ETFGI reported today that U.S.-listed ETFs accounted for 22 of the top 50 overseas securities purchased by Korean retail investors in April 2026, down from 28 in March, 29 in February, and 24 in January 2026.  ETFGI, a leading independent research and consultancy firm renowned for its expertise in subscription research, consulting services, events, and ETF TV on global ETF industry trends. Korean retail investors purchased US$7.31 billion in top overseas ETFs in April 2026, well below the peak observed in October 2025, when purchases reached a record US$15.85 billion. (All dollar values in USD unless otherwise noted) Highlights Korean retail investors purchased US$7.31 billion and sold US$8.53 billion of the top overseas ETFs in April 2026 22 of the top 50 overseas securities purchased were U.S.-listed ETFs 12 of the top 22 ETFs provided leveraged or inverse exposure The largest purchase was US$2.39 billion in Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3X Shares ETF The largest sale was US$4.29 billion in Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3X Shares ETF The largest net purchase settlement was US$398.64 million in Direxion Shares ETF Trust Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares   Amount of top overseas ETFs purchased by Korean retail investors by month Amount of top overseas ETFs sold by Korean retail investors by month In 2025, Korean retail investors purchased US$18.30 Bn more in overseas ETFs compared to 2024, suggesting a 17.9% increase in purchases between the two years. The peak month in 2025 was October, with a record of US$15.85 Bn in ETF purchases, whereas for 2024 the peak month was November with US$12.49 Bn. The total purchase amount of the Top 10 overseas ETFs purchased in 2025 was US$14.89 Bn higher than in 2024. In both 2024 and 2025, the largest oversea ETF purchase was Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3x Shares (SOXL US) listed in the U.S., with total amount of purchases of US$22.88 Bn in 2025 and US$26.07 Bn in 2024. The total sale amount of the Top 10 overseas ETFs purchased in 2025 was US$14.14 Bn higher than in 2024. In both 2024 and 2025, the largest oversea ETF purchase was Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3x Shares (SOXL US) listed in the U.S., with total amount of sales of US$24.83 Bn in 2025 and US$25.93 Bn in 2024. The total net purchase settlement amount of the Top 10 overseas ETFs purchased in 2025 was US$5.33 Bn higher than in 2024. In 2025, the largest oversea ETF net purchase settlement was Direxion Daily Tsla Bull 2x Shares (TSLL US) listed in the U.S., with total amount of net purchases of US$ 2.44 Bn, whereas in 2024 the largest oversea ETF net purchase settlement was Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3x SHS ETF (SOXL US) listed in the U.S., with total amount of net purchases of US$1.80 Bn. The ETF industry in Korea has 1,493 ETFs, with assets of $306.69 Bn, from 38 providers listed on the Korea Exchange at the end of April 2026. 20.29% of the ETFs provide leverage or inverse exposure which account for 6.98% of the assets in the ETF industry in Korea.  

Digital assets are currently navigating a turbulent market landscape, heavily influenced by geopolitical uncertainty, shifting interest rate expectations, and a market captivated by artificial intelligence (AI), according to James Butterfill, Head of Research at CoinShares. In a recent market commentary, Butterfill noted that these factors are collectively dampening investor sentiment. "Digital assets are caught in a maelstrom of geopolitical uncertainty, rising interest rate expectations, and a market consumed by AI, all of which are weighing heavily on sentiment," he stated. The market is reportedly on track for its largest weekly outflows in over a year. Butterfill suggests that a significant market breakout remains unlikely until tensions, particularly involving Iran, de-escalate and there is greater clarity on the future of interest rates. Despite the short-term pressures, Butterfill offered a perspective on the current AI boom, suggesting it may be showing signs of a bubble. He pointed to "an inefficient allocation of capital with a widening gap between capex and revenues." He believes that once the narrative around AI shifts, tokenisation could emerge as the next major market trend. However, Butterfill emphasized that the current challenges do not undermine the fundamental long-term value of assets like Bitcoin. "None of this damages Bitcoin's long-term prospects," he clarified, while cautioning that "we’re unlikely to have a more positive short-term outlook until there is a resolution to the Iran conflict."

The FCA has opened an enforcement investigation into Consultation Claims Limited (CCL) following concerns about its conduct in the period April 2025 to December 2025 in relation to motor finance claims. The FCA is investigating concerns that consumers may have been signed up during the period April 2025 to December 2025 without their consent, with some allegations that signatures have been forged. The FCA is investigating the full customer journey, including how customers were contacted, what they were told during and after sign-up, and the information they were given about exit fees.  Announcing the investigation allows consumers who may have unknowingly been signed up or who may have been presented with documents purporting to be signed by them when they have not, to complain to CCL. If those customers are not happy with the firm’s response, they should complain to the Claims Management Ombudsman. The FCA has not reached any conclusions as to what has happened or as to whether CCL has breached any relevant requirements. Background The FCA notified CCL of its intention to announce that it had opened an enforcement investigation on 11 May 2026. If you’ve used a claims management company (CMC) authorised by the FCA, and you're unhappy with how it's handled your case or the fees it’s charged, you should complain. If you’re dissatisfied with the response, you can take your complaint to the Claims Management Ombudsman. If you’ve used a law firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and you're unhappy with how it's handled your case or the fees it’s charged, you should complainLink is external. If you’re dissatisfied with the response, you can take your complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.   CCL agreed a Voluntary Requirement (VREQ) with the FCA, effective from 8 December 2025 to 2 March 2026. As part of the VREQ, CCL temporarily stopped taking on new customers and wrote to all of its customers offering them a chance to cancel their arrangements free of charge. After CCL had complied with the FCA’s requirements, including by taking action to prevent the practice of customers being sent contracts which may have included false signatures, the VREQ was removed and the FCA permitted CCL to resume taking on new customers. The FCA's enforcement guide sets out its policy on publicising investigations, stating that 'the FCA will not normally make public the fact that it is or is not investigating…' but may do so in exceptional circumstances. The FCA considers that the exceptional circumstances test has been met in relation to this announcement, as it is desirable to maintain public confidence in the UK financial system or the market, protect consumers or investors, and prevent potential widespread malpractice. A joint taskforce between the FCA, SRA, ICO and ASA was announced on 30 March 2026 to tackle poor handling of motor finance claims by some CMCs and law firms. On 6 May 2026, the FCA announced that it is launching a review of the claims management market. Some of the concerns noted include consumers being signed up without their consent. The FCA has removed or amended over 1,000 misleading motor finance adverts, more than 28,000 consumers have been able to exit contracts free of charge, and 3 CMCs reduced their unreasonable fees protecting over 500,000 consumers. Formal investigations are also under way, with 1 previously announced by the FCA in January 2026.

