For this inaugural episode, Chairman Paul Atkins sits down with two of the strongest forces behind the policy, strategy, and productivity that drive the SEC’s mission forward every day—SEC Commissioners Mark Uyeda and Hester Peirce. Topics of the discussion include the paths that led them to the agency, what they’ve accomplished so far, and the exciting work still ahead.The views expressed in this podcast are, as applicable, those of the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or Commissioners Mark Uyeda or Hester Peirce. These views do not necessarily represent the views of the full Commission or SEC staff. Listen to the episode:  

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back after a productive morning. In just a few moments, I will ask Jamie to rejoin us for our third and final panel of the day. But first, I want to acknowledge the Division of Trading and Markets for organizing today’s program—and thank our more than two dozen panelists for bringing such insightful perspectives to it. Of course, before I move on to my remarks, I must also add the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. As our panelists underscored this morning, the U.S. options markets have grown remarkably in their breadth and depth. Today there are more exchanges trading more products, generating a dizzying amount of message traffic. For example, OPRA disseminates over 3,200 times more messages today than it did in the year 2000. And a broad cohort of retail investors now participates in these markets with greater ease and at greater scale. Given all that they share in common, it is tempting to discuss the options and equities markets in tandem. After all, the two are deeply interconnected, and developments in one market can have profound implications for the other. But commonalities between the options and equities markets can also obscure important distinctions among them. As options markets operate according to their own conventions, so they merit attention on their own terms. Yet, a sustained focus on listed options has eluded the Commission for some time. Thanks in large part to Commissioner Peirce, I am pleased that with today’s program, we are bringing that stretch to a close. Now, I should note that this roundtable is neither a prelude to, nor a harbinger of, any options rulemakings in the immediate term. Rather, today is a chance to celebrate the strength of our options markets and to recognize the important place that they have come to occupy in the broader financial ecosystem. Today’s panel discussions also offer an opportunity for leading experts and practitioners to examine what is working, to identify where closer attention is warranted, and to consider the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. In that spirit, I should also like to acknowledge the important work that is taking place beyond the Commission’s walls. Through the Listed Options Market Structure Working Group—or LOMSWG, as I understand its members have come to call it—SIFMA and the Security Traders Association convene market participants with sometimes divergent perspectives to discuss issues of mutual interest. That kind of industry-led engagement can be enormously constructive by helping to develop, socialize, and refine proposals before they make their way to the Commission for formal consideration. Taken together, efforts like today’s roundtable and the ongoing work of groups like LOMSWG strengthen our options market structure in ways that will keep it the envy of the financial world as it gains volume and scale. Which brings us, at last, to our closing session. I am delighted to turn things over to Jamie for a discussion on the growth of listed options, the associated challenges and opportunities that growth presents, and the issues that the Commission and market participants should consider in the years ahead. I expect this to be a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion. And I thank you all once again for being here. Please enjoy the remainder of today’s program. Thank you.

Following the successful launch of the Women in Clearing Network, in March 2024 the EACH’s Women in Clearing Series was inaugurated. This is an initiative with the objective of featuring a key female leader on a regular basis to inspire other professionals in the industry. We are excited to present this month’s contributor, Csilla Szanyi. Csilla has built her entire professional career in the clearing industry, working in CCP risk management since 2011. Her career path is distinctive in that she has progressed within the same institution, advancing through multiple roles to her current position as Chief Risk Officer at KELER CCP, a key institution in the Hungarian financial market infrastructure. She brings over 15 years of experience in central clearing and is responsible for the CCP’s risk management framework. In her role, she focuses not only on maintaining robust risk structures, but also on continuously adapting them to evolving market conditions and regulatory expectations. She leads a team of highly skilled professionals, who develop and analyse models supporting the guarantee system for cleared capital and energy markets. Csilla has been serving as a CRO for six years. She began her career as a risk expert after completing her studies at Corvinus University of Budapest, where she specialised in capital markets and corporate finance, with a minor in business evaluation and equity analysis. Csilla has volunteered to share with us her personal and professional journey by responding to these three questions: What was the aspect of yourself that you had to work on the most to get to where you are now? Early in my career, I had to learn patience. I was highly driven, eager to take on increasingly complex tasks and to contribute to strategically important projects, and I often expected results faster than they realistically come. Over time, I understood that real progression is built on consistency and sustained effort. Another important area of development was letting go the need to be the smartest person in every room. Early on, I often felt that I had to prove my expertise through having the best or most complete answer. With experience, I realised that real value comes from asking the right questions, challenging assumptions, and building on the perspective of others. I also learned to voice my thoughts even when they were still forming. Finally, I had to become comfortable operating without full control. In risk management, decisions often need to be made under uncertainty and with incomplete information while still taking full responsibility for the outcomes. What key tip would you give for professionals to successfully develop in their careers? In my experience, the most important factor is developing real expertise in something that you genuinely enjoy and going deep rather than broad. When you like what you do, continuous learning and improvement come naturally. At several points in my career, I considered moving to a different field, but there was always something new or challenging – from market crises to evolving regulation – that kept me engaged and motivated to stay and deepen my expertise. I also learned that you cannot rely on your work speaking for itself. It is important to make your contributions visible and to build strong professional relationships – your network plays a critical role in both learning and opportunity. Finally, one of the biggest shifts for me was becoming more authentic in how I operate. I learned to trust my professional judgement and act in alignment with it, rather than seeking external validation. How do you see the future of clearing in 10 years? The European clearing landscape is still relatively fragmented compared to other regions, with multiple exchanges and CCPs, so further integration and consolidation are likely over time.  At the same time, the increasing complexity and stringency of regulation may drive the development of alternative solutions outside traditional CCP clearing, as market participants look for ways to manage costs and operational burdens more efficiently. In terms of technology, advancements such as AI and DLT are likely to play an important role, although their exact impact on clearing models is still a bit uncertain. Overall, I see clearing ad an industry that will continue to evolve in response to new challenges, which is exactly what makes it such a compelling field to work in. You could learn about Csilla by reading the attached document or by clicking on this link. Our heartfelt gratitude to Csilla for her inspirational words! We look forward to continuing the EACH’s Women in Clearing Series by hosting many skilled women leaders to inspire other professionals in the clearing sector! The Women in Clearing network takes the form of a LinkedIn group that participants may use to connect with each other.