A total turnover of 7.075 billion shares worth ₦324.351 billion in 474,436 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 4.842 billion shares valued at ₦287.756 billion that exchanged hands last week in 332,453 deals. Click here for full details.

SIFMA confirmed its previous recommendations for the U.S., the U.K., and Japan in observance of the U.S. Memorial Day holiday. United States SIFMA recommends an early close at 2:00 p.m. EST on Friday, May 22, 2026, and a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. United Kingdom SIFMA recommends a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. Japan SIFMA recommends a full market close on Monday, May 25, 2026. These recommendations apply to trading of U.S. dollar-denominated government securities, mortgage- and asset-backed securities, over-the-counter investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, municipal bonds and secondary money market trading in bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper and Yankee and Euro certificates of deposit. SIFMA’s recommended early and full market closes are recommendations only; each member firm should decide for itself whether its fixed income departments remain open for trading. All SIFMA recommendations are subject to change due to market conditions.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners. Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference—especially the organizers: Amy Edwards, Vlad Ivanov, Katie Fox, Harmony Yang, and Robert Miller from the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis; Meg Wolf and Kathleen Hanley from Lehigh University; and Ian Appel and Caitlin Boyer from the University of Virginia. Your work to bring together scholars, researchers, and practitioners comes at a consequential moment for the Commission—and for the broader financial system—a moment in which economic analysis is more central than ever to the conduct and durability of sound financial regulation. You all know better than most that the quality of our work is only as high as the rigor of our inquiry. This rings true in our rulemaking, of course, but no less in the integrity of our enforcement program—especially as we work to return it to its principled roots and original Congressional intent. The mission that Congress set for the SEC is clear: to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Yet often over the years, the agency’s enforcement program drifted from that missional anchor. The Commission began wielding enforcement more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel—not to remedy demonstrable harm with precision, but to signal regulatory displeasure and expand agency jurisdiction. Over the past year, however, we have recalibrated that approach. We have empowered the talented, hardworking enforcement staff to pursue cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity—cases grounded in fact and careful analysis, in principle rather than in personal preference and regulation through enforcement. Today, we no longer measure the success of our program by the quantity of enforcement actions or the headlines that they generate, but by the quality and credibility of the actions that we take. And with our new Enforcement Director David Woodcock at the helm, I am confident that his decades of enforcement experience—in both public service and the private sector—will position him and the staff well to effectively carry this mission forward. At the crux of the course correction that we have undertaken rests methodical economic analysis. Economic scrutiny is not merely a best practice or an optional procedure when considering the appropriate corporate penalties in an enforcement action—though some past Commissions have treated it as such; rather, it is a principled imperative. By looking through the lens of economic evidence, we can assess a corporation’s benefit from a violation of the federal securities laws and ensure that the penalties are proportionate to the conduct at issue. Economic analysis is also crucial to understanding whether or not a violation of the federal securities laws occurred for certain types of cases, and the scope of that violation—for example, in preferential allocation or “cherry-picking” cases. And even after an enforcement case is complete, high-caliber economic analysis is critical to determining how to distribute recovered funds to harmed investors accurately, transparently, and fairly. In short, just as the Commission evaluates proposed rules through rigorous economic inquiry, often drawing on the data that researchers in this room provide, so too must our enforcement work be grounded in—and commensurate with—the economic evidence at hand. I expect that our economists at the SEC should play a vital role in helping our enforcement staff separate the wheat from the chaff through sound analysis and factual research. Fraud, manipulation, and trading on material non-public information cause real harm to real people, and we will pursue those cases with vigor. But we will do so with the discipline and analytical diligence that the gravity of enforcement demands. The Commission could not keep that commitment without the caliber of talent gathered across this room. Academic research is indispensable in helping us identify the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of regulatory decisions—both retrospectively and prospectively. The dedicated work done by those assembled here and in institutions across the country gives us the empirical foundation upon which sound regulatory policy and sensible law enforcement must be built. When the Commission acts without that foundation, it risks the very outcomes that it seeks to prevent—markets that are less fair, less efficient, and less capable of serving the investors and innovators who depend on them. Indeed, we value the research that you do. And I say that not as a pleasantry, but as a proclamation of institutional commitment. The Division of Economic and Risk Analysis exists precisely to ensure that the insights that you generate are considered in the decisions that we make. I intend to continue to strengthen that function—not to diminish it. My comments at last year’s conference endure in relevance: that regulation is a bit like golf.[1] It requires careful, precise strokes and meticulous analysis of shot selection to achieve the intended result. If you choose the wrong club, or swing too hard, you risk overshooting the green. In the end, it is the short game—precision, patience, discipline—that most reliably sinks the ball in the hole. The Commission’s integrity—and the strength of our capital markets—depends on our willingness to pursue precise analytical work before we act, and to continuously reevaluate that work as we move forward. It depends on our confidence in what we do know, and our inquiry into what we do not. And it depends on our commitment to letting the evidence, rather than the impulse to regulate or enforce, guide our hand. At the SEC, economic rigor has an abiding place at the table of regulatory decisions. Policy is no longer set by ad hoc enforcement actions. And, with your engagement, we will police the market by prioritizing cases that further our investor protection goals rather than by amplifying technical rule violations to achieve a policy goal. Now, let me close where I began—with the consequential moment in which we meet. Today, the relationship between the federal government and the capital markets that the Commission oversees is being renegotiated in real time—not in seminar rooms alone, but in courtrooms, on trading floors, and in the corridors of this Commission. The work that you do matters beyond productive discussions like today’s. It matters to the investors who trust that the market that they participate in is honest, and to the entrepreneurs who trust that the risk of innovation can prove worth it in a system that seeks to reward it. Economic analysis is not removed from those realities. It is, at its best, the lantern by which we navigate them. So, thank you for the work that you do toward that end. You have been a patient and indulgent audience, and I wish you a successful and enjoyable remainder of your conference. Thank you. [1] See Paul Atkins, Remarks Before the Securities Traders Association (Oct. 7, 2004), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch100704psa.htm.

