January 2026 opened with continued global market volatility, driven by lingering geopolitical tensions and the threat of trade tariffs. Despite the tumultuous start, the FTSE Mondo Visione Index climbed 3.2%, closing the month at 96,985.19 points, up from December's 93,979.05 points.   Top 5 Exchanges by Market Capitalisation (USD bn) CME Group – 104.16   Intercontinental Exchange – 99.84   Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing – 70.16   London Stock Exchange Group – 57.67   Nasdaq – 55.63   The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange emerged as January's top performer, delivering a remarkable 30.1% capital return in U.S. dollars. Brazil's B3 followed with a 21.7% rise, while ASX rounded out the top three at 17%. On the other hand, the Bulgarian Stock Exchange declined 23.6%, ranking as the worst performer, followed by Croatia's Zagrebacka Burza (-20.6%) and Boursa Kuwait Securities (-14.7%).   Herbie Skeete, Managing Director of Mondo Visione, commented, "CME Group continues to dominate, driven by strong futures and options trading. With heightened macroeconomic uncertainty, we anticipate sustained trading activity, particularly in interest rate, energy, and metals contracts, which should further support CME's transaction-based revenues."   To explore the full details of January's market performance, click here to download the report.   1-YEAR PERFORMANCE CHART OF THE FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX (USD CAPITAL RETURN) Source: FTSE Group, data as at 30 January 2026 Monthly FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index Performance (Capital Return, USD) July 2014 3.1% August 2014 2.3% September 2014 -3.6% October 2014 2.8% November 2014 2.5% December 2014 -0.5% January 2015 -1.0% February 2015 8.5% March 2015 0.0% April 2015 10.7% May 2015 0.1% June 2015 -3.2% July 2015 -2.7% August 2015 -5.3% September 2015 -2.1% October 2015 7.6% November 2015 0.4% December 2015 -2.2% January 2016 -4,7% February 2016 -0.7% March 2016 6.7% April 2016 0.4% May 2016 1.8% June 2016 -2.2% July 2016 5.3% August 2016 2.3% September 2016 -1.6% October 2016 -1.6% November 2016 2.1% December 2016 0.1% January 2017 6.0% February 2017 -0.8% March 2017 1.4% April 2017 0.8% May 2017 1.6% June 2017 5.6% July 2017 2.7% August 2017 0.3% September 2017 3.6% October 2017 -0.7% November 2017 6.4% December 2017 -0.7% January 2018 10% February 2018 -0.5% March 2018 -1.6% April 2018 -1.0% May 2018 -1.5% June 2018 -0.8% July 2018 -0.7% August 2018 2.4% September 2018 -1.7% October 2018 1.0% November 2018 3.1% December 2018 -4.2% January 2019 5.4% February 2019 1.7% March 2019 -2.6% April 2019 4.6% May 2019 1.5% June 2019 4.3% July 2019 2.2% August 2019 3.7% September 2019 -0.8% October 2019 2.0% November 2019 -0.5% December 2019 1.6% January 2020 5.0% February 2020 -7.4% March 2020 -11.5% April 2020 8.0% May 2020 6.7% June 2020 2.3% July 2020 6.6% August 2020 4.9% September 2020 -5.2% October 2020 -6.7% November 2020 8.9% December 2020 7.2% January 2021 0.8% February 2021 1.4% March 2021 -2.7% April 2021 3.3% May 2021 2.5% June 2021 0.4% July 2021 0.4% August 2021 0.1% September 2021 -4.2% October 2021 5.9% November 2021 -5.6% December 2021 4.9% January 2022 -2.2% February 2022 -3.5% March 2022 3.5% April 2022 -8.6% May 2022 -5.1% June 2022 -0.7% July 2022 2.4% August 2022 -3.9% September 2022 -8.8% October 2022 -1.1% November 2022 11.5% December 2022 -2.9% January 2023 3.8% February 2023 -4.1% March 2023 5.0% April 2023 0.9% May 2023 -3.9% June 2023 3.8% July 2023 4.6% August 2023 -2.3% September 2023 -3.0% October 2023 -0.6% November 2023 7.7% December 2023 3.8% January 2024 -2.7% February 2024 4.3% March 2024 -0.1% April 2024 -3.8% May 2024 1.3% June 2024 -0.4% July 2024 3.2% August 2024 8.2% September 2024 4.7% October 2024 -1.2% November 2024 2.6% December 2024 -3.1% January 2025 4.3% February 2025 5.6% March 2025 2.2% April 2025 3.5% May 2025 4.4% June 2025 0.8% July 2025 -2.9% August 2025 -0.7% September 2025 -3.1% October 2025 -3.2% November 2025 3.6% December 2025 -0.4% January 2026 3.2%   About FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index, a joint venture between FTSE Group and Mondo Visione, was established in 2000. It is the first Index in the world to focus on listed exchanges and other trading venues. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index compares performance of individual exchanges and trading platforms and provides a reliable barometer of the health and performance of the exchange sector. It enables investors to track 33 publicly listed exchanges and trading floors and focuses attention of the market on this important sector. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index includes all publicly traded stock exchanges and trading floors: Australian Securities Exchange Ltd B3 SA Bolsa de Comercio Santiago Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SA Boursa Kuwait Securities BSE Bulgarian Stock Exchange Bursa de Valori Bucuresti SA Bursa Malaysia Cboe Global Markets CME Group Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange PLC Deutsche Bourse Dubai Financial Market Euronext Hellenic Exchanges SA Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd Intercontinental Exchange Inc Japan Exchange Group, Inc Johannesburg Stock Exchange Ltd London Stock Exchange Group Multi Commodity Exchange of India Nairobi Securities Exchange Nasdaq New Zealand Exchange Ltd Philippine Stock Exchange Saudi Tadawul Group Singapore Exchange Ltd Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TMX Group Warsaw Stock Exchange Zagreb Stock Exchange The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index is compiled by FTSE Group from data based on the share price performance of listed exchanges and trading platforms.

Key takeaways: Fourth consecutive week of outflows, totalling US$173M, with US$3.74B withdrawn over the past 4 weeks. Sharp regional divergence, with US$403M in US outflows offset by US$230M of inflows across Europe and Canada Bitcoin and Ethereum led outflows, while XRP and Solana continued to attract fresh inflows The full research features in CoinShares’ weekly newsletter, which can also be found here.

