Farmer sentiment fell in April as concerns about rising input costs, tighter availability and global instability continued to weigh on the agricultural outlook. The April Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer dropped to 121, down from 127 in March. The decline was also driven by a decrease in confidence about current conditions, which dropped by 11 points, while producers' expectations for the future fell 4 points from the March survey and were 28 points below last year's April index. The survey was conducted among 400 farmers across the nation from April 13-17.  Only 15% of producers indicated that financial conditions improved in April compared to the same period last year. When looking at the year ahead, 28% of respondents cited expectations of worse financial performance, compared with 25% expecting better financial performance. The Farm Capital Investment Index also fell by 9 points to 44, its lowest level since October 2024, indicating a decline in willingness to make large investments. April's survey also examined the impact of current events on farm income and corn break-even prices in 2026. Approximately two-thirds of respondents expect to reduce their farm's net income in 2026. Among producers who planted corn in 2025, about half expect corn break-even prices to increase by up to 6% in 2026, 14% expect increases of 6% to 9%, and 37% anticipate increases of 10% or more. "Producers are still under pressure from high input costs, and this month we observed a slight rise in concerns about fertilizer availability," said Michael Langemeier, the barometer's principal investigator and director of Purdue's Center for Commercial Agriculture. "Simultaneously, the impact of current events on fertilizer and energy markets increases global uncertainty, adding to the existing difficulties farmers face as they plan for the future." The monthly survey occasionally asks about a farm's competitive standing and its capacity to manage strategic risks. This month's survey included a question on farm competitiveness and cost structure. Approximately 58% of respondents agreed that their operations have lower per-unit fixed costs than their most efficient peers, including 9% who strongly agreed. Farmland value expectations weakened in April, with the Short-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index declining from 125 to 121 and the Long-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index declining from 159 to 155. Producers identified alternative investments, interest rates and inflation as the primary factors influencing farmland values. Optimism about the direction of the U.S. economy also declined, with 57% of producers indicating the country is headed in the "right direction," down from 65% in March.

Regnology, a global provider at the intersection of regulatory, risk, finance and supervisory technology, today announced the completion of its acquisition of Moody’s Regulatory Reporting & ALM Solutions business. The transaction expands Regnology’s solution portfolio with Moody’s comprehensive capabilities covering Basel III compliance, IFRS 9 impairment, large‑bank asset and liability management (ALM), Solvency II insurance reporting, and prudential and statistical regulatory reporting. The transaction closes at a pivotal inflection point. Financial institutions face intensifying regulatory scrutiny, growing data complexity, and rising expectations for governance and auditability, while advances in artificial intelligence are creating new opportunities to modernize control frameworks and operating models. Regnology is responding by accelerating its Straight-Through Reporting (STR) vision and leveraging the combined capabilities of the transaction to deliver more resilient, transparent, and efficient frameworks across the regulatory, risk, and finance functions. For clients transitioning from Moody’s, Regnology’s foremost commitment is to business continuity and service excellence, supported by a global team of more than 2,500 professionals, including over 1,000 dedicated regulatory, risk, and service specialists. Rob Mackay, Chief Executive Officer of Regnology said: “The completion of this transaction is a powerful catalyst for advancing our ambition to build the compliance operating system of the future and to break down traditional silos between Chief Risk Officers and Chief Financial Officers. By combining expanded functional coverage with deep regulatory expertise and modern, governed technology, we are uniquely positioned to help institutions strengthen control frameworks, increase transparency, and turn compliance into a source of insight and confidence.” The combined solutions will strengthen and extend Regnology’s existing best‑of‑breed solution lines, including Regnology Reporting Hub (RRH), Regnology Risk Hub (RRiH), and Regnology Finance Hub (RFH), enhancing coverage across regulatory reporting, finance, risk, capital, liquidity, and ALM. As these solution lines are progressively onboarded onto Ascend, Regnology’s next‑generation, modular, cloud‑native platform, they will benefit from the platform’s shared services, scale and operational resilience, while retaining their domain‑specific strengths. This approach builds on Regnology’s proven, battle-tested ability to deliver transformation at scale while preserving continuity. The recently introduced RGI governed intelligence layer further strengthens Ascend by enabling a scalable, governed environment where data, intelligence, and workflows converge, reducing fragmentation and manual intervention across the regulatory lifecycle. Looking ahead, Regnology will continue to invest in talent, platform innovation, and AI to meet the evolving regulatory demands of global financial markets.

Siepe, a trusted provider of software and technology-enabled services for alternative investment and credit managers, today announced the integration of its Order Management System with Octaura, an electronic trading platform for syndicated loans and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), enabling straight-through order routing, execution, and trade booking of leveraged loans and structured finance.  Through the integration, users can originate trade orders directly within Siepe’s OMS and route them to Octaura for execution. Executed trades automatically flow back into Siepe’s OMS as fully booked transactions with confirmed prices, quantities, and settlement details. This straight-through workflow removes the operational burden many fund managers face from having to manually re-enter trades and chase reconciliation, while reducing the operational risk that comes with it. By enabling direct access to Octaura from the same blotter that traders already use, Siepe’s integration provides one-click access to live venue liquidity without requiring new tools, workflows or custom implementation projects. As a result, traders can seamlessly execute and move on to the next trade, while operations teams receive clean, allocated trades in real time. “As loan and CLO markets continue to grow and become more electronic, managers need access to technology solutions that can help navigate this evolving landscape and complexity,” said Michael Pusateri, CEO and Founder of Siepe. “By integrating our OMS with Octaura, we’re delivering streamlined, end‑to‑end workflows with greater data accuracy and direct access to electronic liquidity – without traders needing to change how they work or rely on bespoke builds.” “Connecting with Siepe’s OMS will enable a smoother, more streamlined trading experience for market participants across the loan and CLO ecosystem,” added Vitaliy Kozak, Chief Product Officer and Head of Insights at Octaura. “This integration supports the continued modernization of trading in these markets by improving electronic connectivity and access to execution.” The integration is now available to Octaura users and Siepe OMS clients, reflecting both firms' ongoing commitment to a unified electronic execution layer. As Siepe brings new venues online, clients can scale their trading operations with accelerating electronic adoption across loan and CLO markets. 

