On 4 June 2026, the FCA required Euro Exchange Securities UK Limited (EES) to cease carrying out any regulated electronic money or payment services and, on the FCA’s application, interim managers were appointed by the Court over EES. Serious concerns around the way EES operated its business indicated there were significant risks of financial crime. This includes systemic weaknesses in the firm’s financial crime framework and safeguarding arrangements, alongside its ownership and governance. These risks could have had an impact on both consumers and the integrity of the market. The appointment of the interim managers was made by the Court under the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021Link is external . EES will have an opportunity to be heard on 11 June 2026, following which the Court may lift the current order or place EES into special administration. Background Duncan Perring and James Bennett of Teneo Financial Advisory LimitedLink is external have been appointed as interim managers. The interim managers are officers of the Court, who have been appointed to temporarily oversee EES’ affairs until the next Court date, on 11 June 2026. Further information about the requirements applied to the firm can be found on the FCA Register.

In preparation for the SpaceX IPO (Symbol SPCX), the MIAX Options, MIAX Pearl Options, MIAX Emerald Options, and MIAX Sapphire Options Exchanges will list options on SPCX on the following Clouds:MIAX Options Exchange: Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 20 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed MIAX Order Feed (MOR) Administrative Information Subscriber (AIS) Feed MIAX Express Interface (MEI) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEI sessions on Cloud 20 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted MIAX Pearl Options and MIAX Emerald Options:  Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 10 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed MIAX Order Feed (MOR) Administrative Information Subscriber (AIS) Feed Pearl Liquidity Feed (PLF) MIAX Express Interface (MEI) and/or MIAX Express Order (MEO) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEI/MEO sessions on Cloud 10 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted MIAX Sapphire Options: Market Data Feed content for SPCX will be disseminated across the Cloud 2 multicast addresses for: Top of Market (ToM) Feed Complex Top of Market (cToM) Feed Sapphire Liquidity Feed (SLF) MIAX Express Order (MEO) customers will need to direct their interface activity for options on SPCX to their MEO sessions on Cloud 2 FIX Order Interface (FOI), Clearing Trade Drop (CTD) and FIX Drop Copy (FXD) customers are not impacted For additional details, please visit MIAX Options Interface Specifications, MIAX Pearl Options Interface Specifications, MIAX Emerald Options Interface Specifications and MIAX Sapphire Options Interface Specifications.If you have any questions, please contact Trading Operations at TradingOperations@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7302.

The Disciplinary Committee of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd has imposed a fine of EUR 30,000 to Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd (trading code: FARON) due to the breaches of the rules of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd (“the Exchange”).Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd (“the Company”) breached the Nasdaq First North Growth Market Rulebook for Issuers of Shares (“Rules”) of the Exchange” when disclosing the seizure of its bank accounts in February, the change of its CEO in April and its share issue in June 2024. The Disciplinary Committee concluded in its decision that the Company did not disclose the information in timely manner as soon as possible.In addition, the matter concerned whether the statements of the CEO given in an interview in May 2024 were contrary to good securities market practice. Disciplinary Committee noted that although the interview highlighted uncertainties related to drug development and the Company’s products, the probability of success in drug development was portrayed in a manner that was, in part, overly positive and thus provided misleading information. Furthermore, statements regarding the timing and uniqueness of the investment were considered inappropriate. The Disciplinary Committee stated in its decision that the Company’s CEO’s conduct during the interview was not in accordance with good securities market practice.Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee stated that the Company’s numerous and consecutive, yet separate, breaches of the Rules have in themselves been material and have concerned the fundamental obligations of a listed company, and failure of these may adversely affect the position of investors as well as the reliability of the securities markets and the operations of the Exchange. On the other hand, the Disciplinary Committee has considered that the violations have, in part, been minor. Taking into account the Company’s financial situation, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a disciplinary fine of EUR 30,000 should be imposed on the Company in this case as a proportionate sanction.The Disciplinary Committee also dismissed two other alleged rule violations asserted by Market Surveillance of the Exchange. The decision of the Disciplinary Committee is available: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-regulation/nordic/helsinki/disciplinary/decisions-sanctions Surveillance at Nasdaq Helsinki and the Disciplinary Committee The surveillance unit of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd investigates all suspected breaches of regulations. Minor breaches will result in reprimand to the company, whereas more serious cases are referred to the Disciplinary Committee. The members of the Disciplinary Committee are legal and financial experts independent of Nasdaq Helsinki Ltd. The members of the Committee are chair Mr. Ari Kantor, Justice, Supreme Court of Finland; Deputy chair Mrs. Helena Kontkanen, L. of Laws and trained on the bench; and members Mr. Kari Hietanen, Master of Laws; Mrs. Tarja Ollilainen, M.Sc. (Econ. & Bus. Adm.); and Mr. Sami Torstila, D. Sc, M. of Laws, Associate Professor. The sanctions may be a reprimand, a fine or a delisting. For more information about the Disciplinary Committee please visithttps://www.nasdaq.com/market-regulation/nordic/helsinki/disciplinary Nasdaq Nordic Foundation Established in 2006, the Foundation supports financial markets through scientific research. The Nasdaq Nordic Foundation receives paid fines from breaches by members or listed companies in Nasdaq Helsinki, Nasdaq Copenhagen, and Nasdaq Stockholm. The Foundation’s mission is to promote scientific research and other initiatives related to financial markets in Finland, Denmark, and Sweden, with the goal of increasing competence and competitiveness for the financial markets in these countries.

Investment firms could save around £20m a year under new proposals from the FCA to simplify climate reporting for investment products. The FCA estimates it could deliver these savings by replacing detailed product-level reports based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with simpler, more targeted information for retail investors, in line with the Consumer Duty. The changes aim to give investors clearer insight into how climate risks – such as floods, storms and other extreme weather events – could affect investment performance, while reducing unnecessary costs to firms. Michelle Beck, director of wholesale buy-side at the FCA, said:  'As part of being a smarter, more proportionate regulator, we’re cutting complexity in our rules for asset managers, while keeping the focus on clear, useful information for investors. 'These proposals will make it easier for firms to communicate with their customers in ways that genuinely inform and engage them.' The proposals follow a review of how the current rules are working. The FCA found that while the rules have improved firms’ awareness of climate risks, product-level reports are often seen as too complex by investors and not widely used. The FCA is seeking views from asset managers, asset owners, trade bodies, and consumer groups to make sure the proposed rules work in practice and support growth. Background The consultation is open until 13 July 2026. The FCA aims to finalise and implement the rule change in the autumn. Read the consultation paper (CP26/17) and see details on how to respond. The FCA estimates the proposals could save firms around £20m a year, based on its analysis which drew from feedback from industry on reporting costs and a voluntary survey of a sample of firms.  The proposals form part of the FCA’s wider work to streamline sustainability reporting requirements for asset managers and FCA-regulated asset owners. Under the proposals:  Retail investors would receive relevant information on how material climate risks could affect a product’s financial performance. Institutional clients would be able to request key emissions data from firms, but this would no longer need to be published in full reports. The proposals complement the FCA’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements for asset managers, which aim to help retail investors navigate the market for sustainable investment products and reduce greenwashing. TCFD product reporting was introduced in 2021 as part of the UK’s approach to climate disclosures. 