The Bank of England held roundtable meetings with representatives from regulated firms on the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI and ML), to better understand the constraints that firms may be facing. Introduction As per the Bank’s approach to innovation in AI, DLT and quantum computing, we seek to engage with innovators and industry practitioners in various ways to better understand the latest technological developments and their implications for the financial sector. This includes via biennial AI surveys of the UK financial sector, the AI Consortium (a successor to the AI Public-Private Forum), the Cross Market Operational Resilience Group AI Taskforce, and the Bank’s Market Intelligence function. To complement these initiatives, and in line with the Bank’s secondary growth objective, in late 2025, the Bank of England hosted three roundtables with participants from regulated firms to better understand the constraints firms may be facing in adopting AI, and how the Bank and PRA can support responsible AI adoption. Each roundtable was held with representatives from a different PRA-regulated sector: (1) challenger banks and UK-focussed larger banks; (2) global systemically important banks; and (3) insurers. Observers from the FCA and HMT were also present. Below is a summary of the key points arising from the roundtable discussions, which were held under the Chatham House Rule. Summary of key points Across all three roundtables, participants from regulated firms expressed support for the PRA’s regulatory framework as it related to AI. Participants noted that the PRA’s principles-based, outcomes-based policy and supervisory statements gave firms sufficient space to innovate within clear regulatory guardrails. Supervisory Statement 1/23 on Model Risk Management in particular was noted by several participants as pragmatic in enabling responsible AI adoption. Most participants did not see the need yet for detailed AI-specific regulatory guidance or rules, and most couldn’t see a case for a Bank or PRA AI sandbox at this time; the FCA’s Supercharged Sandbox and AI Live Testing initiatives were seen as providing sufficient offerings for testing purposes. Second-line risk functions continue to approach the use of AI with caution, which may delay AI deployment pipelines. There were mixed views on whether this was an optimal or inevitable level of caution. Drivers could include both (a) bottlenecks in AI skills and expertise, given the dynamic and highly complex nature of the technology, and the range of uses to which it was being put; and (b) a desire to ensure compliance with supervisory expectations could be comprehensively demonstrated. As an example, several participants noted that firms’ traditional model risk management approach to validation wouldn’t be sustainable in its current form as generative AI and agentic systems proliferated. The traditional emphasis on understanding the inner workings of a model – i.e. how inputs mapped to outputs –wasn’t tenable or fully effective for increasingly complex AI models. The concept of having a ‘human-in-the-loop’ was also challenged by the rise of agentic AI. Several participants suggested that risk management needed to evolve to put greater emphasis on testing, monitoring and setting guardrails around the outcomes of broader AI systems. Some participants suggested there would be value in sharing supervisory observations on good and bad practice, or convening industry experts to define, agree and share best practice.footnote[1] Firms operating in multiple jurisdictions need to navigate different regulatory approaches to AI. Participants noted key differences between the UK’s regulatory approach, the US’s approach (e.g. Supervisory Letter SR11-7 on Guidance on Model Risk Management) and the EU AI Act. Fragmentation increases compliance costs, slowed AI adoption, and prevented firms from scaling AI use cases across borders. Several participants therefore encouraged the Bank to use its membership of various international fora to encourage global coordination and convergence. Procurement and contract negotiations with third-party AI providers were slowed by inconsistent familiarity with regulated firms’ compliance requirements. Some participants thought the market would eventually solve that problem i.e. minimum standards would emerge over time, but that there was an opportunity cost in the meantime. Several participants therefore noted that the Bank could explore convening financial and technology firms to agree minimum standards for third party AI providers to the regulated financial sector. Some participants noted that as AI models become embedded in agentic systems throughout their firm’s core business processes, substituting between AI providers may become more challenging. Data protection laws – along with emerging data sovereignty regimes in other jurisdictions – were a challenge to deploying and scaling AI use cases. Several participants noted that the legal requirement to complete Data Protection Impact Assessments in certain situations slowed their AI deployment pipeline.footnote[2] Participants noted that new data location requirements could prevent scaling AI solutions across borders. Data quality can also be a barrier to the use of AI, particularly in some areas of insurance. Some insurers have relatively little data on their individual customers, owing to the infrequency of customer engagement (e.g. annual policy renewal, when a claim is submitted), in contrast to banks’ visibility of their customers’ transactions. Therefore prospects of e.g. hyperpersonalised insurance products using AI were limited in some areas in the near term. To note, in November, the PRA published slides with supervisory observations on firms’ compliance with SS1/23 in the context of their use of AI and machine learning. To note, the ICO has published guidance on when firms are required to do a DPIA , as well as specific guidance on DPIAs and data protection law more broadly in the context of AI deployment.

Ahead of the Eurex Derivatives Forum Frankfurt on February 25-26, we sat down with Sushil Krishan, Managing Director at Goldman Sachs on recent growth in Buffer ETFs, the effect this rise might have on derivatives markets and its prospects in Europe. What is the current state of the Buffer ETF market in Europe? Over the last three years, the asset growth in Buffer ETFs has been almost exponential, moving from virtually zero to way above $100 billion1 in the US and in Europe. Initially there were all sorts of doubts as to whether these products would take off in Europe. People argued that the market was too small and couldn’t grow in the same way the US market did. It was very much a let's wait and see attitude. Now, within less than a year, the European market has already grown to more than $5 billion. The demand is clearly there, and the products are perceived advantageous to investors. These are not very new products - back in 2008/9, ETFs that essentially ran collar strategies were already being launched by some issuers, but they never grew above $20 million AuM. They were too far ahead of the curve as a product. Now, the dynamics have shifted quite fundamentally, and investors are looking at these products quite extensively as a tool for their overall portfolio construction. In addition, as the ETF space has grown, with more retail investors taking a passive approach, more products are moving in that direction. These products can be seen as an extension to the QIS offering which recorded tremendous growth in the past years. Banks have been very active in that market through OTC channels. Traditionally, their clients were actively managed or hedge funds, and it was not a very accessible space for retail investors. Now however, this market is starting to convert into passive investing models. What effect will these trends have on derivatives markets? Firstly, there will a much greater concentration in volume as the number of assets in Buffer ETFs keeps growing into the billions. The typical structure of these funds is selling a call and buying a put with some sort of variety in strikes and maturities. The call selling generates a premium for the ETF to buy a put again. It can be structured in different ways, by distributing trading over time, or using different maturities and strikes. It gives the investors some protection on the downside and captures some of the upside. It makes the product less volatile, which is the perfect match for a more conservative and income-oriented type of investing. What we are already observing in the US is that call selling can become so concentrated and account for such a large portion of activity that it starts influencing the market itself. In the past, call selling strategies have started to cap the market itself as more money flows into the strategy. As long as the underlying asset is increasing towards the call strike the dealer community becomes more long gamma, which caps the market with growing volumes. On the flip side of the trade, the put buying makes the dealer community that facilitates this downside protection short gamma. This dynamic reduces volatility on the upside but increases volatility on the downside. It is already observable in the US and given that volumes are increasing in Europe we should start to see this emerging in Europe, which is a much less liquid market. It is going to be very interesting to see how these dynamics unfold in the coming years and the effect they have on the derivatives ecosystem. What are the main challenges to growing the European market? There is always a big difference between any European market and its US equivalent. Europe is much more fragmented than the US, which is a very concentrated market for trading. There are also traditional differences in retail investing. The US is a much more independent and equity focused investment culture, while in Europe you need institutional interest to gain significant asset growth. For ETFs more specifically, there is also a significant difference in how these vehicles are constructed. In Europe, to be an ETF, issuers have to use the UCITS framework, which limits what a fund can do to a very high degree. In the US, we are seeing Buffer ETFs of high volatility and performing single stocks like Nvidia. It is very hard to do something like that in Europe, if not impossible, due to the diversification rules in the UCITS framework. Those restrictions don’t exist in the US. So, the spectrum of these products in Europe is set to center much more around overlay strategies on a diversified basket. The question remains though: will insurance companies, pension funds and corporate clients start to buy these ETFs where the overlay strategy is incorporated, instead of buying the assets and running an overlay strategy themselves? That brings us back to the different investor bases in Europe and the US, because in the end that is where the volume will be generated. I believe that in around a year this will start to accelerate. One and a half years ago, total assets in Buffer ETFs were less than a billion across all the funds in Europe. That has since grown by about 5-10 times[1] within a very short period and is clearly being driven by institutional adoption. The question then is what happens to the other overlay strategies? Will we see a reduction in the ones run bilaterally for institutional clients with the banks, as that activity transfers to ETFs? [1] Source: GS GIR as of Feb2026  Visit the panel at Derivatives Forum Frankfurt on 25 February from 17:15-18:00 CET Strategic Overlays with ETF Derivatives and Buffer ETFs: Enhancing Risk-Adjusted Returns This panel will explore how ETF derivatives and buffer ETFs are used to implement overlay strategies that improve portfolio efficiency, manage downside risk, and optimize capital. The conversation will highlight practical applications across asset classes, with insights from institutional investors and product specialists. How are ETF derivatives used to create tactical overlays in equity and fixed income portfolios? What role do buffer ETFs play in mitigating downside risk while maintaining upside participation? How do overlay strategies using ETF options and futures support liquidity and capital efficiency?   Moderator Radi Khasawneh, Derivatives Editor, FOW Speakers Sushil Krishan, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs Hamish Seegopaul, Global Head of Index Product Innovation, STOXX Alexandre Roubaud, EMEA Head ETF Secondary Markets & Liquidity Solutions, BlackRock Imanol Urquizu, Head of Derivatives, Santander Asset Management Further information  Derivatives Forum Frankfurt 2026