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTX), the operator of a leading electronic trading platform for fixed-income securities, today announced trading volume and preliminary variable transaction fees per million (“FPM”) for May 2026.1 Select May 2026 Highlights* (See tables 1-1C and table 2) Trading volumes across most products, as well as U.S. high-grade estimated market share, rebounded in May from April levels. U.S. high-grade estimated market share increased approximately 100 basis points to 17.8%, driven by improved estimated market share in the client-initiated channel on our platform. The Company estimates that duplicate trade reports inflated U.S. high-grade TRACE volumes by up to 8% in May 2026. Adjusting for these duplicates, consistent with FINRA’s recent proposal to suppress duplicate reporting, we believe our estimated U.S. high-grade market share would have been approximately 160 basis points higher, or approximately 19.5%, in May 2026. With the improvement in estimated market share in the client-initiated channel in U.S. high-grade compared to April, we also continued to make progress with block trading, portfolio trading and dealer-initiated protocols across the platform. Growth in these protocols was a key driver of the month-over-month decline in total credit FPM. Client-Initiated Channel 17% increase in block trading ADV to $6.0 billion, with U.S. credit block ADV of $3.5 billion, up 14%, compared to a 16% increase in TRACE U.S. credit block ADV. Emerging markets block ADV of $2.0 billion increased 35% and eurobonds block ADV of $549 million decreased 14%. Portfolio Trading Channel 47% increase in total portfolio trading ADV to $2.1 billion, including record U.S. high-grade ADV of $1.4 billion up 68%, U.S. high-yield ADV of $412 million, up 172% and emerging markets ADV of $160 million, up 105%. 22.0% estimated market share of U.S. credit portfolio trading, compared to 16.8% in the prior year. Dealer-Initiated Channel Dealer-initiated ADV of $1.8 billion was down slightly from the prior year. Record levels of emerging markets ADV (+35%) and eurobonds ADV (+35%) were offset by declines in U.S. high-grade ADV. Total Mid-X trading volume was a record $7.0 billion, representing an increase of 119%. May 2026 Variable Transaction Fees Per Million1 (See table 1D) The year-over-year and month-over-month declines in total credit FPM were driven by product and protocol mix. The year-over-year and month-over-month increases in total rates FPM were driven by the impact of protocolmix. *All comparisons versus May 2025 unless noted. Client-initiated block trading ADV may include some portfolio trading activity. Table 1: MarketAxess ADV   Month % Change     May-26   Apr-26   May-25 MoM YoY MKTX ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade (incl. SD PT)2   $ 8,405     $ 7,202     $ 7,899     17   %   6   % U.S. High-Grade (excl. SD PT)2     7,728       6,802       7,649     14       1     U.S. High-Yield (incl. SD PT)2     1,755       1,852       1,628     (5 )     8     U.S. High-Yield (excl. SD PT)2     1,547       1,541       1,602     0       (3 )   Emerging Markets     4,284       4,374       3,615     (2 )     19     Eurobonds     2,758       2,549       2,870     8       (4 )   Other Credit Products3     680       621       612     10       11     Municipal Bonds     680       621       611     10       11     Total MKTX Credit ADV (excl. SD PT)2   $ 16,997     $ 15,887     $ 16,348     7       4     Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds   $ 26,045     $ 23,338     $ 28,293     12   %   (8 ) % Agencies and Other Government Bonds     2,194       2,394       1,589     (8 )     38     Total MKTX Rates ADV   $ 28,239     $ 25,732     $ 29,882     10       (5 )   Total MKTX Trading ADV   $ 45,236     $ 41,619     $ 46,230     9       (2 )                                   U.S. Trading Days4   20     21     21               U.K. Trading Days4   19     20     19               Table 1A: Market ADV   Month % Change     May-26   Apr-26   May-25 MoM YoY MARKET ADV ($ millions)                               Credit                               U.S. High-Grade TRACE   $ 47,102     $ 42,891     $ 39,652     10   %   19   % U.S. High-Yield TRACE     12,593       13,603       13,171     (7 )     (4 )   Total U.S. Credit TRACE     59,695       56,494       52,823     6       13     Municipal Bonds MSRB     9,783       10,090       10,306     (3 )     (5 )                                   Rates                               U.S. Government Bonds TRACE   $ 1,265,590     $ 1,078,186     $ 1,106,252     17   %   14   % Agency TRACE     2,695       2,785       4,032     (3 )     (33 )                                   U.S. Trading Days4   20     21     21               U.K. Trading Days4   19     20     19               Table 1B: Estimated Market Share   Month Bps Change     May-26 Apr-26     May-25 MoM YoY MKTX ESTIMATED MARKET SHARE (%)                           U.S. High-Grade                           % of U.S. High-Grade TRACE2,5     17.8 % 2,5   16.8 %     19.9 % +100 bps (210) bps U.S. High-Yield                           % of U.S. High-Yield TRACE2     13.9 % 2   13.6 %     12.4 % +30 bps +150 bps Other Credit Products                           % of Municipal Bonds MSRB     6.9 %     6.2 %     5.9 % +70 bps +100 bps Rates                           % of U.S. Government Bonds TRACE     2.1 %     2.2 %     2.6 % (10) bps (50) bps Table 1C: Strategic Priorities ADV   Month % Change     May-26   Apr-26   May-25 MoM YoY STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ADV ($ millions)                               Client-Initiated Channel                               U.S. Credit Block Trading   $ 3,509     $ 2,981     $ 3,070     18   %   14   % Emerging Markets Block Trading     1,952       1,784       1,451     9       35     Eurobonds Block Trading     549       376       637     46       (14 )   Portfolio Trading Channel                               Total MKTX Portfolio Trading   $ 2,140     $ 1,739     $ 1,455     23   %   47   % Total MKTX U.S. Credit Portfolio Trading     1,858       1,453       1,013     28       83     Total U.S. Credit TRACE Portfolio Trading     8,458       7,207       6,041     17       40     Dealer-Initiated Channel                               Total Dealer Initiated (DRFQ & Mid-X)   $ 1,765     $ 1,706     $ 1,781     3   %   (1 ) % Other                               Open Trading   $ 5,208     $ 4,944     $ 4,777     5   %   9   % AxessIQ     190       173       189     10       1                                     U.S. Trading Days4   20     21     21               U.K. Trading Days4   19     20     19               *Client-initiated channel activity may include some portfolio trading channel activity. Table 1D: Variable Transaction Fees Per Million (FPM)1   Month % Change     May-26   Apr-26   May-25 MoM YoY AVG. VARIABLE TRANS. FEE PER MILLION (FPM)                           Total Credit   $ 128     $ 134     $ 138     (4 ) %   (7 ) % Total Rates     4.35       4.31       4.06     1       7     1 The FPM for total credit and total rates for May 2026 is preliminary and may be revised in subsequent updates and public filings. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any fee information in future press releases. 2 Effective with the release of our January 2026 trading volume statistics, the Company revised certain aspects of its reporting methodology for estimated market share to provide a more comprehensive view of platform activity and enhance comparability with industry peers. The Company now highlights estimated market share for U.S. high-grade and U.S. high-yield on an all-in basis, which includes single-dealer portfolio trading activity, and the Company will no longer report estimated market share on an "excluding single-dealer portfolio trading" basis. Single-dealer portfolio trading activity continues to be excluded from the “Total MKTX Credit ADV (excl. SD PT)” line in Table 1, the “Total Credit” FPM calculation in Table 1D and the “Total Credit Trading” line in Table 2. “SD PT” is defined as single-dealer portfolio trades. As used in Table 1 to highlight the effect of single dealer portfolio trading on U.S. high-grade and U.S. high yield ADVs, “SD PT” means single-dealer portfolio trades. 3 “Other Credit Products” includes municipal bonds, leveraged loans, convertible bonds and structured products. 4 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar and the number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule. 5 The Company estimates that duplicate reports increased reported monthly TRACE volumes by up to 8% of U.S. high-grade TRACE in May 2026. Adjusting for these duplicates, consistent with FINRA’s recent proposal to suppress duplicate reporting, the Company believes its estimated U.S. high-grade market share would have been approximately 160 basis points higher in May 2026. General Notes Regarding the Data Presented Reported MarketAxess volume in all product categories includes only fully electronic trading volume. MarketAxess trading volumes and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) reported volumes are available on the Company’s website at investor.marketaxess.com/volume. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This press release may contain forward-looking statements, including statements about the outlook and prospects for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (the “Company” or “MarketAxess”), market conditions and industry growth, as well as statements about the Company’s future financial and operating performance. These and other statements that relate to future results and events are based on MarketAxess’ current expectations. The Company’s actual results in future periods may differ materially from those currently expected or desired because of a number of risks and uncertainties, including: global economic, political and market factors; the level of trading volume transacted on the MarketAxess platform; the rapidly evolving nature of the electronic financial services industry; the level and intensity of competition in the fixed-income electronic trading industry and the pricing pressures that may result; the variability of our growth rate; our ability to introduce new fee plans and our clients’ response; our ability to attract clients or adapt our technology and marketing strategy to new markets; risks related to our growing international operations; our dependence on our broker-dealer clients; the loss of any of our significant institutional investor clients; our exposure to risks resulting from non-performance by counterparties to transactions executed between our clients in which we act as an intermediary in matched principal trades; risks related to self-clearing; our dependence on third-party suppliers for key products and services; our ability to enter into strategic alliances and to acquire other businesses and successfully integrate them with our business; our dependence on our management team and our ability to attract and retain talent; risks related to sanctions levied against states or individuals that could expose us to operational or regulatory risks; the effects of climate change or other sustainability risks that could affect our operations or reputation; the effect of rapid market or technological changes on us and the users of our technology; issues related to the development and use of artificial intelligence; our ability to successfully maintain the integrity of our trading platform and our response to system failures, capacity constraints and business interruptions; the occurrence of design defects, errors, failures or delays with our platforms, products or services; our vulnerability to malicious cyber-attacks and attempted cybersecurity breaches; our actual or perceived failure to comply with privacy and data protection laws; our ability to protect our intellectual property rights or technology and defend against intellectual property infringement or other claims; our use of open-source software; limitations on our flexibility because we operate in a highly regulated industry; the increasing government regulation of us and our clients; our exposure to costs and penalties related to our extensive regulation; our risks of litigation and securities laws liability; our tax filing positions; our future capital needs and our ability to obtain capital when needed; limitations on our operating flexibility contained in our credit agreement; our exposure to financial institutions by holding cash in excess of federally insured limits; and other factors. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. More information about these and other factors affecting MarketAxess’ business and prospects is contained in MarketAxess’ periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and can be accessed at www.marketaxess.com. About MarketAxess MarketAxess (Nasdaq: MKTX) operates a leading electronic trading platform that delivers greater trading efficiency, a diversified pool of liquidity and significant cost savings to institutional investors and broker-dealers across the global fixed-income and other markets. Approximately 2,100 firms leverage MarketAxess’ patented technology to efficiently trade fixed-income securities. Our automated and algorithmic trading solutions, combined with our integrated and actionable data offerings, help our clients make faster, better-informed decisions on when and how to trade on our platform. MarketAxess’ award-winning Open Trading® marketplace is widely regarded as the preferred all-to-all trading solution in the global credit markets. Founded in 2000, MarketAxess connects a robust network of market participants through an advanced full trading lifecycle solution that includes automated trading solutions, intelligent data and index products and a range of post-trade services. Learn more at www.marketaxess.com and on X @MarketAxess. Table 2: Trading Volumne Detail     Month Ended May 31, In millions (unaudited)   2026 2025 % Change       Volume   ADV   Volume   ADV   Volume ADV Credit                                         High-grade     $ 154,558     $ 7,728     $ 160,636     $ 7,649       (4 ) %   1   % High-yield       30,944       1,547       33,636       1,602       (8 )     (3 )   Emerging markets       85,672       4,284       75,925       3,615       13       19     Eurobonds       52,403       2,758       54,538       2,870       (4 )     (4 )   Other credit       13,597       680       12,850       612       6       11     Total credit trading1       337,174       16,997       337,585       16,348       -       4     Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       520,902       26,045       594,163       28,293       (12 )     (8 )   Agency and other government bonds1       41,755       2,194       30,329       1,589       38       38     Total rates trading       562,657       28,239       624,492       29,882       (10 )     (5 )   Total trading     $ 899,831     $ 45,236     $ 962,077     $ 46,230       (6 )     (2 )   Number of U.S. Trading Days3             20             21                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             19             19                                                               Year-to-Date Ended May 31, In millions (unaudited)     2026   2025   % Change       Volume   ADV   Volume   ADV   Volume ADV Credit                                         High-grade     $ 808,893     $ 7,930     $ 802,448     $ 7,791       1   %   2   % High-yield       163,705       1,605       164,952       1,601       (1 )     -     Emerging markets       489,455       4,799       405,938       3,941       21       22     Eurobonds       281,546       2,760       258,158       2,531       9       9     Other credit       66,836       655       64,848       630       3       4     Total credit trading1       1,810,435       17,749       1,696,344       16,494       7       8     Rates                                         U.S. government bonds2       2,811,146       27,560       2,972,889       28,863       (5 )     (5 )   Agency and other government bonds1       196,315       1,925       119,090       1,167       65       65     Total rates trading       3,007,461       29,485       3,091,979       30,030       (3 )     (2 )   Total trading     $ 4,817,896     $ 47,234     $ 4,788,323     $ 46,524       1       2     Number of U.S. Trading Days3             102             103                 Number of U.K. Trading Days4             102             102                 1 Consistent with FINRA TRACE reporting standards, both sides of trades are included in the Company's reported volumes when the Company executes trades on a matched principal basis between two counterparties. 2 Consistent with industry standards, U.S. government bond trades are single-counted. 3 The number of U.S. trading days is based on the SIFMA holiday recommendation calendar. 4 The number of U.K. trading days is based primarily on the U.K. Bank holiday schedule.