Euronext, the leading European capital market infrastructure, today announced trading volumes for April 2026. Monthly and historical volume tables are available at this address: euronext.com/investor-relations#monthly-volumes

A convicted money launderer has been sentenced to an additional 499 days in prison for failing to fully pay the money owed under a Confiscation Order. In 2021, Richard Faithfull, now 36, was sentenced to 5 years and 10 months in prison for laundering £2.5 million, following a prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). He was part of a trans-national organised crime group which laundered the proceeds of at least 7 overseas investment frauds. Mr Faithfull is required to pay back £529,961, based on the Court’s findings on his available assets. However, he has only paid £349,214.37. When he was originally sentenced, the Judge remarked that Mr Faithfull’s was 'serious offending' linked to the 'human misery caused by boiler room fraud' and that 'money coming in (to accounts controlled by Faithfull) was not being invested, it was simply being slaughtered'. Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Faithfull’s crimes enabled millions of pounds to be scammed from innocent victims. He tried to evade justice. Now, having failed to repay what he should, it’s right he is put back behind bars.' The additional prison sentence was activated on Friday 8 May at a City of London Magistrates’ Court hearing. Mr Faithfull had been released from custody in June 2025. Even after serving the sentence in default of payment, Mr Faithfull will continue to be liable for the outstanding debt. Money recovered from Mr Faithfull will be used to compensate the victims of his crimes. Fighting financial crime is a priority under the FCA’s 5-year strategy. Background Richard Faithfull (D.O.B 15/03/1990). Richard Faithfull sentenced to over 5 years imprisonment for money laundering. A Confiscation Order was made on 23 July 2023. Mr Faithfull was originally ordered to pay the sum of £562,636 within 3 months to satisfy the Confiscation Order or face four further years of imprisonment. The Order was subsequently varied downwards to £529,961 on 12 March 2024 and the further sentence was moved downwards to 45 months of imprisonment. Mr Faithfull’s outstanding balance is accruing interest at the daily rate of £39.62. This interest will not contribute to the compensation for victims. The FCA enables a fair and thriving financial services market for the good of consumers and the economy. Find out more about the FCA.

The EU-wide framework that protects consumers and businesses from energy market manipulation and insider trading is commonly known as “REMIT”. This framework counts on many parties collecting and monitoring data, all working together to ensure the integrity of Europe’s wholesale energy markets. National regulators are responsible for enforcing REMIT. Today, ACER releases its annual reports on energy market surveillance, concerning: Persons professionally arranging transactions (PPATs): analysing their preparedness to detect and report suspicious energy market activities. PPATs are trading intermediaries such as energy exchanges, organised market places (OMPs) or brokers, who arrange or facilitate transactions in wholesale energy products. National energy regulatory authorities (NRAs), focusing on their analysis of suspicious transaction and order reports (STORs) submitted by PPATs, their enforcement actions and penalties. Both reports are mandated by the 2024 revised REMIT Regulation  which also expanded obligations for PPATs. What are ACER’s key findings and recommendations? ACER highlights the important role of PPAT market surveillance and NRA enforcement under the REMIT framework. ACER’s analysis shows that the number and quality of suspicious breaches submitted by PPATs in 2025 increased significantly, reaching 204 reports - double the previous year’s figure. In parallel, NRAs made steady progress in screening, prioritising and closing cases. For persons professionally arranging transactions (PPATs), ACER identified key areas in their surveillance practices where further improvements are needed: Strengthen functional independence and professionalisation of surveillance teams, including through appropriate training. Reduce over-reliance on basic monitoring tools in favour of more targeted ones. Expand surveillance coverage to potential breaches under REMIT Articles 3 and 4 (in addition to Article 5), across all markets and products. Proactively engage with market participants. Ensure timely and complete reporting of suspicious behaviour, focusing on effectiveness rather than formal compliance alone. For follow-ups by national regulators, ACER recommends: Strengthening PPATs’ analysis of market behaviour by providing more detailed assessments of market participants’ conduct and its impact on the market. Further enhancing NRAs’ capacity (staff and IT resources) to manage the growing volume and complexity of cases. Maintaining and expanding engagement between NRAs and PPATs to further improve reporting quality. Ensuring timely communication with ACER to support effective coordination and case handling. Read more.

I am happy to have the opportunity to return to and to speak in Dakar. Not far from here, I began my unexpected journey into the economics profession.1 As a graduate student at l'Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, I came to study philosophy and to write a thesis in African philosophy. However, I immediately started posing questions that became foundational in my conversion to economics, which would help provide the framework and skills to respond to these questions. Among them were the following: Why did a ballpoint pen that cost $0.10, at that time, in the United States cost the equivalent of $10 in Senegal? Why were some countries rich and some poor? Is there ultimately convergence among economies and one path to economic development and higher standards of living? Questions like these ignited my interest in understanding how the economy and monetary policy affect people's lives. I have been lucky enough to return to Africa many times. That included working in Rwanda and East Africa in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where M-Pesa, a mobile phone–based money transfer service, and other innovations piqued my interest in technologies that facilitate faster movement of capital and payments. I feel very fortunate to return to Dakar today, after many years, and to engage with an issue that is having a notable effect on the global financial system: tokenization in financial markets. Tokenization could specifically offer compelling benefits in West Africa and other emerging economies, including potentially faster cross-border payments and better access to capital markets.2 More broadly, tokenization could facilitate improvements upon frictions in financial markets today, with purported benefits ranging from improvements in settlement times, as well as enhanced recordkeeping and automation, to new ways of using traditional assets. This potential warrants careful consideration of the innovation's opportunities and challenges, particularly from a central bank perspective. If you will indulge me, three dimensions of tokenization will be my focus today: I will more deeply explore (1) the opportunities tokenization could provide, (2) financial-stability considerations and potential challenges should the innovation scale, and (3) the Fed's role with respect to tokenization and digital assets more broadly. Before diving in, I want to highlight two grounding principles. First, I support and encourage financial innovation. Second, I carefully monitor the financial-stability implications that accompany all innovation. It is my responsibility as a monetary policymaker to know and weigh these opportunities and risks. This responsibility applies to my role at the Federal Reserve, where I serve as the chair of the Board's Committee on Financial Stability, and in my roles with the Financial Stability Board (FSB). I am both co-chair of the FSB's Regional Consultative Group for the Americas and a