ASIC is seeking feedback on its proposal to remake a legislative instrument to allow Australian Financial Services (AFS) licensees to pay clients’ money into a cash common fund. ASIC Corporations (Client money - Cash common funds) Instrument 2016/671 is due to expire on 1 October 2026. ASIC is proposing to remake this instrument because we have assessed the instrument is operating effectively and continues to form a necessary and useful part of the legislative framework. The effect of this instrument will remain unchanged when remade. Providing feedback Submissions should be sent to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au by 5 pm AEST on Tuesday 19 May 2026. Background Instrument 2016/671 enables client money received by an AFS licensee to be deposited into a cash common fund if the fund is also a registered scheme. It gives flexibility to licensees in dealing with client money while retaining the consumer protections provided by s981B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act). This instrument extended the relief that was provided in ASIC Class Order [CO 04/1063]. Download CS 52 ASIC proposes to remake legislative instrument in relation to client money held in cash common funds

NZX today announced that director Peter Jessup will retire from the Board in November. Sydney-based Mr Jessup informed the NZX Board of his decision last night after taking up an employment role at ASX. Chair John McMahon acknowledged the positive contribution Mr Jessup has made after more than four years on the Board, which followed his appointment to the NZX Technology Committee a year earlier. “Peter has been a highly valued member of the NZX Board, bringing more than 35 years’ specialist financial markets technology and capital markets expertise to the table,” Mr McMahon says. “His skills and knowledge in trading, surveillance, clearing, depository and settlement systems have been vital to ensuring NZX continues to maintain and invest in the right people, processes and technology fundamental to the effective running of markets.” Mr McMahon says the Board has agreed that Mr Jessup remain an NZX director until 30 November 2026, with existing conflict management processes in place noting that Mr Jessup is not in an ASX management role or involved in their strategic business decisions. Prior to his appointment at ASX, Mr Jessup’s extensive career includes roles as a capital markets consultant with Accenture, leading the Market Infrastructure Business Development team at LSEG and as Senior Vice President at Nasdaq’s Global Technology Services group. Earlier he worked for NZSE (New Zealand Stock Exchange, before it became NZX), where he played a key role in automation of the exchange, including the implementation of electronic settlement and automated trading technology.

Please see attached NZX Limited shareholder metrics for April 2026. Downloads NZX Shareholder Metrics - April 2026

Trading – Cash Markets (including equities, interest rate and ETP trades) In April 2026, the average daily number of trades was up 16% on the pcp. The average daily value traded on-market of $7.524 billion was up 1% on the pcp.  Volatility (as measured by the average daily movement in the All Ordinaries Index) was 0.6% in April, compared to 1.3% in the pcp.  Future volatility (as measured by the S&P/ASX 200 VIX) in April was an average of 14.2, down 11% on pcp. Click here for full details.

ASIC is seeking feedback on a proposal to remake two legislative instruments that provide relief from dollar disclosure and certain Australian financial services (AFS) licensing requirements for a period of five years. The legislative instruments, which will expire on 1 October 2026 are: ASIC Corporations (Disclosure in Dollars) Instrument 2016/767 (ASIC Instrument 2016/767), and ASIC Corporations (Financial Product Advice – Exempt Documents) Instrument 2016/356 (ASIC Instrument 2016/356). ASIC is proposing minor and technical changes to both instruments to improve clarity and consistency. We are proposing to also extend the dollar disclosure exemptions in ASIC Instrument 2016/767 to certain risk products provided by discretionary mutual funds. Providing feedback Please send your submissions to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au by 5pm AEST on 1 June 2026. Refer to CS 51 Proposed remake of relief from dollar disclosure reporting and AFS licensing requirements for general advice in certain exempt documents. Background ASIC Instrument 2016/767 provides exemptions from requirements to disclose in a Product Disclosure Statement, Statement of Advice or periodic statement certain information in Australian dollars, which would otherwise be required by provisions in Parts 7.7 and 7.9 of the Corporations Act 2001. The instrument does not currently provide these exemptions for discretionary risk products issued by discretionary mutual funds. ASIC Instrument 2016/356 provides licensing relief to entities that give general advice for financial products in certain documents. These include explanatory statements for foreign schemes of arrangements, and offer documents for control transactions, that are regulated in a specified foreign market.  

