Good afternoon and thank you. I would like to thank Ray Washburne, Michael Levy, and the entire leadership of the Economic Club of Dallas for hosting me today. As the business leaders of this community, you all know better than anyone that Dallas is a city built by risk-takers, created by a hydrocarbon base now stacked with Fortune 500 headquarters, and sustained by the simple conviction that prosperity follows production. Texas reflects what a diversified economy looks like, with strength in sectors ranging from advanced manufacturing to technology to finance. We need look no further than “Y’All Street” to see that Parallel Prosperity is alive and well right here in Dallas, one of the fastest-growing financial hubs in the country. In many respects, Texas embodies what this Administration is working to build nationally: economic security rooted in production, resilience, and long-term, durable growth. And in that sense, Texas can serve as a model to the rest of the United States. Economic security is the foundation that allows a country to fulfill its most basic obligation of safeguarding its people. For a nation to be economically secure, it must possess the productive capacity to withstand shocks, deter adversaries, and deliver rising prosperity to its citizens. Unfortunately, past Administrations lost sight of this fundamental truth, allowing faux efficiency gains and short-sighted profit-obsession to eclipse security resilience and long-term value. President Trump saw the points of failure decades ago, and he has made clear that we cannot compromise on economic sovereignty, accept structural vulnerabilities, or allow strategic industries to erode as the result of outdated or misguided assumptions. At President Trump’s direction, our Administration has therefore made economic security the centerpiece of our economic policy. Today, I will share our strategy for putting America First by re-prioritizing economic security, which rests on three pillars: First: Industrial and Technological Dominance. Second: Investment in America. Third: Preparedness. From the earliest days of the Republic, our Founding Fathers understood that independence required economic security. The ability to produce essential goods, sustain public credit, and foster domestic industry was seen as the foundation of sovereignty by Alexander Hamilton. And it still is. After the World Wars, the United States made deliberate concessions in trade and industrial policy to help allies rebuild and defend against the threat of Communist expansion. Those decisions contributed to decades of global stability and growth, but with a tradeoff. As markets became freer, they did not become fairer. With the “China Shock” of the 21st century, strategic industries were hollowed out, supply chains consolidated overseas, and we became wholly dependent on single foreign suppliers within certain sectors. In just over a decade between 1999 and 2011, the United States lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs. That led to not only employment loss and wage depression, but also to diminished productive capacity and resilience. A nation that cannot produce the critical goods and resources to sustain itself is exposed and vulnerable to coercion. And the COVID-19 pandemic fully exposed these vulnerabilities on the world stage for our own people, and our adversaries, to witness. This Administration is encouraging American companies to reduce single points of failure by diversifying their production and, importantly, bring critical outputs back to the United States. Our policies have compelled firms to reassess their sourcing strategies and pour trillions in new investment back into American manufacturing and strategic sectors. Historic trade agreements have begun resetting the global trade paradigm. And over time, diversified supply chains also reduce inflationary volatility by lowering the risk of sudden disruption. One year into the President’s second term, we are already seeing – and will continue to see – results. Industrial might and technological dominance are mutually dependent and reinforcing, which is why the U.S. must maintain its technological edge. The global economy is undergoing a period of rapid transformation with breakthrough advances in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing. The countries that adopt and deploy these technologies most effectively will shape the next era of growth, and the world is counting on America to lead as we always have. For 250 years, American innovation has been our decisive advantage. We are in an existential battle to maintain and accelerate technological dominance. The production and development of AI infrastructure will be crucial to both economic growth and national security in this next industrial revolution. Beyond production, leadership in AI adoption is another crucial component of economic security. At Treasury, through the Financial Stability Oversight Council, we are working with regulators and industry leaders to further responsible AI use in the financial system. We are optimizing regulation for growth: moving from a posture focused solely on constraint toward one that recognizes that failure to adopt productivity-enhancing technology is itself a risk. Stablecoins represent another area where leadership matters. A well-regulated, dollar-based stablecoin market can reinforce the global role of the U.S. dollar and extend its network effects into emerging digital payment systems. The GENIUS Act provides Treasury with oversight tools to ensure transparency and confidence in this sector. Industrial capacity, technological leadership, and a strong dollar policy taken together form the backbone of U.S. economic sovereignty, which is why they are all fundamental to our strategy. To deliver industrial, technological, and currency strength requires confidence and capital, which brings us to Pillar Two: Investment in America. The United States holds a unique position in the global economy with the dollar as reserve currency, a key factor in enabling economic security. Reserve currency status anchors our borrowing costs, deepens capital markets, strengthens sanctions actions, and reinforces American leadership in global finance. This status rests on confidence in our institutions, and critically, in the health of the U.S. Treasury market. The Treasury market is the foundation of the global financial system as the benchmark risk-free asset, serving as collateral across markets and the channel through which global capital flows into the United States. Preserving the strength, liquidity, and credibility of that market is central to economic security, and it is not something that can be taken for granted. Investment in America also means ensuring that capital flows to sectors that enhance long-term productivity and strategic resilience. To do so, we are focused on tailoring fit-for-purpose regulation. Over the next six months, Treasury will engage industry, academia, and national security experts to evaluate how supervisory frameworks can better mobilize capital toward sectors critical to national strength — advanced manufacturing, energy infrastructure, semiconductors, and defense innovation. Economic security also depends on broader participation in wealth creation. Almost 40 percent of Americans today have no exposure to the U.S. equity market. This means they participate in the world’s greatest economy as workers and producers, but not as owners. Trump Accounts represent a fundamental rewriting of that arrangement. Under this initiative, every eligible American child will receive a $1,000 Treasury-funded seed investment at birth, invested in a diversified index fund tied to the long-term growth of the U.S. economy. Additional contributions can come from philanthropists, families, employers, and state governments. The objective is simple: give every child a stake in the American Dream from Day One. Texas has already demonstrated leadership in advancing this vision. In fact, Texas Senator Ted Cruz authored the precursor to the Trump Accounts provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and Texas natives Michael and Susan Dell led the way in philanthropic giving with their historic $6.25 billion donation to top up Trump Accounts for 25 million children. The President has called on business leaders and philanthropists all around the country to get involved in the initiative, and today, I am calling on the men and women in this room to do the same. Everything is bigger in Texas, and that should also be true for Trump Accounts – because economic security is strongest when it is broadly shared. The final pillar is preparedness. Economic security requires not only strength, but resilience in the face of disruption, which means proactive measures to limit disruption from occurring in the first place. The 1973 Arab oil embargo is a cautionary tale and historic lesson. A geopolitical decision thousands of miles away triggered drastic energy shortages, inflation, economic chaos, and market turmoil here at home. American consumers felt that shock acutely when the price of oil jumped by nearly 300% before the embargo lifted. Equally significant as the pocketbook effect was the geopolitical reckoning: the fact that a foreign power could so fundamentally disrupt the U.S. economy with the stroke of a pen. This is the very definition of a single point of failure. Today, in my opinion, there are two significant risk frontiers. The first is a major cyber incident disrupting banks, payment systems, or other financial market infrastructures. The second is the fact that even despite reshoring efforts, more than 90 percent of advanced chips are still manufactured in Taiwan. Creating physical and digital safeguards therefore underpins economic security by preventing geopolitical or operational shocks from mutating into economic disequilibrium and a broader loss of confidence. In today’s environment, preparedness must also include deterrence. Preparedness means ensuring that no adversary believes it can hold the American economy hostage or disrupt the well-being of American citizens. Geopolitical risk must be a key factor considered in policy making across agencies, and not treated as an afterthought. Economic statecraft remains central to our strategy, and as our Administration has reinforced repeatedly, America First does not mean America Alone. Our economic security is strengthened when the Western Hemisphere is aligned around free-market principles and the rule of law. We are deepening cooperation with partners committed to those principles while working constructively with longstanding allies such as the U.K., Japan, and the EU as they modernize regulatory frameworks and pursue growth. As the U.S. hosts the G20 this year, we reject the premise of weakened global growth and intend to advance a results-oriented, growth and economic security agenda promoting deregulation, competitiveness, and reciprocal opportunity. This will further our own economic security, and we stand ready to support allies who share these goals. On the eve of our great nation’s 250th anniversary, we recognize that economic security is foundational to our ability to thrive for the next 250 years. Under President Trump’s leadership, we are restoring industrial capacity, reinforcing technological leadership, expanding economic opportunity, and strengthening resilience. We are fundamentally resetting the framework in which the United States participates in the global economy, recognizing that economic security above all else is the foundation of sovereignty and thus the guarantor of prosperity. Treasury’s mission is clear: to act swiftly and decisively to put America — and America’s economic security — first. I would like to take a moment to address today’s Supreme Court ruling. President Trump will always put our national security and Americans first. And as I have said before, the President has multiple tools in his toolbox. Let’s be clear about today’s ruling. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs. Six Justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even one dollar of revenue. This Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges. Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026. Thank you.