As Credit Index Futures continue to reshape the landscape of credit derivatives trading, Eurex is proud to spotlight the voices of our most influential partners. In this exclusive series, we sit down with leading market participants from firms that have played a pivotal role in the development, adoption, and evolution of Credit Index Futures at Eurex. From early product design to global market expansion, these conversations offer unique insights into how Credit Index Futures are being used across trading desks, what differentiates them from other instruments, and where the market is headed next. Jasper Jansen is the head of Fixed Income Trading at Flow Traders Europe and one of the earliest and biggest supporters of Eurex Credit Index Futures. He has been instrumental in establishing the product by providing pricing off- and on-screen since day one and has been most outspoken in his belief in Credit Index Futures. Following the launch of the Credit Derivatives Partnership Program, he sat down with us to discuss his and the firm’s involvement in Credit Index Futures and where he sees the market developing. Eurex: Jasper, you have been a staunch supporter of Credit Index Futures at Eurex from the start, establishing a market in these by providing executable prices in the orderbook and off-book markets. Please explain to us what excited you about the product and how your vision was able to come to fruition?   Jasper Jansen   Jasper Jansen: What immediately excited me about Credit Index Futures was the opportunity to bring an alternative to CDS and TRS instruments in credit markets. Credit is a core asset class, yet access to standardized, centrally cleared tools was relatively limited compared to rates or equities. From the outset, our vision was that Credit Index Futures could become a true benchmark instrument for trading and hedging credit risk, provided there was consistent liquidity, tight pricing, and confidence in execution. At Flow Traders, we believed that if we committed to providing executable prices both on-screen and off-book from day one, we could help accelerate that adoption cycle. Over time, that vision has come to fruition through close collaboration with Eurex and other market participants. By actively contributing to price formation and market depth, we helped demonstrate that these products can trade efficiently across market conditions, which in turn encouraged broader participation from our counterparties and other liquidity providers. Eurex: We were excited by your and Flow Traders enthusiastic support during the critical initial days of launching the product. Could you please share some considerations and feedback that your counterparties had in the early days and how has that changed over time? Jasper Jansen: In the early days, the feedback from market participants was understandably focused on liquidity, consistency, and transaction costs. Many of our counterparties are familiar with credit exposure through cash products such as ETFs and bonds and wanted to understand how Credit Index Futures would behave in terms of tracking, roll mechanics, and execution during periods of volatility. Over time, as liquidity improved and pricing became more reliable, the conversation shifted. Today, our counterparties are increasingly focused on scalability, execution efficiency, and portfolio applications. We see growing confidence in using Credit Index Futures not only for hedging but also for tactical positioning and relative-value strategies. Eurex: Credit futures markets are embedded in an ecosystem of other derivatives and cash products such as ETFs, Corporate Bonds, Credit-Default-Swaps and Total Return Swaps. How do you find your counterparties using the products and what are the biggest differentiators that you find for credit index futures compared to the other alternatives? Jasper Jansen: Our counterparties use Credit Index Futures in a variety of ways, from macro hedging and beta exposure to more granular relative-value and arbitrage strategies against ETFs, CDS indices, and cash bonds. What stands out is how naturally the product integrates into a broader multi-asset derivatives framework. The key differentiators are standardization, transparency, and capital efficiency. For many of our counterparties, Credit Index Futures serve as a bridging instrument, linking cash credit markets with derivatives in a way that is operationally efficient and easy to scale. That makes them particularly attractive in fast-moving markets where execution certainty matters. Eurex: Having witnessed this success story in Europe firsthand, how do you think the market will develop globally? Jasper Jansen: Europe has shown that with the right market structure, committed liquidity provision, and strong exchange support, Credit Index Futures can gain meaningful traction. I believe this success provides a clear blueprint for global expansion. Looking ahead, I expect increased adoption across regions as market participants continue to prioritize capital efficiency, transparency, and electronic execution. Regulatory developments and balance sheet considerations will further support the shift toward listed, cleared products. Ultimately, Credit Index Futures have the potential to become a core global risk-transfer instrument in credit markets, much like rate futures are today. As liquidity deepens and use cases expand, we expect them to play an increasingly central role in how credit risk is traded and managed worldwide. Further information  Credit Index Futures  Credit Index Derivatives Partnership Program  Download center Credit Index Futures

With great regret, this notice informs LME members and the broader metals community of the death of Dr Fred Demler. Download notice