participant on the Standing Committee on Assessment of Vulnerabilities. These roles allow me to apply a financial-stability lens to issues that could affect the financial system at a global level. Tokenization in the Context of Financial MarketsTo start, allow me to define tokenization for our purposes today. The term "tokenization" is broad and takes on different meanings in different contexts. In the broadest sense, tokenization refers to the concept of representing any number of items digitally. The concept has been applied to fine art, music royalties, and even soccer cleats.3 In the context of financial market innovation, tokenization is generally thought of as the process of generating and recording a digital representation—a token—of an asset on a new platform or technology, such as distributed ledger technology (DLT).4 Blockchain is a common form of DLT in which details of transactions are recorded in blocks of information.5 Generally, an asset is considered "tokenized" when a DLT is used to record ownership of that asset. Transactions involving tokens are then constructed using "smart contracts," or computer code that can execute predefined actions once certain conditions are met, among other capabilities. Many of the potential benefits of tokenization flow from this automated and programmable functionality. This relatively new innovation is already showing promise, potentially deepening connections between innovative technologies and traditional financial systems. Financial markets may be primed to adopt this technology for two reasons. First, they benefit from established liquidity, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks that can be leveraged; second, they contain siloed systems and processes that involve multiple intermediaries and manual steps that are, in many cases, amenable to enhancements from the automation and programmability offered by tokenization. It is this intersection between large existing markets—such as bonds, money market fund (MMF) shares, and repurchase agreements (repos)—and opportunities for new functionality or efficiencies in areas such as collateral and liquidity management that could drive the adoption of tokenization in financial markets. We already observe increased interest and investment in tokenization in financial markets, with tokenized assets in the U.S. more than doubling their market capitalization in the last year to around $25 billion.6 Let's take a closer look at some of the trends over time. Figure 1 shows growth over the past five years, separating financial assets (in dark blue) from nonfinancial assets (in light blue). This growth is being driven in part by the entrance of large financial institutions into the market, often in collaboration with emerging fintech firms with expertise in blockchain technology. Figure 2 takes a closer look at the recent growth in tokenized financial assets. The largest category is government bond funds (in dark blue). Meanwhile, credit funds (in light blue) and MMFs (in beige) are growing quickly. While still small relative to the size of the asset classes being tokenized, this growth represents increasing interest in leveraging this technology for facilitating wholesale transactions, earning on-chain interest income, and enabling broader cross-border ownership. Tokenization FrameworkWith this context in mind, I would like to briefly walk through a framework for thinking about different forms of tokenization. I think of innovations in tokenization along two dimensions: (1) the infrastructure, or rails, that assets are transferred on and (2) the assets themselves. In terms of infrastructure, tokenization involves new platforms and arrangements utilizing DLT, including blockchains, that can provide new features and functionality for financial market transactions. Those features include programmability through smart contracts, or executing transactions when certain predefined conditions are met, and composability, or creating products that combine features and functions in new ways.7 For example, smart contracts can enable multiple legs of a transaction to be combined and executed automatically, such as the settlement of two linked foreign exchange transactions. Such features could support the construction of complex trades and enable the execution of financial transactions in more flexible and efficient ways. In terms of the assets themselves, I see them as taking two primary forms. One is directly issued assets. In this case, assets are issued and custodied directly on DLT without an underlying conventional reference asset. Therefore, the actual issuance and transfer of ownership occur entirely on blockchain rails. Financial instruments issued solely on DLT could include a variety of claims on the issuer, such as bonds or other debt instruments, although such products are currently rare. The other form is representations of assets that were originally issued via conventional means. In this form, the reference assets are locked and remain in the existing legacy markets and clearing systems, but ownership is represented via tokens on a blockchain. This type of tokenization could allow a token holder to have a legally enforceable ownership claim over the token's reference asset, such as government bonds, corporate equity, MMFs, or a nonfinancial asset like a barrel of oil or a warehouse. The remainder of my remarks will focus on this form of tokenization. As you can see, the possibilities for new kinds of financial arrangements with tokenization are very broad, and this type of framework helps assess potential opportunities and challenges presented by the technology. Opportunities and BenefitsHaving established that this is a fast-growing field filled with notable recent innovations, allow me to take a deeper dive into potential opportunities related to tokenization in financial markets. I can understand why financial firms are exploring this technology, as it demonstrates the potential to enhance transparency, improve efficiency through automation, and offer settlement flexibility in financial market transactions. Many of these benefits are illustrated through improvements to collateral mobility and liquidity management processes, which I view as the major use case for financial institutions. More broadly, tokenization could also increase competition and expand market access to different assets. Let me expand on each of these opportunities. First, tokenization could improve existing collateral and liquidity management processes in several meaningful ways. Current operational workflows for collateral and repo markets can include manual and fragmented processes that require reconciling data pools across disparate legacy systems. This can lead to delays, errors, and additional costs. Tokenization could allow recordkeeping to be streamlined through solutions that allow parties to share a single transparent source for tracking transactions and managing associated collateral. In addition, smart contracts can automate complex activities that currently require manual intervention, such as margin calls and collateral substitutions, increasing operational efficiency. Moreover, using tokenized funds to meet margin requirements can simplify investors' cash management and dampen redemption pressure, thus mitigating possible stress events in funding markets and improving financial stability.8 Perhaps most significantly, tokenization and programmable contractual terms enable new types of transactions to occur intraday for capital and liquidity management. For example, tokenized MMFs enable frequent intraday investment and redemption, enhancing returns on idle cash. In addition, programmable contracts enable tokenized repo transactions to occur intraday, providing more timely access to liquidity than current overnight processes. This has recently become a significant institutional use case.9 Another aspect is the technology's versatility, which allows it to support complex multicurrency and multi-asset transactions. Tokenization could facilitate settlement across multi-leg transactions and reduce the time gap between trading and settlement, which, under