Seven social media influencers have been sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for their role in the promotion of an unauthorised foreign exchange trading scheme.    Biggs Chris, Jamie Clayton, Lauren Goodger, Rebecca Gormley, Yazmin Oukhellou, Scott Timlin and Eva Zapico all pleaded guilty to one count of issuing unauthorised financial promotions.  The outcomes were: Lauren Goodger was fined £3,750 and ordered to pay costs of £5,778.18. Biggs Chris was fined £600 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.  Jamie Clayton was fined £820 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000. Rebecca Gormley was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £2,866.42. Yazmin Oukhellou was fined £974 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.   Scott Timlin was fined £938 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000. Eva Zapico was given an absolute discharge and ordered to pay costs of £1,770.44.   Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'These influencers betrayed the trust of those who followed them. We’ll continue to work with responsible influencers and go after those who put the financial wellbeing of their followers at risk.' Background The defendants’ dates of birth are as follows: Biggs Chris (DoB 15/05/1992). Jamie Clayton (DoB 18/11/1991). Lauren Goodger (DoB 19/09/1986). Rebecca Gormley (DoB 18/04/1998).  Yazmin Oukhellou (DoB 03/05/1994).  Scott Timlin (DoB 26/04/1988). Eva Zapico (DoB 23/07/1998).  Reporting restrictions are in place. Contact the FCA press office if you want a copy. The combined following of the Instagram accounts of these individuals was 4.5 million. Breaching the General Prohibition is an offence under Sections 19 and 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 punishable upon conviction by a fine and/or up to 2 years’ imprisonment. Communicating unauthorised financial promotions is an offence under Sections 21 and 25 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 punishable upon conviction by a fine and/or up to 2 years’ imprisonment.  Contracts For Difference (CFDs) are high-risk derivatives. The FCA has previously said that 80% of customers lose money when investing in CFDs because of the risks. They are often highly leveraged, which means they use debt to try and amplify returns, which can result in investors losing more than they invested. In the UK, the FCA has imposed restrictions on how CFDs and CFD-like options can be sold and marketed to retail customers. The FCA has been carrying out work to address consumer harm in the UK in this sector.  The FCA has published finalised guidance on financial promotions on social media to clarify our expectations for when firms and influencers use social media to communicate financial promotions, and to address emerging consumer harm that we’ve seen arising from use of social media.  Find out more information about the FCA. 

Martina Cheung, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric Aboaf, Chief Financial Officer, of S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI), will participate in Raymond James' 47th Annual Institutional Investors Conference on March 3, 2026, in Orlando, Florida. Ms. Cheung and Mr. Aboaf are scheduled to speak from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (Eastern Time). The "fireside chat" will be webcast and may include forward-looking information. Mark Grant, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Treasurer, will join for investor meetings. Webcast Instructions: Live and ReplayThe webcast (audio-only) will be available live and in replay through the Company's Investor Relations website http://investor.spglobal.com/Investor-Presentations. The webcast replay will be available within 24 hours after the end of the presentation and will remain accessible for 90 days, ending on May 31, 2026. Any additional information presented during the session will be made available on the Company's Investor Presentations web page.

The Federal Reserve’s stress test proposal is an encouraging step toward transparency, but further changes would help the agency more fully realize its goal of a more objective process that aligns capital charges with risk, a group of trade associations said in a comment letter today. The associations joining the letter were the Bank Policy Institute, American Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, International Swaps and Derivatives Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “As a matter of process, the Federal Reserve’s proposal is a welcome move to the transparency and public comment that the law requires. The proposal also reflects serious efforts to improve the risk sensitivity of the models and the plausibility of the stress scenarios, though further changes are necessary to reflect risk more fully and better align the resulting capital charges. At the end of the day, a transparent and risk-sensitive stress test should promote more rational capital allocation and encourage participation in businesses that earlier limitations in scenario design and modeling may have made inappropriately uneconomic relative to risk, thereby supporting customer choice and U.S. economic growth,” the associations stated upon filing the letter. Context. The Federal Reserve, for the first time, invited public comment on its stress test scenarios and models, as required by federal law, in line with a 2024 legal challenge filed by BPI and a coalition of partners 1. The agency issued a proposal seeking comment on the scenarios and models in late October 2025, along with proposing scenarios for the 2026 stress test. The associations commented on the proposed 2026 scenarios on Dec. 1, 2025, and those scenarios were finalized earlier this month. Today’s letter addresses the proposed changes to the stress testing process, models and scenarios. Recommendations. The letter acknowledges the progress made so far in the Federal Reserve’s efforts to boost stress test transparency and recommends further modifications to support the Fed’s efforts to achieve this goal: Consider the stress tests in the context of the overall capital framework, including Basel III Endgame, the GSIB surcharge and reforms to the tailoring framework. Propose all model changes for public comment instead of only “material model changes.” Retain the Dec. 31 jump-off date for the stress tests to avoid increasing volatility in stress test projections and creating major operational challenges for banks. The proposal would move this date to Sept. 30. Firm up discretionary language and codify substantive reforms in regulatory text, including the scenario variable guides and the timeline for the stress testing process. For its models, the Fed should increase risk-sensitivity by reducing over-aggregation and expanding segmentation; avoiding internal inconsistencies and double counting; recognizing hedging effects; making efficient use of existing supervisory data; and strengthening transparency and governance around key model choices. The letter also recommends more granular adjustments to the models. The letter also includes recommendations on the design of the stress test scenarios, building on the associations’ comments on the 2026 scenarios.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published a supervisory briefing on the representativeness obligation linked to the active account requirement (AAR). The briefing sets out ESMA’s supervisory expectations for how counterparties should comply with and report on the AAR representativeness obligation. It provides guidance and promotes supervisory convergence for the supervision of counterparties subject to the AAR, an issue which has attracted particular scrutiny.The document explains how counterparties should identify the most relevant subcategories for the purpose of the AAR representativeness obligation, how they should report trades, and includes an example of compliance with reporting of the representativeness obligation.  ARR representativeness obligation The representativeness obligation requires relevant counterparties to clear a number of trades in their active accounts open at EU CCPs. These trades must be on the most relevant subcategories of derivatives and reflect the activity those counterparties currently clear at Tier 2 CCPs. Next steps Counterparties subject to the AAR representativeness obligation are expected to follow the guidance included in this supervisory briefing to comply with their regulatory obligations. Related Documents DateReferenceTitleDownloadSelect 20/02/2026 ESMA91-1505572268-4558 Supervisory briefing on AAR representativeness obligation

This Notice sets out updates to the fees and charges schedule for LME and LME Clear (together “LME Group”) that take effect from 20 February 2026. Download notice