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released enforcement actions for April 2026. The OCC uses enforcement actions against banks to require the board of directors and management to take timely actions to correct the deficient practices or violations identified. Actions taken against banks are: Consent Order against The Federal Savings Bank, Chicago, Illinois, for violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act relating to the bank’s deceptive acts or practices that induced consumers to obtain cash-out refinance loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs involving significant origination fees, increased interest rates, and increased monthly payments. (Docket No. AA-ENF-2025-63) The OCC uses enforcement actions against an institution-affiliated party (IAP) to deter, encourage correction of, or prevent violations, unsafe or unsound practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty. Enforcement actions against IAPs reinforce the accountability of individuals for their conduct regarding the affairs of a bank. The term “institution-affiliated party,” or IAP, is defined in 12 USC 1813(u) and includes bank directors, officers, employees, and controlling shareholders. Orders of Prohibition prohibit an individual from any participation in the affairs of a bank or other institution as defined in 12 USC 1818(e)(7). The OCC has taken the following actions against IAPs: Order of Prohibition against Shaira Ahmed, former Associate Banker at JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus, Ohio, for embezzling more than $73,000 from bank customer accounts. (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-15) Order of Prohibition against Marissa Murillo, former Associate Banker at BMO Bank N.A., Chicago, Illinois, for making unauthorized withdrawals from an elderly bank customer’s account, totaling more than $164,000. (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-5) The OCC terminates enforcement actions when a bank has demonstrated compliance with all articles of an enforcement action; or when the OCC determines that articles deemed “not in compliance” have become outdated or irrelevant to the bank’s current circumstances; or when the OCC incorporates the articles deemed “not in compliance” into a new action. The termination actions are: Order Terminating the Consent Order against CNB Bank & Trust, Carlinville, Illinois, dated June 18, 2024 (Docket No. AA-ENF-2024-47). (Docket No. AA-CE-2026-3) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with Generations Bank, Seneca Falls, New York, dated July 19, 2024 (Docket No. AA-NE-2024-68). (Docket No. AA-NE-2026-18) Order Terminating the Consent Order against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio, dated March 14, 2024 (Docket No. AA-EC-2023-50). (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-17) To receive alerts for news releases announcing public OCC enforcement actions, subscribe to OCC Email Updates. All OCC public enforcement actions taken since August 1989 are available for download by viewing the searchable enforcement actions database at https://apps.occ.gov/EASearch. Related Link Enforcement Action Types

SIFMA today issued the following statement from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., SIFMA president and CEO, on the concept release issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission soliciting public comment in support of a comprehensive review of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT): “SIFMA welcomes the concept release the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published today soliciting public input to assist the SEC’s comprehensive review of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).  We have long called for a public review of the CAT which would address, among other topics, the costs of the CAT, its governance and funding, and the scope and security of the data held within the CAT.  SIFMA has previously made in-depth recommendations which would lead to a more efficient and cost-effective CAT without compromising its intended regulatory purpose, and we look forward to further commenting on today’s concept release and engaging further with the SEC on this issue.”

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the Committee: thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.  Just over a hundred days ago, I was sworn in as the 16th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.  During my November confirmation hearing, I pledged to work tirelessly as Chairman to maintain the agency’s status as a world-class financial markets regulator. I committed to protect and provide regulatory relief to our farmers, ranchers, and producers, roll back outdated rules and regulations, and modernize the agency to keep pace with the rapid speed of innovation. I’m pleased to report I’ve made significant progress on these goals since rejoining the agency last December.  One of my first priorities upon taking charge of the agency was identifying regulations that prevent farmers, ranchers, and producers from accessing our derivatives markets. My staff have been working diligently to right-size cumbersome rules so that even our smallest producers can properly manage risk. I’ve also revived the agency’s annual agriculture convention, known as AgCon, to bring together leaders from government, business, and academia to discuss the most pressing issues in our agricultural markets. Most importantly, I’ll be visiting farmers, ranchers, and producers across the country in the coming months to hear from them directly. The agriculture community is the backbone of this country, and it’ll always have a seat at the table in this administration.  Another key priority is to lower the compliance burdens and energy costs for small businesses. Many of our rules and regulations discourage firms from servicing and trading with the businesses that are most in need of our markets.  The agency is finalizing regulatory relief for firms that transact with energy, agriculture, and critical minerals producers to provide access to more market intermediaries and contribute to lower commodity prices.  The agency has also taken a leading role in delivering on President Trump’s mandate to make America the crypto capital of the world. Importantly, the CFTC joined an SEC interpretation to provide guidance that resolved significant ambiguity in the marketplace as to which types of crypto assets are commodities, and which are securities. We’ve also worked quickly to provide clarity concerning tokenized collateral, the capital treatment for payment stablecoins, and the obligations of software developers building in the United States.  I applaud the important work of this Committee to deliver bipartisan market structure legislation that will cement clear rules of the road for the millions of Americans who use crypto assets every day. I’m optimistic that Congress will soon send this landmark legislation to the President’s desk. The agency is also working to provide explicit guidelines and further strengthen investor protections for prediction markets, which offer trading in event contract derivatives that are regulated under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. Commission staff recently issued a prediction markets advisory and published a notice soliciting public input before considering new regulations for these markets. Now, I’m sure I’ll be getting questions about our enforcement efforts related to crypto, prediction markets, and the commodity derivatives markets more broadly. So, I want to be crystal clear: to anyone who engages in fraud, manipulation, or insider trading in any of our markets: we will find you, and you will face the full force of the law. Nothing is more important than protecting market integrity and that’s why I’ve been diligently working to reinvigorate our enforcement division and upgrade our surveillance tools to meet the challenges of our growing markets. None of these accomplishments would have been possible in such a short period of time without the agency’s talented and experienced civil servants. I have also brought on new senior leadership who bring a wealth of experience to the agency.  As Chairman, I believe it’s vital to break from the restrictive regulatory practices of the past and create derivatives markets that work for everyone. Under my leadership, the CFTC will administer fit-for-purpose regulation appropriately tailored to material risks, no more and no less, to ensure that the future of finance is made here, in America. If the past is prologue, the next hundred days—and the years beyond—will build on this transformative foundation as the CFTC remains the gold standard for smart, effective oversight of our financial markets. Our work here is just getting started.   Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee announced that it will hold a meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to explore ways to encourage more companies to go public. The meeting will be open to the public and held at the SEC’s headquarters at 100 F Street, N.E, Washington D.C. The discussion will also be streamed live on SEC.gov. The committee will start the morning session by hearing from its members about their perspectives on the state of the IPO market while considering the existing regulatory framework and how decreased IPO activity and market shifts are impacting companies’ (including small caps’) desires to go public. Edwin O’Connor, Partner, Co-Chair of Capital Markets, Goodwin Procter LLP will share his views on the IPO market, trends, and factors that may be at play. This conversation will continue into the afternoon session where the committee will hear from Beau Bohm, Managing Director, Global Co-Head of Equity Capital Markets, Cantor Fitzgerald, who will share views on the IPO market from the underwriter’s perspective. The Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the SEC on rules, regulations, and policy matters relating to small businesses. For more information about the committee and the full agenda for the meeting, visit the committee webpage.