current practices, often takes an additional business day to settle post-trade and relies on traditional operating hours. Additionally, programmability allows tokens to function across trading, lending, and collateral applications, increasing flexibility in how assets can be used. For example, a repo combined with a foreign exchange transaction would seem highly relevant for countries within the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and for neighboring countries or those trading with BCEAO countries. Since repos represent a major source of funding and liquidity management for large financial institutions, even marginal efficiency gains could translate into significant cost savings for market participants. In terms of broader market dynamics, tokenization can foster competition and new forms of market collaboration. Tokenization can potentially lower operational barriers to entry for emerging financial services firms to compete with traditional institutions. We are seeing this activity already in the market, with existing institutions, including major exchanges, partnering with these new firms to enable more efficient development of new products and services.10 Finally, tokenization could expand market access in a way that is beneficial to both individuals and institutions. One of the benefits of the technology is the ability to use assets in new or more flexible ways. Programmable fractional ownership, for example, could allow for more flexible and expanded opportunities for investors by enabling small-denomination exposure with more flexible and automated transfer of ownership. The capabilities related to fractional ownership may be especially attractive in developing economies, including those in West Africa, where savers and investors may have fewer resources to invest but where a need exists to bolster capital markets as a complement to the social safety net. (Of course, I would simultaneously advocate for appropriate investor protections.) To be clear, I do not see tokenization as replacing traditional market infrastructure. And it is important to acknowledge that certain barriers are in place in existing systems for policy or prudent risk-management purposes. Rather, the integration of these emerging capabilities with traditional infrastructures and established legal frameworks offers the opportunity to improve the efficiency and function of the entire financial system. Financial Stability ConsiderationsWhile I am optimistic about the possibilities, I am also cognizant of the financial-stability considerations that must be monitored should tokenization scale. At its core, tokenization in financial markets requires the management of the same types of risks we have in markets today. However, it is important to consider how risk dynamics could change or manifest in new or different ways with this technology. From my perspective as a policymaker, understanding these dynamics will both support financial stability and enable innovations to scale safely. I am monitoring closely a broad range of potential vulnerabilities, but I want to focus on two considerations most relevant to developments in financial markets: liquidity implications and interconnectedness. First, consider liquidity transformation in the financial system. Some tokenized assets can be redeemed on demand and at par with the issuer, who typically invests in a pool of less liquid assets, thereby introducing run risk. Tokenization might change the incentives of investors to redeem their assets with the issuer, which, in turn, could entail benefits for or risks to financial stability. The ability to use the tokenized assets instead of cash to pay for transactions or meet margin calls might reduce the need to redeem them to obtain liquidity and, consequently, alleviate the need for the issuer to sell assets to meet redemptions. Another potential benefit is the ability to source liquidity if secondary markets for tokenized assets develop, which might be especially valuable for institutions that perform maturity transformation. On the risk side, tokenization enhances the issuer's exposure to shocks in secondary markets that could be unrelated to the underlying reserve assets or solvency concerns about the issuer.11 Related to liquidity considerations, the 24/7 nature of trading and settlement on public blockchains may facilitate market participants gaining access to intraday liquidity sources, which can be particularly valuable in times of stress, as those participants may need to post collateral with counterparties outside of the trading day or with central bank liquidity facilities. As to risks, around-the-clock trading and settlement may speed up a run on the issuer if disruptions in the market for tokens outside normal market hours escalate. Second, consider the nexus between tokenized assets and traditional markets. The use of tokenized assets as collateral, as an instrument to access liquidity, and as a reserve asset expands the channels of shock transmissions within the digital asset ecosystem and to the traditional financial system. Likewise, interconnections between issuers of tokenized assets and other entities in the form of cross holdings of their liabilities might create problems in the event that an issuer liquidates assets that are liabilities of another issuer. Relatedly, because the reserve assets of some issuers are held in the traditional financial sector, the digital asset ecosystem might amplify shocks at the same time they are transmitted to the traditional financial system. As a benefit, firms may take advantage of the convenience associated with tokenized assets to obtain funding through markets for digital assets, possibly enhancing their ability to diversify their sources of funding or to collateralize their loans in the traditional financial market by appealing to a broader investor base. As I previously mentioned, tokenization could also allow for new varieties of complex, interrelated transactions as conventional assets are used in new ways. However, tokenizing conventionally issued assets still fundamentally relies on connections to and communication with existing financial infrastructure, which may not operate every hour of every day. Relatedly, opaque or illiquid assets create a potential disconnect between token liquidity and underlying asset liquidity. These interconnections could introduce additional complexity and dependencies in the financial system. And, as with any new technology, one must also consider operational fragilities and security concerns. As processes become more automated, such as with smart contracts, humans are less able to correct for bugs or respond to outside threats. In addition, relatively new products and systems tend to be targeted by malicious actors looking for exploitable vulnerabilities, and cyberattacks are relatively common in the DeFi ecosystem.12 I highlight these considerations because fully assessing and understanding tradeoffs between opportunities and risks is how we enable innovations to scale safely and sustainably. Ultimately, the Fed's efforts to maintain financial stability are a service to the American people, and I know my global peers take a similar mindset. ConclusionAs a Fed policymaker, I see my role as supporting responsible innovation while being clear-minded about both the opportunities and challenges innovations, including tokenization, present to the global financial system. As many in this room know, the Fed is engaging with other organizations and global peers to both monitor and support responsible innovation. This work reflects the interconnectedness of the global financial system and includes collaboration with multilateral institutions, such as the Bank for International Settlements and the FSB, bilateral engagements with peer central banks, and ongoing dialogue with the industry to monitor, analyze, and better understand these developments. And, within the Federal Reserve Board, we are researching and experimenting to fully understand tokenization and its implications.13 To conclude, I applaud and encourage innovation in the financial system. Tokenization in financial markets is growing rapidly, which warrants a closer understanding of its potential. While I do not see tokenization as substituting for traditional market infrastructure, the technology presents a tremendous opportunity for innovation in the sector. I see that from my seat in Washington and understand how those opportunities could be as great or greater here in West Africa. At the same time, I am mindful of financial stability considerations. At the Fed, we vigilantly monitor an ever-shifting landscape of vulnerabilities, and I know my peers around the globe are doing the same. With fast-moving innovations, it is incumbent that we take the time to understand them. Events like this energize learning and make those critical discussions possible. I am honored to be asked to speak here today. It is beyond humbling to return to Dakar as a Federal Reserve Governor because this is the very place that catalyzed the career journey that led me to this role. Thank you once again. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. See Tobias Adrian (2026), "Tokenized Finance (PDF)," IMF Notes Series 2026-001 (Washington: International Monetary Fund, April).  3. For example, see Taylor Ryker (2025), "The Tokenization of Fine Art: A Revolutionizing Investment in a Traditionally Exclusive Asset Class," CoolWave Capital, May 19, https://medium.com/@coolwavecapital/the-tokenization-of-fine-art-a-revolutionizing-investment-in-a-traditionally-exclusive-asset-class-653cd7e8f24b; Mike Butcher (2023), "Success with Rihanna's Music Rights Helps Web3 Marketplace Raise Fresh VC Round," TechCrunch, May 16, https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/16/success-with-rihannas-music-rights-helps-web3-marketplace-raise-fresh-vc-round; and Ana Yglesias (2024), "Lionel Messi Releases Replica Cleat Collectible with RWA Tokenization Platform Planet," Yahoo, March 6, https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/lionel-messi-releases-replica-cleat-175045113.html.  4. See Bank for International Settlements and Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (2024), Tokenisation in the Context of Money and Other Assets: Concepts and Implications for Central Banks (PDF) (Basel: BIS and CPMI, October). These remarks focus on tokenized financial assets rather than tokenized forms of money and payment instruments.  5. See Financial Stability Board (2023), The Financial Stability Risks of Decentralised Finance (PDF) (Basel: FSB, February).  6. This was calculated by staff using data from Allium Labs.  7. See Financial Stability Board (2024), The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation (PDF) (Basel: FSB, October).  8. In March 2020, for example, MMF investors partly met margin calls in repo and derivatives contracts by redeeming their MMF shares, amplifying stress and instability in funding markets. In contrast, the ability to post tokenized shares for margin requirements could mitigate such stress, as those tokenized funds are considered the same as cash for margin purposes, and thus would not need to be sold. Only in the event of default might those margins need to be liquidated to close the position they secure. For more details, see Pablo Azar, Francesca Carapella, JP Perez-Sangimino, Nathan Swem, and Alexandros P. Vardoulakis (2025), "The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenized Investment Funds," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics (blog), September 24.  9. For example, one market participant recently announced processing over $400 billion in daily repo transactions on its tokenized settlement platform; see Broadridge (2026), "Broadridge's Distributed Ledger Repo Achieves 392% Year over Year Growth; Processes $8 Trillion in March," news release, April 9, https://www.broadridge-ir.com/news/news-details/2026/Broadridges-Distributed-Ledger-Repo-Achieves-392-Year-Over-Year-Growth-Processes-8-Trillion-in-March/default.aspx.  10. For example, see Vicky Ge Huang (2026), "NYSE Partners with Securitize to Develop 24/7 Tokenized Securities Platform," Wall Street Journal, March 24, https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/nyse-partners-with-securitize-to-develop-24-7-tokenized-securities-platform-871a4c7e; and Vicky Ge Huang (2026), "Nasdaq Partners with Kraken in Plan for 24/7 Tokenized Stock Trading," Wall Street Journal, March 10, https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/nasdaq-partners-with-kraken-in-tokenization-push-135e8112?mod=article_inline.  11. For more details, see Azar and others, "The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenized Investment Funds" (note 8).  12. See, for example, Laurence Bristow and Marco Macchiavelli (2026), "Crypto Hacks and DeFi Runs," Bank Policy Institute, April 23, https://bpi.com/crypto-hacks-and-defi-runs.  13. See, for example, Francesca Carapella, Grace Chuan, Jacob Gerszten, Chelsea Hunter, and Nathan Swem (2023), "Tokenization: Overview and Financial Stability Implications," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2023-060r1 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September; revised December 2023); Azar and others, "The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenized Investment Funds" (note 8); Kenechukwu Anadu, Patrick McCabe, JP Perez-Sangimino, and Nathan Swem (2026), "A Framework for Understanding the Vulnerabilities of New Money-Like Products," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2026-002 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January); and Cy Watsky, Matthew Liu, Nolan Ly, Kurtis Orr, Amber Seira, Zach Vida, and Lawrence Wu (2024), "Tokenized Assets on Public Blockchains: How Transparent Is the Blockchain?" FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 3). 

Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX) and the Association of Futures Markets (AFM) will jointly host the 28th AFM Annual Conference on June 4–5, 2026, at the Taipei Marriott Hotel. The conference will bring together representatives from exchanges, financial institutions, market infrastructure and tech providers across Asia, Europe, America and Africa to exchange insights on the evolving global derivatives landscape and strengthen international industry collaboration. Through panel discussions and keynote presentations, the conference will explore topics including growth opportunities in Asia’s futures markets, advancements in collateral management and clearing, rising retail participation and the effects of extended trading hours on liquidity and market efficiency. The panel sessions will examine how artificial intelligence and next-generation trading infrastructure are reshaping market operations and risk management. Panelists will further address the implications of geopolitical developments and climate-related risks for global derivatives markets; as well as the growing role of tokenized real-world assets and other emerging products in market innovation. For more information, click here. Click here for full details.

Join this webinar to get an overview of the updated European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA) methodology and learn how it will help streamline the approval of capacity mechanisms and coordinate electricity adequacy policies across Member States. When is the event? Tuesday, 26 May 2026, 14:30 – 16:00 CEST, online What is it about? ERAA is the annual assessment of the EU’s electricity supply adequacy for the next decade. It is developed by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and based on the methodology approved by ACER. ACER has approved the amended ERAA methodology in March 2026, with the aim of: supporting streamlined national capacity mechanisms approval under EU State Aid rules; simplifying the methodology;  improving adequacy modelling.  Why should you join the event? The event will provide stakeholders with an opportunity to: learn about the main changes introduced in the methodology; understand how it can support the streamlined approval of national capacity mechanisms at EU level; discuss with representatives from the European Commission, ACER, ENTSO-E and the Member States. Read more and register.