Introduction The economic landscape under the Trump Administration is favorable, supported by robust business investment in equipment and intellectual property products, as well as solid household consumption growth.  Moreover, data on investments, sales, and earnings indicate that the economy is poised for continued expansion.  Business investment rose by over 10% in the first quarter of 2026 (1Q26), driven by investments in new equipment and intellectual property. On the labor side, employment growth in early 2026 underscores labor market resilience.  Average monthly private payroll growth surged in 1Q26 to over 2.5 times above the monthly average in 2025.  Importantly, worker wages continue to outpace inflation, even despite elevated price levels associated with the Iranian conflict.  Despite recent shifts in energy costs due to the Iran conflict nudging headline inflation the U.S. economy is more resilient to fluctuations in energy prices due to increased U.S. oil production and supply augmentation by releases from the strategic petroleum reserves.  The United States is the world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas and a net exporter of both, cushioning supply shocks and strengthening energy resilience and dependence.  This status should help inflation come down quickly following the cessation of conflict with Iran. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Real GDP growth accelerated to 2.0% at an annual rate in 1Q26, rebounding from the 0.5% growth at the end of 2025.  The pick-up in the first quarter largely reflected faster growth in business fixed investment (BFI), recovery from the federal shutdown in 4Q25, and slower drawdown in private inventories (see Table 1 – Real Gross Domestic Product). Growth of BFI quadrupled in 1Q26, making the largest contribution to growth of any component at 1.4 percentage points.   Investment in real business equipment rose at a 17.2% rate in 1Q26, driven largely by increases in information processing equipment. Intellectual property products increased at a 13.0% rate, reflecting an acceleration in software investment. Although structures investment declined overall, investment in data centers jumped over 22% (annualized) over the quarter. These investments are policy driven and bode well for future productivity enhancements and growth.  Personal consumption of goods and services (PCE) was relatively stable in the first quarter, contributing 1.1 percentage points to overall GDP growth.  PCE growth reflected an increase in services consumption, particularly health care services, whereas inflation-adjusted purchases of goods were flat. Residential investment, the final component of PDFP, contracted moderately in the first quarter, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of decline.  The decrease was led by a decline in the construction of single-family residences and a drop in brokers’ commissions on sales of new and existing homes. Brokers’ commissions have seen offsetting growth since 3Q23. Overall, private domestic final demand (PDFP) rose at a solid rate in the final quarter of 2025 (4Q25), attesting to underlying momentum in the domestic economy.  PDFP—composed of personal consumption expenditures (PCE), BFI, and residential investment—captures the most stable and persistent components of economic growth and can be useful for assessing the economy’s future path.  This category added 2.2 percentage points (percentage points) to topline real GDP growth, materially above the fourth quarter’s 1.6 percentage point contribution. Of the remaining main components of GDP, government spending and the change in private inventories made positive contributions to economic growth in the first quarter, while the drag from net exports increased as imports grew faster than exports.  The end of the 4Q25 federal shutdown led to a rebound in federal expenditures, and the state and local government sector added 0.7 percentage points to growth.    Labor Markets Labor markets have stabilized or improved in recent months, with job growth picking up and the unemployment rate ticking lower (see Table 2 – Labor Market Indicators).  In addition, the headline labor force participation rate (LFPR), as well as prime age (ages 25 to 54) LFPR, were stable at high levels during 1Q26, and the job openings count turned higher. In 1Q26, the pace of net total (private and public) job creation accelerated sharply, reflecting a strong pick-up in private sector hiring.  During the final two months of 2025, net job growth averaged 12,000 per month before jumping up to an average of 68,000 per month. Net private-sector job creation remains positive; from a pace of 26,000 in 4Q25, average job growth more than tripled to 79,000 per month in 1Q26. Less drag from federal government payrolls also contributed to the pickup in total job creation.  The end of the Deferred Resignation Program yielded an outsized drop in federal payroll jobs in 4Q25 after the end of the federal fiscal year (September), which led to a sizeable, single-quarter drop in federal employment. Net job growth in 1Q26 was more than sufficient to keep the unemployment rate relatively stable.  In 1Q26, the unemployment rate declined to an average of 4.3% per month – in line with the 2025 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office of the non-cyclical unemployment rate (the rate of unemployment that is consistent with stable inflation and excludes fluctuations in aggregate demand). Total labor force participation eased in 1Q26, held down by demographic pressures and immigration enforcement.  The overall LFPR eased to an average 62.0% in 1Q26, after rising to an average 62.5% per month in November and December 2025 (the average rate during the first half of 2025). Nonetheless, the LFPR among prime-age workers strengthened further, ticking up to an average of 83.9% in 1Q26 – or 0.8 percentage points above the previous business cycle peak in January 2020.  Among prime-age men, the LFPR averaged 89.6% per month, matching the monthly average in 4Q25. In addition, the LFPR for prime-age women rose 0.2 percentage points to an average 78.4% per month in 1Q26.  Notably, prime-age women’s LFPR reached an all-time high of 78.5% in March 2026 (series dates from January 1948). The participation rate among those aged 55 or older eased in 1Q26, consistent with broader demographic trends.  The 55 or older LFPR averaged 37.3% per month, the lowest quarterly reading since mid-2005. Another measures of labor demand improved at the margin in 1Q26.  Average monthly job openings had declined throughout 2025, dropping to an average of 6.9 million job openings per month in 4Q25.  However, in the first two months of 2026 (latest data available), job openings increased to an average 7.1 million per month, and the ratio of job openings edged up slightly to an average 0.95 per month.  Other indicators point to stable labor markets as well: the layoffs rate remains stable and low, initial unemployment claims remain exceptionally low by historical standards, and the hires rate has remained remarkably stable for over two years. Workers realized strong nominal wage growth.  Average hourly earnings (AHE) for all employees were up 3.5% over the year ending in March 2026, continuing the easing trend that started in 2Q25.  Adjusted for inflation, real AHE for all employees was 0.3% higher over the year. Meanwhile, the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for all private workers, which includes wages, salaries, and benefits and controls for compositional changes and other biases that may be present in AHE, rose 3.4% over the year ending in March 2026. Because year-over-year labor productivity growth ranged between 2.0% and 2.5% throughout 2025, wage growth is almost certainly not a driver of inflationary pressures at this time—and likely is disinflationary. Inflation As of March 2026, twelve-month core CPI inflation, which excludes the volatile components of food and energy, was 2.6%, moderating from the 2.8% rate over the year through March 2025. From a monthly average of 0.1% in 4Q25, core inflation ticked up slightly to an average 0.2% per month in the latest quarter.  Over the twelve months through March 2026, the core inflation rate was 2.6%, slowing from the 2.8%, year-earlier rate. Monthly core goods prices ticked up to a monthly average of 0.1% in 1Q26, after a flat reading in 4Q25.  On a twelve-month basis core goods inflation was 1.2% through March 2026. Inflation for rent of housing services (rent of primary residence and owners’ equivalent rent) was stubbornly elevated between May 2023 through 2024.  In 4Q25, rent of housing inflation slowed to an average 0.1% per month but ticked up slightly to 0.2% in the latest quarter.  Nonetheless, over the year through March 2026, rent of housing inflation was just 3.0%, the slowest pace since September 2021 and below the pre-pandemic average of 3.3%. Inflation for non-housing core services slowed significantly in 4Q25, averaging 0.1% per month, but accelerated again in 1Q26 to an average 0.4% per month.  This reflected fluctuations in medical services prices and higher airfares.  Over the year through March 2026, non-housing core services inflation was 3.1%, up from the 2.9%, year-earlier rate.   