The outstanding balance in commercial paper programs on the MARF rose to 6.331 billion euros at the end of May, 16.3% higher than at the end of the previous year BME’s fixed-income market, MARF, has admitted to listing a new Commercial Paper Program from Saturn Group, the parent company of Culmia, for an amount of 50 million euros. The commercial paper issued under this program will have nominal values of 100,000 euros. Banca March is the Registered Adviser for the issue and the Lead Arranger for the operation. Banca March itself and Kutxabank Investment are the dealers for the issue. For its part, Cuatrecasas has been the legal adviser and the credit rating agency EthiFinance has provided a solvency report on the issuer. Saturn Group is a Spanish real estate company specializing in (i) the development, promotion, and commercialization of residential housing; (ii) the land development and (iii) the management of developments for third parties in a co-investment scheme. The Group’s activities encompass the full value chain of residential projects, including the identification and acquisition of land, urban planning, architectural design, construction oversight, marketing, and sales, as well as the management of residential assets for rental schemes. Saturn Group operates across key urban and metropolitan areas in Spain, addressing diverse housing needs with a focus on quality, customer service, and responsible development practices. The MARF has 160 national and international issuing companies. At the end of May, the outstanding balance in commercial paper programs was 6.331 billion, representing an increase of 16.3% compared with the end of the previous year. There are 80 corporate and securitized commercial paper programs currently in force on this BME market, according to figures at the end of May.  You can consult all the information about the MARF on its website.

CCP Global has submitted a response to the US Basel III Endgame re-proposals. To read the response, please follow this link.

The operational synergy will allow issuers and investors to benefit from a true bridge between traditional finance and on-chain instruments. Seturion, the pan-European settlement platform for tokenized assets of Boerse Stuttgart Group, Weltix S.p.A. (“Weltix”) and Real House S.r.l., owner of the BlockInvest platform (“BlockInvest”), today announced a strategic collaboration to build the first integrated end-to-end infrastructure for the issuance, settlement and trading of DLT-based financial instruments in Italy. The collaboration combines three complementary regulated components: the technological platform developed by BlockInvest for the tokenization of financial instruments, the DLT register operated by Weltix as DLT Register Manager authorized by Consob under the Italian FinTech Decree, and the pan-European settlement platform of Seturion, capable of handling both on-chain payments and central bank money. Europe has developed strong capabilities for issuing tokenized securities, but the settlement layer remains fragmented. This partnership is a direct response to that gap, positioning Italy as a model for integrated digital capital markets infrastructure at European scale. The partnership responds to growing demand from banks, intermediaries, corporate issuers and institutional investors for issuance and settlement solutions for tokenized financial instruments that are fully regulated, interoperable at European level, and integrable within existing workflows. The architecture envisaged by the parties allows an issuer to: structure and issue tokenized financial instruments through the BlockInvest platform register such instruments and manage their circulation through the DLT register operated by Weltix, in full compliance with Italian and European regulatory frameworks handle transaction settlement through Seturion’s platform, with the flexibility of settling in central bank money or on-chain cash make those instruments operationally eligible for MTF and OTC trading environments, while enabling direct access to Boerse Stuttgart Group’s trading venues and other European trading venues connected to Seturion The architecture is designed to support a broad range of instruments. The collaboration is open to additional participants, including banks, trading venues and other market players. “We are delighted to partner with Weltix and Blockinvest for the Italian market. Together, we are advancing our pan-European settlement platform in Italy, one of the most dynamic European markets for the tokenization of financial instruments. We offer Italian issuers and investors the entire value chain in one regulated architecture, from issuance to settlement. This is a concrete step towards a European infrastructure for digital capital markets,” said Sven Wilke, Deputy CEO & CGO, Seturion. “Italian banks tell us that the value of tokenization lies in redefining the entire lifecycle of a financial instrument, removing the frictions of today’s infrastructure. By combining Weltix’s regulatory perimeter, BlockInvest’s technology and Seturion’s settlement infrastructure, we can offer the market a complete, fully regulated solution that dramatically reduces time to market and streamlines management across the entire value chain. This is exactly the kind of partnership that turns tokenization from a promise into a working product for investors,” said Antonio Chiarello, CEO & Co-Founder, Weltix S.p.A. "While Europe has proven its ability to issue digital assets under progressive legal frameworks, the lack of an integrated, secure and compliant settlement layer has remained the missing link for institutional scaling. This partnership directly solves that bottleneck. By combining BlockInvest's orchestration platform with a robust, regulated settlement layer, we are building a seamless, end-to-end corridor, a turnkey highway for banks and corporates to move assets and capital fluidly across European borders. One block at a time," said Lorenzo Rigatti, Founder & CEO, Blockinvest.

SpaceX has agreed to acquire Anysphere, the company behind the AI coding tool Cursor, in a $60 billion all-stock transaction. The announcement arrives just days after SpaceX’s debut on the Nasdaq in the biggest initial public offering (IPO) ever, which lifted its market capitalization beyond $2 trillion. The scale and timing of the deal highlight the company’s growing ambitions in artificial intelligence (AI) and place it on a more direct collision course with established leaders in the space, according to GlobalData, a leading intelligence and productivity platform. Aurojyoti Bose, Lead Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The deal stands out as Elon Musk’s most significant AI wager to date. The transaction’s size reflects how AI platforms are increasingly viewed as strategically vital assets, and that SpaceX appears ready to leverage its post-IPO equity firepower to buy best-in-class capabilities.” Although $60 billion is a striking number, it represents only a small portion of SpaceX’s post-IPO valuation. This reinforces a clear strategy – use an elevated share price as acquisition currency – when the stock is higher, fewer shares are needed to fund major deals. Cursor has quickly become a renowned AI coding product. At the same time, SpaceX’s AI arm, xAI, has trailed competitors in coding capabilities. The acquisition is positioned as a direct move to narrow that gap by combining Cursor’s capabilities with xAI and Grok, sharpening SpaceX’s competitive standing against rivals such as OpenAI and Anthropic. Bose concludes: “The post-IPO momentum may accelerate into an acquisition spree and this high-value transaction sets the tone for more M&A to follow. With its expanded post-IPO scale and rising stock price, SpaceX is well positioned to pursue major strategic acquisitions using equity rather than relying on cash reserves or debt financing.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential opportunities to further update, clarify, and harmonize certain derivatives product definitions and interpretive issues. The request for comment is intended to support the Commissions’ ongoing evaluation of whether current regulatory definitions, interpretations, and jurisdictional frameworks appropriately reflect evolving market structures, financial products, and trading practices. “Clarification is long overdue on Title VII definitional issues, including event-based products. Through good-faith cooperation efforts, we can create a level playing field where established firms and new entrants alike can compete and innovate on equal footing regardless of whether they’re registered with the SEC or CFTC,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “Today’s joint request for public comment presents an opportunity to address longstanding ambiguities within Title VII of Dodd-Frank that have stifled fair competition and responsible innovation,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “I appreciate the partnership of the SEC and Chairman Atkins as we work together to further clarify jurisdictional lines and enhance cooperation between our agencies.” The joint request for comment seeks input on topics including: Definitions relating to swaps and security-based swaps, including the scope of certain exclusions from the swap definition.  Treatment of mixed swaps  Treatment of novel or emerging products Jurisdictional and interpretive questions Potential areas in need of greater clarity regarding regulatory definitional lines Potential areas for alternative compliance The SEC and CFTC encourage the public to provide input on these topics, as identified in the agencies’ request for comment. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the request for comment in the Federal Register. Resources Joint Request for Comment Submit Comments