The staff of the Division of Trading and Markets (the “Staff”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has prepared the following responses to frequently asked questions relating to crypto asset[1] activities and distributed ledger technology. These responses represent the views of the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets. They are not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved their content. These responses, like all staff statements, have no legal force or effect: they do not alter or amend applicable law, and they create no new or additional obligations for any person. The staff may update these questions and answers periodically. In each update, the questions added after publication of the last version will be marked with “MODIFIED” or “NEW.” Broker-Dealer Financial Responsibility  Q1: Does paragraph (b) of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3 apply to crypto assets that are not securities? A1: No. Paragraph (b) of Rule 15c3-3 applies only to securities carried by a broker-dealer for the account of customers or for a proprietary securities account of another broker or dealer, known as a “PAB account” (as further defined in paragraph (a)(16) of Rule 15c3-3). Q2: Could a broker-dealer establish control of a crypto asset that is a security via paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-3? A2: In the Staff’s view, yes. The Staff notes that although certain control locations in paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-3 reference a security being in certificated form to establish control under that provision, the Staff will not object if such crypto asset securities are not in certificated form when held at an otherwise qualifying control location under paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-3. Q3: Is compliance with the Commission’s 2020 statement – “Custody of Digital Asset Securities by Special Purpose Broker-Dealers” – (the “SPBD Statement”)[2] mandatory for broker-dealers seeking to custody customer crypto assets that are securities? A3: No. Rule 15c3-3(b) requires a broker-dealer to obtain and “maintain the physical possession or control” of all fully paid securities and excess margin securities carried by the broker-dealer for the account of customers. The SPBD Statement set forth a temporary Commission position or “safe harbor” that a broker-dealer, under certain specified circumstances, would not be subject to a Commission enforcement action on the basis that the broker-dealer deems itself to have obtained and maintained physical possession or control of customer fully paid and excess margin securities. However, the SPBD Statement did not amend Rule 15c3-3 or any other rule. Therefore, in the Staff’s view, a broker-dealer carrying crypto asset securities for a customer or PAB account may establish control under paragraph (c) of Rule 15c3-3, as discussed in question 2 above.  Q4: Do broker-dealer custody and capital requirements prohibit a broker-dealer from facilitating in-kind creations and redemptions in connection with a spot crypto exchange-traded product (ETP)? A4: No. However, broker-dealers taking proprietary positions in the assets underlying an ETP would need to account for those assets as part of their net capital calculations. The Staff will not object if a broker-dealer treats a proprietary position in bitcoin or ether as being readily marketable for purposes of determining whether the 20% haircut applicable to commodities under Appendix B of Rule 15c3-1 applies. Q5: What haircut should a broker-dealer take in calculating its net capital under Rule 15c3-1 for a proprietary position in payment stablecoin?[3] (NEW 2/19/26) A5: The staff will not object if a broker-dealer treats a proprietary position in payment stablecoin[4]  as having a “ready market” under Rule 15c3-1, and takes a haircut of 2% of the market value of the greater of the long or short proprietary position in payment stablecoin in calculating its net capital.  Q6: Are crypto assets that are investment contracts treated as securities under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”) and protected by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) if they are not the subject of a registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933? [5]  A6: No, SIPA defines “security,” in pertinent part, as “any investment contract or certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement . . . if such investment contract or interest is the subject of a registration statement with the Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 . . ..” Therefore, investment contracts that are not the subject of a registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933 are not protected under SIPA. Q7: Does SIPC protect customer claims for non-security crypto assets when held for the customer by a SIPC member broker-dealer? A7: No. In general, SIPC protection extends to customer claims for “securities,” as defined under SIPA, that are entrusted to a SIPC member broker-dealer. Q8: In light of the fact that SIPC does not protect custodial claims for crypto assets that are not securities, are there ways to help ensure that customers’ non-security crypto assets at a broker-dealer will be returned to customers if the broker-dealer becomes insolvent?  A8: Possibly. For example, a broker-dealer may agree with its customers that non-security crypto assets custodied by the broker-dealer for the customers for purposes of Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code be treated as “financial assets” and carried in a “securities account,” as those terms are defined in Article 8. Such treatment could help ensure that customer non-security crypto assets do not become part of the broker-dealer’s estate if the broker-dealer is placed in a liquidation under SIPA or the Bankruptcy Code. Non-security crypto assets are not protected by SIPA and may not be protected by any other specific insolvency regime, and customers may be exposed to loss of such assets in the event of an insolvency. Q9: If a broker-dealer conducts a non-security crypto asset business, are there ways to help ensure adequate records are made and preserved? A9: Yes. The Staff views prudent recordkeeping practices as being essential for investor protection in the operation of a broker-dealer, to perform an audit or examination of the broker-dealer, and for a trustee appointed under SIPA or otherwise to liquidate the broker-dealer. In the Staff’s view, a broker-dealer that conducts a non-security crypto asset business could make and keep the same records for its non-security crypto activities as it does for its securities activities.  Transfer Agents Q10: Is a person acting as a transfer agent for an issuer of a crypto asset that is a security required to register with the SEC as a transfer agent? A10: Maybe. The term “transfer agent” is defined in Section 3(a)(25) of the Exchange Act as any person who engages on behalf of an issuer of securities or on behalf of itself as an issuer of securities in any of five enumerated activities: (A) countersigning securities upon issuance; (B) monitoring for unauthorized issuances; (C) registering the transfer of securities; (D) exchanging or converting securities; or (E) transferring record ownership of securities by bookkeeping entry without physical issuance of securities certificates (collectively, “3(a)(25) Activities”). Under Section 17A(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, a transfer agent that performs any of these 3(a)(25) Activities with respect to a security that is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or which would be required to be registered except for the exemption from registration provided by Section 12(g)(2)(B) or Section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Exchange Act (i.e., certain securities issued by a registered investment company or an insurance company) (collectively, “Section 12 Securities”) must register as a transfer agent with the SEC (or with one of the Federal bank regulators if the transfer agent is a bank). Importantly, multiple entities may perform one or more 3(a)(25) Activities on behalf of the same issuer. For example, the registered transfer agent hired by an issuer might register the transfer of the issuer’s securities but hire one or more other transfer agents to monitor for unauthorized issuances or perform other processing and recordkeeping functions. Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-9(h)-(k) defines some of the relationships among transfer agents providing services for the same issuer. To determine whether registration as a transfer agent is required, persons providing services for crypto assets that are securities thus should (i) determine whether those securities are Section 12 Securities and (ii) analyze the services, functions, or activities they are performing with respect to those securities and determine whether any of those services, functions, or activities quality as 3(a)(25) Activities. If an entity is not providing services for any Section 12 Securities, or is only providing services for Section 12 Securities that do not qualify as 3(a)(25) Activities, it would not be required to register as a transfer agent. Q11: Could a registered transfer agent utilize distributed ledger technology as its official Master Securityholder File, as that term is defined under Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-9(b), or a component thereof?  A11: In the Staff’s view, yes, provided that the transfer agent complies with all other applicable requirements under the federal securities laws, including the recordkeeping, reporting, examination, and other requirements of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(b) of the Exchange Act; the turnaround and other requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-2; the recordkeeping and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-6; the record retention and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-7; the prompt posting and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-10; the aged record difference, buy-in, and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-11; the safeguarding and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-12; and the accounting control, report, and other requirements of Rule 17Ad-13. Provided these requirements are met, in the Staff’s view, the transfer agent would not need to maintain a duplicate or “digital twin” of its master securityholder file exclusively off-chain.  Staff understands that some transfer agents’ master securityholder files comprise multiple files or systems. In the context of distributed ledger technology, this may mean that transaction information, such as wallet address, asset balance, ownership percentage, number of shares or units, date of purchase, and transaction ID, is maintained on a blockchain while personal information, like the investor’s name, investor ID, address and other contact information, Tax ID or social security number, and other identifying or non-public information, is kept off-chain within the transfer agent’s proprietary systems. In the Staff’s view, provided the transfer agent ensures that its records are at all times secure, accurate, up-to-date, produceable to the Commission and its staff in an easily-readable format, and maintained for the required time periods under the rules, the specific technology, systems or files that comprise the records would generally be within the transfer agent’s discretion.  Security/Non-Security Crypto Asset Pairs Trading by National Securities Exchanges (“NSEs”) and Alternative Trading Systems (“ATSs”) Q12: Do federal securities laws prohibit an NSE or ATS from offering pairs trading involving a security, including crypto assets that are securities (“crypto asset securities”),[6] and a crypto asset that is not a security or otherwise being offered and sold as a security (“non-security crypto asset”)? (MODIFIED 12/17/2025) A12: No, provided the NSE or the ATS satisfies its statutory and regulatory requirements under the federal securities laws.[7] The Staff understands that pairs trading is a common strategy applied in crypto asset trading and takes different forms. One form of pairs trading might include a buyer and a seller exchanging a security for a non-security crypto asset by simultaneously selling one asset while buying another without exchanging the non-security crypto asset for U.S. dollars (“USD”) or other fiat currency. Pairs trading would need to occur in a way that complies with federal securities laws and regulations. For example, an NSE trading pairs may need to amend its rules. Likewise, NMS plan amendments may be necessary to accommodate security and non-security crypto asset pairs trading on NSEs.