TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) today announced the 2026 TSX Venture 50, an annual ranking of the top-performing companies over the course of 2025. The list showcases a historic year for junior mining and high-tech innovation, reflecting an increase in global investor demand and market confidence in the Canadian capital markets at a time when resource security, critical technologies, and domestic supply chains have become strategic priorities worldwide. TSX Venture 50 assesses TSXV issuers' year-long performance across three equally-weighted indicators—market capitalization growth, share price appreciation, and Canadian consolidated trading value. The companies on this year's ranking reached a combined market capitalization of more than $21.5 billion, representing a $17.9 billion increase during 2025—the largest since the program's inception in 2006. On average, these top performers grew their market value by 775% year-over-year and delivered a 431% share price increase for investors, outpacing the 333% average market cap growth and 207% average returns recorded on the 2025 list. "The 2026 TSX Venture 50 reflects a clear inflection point for early-stage finance, with a return of liquidity and capital that reinforces Canada's position as a world-leading centre for resource discovery, strategic innovation, and scale," said Andrew Creech, President, TSX Venture Exchange. "This year's ranking underscores the vital role TSXV plays in channeling capital to the mining sector and serving as the primary growth pipeline for the next generation of global mineral supply." Mining's Record Performance Reflects Supercycle Gains The 2026 ranking consists of 48 mining companies, accounting for a total market cap of $19.9 billion and a 443% average share price increase. The sector's exceptional performance reflects a new global financing cycle driven by geopolitical uncertainties and industrial policy shifts that have increased investor demand for metals and minerals. The majority of the ranked mining firms are focused on gold and silver, supported by record commodity prices, while the remaining mining companies are advancing critical minerals projects needed for complex technology and energy transition. Topping the list is British Columbia-based Santacruz Silver Mining Ltd. (TSXV:SCZ), which finished 2025 with a 1,137% market cap growth alongside a 1,103% appreciation in share price. Second-ranked Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (TSXV:UCU), a Nova Scotia-headquartered company focusing on supplying high-value light and heavy rare earths, achieved a 1,109% increase in market cap. The sector's dominance also reflects the essential role junior miners play as the primary pipeline for future producing assets, driving global exploration and discovery activity across key mining jurisdictions. Nearly 80% of the TSX Venture 50 mining companies operate in the tier-1 mining jurisdictions of the Americas, with 16 holding properties in Canada (concentrated in the Yukon and Ontario), 15 in the United States (primarily Nevada and Alaska), and 14 in Mexico. Technology Companies Highlight Innovation in Security and Defence While mining dominated returns, three Canadian technology companies on the 2026 ranking demonstrated how defence, security, and quantum innovation are also attracting growth capital. Ontario-based Volatus Aerospace Inc. (TSXV:FLT) led the way at 16th place with a market cap increase of 441% and a 279% share price appreciation as demand for integrated aerial solutions for commercial and defence applications accelerates. Quantum eMotion Corp. (TSXV:QNC), a cybersecurity solutions firm headquartered in Quebec, recorded the highest overall trading value on this year's list at over $1.9 billion and saw its market cap rise by 269%. Meanwhile, Gatekeeper Systems Inc. (TSXV:GSI), a BC-based provider of vehicle video safety solutions, saw its share price grow by 225%. Strong Financing and Trading Volumes Underpin Market Momentum This year's TSX Venture 50 cohort achieved the strongest liquidity metrics in the program's history, with 2025 trading volumes doubling year-over-year to exceed 13.2 billion shares traded. The robust trading activity supports company valuations on TSXV as global investors increasingly recognize Canada as the world's leading hub for junior mining and high-growth innovation financing. "Collectively, 43 of the TSX Venture 50 companies completed capital raises during 2025, totaling over $1.5 billion of equity capital raised," said Robert Peterman, Chief Commercial Officer, TSX & Global Capital Formation. "At the same time, we saw strong liquidity driven by global investor interest in the materials sector. This liquidity surge demonstrates that TSXV continues its position as the premier destination for early-stage public capital formation, particularly in the resource sector, cementing Canada's role as the foundation for global resource security and economic resilience." For detailed results and to ​​learn more about the ranking methodology, visit tsx.com/venture50. The 2026 TSX Venture 50 Ranking RankingCompany NameTicker 1 Santacruz Silver Mining Ltd. SCZ 2 Ucore Rare Metals Inc. UCU 3 Millennial Potash Corp. MLP 4 1911 Gold Corporation AUMB 5 TDG Gold Corp. TDG 6 OMAI Gold Mines Corp. OMG 7 Prospector Metals Corp. PPP 8 Silver X Mining Corp. AGX 9 NorthIsle Copper and Gold Inc. NCX 10 Goldgroup Mining Inc. GGA 10 Guanajuato Silver Company Ltd. GSVR 12 Silver Tiger Metals Inc. SLVR 13 Apollo Silver Corp. APGO 13 Integra Resources Corp. ITR 15 Silver Mountain Resources Inc. AGMR 16 Volatus Aerospace Inc. FLT 17 Banyan Gold Corp. BYN 18 Heliostar Metals Ltd. HSTR 18 Fuerte Metals Corporation FMT 20 Onyx Gold Corp. ONYX 21 Amarc Resources Ltd. AHR 22 Cerrado Gold Inc. CERT 23 White Gold Corp. WGO 24 Thesis Gold Inc. TAU 25 Blackrock Silver Corp. BRC 26 Golconda Gold Ltd. GG 26 GoldQuest Mining Corp. GQC 28 Capitan Silver Corp. CAPT 28 Southern Silver Exploration Corp. SSV 30 Argenta Silver Corp. AGAG 31 Sterling Metals Corp. SAG 32 Amex Exploration Inc. AMX 32 Galleon Gold Corp. GGO 34 Quantum eMotion Corp. QNC 35 Standard Lithium Ltd. SLI 35 West Point Gold Corp. WPG 37 Monument Mining Limited MMY 38 Luca Mining Corp. LUCA 38 Nevgold Corp. NAU 38 Thor Explorations Ltd. THX 41 Silver Viper Minerals Corp. VIPR 42 NeXGold Mining Corp. NEXG 43 Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. SM 44 Gatekeeper Systems Inc. GSI 45 K2 Gold Corporation KTO 46 Benz Mining Corp. BZ 46 Chesapeake Gold Corp. CKG 48 Trident Resources Corp. ROCK 49 Orosur Mining Inc. OMI 50 Vizsla Royalties Corp. VROY 50 Silver47 Exploration Corp. AGA   Source: TSX/TSXV Market Intelligence Group. / Note: The 2026 list contains 51 companies due to a tie for the 50th position.

We aim to be ready for a potential first issuance of the digital euro during 2029. This is based on a working assumption that the EU co-legislators will adopt the Regulation on the establishment of the digital euro in the course of 2026. Clicl here for full details.

  The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published the latest edition of its ESG risk dashboard, integrating data up to the second quarter of 2025. The dashboard reflects the latest changes in banks 'exposures to climate risks and aims to provide background information to support institutions and authorities in managing these risks. The new release confirms continued stability across major climate related risk indicators, broadly in line with the patterns observed in previous updates. Banks’ exposures to sectors that significantly contribute to climate change remained elevated at around 62%, reflecting the importance of climate-sensitive industries in their non-financial corporate portfolios, warranting continuous efforts to develop and maintain robust climate risk management tools and monitoring frameworks. Environmental data quality continued to improve. Exposures secured by immovable property showed strong energy-efficiency scores, while banks’ reliance on proxy indicators has declined by approximately 10 percentage points since December 2023, signalling better data coverage and more reliable sustainability assessments. Physical risk metrics remained heterogeneous across jurisdictions, likely due to methodological differences among institutions. This variability highlights the inherent  complexity of measuring physical risk across diverse European geographies and datasets. Background With this edition, the ESG Risk Dashboard becomes part of the Data Access Portal (EDAP), the EBA’s central hub for supervisory data in the EU/EEA. Publishing the Dashboard within EDAP represents a major step forward in transparency and accessibility, enabling users to access all supervisory data tools in a single, integrated environment. The ESG dashboard presents data from a representative sample of nearly 120 large EU/EEA banks, aggregating exposures and risk indicators at both country and anonymised bank level. The sample includes banks reporting under Pillar 3 ESG disclosure requirements, ensuring comparability across institutions. Following the issuance of the EBA no-action letter on 5 August 2025 (LINK) , the charts under the “Taxonomy Alignment” and “Beyond the GAR/BTAR” tabs have not been updated beyond Q4 2024 data. Related content Page ESG dashboard Link ESG Risk Dashboard data visualisation  

