Record quarterly ADV of 28.3 million contracts in Q3, up 27% year-over-year Record September ADV of 28.4 million contracts, up 25% year-over-year Record quarterly and September interest rate ADV Record quarterly SOFR futures and U.S. Treasury complex ADV Record international ADV of 8.4 million contracts in Q3 CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today reported its Q3 and September 2024 market statistics, with average daily volume (ADV) reaching new, all-time records of 28.3 million contracts in Q3 and 28.4 million contracts in the month of September, and growth across all asset classes in both periods. In Q3, the company's ADV grew 27% year-over-year, with record volume in interest rate products. CME Group's deeply liquid U.S. Treasury complex hit an all-time quarterly ADV record of 8.4 million contracts and SOFR futures reached an all-time quarterly ADV record of 4.1 million contracts. September ADV grew 25% year-over-year, with record volume in interest rate and agricultural products for the month. Market statistics are available in greater detail at https://cmegroupinc.gcs-web.com/monthly-volume. Q3 2024 highlights across asset classes compared to Q3 2023 include: Record Interest Rate ADV of 14.9 million contracts Record U.S. Treasury futures and options ADV of 8.4 million contracts Record 10-Year U.S Treasury Note futures ADV of 2.5 million contracts Record 5-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV of 1.8 million contracts Record 2-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV of 1.1 million contracts Record SOFR futures ADV of 4.1 million contracts Interest Rate options ADV increased 37% to 3.1 million contracts Equity Index ADV of 7.4 million contracts, an increase of 17% Record Q3 Equity Index options ADV of 1.6 million contracts Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 futures ADV increased 38% to 1.5 million contracts E-mini S&P 500 options ADV increased 10% to 1.5 million contracts Micro E-mini S&P 500 futures ADV increased 23% to 1.1 million contracts Energy ADV of 2.6 million contracts, an increase of 21% Record Q3 Energy options ADV of 425,000 contracts Henry Hub Natural Gas futures ADV increased 31% to 466,000 contracts Henry Hub Natural Gas options ADV increased 51% to 213,000 contracts Record Q3 Agricultural ADV of 1.6 million contracts Corn futures ADV increased 28% to 378,000 contracts Soybean Oil futures ADV increased 30% to 185,000 contracts Soybean Meal futures ADV increased 22% to 167,000 contracts Foreign Exchange ADV of 1.1 million contracts, an increase of 16% Japanese yen futures ADV increased 23% to 216,000 contracts Australian dollar futures ADV increased 16% to 120,000 contracts Canadian dollar futures ADV increased 23% to 102,000 contracts Metals ADV of 728,000 contracts, an increase of 38% Record Gold options ADV of 99,000 contracts Micro Gold futures ADV increased 124% to 113,000 contracts Platinum futures ADV increased 26% to 31,000 contracts Record International ADV of 8.4 million contracts, including record  EMEA ADV of 6.2 million contracts, Asia ADV up 28% and Latin America up 11% September 2024 highlights compared to September 2023 include: Record September Interest Rate ADV of 14.8 million contracts Record September U.S. Treasury futures and options ADV of 7.1 million contracts Record September SOFR futures and options ADV of 6.9 million contracts Record September Interest Rate options ADV of 3.4 million contracts 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV increased 40% to 2.1 million contracts 5-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV increased 28% to 1.4 million contracts Equity Index ADV of 7.4 million contracts, an increase of 4% Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 futures ADV increased 19% to 1.4 million contracts Micro E-mini Dow Jones futures ADV increased 49% to 121,000 contracts Energy ADV of 2.7 million contracts, an increase of 17% Record September Energy options ADV of 448,000 contracts Henry Hub Natural Gas futures ADV increased 35% to 493,000 contracts Henry Hub Natural Gas options ADV increased 56% to 220,000 contracts Record September Agricultural ADV of 1.5 million contracts Record September Agricultural options ADV of 332,000 contracts Soybean Meal futures ADV increased 24% to 167,000 contracts Foreign Exchange ADV of 1.3 million contracts, an increase of 7% Japanese yen futures ADV increased 25% to 242,000 contracts Canadian dollar futures ADV increased 6% to 123,000 contracts Metals ADV of 709,000 contracts, an increase of 37% Record September Metals options ADV of 142,000 contracts Micro Gold futures ADV increased 154% to 110,000 contracts International ADV increased 30% to 8.8 million contracts, with record  EMEA ADV of 6.5 million contracts, Asia ADV up 27% and Latin America ADV up 12% Micro Products ADV Record E-Micro options ADV of 41,000 contracts Micro E-mini Equity Index futures and options ADV of 2.7 million contracts represented 37% of overall Equity Index ADV and Micro WTI Crude Oil futures accounted for 3% of overall Energy ADV BrokerTec U.S. Repo average daily notional value (ADNV) increased 4% to $305.8 billion and U.S. Treasury ADNV increased 19% to $119.1B Customer average collateral balances to meet performance bond requirements for rolling 3-months ending August 2024 were $70.9 billion for cash collateral and $163.2 billion for non-cash collateral

Euroclear ESES CSDs (Euroclear France, Euroclear Belgium and Euroclear Nederland) are pleased to announce the appointment of Geert Desmedt as Chief Executive Officer. With over 25 years’ experience within Euroclear Group, Geert brings a wealth of knowledge to his new role. He has held a number of senior positions within Euroclear including Head of Operational Risk, and Head of Operations and Client Service Asia. Most recently, he served as Co-CEO of Euroclear’s global fund distribution platform, MFEX, which was acquired by Euroclear in 2021. In this role, he was instrumental in integrating MFEX into the Euroclear FundsPlace platform.  Geert’s extensive background within the Euroclear group aligns with the ESES vision of future growth through innovation, operational resilience, and client satisfaction.  He succeeds Guillaume Eliet who has led ESES since 2021 and will now assume the role of Chief Risk Officer for Euroclear Group.

