The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission established joint data standards under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022. The final rule establishes technical standards for data submitted to certain financial regulatory agencies. Eight additional agencies have established or are expected to act on establishing the joint standards: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The joint standards are designed to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data across the agencies by establishing common identifiers for entities, geographic locations, dates, and certain products and currencies. “The establishment of joint data standards across federal financial regulators will help ensure consistent data collection that will both ease burdens for financial institutions and make data more accessible to investors,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “This action is a first step towards implementing the Financial Data Transparency Act across federal financial regulatory agencies,” said SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda. “I am grateful to our colleagues across the federal government for their cooperation on this effort, which will be followed by separate rulemaking for agency-specific standards that will further improve the accessibility of financial data.” In addition, the standards include a principles-based joint standard with respect to data transmission and schema and taxonomy formats, which would allow financial institutions to submit high-quality, machine-readable data to the agencies. Resources SEC Final Rule Fact Sheet

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) announces that trading in Storytel AB (ticker: STORY B) commences today on the Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market. Storytel is a Mid Cap company within the Consumer Discretionary sector. It is the 14th company to be admitted to trading on Nasdaq’s Nordic and Baltic markets* in 2026 and the 149th company to transfer from Nasdaq First North Growth Market to Nasdaq Main Markets in the Nordics.  Storytel Group is a global storytelling company, driven by its purpose to lead the future of storytelling and move the world through stories. The company operates across two main business areas: Streaming and Publishing. Its Streaming division offers one of the world’s largest digital libraries, with over 1.8 million audiobook and e-book titles in 55 languages, reaching more than 2.7 million subscribers through brands including Storytel, Mofibo, and Audiobooks.com. The Publishing division produces high-quality content from acclaimed authors through several established publishing houses. “The listing on Nasdaq Stockholm’s Main Market marks the beginning of a new chapter for Storytel Group. It provides us with the best conditions to continue leading the future of storytelling and creating long-term value for all our book lovers, authors and shareholders,” says Bodil Eriksson Torp, CEO of Storytel Group. “We are pleased to welcome Storytel to Nasdaq Stockholm’s Main Market. The move reflects the company’s development and maturity, as well as its strong position within the global streaming and publishing landscape. This milestone marks an important step in Storytel’s journey, and we look forward to supporting the company going forward,” says Adam Kostyál, Head of European Listings at Nasdaq and President of Nasdaq Stockholm.*Main markets and Nasdaq First North at Nasdaq Copenhagen, Nasdaq Helsinki, Nasdaq Iceland and Nasdaq Stockholm as well as Nasdaq Baltic

Sterling Trading Tech (Sterling) a global provider of advanced platforms, OMS technology, and risk solutions for trading firms worldwide, today announced that it has fully implemented the mandated compliance with revised FINRA Rule 4210 for Lightspeed Financial, a leading provider of brokerage and trading services. The revised Rule eliminates the PDT requirement and replaces it with an intraday margin regime.The core effective date for the changes to Pattern Day Trading standards is June 4, 2026. FINRA member firms have an 18-month phase-in period to transition fully, setting a final mandatory compliance deadline of October 20, 2027.Sterling’s solution is fully operational today and can be delivered immediately to any firm affected by this change. Sterling’s OMS 360 real-time Reg T and Portfolio Margin capabilities are designed to support the FINRA Rule 4210 changes and the industry’s shift toward intraday margin requirements.Replacing the Pattern Day Trader (and its minimum account balance of $25,000) as the regime for margin, broker-dealers will now monitor and manage real-time intraday margin risks. A firm will either monitor trades in real time to block those that exceed its margin capacity or perform end-of-day checks and issue margin calls if limits are exceeded.Said Tom Gibb, Lightspeed President and COO: “Although firms have 18 months to adapt, we’re already equipped to support the upcoming Pattern Day Trading changes. Our technology partner Sterling has been instrumental in ensuring we can deliver real‑time performance and seamless operational support from day one. For us, meeting regulatory expectations is just the baseline—our focus is on delivering value and readiness every single trading day. Sterling’s partnership reinforces our shared philosophy of anticipating client needs and delivering solutions proactively.Said Jen Nayar, Sterling President and CEO: “The new FINRA Rule 4210 guidance reinforces what the industry has been anticipating: real‑time margin is becoming the new standard. With intraday oversight and continuous risk visibility now essential, firms need technology that can keep pace. Our platform is ready today to support the new margin rule requirements. Our real‑time margin and risk technology is already live, scalable, and designed to help firms transition smoothly into the new framework before the 2026 and 2027 compliance dates.”

