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

The European Council today appointed Boris Vujčić as Vice-President of the European Central Bank for a non-renewable 8-year term. The new Vice-President will replace Luis de Guindos as of 1 June 2026. The decision was taken after having consulted both the European Parliament and the European Central Bank's Governing Council. The Eurogroup gave its support to Mr Vujčić’s candidacy on 19 January. On 26 January 2026, the Council adopted a recommendation to the European Council on his appointment as Vice-President of the European Central Bank. Background Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifies that appointments to the ECB executive board are made "by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, from among persons of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters, on a recommendation from the Council, after it has consulted the European Parliament and the governing council of the European Central Bank." The ECB executive board is responsible for implementation of eurozone monetary policy, as laid down by the ECB governing council. It is composed of the President, the Vice-President and four other members, all appointed for non-renewable eight-year terms. The governing council is composed of the six executive board members and the governors of the national central banks of the eurozone countries. Curriculum vitae of Boris Vujčić  Appointment of the European Central Bank executive board (background information)

The following offering circular has been approved by the Financial Conduct Authority and is available for viewing: Offering circular relating to the London Stock Exchange Group plc, LSEG Finance plc, LSEG Netherlands B.V. and LSEG US Fin Corp. £10,000,0000,000 Euro Medium Term Note Programme dated 19 March 2026. To view the full document, please paste the following URL into the address bar of your browser: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/4989X_1-2026-3-20.pdf A copy of the above Offering Circular has been submitted to the National Storage Mechanism and will shortly be available for inspection at: https://data.fca.org.uk/#/nsm/nationalstoragemechanism For further information, please contact: London Stock Exchange Group plc Lucie Holloway, Rhiannon Davies  (Media)                  +44 (0) 20 7797 1222 Peregrine Riviere (Investors)              ir@lseg.com DISCLAIMER - INTENDED ADDRESSEES This announcement is a communication to the market. Nothing in this announcement constitutes an offer of securities for sale in the United States or any other jurisdiction. This announcement does not constitute a prospectus or a prospectus equivalent document. This announcement has been delivered to you on the basis that you are a person into whose possession this announcement may be lawfully delivered in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are located and you may not, nor are you authorised to, deliver this announcement to any other person. The distribution of this announcement in jurisdictions other than the United Kingdom may be restricted by law and therefore persons into whose possession this announcement comes should inform themselves about, and observe, such restrictions. Any failure to comply with the restrictions may constitute a violation of the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. Likewise, the information contained in the Offering Circular may be addressed to and/or targeted at persons who are residents of particular countries specified in the Offering Circular only and is not intended for use and should not be relied upon by any person outside these countries and/or to whom the offer contained in the Offering Circular is not addressed. Prior to relying on the information contained in the Offering Circular you must ascertain from the Offering Circular whether or not you are part of the intended addressees of the information contained therein. Your right to access this service is conditional upon complying with the above requirement. Legal Entity Identifier The legal entity identifier of London Stock Exchange Group plc is 213800QAUUUP6I445N30. The legal entity identifier of LSEG Finance plc is 2138009YFYTGEHZNNZ09. The legal entity identifier of LSEG Netherlands B.V. is 213800JCR9B7CYW7U265. The legal entity identifier of LSEG US Fin Corp. is 2138007FV67QQ13CGJ43.

BME’s fixed-income market, AIAF, has admitted to trading a new Commercial Paper Programme by Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI) with a maximum outstanding balance of 1 billion euros.  Through this programme, SEPI will be able to flexibly issue commercial paper over the next 12 months with maturities of more than 3 days and up to 364 days, included, with an individual face value of 100,000 euros. This new programme marks SEPI’s return as an issuer to the wholesale capital markets after having utilized fixed-income financing instruments in the 1990s. Banca March will act as Arranger and Paying Agent for the issuances made under the programme. The placement of the commercial papers will be carried out by a broad group of financial institutions to be selected by SEPI.  J&A Garrigues has served as legal counsel to the issuer for the commercial paper program. SEPI has short-term and long-term ratings of A-1 and A+, respectively, both with a stable outlook, from the rating agency Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings. Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI) is a strategic instrument for implementing the Government’s policy for the public business sector. Its mission is to ensure the profitability of the businesses in which the State holds an interest and to guide all actions in accordance with the public interest. Thus, SEPI’s management must balance economic profitability with social returns. SEPI was established in 1995 by Royal Decree-Law 5/1995 of June 16, subsequently enacted as Law 5/1996 of January 10, 1996, on the Creation of Certain Public-Law Entities, and is attached to the Ministry of Finance. Its scope of operations encompasses 14 companies in which it holds direct and majority stakes, comprising the SEPI Group, with a workforce of over 87.000 employees; it is also a shareholder in Corporación RTVE, oversees a public foundation, and holds direct minority stakes in 11 companies and indirect stakes in more than 100 companies.  The SEPI Group is one of the largest business organizations in the country and a key player in the economy; its holdings in companies across key sectors contribute to Spain’s economic growth and strategic autonomy in Europe and, by extension, in the global market.  Its total revenue in 2024 reached €6.355 billion, and the market capitalization of SEPI’s minority stakes in publicly traded companies was €10.730 billion. You can find more information about BME’s fixed-income markets on its website.

Today, ACER publishes its Recommendation on how national regulatory authorities (NRAs) should report barriers to non-fossil flexibility. The document provides clear guidance and indicators to ensure consistent reporting across Member States and help NRAs and relevant entities evaluate these barriers as part of their flexibility needs assessments. What is non-fossil flexibility? Non-fossil flexibility is the energy system’s ability to quickly adapt to changes in electricity supply and demand, without relying on fossil fuels or costly grid expansions. It does so by shifting electricity consumption or generation to times or locations where the system is less constrained. Unlocking flexibility helps foster a more efficient electricity system, supports the integration of renewables and contributes to lowering consumer bills.  Why an ACER Recommendation? The EU Electricity Regulation requires Member States to carry out flexibility needs assessments to determine how much clean flexibility their electricity systems require, including identifying existing barriers. These national assessments are harmonised across the EU through a common methodology approved by ACER in July 2025. ACER's Recommendation complements this process by:  Setting out clear guidance on which barriers, indicators and evaluation methods Member States may consider when preparing their assessments. Streamlining the assessment process, consolidating ACER’s prior work on barriers across all types of non-fossil flexibility. Ensuring comparable reporting across countries to support EU-wide analyses. What does ACER recommend? ACER recommends that NRAs, in coordination with relevant entities, consider the main barriers to non-fossil flexibility when drafting their national reports. These include: Legal gaps for households, new entrants or aggregators to participate in electricity markets and system operation services. Lack of enablers and incentives for flexibility, such as smart meters and flexible retail contracts. Restrictive rules for balancing and congestion management services. Complex, lengthy and discriminatory administrative requirements. Limited regulatory incentives for system operators to invest in non-wire, innovative grid technologies. What are the next steps?  Member States are expected to complete their flexibility needs assessments by July 2026. ACER will then have a year to analyse the findings and publish an EU-wide analysis, estimating flexibility needs across the EU, evaluating existing barriers to clean flexibility and providing recommendations on issues of cross-border relevance. Read more.