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) announces that Nordheim Capital AB (publ) has listed their first two Exchange Traded Commodities (ETCs) on Nasdaq Stockholm. The ETCs named Nordheim Guld ETC and Nordheim Silver ETC are the first physically backed SEK denominated ETCs to be listed at Nasdaq Stockholm. “The listing of Nordheim Capital’s physically backed gold and silver ETCs marks an important step in the continued modernization of the Swedish capital market. By bringing fully transparent, locally listed commodity products to Nasdaq Stockholm, we are expanding the way investors can access real assets within a regulated, efficient market structure. This launch strengthens Sweden’s position as a modern and internationally relevant financial marketplace, while giving both retail and institutional investors simpler, more cost-efficient ways to diversify their portfolios,” says Helena Wedin, Head of ETF and ETP, Nasdaq European Markets. Nordheim Capital AB (publ) is the first Swedish issuer of physically backed ETCs, providing direct exposure to precious metals through products listed at Nasdaq Stockholm. Nordheim Capital’s ETCs are backed 1:1 by LBMA-certified gold and silver held with J.P. Morgan in London, offering investors a secure and institutionally structured way to access physical precious metals within a Swedish-listed and SEK-denominated format. Nordheim Capital is headquartered in Stockholm and envisions to establish itself as the leading ETC issuer in the Nordics with local market accessibility and close proximity to the investor community. “We are proud to be the first Swedish issuer to bring physically backed gold and silver ETCs to Nasdaq Stockholm. Our ambition has been to build products that combine institutional-grade structures while remaining simple and accessible for investors. By offering direct exposure to physical precious metals in SEK, we believe we are setting a new foundational standard for how precious metal investments can be accessed in the Nordics. This is just the beginning, and we look forward to expanding our product offering during the coming years.” - Michele Gasparetti, CEO and founder of Nordheim Capital.

The B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) has made its first whistleblower award of $25,000 to an individual whose information contributed to an ongoing enforcement action into suspected misconduct. The award marks the first payout under the BCSC’s whistleblower program, which provides financial incentives to individuals who provide information that meaningfully contributes to an investigation of investment fraud and other serious types of market misconduct. “This award reflects the fact that when individuals come forward with timely, credible information, it can make a real difference in our ability to act quickly to protect investors and the integrity of our investment markets,” said Brenda Leong, the BCSC’s chair and CEO. “The more valuable your information is, the more we may pay you.” The BCSC gives awards for information leading to specific types of enforcement action, including a halt trade order, preservation orders and formal allegations. To protect the whistleblower’s identity, the BCSC does not disclose details about the specific enforcement action nor the nature of the suspected misconduct. The BCSC’s Whistleblower Program is unique, in that unlike programs of other securities regulators, it pays awards for ongoing enforcement matters, rather than at the conclusion of a hearing. Financial awards range from $1,000 to a maximum of $500,000, depending on factors such as how quickly the information was reported, how much it contributed to the investigation, and the seriousness of the misconduct. The program was launched in November 2023 to reinforce the BCSC’s efforts to detect misconduct sooner and disrupt it more quickly. To be eligible for an award, whistleblowers must provide information about someone else’s wrongdoing. Those reporting only their own misconduct are not eligible for a whistleblower award but may qualify for credit for cooperation under a separate BCSC policy. Whistleblowers can submit tips through a secure online portal, by mail, or by phone. Tips can be submitted anonymously, though whistleblowers must reveal their identity to the BCSC before receiving a financial award.