The Artificial Intelligence Consortium (AIC) provides a platform for public-private engagement to further dialogue on the capabilities, development, deployment, use, and potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in UK financial services. As stated in the AIC’s Terms of reference, the views expressed by the members in these minutes and any subsequent outputs do not reflect the views of their institutions, the Bank of England (Bank) or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The activities, discussions, and outputs of the members should not be taken as an indication of future policy by the Bank or FCA. Date of meeting: 9 February 2026 Item 1: Welcome Co-chair Sarah Breeden opened the session by welcoming attendees to the AI Consortium’s (AIC) third quarterly meeting held virtually. Sarah welcomed new Co-chair David Geale, the FCA’s Executive Director for Payments and Digital Finance & Managing Director for the PSR, and congratulated member Harriet Rees on her recent appointment by the Government as an AI Champion for Financial Services. David introduced himself, thanked departing members, and welcomed new membersOpens in a new window and an observer from Ofcom. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that regulatory and industry approaches to AI are safe and responsible. The contributions during the session were under Chatham House Rule. Item 2: Workshop presentations Each group provided an update on their progress followed by discussion. Workshop 1: Concentration risk Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work on concentration risks arising from reliance on a small number of AI providers, models, and infrastructure. The workshop is exploring how such reliance can create vulnerabilities where firms have limited visibility over model design, performance changes and update schedules, constraining their ability to assess risk and maintain control. Members also discussed how the concentrated provision of compute capacity and specialist expertise could limit firms’ ability to respond to stress events or disruptions affecting widely used AI services. Members discussed the limited control firms may have over updates and changes introduced by third‑party vendors, often at short notice. These dependencies were identified by members as a potential source of correlated risk, raising questions about resilience, assurance and effective oversight. The workshop is also working with the Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG) AI Taskforce to consider how to improve the transparency in AI supply chain, that is, the components and services that AI systems depend on such as hardware, cloud infrastructure, data, and foundation models. Workshop 2: Evolution of AI edge cases In their substantive update, the Evolution of AI Edge Cases workshop presented practical methods for identifying and controlling ‘AI edge use cases’ – novel, high impact AI applications. The members plan to explore the monitoring and governance systems needed to manage risks from applications that introduce greater autonomy for AI models in executing decisions. Workshop members acknowledged while advanced AI use cases can deliver important benefits, including efficiency gains and cost reductions, they can also introduce novel risks. Members suggested that agentic workflows may be used in material decision making and may autonomously act across multiple systems, potentially posing operational risks. The workshop members were asked whether there is a shared understanding of what failure looks like in advanced AI use cases, in order to help identify higher risk “edge” applications. Members noted that failures can arise from a combination of speed, increased autonomy, and dependencies that create shared attack surfaces and correlated failure modes. These characteristics can create similar vulnerabilities and lead to correlated operational failures within and between firms, even where the underlying AI models differ. Members also queried whether their approach of tailoring governance and controls to specific AI edge cases is compatible with the principle of technology neutrality. Some members noted that longstanding principles such as financial stability, consumer protection and data protection continue to apply regardless of technology. The workshop members noted, however, that for certain higher-risk edge cases, it may be appropriate for firms to implement system-specific control measures, such as predefined circuit breakers, to manage risks effectively. Workshop 3: Explainability and transparency in generative AI Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work which aims to clarify what meaningful explainability and transparency could look like for AI systems used in financial services. One member highlighted large language models (LLMs) can offer traceability, and that the ability to track reasoning by an LLM could be helpful in assessing how decisions have evolved when developing AI models. Members discussed how existing model risk management expectations such as SS1/23 apply to AI systems and their components, including generative AI models, prompts, and retrieval layers. One member commended the user-research approach taken by the Government in developing the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (Complete transparency, complete simplicityOpens in a new window) as a potential model for thinking about how to communicate AI system behaviour clearly. Some members explored how terms such as human in the loop (HiTL) should be interpreted as systems become more autonomous. Members noted that maintaining a ‘human in the loop’ may become increasingly strained as firms adopt agentic AI and move from back office to market-facing applications. The workshop members were asked about the importance of consistent definitions of HiTL where use cases span different sectors and may require different forms of explainability, meaning a single approach may not be appropriate. One member noted that caution is needed to avoid definitions that are sector-specific since clarity is required for AI providers delivering tools and services across sectors. Another member added the importance of distinguishing between explaining a system’s overall behaviour (global explainability) and explaining its individual decisions or outputs (local explainability). The workshop leads confirmed these concepts have been a part of their discussions. Workshop 4: AI-accelerated contagion Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work exploring how AI adoption may alter contagion pathways across the financial system, with potential impacts such as price volatility, changes in participant behaviour, and system-wide disruption during periods of stress. The workshop is examining how increased automation, speed, and shared technical dependencies may affect transmission channels in a financial market stress. Members discussed how AI – especially agentic AI systems – may compress decision-making latency in ways that challenge traditional escalation and oversight mechanisms such as kill switches and circuit breakers. Some members questioned whether controls such as kill switches could unintentionally disrupt critical functions, providing the example of a kill switch that shuts off a system but simultaneously impedes payments across the financial system. Members of this workshop also highlighted how reliance on shared infrastructure, cloud providers, and energy resources could interact with stress scenarios. Members noted that scenario analysis and wargaming are some approaches to explore how AI-driven systems might behave under stress. Some members encouraged the workshop to consider whether AI-driven market scenarios did indeed pose novel risks as compared to algorithmic trading more generally, though members also noted the important distinction that AI introduces non-determinism and scale effects that differ from traditional deterministic systems. Item 3: Consortium discussion on key trends The Co‑chairs invited members to discuss potential implications for the financial system arising from firms’ efforts to create returns on AI investments (ROI). The discussion was framed around agent‑to‑agent commerce, agentic trading tools, reliance on third parties, and regulatory barriers or uncertainty. One member noted that some commentary on ROI may over‑emphasise downside risks, observing that some financial firms are already seeing returns from their investments in AI adoption. It was suggested that capital is being deployed rapidly due to perceived first‑mover advantages, although there may currently be relatively limited areas in which AI can deliver value at scale. Other members questioned whether first‑mover advantage is as relevant in financial services as in the technology sector, suggesting that for financial firms, access to and governance of underlying data is a more significant differentiator for ROI than the speed of AI deployment. Members discussed the relationship between risk and return in financial services use cases. It was suggested that current deployments tend to focus on lower‑risk, lower‑return applications, but that firms may, over time, move towards higher‑risk use cases with greater potential returns. One member proposed that attention should focus on new actors entering traditional systems, particularly in areas such as payments and commerce. Members observed differences in adoption dynamics across firm sizes. Members perceived smaller firms may be more willing to adopt a quicker, ‘fail fast’ approach and, as a result, be less willing to build in-house models and more comfortable relying on third‑party solutions. It was further noted that pressure to adopt AI quickly may make it challenging for smaller firms to develop governance arrangements and build the necessary skills and expertise at pace. By contrast, members noted that ROI may materialise more slowly in larger firms, which may face higher internal barriers to adoption. Members debated the sufficiency of HiTL as AI systems become more complex. One member opined that as AI adoption increases, the number and types of errors may become difficult to detect and real-time monitoring of individual components of a system (rather than its outputs) may become necessary. Members acknowledged these governance challenges and noted that a principles-based approach could accommodate the rapid technological change including scenarios where agentic systems act autonomously or learn dynamically. Several members discussed the importance of harmonised regulatory approaches internationally, in order to encourage responsible innovation. Wrap up The Co‑chairs thanked members for a constructive discussion and for their contributions outside formal meetings. They noted the importance of workshops continuing to develop practical, tangible outputs and of building a shared understanding of how AI investment, adoption and risk are evolving across the financial system. The next AIC quarterly meeting was expected to take place in June 2026. Attendees Co-chairs & Moderators Breeden, Sarah – Bank of EnglandGeale, David – Financial Conduct Authority Members Ahmed, Ratul – Commerzbank AG Beliossi, Giovanni – Axyon AI SRL Bhatti, Tanveer – IndependentBrink, Suzanne – Lloyds Banking GroupBuchanan, Bonnie Gai – University of Surrey Daley, Sue – techUK Dunmur, Alan – Allica Bank Heffron, Sarah – JP MorganHughes, Clara – Pension Insurance Corp Jefferson, Michael – Amazon Web Services Jones, Matthew – Nationwide Building SocietyKazim, Emre – Holistic AI Li, Feng – Bayes Business School Patel, Parimal – Independent Pearce, Luke – Santander Rees, Harriet – Starling Bank Limited Rosenshine, Kate – Microsoft Szpruch, Lukasz – The Alan Turing Institute Taylor, Neil – MastercardValane, Jeffrey – HSBC Wade, David – Goldman Sachs Xu, Justin – MillTech   Apologies Kazantsev, Gary – Bloomberg LP Mullins, Inga – FluencyPearce, Christopher – Ageas UK Prince, Emily – LSEG Observers Fairburn, James – HMTIgnatidou, Sophia – ICOUnderhill, Michael – Ofcom Bank of England Gharbawi, MohammedGraham, GeorgetteLee, AmyMutton, Tom Financial Conduct Authority Jordan, VickiLevett, FreddieSimon, ChristopherThorman, Libby