As of today, VINCORION SE (ISIN: DE000VNC0014) is listed in the Prime Standard of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. The first price of the share was 19.30 euros. The current share price is available on Deutsche Börse. BNP PARIBAS, J.P. Morgan, and Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co acted as Joint Global Coordinators and Joint Bookrunners. COMMERZBANK, in cooperation with ODDO BHF, and UniCredit are additional Joint Bookrunners. The designated sponsor in Xetra trading is Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. The specialist on the trading venue Frankfurt is Baader Bank. According to its own information, VINCORION SE is a leading developer and manufacturer of energy and mechatronics solutions for defense platforms and advanced aviation systems, with a focus on innovative energy systems. The company, based in Wedel near Hamburg, has approximately 900 full-time employees at locations in Germany and the USA and generated revenues of around €240 million in 2025. Further information can be found in our primary market statistics.

Speaker: Nikhil Rathi, chief executive Event: JP Morgan Pensions and Savings Symposium 2026Delivered: 20 March 2026 Key points Technology has the potential to transform how consumers see their pension savings. The transparency provided by dashboards could be a catalyst for greater engagement and changes in consumer behaviour. The pensions system must be ready to support a wide spectrum of consumer behaviours and support needs. From well-designed defaults to Targeted Support and simplified advice, firms and policymakers must empower consumer agency, while ensuring appropriate guardrails are in place. Retirement decisions are increasingly interconnected across pensions, housing and wider financial resilience. As consumers consider their financial futures more holistically, the system must work together to support informed long-term decision making. Last year, I spoke about the importance of getting on the right track. That if we want better consumer outcomes – as well as stronger capital markets to support growth – we need to think beyond individual products and look at the whole financial journey. How pensions interact with housing wealth…How savings interact with advice…And how all these decisions evolve across a lifetime. Over the past year, we have made good progress. Targeted Support goes live next month, helping bridge the gap between generic guidance and regulated advice. The ABI saysLink is external  this could be 'one of the most significant engagement shifts in pensions since auto-enrolment'. And with 75% of DC pension holders over 45 having no clear plan for taking their money at retirement, a big opportunity to help secure better outcomes at lower cost. For those wanting more personalised advice, we will be proposing next week to simplify rules – expanding access for consumers while reducing complexity for firms. Then there’s work on later life lending and pension transfers - which I will speak more on later. Alongside lending our support to the industry-led retail investment campaign going live shortly, and continuing work with the Investment Association and industry on making risk information more effective. So, a huge amount both delivered and underway, working closely with the Pensions Regulator, Government, and others. And it’s encouraging to see the level of attention pensions are receiving across the political system. But today I want to focus on how technology is changing the foundational context in which we are having this pensions debate. As technology makes people much more aware of – and able to act on – their financial wealth, what happens next? And is our pensions system ready for the potential demand and behavioural shifts that follow? Technology drives visibility We’ve seen markets reacting sharply to announcements related to tech and AI capabilities. Quickly branding subsectors of financial services as AI winners or losers.  Investors clearly anticipating dramatic structural change. For pensions, one of the most significant changes will be how technology drives visibility. Dashboards will soon allow tens of millions of people to see their pension wealth in one place for the first time. We can’t predict exactly how that might change behaviour. Some, the first time, will simply look and move on. But experience across financial services – auto-enrolment, Open Banking - suggests that when information becomes easier to see and understand, consumer engagement often increases. The practical first step for dashboard users will be reaching out to pension administrators to confirm and update basic personal details. So we have to ask ourselves: with tens of millions of pots suddenly becoming visible, are administrators doing enough to prepare for a significant increase in queries? And considering the quality of the customer experience they provide. Behavioural shifts In the next stage – as people re-connect with lost pension pots – we should expect more interest in consolidation and transfers. Making it particularly important this part of the market is functioning well. Our Financial Lives Survey showed many customers don’t take investment options, costs or other factors into account when transferring. And we’re concerned that existing processes don’t always support meaningful comparison between schemes - particularly for non-advised customers. The challenge is not simply providing consumers with information; it’s providing the right information in a way that supports understanding of long-term consequences.   We have set out some proposals on transfers, to be tested.  But nothing is set in stone; we know we have some re-thinking to do, and welcome alternative ideas.  We hopefully can all agree this is an opportunity to modernise systems across industry. And in the longer term, we shouldn’t underestimate the potential for broader behavioural shifts.  A report released by the Social Market FoundationLink is external on Wednesday, suggests 54% of Gen X will have inadequate retirement incomes, with half over-estimating their likely retirement income. Seeing accumulated pension savings alongside State Pension forecasts in a dashboard, could be quite a profound moment of realisation for many. Some will be prompted to act – whether it’s upping their contributions, questioning investment strategy, or re-thinking target retirement age. So the pensions system will increasingly need to cater to a spectrum of behaviours and support needs. A question for us – as policymakers and industry – is whether we are ready to accommodate more active engagement where it arises. And to do so at pace. Risk Some will point to the risks of doing so. Greater consumer engagement doesn’t automatically translate into better outcomes. We should be honest that results will not be even across the board. That can feel uncomfortable – especially when we are talking about something as charged as security in retirement.  But it doesn’t mean we can, or even should, try to mitigate risk entirely. Too often discussion focuses only on the risks of doing something, rather than weighing the risks of doing nothing. Take the mortgage market as an example. We were seeing large groups of consumers left underserved because of affordability assessments applied too restrictively.  Otherwise creditworthy borrowers, shut out. Grappling with the high costs and lower security of renting. More financially vulnerable both now and into the future. So we had to consider how to widen access, while maintaining responsible lending standards and acknowledging potential risks. We decided to take targeted action to clarify the flexibility already available under our rules. Eighty-five per cent of lenders updated their approach and can now offer about £30,000 more to many borrowers.  Getting more people into their own homes – including a sharp increase in the share of purchases made by first-time buyers. Just one example of why we have been vocal about the need to re-balance risk in the system – included in the latest FCA Strategy. Much of the public commentary around that idea has focused on supporting growth and competitiveness in UK financial services. And that is certainly part of the story. But re-balancing risk is also about improving consumer outcomes.  Helping people to understand the choices and risks that inevitably come up as they navigate their financial lives. And managing that risk with them, not for them. Consumer protection will always be central to our approach at the FCA. But protection doesn’t mean insulating people from every decision. Modern pensions policy has to move beyond that kind of simple paternalism: maintaining strong guardrails, yes, and of course respecting that pensions are about security of income in retirement (and also managing fiscal demands).  But also about empowering customers to make choices about what is, ultimately, their money. That is why we are introducing reforms like Targeted Support, and consulting on simplified advice. Our goal is not a ‘risk-free’ system, but a ‘risk-aware’ one. Technology So far, I’ve talked about the questions technology may prompt. But what about its potential to provide answers? When consumers have access to pensions data via dashboards, this will create clear commercial opportunities for firms to develop tools that support them to engage further. And researchLink is external by Lloyds Banking Group indicates over half of UK adults are already turning to AI to help manage their finances – with about 40% using it for future financial planning like pensions. Complex questions that once required specialist advice, can now be explored with digital tools more quickly and cheaply, and in more accessible ways. How would increasing contributions affect my retirement income? What difference would it make if I retired later? How might my investment choices influence what I get in retirement? Our December consultation set out proposals on pensions tools and modellers that will help consumers explore these kinds of questions and better understand their retirement options. And with researchLink is external suggesting around a third of consumers would welcome more personalised guidance after using a pensions dashboard, there is a genuine opportunity to innovate, compete, grow.  In parts of Asia we are already seeing digital models emerge which allow individuals to specify a financial goal and receive automated portfolio recommendations, potentially linked directly to execution at pace. Whether similar models develop here remains to be seen, but they illustrate a broader point. That technology is not just changing what consumers can see and expect, but what they are able to do. Meeting that demand will require strong data foundations and robust digital infrastructure. The firms that have invested in those capabilities are increasingly better-placed to meet the expectations of a more engaged generation of savers coming through. Others need to catch up – fast. So I’d encourage making use of all the FCA support available; our Innovation Pathways, Sandboxes and AI Live Testing can help firms trial new ideas safely before going to market. Taking a more holistic view The greater transparency provided by technology could also encourage consumers to think about retirement in a more integrated way. For many, retirement is a balance sheet issue, rather than simply a pensions one – involving total wealth managementLink is external across pensions, housing, and other savings. And for most households, the majority – around 80%Link is external - of their wealth at retirement sits in two places: pensions and housing. So it’s natural that decisions about retirement income and housing increasingly intersect. For homeowners, choices around downsizing, equity release, or later life borrowing can interact directly with how their pension savings are used. And as mortgage terms extend further into later life, and pensions savings gaps persist for some groups, housing wealth will play a larger role in supporting retirement living standards. Products like lifetime mortgages and retirement interest-only mortgages – currently more niche - may become more prominent parts of the retirement landscape. This raises important questions. How straightforward is it to understand the trade-offs between pension drawdown and borrowing to utilise housing wealth? And does the market currently provide the advice and support people need to navigate those choices with confidence? These are just a couple of the questions behind the market study we are running this year, the Terms of Reference for which we’ve published today. We’ll be looking at whether the later life mortgage market can and will develop in a way that meets evolving needs, including what changes might be required to make competition more effective for consumers. At the same time, exploring how consumers might be better supported to access more holistic advice and guidance on later life lending.  Appreciating these decisions are rarely straightforward – often spanning housing, inheritance, and long-term care planning considerations all at the same time.  And we can never lose sight of ensuring vulnerable consumers get the support they need and are not exploited. Of course, not everyone approaches retirement with housing wealth. For renters, the absence of housing assets materially changes the retirement equation. AnalysisLink is external from Standard Life suggests people who expect to rent during retirement could need an additional £398,000 in savings. With home ownership falling, this will only become a more pressing issue. Our interim pure protection study is looking at the structure of markets for products like life insurance and income protection, where take-up remains low despite the crucial role these can play in managing risk over the longer term. These different elements must work much better together to support consumers in making decisions about their financial futures.  So that retirement is a glide path, not a cliff edge. Closing The issues I’ve touched on this morning – technology, advice, housing and later life lending – all shape the financial resilience people carry into later life. They are so intersecting that there will inevitably be a number of bodies involved. But coordination doesn't mean everything has to move forward in lock step; different institutions will take forward different strands of work.  What matters is that the direction of travel remains aligned. And at the FCA, we are determined to keep moving at considered pace. Changes in technology, in visibility, in consumer engagement, demand this. Where improvements can be made today, we shouldn’t delay. So I hope this time next year, we will be in a position to mark further rapid progress.