ASIC is upgrading the systems, portals and processes that businesses rely on. ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke said, ASIC has a significant digital improvement program underway to make our business registers and online services more secure and easier to use. ‘These registers play a critical role in the economy by supporting the Australian financial system and businesses of all sizes, contributing substantial economic benefits,’ Commissioner O’Rourke said. ‘We want to hear directly from those who will be part of these changes. Feedback to this survey will help ensure we clearly communicate via your preferred channel what is changing and when, and what you need to do.’ The survey will help ASIC understand: how you and your business currently receives information from ASIC your role, needs and perspectives, including how important changes are managed in practice your experience and interactions with our online services your preferred communication channels what supports you to understand and meet your obligations. The survey is open to company directors and secretaries, small business owners, advisers and intermediaries, as well as information brokers and digital service providers. Responses are anonymous and cannot be linked to individual respondents. Your feedback is important. The survey takes approximately 7–10 minutes to complete and closes 15 May 2026. Have your say here

The 2026 Financial Counselling Australia Conference was held in Cairns on May 7. This fireside discussion followed Joe Longo’s last keynote speech as ASIC Chair. Dan Ziffer: Well, thank you Joe. And what an honour this is for this to be the exit interview. Joe Longo: Well, that’s already happened. [Laughter] Joe Longo: We can’t call this an exit interview. Dan Ziffer: You have changed the stance and the attitude of ASIC. I mean, your successor’s name is literally Court. [Laughter] What’s your ambition for the coming years for the regulator? Joe Longo: Well, it’s to continue what we started. So, when Sarah and I started, we were on the back foot. We need to be frank about that. And my vision for ASIC, and I think people who have worked with me closely must be sick of hearing it, but a day does not pass when I don’t remind everybody why we’re here. We want to be a modern, confident, ambitious regulator. They’re the three key things I constantly talk about with staff, with the senior leadership team, and indeed with everyone who works with ASIC. Because that’s what it’s going to take, continue taking, to address the issues we are being asked to deal with. Dan Ziffer: You can’t be everywhere – you touched on this in the speech. How much do you rely on the sector collectively to bring you what you need to take action? Joe Longo: Oh, it’s hugely important. Even this morning I’ve learned about some new issues I hadn’t heard of before. There’s just so much going on. So, I think the first critical thing is that I feel very strongly that ASIC needs to systematically engage with the community, and this sector in particular, so we know what’s going on. If we don’t know what’s going on, we don’t even get to, as the Americans say, to the bathroom. We’re clueless. So it’s extremely important that we’re listening carefully to everything that the sector’s telling us. Secondly, and I mentioned this in the speech, that the reality of regulation, or one of the realities of regulation, is you are making choices all the time. But you want to be making those choices from a well-informed, rational position. Now in the end, that we get intelligence and feedback, formal and informal, from a lot of the people in this room and more broadly, and it’s extremely helpful. Our job is to give people confidence that we’re listening, and that we actually understand what we’re being told. And secondly, be transparent about why we place more priority on one issue over another. And again, the dialogue and engagement with people in this room will help us get that right, hopefully. But in the end, it’s on us to make decisions about whether we take a matter on or not. But I hope that if we follow that approach, that it will give people confidence to say, oh, we really wanted ASIC to handle 10 problems, they’re only able to handle five, but we understand why. And I think that builds confidence. And it’s in the public interest that an entity, that a regulator with limited resources is using them to best effect. Dan Ziffer: You talked about prevention and cure, essentially the fence at the top of the cliff or the ambulance at the bottom. With ASIC and more broadly, when you look at financial harms and scams and people trying to do ill, do you think we have the mix right on those two forces? Joe Longo: Look, I think we have to invest a lot more in prevention, frankly. I mean, I’ve talked in other places about financial literacy, and I think that the Minister’s use of the word agency is another great concept. My words are a bit more legalistic, is that I want everyone to be equipped and empowered to be able to act in their own interests. That’s the key. People need to have enough confidence and knowledge of what’s going on in the world and the system, that as each new opportunity arises to invest in something or to spend on something, that they’re in a good position to make a decision in their own interests, which is another way of defining agency. Prevention’s got to be better than a cure. It has to be. So the investment in Moneysmart, in our schools, in our families, in the way in which we talk about these issues, the way in which we talk about risk and return, the more we do that, the more likely that the losses, and I’ve said this publicly as well, we’ll always had losses, but obviously we want to minimise those losses, but prevention’s much better than a cure. Secondly, define cure. Of course we’re going to litigate and do the best we can to hold individuals and companies accountable for serious misconduct, but we’re not going to catch everybody. And secondly, for those people who suffer losses, we’re not equipped or resourced, it’s not part of our mandate, to recover all those losses. So, the important thing is that we have an open dialogue and conversation with the Australian community to say, look, you’ve got superannuation, you’ve got insurance, we’ve got a fairly sophisticated system around financial services in Australia. We have to help people understand that system, and empower them to navigate it. The more we do that, I think we will see losses being at some minimal level rather than some awful level. Dan Ziffer: The power of technology and particularly artificial intelligence in the role of scams, you took down 12,000 scam websites last year, I can’t tell whether that’s an amazing or terrible number, because it’s such a big field, and what technology does is make it flatter, make it easier to get into this business. You obviously can’t do it yourself. Is there enough cooperation from the tech companies to deal with these problems as they arise? Joe Longo: These are very significant challenges for the regulators in the community. We have an extraordinary concentration of power in a small number of companies or digital platforms. We have to keep engaging with them to ensure that the harms that are obviously occurring stop, or are minimised. I take a broader position, going back to some earlier remarks. If I was to point to one theme that I think all of us, particularly our children, are grappling with, is technology. The AI phenomenon is absolutely extraordinary. It’s something I’ve been studying for some time now. There are two recent examples. I mentioned the agentic AI in the speech. One of our biggest retailers is now predicting somewhere around 15% of its revenues are going to be driven by bots. Hopefully there are some humans in the background. But that’s extraordinary. We weren’t having that conversation even 12 months ago. We now have this emerging issue around Claude Mythos, which is a technology Anthropic invented, and is very good at finding vulnerabilities in an entity’s cyber defences. If we don’t get a grip on that, then the consequences are serious and immediate. I think all things technology and data is a conversation that we all need to be having. And what I worry about from a specifically ASIC perspective, is that we need to be on that. We need to understand those technologies and use them for our own purposes to be more efficient and productive, and to be able to have the capability to investigate when things go wrong in that area externally. Secondly, we need to understand what’s going on externally. That is a non-trivial challenge because of the rapidity of change. Dan Ziffer: On a different topic, it’s still early, but are there lessons already from Shield and First Guardian? Joe Longo: Well, I think there are. Those lessons are, I think, best understood and learnt through the various law reform proposals that are being consulted on at the moment. We have a situation now, but superannuation – let’s really step back – superannuation has been an enormous success, I think, in Australia. Virtually every adult Australian has a superannuation account. It’s a, frankly, widely admired system globally. It has now grown to around $4.5 trillion. So, when there’s a lot of money, bad actors like to play. And so that’s the issue we’re all dealing with. The Shield and First Guardian saga really revealed, my words, some vulnerabilities and issues with the way the system is working at the moment. I think the law reform proposals are, I think – Treasury and the government, ASIC’s response to that – so you see some lessons learnt in the way in which we’re trying to amend the law. But there are some other lessons. Again, this is something I know this group feels passionately about. People need to understand what their super is there for, and where it should be safely put. And if they’re worried about whether they’re getting a sufficient return, ordinary people have got to be given some safe way of answering that question, and having access to financial advice and counselling that reassures them to say, look, leave your money in that fund. If you’re going to charge funds, be really careful. I think this risk return goes back to financial literacy. If there’s one theme I’m constantly pressing people about it’s to understand risk. Even highly intelligent people get risk assessment wrong. So, the way I like to explain it to my kids and grandchildren, once they’re old enough to understand, is that if someone’s offering you more than 3 or 4% of a fixed-term deposit with a major bank, that’s called a risky investment. And so, this whole risk concept, so I think that’s a big lesson learned. I think a lot of people were lured into, with good intent, wanting to get a better return on their super, and it all went pear-shaped. Dan Ziffer: As you retire from the role, you’ve massively changed the regulator. As you look back, is there anything that you think, oh, I should have gone harder on that? Joe Longo: Harder on everything. That got me in trouble a couple of times. I’m not known for patience as being one of my top three virtues. I think we did as much as we could. I did as much as I could in the five years. We inherited some significant governance issues that took time to resolve, and it just takes time. So I think the restructuring mostly worked well, in the first 12 or 18 months I instituted an infrastructure review. So a lot has changed. But I don’t regret it. You do your best with what you know at the time. I think I’ve had the privilege of working with some extraordinary colleagues, some of whom are here today. And so that’s as good as it gets. [Lengthy applause] Dan Ziffer: We’ve all signed the card. There’s a cake in the tearoom. But for now, the applause. Please join me in thanking again Joe Longo.