Conference Highlights: Brings together policymakers, regulators, corporates and investors to discuss Malaysia’s positioning amid external uncertainties, fiscal priorities and investment execution. Features 61 Malaysian corporates with a combined market capitalisation of RM1.051 trillion. More than 1,500 delegates expected, including foreign fixed income, equity and private equity investors with combined assets under management of over RM44.08 trillion. Bursa Malaysia Berhad (“Bursa Malaysia”) in collaboration with CIMB Group Holdings Berhad (“CIMB”) and Malayan Banking Berhad (“Maybank”), will jointly host Invest Malaysia 2026 on 9 June 2026 at Mandarin Oriental, Kuala Lumpur. Established as one of Malaysia’s leading investor outreach engagements, Invest Malaysia brings together policymakers, corporates, investors and market participants to discuss the nation’s economic priorities, investment opportunities and capital market development. Over the years, it has served as an important platform for connecting the investment community with Malaysia’s growth story and longterm economic aspirations. Anchored on the theme “From Reform to Execution: Malaysia’s Next Leap”, Invest Malaysia 2026 will examine the opportunities behind a more fragmented global environment for Malaysia’s investment outlook, from navigating geopolitical and supply chain risks, to sustaining fiscal discipline, strengthening governance and stewardship, and strengthening the pathway from investment interest to capital formation. Invest Malaysia 2026 will showcase 61 corporates from Malaysia, representing a combined market capitalisation of RM1.051 trillion. The conference is expected to draw more than 1,500 delegates, including foreign fixed income, equity and private equity investors with combined assets under management of over RM44.08 trillion. The event will be officiated by YAB Dato' Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi, Deputy Prime Minister, who will also deliver the keynote address. Dato’ Fad’l Mohamed, Chief Executive Officer of Bursa Malaysia, said, “As global capital gravitates towards markets that offer clearer opportunities and greater visibility on value, Malaysia presents a compelling gateway to ASEAN growth, as it builds deeper capabilities within technology-led and neweconomy sectors. As the world’s sixth-largest semiconductor exporter, Malaysia also occupies an important position within global supply chains, underpinned by strengths in advanced manufacturing. “In this context, Bursa Malaysia’s role is to enable companies to raise capital and translate that growth into investment opportunities. Through Invest Malaysia, we aim to connect global investors directly to these opportunities while deepening participation, strengthening liquidity and enhancing how companies are understood and valued — to build a stronger, more vibrant market.” Novan Amirudin, Group Chief Executive Officer of CIMB Group, said, “Malaysia is well-positioned as a premier investment destination, supported by clear policy direction, resilient economic fundamentals and its strategic location at the heart of ASEAN. Malaysia’s best-ever RM426.7 billion in approved investments in 2025 underscores continued investor confidence, while the country’s growing participation in high-value sectors — including digital infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, energy transition and the data economy — further strengthens its appeal to global investors. As global investors diversify their portfolios and supply chains towards ASEAN’s growth markets, Malaysia offers a compelling proposition — combining stability, connectivity, talent and innovation with opportunities across future-focused sectors. We remain confident in the country’s ability to attract quality investments that will drive productivity, create value and reinforce its competitiveness on the global stage. As a leading ASEAN bank with a presence across key markets, CIMB remains committed to supporting the Government’s efforts to strengthen global economic ties, elevate Malaysia’s competitive advantages and foster long-term, sustainable economic growth.” Dato' Sri Khairussaleh Ramli, President and Group Chief Executive Officer of Maybank commented, “Maybank is proud to play its role as a Strategic Partner of Invest Malaysia, a platform we have supported for over 15 years. At a time when investors seek confidence amid global uncertainties, Malaysia stands from a position of resilience, underpinned by a diversified economy, technology upcycle, and sustained domestic demand. Invest Malaysia provides a timely opportunity to showcase the strengths of the Malaysian economy and capital market, while reinforcing the country’s position as a compelling investment destination in ASEAN.” In conjunction with the conference, delegates will also have the opportunity to participate in a Visit Malaysia 2026 tourism track, showcasing the country’s cultural, heritage and urban transformation assets, and highlighting tourism as a key driver of economic growth and investment opportunities. This will be complemented by a series of curated thematic site visits in Selangor, offering first-hand insights into Malaysia’s investment-ready growth corridors and key industries. List of Panel Sessions during Invest Malaysia 2026: Balancing Fiscal Focus with External Risks YB Senator Datuk Seri Amir Hamzah Azizan, Minister of Finance II, will join a fireside chat moderated by Dato’ Sri Khairussaleh Ramli, President and Group Chief Executive Officer of Maybank, on how Malaysia can sustain fiscal discipline while navigating external shocks and market volatility, framing what matters most for investor confidence and long-term capital allocation. Navigating Energy Pressures, Strengthening Supply Chain Resilience YB Tuan Haji Akmal Nasrullah Haji Mohd. Nasir, Minister of Economy, will address how Malaysia is responding to energy cost pressures and supply-chain fragmentation, and what this means for competitiveness, investment decisions and resilience. This session will be moderated by Novan Amirudin, Group Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director of CIMB. Building Sustainable Cities and Communities YB Puan Hannah Yeoh, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories), will examine how urban sustainability priorities translate into investable opportunities, covering liveability, infrastructure planning and community outcomes that shape long-term economic value. This session will be moderated by Lee Chwi Lynn, Presenter and Producer of BFM 89.9. Bridging the Missing Link: Investment to Listing Pathway YB Tuan Liew Chin Tong, Deputy Minister of Finance; Encik Ahmad Zulqarnain Onn, Chief Executive Officer of the Employees Provident Fund; Tan Sri Munir Majid, Chairman of ICMR and President of the ASEAN Business Club; and Dato’ Seri Wong Siew Hai, President of the Malaysia Semiconductor Industry Association, will explore how to strengthen the pipeline from investment intent to capital formation, connecting policy, institutional capital and corporate readiness to support more companies progressing towards listing and scale. This session will be moderated by Shahril Hamdan, Founder and Managing Director, Watchtower Advisory, and co-host of Keluar Sekejap. MY Value Up: Reframing Board Accountability, Stewardship and Market Confidence Dato’ Mohammad Faiz Azmi, Executive Chairman of the Securities Commission Malaysia; Dato’ Rizal Rickman Ramli, Acting President and Group Chief Executive of Permodalan Nasional Berhad; and Raman Aylur Subramanian, Managing Director, MSCI Research & Development, will discuss how stronger governance, stewardship expectations and board accountability can reinforce trust, improve decision-making quality and support more durable market confidence. This session will be moderated by Dato’ Fad’l Mohamed, Chief Executive Officer of Bursa Malaysia. Geopolitics in a Fragmented World: Power, Risk and Global Consequences Tim Marshall, author of Prisoners of Geography and former journalist and broadcaster specialising in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, will unpack how geopolitical fragmentation is reshaping risk, capital flows and strategic choices for investors and businesses. This session will be moderated by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, Adjunct Professor, Taylor’s University, and former Deputy Minister of MITI.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.1 The U.S. economy relies on a strong and stable banking system that extends credit to households and businesses. America's prosperity as well as the day-to-day needs of people and their efforts to plan for and build a better future depend on it. Today I want to share with you a few thoughts on the Federal Reserve's role in overseeing the banking system and supporting financial stability, and concerns that I have about how the Fed and other banking regulators are weakening regulation and supervision of banks. I've spoken before about the risk of deregulation, but now that it is coming to pass, I want to highlight the combined effects of these deregulatory steps on the safety and soundness of banks and risks to the stability of the financial system. Considerable, sometimes bitter, experience has shown that the safety and soundness of banks is crucial to the jobs, financial security, and hopes and dreams of everyone in America. Deregulation can provide a short-term sugar high in the economy, but it can also lead to long-term costs for society. Achieving appropriate bank regulation and supervision is a balancing act. Banks need room to grow so that their lending can support innovation and aspiration throughout the economy. At the same time, long experience has shown that without proper safeguards, banks striving to innovate in pursuit of higher profits may take excessive risks. When banks get in trouble, their downfall threatens businesses and households, putting the viability of communities, and sometimes even the entire economy, at risk. That is the legacy of the Great Depression, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, and the Global Financial Crisis that occurred nearly 20 years ago. Though it can feel like these events are in the distant past, it is important to remember the damage they did to the economy and the pain that they caused, shattering the lives of millions of people. Research that attempts to quantify the costs of these episodes, and consider the causes, is a helpful place to turn to make sure we have learned from these experiences to avoid repeating mistakes and to promote a healthy economy. For regulators, the challenge lies in striking the right balance—supporting growth and innovation while maintaining the safeguards that keep the banking system resilient. I am concerned that we're losing that balance. I believe that recent steps by the Federal Reserve and other agencies will undermine the safety and soundness of banks and increase financial stability risks. Vulnerabilities that result from deregulation may not be apparent today, but they will result in problems that will build over the coming years and could threaten serious harm to the economy.2 The lesson from history and economic research is that reducing financial regulatory requirements can and often does produce financial stress and harms growth down the road. The academic literature is clear on the large and persistent economic costs of financial crises and the role of resilient banks in lowering the risk and severity of those crises. Reducing financial regulation is effectively reducing insurance against risk, and I fear that we are becoming underinsured. The Current Trend of Deregulation of the Banking SectorOver the past year, the Federal Reserve