Good morning. Thank you to the Division of Trading and Markets (the “Division”) and other staff of the Commission for organizing this roundtable on options market structure.[1] Many thanks to our participants, who have taken the time to join us today. We look forward to hearing your thoughts. For as long as I can remember, equity market structure – and to a lesser extent, fixed income market structure, has taken center stage in the Commission’s public and regulatory dialogue. In fact, over the years, we have convened advisory committees in both of those areas. Issues like fragmentation, concentration, data asymmetries, and uneven execution quality have been studied extensively on the equity side. But data recently released by the Commission makes clear that many of the concerns long debated in equities exist to an even greater degree in options.[2] During the last ten years, the options landscape has transformed dramatically. Growth in retail participation, particularly in short‑dated and ultra‑short‑dated strategies, has reshaped order flow dynamics, execution pathways, and the economics of liquidity provision. These developments should cause us to reconsider the assumptions behind our existing regulations. For example, how does the increasing fragmentation—15 exchanges with >1% market share—affect the execution quality of retail marketable orders? We should also consider issues in the institutional space—such as the practical effects of market maker entitlements, data asymmetries, and competitive barriers. Do today’s institutional market makers still require the types of incentives and entitlements that exist in current floor auction rules? Or has the market evolved to a point where those mechanisms should be revisited? The Commission should optimize regulations for all types of market participants, including individuals who are often the beneficiaries of institutional investors. I look forward to public feedback on how our rules can be modernized to strengthen execution quality, enhance competition, and ensure the options market can effectively serve investors, institutions, and issuers alike. The data is clear—and the moment is right—for thoughtful, measured reform. I thank Chairman Atkins for convening this options market structure roundtable. [1] My remarks today reflect my views as an individual Commissioner and not necessarily the views of the full Commission or my fellow Commissioners. [2] See Division of Trading and Markets, Roundtable on Options Market Structure—Supporting Data (April 9, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/roundtable-options-market-structure.pdf. 

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published a draft technical package for version 4.3 of its reporting framework, covering anti-money laundering (AML) and third country branches (TCB) reporting. This early release is intended to support reporting entities in preparing for upcoming changes ahead of the final publication, scheduled for June 2026. The EBA The EBA invites stakeholders to provide feedback on both the draft technical package and the accompanying glossary. The draft technical package for release 4.3, includes validation rules, the Data Point Model (DPM) and XBRL taxonomies, and introduces the following new reporting requirements: New Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on the supervisory reporting of third‑country branches, in accordance with Article 48l(1) of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD). The first reference date is 31 March 2027. DPM and taxonomy supporting the methodology to identify obliged entities that will fall under the direct supervision of the Anti‑Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), with a first reference date of 31 December 2026. This package should be read in conjunction with the templates and instructions published by AMLA for the testing and calibration exercise here. Background, consultation process and next steps The final technical package for Reporting Framework 4.3 will be published in June 2026 and will reflect any necessary amendments following stakeholder review. This draft publication aims to provide additional implementation time for institutions and to enable the EBA to gather early feedback ahead of finalisation. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments and suggestions on the draft technical package 4.3 and the new glossary by 10 May 2026, using the EBA feedback form. Disclaimer: This draft technical package is provided for information purposes only. The final package will include additional elements not yet covered, notably two tables related to the AMLA framework (AML.01.01 and AML.01.02), as well as further validation rules applicable to AML reporting. Related content Page Reporting framework 4.3 Draft Implementing Technical StandardsFinal draft RTS/ITS adopted by the EBA and submitted to the European Commission Implementing Technical Standards on the supervisory reporting of Third Country Branches News19 January 2026 EBA and AMLA complete handover of AML/CFT mandates Link AMLA launches data collection exercise to test risk assessment models Link Feedback from

Good morning, and welcome to the Options Market Roundtable.[1] Thank you to all the panelists, and to the Commission staff, especially from the Division of Trading and Markets, for organizing this roundtable. Thank you also to the people who submitted comment letters in advance of the roundtable.[2] These letters are insightful, identify problems worth investigating, and provide concrete recommendations. I welcome additional input from audience members with reactions to today’s conversations. I expect the discussion to be informative and entertaining—even the terminology of options market—think butterfly and condor spreads—is fun. Despite the intriguing character of the options market, the equities market dominates Commission attention. As we have been writing and rewriting Reg NMS, the options market has grown enormously. That growth has been not just in notional value or volume, but in participation, in sophistication, and in the option market’s role within our broader capital markets. Because of the importance of this market, a persistent item on my wish list during my years at the SEC has been an options roundtable. Thanks to Jamie and his team in Trading and Markets, my wish is finally materializing! But should I—someone who believes markets generally function well without regulatory attention—really have been inviting Commission scrutiny on the options market? While the equity markets have been pushed and pulled by the detailed mandates of Regulation NMS, the options market has had more space to develop its own solutions, sometimes with gentle prodding from the Commission.  We are not here because the options market is failing, but because it is succeeding. We want to ensure that it continues to function effectively as trading and participation reaches new highs. The Commission’s role is to ensure that the plumbing is sound and that the playing field remains open to competition. As we will hear today, the growth in the options market has been impressive, but has brought with it some matters worthy of consideration: We have seen a proliferation of exchanges—soon to be twenty—which raises the question of whether we are fostering competition or fostering more market fragmentation, added cost, and greater complexity. We have seen a notable reduction in the number of clearing firms, which raises concerns about resiliency and capacity. We have seen a concentration of activity in a few market makers, which, combined with the cost of connecting to numerous venues and quoting across millions of options, raises concerns about competition and barriers to entry. We have noted the proliferation of strikes, the limited interest in many of them, and the attendant consequences to the market, its infrastructure, and its participants. We have heard from some industry members that generous market maker allocation formulas, established years ago to incentivize liquidity provision, may inhibit competition and may no longer be necessary in the current market landscape. We have received calls for more transparency with respect to options market execution data. And of course, as with many of our markets, we have heard of both the opportunities and challenges in the options market raised by the possibilities of 24/7 trading and tokenization. I look forward to a lively discussion on all these topics and more. And unlike the Commission’s recent roundtables on the equity market, which have focused on how the Commission can undo the damage it caused through its own Reg NMS heavy-handedness, I anticipate that solutions that emerge will be industry-led, with the Commission playing a supporting role. The recent changes to the methodology of the Options Regulatory Fee, charmingly referred to as the “ORF,” are an example of such a solution. Under the previous methodology, the ORF permitted an options exchange almost limitless freedom to charge regulatory fees, even for transactions occurring on another exchange or involving a product that was not traded on their exchange. This ability—akin to the state of Maryland being able to charge a toll on your car as you drive over a bridge in Texas—helped to encourage exchange proliferation. A year ago, when I attended the Options Industry Conference, many doubted that this problem could be solved. Yet less than a year later, all the options exchanges have submitted rule changes limiting their ability to assess ORF fees to transactions executed on their own exchange. I want to congratulate the industry, and our staff in Trading and Markets, on the welcome change. Special shoutout to Richard Holley. I hope that the discussions today will lead to similar solutions in the options market that facilitate its growth, foster its resilience, and continue to encourage innovation that serves investors. [1] My views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow commissioners. [2] Comments are available here: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/public-comments/4-887.