London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSEG) announces today that it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each on the London Stock Exchange from Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc (Morgan Stanley) as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 26 February 2026: Ordinary Shares Date of purchase: 19 March 2026 Number of ordinary shares purchased: 348,774 Highest price paid per share: 8,692.00p Lowest price paid per share: 8,518.00p Volume weighted average price per share: 8,601.56p   LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares.  Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 500,381,188 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 21,451,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 500,381,188. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules. In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (as it forms part of the law of the United Kingdom by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter) a full breakdown of the individual trades made by the Morgan Stanley on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3828X_1-2026-3-19.pdf This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction. Schedule of Purchases Shares purchased: 348,774 Date of purchases: 19 March 2026 Investment firm: Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc   Aggregate Information: Venue Volume weighted average price Aggregated Volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share XLON 8,598.84p 323,349 8,518.00p 8,692.00p TRQX 8,636.04p 25,425 8,544.00p 8,692.00p

The Federal Court has today made declarations that Macquarie Investment Management Limited (MIML) contravened the Corporations Act by failing to place the Shield Master Fund (Shield) on a watch list for heightened monitoring. Based on a Statement of Agreed Facts and Admissions filed by the parties, His Honour Justice Wheelahan made declarations that MIML should have placed the Shield investment options on a watch list so that they could be subject to further monitoring, such as additional reporting, due diligence, performance monitoring or other follow-up action. ASIC commenced proceedings against MIML after accepting a court enforceable undertaking that Macquarie pay over 3,000 affected members 100% of the amounts they invested in Shield, less any amounts withdrawn (25-215MR). Approximately $321 million was paid to affected members in September last year. Deputy Chair Sarah Court said today’s outcome was another important milestone as part of ASIC’s 2026 enforcement priority related to the collapse of Shield. ‘Superannuation trustees play a crucial role safeguarding the retirement savings of their members. ‘Australians expect super trustees to take the steps necessary to monitor funds available on their platforms. ‘In this case, those steps could and should have triggered closer scrutiny of these investments. ‘Following ASIC’s investigation, Macquarie paid members quickly, providing them certainty by returning them to the position they were in before their retirement savings were eroded. ‘Today’s declarations reinforce that trustees must put members first and take active steps to identify and respond to risks,’ the Deputy Chair said. In his reasons, Justice Wheelahan said the declarations sought were appropriate because ‘they inform the public of the harm arising from Macquarie’s contravening conduct, and they deter other corporations from contravening the Corporations Act.’ The Court noted that ASIC did not seek a pecuniary penalty against MIML owing to what it considered the exceptional circumstances of the case, including payments made to investors. ASIC continues to investigate misconduct relating to the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds to hold those involved to account. Download Judgment Background MIML is a subsidiary of Macquarie Group Limited and is the superannuation trustee of the Macquarie Superannuation Plan and operates the Macquarie wrap platform. As superannuation trustee, MIML oversaw approximately $321 million in super investments into Shield by around 3,000 of its members between 2022 and 2023. In February 2024, ASIC halted new offers of investments in Shield by making interim stop orders on four product disclosure statements. In June 2024, ASIC took action to secure the assets held within Shield to preserve them for the benefit of investors while investigations continue. ASIC is investigating the conduct of the responsible entity for Shield, its directors and officers, the role of superannuation trustees, certain financial advisers, lead generators and others involved in the promotion and distribution of Shield. ASIC and APRA coordinated closely in relation to this matter, consistent with their collaborative approach to issues of shared regulatory interest. ASIC determined not to seek the imposition of a civil penalty against Macquarie given the exceptional circumstances, including: the strong public interest in obtaining a timely court-based outcome which will encourage other superannuation trustees to comply with their legal obligations in the context of choice platforms;  the interests of providing affected members who invested into Shield through a regulated superannuation fund with certainty in a timely manner; and  the level of cooperation demonstrated by Macquarie in agreeing to pay members 100% of the amounts invested in Shield less any amounts withdrawn, without waiting for an outcome of the Shield liquidation or proceedings against other parties involved.   Proceedings that ASIC has commenced against Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited seeking compensation for investors in Shield (25-176MR), and against Diversa Trustees Limited seeking compensation for investors in First Guardian (25-296MR), are continuing. In December, ASIC announced that Netwealth agreed to pay over $100 million in compensation to more than 1,000 Australians who invested their superannuation in the First Guardian Master Fund and has admitted it contravened the Corporations Act (25-307MR).