In 2025, Euronext delivered another year of double-digit growth, driven by the expansion of non-volume-related businesses, resilient trading, clearing revenues and cost discipline. Euronext will accelerate the execution of its strategic plan in 2026. Amsterdam, Athens, Brussels, Dublin, Lisbon, Milan, Oslo and Paris – 18 February 2026 – Euronext, the leading European capital market infrastructure, today publishes its results for the fourth quarter and full year 2025. Full year 2025 underlying revenue and income1 was up +12.1%2 to €1,823.2 million: Non-volume-related revenue and income represented 59% of total revenue and income and covered 157% of underlying operating expenses, excluding D&A3: Securities Services revenue grew to €330.7 million (+6.9%), driven by double-digit revenue growth in custody and settlement, supported by sustainable growth in assets under custody, dynamic settlement activity and strong growth of value-added services; Capital Markets and Data Solutions underlying revenue grew to €669.3 million (+12.1%), driven by the contribution from Admincontrol and continued growth in Advanced Data Solutions; Net Treasury Income grew to €69.6 million (+22.6%), demonstrating the benefits of the Euronext Clearing expansion. Volume-related revenue was driven by a resilient performance across asset classes: FICC4 Markets revenue grew to €342.8 million (+16.2%), driven by continued strong growth in fixed income and commodities trading and clearing; Equity Markets revenue grew to €410.0 million (+11.7%), driven by robust volumes and revenue capture in cash equity trading and clearing. Underlying operating expenses excluding D&A were at €680.1 million (+9.6%). This reflects underlying expenses in line with the revised guidance of €660 million (compared to €670 million announced initially) and the impact of Admincontrol and Athex Group (€19.8 million), acquired in May 2025 and November 2025. Adjusted EBITDA was €1,143.1 million (+13.6%) and adjusted EBITDA margin was 62.7% (+0.8pts). Adjusted net income was €736.5 million (+7.9%) and adjusted EPS was €7.27 (+10.3%). Reported net income was €642.9 million (+9.8%) and reported EPS was €6.34 (+12.2%). Net debt to EBITDA5 was at 1.5x at the end of December 2025, within Euronext’s target range. Key figures for full year 2025: In €m, unless stated otherwise FY 2025 FY 2024 % var % var Like for like at constant currencies Underlying revenue and income 1,823.2 1,626.9 +12.1% +9.5% Underlying operating expenses exc. D&A (680.1) (620.5) +9.6% +5.3% Adjusted EBITDA 1,143.1 1,006.4 +13.6% +12.1% Adjusted EBITDA margin 62.7% 61.9% +0.8pts +1.5pts Adjusted net income6 736.5 682.5 +7.9%   Net income6 642.9 585.6 +9.8%   Adjusted EPS (basic, in €)7 7.27 6.59 +10.3%   Reported EPS (basic, in €)7 6.34 5.65 +12.2%       Dividend proposal at the 2026 Annual General Meeting A dividend of €321.5 million will be proposed at the Annual General Meeting on 20 May 2026. This represents 50% of 2025 reported net income, in line with Euronext’s dividend policy. This dividend represents an increase of +9.8% compared to 20248. Euronext continues its cost discipline and invests in strategic growth 2025 was a year of investments with new hirings to support the delivery of the strategic growth initiatives. In 2025, Euronext reported underlying expenses (excl. D&A) in line with the revised guidance of €660 million. This compares to an initial guidance of €670 million, which did not take into account the impact of any acquisitions executed over the course of 2025. Including the acquisitions of Admincontrol and Athex Group, Euronext recorded €680.1 million of underlying expenses excluding D&A. Euronext expects its underlying expenses (excl. D&A) for 2026 to be stable compared to the normalised annualised Q4 2025 expenses, at around €720 million. In addition, Euronext expects around €35 million of operating expenses from Athex Group and plans to invest around €15 million of underlying expenses to deliver strategic growth projects. As a result, Euronext expects its total underlying expenses (excl. D&A) for 2026 to be around €770 million. Stéphane Boujnah, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Managing Board of Euronext, said: "2025 was an excellent start to our ‘Innovate for Growth 2027’ strategic plan, with double-digit growth in revenue, EBITDA and EPS. Performance was driven by balanced contributions from volume and non-volume related activities, supported by disciplined capital allocation. At the same time, we continued to invest for the future. In 2025, Euronext delivered the first meaningful milestones of its strategic plan. We scaled up our SaaS offering and increased our footprint in the Nordics with the acquisition of Admincontrol. We successfully built the first integrated ETF market in Europe. This industry-led initiative received strong support from issuers, representing more than 90% of the European ETF Assets under Management, as well as major European brokers. We delivered value-creative M&A through the acquisition of Athex Group entirely in shares, in line with Euronext’s disciplined investment criteria and our vision of building more integrated European capital markets. In 2026, we will intensify the execution of our strategic initiatives. In March 2026, we will diversify our commodities franchise with the addition of power futures. We will complete our Repo offering to create a truly European Repo market by June 2026. In September 2026, Euronext Securities will start to settle cash equities traded in Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris, an important step in becoming the CSD of choice in Europe. We enter 2026 with confidence and determination. Confidence because we know that we have the right value proposition and talents to further expand our integrated value chain across Europe, and determination because our vision of a united, competitive European capital market has become more relevant than ever. We welcome the ambitious proposals of the European Commission to accelerate the delivery of the Savings and Investments Union. The proposals align with our ambition to serve as the backbone of deep and integrated European markets and to contribute actively to such a development.”2025 financial performance In €m, unless stated otherwise   FY 2025 FY 2024 % var % var (like-for-like, constant currencies) Underlying revenue and income 1,823.2 1,626.9 +12.1% +9.5% Reported revenue and income         1,818.8 1,626.9 +11.8% +9.5% Securities Services 330.7 309.5 +6.9% +4.6% Custody & Settlement 300.7 270.9 +11.0% +8.3% Other Post Trade 30.1 38.6 -22.0% -22.0% Capital Markets and Data Solutions (underlying)                      669.3 597.1 +12.1% +6.9% Primary Markets 187.2 181.2 +3.3% +2.9% Advanced Data Solutions 263.5 245.0 +7.5% +7.4% Corporate and Investor Solutions and Technology Services (underlying) 218.7 170.8 +28.0% +10.4% FICC markets 342.8 295.0 +16.2% +16.7% Fixed income trading & clearing 196.6 160.8 +22.3% +22.3% Commodities trading & clearing 112.8 102.7 +9.9% +9.8% FX trading 33.4 31.5 +6.0% +10.3% Equity markets 410.0 367.0 +11.7% +10.6% Cash trading & clearing 359.3 308.4 +16.5% +15.3% Equity derivatives trading & clearing 50.7  58.5 -13.4% -14.1% Net treasury income      69.6 56.8 +22.6% +22.6% Other income 0.7 1.6 -54.5% -56.6% Underlying operational expenses excl. D&A (680.1) (620.5) +9.6% +5.3% Adjusted EBITDA 1,143.1 1,006.4 +13.6% +12.1% Adjusted EBITDA margin 62.7% 61.9% +0.8pts +1.5pts Operating expenses excl. D&A (694.6) (651.3) +6.6% +5.6% EBITDA 1,124.2 975.6 +15.2% +11.9% Depreciation & Amortisation (199.9) (188.7) +5.9% +4.4% Total Expenses (incl. D&A) (894.5) (840.1) +6.5% +5.2% Adjusted operating profit 1,054.0 922.9 +14.2% +12.6% Operating Profit 924.2 786.8 +17.5%   Net financing income / (expense) (18.3) 17.5 N/A   Results from equity investments 35.4 34.7 +2.1%   Profit before income tax 941.3 839.1 +12.2%   Income tax expense (251.2) (218.4) +15.0%   Share of non-controlling interests  (47.2) (35.1) +34.3%   Net income, share of the parent company shareholders  642.9 585.6 +9.8%   Adjusted Net income, share of the parent company shareholders79  736.5 682.5 +7.9%   Adjusted EPS (basic, in €) 7.27 6.59 +10.3%   Reported EPS (basic, in €) 6.34 5.65 +12.2%   Adjusted EPS (diluted, in €) 7.20 6.56 +9.8%   Reported EPS (diluted, in €) 6.29 5.63 +11.7%   2025 revenue and income In 2025, Euronext’s underlying revenue and income was €1,823.2 million, up +12.1% compared to 2024. This resulted from solid organic growth in non-volume related businesses, a dynamic trading environment across asset classes, and the positive contribution of acquisitions. Following the final PPA assessment of Admincontrol, contract liabilities have been adjusted to fair value at the initial recognition. This fair value adjustment was recognised as non-underlying item, reducing reported revenue by €4.4 million, with no impact on cash and cash equivalents. On a like-for-like basis and at constant currencies, Euronext consolidated revenue and income was up +9.5% in 2025, at €1,776.6 million, compared to 2024. Non-volume related revenue accounted for 59% of underlying Group revenue in 2025, stable compared to 2024. This stable split reflects the strong growth in non-volume related revenue and income, underpinned by a dynamic trading environment. Non-volume-related revenue covered 157% of underlying operating expenses excluding D&A, compared to 156% in 2024. 2025 adjusted EBITDA Underlying operational expenses excluding depreciation and amortisation were at €680.1 million, up +9.6%. On a constant perimeter, underlying expenses were in line with the revised guidance of €660 million, and lower than the initial guidance of €670 million. In addition, Euronext recorded €20 million of underlying expenses excluding D&A from acquisitions performed over 2025. On a like-for-like basis at constant currencies, underlying operational expenses excluding depreciation and amortisation increased by +5.3% compared to 2024, which highlights the growth investments performed over 2025. Consequently, adjusted EBITDA for the year totalled €1,143.1 million, up +13.6% compared to 2024. This represents an adjusted EBITDA margin of 62.7%, up +0.8 points compared to 2024. On a like-for-like basis, adjusted EBITDA for 2025 was up +12.1%, to €1,127.4 million, and adjusted EBITDA margin was 63.5%, up +1.5 points compared to 2024. 2025 net income, share of the parent company shareholders Depreciation and amortisation accounted for €199.9 million in 2025, up +5.9%, resulting from acquisitions. PPA related to acquired businesses accounted for €86.9 million and is included in depreciation and amortisation. 2025 adjusted operating profit was €1,054.0 million, up +14.2% compared to 2024 adjusted operating profit. €125.4 million of non-underlying expenses, including depreciation and amortisation, were reported in 2025, related to acquisitions, integration costs and the PPA of acquired businesses. Net financing expense for 2025 amounted to €18.3 million, compared to a net financing income of €17.5 million in 2024. This decrease resulted from lower net interest income due to decreasing interest rates and new bond issuances with higher financing costs, as well as the non-cash interest expense related to the convertible bonds issued in May 2025. Results from equity investments amounted to €35.4 million in 2025, including €24.5 million of dividend received from Euroclear and €10.5 million of dividend from Sicovam. In 2024, Euronext reported €34.7 million of results from equity investments. Income tax for 2025 was €251.2 million. This translated into an effective tax rate of 26.7% for 2025. Share of non-controlling interests mainly relating to MTS and Nord Pool amounted to €47.2 million in 2025. As a result, the reported net income, share of the parent company shareholders, increased by +9.8% for 2025 compared to 2024, to €642.9 million. This represents a reported EPS of €6.34 basic and €6.29 diluted in 2025 (considering the convertible bonds under IAS 33), compared to €5.65 basic and €5.63 diluted in 2024. This increase reflects the strong results and a lower number of shares over 2025 compared to 2024 due to the share repurchase programmes performed. Adjusted net income, share of the parent company shareholders was up +7.9%to €736.5 million. Adjusted EPS (basic) was up +10.3%in 2025, at €7.27 per share, compared to an adjusted EPS (basic) of €6.59 per share in 2024. The weighted number of shares used over 2025 was 101,352,825 for the basic calculation and 103,070,023 for the diluted calculation, compared to 103,578,980 and 103,983,870 respectively over 2024. In 2025, Euronext reported a net cash flow from operating activities of €812.1 million, compared to €708.6 million in 2024. The difference results from higher profit before tax, higher income tax, and lower negative impact from changes in working capital. Excluding the impact on working capital from Euronext Clearing and Nord Pool CCP activities, net cash flow from operating activities accounted for 75.2% of EBITDA in 2025. Q4 2025 business highlights In €m Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Underlying revenue and income 460.8 415.8 +10.8% +6.4% Securities Services 83.9 77.6 +8.1% +6.2% Capital Markets and Data Solutions (underlying)                           178.2                153.9 +15.8% +7.0% FICC Markets 82.6 75.7 +9.0% +10.1% Equity Markets 101.6 90.1 +12.8% +8.1% Net Treasury Income 14.4 17.9 -19.4% -19.4% Other income 0.1 0.5 -73.1% -80.7%   Non-volume-related revenue Securities Services In €m Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Revenue 83.9 77.6 +8.1% +6.2% Custody & Settlement 76.7 70.0 +9.6% +7.6% Other Post Trade 7.2 7.7 -6.3% -6.4% Revenue from Custody and Settlement in Q4 2025 was at €76.7 million, +9.6% compared to Q4 2024. This strong performance reflects Euronext’s continued growth in assets under custody, resilient settlement activity and double-digit growth of value-added services, as well as the contribution from Athex CSD from 24 November 2025. Assets under custody in Euronext Securities reached €7.6 trillion at the end of the quarter, up +7.7% compared to the end of Q4 2024. Close to 37 million instructions were settled via Euronext Securities during the fourth quarter of 2025, up +9.6% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Other Post Trade revenue, which includes membership fees and other non-volume-related clearing fees, was €7.2 million in Q4 2025. The -6.3% decrease compared to Q4 2024 is mainly explained by the migration of Italian markets to a harmonised clearing framework, offering clients an optimised, efficient and resilient clearing system. Capital Markets and Data Solutions In €m Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Revenue (underlying)                         178.2 153.9 +15.8% +7.0% Primary Markets 48.1 45.3 +6.2% +3.9% Advanced Data Solutions 67.0 62.0 +8.1% +7.6% Corporate and Investor Solutions and Technology Services (underlying)                           63.0 46.6 +35.2% +9.3% Primary Markets revenue was €48.1 million in Q4 2025, an increase of +6.2% compared to Q4 2024. This strong performance was supported by dynamic listing activity, Euronext’s growing ETF franchise and the contribution of Athex Group. Euronext sustained its leading position for equity listings with 16 new listings. Advanced Data Solutions revenue was €67.0 million in Q4 2025, up +8.1% compared to Q4 2024. This strong performance reflects growing client demand for diversified datasets (including for FICC and post-trade data) and increased interest from retail clients, as well as a catch-up in audit and compliance fees. Corporate and Investor Solutions and Technology Services underlying revenue grew by +35.2% in Q4 2025 to €63.0 million. This strong performance demonstrates the benefits from the integration of Admincontrol, continued expansion of Euronext’s colocation services and the contribution of Athex Group. Net Treasury Income Net Treasury Income was at €14.4 million, -19.4% compared to Q4 2024. This reflects lower average collateral posted to the CCP, interest adjustments and the migration of Italian markets to a harmonised clearing framework, offering clients an optimised, efficient and resilient clearing system.   Volume-related revenue FICC Markets In €m Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Revenue 82.6 75.7 +9.0% +10.1% Fixed income trading & clearing 46.3 41.7 +11.0% +11.0% Commodities trading & clearing 28.8 25.5 +12.8% +13.0% FX trading 7.4 8.5 -12.7% -4.7% Fixed income trading and clearing revenue reached €46.3 million in Q4 2025, up +11.0% compared to Q4 2024, driven by double-digit growth in MTS Cash volumes, supported by the expansion in the Dealer-to-Client segment and international growth. Commodities10 trading and clearing revenue reached €28.8 million in Q4 2025, up +12.8% compared to Q4 2024. The strong growth mostly reflects a very strong performance of power trading, supported by continued double-digit growth in intraday trading volumes. FX trading revenue was down -12.7%, at €7.4 million in Q4 2025, reflecting lower volatility and the negative currency impact of the USD. Equity Markets In €m Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Revenue 101.6 90.1 +12.8% +8.1% Cash equity trading & clearing 89.4 77.2 +15.7% +10.8% Financial derivatives trading & clearing 12.3 12.9 -5.0% -7.9% Cash equity trading and clearing revenue11 was €89.4 million in Q4 2025, up +15.7% compared to Q4 2024 driven by resilient activity and revenue capture. Euronext recorded average daily cash trading volumes of €12.0 billion, up +14.0% compared to Q4 2024. Euronext reached average revenue capture on cash trading at 0.52 bps for the fourth quarter of 2025. Euronext market share on cash equity averaged 64.2% in Q4 2025. The performance was also supported by a €3.7 million contribution from Athex Group. Financial derivatives trading and clearing revenue was €12.3 million in Q4 2025, -5.0% compared to Q4 2024. This mostly reflects lower volatility.     Q4 2025 financial performance In €m, unless stated otherwise Q4 2025 Q4 2024 % var % var l-f-l Underlying revenue and income 460.8 415.8 +10.8% +6.4% Reported revenue and income 456.4 415.8 +9.8% +6.4% Underlying operating expenses excl. D&A                       (185.8) (163.2) +13.8% +7.8% Adjusted EBITDA 275.0 252.6 +8.9% +5.5% Adjusted EBITDA margin 59.7% 60.7% -1.0pts -0.5pts Operating expenses excl. D&A (195.5) (174.4) +12.1% +9.3% EBITDA 260.8 241.4 +8.1% +5.5% Depreciation & amortisation (54.2) (49.6) +9.3% +8.6% Total expenses (249.8) (224.0) +11.5% +6.8% Adjusted operating profit 253.2 231.1 +9.5% +6.1% Operating profit 206.6 191.8 +7.7%   Net financing income / (expense) (4.3) 6.5 N/A   Results from equity investments 10.9 10.1 +8.4%   Profit before income tax 213.3 208.4 +2.3%   Income tax expense (56.8) (55.5) +2.4%   Minority interests (11.7) (8.2) +42.6%   Net income share of the parent company shareholders                        144.7 144.6 +0.0%   Adjusted net income 179.6 172.3 +4.2%   Adjusted EPS (basic, in €) 1.77 1.66 +6.6%   Reported EPS (basic, in €) 1.42 1.40 +1.4%   Adjusted EPS (diluted, in €) 1.75 1.66 +5.4%   Reported EPS (diluted, in €) 1.41 1.39 +1.4%     Q4 2025 adjusted EBITDA Underlying operating expenses excluding D&A12 were at €185.8 million (+13.8%). The increase compared to Q4 2024 reflects investments in growth and the impact of acquisitions performed in 2025. As a result of the double digit growth in revenue, adjusted EBITDA for the quarter reached €275.0 million, up +8.9% compared to Q4 2025. This represents an adjusted EBITDA margin of 59.7%, -1.0 pts vs. Q4 2024 mostly due to recruitments for the delivery of strategic growth projects and the impact of acquisitions. On a like-for-like basis at constant currencies, adjusted EBITDA grew by +5.5% compared to Q4 2024. Following the final PPA assessment of Admincontrol, contract liabilities have been adjusted to fair value at the initial recognition. This fair value adjustment was recognised as non-underlying item, reducing reported revenue by €4.4 million (compared to €0.0 million in Q4 2024), with no impact on cash and cash equivalents. Q4 2025 non-underlying operating expenses excluding D&A amounted to €9.8 million, mostly related to the Athex Group transaction and the integration of recent acquisitions. As a consequence, reported EBITDA was at €260.8 million, up +8.1% compared to Q4 2024.   Q4 2025 net income, share of the parent company shareholders Depreciation and amortisation accounted for €54.2 million in Q4 2025, +9.3% more than Q4 2024. The increase mainly relates to acquisitions. PPA related to acquired businesses accounted for €27.7 million. The ramp up reflects the integration of the PPA for Admincontrol from this quarter. Adjusted operating profit was €253.2 million, up +9.5% compared to Q4 2024. Euronext reported a net financing expense of €4.3 million in Q4 2025, compared to €6.5 million net financing income in Q4 2024. The variation reflects decreasing interest rates and the recognition of non-cash interest expense related to the convertible bonds, partly offset by the benefit of the tender offer and early redemption of a portion of the EUR 2026 bonds. Euronext received €10.9 million of results from equity investments in Q4 2025, mostly reflecting the dividend received from Sicovam. Income tax for Q4 2025 was €56.8 million. This translated into an effective tax rate of 26.7% for the quarter, compared to 26.6% in Q4 2024. Share of non-controlling interests amounted to €11.7 million, mostly correlated with the resilient performance of MTS and Nord Pool. As a result, the reported net income (share of the parent company shareholders) was stable compared to Q4 2024, at €144.7 million. This represents a reported EPS of €1.42 basic and €1.41 diluted. Adjusted net income, share of the parent company shareholders, was up +4.2% to €179.6 million. Adjusted EPS (basic) was €1.77 and adjusted EPS (diluted) was €1.75. The weighted number of shares used over the fourth quarter of 2025 was 101,352,825 for the basic calculation and 103,070,023 (including convertible bonds) for the diluted calculation, compared to 103,578,980 and 103,983,870 respectively over the fourth quarter of 2024. The difference in share count is due to the issuance of shares for the acquisition of Athex Group, the share repurchase programmes executed by Euronext and the consideration of the convertible bonds under IAS 33. In Q4 2025, Euronext reported a net cash flow from operating activities of €85.5 million, compared to €175.0 million in Q4 2024, mainly reflecting the negative impact of working capital from Euronext Clearing and Nord Pool CCP activities in Q4 2025. Excluding the impact of working capital from Euronext Clearing and Nord Pool CCP activities, net cash flow from operating activities accounted for 60.3% of EBITDA in Q4 2025. Q4 2025 corporate highlights since publication of the third quarter 2025 results on 6 November 2025 Euronext successfully secured refinancing until 2028 On 18 November 2025, Euronext completed a successful €600 million13, 3-year senior unsecured fixed-rate bond issuance, offering a 2.625% annual coupon and rated “A-” by S&P. The bonds were issued in Euronext Securities Copenhagen and listed on Euronext Dublin, further demonstrating the strength of Euronext’s integrated European model and the market’s confidence in its credit profile. On 25 November 2025, Euronext announced the successful completion of a tender offer on its outstanding €600 million bonds maturing on 17 May 202614, with €214.5 million in principal amount validly tendered and accepted for purchase.€385.5 million of the bonds remained outstanding. Euronext announced the success of the voluntary share exchange tender offer to acquire Athex Group On 19 November 2025, Euronext announced the successful completion of its voluntary share exchange tender offer for Athex Group15, securing approximately 74.25% of Athex Group’s voting rights. Consequently, Euronext consolidated Athex Group financials from 24 November 2025. In 2025, Athex Group reported €72.1 million of adjusted revenues, +38% compared to 2024. Athex Group’s adjusted net profit grew by +72%, to €29.8 million16. Euronext has successfully started the integration process and has appointed a new Board of Directors for Athex Group at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 20 January 202617. The integration is expected to deliver €12 million in annual run-rate cash synergies by the end of 2028, with implementation costs to deliver those synergies of €25 million, and is anticipated to be accretive for Euronext shareholders within the first year after synergies are realised. Euronext reserves the right to use any legally permitted method to acquire the remaining Athex Group shares. With less than 90% of Athex Group’s voting rights tendered, Euronext considers all options to achieve this goal and optimise the structure of Athex Group within the Euronext Group. These options include, but are not limited to, the post-offer measures set out in the Information Circular. As of 31 December 2025, Euronext ownership stood at 75.62% of Athex Group’s voting rights.   Euronext accelerated European CSD expansion, driving choice, efficiency and innovation in European capital markets On 18 December 2025, Euronext announced further progress in its initiative to create a European CSD model18, developed in collaboration with leading financial institutions. This project aims to reduce costs, improve cross-border access and enhance liquidity across European markets, directly supporting the EU’s Savings and Investment Union. As part of its “Innovate for Growth 2027” strategy, Euronext Securities announced it is working with key issuing agents to build a European-wide issuance model, offering issuers greater choice, improved liquidity and broader investor access, while strengthening innovation and resilience in post-trade operations across Europe.   Euronext expanded its retail offering to meet growing demand across Europe Euronext is the largest aggregator of retail flows in Europe, with over €1 billion daily volumes on its platform in 2025. Part of these flows are executed on Euronext Best of Book (BoB), Euronext’s best execution service for retail investors, offering price improvement opportunities for retail brokers. Euronext BoB was expanded to Milan in November 2025, and strong volumes have been observed since then in Italy. As of the end of January 2026, volumes on BoB in Italy are now reaching above €100 million in daily volume. Furthermore, in 2025, Euronext expanded its Global Equity Market, a trading facility for pan-European and US stocks. Over 1,000 securities, including around 600 US single stocks, are available on Euronext Global Equity Market. In 2025, Euronext Global Equity Market average daily volumes grew by more than 30% year-over-year. Corporate highlights since 1 January 2026 Euronext confirmed readiness for power futures migration in March 2026 Euronext confirmed that the seamless technical launch of the power derivatives market took place on 2 February 2026. The technical launch allowed members to secure operational readiness to run at full speed from the date of migration. The migration of Nasdaq open interest to Euronext is planned on 14 March 2026. Euronext announced the completion of the 250 million share repurchase programme On 29 January 2026, Euronext announced that it has completed the share repurchase programme announced on 6 November 2025. Between 18 November 2025 and 27 January 2026, 1,967,993 shares, or approximately 1.90% of Euronext’s share capital, were repurchased at an average price of €127.03 per share. The General Meeting will be requested during the 2026 Annual General Meeting on 20 May 2026 to authorise the Managing Board of the Company to confirm the cancellation by way of withdrawal of the shares that were purchased under the share repurchase programme. If approved, the resolution to this effect of the Managing Board will be announced in the national newspaper and deposited at the trade register for an opposition period of two months following the announcement.   Euronext volumes for January 2026 The following volume statistics exclude Athex Group. In January 2026, Euronext Securities reported 14,273,735 settlement instructions, up +9.4% compared to the same period last year. The total Assets Under Custody reached a new record level of €7.9 trillion in January 2026, up +11.2% compared to the same period last year. MTS Cash average daily volumes were up +6.6% to €54.2 billion in January 2026. MTS Repo term adjusted average daily volume stood at €556.3 billion, up +19.0% compared to the same period last year. €2,995 billion of wholesale bonds were cleared in January 2026 (double counted), up +7.6% compared to the same period in 2025. 1,046,052 bond retail contracts were cleared in January 2026 (double counted), down -28.6% compared to January 2025. The average daily volume on Euronext FX’s spot foreign exchange market stood at $34.9 billion, up +25.9% compared to the same period last year. The average daily volume on Euronext commodity derivatives stood at 107,081 lots, down -5.3% compared to January 2025. Average daily day-ahead power traded was 3.69TWh, up +6.3% compared to the same period last year, and average daily intraday power traded was 0.56TWh, up +35.9% compared to January 2025. The average daily transaction value on the Euronext cash order book stood at €14.0 billion, up +21.5% compared to the same period last year. Euronext Clearing cleared 22,302,205 shares in January 2026, down -5.0% compared to January 2025. The average daily volume on Euronext equity derivatives stood at 479,726 lots, down -2.7% compared to January 2025. Results Webcast A webcast will be held on Thursday, 19 February 2026, at 09:00 CET (Paris time) / 08:O0 GMT (London time): For the live webcast, visit https://euronext.engagestream.companywebcast.com/2026-02-19-q4-fy2025-results The webcast will be available for replay after the call at the webcast link and on the Euronext Investor Relations webpage.

