoughtful feedback. Many participants voiced concern with the status quo and supported a reexamination of the trade-through prohibitions applicable to NMS stocks contained in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, commonly known as the Trade-Through Rule. As many noted, the Trade-Through Rule is intertwined with other rules and regulations that must be carefully considered should the Commission decide to rescind or modify the Trade-Through Rule. At the time the Trade-Through Rule was adopted, many, including Chairman Atkins, warned that its complexity would lead to negative unintended consequences. Twenty years later, we acknowledge this complexity, and we pay keen attention to such warnings. Accordingly, today’s Roundtable aims to illuminate the Trade-Through Rule’s entanglements with other requirements, so that if the Rule is removed or altered, our market structure is improved, not damaged. We expect another lively, thought-provoking discussion today. We have designed the panels to more deeply consider the ramifications of rescinding or modifying the Trade-Through Rule. When the Trade-Through Rule was proposed as part of Regulation NMS, commenters emphasized the futility of protecting the best displayed prices against trade-throughs if those prices were not fairly and efficiently accessible. Rule 610 promotes fair and non-discriminatory access to quotations displayed in the national market system. As adopted, Rule 610 sets forth standards governing access to quotations in NMS stocks, with the stated goal of promoting access in three ways: enabling private linkages, limiting access fees, and restricting locking or crossing quotations. During the September Roundtable and in comments received, contributors urged consideration of the contrapositive—are all of the requirements included in Rule 610 necessary if the Trade Through Rule is rescinded or modified? Our first panel will tackle this question. Much of Regulation NMS’s substance is contained in its defined terms. Our second panel will drill down on the necessary changes, if any, that may need to be made to the definitions contained in Rule 600 if the Trade-Through Rule was to be modified or rescinded. Of particular importance is any effect on the national best bid and national best offer – the NBBO. A robust, transparent, reliable NBBO is essential in promoting fair, efficient, and liquid markets—and the U.S. capital markets are rightly known as the most liquid in the world. For this reason, decades of Commission oversight of consolidated market data have centered on ensuring that the NBBO remains ground zero for price discovery and a consistent baseline for best execution. The second panel will also consider the incentives associated with the current formula for market data revenue allocation and how these incentives affect the marketplace. Finally, our third panel will consider potential enhancements to the best execution requirements, including whether additional guidance is necessary if changes to the Trade-Through Rule and associated rules are made. During the September Roundtable and through comments submitted, many highlighted the relationship between the Trade-Through Rule and best execution, suggesting that Trade-Through Rule changes could raise questions about how a broker-dealer should handle and execute customer orders. The duty of best execution predates the federal securities laws. Its origin lies in the “common law agency obligations of undivided loyalty and reasonable care that an agent owes to his principal.”[1] These duties are not merely historical—they remain essential today because executing customer orders is a core function of broker-dealers. Upholding best execution is not an empty tradition. Best execution is an evergreen obligation at the core of a broker-dealer’s relationship with its customer. Over the years, a number of considerations have been identified by the courts, the Commission, and FINRA as relevant to best execution. These include not only price, but also speed of execution, clearing costs, size of the order, and the cost and difficulty of executing in a particular market, among others. As then-Commissioner Atkins and Commissioner Cynthia Glassman pointed out at the time of Regulation NMS’s adoption, the Trade-Through Rule seemed to elevate “price [as] the sole criterion for determining how and where orders will be executed” and believed that the Trade-Through Rule restricted “investor choice and ability to obtain best execution.”[2] Of course, FINRA’s role in this area is critical. A best execution rule was first introduced in 1968 by its predecessor, the NASD, laying the groundwork for what would become FINRA’s current rule, approved in 2011. Built on decades of experience with the predecessor rule and guidance, this framework has helped shape how market participants fulfill their obligations. As we consider the evolving market structure and the potential for changes to the Trade-Through Rule, we welcome a thorough examination of FINRA’s best execution rule, its accompanying guidance, and any enhancements that could strengthen its ability to serve investors effectively. Again, many thanks to all for participating in today’s Roundtable. We have our boots on—and we’re ready to ride.   [1] See, e.g., Newton v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 135 F.3d 266, 270 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 811 (1998). [2] Dissent of Commissioners Cynthia A. Glassman and Paul S. Atkins to the Adoption of Regulation NMS (June 9, 2005).