Exegy, a leading provider of market data, trading technology, and managed services for the capital markets, today announced the expansion of Axiom, its high-performance, real-time consolidated market data feed. Axiom now includes coverage of key Middle Eastern exchanges, including.  Saudi Arabia (TASI), Qatar (QSE), Kuwait (KSE), Abu Dhabi (ADX), and Dubai (DFM) available via Exegy’s London Points of Presence (PoP) in both Equinix’s LD4 and Digital Realty’s LON2 data centers.   These additions further extend client’s access to global, low latency normalized market data via API delivery and Exegy’s existing Middle East and Africa regional coverage, including the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE), and Borsa Istanbul (ISE).  All exchanges are accessible through XCAPI or MAMA APIs.   “With the growing need to always access more asset classes and geographies, firms are relying more than ever on third parties to bring fragmented market data where they have their operations. The need for quality Middle East market data back to be available in London is a priority for our clients,” said Arnaud Derasse, CTO of Exegy. He continues, “The need for transparency in the way the data is being delivered, the quality of the technology stack and the latency of such market data is more important than ever as firms need to focus on execution and trading strategies, while relying on Exegy’s robust, low-latency market data as the bedrock of their trading platforms.”  Axiom delivers a scalable market data system designed to support the evolving needs of modern trading environments, combining performance with customizable deployment and 24/7 support. Key benefits include:  Flexible connection: Direct connection from Exegy’s data centers via cross-connect to the client’s colocation or premises, or directly into public cloud platforms.  Global, normalized coverage: providing access to 300+ global venues with consistent access to equities, indices, derivatives, and digital assets, with all data normalized across quotes, trades, orders, and trading conditions through a unified model  Low-latency, high-performance market data delivery: supporting both Level 1 (top of book) and full-depth order books, Axiom is optimized for real-time trading and latency-sensitive strategies  Transparency: Axiom computes the latency of market data daily—from the venue to our systems, within our processing systems, through distribution layers, and up to your application—to provide unprecedented visibility into market data performance  Global support service: 24/7, “follow-the-sun” support from Exegy hubs worldwide.  As institutional firms ramp up activity across international and regional markets, the need for consistent, real-time modern market data access without managing infrastructure overhead is becoming more prevalent. To address this, Axiom’s market-data-as-a-service model enables firms to access low latency market data through flexible deployment, including cloud and fully managed services, to reduce infrastructure complexity and accelerate time to market without sacrificing performance. 

GPW Benchmark announces the quarterly adjustment of WIG20, mWIG40, sWIG80 and WIG30 indices portfolios. Changes will come into force after close of business on June 19, 2026. As a result the WIG20, WIG20TR, WIG30 and WIG30TR portfolios will remain unchanged. In the mWIG40 and mWIG40TR portfolios there will be following changes: new company: MURAPOL; removed company: EUROCASH. In the sWIG80 and sWIG80TR portfolios there will be following changes: new company: EUROCASH; removed company: MURAPOL. Detailed information on the quarterly adjustment is available here.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today rescinded a policy, codified in Appendix A to Part 10, stating that the Commission will not accept settlement offers where the defendant continues to deny the allegations in the complaint or administrative order. Rescinding this policy aligns the Commission with the overwhelming majority of federal agencies and gives the Commission more flexibility in settling enforcement actions, which conserves resources, provides certainty, and potentially expedites the return of money to injured investors. The rescission recognizes that the effect on the public interest from such denials may be minimal and that the policy itself may have created an incorrect impression that the Commission is trying to shield itself from criticism. “For nearly three decades, the Commission has refused to settle cases unless the defendant promised not to publicly deny the Commission’s allegations. I am pleased that we are rescinding the no-deny policy consistent with regulators throughout the government,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig.  “Today’s action harmonizes the Commission’s settlement approach with those taken by other agencies and ensures fairer resolutions in enforcement matters,” Director of the Division of Enforcement David Miller. In light of the recission of the no-deny policy, the Commission will not enforce existing no-deny provisions that have already been entered. Today’s rescission does not affect the Commission’s discretion to settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability or its discretion to negotiate for admissions as part of a settlement. RELATED LINKS Rescission of Policy Relating to the Acceptance of Settlements in Administrative and Civil Proceedings  

Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Waters, and other Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Federal Reserve's supervisory and regulatory activities. Today, my testimony will cover three areas—current banking conditions, regulatory and supervisory reforms implemented since the Committee's last prudential regulator hearing, and our path forward as we continue to promote the safety, soundness, and stability of the U.S. financial system while supporting economic growth. Banking ConditionsI will begin by providing an update on banking conditions. The banking system remains sound and resilient. Banks continue to report strong capital ratios and significant liquidity buffers, which position them well to support economic growth. The banking sector demonstrates strong health through sustained lending growth and robust profitability. While delinquencies have increased slightly in recent quarters, they remain within historical averages. However, the financial services competitive landscape continues to evolve. Non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) are capturing a growing share of the lending market, competing with or displacing traditional banks without facing comparable regulatory standards. Part of this growth in NBFI lending represents a "shift" in traditional banking activities away from regulated banks to nonbanks. One example of this shift is the migration of mortgage loan origination and servicing to the nonbank financial sector. Additionally, though bank lending to this sector has grown rapidly in recent years, supervisory monitoring and Federal Reserve surveys show that banks have tightened lending standards for NBFIs based on concerns about underwriting and collateral quality.1 The financial system continues to adapt to technological advances, including the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and the risks and benefits of its use. Recent advances in frontier AI models have dramatically accelerated the identification of cyber vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure, including the banking system. While this enhanced detection capability offers opportunities to strengthen cybersecurity defenses, it also identifies new vulnerabilities to potential cyberattacks. The Federal Reserve is committed to supporting government-wide efforts to enhance cybersecurity and working with banks as they navigate this complex threat environment. Effectively managing these emerging cyber risks will require ongoing collaboration between public and private entities, continuous monitoring of AI developments, regular stakeholder communications, and agile regulatory and supervisory frameworks that keep pace with rapid technological change. Recent DevelopmentsSince I last appeared before the Committee, we have made substantial progress to modernize the regulatory and supervisory framework. Let me highlight a few of these initiatives. Community bankingThe oversight of community banks remains a priority for the Federal Reserve. These banks serve as critical sources of credit in their communities, providing essential financial support to families, businesses, and the local economy. The Federal Reserve's supervisory and regulatory framework must be appropriately calibrated to support growth while maintaining safety and soundness. The federal banking regulators also finalized reforms to the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) framework. A broader range of qualifying banks can now use a simple leverage ratio to measure capital adequacy instead of the complex risk-based capital framework. This rule calibrates the CBLR consistent with the statute at 8 percent and extends the grace period for banks to return to compliance from two to four quarters.2 These changes ensure the simplified framework is accessible to more community banks, and that it works as Congress intended. Capital framework modernizationBeyond the CBLR, in March, the federal banking agencies published proposals to modernize the U.S. regulatory capital framework. These proposals clarify requirements, align them with actual risks, reduce overlaps and duplications, and support the extension of credit to the U.S. economy while preserving strong capital levels and safety and soundness.3 The proposals modernize the capital framework for the largest banks as well as for smaller, less complex banks. The proposals are calibrated using a bottom-up review of each capital element, not by reverse-engineering capital requirements to reach a predetermined outcome. These changes, together with earlier updates to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio and stress testing program, will allow capital to flow more efficiently while maintaining strong prudential standards that protect financial stability. Importantly, the proposals encourage responsible mortgage lending in the banking system by reducing disincentives for these activities. Since 2008, the share of bank-originated mortgages has declined significantly—from about 60 percent to around 35 percent in 2023. Over the same period, the share of mortgage servicing conducted by banks declined 50 percent.4 Because mortgage origination and servicing are a critical part of the customer relationships that underpin the community bank business model, appropriately calibrating risk weighting for these activities will encourage community banks to return to providing these foundational services. Supervision improvementsTurning to Federal Reserve supervision, we continue to advance risk-based tailoring that matches oversight to each bank's size, complexity, business model, and risk profile. This approach ensures that standards designed for the largest, most complex firms are not inappropriately forced down to community and regional banks. Our supervision focuses on material risks to a bank's financial condition and its overall strength. As part of this effort, staff conducted a comprehensive review of all outstanding matters requiring attention (MRAs). The findings revealed that many previous MRAs cited procedural or documentation deficiencies rather than threats to safety and soundness. Others applied best practices from the largest, most complex banks across institutions with very different business models and risk profiles. This approach diverted bank and examiner attention away from material financial risks and inherently discouraged innovation. The outstanding MRA review supports recalibrating our approach to prioritize what truly matters and apply appropriately tailored expectations. Under my leadership of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the federal agencies and state bank regulators proposed long-overdue revisions to the CAMELS rating framework, largely unchanged since 1979. The revisions introduce clearer, more objective metrics for each component and replace subjective management assessments with measurable factors. This approach ensures ratings reflect a bank's overall safety and soundness rather than isolated or process-driven deficiencies. InnovationInnovation is essential to meeting customer expectations, lowering costs, enhancing services, and maintaining a dynamic banking industry that adapts to the introduction of new technologies. This is especially important given the intense competition banks face from nonbank financial institutions. The Federal Reserve has prioritized open communication with banks to understand innovation challenges and improve how regulators facilitate, oversee, and support responsible innovation. Recently, the federal banking agencies updated the capital treatment for "tokenized" securities, clarifying that the capital rule is technology neutral by providing identical capital treatment to similar, non-tokenized assets. The Federal Reserve also revised our model risk management guidance to adopt a principles- and risk-based approach tailored to a bank's business model, risk profile, size and operational complexity. Importantly, it also provides greater flexibility for implementing new technologies. The Federal Reserve also replaced an overly restrictive policy statement with one that encourages appropriate adoption of innovation at Board-supervised banking organizations. It is important that, going forward, we ensure that there is a path to responsible innovation in the banking system, including in the use of AI. The Path ForwardWhile substantial progress has been made, additional work remains. We are currently working to ensure that thresholds throughout the regulatory and supervisory frameworks are appropriately calibrated and updated over time to reflect economic growth and inflation. A variety of thresholds are used to tailor regulatory requirements and supervisory expectations, establishing different standards based on bank size, complexity, business model, and risk profile. However, because thresholds used are not automatically adjusted for inflation or economic growth, small, low-risk banks that simply grow with the economy cross these thresholds and become subject to requirements designed for much larger, more complex banks—contrary to the original intent of the regulations. Consider Regulation O, which governs lending to bank insiders. Its thresholds have not been updated in several decades and, while reasonable at the time they were established, now discourage well-qualified local business leaders from serving on community bank boards, limiting access to valuable expertise and governance. This and other thresholds are subject to a comprehensive review to ensure our regulations remain aligned with their original intent and are appropriately calibrated going forward. Approaches are also being considered to tailor the mutual bank framework, preserving their unique ownership structure and business model to reflect their lower risk profile and community focus. Tailoring requirements meaningfully impacts banks of all sizes. For large banks, stress testing remains a regulatory cornerstone. We are reviewing comments on proposed changes to the stress test. The proposal increases transparency in how these tests are conducted, enabling stakeholders to identify model weaknesses and helping banks better plan capital needs across business lines. Addressing payments fraud is another important initiative, but one that requires coordination across the public and private sectors. No single agency or institution can tackle this challenge alone—the threat is too complex and far reaching. We are actively pursuing public–private engagement on this issue and look forward to sharing outcomes from these collaborative efforts. The federal banking agencies are also working to develop regulations for stablecoin issuers as required by the GENIUS Act. This statute presents a significant opportunity to bring financial innovation into the regulated banking system with appropriate safeguards. We are committed to a regulatory framework that protects consumers, financial stability, and payment system integrity while also enabling responsible innovation. We are strengthening liquidity regulations to support banking system stability and promote sound liquidity management. Our efforts focus on formally recognizing discount window collateral in our liquidity regulations. This ensures that banks can meet obligations under stress while maintaining the ability to provide liquidity to customers and communities. International LeadershipAs Vice Chair for Supervision and Chair of the Standing Committee on Supervisory and Regulatory Cooperation (SRC) of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), I lead international efforts to modernize supervisory and regulatory frameworks as the financial system evolves. We will release a report on international modernization efforts for public comment later this year. Next week, the FSB's SRC will publish a report on sound practices for financial institution use of AI. This will guide institutions in safely adopting and effectively using AI. ConclusionThe initiatives I described today reflect a fundamental principle: appropriately calibrating regulatory and supervisory requirements strengthens both financial stability and economic growth. By tailoring requirements to actual risk, focusing supervision on what truly matters, and integrating innovation into the regulatory framework, the Federal Reserve is creating conditions for banks to thrive while maintaining the robust safeguards the American people expect and deserve. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I look forward to answering your questions. 1. See the Supervision and Regulation Report accompanying this testimony as well as the April 2026 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices, which is available on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-202604.htm.  2. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Agencies Finalize Changes to Enhance Community Bank Leverage Ratio," press release, April 23, 2026.  3. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Agencies Request Comment on Proposals to Modernize the Regulatory Capital Framework and Maintain the Strength of the Banking System," press release, March 19, 2026.  4. See Michelle W. Bowman, "Revitalizing Bank Mortgage Lending, One Step with Basel," speech delivered at the American Bankers Association 2026 Conference for Community Bankers, Orlando, FL, February 16, 2026. 

Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), a leading global markets operator and pioneer in equity and index derivatives, today reported May trading volume statistics across its global business lines. The data sheet "Cboe Global Markets Monthly Volume & RPC/Net Revenue Capture Report" contains an overview of certain May trading statistics and market share by business segment, volume in select index products, and RPC/net capture, which is reported on a one-month lag, across business lines. Average Daily Trading Volume (ADV) by Month Year-To-Date May 2026 May 2025 % Chg Apr2026 % Chg May 2026 May 2025 % Chg Multi-listed options (contracts, k) 15,973 12,711 25.7 % 14,374 11.1 % 14,428 13,236 9.0 % Index options (contracts, k) 6,011 4,330 38.8 % 6,257 -3.9 % 6,136 4,745 29.3 % Futures (contracts, k)1 203 166 22.4 % 222 -8.8 % 255 244 4.3 % U.S. Equities - On-Exchange (matched shares, mn) 1,824 1,861 -2.0 % 1,677 8.8 % 1,877 1,785 5.2 % U.S. Equities - Off-Exchange (matched shares, mn) 243 128 89.4 % 220 10.3 % 242 105 129.4 % Canadian Equities (matched shares, k) 179,437 135,088 32.8 % 195,488 -8.2 % 204,573 156,851 30.4 % European Equities (€, mn) 14,887 12,106 23.0 % 16,624 -10.4 % 16,671 14,144 17.9 % Australian Equities (AUD, mn) 1,034 879 17.5 % 1,125 -8.1 % 1,151 875 31.6 % Global FX ($, mn) 59,610 51,047 16.8 % 57,873 3.0 % 65,673 54,503 20.5 % Cboe Clear Europe Cleared Trades (k) 136,837 123,100 11.2 % 141,289 -3.2 % 712,843 702,385 1.5 % Cboe Clear Europe Net Settlements (k) 1,260 1,100 14.6 % 1,285 -1.9 % 6,476 5,400 19.9 % 1 In the second quarter of 2025, Digital futures products were transitioned to Cboe Futures Exchange. Futures metrics prior to the second quarter of 2025 exclude Digital futures products. May 2026 Trading Volume Highlights   U.S. Options Cboe's four options exchanges set a monthly ADV record of 22.0 million contracts in May, driven by record multi-list options ADV (16.0 million) and the third-best monthly ADV in index options (6.0 million). S&P 500 Index (SPX) options set a record ADV of 171 thousand contracts during Cboe's Global Trading Hours (GTH) session (8:15 p.m. to 9:25 a.m. ET). SPX recorded its second-highest daily volume on May 6, with 6.5 million contracts traded. Futures Cboe® iBoxx® iShares® $ High Yield Corporate Bond Index Futures (IBHY) futures traded a record $5.8 billion in notional value in May. Cboe® iBoxx® $ Emerging Market Bond Index (IEMD) futures set a monthly record with $230 million in notional value traded.  