[8] An ATS trading pairs would need to comply with Regulation ATS, including by noticing its pairs trading activities as required by Form ATS or Form ATS-N, as applicable. Rules 301(b)(8) and (b)(9) refer to recording and reporting securities transactions in USD.[9] For transactions based on the value of non-USD assets, such as non-security crypto assets, an ATS could provide transaction value data in USD using consistent, impartial, and reasonable methods commonly applied by market participants for converting the value of an asset that is not quoted in USD. In addition, an ATS that trades NMS stock (“NMS Stock ATS”) that displays subscriber orders in an NMS stock to any person (other than an employee of the ATS) and meets the specified volume thresholds would need to comply with Rules 301(b)(3)[10] and (b)(4) of Regulation ATS.[11] For purposes of Rule 301(b)(3)(ii), for orders based on the value of non-USD assets, such as non-security crypto assets, the NMS Stock ATS could convert the value of the non-USD asset to USD using the same consistent, impartial, and reasonable methods described above before providing the orders to the NSE or NSA, in a manner that is consistent with the rules of the NSE or NSA, for inclusion in quotation data made available by the NSE or NSA pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.[12]  Form ATS and Form ATS-N Disclosures, Generally Q13: Can Form ATS and Form ATS-N[13] accommodate disclosures about trading operations involving crypto asset securities, including pairs trading?  (MODIFIED 12/17/2025) A13: Yes. ATSs would disclose information about their operations involving crypto asset securities, including pairs trading, on Form ATS or Form ATS-N, as applicable, including: Differences in treatment or access to services among or between subscribers on Exhibit A of Form ATS and other applicable Items of Form ATS-N;[14] Persons that can access the ATS, conditions a potential subscriber must satisfy to access the ATS (i.e., onboarding requirements), and how an approved subscriber can enter orders and trading interest into the ATS onExhibits F and H[15] of Form ATS and Part III, Items 1, 2, and 5 of Form ATS-N; Securities traded on Exhibit B of Form ATS; Trading operations on Exhibit F of Form ATS[16] and Part III of Form ATS-N;[17] Clearance and settlement processes on Exhibit F of Form ATS and Part III, Item 22 of Form ATS-N; Service providers that provide ATS functions or services on Exhibit E of Form ATS and Part II, Item 6 of Form ATS-N; Products and services the broker-dealer operator offers subscribers for the purpose of effecting transactions or submitting, disseminating, or displaying orders and trading interest in the ATS and the terms and conditions for use on Part II, Item 5 of Form ATS-N; and Trading by the broker-dealer operator and its affiliates on the ATS on Form ATS Exhibit F and Form ATS-N on Part II, Items 1 and 2, and the broker-dealer operator’s policies and procedures to protect subscriber confidential trading information on Part II, Item 7 of Form ATS-N. ATS Broker-Dealer Operator Non-ATS Activities Q14: Do federal securities laws prohibit a broker-dealer operator of an ATS from performing broker, custodial, or clearing functions in addition to operating its ATS? (MODIFIED 12/17/2025) A14: No. As a condition to the exemption from the definition of exchange provided by Regulation ATS, an ATS must register as a broker-dealer;[18] however, the broker-dealer operator of the ATS is not precluded from engaging in broker, custodial, or clearing functions in addition to operating its ATS.[19] The broker-dealer operator must comply with the federal securities laws applicable to each activity. Please see Q14 below addressing clearing agency registration. Clearance and Settlement Q15: Do federal securities laws require a broker-dealer operator of an ATS to register as a clearing agency when clearing and settling transactions in crypto asset securities for its own customers? (MODIFIED 12/17/2025) A15: No, provided that the broker-dealer operator of the ATS is a registered broker-dealer engaging in customary brokerage or customary dealing activities. Exchange Act section 3(a)(23)(B)(iii) provides that the term “clearing agency” does not include, among other things, any broker or dealer if such broker or dealer would be deemed to be a clearing agency solely by reason of functions performed by such institution as part of customary brokerage or dealing activity. For example, in connection with the operation of its ATS, the broker-dealer operator may clear and settle customer transactions by debiting and crediting the appropriate customer accounts on its own internal books and records. Exchange-Traded Products Q16: With regard to Regulation M, would the Staff object if persons transact in shares of exchange-traded products (ETPs) referencing crypto assets (crypto ETPs) if they were to operate under the circumstances described in the Staff’s 2006 Regulation M no-action letter related to commodity-based investment vehicles (CBIV NAL)?[20] (MODIFIED 12/17/2025) A16: No, the Staff would not object to crypto ETPs operating under the circumstances described in the CBIV NAL, including that the crypto ETP shares are listed and trade on an NSE pursuant to rules or listing standards approved by Commission order, and that such persons are not engaging in any prohibited activities outside of the Regulation M distribution. As stated in the CBIV NAL, the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the federal securities laws would continue to apply. The Staff welcomes requests for assistance (including requests for additional staff statements) relating to these issues and questions. [1] For purposes of these FAQs, the term “crypto asset” means an asset that is generated, issued, and/or transferred using a blockchain or similar distributed ledger technology network, including, but not limited to, assets known as “tokens,” “digital assets,” “virtual currencies,” and “coins,” and that relies on cryptographic protocols. [2] See Custody of Digital Asset Securities by Special Purpose Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 90788 (Dec. 23, 2020), 86 FR 11627 (Feb. 26, 2021). [3] For purposes of this FAQ, the term “payment stablecoin” means: (a) prior to the effective date of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation in U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025, 12 U.S.C. 5901, et seq. (“GENIUS Act”), a USD-denominated stablecoin that: (1) is issued by a state regulated money transmitter, state-regulated trust company, or a national trust bank; (2) maintains reserve assets that meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(1)(A); (3) publicly discloses the issuer’s redemption policy; and (4) publishes a monthly attestation report prepared by a registered public accounting firm as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5901(26) applying the attestation standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants regarding the composition of the reserve assets and whether the fair value of the assets held in reserve is equal to the amount of stablecoins in circulation; and (b) following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin that meets the requirements contained in the GENIUS Act’s definition of “payment stablecoin” and is issued by a “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” or a “foreign payment stablecoin issuer” that complies with the GENIUS Act’s requirements applicable to such issuers.  The effective date of the GENIUS Act is the earlier of January 18, 2027 or 120 days after the date on which the federal banking regulators issue implementing regulations.[4] Id. [5] SIPC was created under SIPA as a non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of member firms that close when the firm is bankrupt or in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing.  In a liquidation under SIPA, SIPC and the court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000 for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). See https://www.sipc.org/about-sipc/sipc-mission. [6] Crypto asset securities include tokenized versions of an equity or debt security. [7] In addition, any applicable requirements under any other applicable laws would also need to be satisfied. [8] See The President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology at 52 (July 30, 2025) (stating that the Commission should consider using its rulemaking and exemptive authority under the Exchange Act to consider amendments to “Regulation NMS (or to applicable national market system plans) to better accommodate . . . trading of non-security digital assets alongside NMS securities, including requirements applicable to transaction reporting and mechanisms for collecting bids, offers, quotation sizes, and other national market system information”). [9] Rule 301(b)(8) of Regulation ATS requires an ATS to make and keep current records specified in Rule 302 that include daily summaries of trading activity in the ATS including transaction volume expressed in terms of USD. 17 CFR 242.301(b)(8). Rule 301(b)(9) of Regulation ATS requires an ATS to file Form ATS-R on a confidential basis to report, among other things, total dollar volume of transactions in securities traded on the ATS for a given quarter. 17 CFR 242.301(b)(9). [10] See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(3). An ATS that displays subscriber orders in an NMS stock must comply with Rule 301(b)(3) if, during at least four of the preceding six calendar months, it had an average daily trading volume of five percent or more of the aggregate average daily share volume for that NMS stock as reported by an effective transaction reporting plan. See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(3)(i). [11] An NMS Stock ATS must not charge to broker-dealers that access the ATS through an NSE or national securities association (“NSA”) any fee that is inconsistent with equivalent access, and must not charge any fee to members that is contrary to, not disclosed in the manner required by, or inconsistent with any standard of equivalent access established by certain rules of the NSE or NSA. See 17 CFR 242.301(b)(4). [12] Rule 602(b)(1) of Regulation NMS requires each responsible broker or dealer to “promptly communicate” these data to the NSE or NSA. 17 CFR 242.602(b)(1). If the NMS Stock ATS displays order prices and sizes in private feeds, it may need to consider any requirement that such order information not be disseminated before it is sent to the securities information processors. Further, an NMS Stock ATS subject to Rule 301(b)(3) that performs such conversions would need to satisfy other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements under the federal securities laws, such as Rule 612 (Minimum Pricing Increment) under Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.612. [13] Form ATS-N is publicly filed by NMS Stock ATSs. 17 CFR 242.304. Form ATS is filed on a confidential basis by ATSs that trade securities other than NMS stocks. 17 CFR 242.301(b)(2). [14] See, e.g., Form ATS-N, Part II, Items 1(a), 2(b), 3(c), 5(b), and 6(d); Part III, Items 2(c), 3(b), 4(b), 5(b), 5(d), 6(b), 6(d), 6(f), 7(b), 8(b), 8(d), 8(f), 9(b), 10(b), 10(d), 10(e), 11(b), 11(d), 13(b), 13(e), 14(b), 15(c), 17(b), 18(b), 18(c), 20(b), 21(b), 22(b), and 23(b). [15] Exhibit H of Form ATS requires an ATS to disclose the name of any other entity, other than the ATS, that will hold or safeguard subscriber funds or securities on a regular basis and a brief description of the controls that will be implemented to ensure the safety of such funds and securities. [16] Exhibit F of Form ATS requires an ATS to describe, among other things, the manner of operation, procedures governing the entry of orders, means of access to the ATS, and procedures governing execution, reporting, clearance, and settlement of transactions effected through the ATS. [17] For example, Form ATS-N requires an NMS Stock ATS to provide the ATS’s hours of operations (Part III, Item 4); opening and closing processes (Part III, Items 10 and 17); order entry procedures (Part III, Item 5); order types, time-in-force, and other order attributes (Part III, Item 7); order size requirements (Part III, Item 8); use of trading interest and associated functionality (Part III, Item 9); market place structure (e.g., limit order matching system, crossing mechanism, auction, or click-to-trade functionality), priority, order interaction, execution rules, pricing methodologies (Part III, Item 11); use of market data (Part III, Item 23); segmentation (Part III, Item 13); and counterparty selection (Part III, Item 14). [18] 17 CFR 242.301(a)(4)(i). [19] See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83663 (July 18, 2018), 83 FR 38768, 38771 (August 7, 2018). [20] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mr-noaction/currencyshares062106-10a1.pdf