From February 19 to 20, 2026, we will be updating the FX (UATCUR_GATEWAY) market T0 dedicated test environment. Test trading system could be temporarily unavailable during that period. All trades concluded on that day in the test trading system will be reset. Please note that we do not guarantee the regular delivery of the end-of-day trading and clearing reports during the first days after the scheduled server maintenance. Additionally, please be aware that due to the maintenance, the following services will be unavailable in the test environment: Creation of new IDs, opening of new accounts and client codes, depositing funds and taking positions. Read more on the Moscow Exchange: https://www.moex.com/n97732

LSEG today announced a multi-year collaboration with Standard Chartered that will enable the Bank to adopt LSEG’s multi-asset class data, news and analytics at enterprise scale, with consistent rights management and delivery. The multi-year agreement supports Standard Chartered’s operating model by consolidating market-data access, improving catalogue and lineage, and streamlining governance and entitlements. Gianluca Biagini, Group Co-Head, Data & Analytics, LSEG, said:“We’re pleased to deepen our relationship with Standard Chartered. With broad coverage, transparent usage rights and flexible delivery via feeds, APIs and cloud channels, we’ll support the Bank’s efficiency today - and its future innovation.” Mark Price, Chief Operating Officer, Corporate & Investment Banking at Standard Chartered, commented:“This agreement gives our teams a single, governed pathway to high-quality multi-asset class content. Consolidating access and entitlements will help us simplify our data landscape, enhance controls and deliver new client value, faster.” By bringing together two trusted franchises with global reach, the collaboration strengthens control and auditability, supports regulatory requirements, and enables front-to-back workflows across markets, risk, finance and wealth. This helps the Bank deliver consistent, data-driven client experiences with greater speed.

The Disciplinary Committee of Nasdaq Stockholm (the “Exchange”) has found that Neovici Holding AB (publ) (the “Company”) has breached the rules of Nasdaq First North Growth Market (the “Rulebook”) and therefore ordered the Company to pay a fine of five annual fees, corresponding to an amount of SEK 667,525. The Disciplinary Committee concludes that the Company has violated Article 17.1 of the EU Market Abuse Regulation and Section 4.1.1 of the Rulebook by issuing a press release on 9 May 2025 regarding a financing and cooperation agreement that was not drafted in a manner that enabled a complete and accurate assessment of the significance of the information. The Disciplinary Committee further concludes that the Company breached Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.5 of the Rulebook by publishing its 2024 annual report too late and by failing to update its financial calendar correctly. The Disciplinary Committee considers the violations to be serious, and therefore a fine shall be imposed as a sanction. The Disciplinary Committee sets the fine at five annual fees. The Disciplinary Committee’s decision is available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-regulation/nordic/stockholm/disciplinary/decisions-sanctions

ASIC has commenced a new review of advice licensees using lead generation services as part of its ongoing program of work to address practices that inappropriately or unnecessarily encourage consumers to switch their superannuation. Lead generation is a marketing activity designed to create consumer interest in a product or service, with the goal of persuading consumers to purchase the product or service. These services use a range of marketing techniques to introduce consumers to financial services businesses – including some businesses that encourage consumers to switch their super. ASIC is concerned that certain practices associated with some lead generation services in financial advice and superannuation may expose consumers to a risk of significant losses. To help mitigate risks to consumers, ASIC has commenced a review to identify financial advice businesses that use lead generation services, to understand the nature of these arrangements and where appropriate, take disruptive or enforcement action. As part of the review, ASIC is publishing a list of known entities involved in lead generation, those acting as referral partners, and advice licensees or corporate authorised representatives that have acquired leads, since 1 July 2024. To improve transparency for consumers, ASIC will continue to update this list of businesses, websites, authorised representatives, financial advisers and financial services licensees involved in lead generation, acting as referral partners or engaging the services of lead generators throughout the course of this review. The naming of the entities in this list should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred, nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person or entity. However, consumers should exercise additional caution when engaging with any business that uses lead generation and exhibits the features listed below, including by hanging up on unsolicited calls when feeling pressured into making a decision. Financial advisers and advice licensees should carefully consider whether they are able to comply with their legal obligations if engaging with lead generation businesses or undertaking lead generation activities that include these features. Superannuation trustees should review this list of features and compare it with their own internal data for indications of high-risk superannuation switching conduct. ASIC warns that lead generators that mislead consumers, utilise high pressure tactics or provide financial services without a licence will risk contravening the law. Licensed persons or entities that engage the services of lead generators acting in this way, share this risk. ASIC is putting participants on notice and will consider taking enforcement action where we detect evidence of contraventions of the law. Message for consumers Before making important decisions, ASIC encourages consumers to be cautious if someone calls about your super. Consumers may receive a call after clicking on an advertisement on social media, filling out a form on a super comparison website, or without solicitation. Lead generators may offer a free ‘super health check’ or to find your lost super. These can be sales tactics designed to pressure consumers into switching superannuation – even when a super fund is performing well. If you are feeling pressured or unsure, you should just hang up. Consumers should be wary of the following features: Being pressured to act immediately Claims that your existing fund is underperforming The touting of free superannuation ‘health checks’ and prizes (often via social media advertisements or websites) Offers to find and consolidate ‘lost super’ for free The involvement of unlicensed people in the advice process Predominant engagement over the phone with limited client contact with a financial adviser Poor or no product disclosure Promises of high or unrealistic returns Consumers can visit Moneysmart’s dedicated webpage for more information on how to protect their super from high-risk sales tactics. Consumers wishing to compare the performance of MySuper products or to find their lost superannuation accounts can do so on the ATO’s website. Known entities involved in lead generation, referral partners and advice licensees and/or corporate authorised representatives that have acquired leads The naming of the entities in Table 1 and 2 should not be construed as an indication by ASIC that a contravention of the law has occurred, nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person or entity. Tables 1 and 2 are not exhaustive and are based on the information available to ASIC as part of our review, at the time of publication (18 February 2026). The name or contact details may have changed since an entry was added. While this information relates to the period from 1 July 2024, some entities included in Table 1 and 2 may have ceased involvement in lead generation activities by or after the time of publication. Visit Moneysmart for updated list of known entities View Table 1 and 2 More information Exposing high-pressure cold calling tactics and social media click-bait leading to superannuation switching Protect your super from pushy sales calls Choosing a financial adviser Check an advisers credentials - Financial Adviser Register