The report summarizes banking conditions and the Federal Reserve’s supervisory and regulatory activities, in conjunction with semiannual testimony before Congress by the Vice Chair for Supervision. 2026 June:PDF | Data Sources and TermsTestimony: HTML | PDF 2025 December:Report: HTML | PDF | Data Sources and TermsTestimony: HTML | PDF 2024 November:Report: HTML |  PDF | Chart Data and DescriptionsTestimony: HTML | PDF May:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and DescriptionsTestimony: HTML | PDF 2023 November:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and DescriptionsTestimony: HTML | PDF May:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and DescriptionsTestimony: HTML | PDF 2022 November:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and DescriptionsTestimony: HTML | PDF May:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2021 November:Report: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions April:Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2020 November:Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions May:Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2019 November:Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions May:Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions 2018 Testimony: HTML | PDFReport: HTML | PDF | Chart Data and Descriptions

Thank you, Jim, and thanks to the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts. Before I begin, I must remind you that my views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners. I am happy to be here at Princeton University, the place where my parents’ romance began. My mother, hoping that I too would meet a wonderful husband here, urged me to apply to Princeton for graduate school in economics. Economics was my first love, and Princeton would have been a good place to pursue it and perhaps also to find my second love. Though I knew that I did not have the math scores to get into Princeton’s excellent PhD program, applying was the least I could do for my long-suffering mother. The admissions committee—cruelly indifferent to the maternal plan—agreed with my self-assessment. Reviewing the agenda for this Blockchain Camp, which includes topics such as cryptography, privacy, and distributed systems, resurrected that thirty-year-old rejection letter. Reminded once again that I do not belong here on the Princeton campus, I am grateful that you admitted me despite my obvious deficits. The fresh reminder of my own limitations only makes me more keenly grateful for the talent that those of you in this room possess. I delight to see others excel in areas in which I do not. You have the raw intelligence and the training to design and build things that make it easier, safer, and cheaper for humans to communicate, interact, and transact. Events like this one, which bring together so many smart people, enable you to critique, refine, and build upon one another’s work and, importantly, to encourage one another to create good things that solve real problems. Thank you for the work that you are doing to improve the lives of other people and contribute to human flourishing. What can I—a regulator—do to enable you to use your talents for good? I already have made clear that I will not be of any use on the technical side. My job is to work with Congress and other regulators to establish a sensible legal framework within which you can work on solving technical and commercial problems. The regulatory boundary lines need to be clear enough that you do not have to spend precious time and money working with lawyers to discern where those lines are, but not so prescriptive that they cannot accommodate technological change. Laws and regulations have a role to play, but they should be designed to encourage, not dissuade, you to invest your time and talent to build useful things. Before I share my thoughts on what the SEC ought to do with respect to crypto, a reminder is in order. Law should not be the first place you look to solve problems. Statutes and rules take a long time to draft and, once they are on the books, they are hard to change. Moreover, governments do not have access to the expertise that is available to industry. Industry-devised solutions can be more effective and more responsive to technological changes. Tackle problems that you see instead of waiting for regulatory fixes. You can take common-sense steps to prevent future hacks of DeFi protocols, for example.[1] Fight AI hackers with AI. Consider whether you should build delays into your protocols to impede bad actors’ attempts to steal assets. Plan for human failure by incorporating safeguards in your protocols. Establish industry standards for key management. Test and audit code before deploying it for customers to use. Make tools available that empower your users to see what is happening onchain and offchain. Figure out what the right balance of centralization and decentralization is for your project and be transparent with the public about the trade-offs you have made and the resulting risks to users. And, more generally, be honest. The challenge permeating many of the issues under consideration by the SEC’s Crypto Task Force is deciding where should regulation apply. In a 2024 article, Professor Reyes chided regulators and the law itself for their “overreliance on intermediaries [which] results in a lack of workable rules and undermines law’s legitimacy.”[2] The law’s focus on intermediaries, Reyes explains, has led regulators confronted with decentralization in the crypto world to “pretend that an intermediary existed” when one did not.[3] Regulators tend to look at everything through the eyes of their particular hobbyhorse. The SEC’s rulebook is full of intermediaries: brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearinghouses, transfer agents, investment advisers, and investment companies. As a result, we see the crypto world teaming with brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearinghouses, transfer agents, investment advisers, and investment companies. In some cases, the blockchain is used to perform functions similar to those performed by these intermediaries, but it is not clear that our rules should apply to the blockchain itself, given that blockchains are used to do many things other than transact in securities. Even where a tool has been designed to replicate the functions performed by a regulated intermediary, however, applying our traditional categories to the activities and actors we see is difficult. Accordingly, we are proceeding carefully (and more slowly than many people would like). We are trying to watch and learn as we go. Recently, for example, the Commission staff issued a staff statement on user interfaces that enable people to engage in crypto asset securities transactions.[4] The statement is a temporary measure as the Commission considers whether and how to regulate in this area. Similarly, the planned innovation exemption to permit onchain trading of NMS stock will enable us to consider how such trading should be regulated. More generally, Chairman Atkins and I have called on the Commission to reconsider key definitions, including exchange and broker definitions, to appropriately capture activity that should be regulated while carving out of those definitions activity that should not be subject to regulation.[5] Some basic principles guide my thinking as I seek to apply securities regulation where it belongs and keep it away from activities that are not properly within our mandate: Publishing code is speech, which the First Amendment protects. People who do nothing more than write open-source code for other people to use should not have to register with the SEC.[6] As Coin Center has explained, software, including software that can be used “to facilitate activities that were historically intermediated” is protected speech, as is “publishing new versions of software, recommending updates, [and] attempting to persuade users to adopt improved or modified tools.”[7] Blockchains are a general-purpose technology. Just as the internet is used for lots of purposes, blockchains are too. We need to limit our regulation to activities that are within our remit. The SEC is not a general-purpose infrastructure regulator. We should not require the people that operate the infrastructure to register with us simply because someone else uses that infrastructure to engage in activity that the SEC regulates. Blockchains work as intended when legal systems respect base-layer neutrality. Dr. Barczentewicz explained that “[b]lockchain networks derive much of their utility from their ability to process transactions without prejudice” and, he continued, “[r]ecognizing legally credible neutrality, therefore, is not just about avoiding overregulation. It’s about preserving the core characteristics that make these services valuable in the first place.”[8] If infrastructure providers do nothing more than impartially process data in accordance with verifiable, open, non-discretionary execution logic, the SEC should not treat them as securities market participants. Regulatory frameworks should govern conduct, not proximity to the conduct. Neutral conduits for the processing of data lack the foundational rationale for regulatory intervention. An infrastructure provider that processes securities-related data is no more a securities market participant than a telephone company that carries a conversation about stock tips is a broker-dealer. The subject matter of the data cannot determine regulatory status of the entity processing it. Technology can sometimes stand in for regulation. The power of a decentralized blockchain is that “every participant follows the same programmed rules, with no exceptions for powerful actors or special circumstances, including for the developers of these protocols.”[9] Decentralization of technology and governance means that “no single party can change the rules arbitrarily or discriminate against users.”[10] When centralized actors in crypto markets have discretion over or otherwise take custody of other people’s securities and funds, securities regulation may be appropriate. Onchain CeFi, in contrast to true DeFi, is fair game for securities regulation, but that regulation may not be identical to regulation of traditional centralized finance.[11] People should be free to transact without intermediaries. Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act recognizes the value of investors being able to execute their orders “without the participation of a dealer”,[12] and we should welcome decentralizing technologies that make this possible. Intermediaries can rest assured that most investors will prefer the intermediated route, but the DIY option is important. The securities laws should not reach “transparent, non-custodial software tools that enable users to interact with autonomous blockchain networks and smart contract protocols to engage in transactions on their own.”[13] The fact that multiple people use the same software code to transact in securities does not by itself mean somebody has to register as an exchange. If nobody is in control of the system, who would register? These basic principles are meant to be a conversation starter or, more accurately, a conversation continuer. Am I on the right track? Should the Commission engage in an interpretive rulemaking to expressly adopt any of these principles, or should they simply be reflected in our approach to rulemaking and enforcement? Professor Reyes has pointed out “[e]merging technology is law’s magic mirror” in that it can “reflect various flaws or gaps in existing legal regimes.”[14] Crypto offers us the opportunity to think carefully about when, why, and how the securities laws should apply, and I welcome your participation in that undertaking—one that, even after all these years, I find to be fascinating. Thank you for listening. I look forward to the discussion ahead. [1] For helpful discussion of such common-sense steps, see Unchained Podcast, Is All of DeFi Unsafe? What You Need to Know About Holding Assets Onchain? (May 29, 2026), https://unchainedcrypto.com/is-all-of-defi-unsafe-what-you-need-to-know-about-holding-assets-onchain/; see also The Defiant Podcast, DeFi Hacks Happening Every Day: Institutions Are Still Coming (June 1, 2026), https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defi-hacks-happening-every-day-institutions-are-still/id1512654905?i=1000770617450 [2] Carla L. Reyes, Law's Detrimental Reliance on Intermediaries, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 92, 1343, 1384 (2024). [3] Id. at 1379. [4] Staff Statement Regarding Broker-Dealer Registration of Certain User Interfaces Utilized to Prepare Transactions in Crypto Asset Securities (Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized-prepare-staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized. [5] See, e.g. Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Remarks at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo (May 8, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-scsp-ai-expo-050826; Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Interfacing with our Inner Demons: Comments on the Division of Trading and Markets' Statement on Certain User Interfaces (Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-041326-interfacing-our-inner-demons-comments-division-trading-markets-statement-certain-user-interfaces. [6] See Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, DeFining the American Spirit (June 9, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-defi-roundtable-060925, (“Also resonant with the American spirit is the ability of people to publish written material without permission. Code is protected speech. Because the First Amendment protects someone who writes a DeFi software protocol and publishes it, the SEC has no authority to demand pre-publication approval rights even for code that could be used to exchange securities. The SEC must not infringe on First Amendment rights by regulating someone who merely publishes code on the basis that others use that code to carry out activity that the SEC has traditionally regulated. If somebody else subsequently violates the law using the software protocol, the user—not the developer of the software—should face the music.”). [7] Letter from Coin Center to Chairman Paul S. Atkins & Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (Apr. 21, 2026) at 3-4, https://coincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2026-04-06-1st-Amend.-Relief-Letter.pdf. [8] Mikołaj Barczentewicz, Legally Credible Neutrality (Nov. 21, 2025) at 18, https://ssrn.com/abstract=5029148. [9] Primavera De Filipinos, Morshed Mannan, & Kelsie Nabben, Tornado Cash, Flashbots, and Regulatory Equivalence: Alternatives to Regulatory Compliance or Avoidance in Blockchain Systems, in Public Governance on the Blockchain 26, 32 (Usman W. Cholan & Sven Van Kerckhoven eds., 2024). [10] Id. [11] See Rebecca Rettig, Michael Mosier, & Katja Gilman, Genuine DeFi as Critical Infrastructure: A Conceptual Framework for Combating Illicit Finance Activity in Decentralized Finance (Jan. 29, 2024) at 13, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4607332 (explaining the importance of this distinction and defining “genuine DeFi” as having “self-directed” users with “independent control over their own assets at all times through maintenance of the ‘private key’ for their wallets” acting exclusively through “a permissionless blockchain network”); see also Katrin Schuler, Ann Sofie Cloots, & Fabian Schär, On DeFi and On-Chain CeFi: How (Not) to Regulate Decentralized Finance, Journal of Financial Regulation, Vol. 10, No. 2, 213, 239-242, (2024), https://academic.oup.com/jfr/article/10/2/213/7606986, (explaining the characteristics of DeFi and on-chain CeFi and explaining that regulation of the latter should “account for the unique risk profiles resulting from the activities concerned and materiality of centralized controls [which] may be sufficiently distinct from traditional CeFi to warrant bespoke rules.”). [12] Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, S. 11A, 94th Cong. (1975), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1885/pdf/COMPS-1885.pdf. [13] Letter from Andreessen Horowitz & DeFi Education Fund to Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (Aug. 13, 2025) at 5, https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_f5e85c6f415c4fbebce775c91d36c5b4.pdf. [14] Reyes, supra note 2, at 1348 (footnote omitted).