has issued a number of regulatory proposals and made other changes that together considerably weaken bank regulation and supervision. I will start by discussing decreases in capital requirements. Bank capital rules work to ensure that banks fund themselves with capital commensurate with the risks of their activities and the risks that they pose to the U.S. financial system. The erosion of these rules leaves both banks and the financial system more vulnerable. Over the past year and a half, the Federal Reserve, along with the other federal banking regulatory agencies, lowered capital requirements through a series of regulatory proposals, and I have dissented from each of the decisions that apply to large banks. This began with reducing the stressfulness of bank stress tests, and making them less likely to be able to keep up with new risks.3 These changes also included eroding the leverage ratio applied to large banks and thus weakening its ability to serve as an effective capital backstop.4 The current proposal for the U.S. implementation of the international Basel III agreement falls short of the agreement's capital standards in a number of ways.5 And the Board reduced the GSIB surcharge, an important capital add-on for the largest and most systemically important banks designed to offset the potential harm they could cause to the economy at large. Other banks saw reductions in their capital requirements as well. So far, in aggregate these deregulatory proposals reduce the amount of capital required for the largest banks by 6 percent. This matters because these eight GSIB firms play a dominant role in the banking system, holding around 60 percent of banking sector assets. A 6 percent reduction may not sound like a lot, but it is significant. It translates to $60 billion less in capital to protect against bank failure and instability that could spread through the financial system. Our capital standards are already near the low end of the range of optimal levels estimated by academic research—that is, the levels that strike the best balance between growth and safeguards. It is also important to note that when we deviate from internationally agreed-upon accords, we set a bad example for other governments that I fear could lead to a "race to the bottom" for capital requirements across jurisdictions. The result of these reductions in capital standards is that the global financial system becomes more vulnerable. This is a channel of risk that can come back to threaten U.S. financial stability. At the same time that capital requirements are being lowered, bank supervision is also becoming weaker. Lighter-touch supervision compounds financial stability risks from deregulation. The Board weakened the rating system we use for the 36 largest financial institutions. The changes are essentially "grade inflation" that would allow poorly managed banks to be judged as well managed, potentially ignoring weaknesses in risk management that may go unacknowledged and unaddressed.6 Regulators are proposing to put less weight on risk management, which is a key indicator of future risk, and to focus instead on backward-looking measures of financial conditions. Also, regulators are curtailing issuance of an important form of supervisory input, matters requiring attention, which means that banks' risks may go unaddressed in time to make a difference for bank safety. In fact, the latest report on Supervision and Regulation shows that the level of these matters at the end of 2025 had already fallen to roughly half of what it was in 2024 for the largest banks. The report also shows that the share of large banks considered well managed under the new, weaker rules doubled from the end of 2024 to the most recent observation.7 On top of that, sharply lower staffing levels at the Board and curtailing horizontal reviews may leave us unable to uncover key issues. As a result, we may have less visibility into potential weaknesses building across firms, leaving the financial system more vulnerable. I expect to see further weakening as well. A push to lower liquidity requirements appears likely. And I have spoken recently about my concerns with proposals that would degrade requirements that banks hold sufficient portfolios of high-quality liquid assets relative to their projected needs in stress.8 We know that liquidity is essential to reduce the risk and severity of bank runs, and I fear that such a reduction would make bank runs more likely or more severe, which could burden deposit insurance funds and potentially threaten financial stability. Weaker capital rules, weaker liquidity requirements, and weaker supervision expose all of us to increased risks of bank stress, failures, or crises that can harm the economy. Declines in Oversight of Consumer Protection LawsOn top of these reductions in capital rules, liquidity requirements, and supervisory practices, we also have seen declines in consumer protection. Financial consumer protection regulations and supervision have been scaled back by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Weakening protections against fraud, excessive fees, predatory lending, and unfair or discriminatory financial practices risks conditions that are harmful to consumers and sometimes can even destabilize the economy. It was exactly these conditions of lax consumer protections that were allowed to fester in the years before the Global Financial Crisis and then did devastating damage. We risk making that mistake again. Taken together, the regulatory and supervisory changes recently enacted or proposed represent the most significant deregulation of the banking system since the Global Financial Crisis. They tip the imperative balance that must be maintained between openness to innovation, on the one hand, and safety and soundness, on the other, in a way that will increase the risks of financial instability. I have voted against these changes, and I feel it is also my duty to continue to speak about them and explain that the costs they impose, in the form of risk, greatly outweigh the promised benefits of a lighter regulatory burden. The Costs of Underinsurance in Banking Regulation: Key Findings from ResearchIn accounting for the macroeconomic costs and benefits of financial deregulation, there is a tradeoff between short- and long-term effects. In the near term, deregulation can deliver something akin to a sugar high, in the form of more lending or market activities and higher profits.9 But this comes at the expense of greater vulnerability and risk for the financial system and the economy in the longer term. These risks have often led to devastating crises that have more than offset those benefits and severely harmed millions of households and businesses. Regulation helps ensure strong bank balance sheets. With solid capital and stable funding sources, both individual banks and the banking system as a whole can absorb a wide range of shocks, such as unexpected losses, while still continuing to lend. If capital falls short, by contrast, and banks' solvency is questioned, it becomes hard to lend, and bad economic conditions become worse, potentially leading to a crisis. While there may be benefits of deregulation in the short term, the long-term costs of a possible crisis would be much larger, and financial regulation exists in recognition of this tradeoff. In deciding on the appropriate extent of regulation, it is helpful to see this tradeoff as similar to the decision we face in buying less insurance. Anyone who has ever driven a car or owned a home or a business is familiar with this tradeoff. Deciding whether to reduce the amount of insurance one is carrying should involve a clear-eyed balance of the marginal gains of this reduction versus the probability and consequences of an uninsured loss. As I have discussed in an earlier speech, the short-term benefits of deregulation and the passage of time combine to lead many people to underestimate the probabilities of a financial crisis and forget the consequences.10 The series of banking crises in the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan crisis, and the Global Financial Crisis were all preceded by either a failure to adapt regulations to a shifting financial landscape or an identifiable weakening of existing regulations. The economic costs of the resulting crises were substantial: by some counts, one-third of U.S. banks failed in the 1930s, but the costs were much higher, helping drive a devastating economic depression. Unemployment reached 10 percent in the Global Financial Crisis and 8 percent in the early 1990s recession, a period of persistent low growth and high inflation that was partly related to the consequences of the savings and loan crisis.11 Resolving these crises and restoring bank lending also imposed massive fiscal costs. It cost $160 billion, or 5 percent of one year's U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) at the time, to resolve the savings and loan crisis, the equivalent of $1.6 trillion in today's economy. The direct fiscal outlay of government interventions to stabilize the banking system during the Global Financial Crisis totaled 4.5 percent of yearly GDP, or approximately $650 billion dollars at the time. The ultimate cost was much smaller, but that was only because of unprecedented and unpopular government intervention to support individual financial firms and the financial system as a whole.12 The most recent brush with a severe financial crisis came with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was avoided in part because of massive government intervention and in part because of the robust levels of capital and liquidity among banks due to post–Global Financial Crisis reforms, the regulatory standards that are unfortunately now being weakened. And the bank stresses of 2023 revealed once again the importance of sound risk management and appropriate levels of capital in the banking system. Impaired Bank Balance Sheets Harm GrowthA long line of research, based on seminal findings related to the Great Depression authored by Ben Bernanke, shows how disruptions in financial intermediation generate severe and prolonged economic harm by restricting many borrowers' access to credit.13 Many studies have found that financial crises are followed by large and highly persistent declines in GDP. For example, Christina and David Romer sampled 24 advanced economies that experienced such crises and found that the GDP decline related to these events peaks at 6 percent after three and a half years, with larger declines following periods of extreme and persistently elevated financial distress.14 An official study supporting the design of Basel III found that persistent effects of a financial crisis resulted in cumulative output losses that were much higher, with estimates on the order of 20 to 60 percent of GDP.15 For the Global Financial Crisis, this would be between $2.9 and $8.7 trillion in pre-crisis dollars in terms of a hit to U.S. GDP. The lengthy periods when economic activity falls short of its potential occur because the balance sheets of banks, businesses, and households take a long time to repair. With impaired bank balance sheets, credit becomes harder to obtain for many creditworthy borrowers, leading to constrained investment and innovation.16 How These Ill Effects Can Be PreventedThe research literature also shows how these bad effects can be prevented: bank capital and liquidity requirements reduce the probability and severity of financial crises. Economies with higher pre-crisis bank capital ratios recover more quickly following financial crises due to stronger recovery in credit growth.17 Increases in bank capital ratios reduce the likelihood of the worst