EuropeanIssuers, the Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), and the European Commission are delighted to announce the shortlist for the 12th annual European Small and Mid-Cap Awards. The twelve shortlisted companies, selected from among the most dynamic small and mid-caps to have gone public in the period 2022-23, have been pinpointed by an independent, expert jury for their outstanding performances across the four Awards categories. The winner of each category will be revealed during a grand ceremony set to take place on 19th November 2024 as part of the European Commission’s SME Assembly in Budapest, Hungary. In addition, a ‘Special Mention’ will also be awarded to an individual or company that has had a significant impact on facilitating small and mid-cap issuers’ access to capital markets. Rising Star:• mmcité street furniture listed on Prague Stock Exchange• RES – Recupero Etico Sostenibile listed on Borsa Italiana part of Euronext• Seresco listed on BME | Bolsas y Mercados Españoles, SIXInternational Star:• Greening Global listed on BME | Bolsas y Mercados Españoles, SIX• Rusta listed on Nasdaq Stockholm• STIF listed on Euronext ParisStar of Innovation:• Gubra listed on Nasdaq Copenhagen• REVENGA Smart Solutions listed on BME | Bolsas y Mercados Españoles, SIX• Yubico listed on Nasdaq Stockholm Star of 2024:• Dexelance listed on Borsa Italiana part of Euronext• DIMAND S.A. listed on Athens Exchange Group• OKWIND listed on Euronext Paris Download

 ETFGI, a prominent independent research and consultancy firm specializing in providing subscription research on trends in the global ETFs industry, reports there were 62 new product launches and 7 product closures in the global ETFs industry during the week of Sept 23rd, resulting in a net increase of 55 new products. Over the past week, there have been 62 new product launches: 26 in the US, 19 in Europe, 10 in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan), 3 in Canada, 2 in Japan, 1 in Latin America and 1 in Middle East and Africa. In terms of closures, US had 3 closures, Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) had 2, and Europe and Canada experienced 1 closure each. The new products include 36 Active, 14 Equity, 8 Fixed income, 2 Leverage, 1 Crypto and 1 Mixed Asset classifications. Interested in subscribing to ETFGI’s research email: contact@etfgi.com Weekly New launches and closures in the Global ETFs industry during the week of 23rd September

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released a list of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations that became public during the period of September 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. The list contains only national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks that have received ratings. The possible ratings are outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve, and substantial noncompliance. Of the 21 evaluations made public this month, 16 are rated satisfactory and five are rated outstanding. A list of this month's evaluations is available here. Click on the institution's charter number to view a PDF of the evaluation. The OCC's website also offers access to a searchable list of all public CRA evaluations. Copies of the evaluations may also be obtained by submitting a request electronically through the OCC's Freedom of Information Act website, or by writing to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Communications Division, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. When requests are made electronically, remember to include your postal mail address.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year (FY) 2025. The plan outlines the OCC’s supervision priorities and objectives for the year. It also facilitates the implementation of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and third-party service providers subject to OCC examination. OCC staff uses this plan to guide its supervisory priorities, planning, and resource allocations. Key areas of heightened focus for supervisory strategies in FY 2025: Financial Credit Allowance for credit losses Asset and liability management Capital Climate-related financial risks for banks with over $100 billion in total consolidated assets Operational Cybersecurity Enterprise change management Operations Third-party risks Payments Compliance Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism and Office of Foreign Assets Control Consumer compliance Community Reinvestment Act Fair lending The OCC provides periodic updates about supervisory priorities, emerging risks, and horizontal risk assessments in the Semiannual Risk Perspective in the fall and spring. Related Link Fiscal Year 2025 Bank Supervision Operating Plan (PDF)