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to join my fellow Commissioners and Jamie Selway, director of our Division of Trading and Markets, in welcoming you to today’s roundtable. I should also like to acknowledge and thank the University of Austin for providing the setting for today’s program; our esteemed panelists for contributing their perspectives; and our audience, whether here on campus or by livestream, for taking part in this important discussion. Finally, before I share a few reflections, I must add that the views I express this morning are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. As I noted at our September roundtable, the SEC adopted Regulation NMS at a time of profound transformation. Electronic trading systems were continuing to unsettle old assumptions about how markets could function as handling and routing practices became more transparent, competition drove commissions lower, and penny pricing reshaped the mechanics of trading. Rather than meet these disruptions with a measured approach, in 2005 the Commission decided to impose prescriptive rules and dictate very specific processes to address what it perceived as ills—even as these new trends and technologies were still evolving. Worse, the staff came out with repeated rounds of FAQs to ameliorate the challenges that their problematic rules engendered. While I fully supported then, as I do now, the worthy goal of enhancing market efficiency, then-Commissioner Cynthia Glassman and I objected to Reg NMS’s adoption because we believed that the rigidity of its regime, especially Rule 611, would hinder, rather than enhance, the long-term growth of our markets. Two decades have given us the benefit of perspective, and the verdict is clear: Reg NMS, built on flawed foundations, has invited gamesmanship and contributed to the fragmentation of our markets, the dispersal of liquidity, and diminished transparency. The very outcomes that we feared have come to pass. Our warnings are now lessons. And Reg NMS—Rule 611’s trade-through prohibitions in particular—command a fresh look so that we can continue to strengthen our securities markets. Indeed, we must summon the courage to acknowledge when well-intended policies have produced unintended consequences. To this end, our first roundtable engaged an array of industry participants, academics, and regulators in Washington, for a very fruitful initial discussion. Their perspectives, along with the thoughtful comment letters that we have since received, underscore a broad consensus: revisiting Rule 611 is a worthwhile and overdue endeavor. While views may vary on the scope of potential changes, a significant number of panelists and commenters believe that the rule should be modified or rescinded entirely. In September, we also heard several potential paths forward, including volume thresholds for protected quotes, block exceptions, rescinding the locked and crossed market prohibition, adjustments to access fee caps, and revisions to the market data revenue allocation formula. Each of these proposals merits serious consideration. Yet as I cautioned two decades ago, we must take a careful, deliberative approach to any changes, lest we make the mistakes that brought us here. So today, we take a necessary next step in that process. Of course, we will continue our discussion of the trade-through prohibitions. But we will also delve more deeply into how Rule 611 intersects with other parts of Reg NMS rules and our market structure more broadly. Specifically, our first panel will focus on Rule 610 and its requirements relating to fair access, access fees, and locked/crossed markets. Our second group of panelists will then discuss Rule 600, including the defined terms intertwined with the trade-through rule, the effects on the NBBO, as well as the incentives associated with the market data formula revenue allocation from the consolidated market data plans. Finally, our third panel will examine potential enhanced best execution guidance if the Commission modifies or rescinds the trade-through prohibitions of Rule 611. Today’s roundtable will help to ensure that we do not saddle a future Commission—or the next generation of investors and market participants—with the same set of challenges that we left for ourselves two decades ago. We owe it to them to be thoughtful, to be rigorous, and to be reflective. So, I want to thank our panelists and moderators once more for being here. I should also like to encourage members of the public to continue sharing your perspectives through our comment file. As we undertake this reassessment of Reg NMS, your insights are indispensable. I look forward to today’s discussions and to the takeaways that will emerge from them. Thank you all for being here, and for your continued engagement in the critical work before us.