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential opportunities to harmonize, modernize, and streamline data reporting requirements in their regulation of the security-based swap and swap markets, respectively. “Extensive data collection, if not appropriately calibrated, can hinder, rather than enhance, understanding and accountability,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “Working closely with the CFTC, we can ensure that we are collecting the data necessary to meet statutory objectives under a harmonized reporting regime. I welcome feedback on how we can improve our security-based swap data reporting regime in a manner that protects the integrity of the information and lowers costs.” “I’m proud to be working alongside SEC Chairman Atkins to streamline and harmonize swap data reporting for registrants in accordance with our ongoing efforts to foster interagency cooperation,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “I look forward to hearing from market participants about the ways we can cut red tape and reduce costs, while still collecting the data we need to conduct our market oversight responsibilities.” The request for comment is intended to assist the agencies in evaluating whether changes to the design, scope, and structure of security-based swap and swap data reporting requirements would lead to greater alignment between their respective reporting frameworks. The SEC and CFTC seek input to enhance market transparency, reduce unnecessary operational complexity, promote data quality, and improve regulatory oversight while preserving the distinct statutory mandates of each agency under the Dodd-Frank Act. The joint request for comment seeks input on the following topics: Harmonization across frameworks Transparency and data quality Operational complexity Standardized identifiers and reference data Implementation considerations The SEC and CFTC encourage the public to provide input on the operational, technological, and policy implications of these topics identified in the agencies’ request for comment. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days following publication of the request for comment in the Federal Register. Resources Joint Request for Comment Submit Comments

In lieu of the Federal holiday on Friday, June 19, the weekly Commitments of Traders report will be released on Monday, June 22 at 3:30pm ET. 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)

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a consent order that resolves the CFTC’s 2023 enforcement action against Alexander Mashinsky, the founder and former CEO of Celsius Network LLC. [See CFTC Press Release No. 8749-23]. The consent order permanently enjoins Mashinsky from further violations of certain anti-fraud provisions in the CEA and CFTC regulations and imposes permanent trading and registration bans against him. On July 13, 2023, the CFTC filed a complaint against Celsius and Mashinsky in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged Celsius was an online platform on which Celsius’ customers would allow Celsius to pool their digital assets and deploy these pooled assets to generate revenue for Celsius, which purportedly would be returned to the customers in the form of weekly interest payments or ‘rewards’.  The complaint alleged that beginning in 2018 and continuing through at least June 2022, Mashinsky and Celsius engaged in a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of customers by mispresenting the safety, profitability, and regulatory compliance of Celsius’ digital asset-based finance platform. The complaint alleged Mashinsky, via publicly available videos, blog posts, livestreams and postings on social media and the Celsius website, touted Celsius as a “safe” alternative akin to a traditional bank for customers’ digital assets while simultaneously promising customers high yield interest payments on their deposits.  The complaint alleged, to meet the returns promised to its customers, Celsius engaged in increasingly risky investment strategies, including extending millions of dollars in uncollateralized loans and unregulated, risky decentralized finance agreements. The complaint alleged, while continuing to tell its customers their assets were safe and earning rewards, Celsius suffered devasting losses. In fact, customer funds were not at all secure and Celsius eventually filed for bankruptcy. In total, Celsius received funds totaling approximately $20 billion in value. On July 17, 2023, the court entered a consent order of permanent injunction against Celsius, leaving Mashinsky as the only remaining defendant.  On July 11, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a parallel criminal action against Mashinsky in connection with the same conduct at issue in the CFTC’s action. USA v. Alexander Mashinsky, No. 1:23-cr-00347-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2023). On Dec. 3, 2024, Mashinsky pled guilty to one count of commodities fraud and one count of securities fraud. On May 8, 2025, Mashinsky was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and forfeiture of $48,393,446 for committing commodities fraud and securities fraud at Celsius. RELATED LINKS Consent Order: Alexander Mashinsky

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released enforcement actions for June 2026. 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 Steven Ho, former Vice President and Senior Mortgage Lending Officer at Quontic Bank, Astoria, New York, for concealing his work with unapproved third-party mortgage brokers, falsifying material loan application information, and transferring confidential bank customer and business information to non-bank employees. (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-16) Order of Prohibition against Danny Seibel, former President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director at The First National Bank of Lindsay, Lindsay, Oklahoma, for extending loans to borrowers without adequately considering their ability to repay, allowing customers to significantly overdraft their accounts without repayment, and concealing loans that had been nonperforming for years by manipulating the bank’s core system to change the loans’ maturity dates, payment due dates, and past due statuses. This misconduct caused the bank’s insolvency, and the bank was placed into receivership in October 2024. Mr. Seibel pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. §1344, Bank Fraud. (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-27) 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 Cease and Desist Order against Bank of America, N.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, dated July 14, 2022 (AA-ENF-2022-21). (Docket No. AA-ENF-2026-32) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with Maple City Savings Bank, FSB, Hornell, New York, dated July 23, 2024 (AA-NE-2024-71). (Docket No. AA-NE-2026-30) Order Terminating the Formal Agreement with The Federal Savings Bank, Chicago, Illinois, dated October 29, 2021 (AA-CE-2021-47). (Docket No. AA-CE-2026-24 ) 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

An effective regulatory capital framework relies on multiple ingredients, from appropriate drafting to rigorous testing and consultation. Even minor calibration distortions can inflate capital requirements, which could negatively affect the capacity of banks to support deep and liquid markets, with negative consequences for the economy. As the Basel III framework has evolved over the years, ISDA has never lost its focus on making sure the rules in every country are appropriate and risk sensitive. With the US moving to finalize the Basel III endgame package, we’ve conducted thorough testing and analysis that shows US policymakers have made good progress and clarifies the steps that are now needed. When the original Basel III endgame proposal was published nearly three years ago, ISDA and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association carried out a quantitative impact study (QIS) that showed the market risk component of the package, known as the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), would lead to a substantial rise in market risk capital of between 73% and 101%, depending on the extent to which banks use internal models. We have now run the same exercise on the revised proposal that was published on March 19, with input from the eight US global systemically important banks. The picture has improved materially. Under the FRTB standardized approach, the projected increase falls from 101% to 89%; under the internal models approach, it drops from 73% to 30%. This is a great step forward. US policymakers have engaged constructively with the industry and improved the risk sensitivity of the proposal, while also increasing the viability of internal models. Now it’s time to build on this progress and make the final changes that are needed to achieve a fully fit-for-purpose capital framework. As we set out in our response to the US consultation today, there are still some components of the package that are not fully aligned with economic risk, and these must be addressed in the final rule. One of the most critical outstanding issues is cross-product netting under the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk. The latest proposal recognizes offsets across derivatives and repos, but applies a conservative methodology that lacks risk sensitivity and would overstate capital requirements. ISDA has recommended a hedge coverage ratio that would calibrate the netting benefit according to how well the repos in a portfolio actually hedge the derivatives, avoiding overstatement of risk in well-hedged portfolios. Other components of the framework that still require some fine-tuning include the FRTB default risk charge, which would overstate the risk of short-dated equity derivatives that hedge longer-dated equity exposures, and the credit valuation adjustment risk capital requirement, which should distinguish between regulated and non-regulated financial counterparties to improve risk sensitivity. ISDA has set out the remedies we believe should now be applied to the framework to address these outstanding issues. After many years of drafting, consulting and refining the US Basel III framework, the end is now in sight. Thanks to the willingness of regulators to listen to industry concerns, we have a credible framework that will allow banks to use internal models to calculate market risk capital – something that simply wouldn’t have been possible in the original proposal. This was a key objective for ISDA and will allow banks to closely align capital with economic risk, a vital foundation for effective prudential regulation. Having come so far, we mustn’t lose focus. With some further adjustments as set out in our response, we can achieve a highly effective capital framework that will stand the test of time.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA), and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA),today submitted a joint comment letter to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on the proposed Basel III Endgame capital rule governing Category I and II banking organizations and banking organizations with significant trading activity. The letter addresses key aspects of the proposal relating to the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk, and counterparty credit risk (CCR), including issues around securities financing transactions (SFTs), derivatives, and the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR). “The calibration of the regulatory capital framework directly affects the pricing, availability and structure of market intermediation, client hedging, financing and liquidity services provided by large banking organizations. Capital requirements that are more risk-sensitive better support market liquidity, reduce costs for end users seeking to hedge or finance positions, and promote the efficient functioning of U.S. capital markets, including the important market for U.S. Treasury securities,” the organizations wrote in the letter. The Associations appreciate the Agencies’ efforts to modernize and improve the risk sensitivity of the regulatory capital framework for large banking organizations. The proposal reflects a constructive step forward in several respects, particularly by recognizing the importance of calibration for capital markets and trading activities. The Associations’ recommendations are organized around three themes: enhancing risk sensitivity; enhancing consistency across the capital rules; and reducing unnecessary operational burdens. The Associations also recommend that the final rule be implemented with an effective date no earlier than January 1, 2028. SIFMA AMG also submitted a comment letter which highlights the downstream effects the proposals would have on ordinary investors and end-user clients, including making it more difficult for asset managers to meet investment targets or mitigate portfolio risks. The comments focus on three key concerns: the harm to institutional and retail investors from significant proposed increases in CVA capital requirements for derivative transactions with regulated investment vehicles;  inadequate recognition of hedging with equity derivatives under the FRTB DRC; and the harm to investment funds and their clients from the GSIB Surcharge Proposal’s treatment of ETF holdings by banking organizations as systemically risky activities. The IIF, ISDA and SIFMA comment letter can be found here: https://www.sifma.org/advocacy/letters/basel-iii-capital-proposal-for-trading-activities-and-counterparty-credit-risk-joint-trades The SIFMA AMG comment letter can be found here: https://www.sifma.org/advocacy/letters/basel-iii-endgame-standardized-approach-and-gsib-surcharge-proposals-sifma-amg IIF, ISDA and SIFMA also submitted a letter recommending targeted changes to certain aspects of the GSIB surcharge proposal to ensure the treatment of derivatives is more appropriately reflected in the GSIB surcharge calculation, which can be found here: https://www.sifma.org/advocacy/letters/proposed-regulatory-capital-rule-risk-based-capital-surcharges-for-gsibs-joint-trades

FIA has filed two comment letters responding to US federal banking regulators' proposals to revise capital standards for Category I and II banking organizations, including the implementation of Basel III’s enhanced risk-based approach (ERBA) in the US, as well as proposed changes to the Federal Reserve’s capital surcharge for US global systemically important bank holding companies (G‑SIBs).  The revised rules, released in March, would replace the July 2023 Basel III Endgame proposal and the July 2023 GSIB Surcharge Proposal, both of which drew widespread criticism for raising capital requirements beyond those set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.  FIA commends the agencies for the thoughtful and constructive revisions they have made to the earlier capital proposals.   The Basel III enhanced risk-based approach includes several meaningful improvements that would strengthen risk sensitivity and better support centrally cleared derivatives markets, including:  Excluding client-facing derivative exposures from the Credit Valuation Adjustment framework;  Permitting the netting of settled-to-market and collateralized-to-market derivative exposures;  Introducing a framework for cross-product netting;  Calculating operational risk capital charges for fee-based businesses by reference to net income, rather than gross revenues or expenses; and  Removing the requirement that an investment-grade obligor be publicly traded to qualify for a lower risk weight.  FIA also welcomes changes to the Federal Reserve’s capital surcharge for US G-SIBs. Most notably, FIA appreciates that the proposal does not add a clearing member’s exposure arising out of its guarantee of a client’s obligation to a central counterparty to the G‑SIB Surcharge’s Complexity or Interconnectedness indicators.  Taken together, these changes represent important progress towards ensuring that bank capital standards do not unnecessarily discourage the central clearing of derivatives. As US banking regulators have consistently observed, prudential requirements should support, rather than undermine, the use of central clearing as a tool to reduce systemic risk.  Consistent with that objective, FIA generally supports the proposals and encourages the agencies to finalize them.  “The US prudential regulators’ proposals on bank capital appropriately recognize the important role that central clearing plays in risk management,” said Jacqueline Mesa, FIA’s Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Global Policy. “This is particularly important for ensuring that end-users, including farmers, corporates and producers, can continue to access clearing services to hedge risk, even during periods of market stress.  “However, the framework should go further in recognizing the true economics of risk. In particular, capital requirements should reflect the risk offsets that exist across related positions, rather than measuring exposures on a gross basis. FIA looks forward to working with regulators as they finalize the proposals.”  In its letter on Basel III’s enhanced risk-based approach, FIA offers targeted recommendations to further improve the proposal’s coherence and risk sensitivity, while preserving its overall structure and policy objectives.  FIA’s recommendations include:  Revising the proposed cross-product netting methodology to ensure that the risk-reducing benefits of cross-product netting are appropriately reflected in the framework;  Clarifying that if a banking organization elects to use cross-product netting for purposes of risk-weighted assets, that election will not automatically apply to calculations under the Supplementary Leverage Ratio;  Expanding the scope of transactions eligible for cross-product netting to include eligible margin loans and cleared house transactions;  Refining the existing operational criteria for cleared transactions to eliminate disincentives for depository institutions to seek clearing services from an affiliate;  Finalizing the proposed framework for reflecting cross-margining agreements in the calculation of KCCP, with revisions to the allocation methodology; and  Clarifying that the existing 1.0 alpha factor for derivative transactions with commercial end-users will be maintained.  FIA is also seeking amendments to the Federal Reserve’s G‑SIB surcharge proposal. In particular, FIA recommends additional revisions to the FR Y‑15 reporting instructions so that derivatives exposures from cleared transactions are not counted towards the Cross-Jurisdictional Activity indicator, consistent with the proposed treatment of exposures arising from client clearing of derivatives.  In addition, FIA’s response is supportive of aspects of the proposed revisions that would not apply an alpha factor to derivatives exposures for purposes of the Interconnectedness Indicator.  Finally, FIA believes the final rule should confirm that cross-product netting is not mandatory for inclusion in relevant indicators of the G‑SIB surcharge that count derivative exposures. 

Nadex will observe the following holiday schedule for the 2026 Juneteenth Holiday. Monday, June 15, 2026: The Exchange will observe normal business hours. Tuesday, June 16, 2026: The Exchange will observe normal business hours. Wednesday, June 17, 2026: The Exchange will observe normal business hours. Thursday, June 18, 2026: The Exchange will observe normal business hours. Friday, June 19, 2026: The Exchange will observe normal business hours. · Cryptos will observe their regular schedule. · Industry Event - Live Presentations - NAICS 711 will observe their regular schedule In accordance with the Nadex Notice ID: 1990.05152026 - Nadex Upcoming System Update and Temporary Delisting of Contracts - FX, Indices, and Commodities Event Contracts have been temporarily paused and will remain unavailable until further notice. Additionally, please note, Nadex is extending the Illiquid Markets coverage to Cryptocurrency products for trade date June 19, 2026. As such, Nadex authorized Market Makers operating pursuant to a Market Maker Agreement will be relieved of their quoting obligations relating to size on trade date June 19, 2026, from 6:00pm ET on calendar date June 18, 2026, to 5:00pm ET on calendar date June 19, 2026. A Market Maker(s) that elects to quote in any Cryptocurrency markets during this period will be required to comply with the spread obligations set forth in its Market Maker Agreement. Please refer to the Holiday Product Schedule Guidelines for specific product trading hours. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact the Compliance Department.