Due in part to recent fluctuations in energy prices arising from the conflict with Iran, headline CPI inflationary pressures increased in 1Q26. As of March 2026, twelve-month CPI inflation – as measured by the headline consumer price index (CPI) – was 3.3%, up from the 2.4% annual rate through March 2025.  Average monthly inflation also accelerated: average headline inflation was 0.4% per month in 1Q26, up from 0.2% in 4Q25 (see Table 3 – Inflation Indicators). CPI inflation for energy goods and services averaged 3.2% per month in 1Q26, following a monthly average of 0.6% in 4Q25.  On a twelve-month basis, energy price inflation was 12.5% through March 2026, contrasting with a 3.3% decline a year earlier. Food price inflation was stable at 0.2% in 1Q26, matching the previous quarter’s monthly average.  On a twelve-month basis, however, food price inflation was 2.7% through March 2026, slowing from 3.0% over the year through March 2025.  The slower twelve-month rate reflects receding price pressures from beef, coffee, and eggs, but overall, food price inflation remains broadly elevated. The category of food away from home remains persistently elevated: since mid-2024, it has fluctuated in a range of 3.6-4.0% and, over the year through March 2026, stood at 3.8%.   Inflation as measured by the PCE price index has notable differences in weights and methodologies versus the CPI.  Over the past 20 years, twelve-month CPI inflation has exceeded PCE inflation by about 0.35 percentage points on average.  Over the year through March 2026, the headline PCE price index was 3.5%, 1.1 percentage points above the 2.4% pace over the year through March 2025—though fluctuations in energy prices were a large contributor to the PCE inflation pick up.  The Federal Reserve’s target for PCE inflation is 2%. Risks to the Outlook Looking ahead to the next few quarters, the outlook for the U.S. economy is favorable.  On balance, economists view the risk of a recession as relatively low.  According to The Wall Street Journal’s survey of economists in April, the average probability of a recession in the next twelve months was just 33%, up modestly from the January survey.  Both upside and downside risks persist, some of which we discuss below. Energy prices and geopolitical uncertainty: Geopolitical uncertainty remains an upside risk to the medium-term inflation outlook.  Energy prices are one of the most fluctuating categories of inflation, and growth through March alone contributed over a quarter of annual headline inflation.  The timing, duration, and magnitude of energy price swings adds upside risk to inflation for other consumer goods and services – such as food (through fertilizer and fuel for farming equipment) and airfares – adding uncertainty to the medium run inflation outlook.   Importantly, the Trump Administration’s policies have made the U.S. economy more resilient to fluctuations in global oil prices.  Average domestic crude oil production in 2025 rose by 350,000 barrels per day relative to the 2024 average.  The United States is now the world’s largest producer of petroleum products and natural gas, and it is a net exporter of both.    Labor markets: Labor markets appear to be in balance, and Treasury is monitoring private-sector labor market developments closely.  Data suggest that both labor supply and demand softened similarly in 2025, leading to low hires / low fires environment—that is, soft hiring has not been accompanied by a sharp rise in unemployment.  This is likely due to a lower breakeven rate of payroll job growth.   From mid-2024 to January 2025, private sector hires rates were relatively flat, ranging from 3.5-3.8%, comparable to the slow recovery early-2010 to early-2014.  Although the private hires rate fell to 3.3% in February, the private layoff rates remained historically low.  With modest hiring but low layoff rates, firms appear to be shedding labor via attrition and using productivity growth to drive output.  Further supporting evidence for the continued balance in the labor market is the stable, low levels of initial and continuing jobless claims.   Artificial intelligence (AI): Investment in artificial intelligence has been a significant driver of economic growth in recent quarters.  Throughout 2025, AI-driven investment (BFI in software, computers and hardware, and data center structures relative to pre-LLM trends) accounted for over a third of GDP growth.  The contribution picked up in 1Q26, with roughly half of GDP growth due to AI-driven investment.   Firms’ continued investment in artificial intelligence is likely to lead to efficiency gains, particularly in service-sector industries where productivity growth has been slower. However, the timeline and magnitude of productivity gains is uncertain, as is the ultimate effect on the composition of labor markets.  If the integration of artificial intelligence acts as a standard technology improvement, productivity growth could return to historical norms after a period of above-trend growth.  On the other hand, artificial intelligence could prove transformational and permanently upshift the path of productivity as it enables workers to build skills and human capital faster than in the past.  Artificial intelligence also could have disruptive impacts on the economy and labor markets.  Firms that are slow to adapt could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, as could workers who delay incorporating artificial intelligence to improve their own skills’ growth and productivity.     Private credit: Private credit does not appear to be a significant risk to financial stability, redemption requests have recently exceeded private credit firms’ internal limits, and shares for several of the largest private credit firms declined since the beginning of the year.  Treasury continues to monitor market developments closely, and to engage proactively and regularly with market participants.       Conclusion The U.S. economy remains resilient, and the outlook is favorable. Robust business investment in equipment and intellectual property products, particularly related to AI, and steady household consumption growth remain the key drivers of economic growth. Job growth has picked up and the unemployment rate is at or near estimates of full employment.  And although inflation has recent shifted, the U.S. economy is resilient to fluctuations in energy prices because of increased oil production, and energy prices should recede following the cessation of conflict in Iran.   The Trump Administration’s has successfully stewarded major fiscal legislation to prevent a historic tax increase.  The Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that pro-growth provisions in the law are expected to increase real GDP by 4.6-4.9% in the first four years of implementation.   Indeed, businesses are saying now is a good time to expand and invest in America, presaging accelerated economic growth as the private sector leads.  Investment data suggest that the economy is in the early stages of a policy-driven capital expenditures surge.  As a result, we should expect product development, product deployment, and ultimately increases in productivity and macroeconomic growth to increase in the future.   Accordingly, trillions of dollars of investments in U.S. manufacturing, production, and innovation have been announced, reflecting global confidence in the United States as a destination to invest.  This policy-driven cap ex boom is made possible by the Administration’s policies allowing full expensing of equipment and R&D, tariffs and reshoring incentives, and deregulation.  The combined policies of the Trump Administration, both enacted and planned, provide a solid foundation to economic growth and will bring prosperity to all Americans.    Table 1 - Real Gross Domestic Product   Contribution to GDP Growth(percentage points) 2025Q3 2025Q4 2024Q4/Q4 2025Q4/Q4 Real GDP Growth (Δ%, annual rate) 0.5 2.0 2.4 2.0 Private Domestic Final Purchases 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.0 Personal Consumption Expenditures 1.3 1.1 2.3 1.4 Business Fixed Investment 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.7 Residential Investment -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Total Government Purchases -1.0 0.7 0.6 -0.2 Net Exports -0.2 -1.3 -0.5 0.4 Change in Private Inventories 0.1 0.4 -0.2 -0.2 Source. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product, First Quarter 2026 (Advanced Estimate). Table 2 - Labor Market Indicators Establishment Survey Average Monthly Change 2025 Q4 2026 Q1 CY 2024 CY 2025 Total Payroll Employment -39 68 122 10 Private Sector 26 79 85 25 Government -65 -11 36 -15 Household Survey Monthly Average 2025 Nov & Dec 2026 Q1 CY 2024 CY 2025 Unemployment Rate 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.3 Labor Force Participation Rate 62.5 62.0 62.6 62.4 Prime-Age (25–54) 83.8 83.9 83.6 83.6 JOLTS Monthly Average 2025 Q4 2026 Jan-Feb CY 2024 CY 2025 Job Openings 6.9 7.1 7.7 7.1 Vacancies per Unemployed 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 Sources. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2026. Table 3 - Inflation Indicators Inflation Avg Monthly Change 12-Month Change 2025 Q4 2026 Q1 2025 Mar 2026 Mar CPI 0.18 0.43 2.4 3.3 Foods 0.25 0.19 3.0 2.7 Energy 0.58 3.21 -3.3 12.5 Sources. BLS CPI March 2026; BEA PCE.