Click here to download Malawi Stock Exchange's weekly summary report.

Considering the important role that disclosures, transparency of financial information and the financial statements of listed companies play in preserving the interests of all investors and securities dealers, listed companies are obligated to: Submit the annual report of the company, which includes its Board of Directors report, audited financial statements and the auditor's report, within (90) days of the end of its fiscal year. In accordance with the provision (6) of Article (9) of ADX's Rule Book, as well as the resolutions passed by the board of directors on (4/2/2022).  Prepare the company’s financial statements approved by its executive management in accordance with accounting reporting standards (IFRS).  Disclose the financial statements either before or after the trading session according to ADX’s Disclosure Guidelines for Public and Private Joint Stock Companies. Noting that the market will suspend the trading of the company, if the financial data is not disclosed before 9:00 AM to ensure the safety of the trading session and the completion of internal market procedures. Therefore, you are kindly requested to provide us with the Annual Financial Report of the year 2025 via (E-Service) in both languages (Arabic & English). In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the chairman, members of the board of directors, the general manager, and knowledgeable employees are prohibited from dealing in the securities of the company as well as securities of mother, subsidiary, sister or affiliate of the company, as of December 17 and until providing ADX with the complete annual financial statements, based on the provisions of Article (14) of the CMA Board of Directors Decision No. (2) of 2001 concerning the regulation as to trading, clearing, settlement, transfer of ownership and custody of securities. ADX appreciates your cooperation, and is ready to answer any questions or provide you with any further details needed.

TOPPAN Edge Inc. (TOPPAN Edge), a TOPPAN Group company and wholly owned subsidiary of TOPPAN Holdings, will take part on February 25-26 in the GFTN Forum Japan 2026, the global anchor event of the banking, securities, insurance and fintech event Japan Fintech Week 2026 being held at Bellesalle Tokyo Nihonbashi.GFTN Forum Japan is one of the main international events included in the Japan Fintech Week 2026 program organized by the Financial Services Agency. It is organized by the Global Finance & Technology Network (GFTN), a non-profit organization established by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in cooperation with international bodies to further advance fintech. The 2025 forum saw 5,600 attendees from 74 countries including investors and representatives from the fintech industry, central banks, and government-related bodies.TOPPAN Edge has been certified as Japan’s first Qualified vLEI1 issuer in September 2025 and will present use cases as an eligible issuer, including vLEI when using AI agents and in block chain financial transactions. TOPPAN Edge will also introduce concepts for services designed for the widespread use of vLEIs.  Exhibit Focus 1. vLEI Use Cases for AI AgentsThe financial industry has high expectations for AI agents that can make decisions and act autonomously. Within the broad field of finance, such AI agents are expected to take on roles previously managed by people to improve efficiency and increase automation. Some potential uses are compiling personalized asset management proposals, conducting due diligence for investment banking, and automating investment decisions.There are however concerns about problems arising within the digital framework with the use of these services, such as trust issues regarding AI agent judgment and sources, and even identity theft and subsequent scamming.One way to address such issues is by assigning a vLEI to AI agents tasked with compiling proposals and conducting transactions with external companies and clients. By verifying the source and authority of the AI agent, the vLEI can assist with compliance in the use of AI in the financial industry and contribute to improving efficiency in finance.2. vLEI Use Cases for Blockchain TransactionsBlockchain financial transactions are continuing to grow. However, if the blockchain were to utilize erroneous information from an unreliable source when processing external data such as market prices and event information, the entire blockchain could lose its credibility.TOPPAN Edge’s booth at GFTN Forum Japan will introduce vLEI use cases for blockchain financial transactions that can protect against such a risk. Requiring the information source’s vLEI when the blockchain gathers external information makes it possible to certify that the information is trustworthy. As a result, it is also possible to have a safe and swift transaction and create an environment where even major trade/finance deals can be conducted safely.      GFTN Forum Japan 2026 Dates: February 24-27, 2026 *TOPPAN Edge booth: February 25-26, 2026Venue: Bellesalle Tokyo NihonbashiOrganizer: Global Finance & Technology Network（GFTN）Official Website: https://gftnforum.jp/TOPPAN Edge booth: GFTN Global Premium Lounge Hall 1. vLEI: A combination of Legal Entity Identifier (LEI: a universal corporate ID) based on the international standard ISO 17442 and Verifiable Credentials (VC) that can digitally certify corporations etc. and affiliated individuals. About the TOPPAN Group Established in Tokyo in 1900, the TOPPAN Group is a leading and diversified global provider committed to delivering sustainable, integrated solutions in fields including printing, communications, security, packaging, décor materials, electronics, and digital transformation. The TOPPAN Group’s global team of more than 50,000 employees offers optimal solutions enabled by industry-leading expertise and technologies to address the diverse challenges of every business sector and society and contribute to the achievement of shared sustainability goals.https://www.holdings.toppan.com/en/https://www.linkedin.com/company/toppan/

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today dismissed the appeals by Su Eng Kooi and Yap Choong Seong (the Appellants) against their respective conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court in 2022 for offences relating to carrying on a business in regulated capital market activities without a license.  The Appellants were first charged at the Sessions Court on 5 July 2017 with two charges respectively under section 58(1) of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA) read together with section 367(1) of the same Act.  The charges are related to Jalatama Management Sdn Bhd’s (Jalatama) conduct in carrying on a business of trading in futures contracts and dealing in derivatives without a Capital Markets Services Licence.  The Appellants, who were both officers of Jalatama at the material time, were deemed to have committed the offences between July 2011 and September 2013. Following a full trial, both were found guilty and convicted by the Sessions Court on 12 December 2022.  They were sentenced to one-year imprisonment and a fine of RM1 million (with a further one-year imprisonment term in default), respectively. The Appellants then filed appeals to the High Court. In affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court, the High Court found that there were no errors in law or fact committed by the Sessions Court Judge and that the convictions of the Appellants were safe. Further, the High Court agreed with the SC’s submission that the sentences imposed against the Appellants were not manifestly excessive to warrant appellate interference. The decision of the High Court on the Appellants’ appeals was preceded by a dismissal of the Appellants’ application for a stay of proceedings which was filed by the Appellants prior to the hearing of the appeal today. Following the decision, the High Court granted a stay of execution of the sentences pending the Appellants’ final appeal to the Court of Appeal.  The SC was represented by SC Deputy Public Prosecutor Annarina Chacko Jacob and prosecuting officers Mohd Shafiq Azman, Mark Rohan Mahadevan and Danial Imran bin Nasaruddin. The SC views today’s court judgment positively. Dealing in derivatives is a regulated activity and any person carrying on a business in regulated activities requires a license from the SC under the CMSA.

