Firms will benefit from reduced costs and greater flexibility, and find it easier to comply with the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR), following reforms set out on 22 April by the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA). The changes, which come as the first phase of a multi-stage package of reform from the Government and regulators, will maintain the core principle of senior leader accountability, and will benefit firms by: Giving more time to submit senior manager applications when there has been an unexpected or temporary change. Removing the need to certify people to hold multiple overlapping functions, which will reduce the total number of certification roles required by around 15%. Helping to streamline annual checks to certify individuals as ‘fit and proper’. Making only larger, more complex firms meet enhanced standards, by raising many of the enhanced firm thresholds by 30%. Helping to better understand the definition of certain senior management roles. Allowing more time to report updates to senior manager responsibilities. Increasing how long criminal record checks for senior manager applications are valid for, prior to application submission. Giving more time to update the directory, which lists certified staff. The Government’s further changes to the regime, published in its consultation response on 22 April, follow its consultation in 2025. Proposals include removing the Certification Regime, which applies to less senior roles, from legislation. The Government also proposes giving more flexibility to the regulators to further reduce the number of senior management functions (SMFs) which require pre-approval. The regulators plan to consult on wider changes, taking advantage of any increased legislative freedom later in 2026, as part of the Leeds reforms to halve the SM&CR’s regulatory burden on firms. Lucy Rigby, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: 'The UK has some of the highest standards for financial sector governance in the world. They protect consumers, strengthen market integrity and are emulated internationally, helping make our financial services sector one of the great jewels in our economic crown. 'We are committed to preserving those high standards – while making regulation simpler and easier to navigate. By working with regulators to streamline the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, we are cutting unnecessary complexity, halving the administrative burden, and building a simpler, faster and more competitive system.' Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive at the FCA, said: ‘These joint reforms will keep consumers and markets protected while making the regime more proportionate. We’ve also used our current powers to streamline the regime now, so firms can benefit before future legislation unlocks even more efficiencies.' David Bailey, executive director for prudential policy at the PRA, said: ‘The SM&CR plays an important role in ensuring accountability in the provision of financial services, but it is right that we work to ensure it is well-targeted and efficient. Today’s reforms are an important first step in allowing firms to focus on what matters most, and we will continue to deliver further improvements to the regime as part of the wider reforms being made by the Government.’  The announcement builds on work already done to speed up SM&CR approvals:  The FCA’s most recent published quarterly metrics show 99.7% of applications were determined within the current 3-month statutory deadline, with 94.7% determined within the Government's proposed new 2-month statutory deadline. The PRA’s most recent quarterly metricsLink is external show 100% of applications were determined within the current 3-month statutory deadline, with 98% determined within the Government's proposed new 2-month statutory deadline.  Background The SM&CR ensures accountability among senior managers within financial services firms and maintains standards of behaviour and competence across the board.  Read the FCA’s Policy Statement, PS26/6: ‘Senior Managers and Certification Regime review’.   Read the PRA’s Policy Statement, PS12/26: Senior Managers & Certification Regime reviewLink is external.  The Treasury has also published a consultation response to support a further phase in which the regulators would be able to make additional changes if legislation is made. This includes developing a more proportionate replacement for the Certification Regime and significantly reducing the number of roles requiring regulatory pre-approval. Read the Treasury’s consultation responseLink is external.  Firms now have up to 12 weeks to submit a senior manager application, rather than needing FCA approval within that period.  The Certification Regime is part of SM&CR that applies to staff who are not senior managers, but whose roles could still cause significant harm to consumers or markets – known as Certified Individuals.  In December 2022, the Government announced, as part of the Edinburgh ReformsLink is external, that the Treasury, FCA and PRA would begin reviews of the SM&CR. In March 2023, the FCA published a Discussion Paper with the PRA, inviting views on the regime’s effectiveness, scope and proportionality, and on potential improvements that could be made. The Treasury launched a Call for EvidenceLink is external on the regime alongside this.  In July 2025, the regulators published phase 1 proposals to reform the SM&CR. To help accelerate through phase 2, the FCA also sought views on potential changes for phase 2 – as well as inviting any other ideas of reducing burden while maintaining the benefits of the SM&CR.  See the FCA’s latest authorisation operating metrics (Q3 2025/26) and the PRA’s authorisations performance reportLink is external (Q4 2025/26). Enhanced scope SM&CR firms are the largest and most complex firms. The financial thresholds for becoming an Enhanced SM&CR firm are being updated for inflation since their introduction in 2019, by 30%.

Global securities finance revenue reached $3.84 billion in Q1 2026, up 31% year-over-year - a record start to the year and a continuation of the $15.3 billion 2025 print.   Asia Pacific led every region, up 48% YOY ($884 million in lender-to-broker revenue). Korea alone was up 724% YOY following the return of short selling, and Hong Kong on-loan balances more than doubled.   Bears wasted no time piling in after the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz closure. Our data shows meaningful short-interest builds across energy, airlines, and utilities - names in focus include Delta (DAL), American (AAL), NextEra (NEE), Xcel (XEL), International Seaways (INSW), easyJet (EZJ LN), and Lufthansa (LHA GR).   AI crowding evolved from a directional trade into a sorting machine. IT led sector revenue at $464 million globally, with SEALSQ (LAES), Hanmi (042700 KS), and GlobalWafers (6488 TT) among the top borrow earners as investors bet against parts of the semiconductor rally.   EquiLend also went live with Predicted Short Interest this quarter, closing the reporting lag on FINRA and exchange data. Early case studies on Cango (CANG), SPX Technologies (SPXC), and Seagate (STX) are in the report. Click here to download the report.