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) today announced the successful conclusion of phase two of Project MindForge[1], which culminates in the publication of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Risk Management Toolkit for the financial services sector. This toolkit, developed collaboratively by a consortium of 24 leading banks, insurance companies, capital market firms, and other industry partners[2], provides financial institutions with resources for managing AI-related risks across traditional AI, generative AI, and emerging agentic AI technologies.2  The MindForge AI Risk Management Toolkit features an ‘AI Risk Management Operationalisation Handbook  ’ that provides detailed, practical guidance on implementing AI risk management frameworks. This handbook is accompanied by a supplement that features a compilation of AI case studies  that document the experiences and lessons learned from financial institutions. These examples offer insights into the challenges, approaches and risk management practices when using AI in different organisational contexts.3  MAS is presently reviewing responses to an earlier public consultation on a set of Guidelines on AI Risk Management.[3] The Operationalisation Handbook is organised into four sections, which are aligned with MAS’ proposed Guidelines: a. Scope and oversight – Establishment of AI governance framework, and clarity of roles and responsibility for AI oversight.b. AI risk management – Identification of AI usage, risk materiality assessment, and AI inventorisation through organisational systems, policies and procedures.c. AI lifecycle management – Implementation of controls covering the entire lifecycle of AI use.d. Enablers – Development of organisational capabilities, infrastructure, and resources to enable ongoing responsible AI use and risk management. 4  The Operationalisation Handbook will be periodically updated as the use of AI in the industry matures and to reflect MAS’ supervisory expectations. To facilitate broader industry adoption of AI risk management practices and solutions, MAS will establish an AI risk management workgroup comprising MindForge consortium members and other industry practitioners under the BuildFin.ai[4] initiative to develop implementation resources, facilitate knowledge sharing, and build capabilities and frameworks for managing risks from newer AI technologies such as agentic AI.5  Kenneth Gay, Chief FinTech Officer, MAS said, “The development of the MindForge AI Risk Management Toolkit, including the release of the Operationalisation Handbook, marks a major step forward in our journey to ensure the responsible adoption of AI in finance. We are committed to fostering a culture of continuous engagement and strengthening of AI governance and risk management practices across the industry. The BuildFin.ai programme also serves as a foundation for our next phase of collaboration in AI risk management, to bolster the safe adoption of AI across the financial industry.” **** [1] Project MindForge, launched by MAS in mid-2023, aims to strengthen AI risk management for financial institutions deploying AI technologies in their services and operations. [2] Please see Annex A for the list of consortium members. [3] For more details of the proposed MAS Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Risk Management, please refer to https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2025/mas-guidelines-for-artificial-intelligence-risk-management [4] BuildFin.ai is a new initiative launched by MAS that brings together technology providers, research institutes, and financial institutions to collaboratively tackle complex industry challenges. The initiative aims to create shared resources and solutions that benefit the entire financial ecosystem by pooling expertise and data to address common problems.

Thank you, Chair, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear today. I am joined today by Commissioner, Kate O’Rourke, Executive Director, Enforcement and Compliance, Chris Savundra and Senior Executive Leader, Sustainability, Financial Reporting and Audit, Claire LaBouchardiere. A key strategic priority for ASIC is strengthening market disclosure, specifically financial reporting, sustainability reporting, and audit. In terms of enforcement, financial reporting misconduct and auditor misconduct remain priorities for ASIC. High quality financial reports and audits are critical to informed investor decision making and market integrity. As we have discussed before with the Committee, ASIC’s role in relation to auditors has some constraints that can impact our ability to take action. ASIC regulates individual registered company auditors and authorised audit companies. We administer the requirements of the Corporations Act as it relates to auditor independence and audit quality.  ASIC does not regulate the accounting or consulting professions more broadly. Many large accounting, audit and consulting firms operate as partnerships – we do not have the power to regulate these. We also do not regulate the staff within these firms who are not registered with ASIC. The role of an auditor is to independently examine a company’s financial reports to ensure they comply with the Corporations Act 2001 and accounting standards, and to determine whether the reports provide a true and fair view of the entity’s financial position and performance. ASIC continues to investigate and take enforcement action against auditors who breach the law, and we share information with the professional accounting bodies where possible. Information sharing ASIC has worked with the professional bodies to improve the regularity and efficiency of information sharing and we have now formalised regular information sharing arrangements, replacing earlier ad hoc processes. This has improved the timeliness of referrals and reduced the risk of regulatory gaps between ASIC and the professional bodies. The professional bodies play a key role in upholding ethical standards, and ASIC works closely with them to share conduct concerns about individuals who are both ASIC-regulated and members of a professional body, so that matters are addressed appropriately. Strategic work and regulatory outcomes We have continued to enhance and expand our surveillance work. We have now reviewed financial reports and audits of registrable superannuation entities for the first time, and in September last year we released a report that found directors, superannuation trustees and auditors need to improve the quality of financial reports and audits, particularly when valuing investments in unlisted funds. In October last year, ASIC released a separate report which found that auditors from firms of all sizes often could not demonstrate compliance with independence and conflict of interest obligations. We are now selecting audit files for review where we have independence concerns to consider whether there is an impact on audit quality. Another report in October last year into oversight of financial reporting and audit reviewed 254 financial reports from listed and large proprietary companies and conducted surveillance of a further 22 companies. The result was 18 companies making or agreeing to make changes to their financial reports, most commonly to address inadequate disclosure of material business risks in the Operating and Financial Review. In 2025–26, our audit surveillance program will expand to 25 audit file reviews, up from 15 in 2024–25, with files selected both randomly and where there are concerns about auditor independence and conflicts of interest. We will monitor the response to the findings of these reviews. Our surveillance work will now include reviews of mandatory sustainability reports. We will take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to supervision and enforcement in the early years, supporting industry through guidance and education. ASIC has recently strengthened its enforcement actions against company auditors. Since June 2025, ASIC has reported enforcement outcomes including imposing conditions on registration, referring matters to the Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board (CADB) resulting in cancellation of registration and issuing infringement notices. The most recent enforcement action was the commencement of civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against authorised audit company, BDO Audit (WA) Pty Ltd (BDO Audit), and one of its directors.