In a new milestone underscoring the rapid development of Qatar’s debt capital market and QNB Group’s continued leadership in local currency funding, Qatar Stock Exchange (QSE) today announced the successful listing of QNB Group’s bonds, representing the largest Qatari riyal–denominated bond issuance in the history of the local market. The bonds were offered exclusively to international investors and were fully subscribed by a diversified investor base, reflecting strong confidence in QNB Group’s financial strength, credit profile, and regional leadership, as well as  in the resilience and stability of Qatar’s financial system. The issuance totals QAR 1 billion, with a one-year tenor and an annual coupon rate of 4%. The transaction forms part of QNB Group’s broader funding diversification strategy, reinforcing its prudent liquidity management and ability to access international capital in local currency. This listing marks a significant milestone in the ongoing development of QSE’s debt instruments market, demonstrating the local market’s capacity to accommodate large-scale issuances in local currency within a robust regulatory framework and advanced trading, clearing, and settlement infrastructure, thereby enhancing market efficiency and transparency. Commenting on the occasion, Mr. Abdulla Mohammed Al-Ansari, Chief Executive Officer of Qatar Stock Exchange, said: “The listing of the largest Qatari riyal–denominated bond issuance in market history represents a key milestone in the development of Qatar’s capital market. It underscores QSE’s pivotal role in deepening the debt market and expanding the range of investment products available to investors. This achievement also reflects growing confidence in the local market and its ability to attract international investment into instruments denominated in the national currency, enhancing market liquidity and supporting the diversification of funding sources.” He added that the listing reflects the high level of coordination and integration across Qatar’s national financial ecosystem, including Qatar Stock Exchange, Qatar Central Bank, the Qatar Financial Markets Authority, and EDAA (Qatar Central Securities Depository), in alignment with the objectives of the Third Financial Sector Strategy and Qatar National Vision 2030. QNB Group Chief Executive Officer, Abdulla Mubarak Al-Khalifa, added: “This landmark issuance reflects QNB Group’s disciplined funding strategy and our continued commitment to deepening Qatar’s capital markets. The strong demand from international investors underscores confidence in QNB’s credit fundamentals and in Qatar’s economic outlook. We remain focused on maintaining a well-diversified funding base that supports sustainable growth while contributing to the development of the local currency debt market.” The listing of QNB’s bonds follows a series of notable developments in QSE’s debt market in recent years, including the listing of the first corporate bonds, the first Islamic sukuk, the first sustainable bonds, and the first green sukuk, culminating in the listing of the largest Qatari riyal–denominated bond issuance in the market’s history. These developments highlight QSE’s commitment to deepening the market and enhancing product diversification to meet the needs of both local and international investors. The listing represents a qualitative addition to Qatar’s capital market, contributing to the deepening of the domestic debt market and enhancing liquidity in local currency instruments. It also supports the development of a benchmark yield curve, improving pricing efficiency for future issuances. For investors, the listing offers a short-term investment instrument with clear returns within a regulated and transparent framework, supporting portfolio diversification and efficient liquidity management. At the broader ecosystem level, the transaction demonstrates the market’s ability to accommodate large-scale issuances and attract a diversified base of international investors, reinforcing QSE’s role as an integrated platform for capital formation in line with Qatar National Vision 2030 and the objectives of financial sector development. At the financial ecosystem level, the listing enables issuers to access a sophisticated domestic market capable of attracting international capital into local currency instruments, enhancing funding flexibility and long-term sustainability. For investors, the issuance provides a transparent and tradable short-term instrument within a regulated market environment, supporting effective liquidity management and portfolio diversification. Qatar Stock Exchange reaffirms its commitment to continuing its collaboration with regulators and issuers to further develop the debt market and enhance the attractiveness of the local market, supporting Qatar’s position as a leading regional hub for capital markets.

Main Market, SMEs Market, Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), treasury bills and bonds and local shares conversions trading session will be from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm, preceded by a discovery session at 9:30 am.- The Closing Auction & Adjustment: The closing auction starts at 1:15 pm for 10 minutes, to be closed randomly from 1:23 pm to 1:25 pm. The adjustment starts from the closing of the auction's session to 1:25 pm. Trading session according to the closing price starts from 1:25 pm to 1:30 pm. - Orders recording (Deals Market) for volume transactions; 9:15 am to 9:45 am. - Omnibus Accounts from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm- Trading session for non-listed securities (Orders Market, OTC); Monday and Wednesday; 11:30 am to 12:00 pm.- Trading session for non-listed securities (Deals Market, OTC) from 09:30 am to 11:00 am. 

PIMFA WealthTech, the market network and technology platform for fintech firms in the wealth, advice and planning sector, and Morningstar, a leading provider of independent investment insights, have launched a new AI Tech Sprint inviting fintech providers to apply to showcase their AI-driven solutions. The selected winner will present their technology to an audience of industry peers and decision-makers at the Morningstar Investment Conference UK on 7th May 2026. Participants will demonstrate how their tech solution leverages AI to create measurable business impact and improve problem solving. On 22nd April 2026, selected fintechs will present their solutions to an expert judging panel, comprised of senior industry representatives from the PIMFA WealthTech Advisory Group. The AI Tech Sprint will examine: “AI in wealth and advice - from experimentation to ROI: how can firms turn their application of AI into measurable business impact?”. This will concentrate on two key areas. Firstly, the successful embedding of AI implementations. Fintechs will be asked to present solutions that deliver measurable enhancements in productivity within wealth management and the broader financial services sector. This includes demonstrating: Client centric AI: Elevate client experience and personalisation through AI driven insights and interactions. Portfolio performance and risk management: Optimising portfolio and risk management. Adviser empowerment: Augment client and financial adviser support to reduce administrative tasks, allowing more time for strategic advice. Operational efficiency: Automate and enhance compliance processes to improve back and middle office efficiency. Secondly, fintechs will explore pushing boundaries with AI. Examples involve: Next-generation innovations that push beyond basic automation, highlighting the future potential of AI in wealth management and advice. Advice quality: AI checks reports, sources, cashflows, and documents for policy compliance, Gold Standards, PROD, and Consumer Duty to quickly identify inconsistencies and risks. Competence testing and T&C enhancement: AI runs scenario-based and data-driven assessments using file records and meeting notes to score responses against technical accuracy and rationale quality. This supports fair, scalable, evidence-based T&C oversight. Prachi Kodlikeri, Chair, PIMFA WealthTech Advisory Group and Chief Technology Officer, LGT Wealth, said: “PIMFA WealthTech was founded with a clear purpose: to champion pioneering technological thinking and to unlock new opportunities that can genuinely advance the wealth management and advice sector. As Chair of the Advisory Group, I can think of no greater embodiment of that vision than the AI‑driven Tech Sprint we are proud to launch today.” This sprint invites fintechs to imagine what’s possible - to explore powerful AI use cases and develop visionary solutions that could meaningfully elevate the way our industry serves clients. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity this challenge will inspire, and I look forward to sharing the insights and breakthroughs that emerge with the wider community.” Anastasia Georgiou, Director of Market Expansion, Morningstar commented: “Innovation flourishes when bold ideas meet real-world application. The AI Tech Sprint will showcase AI solutions that are not only imaginative, but can deliver measurable impact across client experience, adviser support, risk management and operational efficiency. We’re excited to showcase the winning entry at the Morningstar Investment Conference UK, bringing the next generation of AI-driven tools to advisers, to strengthen the long-term success of the industry.” If you are a fintech firm and can demonstrate how your product can benefit the industry with the above criteria in mind, please register here to enter the AI Tech Sprint. Entries will close on 16th March at 5pm GMT.