Today, the Commission issued a long-awaited concept release as part of its comprehensive review of the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT”). I hope that the comments we receive will meaningfully inform the Commission’s reassessment of the troubled and troubling CAT and prompt a broader reconsideration of our approach to financial surveillance.   The CAT, now in its teenage years, is expensive, contentious, and perilous to privacy. CAT cost overruns have been massive: the estimated annual budget of $55 million in 2016 expanded to, until very recently, an actual annual budget of almost $250 million. CAT progress has been slow; it is years behind schedule. CAT’s greatest success is its ability to generate extensive fighting among regulated entities and between regulated entities and the Commission. Over the past year the Commission has taken several important steps to address some of these longstanding concerns with the CAT. It has reduced some of the financial costs of the CAT,[1] ceased mandated collection and storage of personally identifiable information,[2] and begun reevaluating the collection of certain unnecessary and overly burdensome data fields.[3] This concept release is another meaningful step. It poses serious, substantive questions on CAT governance, technology infrastructure, data security, and funding models—questions that reflect the extensive and persistent engagement we have heard from the public in recent years. I look forward to reviewing the full range of comments.  My deepest concerns, however, remain squarely in the realms of liberty and privacy. Regulators need to be able to oversee the markets, but appropriate limits on how regulators gather, store, use, and dispose of information are essential. No matter how much the CAT’s budget is trimmed or how many data fields are pared back, the core reality remains unchanged: the CAT is a government-mandated repository of every equity and options order and trade made by every single investor in the U.S. markets. And no matter how many procedural steps we add before a regulator can access the personally identifiable information linked to those trades, an ill-intentioned regulator at the Commission or one of the many self-regulatory organizations with access to the data may be able to navigate those steps to stalk personal or political enemies. Most regulatory users will not do such things, but restraints on government power have to contemplate the few who might. The premise underlying the CAT—that the government has the right to monitor every purchase and sale decision without suspicion of wrongdoing—should trouble all of us. Americans should not have to prove their innocence by submitting their daily financial lives to comprehensive government monitoring. Why should you who have nothing to hide care? You should care because the same government that collects this data also decides what counts as wrongdoing. You should care because defending yourself against even unfounded allegations can be enormously costly in time, money, and stress. You should care if you fear a government that might use such a tool to single out individuals for personal or political reasons. You should care because complacency about a government that can scrutinize every one of your financial transactions may cultivate acceptance of a government that also peers into other areas of your private life that you may not be so willing to leave open to examination. You should care because a government that has built a backdoor into every broker may not hesitate to build backdoors elsewhere. You should care because, though I have the utmost confidence in this Commission staff and their commitment to using the CAT for appropriate regulatory purposes, a tool like the CAT inevitably creates the opportunity for future abuse by someone in government or at one of the many SROs with access to it.   This concept release gives the Commission, for the first time, a genuine opportunity to confront these fundamental concerns head-on. Can the CAT be restructured to resolve the serious questions about privacy and civil liberty, and if so, how? Would an alternative model, one that does not rely on a centralized repository, better safeguard these values? The introduction of the CCID as a substitute for social security numbers helps, but CCIDs are still linked to individual traders. Would further restricting the ability of regulators to link personally identifiable information with transaction data mitigate some of these risks? Could the Commission or the self-regulatory organizations continue to conduct effective market surveillance if the CAT were eliminated? What type of system would best protect people’s privacy?  If a system like the CAT remains in place, what robust and durable safeguards could prevent its potential weaponization against personal or political enemies? Or must we acknowledge that the very concept of a massive surveillance database may simply be incompatible with the principles of civil liberty that are foundational to our society? I hope commenters will take advantage of this opportunity to help us fundamentally rethink the architecture of market oversight with an eye not only toward cost, convenience, and efficacy, but also toward the basic rights of people to participate in the market unwatched absent suspicion of wrongdoing. My harsh criticisms of the CAT and my broader concerns about what it represents should not be mistaken for criticisms of the Commission staff. For more than a decade, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets, the Office of General Counsel, and the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis have worked tirelessly through extraordinarily complex issues amidst relentless criticism from all sides, shifting priorities, and the constant threat and reality of litigation. The CAT team has been consistently thoughtful, patient, and responsive in engaging with my concerns on this release, and other CAT projects. Working on the CAT can often feel like a thankless endeavor, but I sincerely appreciate the team’s sustained commitment to this project. In particular, I would like to thank Erika Berg for her remarkable efforts in bringing this release to completion without neglecting the never-ending flow of daily CAT tasks.  [1] See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 105107 (Mar. 27, 2026), 91 FR 16284 (Apr. 1, 2026); see also Press Release, SEC Approves Amendment to NMS Plan to Further Reduce the Costs of the Consolidated Audit Trail (Mar. 27, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-31-sec-approves-amendment-nms-plan-further-reduce-costs-consolidated-audit-trail. [2] See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104586 (Jan. 13, 2026), 91 FR 2164 (Jan. 16, 2026). [3] See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 104662 (Jan. 23, 2026), 91 FR 3572 (Jan. 27, 2026); 104663 (Jan. 23, 2026), 91 FR 3601 (Jan. 27, 2026); 104664 (Jan. 23, 2026), 91 FR 3557 (Jan. 27, 2026). 