Thank you, David and thank you to Brookings for having me speak today.1 Whenever anyone hears the words "Federal Reserve" they immediately think about monetary policy and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) setting the federal funds rate. There is obviously tremendous media attention on those policy decisions, as there should be because they affect U.S. households and businesses and financial markets around the world. But the FOMC only meets 16 days a year to set monetary policy, so what are we doing at the Fed the rest of the time? The answer to that question is that we run a large and complex organization across 12 Federal Reserve Districts, with a heavy operations focus. So today I want to talk about how we meet these operational responsibilities to give you a better understanding of the structure of the Fed and what we do each day. As I will explain, there were and remain good reasons for the Fed's decentralized structure, which is mandated under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. It is an important enabler in carrying out our many vital responsibilities, which affect virtually everyone in every corner of America. But that doesn't mean the Fed's operations should not change to reflect a changing world. As the Board member responsible for leading the oversight of Federal Reserve operations on behalf of my colleagues, I believe the Federal Reserve needs to be continuously oriented toward modernizing how it operates—reducing costs, more effectively managing risk, and delivering the best possible value to the American taxpayer. And that has been my objective since I became the member of the Board of Governors responsible for Reserve Bank oversight. To explain why that matters and what it has meant in practice, I will start with a brief overview of the structure of the Fed and describe how its operations have evolved over time, including over the last few years under my direction. I will then address two questions that I believe are critical for thinking about how the Federal Reserve should organize its work in the 21st century. First, which Fed activities are intrinsically local, and conducted for the benefit of an individual Federal Reserve District? Second, which activities are conducted on behalf of the Federal Reserve System as a whole, with attendant opportunities to exploit specialization, economies of scope, and economies of scale? In short, what needs to be done at a Reserve Bank and what can be done more efficiently elsewhere in the System? A Short History of Operations in the FRSTo begin with a quick orientation, the Federal Reserve System is composed of the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., the 12 regional Reserve Banks located across the country and the Federal Open Market Committee. In this speech, I will focus solely on the Reserve Banks and not the Board or the FOMC. All told, there are approximately 20,000 employees across the 12 Banks, with the vast majority focused on operations—implementing market operations, performing fiscal agent activities for the U.S. Treasury, and running the Fed's payment systems, along with all the support and overhead functions like information technology (IT), human resources (HR), finance, and procurement that go along with operating 12 Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve was created as a compromise between those who recognized the need for a U.S. central bank and those who were suspicious of concentrating such power in Washington or New York. The result was a decentralized system of 12 regional Reserve Banks with boards of directors drawn from the local business community. Although ultimate oversight in many respects resides with federally appointed officials in Washington, from the beginning each Reserve Bank was a self-contained organization. Each provided services, including check processing, wire transactions, and cash distribution, to the commercial banks in the District that had elected to be members. With membership in the Federal Reserve System, a bank received certain benefits and incurred certain obligations, notably to submit to regular examinations by the Reserve Bank in their District. Due to branching restrictions at the time, a member bank was in that District and that District only. In addition to these services and oversight, each Reserve Bank also collected local economic information and data and did analysis of the local economy. Initially, the discount rate at each Bank was set locally to reflect local economic and credit conditions. At the beginning, everything a Reserve Bank did was "local"—no national functions were performed. This decentralized approach made more sense when the economy and the banking system were much more regional in nature, but as finance and the economy became more national in scope, changes were needed. Statutory changes were made by Congress to the Federal Reserve Act in 1935 under which the presidents of the Reserve Banks took on a national role in setting monetary policy via the FOMC. The discount rate was also "nationalized" so that all Banks charged the same rate for lending to local banks. But after these changes, most Reserve Bank operations remained local. While monetary policy was conducted at the national level, bank supervision, payment system activities, and most other functions at Reserve Banks remained focused on serving its District. Also characteristic of the early years were Reserve Banks that had large numbers of workers engaged in what were at that time highly manual and labor-intensive processes. Such work included processing paper checks, managing distribution of coins and currency, "discounting" or providing commercial banks liquidity against a variety of instruments—often taking physical custody of this collateral to assure a security interest—and managing U.S. Treasury securities. In this era, Reserve Banks operated under a clear "Bank first, System second" mindset. In rare instances that required more of a "System" approach—for example, managing transactions between banks in different Federal Reserve Districts—this coordination occurred through occasional meetings of the Conference of Presidents, an ad hoc group composed of the 12 Reserve Bank presidents. A deeply embedded and long-standing common understanding of the decisionmaking process for the Conference of Presidents was that the group could not force a Bank to do anything—everything had to be resolved by consensus. This decisionmaking process was consistent with the view that the Reserve Banks were essentially independent, private-sector, and governed by the local boards of directors rooted in the District and thus had the freedom to operate as they saw fit within the broad confines of the Federal Reserve Act. Drivers of TransformationOver the decades, as technology changed and U.S. financial sector regulation evolved, the external environment began to shift in important ways. As financial transactions became increasingly digital in the 1960s, the Fed developed new, nationwide electronic payment capabilities. Congress ended bank branching restrictions in the 1980s. Regulatory changes allowed national banking organizations to emerge, a phenomenon which broke the one-to-one connection between a Reserve Bank and its member commercial banks. Commercial banks with operations across multiple Districts were not enthralled with needing to maintain relationships with multiple Reserve Banks, each of which offered slightly different mixes of services and slightly different pricing. In 1981, Congress directed the Fed to recover the costs associated with its payment services through fees levied on both member and nonmember banks, a requirement intended to level the playing field between the Reserve Banks and private-sector providers of payment services. By the mid-1990s, the Reserve Banks had begun consolidating their payment services in response to those developments. Some key services were starting to be centralized in specific Districts with the establishment of "product offices" to provide uniform services to banks nationally. Over this same period, check volumes began to drop precipitously as digital payments gained steam and the private sector took market share from the Fed in check processing. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, underscored the vulnerability of a payment system that still relied on leased airplanes to fly paper checks around the nation. The digitization of paper checks followed the Check 21 Act in the early 2000s and led to a further reduction in the processing of physical checks. The result was that the Reserve Banks saw a significant reduction in operations and employment at their Branches, to the point of closing and selling some buildings. Even at head offices, the automation of check processing and other labor-intensive payments work reduced manpower needs and employment. The era when most head offices and many Branches ran three shifts of check processing each business day ended. On another front, as information technology advanced rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, the Reserve Banks realized there were economies of scale to be achieved by centralizing information technology infrastructure into one location that would operate on behalf of the entire system. It made no sense for each Reserve Bank to construct, operate, and maintain its own mainframe or, later, server farm. Thus, in the early '90s the Reserve Banks created Federal Reserve Automation Services (FRAS, now referred to as National IT), to build and maintain a single common IT infrastructure. A FRAS director was named to manage this consolidated infrastructure but most decision authority remained at the individual Reserve Banks. More recently, in 2021, Fed financial services were consolidated into a single national payment service line, with its own chief payments executive (CPE) who would oversee payment operations across 12 Reserve Banks. With the appointment of a CPE, and the increased authority of the chief information officer, the Fed had moved into a world where its arguably most critical operational responsibilities were managed at the System rather than the individual Bank level. Another example of the Fed's gradual move toward centralization is in its role as fiscal agent for the Treasury, handling payments and securities issuance, auctions and redemptions, as well as providing other banking services. Most of this work as fiscal agent was spread around the Reserve Banks. In 2014, Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service began to largely consolidate fiscal agency work in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Cleveland while the Federal Reserve Bank of New York continued to manage U.S. Treasury auctions and certain other activities that required direct market interactions. Despite this gradual movement toward more centralization in payments, IT, and fiscal agency, many support functions, including HR, procurement, and finance are still run more or less separately at each of the 12 Reserve Banks. In my view, we have reached a point where we need to better exploit the efficiency and risk reduction benefits of standardizing and probably centrally leading all of these functions. I believe there is significant opportunity for more improvement. Two Categories: What Must Be Local and What No Longer Needs to BeAt this point I want to return to the two questions I posed at the beginning. What Reserve Bank functions must be done locally, because they serve and must be tailored to the needs of a specific