It is a pleasure to join you again this year for the American Bankers Association Community Bankers Conference. As a former community banker, I always enjoy taking time to learn from your experience to inform my work at the Federal Reserve.1 Today, I would like to discuss a concerning trend in our financial system that has significant implications for the banking industry, the stability of the mortgage market, and consumers. Whether due to a conscious decision in response to the regulatory environment or other factors, we have seen a significant migration of mortgage origination and servicing out of the banking sector. The data tells a clear story. In 2008, banks originated around 60 percent of mortgages and held the servicing rights on about 95 percent of mortgage balances. Since that time, the contraction has been extraordinary. As of 2023, banks originated only 35 percent of mortgages and serviced about 45 percent of mortgage balances.2 Taking a step back to understand the magnitude of this change, as regulators, we have a responsibility to determine whether prudential regulations have driven this shift. We should also consider whether the regulations are appropriately calibrated to the risk that mortgage origination and servicing pose to the banking system. This out-migration of origination and servicing has been costly for banks, consumers, and the overall mortgage system. In part, this results from over calibration of the capital treatment for these activities, resulting in requirements that are both disproportionate to risk and that make mortgage activities too costly for banks to engage. I see a path forward that incorporates both renewed bank participation in the mortgage market and a safe and sound banking system. Why This Migration MattersFor Banks: Mortgages are an important component of the business model. This is not only from a revenue perspective, but because banking is fundamentally a relationship business. The purchase of a home is a major life milestone, and banks should be able to offer this service to their customers. In addition, most banks prefer to retain mortgage servicing in-house to ensure positive customer experiences. We know that servicing creates customer loyalty when done well but can create significant frustration when done poorly. The relationship benefits that the mortgage business offers are substantial. Customers with strong bank connections naturally turn to that bank for other financial needs, from checking accounts to investment services. This can create a virtuous circle—good customer service in the mortgage business can lead to a stronger relationship with customers and result in improved bank financial resiliency. Mortgage servicing also offers distinct financial benefits. The fee income from mortgage servicing diversifies a bank's revenue stream from an over-reliance on lending income, providing more stable income independent of the interest rate environment. Banks also have structural advantages in servicing. The customer relationships built through mortgage lending may be more valuable for banks than nonbanks because they can cross-sell more products and services than nonbanks. Escrow balances must be held in insured accounts, providing banks with funds to support lending activities as they would those in any other deposit account. Many servicing contracts require the servicer to advance principal, interest, and other payments on behalf of delinquent borrowers. Banks can more easily comply with these requirements than nonbanks because banks have access to stable, low-cost sources of funding. For Consumers: Turning next to consumers, fewer banks engaged in mortgage origination and servicing has reduced the consumer choice and competition that drives down costs. In addition, borrowers that experience financial distress seem to fare worse during financial downturns with nonbank servicers. During COVID-19, borrowers with bank servicers were more likely to receive forbearance on their mortgage payments than those with nonbank servicers.3 For Financial Stability: Nonbank servicers face other vulnerabilities, as described in a recent report issued by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.4 Perhaps the greatest risk they present is that the regulatory and resolution frameworks for these mortgage companies have not kept pace with their growth. When a large bank servicer fails, regulators have tools to ensure core servicing functions continue—requiring that borrower mortgage payments are credited correctly and that borrowers in financial distress receive appropriate modifications. Nonbank servicers are subject to far fewer safeguards. The Capital Treatment ChallengeWe can clearly see from academic research and industry feedback that the 2013 change in capital treatment of mortgage servicing rights was a factor in the withdrawal of banks from the mortgage market.5 When a financial institution securitizes a mortgage by selling it to a securitization trust, the institution receives a "mortgage servicing right," or MSR, as a byproduct of the sale. That MSR represents the expected present value of the net servicing income that the institution will receive over the life of the mortgage—including the anticipated servicing fees minus the expenses. These changes to the MSR capital treatment were two-fold. First, most banks experienced modest to moderate increases in their risk weights for MSRs, depending on how the banks accounted for the MSRs on their balance sheets.6 Second, banks holding significant amounts of MSRs faced an even more stringent capital treatment, in that any MSRs exceeding a certain percentage of capital (called the "deduction threshold") received disproportionately high risk weights. Reconsidering the BalanceAt the time, regulators tightened MSR capital treatment for sound reasons. MSR valuations can be challenging to calculate because they are not based on transaction prices in liquid markets. Instead, they are derived from models that depend on subjective assumptions about mortgage prepayment and the likelihood of default. This makes the valuations volatile, especially during interest rate swings, and we have observed that during periods of high defaults, some MSR markets can experience stress or seize up. These are legitimate concerns, and I want to be clear that holding MSRs is not the right choice for every bank. Successfully managing the volatility in MSR valuations as interest rates change requires sophisticated hedging capabilities or an effective borrower retention strategy during refinancing waves. Servicing can also carry substantial operational risk and compliance responsibility. Banks that engage in mortgage servicing must have sufficient expertise and resources to manage these risks and the associated responsibilities in a safe and sound manner. That said, regulators are much more familiar with MSRs since the 2013 regulations were put in place, and we have also learned a great deal about how the capital treatment of MSRs has affected bank decisions about mortgage origination and servicing. Turning first to origination, when banks decide whether to originate and how to price mortgages, they consider the value of the MSR that they receive after the securitization sale. The capital treatment makes that MSR less valuable. Since banks securitize roughly 75 percent of their mortgage originations to low- to-moderate income, or LMI, borrowers, the capital treatment may particularly affect mortgage availability and affordability for these borrowers.7 Turning next to servicing, we have learned that the deduction threshold may impede a bank's ability to build a profitable servicing business. This effect may be more consequential for smaller banks. Mortgage servicing requires substantial fixed investments in personnel and technology, making it more cost-effective at larger volumes. However, smaller banks may not be able to build a servicing portfolio of that size without creating an MSR in excess of the deduction threshold. Risk weights for mortgages held in bank portfolios also affect bank decisions about mortgage market engagement and pricing. Are these risk weights calibrated appropriately to the underlying risk? Consider a mortgage's loan-to-value ratio, or LTV. Capital rules impose the same risk weight regardless of LTV, but default probability and the severity of losses vary substantially with LTV. Low-LTV mortgages carry low expected losses—borrowers have strong incentives to protect their equity, and collateral values well exceed the bank's credit exposure. Further, the risk of a mortgage default decreases over time as the principal is paid down and the mortgage migrates to lower LTV buckets. This misalignment between capital requirements and actual risk has important consequences. Banks hold substantial numbers of mortgages with low loan-to-value ratios. By requiring disproportionately high capital, we reduce a bank's ability to deploy capital to support the needs of their community. In light of these considerations, I am open to revisiting whether the capital treatment of MSRs and mortgages is appropriately calibrated and is commensurate with the risks. Proposed Path ForwardWhile there are many rules that govern bank mortgage origination and servicing, my discussion today focuses on the bank regulatory capital treatment, which represents only a small part of the broader mortgage problem. Comprehensively addressing mortgage market challenges would also require revisiting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules and legislative requirements. Let me highlight a few areas within the Basel framework that could effectively address some challenges and that we are considering for potential modification. Two regulatory proposals will soon be introduced that, among other broader changes to the regulatory capital framework, would increase bank incentives to engage in mortgage origination and servicing. First, the proposals would remove the requirement to deduct mortgage servicing assets from regulatory capital while maintaining the 250 percent risk weight assigned to these assets. We will seek comment on the appropriate risk weight for these assets. This change in the treatment of mortgage servicing assets would encourage bank participation in the mortgage servicing business while recognizing uncertainty regarding the value of these assets over the economic cycle. Second, the proposals would also consider increasing the risk sensitivity of capital requirements for mortgage loans on bank books. One approach would be to use loan-to-value ratios to determine the applicable risk weight for residential real estate exposures, rather than applying a uniform risk weight regardless of LTV. This change could better align capital requirements with actual risk, support on-balance-sheet lending by banks, and potentially reverse the trend of migration of mortgage activity to nonbanks over the past 15 years. These potential changes would address legitimate concerns about mortgage market structure while maintaining appropriate prudential safeguards. I look forward to receiving feedback from industry and other stakeholders as we consider these modifications. Closing ThoughtsBy creating a resilient mortgage market that includes robust participation from all types of financial institutions, we can deliver affordable credit and high-quality servicing to borrowers regardless of economic conditions. Strengthening bank participation in these activities does not threaten the safety and soundness of the banking system. These goals are consistent. I look forward to working with my fellow regulators to consider options for creating pathways to return banks to their traditional and core business services, including in the retail mortgage space. Thank you again for the invitation to join you today, and I look forward to our discussion. 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. I thank Karen Pence for her assistance with these remarks.  2. Statistics are tabulated from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data (originations) and Inside Mortgage Finance (servicing). HMDA tabulations are for closed-end, first-lien purchase mortgages collateralized by owner-occupied, site-built one-to-four family properties. Banks include commercial banks, thrifts, and credit unions. Bank market share in 2008 was a bit high by historical standards because some large nonbanks went out of business in 2007 and 2008. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has published a report on nonbank mortgage servicing that provides a longer time series. See FSOC, Report on Nonbank Mortgage Servicing 2024 (PDF).  3. See Susan Cherry, Erica Jiang, Gregor Matvos, Tomasz Piskorski, and Amit Seru, "Government and Private Household Debt Relief during COVID-19 (PDF)," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Fall 2021); You Suk Kim, Donghoon Lee, Tess Scharlemann, and James Vickery, "Intermediation Frictions in Debt Relief: Evidence from CARES Act Forbearance," Journal of Financial Economics 158 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103873.  4. See https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC-2024-Nonbank-Mortgage-Servicing-Report.pdf.  5. Greg Buchak, Gregor Matvos, Tomasz Piskorski, and Amit Seru, "Fintech, Regulatory Arbitrage, and the Rise of Shadow Banks," Journal of Financial Economics 130 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.03.011.  6. For more information on the changes in MSR capital treatment, see Report to the Congress on the Effect of Capital Rules on Mortgage Servicing Assets (PDF) (Board of Governors, June 2016).  7. Calculation is from HMDA data for owner-occupied, first-lien fixed-rate purchase mortgages. 