The average daily trading volume for the period 12/04 – 16/04 reached JD (17.0) million compared to JD (14.0) million for the last week, a increase of (21.7%). The total trading volume during the week reached JD(85.0) million compared to JD (69.8) million during the last week. Trading a total of (25.1) million shares through (21805) transactions. Services led the trading with JD(33.18) million or (39.05%) of the total trading volume. The Industrial followed with a JD(30.08) million or (35.41%). Finally, the Financial with a JD(21.69) million representing(25.54%) of the total trading volume. The shares price index closed at (3791.1) points, compared to (3707.4) points for the last week, an increase of (2.26%). The Services index increased by (5.92%), the Industrial index increased by (3.7%), and the Financial index decreased by (0.02%). The shares of (134) companies were traded, the shares prices of (46) companies rose, and the shares prices of (64) declined. The top five gainers during the week were, the Jordan Petroleum Refinery by (14.57%), United Cable Industries by (14.40%), Specialized Investment Compounds by (13.16%), Amad Investment & Real Estate Development by (11.42%), and Middle East Holding by (10.65%). The top five losers were, the Contempro For Housing Projects by (16.49%), Union Investment Corporation by (12.50%), Union Tobacco & Cigarette Industries by (10.00%), Dimensions:jordan And Emirates Commercial Investments Corporation by (9.80%), and Al-tahdith For Real Estate Investments Company by (7.59%). Note: The list of the top five gainers or losers may include companies whose reference prices have been adjusted due to actions executed during the summary period. Therefore, the appearance of such companies does not necessarily reflect an actual change in their stock prices.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published its 2024 Dashboard on high earners. The data shows an increase in the number of individuals in EU banks earning more than EUR 1 million. The Report also confirms that gender imbalance persists, with high‑paid positions still predominantly held by men in both credit institutions and investment firms. In 2024, the total number of high earners increases at 2 554 (from 2 343 in 2023). In credit institutions, the number increased by 7% (from 2 122 in 2023 to 2 266 in 2024). In investment firms, it rose by 30% (from 221 in 2023 to 288 in 2024). This development is mainly linked to i) strong profitability supported by higher interest income and active trading, alongside a rebound in advisory and capital markets; ii) favourable economic conditions, including elevated interest rates and renewed M&A activity; and iii) competitive pay adjustments justified by the firms as warranted to attract and retain talent. The weighted average ratio of variable to fixed remuneration for high earners in credit institutions increased to 98 %. For investment firms, the average ratio fell to 359%. The cap on variable-to-fixed remuneration laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) has not applied to investment firms since 2021. Click here for full details.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a concept release soliciting public comment in support of a comprehensive review of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) and other audit trails and related data sources currently used in the regulation of U.S. securities markets. The concept release seeks comment on topics including, but not limited to, CAT funding and cost management, the regulatory purpose of the CAT, the structure and governance of the CAT, the design and scope of the CAT, and the cybersecurity and data privacy of the CAT and other audit trails and related data sources, as well as comments regarding the appropriate balance between privacy and confidentiality considerations, civil liberties protections, and regulatory need. “Under my leadership, the Commission has made meaningful progress to reform the CAT and strike a better balance between regulatory use, costs, funding, and security considerations,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “Over the last year, the Commission has issued exemptive relief and approved amendments to the national market system plan governing the CAT that have, among other benefits, reduced the CAT’s projected annual operating costs by over $100 million and permanently eliminated the reporting of personal identifiable information to the CAT.” “However, we can – and must – do more,” Chairman Atkins continued. “Accordingly, the concept release seeks comment on foundational and existential aspects of the CAT. The Commission is aware of the need to address many aspects of the CAT, and public comment is a crucial piece of the comprehensive review currently under way.” Jamie Selway, Director of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets, said, “The Division is looking forward to engaging with the public with respect to our comprehensive review of the CAT. We anticipate that the concept release issued by the Commission today will provoke meaningful dialogue.” SEC concept releases are a means for the Commission to obtain public input on policy topics in advance of pursuing any related regulatory action. Concept releases typically outline a topic of interest, identify potential options, and raise specific questions for public commenters to consider.  In this concept release, the Commission welcomes comment on possible regulatory responses related to topics identified in the release or otherwise proposed by commenters with respect to the CAT, including comments on any costs, burdens, or benefits that may result from such regulatory responses. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the concept release in the Federal Register. Resources Concept Release Fact Sheet Submit Public Comments

Thank you, Commissioners Peirce and Uyeda, for your remarks today and for your engagement on options market structure. In particular, I’d like to credit Commissioner Peirce with the idea of this roundtable. Her advocacy and leadership on options helped make today possible, and her intellectual curiosity, passion for our work, and dedication to core Commission principles regularly make our Division better. I also want to thank our moderators and distinguished panelists for lending us your valuable time, expertise, and experience today to help inform the Commission and the investing public we serve.  We are confident that this group will lead us through a lively, thought-provoking, and informative discussion about current issues in the options market. Before I begin, please note that my remarks today are provided in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the staff. This disclaimer also applies to the comments of my Division colleagues who will join me as part of today’s program. As we explore current topics in options market structure today, it is useful to remember the Commission’s last deep dive into the listed options waters was in 2004: a Concept Release on Competitive Developments in the Options Markets. The Concept Release reflected on fundamental questions about how competition, technology, and investor protection intersect in the options market. It came on the heels of a transformational time for options. Multiple-listing had been introduced in August 1999, driving venue competition. The International Securities Exchange launched in May 2000, becoming the first new entrant in the options market in more than two decades. Controversy marked introduction of payment of order flow and internalization to options markets then, as execution venues sought to differentiate themselves to customers. Some of the questions raised in the Concept Release, such as the appropriateness of execution quality disclosure to options trading, remain relevant today. Now, more than 20 years later, the options market has seen phenomenal growth, with increasing retail participation and the addition of more options exchanges – and hence competition and investor choice. At the same time, options markets are working harder than ever. The sharp increase in the number of options classes and series and exploding quote traffic necessitate higher levels of technological investment and capital commitment. And despite these transformative changes, liquidity is even more concentrated in a limited set of the most active symbols, wide spreads are common in less liquid symbols, large market makers occupy a significant number of specialist appointments, and consolidators control the vast majority of retail flow. Many of the same issues from 2004 persist. It is therefore incumbent upon us to re-inform ourselves and revisit where things stand. In our first segment, we will delve deeper into these trends via data. As we listen, consider that what’s old is new again, albeit with a modern twist. As the options market evolves, many of the underlying policy questions with which the Commission and market participants have grappled over the years remain familiar. But today, we consider those policy questions in a landscape that is profoundly more automated, interconnected, and complex than ever before. For example, we continue to consider ways to promote and facilitate competition, while addressing any potential negative effects of fragmentation. At the same time new issues have emerged, like short-term options series with more expirations during the week. And ORF. Though, I am happy to say that in the case of the Options Regulatory Fee, every exchange has amended its rules as part of a successful, if long-overdue, industry-led reform effort. This reform will move the marketplace to a more equitable and fair regulatory funding model on July 1 of this year. And to the exchange leader who volunteered last fall to participate in an ORF roundtable on December 24, your Christmas comes early in 2026. Today’s roundtable is an effort by the Commission to once again engage with market participants in a thoughtful dialogue on these issues and to reexamine and reaffirm an approach that supports transparency, fairness, and competition in the markets that investors rely on every day. We should consider how to respond to changing market dynamics, whether in technology, trading behavior, or market participation, and reflect on our collective past experience and lessons learned as we do so. I expect that today’s panels will provide robust discussions that will help us assess these important market structure issues. First, we will hear from Jesse Brady and Ethan Coombs in the Division’s Office of Analytics and Research. Jesse and Ethan will present highlights from their paper that was released last week to support today’s discussion. The paper is available on the roundtable webpage and on the Commission’s market structure analytics page. The data describes key trends observed in the options market in recent years. Following the presentation, we will have three panel discussions. Panel one, moderated by Division colleague Arun Manoharan, will examine how the current options market structure facilitates or hinders the ability of liquidity providers to compete fairly and freely in furtherance of a robust national market system. Our second panel will discuss the customer experience with listed options. Division colleagues Jon Kroeper and Eric Juzenas will moderate.  After lunch, Chairman Atkins will make remarks. Our third and final panel will be moderated by Richard Holley and will consider the growth of listed options, the associated challenges and opportunities that growth presents, and the issues that the Commission and market participants should consider in the years ahead. Again, thank you to everyone participating in today’s roundtable. We look forward to exploring with you an interesting and always-evolving segment of the marketplace, which is increasingly important to investors. I’ll now turn it over to Jesse and Ethan. 