ASIC is seeking feedback on its proposal to withdraw financial reporting relief for uncontactable members before it expires on 1 October 2026. We have assessed that ASIC Corporations (Uncontactable Members) Instrument 2016/187 is no longer being used due to changes in the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act). Sections 110JA and 110F (4A) of the Corporations Act now provide similar relief where a member is uncontactable. Entities not covered by these requirements may need to apply to ASIC for individual relief aligned with Regulatory Guide 43: Financial reporting and audit relief (RG 43) (if ASIC proceeds with our proposal to withdraw ASIC Instrument 2016/187). Providing feedback Stakeholders can send submissions with their feedback to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au by 5pm AEST on Friday 17 July 2026. Background ASIC Instrument 2016/187 provided relief to companies, registered schemes, disclosing entities and notified foreign passport funds from obligations to provide annual reports to a member if that member was uncontactable. Related links CS 55 Proposed repeal financial reporting relief related to uncontactable members

Good morning, This is my first time before a parliamentary committee since taking the role of ASIC Chair on Monday. I want to thank and acknowledge my predecessor, Joe Longo, for his stewardship of ASIC over the last five years. Joe made a significant and lasting contribution to ASIC and our work in serving Australian consumers, investors and markets. I am joined by Commissioners Alan Kirkland, Kate O’Rourke and Simone Constant, CEO Scott Gregson and Executive Director for Regulation and Supervision, Peter Soros. ASIC has done a range of important work in recent times. We have strengthened our enforcement stance and taken decisive action against serious misconduct, obtaining record penalties and record sentences, while also advancing key regulatory priorities and helping ensure banks return record amounts to vulnerable Australians. We drove the landmark ASX inquiry, have significantly contributed to the thinking about public and private markets, and made significant progress with regulatory simplification, highlighting ASIC’s role in helping to enhance productivity and support economic growth. I look forward to building on this work in the coming years. Given this is a Budget Estimates hearing I want to give a brief update to the committee on a range of matters, including initiatives funded in last month’s federal Budget. This funding goes to core areas critical to ensuring we continue to engage with everyday Australians while delivering on the key requirements of ASIC. First, the Government is investing to complete Tranche 2 of the RegistryConnect program to stabilise and uplift ASIC’s business registers. This builds on previous funding and will help us improve online services for company registrations, lodgements, annual reviews, and other transactions, link Director IDs to company records, upgrade registry systems, and implement new functions for company deregistration powers. These registers support millions of everyday decisions including extending credit, verifying a company, entering commercial arrangements or assessing risk. Second, the Government is investing to strengthen oversight of managed investment schemes. This measure invests in ASIC’s digital capability, improving our tools to access existing non-ASIC government data and enhance supervision of this sector. While we believe there is no ‘silver bullet’ to these complex issues, better access to data will help us respond to existing and emerging threats, including those highlighted by the First Guardian and Shield matters. The Government has also committed to funding to improve governance arrangements for registered managed investment schemes and enhance ASIC’s supervision of the sector.  Third, with respect to the First Guardian and Shield matters that we have discussed with the Committee previously, we have continued a range of intensive work with a view to returning money to investors who have lost funds. We are running an extensive communications campaign to ensure that people are alerted to the issues and encouraging AFCA notifications. We currently have 14 proceedings in the Federal Court against 26 defendants relating to these issues. This includes recent action against Equity Trustees for allegedly failing to meet its trustee obligations and not act in members’ best financial interests when onboarding the First Guardian master fund. This is the second action we have taken against Equity Trustees and the fifth against a super trustee as part of our investigations. It means that ASIC has now commenced proceedings against every super trustee that made Shield or First Guardian available on its platform. This work to date has resulted in the return to investors of more than $400m. Fourth, this Committee is often interested in ASIC’s criminal work. We have recently seen significant custodial sentences imposed in a number of matters, including the sentence of Anthony Torre to six years in prison for fraud involving the misappropriation of superannuation funds; Remedy Housing officials sentenced for lengthy prison terms for dishonest offences and the misappropriation of customer funds; and Rodney Forrest, sentenced to 5 years and 3 months for insider trading and procuring others to trade in more than $3m of Platinum Asset Management Limited shares. This was the first outcome for our new specialist insider trading team which investigated and finalised the case within 16 months of the offending. Finally, ASIC has commenced a preliminary investigation into allegations about the conduct of several registered company auditors at KPMG that came to light after whistleblower claims were first aired in the Parliament. Our focus is to determine whether the conduct sanctioned by KPMG may be a breach of the duties of a registered company auditor and whether each of the registered company auditors have maintained their fitness and propriety in accordance with the Corporations Act. We look forward to taking your questions.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I regret very much that I could not join you this morning at the start of the meeting. Unfortunately, contemporaneous official business prevented me from attending the opening remarks portion of today’s program. However, I could not let this quarterly gathering pass by without taking a few moments to express my sincere gratitude for your continued and spirited service. I will keep my remarks brief, as I know that for many of you, the only thing standing between you and your flight home is me—save DC traffic, of course. And although they will be few, I must still note the customary disclaimer that the views I express here today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners. To begin, I should especially like to recognize those of you for whom today marks your first IAC meeting as new members. Patrick [Daugherty], John [Liu], Sheldon [Ray], and Adriana [Robertson], you have joined an esteemed group whose collective expertise and perspectives make this Committee an indispensable partner in safeguarding investors and strengthening our markets—and now, your individual contributions will only augment this collaboration and the insights that arise from it. Serving the investing public with your time and talent is a worthy and high calling, so I very much commend your decision to answer it. I would be remiss not to also take this moment to congratulate the new members of the IAC’s executive committee—and those of you serving in new positions within it. George [Georgiev], Andera [Seidt], Amy [McGarrity], and John [Gulliver], as well as the new subcommittee leaders, I am confident that your leadership will prove instrumental in advancing the critical work of this committee to fortify the foundations upon which our markets depend. Indeed, the promise of your stewardship was already made evident in today’s meeting, during which you convened expert panels and considered several topics of great importance to investors and the Commission alike. Your first panel this morning examined the investor protection challenges and opportunities presented by expanding retail access to private markets. Embracing growth and innovation across all asset classes, and promoting orderly markets and investor protection, are not mutually exclusive aims; they are compatible goals. They must be treated not as adversaries, but as allies. Your perspectives on this issue will help inform how the Commission can meet both objectives as we consider our role in increasing exposure to the full dynamism of our capital markets. The second panel today contemplated the increasing concentration of voting power in passive investment vehicles and its effects on investor protection. Assessing—and, where warranted, addressing—how these passive vehicles vote, and the influence of proxy advisors on their vote, has been a priority under my leadership because of its profound implications for corporate governance, and, in the context of funds, for advisers’ fundamental fiduciary duty to act in their clients’ best interest. I will continue to emphasize that investment advisers, as fiduciaries, must vote client proxies in their client’s best interest and not their own. Both of these discussions, I am certain, yielded valuable insights for which I am most grateful. And I look forward to engaging in the coming months on the consequential work explored today, as we continue to steer the SEC back to the bedrock fundamentals in which our mandate is rooted. As we do so, I am grateful for the acumen and thoughtfulness that you bring to every Investor Advisory Committee meeting, always with investors’ interests foremost in mind. Let me close by extending my special thanks to the Office of the Investor Advocate staff for their hard work in organizing this meeting. And congratulations, once again, to our new members and new executive committee. Thank you all for your time and engagement today. I look forward to the work ahead.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced five new members of the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The new members were appointed to four-year terms and will join the 15 current Commission-appointed committee members.  “I thank the new members for their willingness to serve on the advisory committee, which plays an important role in advising the Commission in our work to facilitate capital formation for entrepreneurs across the country,” said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. “I am grateful that the SEC will benefit from these new members’ collective experiences and look forward to continuing to work with current members to improve pathways and access to capital for small businesses in the private and public markets.”  The new Commission-appointed committee members are:  Anya Coverman – President and CEO, Institute for Portfolio Alternatives; Washington, D.C. Joseph Lucosky – Managing Partner, Lucosky Brookman LLP; Woodbridge, NJ   Andrew Prystai – CEO and Co-Founder, EventVesta; Omaha, NE Rodrigo Seira – Partner, Cooley LLP; Miami, FL  Erik Syvertsen – Head of Asset Management and Chief Legal Officer, AngelList; New York, NY In addition to the 15 appointed members, the current committee members include three non-voting members appointed by the SEC’s Investor Advocate, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and the Small Business Administration. The committee also has an observer appointed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  The committee provides advice and recommendations to the Commission on rules, regulations, and policy matters relating to small businesses, including smaller public companies. Committee members represent a broad spectrum of entrepreneurs, investors, and advisers who work with early-stage private companies and smaller public companies. Additional information about the committee, its members, and prior meeting materials is available on the Committee webpage.   

Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould today testified on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) priorities and activities before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. Excerpts from Comptroller Gould’s testimony are below. The full written testimony can be found here. On risk tolerance: “After the 2008 financial crisis, Washington too often sought to eliminate rather than manage risks, resulting in a less relevant and diverse banking system. This approach drove financial activities into less regulated and visible parts of our economy, making risks harder to monitor and mitigate. The Dodd-Frank Act, far from ending too big to fail, created a ‘moat’ around the largest banks and introduced ‘too-small-to-succeed.’ Unelected bureaucrats discouraged prudent risk-taking and reduced credit availability in many communities. In particular, community banks suffered from these misguided policies. The number of banks with less than $1 billion in total assets declined by 50 percent.” On de novo bank formation: “From 1990 to 2008, the OCC received and approved over 1,000 de novo charter applications. After 2008, application volume and approvals fell by 90 percent. But the OCC is open for business again. The agency received as many applications in 2025 alone as it did in the previous four years. For the first time in five years, a full-service national bank opened its doors. And we have conditionally approved 10 more banks this year. This is the result of us once again following the law and our publicly-stated procedures.” On supervision: “The OCC is also returning to risk-based supervision rooted in law and emphasizing examiner judgment, not arbitrary checklists. We are hardwiring the foundations of supervision, such as the definition of unsafe and unsound practices, into regulation, and are reviewing past supervisory criticisms and enforcement actions to ensure alignment with our standard for material financial risk.” On responsible innovation: “Our job is to facilitate, not stymie, responsible innovation. We are working to respond to comments on our GENIUS Act proposal and finalize it. Just as the National Bank Act brought an end to the ‘wildcat’ banking of the 1800s, the GENIUS Act and our rule will help ensure appropriate consumer protections for stablecoin users. In other words, our regulation will help ensure that all OCC institutions are able to satisfy their obligations—including both deposits and stablecoins.” On debanking: “Our banking system will only remain relevant and trusted if it resists pressures to deny access based on political or religious beliefs or lawful business activity. We have made considerable progress in reviewing the activities of the largest national banks and are investigating complaints of alleged debanking, consistent with the President’s executive order.”

Derivatives have become a critical tool for Australia’s massive superannuation sector, as funds look to manage the risks associated with their expanding offshore investments. The use of derivatives brings real risk management benefits, but it also means funds need to closely monitor their liquidity needs – and recognize that demands for cash and other high-quality liquid assets can suddenly spike during periods of stress. We believe use of a risk-sensitive margin methodology like the ISDA Standard Initial Margin Model (ISDA SIMM) can play an important part in responding to these dynamics, and we’re helping to support implementation within the sector. The Australian superannuation industry has grown rapidly to become the fourth largest globally, with assets equivalent to roughly 160% of GDP. Around half of those assets are invested offshore and that proportion is predicted to rise further. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) expects the system to grow to about 180% of GDP within a decade, with overseas investments approaching 75%. To manage the risks associated with that global exposure, Australian superannuation funds have been increasing their use of derivatives – FX hedges alone are estimated to total A$500 billion ($357 billion), and the RBA estimates this could double in 10 years. That expanding use of derivatives means superannuation funds need to closely monitor and manage the liquidity implications. For funds subject to regulatory margin requirements on non-cleared derivatives, both initial and variation margin can create significant and sometimes sudden calls on liquid resources, especially during periods of stress. While FX swaps and forwards – widely used by superannuation funds – are exempt from regulatory margin requirements, banks may start to require their superannuation fund counterparties to provide margin on a discretionary basis to reduce credit and capital charges as FX hedge books grow. Even if FX swaps and forwards remain unmargined, these short-dated instruments require regular rollover and settlement, concentrating liquidity needs at specific points in time. The result is a more complex and dynamic liquidity profile – one that requires robust planning, governance and risk management. ISDA published a paper earlier this year that explores these dynamics and recommends a series of actions that funds could take in response, including establishing repo and other contingent liquidity facilities, broadening eligible collateral for non-cleared derivatives where possible and strengthening stress testing, early warning indicators and contingency planning. A key part of the solution is ensuring margin requirements accurately reflect risk – which is where the ISDA SIMM has a vital role to play. As a risk-sensitive model, the calculated margin amounts better reflect the actual risk of a portfolio than the standard regulatory schedule, helping to avoid over-margining and reducing avoidable liquidity drains. There are important risk management benefits too. A common, transparent model reduces the scope for disputes and allows margin to be agreed and exchanged more quickly – a critical advantage in volatile conditions. It’s clear there is strong interest from the superannuation community to use the ISDA SIMM. We were in Sydney last week and ran training on the model, which was very well attended by the superannuation sector – a program we intend to repeat later in the year. To use the ISDA SIMM, however, superannuation funds must get authorization from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), and there is some trepidation over what the application process involves and a lack of clarity on what exactly is needed to obtain approval. This is different to the experience of buy-side firms in other jurisdictions, which can use the ISDA SIMM with limited impediments. In our view, there are clear benefits to using the ISDA SIMM – the model is widely used, rigorously tested and governed, and subject to ongoing regulatory review. It is also now calibrated on a semiannual basis, ensuring the model is updated in a predictable and efficient manner. In contrast, the standard regulatory schedule is a blunt and static tool that does not evolve with market conditions. There is a shared objective here: resilient, well-managed funds and stable, efficient markets. In our view, use of the ISDA SIMM supports both. We will continue to work with the industry – through training, advocacy and engagement with APRA – to help provide greater clarity and facilitate adoption.