The Board of Directors of TMX Group Limited today declared a dividend of $0.24 on each common share outstanding. This dividend is payable on June 5, 2026 to shareholders of record at the close of business on May 22, 2026. TMX Group hereby advises that this dividend is designated as an "eligible dividend" for Canadian income tax purposes. TMX Group Limited Declares Dividend of $0.24 per Common Share

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Market Oversight and Division of Clearing and Risk today announced they have taken a no-action position regarding swap data reporting and recordkeeping regulations.  The divisions will not recommend the Commission initiate an enforcement action against Railbird Exchange, LLC, a designated contract market, and Bitnomial Clearinghouse, LLC, a derivatives clearing organization, or their participants for failure to comply with certain swap-related recordkeeping requirements and for failure to report to swap data repositories data associated with fully collateralized event contract transactions executed on or subject to the rules of Railbird and cleared through Bitnomial.  Additionally, the supplemental letter removes the condition in CFTC Letter No. 25-26 that prohibited Railbird’s participants from clearing contracts through a third-party clearing member. This no-action position is subject to the terms of the no-action letter issued today.  This position is in response to a request from Railbird and Bitnomial, to modify CFTC Letter No. 25-26 to cover transactions cleared through Bitnomial and remove the condition prohibiting third-party clearing by participants.   RELATED LINKS CFTC Staff Letter No. 26-13