KEY POINTS SET joins forces with Krungsri to advance the development of a sustainable finance ecosystem, leveraging SETCarbon as a central solution to elevate climate data for the business sector, and empower Thai entrepreneurs, particularly SMEs, to access sustainable finance. This collaboration enables Krungsri's corporate customers to use the SETCarbon system for standardized greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data management, providing critical data for sustainable finance decisions, climate risk assessment, and the development of financial tools to support emissions reduction. The Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), in collaboration with Bank of Ayudhya pcl (Krungsri), strengthens support for Thai SMEs to establish a foundation for sustainable growth through systematic development of a sustainable finance ecosystem. Starting upstream with education and understanding of the ESG framework, the partnership supports the use of the SETCarbon platform as a tool for managing and reporting corporate GHG emissions, while promoting the development of transition plans for concrete emissions reduction—a critical factor in enhancing capabilities and increasing access to sustainable finance in the future. SET Chief Strategy & Finance Officer Soraphol Tulayasathien stated that carbon data has become a foundational infrastructure in driving the transition to a low-carbon economy, as global trade regulations and environmental measures are increasingly embedded into market access conditions and supply chain requirements. At the same time, financial institutions and investors are placing greater emphasis on climate risk management in their capital allocation decisions. Therefore, developing quality data infrastructure that connects to the financial sector is a vital mechanism to strengthen the long-term readiness of Thai businesses. “This collaboration with Krungsri will support Thai entrepreneurs, particularly SMEs, which are a crucial part of supply chains, in preparing for increasingly stringent climate regulations and disclosure standards through access to systematic carbon data management tools,” he said. "The SETCarbon platform not only supports data reporting but also enables the data to be utilized for accessing funding sources and financial support for actual business transition. SET continues to advance technology development to make the system user-friendly and easily accessible. Currently, over 380 organizational accounts are using the platform, with user numbers increasing by more than 30 percent over the past six months, reflecting accelerating market adoption and rising demand for standardized carbon data management tools. Around 85 percent of users are listed companies, while the remaining 15 percent are non-listed organizations. Through this collaboration, SET and Krungsri have implemented the SETCarbon system with the bank's customers, bringing SET's total financial institution partners to three, with prospects for continued expansion of partnerships in the future," Soraphol added. Krungsri Head of SME Banking Group Duangkamol Limpuangthip said that "Krungsri is committed to supporting SME entrepreneurs in making tangible transitions to low-carbon business operations. Recognizing that many entrepreneurs need knowledge and clear practical guidance, we have continuously operated the Krungsri ESG Academy to enhance sustainable finance knowledge and support businesses in effectively developing emissions reduction plans. This year, Krungsri has received support from SET to utilize the SETCarbon platform, enabling entrepreneurs to systematically collect and manage GHG emissions data. This data can be verified and registered according to the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Organization) (TGO) standards, enhancing credibility and supporting future access to sustainable finance sources." "Additionally, Krungsri is ready to provide financial support to entrepreneurs seeking to improve their production processes and services to reduce GHG emissions, through special fixed-rate loans starting as low as 3.5 percent for the first two years, helping to ease cost burdens and enhance liquidity so that businesses can confidently invest in environmental initiatives," Duangkamol said. This collaboration between SET and Krungsri marks a significant step forward in integrating knowledge, tools, and financial support to enhance the capabilities of Thai entrepreneurs and drive long-term sustainable growth, while paving the way for the development of sustainable financial products and services that more comprehensively meet corporate customers' needs. Organizations interested in using the SETCarbon system, please contact SET’s Sustainability Service Development Department at Tel +66(0) 2009 9844 or +66(0) 2009 9597 for more information. Krungsri corporate customers may contact Krungsri Customer Service Center at Tel +66(0) 2626 2626, Monday to Saturday, 08:00-20:00 hrs., excluding public holidays and bank holidays.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission for decades has overseen regulation of prediction markets—or event contracts, as we refer to them—that help market participants hedge risk, aggregate information and test hypotheses about future outcomes. In recent years, states have waged legal attacks on the CFTC’s authority to regulate these financial instruments. If they succeed, participants would be barred from access to federally regulated event-contract markets. So it should come as no surprise that the commission is filing a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday supporting Crypto.com in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Well-known CFTC-registered exchanges used by tens of millions of Americans—including Kalshi, Polymarket, Coinbase and Crypto.com—face an onslaught of state-driven litigation across the country, with nearly 50 active cases presenting a range of legal challenges. The most common allegation is that these contracts are a form of gambling and therefore subject to state laws. The CFTC will no longer sit idly by while overzealous state governments undermine the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products. Event contracts serve legitimate economic functions. They allow businesses and individuals to hedge event-driven risks, enable investors to manage portfolio exposure, and provide the public with information about the outcome of future events. Farmers can manage risk related to temperature changes that may affect crops, and small-business owners can hedge against tax increases or energy-price spikes, to name two examples. Markets that pay out based on the outcome of real-world events such as these emerged through academic and experimental platforms before moving into the commercial sector. In 1992 the CFTC issued its first official recognition of event contracts by granting relief to the Iowa Electronic Markets, a futures market at the University of Iowa in which traders can buy and sell contracts pegged to events such as presidential elections and corporate earnings. Years later, HedgeStreet, now known as Nadex, became the first marketplace to offer event-driven binary contracts that allowed retail traders to speculate on mortgage rates and gasoline prices. Under the plain language of the Commodity Exchange Act, event contracts are “swaps.” They are derivative instruments that allow two parties to speculate on future market conditions without owning the underlying asset. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress expressly granted the CFTC comprehensive authority over any such contract based on a commodity. The statutory definition of “commodity” is extraordinarily broad and includes practically all goods, articles, services, rights and interests except for onions (due to a history of market manipulation) and movie box-office receipts (because of Hollywood lobbying). The CEA’s text is designed to account for financial innovation. Futures were novel at one point. So were swaps and exchange-traded funds. Even as derivatives markets have developed and grown, Congress has chosen to vest the CFTC with broad jurisdiction. That a derivative is novel or different is no excuse for a court to rewrite existing law. The CFTC has been overseeing the integrity of these markets the whole time, ensuring its rules remain durable and flexible in the face of rapid transformation. The public also benefits from these markets. For anyone tracking prediction markets ahead of the 2024 presidential election, the scale of President Trump’s victory was hardly unexpected. It’s clear that Americans like the product and want to participate. Noting the exponential growth of transactions in the last two years, one recent industry report estimates the global number of users has quadrupled to 15 million. Like all markets under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, event-contracts markets are subject to rules and regulations that ensure fair outcomes for market participants. Trading exchanges are required to conduct market surveillance to safeguard against fraud and manipulation. Bank Secrecy Act rules also apply, meaning that CFTC-registered entities must collect customer information to enforce anti-money-laundering measures and prevent insider trading. These exchanges aren’t the Wild West, as some critics claim, but self-regulatory organizations that are examined and supervised by experienced CFTC staff. America is home to the most liquid and vibrant financial markets in the world because our regulators take seriously their obligation to police fraud and institute appropriate investor safeguards. Any erosion of the CFTC’s ability to regulate transactions in commodity derivatives is a direct threat to the markets and investors Congress intended the agency to oversee. Mr. Selig is chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This op-ed was originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirming its exclusive jurisdiction over the U.S. commodity derivatives markets, including event contract markets commonly referred to as prediction markets. The brief was filed in North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. et al v. The State of Nevada on relation of the Nevada Gaming Control Board et al. “CFTC-registered exchanges have faced an onslaught of lawsuits seeking to limit Americans’ access to event contracts and undermine the CFTC’s sole regulatory jurisdiction over prediction markets. This power grab ignores the law and decades of precedent,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “Event contracts allow businesses and individuals to hedge event-driven risks, enable investors to manage portfolio exposure, and provide the public with information about the outcome of future events. These products are commodity derivatives and squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit. As I’ve said before, the CFTC has the expertise and responsibility to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives, and that’s exactly what we’ll do.” The amicus brief outlines the legal history of the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over all commodity derivatives markets, including prediction markets. Over the years, courts and Congress have established and affirmed the CFTC’s role in regulating these markets. States and other federal entities do not have the authority to further regulate markets within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, and attempting to do so would have destabilizing economic effects. The CFTC first officially recognized event contracts in 1992 when it allowed the Iowa Electronic Markets, a futures market at the University of Iowa in which traders can buy and sell contracts pegged to events such as presidential elections and corporate earnings. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress expressly granted the CFTC comprehensive authority over any such contract based on a commodity, which is broadly defined in statute. The Commodity Exchange Act is designed to account for innovation in the financial markets, allowing for new and emerging use cases within CFTC-regulated markets. Related: CFTC Amicus Brief Chairman Selig’s commentary in the Wall Street Journal Chairman Selig on Fox Business Network X Post RELATED LINKS CFTC Amicus Brief Chairman Selig’s commentary in the Wall Street Journal Chairman Selig on Fox Business Network X Post

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) published its Annual Compliance Report, providing insight for dealers into emerging compliance challenges and how they can address them. CIRO’s Annual Compliance Report helps dealers focus their supervision and risk-management efforts to comply with CIRO’s regulatory requirements effectively while reflecting the realities of their individual business models. “CIRO’s Compliance Report helps dealers understand industry-wide trends in compliance matters so they can adapt their policies and procedures to meet emerging challenges and better protect investors from potential harm,” said Andrew J. Kriegler, President and CEO of CIRO. “As dealers continue to adopt innovative technologies and evolve their operations to meet the changing needs of Canadian investors, mitigating new risks is crucial to maintain the integrity and health of Canadian capital markets.” Managing the risks of emerging technologies while supporting innovation How dealers can effectively innovate while managing the risks of emerging technologies to protect investors was once again a key theme of this year’s report. Highlights include: Cybersecurity remains a key business risk. As we shared in August 2025, CIRO experienced firsthand a sophisticated cyber attack, which has become increasingly common. While the report warns of an increase in cybersecurity incident reports involving third-party service providers that have affected dealers, it also notes that substantial progress has been made in the remediation of cybersecurity-related findings. As personnel are the most valuable asset in managing cybersecurity risk, the report emphasizes the need for continuous training for all staff to enhance awareness and reduce vulnerability to attacks. Crypto Asset Trading Platforms (CTPs) continue to be onboarded into CIRO membership. On February 3, 2026, CIRO published Guidance Note 26-0033: Notice on CIRO's Digital Assets Custody Framework to support a framework for standardized crypto custody arrangements and segregation requirements. CIRO is also helping CTPs respond to evolving market and technology needs through InnovateSafe, a regulatory sandbox initiative that allows CIRO-regulated firms to safely test innovative products and technologies in a controlled environment with CIRO oversight. Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important in enabling dealers to manage complexity, improve efficiency, and strengthen decision-making. The report notes that CIRO will be inquiring about the use of AI in dealers’ operations and reviewing the operational controls implemented to ensure AI is working as designed as part of its Financial and Operations compliance examinations. Helping dealers maintain strong compliance frameworks The report encourages dealers to review the findings from the recent CSA-CIRO Client Focused Reforms (CFR) Phase 2 Sweep, which evaluated the implementation of CFR enhancements associated with Know Your Client (KYC) information collection, Product Due Diligence (PDD), Know Your Product (KYP) and Suitability Assessments. The most common deficiency identified for CIRO dealers was a failure to have policies and procedures that are tailored to the firm’s business model and are detailed and actionable. In addition, the report summarizes several notable observations made by CIRO Compliance teams during their recent examinations that may impact the effectiveness of dealers’ compliance systems. Common issues identified include: gaps in supervisory practices, including inadequate review of outside activities and insufficient identification of client communications through non-approved channels. gaps in how dealers identify, assess and disclose conflicts of interest. concerns about the adequacy of daily and monthly trade supervision systems. deficiencies in controls over referral arrangements. The report encourages dealers to review their policies, procedures and practices considering these findings to maintain strong compliance frameworks. Ensuring compliance with registration and proficiency requirements The report also provides an update on the delegation of registration functions to CIRO, noting that CIRO now handles the registration function for the majority of individuals who work in Canada’s securities industry. Dealers are reminded to submit complete registration information to CIRO in order to ensure timely decisions. Investment dealers should also ensure their approved persons are aware of CIRO’s new assessment-centric proficiency model and implement policies and procedures to ensure timely completion and reporting of training requirements. Read the full Annual Compliance Report 2026.

CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report has been updated, and is now available: http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.Additional information on the Weekly Swaps Report. Archive Explanatory Notes Swaps Report Data Dictionary Release Schedule Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m.

Temi Popoola, Group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Nigerian Exchange Group, has called for continued collaboration among regulators, exchanges, and international partners to effectively channel sustainable capital flows across emerging markets.Speaking at the International Finance Corporation conference in Cairo during a panel session themed Capital Mobilization for Sustainability, Transition and Resilience, Popoola provided insights into the evolving landscape for developing economies.He acknowledged that emerging markets are navigating structural considerations, including the development of ESG data and reporting infrastructure, policy frameworks, funding costs, and market liquidity. He also noted a growing global investor appetite for sustainable assets, supported by innovation in labelled instruments and the ongoing enhancement of regulatory standards.“Emerging markets have a significant opportunity to contribute to the future of sustainable capital flows,” Popoola said. “Realizing this potential calls for constructive alignment, robust disclosure standards, policy consistency, and synergy across the capital market ecosystem.” He highlighted the importance of evolving disclosure frameworks, noting that stronger reporting standards can enhance transparency, support risk assessment, and help attract long-term investment.Drawing on Nigeria’s experience, he pointed to the country's green and sustainable bond market, which began with Africa’s first certified sovereign green bond in 2017. Since then, the market has expanded across sovereign, sub-national, and corporate issuers, with repeated oversubscription reflecting growing investor confidence. He also referenced Nigeria’s sovereign sukuk programme, including the most recent Series VII Sukuk, which recorded subscriptions significantly above the offer size, demonstrating sustained domestic demand for long-term infrastructure-linked instruments.According to Popoola, stock exchanges play a key role in advancing sustainable finance by providing platforms for impact-focused instruments, supporting disclosure standards, and aiding issuer capacity building. In this regard, he highlighted NGX’s Impact Board, launched in 2024 as a dedicated listing segment for green, social, and sustainability-linked instruments. He also discussed the NGX Net-Zero Programme, co-funded by DEG Impulse, which supports listed companies in developing science based transition plans and enhancing climate disclosures. The programme is projected to reduce or avoid approximately 20,000 tonnes of CO₂e emissions in its initial phase while positioning companies to access climate-aligned financing.On collaboration, Popoola emphasized the importance of alignment among policymakers and market operators, citing Nigeria’s first sovereign green bond, executed through coordination between the Exchange, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Environment and the Debt Management Office, as an example of effective public, private partnership.The conference convened policymakers, regulators, exchange leaders, and development finance institutions to explore pathways for mobilizing capital toward sustainability, resilience, and long-term economic growth across emerging markets.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.1 Before I get into my main topic, I wanted to share my current views on the economy and monetary policy. Last week, we received the latest report on employment, and it provided further evidence that while the labor market slowed through last summer, it is now stabilizing. This stabilization is occurring with an unemployment rate that is broadly consistent with what many estimate is its long-run level, when the economy is in balance. That said, job creation has been near zero over the course of last year, as has labor force growth. With very low levels of job creation and also a low firing rate, there seems to be a tentative balance in labor supply and demand. But it is a delicate balance, and that means that the labor market could be especially vulnerable to negative shocks. Turning to the other component of our mandate, inflation based on personal consumption expenditures remains elevated at 3 percent, about where it was a year ago. Disinflation, which started in mid-2022, slowed last year, as goods price inflation picked up, in large part due to tariffs. That pattern appeared to continue in the inflation data released last week. Looking ahead, it is reasonable to forecast that tariff effects on inflation will begin to abate later this year, but there are many reasons to be concerned that inflation will remain elevated. I see the risk of persistent inflation above our 2 percent target as significant, which means we need to remain vigilant. The prudent course for monetary policy right now is to take the time necessary to assess conditions as they evolve. I would like to see evidence that goods price inflation is sustainably retreating before considering reducing the policy rate further, provided labor market conditions remain stable. Based on current conditions and the data in hand, it will likely be appropriate to hold rates steady for some time as we assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. I'll now turn to my main topic today. Artificial intelligence (AI)—and by this, I mean in particular the recent explosive growth of generative AI—looks increasing likely to become what technologists call a general-purpose technology. General-purpose technologies such as the steam engine, electricity, and personal computers are characterized by widespread adoption, continual improvement, and a cascade of downstream innovations in new goods or services, production processes, and business structures.2 In addition to the likelihood that AI becomes a general-purpose technology, it may also become an "invention in the method of invention," something that increases the efficiency of research and development (R&D) and thus drives further innovation and the attendant benefits. Personal computers qualify here because their widespread adoption, continuous improvement, and many applications over the past 50 years or so exponentially expanded our ability to invent things. And in the same way that computers were used to fundamentally improve the process of discovery in, for example, medicine, engineering, and physical sciences, generative AI and earlier forms of AI such as machine learning applications are already being used in R&D and yielding discoveries in domains such as drug discovery and materials science.3 Periods of rapid technological change are often accompanied by anxiety about the economic and social consequences of automation. Although new technologies often create winners and losers in the short run, history shows that in the longer run innovation leads to broadly shared increases in productivity and living standards that tend to support economic growth and a healthy labor market. As with other general-purpose technologies, the long-run effects of AI are likely to be profoundly positive. But in the short term, AI may deeply disrupt labor markets and harm some workers. The ultimate impact on workers will depend not only on the extent of the disruption and the length of time it takes for the long-term benefits to appear, but importantly on how we, as a society, navigate this transition. In the past, the type of work that was most amenable to automation, whether by machines or computer software, were routine tasks that followed explicit, codifiable rules—rules that were written by people. AI models, on the other hand, learn by example: An AI model doesn't need to be told exactly how to accomplish a certain task, only provided with the right training data to infer patterns. Consequently, AI can learn how to complete complex, nonroutine tasks that require knowledge that is difficult or impossible for humans to codify.4 Unlike a robot that follows necessarily human instructions to, say, bolt on a car fender over and over, this ability to implement complex tasks could vastly expand the set of tasks that AI is potentially capable of performing. That is especially true if one considers the integration of AI with other technologies such as robots, or cars. Moreover, agentic AI can accomplish more general goals with limited human supervision, mimicking human decision-making, reasoning, and implementation. Many economically valuable tasks can (or may soon) be feasible using AI.5 Developments in AI AdoptionThe capabilities of GenAI models have improved rapidly. In just a few years, we have seen AI models meet or surpass human performance on increasingly challenging benchmarks, including competition-level mathematics and Ph.D.-level science questions.6 Real-world applications abound. AI is already changing the speed of pharmaceutical drug discoveries, the efficiency of customer service, and the pace of computer coding, especially by the biggest tech firms themselves.7 The speed of AI adoption may be much faster than previous general-purpose technologies, boosting productivity growth, but also allowing less time for workers, businesses, and the economy to adapt to these changes. As of December 2025, 17 percent of businesses in the U.S. Census Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS) report using AI in their business functions. While that may seem modest on the surface, the share is much higher among large firms and in tech-intensive sectors like information, finance and insurance, and professional and technical services. In the BTOS, about 30 percent of businesses with more than 250 employees report using AI. A recent survey of mostly large firms by McKinsey found that 88 percent report that AI has been used in at least one business function.8 The share using generative AI specifically rose from 33 percent in 2023 to 79 percent in 2025. Adoption of generative AI among both individuals and businesses has been very fast by historical standards. A 2024 St. Louis Fed paper estimates that generative AI adoption in the workplace following the release of ChatGPT in late 2022 was as fast as workplace computer adoption after the release of the IBM PC in 1984.9 Actual use of generative AI in the workplace may be even higher than reported by businesses since there is some evidence of workers using AI tools without their manager's knowledge.10 That said, the depth of AI adoption at this point remains unclear. McKinsey found that most businesses using AI remain in the experimentation or piloting phases of adoption. Some firms that have experimented with AI abandoned these trials.11 Like previous technology breakthroughs, effective use of AI will likely require fundamental changes in business practices and organization. Workers have to be retrained. Managers have to develop best practices. And obtaining the full range of productivity enhancements from new technology may require costly experimentation and further innovation. The productivity gains from electrification in the early 20th century reflected not only how factories were powered but also changes in how they were designed.12 This process took decades to play out. Within firms, there is evidence from the manufacturing sector that productivity follows a J-shape after technology adoption: adjustment costs lead to short-run losses before firms that ride it out are able to realize larger, longer-run gains.13 Within the Federal Reserve System, we have also been exploring the use of AI in our own operations and have established an AI program and governance framework for the use of AI technologies. One internal application of GenAI that shows considerable promise is technology modernization. Within clear guardrails, we are using GenAI tools to translate legacy code, generate unit tests, and accelerate cloud migration. So far, the result of this usage is faster delivery, improved quality, and an enhanced developer experience. In one recent project updating hundreds of databases, AI tools helped cut the time to complete this type of work by 50 percent, detected and resolved 30 percent more issues during testing compared to previous migrations, and enhanced team focus on higher-value coding work. My sense is that these are the kinds of uses and the scale of success that many businesses are experiencing. Implications for the Labor MarketPredictions about how generative AI will evolve, and in particular how it will affect the labor market, range from the utopian to the apocalyptic.14 In previous speeches, I have outlined a couple of scenarios as a way to think through the potential effects of AI on the economy, including the labor market.15 But as is the case for AI's technological advances, the debate about the possible effects of AI evolves quickly, so I will briefly revisit these scenarios and then discuss how new research is starting to bring the initial and potential labor market effects of AI into focus. Scenario of gradual adoptionUnder a first scenario, AI proceeds like other general-purpose technologies, perhaps diffusing a bit faster. This leads to strong productivity growth, comparable to what we saw in the late 1990s and early 2000s, or maybe even stronger than that. As was the case during earlier technological advances, some occupations are displaced while new ones emerge, as AI is increasingly integrated into many existing roles. But AI adoption occurs gradually enough that large and widespread joblessness is avoided. Unemployment might rise somewhat in the short term due to skill mismatch, but education and training choices adjust over time, and many workers successfully retrain and retain their jobs or find new ones. With strong productivity growth, the economy can sustain faster output growth and real wages rise. Scenario of rapid growth in AI capabilities and adoptionUnder a second scenario, AI capabilities grow exponentially and adoption is extremely rapid, ushering in a "jobless boom." AI agents replace or displace a range of professional and service occupations. Autonomous vehicles and robotics automate many manufacturing and transportation jobs, with labor increasingly concentrated in a few manual or highly skilled trades, or in roles where consumers put a premium on human interaction. AI-centric start-ups with radically new business models displace firms that are unable to adapt, and layoffs soar, leading to widespread unemployment in the short run and declines in labor force participation over time, as a large share of the population is essentially unemployable. It is understandable why many people would fear such a future, and it would present profound social and distributional challenges. With a vastly more productive economy, but much less demand for labor, society would have to rethink the social safety net to ensure that the gains from unprecedented economic growth are shared rather than concentrated among a small group of capital holders and AI superstars. And there would need to be profound changes in education, training, and workforce development. We should be clear-eyed about how painful these changes could be for affected workers and how challenging it would be for the government and the private sector to successfully manage the fallout. One thing that these two scenarios have in common is that AI's initial promise is borne out, and it transforms the economy—either gradually and in a more manageable way, or abruptly and to a much greater extent. Scenario of stalled growth in AI capabilities and adoptionA third option is that improvements in AI capabilities stall, perhaps owing to the exhaustion of training data, a shortage of electricity supply or distribution to satisfy the huge demands of data centers, or shortages of the capital required to build all this new infrastructure.16 One estimate is that AI investment will require the issuance of $1 trillion in new debt over the next five years, and other estimates are even higher. With questions about whether demand will grow sufficiently to utilize this investment, some have drawn comparisons to the overinvestment in the dot-com era.17 Timing mismatches in the investment and business integration process could lead to reduced realization of the potential of AI.18 The hard work of business process transformation takes time, which partly accounts for the J curve dynamics I mentioned earlier. Businesses that do not see immediate productivity improvements may lose interest. In a scenario of stalled growth in AI capabilities and adoption, some productivity improvements occur in easy-to-learn tasks, but AI proves incapable of completing hard-to-learn tasks or complex projects, or an AI bust occurs, abruptly ending needed investment. As a result, any boost that AI provides to aggregate productivity growth is modest and fades over time. It is possible that in this scenario, AI still ends up widely adopted. As is the case for social media or smartphones, AI applications may still generate significant value for consumers and many businesses. In the workplace, it might look much like email or search engines do now—tools that are ubiquitous, even indispensable, but not necessarily revolutionary by themselves. In a scenario where AI disappoints, the balance of risks shifts from the labor market to the financial sector. When anticipated demand falls short, the risk of financial stress increases, as happened following the expansion of the U.S. railroad network in the late 19th century.19 More recently, we saw these dynamics play out in a more limited way with the overbuilding of fiber optic telecommunications in the early 2000s, which contributed to stress in bond markets.20 Of course, these are stylized scenarios, and facts on the ground may play out differently. Or different scenarios might come to pass in different sectors of the economy in different ways and at different speeds. But a scenario-based approach helps ground our thinking about these potential outcomes. What Have We Learned about the Effects of AI So Far?In judging the prospects for the range of outcomes reflected in these scenarios, or other plausible scenarios, we can start with what we have learned about the effects of AI so far. Of course, ChatGPT was released only a bit over three years ago, and we are still in the very early stages of generative AI diffusion. So far, however, research seems to be more consistent with scenario 1: AI as a normal early-stage general-purpose technology, though that doesn't necessarily rule out more extreme scenarios going forward. ProductivityLet me focus on several aspects of the early economic effects of AI, starting with productivity. We have been in a period of elevated productivity growth for the past five years. This period of higher productivity growth began with the pandemic and the ensuing tight labor market, which led to investment in labor-saving technologies. Moreover, new business formation surged and has remained strong. New businesses that survive tend to be more productive than incumbents, and competition from new businesses spurs innovation among incumbents as well. While it is possible that AI has contributed to this strength more recently, GenAI has had relatively modest penetration