District, and which can be done anywhere to the benefit of the entire System? Let's start with what activities are inherently District-oriented, consistent with the original intent of the Federal Reserve Act, namely that the U.S. should have a central bank that reflects the needs of different regions and not be solely connected to Wall Street or Washington. These are the activities where geography still matters. Clearly, some of the work that has always been carried out by different Districts in different ways remains appropriately local in approach and substance today. I see no reason to reduce the number of Reserve Banks or alter their geographic boundaries. Each Bank president still has an independent voice at the FOMC on the appropriate course of monetary policy and that should continue. Each president's views are shaped by the research of the Bank's economists, its regional experts, the input from the Bank's board of directors, and the president's interactions with business leaders in the District. Each Bank president contributes that perspective to the discussion in Washington with his or her colleagues, which generates a view of the economy as a whole at the national level and thus what direction policy should take. In addition to contributing to the development of monetary policy, each president engages with the business, financial, and nonprofit communities to understand local economic issues, and to position the Bank to serve as a convener of various interest groups to address local economic issues, such as labor force development, financial inclusion, and issues related to rural areas. These activities are enormously valuable to carrying out the Fed's mission, and they should continue. Each Reserve Bank also still conducts supervision of state member banks and bank holding companies, relying on the regional knowledge and expertise of supervisors based in the District and on regional industries and economic trends. Local presence will continue to be important. This local expertise is also important when the Reserve Bank serves as a lender to depository institutions. Market operations are concentrated in New York, in proximity to the securities dealers who facilitate the implementation of monetary policy through open market operations. Now let's turn to a very different class of activities that are important to the System's overall operations and for which geography does not matter. These functions are increasingly platform-based, technology-driven, and scale-sensitive. The list includes HR systems, payroll and benefits administration, finance and accounting, procurement, and vendor management, as well as the payments, IT, and fiscal agency work. These functions are not delivered better or more efficiently with geographic dispersion. Nor are they unique to a district. They improve with integration, scale, and standardization. With that comes lower operating costs, risk reduction, and greater savings for the American taxpayer. With these functions our philosophy must be "System first, Bank second." This is the message I have been delivering to the Reserve banks the last three years in terms of how our operations need to be organized and managed. The Inflection Point: Why This Moment Is DifferentYou may be asking, why am I bringing this up now? Haven't the Reserve Banks consistently evolved to changes in the environment around them as I described earlier? Why can't this evolution continue organically? The answer is that I do not believe that this traditional approach will meet the moment, and the needs of the U.S. economy, for several reasons: First, the external environment has changed. Technology cycles are faster and more disruptive. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a coming storm that threatens to alter and, I believe, improve all organizations. The pace of technological change today means that the Fed does not have the time to sit back and ruminate about changes. If we are going to ride this wave, and not be drowned by it, we need greater agility to capture efficiencies and manage risks, such as cybersecurity and incorporating AI into our system processes. Second, consolidating functions makes sense for competing in talent markets that are increasingly national and sometimes global. We will achieve greater efficiency through consolidation and also attract the best talent in finance, HR, and procurement by offering people the opportunity to work for a national organization, with greater responsibility and impact. Finally, benchmarking against the private sector is unavoidable. We are significantly "off-market" on IT costs, largely because of localized development of applications and procurement of software, and because of the complexity of our offerings across the Banks. We are not exploiting the available economies of scale or risk reduction benefit across a wider range of areas. Other large organizations have long faced financial pressure to standardize, centralize, and, in some cases, outsource. One critical benefit from Reserve Bank boards of directors having private-sector CEOs among their members is the ability of these directors to point out where our costs are out of line and how we might improve both efficiency and performance. A Path Forward: Two Models for Operational ModernizationAs we consider the future framework for Reserve Bank operations, one thing is clear—we are not going to return to a world where everything is done locally. So, looking forward, I believe that two models for the further evolution of the Fed's operational footprint are worth considering. The first is standardization with centralized System leadership. Under this model, the current physical footprint of the Reserve Banks remains largely intact, but each major support function—IT, HR, finance, procurement, vendor management, and facilities—is placed under a single senior leader who runs that function on behalf of the entire System. That leader sets standards, makes enterprise-wide decisions, manages vendors, and is accountable for performance across all 12 Districts. Local staff remain in place but operate within a unified framework rather than 12 separate ones. System function leaders would operate within the existing Federal Reserve governance structure, reporting through Reserve Bank presidents and local boards, with the Board of Governors providing oversight. This is not a reorganization that centralizes authority in Washington. It is one that empowers the System to act as one enterprise while preserving the governance architecture the Federal Reserve Act established. This model captures much of standardization—lower cost, reduced risk, and greater consistency—without requiring the more difficult work of physical consolidation. The second model goes further. If an outside consultant were asked to design the Fed's operating system from scratch, I believe it would be a lot closer to this second model. It takes everything in the first model and adds physical consolidation across key functions. Functions that do not need to be local—HR administration, payroll, finance and accounting, procurement, and certain IT operations—are concentrated in a small number of operations centers located in lower-cost cities or those that have a comparative labor skills advantage. Outsourcing certain activities should occur if the opportunity for cost savings warrants it. The specialized work that genuinely requires District presence remains in the Districts. Everything else follows the economics. The System gains not only the benefits of unified leadership and standardized processes, but also the full economies of consolidated facilities and labor markets. As with the first model, the formal legal structure of the Federal Reserve remains unchanged. System function leaders report through Reserve Bank presidents and local boards, with the Board of Governors providing oversight consistent with its statutory role. What must change for this approach to succeed is not the Fed's structure but its long-held expectation that every significant operational decision requires consensus across 12 institutions. This second model is the one that large, well-run organizations—both public and private sector—have largely converged on, and it represents the more complete realization of what operational modernization can achieve. Either model represents a meaningful step forward. But it should be said plainly: the first is a waypoint, not a destination. The full benefits—in cost, in resilience, in cybersecurity, and in talent—are probably realized only under the second approach. An obvious implication of this second model is that some Reserve Banks may face lower levels of employment in the future. As happened with the closing of Branches when check clearing went away, I believe we will need to rethink the physical footprint of the Reserve Banks going forward. Both models also require a shift in how operational decisions are made. A System in which senior leaders run enterprise-wide functions requires genuine delegation of authority—more authority than most Reserve Bank first vice presidents exercise today. Decisions about HR administration, IT architecture, procurement strategy, and facilities standards need to be made at the System level and not decided district by district. That requires not just delegation of authority but a genuine shift away from consensus-based operational decisionmaking. The decisionmaking model, based on debate and consensus, that serves us well in the Board Room when developing monetary policy is not ideal when it comes to running our operations. A leader of a System function who must secure agreement from 12 quasi-independent institutions before acting cannot be an effective leader. I believe we need a key shift in our approach to governance—we need to distinguish between decisions that need consensus for effective change and those where consensus becomes a hindrance to effective change. Closing: Preserving the Federal Design by Modernizing the MachineryThe punchline of this speech is that we need to do more to centralize our operations into national lines of business and move away from having individual Reserve Banks managing operational infrastructure from a Bank mindset instead of a System mindset. We need to have strong leadership and governance of these national business lines, and this does not mean it can always be accomplished through a consensus of 12 Reserve Bank presidents. Inefficient governance and overlapping lines of authority lead to cost inefficiencies and unnecessary risk. On the other hand, I believe we have an opportunity to leverage scale and our talent across the System to produce better outcomes for U.S. households and businesses. Decentralization is a strength of the design of the Federal Reserve—but only when it reflects the genuine strengths of regional differentiation, not fragmentation for its own sake. Autonomy is a virtue—but not when it produces costly duplication that serves no one. We owe this to the American people we serve. Tradition deserves respect—but not when it stands in the way of necessary change. To leave you with a final takeaway, operational excellence at the Federal Reserve depends on our willingness to standardize what should be standardized and centralize what should be centralized, so that we can strengthen what must remain distinctly regional to meet the needs of a large and heterogenous country. This is an important conversation and I appreciate the constructive engagement of all. 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. 