Dalian Commodity Exchange (DCE) continues to investigate and handle abnormal trading activities and violations for the purposes of performing front-line market supervision responsibilities, regulating futures trading activities, preventing and mitigating market risks and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of market participants. In April 2026, 23 cases of abnormal trading were investigated and handled. Among the 23 cases of abnormal trading, 17 cases were self-trade exceeding frequency limit, three cases were frequent cancellation of orders and three cases were cancellation of large-amount orders exceeding frequency limit. The above-mentioned clients whose trading activities reached the handling threshold of DCE have been delivered telephone alert through the Members. In addition, DCE also investigated and handled two violation clues, including one case of self-trade or negotiated trade affecting contract prices and one case of other violations. DCE has conducted investigations against the relevant clients and taken corresponding measures in accordance with DCE rules.

ASIC is calling on all licensees and market participants to urgently strengthen their cyber resilience measures, as frontier artificial intelligence (AI) intensifies the global cyber risk environment. While cyber risk has always existed, misuse of frontier AI models such as Anthropic’s Claude Mythos could expose cyber security vulnerabilities at an unprecedented speed, scale, and sophistication. In an open letter to Industry ASIC has urged entities to act now and not wait for advanced AI tools to uplift their cyber security fundamentals and ensure their systems can withstand AI-accelerated threats. The letter, issued by ASIC Commissioner Simone Constant, emphasises the need for urgent, focused action using a principles-based, model-agnostic approach, reminding industry that cyber resilience must be treated as a core licensing obligation, not simply an IT issue. Commissioner Constant said, ‘Cyber risk has entered a new era. The advent of frontier AI models creates opportunity, but also materially increases risk, with the ability to expose vulnerabilities far faster than many realise. ‘In this new world, weaknesses that once seemed isolated can now have a system-wide domino-effect, enabling new forms of exploitation that were previously out of reach for most malicious actors.’ Today’s letter follows ASIC’s recent court outcome against FIIG Securities Limited (26-021MR), which reinforced the legal case for cyber risk management controls to be demonstrably effective and proportionate to the size, nature and complexity of a business. Ms Constant continued, ‘Entities need to have robust incident response plans. Whether an entity faces a basic phishing attempt or a more sophisticated cyber attack, the underlying cyber risk management principles of govern, protect, detect, respond remain the same. ‘Appropriate cyber risk management starts at the leadership of licensees and participants. Boards and executives must ensure systems are tested, weaknesses are addressed early and that action is taken before threats can be exploited. ‘The clock is at a minute to midnight – if you aren’t on top of your cyber resilience already, the time to act and prepare is right now.’ ASIC is urging entities to take the following steps now: reassess your cyber plans and refocus efforts on the most critical risks in today’s threat environment confirm your cyber risk, governance and overall risk and decision-making frameworks consider the cumulative impact of interrelated vulnerabilities and facilitate clear decision making and escalation at the pace necessary to manage risk identify and protect critical assets and systems, with a clear understanding of what matters most to your business and customers strengthen cyber security fundamentals by regularly reviewing and validating core controls minimise attack surfaces by reducing exposure of systems and services to untrusted networks regularly review user access and reassess privileges, to protect against unauthorised access Insider threats are increasing and entities should monitor for warning signs and act to restrict access where concerns are identified patch systems promptly, recognising that AI is accelerating vulnerability discovery and exploitation review and strengthen patch management processes, considering challenges daily patching may present to identification, testing, and governance of critical updates implement layered, defence-in-depth architectures that assume breach and restrict lateral movement prepare for incident response by maintaining and exercising incident response plans and playbooks including business continuity plans and identification of highest priority services, channels and platforms actively manage third-party risks, particularly where services introduce concentration or systemic exposure use AI for defensive purposes, where appropriate, including identifying vulnerabilities and securing software before release. Entities are required to table the letter at their ultimate board and risk governance committees. All ASIC-regulated entities should use practical guidance from trusted sources to strengthen cyber defences, including the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD). ASIC also encourages the use of the Australian Government’s free and anonymous Cyber Health Check, which provides a tailored action plan with simple, actionable steps to improve cyber security. ASIC will continue to work closely with other regulators, agencies and industry to monitor cyber risks and promote consistent expectations across the financial system. Downloads Letter to industry Background ASIC is working closely with other regulators - including global peers - to monitor developments in AI, assess impacts on the local market and proactively address emerging vulnerabilities. ASIC’s regulatory resources include further information about cyber security and cyber resilience: Cyber resilience good practices Cyber risk: Be prepared Resources on cyber resilience Entities may wish to also refer to APRA’s  recent letter to industry on Artificial Intelligence (AI). ASIC recommends organisations and investors to consider advice from the ASD’s Australian Cyber Security Centre, subscribe to ASD alerts and consider the ASD partnership program where appropriate. The ASD provides easy to understand advice about what to do when organisations and investors suffer a data breach via their Report and recover webpage.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today reported the key issues facing the federal banking system in the Semiannual Risk Perspective for Spring 2026. Bank earnings improved in 2025, supported by loan growth and a decline in funding costs. Balance sheets remain strong and credit risk within the federal banking system remains manageable. Earnings releases for the first quarter of 2026 indicate that these trends have generally persisted. The OCC highlighted credit, market, operational, and compliance risks, as key risk themes in the report. The report also discussed innovation. Highlights from the report include: Credit conditions and refinancing risk in certain segments of commercial real estate lending and private credit markets warrant ongoing monitoring. Modest increases in past-due loans have been observed in some consumer portfolios. However, OCC-supervised banks have manageable exposures to borrowers with weaker credit profiles. Balance sheets remain strong, with capital ratios and liquidity high by historical standards. Cyber threats and fraud remain a concern. Cybercriminal groups targeting the financial sector are increasingly sophisticated, and foreign state-sponsored actors continue to pose a threat. Banks continue to face challenges from both the elevated levels and rising sophistication of fraud and scams. A sound understanding of the potential benefits and possible risks associated with increasingly advanced AI tools coming onto the market that can assist with cybersecurity functions can be important for cyber risk management. Geopolitical tensions increase sanctions and money laundering risk, straining bank compliance systems, and may raise the potential for sanctions and Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering violations. The OCC continues to look for opportunities to tailor bank supervision and regulations to risk and complexity and reduce burden for its regulated institutions so they can support economic growth. Related Link OCC Semiannual Risk Perspective, Spring 2026 (PDF)