Worldline One Commerce empowers retailers to deliver smooth, consistent shopping journeys across all channels and devices, while improving operational efficiency and strengthening customer relationships. By unifying in-store and online payments within a single continuous experience, merchants will gain full control to design ecosystems tailored to their customers’ evolving expectations. In addition, One Commerce demonstrates how the intelligent integration of payments, data, and technology is redefining the shopping experience and accelerating the next generation of omnichannel solutions. The proposition will be unveiled at EuroShop 2026, the world’s largest international retail trade fair, taking place from 22nd to 26th February at Messe Düsseldorf, Germany. A new standard for frictionless omnichannel commerce Designed to address the growing demand for seamless omnichannel experiences, One Commerce positions merchants as the architects of their own commerce ecosystem. The approach enables the rapid integration of new payment methods, the activation of value-added services and the rollout of innovative shopping models which directly improve conversion rates, customer loyalty and new customer acquisition. At EuroShop 2026, Worldline will bring this vision to life through real-life case studies and live demonstrations, highlighting integrated omnichannel payments, in-store and mobility innovation, operational continuity and resilience and faster, more connected customer journeys. Commenting on the launch, David Valero Compte, Global Head of Retail at Worldline Enterprise, said, “Worldline One Commerce is a strategic shift for retailers. It transforms payments from a transactional necessity into a powerful enabler of growth, efficiency, and customer engagement. Our ambition is clear: to help merchants scale faster, innovate with confidence, and deliver truly seamless omnichannel experiences.” European launch of “à-la-carte” acquiring Worldline will also introduce the European launch of its “à-la-carte” acquiring model, a differential and already largely implemented approach that allows merchants to flexibly choose their preferred multi-acquiring setup to optimise authorisation and conversion rates, enlarge payment methods acceptance, optimise costs and improve end customer experience. This multi-acquirer setup can also include full acquiring coverage with Worldline's own acquiring through its single pan-European platform, a clear leader in the market. This would represent, for example, a significant advantage for businesses seeking to expand into new markets in a rapid and unified way. The solution supports a full range of payment methods, from international card schemes such as Visa and Mastercard to alternative options including Apple Pay, Google Pay, Alipay, WeChat Pay, private-label cards and Buy Now, Pay Later solutions. Advanced reporting capabilities deliver real-time visibility across countries, channels, and payment methods, with customizable reports, KPI-driven analytics, and streamlined financial reconciliation. Demonstrations with strategic partners At location - Hall 6 – I25, Worldline will be presenting alongside two strategic partners. At the PAYONE stand, visitors can explore a dedicated One Commerce area featuring Tap on Mobile demonstrations on Android devices, Wero instant payments and e-commerce solutions.  At Location - Hall 6 – C41, Worldline will be present at the Toshiba stand and will showcase Tap on Mobile and its European payment gateway, Axis, designed to enhance the retail checkout experience. 

The World Federation of Exchanges (“WFE”), the global industry association for exchange groups and central counterparties (CCPs), has published new Research highlighting the challenges extended hour trading pose to current post-trade infrastructure, particularly with respect to wider industry synchronisation, liquidity, and risk.  Realising the full benefits of extended trading calls for the modernisation of existing market infrastructure. Without parallel adjustments to the broader financial ecosystem, operational frictions and settlement mismatches may arise, particularly during weekends and holidays.   Through case study analysis of foreign exchange (FX) and cryptocurrency markets, the paper illustrates the feasibility of round-the-clock trading and the importance of synchronised support systems for an effective capital market. The paper titled, Extending Exchange Trading Hours, authored by Dr Kaitao Lin, Senior Financial Economist at the WFE:  Maps the current landscape of trading hours across 60 security exchanges, revealing significant regional variation and historical evolution in trading session design.   Discusses exchange-led initiatives, specifically U.S. exchanges, such as the proposed extended trading hour models by NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, and Cboe Global Markets.  Identifies potential frictions in post-trade infrastructure, especially settlement mismatches due to asynchronous operating windows of central securities depositories (CSDs), central counterparties (CCPs), and real-time gross settlement (RTGS) systems.  Analyses potential temporal misalignments using foreign exchange and Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS) case studies.  Examines the case of cryptocurrency markets, which offer 24/7 trading but experience lower liquidity, higher volatility, and increased risk of market manipulation during off-peak hours.  Nandini Sukumar, CEO of the World Federation of Exchanges, said, “While around-the-clock trading is technologically feasible and may enhance market accessibility and flexibility, its effective implementation and sustainability depend on deep coordination across trading, clearing, settlement, and regulatory systems. It will rely on the coordination of financial market infrastructure to overcome the challenges to liquidity timing, counterparty exposure, and cash flow alignment whilst maintaining robust mechanisms for price discovery and investor protection.”  Dr Pedro Gurrola-Perez, Head of Research at the WFE, said, “Initiatives in the U.S. are paving the way for 24/5 equity trading, and the industry is working closely with SIFMA and regulators to support the alignment of extended trading hours and required changes to post-trade processes. A potential move to 24/7 trading in any jurisdiction would require more significant transformations across much of the post-trade ecosystem.”  Read the full paper here. Extending Exchange Trading Hours

SIX and Piraeus Bank announce the launch of an enhanced cross border access model that significantly improves how international institutional investors connect to the Greek equity market. The new setup integrates the global market infrastructure capabilities of SIX with Piraeus Bank’s leading local servicing platform, enabling a more efficient, transparent, and scalable operating framework for global investment flows. By consolidating direct connectivity, streamlined post‑trade processes, and high‑quality servicing standards, the framework supports the growing international demand for exposure to Greece’s dynamic and resilient equity market. Under this model, SIX assumes the role of a direct participant at ATHEXCSD, enabling the safekeeping of Greek equity instruments directly at the central securities depository. Piraeus Bank, drawing on its local market expertise and established infrastructure, provides the interface between SIX and ATHEXCSD, ensuring seamless connectivity, process integrity, and full adherence to Greek market practices. Christos Megalou, CEO of Piraeus Financial Holdings commented: “Piraeus Bank is pleased to collaborate with SIX, a globally recognized provider of integrated financial‑markets solutions and infrastructure services. Through this partnership, we are strengthening international investor connectivity to the Greek market by implementing a seamless, transparent, and operationally robust direct‑access model – introduced for the first time in Greece – which enhances the market’s structural stability, reliability, and overall quality of service delivery.” Francisco Béjar, Head Custody at SIX commented: “Our partnership with Piraeus Bank marks an important step in expanding the footprint of SIX in Greece. It enables us to offer institutional investors a more efficient, secure, and consistently delivered access route into Greek equities. This initiative underscores our commitment to enhancing cross‑border accessibility and elevating service quality through robust operational standards and resilient infrastructure. By combining Piraeus Bank’s local insight with the global capabilities of SIX, we are strongly positioned to generate sustainable value and meet the evolving expectations of institutional investors worldwide.”

Please click for announcement.

SIFMA and the SIFMA Foundation today announced the launch of the annual Capitol Hill Challenge (CHC), a flagship national competition underwritten by Charles Schwab Foundation that continues to play a vital role in expanding access to financial education for students in high-needs schools across the country. Now in its third decade, the Capitol Hill Challenge is distinguished by its unique model, pairing members of Congress with up to two public schools in their congressional districts. Beyond building financial knowledge, CHC promotes mentorship, civic engagement, and community connection, while opening doors to lifelong financial empowerment. Students learn the fundamentals of saving and investing while gaining firsthand insight into civics and the role of government. Since 2012, schools in every congressional district—representing 100 percent of Congress—have taken part, with a focus on increasing engagement among high-needs schools. “We are proud to launch the 2026 Capitol Hill Challenge, a program that reflects the impact education, mentorship, and collaboration can have on young peoples’ futures,” said Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President and CEO of SIFMA. “Helping students understand the importance of saving and investing early in life lays the groundwork for long-term financial success. With the continued support of the Charles Schwab Foundation, we are strengthening communities and empowering the next generation with the tools they need to pursue their goals.” In recognition of the Capitol Hill Challenge’s impact and the broader importance of youth financial education, the Charles Schwab Foundation pledged a three-year, $1.2 million grant to the SIFMA Foundation in 2024. The Foundation committed additional support for key technology and program enhancements designed to expand reach and serve thousands more students nationwide. This investment reflects a shared commitment to ensuring that all students of all backgrounds have access to the knowledge and skills needed to thrive in an increasingly complex financial world. “Supporting the Capitol Hill Challenge aligns directly with our mission to empower people through financial education so everyone has the opportunity to achieve financial well-being,” said Lisa Hunt, Director of the Charles Schwab Foundation Board of Directors; Managing Director and Head of International Services for Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; and Vice Chair of the SIFMA Foundation Board of Directors. “The impact of youth financial education extends far beyond the classroom. By helping students build strong financial foundations, we are preparing them to make informed decisions, plan for a more secure future, and improve financial outcomes—benefiting both individuals and society as a whole.” During the competition, CHC student teams learn the fundamentals of saving and investing and manage a hypothetical $100,000 online investment portfolio that includes stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and cash. Participants also develop essential workplace skills such as collaboration, problem-solving, and critical thinking. The top 10 performing teams are recognized at a Washington, D.C. reception and meet with U.S. Representatives and Senators in June 2026. “Financial education has the power to create and drive lasting change,” said Melanie Mortimer, President of the SIFMA Foundation. “The Capitol Hill Challenge demonstrates what’s possible when educators, policymakers, and community leaders work together. In partnership with schools and teachers, members of Congress, SIFMA, and the Charles Schwab Foundation, we are filling cticial gaps in access to financial education nationwide and helping students understand financial markets and the long-term value of saving, investing, and building wealth.” The Capitol Hill Challenge features the SIFMA Foundation’s award-winning Stock Market Game™, an online, curriculum-based financial education program that reaches more than 700,000 students each year, both virtually and in classrooms nationwide. The program strengthens understanding of fiscal policymaking, capital markets, and global economic trends, and has been shown to improve student performance in math and economics, as well as positively influence personal financial behavior among students and teachers. Since its launch in 2004, the Capitol Hill Challenge has facilitated more than 8,500 matches between U.S. Senators and Representatives and public schools, reaching more than 180,000 middle and high school students across all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. For more information and updates on this year’s program, visit www.stockmarketgame.org/capitol-hill-challenge.html.