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced it filed a civil enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut charging fraud against Michael Frederick Staryk of Florida. The complaint alleges from at least 2021 through at least 2022, Staryk, individually and d/b/a Magestic World Wide Finance or Magestic World Wide Solutions, and others, engaged in a deceptive scheme in which they fraudulently solicited and obtained at least approximately $600,000 from at least 26 retail clients in the United States purportedly for trading in options on commodity futures contracts. In fact, the promised trading did not occur, and client funds were deceitfully obtained and misappropriated.  In 2004, the CFTC held Staryk liable for options fraud, revoked Staryk’s registration, permanently banned him from trading, and imposed a cease-and-desist order and a civil monetary penalty. As alleged, Staryk failed to disclose the CFTC’s prior action against him. The complaint also alleges relief defendants Global Financial Institution LLC, a Connecticut-based limited liability company, and Yvonne Stephanie Solerti-Coto, a resident of Connecticut, received client funds to which they were not entitled as they did not provide legitimate services. In its continuing litigation against defendant Staryk and relief defendants Coto and Global Financial, the CFTC seeks restitution to defrauded customers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, a civil monetary penalty, trading bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations. Case Background According to the complaint, Staryk, and others (acting pursuant to Staryk’s instructions and managed by Staryk) who purported to be traders, fraudulently solicited and obtained funds from retail clients in the U.S. to open accounts at Magestic World Wide for the purported purpose of trading options on commodity futures contracts, including options on oil and gold commodity futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange and Commodity Exchange. As alleged, Staryk oversaw and advised purported traders on the fraudulent solicitation of prospective and actual clients; created emails and a website; purportedly traded for clients; and answered questions as an “industry expert.” In fact, Staryk and others under his direction did not open, manage, and/or trade individual accounts for clients, as promised, and client funds were misappropriated. The complaint also alleges, in coordination with relief defendant Coto, Staryk and others directed clients to wire funds into accounts at U.S. banks in Connecticut in the name of relief defendant Global Financial, which relief defendant Coto formed and controlled. Client funds were then misappropriated, sent, and/or dissipated to companies and individuals at their accounts in Costa Rican banks in Costa Rica and to companies and individuals at their accounts in U.S. banks in the United States, including Coto.  Parallel Criminal Action Staryk pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud based, in part, on conduct that is also alleged in the CFTC’s complaint.  [USA v. Staryk, 3:22-cr-00409-B (N.D. Tex.)].  The CFTC thanks and acknowledges the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and the FBI Dallas/Fort Worth Office. The CFTC also thanks and acknowledges the assistance of the Superintendencia General de Valores de Costa Rica (SUGEVAL). The Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Xavier Romeu-Matta, Michael Cazakoff, Judith M. Slowly, Mary Lutz, Gates S. Hurand, Lenel Hickson, Jr., and Manal M. Sultan. RELATED LINKS Complaint: Michael Frederick Staryk, et al

WHAT: Commissioner Caroline D. Pham will speak virtually on a fireside chat titled “Pushing Crypto Forward in the US” at Permissionless III, presented by Blockworks and BANKLESS. WHEN: Friday, October 11, 202411:50 a.m. (MT)1:50 p.m. (ET) WHERE: Salt Palace Convention Center90 South West TempleSalt Lake City, UT 84101 Additional Information: Permissionless III

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued an order filing and settling charges against Taishin Securities Co., Ltd., a Taiwanese financial services company, for engaging in wash sales and non-competitive transactions on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The order requires Taishin to pay a civil monetary penalty of $200,000 and to cease and desist from further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, as charged. Case Background According to the order, Taishin engaged in multiple wash sales and non-competitive transactions while moving open futures positions it held from one broker to another broker. Specifically, the order finds that in or around October 2022, a Taishin trader reached internal trading limits with the first broker and decided to transfer futures positions to Taishin’s account at the second broker. To make this transfer, the trader placed offsetting orders for the purchase and sale of the same delivery month of the same futures contract at the same price on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange with the intent that some or all of those orders would offset, knowing that the timing and structure of those orders would minimize market competition. In so doing, Taishin negated the risk or price competition incidental to an open and competitive marketplace. In total, the trader executed 50 wash trades between October and December 2022 encompassing 175 contracts with a value of approximately $17 million. The Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this action are Steven Kim, Kara Mucha, Daniel Jordan, and Rick Glaser. RELATED LINKS Order: Taishin Securities Co., Ltd.

WHAT: Commissioner Caroline D. Pham will speak on a keynote fireside chat at the Northwind Professional Institute’s 2024 Disruptive Technologies Invitational Forum. WHEN: Wednesday, October 9, 20247:00 p.m. (ET) WHERE: 1 Langdon Dr.Cambridge, ONN3H 4R8Canada

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Commissioner Caroline D. Pham issued the following dissenting statement on the CFTC’s recent enforcement actions regarding Tradition SEF LLC, GFI Swaps Exchange, LLC and BGC Derivative Markets, L.P.: “In a developing trend, the Commission has now brought four enforcement actions enshrining a new prescriptive approach to the CFTC’s longstanding Core Principles regulatory framework for registered entities such as futures exchanges and swap execution facilities (SEFs).[1] I am concerned that this is the first time that the CFTC has charged alleged violations of SEF Core Principle 14, which is high-level and sets forth a SEF’s system safeguard obligations to address operational risk, among other things. Deficiencies in systems and processes are not the same thing as failing to implement a program. The CFTC is bringing these enforcement actions despite the fact that SEF Core Principle 1 states that SEFs shall have reasonable discretion in implementing the Core Principles. “Not only has the Commission taken a departure from our principles-based approach to regulation that has always defined the CFTC and is the linchpin of the Commodity Exchange Act, but the Commission has done so without fair notice to the public because these enforcement cases were rooted in SEF exams. If the CFTC is taking a more narrow approach to the Core Principles, there should first be a public notice-and-comment process. These cases also further highlight the need for written procedures and public criteria for enforcement referrals from other CFTC divisions, as I have previously proposed.[2]” [1] See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on NFX Settlement Order (Aug. 29, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement082924. [2] Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Self-Reporting and Cooperation Credit in Enforcement Actions (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement081924. RELATED LINKS CFTC Press Release No. 8989-24 CFTC Press Release No. 8990-24