The attached option classes will begin trading on the MIAX Options Exchange, MIAX Pearl Options Exchange, MIAX Emerald Options Exchange, and MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange on Wednesday, April 22, 2026.Market Makers can use the Member Firm Portal (MFP) to manage their option class assignments.  All LMM and RMM Option Class Assignments must be entered prior to 6:00 PM ET on the business day immediately preceding the effective date.  All changes made after 6:00 PM ET on a given day will be effective two trading days later.MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald Options Primary Lead Market Maker (PLMM) assignments and un-assignments will not be supported via the MFP. Please contact MIAX Listings with any questions at Listings@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7308. MIAX Options® Exchange MIAX Pearl® Options Exchange MIAX Emerald® Options Exchange MIAX Sapphire™ Options Exchange

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for newly added symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Wednesday, April 22, 2026. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2026-53 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2026-53 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2026-42 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2026-55 Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.

An Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) panel has issued a written decision providing reasons for its December 19, 2025 interim order against Midas Vantage Projects (MVP) Lithium Limited, Carolyn Jean Orazietti, also known as Carolyn Jean Beeler, and Vinay Ramachand Iyer, also known as Max Iyer (collectively, the Respondents). Staff issued a Notice of Hearing on December 11, 2025, seeking an interim order under the Securities Act (Alberta) to protect the public while Staff completes an investigation into whether the Respondents have breached the Act. Following a hearing on December 19, 2025, the panel found sufficient evidence that the Respondents have engaged in fraud, made prohibited representations about MVP securities, and misled Staff such that an interim order was in the public interest.  In its written decision of April 16, 2026, the panel noted the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, potential harm to investors, and indicated that the imposition of an interim order was justified to prevent ongoing capital market misconduct while an investigation and hearing proceed. A copy of the written decision can be found on the ASC website at asc.ca. 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.