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today reported monthly volumes for May 2026 on its Investor Relations website. A data sheet showing this information can be found at: https://ir.nasdaq.com/financials/volume-statistics. 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Market Oversight today announced it has issued a no-action letter to Cboe Digital Exchange, LLC, a designated contract market, which addresses certain procedures related to dormancy. The no-action position is time-limited and subject to the terms and conditions in the letter.  RELATED LINKS CFTC Staff Letter No. 25-18

Multi-family offices, private wealth management advisory firms typically serving groups 10-50 high-net-worth clients with individual accounts with $5 million or more in investable assets, now account for more than $5.2 trillion in assets under management, according to the Multi-Family Office Asset Pools 2026 Report from With Intelligence by S&P Global. To put that in perspective, total global multi-family office assts under management are now roughly equivalent to 8% of total global pensions assets. The new report analyzes data from 1,632 multi-family offices globally as part of the new With Intelligence Wealth Solution, a comprehensive data and analytics platform capturing forward-looking insights from across the global family office ecosystem. “Family offices have become one of the fastest growing segments in financial markets, giving high-net-worth individuals access to opportunities and asset classes that have historically only been available to larger institutional investors,” said Matthew Holyoak, research lead, family offices, at With Intelligence. “Despite its increased influence on institutional markets, the family office landscape is incredibly opaque and can be difficult to track using conventional data and analytics tools. By combining our robust database of single and multi-family offices, our market-leading alternatives data, and our deep proprietary research capabilities, we’ve been able to develop the world’s most comprehensive solution for tracking key trends – and key players – in the private wealth market.” Following are some of the highlights in the With Intelligence Multi-Family Office Asset Pools 2026 Report: ● Multi-Family Office Assets Top $5.2 Trillion in 2025: Global multi-family offices collectively oversee more than $5.2tn in assets, equivalent to 8% of global pension assets, establishing them as a major institutional force in wealth management. ● North America Leads in Total Assets Under Management, but the Market is Global: With 35% of all multi-family offices and 57% of total assets under management, North America is home to the largest share of multi-family offices, but the report maps significant activity across nine regions, signaling the sector's truly global footprint. The DACH region ranks second after North America in both number of offices and total assets, driven largely by Switzerland. ● Emerging Markets Show Rapid Growth: New multi-family offices are opening rapidly in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, driven by wealth creation in sectors like Indian tech, Brazilian agribusiness, and Gulf energy, pointing to where the next decade of growth is concentrated. ● Public Markets Still Dominate Allocations: Unlike single-family offices where alternatives lead, multi-family offices favor public equities (74%), fixed income (66%), and private equity (65%), reflecting a balance between liquidity needs and private market exposure. Featuring the industry’s largest database of expert insights across family offices, foundations, private banks, and wealth managers in a single platform, the With Intelligence Wealth Solution captures key contacts, investor profiles, live and forward-looking investment mandates, detailed data on trends in asset allocation, and total assets under management, delivering a level of transparency that has never before been available to investors and asset managers. To access a more detailed summary of the With Intelligence Multi-Family Office Asset Pools 2026 Report, please click here. To access the With Intelligence Wealth Solution, please click here.

Clearwater Analytics (NYSE: CWAN) today introduced new AI-enabled products built on the same trusted investment data foundation supporting more than $10 trillion in global assets. The new products extend Clearwater’s platform across operations, risk, and private markets workflows, helping institutional investors move faster without sacrificing transparency, control, or auditability. “Every firm in this industry wants AI that works,” said Sandeep Sahai, Chief Executive Officer at Clearwater Analytics. “What firms are discovering is that AI is only as good as the data it runs on. Clearwater was built around a trusted investment record. That allows firms to bring AI directly into the workflows that drive investment operations, risk, and portfolio oversight.” The announcement includes three new products: Clearwater Compass, Total Portfolio Oversight, and Fund Analytics. Clearwater Compass AI for Investment Operations and Accounting Clearwater Compass embeds AI into investment operations and accounting workflows, helping teams automate exception management, improve reconciliation transparency, and accelerate close processes with full auditability. The first Compass capabilities available today are Smart Suspense and Recon Transparency. Smart Suspense automates the matching and categorization of unapplied cash, replacing spreadsheet-driven workflows with a centralized operational workspace and complete audit visibility. Recon Transparency gives clients live visibility into reconciliation breaks Clearwater processes on their behalf, including source files, resolution status, root-cause analysis, and collaborative workflows that replace manual email chains. “When reconciliations, exceptions, and close workflows are connected directly to the investment record, firms can move faster while maintaining the controls institutional investors expect,” said Lisa Widdowson, Head of Product, Insurance and Asset Owners at Clearwater Analytics. Total Portfolio Oversight One View Across Investment and Risk Developed with Blackstone and now live in production, Total Portfolio Oversight brings investment and risk teams together on a shared view spanning public and private assets. The solution combines portfolio oversight, risk exposure, shock analysis, and direct portfolio query capabilities in one experience, all connected to the same trusted investment record. Total Portfolio Oversight is currently being expanded to a select group of institutional beta clients. Fund Analytics Bringing Structure to Private Markets Data Fund Analytics extends Clearwater’s platform into private markets, where investment teams still rely heavily on fragmented GP reports, capital statements, PDFs, spreadsheets, and manual processes. The solution uses AI to extract, validate, and structure private markets data across funds, exposures, and performance metrics. Investment teams gain earlier visibility into portfolio changes, look-through exposure, peer benchmarking, and scenario analysis, all connected to the same trusted investment record used across the broader Clearwater platform. Together, these products extend Clearwater’s investment platform across operations, risk, and private markets, helping institutional investors move faster with trusted data and embedded intelligence. To learn more, visit Clearwater Analytics.