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced two orders filing and simultaneously settling charges against two swap execution facilities (SEFs), BGC Derivative Markets, L.P. and GFI Swaps Exchange, LLC, for failing to properly report data related to thousands of swap transactions and violating SEF Core Principles, and against BGC SEF for also violating a prior CFTC order.     The SEFs admit the facts in the orders and are ordered to cease and desist from further violations of these swap reporting provisions and SEF Core Principles and are ordered to comply with remedial undertakings, including submitting reports to the CFTC, attested to by their respective chief compliance officer and chief executive officer, within one year. BGC SEF is also ordered to cease and desist from further violation of the prior CFTC order and to retain an independent compliance consultant to advise on implementing the ordered remediation. The orders require BGC SEF to pay a $750,000 civil monetary penalty, and GFI SEF to pay a $550,000 civil monetary penalty. “These actions continue to highlight the value of timely self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation with the Division of Enforcement, along with the importance the CFTC places on accurate and timely swaps reporting,” said Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley. “They also demonstrate the importance of SEFs’ obligations to enact appropriate controls for system design, implementation, and testing.  When SEFs fail to meet these obligations, outside assistance may be necessary, especially when the failures come on the heels of a prior enforcement action on these same provisions.” Background The BGC SEF order finds from December 2022 to April 2024, as the result of five reporting systems issues, BGC SEF failed to report, accurately report, or publish data related to thousands of transactions. Additionally, BGC SEF real-time reported erroneous execution times to a swaps data repository for thousands of voice-executed interest rate swap transactions. BGC SEF’s swap reporting failures and inaccurate reports, as well as its failure to promptly identify and correct the underlying causes, were the result of BGC SEF’s swap reporting system design and its inadequate system of internal controls and procedures. These violations occurred after the CFTC issued an order against BGC SEF on Sept. 30, 2022, for violations under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations of the same swap reporting provisions and all but one of the same SEF Core Principles. The GFI SEF order finds from July 2017 to February 2024, as the result of six reporting systems issues, GFI SEF failed to report, accurately report, or publish data related to thousands of transactions. GFI SEF’s swap reporting failures and inaccurate reports, as well as its failure to promptly identify these errors, were the result of insufficient swap reporting processes, its swap reporting system design, and an inadequate system of internal controls and procedures.  Both orders also found SEF Core Principle violations. First, the SEFs had recurrent reporting and publication failures and inadequate processes for reporting complete and accurate swap transaction information. Second, the SEFs failed to design and sufficiently test their swap transaction and reporting system to ensure compliance with their swap reporting obligations and lacked sufficient processes and procedures surrounding the design, testing, implementation, and operation of their swap transaction and reporting system. The Division of Enforcement appreciates the assistance of the Division of Market Oversight and the Division of Data. Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Rebecca Jelinek, Tom Simek, Chris Reed, and Charles Marvine.  RELATED LINKS Order: BGC Derivative Markets, L.P. Order: GFI Swaps Exchange, LLC Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced an order filing and settling charges against Tradition SEF LLC (TSEF), a registered swap execution facility (SEF) based in New York. The order finds TSEF failed to establish and maintain adequate system safeguards and failed to promptly provide records to the Division of Market Oversight (DMO) during a routine systems safeguards examination. The order requires TSEF, among other things, to pay an $875,000 civil monetary penalty and remediate its system safeguards failures. “Today’s enforcement action represents two firsts for the CFTC—the first action charging a SEF with system safeguards violations and the first charging a registrant for failing to provide records promptly during a DMO examination. Ensuring that SEFs comply with their system safeguards obligations is essential to the safety and reliability of our markets. And effective oversight of those markets requires that DMO not be hindered in its system safeguards examinations by lax production of books and records,” said Ian McGinley, Director of Enforcement. Case Background The order finds during the relevant period, TSEF failed to comply with certain aspects of the SEF system safeguards requirements in the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The order finds TSEF did not adequately brief its board of directors on the results of certain business continuity-disaster recovery (BCDR), technical risk, and penetration testing and assessments. Although TSEF management provided some test and assessment results to individual directors, TSEF did not present the full board with results of all required testing and assessments. TSEF also failed to maintain an adequate BCDR program by not conducting regular, periodic testing and review of its BCDR capabilities. TSEF also failed to have an adequate enterprise risk management program consistent with generally accepted standards and practices, as it lacked finalized, written policies that adequately addressed operational and third-party risk or that defined organizational risk tolerance and appetite. The order further finds despite being granted multiple extensions, TSEF failed to produce certain documents DMO requested promptly during a routine examination. In fact, at the time DMO conducted its interviews, TSEF had still not produced all requested records. Moreover, TSEF did not fully comply with DMO’s request for records until after DMO had completed the examination. The Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this matter are Karen Kenmotsu, Jonah E. McCarthy, Timothy J. Mulreany, and Paul G. Hayeck; and DOE thanks and acknowledges the assistance of DMO staff Jacob Dull, Kyle Miller, and Rachel Berdansky. RELATED LINKS Order: Tradition SEF LLC Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