New York Attorney General Letitia James today sued Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. (Coinbase) and Gemini, Titan LLC (Gemini) for illegally running gambling operations in New York through their so-called “prediction market” platforms. Both Coinbase and Gemini offer users the ability to bet on events, including sports, entertainment, and elections, in violation of New York laws. An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that Coinbase and Gemini are running prediction markets that constitute illegal, unlicensed gambling operations. These illegal operations expose New Yorkers – including those under the legal gambling age of 21 – to serious financial and personal risk. Attorney General James is seeking court orders requiring Coinbase and Gemini to pay fines, forfeit illegal profits, and pay restitution to customers. “Gambling by another name is still gambling, and it is not exempt from regulation under our state laws and Constitution,” said Attorney General James. “Gemini and Coinbase’s so-called prediction markets are just illegal gambling operations, exposing young people to addictive platforms that lack the necessary guardrails. My office is taking action to protect New Yorkers and stop these platforms from violating the law.” Coinbase and Gemini opened prediction markets available to New Yorkers over the age of 18. Prediction markets allow users to bet money on the outcome of a wide range of future events, from sports games to elections to award shows. Because the outcomes of these events are uncertain and outside the control of the bettor, or hinge on a game of chance, these prediction market platforms fit the legal definition of gambling in New York. Coinbase and Gemini have failed to obtain a license from the New York State Gaming Commission, sidestepping their obligation to pay taxes like licensed casinos and mobile sports gambling platforms do. This tax revenue funds public schools, sports programs for underserved youth, and problem gambling education and treatment. Coinbase and Gemini’s prediction markets are also available to users between the ages of 18-20, even though New York law states that a person must be at least 21 years old to participate in mobile sports betting. Exposing young people to online gambling can have damaging effects on their mental and financial wellbeing. A recent study by the National Institutes of Health found that early exposure to gambling increases the likelihood of depression, anxiety, mood swings, and financial stress. Further, a study by the American Psychological Association found that 32 percent of those with a gambling disorder experience suicidal ideation. Attorney General James’ lawsuits also allege that Gemini and Coinbase are violating New York laws that forbid any betting on games in which New York college teams participate. In her lawsuits filed today, Attorney General James is asking the court to require Coinbase and Gemini to forfeit illegal profits, distribute restitution to consumers who were harmed, and pay fines equal to three times the profits the companies made through their illegal actions. Today’s lawsuits are the latest actions in Attorney General James’ continued efforts to enforce New York laws in the crypto and gambling industries and protect New York consumers. Attorney General James has issued multiple consumer alerts warning New Yorkers about the hazards of gambling, and has issued industry alerts to encourage compliance with state laws. Attorney General James has also taken action to prevent illegal gambling in New York. In January of 2026, she sued Valve, a video game developer, for illegally promoting gambling through video games popular with children and teenagers. In June 2025, Attorney General James announced that OAG stopped 26 illegal online sweepstakes casinos that offered slots, table games, and sports betting using virtual coins that could be exchanged for cash and prizes. Attorney General James urges New Yorkers to ensure gambling platforms are registered with the New York State Gaming Commission and report any misconduct or gaming fraud to OAG by filing a complaint online, which can be done anonymously, or calling 1-800-771-7755. The case is being handled by handled by Assistant Attorney Generals Alejandra de Urioste, K. Brent Tomer, Daniel Wiesenfeld, and Nina Varindani and Senior Enforcement Counsel Tanya Trakht of the Investor Protection Bureau, with assistance from Legal Assistant Renata Bodner and Senior Detective Brian Metz of the Investigations Division. The Investor Protection Bureau is led by Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe and Deputy Bureau Chief Kenneth Haim and is a part of the Division of Economic Justice, which is overseen by Chief Deputy Attorney General Chris D’Angelo and First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) and NGX Regulation Limited (NGX RegCo) have hosted the 3rd edition of the Corporate Reporting Awards, recognising listed companies on Nigerian Exchange (NGX) for excellence in financial reporting, corporate governance, and sustainability disclosures for the 2024 financial year. The awards, which cover companies on the NGX 30 Index, assess performance across three pillars: Financial Reporting (35 per cent), Corporate Governance (30 per cent), and Sustainability Reporting (35 per cent). Organisers said the 2024 assessment was conducted under strict confidentiality and objectivity, with outcomes based strictly on merit. The exercise builds on earlier editions covering the 2022 and 2023 financial years and continues to serve as a benchmark for corporate disclosure standards in the Nigerian capital market. Speaking at the ceremony, ICAN President and Chairman of Council, Mallam Haruna Nma Yahaya, mni, Ph.D., FCA, said corporate reporting has evolved significantly beyond compliance, becoming a strategic instrument for communicating purpose, resilience, and direction. He noted that organisations are now expected not only to report performance but also to demonstrate how they are responding to change and creating sustainable value. “Corporate reporting has evolved beyond compliance to become a strategic tool that communicates purpose, resilience, and direction. In today’s environment, organisations are expected not only to report performance, but also to demonstrate how they are adapting to change and creating sustainable value. Transparency remains central to building trust, strengthening investor confidence, and supporting market stability,” he said. Also speaking, the Chief Executive Officer of NGX Regulation Limited, Mr. Femi Shobanjo, said strong corporate reporting remains critical to enhancing market integrity and sustaining investor confidence. He highlighted NGX RegCo’s continued adoption of global reporting frameworks, including the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance, and the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (IFRS S1 and S2). According to him, the growing emphasis on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures reflect an important shift in market expectations, as sustainability considerations are increasingly becoming central to corporate strategy and long-term value creation. “Strong corporate reporting is fundamental to market integrity and investor confidence. Beyond financial performance, there is now clear expectation for companies to disclose how environmental, social, and governance considerations are embedded in their strategy. Long-term corporate success is increasingly linked to the integration of sustainability into core business decisions,” he said. He added that the “Most Improved Company” category was introduced to encourage continuous improvement in reporting quality among listed firms. International Breweries Plc was named Most Improved Company (Overall), while First HoldCo Plc won the Sustainability Reporting Award. Zenith Bank Plc received the Corporate Governance Award, and MTN Nigeria Communications Plc clinched the Financial Reporting Award. In the top overall category, Access Holdings Plc won Silver, Airtel Africa Plc took Gold, while Seplat Energy Plc emerged Platinum winner. The awards have become a benchmark for corporate reporting excellence in Nigeria’s capital market, reflecting ongoing efforts by ICAN and NGX RegCo to strengthen transparency, accountability, and sustainable value creation. Both institutions reaffirmed their commitment to raising reporting standards and deepening investor confidence in the Nigerian capital market.

The Joint Forum of Financial Market Regulators has concluded its Annual Meeting held this year in Montreal, Quebec on April 15th. The Joint Forum brings together members of the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR), the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (CAPSA) and includes representation from the Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations and the Mortgage Brokers’ Council of Canada. As part of the plenary session, members heard from Jessica Mosher, policy analyst with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who presented findings from the OECD’s research on policies to improve access to high-quality financial advice and outcomes for retirement. The research highlights key barriers retirees face and potential approaches to better support informed financial decision-making. Angela Mazerolle, CAPSA Chair and Vice-President of Regulatory Operations and Superintendent of Pensions at the Financial and Consumer Services Commission of New Brunswick, and host of this year’s meeting, noted: “As more Canadians retire amid rising costs, maintaining purchasing power is an increasing challenge. How individuals interact with the financial sector in retirement is a critical issue for regulators to continue addressing together.” Participants also heard from Bonnie-Jeanne MacDonald, Director of Financial Security Research, and Barbara Sanders, Associate Fellow, of the National Institute on Ageing (NIA), who presented Retirement Beyond Pensions: How to Help Canadians Better Prepare. The NIA focuses on advancing the financial security of Canadians in retirement through research, collaboration and policy engagement. CAPSA joined the NIA as a member in 2025. Patrick Déry, CCIR Chair and Superintendent of Financial Institutions at the Autorité des marchés financiers, said: “Retirees often rely on financial products and advice that span multiple regulated sectors. The Joint Forum provides a valuable opportunity for regulators to examine these intersecting areas and strengthen coordination in the public interest.” The Joint Forum also welcomed keynote speaker Jorge Tenreiro, securities litigation partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, who shared perspectives on the current North American political environment and its potential implications for Canada’s regulated financial sectors. Stan Magidson, Chair of the CSA and Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission, added: “This year’s discussions reinforced the importance of regulatory cooperation in supporting retirees, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty. Working together helps deliver better outcomes for Canadians as they navigate this stage of life.” The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets.   CCIR is a national inter-jurisdictional association of insurance regulators. The mandate of the CCIR is to facilitate and promote an efficient and effective insurance regulatory system in Canada to serve the public interest.   CAPSA is a national association of pension regulators whose mission is to facilitate an efficient and effective pension regulatory system in Canada. It develops practical solutions and guidance to further the coordination and harmonization of pension regulatory principles across Canada.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published the 2025 European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) XBRL taxonomy files, together with an updated ESEF Conformance Suite. These materials support issuers and software vendors in preparing 2026 IFRS consolidated financial statements using the most up‑to‑date ESEF format.  The 2025 taxonomy reflects the introduction of IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements, effective from 1 January 2027, with early application permitted. The ESEF taxonomy includes two entry points, allowing issuers to report under either IAS 1 and IFRS 18. This approach facilitates prompt understanding of the new structure, encourages timely preparation, and lowers implementation risks. ESMA does not plan to amend the ESEF RTS or taxonomy in 2026. This follows the  IFRS Foundation’s decision not to issue a 2026 IFRS Accounting Taxonomy update and will provide greater regulatory stability and more time for implementation. Next steps  ESMA encourages issuers and software providers to consult the IFRS Foundation’s guidance on the use of the 2025 IFRS Accounting Taxonomy for 2026 reporting periods when preparing for upcoming reporting requirements. Stakeholders wishing to provide feedback or raise questions on the 2025 ESEF Taxonomy and Conformance Suite are invited to contact esef@esma.europa.eu. Related Documents DateReferenceTitleDownloadSelect 21/04/2026 ESEF Taxonomy 2025 ESEF Taxonomy 2025 21/04/2026 ESEF Conformance Suite 2025 ESEF Conformance Suite 2025