The Reporting and audit update covers regulatory developments in reporting and audit, including sustainability and financial reporting matters. This Reporting and audit update contains the following articles: ASIC launches educational modules to help smaller companies and report preparers with sustainability reporting requirements ASIC updates sustainability reporting and audit relief decisions register Entities to lodge sustainability reports online with ASIC using new Form 398 ASIC issues infringement notices to 12 large proprietary companies for alleged failure to lodge financial reports Modified liability settings extended to protected statements in certain other reports under the Corporations Act RG 26 updated to reflect changes to auditor removal and cessation process for AFS licensees ASIC launches educational modules to help smaller companies and report preparers with sustainability reporting requirements In December 2025, ASIC partnered with the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) in releasing its first set of educational materials to help smaller companies and report preparers understand and apply the foundational concepts underpinning Australia's new sustainability reporting requirements. There will be eight learning modules on the sustainability reporting framework released in a couple of different formats. As of February 13 2026, ASIC has released PDF versions of the eight modules on our sustainability reporting webpage: Module 1 sets out how stakeholders should engage with the materials and introduces the basics of the new sustainability reporting requirements in the Corporations Act. Module 2 covers the basics of climate change. Module 3 covers climate-related physical risks and how they may affect an entity. Module 4 focuses on explaining climate-related transition risks and how they may affect an entity. Module 5 introduces climate-related opportunities and shows how they may apply to an entity through practical examples. Module 6 introduces emissions accounting and provides foundational knowledge on Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Module 7 focuses on the process of climate-related scenario analysis. Module 8 provides an overview of how entities might integrate climate risks and opportunities into governance and risk management processes. These educational modules will be helpful to any report preparer new to the sustainability reporting requirements, as well as other stakeholders in the climate reporting ecosystem. ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said, ‘We recognise many smaller companies may be concerned about what the sustainability reporting requirements mean for them. ASIC is committed to helping industry build the capability required to meet these important obligations. ‘Our new educational materials are designed to help stakeholders identify the climate-related risks and opportunities that may impact them. These foundational steps are key to meeting the sustainability reporting requirements.’ ASIC will provide more flexible delivery of content by offering all eight modules in an interactive format in the first quarter of 2026. ASIC will also hold a series of workshops supporting the release of the educational modules. Details on the workshops will be made available in quarter 1 2026. For more information, visit Educational modules and view our sustainability reporting webpage. ASIC has also provided additional information for entities within the value chain of reporting entities, including small businesses and farmers, about sustainability reporting and what it means to them. ASIC updates sustainability reporting and audit relief decisions register In December 2025, ASIC updated the sustainability reporting and audit relief decisions register with three new entries. As detailed in the register, ASIC made several in-principle decisions to refuse relief to entities seeking sustainability reporting relief for the following reasons: Four entities of a corporate group sought relief for one of the entities to prepare a sustainability report that includes the other three entities for the financial year ended 31 December 2025. We refused the relief as we were not satisfied that compliance would impose unreasonable burdens on the four entities. Allowing consolidated sustainability reporting would conflict with the connected information requirements under Australian Sustainability Reporting Standard AASB S2 Climate-related disclosure. In addition, the entities’ proposal to artificially consolidate without control did not meet the requirements for preparing consolidated financial reports under Australian Accounting Standard AASB 10 Consolidated financial statements. Three entities sought relief on the basis that their parent, an Australian partnership, would prepare a consolidated sustainability report for the Australian corporate group for the financial year ended 31 December 2025. We refused the relief as we were not satisfied that compliance would impose unreasonable burdens on the three entities. Allowing the partnership parent to prepare a consolidated sustainability report would also be inconsistent with the connected information requirements in AASB S2. In addition, the partnership was not a legal entity and could not be a parent under Australian Accounting Standards. An entity sought relief from preparing sustainability reports for the financial year ended 31 December 2025. We refused the relief as we were not satisfied that compliance would impose an unreasonable burden. The entity could have avoided administrative costs and complexity by preparing a consolidated sustainability report, but chose instead to defer under section 292A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act). We encourage prospective applicants to review the sustainability reporting and audit relief decisions register before submitting a relief application. The register provides valuable insight into the factors we take into account during our decision-making process, as well as any conditions that we may impose. We urge applicants considering applying for sustainability reporting relief to begin the application process before the applicable statutory deadline. Applications lodged close to the statutory deadline may not allow sufficient time for ASIC to fully consider your application and, as a result, could be refused. ASIC’s powers to grant relief are prospective, meaning that ASIC has no power to grant retrospective relief. Relief will not remedy any past breaches of the Corporations Act. Visit Information Sheet 82 Apply for relief (INFO 82) to find out how to apply for relief. For ASIC’s general approach to granting relief, see Regulatory Guide 51 Applications for relief (RG 51) and Regulatory Guide 280 Sustainability reporting (RG 280). Entities to lodge sustainability reports online with ASIC using new Form 398 Form 398 Copy of sustainability report and auditor’s report is now available for companies lodging their sustainability reports online through the company officeholder, registered agent and auditor portals. The form must be completed and lodged together with the sustainability report (and the accompanying auditor’s report) for the financial year. Companies should ensure that they lodge their annual financial report (and the accompanying auditor’s report) as well as the directors’ report for the financial year using Form 388 Copy of financial statements and reports. Listed entities relying on ASIC Corporations (Electronic Lodgement of Financial and Sustainability Reports) Instrument 2016/181 may alternatively lodge their annual reports electronically with the relevant market operator (i.e. ASX, NSX or SSX). Entities that are not required to prepare a sustainability report for a financial year under Chapter 2M of the Corporations Act can also use Form 398 to lodge with ASIC: a sustainability report prepared as a condition of, or to obtain the benefit of, an exemption granted by ASIC under sections 340 or 341 of the Corporations Act, or a sustainability report prepared on a voluntary basis – for example, to meet investor expectations. Sustainability reports lodged with ASIC will be available on the public register at ASIC Connect using the company name search under Organisations & Business Names. For more information about lodging sustainability reports, see How and when to lodge your sustainability report? ASIC issues infringement notices to 12 large proprietary companies for alleged failure to lodge financial reports In late 2025, ASIC issued infringement notices to 12 large proprietary companies for allegedly failing to lodge their FY24 audited financial reports on time. The notices were issued as the result of a three-month surveillance following ASIC’s increased focus on non-lodgement of financial reports by large proprietary companies. ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said: ‘Large proprietary companies are legally obliged to provide financial reports to ensure that those dealing with these businesses can make informed decisions. ‘ASIC calls on the directors of large proprietary companies and other entities with financial reporting obligations to proactively review their reporting obligations and ensure financial reports are lodged in a timely manner. ‘We also remind auditors of these entities to notify ASIC if they are aware or suspect that a company is not complying with its lodgement obligations.’ ASIC remains focussed on driving improved compliance by companies and other entities with financial reporting obligations. Financial reports play an important role assisting creditors and other users of the reports in making informed decisions when dealing with large companies. Financial reporting misconduct, including failure to lodge financial reports, is an ASIC enforcement priority for 2026. We are undertaking further surveillance work relating to the compliance by large proprietary companies and other entities with financial reporting obligations in 2026. Modified liability settings extended to protected statements in certain other reports under the Corporations Act The Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Act 2025 passed both Houses of Parliament on 27 November 2025. Temporary modified liability settings apply to certain types of statements (‘protected statements’) in sustainability reports and auditor’s reports on sustainability reports. This means that, for the duration of those periods, legal action in relation to a protected statement may only be brought by ASIC or by way of criminal proceedings. The amendments to the Corporations Act extend these modified liability settings to voluntary sustainability reports under the Corporations Act, reports that are treated as sustainability reports under specific ASIC orders (relief condition reports) as well as to the accompanying auditor’s reports for both those reports: see s1707DA and s1707DB. The amendments also extend the assurance requirements and ASIC’s directions power to voluntary sustainability reports under the Corporations Act and relief condition reports: see s342C(6) and s1707DA(4). The amendments are intended to encourage entities to make climate-related financial disclosures, even if not required to do so under the legislation: see the Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025. ASIC Regulatory Guide 280 Sustainability reporting (RG 280) and ASIC’s FAQs on the review or audit of sustainability reports will be updated to reflect these changes. RG 26 updated to reflect changes to auditor removal and cessation process for AFS licensees ASIC has updated Regulatory Guide 26 Resignation, removal and replacement of auditors (RG 26) to reflect changes to the auditor removal and cessation process for Australian financial services (AFS) licensees. From 16 June 2025, AFS licensees and applicants can use the new AFS licensing portal to: apply for ASIC consent to remove an AFS licensee auditor, and notify ASIC about an AFS licensee auditor appointment or cessation The portal is integrated into the ASIC Regulatory Portal. AFS licensees should select the transaction ‘Notify ASIC or apply to ASIC about Australian financial services licensee auditor appointments’ located in the AFS licensing dashboard. There is no change for an application for ASIC consent to resign as auditor of an AFS licensee. Form FS08 Application for consent from ASIC to resign as an auditor of an Australian financial services licensee is used for this purpose.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Robinhood”) (NASDAQ: HOOD) today reported select monthly operating data for January 2026. Funded Customers at the end of January were 27.2 million (up approximately 190 thousand from the end of December 2025, up approximately 1.75 million year-over-year). Total Platform Assets at the end of January were $324 billion (up 1% from the end of December 20251, up 59% year-over-year). Net Deposits were $4.5 billion in January, or a 17% annualized growth rate relative to December 2025 Total Platform Assets1. Over the last twelve months, Net Deposits were $67.0 billion, or an annual growth rate of 33% relative to January 2025 Total Platform Assets. Trading Volumes in January: Equity Notional Trading Volumes were $227.3 billion (up 21% from December 2025, up 57% year-over-year). Options Contracts Traded were 200.0 million (roughly flat to December 2025, up 20% year-over-year). Crypto Notional Trading Volumes were $22.9 billion (up 8% from December 2025, up 12% year-over-year), including Robinhood App Notional Trading Volumes of $8.7 billion (up 7% from December 2025, down 57% year-over-year) and Bitstamp Notional Trading Volumes of $14.2 billion (up 8% from December 2025). Event Contracts Traded were 3.4 billion (up 17% from December 2025). Margin balances at the end of January were $18.4 billion (up 10% from the end of December 2025, up 122% year-over-year). Total Cash Sweep balances at the end of January were $31.5 billion, including the impact of record customer net buying (down 4% from the end of December 2025, up 20% year-over-year). Total Securities Lending Revenue in January was $34 million (down 11% from December 2025, up 36% year-over-year). Quarter-to-date through February 17, we've deployed $173 million to repurchase approximately 2.1 million of our shares2 for an average price per share of approximately $84, more than twice the amount of shares repurchased in Q4 2025.               January2026 December2025 M/MChange January2025 Y/YChange (M - in millions, B - in billions)           Funded Customer Growth (M)           Funded Customers 27.2 27.0 +1% 25.5 +7             Asset Growth ($B)           Total Platform Assets1 $324.4 $322.1 +1% $203.7 +59% Net Deposits3 $4.5 $3.2 NM $5.6 NM             Trading           Trading Days (Equities and Options) 20 22 (9%) 20 - Total Trading Volumes           Equity ($B) $227.3 $188.6 +21% $144.7 +57% Options Contracts (M) 200.0 199.4 - 166.6 +20% Crypto ($B)4 $22.9 $21.2 +8% $20.4 +12% Robinhood App ($B) $8.7 $8.1 +7% $20.4 (57%) Bitstamp ($B) $14.2 $13.1 +8% - NA Event Contracts (B) 3.4 2.9 +17% - NA             Daily Average Revenue Trades (DARTs) (M)         Equity 2.8 2.7 +4% 2.6 +8% Options 1.3 1.1 +18% 1.1 +18% Crypto5 0.5 0.5 - 0.9 (44%)             Customer Margin and Cash Sweep ($B)         Margin Book $18.4 $16.8 +10% $8.3 +122% Total Cash Sweep $31.5 $32.8 (4%) $26.3 +20% Gold Cash Sweep6 $30.3 $31.6 (4%) $25.6 +18% Non-Gold Cash Sweep $1.2 $1.2 - $0.7 +71%             Total Securities Lending Revenue ($M) $34 $38 (11%) $25 +36%             1. Subsequent to the release of our preliminary earnings results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025 on February 10, 2026, December 2025 Total Platform Assets were revised to reflect final crypto pricing data.2. Shares of our Class A Common Stock.3. Starting in June 2025, Net Deposits include results from Bitstamp. Net Deposits do not include results from TradePMR.4. Refer to Robinhood’s full monthly metrics release for the definition of Notional Trading Volume.5. Crypto DARTs do not include Bitstamp Institutional activity.6. Starting in December 2025, includes Robinhood Banking balances, which totaled $0.1B as of 12/31/2025 and $0.3B as of 1/31/2026. For definitions and additional information regarding these metrics, please refer to Robinhood’s full monthly metrics release, which is available on investors.robinhood.com. The information in this release is unaudited and the information for the months in the most recent fiscal quarter is preliminary, based on Robinhood’s estimates, and subject to completion of financial closing procedures. Final results for the most recent fiscal quarter, as reported in Robinhood’s quarterly and annual filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), might vary from the information in this release.