The European Energy Exchange (EEX) will host the Europe-wide primary market emissions auctions until 31 December 2026, following the extension of the original five-year contract. The third common auction platform under this contract covers EU ETS allowances for the sectors electricity and heat generation, energy-intensive industry, aviation and maritime. An additional emission trading system (EU ETS2) for buildings, road transport and additional sectors shall start with auctions in 2027. The current contract has been extended in order to make the fourth common auction platform to coincide with the start of the auctioning of EU ETS2 allowances. Peter Reitz, CEO of EEX, said: “We believe that the EU ETS system is an important measure to facilitate the decarbonisation process in the EU. We are proud to be an enabler for these efforts, which have already achieved an approximate 47% decrease in ETS emissions, compared to 2005 levels.” The auctions continue to be held on behalf of 25 EU Member States, three EEA EFTA states as well as for the Innovation Fund, the Modernisation Fund, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and as of 2025 the Social Climate Fund. EEX has been running and European Commodity Clearing (ECC) has cleared more than 2,800 EU ETS auctions since 2010. The European Energy Exchange (EEX) is a leading energy exchange which builds secure, successful and sustainable commodity markets worldwide – together with its customers. As part of EEX Group, a group of companies serving international commodity markets, it offers contracts on power, natural gas and emission allowances as well as freight and agricultural products. EEX also provides registry services as well as auctions for Guarantees of Origin, on behalf of the French State.

Following the introduction of Intraday Auctions (IDAs) within the Single Intraday Coupling (SIDC) earlier this year, together with the latest update of the electronic formats for data reporting, ACER publishes today the updated: Transaction Reporting User Manual (TRUM) and its Annexes; and FAQs on REMIT transaction reporting. What are Intraday Auctions? Intraday Auctions (IDAs) were introduced within the SIDC framework in June 2024 to facilitate intraday electricity trading across Europe. IDAs are implicit auctions held three times a day that price and allocate intraday transmission capacity simultaneously across different bidding zones. This mechanism improves market efficiency by providing clear price signals and balancing electricity trading positions. What’s new in ACER guidance documents? TRUM and its Annexes: the amendments mainly focus on providing guidance on reporting the delivery point for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) supply contracts that specify delivery within the EU without identifying a specific LNG terminal. This update was needed to align ACER guidance documents with the List of Accepted Energy Identification Codes (EICs). FAQs on REMIT transaction reporting: the 17th edition of the FAQs was developed in consultation with the relevant Nominated Electricity Market Operators (NEMOs) to provide guidance on the reporting of transactions related to the recently introduced SIDC IDAs. What are the next steps? Reporting parties are expected to comply with the updated transaction reporting guidance on SIDC IDAs within 3 months of its publication on the ACER website (i.e., by the end of December 2024).

Monthly statistics including stock and derivative statistics; Volumes and Market cap Most traded companies Most active members Listings and member Attachments:Statistics_September_2024_summary_.pdf