Since Congress enacted the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (the “SECURE Act”),[1] the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has received inquiries about how pooled employer plans should be treated under the Federal securities laws. Pooled employer plans, sometimes referred to as “PEPs,” are a type of defined contribution retirement plan created by Congress under the SECURE Act. Pooled employer plans permit multiple, unrelated employers to join a single retirement plan and offer retirement benefits to their employees through the plan, subject to the requirements in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”).[2] Different types of employers may participate in a pooled employer plan, including employers with one or more employees that are “self-employed individuals” as defined in section 401(c)(1) of the Code.[3] The staff of the Division of Investment Management (the “staff”) is thus providing its views regarding the applicability of (i) the “single trust exclusion” in section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”) to pooled employer plans, and (ii) rule 180 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) to interests in collective investment trusts (“CITs”) maintained by a bank and issued to those pooled employer plans that cover self-employed individuals. Applicability of the “Single Trust Exclusion” in Section 3(c)(11) to Pooled Employer Plans In order to avoid regulation as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, employee benefit plans often rely on the exclusion from the definition of “investment company” in section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act for “[a]ny employee's...profit-sharing trust which meets the requirements for qualification under section 401 of [the Code]…” commonly referred to as the “single trust exclusion.”[4] Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act includes a similarly-worded exemption under the Securities Act for interests in what are commonly referred to as “single trusts.”[5] Staff of the Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance have historically interpreted the single trust provisions in both Acts as referring to the same type of trust,[6] specifically:  a trust fund for employees of a single employer; a trust fund for employees of employers so closely related as to be regarded as a single employer (e.g., a parent and its subsidiaries); and a trust fund established and controlled by employers and/or a union representing the employees of such employers.[7] Pooled employer plans do not fall into any of these categories because a pooled employer plan is typically structured as a trust fund for employees of multiple, unrelated employers. As discussed above, however, Congress enacted the SECURE Act to, among other things, remove legal barriers preventing the broader use of multiple employer plans.[8] For this reason, Congress, among other actions, amended ERISA and the Code to treat pooled employer plans as single employer plans for purposes of those statutes.[9] Accordingly, the staff would not object if a pooled employer plan treats itself as a single employer plan for purposes of the Investment Company Act and relies on the single trust exclusion in section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act to avoid registration as an investment company; provided that the pooled employer plan: (i) is subject to ERISA; and (ii) meets all of the requirements of the relevant section of the Code referenced in section 3(c)(11).[10] Applicability of Rule 180 to Interests in CITs Issued to Certain Pooled Employer Plans Many pooled employer plans offer CITs as investment options to employers participating in the plan and their employees. CITs typically do not register the offer and sale of their interests under section 5 of the Securities Act in reliance on the exemption in section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act.[11] However, CITs that accept assets from plans covering “self-employed individuals” as defined in the Code cannot rely on the exemption in section 3(a)(2). Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act exempts from registration requirements of the Act interests issued in connection with certain qualified employee benefit plans. Section 3(a)(2), however, does not apply to interests in plans covering self-employed individuals, as defined in section 401(c)(1) of the Code, or to interests in CITs and separate accounts that fund such plans. As a result, CITs that accept such assets may seek to rely on rule 180 under the Securities Act to avoid registering their interests under the Act. Rule 180 exempts from registration any interest or participation in a CIT issued to an employee benefit plan that covers self-employed individuals; provided that the plan and issuer meet the criteria set forth in the rule. Among other criteria,[12] rule 180(a)(2) requires that “[t]he plan covers only employees of a single employer or employees of interrelated partnerships.” Additionally, rule 180(a)(3), commonly referred to as the rule’s “sophistication requirement,” generally requires that the issuer have reasonable grounds to believe that the employer has (or obtains advice from a certain person or entity reflecting) “knowledge and experience in financial and business matters” so the interests of the employer and its employees are adequately represented.[13] The staff has been made aware that sponsors of CITs have interpreted rule 180 as being unavailable to interests issued to pooled employer plans that cover self-employed individuals, because such plans cover multiple, unrelated employers (which is seemingly inconsistent with the requirement in rule 180(a)(2)) and CITs are uncertain as to how they can satisfy the rule’s sophistication requirement with respect to these plans.[14] As a result, pooled employer plans covering self-employed individuals generally do not have access to investments in CITs.[15] This interpretation also may cause pooled employer plans to exclude employers with self-employed individuals from joining the plan to retain the pooled employer plan’s ability to include CITs as plan investment options.[16] As discussed above, Congress adopted the SECURE Act to expand the ability of small employers, including self-employed individuals, to participate in pooled employer plans and benefit from the economies of scale such plans provide.[17] Accordingly, in the staff’s view, it is reasonable to similarly treat pooled employer plans as single employer plans for purposes of rule 180(a)(2). For these reasons, the staff would not object if a CIT issues interests to a pooled employer plan that covers self-employed persons without registering the offer and sale of the CIT’s interests under section 5 of the Securities Act in reliance on rule 180; provided that the plan: (i) is subject to ERISA; and (ii) the issuance meets all of the requirements in rule 180(a)(1) and (a)(3). The staff understands that ERISA requires the pooled plan provider to provide most of the administrative and fiduciary responsibilities with respect to that plan, effectively assuming the role of the employer.[18] As such, the staff takes the view that a CIT may apply the rule’s sophistication requirement with respect to the plan’s pooled plan provider, rather than any employer, to confirm that the provider is able to adequately represent the interests of plan participants.[19] We note that CIT interests eligible to rely on rule 180 remain subject to the Securities Act’s anti-fraud provisions.[20] In addition, our position in this statement applies equally to any other investment option issued to a pooled employer plan that would otherwise qualify for the rule 180 exemption, including any interest or participation in a single trust fund or any security arising out of a contract issued by an insurance contract. Further, this statement focuses on the availability of rule 180 to interests in CITs issued to certain pooled employer plans, not on the interests in pooled employer plans issued to participants. For those interests, a pooled employer plan—like any other employee benefit plan—may rely on available exemptions from the Securities Act’s registration requirements, including rule 180(b), provided the plan satisfies the conditions of the applicable exemption. This staff statement represents the views of the staff of the Division of Investment Management.[21] It is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This staff statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person. Future changes in rules, regulations, and/or the staff’s no‑action and interpretive positions may supersede some or all of the information in a particular staff statement. If you have any questions about this statement, please contact the Division of Investment Management’s Chief Counsel’s Office at IMOCC@sec.gov.   [1] The SECURE Act was enacted as Division O of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94) (Dec. 20, 2019). [2] See section 3(43)(A) of ERISA (defining a pooled employer plan generally as “an individual account plan established or maintained for the purpose of providing benefits to the employees of two or more employers”); section 413(e) of the Code (outlining qualification requirements applicable to pooled employee plans). [3] For purposes of this staff statement, “self-employed individuals” has the same meaning as the definition in section 401(c)(1) of the Code, which generally includes employees who receive net earnings from self-employment, such as sole proprietors or partners who work for their own businesses. See section 401(c)(1) of the Code. [4] An employee benefit plan that meets the definition of “investment company” under section 3(a)(1) in the Investment Company Act must register as an investment company unless an exclusion, such as the single trust exclusion in section 3(c)(11), or an exemption applies. [5] See section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (exempting from registration “any interest or participation in a single trust fund… issued in connection with (A) a stock bonus, pension, or profit-sharing plan which meets the requirements for qualification under section 401 of [the Code]”). [6] See Employee Benefit Plans, Release No. 33-6188 (Feb. 1, 1980) (“Release 33-6188”) (setting forth the views of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance concerning the application of the registration provisions of the Securities Act to interests in employee benefit plans and noting that section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act was the model upon which the single trust exemption in section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act was based); see also Communications Workers of America Savings and Retirement Trust, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Jan. 27, 1980) (stating the staff’s views that, given the similar statutory language, the single trust exclusion in section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act refers to the same type of trust as that described in the single trust exemption in section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act). [7] See Release 33-6188 (stating the staff’s view that each of these would be considered a single trust for purposes of section 3(a)(2)). Staff stated similar views on the single trust exclusion in section 3(c)(11) in a series of no-action letters. See e.g., The E.W. Scripps Company, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Jan. 5, 1983) (discussing the staff’s position that a trust covering employees of various related employers could rely on the single trust exclusion in section 3(c)(11), but a trust covering employees of various unrelated employers could not). [8] See SECURE Act of 2019, Report of the Committee on Ways and Means, H. Rept. 116–65, part 1, May 16, 2019, available at https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/116th-congress/house-report/65/1 (“2019 Report”) (noting that the SECURE Act modifies certain requirements “to make it easier for small businesses to offer such plans to their employees by allowing otherwise completely unrelated employers to join in the same plan”); see also Scott Retirement Security Report, U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging (Oct. 2021), available at https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Scott_Retirement_Security_Report_10.28.21.pdf (noting that the SECURE Act established pooled employer plans “[t]o help bridge the access gap in employer-provided retirement plans…[by]allowing unrelated small businesses to join together and provide retirement savings options without some of the costs, administrative burdens, and liability attached to sponsoring a plan on their own.”). [9] See SECURE Act (e.g., amending section 3(2) of ERISA to treat a pooled employer plan as “a single employee pension benefit plan or single pension plan…” and amending section 413 of the Code to permit a pooled employer plan to keep its tax-qualified status under certain circumstances). [10] See section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act (limiting the single trust exclusion to “[a]ny employee's...profit-sharing trust which meets the requirements for qualification under section 401 of [the Code] …”). [11] CITs typically do not register as investment companies under the Investment Company Act by relying on the exclusion in section 3(c)(11) of the Act for collective trust funds maintained by a bank consisting solely of assets of certain types of employee benefit plans. See section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act. [12] For example, rule 180(a)(1) generally requires that: (i) the plan covers self-employed individuals; and (ii) is either (a) a pension or profit-sharing plan that qualifies under section 401 of the Code, or (b) an annuity plan that meets the requirements for deduction of the employer’s contribution under section 404(a)(2) of the Code. [13] Rule 180(a)(3) generally requires that the issuer “have reasonable grounds to believe and, after making reasonable inquiry, shall believe immediately prior to any issuance” that the employer is able to adequately represent its interests and those of its employees because either: (i) the employer is a law firm, accounting firm, investment banking firm, pension consulting firm or investment advisory firm engaged in providing services that involve knowledge and experience in financial and business matters; or (ii) the employer obtains advice from an unaffiliated person/entity that has knowledge and expertise in financial and business matters. [14] More specifically, CITs are unsure whether they may assess the sophistication of the pooled employer plan’s pooled plan provider, or whether they must assess the sophistication of each employer participating in the plan, because the sophistication requirement refers to “the employer.” [15] See e.g., letter from American Bankers Association (Sept. 24, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-19/s70819-6184363-192414.pdf (noting that “most CITs would continue to admit only [rule 180 qualified plans] in order to maintain the exemption from registering interests in the CIT under the [Securities Act]”). [16] See e.g., letter from Wilmington Trust (Jan. 6, 2020) available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-19/s70819-6611993-202936.pdf (noting that the restrictions of the rule “operate in a manner that does not protect persons who are self-employed, but interfere with and impede their eligibility to participate in [PEP] arrangements that invest in CITs”). [17] See supra note 8. [18] See section 3(44) of ERISA (defining pooled plan provider to mean a person that is designated by the terms of the plan as a named fiduciary under ERISA, as the plan administrator, and as the person responsible for the performance of all administrative duties that are reasonably necessary to ensure the pooled employer plan meets Code and ERISA requirements); Registration Requirements for Pooled Plan Providers, 85 FR 72934 (Nov. 16, 2020). [19] For the avoidance of doubt, the sophistication requirement may be applied to a pooled plan provider under either rule 180(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii). See generally Exemption from Registration of Interests and Participations Issued in Connection with Certain H.R.10 Plans, Release No. 33-636317 (Nov. 24, 1981) (“The Commission believes that the conditions incorporated in proposed rule 180 minimize the potential for abuse. By requiring (1) the plan cover only employees of a single employer or of interrelated partnerships and (2) the employers be sophisticated in financial matters or obtain expert advice, it is likely that the employers adopting [Keogh] plans will be able to protect their own interests as well as those of their employees. It is not unreasonable to rely on the sophisticated employer or the qualified expert to obtain all necessary information from sponsors of potential funding media prior to making any decision or recommendation affecting the disposition of the assets of the [Keogh] plan…[Rule 180] exempts only those issued to plans of employers which can be expected to provide adequate representation of the interests of plan participants.”). [20] See section 17(a) of the Securities Act. [21] This staff statement represents the views of the staff of the Division of Investment Management regarding the application of section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act and rule 180 under the Securities Act. It does not address any other provisions of the Federal securities laws. For the views of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance regarding the eligibility of pooled employer plans to claim the section 3(a)(2) exemption see Corporation Finance Interpretation 118.01 available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/corporation-finance-interpretations-cfis.