GDP outcomes.18 There is also evidence that U.S. states that deregulated less in the 1980s experienced smaller credit booms during the expansion but smaller declines in activity and employment in the subsequent recession.19 In other words, the short-term "sugar high" of a credit boom from deregulation is outweighed by longer-term loss of output, employment, and income. Estimates of Optimal Capital LevelsRecognizing that there are benefits that must be weighed against costs, some research estimates what level of regulation would be needed to avert a crisis. Research by economists at the International Monetary Fund estimated that bank capital ratios between 15 and 23 percent of risk-weighted assets would have been enough to absorb the bank losses seen in most historical banking crises in advanced economies and thus likely would have prevented these crises in the first place.20 Taking into account these benefits as well as the costs, there is a range of optimal capital requirements in the research literature, depending on the data period and whether researchers draw conclusions from examples of real-world experience or economic models.21 According to this research, current regulatory requirements for U.S. banks are toward the low end of the optimal range, and the proposals would lower them further. Moreover, the costs of getting it "wrong" are asymmetric: in most studies, a capital requirement that is modestly "too high" has a small cost to growth, but a capital requirement that is even a little "too low" can result in sharply rising costs to financial stability, as the rate of bank failures or risk of a financial crisis shoots up quickly. Again, this is akin to buying less insurance: yes, you are locking in a lower premium, but you are also increasing the risk of a really bad outcome, and maybe one that is hard to afford. Taking into account the lessons from history and research, it is clear that while deregulation may provide a short-run boost to growth, the benefit is outweighed by increased longer-term risks of devastating financial crises, lower growth, lost jobs and businesses, and disrupted lives. Unfortunately, bank regulators are moving in this direction. Given the tradeoffs involved, especially the large costs of crises, I view the cumulative relaxation of capital requirements, other regulations, and supervision as unwise. I am concerned that a relaxation of liquidity regulations is coming next. These changes will result in harm to the resilience of banks and the U.S. financial system. The Need for a Strong Banking Sector Amid Growing Risks in the Nonbank SectorWhile some have argued that we should deregulate the banking sector so that it can compete more effectively with private credit and other nonbanks, I would argue the opposite: we should maintain and improve bank regulation because forces outside of the banking sector can, and eventually will, threaten bank balance sheets. Banks are the bedrock of our financial system because they play a crucial role in lending to the real economy. Nonbanks have always been an important source of credit, often driving technological innovation, as we have seen with the rise of fintech. Through credit lines, as well as in other ways, banks are exposed to nonbanks. Bank credit commitments to other financial entities are growing rapidly and reached over $2.6 trillion in the second half of 2025. Banks and nonbanks are now closely entwined and interdependent, with banks acting as liquidity providers to nonbanks, which in turn take on credit risk.22 Banks also have asset-holding commonalities with many nonbanks. If nonbanks come under stress and must fire sale their assets, this could harm bank portfolios as well. Second-round effects from bank and nonbank interconnectedness may also play a role if fire sales cause institutions that are highly connected with banks to come under pressure.23 What all of this means is that we need strong banks at the core of the financial system to deal with shocks, including from nonbanks. Dealing with those shocks requires robust capital and liquidity, and loosening bank regulatory standards moves in the opposite direction. Bank deregulation can also lead to a race to the bottom. If the goal is greater overall safety, it is perverse to relax safeguards. Deregulating banks so that they can better compete with nonbanks may lead to even more risk-taking by nonbanks.24 The answer is thus not to regulate banks less, but to regulate unsafe practices at nonbanks more.25 ConclusionSo, to sum up, while I agree with the objective of ensuring the banking sector can support the economy, I don't agree with the remedy: reducing bank capital. We have seen again and again that capital is crucial to long-term financial stability and thus economic growth. We're now in a risk-on environment with a booming stock market, robust bank profits, and a deregulatory mindset. The bank deregulation undertaken so far, and the plans for more to come, is ultimately going to make our financial system less robust. And when the bill comes due, we will all pay the price. 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.  2. See Michael S. Barr, "Booms and Busts and the Regulatory Cycle," speech delivered at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., July 16, 2025.  3. See "Statement on Proposals to Enhance the Transparency and Public Accountability of the Board's Stress Testing Framework by Governor Michael S. Barr," press release, October 24, 2025.  4. See "Statement on Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio Final Rule by Governor Michael S. Barr," press release, November 25, 2025.  5. See "Statement on Bank Capital Proposals by Governor Michael S. Barr," press release, March 19, 2026.  6. See "Statement on Large Financial Institution Rating Framework by Governor Michael S. Barr," press release, November 5, 2025.  7. See Randall Guynn and Julie Williams, "Updated Statement of Supervisory Operating Principles," (PDF) memorandum, April 21, 2026; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Supervision and Regulation Report (PDF) (Board of Governors, June 2026): 23, figures 17 and 18.  8. See Michael S. Barr, "Efficient and Effective Central Banking: Beyond the Balance Sheet," speech delivered at the Money Marketeers of New York University, New York, NY, May 14, 2026.  9. See Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, An Assessment of the Long-Term Economic Impact of Stronger Capital and Liquidity Requirements (BCBS, August 2010); Jose M. Berrospide and Rochelle M. Edge, "Bank Capital Buffers and Lending, Firm Financing and Spending: What Can We Learn from Five Years of Stress Test Results?" Journal of Financial Intermediation 57 (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104295732300044X; and Josh Lerner, Amit Seru, Nicholas Short, and Yuan Sun, "Financial Innovation in the Twenty-First Century: Evidence from US Patents," Journal of Political Economy 132, no. 5 (2024).  10. See Barr, "Booms and Busts."  11. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (PDF), Bicentennial Edition (1975): 121–82, chapter D.  12. See Luc Laeven and Fabian Valencia, "Systemic Banking Crises Database II," IMF Economic Review 68 (2020), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41308-020-00107-3.  13. See Ben Bernanke, "Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression," American Economic Review 73, no. 3 (1983).  14. See Christina Romer and David Romer, "New Evidence on the Aftermath of Financial Crises in Advanced Countries," American Economic Review 107, no. 10 (2017).  15. See Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Long-Term Economic Impact.  16. See Laurent Clerc, Alexis Derviz, Caterina Mendicino, Stephane Moyen, Kalin Nikolov, Livio Stracca, Javier Suarez, and Alexandros P. Vardoulakis, "Capital Regulation in a Macroeconomic Model with Three Layers of Default," International Journal of Central Banking 11, no. 3 (2015).  17. See Oscar Jorda, Bjorn Richter, Moritz Schularick, and Alan Taylor, "Bank Capital Redux: Solvency, Liquidity, and Crisis," Review of Economic Studies 88, no. 1 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/88/1/260/5889963.  18. Boyarchenko, Giannone, and Kovner (2024) find that a 100 basis point increase in capital among banks raises the left tail of one-year-ahead GDP growth around 1 percentage point, meaning there's less risk of a bad recession; see Nina Boyarchenko, Domenico Giannone, and Anna Kovner, "Bank Capital and Real GDP Growth," Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Working Paper Series 24-08 (Richmond Fed, September 2024).  19. See Atif Mian, Amir Sufi, and Emil Verner, "How Does Credit Supply Expansion Affect the Real Economy? The Productive Capacity and Household Demand Channels," Journal of Finance 75, no. 2 (2020), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jofi.12869.  20. See Jihad Dagher, Giovanni Dell'Ariccia, Luc Laeven, Lev Ratnovski, and Hui Tong, "Benefits and Costs of Bank Capital," (PDF) IMF Staff Discussion Note 16/04 (International Monetary Fund, March 2016).  21. Many papers examine the question of optimal capital requirements quantitatively, including Juliane Begenau, "Capital Requirements, Risk Choice, and Liquidity Provision in a Business-Cycle Model," Journal of Financial Economics 136, no. 2 (2020), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X19302508?via%3Dihub; Juliane Begenau and Tim Landvoigt, "Financial Regulation in a Quantitative Model of the Modern Banking System," Review of Economic Studies 89, no. 4 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdab088; Clerc et al., "Capital Regulation"; Vadim Elenev, Tim Landvoigt, and Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, "A Macroeconomic Model with Financially Constrained Producers and Intermediaries," Econometrica 89, no. 3 (2021), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA16438; Jorge Abad, David Martinez-Miera, and Javier Suarez, "A Macroeconomic Model of Banks' Systemic Risk Taking," (PDF) working paper (September 2024); Thien Nguyen, "Bank Capital Requirements: A Quantitative Analysis," Charles A. Dice Center Working Paper No. 2015-14, Fisher College of Business Working Paper No. 2015-03-14 (October 2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2356043; Skander Van den Heuvel, "The Welfare Cost of Bank Capital Requirements," Journal of Monetary Economics 55, no. 2 (2008), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304393207001572; Simon Firestone, Amy Lorenc, and Ben Ranish, "An Empirical Economic Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Bank Capital in the United States," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 101, no. 3 (2019); and James R. Barth and Stephen Matteo Miller, "Benefits and Costs of a Higher Bank 'Leverage Ratio,'" Journal of Financial Stability 38 (2018), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572308917306526?via%3Dihub. See also Michael S. Barr, "Why Bank Capital Matters," speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., December 1, 2022.  22. See Viral V. Acharya, Nicola Cetorelli, and Bruce Tuckman, "Transformed Intermediation: Credit Risk to NBFIs, Liquidity Risk to Banks," NBER Working Paper No. 34679 (National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2026).  23. See Nicola Cetorelli, Mattia Landoni, and Lina Lu, "Non-Bank Financial Institutions and Banks' Fire-Sale Vulnerabilities," (PDF) Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports No. 1057 (New York Fed, March 2023).  24. See Begenau and Landvoigt, "Financial Regulation."  25. See Andrew Metrick and Daniel Tarullo, "Congruent Financial Regulation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Spring 2021). 