I am pleased that the CFTC has provided substantial credit to Barclays Bank PLC, a non-U.S. swap dealer, for self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation efforts, including two issues previously identified in a National Futures Association (NFA) exam and self-disclosed to the CFTC pursuant to the swap dealer annual compliance report requirement.[1] This is a move in the right direction for the CFTC, and is a return to a more normal and rational approach to enforcement actions for operational or technical issues with no misconduct, harm to clients, or financial losses.[2] As reflected in recent settlement orders, the CFTC changed its approach to swap data reporting cases in 2023 to be excessively and disproportionately punitive, and more generally has shifted its enforcement program to focus on registration and compliance instead of the CFTC’s mission to prevent fraud, manipulation, and abuse in our markets. Even worse, when the CFTC is investigating fraud or manipulation and does not find evidence that substantiates the alleged charges—meaning there is no proof of fraud or manipulation—the CFTC abuses the power of the government to get firms to agree to settle for overblown charges regarding oftentimes non-material operational or technical issues. I question why the CFTC changed its approach to assessing civil monetary penalties in swap data reporting matters in 2023 without sufficient reasoning and justification or fair notice to the public. Swap data reporting did not suddenly become more important in 2023—it has been important for transparency and monitoring of systemic risk ever since the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented in 2010. I hope that the CFTC will continue to correct this misguided change in approach. I continue to believe that the CFTC must adopt a clear standard for self-reporting and cooperation credit that is applied consistently.[3] Implementing my proposals to improve the CFTC’s internal governance and procedures, particularly regarding the process for enforcement recommendations to the Commission, will promote government accountability and provide further transparency and regulatory clarity.[4] Overall, to achieve the agency’s mission, the CFTC must get its priorities straight, stop being an outlier among all U.S. and non-U.S. regulators, and finally implement an effective CFTC examination program for systemically important swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate in accordance with international standards for regulators. Enforcement is no substitute for the examination process. The CFTC Has Failed to Implement a Supervisory Approach that Is Risk-Based and Proportionate This change in the CFTC’s enforcement approach to swap data reporting cases is concerning because it further highlights the CFTC’s lack of expertise in supervisory oversight of CFTC registrants such as swap dealers, including basic concepts like risk-based supervision and proportionality. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision Although the CFTC is not a member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the CFTC should adhere to international standards and best practices for regulators that oversee banks, the BCBS Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision, as appropriate and adapted for the CFTC’s unique jurisdiction,[5] because the CFTC directly registers and oversees banks as swap dealers (including global systemically important banks (G-SIBs)). The BCBS Core Principles are the de facto minimum standard for sound prudential regulation and supervision of banks and banking systems.[6] While the CFTC is not per se a bank supervisor, the BCBS Core Principles can nevertheless be used as a benchmark to assess the effectiveness of the CFTC’s supervisory systems.[7] For example, under the BCBS Core Principles, the CFTC is not in adherence with certain aspects of Principle 2—Independence, accountability, resourcing and legal protection for supervisors; Principle 3—Cooperation and collaboration; Principle 8—Supervisory approach; Principle 9—Supervisory techniques and tools; and Principle 11—Corrective and sanctioning powers of supervisors. These principles emphasize a supervisory approach that is risk-based and proportionate. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), of which the CFTC is a member and the current Vice Chair, has issued the IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation that are applicable to market regulators and are consistent with the BCBS Core Principles.[8] A full gap analysis and identification of specific areas for improvement for the CFTC under these international standards is necessary. International Monetary Fund Financial Sector Assessment Program The International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducts the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), which is a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of a country’s financial sector and includes the quality of the regulatory and supervisory framework.[9] In the IMF’s 2020 FSAP Financial System Stability Assessment (FSSA) for the United States, the IMF noted, “Supervision of swap dealers is also carried out by the NFA. The CFTC carries out oversight reviews of NFA’s supervisory activities, but it has not directly examined swap dealers.” The IMF further noted, “At the time of the [IMF’s] fieldwork, the CFTC had decided to initiate its own program of direct examinations, which was planned to begin in early 2020.” (emphasis added).[10] In the report recommendations, the IMF stated, “The CFTC should initiate direct examinations of swap dealers by CFTC staff, as had recently been proposed at the time of the [IMF’s] fieldwork.” (emphasis added).[11] I question why the CFTC has not implemented a direct examination program for swap dealers in the past four years since the CFTC represented to the IMF FSAP that the CFTC would do so in 2020. Four years is long enough that the CFTC should have been able to make at least some progress towards implementing a swap dealer examination program. Instead, the CFTC has inexplicably changed course and failed to make this a priority. Importantly, the IMF also identified challenges with the CFTC’s cross border regulation of derivatives in its 2020 report: “143. A further development since the last FSAP [in 2015] has been the adoption of various determinations of equivalence between aspects of U.S. and other jurisdictions’ regimes . . . Stakeholders welcomed these agreements, but some considered there was still a lack of clarity about the precise interaction between the regimes and extent of the substituted compliance, and that other obstacles remained.”[12] Proposed CFTC Swap Dealer Examination Program The Dodd-Frank Act created big shoes to fill for the CFTC by putting the agency front and center in the global regulation of swaps markets with extensive jurisdiction and authority over G-SIBs. While the SEC had a Dodd-Frank Congressional mandate to make sure the SEC would be up to the job, the CFTC had no similar mandate.[13] The unfortunate result is that the CFTC has not yet matured as an agency to fill those big shoes, and instead keeps tripping up because the CFTC does not have the resources or expertise to adequately implement its new Dodd-Frank authorities through an effective supervisory approach for swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate. Accordingly, I have previously proposed organizational reforms and a GAO study and recommendations for improvement in order to ensure that the Commission has the internal operations, structure, technology, expertise, personnel, and funding to be effective in our oversight of commodity derivatives markets.[14] To illustrate the CFTC’s challenges, consider that the CFTC has promulgated extensive swap dealer regulations that include prudential requirements such as capital and risk management program rules, which interact and overlap with banking regulations in complex and sometimes duplicative or contradictory ways. Because of the CFTC’s lack of recognition and harmonization with other U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory regimes, the CFTC has often had to amend CFTC regulations or issue no-action letters to resolve these challenges. The IMF FSAP in 2020 highlighted this lack of regulatory clarity and the need for progress on cross border regulation and substituted compliance. It is well past time for the CFTC to establish a systemically important swap dealer examination program that is adequately resourced with qualified bank examiners that have the requisite expertise and experience to supervise G-SIBs in a complex regulatory environment involving both U.S. and non-U.S. regulations. This is especially urgent because I have noticed an alarming trend with respect to the CFTC’s use of NFA exam reports and findings in the CFTC’s enforcement actions against swap dealers.[15] The CFTC Must Not Abuse the NFA Examination Process It is in the public interest to promote transparency in the examination process and a positive and open relationship between NFA and CFTC registrants. Examinations are supposed to find issues—it means that the continuous improvement process is working. It is how issues are identified and remediated, and enhancements to a firm’s control framework are made. This is part of operational risk management pursuant to assurance and audit standards and regulatory requirements. An appropriate control environment includes policies and procedures, controls, monitoring, testing, and assessment. Just like going to the doctor for a physical exam, or taking a test in school to see how well you learned a new subject, finding issues is part of the process to diagnose problems and address them early on. I am troubled that too many of our recent enforcement actions have “mined” NFA exam reports in order to penalize CFTC registrants with hefty penalties for operational or technical issues that do not have any misconduct, harm to clients, or financial losses, and that every other major regulatory authority addresses through an examination program conducted by trained and qualified examiners.[16] These are mistakes, glitches, or other circumstances where systems and processes are not 100% perfect. Bringing an enforcement action against a firm because of a NFA exam report finding, especially if the finding is not a material non-compliance issue, is a “gotcha” approach that is inappropriately punitive and is an abuse of the examination process. Moreover, whacking firms for exam findings that have already been self-disclosed and remediated before the start of an enforcement investigation—sometimes years before the investigation began—will have the negative consequence of discouraging firms from being open and transparent with NFA during an examination because they will expect a CFTC enforcement action to follow directly onto the NFA exam report. It is a dangerous precedent for the CFTC to set and seriously undermines NFA’s mission and the examination process. Problems that go undiagnosed and untreated can turn into something much worse. The CFTC needs to take a hard look in the mirror and realize that bringing enforcement actions for routine exam findings is not done by any regulator in the world because it is the antithesis of risk-based supervision that is proportionate. This basic failure demonstrates that the CFTC simply does not currently have the expertise to properly supervise a bank and the right resources to ensure that our registrants have robust risk management and compliance programs.[17] There are thousands of certified examiners with years of specialized training at the Fed and each Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and NFA. The CFTC’s hubris in thinking that headline-grabbing enforcement actions are a substitute for a properly resourced examination program is unfortunate. As I have previously stated, examination by enforcement is inherently ad hoc, not applied consistently across market participants, and does not provide a horizontal view to inform the Commission of potential systemic risk.[18] Conclusion It is time for the CFTC to be held to the same standards as the rest of the world. The Commission must address the CFTC’s failure to implement appropriate supervisory oversight for systemically important swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate and utilizes basic supervisory tools such as examinations. Until then, the CFTC should stop abusing the NFA examination process and undermining the NFA’s supervision of swap dealers that has been in place for over a decade since Dodd-Frank. [1] Certain non-U.S. swap dealers may elect to submit a copy of the home country compliance report to the CFTC, pursuant to substituted compliance, in lieu of filing the CFTC swap dealer annual compliance report. [2] See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Examination by Enforcement (Aug. 29, 2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement082923b. [3] Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Swap Data Reporting Settlement Order (Aug. 26, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement082624. [4] Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Self-Reporting and Cooperation Credit in Enforcement Actions (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement081924. [5] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), Core Principles for effective banking supervision (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d573.htm. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation (May 2017), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD561.pdf. [9] International Monetary Fund (IMF), Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fssa. [10] IMF, United States: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Securities—Fund Management; Equity and Derivatives Trading; and Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (Aug. 10, 2020), https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2020/English/1USAEA2020003.ashx. [11] Id. [12] Id. [13] See Subtitle F—Improvements to the Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act Title IX). [14] The CFTC Needs to Get Serious: A Strategic Plan for Reform, Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham Before the Open Meeting on May 10, 2024 (May 10, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement051024. [15] This trend does not involve futures commission merchants (FCMs) to the same extent because NFA may not be the Designated Self-Regulatory Organization (DSRO) that examines certain FCMs. [16] Pham, supra note 1. [17] Id. [18] Id. RELATED LINKS CFTC Press Release No. 8988-24