The FCA has fined Richard Howson £237,700 for his part in misleading statements being issued by Carillion plc. As group chief executive, Mr Howson was aware of serious financial troubles in Carillion’s UK construction business. He failed to reflect this in company announcements or alert its board and audit committee, leading to poor oversight. The fine was imposed after Mr Howson withdrew his challenge to the FCA’s decision. Mr Howson was one of two executive directors on Carillion’s Board. His responsibilities included working closely with the group finance director (the other executive director on the board) to ensure Carillion communicated effectively with investors and had appropriate internal control processes.   Primary responsibility for ensuring the financial information disseminated to the market was accurate and not misleading lay with the group finance director. However, Mr Howson played an important role as the Board member with the most expertise on construction and contracting matters.  The FCA found that Mr Howson acted recklessly and was knowingly concerned in breaches by Carillion of the Market Abuse Regulation and the Listing Rules. Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Carillion’s failure was significant. Jobs were lost, public sector projects put at risk and investors, who trusted the company to give them accurate information, suffered large scale losses. That’s why the FCA worked diligently to hold the company and its senior leaders to account.' During the period in question, Carillion’s group finance director was first Richard Adam and then Zafar Khan. They were fined £232,800 and £138,900, respectively, in January 2026. Background Richard Howson Final Notice (PDF). Press release for Mr Adam and Mr Khan's Final Notices. Carillion plc (in liquidation) Final Notice (PDF). Mr Howson was the Chief Executive of Carillion from 1 January 2012 to 10 July 2017. He received an initial Decision Notice (PDF) dated 24 June 2022. Mr Adam was finance director of Carillion from April 2007 to 31 December 2016.  Mr Khan was finance director of Carillion from 1 January 2017 to September 2017. The FCA has imposed the financial penalty on Mr Howson for being, in the period 1 July 2016 to 10 July 2017, knowingly concerned in breaches by Carillion of: Article 15 of MAR (prohibition of market manipulation) by disseminating information that gave false or misleading signals as to the value of its shares in circumstances where it ought to have known that the information was false or misleading. Listing Rule 1.3.3R (misleading information must not be published) by failing to take reasonable care to ensure that its announcements were not misleading, false or deceptive and did not omit anything likely to affect the import of the information. Listing Principle 1 (procedures, systems and controls) by failing to take reasonable steps to establish and maintain adequate procedures, systems and controls to enable it to comply with its obligations under the Listing Rules; and Premium Listing Principle 2 (acting with integrity) by failing to act with integrity towards its holders and potential holders of its premium listed shares.