ISDA and the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee have announced that S&P Global Market Intelligence has been selected as the administrator for the Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees (DCs). The announcement follows an invitation to tender in November 2025. The DC administrator is responsible for various tasks, including acting as DC secretary, building and operating a replacement DC website, and developing and running all infrastructure required to administer the DC process. The administrator will also work with the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee to continue improving the DC rules to meet market expectations for efficiency and transparency in credit event determinations and ensure the long-term viability of the DCs. The appointment of an independent DC administrator is the latest in a series of measures to strengthen DC processes and follows publication by ISDA of the results of a consultation on proposed changes to the DCs in 2024. The consultation, conducted by Boston Consulting Group, was based on recommendations proposed by Linklaters as part of an independent review on the composition, functioning, governance and membership of the DCs. In May 2025, ISDA published a proposal for a new governance committee for the DCs. The governance committee was subsequently established in July 2025. “As an independent DC administrator, S&P Global Market Intelligence will work closely with the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee to further enhance the transparency of the DC process and implement agreed structural changes, such as moving towards a non-market-participant decision-making body – steps that will boost confidence in the integrity of the DCs,” said Katherine Tew Darras, ISDA’s General Counsel. The DCs were introduced in 2009 as a centralized decision-making body to enable a standardized auction settlement process and ensure central clearing could be implemented for credit derivatives. Although ISDA does not control the DC rules and is not involved in the decision-making process or administration of the committees, ISDA has an interest as a global trade association for derivatives in ensuring the DCs continue to function robustly. Documents (1)for ISDA and the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee Select S&P Global as DC Administrator ISDA and the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee Select SP Global as DC Administrator(pdf)