To increase the effectiveness of equity market microstructure, MOEX establishes the new tick size and Decimals parameter for the following stocks starting 5th May 2026 in the following trading modes: Main trading mode Т+ ("Т+1" order book) Odd lots trading mode Negotiated trades mode (NTM) NTM with CCP trading mode The new approach to setting the tick size was approved by the MOEX Securities Market committee. The methodology includes: The tick size equals (1,2,5)*10N, where N – integer; Increasing the number of price ranges to 25, and the ranges of liquidity - up to 7; For each liquidity range a recommended range price tick sizes in the spread is established; The maximum allowed relative tick size – 1% Read more on the Moscow Exchange: https://www.moex.com/n99517

STP Investment Services (STP), a global provider of technology-enabled investment operations, fund administration, and compliance solutions, and CAPIS, an institutional brokerage firm that provides outsourced and supplemental trading services, today announced a strategic partnership to launch a coordinated outsourced model that integrates trade execution and investment operations support for buy-side firms. As firms look to scale without expanding internal trading and operations teams, the traditional divide between outsourced trading and middle-office support is disappearing. Through this partnership, investment managers can access CAPIS’ outsourced or supplemental trading capabilities alongside STP’s tech-enabled investment operations outsourcing, creating a seamless experience across the entire trade lifecycle. Together, STP and CAPIS will provide investment managers, ranging from emerging managers to established institutional firms, with a coordinated solution designed to enhance operational efficiency, improve business continuity, and support long-term strategic growth. “Buy-side firms don’t want more vendors, they want integrated infrastructure,” said Jeff Hooks, Senior Vice President at STP Investment Services. “By partnering with CAPIS, we’re able to present a flexible, packaged solution that allows firms to outsource as much or as little as they need, whether that’s execution support, trade settlements, reconciliations, or broader middle-office functions. Our teams have already demonstrated how effectively we can work together behind the scenes to deliver a streamlined experience for clients.” The partnership builds on a successful collaboration supporting a mutual investment manager client. In that engagement, STP and CAPIS worked closely to align data feeds and file structures so trading data could move efficiently into downstream operational workflows. By coordinating file formats, required data fields, and system requirements, the two firms reduced manual intervention and eliminated the need for the client to reconcile outputs between separate providers. The result was reduced operational friction, faster downstream processing, and a more scalable operating model. “We're thrilled to partner with STP as we look to further streamline the trading lifecycle for our clients,” said Chris Hurley, SVP and Head of Institutional Sales at CAPIS. “By combining CAPIS' proven trade execution and commission management services with STP's middle- and back-office expertise, we’re offering clients a seamless experience that reduces complexity, strengthens oversight, and ensures that execution and post-trade processes move in lockstep.” To shared clients, CAPIS will provide outsourced and supplemental trading services designed to function as an extension of a client’s trading desk. Investment managers may choose to outsource a discrete portion of their trading activity, use CAPIS as a contingency or overflow solution, or fully outsource execution depending on their business model. CAPIS supports global equities, fixed income, and derivatives trading, and brings extensive commission management expertise, including support for client commission arrangements and broker-vote objectives. Its ARC solution is designed to eliminate trade rotation for WRAP and SMA platforms by incorporating those orders into the primary block, with the goal of improving execution consistency and reducing performance disparity. Additionally, STP will deliver tech-enabled middle-office and investment operations outsourcing solutions that integrate with clients’ existing systems. Through its BluePrint platform and experienced operations teams, STP supports a broad range of functions, including reconciliation, trade settlements, performance measurement, corporate actions and pricing, portfolio accounting, client reporting, fee billing, and compliance services. Its flexible outsourcing model allows firms to leverage STP’s technology, personnel, or a combination of both, transforming middle-office operations into a scalable infrastructure designed to support growth.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. David, thank you for your warm words of introduction and for the invitation to join you here at the Economic Club of Washington. Like much of the Club’s membership, your career has been animated by a sense of great civic purpose. And you are no stranger as to how regulatory issues affect the marketplace. So, it is a special pleasure to be with you, and I look forward to our conversation in just a few moments. Of course, I should also like to thank the market participants and business leaders who are here today, as well as my counterparts from across the Administration. I am grateful for your presence this morning, and for your partnership in the work that we share. Finally, before I offer a few reflections, let me note the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman, and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. *** As David mentioned in his opening comments, today marks one year since I began my third tour of duty at the SEC. I first served on the staff of Chairmen Richard Breeden and Arthur Levitt in the early 1990s, and then later as a Commissioner in the Aughts. Taken together, those experiences have shaped how I approach my role as Chairman—and how I understand the SEC’s place within our broader financial system. Those experiences also provide a vantage point from which certain patterns come into focus, among them how Washington has a way of standing athwart innovation and capital formation. How layers of regulation can accumulate without regard to their cost or consequence. How complexity, once introduced, seldom recedes. Indeed, over the years, the SEC’s rules have multiplied faster than the problems that they were intended—or purported—to solve. Our requirements have tended to grow in scope without a commensurate gain in clarity or effectiveness. And the cumulative effect of the Commission’s losing its focus on economic materiality as its guiding light has been to introduce friction where entrepreneurs depend on clarity, and uncertainty where markets rely on confidence. So, it was against this backdrop one year ago that I stood beside President Trump in the Oval Office to say that it is time for the SEC to end its waywardness. Today, I am pleased to report that we have. One year ago, I said that we must return the agency to the core mission that Congress set for it. We did. I called on the Commission to provide a firm regulatory foundation for digital assets. We are well into that process – and collaborating with our fellow regulators and Congress. Above all, I urged my colleagues at the SEC to strive to ensure that the U.S. remain the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business. And we will do that. In short, one year ago, I declared that it is a new day at the SEC I meant it then. And I can speak to it now. First, though, to appreciate the magnitude of the gains that we are making, I think that it is instructive to contextualize them in the years of regulatory adventurism that they follow. Congress tasked the SEC with three mutually reinforcing aims, which are to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation. This, our statutory mission, is clear in its design and precise in its scope. Yet in recent years, as I just alluded to, the Commission constructed around those core pillars a thicket of obligations that were unmoored from any of them, precipitating a disclosure regime that had been hijacked to serve interests beyond those of investors; an enforcement program that had become a de facto instrument of our rulemaking function; and a path to going public that had grown so costly, so litigious, and so politically fraught that an untold number of entrepreneurs understandably chose to remain private or to list elsewhere. The agency charged with stewarding the world’s greatest capital markets had become, in many respects, an imposing obstacle to them. The answer to that is what I am calling our “A-C-T” strategy, which rests on three distinct, but interlocking pillars to: advance our regulatory frameworks into the modern era – A, clarify our jurisdictional lines – C, and transform the SEC rulebook by returning it to first principles – T. Every initiative toward which the SEC is working—every rule that we propose, every interpretation that we release, and every institutional reform that we undertake—largely falls into at least one of those three categories. So let me now take each in turn. *** Advance As I have stated, to advance our regulatory posture is to bring it into honest alignment with the world as it is, rather than as it was when many of our rules were first written. After all, innovation rarely pauses for regulation. And perhaps nowhere has the cost of failing to keep up been more apparent than in the agency’s treatment of crypto assets. Under the previous administration, innovators found that engaging with the SEC often relatively quickly gave way to getting investigated by it. Well, the market rendered its verdict on that approach. And it did so in the form of migrating toward perceived friendlier jurisdictions offshore. An entire generation of digital asset innovation developed outside of the United States, not because American entrepreneurs lacked the ambition, or American investors lacked the appetite, but because American regulators lacked the will. So, over the past year, this SEC has moved decisively on President Trump’s goal of making America the crypto capital of the world. Building on and broadening the great work of our own Crypto Task Force, I launched Project Crypto to modernize the securities rules and regulations to facilitate markets’ moving on-chain. Most recently, we delivered long-overdue clarity by publishing a crypto-token taxonomy that distinguishes between five categories of digital assets, four of which are not securities. And we are on the cusp of releasing what I call an “innovation exemption,” which will provide market participants with a cabined framework to begin facilitating the trading of tokenized securities on-chain in a compliant fashion as the Commission works toward long-term rules of the road. Of course, while modernizing the agency’s frameworks has come to define our approach to crypto, it is scarcely limited to it. I think also of the reforms that we have pursued to enable ETF share class structures for mutual funds—a change that could save taxpayers billions—as well as a new Cross-Border Task Force that targets those who seek to use international borders to evade and undermine U.S. investor protections. Markets are global. I believe that investor protection must be as well. Advancing our regulatory posture also compels us to follow the capital flow as more of it finds its way into the private markets—a natural result of the heavy-handed regulation that forced banks to get out of the business of financing small and growing enterprises. The SEC is closely monitoring both the lending gap that private credit has filled and the emerging pressures that it has experienced, including elevated redemption requests and rising default-rate projections. Let me be clear that opacity in this space can be an issue. That valuation, transparency, and credit quality are key. That higher fees and less liquidity must be taken into account regarding the appropriateness of an investment. And that our aim, along with that of our colleagues in the federal government, is for a wider group of investors, guided by their fiduciaries, to be able to participate in broader, diversified investment choices with the information and guidance that they need to make sound decisions, with reasonable safeguards in place. Clarify Now, the SEC’s advancement of modernized rules is only as useful as the clarity with which we apply them. So, after decades of subjecting innovators to fragmented oversight and overlapping authorities, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig and I signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding last month between the two agencies. The MOU aligns key definitions, clarifies jurisdiction, and co-ordinates oversight in areas of shared interest, including digital assets. Having interacted with both agencies now for three decades, I have seen up close how jurisdictional ambiguity can stifle innovation just as surely as ill-devised regulation. So, I hope that soon gone will be the days of forcing dually registered firms to navigate divergent processes. Instead, by aligning regulatory definitions; co-ordinating oversight; and facilitating secure data sharing between the two agencies, we are replacing a regulatory no-man’s-land—that barren place where the wreckage of would-be financial products lay for too long—with fertile ground for innovation to take root and flourish. Transform Finally, the third pillar of our “A-C-T” strategy is to transform our rulebook by trimming requirements that burden the market without benefiting investors. The fourteen vexatious rule proposals that we withdrew last summer augured the methodical effort underway to conduct a first-principles review of our entire disclosure regime. Over time, many requirements that began as a framework to inform have become instruments to obscure. And in losing sight of our north star of materiality, we have drifted from what a reasonable investor would consider important, to what a regulator might find interesting. So, it should come as little surprise that as our disclosure burden expanded, the number of our public companies diminished. Shortly after I left the SEC as a staff member in 1994, more than 7,800 companies were listed on the U.S. exchanges. When I returned as Chairman a year ago, that number had fallen by roughly 40 percent—a striking convergence with the nearly 40 percent of Americans who today have no exposure to U.S. equities. No stake in the companies that they help to build; little share in the wealth that they help to create. More than a corporate milestone, I believe that every IPO is also an invitation for workers and savers to participate in the prosperity of the next generation of American enterprise. When fewer companies extend that invitation, fewer Americans receive it. So, as I have indicated on several occasions, we are working to reverse the precipitous decline in public companies. A central objective for this goal is to rationalize disclosure requirements by delivering the minimum dose of regulation, again with materiality as our north star. Further, as a disclosure agency and not a merit regulator, the SEC should not use its rules to indirectly regulate matters—or put its thumb on the scale for issues—that should be left to the States, including corporate governance. Looking ahead, I am eager for the Commission to propose rules that execute my Make IPOs Great Again agenda. For proposals in the near term, I have instructed the Commission staff to evaluate the following ideas: (1) adopting a regulatory IPO “on-ramp” that supplements the concept that Congress designed in the JOBS Act; (2) expanding the existing accommodations that are currently available only for emerging and smaller companies to more businesses; (3) providing nearly all public companies with an easier path to “shelf registration,” which allows them to access the public markets quickly and when market conditions are ideal; and (4) giving companies the optionality for a quarterly or semiannual regulatory filing cadence. Of course, as we return the SEC to a posture of getting out of the way when we should, we are stepping in decisively where we must. In my first year as Chairman, we have recentered our enforcement program to focus on fraud and bring actions that actually address investor harm and strengthen market integrity, instead of inflating numbers to chase media headlines. This course correction also rests on our renewed emphasis on holding individual wrongdoers accountable, which promotes stronger deterrence and better safeguards for investors. *** Now, the strides that I have described this morning, substantial as they are, are by no means exhaustive. Nor are they complete. Instead, the progress that we are making across every dimension of our mandate amounts to an initial dividend of an SEC that has regained its footing—and is moving forward with equal parts rigor and restraint. By rejecting the institutional drift that the previous administration had normalized, I am pleased to report that we are recalibrating the agency in line with its statutory mission. An aggressive rulemaking agenda in the coming year, meanwhile, will build on the work that we have begun at an auspicious moment. Indeed, with the approach of America’s 250th anniversary, I believe that our capital markets must continue to reflect our national character. They must continue to lead the world in their depth, in their dynamism, and in their capacity to translate ingenuity into prosperity. That is the promise that our markets have long represented. And now, in this new era at the SEC, that is the promise that I am confident they will continue to keep. So, thank you all very much for your time and attention today. You have been a patient and indulgent audience. And David, I now look forward to discussing this progress with you in greater detail. Thank you.