As part of their constituent meetings, the Exchange Councils of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FWB) and Eurex Deutschland elected their Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen. Both Councils had been elected in rotation at the beginning of December 2025.The members of the FWB Exchange Council re-elected Matthias Zieschang as Chairman. Georg Stocker was confirmed as Deputy Chairman. Zieschang is a Member of the Executive Board and serves as Executive Director Controlling and Finance at Fraport AG. He has been Chairman of the FWB Exchange Council since July 2020. Stocker is Chief Executive Officer at DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale and has been Deputy Chairman of the Exchange Council since June 2021.Tobias Vogel was re-elected as the Chairman of the Exchange Council of Eurex Deutschland. Vogel is the Chief Executive Officer of UBS Europe SE and Head of Wealth Management. He joined the Exchange Council in 2023 and has been its Chairman since then. Christoph Hock, Head of Tokenisation and Digital Assets at Union Investment, was confirmed as Deputy Chairman. Hock has been a member of the Exchange Council since January 2023 and was elected Deputy Chairman in December 2023.“I congratulate the elected members of the Exchange Councils of Frankfurt Stock Exchange and Eurex and the elected chairs and vice-chairs. With Matthias Zieschang and Georg Stocker continuing their leadership at FWB, and Tobias Vogel and Christoph Hock at Eurex Deutschland, both Exchange Councils are ideally positioned to drive progress and innovation in the years ahead. Their experience and vision will help us strengthen market resilience and seize new opportunities in a rapidly evolving environment,” emphasizes Thomas Book, Member of the Executive Board of Deutsche Börse Group and responsible for Trading & Clearing.The Exchange Councils of FWB and Eurex Deutschland were elected in rotation on December 1, 2025 for a term of office of three years. The FWB Exchange Council consists of 16 members, that of Eurex Deutschland of 17 members. Both Councils are an important control and supervisory body of the respective exchange. Key tasks include appointing and supervising the management of the exchange as well as issuing the rules and regulations of the exchange.The following members are new to the FWB Exchange Council: Dominik Heuer, Managing Director Finovesta GmbH Tobias Löschmann, Member of the Management Board of Amundi Deutschland GmbH The following member is new to the Eurex Deutschland Exchange Council: Benon Janos, Member of the Executive Board and Chief Financial Officer of flatexDEGIRO AG

Since inception, Nasdaq Dubai has listed more than USD 245 billion in cumulative bonds and Sukuk issuances, including USD 177 billion in Sukuk. Nasdaq Dubai’s Sukuk market has achieved an eightfold increase since 2013. Supported by robust international issuances, outstanding listings have climbed from USD 12.6 billion to over USD 100 billion. Total value of outstanding debt securities listed across DFM and Nasdaq Dubai reached USD 150.9 billion in 2025, with Nasdaq Dubai accounting for USD 146.1 billion. Nasdaq Dubai attracted a record number of Sukuk listings in 2025, supported by sustained issuance activity from regional and international issuers and continued global investor demand for Sharia-compliant debt instruments. By the end of 2025, the total value of outstanding debt securities listed across Dubai Financial Market (DFM) and Nasdaq Dubai reached USD 150.9 billion, with Nasdaq Dubai accounting for USD 146.1 billion of the total. The exchange’s Sukuk market has expanded significantly over the past decade, with the value of outstanding listings increasing eightfold since 2013, from USD 12.6 billion to more than USD 100 billion. Since inception, Nasdaq Dubai has hosted more than USD 245 billion in cumulative bonds and Sukuk issuances, including USD 177 billion in Sukuk. The growth aligns with the United Arab Emirates’ National Strategy for Islamic Finance and Halal Industry, which targets Islamic banking assets of AED 2.56 trillion and aims to increase Sukuk listings to more than AED 660 billion domestically and AED 395 billion internationally by 2031.1 Record Listings Activity in 2025 In 2025, Nasdaq Dubai recorded USD 30.6 billion in new debt listings across 60 issuances, marking record levels of strong and diversified listings activity. Debuts from Ajman Bank, OMNIYAT, Mashreq, China Development Bank and the New Development Bank, alongside repeat issuances under established programmes, further strengthened the exchange’s continued appeal to sovereign, supranational, financial and corporate issuers. Sovereign and government-related issuers continued to represent a significant share of activity during the year. Issuances by the Republic of Indonesia, the UAE Federal Government, and the governments of Ras Al Khaimah and Sharjah reinforced Dubai’s standing as a trusted gateway for global capital flows. Corporate and financial institution issuers also listed a diverse range of instruments, spanning conventional bonds, Sukuk, Additional Tier 1 capital securities, and sustainability-linked structures, highlighting the depth and flexibility of Nasdaq Dubai’s fixed income market. Leadership in Sustainable Finance Nasdaq Dubai advanced its position as a regional leader in sustainable finance during 2025. By year-end, the total outstanding value of ESG-linked debt instruments listed on the exchange reached USD 30.08 billion across 41 issuances. This included: USD 18.38 billion in green bonds across 27 issuances USD 9.05 billion in sustainability bonds across 9 issuances USD 2.55 billion in sustainability-linked bonds across 4 issuances USD 100 million blue bond across 1 issuance Global Gateway for International Issuers Global issuer participation has been a defining pillar of Nasdaq Dubai’s growth. Over the years, the exchange has attracted landmark debt listings from sovereign, supranational and institutional issuers across Asia and the Middle East, reflecting sustained international confidence in its market infrastructure. Sovereign issuers such as the Governments of Indonesia, Turkey, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, and supranationals including Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector and New Development Bank as well as a Policy Bank like China Development Bank, have chosen Nasdaq Dubai as their listing venue, underscoring its role as a trusted international gateway for cross-border debt and sukuk issuance. Abdul Wahed Al Fahim, Chairman of Nasdaq Dubai, said: “2025 has been a milestone year for Nasdaq Dubai. Surpassing USD 100 billion in outstanding Sukuk listings and achieving record levels of debt issuance reflects the strong confidence placed in our market by issuers and investors worldwide. These milestones underscore Dubai’s position as a trusted, globally connected hub for Islamic finance, fixed income and sustainable investment.” Hamed Ali, CEO of Nasdaq Dubai and Dubai Financial Market (DFM), said: “Crossing USD 100 billion in outstanding Sukuk listings is a landmark achievement for Nasdaq Dubai and reflects the strong and sustained confidence of international and domestic issuers in our market. This momentum was supported in 2025 by USD 30.6 billion in new debt listings across 60 issuances, underscoring our role as a leading international listing venue for Sukuk and fixed income instruments. As we look ahead, our focus remains on deepening global connectivity, expanding multi-currency and ESG Sukuk offerings, and attracting new issuers from emerging and frontier markets.” Building on a record-breaking year and historic milestones achieved in 2025, Nasdaq Dubai enters 2026 with continued activity across Sukuk, ESG and multi-currency debt instruments. The exchange remains focused on supporting issuers and investors through a diversified fixed income offering, contributing to Dubai’s capital markets ecosystem and reinforcing Dubai’s position as a leading global hub for fixed income and Islamic finance. [1] Dubai Media Office (2025), UAE Cabinet Approves UAE Strategy for Islamic Finance and Halal Industry.