THe Security Traders Association of Chicago (STAC), a membership organization representing securities industry professionals and an affiliate of the Security Traders Association (STA), has opened the application period for its STAC Fund Scholarship program for the 2026 – 2027 academic year.  The STAC Fund Scholarship provides financial support to college students who are interested in building careers in finance, trading and related fields. Through this annual initiative, STAC remains dedicated to encouraging the next generation of industry leaders by helping students pursue their educational and professional goals.  The scholarship is available to all students in the Chicago area, regardless of any connection to STAC. STAC members, as well as their spouses and dependent children, are also eligible to apply, though affiliation with the organization is not required. “We’re excited to launch the next scholarship cycle and continue STAC’s tradition of investing in the future of our community,” said Matt Tobin, STAC President. “Supporting students as they advance their education and deepen their understanding of financial markets is a core part of our mission. We’re proud to have awarded 24 scholarships to outstanding local students in 2025, and we look forward to helping another group of talented individuals take the next step toward leadership in our industry.”  Applications and all required supporting materials must be submitted online through the STAC website. The digital application and complete eligibility criteria can be found here, and submissions will be accepted through April 24, 2026.  Founded in 1991, the STAC Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization established to provide college scholarships to deserving students and to make grants to charitable and educational institutions. The STAC Fund is committed to giving back to the Chicagoland community while promoting financial awareness and literacy. Over the past decade, the STAC Fund has contributed more than $600,000 in scholarships and charitable donations through the generosity of STAC members, sponsors, and supporters. 

Apex Group Ltd (“Apex Group”), a global financial services provider with over $3.5 trillion in assets serviced, in collaboration with Coinbase Asset Management (“CBAM”), today announced the launch of the tokenized Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund on Base. Apex Group is enabling world class institutional asset managers like Coinbase Asset Management, to offer clients more functionality with their investment holdings. The enablement of a tokenized Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund represents a clear step forward in modernizing regulated fund distribution onchain. When identity and eligibility are enforced at the token level, the tokenized share class is set up to interact with compatible platforms, wallets, and infrastructure without compromising compliance. This opens the door to more efficient distribution models and future secondary‑liquidity frameworks while maintaining strict controls. The initiative combines Apex Group’s global transfer agency capabilities with blockchain infrastructure powered by the ERC‑3643 permissioned token standard to deliver a digitally native share class within a fully compliant framework. The ERC-3643 structure embeds compliance rules directly into the smart contract providing interoperability across the broader digital asset ecosystem. Investor onboarding is conducted through the CBAM Investor Portal powered by Tokeny, ensuring every participant is linked to a compliant on chain identity. This preserves regulatory safeguards while improving operational efficiency. Each investor is verified and approved before subscribing to, holding, or transferring digital shares, with identity integrated at the core of the token architecture. Token issuance and book‑entry records remain aligned with the fund’s NAV lifecycle, maintaining the integrity of traditional share registry processes. Regulators are highlighting the need for token standards that embed compliance into digital assets. In a recent speech, the SEC Chairman pointed to the importance of using frameworks “such as ERC‑3643” that enforce compliance at the token level.  Peter Hughes, Founder and CEO at Apex Group, commented: "Digital assets are no longer a future ambition, they are becoming the infrastructure of modern fund distribution. The tokenized share class of the Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund is a concrete demonstration that institutional-grade compliance and blockchain efficiency are not in conflict. Because compliance travels with the token, these structures can connect to a growing ecosystem of digital distribution platforms, including our own Apex Invest.io, opening new channels for managers and investors alike." Anthony Bassili, President of Coinbase Asset Management, added: “Tokenized fund infrastructure has finally arrived and is ready to scale. It needs to meet the same regulatory and operational standards investors expect from traditional markets. The Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund’s tokenized share class shows that you can bring real‑world assets onchain while preserving the full compliance stack. By integrating identity and eligibility at the token level, this structure lays important groundwork for scalable, institutional‑grade digital distribution. We’re pleased to work with Apex Group as the industry moves toward more efficient, interoperable fund models.” The launch of the Coinbase Bitcoin Yield Fund’s tokenized share class to institutional and accredited investors offers a practical blueprint for institutional‑grade tokenized funds, illustrating how identity‑driven compliance and blockchain interoperability can coexist within regulated structures. As demand for digital‑native fund distribution increases, Apex Group continues to position itself at the forefront of compliant tokenization infrastructure, connecting traditional capital markets with next‑generation digital asset ecosystems. Coinbase Asset Management plans to launch a tokenized share class for its Coinbase US Bitcoin Yield Fund with Apex Group as well.

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould issued the following statement today at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) board meeting about two proposals to modernize the regulatory capital framework for banking organizations of all sizes. Today’s proposals are another important step in resetting the risk tolerance for the banking system and restoring banks to their proper role as financial intermediaries. The OCC currently estimates that the banks it supervises will see an aggregate reduction in minimum binding capital requirements of 6.9% under the proposed standardized approach. And the very largest OCC-supervised banks will see a reduction of 3.4% under the expanded risk-based approach. This increases lending capacity and gives banks more runway to support their communities and customers. These proposals would also simplify our regulatory framework by eliminating the need for calculating risk weights using multiple methodologies in parallel. Overly-complex or unintuitive regulatory frameworks frustrate accountability to elected officials and the public, impede economic growth, and compromise our ability to respond in a crisis. I would like to thank the OCC team as well as our colleagues at the FDIC and the Federal Reserve for their excellent efforts on these proposals. None of this would have been possible without the leadership of Chairman Hill and Vice Chair for Supervision Bowman, and I look forward to continuing to work with them as we review and respond to comments from the public. Related Links Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Regulatory Capital Rule: Category I and II Banking Organizations, Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity, and Optional Adoption for Other Banking Organizations (PDF) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital and Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets (PDF)

I am pleased to present the 2025 Financial Report of the United States Government, which provides a comprehensive view of the federal government’s fiscal position, its long-term outlook, and the progress we are making toward restoring fiscal responsibility. This Report arrives at a consequential moment. Under the previous administration, deficits averaged roughly 7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). There was no recession, no pandemic, and no major war to justify those deficits. Instead there was only an addiction to government spending that distorted the economy, slowed growth, and fueled inflation. This administration inherited an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Whether we now rise to that challenge is, in no small part, a test of our national character. To that end, in 2025, the administration has focused on reigning in government spending and growing the economy through tax reform, a fundamental reset of regulatory policy, and energy abundance. Through growth, we can over time reduce the federal deficit to 3 percent of GDP, an attainable benchmark that is consistent with long-term fiscal sustainability. Already we have made real progress. The deficit-to-GDP ratio declined from 6.4 percent in fiscal year 2024 to 5.9 percent in fiscal year 2025. Measured on a calendar-year basis—which better reflects the President’s time in office—the improvement is even larger: a 1.6 percentage point reduction. This Report highlights these trends in federal revenues and expenditures and presents long-term fiscal projections that underscore both the seriousness of the challenge and the importance of continued reform. It reflects our commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. A government that lives beyond its means ultimately erodes the foundations of its own strength. Getting our fiscal house in order is not only an economic imperative, it is also essential to preserving the strength and credibility of the United States at home and abroad. Under President Trump’s leadership, this administration intends to restore the United States Government to sound fiscal foundations, securing America’s Golden Age far beyond our own time.  