Good afternoon. Patrick [Moley], thank you for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure and a privilege to address this group of exchange and fintech leaders, along with the expert buy-side community that keeps you honest. These are exciting times for our Nation’s capital markets, and this conference is a premier forum for taking the commercial pulse of top industry operators. For a policymaker who spends most waking hours in Washington, today is a valuable opportunity to hear feedback on our work, surface problems that warrant our attention, and explore ideas that improve our markets and benefit the investing public we serve together. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. Please accept that I speak today in my official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Trading and Markets. These remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or members of the Division’s staff. Rich Repetto, my friend and sell-side research legend, launched this annual conference in June 2004. Rich had recently joined Sandler O’Neill, and “eFinance” was how the industry described the emerging collision of trading and technology. That collision accelerated over the next decade, disrupting the exchange and brokerage businesses, leading to innovation, productivity gains, and strategic combinations. Rich’s conference was the place to hear from industry leaders in the arena, scaling platforms, driving competition, and creating shareholder value. I personally participated in nine of Rich’s conferences, including the inaugural, as a member of the equity market structure panel. It was always a lively discussion, but attendance was usually light as the audience opted for the more fertile fields of one-on-one management meetings. One could envision a Piper Sandler research salesman imitating Greg Marmalard, the granite-jawed President of Omega Theta Pi in the movie “Animal House,” directing an underpaying client to his or her proper place at cocktails.[1] “Over there is Duncan Niederauer, CEO of NYSE Group. And that’s Ray Killian, founder of ITG. And this is the equity market structure panel – Mohammed, Jugdish, Selway, and Clayton.” But we did our best to contribute to the program. The 2004 panel topic was Reg NMS. Not everything evolves at a breakneck commercial pace. Another regular contributor to the conference was Gary Gensler. Chairman Gensler joined this forum seven times, first as leader of the CFTC in 2010, and then as SEC Chairman in 2021. In 2013, I recall Chairman Gensler and BGC Partners Chairman and CEO Howard Lutnick engaging in a spirited lunchtime thrust-and-parry over the CFTC’s limit order book requirement for swap execution facilities. I wonder if a future cabinet secretary sits in the audience today. In January, I presented certain Division priorities under the leadership of Chairman Atkins, who incidentally spoke to this group in 2017.[2] Specifically, the Chairman has directed the Division to work on developing a framework to list and trade tokenized securities, with “innovation without arbitrage” as our guiding principle. We are also working with CFTC staff to identify ways we can harmonize SEC policies with those of the CFTC. We are working to facilitate a successful transition to 23-by-5 operation for equity markets by the end of this year. And we are working to develop recommendations to modernize legacy rules, such as Reg NMS and the Consolidated Audit Trail, to drive industry efficiency and competition. Given its rich history, and the product breadth and global perspective of its audience, this conference is an excellent forum to discuss SEC-CFTC harmonization. At the most basic level, effective harmonization means efficiency and flexibility for registrants, as well as lower barriers to innovation. Speaking at FIA in Boca Raton in March, Chairman Atkins stated: “Firms should not be shuffled back and forth between regulators when a product touches elements of both regulatory frameworks. Nor should a bureaucracy’s penchant for indecision obscure accountability and stymie a timely, sure response. Nor should clarity itself depend on which agency happens to speak first. Where jurisdiction overlaps, the most effective response is a coordinated one.”[3] At present, the SEC and CFTC are working together, in parallel, to evaluate a number of novel product proposals. For example, on February 10, the SEC issued a notice of CME’s application for an exemption to trade single-stock futures with cash, P.M. settlement.[4] And on May 22, the SEC approved Nasdaq PHLX’s proposal to list and trade cash-settled Bitcoin index options.[5] Our agencies stand ready to engage constructively with market participants who seek a compliant path forward through our respective jurisdictions. In addition, we are jointly evaluating areas in which our rulebooks lack clarity or compatibility. Here, we expect to benefit from industry expertise and investor experience by way of public input. Division staff have identified swap and security-based swap data reporting, portfolio margining, and product definitions as potential areas of initial focus. I ask members of this audience to consult with colleagues, clients, and counterparties, and bring us your best ideas to align our rules and reduce regulatory frictions. Harmonization has re-surfaced long-standing questions that warrant resolution. One open question is the legal status of perpetual futures. “Perps” are popular outside our regulatory perimeter, particularly for digital assets. At our joint roundtable last September, expert opinion was divided. Don Wilson of DRW argued that perpetuals were best classified as a futures contract, while CBOE’s Craig Donahue suggested that swaps treatment was more appropriate under current law.[6] Last Friday, the CFTC approved Kalshi’s proposal to trade perpetuals on Bitcoin as a futures contract,[7] while suggesting that perpetuals on additional underlying assets would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.[8] I expect substantial industry comment in coming months. Despite the many promises of SEC-CFTC harmonization, no one should assume the process will be easy. The marketplace is exceptionally competitive and the commercial stakes could not be higher. During that same roundtable panel previously mentioned, Polymarket’s Shane Copland suggested to Terry Duffy that CME had benefited from his age and experience with respect to the regulatory landscape.[9] Terry responded with a hand signal that has a universal meaning known well outside Chicago’s trading pits. [10] In all seriousness, successful harmonization will require patience and long-term thinking from market participants and investors alike. Venue shopping and unreasonable expectations will undermine our efforts. It is claimed that Jesse Livermore, the “Boy Plunger” and terror of early 20th century markets, once remarked that “another lesson I learned early is that there is nothing new in Wall Street” because “speculation is as old as the hills.”[11] Unfortunately, experience teaches that such cynicism is often warranted. So as we consider the potential benefits of effective harmonization, let us be mindful of our shared, sacred responsibilities to the investing public. Amongst these, two stand out. First, despite blurred technological lines and temptations outside U.S. jurisdiction, we must distinguish investing from gambling. Second, we must avoid the age-old, well-worn path to financial services perdition—extending unhealthy levels of leverage to the unsophisticated and unsuspecting. By delivering true innovations, and avoiding these twin pitfalls, your organizations can deliver value to your clients, your investors, your world-leading industry, and our great Nation. This is the promise of SEC-CFTC harmonization. Thank you for your time and attention. I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference, and I look forward to your questions and comments. [1] See NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE (Universal Pictures 1978), scene available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuFCaIAnETk. [2] Jamie Selway, Director, Div. of Trading and Markets, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Commission of Big Shoulders, Speech at Security Traders Association of Chicago Mid-Winter Meeting (Jan. 22, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/selway-remarks-commission-of-big-shoulders-012226.  [3] Paul S. Atkins, Chairman, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Fostering Regulatory Harmony Between the SEC and CFTC, Speech at the FIA Global Cleared Markets Conference (Mar. 10, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-fostering-regulatory-harmony-between-sec-cftc-031026. [4] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 104786 (Feb. 10, 2026), 91 FR 6681 (Feb. 12, 2026). [5] Securities Exchange Act Release No. 105549 (May 22, 2026), 91 FR 31769 (May 28, 2026).  [6] SEC-CFTC Joint Roundtable on Regulatory Harmonization Efforts (Sep. 29, 2025), Panel 2 – Platforms available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Kzp9Ln8zTU. [7] CFTC Order Approving KalshiEX LLC of the BTCPERP Futures Contract (May 29, 2026) available at https://www.cftc.gov/filings/documents/2026/orgdcmkexbtxperporder26601.pdf. [8] See CFTC Issues Policy Statement Concerning the Listing of Perpetual Contracts available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr-9242-26. [9] See supra note 6. [10] Godwin, Paul Ugbede. CME Group CEO Terrence Duffy Flips Off Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan, Tekedia (Sept. 30, 2025) available at https://www.tekedia.com/cme-group-ceo-terrence-duffy-flips-off-polymarket-ceo-shayne-coplan/.  [11] Lefèvre, Edwin.  Reminiscences of a Stock Operator.  New York:  G.H. Doran; 1923.

Nodal Exchange today announced strong performance in power, natural gas, and environmental markets. Nodal continues to be the market leader in North American power futures with 56% share of open interest at the end of May with 1.530 billion MWh open interest, up 2% from a year earlier, representing $169 billion of notional value based on both sides.  Traded power futures volume ended the month of May at 247 million MWh. Environmental futures and options on Nodal Exchange posted volume of 51,718 lots in May. Open interest ended the month at 483,340 lots, up 17% from a year earlier. Carbon futures and options posted volume of 12,650 lots, with open interest of 63,545 lots. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) on Nodal posted volume of 39,017 lots, with open interest of 402,118 lots.  Nodal, in collaboration with IncubEx, offers the largest suite of environmental contracts in the world, with more than 120 futures and options products listed on the exchange. Open interest in Nodal’s natural gas markets reached 80,800,000 MMBtus as of the end of May 2026, a 397% increase from a year ago. “We are proud to serve the North American energy markets and are pleased to see growth across Nodal’s power, environmental and natural gas markets,” said Paul Cusenza, Chairman and CEO of Nodal Exchange. “We appreciate the ongoing support of our trading community.”

The European Energy Exchange AG (EEX) has been appointed by the European Commission to host the fourth phase of the Common Auction Platform (CAP4) for the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) emissions allowances, starting January 2027. The duration of the contract has been set for five years. The CAP4 mandate covers EU ETS 1 auctions for 25 EU Member States, three EEA EFTA states as well as funds already included under the third phase of the Common Auction Platform (CAP3). Separately, it will include the new EU ETS 2 system for 27 EU Member States, the three EEA EFTA states as well as the Social Climate Fund, bringing buildings, road transport and small industry under the umbrella. EU ETS 2 is a stand-alone ETS and the respective allowances are non-fungible with allowances from the EU ETS 1. Peter Reitz, CEO of EEX, says: “It is exciting as much as an honour that EEX has been selected as the platform for the continued auctioning of the EU’s emission allowances. In times when geopolitical developments highlight the importance of energy transition, we are well-positioned to play this essential role and drive the transition forward. With the start of the new EU-ETS 2 system, these auctions will not only grow in importance but also in numbers, with a significant expansion of the participant pool.” Details in terms of the admission process for new entrants and timelines will be published in due course. EEX has worked closely with the European Commission on the EU ETS system since the launch in 2005 and hosted most EU ETS auctions since those began in 2010. To date EEX has successfully executed more than 3,200 emissions auctions, all run on its exchange platform and cleared by European Commodity Clearing (ECC). The exchange currently serves as the platform for CAP3 and was recently awarded with the mandate to conduct the auctioning and sale of emission certificates (nEZ) within the German national emissions trading system (nEHS) from this year onwards. EEX also offers EU ETS 2 futures contracts with expiries from December 2028 to support hedging needs of the wider trading community. The European Energy Exchange (EEX) is a leading energy exchange which builds secure, successful and sustainable commodity markets worldwide – together with its customers and partners. As part of EEX Group, it serves international power, natural gas, environmental, freight and agricultural markets, and provides data, reporting and registry services. EEX is an enabler of the energy transition and decarbonisation, advancing renewables integration through dedicated products and services, including those related to guarantees of origin. More information: www.eex.com