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against Barclays Bank PLC for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations relating to swap reporting. Barclays is registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer.  The order requires Barclays to pay a $4 million civil monetary penalty, cease and desist from violating the applicable provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations, and comply with certain conditions and undertakings. Barclays admitted the facts in the order and acknowledged its conduct violated the CEA and CFTC regulations. “Over the last year, the CFTC has imposed over $60 million in penalties on six registered swap dealers, including Barclays here, in connection with swap data reporting violations,” said Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley. “This resolution, which also includes admissions, reflects the division’s ongoing commitment to ensure the costs of violating the law outweigh the costs of compliance.” Case Background According to the order, from 2018 through 2023, Barclays failed to correctly report, or failed to timely report, millions of swap transactions in violation of the CEA and CFTC regulations. The reporting failures during the relevant period included misreporting due to the use of a duplicate swap identifier; incorrect reporting of primary economic terms; misreported time stamps; errors in connection with continuation data reporting; and late reporting. In total, aggregating all the categories of conduct, Barclays either did not correctly report, or did not timely report, more than five million swap transactions throughout 2018 to 2023.  In accepting Barclays’ Offer of Settlement, the CFTC recognized Barclays’ substantial cooperation during the Division of Enforcement’s investigation. Barclays’ cooperation included proactively flagging swap reporting issues for the CFTC during the investigation, and voluntarily providing detailed and specific information regarding the violations described in the order.  The CFTC also acknowledges Barclays’ representations concerning its remediation for this matter. This remediation includes voluntarily engaging third-party vendors to review and validate Barclays’ swap reporting processes.  The CFTC notes Barclays’ cooperation and remediation are recognized in the form of a reduced civil monetary penalty. The Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are Jason T. Wright, A. Daniel Ullman II, and Paul G. Hayeck, and former staff member Lauren Bennett. * * * * * * * Customers and other individuals can report suspicious activities or information, such as possible violations of commodity trading laws, to the Division of Enforcement via a toll-free hotline 866-FON-CFTC (866-366-2382), file a tip or complaint online, or contact the Whistleblower Office. Whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected, paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund financed through monetary sanctions paid to the CFTC by violators of the Commodity Exchange Act. RELATED LINKS Order: Barclays Bank PLC Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham Statement