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) is warning the public about fraudsters who use fake regulators or impersonate actual regulators to offer a false sense of legitimacy to their scheme. Fraudsters create trading platforms that appear legitimate, using fake credentials and fabricated licensing numbers that link to fictitious Canadian or international regulators. Some of these platforms may even misuse OSC branding to convince investors that they are registered, when they are unlicensed and have no affiliation with the OSC. “These scams are built on false claims and attempt to imitate the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) in order to pressure people into sending money. We want investors to know that the OSC does not contact individuals to recover funds or promote investment opportunities,” said Bonnie Lysyk, Executive Vice President, Enforcement at the OSC. "If you receive an unsolicited message that claims to be from us, please check with the OSC before taking any action.” The OSC is also aware of emails impersonating OSC staff as part of a scheme that promises to recover investor funds lost due to these fraudulent activities. The emails indicate that the OSC is contacting the individual in order to protect and recover dormant or potentially compromised digital assets. The email will often ask for payment, either to validate ownership or for tax purposes. However, the emails come from non-OSC email addresses such as support@blockchainsforensics.org”, which are unaffiliated with the OSC. They may also include the name of the non-existent “Blockchain Forensics & Asset Recovery Division” as well as using fake OSC email signatures. These are fraudulent schemes designed to pressure victims into sending additional funds. Fraudsters often target people who have already been victimized by a previous scheme and claim they can recover the money for a fee. They may also ask for personal information to undertake this work. The OSC urges Ontarians to be vigilant with unsolicited information, including documentation that contains OSC branding or claims to be from OSC staff. Investors are reminded that the OSC will never: Ask investors to send money anywhere at any time. Promote any kind of investment opportunity or company. Promote companies or entities offering to recover funds that have been scammed. Make unsolicited phone calls or send unsolicited emails or text messages to investors asking for payments related to enforcement actions or investigations. Anyone who receives a communication claiming to be from the OSC that they find suspicious should contact the OSC directly to verify whether the message is genuine. Investors should not reply to the suspicious communication directly or rely on contact information included in the communication. Instead, they should refer to the official OSC Website. Investors should always to check the registration of any person or business trying to sell them an investment or give them investment advice. For more information about investor protection visit GetSmarterAboutMoney.ca and to stay on top of the latest investor news, warnings and more sign up for the OSC’s popular e-newsletter, Investor News and follow us on social media. The mandate of the OSC is to provide protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices, to foster fair, efficient and competitive capital markets and confidence in the capital markets, to foster capital formation, and to contribute to the stability of the financial system and the reduction of systemic risk. Investors are urged to check the registration of any persons or company offering an investment opportunity and to review the OSC investor materials available at www.osc.ca.

SIFMA today released the following statement from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President and CEO of SIFMA, regarding prudential regulators’ proposals to revise the U.S. bank capital framework, including changes to the G-SIB capital surcharge, and implement the final phase of Basel III: “We appreciate policymakers’ efforts to revisit the earlier Basel III proposals and to take a more data-driven approach to recalibrating the U.S. bank capital framework, including the G-SIB capital surcharge. Strong capital standards are essential to a resilient financial system, and U.S. banks today are among the best capitalized in the world. “As policymakers consider these revisions, it is important that the final framework is appropriately tailored, risk sensitive, and harmonized with other global capital markets and avoids unnecessary constraints on banks’ ability to support economic growth, capital markets activity, and client financing. In particular, the treatment of market risk under the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book should appropriately reflect the lower-risk of many capital markets activities and avoid disproportionate capital charges that could reduce market liquidity and increase costs for businesses and investors across the U.S. economy. “SIFMA looks forward to reviewing the proposals in detail and engaging constructively with regulators during the comment process.”

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) announced the upcoming launch of its Disgorgement Distribution Program. The Program builds on CIRO’s existing ability to seek disgorgement orders, following a finding of registrant misconduct. In certain cases, the Program will now enable CIRO to distribute funds collected pursuant to a disgorgement order to investors who have been financially harmed by registrant misconduct. Disgorgement is a monetary sanction imposed by CIRO hearing panels which require a wrongdoer to repay funds, gains, or any other type of value obtained from their misconduct. Coming into effect on April 1, 2026, the Disgorgement Distribution Program, one of CIRO’s strategic priorities, is a significant milestone to enhance investor protection, improve regulatory outcomes, promote fairness, and support confidence in Canada’s investment industry. Previously, investors who suffered financial harm as a result of registrant misconduct could not receive payments through CIRO for losses, even when disgorgement was ordered in disciplinary proceedings. The Disgorgement Distribution Program advances investor protection by introducing a mechanism to distribute disgorged funds to investors who suffered direct financial losses, and aligns CIRO with other Canadian securities regulators that have implemented similar frameworks to return funds to harmed investors. Investors continue to rely on existing avenues such as firm-level complaints, the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), arbitration, and civil claims. “CIRO’s Disgorgement Distribution Program is an important step forward in the protection of Canadian investors,” said Andrew Kriegler, President and CEO, CIRO. “By requiring individuals and firms to return gains obtained through misconduct disgorgement is an important deterrence tool, and through the development of the Program announced today we will be able to help harmed investors as well.” The Disgorgement Distribution Program includes clear eligibility criteria, governance controls, and oversight mechanisms to ensure that any distributions are handled transparently, consistently, and in the best interests of harmed investors. For more information about the Disgorgement Distribution Program, including eligibility criteria, processes and Frequently Asked Questions, please visit: Disgorgement Distribution.