The Athens Exchange today welcomed the management, executives, and partners of PREMIA Properties on the occasion of the listing of the company’s new bond issuance. The Chairman, Mr. Ilias Georgiadis, and the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Kostas Markazos, officially rang the opening bell to commence the trading session. “PREMIA Properties, in its current corporate form following the acquisition of PASAL Real Estate in 2021, has raised a total of €348 million from the Greek capital market—€250 million through two bond issuances and €98 million through share capital increases. This clearly demonstrates the company’s confidence in the domestic market’s ability to support corporate growth plans by providing access to capital from a strong base of domestic and international investors, as reflected in the high levels of oversubscription. The successful completion of this issuance, despite a challenging international environment, reaffirms PREMIA Properties’ strong position in the real estate sector and its ability to attract high-quality investment capital. We wish the management every success in executing its strategy and achieving its objectives,” stated the CEO of Athens Exchange Group, Mr. Yianos Kontopoulos. The Chairman of PREMIA Properties, Mr. Ilias Georgiadis, commented: “This bond issuance represents a significant milestone for PREMIA Properties and reflects the strong vote of confidence from the investment community. Even amid ongoing market volatility, our team, under the leadership of CEO Kostas Markazos, has achieved another important milestone, continuing steadily on our path toward delivering our long-term growth strategy.” The CEO of PREMIA Properties, Mr. Kostas Markazos, added: “We would like to thank the investment community for the trust it has shown in PREMIA Properties during particularly challenging times, as evidenced by the strong oversubscription of our bond—our second issuance within five years. We are especially proud of the continued support from thousands of retail investors who consistently place their trust in us. The new capital will enable us to further accelerate our investment program, expand our portfolio, and enhance our profitability.” Finally, the Vice Chairman of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, Mr. Michael Fekkas, noted: “The successful completion of PREMIA Properties’ bond offering sends a clear message to the market: even amid heightened international uncertainty and geopolitical risks, the Greek capital market remains capable of inspiring confidence and effectively supporting capital raising for credible investment initiatives. This success extends beyond the company itself; it reflects the ongoing maturation of the market, the strengthening of its institutional credibility, and its resilience under demanding conditions. The Hellenic Capital Market Commission remains committed to fostering a transparent, reliable, and efficient market that enhances investor confidence and supports the sustainable financing of the real economy.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a conditional exemptive order that permits customer cross-margining of cash market positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered clearing agency and futures positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization. The order provides for an exemption from the broker-dealer customer protection rule for a broker-dealer that is dually-registered as a futures commission merchant with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and is a joint clearing member of the clearing agency and derivatives clearing organization, to permit the broker-dealer to make cross-margining available to certain customers in a futures account provided the conditions of the order are met. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC) pursuant to which it would enter into a proposed Third Amended and Restated Cross-Margining Agreement with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) and incorporate that agreement into the FICC Government Securities Division rules, along with related rule changes. The agreement would extend the availability of cross-margining to positions cleared and carried for customers by a dually registered broker-dealer and futures commission merchant that is a common member of FICC and CME. The agreement and related rules are consistent with the exemptive order. Prior to today only clearing members could cross-margin futures positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared at CME with cash market positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared at FICC. “Today’s issuance of orders completes another step in the implementation of Treasury clearing,” said SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, who has been leading the SEC’s efforts in this area. “It advances the goal of both the SEC and the CFTC to unlock additional liquidity and helps ensure the market for U.S. Treasury securities remains resilient.” The exemptive order and order approving the proposed rule change will be available on SEC.gov before publication in the Federal Register, and a related CFTC exemptive order will be available on CFTC.gov and also in the Federal Register. Resources Order FICC Rule

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for February 2026.  The next release, which will report on data for March 2026, is scheduled for May 18, 2026.  The sum total in February of all net foreign acquisitions of long-term securities, short-term U.S. securities, and banking flows was a net TIC inflow of $184.5 billion.  Of this, net foreign private inflows were $166.5 billion, and net foreign official inflows were $18.0 billion. Foreign residents increased their holdings of long-term U.S. securities in February; their net purchases were $101.1 billion.  Net purchases by private foreign investors were $147.3 billion, and net sales by foreign official institutions were $46.1 billion. U.S. residents increased their holdings of long-term foreign securities, with net purchases of $42.6 billion. After including adjustments, such as estimated foreign portfolio acquisitions of U.S. stocks through stock swaps, overall net foreign purchases of long-term securities are estimated to have been $58.6 billion in February. Foreign residents increased their holdings of U.S. Treasury bills by $91.6 billion.  Foreign resident holdings of all dollar-denominated short-term U.S. securities and other custody liabilities increased by $87.4 billion. Banks’ own net dollar-denominated liabilities to foreign residents increased by $38.6 billion. Complete data are available on the Treasury website here. ### About TIC Data The monthly data on holdings of long-term securities, as well as the monthly table on Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities, reflect foreign holdings of U.S. securities collected primarily on the basis of custodial data.  These data help provide a window into foreign ownership of U.S. securities, but they cannot attribute holdings of U.S. securities with complete accuracy.  For example, if a U.S. Treasury security purchased by a foreign resident is held in a custodial account in a third country, the true ownership of the security will not be reflected in the data.  The custodial data will also not properly attribute U.S. Treasury securities managed by foreign private portfolio managers who invest on behalf of residents of other countries.  