Thank you, George [Georgiev]. I am grateful to you and the rest of the new leadership team for taking on the important responsibility of guiding this Committee’s work.  Thanks also to today’s panelists and to the Committee members. A warm welcome to our four new members, Patrick, Adriana, Sheldon, and John.1 We selected you as members because we believe you have something uniquely helpful to add to the conversation. With its diverse experiences and perspectives, this Committee can be a valuable advisor to the Commission. Active participation by all members maximizes the Committee’s effectiveness. You do not need to be an expert in the matter under discussion to ask questions of panelists; often a fresh look at an issue from someone who has not been steeped in it can help clarify the problem or identify a solution.  Today’s first panel is a continuation of the IAC’s work on retail investor access to private market assets. The panel will discuss specifically the potential for retail investor confusion around redemption gating, fee structures, and valuation methods and strategies that the securities industry and regulators could implement to avoid investor confusion. I have several questions for your consideration during the discussion:  Doesn’t the existence of features of these funds such as gates and incentive fee structures help focus investors on the illiquid nature of the funds’ portfolios and the need for investors to consider whether the fund is compatible with their liquidity needs? Would requiring registered funds to include additional disclosures increase the likelihood that fund investors, already overwhelmed by the disclosures they receive, simply ignore all fund disclosures? Is improved investor education the best path to address concerns about investor confusion? The second panel revisits the topic of voting by passive index funds. I pose the following questions for discussion: As I noted at the Committee’s June 5, 2025 meeting, the right to vote belongs to the fund itself, not to the fund’s adviser or its investors.2 A fund’s board may delegate voting power to its adviser, but the adviser must exercise it in the interests of the fund alone. Can a pass-through voting policy be compatible with an adviser’s fiduciary duty to the fund? Would pass-through voting serve only the interests of the subset of fund investors that choose to express their preferences, which may be inconsistent with the fund’s best interest?  How could mirror voting, where the fund votes its shares in the same proportion as the other shares in a company are voted (so the fund would vote some shares in favor of and some shares against a proposal), serve the interests of the fund?  I also have some questions to contribute to what I hope will be a vibrant discussion of both draft recommendations under consideration today. New members should feel free to participate in the discussions and the votes. And I remind seasoned members of the value in sharing at this public meeting the discussions you had behind closed doors between meetings as you crafted the draft recommendations. Having access to all members’ views and thoughts that shaped your vote greatly enhances the Commission’s review and understanding of the issues that are the subject of the Committee’s recommendations. I appreciate the draft recommendations regarding fund proxy voting, which give us some concrete things to consider. The draft follows the Committee’s excellent discussion on this matter at its last meeting.3 My questions are:  Would permitting fund opt-in retail voting programs similar to the approach outlined in the Exxon Mobil Corporation no-action letter sufficiently address funds’ ability to achieve quorum, or would the Commission need to do more?  Do you share my concern that the medium-term action recommendations would deprive shareholders of their voting rights in certain consequential matters, such as certain changes in fundamental policies? The first long-term recommendation would allow funds held through intermediaries to communicate directly with their shareholders on proxy voting matters. During the discussion we heard about the anger of shareholders at being contacted. Would this change anger and confuse investors? Would objecting beneficial owners be covered? Would this recommendation significantly reduce costs and improve voter participation?         I look forward to the Committee’s discussion of its draft recommendation on our semiannual reporting proposal, which mirrors concerns that we have heard from commenters in the first half of the comment period. As part of that discussion, please consider the following questions: The draft recommendation suggests that one of the main justifications for the proposal was combatting short-termism, but the proposal only briefly raised this rationale and declined to put much weight in it: “There is some evidence that decreasing reporting frequency could reduce short termism. Overall, however, the effects of reporting frequency on real corporate decisions are mixed.”4 In speaking recently with companies, particularly small ones, I have heard concerns not that quarterly reporting is driving short-termism, but that the cost of the Form 10-Q does not yield proportionate benefits for investors. To answer this concern, should we streamline the reporting burden rather than adjusting whether that burden is quarterly?  If so, is that exercise better undertaken in conjunction with this rulemaking or as part of the Commission’s broader project of assessing disclosure requirements? Even if we were not to make quarterly reporting optional for all companies, should we make it optional for smaller companies? I appreciate that the Committee is providing feedback on a current Commission initiative. In that vein, I recommend for your future consideration two important, albeit technical, proposals related to filer status determination and the registered offering process. These proposals are part of the Commission’s effort to encourage companies to go and stay public. Do you have other suggestions about how the Commission can achieve this important pillar of its agenda? Thank you again for your willingness to dedicate so much of your time to the Investor Advisory Committee. Thank you also to Marc Sharma, Adam Moore, and Charles Kwon for their work with the Committee, particularly in helping to bring the new IAC members onboard in time for today’s meeting.   1Press Release, Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Announces Four New Members of Investor Advisory Committee (June 1, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-50-sec-announces-four-new-members-investor-advisory-committee.  2See Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Just Passing Through: Remarks at the Meeting of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee (June 5, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-iac-060525.  3See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investor Advisory Committee, Meeting Agenda (March 12, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/about/advisory-committees/investor-advisory-committee/iac031226-agenda.  4Semiannual Reporting, Release No. 33-11414 (May 5, 2026) [91 FR 24968 (May 7, 2026)] at text following n.253, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-05-07/pdf/2026-09095.pdf;  See also id. at paragraph accompanying nn.160-161 (“Less frequent periodic disclosures may affect management incentives. If less frequent disclosure reduces scrutiny of issuers as discussed above, then this could reduce potential managerial incentives to overly focus on short-term outcomes to the detriment of long-term performance. Survey evidence has found that management feels pressure to meet short-term earnings benchmarks, with a majority reporting a willingness to make corporate investment or operating decisions that smooth earnings (i.e., reduce their volatility), even if such decisions would reduce long-term value by a small amount. Still, reductions in the reporting frequency are less likely to affect decision-making regarding long-horizon outcomes, such as investment decisions that are intended to generate profits five or ten years down the road. Further, other factors may play a larger role in short-termism concerns than the periodic disclosure cycle, such as executive compensation design or messaging to investors through, for example, earnings guidance.”). 