LangWatch, the platform for testing, simulating, and improving AI- and agent-driven applications, has launched a solution, LangWatch Scenario, designed for businesses that use or scale AI applications, such as customer service bots and data analytics agents, to automate red teaming and conduct AI penetration testing. LangWatch Scenario enables organisations to systematically test AI agents through penetration testing and red teaming The new solution is an open-source framework that enables development teams to systematically test their AI agents against advanced attack techniques that have proven most effective in practice, but which often go undetected by traditional testing methods.LangWatch Scenario simulates realistic, multi-turn attacks on AI applications. It builds context and trust within conversations, just as a real cybercriminal would. The framework automatically runs a series of scenarios, from seemingly harmless exploration to complex requests and authority roles. At the same time, a second model evaluates progress and adjusts the attack. This reveals weaknesses that standard tests would never detect—the so-called “invisible risks.”Until recently, single-shot penetration tests were often sufficient, where one prompt or attack attempt was used. In practice, this is not enough, as large language models can still disclose sensitive information after successive interactions. LangWatch Scenario addresses this by structuring conversations and applying multi-turn strategies, allowing development teams to see exactly where their AI agents are vulnerable in practice, before real risks emerge.It tests vulnerabilities automatically using the Crescendo strategy, a structured four-phase escalation that starts with friendly exploration, progresses through hypothetical questions and authority roles such as “I’m conducting a compliance audit,” and ends with maximum pressure. After each turn, a second model evaluates progress and automatically adjusts the attack, enabling the automated red team to optimize its strategy while the AI agent does not build additional resistance.Rogerio Chaves, co-founder and CTO of LangWatch, commented: “An AI agent that rejects every single prompt gives you a false sense of security. In practice, cybercriminals do not work with a single direct question. They have dozens of relaxed conversations, build trust, and when the agent is in a cooperative mode after twenty turns, a request that would have been rejected in turn one suddenly becomes no problem at all.”This launch comes at a time when attention to AI safety is increasing rapidly. Public debate globally continues, with the focus mainly on visible risks such as deepfakes, disinformation, and privacy. However, LangWatch points to a less visible but growing threat. AI attacks are becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to detect. The real risks often lie in the AI applications organisations develop themselves. These are AI agents that work with sensitive data and are vulnerable in ways that traditional testing does not reveal. LangWatch Scenario makes these vulnerabilities visible by systematically performing AI penetration testing and automated red teaming. LangWatch Scenario is intended for organisations using or scaling AI applications in production, such as banks, insurers, and AI-first software companies. These systems range from customer service bots to data analytics agents. They often have access to sensitive information and critical business processes. For these organisations, LangWatch Scenario offers a practical way to structurally test and improve AI safety, for example within existing development and continuous integration (CI) workflows.Companies such as Backbase, Buy It Direct, Ask Vinny, Visma, Skai, and PagBank already use the LangWatch platform and are now expanding it with automated red-team testing. This helps clarify how organisations can better protect their AI systems against advanced and difficult-to-detect attacks.Manouk Draisma, co-founder and CEO of LangWatch, says: “It is rarely about a single spectacular hack. It is about patience and context. A cybercriminal who interacts calmly and systematically with an AI agent for twenty minutes can extract sensitive information that a direct attack would never reveal. LangWatch Red-Teaming makes these hidden risks visible before damage occurs.”LangWatch Red-Teaming is fully open source and available immediately. The framework forms the basis for a broader set of red-team solutions being developed by LangWatch, where new attack techniques follow the real-world behaviour of AI systems.More information is available at www.langwatch.ai/llm-red-teaming and github.com/langwatch/scenario

Speaking at UK FinTech Week, Jessica Rusu, chief data, information and intelligence officer at the FCA, has confirmed the second group of firms selected to join AI Live Testing. Eight new firms, including Barclays, Experian, Lloyds Banking Group (Scottish Widows), and UBS, have been chosen by the FCA to live test AI applications to support safe and responsible deployment. The FCA is working with its technical partner Advai, a London-based specialist in automated AI assurance, to provide AI Live Testing. This initiative helps successful applicants explore key questions around risk management and live monitoring to support the responsible deployment of AI for consumers and markets.  Applications reflect the fast-evolving nature of the technology, with a diverse range of AI models underpinning use cases – from agentic AI and small language models to emerging solutions such as neurosymbolic AI. Firms in the second group are testing both customer-facing and business‑to‑business use cases, including AI-enabled targeted support for investments, credit score insights for consumers, agentic payments, anti-money laundering detection, and Know Your Customer. 'We’re continuing to collaborate with firms to support the safe and responsible development of AI in UK financial markets,' said Jessica Rusu, chief data, information and intelligence officer at the FCA. 'With tailored support from the FCA and Advai, the initiative reflects our commitment to supporting the pace of change in AI, whilst demonstrating how regulators and industry can work together to harness innovation responsibly.' The FCA will also publish a good and poor practice report for AI in financial services later in 2026 to support firms in the safe and responsible adoption of the developing technology. The announcement coincides with the publication of the FCA’s Innovation Insights report, which highlights how fintech innovation is evolving in the UK and what the regulator is learning from firms engaging with its innovation services. The FCA’s Regulatory Sandbox and Innovation Pathways saw a 49% increase in applications on the previous year. The report also shows that fintech market activity closely matches demand for the FCA's innovation services, particularly in fast-growing areas like AI. Applications for the AI Live Testing second cohort opened in January 2026, with firms beginning testing in April. Testing will conclude by the end of the year, with an evaluation report published in Q1 2027. Background The full list of firms in the second cohort are as follows: Aereve, Coadjute, Barclays, Experian, Go-Cardless, Lloyds Banking Group (Scottish Widows), UBS and Palindrome. In September 2025, the FCA published a Feedback Statement on the potential benefits, opportunities and challenges raised by our proposal for AI Live Testing. The FCA set out how we are working to accelerate digital innovation in our response to the Prime Minister’s letter (PDF), including that we would avoid additional regulations for AI by relying on existing frameworks. Read more about how FCA rules apply to AI. Read Jessica Rusu's speech at UK FinTech Week. In January, the FCA launched a review led by Sheldon Mills into the implications of advanced AI on consumers, retail financial markets and regulators. Advai is a UK-based AI company specialising in automated testing, evaluation and assurance of AI systems, providing independent technical evidence so organisations can deploy AI safely and confidently at scale. Firms in the first group included: Gain Credit, Homeprotect, part of the Avantia Group, NatWest, Monzo, Santander, Scottish Widows, part of Lloyds Banking Group and Snorkl.  The Innovation Insights report aims to support earlier regulatory engagement and strengthen evidence‑led policy and supervision under the FCA’s Strategy 2025–2030.

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is pleased to announce today (Tuesday) the appointment of Mr Lawrence Lau as Managing Director and Head of Debt Market Development. In his new role, Mr Lau will head a new Debt Market Development team as HKEX continues to build out its Fixed Income and Currency (FIC) business, covering both primary market and secondary market development. Mr Lau's primary market responsibilities include strengthening bond issuance and issuer engagement, while his secondary market development focus will include supporting liquidity and market infrastructure development across the debt market value chain. He will report to Kevin Fan, HKEX Head of FIC Product Development. HKEX Head of Markets, Gregory Yu, said: “We are delighted to welcome Lawrence to the HKEX family. Developing our multi-asset ecosystem is a strategic priority for the Group, and Lawrence's appointment is an important step as we scale HKEX's FIC capabilities and advance Hong Kong's role as a leading international bond fundraising hub. Lawrence will further reinforce our growing FIC team as we work alongside our partners and stakeholders to accelerate the development of Hong Kong's debt and fixed income markets.” HKEX's FIC leadership team, including Head of Markets Gregory Yu (second from right), Head of FIC Product Development Kevin Fan (second from left), Head of OTC Platform Development Andy Ni (first from left), and Head of Debt Market Development Lawrence Lau (first from right).   Mr Lau has more than 25 years of capital markets experience, most recently as Managing Director and Head of Debt Capital Markets at Bank of China International, with a strong track record across global bond issuance, investor engagement and market development. He was also a member of the Debt Advisory Working Group within the FIC Task Force led jointly by the Securities and Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. He began his career with Ernst & Young in London and also held senior positions with Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Dresdner Kleinwort Benson. Mr Lau holds a master's degree in mathematics from the University of Cambridge and is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