In addition, foreign countries may hold dollars and other U.S. assets that are not captured in the TIC data.  For these reasons, it is difficult to draw precise conclusions from TIC data about changes in the foreign holdings of U.S. financial assets by individual countries. TIC Release for April       TIC Monthly Reports on Cross-Border Financial Flows       (Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)                 12 Months Through                     2024 2025 Feb-25 Feb-26 Nov Dec Jan Feb     Foreigners' Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities                                             1     Gross U.S. Sales of Domestic U.S. Securities 70193.6 89220.0 72786.7 93971.1 7796.5 9015.9 8440.8 9077.8 2     Gross U.S. Purchases of Domestic U.S. Securities 69008.8 87612.9 71538.1 92355.7 7588.1 8890.7 8390.4 8976.6 3     Domestic Securities, net U.S. sales (line 1 less line 2) /1 1184.9 1607.2 1248.5 1615.4 208.5 125.2 50.4 101.1                             4       Private, net /2 1190.3 1596.7 1355.4 1545.6 144.2 118.0 28.5 147.3 5         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 516.6 455.1 532.6 322.3 36.3 -0.1 -13.8 28.0 6         Gov't Agency Bonds, net 127.2 113.3 118.5 136.1 -11.1 13.2 15.1 20.8 7         Corporate Bonds, net 264.3 348.1 249.0 370.5 47.7 17.3 10.6 48.5 8         Equities, net 282.2 680.2 455.3 716.7 71.2 87.7 16.6 50.0                             9       Official, net /3 -5.5 10.4 -106.9 69.8 64.2 7.2 21.8 -46.1 10         Treasury Bonds & Notes, net -26.8 -34.0 -86.5 36.6 33.2 -21.1 50.6 -26.0 11         Gov't Agency Bonds, net -44.2 -57.1 -52.7 -48.4 -2.6 -3.6 -5.2 0.3 12         Corporate Bonds, net 40.2 39.2 33.4 43.6 10.3 0.5 1.3 5.9 13         Equities, net 25.3 62.3 -1.0 38.0 23.3 31.4 -24.9 -26.3                             14     Gross U.S. Sales of Foreign Securities 18304.9 23184.4 19123.8 24762.4 2069.4 2244.7 2512.8 2435.1 15     Gross U.S. Purchases of Foreign Securities 18713.7 23506.0 19524.5 25094.6 2081.5 2269.7 2560.7 2477.7 16     Foreign Securities, net U.S. sales (line 14 less line 15) /4 -408.8 -321.6 -400.7 -332.1 -12.1 -25.0 -47.9 -42.6 17         Foreign Bonds, net -260.3 -213.6 -254.1 -221.8 -21.4 -19.7 -44.7 -23.6 18         Foreign Equities, net -148.5 -108.0 -146.6 -110.4 9.3 -5.3 -3.3 -18.9                             19     Net Long-Term Securities Transactions (lines 3 and 16): 776.1 1285.6 847.8 1283.2 196.4 100.2 2.4 58.6                             20     Other Acquisitions of Long-Term Securities, net /5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0                             21   Net Foreign Acquisition of Long-Term Securities                           (lines 19 and 20): 776.1 1285.6 847.8 1283.2 196.4 100.2 2.4 58.6                             22   Increase in Foreign Holdings of Dollar-Denominated Short-Term                           U.S. Securities and Other Custody Liabilities: /6 196.5 199.9 319.6 180.0 -3.5 12.0 17.5 87.4 23     U.S. Treasury Bills 222.3 142.3 310.6 128.9 -2.9 9.5 -10.2 91.6 24       Private, net 165.3 60.7 141.9 88.4 -2.3 6.6 -29.4 23.8 25       Official, net 57.0 81.6 168.7 40.5 -0.6 2.9 19.2 67.8 26     Other Negotiable Instruments                           and Selected Other Liabilities: /7 -25.8 57.6 9.0 51.1 -0.6 2.5 27.7 -4.2 27       Private, net -27.8 63.7 9.0 56.1 0.2 3.7 27.3 -5.2 28       Official, net 1.9 -6.2 0.0 -5.0 -0.8 -1.2 0.4 0.9                             29   Change in Banks' Own Net Dollar-Denominated Liabilities 244.1 -70.9 317.3 -112.0 -1.7 4.9 -58.3 38.6                             30 Monthly Net Dollar-Denominated Portfolio Inflows (lines 21, 22, and 29) /8 /9 1216.6 1414.5 1484.8 1351.2 191.1 117.1 -38.4 184.5     of  which                   31     Private, net 1085.4 1382.1 1290.7 1331.3 144.6 106.3 -89.8 166.5 32     Official, net 131.2 32.4 194.1 19.9 46.5 10.8 51.5 18.0                                                         /1     Net U.S. sales = Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+).                 /2     Includes international and regional organizations.                 /3     The reported division of net U.S. sales of long-term securities between net sales to foreign official institutions and net sales               to other foreign investors is subject to a "transaction bias" described in Frequently Asked Questions 7 and 10.a.4 on the TIC website.   /4     Net transactions in foreign securities by U.S. residents. Foreign purchases of foreign securities = U.S. sales of foreign securities to foreigners.           Thus negative entries indicate net U.S. purchases of foreign securities, or an outflow of capital from the United States; positive entries           indicate net U.S. sales of foreign securities.                 /5     Minus estimated unrecorded principal repayments to foreigners on domestic corporate and agency asset-backed securities (zero after Jan. 2023) +          estimated foreign acquisitions of U.S. equity through stock swaps - estimated U.S. acquisitions of foreign equity through stock swaps +           increase in nonmarketable Treasury Bonds and Notes Issued to Official Institutions and Other Residents of Foreign Countries.      /6     These are primarily data on monthly changes in banks' and broker/dealers' custody liabilities. Data on custody claims are collected             quarterly and published in the TIC website.                 /7     "Selected Other Liabilities" are primarily the foreign liabilities of U.S. customers that are managed by U.S. banks or broker/dealers.     /8     TIC data cover most components of international financial flows, but do not include data on direct investment flows, which are collected           and published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. In addition to the monthly data summarized here, the           TIC collects quarterly data on some banking and nonbanking assets and liabilities. Frequently Asked Question 1 on the TIC website           describes the scope of TIC data collection.                 9/      Series break at February 2023 for lines 1-21 and the dependent lines 30-32; see TIC press releases of March 15 and April 15, 2023.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today approved an order to grant a limited exemption necessary for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation to make their existing cross-margining arrangement available to certain customers with appropriate safeguards.   The order permits joint clearing members of CME and FICC that are dually registered as broker-dealers with the Securities and Exchange Commission and futures commission merchants with the Commission to hold futures customer funds in a commingled customer account at FICC. Prior to today’s exemptive order, only clearing members could cross-margin futures positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared at CME with cash market positions in U.S. Treasury securities cleared at FICC. "Today's joint action supports both the CFTC's and SEC's broader effort to strengthen the resilience and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market," said Chairman Michael S. Selig. "By enabling more efficient risk management across related products, this proposal moves us closer toward a more modern, robust market structure." The exemptive order will be available on CFTC.gov and published in the Federal Register. A related SEC exemptive order will be available on SEC.gov and published in the Federal Register.  RELATED LINKS Federal Register (Exemptive Order)