TMX Group Limited [TSX:X] ("TMX Group") announced results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2026. TMX Group Limited Reports Results for the First Quarter of 2026

Convergence is a clash – an inevitable tug-of-war between different forces. While geopolitical war takes center stage, AI, Crypto, and other emerging technologies are rapidly developing new frontiers to challenge traditional ways of living. Per this legendary IEA Report, “Any analysis which predicts the outcomes of a given policy will throw light on its desirability… Harm is reciprocal…” Which arrangement would yield the highest net value, avoid greater harm, and minimize frictions/ transaction costs for society? What are the early indicators? How to directionally predict and evaluate different available options to consider not only the BestEx but BATNA, i.e. the most advantageous course of action if no agreement is reached. Evolving or displaced: Hegemony and AI Amid the controversies surrounding Realpolitik, the US pragmatic approach helps ensure survival of the fittest. The IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings’ agenda is not contemporary, off-focus, or lack concrete solutions to ease conflicts. Everybody knows without their saying about economic uncertainty and risks of high global debt. In an unconcerted world, touting old-school, slogan-based diplomacy regarding international cooperation, energy supplies, and ESG does not ease conflicts. Self-interest prevails over altruism when people are asked to contribute resources and take risks for the greater good. Many worry about AI or the future taking our jobs. It is true: private investments that previously poured into SaaS is being disrupted by AI’s code-generation ability. But look, the piping to tokenize/ securitize, perfecting related valuations, and democratizing access to alternative investments are underway. The SEC and CFTC have proposed amendments to reduce private fund reporting burdens. In turn, more resources can be allocated to entrepreneurs to build toward this shared future. Reskilling is uncomfortable, yet countless professional athletes, capital market traders, and those who were overstressed and forced into early retirement have experienced it. Now, this challenge is spreading to the wider population amidst multiple rounds of layoffs across sectors and government. The only way to revive one’s career is to learn, unlearn, and relearn – embracing the surprising usefulness of useless knowledge. While many are short sightedly looking to profit from the commercialization of AI applications, the greater opportunity lies in plugging into the ecosystem that contributes to the advancement of AI/ quantum computing. Aggregation of Volumes and Mass Customization Price-time priority is undermined by initial bias (Exchanges optimally restricted access to price information). Many choose to collaborate with the Haves for outsourced execution rather than compete, when regulators did not do enough to rectify the latency arms race. The SEC proposal to ban volume-based pricing tiers has been withdrawn. Success is defined by picking side and plugging-in with large ecosystems. We are thankful that the voice of critics was ultimately heard. Not only did the SEC approve another modified version of CAT NMS Plan in March to further slash wastage by $50-70 million, but the April’s concept release also incorporated our ideas – such as analyzing data directly at the sources – to overhaul the outdated design, address civil liberties and privacy concerns, and petition for changes to the funding model. It is a tug-of-war where US banks ask for additional reliefs in Basel III endgame. Amid friction with the UK Bank of England, the FCA is weighing a move away from existing EU-derived rules for investment firms’ market risk capital requirements, aligning instead to the US “net risk” approach. Stablecoin issuers rather have no deals with policy makers unless they permit yield-bearing tokens. We recommend a “break-bulk exemption”, so small banks and credit unions can compete. Meanwhile, the higher-for-longer interest rate regime continues to pressure US recession trades. Rising stagflation risks and fractured bond-equity correlations are prompting investors to rethink classic hedges. Many are now actively seeking to insulate their portfolios from intensifying geopolitical shocks (e.g. currencies and trade wars). Line between trading and gambling is blurring when hard efforts in doing ordinary business have little to no payoff. Serendipity is the ability to capitalize on the unexpected The ability to predict the future drives productivity and economic growth. 0DTE Options now drive 59% of S&P 500 Index options (SPX) trading volume. When choosing between a 0DTE Protective Put and an Iron Condor the decision depends on whether one is hedging against a directional crash or seeking to offset the cost-of-waiting in a stagnant market. No doubt that the complexity of the Greeks (Gamma, Theta), Time Decay, and utilize high leverage is analogous to precision scalpels, i.e. may not be suitable for retail. Prediction Market (PM) is relatively cheaper and easier to navigate because of its breadth wide coverage of real-world outcomes and efficiency in aggregate information. Let go of prejudice. Prediction Markets are NOT NOVEL. Intellectual groundwork was laid by Economists who viewed markets as information processors since the 1940s-1970s. The Federal Reserve Board found PM’s performance better than Surveys of Market Expectations for forecasting macroeconomic data. Entities of all sizes can use PMs to predict, gauge, and/or project how their innovative products, services, or business models would be perceived in a live environment. Related Economic works should commence everyone’s respect in advancing societal development. Unlike securities markets defined by continuous price discovery, trading in PMs function as short-lived exposures to the “cause” while 0DTE Options provide exposure to the “effect.” The beauty of simultaneous hedging strategies is the decoupling of Event and Price Risk. Standard options disclosures deem insufficient to explain the all-or-nothing nature, illiquid, expiration timing, susceptibility to influence by a small group, etc. Disclaimer: Event contracts are not designed to track the underlying asset’s price movements. Rather, contract pricing reflects market-implied probabilities of specific outcomes, which may result in a basis risk or a lack of direct correlation with a participant’s underlying financial exposure. Synthesizing Crowd Wisdom with Computational Power Opposers cry fouls to speculative trading in PMs. Per this Whelan Paper, Favorite-longshot bias is the core problem that harms retail. Unconventional, or to some extent counter-intuitive, is – the empirical research suggests PM currently has too much friction. It starves out “healthy” speculators. Liquidity is a Catch-22, Makers widen spreads to protect against being “picked off”.  High fee-to-contract-value ratio prevent arbitrageurs from engaging in price improvement, failing to reduce the “stupid tax” or “overpriced lottery ticket effect” created by market operator. It is a Volume versus Integrity Paradox. We advocate for a Copyright Licensing mechanism to rebalance the “Information Tax”. This structure turns the zero-sum game into a Sovereign Information Hedging Utility (SIHU) aligning everyone’s “selfish” interests toward a “collective” public good. We hope more focus can be channeled toward the constructive fix of market designs (e.g. natural versus toxic liquidity, adverse selection, anti-masquerading, resolution mechanism, surveillance challenges, governance, stress and claw back, etc.) to make PMs a positive sum for risk hedging, market efficiency, growth, and financial stability.      Integrating intelligence about real-world probabilities enhances performance to manage uncertainty. It allows AI to move beyond deterministic “yes/no” outputs to more nuanced “shades of uncertainty,” making systems more robust in messy, real-world environments (noise handling, context awareness). The model requires less data to reach accuracy. Also, it is the “backbone” of quantum computing. AI models are now used to predict and correct “qubit noise.” Qubits exist in a superposition of states defined by probability amplitudes rather than fixed binary bits. Consider what insurance actuaries do – dealing with probabilities of event outcomes. Insurance contracts and Prediction Markets/ 0DTE Options’ event contracts both compete and complement each other. 98% Ò 99.9% incremental improvement is better than 85% Ò 90% because it is 95% error reductions vs just 33%. It is a race to reduce unknown unknowns. The availability of superior insurance products will be driven by a shift from reactive to preventive models, where risks are mitigated before they occur. Amid insurance is expected to remain a necessity, Quantum and pre-cognitive AI will fundamentally transform the industry (e.g. Actuarial roles are evolving from “number crunchers” to strategic risk managers). Stay tuned for our series of discussions on discerning between gaming and PMs (powers of two litmus test), applicability of certain CFTC’s CORE Principles, and the use of market ostracism (3 lines of defense) to deter bad actors/ foreign adversaries.    By Kelvin To, Founder and President of Data Boiler Technologies Data Boiler is a Pioneer in FinTech with patented inventions (US, Canada, Singapore, Japan, Australia, and 20 European countries) in signal processing, trade analytics, machine learning, time-lock cryptography, etc. We frequently comment on regulatory policy both domestically and abroad with over 12 years in business. A type C Member of the European Commission’s Data Expert Group + former committee of BITS (Bank Policy Institute).        

CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report has been updated, and is now available: http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.Additional information on the Weekly Swaps Report. Archive Explanatory Notes Swaps Report Data Dictionary Release Schedule Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today announced its current estimates of privately-held net marketable borrowing for the April–June 2026 and July–September 2026 quarters.  Sources and Uses Table During the April–June 2026 quarter, Treasury expects to borrow $189 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-June cash balance of $900 billion.  The borrowing estimate is $79 billion higher than announced in February 2026, primarily due to lower projected net cash flows, partially offset by the higher-than-assumed beginning-of-quarter cash balance.  Excluding the higher-than-assumed beginning-of-quarter cash balance, the current quarter borrowing estimate is $122 billion higher than announced in February. During the July–September 2026 quarter, Treasury expects to borrow $671 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-September cash balance of $950 billion. During the January–March 2026 quarter, Treasury borrowed $577 billion in privately-held  net marketable debt and ended the quarter with a cash balance of $893 billion.      In February 2026, Treasury estimated borrowing of $574 billion and assumed an end-of-March cash balance of $850 billion.  The $3 billion in higher privately-held net marketable borrowing resulted primarily from the higher-than-assumed end-of-quarter cash balance, partially offset by higher net cash flows.  Excluding the higher-than-assumed end-of-quarter cash balance, actual borrowing was $40 billion lower than announced in February.  Additional financing details relating to Treasury’s Quarterly Refunding will be released at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2026.  ###   Privately-held net marketable borrowing excludes rollovers (auction “add-ons”) of Treasury securities held in the SOMA but includes financing required due to SOMA redemptions.  Secondary market purchases of Treasury securities by SOMA do not directly change privately-held net marketable borrowing but, all else equal, when the securities mature and assuming the Federal Reserve does not redeem any maturing securities, would increase the amount of cash raised for a given privately-held auction size by increasing the SOMA “add-on” amount.  Additionally, buybacks are not expected to significantly affect privately-held net marketable borrowing as new issuance replaces securities that are bought back.  2 Cash Balance January - March Quarter April - June Quarter Assumptions Prior Current Change Prior Current Change Opening Balance $873 $873 $0 $850 $893 $43 Closing Balance $850 $893 $43 $900 $900 $0 Impact on Borrowing -$23 $20 $43 $50 $7 -$43  