The use of AI in trading will further expose weaknesses in network and data governance in markets where liquidity is dispersed.  Policymakers who desire competition in trading need to shift their focus to governing the network, and the data that flows through it, at a systemic level rather than relying on historic policies that were predicated on their national trading venues fulfilling that role. MSP releases the final paper its “Markets Unstructured: The Importance of Connectivity in the Reinvention of Markets” Series.  The previous two papers explained how liquidity in competitive markets is dispersing, causing data asymmetries and connectivity challenges that have implications for access to markets, competition and the ability to optimise investor outcomes.   Paper III, released today, examines how the adoption of AI and potential growth will be stalled, and may increase risks, in competitive markets where governance frameworks for data access, data integrity and connectivity infrastructure have not been addressed.  It calls for industry action, including a rethink by policymakers as to what constitutes systemic market infrastructure in competitive markets. Key Findings:   Most firms are in the exploratory phase of embedding AI into trading workflows.   The sell-side know they need to adapt but are struggling to meet the operational connectivity demands of today before investing for tomorrow.  63% of sell-side cite gaining transparency over network vendor costs, a historically opaque business, as a bigger focus than investing in future technology.  78% of sell-side interviewed report having zero transparency into these vendor costs. Asset managers increasingly recognise the need for greater technological independence. 75% of firms are already reviewing or rebuilding their connectivity infrastructure but, for many, this is a tactical change rather than one led from a strategic enterprise level.  Only 37% are preparing their connectivity infrastructure to support AI tooling. Those at the vanguard are driving a shift toward requirements for cloud-native, API-first, interoperable architectures that support flexible, scalable, multi-asset trading.  However, this is a challenge to traditional vendor models that have historically offered all-in-one systems with extensive contractual lock ins.  Transformation is, therefore, slow and many firms are yet to treat vendors as potential strategic partners.  As firms adopt more agentic, model-driven workflows, existing weaknesses in data semantics, latency, and interoperability will be further exposed.  Without easy access to clean data and a holistic connectivity architecture, fragmented, cross-asset data cannot be consolidated into a unified, real-time, normalised event stream with full context, data integrity and traceability. The report concludes that the industry is moving from execution through a venue to execution through a network:  Reliance on a single trading venue’s use of memberships and rules is no longer sufficient to uphold the integrity of data in an entire market or to provide sufficient transparency on who can access the market and the terms on which they do so. CLOBs are no longer the gravitational centre of trading, and, in the future ecosystem, they will be one trading model among many, not the de facto dominant venue or trading model Orders no longer follow a consistent linear route to a market or flow through a single market model.  The right foundations must, therefore, be in place to give all market participants the same opportunities to transform and scale secondary market activity or there will be more distortions in market structure and greater threats to market growth and resilience.  As AI adoption accelerates, the case for co-ordinated industry action has never been stronger. The report recommends that policymakers wanting competitive markets must reframe their thinking and elevate governance of data and networks to a systemic level.  Meanwhile, market participants must redefine their value propositions and place in the ecosystem, raising the issue of connectivity and data management to strategic decision levels. Niki Beattie, CEO of MSP and one of the authors of the report comments “Policymakers introduced competition.  Now they must finish the job.  Policymaking that continues to treat national exchanges as systemic infrastructure is outmoded – these exchanges are now just part of a growing network of liquidity options, and they should be treated as such.  Governance of the network, and the data that flows through it is now of utmost importance and must be elevated to systemic levels in market regulation.  If left unaddressed more structural distortions and limits on growth are inevitable.    Any policymaker that doesn’t believe such action is needed should ask themselves the following questions: Should a trading venue be able to force participants to use its proprietary technology in order to access its market?  Should a technology vendor be able to determine which firms can or cannot connect to other participants on its network?  Should the requirements for pricing transparency of network connectivity be the same as the transparency requirement for trading venues?  Should an appointed CTP provider be able to run the CTP at a loss?   Why is market data free in some asset classes (such as crypto) and not in others?  Which markets are growing faster?  What are consequences of asking the market to adopt standards on a voluntary rather than a mandated basis?  In a world of increasing speed and decision making how quickly should data be cleaned and corrected?” Rebecca Healey, also one of the authors of the report said: “The challenge is no longer data scarcity but fragmentation and semantic inconsistency. FIX variants, custom APIs, uneven tagging, and siloed systems degrade model accuracy, slow iteration, and increase operational risk. The real bottleneck is the inability to transform scattered, cross-asset data into a unified, real-time, normalised event stream with preserved context and traceability. Without this foundation, agentic AI is brittle and difficult to supervise.”   A copy of the Paper III report is attached.

A draft of statutory provisions to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 and policy note setting out the aims behind these provisions. Documents Draft statutory instrument amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026: Policy Note PDF, 151 KB, 18 pages This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email digital.communications@hmtreasury.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use. Draft statutory instrument amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026: Policy Note HTML The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 PDF, 233 KB, 5 pages This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email digital.communications@hmtreasury.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use. Details The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2026 was made in February 2026 and established a regulatory regime for cryptoassets. Once these regulations come into force in October 2027, they will require firms carrying on the new regulated activities to be authorised by the FCA. This draft SI contains proposed amendments to that legislation aimed at providing greater certainty for firms seeking to provide stablecoins payments services, and to remove barriers to certain other use cases. The draft SI also contains additional changes for the purposes of ensuring an internationally competitive UK regime for cryptoassets.

This consultation has concluded Read the full outcome A Streamlined Approach to Payment Systems Regulation: Consultation response PDF, 228 KB, 22 pages This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email digital.communications@hmtreasury.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use. A Streamlined Approach to Payment Systems Regulation: Consultation response HTML Detail of outcome This document provides a summary of the feedback received by HM Treasury in response to the consultation and sets out the government’s planned approach for consolidating the functions of the Payment Systems Regulator within the Financial Conduct Authority. The government will bring forward primary legislation to deliver this change when Parliamentary time allows. Original consultation Summary This consultation sets out proposals for consolidating the Payment Systems Regulator within the Financial Conduct Authority. This consultation ran from9am on 8 September 2025 to 11:59pm on 20 October 2025 Consultation description In March 2025, the government announced that it will consolidate the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) primarily within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as part of the Regulatory Action Plan. The government committed to consult on the details of how this would be achieved and to legislate for this change as soon as Parliamentary time allows. This consultation paper sets out proposals for integrating the functions of the PSR entirely within the FCA. This will see the FCA take on the PSR’s responsibilities, including for promoting competition and innovation in payment systems and the services provided by payment systems, as well as supporting the interests of consumers and businesses. The proposed consolidation seeks to deliver a more streamlined regulatory environment for payment systems by reducing the number of regulatory bodies, simplifying the regulatory landscape for firms and stakeholders. This marks a further step being taken by government to deliver its vision for a trusted and world-leading payments ecosystem. Documents A Streamlined Approach to Payment Systems Regulation PDF, 241 KB, 30 pages This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. Request an accessible format. If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email digital.communications@hmtreasury.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use. A Streamlined Approach to Payment Systems Regulation Consultation HTML

Global Fintech leader Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. (NYSE: BR) today announced that Tavira Financial has selected Broadridge’s High Touch Order Management System (OMS), connectivity, and middle office solutions as a key component of its trading and operational infrastructure ecosystem. Broadridge’s fully integrated front and middle office capabilities will support Tavira’s agency brokerage platform to optimize trading workflows, reduce operational complexity, and enhance global market connectivity. “At Tavira, we operate an agency brokerage platform that combines institutional-grade infrastructure with the independence and flexibility that our experienced, relationship-led brokers and their clients expect,” said Mark Griffiths, Group CEO of Tavira Financial. “Broadridge is an important part of our technology stack, supporting our execution capabilities and connectivity as we continue to scale our platform.” Tavira will leverage Broadridge’s OMS to manage order flow from trade inception through post-trade processing. With Broadridge handling market connectivity, trading workflows, liquidity access, and middle office, Tavira gains a scalable and automated platform to handle growing trade volumes along with one of the industry’s leading global market connectivity solutions. The horizontally scalable architecture enables Tavira to maintain flexibility across execution styles and asset classes, without operational or performance limitations. “By bringing together order management, connectivity, and middle office capabilities on a single platform, we can help Tavira simplify its trading operations and support higher volumes with greater efficiency,” said Brian Pomraning, Chief Product Officer for Trading and Connectivity Solutions at Broadridge. “This gives the firm a more streamlined operational foundation for agency execution business growth.” Broadridge’s wide range of trusted, transformative products and services across its trading and connectivity suite highlights the breadth of its capabilities and has made it a technology partner of choice to help Tavira achieve its strategic ambitions. Tavira’s decision highlights the increasing demand among brokerage firms for robust, integrated trading infrastructure. In a market where firms must rapidly respond to client needs, regulatory requirements and rising trade volumes, Broadridge provides the trusted stability, advanced functionality and full lifecycle support they need to compete and grow. For more information on Broadridge’s capital markets trading solutions, please see here. For more information on Tavira’s platform, please visit https://tavira.group/.