Mark Grant, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Treasurer of S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI), will participate in the Mizuho Technology Conference 2026 on June 10, 2026 in New York, New York. Mr. Grant is scheduled to speak from 10:30 a.m. to 11:05 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). The "fireside chat" will be webcast and may include forward-looking information. Heather Balsky, Senior Director of Investor Relations will join for investor meetings. Webcast Instructions:  Live and ReplayThe webcast (audio-only) will be available live and in replay through the Company's Investor Relations website http://investor.spglobal.com/Investor-Presentations. The webcast replay will be available about 12 hours after the end of the presentation and will remain accessible for 90 days, ending on September 7, 2026. Any additional information presented during the session will be made available on the Company's Investor Presentations web page.

The current reports for the week of June 02, 2026 are now available. Report data is also available in the CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE), which allows users to search, filter, customize and download report data. Additional information on Commitments of Traders (COT) | CFTC.gov Historical Viewable Historical Compressed COT Release Schedule CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE) PRE User Guide PRE Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for the newly listed symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges: MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2026-81 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2026-80 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2026-64 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2026-84 The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Monday, June 8, 2026.Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309. 

TMX Group today announced its financing activity on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) for May 2026. TSX welcomed 67 new issuers in May 2026, compared with 29 in the previous month and 25 in May 2025. The new listings were 47 exchange traded products, 15 Canadian Depositary Receipts (CDRs), two technology companies, one clean technology company, one mining company and one financial services company. Total financings raised in May 2026 increased 22% compared to the previous month, and were up 5% compared to May 2025. The total number of financings in May 2026 was 77, compared with 41 the previous month and 41 in May 2025. For additional data relating to the number of transactions billed for TSX, please click on the following link: https://www.tmx.com/resource/en/440. There were four new issuers on TSXV in May 2026, compared with three in the previous month and seven in May 2025. The new listings were two Capital Pool Companies, one mining company and one technology company. Total financings raised in May 2026 increased 24% compared to the previous month, and were up 156% compared to May 2025. There were 93 financings in May 2026, compared with 125 in the previous month and 83 in May 2025. TMX Group consolidated trading statistics for May 2026 can be viewed at www.tmx.com. Related Document:TMX Group Equity Financing Statistics – May 2026