The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced that it will hold a hybrid public outreach meeting on Thursday, March 26, as part of its review of regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA). EGRPRA requires the Board, with input from the public, to review its regulations at least once every 10 years to identify any outdated, unduly burdensome, or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements applicable to certain supervised institutions. The outreach meeting is an opportunity for interested stakeholders to present their views on the regulatory categories listed in any of the four Federal Register notices applicable to Board supervised institutions that were published as part of this effort: applications and reporting; powers and activities; international operations; consumer protection; directors, officers and employees; money laundering; rules of procedure; safety and soundness; securities; banking operations; capital; and the Community Reinvestment Act. Individuals interested in providing oral comments, either virtually or in person, must register by March 19, 2026, and indicate the regulatory category or categories they would like to discuss. Individuals selected to provide comments will be notified. This public meeting will take place at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington, D.C., and will be livestreamed for the public at federalreserve.gov and on YouTube. Advance registration is also required to attend this public meeting as an in-person observer. Please email EGRPRA@frb.gov with general inquiries about the public meeting. Related Content Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) Public Meeting

Today, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets issued an FAQ relating to the treatment of payment stablecoins[1] under the broker-dealer net capital rule (Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1). The FAQ provides that the staff would not object if a broker-dealer were to apply a 2% haircut on proprietary positions in a payment stablecoin when calculating its net capital.[2] I appreciate the staff’s approach. Stablecoins are essential to transacting on blockchain rails. Using stablecoins will make it feasible for broker-dealers to engage in a broader range of business activities relating to tokenized securities and other crypto assets.    FAQs like this shed light on the staff’s thinking about emerging issues. At the Commission level, I would like to consider how Rule 15c3-1 could be amended to account for payment stablecoins. To that end, I would be grateful to hear from market participants about their views, and welcome input on other aspects of our rules that they believe should be modified to address the use of payment stablecoins by SEC-registered entities. [1] The term “payment stablecoin” is defined in the FAQ as: (a) prior to the effective date of the GENIUS Act, a USD-denominated stablecoin that: (1) is issued by a state regulated money transmitter, state-regulated trust company, or a national trust bank; (2) maintains reserve assets that meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(1)(A); (3) publicly discloses the issuer’s redemption policy; and (4) publishes a monthly attestation report prepared by a registered public accounting firm as defined in 12 U.S.C. 5901(26) applying the attestation standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants regarding the composition of the reserve assets and whether the fair value of the assets held in reserve is equal to the amount of stablecoins in circulation; and (b) following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin that meets the requirements contained in the GENIUS Act’s definition of “payment stablecoin” and is issued by a “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” or a “foreign payment stablecoin issuer” that complies with the GENIUS Act’s requirements applicable to such issuers. [2] Rule 15c3-1 does not explicitly address payment stablecoins. I understand that some broker-dealers, out of an abundance of caution, have proposed to take a 100% haircut on payment stablecoins held in their inventory. In my view, a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins (generally, U.S. dollars, short-term U.S. Treasury securities and other similar instruments). For context, a haircut of 2% aligns with the haircut imposed on registered investment companies that are money market funds, which hold similar instruments as payment stablecoin issuers. In fact, following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, the reserve requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers will be more limiting than the “eligible securities” requirements that apply to registered money market funds, including government money market funds.