Thank you, [former Commissioner] Laura [Unger], for that kind introduction.[1] This year, America will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a document that came into existence during a period of transformational thinking about the relationship between the people and how they are governed. In an era of European monarchies and the divine right of kings, the idea that those in government derive their power from the consent of the governed was a stark departure from the status quo. A. Pursuit of Happiness The Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, declared to the world that certain truths were self-evident. People are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Among these unalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[2] Jefferson adapted this important phrase from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690), in which Locke identified life, liberty and property as foundational natural rights.[3] Scholars have long hypothesized on why Jefferson replaced “property” with the “pursuit of happiness.”[4] Today, I want to reflect on what this small, but meaningful, adaptation means for us today, and specifically, what this means for the work of the Commission. The pursuit of happiness. It is a more elastic and somewhat more amorphous concept than property, but perhaps the most distinctly American idea in a document full of them. It is not the guarantee of happiness. It is not the government’s obligation to deliver happiness. It is the right to pursue happiness: to start a business, to choose your occupation, to risk your capital, and to reap the rewards or absorb the losses of your own decisions. Although the SEC did not exist during the earlier parts of American history, the ideals that underpinned America’s foundation should continue to guide how we think about opportunity, accountability, and the proper limits of government action. The Declaration of Independence reflects a broader American belief that individuals are not bound to the circumstances of their birth or class in society. It is forward-looking and not wedded to the past. The pursuit of happiness—one’s chosen vocation, ambition, or enterprise—is not predetermined by lineage. It embodies the notion that each generation can forge its own path through self-determination and agency. Free enterprise, innovation, and entrepreneurship are not afterthoughts to the American experiment. They were woven into America’s DNA from the very beginning. Two hundred and fifty years later, the freedom to choose your own direction remains one of America’s most powerful promises. What transformed the pursuit of happiness from an aspiration into actuality was the development of America’s capital markets. During the 18th century, the Dutch operated some of the most advanced capital markets for their time. Perhaps it is not surprising, in a city founded as New Amsterdam, that less than a decade after the end of the American Revolution, twenty-four stockbrokers would sign the historic Buttonwood Agreement that would give rise to the New York Stock Exchange.[5] The ability to raise capital played a pivotal role in facilitating America’s evolution from an agrarian society to the world’s leading economic power. But capital comes at a cost and effective regulation can lower the cost of capital. Investors may be willing to take certain risks with a potential investment – particularly if it is part of a diversified portfolio – but investors do not want their money stolen or to be misled about the risks, returns, financial condition, or prospects of an investment. If the capital markets are rife with bad actors, investors will either not invest at all or demand higher returns to compensate for the added risk of fraud. Either way, even legitimate and honest companies will face a higher cost of capital because of the presence of bad actors. Over time, Congress recognized that regulation and oversight of the capital markets could benefit economic growth and enacted the federal securities laws. However, rather than having government bureaucrats engage in merit review of securities offerings, similar to how various state securities laws then operated, Congress created a statutory framework with the Commission serving as a disclosure regulator. Hence, it is not the SEC’s role to decide which ideas are worthy of capital, which business models are viable, or which entrepreneurs deserve a chance. That is the market’s job. Our responsibility is to ensure that investors have accurate, honest, and financially material information to make those judgments for themselves. As a result, a company with unproven technology, and a long road to profitability, can still access America’s public markets, so long as it tells investors exactly what it is and what are the risks. Some will be successful in executing their business plans, while many others will fail. The risk of failure, however, is an important, integral, and expected part of the process. Markets reward enterprises that create value and take away resources from those that do not, in ways that no regulator or central planner could ever replicate. Capital allocation in the free markets, despite periodic booms and busts, often channels resources to new ventures that challenge incumbents. Opportunity is available, albeit at times imperfectly and unevenly, to those with the ideas and determination to pursue them. And the results speak for themselves. America’s capital markets have powered every chapter of this country’s economic ascent from westward expansion to the modern technological era. 1. Public Markets The Commission has a responsibility to preserve and strengthen that tradition, and we are working on meaningful steps intended to revitalize the public markets. Post-Enron reforms,[6] although well-intentioned, have had the effect of making initial public offerings (IPOs) less of an avenue where companies can raise capital and broaden ownership among the public and more of a liquidity event for insiders and early stage investors. As we seek to incentivize more businesses to IPO and increase the pool of public companies, it is worth assessing whether the current SEC regulatory regime is conducive to going and staying public. In this spirit, we are working to modernize the shelf registration process to reduce compliance burdens and further facilitate access to capital. Shelf registration provides significant advantages and flexibility for eligible companies to manage capital and liquidity needs. By using shelf registration, companies can offer securities to investors when market conditions become favorable; on the flip side, companies will also have the ability to quickly secure funds in stressed market conditions—essential for maintaining operations or servicing debt. The staff has also been instructed to engage in a comprehensive review of Regulation S-K to assess the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements and to consider permitting companies to change their periodic reporting cycle from quarterly to semi-annually. There are a few other examples where we may be able to improve disclosure requirements so that they are relevant and efficient. For example, we should revisit the thresholds for being an “Emerging Growth Company” (“EGC”) and “Smaller Reporting Company” (“SRC”). For too long, the disclosure framework for public companies was built around a one-size-fits-all model that imposed the same disclosure burdens on smaller companies as on large, seasoned conglomerates. Recalibrating the EGC and SRC thresholds is not a matter of lowering standards. It is a matter of ensuring that regulatory burdens correspond to the size, sophistication, and regulatory risk profile of each company, and that smaller issuers are not driven out of the public markets before they ever have an opportunity to grow into them. Taken together, these reforms reflect a simple conviction: that vibrant public markets require on-ramps, not obstacle courses. 2. Private Markets But public markets do not thrive in isolation. The public and private markets co-exist in a symbiotic relationship. Private markets have always been the seedbed where ideas become businesses, from which public markets draw their most dynamic companies. For much of modern history, private markets have incubated companies that were not yet ready for the public markets, which at some point in the future when they were at a more mature stage, went public. The question is not how to choose between them; it is how to allow everyday Americans to have exposure to the opportunities that exist in both markets. Until now, the benefits of private market investing have been reserved for institutional investors—pension funds, endowments, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds—while retail investors saving for retirement have been effectively excluded. The disparity is difficult to ignore. The teacher or firefighter whose retirement is managed by a public pension fund has benefited from meaningful private market exposure for years.[7] The private sector worker saving through mutual funds in a 401(k) plan has not. In an environment where public market securities are becoming increasingly concentrated and correlated,[8] exclusive reliance on such securities may no longer provide the diversification that retirement savers need and deserve. Private assets, such as private equity, private credit, venture capital, infrastructure, and real estate, can enhance overall performance returns and reduce volatility when included as part of a diversified portfolio. The argument against allowing retail access is familiar: private investments are illiquid, complex, and unsuitable for retail investors. This framing gets the analysis backwards. Retirement savers are often long-term investors, and private investments can offer a premium for that illiquidity. For long-term investors saving for retirement, this tradeoff can be not only acceptable, but desirable. The notion that a zero allocation to private assets is somehow inherently safer or more desirable than a diversified allocation is not investor protection. It is not the government’s role to impose its judgment as to what opportunities investors may pursue, particularly when these choices are often being made by a fiduciary. The Commission is working to change that. We have already taken steps in that direction, including lifting the 15% cap on investments in private funds for closed-end funds.[9] We are also actively engaged on how to expand retail investor exposure to private markets. We are working to ensure that the SEC and the Department of Labor are aligned in providing fiduciaries the regulatory clarity and safe harbors they need to prudently include private assets in defined contribution plans — because access alone is not enough if plan sponsors are deterred by litigation that second-guesses good-faith decisions with the benefit of hindsight. B. Role of Government The Declaration of Independence stated that the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be secured. So how should that apply in the context of the SEC and the capital markets? It means that our role is not to stand between Americans and their economic aspirations in the name of protecting them from themselves. Instead, it means that our job is to build and maintain the infrastructure that makes free markets possible—clear rules, honest disclosure, and timely accountability for fraud and manipulation. It means that when we adopt rules, we should ask not only whether they prevent harm, but also whether they preserve freedom for investors. Capital markets are not perfect, and the cost of capital can increase dramatically in markets that lack rules and safeguards. A free market without proper oversight lacks the tools to prevent and address fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, and market failures such as monopolies that stifle competition. Capital markets will fall far short of their potential if there is a significant lack of transparency and information asymmetry. Investors—those persons who put their capital at risk—will simply withdraw. However, investor protection does not mean that government ought to engage in paternalistic control. Innovation cannot wait indefinitely for regulators and we cannot suffocate innovation under the guise of investor protection. When the Commission fails to provide workable regulations, markets do not stand still. They move elsewhere. And when they move elsewhere, investors lose, competition suffers, and the Commission’s credibility as a forward-looking regulator is diminished. Nowhere is the Commission’s stifling of innovation more apparent than in its recent treatment of crypto assets. The United States had an opportunity to lead the world in building a regulated, transparent, and competitive crypto asset market. However, rather than engaging seriously with the question of how existing securities laws apply to these novel asset classes, the Commission chose enforcement as its primary regulatory tool. Exchanges that sought to register were turned away or left in regulatory limbo. Token issuers who asked for guidance received subpoenas instead. Lenders and custodians who tried to engage with the Commission in good faith were met with litigation. The message was unambiguous: do not bother trying to comply with the SEC rulebook. American investors were left with fewer regulated options, not more, and they did not stop participating in crypto asset markets. They simply did so on platforms and in venues abroad and outside the reach of U.S. securities laws. Regulations should not predetermine outcomes or restrict participation under the assumption that individuals are incapable of making informed choices. Instead, the role of the regulator should be to create conditions in which investors can make informed decisions, entrepreneurs can raise capital honestly, and markets can allocate resources efficiently. Innovation in financial markets has always required regulatory clarity. The development of money market funds, ETFs, and electronic trading all required the Commission to grapple with novel structures and adapt its rules accordingly. In each case, the Commission’s willingness to engage led to markets that were broader, more liquid, and more accessible to a wider investor base. The proof of these principles is visible in the work that the Commission has completed during the past year and in the work that lies ahead. We granted exemptive relief to asset managers to offer mutual funds and ETFs to operate as share classes in a single fund.[10] We granted exemptive relief that would allow 24/7 trading and instant settlement for tokenized shares of a money market fund, all within the regulatory perimeter of the Investment Company Act of 1940.[11] We have also proposed amendments to the rules that define which funds and advisers qualify as small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in an effort to reduce the regulatory burden on smaller market participants.[12] We have forthcoming rulemakings that will be consequential. We are actively exploring how to expand retail investor access to private markets.We are developing an innovation exemption that would facilitate limited trading of certain tokenized securities. And after years in which the Commission’s misguided posture toward crypto assets was defined by regulation-by-enforcement, we are now building a proper regulatory framework for them. We are also thinking about potential changes to the custody rule to accommodate the advent of new asset classes and different types of custodians. Moreover, the staff is conducting an ongoing evaluation of whether legacy rules continue to reflect market realities or simply persist by inertia. C. Restoring the Balance between Freedom and Protection Two-hundred and fifty years ago, America embarked on an experiment in democracy. The Founders had seen what happens when the state appoints itself the arbiter of which enterprises are worthy, which ideas deserve capital, and which individuals may pursue their ambitions. The Founders built something different, based on the principle that government exists to secure the conditions for human flourishing, not to determine its content. It is this liberty that allowed the United States to move ahead of global competitors and achieve economic prosperity and innovation. The United States remains the land of opportunity—not as a slogan, but as a lived reality for millions who have pursued careers, businesses, and ideas far different from the generations before them. The Commission’s tripartite mission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. Each part of that mission matters. Protecting investors means requiring honest disclosure and accountability for fraud. Maintaining fair markets means setting clear, consistent, and predictable rules. Facilitating capital formation means keeping the pathways to capital open, for both the established companies and the untested startup alike. When we allow any one of them to crowd out the others, we lose the balance the Founders understood intuitively: that freedom and protection must go hand in hand. Today, the Commission is working to restore that balance and rejuvenate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in our markets. Every entrepreneur who raises capital is exercising the freedom America’s founders envisioned. Every investor who risks his or her hard-earned dollars on a new company is affirming the principle of self-determination. Every market transaction, freely entered into, is a small act of independence. What is at stake is larger than any individual rulemaking. The United States has led the world in innovation and capital formation, but that edge is not guaranteed. America’s next 250 years will be shaped by ideas we have not yet heard of, building things we cannot yet imagine, and in markets that do not yet exist. The Commission’s job is to make sure that an honest, efficient, and open infrastructure is there when they arrive — to ensure that the pursuit of happiness remains exactly what the Founders intended it to be: a right that belongs to everyone willing to pursue it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. I would also like to thank the Commission’s staff who have put an enormous amount of effort into organizing the event and preparing the presentations for this program. Their dedication to the Commission’s mission helps to maintain the robust capital markets that afford opportunities for everyone.  [1] My remarks today reflect my views as an individual Commissioner and not necessarily the views of the full Commission or my fellow Commissioners. [2] The Declaration of Independence (U.S. 1776). [3] John Locke lists the natural rights of “life, liberty, and estate,” with “estate” being what we would consider “property” today. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government § 87 (Thomas Hollis ed. 1764) (1690). [4] See, e.g., Carli N. Conklin, The Origins of the Pursuit of Happiness, 7 Wash. U. Juris. Rev. 195, 197-199 (2015). [5] The History of NYSE, N.Y. Stock Exch. (last visited Mar. 19, 2026), https://www.nyse.com/history-of-nyse. [6] See Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002). [7] State pension funds across the country have reported private equity returns significantly outpacing their public market counterparts over ten-year periods. CalPERS reported an 11.6% overall return for fiscal year 2024-2025, driven in significant part by a 14.6% return from its private equity portfolio. CalPERS, CalPERS Announces Preliminary 11.6% Return for 2024–25 Fiscal Year, CalPERS Newsroom (July 14, 2025), https://www.calpers.ca.gov/newsroom/calpers-news/2025/calpers-announces-preliminary-116-return-for-2024-25-fiscal-year. [8] The top 10 companies in the S&P 500 now account for nearly 40% of that index’s total market capitalization. See S&P 500 – Data – Characteristics, S&P Global (last visited Mar. 19, 2026), https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500/#data. [9] Division of Investment Management, Accounting and Disclosure Information 2025-16 – Registered Closed-End Funds of Private Funds (Aug. 15, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-investment-management/fund-disclosure-glance/accounting-disclosure-information/adi-2025-16-registered-closed-end-funds-private-funds. [10] E.g., Order under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, DFA Investment Dimensions Group., et al., Release No. IC-35786 (Nov. 17, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/ic/2025/ic-35786.pdf. [11] Order under Sections 6(c) and 17(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 17d-1 under the Act, WisdomTree Digital Trust, et al., Release No. IC-35968 (Feb. 23, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/ic/2026/ic-35968.pdf. [12] “Small Business” and “Small Organization” Definitions for Investment Companies and Investment Advisers for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Release Nos. IA-6935, IC-35864 (Jan. 7, 2026), 91 FR 1107 (Jan. 12, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/ia-6935.pdf.