thus far. Yet AI is very likely to have a profound positive impact on productivity growth in the long term. At the microlevel, there is increasing evidence that access to AI assistants improves worker efficiency, speed, and accuracy at various tasks.21 Aggregating the aforementioned task-level evidence, one recent study estimated that AI could contribute between 0.3 and 0.9 of a percentage point to annual total factor productivity growth over the next decade.22 The upper end of these estimates would make the productivity gains of AI comparable to those of internet communications technologies in the late 1990s, a period of strong productivity growth. Other studies point to much smaller or larger gains, underscoring how dependent these projections are on assumptions about the speed of technological progress and adoption of AI by businesses.23 But the forms these innovations will take and how long the benefits will take to accrue is hard to say. In 1987, for example, the economist Robert Solow famously quipped, "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." As it turned out, firms had to learn how to integrate this technology into their business practices in order to fully realize the economic potential of personal computing. Of course, AI may also contribute to productivity growth not just by improving the efficiency of existing tasks, but also by increasing the efficiency of R&D. The potential of AI to boost the rate of innovation—to be an invention in the method of invention—is where we could see even greater economic benefits, though they may take some time to materialize.24 EmploymentSo far, the literature suggests that while AI has yet to have a substantial effect on aggregate employment or unemployment, it may be starting to adversely affect some groups, in particular young people who are just starting their careers in some sectors. On balance, this evidence so far is consistent with what we might expect under the gradual adoption scenario I previously described. One study uses data from the payroll provider ADP and finds that early-career workers in occupations highly exposed to AI—such as software developers and customer service representatives—have experienced a decline in employment relative to other early-career workers in less exposed fields and experienced workers in the same line of work.25 Some other research reaches a similar conclusion using resume and job-posting data.26 The long-run consequences of AI for recent cohorts of young workers is uncertain, but research shows that entering a weak labor market can have persistently adverse effects on workers' earnings. So, for these workers, the short run may have long-term consequences.27 More broadly, rather than laying off workers, there is evidence that AI adoption is so far leading to re-allocation within firms. One paper finds that although AI does substitute for labor at the task level, overall employment effects are small, as workers shift their time to complementary tasks and firms expand employment elsewhere.28 Consistent with this internal re-allocation, a recent survey by the New York Fed found that while some firms using AI did report reduced hiring plans and limited layoffs, a much larger share plan to retrain their existing workforce.29 At the same time, we should be prepared for the possibility that there might be serious short-term disruptions in the labor market, even if the long-term gains to society could be quite favorable. The extent of disruption will depend in part on whether society undertakes the investments needed in new job creation, worker training, connecting workers to new jobs, and other efforts to mitigate adverse labor market effects. The historical record on meaningful efforts to help workers in such a transition is not encouraging. 30 In my judgement, now is the time for society to begin to consider how to address these potential disruptions, while AI adoption is in its early stages. Income and InequalityAs with employment, there is little evidence that AI has had a meaningful impact on wage growth or the distribution of income gains, at least so far. Going forward, the effect of AI on wages and the distribution of income will depend on factors including whether AI complements or substitutes expertise within jobs that continue to exist, how AI changes relative demand for high-wage occupations, and who owns AI capital. On the one hand, research evaluating the effect of AI assistants in the workplace tends to find the largest productivity gains among the least-experienced workers.31 This suggests that AI could narrow gaps in productivity and wages. If AI facilitates worker learning, as some studies suggest, it might also help displaced workers to re-skill for new jobs, reducing the cost of job dislocation. On the other hand, recent research finds that GenAI is more commonly used by younger, highly educated, and high-income individuals.32 If high earners are better positioned to take advantage of AI, we could see wage inequality rise as the most productive workers pull even further ahead of their peers. AI can also affect the wage structure by shifting demand for different occupations. Whereas technological progress has historically favored occupations with higher wages and education requirements, one paper shows that AI has the potential to reverse this pattern, automating higher-paying information-based jobs while increasing relative demand for lower-paying jobs and those requiring less education, thus reducing aggregate wage inequality.33 As with our discussion of labor market disruptions, the effects of AI on inequality will depend in part on whether society undertakes the investments needed to mitigate adverse labor market effects. It is incumbent on us to begin thinking about these important questions now. Implications of AI for Monetary PolicyI am also thinking about the implications of AI for monetary policy. If AI causes a large and long-lasting dislocation of workers, permanently reducing demand for many kinds of jobs, it could imply higher rates of unemployment, even when the economy is healthy and operating close to its potential. Monetary policy is able to address cyclical conditions, like a downturn in the business cycle, but it cannot address the structural factors that determine the long-run rates of employment. While monetary policy is not suited to dealing with structural changes in the economy, it could be difficult for policymakers to assess in real time whether changes are structural or cyclical. Moreover, some components of the labor market may face structural changes, while others may not. As I noted earlier, it will be important for society to deal with the consequences of any structural changes in the economy because of AI, and policies beyond the purview of the central bank would certainly be needed to address a structural rise in the natural rate of unemployment. As a central banker, I see endeavoring to understand how AI is evolving and affecting labor markets as a crucial component of our work in the years ahead. I have noted that my base case foresees labor market disruptions as relatively short term, even if painful. Over the long term, the labor market would adjust in ways that create new jobs and augment the productivity of existing jobs, boosting real wages. But closely monitoring these developments and adapting, as needed, will be crucial. In the event that GenAI results in a long-lasting boost to productivity growth, wages and economic activity could grow more than would otherwise be the case without putting upward pressure on inflation. At the same time, demand for capital would rise because of the strong business investment required to take advantage of the technology, putting upward pressures on interest rates, and household savings could fall due to expectations of stronger real wage growth and thus higher lifetime earnings, also putting upward pressure on interest rates. All of this would imply a higher setting for the policy rate when the economy is at equilibrium, or what monetary economists call r*. Indeed, last year I raised my long-term estimate of r* modestly because of higher productivity. Moreover, in the short term, investment in AI could be inflationary—for example, if electricity supply constraints from inefficiencies in the power grid collide with strong energy demand from the building of data centers. For all of these reasons, I expect that the AI boom is unlikely to be a reason for lowering policy rates. ConclusionIn conclusion, I expect that AI will have a transformative effect on the economy and affect a large share of workers in ways that will challenge the ability of the private and public sectors to accommodate this adjustment. In the longer run, I expect AI will boost productivity and living standards, and it may even lead to new discoveries. Society will need to be nimble and bold to reduce the pain of short-term dislocations for workers and to ensure that the benefits are broadly shared. Widespread AI adoption will very likely lead to dramatic and sometimes difficult changes in the way many of us work and live, but the long-term benefits could be even more dramatic. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. See Timothy F. Bresnahan and M. Trajtenberg (1995), "General Purpose Technologies 'Engines of Growth'?" Journal of Econometrics, vol. 65 (January), pp. 83–108.  3. See Martin Neil Baily, David M. Byrne, Aidan T. Kane, and Paul E. Soto (2025), "Generative AI at the Crossroads: Light Bulb, Dynamo, or Microscope?" Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2025-053 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July).  4. See David H. Autor (2025), "Polanyi's Paradox and the Shape of Employment Growth," in Re-Evaluating Labor Market Dynamics: A Symposium Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 129–77).  5. Researchers typically measure exposure to AI at the occupation level by analyzing descriptions of job tasks and comparing them with assumptions about the tasks that AI might feasibly complete; see Kunal Handa, Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Saffron Huang, Esin Durmus, Sarah Heck, Jared Mueller, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, Tim Belonax, Kevin K. Troy, Dario Amodei, Jared Kaplan, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli (2025), "Which Economic Tasks Are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations," working paper; Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock (2024), "GPTs Are GPTs: Labor Market Impact Potential of LLMs," Science, vol. 384 (6702), pp. 1306–08; Ed Felten, Manav Raj, and Robert Seamans (2023), "How Will Language Modelers Like ChatGPT Affect Occupations and Industries?" working paper; Michael Webb (2020), "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Labor Market," working paper.  6. See Nestor Maslej, Loredana Fattorini, Raymond Perrault, Yolanda Gil, Vanessa Parli, Njenga Kariuki, Emily Capstick, Anka Reuel, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchemendy, Katrina Ligett, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Yoav Shoham, Russell Wald, Toby Walsh, Armin Hamrah, Lapo Santarlasci, Julia Betts Lotufo, Alexandra Rome, Andrew Shi, and Sukrut Oak (2025), "The AI Index 2025 Annual Report," AI Index Steering Committee, Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, April).  7. See Economist (2026), "An AI Revolution in Drugmaking Is Under Way," January 5; Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley, Haoxing Du, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Luke Harold Miles, Seraphina Nix, Tao Lin, Neev Parikh, David Rein, Lucas Jun Koba Sato, Hjalmar Wijk, Daniel M. Ziegler, Elizabeth Barnes, and Lawrence Chan (2025), "Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks," METR, March 19.  8. See Alex Singla, Alexander Sukharevsky, Bryce Hall, Lareina Yee, and Michael Chui (2025), "The State of AI in 2025: Agents, Innovation, and Transformation," McKinsey & Company, November 5.  9. See Alexander Brick, Adam Blandin, and David J. Deming (2024), "The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI," Working Paper Series 2024-027 (St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, September; revised October 2025).  10. See Conference Board (2023), "Majority of US Workers Are Already Using Generative AI Tools," press release, September 13.  11. See Kathryn Bonney, Cory Breaux, Cathy Buffington, Emin Dinlersoz, Lucia S. Foster, Nathan Goldschlag, John C Haltiwanger, Zachary Kroff, and Keith Savage (2024), "Tracking Firm Use of AI in Real Time: A Snapshot from the Business Trends and Outlook Survey," NBER Working Paper Series 32319 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, April).  12. See Paul A. David (1990), "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, vol. 80 (May), pp. 355–61.  13. See Kristina McEleran, Mu-Jeung Yang, Zachary Kroff, and Erik Brynjolfsson (2025), "The Rise of Industrial AI in America: Microfoundations of the Productivity J-curve(s)," working paper.  14. See Mark A. Wynne and Lillian Derr (2025), "Advances in AI Will Boost Productivity, Living Standards over Time," Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, June 24.  15. For example, see Michael S. Barr (2025), "Artificial Intelligence and the Labor Market: A Scenario-Based Approach," speech delivered at the Reykjavik Economic Conference 2025, Central Bank of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, May 9.  16. For example, generation capacity aside, current inefficiencies in the U.S. electrical grid may not permit sufficient power to go where it is needed for rapid AI deployment.  17. A notable difference now is that most of the large tech companies making these investments are hugely profitable, in contrast to many of the profitless companies of that earlier boom.  18. One warning sign that the speed of adoption may not match the speed of AI infrastructure deployment is in what some firms are reporting about the depreciation of their investments. While computer chips have historically been depreciated over three years, some firms have stretched the depreciation of AI chips to five years or more in their disclosures to shareholders.  19. In the early 1890s, bankruptcies at a number of prominent railroads, as well as businesses connected directly and indirectly to the railroads, contributed to a deterioration in the quality of bank loan portfolios.  While this was not the trigger of the Panic of 1893, it was part of the backdrop that made the economy and the banking system more vulnerable; see Mark Carlson (2013), "Panic of 1893," in Randall E. Parker and Robert Whaples, eds., Routledge Handbook of Major Events in Economic History (London: Routledge), pp. 40–49.  20. See Jeff Hecht (2016), "OSA Centennial Snapshots: The Fiber Optic Mania," Optics & Photonics News, vol. 27 (October), pp. 46–53. For more information on the dynamics of the dot-com bubble and the effects on the bond market, see Patrick Lenain and Sam Paltridge (2003), "After the Telecommunications Bubble," OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 361 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, June). According to Lenain and Paltridge, "Several large firms—including Worldcom and Global Crossing—filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the United States and AT&T Canada undertook a similar proceeding. This led to a wave of defaults on telecommunications corporate bonds and contributed to the largest cycle of defaults on bonds since the 1930s" (Lenain and Paltridge, 2003, p. 8).  21. On writing, see Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang (2023), "Experimental Evidence on the Productivity Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence," Science, vol. 381 (6654), pp. 187–92; on customer service, see Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond (2025), "Generative AI at Work," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 140 (May), pp. 889–942; on consultants, see Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Ethan Mollick, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine C. Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Lisa Krayer, Francois Candelon, and Karim R. Lakhani (2023), "Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality (PDF)," Working Paper 24-013 (Boston: Harvard Business School, September 22); on coders, see Sida Peng, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Peter Cihon, and Mert Demirer (2023), "The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot," working paper; Kevin Zheyuan Cui, Mert Demirer, Sonia Jaffe, Leon Musolff, Sida Peng, and Tobias Salz (2024), "The Effects of Generative AI on High-Skilled Work: Evidence from Three Field Experiments with Software Developers," working paper.  22. See Francesco Filippucci, Peter N. Gal, and Matthias Schief (2025), "Aggregate Productivity Gains from Artificial Intelligence: A Sectoral Perspective," working paper.  23. See Daron Acemoglu (2025), "The Simple Macroeconomics of AI," Economic Policy, vol. 40 (January), pp. 13–58; and Michael Chui, Eric Hazan, Roger Roberts, Alex Singla, Kate Smaje, Alex Sukharveksy, Lareina Yee, and Rodney Zemmel (2023), "The Economic Potential of Generative AI," McKinsey & Company (New York: McKinsey, June).  24. While AI may boost productivity growth relative to a counterfactual world without AI, this does not necessarily imply that AI will lead to productivity growth well above its long-run trend, as in the transformative scenario I described. Rather, as the growth effects of previous waves of innovation fade, new innovations, such as AI, might be needed just to keep productivity growth near its historical trend rather than slowing down.  25. See Erik Brynjolfsson, Bharat Chandar, and Ruyu Chen (2025), "Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence," working paper.  26. See Seyed M. Hosseini and Guy Lichtinger (2025), "Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change: Evidence from U.S. Resume and Job Posting Data," working paper.  27. See Philip Oreopoulos, Till von Wachter, and Andrew Heisz (2012), "The Short- and Long-Term Career Effects of Graduating in a Recession," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 4 (January), pp. 1–29.  28. See Menaka Hampole, Dimitris Papanikolaou, Lawrence D.W. Schmidt, and Bryan Seegmiller (2025), "Artificial Intelligence and the Labor Market," NBER Working Paper Series 33509 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, February; revised September 2025).  29. See Jaison R. Abel, Richard Deitz, Natalia Emanuel, Ben Hyman, and Nick Montalbano (2025), "Are Businesses Scaling Back Hiring Due to AI?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics (blog), September 4.  30. See Lawrence F. Katz (2025), "Beyond the Race between Education and Technology (PDF)," paper prepared for "Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy," an economic symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 22.  31. See footnote 21.  32. See Jonathan Hartley, Filip Jolevski, Victor Melo, and Brendan Moore (2025), "The Labor Market Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence," working paper.  33. See Huben Liu, Dimitris Papanikolaou, Lawrence D.W. Schmidt, and Bryan Seegmiller (2025), "Technology and Labor Markets: Past, Present, and Future; Evidence from Two Centuries of Innovation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, September 24. 