SGX FX today announced that Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) has joined the SGX FX ecosystem as a Liquidity Provider, expanding institutional access to FX options and enhancing liquidity across CAD, USD and other major global currency markets. CIBC will initially provide liquidity in OTC FX Options, with plans to extend its participation into OTC cash FX over time. This addition enhances depth and competition in FX options trading on SGX FX, supporting robust price formation across CAD and USD pairs, alongside a broader range of actively traded G10 and selected emerging market currencies, for institutional participants trading across global sessions.   CIBC is a leading North American financial institution with 15 million personal banking, business, public sector and institutional clients. CIBC operates a global FX franchise, providing balance‑sheet‑backed FX liquidity to corporate, institutional and bank clients worldwide, supported by advanced electronic execution capabilities, analytics, and risk management infrastructure. CIBC is a recognized liquidity provider across major currency markets, with scale and expertise particularly in Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar liquidity.   SGX FX provides institutional participants with access to diversified FX liquidity across Spot, NDFs, Outrights, Swaps, Options and Precious Metals, supported by multiple execution methods, API connectivity and data‑driven tools designed to support execution analysis and informed decision‑making.    The addition of CIBC further broadens the SGX FX liquidity ecosystem, particularly in FX options and core Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar markets that are central to macro, hedging and relative value strategies. Looking ahead, SGX FX and CIBC expect to continue developing the relationship across additional FX products, supporting continued expansion of liquidity provision and execution choice for institutional clients.   “CIBC’s decision to join the SGX FX ecosystem strengthens our institutional liquidity network across key markets. Their initial focus on OTC FX Options, combined with a clear path toward cash FX, enhances liquidity and execution quality across a broad range of currency pairs and supports our commitment to serving sophisticated trading and hedging activity across regions and time zones.” Scott Gold, Head of Americas, SGX FX.   “We are pleased to partner with SGX FX as a liquidity provider to expand institutional access to FX options while connecting clients to global markets. This partnership underscores our shared commitment to delivering broader choice and risk-managed solutions for institutional clients as we continue to grow our electronic FX offering.” Christina Wood, Head of Global Electronic FX, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Fiserv, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISV), a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology, has published the Fiserv Small Business Index for May 2026, indicating that U.S. small business sales growth in May was driven primarily by higher average ticket sizes amid persistent cost pressures, while consumer foot traffic continued to soften. The seasonally adjusted Index remained at 144. Small business sales rose (+0.7%) year over year, driven by average tickets that climbed +3.1% compared with 2025. Transactions declined (-2.4%) year over year, marking the seventh consecutive month of declining foot traffic. Compared with April, sales were flat (+0.0%) and transactions declined slightly (-0.2%). “We saw a continuation of recent trends in May: stable overall sales, rising average tickets, and softer consumer activity as households adjust to increasing costs,” said Prasanna Dhore, Chief Data Officer, Fiserv. “Services remained the strongest contributor to sales growth, full-service restaurants outperformed limited-service and higher fuel costs continued to impact many businesses.” Key Takeaways Restaurant sales continue to fight for growthSales declined (-0.6%) year over year but accelerated slightly (+0.6%) compared with April. Higher prices continued to shape results, with average tickets up +3.0% year over year. Transactions fell -3.6%, marking a sixth consecutive month of year over year declines. Limited-Service Restaurants led the slowdown, with sales down -3.4% year over year and foot traffic falling -5.4%. Full-Service Restaurants showed relative strength, with sales rising +1.5% year over year, supported by stable foot traffic (+0.2%) and modest average ticket growth (+1.3%). Elevated gasoline prices continue to impact multiple categoriesGas Station sales grew +22.9% year over year and +1.2% month over month, due entirely to higher average tickets. Rising fuel costs likely contributed to average ticket growth across multiple service segments, including Professional Services, Transportation and Warehousing, and Administrative Support Services. Retail remained stable overall, with modest divergence between Core and Non-CoreTotal retail sales increased +0.1% year over year but declined -0.5% month over month. Transactions were flat year over year and softened -0.6% compared with April. Core Retail sales were soft (-0.1% year over year; -0.5% month over month). Retail transactions did not grow (0.0%) but average tickets rose +0.9%. Much of this reflects trade-offs consumers are making as retail essentials like gasoline have surged in price, driving consumers to find savings in other retail categories, such as Grocery, which fell -3.3% compared with 2025. Essentials continued to show steady growthSales increased +0.9% year over year as average tickets rose +4.3%. Discretionary categories also expanded (+0.6%) year over year, with average tickets up +2.6%. Transactions declined across both segments, though the pattern was consistent, indicating consumers are seeking to mitigate cost pressures wherever they can. Goods stabilize while Services growth remains price-ledGoods sales edged up +0.1% YoY with stable transactions (0.0%) and modest ticket growth (+0.2%). Services expanded +1.0% year over year, supported by +4.2% average ticket growth, while transactions declined -3.2%, a clear indication that price continues to drive overall sales growth. To access the full Fiserv Small Business Index, visit fiserv.com/FiservSmallBusinessIndex.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE:ICE), one of the world’s leading providers of financial market technology and data powering global capital markets, today reported May 2026 trading volume and related revenue statistics, which can be viewed on the company’s investor relations website at https://ir.theice.com/ir-resources/supplemental-information in the Monthly Statistics Tracking spreadsheet. May highlights include: Total average daily volume (ADV) up 14% y/y; open interest (OI) up 24% y/y, including record OI of 130.6M lots on May 25 Total Energy OI up 6% y/y, including record options OI of 31.2M lots on May 22 Brent ADV up 6% y/y; OI up 3% y/y Total Natural Gas ADV up 3% y/y; OI up 10% y/y, including record OI of 47.9M lots on May 22 North American Gas OI up 10% y/y, including record OI of 41.4M lots on May 25 TTF gas ADV up 11% y/y; OI up 6% y/y Asia gas ADV up 30% y/y; OI up 33% y/y Total Agriculture & Metals ADV up 60% y/y; OI up 39% y/y Sugar ADV up 44% y/y; OI up 23% y/y Cocoa ADV up 85% y/y; OI up 56% y/y Coffee ADV up 23% y/y; OI up 21% y/y Cotton ADV up 151% y/y; OI up 94% y/y Total Financials ADV up 37% y/y; OI up 56% y/y, including record OI of 54.5M lots on May 29 Total Interest Rates ADV up 38% y/y; OI up 63% y/y, including record OI of 50.8M lots on May 29 Euribor ADV up 29% y/y; OI up 45% y/y, including record OI of 27.1M lots on May 29 SONIA ADV up 34% y/y; OI up 96% y/y, including record OI of 19.6M lots on May 14 Gilts ADV up 47% y/y; OI up 13% y/y Total Equity Indices ADV up 25% y/y MSCI ADV up 39% y/y; OI up 4% y/y NYSE Cash Equities ADV up 12% y/y NYSE Equity Options ADV up 54% y/y