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) today announced the adoption of a pilot project to allow eligible venture issuers to voluntarily adopt a semi-annual financial reporting framework (the SAR Pilot), subject to the terms and conditions in Coordinated Blanket Order 51-933 Exemption to Permit Semi-Annual Reporting for Certain Venture Issuers (the Blanket Order). The SAR Pilot provides an exemption for eligible venture issuers listed on the TSX Venture Exchange Inc. (TSXV) or the CNSX Markets Inc. (CSE) from the requirement to file first- and third-quarter financial reports under National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations. “The semi-annual financial reporting pilot is a great example of harmonization by Canada’s regulators to support the competitiveness of Canadian capital markets, particularly for smaller venture issuers,” said Stan Magidson, CSA Chair and Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission. “We thank those who provided comments during the consultation period, which indicated the SAR Pilot would meaningfully reduce regulatory burden for smaller venture issuers while maintaining investor protection.” On October 23, 2025, the CSA published the SAR Pilot for comment. A majority of commenters were supportive of the SAR Pilot. Annex A of the CSA Notice accompanying the Blanket Order includes a summary of comments and the CSA’s responses. While the Blanket Order is in effect, the CSA intends to engage in a broader rule-making project related to voluntary semi-annual financial reporting for eligible reporting issuers and will use learnings from the SAR Pilot to inform that project. The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets.