The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today published a summary of the results from its fourth annual systemic risk survey. The results of this survey provide the CSA with important information on market participants’ views about the stability of the Canadian financial system. A total of 505 Canadian portfolio managers and investment dealers completed the survey between October 16 and November 6, 2025. Overall, concern levels about financial stability have increased slightly compared to previous years. Respondents were most concerned about trade, cyber vulnerabilities, and household debt. “We would like to thank the respondents for their participation, which allows us to study the evolution of their concerns in the context of economic uncertainty,” said Stan Magidson, CSA Chair and Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission. “The survey results are a key input into the CSA’s ongoing efforts to monitor financial vulnerabilities and enhance financial stability.” To read more about the survey and the other initiatives carried out by the CSA Systemic Risk Committee, please visit the CSA website. The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets.

Good morning and thank you, Brian [Schorr]. And good morning to all of today’s panelists and members of the Committee. Thank you for your participation in this last Investor Advisory Committee meeting of the year. Before discussing today’s agenda, I want to thank Cristina Martin Firvida whose dedication and passion for her job and commitment to investors has greatly benefited this Committee, the Commission, and investors. Today is Cristina’s last IAC meeting as the Commission’s Investor Advocate. Cristina has served as the Commission’s second Investor Advocate for the last three years. I have enjoyed working with her and particularly have appreciated her willingness to brainstorm on any issue of concern to investors, even the hard ones that nobody else wants to discuss. We are a week past Thanksgiving, and I am wondering if I will ever reclaim my refrigerator. Leftovers still occupy every shelf and have spilled into my backup refrigerator, aka my balcony. I am paying for my overly ambitious menu planning. Maybe if I had concentrated on making fewer dishes of higher quality, my guests would have eaten more, and I would not be eating mashed potatoes, stuffing, and cranberry sauce for breakfast for the foreseeable future. This experience got me thinking about corporate governance and shareholder engagement, which happen to be on the menu for our first panel today. When it comes to shareholder engagement with corporations, some people seem to believe that more is always better and that quality does not matter. In this view, every shareholder deserves—as often as she likes—to have her concerns—as many as she has—aired on the corporate ballot, discussed in corporate boardrooms, and reflected in corporate budgets. But, as my former colleague Elad Roisman noted, “While we all have a right to get on our soapboxes, we have no right to force others to pay for them.”[1] Where the SEC has a role to play in shaping corporate governance, those rules should recognize both the benefits and the costs of shareholder engagement. Rules should provide avenues for shareholders to be heard when they speak to the mutual interests of the company and its shareholders writ large. On the other hand, rules should dissuade shareholders that seek to de-prioritize financial return as the sine qua non of corporate purpose. Amplifying those voices could drive companies into the treacherous terrain of catering to shareholders’ idiosyncratic objectives, which may undermine rather than enhance corporate value. A well-calibrated ruleset gives shareholders a voice in proportion to their alignment with the corporation. Therefore, I support broad shareholder engagement by enabling all shareholders to enter standing proxy voting instructions. Mechanisms that facilitate shareholder voting make sense and may save the company money that would otherwise have been spent on drumming up votes to meet quorum requirements. I also supported the Commission’s recent acknowledgment that mandatory arbitration provisions do not run afoul of the federal securities laws. Shareholder litigation—even when it is baseless—costs companies a lot of money and time, so some companies and their shareholders may prefer resolving their disputes through arbitration. The SEC should not override their preferences. Finally, eligibility to submit a shareholder proposal under Rule 14a-8 should be limited to shareholders whose interests align with those of the corporation. Otherwise, shareholders, to extract special interest concessions from the company, will submit shareholder proposals, which divert company time, attention, and resources. The second panel is linked to the first because, among other benefits, tokenization could facilitate informed shareholder engagement by making it easier for companies to communicate with shareholders and for shareholders to vote. More generally, the tokenization of equity securities has the potential to transform how securities are issued, traded, and settled and empower investors by giving them more direct control over their assets. Investors will benefit from near-instantaneous settlement, reduced counterparty risk, enhanced transparency through immutable ledgers, and lower transaction costs. At the same time, tokenization raises a host of interesting legal and policy questions. For example, tokenization models vary widely. On the one hand, issuer-sponsored securities issued directly on blockchain networks maintain full integration with master security holder files; they preserve traditional ownership rights while enabling direct ownership. Conversely, third-party sponsored tokens, depending on how they are structured, may provide synthetic exposure to an equity’s price movements though derivative instruments, such as through tokenized structured notes or security-based swaps, but offer no ownership or voting interest in the issuer. Additional questions arise because technologically savvy investors will be able to buy, sell, and hold assets without a traditional intermediary (or without any intermediary at all). Determining how to fit this activity into our rulebook, which is built around intermediaries, is challenging. Some rules may not be necessary to advance the regulatory objective they ostensibly serve given distributed ledger technology’s ability to reduce certain risks and enhance transparency. We do not have the luxury of time in tackling these questions. Tokenization of U.S. equities is already happening: Anybody can spin up a liquidity pool or launch a trading protocol that enables investors to get exposure to our equities markets. Only the quick, careful, and creative development of a workable regulatory framework for the issuance and trading of tokenized securities will provide American investors with the protections they have come to expect when trading U.S. equities. Otherwise, American investors will buy tokenized securities overseas. Commission staff is working on a tailored innovation exemption that would permit this activity in the United States, with strong investor protection guardrails, including Commission oversight. As we embark on this important discussion, I encourage our panelists to consider several key questions that will help shape our path forward. These questions do not have easy answers, but addressing them thoughtfully will be essential as we work to create a regulatory framework that both protects investors and allows innovation to flourish. Are we adequately considering the full range of emerging tokenization models, and are there additional benefits or drawbacks the Commission should consider that are unique to certain models? What are the broader implications for fundamental market mechanics like settlement processes and short selling? What parts of our existing rulebook simply do not work for this emerging market structure? For instance, should Regulation NMS apply to tokenized equities in its current form? How do we ensure interoperability across different blockchain networks while maintaining the market integrity on which investors depend? What might an appropriately tailored innovation exemption look like? What type of activity should it permit? What conditions would be both necessary and workable? Looking longer term, how can we build a regulatory framework that is fit for a future where intermediaries have less sway and investors exercise more autonomy as they move through our markets? Another captivating technology is the subject of the final discussion of the day: artificial intelligence (“AI”). The Committee will discuss a draft recommendation about public company disclosures related to AI.[2] In some ways, the Committee’s discussion is timely. AI has been a theme of 2025: eye-popping valuations of AI companies, hopes for AI’s ability to increase productivity, questions about how AI will affect companies’ hiring needs, and fears about AI’s ability to turbocharge cybercriminals. But, in other ways, today’s discussion is just the latest iteration of the evergreen tug-of-war between principles-based rules and prescriptive rules responding to the hottest issue du jour. Principles-based disclosure rules allow companies to tell investors how they are approaching challenges and opportunities, while companies following prescriptive disclosure mandates merely fill in the blanks of the SEC’s script. I look forward to your discussion and have several questions for your consideration before you finalize the draft recommendation: The draft recommendation laments that current disclosures related to AI are “uneven and inconsistent”[3] and that practices “var[y] significantly among industries.”[4] But are such differences problematic? A small, recently-public company with only a handful of employees, for example, certainly has a different relationship with AI than mature, global companies with thousands of employees. If company and industry adoption of AI is not entirely homogenous why should our disclosure regime force conformity? Would any attempt to do so open the Commission up to critiques similar to those leveled against the SEC for its predictive data analytics proposal, which critics feared would chill advisers’ and broker-dealers’ use of AI and other technologies?[5] Is this an area where prescriptive disclosure requirements would shape corporate behavior, which is not a proper role for merit-neutral SEC disclosure rules? For example, a requirement to disclose board oversight, if any, of AI implementation and utilization could nudge companies to set up a superfluous AI oversight function. Why did the Committee include a materiality qualifier in only the third prong of the draft recommendation? Such a qualifier is entirely sensible here as it is with our existing disclosure rules. In fact, I would contend that absent a Congressional directive to the contrary, the SEC does not have the authority to mandate immaterial disclosure. The Committee notes that participants from a prior panel held by the Committee agreed that the Commission should give guidance on the definition of AI so that “issuers know whether they are using AI in the first place.”[6] Even if we draw on a definition drafted by another agency, why should the Commission attempt to define the limits of emerging technologies? Why not leave that task to the companies using the technologies? Thank you all once more for your willingness to dedicate so much of your time to the Investor Advisory Committee. Thank you also to Cristina Martin-Firvida, Marc Sharma, and Adam Moore for their work with the Committee.   [1] Commissioner Elad L. Roisman, Statement on Procedural Requirements and Resubmission Thresholds under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Sept. 23, 2020), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/roisman-14a8-2020-09-23 [2] Draft Recommendation Regarding the Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Operations (the “Draft Recommendation”), https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-iac-artificial-intelligence-recommendation-111825.pdf [3] Draft Recommendation at 4 [4] Draft Recommendation at 2 [5] As one investor advocate explained, that proposal’s misguided approach to technology would have caused “market participants in legitimate businesses [to] err on the side of caution rather than risk employing technology in ways that the Commission or its staff may later determine fall afoul of the definitions.” Nicolas Morgan, Proposed Rule on Conflicts of Interest Associated with the Use of Predictive Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers, Investor Choice Advocates Network (Oct. 10, 2023), https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-12-23/s71223-271899-654402.pdf [6] Draft Recommendation at 7