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today requested comment on a proposal to establish revised procedures and policies for appeals by OCC-supervised entities of material supervisory determinations. The proposed changes reflect the OCC’s experience administering the bank appeals process and are intended to enhance the independence and efficiency of the appeals function. The proposal would make several changes to the current appeals process, including adding an “appeals board” to hear bank appeals, enhancing the role of the Ombudsman as a neutral liaison to help banks seek redress for grievances, establishing a de novo standard of review for appeals, and strengthening prohibitions against retaliation. Comments on the attached proposal are due 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Related Link Federal Register Notice (PDF)

The economic importance of synthetic risk transfer (SRT) markets has grown rapidly over the last decade. Compared with securitisations before the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), SRTs in use recently appear to be more prudently structured and managed. Risks associated with SRT use merit continued monitoring by supervisors. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published a report on synthetic risk transfer (SRT) transactions. The economic importance of SRT markets has grown rapidly over the last decade and they have become an important source of capital relief for corporate credit risk. SRT transactions involve transferring all or a portion of the credit risk of a pool of assets to a counterparty while the bank retains ownership of the underlying assets. The investor base in SRTs is dominated by private investment funds, although public sector entities also play an important role in some jurisdictions. Capital and credit risk management are the main motivations for banks to engage in SRTs. Regulatory and supervisory reforms implemented since the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) make SRTs simpler and result in more scrutiny relative to credit risk transfer transactions in use before the GFC. Some jurisdictions and market participants believe there are blind spots related to disclosure and SRT financing activities. The total value of protected assets in Canada, the euro area, the United States and the United Kingdom, jurisdictions in which SRT markets are particularly vibrant, is estimated at about EUR 750 billion, or 1.1% of total bank assets. Risks associated with SRT use, such as banks' increased dependence on non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), are acknowledged and, to some extent, actively managed by market participants. However, they merit continued monitoring by supervisors as SRT markets continue to grow. The report is part of the Committee's continued monitoring and investigation of the interconnections between banks and NBFIs. Background: The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its mandate is to strengthen the regulation, supervision and practices of banks worldwide with the purpose of enhancing financial stability. The Committee reports to the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision and seeks its endorsement for major decisions. The Committee has no formal supranational authority, and its decisions have no legal force. Rather, the Committee relies on its members' commitments to achieve its mandate. The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is chaired by Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Basel Committee is chaired by Erik Thedéen, Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank. More information about the Basel Committee is available here.