Thank you, George [Georgiev]. Good morning and welcome to all Committee members, especially the four newly appointed ones: Patrick Daugherty, John Liu, Sheldon Ray, and Adriana Robertson. Thank you for agreeing to serve as members of the Committee and for your commitment to public service. I would also like to congratulate George on your new role as Chair of the Committee.I appreciate your willingness to lead the Committee, and we are all excited to see you in this role in the years ahead. Today’s first panel will discuss potential investor confusion on certain features of private markets and alternative investment products, such as redemption gating, fee structures, and valuation methodologies.While market events over the past several months have made this topic quite relevant, the general question of whether investors understand the specific features and risks associated with a particular financial product is nothing new. It is a problem that predates the federal securities laws. Recently, certain private credit funds faced elevated redemption requests, which prompted fund managers to implement limits on redemption. The redemption gates are not evidence of product failures. Rather, the gates worked as they were intended and disclosed—aligning the fund’s redemption structure with the less liquid nature of the underlying portfolio securities, preventing the fire sale of assets, and ensuring that all investors, particularly the remaining shareholders, are treated fairly. These limitations are intentional features. However, a significant number of investors appear to have been surprised or confused by the redemption caps, which suggests a potential mismatch between investor expectation and the prospectus disclosures for the product. This suggests potential sales practice concerns that would be already covered by existing SEC and FINRA rules. The second panel will address the corporate governance and investor protection implications of the growing concentration of voting power in passive investment vehicles. In his book, “The Problem of Twelve,” former SEC general counsel John Coates makes the observation that the rise of passive index funds has led to an unprecedented concentration of voting power—the four largest index fund providers collectively control more than twenty percent of the votes of S&P 500 companies.[1] As he frames it, this means that in practical terms, a small number of individuals (perhaps as few as a dozen) exercise an outsized amount of proxy votes over many public companies. The more such asset managers exercise influence on a company’s board composition, executive compensation package, risk management or other proxy proposals without obtaining a mandate from fund investors, the more it starts resembling active control. This phenomenon raises important questions and concerns regarding fiduciary obligations, the impact on corporate governance, and the level of transparency regarding communications from large shareholders to corporate boards and management. How proxy votes held by funds are exercised also has broader implications, such as regarding Schedule 13D/13G reporting as well as the regulation of proxy advisory firms. The panelists today will discuss various proposals such as pass-through voting and mirror voting and explore the practical and regulatory complexities of each of these approaches. Later this afternoon, the Committee will consider recommendations on modernizing the fund proxy system for open-end funds and ETFs as well as quarterly and semi-annual corporate reporting. I appreciate the work that the Committee has put into developing these recommendations. The Commission welcomes input on these topics, and having a range of perspectives is what this Committee is intended to provide. Thank you to the Committee members and the panelists for your time in preparing for this meeting. [1] John Coates, The Problem of Twelve: When a Few Financial Institutions Control Everything (2023).

The average daily trading volume for the period 31/05 – 04/06 reached JD (20.6) million compared to JD (22.5) million for the last week, a decrease of (8.3%). The total trading volume during the week reached JD(103.0) million compared to JD (22.5) million during the last week. Trading a total of (30.0) million shares through (25344) transactions. Financial led the trading with JD(46.91) million or (45.57%) of the total trading volume. The Industrial followed with a JD(40.64) million or (39.47%). Finally, the Services with a JD(15.40) million representing(14.96%) of the total trading volume. The shares price index closed at (4030.2) points, compared to (4055.7) points for the last week, a decrease of (0.63%). The Financial index decreased by (0.07%), the Industrial index decreased by (0.11%), and the Services index decreased by (1.93%). The shares of (127) companies were traded, the shares prices of (47) companies rose, and the shares prices of (60) declined. The top five gainers during the week were, the Jordanian Co. For Developing & Financial Investment by (15.15%), Sura Development & Investment Plc by (13.51%), Jordan Vegetable Oil Industries by (10.64%), Al Sanabel International For Islamic Investments(holding) Plc. Co. by (9.76%), and United Cable Industries by (9.32%). The top five losers were, the Jordan Phosphate Mines by (40.34%), The Arab Internationl For Education & Investment. by (12.26%), The Arab Pesticides & Veterinary Drugs Mfg. Co. by (10.43%), National Aluminium Industrial by (6.67%), and The Jordan Pipes Manufacturing by (6.33%). Note: The list of the top five gainers or losers may include companies whose reference prices have been adjusted due to actions executed during the summary period. Therefore, the appearance of such companies does not necessarily reflect an actual change in their stock prices.

TMX Group Limited today announced May 2026 trading statistics for its marketplaces – Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX Venture Exchange, TSX Alpha Exchange (Alpha), including Alpha-X & Alpha DRK, and Montréal Exchange (MX). Related Document:TMX Group Consolidated Trading Statistics – May 2026

Today TheCityUK launched the 2026 edition of its ‘Key facts about UK-based financial and related professional services’ report. The report makes clear the significant role UK-based financial and related professional services make to UK economic activity. Read the full report The data highlights that the industry is an important source of economic support across the UK regions and nations and in output terms, contributed around £11 in every £100 of economic output generated in the UK in 2025 (£290bn overall). It also remains a major national employer, with almost 2.5 million people in employment across the country in 2024, accounting for 7.5% of total UK employment with two thirds of these jobs based outside London Find out more about the latest available data on our industry and read the full report on TheCityUK website.

Tradeweb Markets Inc. (Nasdaq: TW), a global leader in electronic trading across asset classes, today reported total trading volume for the month of May 2026 of $62.3 trillion (tn). Average daily volume ("ADV") for the month was $3.0tn, an increase of 18.3 percent (%) year-over-year (YoY). Record Highlights: For May of 2026, Tradeweb records included: ADV in rates futures ADV in repurchase agreements May 2026 Highlights rates    U.S. government bond ADV was up 19.8% YoY to $282.7 billion (bn). European government bond ADV was up 26.3% YoY to $64.1bn. Strong U.S. government bond ADV was driven by strong institutional and wholesale activity, with institutional volumes reaching their second highest month on record. Similarly, European government bond ADV was driven by strong volumes in our institutional client channel. Strong activity in the U.S. and Europe was supported by an increased number of clients trading across a diverse set of trading protocols. Mortgage ADV was up 11.8% YoY to $257.5bn. To-Be-Announced ("TBA") activity was primarily driven by increased trading YoY from government sponsored enterprises and originator accounts, alongside higher hedge fund activity. Tradeweb’s specified pool platform saw increased volumes YoY, supported by stronger participation from origination and hedge fund clients, continued client adoption, and an expanding dealer roster. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year ADV was up 23.8% YoY to $609.2bn and total rates derivatives ADV was up 26.6% YoY to $1.1tn. Swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year saw stronger risk trading activity YoY driven by continued uncertainty around the global inflation outlook, evolving central bank policy expectations and heightened geopolitical developments impacting global rates due to energy related supply risks. This was supported by a 12% YoY increase in compression activity, which carries a relatively lower fee per million ("FPM"). 2Q26 to-date compression activity as a percentage of swaps/swaptions ≥ 1-year is trending higher than 1Q26. credit  Fully electronic U.S. credit ADV was up 20.4% YoY to $10.0bn and European credit ADV was up 25.5% YoY to $3.0bn. U.S. credit volumes were driven by continued client adoption of trading protocols, most notably in Request-for-Quote ("RFQ"), Portfolio Trading ("PT"), and Tradeweb AllTrade®. Tradeweb captured 18.9% share of fully electronic U.S. high grade TRACE and 8.2% share of U.S. high yield TRACE, as measured by Tradeweb. We also reported 25.9% total share of U.S. high grade TRACE and 10.8% total share of U.S. high yield TRACE. European credit volumes were driven by continued strong adoption of Automated Intelligent Execution ("AiEX") and PT. Global cash credit PT ADV increased by 41.5% YoY, with non-comp PT[1] ADV up 34.9% YoY. PT carries a relatively lower FPM as compared to the broader cash credit average, with non-comp PT carrying a lower FPM than PT overall. Municipal bonds ADV was down 4.3% YoY to $473 million. Municipal bonds performed slightly better than the broader market which was down 4.8%[2]      Credit derivatives ADV was up6% YoY to $19.0bn. Increased hedge fund and systematic account activity YoY led to increased swap execution facility ("SEF") and multilateral trading facility ("MTF") credit default swaps activity. equities    U.S. ETF ADV was up 23.0% YoY to $10.8bn and International ETF ADV was up 28.8% YoY to $4.3bn. Stronger global ETF volumes YoY were driven by robust activity in our institutional and wholesale channels as the client base grew and clients' adoption of our automated trading functionality continued to grow YoY.  money markets    Repo ADV was up 15.5% YoY to $899.1bn. Record global repo ADV was supported by increased client participation across the platform YoY. In the U.S., strong growth was driven by the effects of the Fed’s balance sheet unwind. Additionally, balances in the Fed’s reverse repo facility ("RRP") remained close to zero for a majority of the month, with small spikes mid-month and at the end of the month. In Europe, strong activity continued to be driven by the impact of geopolitical factors feeding into European Central Bank and Bank of England policy rate changes. Other Money Markets ADV was up 0.9% YoY to $272.2bn. Other money markets ADV was driven by Tradeweb ICD Portal activity from both existing and new client additions. This was partially offset by less client demand for commercial paper and discount notes YoY. Please refer to the report posted to https://www.tradeweb.com/newsroom/monthly-activity-reports/ for complete information and data related to our historical monthly, quarterly and yearly ADV and total trading volume across asset classes. Basis of Presentation  All reported amounts are presented in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise indicated. In determining the reported U.S. dollar amounts for non-U.S. dollar denominated securities, the non-U.S. dollar amount for a particular month is translated into U.S. dollars generally based on the monthly average foreign exchange rate for the prior month. Volumes presented in this release exclude volumes generated by (i) unbilled trial agreements, (ii) products billed on an agreement basis where we do not calculate notional value, and (iii) products that are not rates, credit, equities or money markets products. Please see the footnotes on page 3 of the full report for information regarding how we calculate market share amounts presented in this release. Amounts for preliminary average variable fees per million dollars of volume traded and preliminary fixed fees for rates, credit, equities and money markets included in this release and in the related report are subject to the completion of management’s final review and our other financial closing procedures and therefore are subject to change. Beginning with the publication of the December 2024 Monthly Activity Report, Tradeweb adjusted its methodology for reflecting acquisitions in its reported average daily volume figures. For average daily volume derived from acquisitions, the denominator is now the number of trading days that have elapsed from the acquisition date to the end date of the reporting period, and not the total number of trading days in the reporting period, which was the previous methodology. Beginning in December 2024, this methodology was applied retroactively to restate the impact of both 2024 acquisitions; the average daily volume attributable to acquisitions occurring prior to 2024 was not restated. Day counts generally reflect all SIFMA trading days, where applicable. As recommended by SIFMA, Good Friday, April 3, 2026 was an official trading day for U.S. Fixed Income markets. However, due to holiday-abbreviated hours (markets closed at 12:00 PM EDT) and limited trading activity, we have excluded April 3, 2026 as a trading day for all U.S. products. All trading volume from that day is included in April 2026 monthly totals. Market and Industry Data This release and the complete report include estimates regarding market and industry data that we prepared based on our management’s knowledge and experience in the markets in which we operate, together with information obtained from various sources, including publicly available information, industry reports and publications, surveys, our clients, trade and business organizations and other contacts in the markets in which we operate. In presenting this information, we have made certain assumptions that we believe to be reasonable based on such data and other similar sources and on our knowledge of, and our experience to date in, the markets in which we operate. While such information is believed to be reliable for the purposes used herein, no representations are made as to the accuracy or completeness thereof and we take no responsibility for such information. Forward-Looking Statements   This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Statements related to, among other things, our outlook and future performance, the industry and markets in which we operate, our expectations, beliefs, plans, strategies, objectives, prospects and assumptions and future events are forward-looking statements.   We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While we believe these expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. These and other important factors, including those discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” in the documents of Tradeweb Markets Inc. on file with or furnished to the SEC, may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. In particular, preliminary average variable fees per million dollars of volume traded and preliminary fixed fees for rates, credit, equities and money markets are subject to the completion of management’s final review and our other financial closing procedures and therefore are subject to change. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this release are not guarantees of future events or performance and future events, our actual results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, and the development of the industry and markets in which we operate, may differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this release. In addition, even if future events, our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, and events in the industry and markets in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this release, they may not be predictive of events, results or developments in future periods.   Any forward-looking statement that we make in this release speaks only as of the date of such statement. Except as required by law, we do not undertake any obligation to update or revise, or to publicly announce any update or revision to, any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date of this release.   [1] Non-comp PT defined as a portfolio trade sent to a single dealer. [2] Based on data from MSRB.