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to join you for the fourth and final Investor Advisory Committee meeting of 2025. Before I share a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here today are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. Of course, I also want to thank each of you for the time, expertise, and spirited commitment that you brought to the Committee this year. Your work is essential—our markets prosper when investors have confidence that our rules are fair, our processes are predictable, and our regulators are not smothering innovation out of fear. I convey and share in the agency’s appreciation for your dedicated service, and extend special thanks to Cristina Firvida, who will conclude her tenure as Investor Advocate at the end of January. Our work at the SEC should always be responsive to the needs and interests of investors, and Cristina has provided essential support in service of these objectives. Cristina, we wish you every success in your future endeavors and we thank you for the contributions that you have made to our agency and to investors as a whole.  I am also grateful for the valuable insights that we heard during this morning’s panel discussion regarding regulatory changes in corporate governance. One of my top priorities as Chairman is to make being a public company an attractive proposition for more firms— and I look forward to engaging in this important work over the coming months as we guide the SEC back to the bedrock fundamentals on which our mandate is based. The next panel, meanwhile, will focus on how the Commission can modernize our rules to enable our markets to move on-chain. Distributed ledger technology and the tokenization of financial assets, including securities, have the potential to transform our capital markets. Our financial markets have long been the envy of the world, and to ensure that they remain so, U.S. firms and investors must have the opportunity to leverage this technology as they lead the future of global capital markets. Today, our rules assume that securities are issued, traded, and managed through layers of intermediaries, which help to address risks like information asymmetry and operational friction. But as we consider the rise of public blockchains and tokenization, we must acknowledge that these technologies have the capacity to streamline not only trading but the entire issuer-investor relationship. In other words, tokenization is not just about transforming how trades occur. It can also enable direct connectivity for proxy voting, dividend payments, and shareholder communications, reducing the need for multiple intermediaries in those processes as well. As we modernize our rules, we must consider the full scope of these changes, both in how markets trade and in how security ownership is recorded and serviced. I welcome the IAC’s assistance in helping us think through how to respond appropriately to these innovations. As with any technological shift, market participants are experimenting with different tokenization models, and I am interested to hear the panel’s thoughts about the implications of these approaches. Several models may warrant discussion. First, some companies are issuing equity directly on public distributed ledgers in the form of programmable assets that, in some cases, have the ability to embed compliance, voting rights, and other governance functions. This path allows investors to hold a security in digital format, with fewer intermediaries and more transparency. Second, third parties are tokenizing equities by creating on-chain security entitlements, which represent ownership interests in equities that exist off-chain. Third, we are seeing synthetic exposures—tokenized products that seek to mirror public equity performance. While today the offer and sale of these products are proliferating offshore, they illustrate the global demand for U.S. market exposure built on distributed ledger-powered infrastructure. Of course, the shift to on-chain capital markets requires more than just issuance. We must also tackle other stages in the securities transaction lifecycle. For example, tokenized shares risk becoming nothing more than conversation pieces if their owners cannot trade them competitively in liquid on-chain environments. But making this possible requires the Commission to think carefully about how our regulatory mandate intersects with technological realities. Furthermore, issuers should be at the center of the discussion to help ensure that these new systems work effectively and align with the overarching goals of transparency and investor protection. The previous Commission attempted to address on-chain markets through a brute-force redefinition of “exchange” to include even basic “communication protocols,” and then subjecting whatever was captured by that new definition to the full panoply of our regulatory framework for exchanges. That approach lacked limiting principles, expanded the SEC’s reach beyond what Congress intended, and ultimately created uncertainty that chilled innovation. We must not repeat that mistake. If we want to boost innovation, investment, and jobs here in the United States, we must provide compliant pathways that allow market participants to leverage the unique capabilities of this new technology. That is why I have asked staff to recommend to the Commission ways in which we can use our exemptive authorities to allow for on-chain innovation while we continue to work on long-term, durable rules of the road. Congress has given the SEC broad exemptive authorities under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and we must use these authorities responsibly. A thoughtful exemptive framework—cabined, time limited, transparent, and anchored in strong investor protections—could allow the markets to develop on-chain models and give investors innovative new choices. And, drawing on input from market participants, we will be able to craft rules that distinguish between truly decentralized finance and the wide spectrum of centralized, on-chain finance in existence today. A durable rulebook must recognize this spectrum without forcing square pegs into round holes. If we attempt to regulate decentralized protocols as if they were centralized brokers, we will undermine the very innovation that makes them resilient and transparent. But if we allow centralized intermediaries to benefit from regulatory arbitrage just because they operate on-chain, we erode the principles of accountability and investor protection that have contributed to our global market dominance. Our task, as well as our responsibility, is to write rules that match functional reality. I look forward to working with my counterparts across the Administration in the coming years to do just that. The SEC’s role is not to resist the market’s transition to on-chain capital markets, nor to force it into legacy definitions, nor to push innovators offshore. Rather, it is to allow market participants to operate and innovate subject to clear guardrails that protect the public, ensuring that U.S. markets remain the most dynamic, transparent, and trusted in the world. If we stay true to this course, we can ensure that the United States leads—not follows—in the next chapter of capital markets innovation. Finally, just as tokenization represents one evolution in our markets, so does the subject of the recommendation that the Committee will be considering today. The advent of artificial intelligence promises to transform workflows and business models. Yet with every emerging development, the question for the SEC to consider is not necessarily its novelty, but whether our existing disclosure framework sufficiently provides investors with material information about it. And on that point, I believe that investors can rely on our current principles-based rules to inform them of how AI impacts companies. Indeed, we should resist the temptation to adopt prescriptive disclosure requirements for every “new thing” that affects a business. Our principles-based rules were intentionally designed to allow companies to inform investors of material impacts of any new development, including how AI affects their financial results, how AI can be a material risk factor to an investment, and how AI is a material aspect of their business model. These rules have stood the test of time because they rely on the fundamental principle of materiality rather than on ever-expanding checklists. As we consider these topics together, I am grateful once again for the rigor and thoughtfulness that you bring to every Investor Advisory Committee meeting. Your collective expertise makes this Committee an indispensable partner in safeguarding investors and strengthening our markets. So, thank you all for your time and engagement today. I look forward to the discussions ahead.

Please click for the announcement.

As part of the Amman Stock Exchange’s (ASE) commitment to supporting listed companies in sustainability, the ASE held a training workshop on Tuesday, 2 December 2025, titled "Climate Risk Management", in collaboration with SustainLink Consulting. The workshop was attended by representatives of companies included in the ASE20 index sample. The workshop aimed to familiarize participants with the management of climate-related risks and to highlight their impact on traditional risks, such as credit, market, and operational risks, among others. It also covered the fundamentals of scenario analysis and risk management methods. The organization of this workshop is part of the ASE’s efforts to enhance knowledge and build capacities in sustainability and climate-related topics among listed companies, as well as to support them in applying global standards and practices in this field, thereby contributing to the enhancement of their competitiveness.  

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham today announced that listed spot cryptocurrency products will begin trading for the first time in U.S. federally regulated markets on CFTC registered futures exchanges. The announcement marks a significant step forward in the Trump Administration’s pledge to usher in a Golden Age of Innovation and make America the “crypto capital of the world.” “The CFTC has a rich history of welcoming responsible innovation on futures exchanges by balancing regulatory flexibility with core principles that safeguard both institutional and retail traders. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, this Administration has developed a comprehensive all-of-government plan for America to reclaim its place as the world leader in digital asset markets, and the CFTC has a central role to play,” Acting Chairman Pham said. “Recent events on offshore exchanges have shown us how essential it is for Americans to have more choice and access to safe, regulated U.S. markets. Now, for the first time ever, spot crypto can trade on CFTC-registered exchanges that have been the gold standard for nearly a hundred years, with the customer protections and market integrity that Americans deserve. “Fifteen years ago, Congress passed important reforms to strengthen U.S. markets after the great financial crisis, including the requirement that leveraged retail commodity trading can only occur on futures exchanges. But the CFTC never implemented this critical customer protection reform by providing regulatory clarity on how to list these retail exchange traded products despite years of market demand. Instead, the CFTC chose regulation by enforcement rather than making clear rules of the road, resulting in huge fines that targeted the crypto industry but did not protect the retail public by giving them a safe place to trade. “Under my leadership this year, the CFTC is finally using our decades-long existing authority to work smarter and faster to protect Americans who deserve safe U.S. markets now, not offshore exchanges that lack basic safeguards against uncontrolled customer losses. This historic milestone implements recommendations from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with months of public engagement and the expert input of stakeholders, CFTC staff and other regulators.” Today’s announcement follows recommendations by the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets and stakeholder insights from the CFTC’s Crypto Sprint and cooperative engagement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Crypto Sprint also launched public consultations on all other recommendations from the President’s Working Group report relevant to the CFTC. Other components to the Crypto Sprint include enabling tokenized collateral, including stablecoins, in derivatives markets and a rulemaking to make technical amendments to the CFTC’s regulations for collateral, margin, clearing, settlement, reporting, and recordkeeping to enable the use of blockchain technology and market infrastructure including tokenization in our markets.

Digital Asset, the creator of the Canton Network and a leader in privacy-enabled blockchain technology for global financial markets, today announced a new strategic investment from BNY, iCapital, Nasdaq, and S&P Global. Their participation reflects the accelerating convergence of traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi) towards an "AllFi" future on the Canton Network. These investments build on Digital Asset's strong momentum following recent funding milestones and underscore the growing institutional alignment behind the Canton Network– the only public, permissionless Layer-1 blockchain designed with configurable privacy, institutional-grade compliance, and the ability to support hundreds of billions of dollars in onchain real-world assets. The new strategic partners represent leading global institutions in asset servicing, wealth management, market infrastructure, financial data, financial technology, and digital asset trading. Their investment reinforces the critical role Canton is playing in the next phase of financial market infrastructure, bringing together decentralization with the privacy, legal certainty, and regulatory compliance required by global markets. Today, the Canton Network underpins a diverse and rapidly expanding set of use cases, including bonds, equities, money market funds, alternative investment funds, commodities, repos, mortgages, life insurance, and annuities. With more than $6 trillion of assets onchain, over 600 institutions now participate across the Canton ecosystem, including global leaders in both traditional and decentralized finance. Yuval Rooz, CEO of Digital Asset:"Institutions across the financial ecosystem recognize the necessity of blockchain infrastructure purpose-built for regulated markets. The addition of BNY, iCapital, S&P Global, and Nasdaq marks another milestone in the evolution of both Digital Asset and Canton. Their participation reinforces the inevitability of interoperable, privacy-enabled markets operating at global scale. We look forward to deepening our collaboration as we continue to transform how onchain real-world assets move, settle, and interconnect." Brian Ruane, Head of Global Clearing, Credit Services & Corporate Trust, BNY:"As capital markets move faster towards a real-time, always-on operating model, the development of financial infrastructure that seamlessly connects digital and traditional markets has never been more important. We're excited to work with Digital Asset and Canton to continue advancing privacy-enabled and interoperable settlement solutions at institutional scale. This investment reflects our commitment to reimagining a faster and more efficient future for financial market infrastructure." Lawrence Calcano, Chairman and CEO, iCapital:"By investing in Digital Assets, the leader in blockchain innovation, iCapital is reinforcing its commitment to building next-generation financial infrastructure. By combining our expertise in private markets and proven technology with Canton's blockchain platform, we are establishing the foundation for tokenization of alternatives—driving efficiency, transparency, and broader access across the investment ecosystem." Tal Cohen, President of Nasdaq:"We're excited to deepen our relationship with Digital Asset and the Canton Network as we continue building the next generation of institutional market infrastructure. This investment builds on the work we've already done together to modernize post-trade and collateral workflows, and positions us to accelerate adoption of interoperable, tokenized solutions across the global capital markets. By combining Nasdaq's markets and infrastructure expertise with Digital Asset's technology, we can help our clients unlock new efficiencies, better manage risk, and confidently participate in the evolving digital asset ecosystem." Swati Sawjiany, Global Head of Enterprise Strategy, M&A and Investments, S&P Global:"The accelerated convergence of off-chain and on-chain financial markets underscores the importance of trusted market data, industry-leading benchmarks, and risk assessments as critical enablers in the transformation of market infrastructure. Digital Asset Holdings has played a central role in building a public blockchain capable of supporting the privacy and compliance demands of financial institutions. We are excited to join this round and see opportunity to collaborate with Canton and network participants to enhance transparency, integrity, and insight to digital markets."

DTCC, the premier market infrastructure for the global financial services industry, and Ernst & Young LLP (EY US) today announced the publication of their research findings on 24x5 trading, titled “The Shift to 24x5 Trading: What It Means for U.S. Equity Markets.” The report details the industry’s transition toward near-continuous trading, operational and risk implications, and strategic considerations for market participants in preparation for the change. Key findings include: Impact to volumes: Most surveyed firms expect overnight trading volumes to gradually rise. By 2028, 1%–10% of total equity volume is projected to be traded during the overnight sessions, boosting global market access. Retail and institutional participation: Retail investors are expected to initially drive overnight trading, with institutional participation assumed to rise during market stress and as infrastructure develops. Over half of survey respondents foresee greater institutional activity in volatile periods. Market harmonization and safeguards: Extending trading hours requires aligning market safeguards, such as circuit breakers and surveillance, and updating SIP data feeds to a 24x5 model for real-time accuracy and market stability. Risk, margin, and liquidity: Extended hours add complexity to risk, margin, and liquidity management. Almost 60% of firms plan technology and risk upgrades. Global demand, especially from APAC investors, and regulatory permissibility are key drivers for the move to 24x5 equity trading. The convergence of securities and crypto brokerages is also influencing expectations for near continuous access. Firms are encouraged to assess their readiness, participate in industry forums, enhance risk management and operational capabilities, and critically evaluate their global footprint and vendor dependencies. “As interest in near round-the-clock trading of U.S. equities grows, we are meeting this demand by extending our clearing hours to support our clients and further strengthen the safety and soundness of the markets,” said Val Wotton, DTCC’s Managing Director and Global Head of Equities Solutions. “DTCC is committed to leading large-scale, industry-wide initiatives that deliver positive change for the industry and the investing public. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively across the industry towards a successful implementation.” “Extending trading hours represents a significant step for U.S. equity markets, aligning market structure with the expectations of an increasingly global, always-on investor base,” said Mark Nichols, Principal and Capital Markets Strategy & Market Structure Leader, EY US. “Through this collaboration with DTCC, we aim to equip market participants with clear, actionable insights on navigating the complex firmwide implications and operating model considerations of a 24x5 trading environment — helping the industry collectively build a more accessible and resilient marketplace.” In March 2025, DTCC announced NSCC’s plans to extend clearing hours to support 24x5 trading, from Sunday at 8:00 PM ET to Friday at 8:00 PM ET, targeted for implementation in Q2 2026. The full white paper is available for download at DTCC’s website. Research MethodologyIn support of this paper, DTCC surveyed 95 participants from 84 firms, including 72 NSCC members.

TMX Group Limited today announced November 2025 trading statistics for its marketplaces – Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX Venture Exchange, TSX Alpha Exchange (Alpha), including Alpha-X & Alpha DRK, and Montréal Exchange (MX). Related Document:TMX Group Consolidated Trading Statistics – November 2025

Tradeweb Markets Inc. (Nasdaq: TW), a leading, global operator of electronic marketplaces for rates, credit, equities and money markets, today reported total trading volume for the month of November 2025 of $56.8 trillion (tn). Average daily volume (ADV) for the month was $2.9tn, an increase of 22.3 percent (%) year-over-year (YoY). Record Highlights: For November of 2025, Tradeweb records included: ADV in European government bonds ADV in rates futures ADV in repurchase agreements (repo) ADV in other money markets November 2025 Highlights Rates    U.S. government bond ADV was up 2.7% YoY at $252.7 billion (bn). European government bond ADV was up 33.1% YoY to $70.7bn. U.S. government bond ADV was led by strong growth in the institutional client channel, which achieved a record. Record European government bond ADV was driven by strong volumes across our institutional and wholesale client channels. Strong activity in the U.S. and Europe was supported by an increased number of clients trading across a diverse set of trading protocols. Mortgage ADV was up 2% YoY to $277.2bn. The increase in To-Be-Announced (TBA) activity was primarily driven by heightened trading from real-money accounts and increased participation from mortgage originators. Tradeweb’s specified pool platform reported strong volumes driven by expanding client and dealer adoption, setting another monthly record for the total number of accounts on the platform. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year ADV was up 4% YoY to $495.7bn and total rates derivatives ADV was up 41.5% YoY to $1.1tn. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year saw a strong increase in risk trading activity YoY driven by continued uncertainty around central bank policy and pending rate cuts, as well as a 10% YoY increase in compression activity, which carries a relatively lower fee per million (FPM). 4Q25 to-date compression activity as a percentage of swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year is trending higher than 3Q25. Credit    Fully electronic U.S. credit ADV was up 9% YoY to $8.5bn and European credit ADV was up 16.5% YoY to $2.9bn. U.S. credit volumes were driven by increased client adoption of Tradeweb protocols, most notably in request-for-quote (RFQ), Portfolio Trading (PT), and Tradeweb AllTrade®. Tradeweb captured 17.1% and 8.4% share of fully electronic U.S. high grade and U.S. high yield TRACE, respectively, as measured by Tradeweb. We also reported 24.5% total share of U.S. high grade TRACE and 10.2% total share of U.S. high yield TRACE. European credit volumes were driven by continued adoption of Tradeweb’s Automated Intelligent Execution (AiEX) tool, which saw record activity in November. Cash credit PT ADV increased by 5% YoY, with non-comp PT ADV down 10% YoY. PT carries a relatively lower FPM as compared to the broader cash credit average, with non-comp PT carrying a lower FPM than PT overall. Municipal bonds ADV was up 17.4% YoY to $480 million (mm). Municipal bonds reported strong growth across the retail and institutional platforms, outpacing the broader market, which remained flat1 Credit derivatives ADV was up 46.5% YoY to $19.8bn. Increased hedge fund and systematic account activity YoY, along with heightened credit volatility, led to increased swap execution facility (SEF) and multilateral trading facility (MTF) credit default swaps activity. Equities    U.S. ETF ADV was up 32.2% YoY to $11.3bn and International ETF ADV was down 0.2% YoY to $3.3bn. U.S. ETFs reported strong growth YoY on the institutional and wholesale platforms. On the institutional platform, adoption of our automated rules-based RFQ protocol continued to grow, accompanied by an expanding client base. On the wholesale side, our client base also expanded and we saw higher market volatility YoY. Money Markets    Repo ADV was up 17.9% YoY to $828.4bn. Record global repo trading activity was supported by increased client participation across the platform. In the U.S., strong growth was driven by the effects of the Fed’s balance sheet unwind. Additionally, balances in the Fed’s reverse repo facility (RRP) remained close to zero for a majority of the month. In Europe, strong activity continued despite ongoing central bank balance sheet reduction putting some mild upward pressure on European funding levels. Other Money Markets ADV was up 0.7% YoY to $304.4bn. Record other money markets activity was driven by record ICD money market fund balances, aided by recent debt issuance from several large clients that replenished liquidity after periods of elevated capex, share buybacks, and dividend activity had reduced cash earlier in the year, alongside addition from new clients. Please refer to the report posted to https://www.tradeweb.com/newsroom/monthly-activity-reports/ for complete information and data related to our historical monthly, quarterly and yearly ADV and total trading volume across asset classes.     Based on data from MSRB.

Deutsche Börse Group and Kraken (Payward Inc.) are joining forces combining regulated infrastructure with crypto-native expertise to deliver frictionless institutional access.  The partnership encompasses regulated crypto, tokenized markets and derivatives, as well as enhanced liquidity for institutional clients across geographies. Kraken, one of the world’s longest-standing, most liquid and secure cryptocurrency platforms, and Deutsche Börse Group, one of the world’s leading financial market infrastructures, today announced a strategic partnership to create unified access across traditional and digital asset markets.  Effective immediately, the two firms will leverage their complementary capabilities to bridge traditional financial markets and the digital asset economy. Spanning trading, custody, settlement, collateral management, and tokenized assets, the partnership will unlock a new range of enhanced products and services that deliver frictionless access to both ecosystems, creating a holistic experience for institutional clients. In the first phase of the partnership, Kraken will integrate directly with 360T, a Deutsche Börse Group subsidiary and one of the world’s largest foreign-exchange trading venues. The integration will give Kraken clients access to competitive, bank-grade FX liquidity through one of the deepest global liquidity pools available, significantly improving fiat on- and off-ramp efficiency while ensuring institutional-grade execution and reliability.  The partnership will also leverage Kraken Embed to expand institutional crypto access across Deutsche Börse Group’s network. Together, the companies will develop advanced white-label solutions enabling banks, fintechs, and other financial institutions to offer secure, compliant crypto trading and custody services to clients across Europe and the U.S.  Subject to regulatory approvals, the two companies plan to make Eurex-listed derivatives available to trade on Kraken, broadening access to Europe’s largest regulated futures and options marketplace. The collaboration will also allow Deutsche Börse Group clients to trade cryptocurrencies and derivatives via Crypto Finance, as well as through Kraken’s exchange, to service enhanced end-client models, while leveraging Clearstream and Crypto Finance, both Deutsche Börse Group subsidiaries, for custody. Kraken and Deutsche Börse Group will also work together to integrate xStocks within 360X’s ecosystem, significantly expanding the reach of one of the most widely adopted tokenized equity standards globally. In addition, Deutsche Börse Group and Kraken will work to enable the distribution of securities held in custody at Clearstream in a tokenized form to Kraken’s client base.  The partnership also establishes a framework for geographical access: Kraken will offer its U.S. capabilities to Deutsche Börse Group’s institutional clients seeking exposure to crypto and tokenized assets, while Deutsche Börse Group will provide its European infrastructure and services to Kraken’s global client base. This two-way integration underscores the shared vision to connect traditional and digital markets seamlessly. “Our partnership with Deutsche Börse Group demonstrates what happens when two infrastructures designed for scale and trust intersect,” said Arjun Sethi, Co-CEO of Kraken. “By linking traditional and digital markets across a wide range of asset classes, we’re building a holistic foundation for the next generation of financial innovation: defined by efficiency, openness, and client access.” Stephan Leithner, CEO of Deutsche Börse Group emphasized: “This collaboration with Kraken is a great strategic fit for Deutsche Börse Group. It underscores our ongoing commitment to shaping the future of financial markets by combining the trust and resilience of our regulated infrastructure with the innovation of the digital asset ecosystem. Across our entire value chain this partnership will further enhance our support for institutional clients in the digital asset era and pave the way for digital capital markets.”

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), a leading global provider of technology and data, and home to the world’s most liquid energy and environmental markets, today announced that the UK Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) has re-appointed ICE to host UK Allowance (UKA) auctions for the UK's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) through 2028. In addition, ICE has published the 2026 UKA auction calendar here: www.ice.com/emissions/auctions/uk-emission-allowances. ICE has hosted carbon auctions on behalf of the UK Government since 2012. ICE conducted Phase III EUA auctions on behalf of the UK Government from 2012 to 2021 and has conducted UKA auctions on behalf of the UK Government since the UK emissions trading scheme began in 2021. “Market-based mechanisms like carbon cap and trade programs are critical in allowing policy makers to control the quantity of carbon to align with their environmental commitments, price emissions and decarbonise in the most cost-effective way,” said Gordon Bennett, Managing Director of Utility Markets at ICE. “The UK ETS is a successful, market driven program and we are pleased to continue to host carbon auctions on behalf of the UK Government.” UKAs are one part of ICE’s global environmental markets where ICE has been a leader for over two decades, offering the most liquid futures markets to trade emission allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System, California Cap and Trade Program, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Washington Cap and Invest Program. To take part in UKA auctions, please contact: sales-environmental@ice.com.

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX), the operator of a leading electronic trading platform for fixed-income securities, today announced trading volume and preliminary variable transaction fees per million (“FPM”) for November 2025.1 Select November 2025 Highlights* (See tables 1-1C and table 2) Our new initiatives continued to show solid year-over-year progress across the client-initiated, portfolio trading and dealer-initiated channels. We also unveiled our new Closing Auctions protocol during the month, the first standardized market-wide auction protocol in fixed-income. Client-Initiated Channel 46% growth in block trading average daily volume (“ADV”), with strong growth across U.S. credit (+34%), emerging markets (+61%) and eurobonds (+83%).— Cumulative trading volume from our targeted block trading solution is now approximately $12 billion. Portfolio Trading Channel 47% increase in total portfolio trading ADV to $1.4 billion, including a 55% increase in U.S. credit portfolio trading ADV. Our estimated market share of U.S. credit portfolio trading was 17.6%, compared to 13.5% in the prior year. Dealer-Initiated Channel 32% increase in dealer-initiated ADV to $1.9 billion, consisting of a 21% increase in DRFQ ADV and a 153% increase in Mid-X ADV. November 2025 Variable Transaction Fees Per Million1 (See table 1D) The decline in total credit FPM compared to the prior year was driven principally by protocol mix, partially offset by the higher duration of bonds traded in U.S. high-grade. The slight decline in total credit FPM compared to October 2025 was driven principally by protocol mix, partially offset by the higher duration of bonds traded in U.S. high-grade. The increase in total rates FPM year-over-year and month-over-month was driven by the impact of product mix. *All comparisons versus November 2024 unless noted. Table 1: MarketAxess ADV     Month   % Change     Nov-25     Oct-25     Nov-24   MoM YoY MKTX ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade   $ 7,594     $ 7,042     $ 6,533     8   %   16   % U.S. High-Grade (incl. SD PT)2     7,763       7,200       6,578     8       18     U.S. High-Yield     1,622       1,629       1,312     (0 )     24     U.S. High-Yield (incl. SD PT)2     1,791       1,873       1,346     (4 )     33     Emerging Markets     4,265       4,230       3,811     1       12     Eurobonds     2,741       2,486       2,001     10       37     Other Credit Products3     586       612       634     (4 )     (8 )   Municipal Bonds     585       612       631     (4 )     (7 )   Total MKTX Credit ADV (excl. SD PT)2   $ 16,808     $ 15,999     $ 14,291     5       18     Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds   $ 22,966     $ 23,295     $ 29,325     (1 ) %   (22 ) % Agencies and Other Government Bonds     715       724       1,329     (1 )     (46 )   Total MKTX Rates ADV   $ 23,681     $ 24,019     $ 30,654     (1 )     (23 )   Total MKTX Trading ADV   $ 40,489     $ 40,018     $ 44,945     1       (10 )   U.S. Trading Days4   18     22     19               U.K. Trading Days4   20     23     21               Table 1A: Market ADV     Month   % Change     Nov-25     Oct-25     Nov-24   MoM YoY MARKET ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade TRACE   $ 41,114     $ 38,818     $ 36,296     6   %   13   % U.S. High-Yield TRACE     12,279       12,428       10,692     (1 )     15     Total U.S. Credit TRACE     53,393       51,246       46,988     4       14     Municipal Bonds MSRB     9,457       10,003       9,456     (5 )     0     Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds TRACE   $ 1,091,150     $ 998,318     $ 1,010,226     9   %   8   % Agency TRACE     3,449       3,724       4,172     (7 )     (17 )   U.S. Trading Days4   18     22     19               U.K. Trading Days4   20     23     21               Table 1B: Estimated Market Share     Month   Bps Change     Nov-25     Oct-25     Nov-24   MoM YoY MKTX ESTIMATED MARKET SHARE (%)                           U.S. High-Grade                           % of U.S. High-Grade TRACE (incl. SD PT)2     18.9 %     18.5 %     18.1 % +40 bps +80 bps % of U.S. High-Grade TRACE (excl. SD PT)2     18.5 %     18.1 %     18.0 % +40   +50   U.S. High-Yield                           % of U.S. High-Yield TRACE (incl. SD PT)2     14.6 %     15.1 %     12.6 % (50) bps +200 bps % of U.S. High-Yield TRACE (excl. SD PT)2     13.2 %     13.1 %     12.3 % +10   +90   Other Credit Products                           % of Municipal Bonds MSRB     6.2 %     6.1 %     6.7 % +10 bps (50) bps Rates                           % of U.S. Government Bonds TRACE     2.1 %     2.3 %     2.9 % (20) bps (80) bps Table 1C: Strategic Priorities ADV2     Month   % Change     Nov-25     Oct-25     Nov-24   MoM YoY STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ADV ($ millions)                               Client-Initiated Channel                               U.S. Credit Block Trading   $ 3,245     $ 2,968     $ 2,419     9   %   34   % Emerging Markets Block Trading     1,954       1,661       1,211     18       61     Eurobonds Block Trading     532       453       291     17       83     Portfolio Trading Channel                               Total MKTX Portfolio Trading   $ 1,364     $ 1,536     $ 928     (11 ) %   47   % Total MKTX U.S. Credit Portfolio Trading     1,003       1,209       648     (17 )     55     Total U.S. Credit TRACE Portfolio Trading     5,685       5,798       4,813     (2 )     18     Dealer-Initiated Channel                               Total Dealer Initiated (DRFQ & Mid-X)   $ 1,916     $ 1,773     $ 1,455     8   %   32   % Other                               Open Trading   $ 5,370     $ 5,134     $ 4,274     5   %   26   % AxessIQ     170       162       147     5       16     U.S. Trading Days4   18     22     19               U.K. Trading Days4   20     23     21               Table 1D: Variable Transaction Fees Per Million (FPM)1     Month   % Change     Nov-25     Oct-25     Nov-24   MoM YoY AVG. VARIABLE TRANS. FEE PER MILLION (FPM)                           Total Credit   $ 139     $ 140     $ 146     (1 ) %   (5 ) % Total Rates     4.52       4.28       4.07     6       11     1 The FPM for total credit and total rates for November 2025 is preliminary and may be revised in subsequent updates and public filings. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any fee information in future press releases. 2 “SD PT” is defined as single-dealer portfolio trades. The Company is currently highlighting the impact of single-dealer portfolio trading volume on U.S. high-grade and U.S. high-yield trading volume and estimated market share, but will continue to exclude single-dealer portfolio trading activity from each product’s aggregated trading volume and estimated market share and the total credit FPM calculation. 3 “Other Credit Products” includes municipal bonds, leveraged loans, convertible bonds and structured products. 4 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar and the number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule. General Notes Regarding the Data Presented Reported MarketAxess volume in all product categories includes only fully electronic trading volume. MarketAxess trading volumes and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) reported volumes are available on the Company’s website at investor.marketaxess.com/volume. Table 2: Trading Volume Detail       Month Ended November 30,     In millions (unaudited)     2025     2024     % Change           Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Credit                                         High-grade     $ 136,689     $ 7,594     $ 124,135     $ 6,533       10   %   16   % High-yield       29,192       1,622       24,927       1,312       17       24     Emerging markets       76,765       4,265       72,402       3,811       6       12     Eurobonds       54,818       2,741       42,017       2,001       30       37     Other credit       10,552       586       12,051       634       (12 )     (8 )   Total credit trading1       308,016       16,808       275,532       14,291       12       18     Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       413,380       22,966       557,175       29,325       (26 )     (22 )   Agency and other government bonds1       14,145       715       27,710       1,329       (49 )     (46 )   Total rates trading       427,525       23,681       584,885       30,654       (27 )     (23 )   Total trading     $ 735,541     $ 40,489     $ 860,417     $ 44,945       (15 )     (10 )   Number of U.S. Trading Days3             18             19                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             20             21                       Year-to-Date Ended November 30,     In millions (unaudited)     2025     2024     % Change           Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Volume     ADV     Credit                                         High-grade     $ 1,653,714     $ 7,285     $ 1,586,941     $ 6,930       4   %   5   % High-yield       346,162       1,525       309,163       1,350       12       13     Emerging markets       902,568       3,976       799,172       3,490       13       14     Eurobonds       563,561       2,440       475,713       2,042       18       19     Other credit       140,802       620       122,175       533       15       16     Total credit trading1       3,606,807       15,846       3,293,164       14,345       10       10     Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       5,895,166       25,970       5,117,615       22,348       15       16     Agency and other government bonds1       259,864       1,127       207,200       891       25       26     Total rates trading       6,155,030       27,097       5,324,815       23,239       16       17     Total trading     $ 9,761,837     $ 42,943     $ 8,617,979     $ 37,584       13       14     Number of U.S. Trading Days3             227             229                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             231             233                 1 Consistent with FINRA TRACE reporting standards, both sides of trades are included in the Company's reported volumes when the Company executes trades on a matched principal basis between two counterparties. 2 Consistent with industry standards, U.S. government bond trades are single-counted. 3 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar. 4 The number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule.  

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) will be presenting at the following conference with webcast available at Nasdaq’s Investor Relations website: ir.nasdaq.com/events.cfm. Who: Sarah Youngwood, Executive Vice President and CFO, Nasdaq What: Goldman Sachs 2025 Financial Services Conference When: Wednesday, December 10, 20251:00 PM ET

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today reported monthly volumes for November 2025 on its Investor Relations website. A data sheet showing this information can be found at: http://ir.nasdaq.com/financials/volume-statistics.

Good afternoon, everyone. Marc, thank you so much for that kind introduction. It’s wonderful to be back at an ABA event and I am excited to be doing so in my new role as SEC IM Division Director. I am eager to engage with you today and am glad to see so many familiar faces. Before we get started, I must start with our standard disclaimer. Thanks to the lapse in appropriations, this is only my second time making this statement, so forgive me for reading off a card. These remarks are provided in my official capacity as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Director of the Division of Investment Management, but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or other members of the staff. With that said: I have been with the Commission now for five months, one and half of which coincided with the longest government shutdown on record. As I roamed the 8th Floor for 45 days – only able to work on a very short list of “excepted” activities – I couldn’t help but ponder the Division’s path forward. With your indulgence, I thought that this would be a good forum to share some of our priorities. Listening Now, when it comes to our priorities, I want to be clear about something: I serve at the pleasure of the Commission. The Chairman sets the overall direction, and the Commissioners—nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate—vote to implement that agenda. So, my personal priorities for the division are always shaped by and aligned with the broader goals of the Commission. If those priorities shift, we shift with them. That said, my top priority for the Division is simple: to be good listeners. My mother used to say, “The minute you start talking is the minute you stop learning.” And she was correct. Listening—really listening—is one of the most effective tools we have as regulators. Some of you can see that I am wearing cufflinks shaped like tiny hippopotamuses. Why? Because hippos have two tiny ears and one huge, massive mouth. These are to remind me not to be a hippo. We are deeply interested in what the industry has to say, how investors feel, and how the public perceives our proposals. While my track record is short, our public outreach to date has been fruitful, sometimes in unexpected ways. In some cases, after engaging with stakeholders, it became clear that some of my brilliant ideas were off-base. Some were solutions to problems that didn’t exist, and others addressed issues that the market had already evolved past. But by asking questions and listening carefully, we’ve been able to redirect our resources toward initiatives that do make sense—initiatives that are grounded in reality and responsive to the needs of investors and the industry alike. You’ll get a feel for those in the next publication of the RegFlex agenda… And by listening, we became smarter—often about parts of your businesses that we weren’t even asking about. It’s funny how, when you give experts the space to tell you what they think is important, you might be surprised by what you hear. So yes, we have policy goals. Yes, we have regulatory responsibilities. But above all, we have a duty to listen, to learn, and to lead with humility and purpose. Agenda But let’s shift to more concrete points. While it is impossible to completely reduce a four-year workplan to a short list of bullets, hope springs eternal. When you look at our various efforts, I think that you will see each step the Division takes falls into one (or more) of the following themes: An overall deregulatory effort; Modernization initiatives; Democratization of alternative asset investments; and Promotion of artificial intelligence. Deregulation The American capital markets are the envy of the world. In my opinion, the reason for American dominance in finance is simple, we allow more innovation than our competitors. Thoughtful and measured deregulation can unlock value. In 2019, the Commission streamlined the ETF approval process, and in six short years, the exchange traded fund has literally changed the face of retail investing. Retail investors have more investment options, at lower cost, than ever before. ETFs deliver true beta, cheaply, and provide active management in a wide variety of forms. And with our new ETF Share class orders, we are allowing industry the option to link ETFs and mutual fund structures to deliver even more choices, at reduced expenses, for retail investors. Commission actions and restraint also allowed the private fund market to flourish. America invented the hedge fund, the private equity fund, and the private credit fund, and these structures transformed institutional investing, with compensation structures that aligned mangers and investors in innovative ways. And why here? Again, because we allowed a lighter-touch regime to develop for sophisticated investors capable of managing their own risks. In our rulemaking, oversight, and exemptive efforts over the next few years, you can expect that the Division will be receptive to suggestions on how thoughtful changes to existing rules can facilitate innovation. We are asking “Why is this still on the books?” in a number of contexts, and you should too. To be clear, we are still the Investor’s Advocate (a motto you will see framed throughout the building, including in the Chairman’s office). And you can expect us to remain laser focused on retail protection and market stability. But where we can remove restrictions that do not serve the common good, we are interested in doing so. Modernization We need to modernize our rulebook. Is that news to anyone here? Many of our rules were well-intentioned when adopted, with underlying policy goals that often remain valid—but the requirements themselves have become outdated. The Custody Rule – for example – clearly did not contemplate digital assets. While more thinking on this is needed, we were able to issue a no action letter hours before the shutdown related to advisers’ ability to custody client crypto assets with state-chartered trusts. We have more catch-up work to do here, but that is a good first step. Our recordkeeping rule is an even better example. This rule was written in a time when communications were physical and manual. Think about a letter that might begin, “Dear Mr. Smith, a company called Micro Software is coming to market soon. We believe we can secure an allocation of IPO shares for this newfangled computer company. If you’re interested, please write back to us at the following address….” The world the recordkeeping rule was built for no longer exists. Today, we live in a digital, cloud-based, multi-platform environment. Yet the language of the rule still reflects a paper-based mindset. We’ve even seen past regulatory missteps—ours and others’—where we mandated specific technologies, like WORM (Write Once, Read Many) storage on CD-ROMs, only to watch the industry move on to more effective and flexible solutions. So, across the advisory rulebook, if and when we recommend changes to the Commission, our goal will be to do so in a way that is platform-independent, technology-neutral, and future-ready. I would be very sad if someone is giving this same speech in 40 years because our recommendations to accommodate a digital world were not compatible with the quantum one that future Director is living in. Democratization As you all know, the arc of the trend toward the retailization of private markets has been observable for some time, but it became even more pronounced with the issuance of President Trump’s Executive Order directing the Department of Labor to take steps to expand access to alternative investments within 401(k) retirement accounts. We are working closely with our colleagues at the Department of Labor to support their efforts in the context of ERISA plan options. However, democratization options for retail investors using post-tax, pre-retirement dollars fall squarely in our purview. But what does this look like? It does not necessarily mean a “big bang” “Retailization Rule” that suddenly transforms everything about how private funds are structured, marketed, and operated. Instead, the markets and investors may be better served by a thoughtful and incremental reconsideration of our existing regulatory framework across different access points, investment structures, and disclosure requirements. Let me give you a concrete example: You may recall that the Chairman directed us to reconsider our practice of asking closed-end funds that invest in private funds to either ensure that their investors were “accredited investors” or to limit their exposure to private funds to a relatively small percentage of their net asset value. We did that and followed it with the publication of an Accounting and Disclosure Information bulletin (an “ADI”) intended to provide our high-level views to managers of closed-end and private funds navigating this less constrained retail environment.  But look at what we did not do. We did not respond with another prescriptive regulatory regime. We did not trade one set of restrictions for another based on an unproven worst-case scenario. We did not orchestrate a bunch of examinations and enforcement actions to establish de facto substantive limits that made sense to us. We are not withdrawing from the field, but we are allowing you enough space to innovate. When the time is right for us to get involved on this topic, we will do so, but that time is not today. I predict that you will see a lot of this from us: targeted actions, followed by additional staff engagement and observations. And I hope that when we look back three or four years from now, you will see a broader shift that was effected through a number of carefully considered, linked steps that collectively reflect the evolving nature of our markets and the needs of today’s investors. Artificial Intelligence Another area of growing importance for our division—and for the broader financial ecosystem—is artificial intelligence. We see AI as a transformative force in the investment management industry—one that we want to enable, support, and regulate thoughtfully. In this we are aligned with all three pillars of the Administration’s AI Action Plan: Accelerating AI Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure; and Leading in International AI Diplomacy and Security. We are constantly thinking about how AI can transform disclosure and the investor experience. Some of your clients have received unsolicited calls from me personally, following up on some kind of article or announcement about a novel AI application and asking if your clients would be willing to share their experiences with our team.  Personally, I think that AI can be a boon to effective disclosure. Imagine taking the traditional stack of mutual fund offering documents—hundreds of pages long, written in dense legal language—and pairing it with an investment adviser’s proprietary AI Agent. Suddenly, you’ve moved from a linear, text-heavy disclosure model to an interactive, personalized experience—one that reflects how people actually consume information today, in the age of iPhones, TikTok, and YouTube. This shift—from 20th-century PDFs to 21st- and even 22nd-century AI interfaces—has the potential to revolutionize investor engagement. But it also raises important questions: Is the AI Agent’s output considered marketing material? Is it investment advice? When will the AI Agent itself need to be registered? Who bears liability for bad advice — the adviser, the developer, or a third-party platform? We know that these are not hypothetical concerns. They are real regulatory questions that we want to actively explore with you. The Chairman sometimes refers to the SEC as “The Innovation Commission. ”That’s real and we want to hear from you. Let’s discuss what relief or guidance is needed to support your efforts. If you want to innovate, this is the Commission that you have been waiting for. 

FESE has just released the enlarged edition of the Listed Equity Database (LED) for 2023 and 2024, a unique analysis which offers a detailed breakdown of all the new listings, delistings and total listed equity instruments for FESE Members during these years. Key trends New listings After a subdued performance in 2023 compared to 2022, the number of new listings increased slightly in 2024, particularly in regulated markets (RM) and SME-focused multilateral trading facilities (MTFs). In 2024, growth of new listings was observed across industrials, real estate, technology, consumer discretionary and health care, whereas financials contracted and other sectors remained relatively stable compared to 2023. The most common way of listing is through an IPO, followed by direct listings and private placements. Delistings In contrast, delistings increased on both RMs and MTF for SMEs in 2024 compared to the previous year. In 2023 and 2024, going private remained the most common reason for delisting, followed by company wind-up. Total listed companies In 2024, Sweden was the country of incorporation for the largest number of listed companies, followed by Poland, France, Germany and Spain. The largest market cap of all listed companies at the end of 2024 was recorded by companies in the industrial sector, followed by financials and consumer discretionary. Download the enlarged LED analysis   2024 saw recovery in new listings of both small and large caps   At the end of 2024, listed companies were mainly in the industrial, financial and consumer discretionary sectors,with a total market capitalisation of nearly €8 trillion,mostly on European regulated markets   Download the enlarged LED analysis

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today launched a public consultation on draft amendments to the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on certain prudential requirements for central securities depositories (CSDs) and designated credit institutions offering ‘banking-type ancillary services’. The proposed amendments reflect changes introduced by the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) Refit, notably allowing  banking CSDs to provide banking-type ancillary services to other CSDs. This consultation runs until 3 March 2026.  The proposed updates to the RTS address cases where banking CSDs offer cash accounts directly to participants of other CSDs ( “designating CSDs”) for settling cash payments in currencies other than the one of where the designating CSD is established. The amendments focus on the limited impact of this arrangement on the risk profile of the banking CSD. The EBA is also updating the RTS to reflect recent changes in the Capital Requirements Regulation and to align references with the amended CSDR text where relevant. Consultation process Responses to the consultation can be sent to the EBA by clicking on the "send your comments" button on the consultation page.   All contributions will be published after the consultation closes, unless confidentiality is requested. The deadline for the submission of comments is 3 March 2026. A public hearing on this consultation will take place on 12 January 2026 from 14:00 to 15:00 CET. Deadline for registration is 9 January 2026 at 16:00 CET. Legal basis and background The EBA has developed these draft RTS under Article 59(5) of CSDR, which mandates the Authority to further specify details of the frameworks and tools for the monitoring, measuring, management, reporting and public disclosure of the credit and liquidity risks, including those which occur intra-day. CSDs need to be authorised to provide banking-type ancillary services, which include activities such as offering cash accounts to, and accepting deposits from, participants in a securities settlement system, and providing payment services involving cash and foreign exchange transactions.   Documents Consultation paper on amendments to the RTS on certain prudential requirements for CSDs (555.71 KB - PDF) Related content Consultation3 MARCH 2026 Consultation on Regulatory Technical Standards on prudential requirements for central securities depositories (CSDs) Draft Regulatory Technical StandardsFinal draft RTS/ITS adopted by the EBA and submitted to the European Commission Regulatory Technical Standards on prudential requirements for central securities depositories (CSDs) Topic Market infrastructures

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today announced Brian P. Hudak as Deputy Chief Counsel. In this role, Mr. Hudak provides advice to the Chief Counsel and senior OCC officials on significant legal, policy and administrative matters affecting the federal banking system. This includes management and oversight over the OCC’s enforcement, litigation, and internal agency matters. “Brian brings nearly two decades of successful litigation and enforcement experience at the U.S. Attorney’s Office to the OCC, where he will provide meaningful direction to advance our supervisory and regulatory mission while ensuring that our regulated institutions are held accountable for their compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould. “Brian has received numerous recognitions for his outstanding work on behalf of the United States, and the OCC is fortunate to have a leader with his background, skills and expertise in our legal department.” Mr. Hudak most recently served as Civil Chief at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia where he oversaw and supervised the litigation of thousands of civil defensive and affirmative matters. Prior to becoming Civil Chief, Mr. Hudak served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office as Deputy Civil Chief and as line Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division. During his 18 years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mr. Hudak personally handled volumes of high-profile civil defensive cases, collected more than $1 billion in recoveries in civil enforcement lawsuits, and disrupted hundreds of millions of dollars in assets traced to terrorist and trans-national criminal organizations. Before his government service, Mr. Hudak worked for a law firm in New York. Mr. Hudak received his bachelor of science degree in computer science from the University of Virginia and his juris doctor cum laude from Washington & Lee University School of Law.

When Enron announced a shock $618 million loss on October 16, 2001, it took a further 47 days until it filed for bankruptcy. For Bear Stearns, it took 266 days between its bailout of a structured credit fund run by Bear Stearns Asset Management and an eventual bridging loan from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on March 14, 2008, and its sale to JP Morgan two days later. Compare that to Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which collapsed on March 10, 2023, just two days after announcing a loss on the sale of securities and a plan to raise capital that prompted a devastatingly fast outflow of deposits. The SVB episode suggests that financial institution failures seem to be happening in an accelerated time frame, fueled by online banking and social media rumor – meaning counterparties need to be ready to move very quickly to terminate their derivatives trades if a counterparty gets into trouble. Derivatives close outs have never been straightforward, but they’ve become even more complicated in recent years with the introduction of bank resolution legislation that applies a temporary stay on terminations and the implementation of margin requirements for non-cleared derivatives, which set strict rules on the segregation of collateral. It means firms must understand what they need to do when, and who to involve from the legal, operations and trading teams. Given the accelerated timeline of recent failures, this is not something that can be navigated in real time – institutions need to have an established and well understood playbook they can draw on. To help with this, ISDA published a close-out framework last year that sets out key steps in the process, and outlines what actions counterparties need to take at what point. We’ve also run a series of close-out seminars over the course of the year in London, New York, Singapore and Sydney, enabling small groups of people from different parts of a financial institution, as well as resolution authorities and other public sector representatives, to come together in a classroom environment and better understand the decisions that need to be made. Overall, 257 people have attended these seminars so far, hopefully enabling those firms to act quickly and decisively in the event the worst happens and a counterparty is heading for failure. An early but vital part of the close-out process is the delivery of a termination notice – this sets the clock ticking on when an ISDA Master Agreement can be terminated and the underlying transactions valued. But this theoretically straightforward process has been hampered by the fact that firms can move offices without updating the contact details in their documentation, which must be used as the address for delivery. A further problem occurred during the pandemic, when offices were closed during lockdown, and again in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, when it became difficult to deliver notices in a hostile environment. The reality is that even short delays in delivery can lead to ballooning risk exposures and costs running into the tens, if not the hundreds, of millions of dollars. A solution to those particular problems now exists, thanks to the launch of the ISDA Notices Hub earlier this year. The Notices Hub is an online platform that enables the rapid delivery and receipt of notices from anywhere in the world, with automatic alerts sent to the receiving entity, reducing the risk of unhedged exposures and potential losses from delivery delays. The Notices Hub also requires users to maintain current physical address details across all their agreements, which can be done via a single entry, creating an up-to-date golden source. More than 145 buy- and sell-side entities, including 65% of global primary dealers and array of asset managers, pension and insurance companies and hedge funds, have now adhered to the ISDA 2025 Notices Hub Protocol, which provides the legal framework to allow delivery of notices via the platform, demonstrating strong industry support for the service. If you’re interested in adopting, you can contact the team here: NoticesHub@isda.org. Dealing with a termination has never been easy, but the speed with which a failure can occur today means firms need to act quickly, and that means preparation is critical. ISDA’s close-out framework, the close-out seminars and the ISDA Notices Hub are intended to make that process a little easier. ISDA will run a virtual series of close-out seminars in 2026. Watch out for further details here: https://www.isda.org/events