A total turnover of 3.966 billion shares worth ₦175.659 billion in 343,587 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 2.398 billion shares valued at ₦111.480 billion that exchanged hands last week in 241,313 deals. Click here for full details.

SIFMA confirmed its previous recommendation for a full market close on Friday, June 19, 2026, for the trading of U.S. dollar-denominated fixed income securities in the U.S., the U.K., and Japan in observance of Juneteenth National Independence Day. These recommendations apply to trading of U.S. dollar-denominated government securities, mortgage- and asset-backed securities, over-the-counter investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, municipal bonds and secondary money market trading in bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper and Yankee and Euro certificates of deposit. SIFMA’s recommended early and full market closes are recommendations only; each member firm should decide for itself whether its fixed income departments remain open for trading. All SIFMA recommendations are subject to change due to market conditions.

Euronext, the leading European capital market infrastructure, today announced trading volumes for May 2026. Monthly and historical volume tables are available at this address: euronext.com/investor-relations#monthly-volumes

AutoRek, a leading provider of automated reconciliation and financial controls solutions, has been named Best Reconciliation Solution at the FTF News Technology Innovation Awards 2026. Now in its 15th year, the awards program recognizes outstanding technology providers across securities operations, with winners selected by industry peers, clients and partners through an open vote. With this award, FTF News acknowledges AutoRek's continued innovation in reconciliation technology, including the introduction of AutoRek ARIA, an intelligent AI agent embedded directly within the platform. For more than 30 years, AutoRek has helped global asset managers, investment banks and brokers modernize and scale their reconciliation operations as financial data volumes and operational complexity continue to grow. AutoRek ARIA builds on that foundation by bringing AI directly into the reconciliation workflow, helping teams resolve exceptions faster, improve matching accuracy and make more informed decisions in real time. The launch of AutoRek ARIA addresses a pressing operational challenge facing the industry. AutoRek research shows that 79 percent of asset management and capital markets firms struggle to keep pace with current data volumes. AutoRek enables reconciliation teams to scale operations without compromising on accuracy or control. Now sitting within that platform, AutoRek ARIA has a powerful set of AI capabilities that accelerates and improves the workflow, in a way that ensures control and trust come first.   "AutoRek has been leading this space for more than 30 years, and the problems firms face today around data volumes, operational complexity and the pressure to do more with less are bigger than ever,” Chris Livesey, CEO of AutoRek, said. “With AutoRek ARIA offering a trusted control layer for next-generation financial operations, we enable firms to safely operate with more speed, accuracy, and intelligence. Winning this award matters because it's recognition that the approach we've taken, combining innovative technology with deep domain experience in complex reconciliations, is the right one." "There's no denying this industry is hard. It's competitive. It can be unforgiving. Nothing is ever given. Everything is earned through a lot of hard work, perseverance, and dedication. Which is why being voted the best service or solution by the very industry you serve is so incredibly rewarding," said Maureen Lowe, founder and editor-in-chief of FTF News. "Every year, the FTF team puts on an awards celebration that matches what the winners deserve, and this year is no different. We're not just recognizing our 2026 FTF Award winners, we're also celebrating 20 years of FTF and 15 years of the Awards program. Let's get ready to party in NYC on June 16," Lowe added. The FTF News Technology Innovation Awards celebrate solutions that are transforming operations across financial services. AutoRek was selected in the Best Reconciliation Solution category.

CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, announced its new Bitcoin Volatility Index futures are now available for trading. First trades were executed as blocks between DV Chain and Monarq Asset Management. "The early support we've seen for our new Bitcoin Volatility futures further demonstrates the growing client demand for more innovative tools to more efficiently protect against adverse market moves," said Giovanni Vicioso, Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products at CME Group. "Our new 24/7 trading framework expands the utility of these contracts, allowing investors to isolate and precisely manage their portfolio's volatility risk and exposure at any hour of the day, any day of the week – unlocking a critical new layer of risk management." "We are highly encouraged to see the market expanding with more regulated, institutional-grade futures contracts designed for expressing volatility on bitcoin," said Shiliang Tang, CEO of Monarq Asset Management. "As bitcoin continues to mature into a more mainstream institutional asset class, the demand for sophisticated risk management instruments grows alongside it. Robust tools like CME Group Bitcoin Volatility futures are exactly what investors need to accurately express their market viewpoints and efficiently hedge their portfolios within a secure, transparent framework." "We are proud to support the launch of CME Group's Bitcoin Volatility futures," said Dave Vizsoly, CEO and Head Trader at DV Chain. "As institutions increasingly seek advanced strategies to navigate today's markets, the ability to trade pure volatility independent of price direction on a regulated platform is a critical evolution for both our clients and the broader marketplace." CME Group's Cryptocurrency product suite continues to experience significant growth, including the successful launch of 24/7 trading on May 29. Additional year-to-date trading highlights include: Average daily volume (ADV) of 266,900 contracts, up 38% year-over-year. Average daily open interest of 274,500 contracts, up 18% year-over-year. For more information on Bitcoin Volatility futures, please visit www.cmegroup.com/BVI.

On 4 June 2026, the FCA required Euro Exchange Securities UK Limited (EES) to cease carrying out any regulated electronic money or payment services and, on the FCA’s application, interim managers were appointed by the Court over EES. Serious concerns around the way EES operated its business indicated there were significant risks of financial crime. This includes systemic weaknesses in the firm’s financial crime framework and safeguarding arrangements, alongside its ownership and governance. These risks could have had an impact on both consumers and the integrity of the market. The appointment of the interim managers was made by the Court under the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021Link is external . EES will have an opportunity to be heard on 11 June 2026, following which the Court may lift the current order or place EES into special administration. Background Duncan Perring and James Bennett of Teneo Financial Advisory LimitedLink is external have been appointed as interim managers. The interim managers are officers of the Court, who have been appointed to temporarily oversee EES’ affairs until the next Court date, on 11 June 2026. Further information about the requirements applied to the firm can be found on the FCA Register.

In preparation for the SpaceX IPO (Symbol SPCX), the MIAX Options, MIAX Pearl Options, MIAX Emerald Options, and MIAX Sapphire Options Exchanges will list options on SPCX on the following Clouds:MIAX Options Exchange: Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 20 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed MIAX Order Feed (MOR) Administrative Information Subscriber (AIS) Feed MIAX Express Interface (MEI) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEI sessions on Cloud 20 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted MIAX Pearl Options and MIAX Emerald Options:  Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 10 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed MIAX Order Feed (MOR) Administrative Information Subscriber (AIS) Feed Pearl Liquidity Feed (PLF) MIAX Express Interface (MEI) and/or MIAX Express Order (MEO) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEI/MEO sessions on Cloud 10 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted MIAX Sapphire Options: Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 2 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed Sapphire Liquidity Feed (SLF) MIAX Express Order (MEO) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEO sessions on Cloud 2 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted For additional details, please visit MIAX Options Interface Specifications, MIAX Pearl Options Interface Specifications, MIAX Emerald Options Interface Specifications and MIAX Sapphire Options Interface Specifications.If you have any questions, please contact Trading Operations at TradingOperations@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7302.

The Disciplinary Committee of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd has imposed a fine of EUR 30,000 to Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd (trading code: FARON) due to the breaches of the rules of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd (“the Exchange”).Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd (“the Company”) breached the Nasdaq First North Growth Market Rulebook for Issuers of Shares (“Rules”) of the Exchange” when disclosing the seizure of its bank accounts in February, the change of its CEO in April and its share issue in June 2024. The Disciplinary Committee concluded in its decision that the Company did not disclose the information in timely manner as soon as possible.In addition, the matter concerned whether the statements of the CEO given in an interview in May 2024 were contrary to good securities market practice. Disciplinary Committee noted that although the interview highlighted uncertainties related to drug development and the Company’s products, the probability of success in drug development was portrayed in a manner that was, in part, overly positive and thus provided misleading information. Furthermore, statements regarding the timing and uniqueness of the investment were considered inappropriate. The Disciplinary Committee stated in its decision that the Company’s CEO’s conduct during the interview was not in accordance with good securities market practice.Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee stated that the Company’s numerous and consecutive, yet separate, breaches of the Rules have in themselves been material and have concerned the fundamental obligations of a listed company, and failure of these may adversely affect the position of investors as well as the reliability of the securities markets and the operations of the Exchange. On the other hand, the Disciplinary Committee has considered that the violations have, in part, been minor. Taking into account the Company’s financial situation, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a disciplinary fine of EUR 30,000 should be imposed on the Company in this case as a proportionate sanction.The Disciplinary Committee also dismissed two other alleged rule violations asserted by Market Surveillance of the Exchange. The decision of the Disciplinary Committee is available: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-regulation/nordic/helsinki/disciplinary/decisions-sanctions Surveillance at Nasdaq Helsinki and the Disciplinary Committee The surveillance unit of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd investigates all suspected breaches of regulations. Minor breaches will result in reprimand to the company, whereas more serious cases are referred to the Disciplinary Committee. The members of the Disciplinary Committee are legal and financial experts independent of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd. The members of the Committee are chair Mr. Ari Kantor, Justice, Supreme Court of Finland; Deputy chair Mrs. Helena Kontkanen, L. of Laws and trained on the bench; and members Mr. Kari Hietanen, Master of Laws; Mrs. Tarja Ollilainen, M.Sc. (Econ. & Bus. Adm.); and Mr. Sami Torstila, D. Sc, M. of Laws, Associate Professor. The sanctions may be a reprimand, a fine or a delisting. For more information about the Disciplinary Committee please visithttps://www.nasdaq.com/market-regulation/nordic/helsinki/disciplinary Nasdaq Nordic Foundation Established in 2006, the Foundation supports financial markets through scientific research. The Nasdaq Nordic Foundation receives paid fines from breaches by members or listed companies in Nasdaq Helsinki, Nasdaq Copenhagen, and Nasdaq Stockholm. The Foundation’s mission is to promote scientific research and other initiatives related to financial markets in Finland, Denmark, and Sweden, with the goal of increasing competence and competitiveness for the financial markets in these countries.

Investment firms could save around £20m a year under new proposals from the FCA to simplify climate reporting for investment products. The FCA estimates it could deliver these savings by replacing detailed product-level reports based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with simpler, more targeted information for retail investors, in line with the Consumer Duty. The changes aim to give investors clearer insight into how climate risks – such as floods, storms and other extreme weather events – could affect investment performance, while reducing unnecessary costs to firms. Michelle Beck, director of wholesale buy-side at the FCA, said:  'As part of being a smarter, more proportionate regulator, we’re cutting complexity in our rules for asset managers, while keeping the focus on clear, useful information for investors. 'These proposals will make it easier for firms to communicate with their customers in ways that genuinely inform and engage them.' The proposals follow a review of how the current rules are working. The FCA found that while the rules have improved firms’ awareness of climate risks, product-level reports are often seen as too complex by investors and not widely used. The FCA is seeking views from asset managers, asset owners, trade bodies, and consumer groups to make sure the proposed rules work in practice and support growth. Background The consultation is open until 13 July 2026. The FCA aims to finalise and implement the rule change in the autumn. Read the consultation paper (CP26/17) and see details on how to respond. The FCA estimates the proposals could save firms around £20m a year, based on its analysis which drew from feedback from industry on reporting costs and a voluntary survey of a sample of firms.  The proposals form part of the FCA’s wider work to streamline sustainability reporting requirements for asset managers and FCA-regulated asset owners. Under the proposals:  Retail investors would receive relevant information on how material climate risks could affect a product’s financial performance. Institutional clients would be able to request key emissions data from firms, but this would no longer need to be published in full reports. The proposals complement the FCA’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements for asset managers, which aim to help retail investors navigate the market for sustainable investment products and reduce greenwashing. TCFD product reporting was introduced in 2021 as part of the UK’s approach to climate disclosures. 

ASIC is seeking feedback on its proposal to withdraw financial reporting relief for uncontactable members before it expires on 1 October 2026. We have assessed that ASIC Corporations (Uncontactable Members) Instrument 2016/187 is no longer being used due to changes in the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act). Sections 110JA and 110F (4A) of the Corporations Act now provide similar relief where a member is uncontactable. Entities not covered by these requirements may need to apply to ASIC for individual relief aligned with Regulatory Guide 43: Financial reporting and audit relief (RG 43) (if ASIC proceeds with our proposal to withdraw ASIC Instrument 2016/187). Providing feedback Stakeholders can send submissions with their feedback to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au by 5pm AEST on Friday 17 July 2026. Background ASIC Instrument 2016/187 provided relief to companies, registered schemes, disclosing entities and notified foreign passport funds from obligations to provide annual reports to a member if that member was uncontactable. Related links CS 55 Proposed repeal financial reporting relief related to uncontactable members

Good morning, This is my first time before a parliamentary committee since taking the role of ASIC Chair on Monday. I want to thank and acknowledge my predecessor, Joe Longo, for his stewardship of ASIC over the last five years. Joe made a significant and lasting contribution to ASIC and our work in serving Australian consumers, investors and markets. I am joined by Commissioners Alan Kirkland, Kate O’Rourke and Simone Constant, CEO Scott Gregson and Executive Director for Regulation and Supervision, Peter Soros. ASIC has done a range of important work in recent times. We have strengthened our enforcement stance and taken decisive action against serious misconduct, obtaining record penalties and record sentences, while also advancing key regulatory priorities and helping ensure banks return record amounts to vulnerable Australians. We drove the landmark ASX inquiry, have significantly contributed to the thinking about public and private markets, and made significant progress with regulatory simplification, highlighting ASIC’s role in helping to enhance productivity and support economic growth. I look forward to building on this work in the coming years. Given this is a Budget Estimates hearing I want to give a brief update to the committee on a range of matters, including initiatives funded in last month’s federal Budget. This funding goes to core areas critical to ensuring we continue to engage with everyday Australians while delivering on the key requirements of ASIC. First, the Government is investing to complete Tranche 2 of the RegistryConnect program to stabilise and uplift ASIC’s business registers. This builds on previous funding and will help us improve online services for company registrations, lodgements, annual reviews, and other transactions, link Director IDs to company records, upgrade registry systems, and implement new functions for company deregistration powers. These registers support millions of everyday decisions including extending credit, verifying a company, entering commercial arrangements or assessing risk. Second, the Government is investing to strengthen oversight of managed investment schemes. This measure invests in ASIC’s digital capability, improving our tools to access existing non-ASIC government data and enhance supervision of this sector. While we believe there is no ‘silver bullet’ to these complex issues, better access to data will help us respond to existing and emerging threats, including those highlighted by the First Guardian and Shield matters. The Government has also committed to funding to improve governance arrangements for registered managed investment schemes and enhance ASIC’s supervision of the sector.  Third, with respect to the First Guardian and Shield matters that we have discussed with the Committee previously, we have continued a range of intensive work with a view to returning money to investors who have lost funds. We are running an extensive communications campaign to ensure that people are alerted to the issues and encouraging AFCA notifications. We currently have 14 proceedings in the Federal Court against 26 defendants relating to these issues. This includes recent action against Equity Trustees for allegedly failing to meet its trustee obligations and not act in members’ best financial interests when onboarding the First Guardian master fund. This is the second action we have taken against Equity Trustees and the fifth against a super trustee as part of our investigations. It means that ASIC has now commenced proceedings against every super trustee that made Shield or First Guardian available on its platform. This work to date has resulted in the return to investors of more than $400m. Fourth, this Committee is often interested in ASIC’s criminal work. We have recently seen significant custodial sentences imposed in a number of matters, including the sentence of Anthony Torre to six years in prison for fraud involving the misappropriation of superannuation funds; Remedy Housing officials sentenced for lengthy prison terms for dishonest offences and the misappropriation of customer funds; and Rodney Forrest, sentenced to 5 years and 3 months for insider trading and procuring others to trade in more than $3m of Platinum Asset Management Limited shares. This was the first outcome for our new specialist insider trading team which investigated and finalised the case within 16 months of the offending. Finally, ASIC has commenced a preliminary investigation into allegations about the conduct of several registered company auditors at KPMG that came to light after whistleblower claims were first aired in the Parliament. Our focus is to determine whether the conduct sanctioned by KPMG may be a breach of the duties of a registered company auditor and whether each of the registered company auditors have maintained their fitness and propriety in accordance with the Corporations Act. We look forward to taking your questions.