ACER publishes today its Opinion on the compliance of the draft joint Scenarios Report for the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) 2024 with ACER’s Framework Guidelines. The draft joint Scenarios Report for the TYNDP is issued by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) and electricity (ENTSO-E) every two years. ACER reviews the draft Scenarios Report to ensure compliance with its Framework Guidelines, allowing for a transparent, inclusive, and robust process to be established. What are ACER’s key findings? While welcoming some improvements in the scenarios’ development process, ACER’s assessment identifies several areas of non-compliance with its Framework Guidelines: Diverging scenarios: rather than developing different scenario variants based on economic factors, the ENTSOs created diverging scenarios, leading to less reliable results. Delayed process: scenarios’ development was delayed, negatively impacting other processes. Slower stakeholder group formation: the process of establishing the Stakeholder Reference Group took longer than expected, which impacted the stakeholder engagement’s overall effectiveness. Transparency: despite enhanced transparency and stakeholder consultations, the draft 2024 Scenarios Report still did not fully meet the transparency standards set by the Framework Guidelines. What are the next steps? ACER expects some of these issues to be addressed in the final 2024 Scenarios Report for the TYNDP and anticipates that ENTSOG and ENTSO-E will further tackle the remaining shortcomings in the 2026 scenarios. In line with the TEN-E Regulation, the European Commission will review the draft joint Scenarios Report for TYNDP and, taking into account ACER’s Opinion, it will either approve it or ask the ENTSOs for amendments. Read more.

In September, the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer recorded its lowest readings since March 2016. Declining income expectations pushed farmer sentiment down as the barometer fell 12 points to 88, and the Index of Future Expectations dropped 14 points to 94. The Index of Current Conditions also fell 7 points to 76, which nearly matched levels seen in April 2020, during the height of COVID-19 concerns for farmers. This month's survey was conducted from Sept. 9-13, 2024. September's survey revealed that farmers are increasingly worried about commodity prices, input costs, agricultural trade prospects and the potential impact of the upcoming election on their farm operations. When asked to identify their top concerns for the coming year, low commodity prices and high input costs were nearly tied, with 34% of farmers citing input prices and 33% pointing to lower output prices as their primary concerns. Interest rates trailed behind as a top concern for 17% of respondents. Producers' apprehensions about commodity prices matched up with their lack of confidence in the future of U.S. agricultural exports; only 26% of respondents expect exports to rise over the next five years, the most pessimistic response to this question since it was first introduced in 2019. Additionally, 78% of producers expressed concern that government policy changes following the fall 2024 elections could impact their farms. "The continued drop in the barometer reflects deepening concerns among farmers regarding expectations for farm income in 2024 and 2025," said  James Mintert, the barometer's principal investigator and director of Purdue University's Center for Commercial Agriculture. "It's notable that producer sentiment dropped back to levels last seen in 2016 when the U.S. farm economy was in the early stages of an economic downturn. In addition to commodity prices and input costs weighing heavily on their operations, producers are also facing considerable uncertainty about what lies ahead for their farms with the possible government policy changes following the upcoming 2024 elections." The Farm Financial Performance Index fell for the third consecutive month, dropping to 68 in September from 72 in August. Farmers' financial expectations have declined markedly compared to a year ago, as the index was at 86 in September 2023 — an 18-point difference. While the Farm Capital Investment Index increased by 4 points from August to a reading of 35, it sits just above its all-time low, indicating that many producers believe it is not an opportune time for making large investments. The Short-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index dropped by 10 points to 95. This is the first time since 2020 that the index fell below 100, indicating that more farmers are expecting a decline in farmland values over the next year than those who anticipate an increase. This month's shift from a positive to a weaker outlook is attributable to a significant decrease in the percentage of producers forecasting rising values and a rise in those who expect values to remain steady. The September survey marks the fourth consecutive year that the barometer has included questions regarding cover crop usage among corn and soybean producers. Consistent with prior years' surveys, more than half of the respondents indicated that they currently plant cover crops on part of their farms, while an additional 1 in 5 farmers reported planting cover crops sometime in the past. Interestingly, farmers who currently use cover crops say they are devoting a larger proportion of their farm's acreage to cover crops than in the past. In 2021, 41% of cover crop users noted planting them on more than 25% of their farm's acreage. This figure rose to 50% in 2023, and in this year's survey, 68% of cover crop users indicated planting cover crops on more than one-fourth of their farms.