New German law exempts non-EU market makers from licensing rules. Reform is set to increase liquidity and competition on Eurex. The change follows long-standing Eurex efforts to lower market access barriers. Eurex, Europe's leading derivatives exchange, today highlights a significant enhancement of access to its markets following the enactment of Germany's Financial Centre Promotion Act ("Standortfördergesetz"). The new legislation refines the regulatory framework applicable to third country Regulatory Market-Makers (RMMs), a move that will reduce entry barriers, boost international participation, and increase liquidity in the European derivatives market. Effective immediately, the legislation exempts RMMs based outside the European Union from the previous requirement to establish a physical entity or seek an individual exemption in Germany. This reform streamlines the process for providing liquidity on German-regulated exchanges like Eurex, eliminating what was a significant operational and financial hurdle for many global firms.  The new framework is set to enhance market efficiency, increase competition, and reduce bureaucracy. The reform addresses barriers that Eurex, as part of Deutsche Börse Group, has consistently worked with market participants and policymakers to highlight as crucial for strengthening Germany's position as a leading global financial hub and ensuring a level playing field with other major European jurisdictions. Robbert Booij, CEO of Eurex: "This is a landmark development that directly reflects our long-term strategy of lowering access barriers and boosting liquidity. By removing a significant regulatory hurdle, we are opening the door for additional liquidity providers to access our exchange. This is not just a win for Eurex, but for all market participants who will benefit from more efficient and competitive markets." This legislative enhancement is a key component of Eurex's broader commitment to market accessibility. It complements established initiatives such as the Sponsored Access model and comprehensive liquidity provider programs, all designed to foster global participation and improve market efficiency. Eurex is now actively engaging with firms in the UK, Switzerland, North America, and Asia to ensure they can swiftly capitalize on this new opportunity to access Europe's leading derivatives markets.

The Exchange's markets are closed today, February 16, 2026 (Family Day).

KEY POINTS TFEX announced the “TFEX Best Award 2025”, recognizing member companies for excellence in the areas of investor base expansion, market maker performance and active trading. Seven awarded brokers were MTSGF, PI, KGI, KKPS, YUANTA, CAF, and INVX Thailand Futures Exchange pcl (TFEX) announced the recipients of the TFEX Best Award 2025, an annual recognition program honoring member companies for their excellence and outstanding performance across key areas of the derivatives market. TFEX Managing Director Triwit Wangvorawudhi emphasized that the strong cooperation and continued support from all members have been instrumental in driving the development and growth of Thailand’s derivatives market. The “TFEX Best Award of Honor 2025” was presented to brokers that have demonstrated exceptional and consistent excellence for at least three consecutive years. The following companies received this distinction: MTS Capital Co., Ltd. (MTSGF) - Market Maker Best Performance Pi Securities pcl (PI) - Active Agent KGI Securities (Thailand) pcl (KGI) - Most Active House and Active Prop-Trading For the “Best of the Year Award 2025”, the following brokers were recognized for their outstanding achievements based on trading performance and investor base expansion in each category: Kiatnakin Phatra Securities pcl (KKPS) - Most Active House Award Yuanta Securities (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (YUANTA) - Active Agent Award Classic Ausiris Investment Advisory Securities Co., Ltd. (CAF) - Active Prop-Trading Award InnovestX Securities Co., Ltd. (INVX) - Popular Agent Award KGI Securities (Thailand) pcl (KGI) - Market Maker Best Performance Award For more information, please visit www.TFEX.co.th.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) have jointly appointed Professor Arvind Krishnamurthy as the MAS Distinguished Term Professor in Economics and Finance from 18 to 28 February 2026. Professor Krishnamurthy will be hosted by the NUS Business School’s Department of Real Estate and the Economic Policy Group of MAS during the term of the Professorship.2  Professor Krishnamurthy is currently John S. Osterweis Professor of Finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Asian Bureau of Finance and Economic Research. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Finance – Insights & Perspectives and was formerly an associate editor at the Journal of Finance, as well as top journals in macroeconomics.3 Professor Krishnamurthy is widely recognised for his work on finance, macroeconomics and monetary policy. He has studied the causes and consequences of banking crises in emerging markets and developed economies, and the role of government policy in stabilising crises.  He has published numerous journal articles and received awards for his research, including the Smith Breeden Prize for best paper published in the Journal of Finance, and the Swiss Finance Institute’s Outstanding Paper Award.4  Professor Andrew Kenan Rose, Dean of NUS Business School, said, “Professor Arvind Krishnamurthy abundantly satisfies the requirement of MAS Distinguished Term Professor; he is an eminent scholar working at the interface of finance and economics whose expertise extends across academic and policy spheres.  His work is celebrated and his insights are keen and valued.  We are delighted that he will be able to visit us, and am confident that our faculty and the broader Singapore academic community will benefit immensely from this engagement.”5  Mr Edward Robinson, Deputy Managing Director (Economic Policy) and Chief Economist, MAS, said, “Professor Krishnamurthy is widely recognised for his research at the intersection of financial economics and monetary policy, including his work on the demand for and pricing of safe assets such as United States (U.S.) Treasury securities. His research has fundamentally shaped our understanding of how government debt pricing affects financial conditions and the broader economy. His recent work on the economic forces underlying reserve currency status has gained significant traction amongst scholars and policymakers, at a time of ongoing discussions about the future of the international monetary system. It is our great privilege to welcome him as the 25th MAS Term Professor.” 6  Professor Krishnamurthy will deliver a public lecture at NUS on 24 February 2026 titled, "Dollar Dominance”. In his lecture, he will discuss how the dollar’s central role in global finance, contracting, and trade shapes the financial structure and macroeconomic outcomes of both the U.S. and the rest of the world, and examine the historical forces that give rise to and sustain reserve currency. In addition, Professor Krishnamurthy will engage in dialogue sessions with NUS faculty members to discuss his latest research findings. 7  Professor Krishnamurthy will also give a talk at MAS and engage senior policymakers and economists on international economics, finance and monetary policy issues. About the MAS Term Professorship in Economics and FinanceFirst established in 2009, the MAS Term Professorship in Economics and Finance is awarded to distinguished scholars, who are appointed as Visiting Professors at the Department of Economics at the NUS Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the NUS Business School, or the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. It aims to strengthen Singapore’s financial and economics research infrastructure and contribute to a vibrant research community and culture at local universities. Since its inception, the MAS Term Professorship in Economics and Finance has been awarded to 25 distinguished scholars over the last 15 years.