Release Dates  RSS DDP  FRED Survey of up to eighty large domestic banks and twenty-four U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks. The Federal Reserve generally conducts the survey quarterly, timing it so that results are available for the January/February, April/May, August, and October/November meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee. The Federal Reserve occasionally conducts one or two additional surveys during the year. Questions cover changes in the standards and terms of the banks' lending and the state of business and household demand for loans. The survey often includes questions on one or two other topics of current interest. 2026 April* January 2025 October July April January 2024 October July April January 2023 October July April January 2022 October July April January 2021 October July April January 2020 October September July April January 2019 October July April January 2018 October July April January 2017 October July April January 2016 October July April January 2015 October July April January 2014 October July April January 2013 October July April January 2012 October July April January 2011 October July April January 2010 October July April January 2009 October July April January 2008 October July April January 2007 October July April January 2006 October July April January 2005 October July April January 2004 October July April January 2003 October August April January 2002 October August April January 2001 October August May March January 2000 November August May January   1999 November August May January   1998 November September August May January 1997 November August May January *Current Release

S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Top 10 Most Shorted Stocks in the United States, calculated using our Securities Finance data set, follows. The metric used to calculate the short interest is the percentage of outstanding shares on loan. *Please note: This was produced by S&P Global Market Intelligence, not S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released a list of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations that became public during the period of April 1, 2026, through April 30, 2026. Under the CRA, the OCC assesses an institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution. The list includes the national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks that have received CRA ratings. Possible ratings assigned are outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve, and substantial noncompliance. The CRA evaluations released are: InstitutionCityStateCRA Rating First National Bank Paragould AR Outstanding First National Bank of Commerce Walnut Ridge AR Satisfactory Colorado Federal Savings Bank Greenwood Village CO Satisfactory First Federal Savings Bank of Twin Falls Twin Falls ID Satisfactory Cornerstone National Bank & Trust Company Palatine IL Satisfactory MidAmerica National Bank Canton IL Satisfactory The First National Bank of Waterloo Waterloo IL Satisfactory First Shore Federal Savings & Loan Association Salisbury MD Outstanding County National Bank Hillsdale MI Satisfactory The Pennsville National Bank Pennsville NJ Satisfactory Community Bank, National Association Canton NY Satisfactory Maple City Savings Bank, Federal Savings Bank Hornell NY Outstanding Kingston National Bank Kingston OH Satisfactory National Cooperative Bank, National Association Hillsboro OH Outstanding The Merchants National Bank Hillsboro OH Satisfactory First National Bank and Trust Company of Ardmore Ardmore OK Satisfactory First National Bank of Tennessee Livingston TN Outstanding Amarillo National Bank Amarillo TX Outstanding Colonial Savings, F.A. Fort Worth TX Satisfactory Kleberg Bank, National Association Kingsville TX Satisfactory Texana Bank, National Association Linden TX Satisfactory   The OCC's website offers access to a searchable list of all public CRA evaluations issued since April 1996. The OCC also publishes a list of institutions to be examined for compliance with the CRA in the next two calendar quarters.

Last week, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), together with the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) and the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) co-hosted a roundtable that brought together senior representatives from audit firms, accounting professional bodies, standard setters, and regulators. The event provided an opportunity for participants to share perspectives on risks affecting audit quality and the importance of high-quality financial statement audits to maintaining Canada’s trusted and credible capital markets. The dialogue focused on emerging trends, the evolving risk environment, and ways to strengthen public confidence in financial reporting. Topics discussed this year included: Current and emerging risks and their implications for audit quality. Rapid technological developments, including Artificial Intelligence (AI). Governance, culture, and ethics within audit firms and across the reporting ecosystem. Fraud risks linked to financial crimes, geopolitical tensions, technological change, and third-party reliance. Expectations and challenges in auditing and assessing financial statement disclosures in a volatile environment. The roundtable underscored the importance of continued collaboration between regulators and the audit profession to support high-quality audits and maintain public trust in financial reporting across the Canadian capital markets. Key takeaways Canada’s financial system remains resilient, but a more complex and dynamic risk environment makes it essential to identify and prioritize the current and emerging risks that matter most.  External auditors play an essential role in maintaining integrity, trust, and confidence in financial reporting, particularly amid heightened uncertainty and expanding volumes of information. Regulatory coordination and clear guidance in relation to current and emerging risks help reduce regulatory overlap, promote strong risk management, and lay the groundwork for sustainable growth. Technology is advancing quickly. Areas like AI are changing how decisions are made—creating both opportunities and new risks. Regulators continue to modernize their approaches to keep pace, and audit firms are rapidly adopting new technologies that can enhance audit quality while keeping a high level of skepticism. Gaps in governance, culture, and ethics can lead to breaches in trust in any organization. Given that auditors play a key gatekeeper role, strong oversight, clear accountability, and ethical judgment are essential. As fraud becomes more sophisticated, organizations need to strengthen prevention and detection strategies. With management leading prevention efforts, and regulators and auditors applying a risk-focused lens, technology provides an opportunity to strengthen defences. Financial statement disclosures, particularly those involving estimates, judgments and uncertainty, remain an area where improvements are needed. Auditors play an important role in challenging the clarity and robustness of these disclosures to support better decision-making and reinforce market confidence. Quotes “High quality audits are essential to financial system resilience. As risks evolve, from technology to geopolitics to market uncertainty, strong collaboration between regulators and audit professionals helps ensure Canadians can continue to rely on transparent and trustworthy financial reporting.”- Peter Routledge, Superintendent of Financial Institutions “Strong audit quality depends on continuous dialogue and a shared understanding across the regulatory and audit ecosystem. Forums like this roundtable help ensure CPAB’s work remains responsive to emerging risks while staying firmly anchored in our mandate to protect investors and support confidence in Canada’s capital markets.”- Sonny Randhawa, CEO, Canadian Public Accountability Board “Today’s roundtable serves as an important forum for collaboration, enabling the CSA and the accounting profession to exchange views on emerging risks and further strengthen confidence in Canada’s capital markets. The CSA appreciates the significant collaboration with audit firms, other regulatory agencies, standard setters and professional bodies to date, and we look forward to building on this strong foundation.”- Stan Magidson, Chair of the Canadian Securities Administrators