Thank you, David [Woodcock], for your generous introduction. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted to be here, and grateful for this opportunity to share a few reflections. Let me begin by thanking our hosts at the Texas A&M University School of Law for convening today’s program. Though only in its second year, the symposium has already earned a reputation for rigor and insight. So, to address leading judges, scholars, and practitioners here, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, is a profound honor. And before I begin, let me add the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. *** Now, some of you may recall that last fall, I addressed a conference at the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.[1] I spoke candidly about the declining number of public companies in our capital markets and the reforms that I believe are necessary to revitalize them. I also emphasized the important role that States play in these reforms, especially in the areas of litigation reform and shareholder proposals. That speech took place during a period when prominent firms were raising concerns about continuing to be domiciled in Delaware, with some moving elsewhere and encouraging others to follow suit.[2] Today, speaking at this symposium in Texas feels different. Indeed, Texas has begun to build something that could offer an interesting alternative to Delaware, through a framework designed to attract companies with shareholders who are eager to get back to basics, with less politicization, abusive litigation, and overall drama. That vision is rooted in a deeply American idea: that competition—among firms; among markets; and yes, among States—is the animating force behind a system that has produced more prosperity than any other in human history. Of course, Delaware is no stranger to competition, for it was not always the market leader for corporate domicile. That distinction once belonged to New Jersey.[3] However, in the early twentieth century, Delaware claimed that title and has held it ever since.[4] But competition does not pause for tradition, nor does it defer to incumbency. Over time, it compels systems, and States, to adapt—or to yield. Through competition, good ideas spread, poor ones fade, and the system itself grows stronger. My remarks this morning will first examine how Texas has entered that competition and what more the State might do to strengthen its position. I will then conclude with some ideas for reforming the SEC’s disclosure regime. *** During its 2025 legislative session, Texas took several significant steps to further its appeal as a destination for corporate domestication. Among the legislative actions was Senate Bill 29 (“SB 29”).[5] SB 29 made several important changes to enhance protections for Texas companies—and ultimately their shareholders—against abusive lawsuits. For example, litigants will no longer be able to recover their fees from a company in actions that result solely in “additional or amended disclosures…regardless of materiality.”[6] This amendment can help to deter lawsuits that are all too frequently filed—seemingly by rote—after a company releases its proxy materials for approval of a merger or an equity compensation plan. In these lawsuits, the litigants may not necessarily be seeking better proxy disclosure. Rather, the ulterior motive may be to seek a quick payout, knowing that companies wish to settle promptly and not delay their shareholder meeting. Texas’s consideration of the issue of attorneys’ fees in litigation signals that it recognizes their cumulative burden on capital formation. Another possible measure that many jurists and commentators have advanced is fee shifting[7]—the idea that the losing party in a litigation pays the winning party’s attorneys’ fees. Currently, companies can generally look only to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[8] for fee shifting in the case of frivolous federal securities law claims. However, some jurisdictions have models for fee shifting beyond their civil procedure rules. This principle, often called the English Rule, prevails in many foreign jurisdictions, not just Great Britain, and they could serve as examples for Texas to follow. SB 29 also gave Texas companies more control over the venue and method of adjudicating lawsuits. For actions involving internal affairs claims, companies can now designate Texas courts as the exclusive forum for hearing those claims.[9] They may also waive jury trials for these actions.[10] These changes were significant first steps in rebalancing Texas’s process for resolving litigation. However, should litigation in a court—with or without a jury—be the only method available to companies for adjudicating shareholder disputes? Another possibility is arbitration. For many years, the SEC never clearly articulated its views on whether a mandatory arbitration provision in a company’s governing documents is inconsistent with the federal securities laws. The agency, in a very non-transparent manner, told companies on an ad hoc basis that including such a provision would mean that their IPO registration statement would not be declared effective. The most recent incident appears to have been in 2012 when the Carlyle Group—which was advised by top tier law firms and had its IPO underwritten by bulge bracket banks—sought to go public with such a provision.[11] I say “appears to be” because the Commission had never adopted any written principle to document this position. Instead, the SEC staff—likely at the direction of the then Chairman—advised Carlyle that its registration statement would not be declared effective as long as the mandatory arbitration provision remained. Carlyle removed the provision. To say the least, that is not the way that a United States government agency should operate. However, the situation changed last September when the Commission reviewed the law as enunciated by the courts, and concluded that, based on the Supreme Court’s decisions, mandatory arbitration provisions are not inconsistent with the federal securities laws.[12] The Commission voted three-to-one to direct its staff—and clarify to the public—that this unwritten, ad hoc practice would no longer govern SEC policy. The SEC has now done its part by making clear that it will not stand in the way of such provisions. However, before companies can adopt mandatory arbitration provisions, they must also consider the laws of their state of formation. Last summer, Delaware prohibited mandatory arbitration for federal securities law claims.[13] What will Texas do? Texas’s recent amendments to its corporate laws reflect the idea that competition amongst States for domiciling corporations is a healthy function of our capital markets. They remind us that state corporate law, working in tandem with the federal securities laws, matters profoundly to our economic strength as a country, and that through those laws, we can rigorously protect shareholders without needlessly paralyzing companies. If States function as laboratories, as Justice Brandeis famously remarked,[14] then the companies that operate within them often supply the ingredients for experimentation. *** Let me now turn to my second topic for this morning, SEC disclosure reform. Last December, I shared my vision for returning the Commission’s disclosure regime to its original intent of “protect[ing] the public with the least possible interference with honest business.”[15] At a high level, achieving this vision of having the “minimum effective dose of regulation” requires the Commission to follow two ideals. First, it must root its disclosure requirements, which are contained in Regulation S-K, in the concept of financial materiality. Second, it must scale these requirements with a company’s size and maturity. Today, I will share some details on the types of reform that I have instructed the Commission staff to explore. The SEC took its first step in reforming Regulation S-K last May by soliciting public comments and hosting a roundtable on its executive compensation disclosure requirements under Item 402.[16] In many ways, Item 402 epitomizes the problems with the SEC’s disclosure rules overall. The rules themselves are lengthy and complex, driven in part by piecemeal additions over the last two decades without a holistic review of how everything fits together. Having been chief of staff to then-Chairman Richard Breeden during the 1992 amendments to Item 402, I can say that the rule today has morphed into a Frankenstein monster beyond recognition. Furthermore, the rules sometimes drive corporate behavior, rather than reflect the outcome of corporate decisions. Preparing the required disclosure consumes significant time from boards and management and can impose substantial costs through the need for specialized lawyers, accountants, and consultants. Yet, the resulting information may not benefit or protect investors because of its volume, complexity, and lack of relevance. In short, disclosure intended to inform can instead overwhelm. So, it is no surprise that some of the reforms for Item 402 suggested by some commenters reflect principles that the SEC can apply throughout its rethinking of Regulation S-K. Specifically, I categorize these principles into the three buckets of rationalizing, simplifying, and modernizing the disclosure rules. First is rationalizing. Our rules should be sensible, with materiality as their north star. Today, companies must provide detailed compensation information—through both tabular and narrative formats—for up to seven executives in a given year.[17] A significant number of commenters have questioned whether that scope remains justified.[18] As one commenter explained, “with the exception of the [CEO], the volume of detailed information…about the remaining [executives] is often immaterial to investors and, if anything, tends to obscure the information that they genuinely seek.”[19] Requiring companies to devote extensive time and resources to prepare disclosure that can do more to obscure than illuminate is not rational. I agree with commenters that we should reconsider the number of executives for whom compensation information is provided to appropriately calibrate the level of disclosure with the cost. Second is simplifying. At the roundtable on executive compensation, one panelist described the Commission’s pay-versus-performance (“PvP”) rule[20] as “a very complex calculation” that is difficult not only to produce but also to interpret.[21] “It’s sort of disclosure written by economists for economists,” the panelist added.[22] This sentiment should give us pause as it reflects the opposite of what an SEC disclosure requirement ideally should be—intelligible by a reasonable investor and practical for a company to comply, without the need for a cottage industry of ultra specialized consultants. Unfortunately, all of the time and money spent on PvP disclosure has scarcely resulted in clear information to investors. Another commenter noted that the rule has “necessitate[d] further explanatory disclosure…to address any confusion…create[d] for investors.”[23] A regime that requires additional disclosure to explain the original disclosure is a signal that simplification is overdue. I agree with commenters that we should look for ways to make PvP disclosure simpler for companies to prepare and more straightforward for investors to understand. Finally, modernizing. Few areas exemplify the need for modernization more than the treatment of executive security as a perk. When the Commission last considered this issue in 2006, it concluded that security provided at an executive’s residence or during personal travel constituted a perk, while security provided at the office and during business travel did not.[24] At the time, the Commission reasoned that personal security services were not “integrally and directly related” to job performance.[25] But the world has changed. As one commenter noted, “[i]n today’s environment…comprehensive 24/7 protection is increasingly a necessity, not a luxury.”[26] Another stated that “[e]xecutive security is critical to the ability of many executives to perform their duties…”[27] I agree with commenters that the Commission should modernize its perks disclosure requirements to reflect how the world and security threats have evolved over the past twenty years. *** These are just some examples of how we can sensibly reform the SEC’s current executive compensation disclosure, which is a significant portion, but just one component, of Regulation S-K. Let me briefly address a couple of broader themes that should guide reform across the framework. First is the SEC’s attempt to indirectly regulate, or set expectations for, matters of corporate governance through “comply or explain” disclosure requirements. For example, if a company does not maintain a nominating or compensation committee, then it must explain why the board of directors believes that structure is appropriate.[28] If a company does not have a policy for considering director candidates recommended by shareholders, it must justify that decision.[29] And if a company has not established a formal process for shareholders to send communications to the board, it must disclose its reasons.[30] In theory, these are disclosure provisions. In practice, they can operate as mandates. When confronted with such requirements, a company may conclude that the most prudent course is to form the committee, adopt the policy, or establish the procedure—regardless of whether it suits their particular circumstances—rather than risk appearing deficient by explanation. Absent a congressional directive,[31] it is not the SEC’s role to enforce evolving notions of “best practice” governance standards through what I consider “regulation by shaming.” Our mandate is disclosure rooted in materiality, not governance orthodoxy enforced by embarrassment. A second theme involves disclosure requirements that are impractical. For example, if a company’s CEO departed in 2025, the company must still report his or her ownership of the company’s stock in a proxy statement filed in 2026.[32] Is it reasonable to require the company to track down the share ownership of its former CEO, who could have departed more than a year ago? Or consider the rules governing related-party transactions. Companies must disclose transactions between the company and an executive’s “immediate family members,” a term that extends well beyond spouses and children to encompass all of one’s in-laws.[33] The rule makes no distinction based on the closeness or continuity of a relationship. Perhaps a more workable standard for “immediate family members” is whether the executive has shared a Thanksgiving meal with them in the past year. *** The final area of disclosure that I wish to address this morning is risk factors. As a Commissioner in 2005, I supported a rulemaking to extend risk factor disclosure from prospectuses to annual and quarterly reports through what became Item 1A.[34] Based on conversations with my fellow commissioners and SEC staff at the time, we anticipated that companies would provide a concise discussion—perhaps enough to fill two or three pages—that describe “what keeps management up at night.” Today, however, the risk factors disclosure in a Form 10-K is on average one of the longest sections of the annual report. If PvP is disclosure written by economists for economists, then risk factors are disclosure written by lawyers for lawyers. Unlike other voluminous disclosure that may result from the SEC’s rulebook, lengthy risk factors are likely not the result of the SEC’s rule. Item 105 of Regulation S-K expressly requires disclosure of material risks and discourages disclosure of generic ones.[35] The Commission has previously recognized the problem with lengthy risk factors, and in 2020, amended Item 105 to require a summary if the section exceeds fifteen pages.[36] While this rule change may have resulted in some companies reducing their risk factors disclosure to under fifteen pages, many more elected to keep their lengthy disclosures and add a summary on top of it.[37] In fact, the overall length of many large companies’ risk factors section increased following the rule change.[38] How can we reduce the volume of risk factors so that only material risks are presented to investors? The answer may depend on how we view their primary purpose. Should risk factors be disclosure written by management for investors to convey “what keeps them up at night?” Or are they principally a tool for establishing liability defenses, such as the “bespeaks caution” doctrine,[39] or to qualify as “meaningful cautionary statements” under the statutory safe harbor for forward-looking statements?[40] What is clear is that effectively reducing the volume of risk factors requires some creative ideas and out-of-the-box thinking. If the primary purpose is for management to communicate to investors, then a novel idea could be to have an entity—perhaps the SEC or the company itself—maintain a set of risks, which could be published separately outside of the annual report, that broadly apply to most companies across most industries. For example, these could include impacts from U.S. legislative and regulatory developments, geopolitical issues, and natural disasters. These risks would serve as a form of “general terms and conditions” associated with any investment in securities. A company could refer to these risks, rather than prepare its own, and supplement them as necessary. This approach could result in a shorter risk factors section consisting of risks that are specific and material to the company. However, if the primary purpose of risk factors is litigation defense, then reforms should go straight to the heart of the issue—potentially offering a safe harbor from liability. The Commission could adopt a rule stating that failure to disclose impacts from publicized events that are reasonably likely to affect most companies will not constitute material omissions for purposes of some or all of the federal securities laws’ anti-fraud rules. Such a safe harbor could incentivize companies to include fewer generic risk factors by shielding them from liability for events related to those generic risks. After all, if companies are not compelled to catalogue nearly every conceivable contingency to guard against hindsight litigation, then they can focus on risks that are more distinctive to their business. *** I offer these ideas in the spirit of starting a conversation about the primary purpose of risk factors and rule-based corporate disclosure generally. How can we right-size their length and complexity without diminishing their value? Most importantly, I am eager to hear your ideas—and encourage you to be bold and creative. Beyond risk factors, I also welcome your views and feedback on the broader principles, themes, and ideas that I have shared today regarding executive compensation disclosure and the other parts of Regulation S-K. The SEC is currently accepting written comments on these topics, and I hope that you will submit yours as soon as possible.[41] For those of you more focused on Texas corporate law, this state has begun to build something that could have lasting ramifications. I am excited to see what happens over the next few years, including any further changes to the corporate law during next year’s legislative session. As baseball’s spring training begins, I am reminded that “if [Texas] build[s] it, [the companies] will come.”[42] It has been my pleasure speaking with you this morning. You have been a patient and indulgent audience. And you have my best wishes for a wonderful remainder of this conference. Thank you. [1] Paul S. Atkins, Keynote Address at the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance’s 25th Anniversary Gala (Oct. 9, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-10092025-keynote-address-john-l-weinberg-center-corporate-governances-25th-anniversary-gala. [2] See, e.g., Jai Ramaswamy, Andy Hill, and Kevin McKinley, We’re Leaving Delaware, And We Think You Should Consider Leaving Too (July 9, 2025), available at https://a16z.com/were-leaving-delaware-and-we-think-you-should-consider-leaving-too/. [3] See, generally, James D. Cox and Thomas Lee Hazen, Treatise on the Law of Corporations § 2:4 (4th ed). [4] Id. [5] Tex. S.B. 29, 89th Leg., R.S., available at https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB29/id/3195811. [6] Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 21.561(c). [7] See, e.g., Jonathan T. Molot, Fee Shifting and the Free Market, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review 1807 (2013), available at https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=vlr. [8] Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. [9] Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 2.115. [10] Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 2.116. [11] See, e.g., Carlyle Drops Arbitration Clause from I.P.O. Plans, Kevin Roose, The New York Times (Feb. 3, 2012), available at https://archive.nytimes.com/dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/carlyle-drops-arbitration-clause-from-i-p-o-plans/. [12] Acceleration of Effectiveness of Registration Statements of Issuers with Certain Mandatory Arbitration Provisions, Release No. 33-11389 (Sept. 17, 2025) [90 FR 45125 (Sept. 19, 2025)], available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/19/2025-18238/acceleration-of-effectiveness-of-registration-statements-of-issuers-with-certain-mandatory. [13] 8 Del. C. § 115(c). [14] New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) (Brandeis, L., dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”). [15] Paul S. Atkins, Revitalizing America’s Markets at 250 (Dec. 2, 2025), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-120225-revitalizing-americas-markets-250. [16] SEC Roundtable on Executive Compensation Disclosure Requirements, available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/sec-roundtable-executive-compensation-disclosure-requirements. [17] 17 CFR 229.402(a)(3). [18] See, e.g., American Bar Association (Oct. 6, 2025) (“ABA Letter”); Center On Executive Compensation (July 31, 2025) (“COEC Letter”); Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (July 31, 2025); McGuireWoods LLP and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (June 2025); and Society for Corporate Governance (Aug. 27, 2025). [19] ABA Letter at 10. [20] 17 CFR 229.402(v). [21] Unofficial Transcript: SEC Roundtable on Executive Compensation Disclosure Requirements Panel (July 26, 2025) at 96, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-roundtable-executive-compensation-disclosure-requirements-2025-06-26-transcript.pdf. [22] Id. [23] U.S. Chamber of Commerce (June 25, 2025) at 10. [24] Executive Compensation and Related Person Disclosure, Release No. 34-54302 (Aug. 29, 2006) [71 FR 53158, 53177 (Sept. 8, 2006)], available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/09/08/06-6968/executive-compensation-and-related-person-disclosure. [25] Id. [26] COEC Letter at 9. [27] The Travelers Companies, Inc. (June 30, 2025) at 2. [28] 17 CFR 229.407(c)(1) and 17 CFR 229.407(e)(1). [29] 17 CFR 229.407(c)(2)(iii). [30] 17 CFR 229.407(f)(1). [31] See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 7265. [32] 17 CFR 229.403(b) and 17 CFR 229.402(a)(3)(i). See, also, Question 129.03, Regulation S-K Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations. [33] 17 CFR 229.404(a). [34] Securities Offering Reform, Release No. 33-8591 (July 19, 2005) [70 FR 44722 (Aug. 3, 2005)], available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/08/03/05-14560/securities-offering-reform. [35] 17 CFR 229.105. [36] Modernization of Regulation S-K Items 101, 103, and 105, Release No. 33-10825 (Aug. 26, 2020) [85 FR 63726 (Oct. 8, 2020)], available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/08/2020-19182/modernization-of-regulation-s-k-items-101-103-and-105. [37] SEC Risk Factor Disclosure Rules, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, posted by Dean Kingsley and Matt Solomon, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Kristen Jaconi, University of Southern California (Dec. 22, 2021), available at: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/22/sec-risk-factor-disclosure-rules/. [38] Id. [39] See, generally, Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements, Release No. 33-7101 (Oct. 13, 1994) [59 FR 52723, 52727 (Oct. 19, 1994)], available at https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1994/10/19/52714-52743.pdf#page=10. [40] 15 U.S.C. § 77z-2(c)(1)(A)(i) and 15 U.S.C. § 78u-5(c)(1). [41] See Paul S. Atkins, Statement on Reforming Regulation S-K (Jan. 13, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-statement-reforming-regulation-s-k-011326. [42] Field of Dreams (Universal Pictures 1989).

A new report from advanced FX and cash management solutions provider, MillTech, has revealed that UK corporates lost an average of £6.71m in 2025 due to unhedged FX exposure, while US firms lost $9.85m, driving a renewed focus on currency protection in 2026. MillTech’s Q4 2025 Corporate Hedging Monitor includes findings from a survey of 250 senior finance decision-makers at UK and US corporates and reveals that four in five firms (80%) reported losses from unhedged risk in 2025, with nearly a fifth (19%) describing these as significant. Against this backdrop, corporate hedging activity rebounded from Q3 lows, signalling a renewed focus on risk reduction. The average hedge ratio rose from 46% to 49%, although it remains below levels seen before Q3 2025. Hedge tenors also lengthened, increasing from an average of 5.8 to 6.3 months, in line with levels recorded in the first half of 2025. In the UK, average hedge lengths marginally exceeded those of Q4 2024, highlighting a renewed willingness among corporates to lock in protection for longer and improve cash flow certainty. Central bank policy and inflation rates emerged as the most influential external factors shaping FX hedging decisions, each cited by 17% of corporates. Notably, this was the first time inflation rates ranked joint top, while central bank policy has consistently led the list since Q2 2025. Looking ahead, tariff-driven market uncertainty is prompting a more defensive outlook. Nearly two-thirds of corporates plan to increase hedge ratios (64%) and extend hedge tenors (59%), with UK firms more inclined to do so than their US counterparts. Only a small minority expect to reduce coverage, with 10% planning to lower hedge ratios and 9% hedge lengths. Eric Huttman, CEO of MillTech, commented: “Q4 2025 marked a clear shift back towards defensive FX management. While hedge ratios and tenors increased, they have not yet returned to early-2025 levels, suggesting firms continue to balance protection against cost and flexibility. However, with most corporates experiencing losses from unhedged exposure, 2026 is likely to see further increases in coverage as tariff and policy-driven uncertainty persists and major currencies recorded their largest swings in nearly a year.”

LeveL Markets, a U.S. registered broker-dealer and the operator of the LeveL ATS, today announced a strategic partnership with EDX Markets, a leading digital asset firm that combines an institutional-only trading venue with a central clearinghouse, to drive broader institutional participation in digital assets. The partnership will connect LeveL Markets’ institutional trading solutions with EDX Markets’ digital asset trading and clearing ecosystem, enabling institutional participants to trade digital assets through secure and efficient market infrastructure. By combining LeveL Markets’ expertise in low-latency execution, advanced order routing and institutional workflows with EDX’s institutional-grade trading venue, the integration will lower barriers to entry for traditional financial institutions exploring digital assets. Steve Miele, CEO of LeveL Markets, commented, “We’re excited to partner with EDX Markets to expand our institutional trading infrastructure into the digital asset space. This partnership reflects our shared commitment to applying the standards, transparency and performance expected in traditional markets to digital asset trading, creating a seamless and trusted path for institutions to engage with this asset class.” The partnership supports both LeveL Markets’ and EDX Markets’ missions to deliver institutional-grade access to digital assets, with a focus on market integrity, capital efficiency and alignment with evolving regulatory frameworks. Tony Acuña-Rohter, CEO of EDX Markets, said, “LeveL Markets brings deep expertise in institutional market access and execution. By working together, we’re strengthening the connectivity and infrastructure that institutions need to engage in digital assets with confidence.”