Warsaw Stock Exchange has announced an update to the implementation schedule for the GPW WATS system. The decision follows an analysis of the results of tests and dress rehearsals, as well as consultations with the System Implementation Committee. The WSE Management Board has set the production launch date of the new system for 5 October 2026, while the migration from the UTP system is planned for 3–4 October 2026. The updated schedule reflects an ongoing process aimed at ensuring the stability and security of the capital market infrastructure. 3–4 October 2026 – planned migration from the UTP system to GPW WATS 5 October 2026 – planned production launch date of the GPW WATS system The GPW WATS System Implementation Committee is composed of representatives of Exchange Members, KDPW/KDPW CCP, and the WSE The decision to update the implementation schedule for the GPW WATS trading system was taken following an analysis of test results and dress rehearsals and in ongoing dialogue with market participants. It reflects a responsible approach to the deployment of new critical infrastructure in the capital market. Both dress rehearsals were assessed positively and were conducted on a very large scale. In particular, the second rehearsal involved virtually all active market participants, both domestic and international, which made it possible to test the system under conditions closely reflecting real market operations. Hundreds of thousands of test transactions were executed and participants used the environment not only for migration testing but also for extensive functional testing of their own systems. The coming period will be dedicated to final system validation, optimisation of selected components and further alignment of the migration process with the infrastructure of Exchange Members and post trade systems, in order to ensure the highest possible level of security and stability of the implementation. GPW indicates that in the case of a trading system of this scale, the implementation date is not superior to the quality of implementation, trading stability and investor safety. Dress rehearsals serve as a tool for verifying the operational and technological readiness of the entire market environment and support data driven decision making. – Tests are conducted to ensure that decisions on the system launch are based on data rather than schedule pressure. The priority remains to ensure a safe and stable implementation of the new solution. The objective is not rapid deployment at any cost, but deployment that guarantees quality and reliability. In the case of infrastructure critical to the capital market, safety and stability take precedence, while expanding the scope of testing and extending the preparation phase reduces the risk of disruptions after launch - said Sławomir Panasiuk, Vice President of the Management Board of the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Current trading on GPW continues without disruption based on the existing UTP system. The updated GPW WATS implementation schedule does not affect the ongoing functioning of the market. In the coming weeks, GPW will continue testing and operational work in line with the updated schedule. Market participants will receive detailed information on the next stages of preparations, including the scope of additional validation, planned testing activities and the conditions for transition to the production environment. Over the past several months, a broad range of preparatory work has been completed, including infrastructure build out, system integration, preparation of documentation and a significant expansion of testing. At the same time, key supporting systems were developed or redesigned, effectively marking a transition from a prototype solution to a system ready for operation in the target market environment. In parallel with completing the functional scope of the trading system itself, intensive work was carried out to adapt and integrate a number of GPW side systems which together form a coherent architecture necessary for handling trading and market data distribution. Activities aimed at reducing technological debt were also undertaken, requiring substantial investment in infrastructure including a new data processing centre. The GPW WATS project remains a strategic priority for the Exchange and is part of strengthening the technological foundations of the capital market. The implementation of the new trading platform is aligned with the process of building a stable and predictable trading environment that supports the development of services for market participants.

Bitcoin has shown remarkable resilience this week, holding its ground despite hawkish signals from the U.S. Federal Reserve that initially shook equity markets. According to James Butterfill, Head of Research at CoinShares, while the Fed's stance presents short-term headwinds, the underlying structural case for Bitcoin as an alternative monetary asset continues to strengthen. The Fed held its policy rate steady but emphasized solid economic activity and persistent inflation, reinforcing a "higher-for-longer" interest rate outlook. Following the announcement, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh called for the central bank to reduce its forward guidance and react more directly to incoming data. This news initially sent ripples across markets, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq falling by approximately 1.2% and 1.3%, respectively. Bitcoin also saw a brief 1.6% dip but recovered, a move Butterfill described as "firmer than many would have expected." "The short-term macro impulse is restrictive, but the structural case for Bitcoin as an alternative monetary asset is not going away," Butterfill noted. He highlighted that persistent inflation and policy uncertainty ultimately bolster Bitcoin's long-term appeal. Adding to the cautious optimism, digital asset fund flows are showing signs of improvement. Outflows from global digital asset ETPs have slowed to just US$149 million, a significant improvement from previous weeks. While not a definitive reversal, this suggests the recent period of intense de-risking may be subsiding. Meanwhile, a significant development in crypto market structure is drawing attention. Decentralized derivatives platform Hyperliquid saw its pre-IPO perpetual contract for SpaceX (SPCX) trade over US$1.3 billion in a single 24-hour period. This surge in activity demonstrates that on-chain venues are becoming powerful engines for price discovery, especially for assets not continuously priced in traditional markets. "This is not the moment to become overly optimistic, but neither is it a moment of capitulation," Butterfill concluded. "The combination of relative resilience, improved flow momentum, and the rapid expansion of venues like Hyperliquid argues for cautious constructiveness rather than renewed pessimism."

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX) today announced the launch of TraX® Tape, a data solution that delivers a clean, consolidated view of bond market activity, enriched with additional context and real-time insights. The launch comes as UK and EU transparency reforms increase the availability of bond trading data while adding complexity to how that data is reported and interpreted. TraX Tape addresses these challenges by providing a single, standardised feed that consolidates and enhances market data, enabling clients to interpret trading activity more efficiently and with greater confidence. “Market participants have more data than ever but turning that data into actionable insight remains a challenge,” said Dean Berry, Group COO and CEO of EMEA & APAC at MarketAxess. “TraX Tape is designed to deliver a clearer and more complete view of market activity, helping clients make more informed trading decisions.” Built on MarketAxess TraX data, TraX Tape aggregates data from a global network of dealers and clients and applies proprietary data cleansing processes refined over 10 years. The solution then enriches the regulatory transparency data with additional real-time insights and analytics, including trade direction and pricing context from MarketAxess’ AI-powered pricing engine CP+™. Key features include: Directional indicators on each trade, providing clearer insight into market sentiment A consolidated view of global bond trading activity through a single connection Clean, de-duplicated data to improve usability and reduce operational burden Expanded coverage and earlier visibility into trading activity Integrated analytics, including yield and spread calculations, to support trading and execution analysis “The consolidated tape will bring increased transparency and standardisation to global bond markets,” Berry added. “TraX Tape builds upon that foundation and brings clarity with contextual intelligence that can only come from seeing how bonds actually trade on one of the world’s largest electronic credit platforms. The data tells you what happened, and TraX Tape tells you what it means.”

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for making decisions about Bank Rate. Monetary Policy Summary, June 2026 At its meeting ending on 17 June 2026, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted by a majority of 7–2 to maintain Bank Rate at 3.75%. Two members voted to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points, to 4%. Global energy prices have fallen since the previous meeting in response to events in the Middle East. But they remain higher than pre-conflict and have continued to be volatile. The impact of the energy shock on the UK economy remains uncertain. Monetary policy cannot influence energy prices but is being set to ensure that the economic adjustment to them occurs in a way that achieves the 2% inflation target sustainably. The policy stance required to achieve this will depend on the scale and duration of the shock, and how it propagates through the economy. CPI inflation has fallen to 2.8% since the previous meeting, although it is expected to rise later this year as the effects of higher energy prices continue to pass through. The risk of material second-round effects in price and wage-setting, against which policy needs to lean, is greater the longer higher energy prices persist. But the labour market continues to loosen, and signs of a weakening economy could contain inflationary pressures. Interest rates faced by households and businesses remain higher than prior to the conflict, which will act to reduce inflation over time. Taking all the risks to the economic outlook into account, the Committee judges that it is appropriate to maintain Bank Rate at this meeting. The Committee will continue to monitor closely the situation in the Middle East and how its impact propagates through the economy. The Committee stands ready to act as necessary to ensure that CPI inflation remains on track to meet the 2% target in the medium term. Minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting ending on 17 June 2026 1: Before turning to its immediate policy decision, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) discussed recent developments in global and UK economic and financial conditions, and how these could affect the medium-term outlook and the MPC’s strategy. Global economic and financial conditions 2: Global energy prices had fallen since the previous meeting in response to events in the Middle East. But they remained higher than pre-conflict and had continued to be volatile. The spot price of Brent crude and UK wholesale gas had averaged $100 per barrel and 116 pence per therm respectively since the April Monetary Policy Report, compared to $66 per barrel and 87 pence per therm in the period leading up to the February Report. In the days immediately leading up to the June MPC meeting, plans for a Middle East peace deal had been announced. Oil and gas prices had fallen in response to around $79 per barrel and 100 pence per therm respectively. Futures curves continued to slope downwards for both oil and gas. 3: The Committee discussed the risks around the outlook for energy prices. Prior to the announcement of a peace deal, there had been some partial mitigants to the impact of the disruption to global energy supply on energy prices, but it was uncertain how long these could be sustained. The coordinated release of strategic oil reserves by the member countries of the International Energy Agency was one such mitigant. There had also been some switching from the use of gas to coal as well as evidence of reduced demand for energy in response to higher prices, particularly in Asia. To some extent this reduction in demand might reflect the temporary deferral of economic activity, meaning it was uncertain how long it could persist in the event of a more prolonged reduction in energy supply from the Middle East. 4: Oil products and broader commodity prices had remained higher than before the conflict and there had been some emerging signs of global supply chain disruption. The price of diesel and jet fuel had increased significantly relative to Brent crude oil when the conflict began. These spreads had remained elevated relative to pre-conflict but had reduced since the Committee’s April meeting. Other commodity prices, such as for fertiliser and metals, had also remained higher than pre-conflict. Some indicators of global supply chain disruption had risen sharply since the start of the war, including some shipping cost indices and a PMI-based global supply chain index calculated by Bank staff. 5: Interest rates faced by households and businesses had remained higher than prior to the conflict. This tightening in financial conditions had been driven mainly by a significant upward shift in short-term overnight index swap (OIS) rates. These rates had also risen materially in the United States and in the euro area, reflecting the global nature of the energy supply shock and its implications for inflation. UK two-year OIS rates were currently around 70 basis points above their pre-war level. There had been full and fast pass-through from increases in such rates to key lending rates for households and businesses. The quoted rate on two-year fixed-rate mortgages was around 80 basis points higher than prior to the conflict and UK investment grade corporate bond yields had risen by around 50 basis points. 6: In the June Market Participants Survey (MaPS), median expectations had been for Bank Rate to remain unchanged at this MPC meeting and, thereafter, for Bank Rate to remain unchanged for the year ahead. That represented a tightening in the median path of around 50 basis points relative to expectations prior to the conflict, at which point reductions in Bank Rate had been expected. 7: In contrast to market participants’ broadly flat most likely path for Bank Rate, the UK short-term interest rate curve sloped upwards over the year ahead. The conflict had led to increased volatility that was correlated across energy, inflation-linked and interest rate markets. The UK OIS curve had continued to oscillate since the April meeting, but within a range that was consistently materially higher than the pre-conflict curve. In the lead up to this MPC meeting, the announcement of a peace deal had contributed to a shift in the OIS curve towards the bottom of its recent range, with an upward slope of around 30 basis points by end-2026. Models used by Bank staff suggested that the upward slope of the OIS curve was driven largely by risk premia. Consistent with that, respondents to the June MaPS survey had attributed most of the gap between the April MaPS median Bank Rate profile and the current market curve to asymmetric risks and compensation for uncertainty. UK current economic conditions 8: Twelve-month CPI inflation had been 2.8% in May, unchanged from April, but down from 3.3% in March. The May outturn had been 0.4 percentage points below the short-term forecast published in the April Report. Downside news relative to the April Report had been spread across food, core goods and services, with an outsized contribution to the news from food price inflation, which had fallen to 2.2%. Some direct effects of the energy shock, especially from the initial post-conflict increase in fuel prices, had already pushed up on CPI inflation. 9: Energy prices had remained volatile. Based on energy prices as of close of business on 15 June, CPI inflation was now expected to be a little under 3% in 2026 Q3 and pick up to a little over 3¼% in Q4. This was below the path expected in the April Report, reflecting both lower energy and non-energy prices. 10: Ofgem’s headline energy price cap for July to September had been increased by £221 (13.5%) to £1862, broadly in line with expectations at the time of the April Report. On 21 May, the government had announced a postponement of the increase in fuel duty planned for September, as part of a set of policy measures to support households and energy-intensive industries. 11: Forward-looking survey indicators of the indirect effects of the energy shock had remained consistent with near-term expectations in the April Report projections. For businesses responding to the DMP Survey, one-year-ahead own-price inflation expectations had fallen in May to 4.0%, from 4.4% in April, although this was 0.6 percentage points higher than the pre-conflict rate in February. 12: Households’ near-term inflation expectations had picked up materially since the start of the conflict. The Bank/Ipsos measure of year-ahead expected inflation had risen sharply, from 3.2% in February to 4.0% in May. The corresponding Citi/YouGov measure had remained well above its pre-Covid average at 4.7% in May, although it had fallen back from its immediate post-conflict peak. Medium-term household expectations had also risen, with the Bank/Ipsos two and five-year ahead measures having increased by 0.3 and 0.2 percentage points respectively in May relative to February. 13: Annual growth in private sector regular Average Weekly Earnings in the three months to April had been 2.9%, a touch lower than had been expected in the April Report. On the face of it, this was below the estimates of target-consistent wage growth published in the February Report, but, adjusting for changes in industry mix, private sector AWE growth was around half a percentage point higher. Growth in bonus payments, which were not included in measures of regular pay, had also been strong. In addition, public sector regular pay had grown by 5.1%, although this strength had in part reflected that the twelve-month comparison had included both the 2025 and 2026 uplifts for some NHS staff. 14: There had been no change since the April Report to the Bank’s Agents’ estimate that basic private sector pay settlements were expected to average 3.5% over 2026. The Agents reported that most of these settlements had been agreed before the recent rise in energy prices, and that contacts did not generally expect that they would be re-opened. Some contacts had expressed concerns that the pace of wage disinflation could slow next year as a result of the conflict. DMP respondents had reported that they expected one-year-ahead wage growth of 3.4%, which had been stable since before the start of the conflict. 15: UK GDP had increased by 0.6% in 2026 Q1, 0.1 percentage points higher than had been expected in the April Report. Evidence from business surveys, however, suggested that this headline figure overstated the underlying momentum, which had remained subdued. In April, monthly GDP had fallen by 0.1%, consistent with a partial unwind of the strength in activity in Q1. The S&P Global UK composite output PMI in May had fallen below the 50 no-change mark for the first time in more than a year as growth in manufacturing had been offset by weaker growth in services. Bank staff estimated that underlying quarterly GDP growth had been around 0.2% in Q1, and would remain at around that rate in Q2. 16: To date, surveys and faster indicators had not generally provided much evidence that the conflict had led to a rapid deterioration in the outlook for growth, although growth was expected to be subdued. The Bank’s Agents’ contacts had reported a further weakening in demand expectations in May, alongside growing concerns about potential future supply shortages. Confidence more generally had been weak, as, according to a range of opinion polls, households and firms had reported persistent negative economic sentiment, both relative to the past and relative to other countries. 17: There had been a mixed picture on labour demand in recent data. The Labour Force Survey (LFS) unemployment rate had fallen to 4.9% in the three months to April, slightly lower than had been expected in the April Report. LFS employment had grown by 0.3%, slightly higher than had been expected in the April Report, but underlying employment growth had remained close to zero. Vacancies had continued to decline, by 2.6% in the three months to May compared to the previous three months, although the redundancy rate had also fallen. Overall, these data continued to be consistent with a gradual loosening in the labour market. This was supported by intelligence from the Bank’s Agents’ contacts, many of whom had reported that weak or delayed demand was leading them to operate below desired utilisation. Overview and the Committee’s discussions 18: The conflict in the Middle East, and its impact on energy prices and the UK economy, remained the dominant source of uncertainty for the inflation outlook. As had been outlined in the April Monetary Policy Report and Minutes, monetary policy could not influence global energy prices. And it would take time for monetary policy to work through the economy, so any action the MPC might take would not prevent higher inflation in coming months. What the MPC would do is set monetary policy to make sure that the effects of the shock did not become embedded into broad-based inflationary pressures, so that inflation fell back to the 2% target and stayed there. 19: In setting policy at this meeting, the Committee continued to judge that weakness in demand and the labour market was likely to lessen the strength of second-round effects from higher global energy prices. But these effects were likely to be stronger, the larger and more persistent was the rise in global energy prices. In ensuring that inflation returned sustainably to the 2% target, monetary policy would continue to need to balance the costs of leaning too little against second-round effects and the costs of responding too much. The right balance was likely to change depending on how events unfolded and propagated through the economy. 20: The Committee was also continuing to consider the three scenarios set out in the April Report, which illustrated a range of possible outcomes for the UK economy given the uncertainty stemming from the conflict. In Scenario A, energy prices were conditioned on market futures curves in the 15 days to 22 April 2026. In Scenarios B and C, the paths of energy prices were assumed to be higher and more persistent to varying degrees. There were no second-round effects from the energy shock in Scenario A. Second-round effects were incorporated in Scenarios B and C, and materially so in Scenario C. 21: At this meeting, the Committee’s discussions focused on: the extent of underlying UK disinflation prior to the conflict; the near-term outlook for inflation and energy prices; the degree to which economic slack would continue to restrain inflation persistence; the evidence of any second-round effects from the energy shock so far; and what continued uncertainty around the impact of geopolitical tensions on the UK economy implied for current and prospective policy-setting. 22: Recent data outturns had provided some greater reassurance that there had been sustained disinflation pre-conflict. Prior to the conflict, expectations had been for inflation to be close to the 2% target from April, and news in energy prices owing to the conflict had more than accounted for the higher outturns in headline inflation in April and May, relative to the February Report. Non-energy price inflation, particularly of goods, had been moderating but in aggregate remained above a target-consistent pace. Wage growth was close to target-consistent levels, although forward-looking indicators suggested that the pace of decline could stall in future. 23: The immediate direct effects of the energy shock on inflation, and some indirect effects through higher input costs for firms, had so far evolved broadly as had been expected in April. The short-term inflation forecast was lower than at the time of the previous meeting, reflecting recent news in energy prices as well as downside news in the May CPI outturn. The Committee re-iterated that monetary policy should typically look through the direct effects and some indirect effects of an energy price shock, but should act to the extent required to prevent those effects becoming embedded in domestic wage and price-setting. 24: Members judged that risks to energy prices were still skewed to the upside. While noting global energy prices had recently moved lower, members judged that even in the event of prompt conflict resolution there could be a logistical delay in restoring energy production and transportation, and they noted the possibility of lingering instability. Accordingly, members were attentive to the risk that prices could remain elevated for a longer period, even if the risk of another sharp spike upwards had diminished somewhat. 25: In considering the potential impact of energy prices on medium-term inflation, as in April, the Committee judged that continued weakness in activity would limit the strength of some second-round effects. Members broadly agreed that a margin of slack had continued to emerge including in the labour market. Demand had remained subdued and consumption growth weak, and both household and business sentiment was weak. Taken together, this would restrain firms’ ability to pass through higher costs to higher prices, and would dampen wage bargaining. At the same time, some members cautioned that the attentiveness of households’ and firms’ inflation expectations after a period of above-target inflation, or structural changes, could increase the magnitude of second-round effects. 26: Clear evidence of signs of second-round effects would only ever emerge with a lag, and the Committee therefore agreed that it was too early to conclude one way or the other from the initial tentative and mixed evidence. On the one hand, firms’ own-price expectations were a little softer than had been expected in April. On the other hand, some members noted that household inflation expectations could have become more sensitive to near-term inflation news than in the past. This could affect the economy via price-setting behaviour as well as wage-setting in 2027. 27: The Committee would monitor the evolution of a wide range of forward-looking data and intelligence to allow timely assessments of the inflation outlook. The size and duration of direct effects of energy prices on UK inflation would clearly be important, as would the scale of indirect effects via increased business costs and the extent to which these were passing through via higher consumer prices or reduced profit margins. Second-round effects were also being monitored through indicators of price and wage-setting behaviour, including inflation expectations, firms’ own price expectations and future wage growth and settlements. The impact of the shock on the real economy would also be monitored, including through indicators of the labour market and economic slack. 28: In considering the near-term policy outlook, members agreed that financial conditions had tightened materially since before the conflict, which was already imparting some restraint to the economy. There had been a significant upward shift in UK short-term interest rates that had passed through to mortgage rates. This in part reflected the pricing out of Bank Rate cuts that had been expected before the conflict. Some of the upward slope in the yield curve also reflected ongoing uncertainty around the scale and duration of the conflict in the Middle East and the associated upside risks to the inflation outlook. 29: The Committee discussed how best policy should respond to uncertainty about the scale and duration of the energy shock. There were risks to balance from the trade-off between returning inflation to target too slowly and prolonged weakness in economic activity. All members nevertheless agreed that the appropriate policy response would depend primarily on the outlook for second-round effects. If higher inflation were to reflect mainly direct energy effects and second-round effects were to remain contained, there was a stronger case for tolerating a slower return of inflation to target, in the context of weak activity. However, there would be a more challenging trade-off if higher energy prices appeared to be feeding into more persistent domestic inflation. In that event, the weight placed on output stabilisation would be likely to diminish, and policy would need to remain restrictive for longer, or become more restrictive. 30: Members agreed that the appropriate policy response should be robust across a range of scenarios, given the uncertainty around how the outlook could evolve. There was a range of views around whether the tightening in financial conditions relative to pre-conflict was sufficient, was reflected in real restrictiveness, and would endure. Most members judged that this tightening provided insurance against inflation risks, while preserving optionality to adjust course as more conclusive evidence emerged. Some members noted that a modest rise in Bank Rate would help to ensure that financial conditions remained consistent with the intended degree of monetary restraint and reduce the risk of later, larger tightening. The immediate policy decision 31: Seven members preferred to maintain Bank Rate at 3.75% at this meeting. For six of these members (Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden, Swati Dhingra, Clare Lombardelli, Dave Ramsden and Alan Taylor), recent data outturns provided some further evidence that underlying disinflation had been on track pre-conflict. Upside risks to energy prices had receded, although they remained. The higher interest rates facing households and businesses were already acting to reduce inflation over time and therefore a hold in Bank Rate at this meeting was appropriate. There was nevertheless a range of views on how the energy shock might propagate and therefore the policy response that might be required in future. For one member (Catherine L Mann) upside inflation risks were more prominent across possible future outcomes, but an immediate increase in Bank Rate was not required given their view that policy tightening would transmit to the economy rapidly.  32: Two members (Megan Greene and Huw Pill) preferred a 0.25 percentage point increase in Bank Rate at this meeting. These members were less confident in the pace of the underlying disinflation pre-conflict. They were more concerned that households’ and firms’ greater attention to inflation outturns than in the past would lead to larger second-round effects for a given energy price profile. And they noted that the tightening in financial conditions could reverse in the absence of an increase in Bank Rate. Given significant uncertainty about the extent of second-round effects, they preferred to raise rates as part of a risk management strategy. 33: The Chair invited the Committee to vote on the proposition that: Bank Rate should be maintained at 3.75%. 34: Seven members (Andrew Bailey, Sarah Breeden, Swati Dhingra, Clare Lombardelli, Catherine L Mann, Dave Ramsden and Alan Taylor) voted in favour of the proposition. Two members (Megan Greene and Huw Pill) voted against the proposition, preferring to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points, to 4%. MPC members’ views 35: Members set out the rationale underpinning their individual votes on Bank Rate. Members are listed alphabetically under each vote grouping. References to scenarios relate to those set out in Section 3 of the April Monetary Policy Report. Votes to maintain Bank Rate at 3.75% Andrew Bailey: There has been a marked fall in energy prices in recent days, reflecting progress on talks involving US and Iran. But the situation remains unpredictable, and there is clearly a risk that energy prices remain elevated for an extended duration. Recent inflation outturns give greater confidence that gradual underlying disinflation has continued. Labour market data show some further softening, and there are further signs of demand weakness. Our remit recognises that attempting to bring inflation back to the target too quickly may cause undesirable volatility in output. Given the context at present of softness in the real economy and uncertainty around the scale and duration of the shock to energy prices, tolerating temporarily above-target inflation as part of a return to target is an appropriate way to approach the trade-off, providing inflation expectations remain contained. I am content at the present time with holding, while accepting that risks to inflation and interest rates are on the upside, as reflected in the upward slope in the sterling yield curve, which appears to be accounted for more by risk premia than expected rates. I would respond promptly to any signals that an extended period of elevated energy prices could be leading to stronger possible second-round effects. Sarah Breeden: Despite recent developments, the outlook for energy prices remains highly uncertain. Monetary policy should look through the direct effects of the energy shock, partially through the indirect effects and act forcefully and early against any material second-round effects. The economic environment means the chance of material second-round effects is small and, although it is early days, there has been nothing in the news since April to change that assessment. Recent releases suggest that, absent the shock, disinflation was firmly on track, and the weak demand outlook should continue to feed through to firms’ pricing decisions. The financing conditions facing households and firms have tightened materially since the conflict, leaning against inflationary pressures and leaving us well placed to monitor how the economy evolves. There are risks around this. Household inflation expectations have risen materially, and although their impact on wage growth should be moderated by the loose labour market, they pose an upside risk to inflation. On the other side, weak demand might pull inflation below target in the medium term. In my view, the current stance of financial conditions balances these risks, but I remain committed to acting early and decisively should material second‑round effects become likely. Swati Dhingra: Although the likelihood of extreme outcomes on both sides appears to have receded, I continue to see the uncertainty around the size of the global commodity shock as dominating the degree to which inflationary pressures risk getting embedded in domestic sources of inflation. Absent the shock, monetary policy would be too restrictive for the cyclical position. Disinflation appeared on track pre-conflict, with nominal indicators trending consistently in the right direction, and broad-based evidence of emerging slack and cumulative weakness in the economy. While these initial conditions would dampen momentum in second-round effects, there remain significant risks from overlapping adjustments to the subsequent supply shocks that have occurred in the recent past. I see the balance of risks to the upside on prices and downside on activity. Maintaining current restrictiveness would weigh against second-round effects and provide time to learn more about the size and duration of the first-round energy and commodity price shocks in the near term. If the situation were to worsen, this may warrant some further tightening. But I do not see a compelling case to increase Bank Rate pre-emptively without new evidence of more intense first-round shocks. Clare Lombardelli: Developments since our last meeting point in different directions for inflation. Disruption to energy prices and supply chains from events in the Middle East has persisted. This will prolong the time that inflation will remain above target due to direct and indirect effects, increasing the risk of second-round effects. Whereas the economic data has continued to show that, absent the energy shock, disinflation was gradually continuing. It is too early to draw any conclusions on second-round effects from the energy shock. So far, evidence has been mixed and the signal is broadly consistent with standard pass‑through. To date there is also no evidence of a rapid deterioration in demand. There are risks for inflation in both directions. Consumers and businesses have faced sustained above-target inflation in recent years which will affect behaviour, expectations and reactions to price rises. They also report negative sentiment which risks further weakening demand. Financing costs have risen since before the conflict, which continues to weigh against the greater inflation pressures. Holding Bank Rate remains appropriate as we learn more about the scale and duration of the shock and its propagation. Were signals to indicate inflation would persist above target, this would require policy to respond more forcefully to inflationary pressures. Catherine L Mann: Activity, labour market, and nominal pressures have moderated. However, there remain differences in pace across public and private sector, as well as between the most recent data and inflation expectations. Private sector wage growth is near target-consistent, but whole economy wage growth has increased. Market-sector services output is soft, although manufacturing and government have provided some momentum to GDP. Volatility in both inflation and financial markets has increased; both are headwinds for business investment. Higher inflation and volatility tend to encourage households to maintain high savings buffers. Hypotheticals for the Middle East conflict include resolution, sporadic continuance, and escalation. Consider the first two. With rapid resolution, activity rebounds, uncertainty clears, but energy prices remain high with infrastructure and inventory rebuild: an activist hike could be needed. With sporadic continuance, uncertainty weighs on activity, but energy prices increase, which could trigger threshold effects: a worsening trade-off, but needing an activist hike. Why wait? Research shows that a forceful Bank Rate decision can have a quick effect on inflation and inflation expectations. So I have time to continue to evaluate measures of inflation expectations and financial restrictiveness to determine whether firms’ pricing and 2027 wage negotiations are on a target-consistent path for the medium term. Dave Ramsden: Events in the Middle East remain the key determinant for inflation, and there remain upside risks from continued energy supply disruption as well as downside risks from subdued activity. There has been a material tightening in financial conditions, which is providing necessary restrictiveness, weighing against the upside balance of risks in the near term. I continue to place about equal weight on Scenarios A and B materialising after the summer, but even less weight than before on Scenario C. The evidence so far on how the economy will be impacted by the energy price shock is uncertain. Data outturns continue to confirm our understanding of the pre-conflict economy. The labour market has continued to loosen steadily, and the domestic disinflation process has also continued. Early, necessarily tentative, indications suggest that second-round effects might be limited, absent further escalation of the energy cost shock. Holding Bank Rate at this meeting keeps options open as we continue to learn more about the path of the conflict. My reaction function will remain state-contingent on both the development of the conflict, and what that means for the outlook for the economy. Alan Taylor: The conflict and its implications for energy prices remain of central importance, even as a deal emerges. Potential second-round effects are an endogenous consequence of the shock. That does not negate a key role for the starting position of slack in the economy and of our restrictive policy stance. Recent data point further against a need for tightening. Absent mechanical direct and indirect energy effects from the conflict, CPI inflation would have been at target in April. Backward-looking wage data suggest that pay growth did not get stuck at elevated levels. Material second-round effects require changes in price and wage-setting behaviour. I believe this channel is likely to be weak given the slack that has accumulated. Policy is restrictive, 75 basis points above my estimate of neutral and where we might have been quite soon. The yield curve shows we have tightened a lot just by holding. One could articulate a case for tightening in risk space, but that is far from my assessment given my own scenario probabilities and trade-offs. Absent worse news, I cannot see a case for tightening now, and an active hold is reasonable. If the conflict resolution holds, and risks diminish, lower rates could be preferred. Votes to increase Bank Rate to 4% Megan Greene: The implementation of a reported peace deal and the evolution of energy prices remain uncertain. Slack should mitigate the extent of second-round effects triggered by the energy shock, but households and businesses are more attentive to rises in inflation today. This is reflected in households’ and firms’ inflation expectations and the sensitivity of long-term expectations to short-term inflation surprises, which suggest expectations may be less solidly anchored. Given significant uncertainty about the extent of second-round effects, we should pursue a risk management strategy. Analysis conducted using the Bank’s endogenous policy toolkit demonstrates that holding Bank Rate assuming lower second-round effects (Scenario B) but discovering next year they were greater (Scenario M, from my latest speech) and course-correcting results in inflation that peaks higher and remains above target the entire outlook. Hiking Bank Rate assuming greater second-round effects, then discovering they were smaller and course-correcting results in a very moderately lower output gap and inflation returns to target at the end of the forecast period. These risks are asymmetric, so we should insure against the possibility of larger second-round effects until we have evidence to determine they are not materialising. A proactive hike now in Bank Rate should help anchor inflation expectations. Huw Pill: Upside risks to the lasting achievement of the 2% inflation target have increased in recent months on account of events in the Gulf and their implications for commodity prices and supply chains. Recognising the significant uncertainty that surrounds the UK inflation outlook, raising Bank Rate to 4% continues to be the most robust monetary policy response to the intensification of these risks. Global energy prices remain volatile, and elevated compared with their pre-hostilities level, despite the announcement of a new ceasefire. Even with a looser labour market, the risk that second-round effects will create greater intrinsic persistence in UK inflation remains. One potentially pernicious channel of second-round effects is catch-up dynamics in pricing decisions as firms and households seek to defend their margins and purchasing power in the face of higher food and energy prices. While overall UK financial conditions have tightened since the conflict began, I continue to favour prompt but modest action on Bank Rate now. This would establish a stance of monetary policy that is well-placed to address the significant uncertainties the MPC faces. It will also put the MPC in a good place from which to respond to the evolution of events from here. Operational considerations 36: On 17 June, the stock of UK government bonds held for monetary policy purposes was £522 billion. 37: The following members of the Committee were present: Andrew Bailey, Chair Sarah Breeden Swati Dhingra Megan Greene Clare Lombardelli Catherine L Mann Huw Pill Dave Ramsden Alan Taylor Brian Bell was present as the Treasury representative. Jonathan Bewes was present on 9 June, as an observer for the purpose of exercising oversight functions in his role as a member of the Bank’s Court of Directors. The Bank of England Act 1998 gives the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting monetary policy to meet the Government’s inflation target. Operational decisions are taken by the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee. The minutes of the Committee meeting ending on 29 July will be published on 30 July 2026.

On Thursday 16 July 2026, ACER will open a public consultation on an Annex to the Guideline on REMIT transaction reporting, covering energy derivative transactions. What is it about? REMIT is the EU-wide framework that detects and deters market manipulation and abuse in wholesale energy markets. The Regulation was revised in 2024 to keep pace with evolving market dynamics, and its secondary legislation was updated in April 2026 with new and revised obligations. To reflect these regulatory developments, ACER is updating its guidance, including a new Guideline on REMIT transaction reporting (see ACER’s consultation). Why are we consulting? To complement the new Guideline, ACER has developed a dedicated Annex on the reporting of energy derivative transactions. The Annex: Clarifies the scope of reporting under REMIT and Regulation (EU) 648/2012 on over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (‘EMIR’). Explains how REMIT reporting exemptions apply for derivatives that are already reported under EMIR. ACER is seeking stakeholder input to ensure the Annex is clear, practical and supports consistent data reporting across the EU. Have your say! The public consultation will run from 16 July to 11 September 2026. ACER is hoping to hear from any interested parties, including but not limited to market participants, national regulatory authorities, registered reporting mechanisms (RRMs) and organised marketplaces (OMPs). In this process, ACER will also cooperate and consult with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Get ready to share your views

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) are pleased to announce today (Thursday) a joint pilot project to explore a new digital payment solution for the After-Hours Trading (AHT) session in the derivatives market1. This initiative aims to enhance Hong Kong’s capital market and meet the growing market demand for AHT. In this connection, HKEX and the HKMA are exploring the use of e-HKD – a wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC) operating on a 24/7 basis – for advance margin payments in the AHT session, enhancing the risk management capabilities of the derivatives market outside regular banking hours, whilst maintaining existing operational workflows. This pilot project will provide more flexibility and efficiency than the existing arrangement for advance margin payments. Currently, Clearing Participants (CPs) must submit advance margin deposit requests to HKFE Clearing Corporation Limited (HKCC) by 3:00 p.m. for funds to be counted for the subsequent AHT session. HKEX is inviting CPs under HKCC to participate in Real-Value Trial Transactions of this pilot initiative on an optional basis. The Real-Value Trial Transactions, as well as any subsequent wider adoption, are subject to regulatory approval, market readiness and other relevant considerations. HKEX Chief Operating Officer, Vanessa Lau, said: “We are delighted to collaborate with the HKMA on this latest initiative to advance market accessibility and strengthen Hong Kong’s capital markets infrastructure. By exploring the use of CBDC, we aim to provide a more flexible and timely payment option outside of regular business hours, and address longstanding operational pain points in the industry. This project reflects the shared commitment of HKEX and the HKMA to embracing innovation, strengthening the resilience of our markets and reinforcing Hong Kong’s position as a leading international financial centre.” HKMA Deputy Chief Executive, Howard Lee, said: “As Hong Kong’s financial infrastructure evolves to meet the growing demands of the market, the HKMA is committed to advancing innovation that enhances efficiency and resilience. The joint pilot with HKEX to enable advance margin payments for AHT using e-HKD demonstrates a wholesale application of CBDC in a live market environment, while underscoring our strong partnership with the industry stakeholders in driving financial innovation.” More details are available on a circular published today on the HKEX website. Note: Hong Kong derivatives market has been growing from strength to strength with an average daily volume (ADV) record of 1.66 million contracts achieved in 2025. This momentum carried into 2026, with ADV exceeding 1.78 million contracts in the first five months.

Important addition to China-related risk management tools offered by HKEX Supporting growth of Hong Kong’s RMB product ecosystem Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) welcomes the announcement today (Thursday) by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) on the target launch of 5-year China Government Bond (CGB) Futures in Hong Kong on 3 August 2026. HKEX Chairman, Carlson Tong, said: “The debut of CGB Futures in Hong Kong with the 5-year tenor as the first contract marks an important milestone in the development of Hong Kong’s Fixed-Income and Currencies (FIC) ecosystem. We thank the regulators in Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland for their staunch support, and we look forward to working closely with our partners and stakeholders to ensure the successful rollout of this new risk-management tool and further enhance two-way capital flows between China and the world.” HKEX Chief Executive Officer, Bonnie Y Chan, said: “The launch of CGB Futures is another exciting step that enriches HKEX’s China-related product suite and FIC offering. Complementing Bond Connect and following the success of Swap Connect, these unique CGB Futures will provide investors of Chinese bonds with an efficient risk management tool, supporting the growth of Hong Kong’s RMB product ecosystem and cementing Hong Kong’s role as the world’s leading offshore RMB hub. We will continue to work with all stakeholders in building Hong Kong’s FIC ecosystem and enriching global investors’ options.” More details about the CGB Futures will be announced in due course. The launch of the contract, part of HKEX’s RMB and Mainland-related suite of products that includes Stock Connect, Bond Connect, Swap Connect and MSCI China A50 Connect Index Futures, will help regional and global investors interested in accessing the Chinese Mainland to more effectively manage their interest rate risks. This will support greater international participation in the domestic equities and fixed-income markets and further broaden investment and risk management opportunities in Hong Kong's markets. The launch of Bond Connect in 2017, part of HKEX’s unique mutual market access programme with the Chinese Mainland, was an important development in driving international participation in the Mainland’s bond market, whilst Swap Connect, which launched in 2023, allows international investors to tap the onshore RMB interest rate swap market. International investors’ onshore bonds holdings in the China Interbank Bond Market have grown steadily from RMB0.8 trillion in June 2017 to around RMB3.2 trillion at the end of May 2026.