FIA today released a new report on the transition to 24/7 trading and clearing.  Continuous trading is no longer a theoretical concept in global markets. As digital assets, tokenisation and evolving customer expectations reshape financial markets, exchanges and intermediaries are increasingly examining how trading hours may expand beyond traditional schedules.During this session at FIA's 2026 Global Cleared Markets Conference in Boca Raton, Florida, exchange leaders and market infrastructure providers, panelists explored the emerging demand for 24/7 trading, the operational challenges it presents and how the industry may gradually transition toward more providing more continuous market access. READ THE REPORT A consistent theme emerged from the discussion: while the vision of 24/7 trading and clearing is gaining momentum, its realisation depends on the synchronised evolution of market structure, operational infrastructure and risk management frameworks.Demand is clearly present, driven by changing customer expectations and the influence of digital asset markets. However, enabling continuous trading in traditional derivatives markets introduces complex interdependencies across clearing, collateral management, liquidity provision and operational resilience.This report builds on the March 2026 whitepaper on the transition to 24/7 trading and clearing.

Thank you, Kathleen [Hanley], for that kind introduction. Good afternoon and welcome to the SEC’s Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation.[1] Thank you to the staff of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, especially Vlad Ivanov, for your work in putting together this conference. Thank you to our partners at Lehigh University’s Center for Financial Services and the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business for their assistance in hosting this conference. Introduction This is the 13th annual edition organized by the SEC. I am pleased that it is still going strong, because I attended the very first edition of this conference back in May 2014. At the time, I served as counsel to then-Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar. As far as we know, Commissioner Piwowar is only the 2nd Ph.D. economist to ever serve as an SEC commissioner. His perspectives, based on his academic and empirical research, served the Commission well during discussions about financial market policy – particularly when the voices of lawyers often dominate regulatory agencies. In his remarks at the inaugural conference in 2014, Commissioner Piwowar stated: Academic research is critically important to the SEC’s mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. Other financial regulators have long benefitted from holding academic research conferences on issues of importance to their agencies and it is high time for the Commission to do likewise. So it is quite exciting for me to be part of your activities today.[2] I could not agree more. Conferences like this one, where empirical analysis is applied to regulatory practice, are the type of forum that can help inform policy. Of course, that discussion cannot occur unless people are willing to submit papers and others are willing to analyze the papers and serve as discussants. To those individuals, thank you for your contributions. Over the next two days, a number of important topics over five tracks will be covered at the conference. For my remarks this afternoon, I would like to briefly touch upon two topics that caught my interest. Broken Windows and SEC Enforcement One panel during the enforcement track will discuss a paper on the application and effectiveness of the broken windows policy in the securities enforcement context.[3] The broken windows hypothesis, as described in a seminal article published in The Atlantic by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, posits that visible signs of disorder, when left unaddressed, create an environment that encourages more serious crime.[4] The empirical literature on this theory remains contested, but its migration into securities is not merely academic. The paper focuses on a period in the past when the Commission explicitly implemented a broken windows policy, about which concerns have been expressed.[5] Whether the broken windows theory translates effectively in the securities enforcement context is an interesting question, particularly as this theory was implemented by prior Commission leadership. This particular paper asserts that it “provides the first empirical evidence consistent with a broken windows securities enforcement policy reducing the incidence of severe financial misconduct.” The paper does, however, recognize that such a policy may not be effective overall in a white-collar setting because enforcing minor violations could divert limited resources and attention away from pursuing the more serious violations. I appreciate the efforts to use various metrics in empirical studies in this field. My reactions to the paper are based on nearly twenty years of service at the SEC, half of which has been spent on the executive staff. During that period, I have reviewed thousands of recommendations from the Division of Enforcement. When it comes to “broken windows,” Wilson and Kelling identify two separate, but related, fears. The first is the fear of being a victim of crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. The second is the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. As Wilson and Kelling describe this group, they are “not violent people, nor, necessarily, criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people.” Wilson and Kelling further describe a neighborhood as being made up of “regulars” and “strangers.” Rules regulating order were defined and enforced in collaboration with the “regulars” on the street – and not necessarily by the rules established exclusively by law. In other words, to achieve order, there was a set of regularly expected behaviors among participants in a neighborhood. In a certain sense, that regular expectation of rules and norms exists in the securities markets as well. Leaking material non-public information to a golfing buddy with the expectation that your friend can trade profitably on such information – definitely prohibited behavior. But requiring monitoring and retention of all texts on personal mobile devices by persons working for broker-dealers and investment advisers? Is that a violation of the technical meaning of the laws and regulations? Perhaps. However, given the reaction to the SEC’s sweep effort on off-channel communications, communicating on personal devices was not the type of behavior that was viewed as unambiguously impermissible. When it comes to regulatory enforcement, one should also be considering the incentives and metrics designated by agency leadership for that program. If the metrics being stressed focus on the number of enforcement actions being brought and the amount of dollars collected in the form of disgorgement and civil penalties, then agency personnel will act in accordance with such instructions and incentives. The SEC’s rulebook has expanded dramatically in volume and complexity over the decades, which leaves significant ground for the Commission staff to exercise discretion in making and recommending enforcement decisions. Without limitations on the exercise of such discretion, there are many violations and novel legal interpretations that can be asserted as the basis for sanctions against virtually any asset class or market participant. However, random acts of regulatory enforcement dressed up as broken windows enforcement are unlikely to succeed at achieving behavioral conformity with widely-accepted norms intended to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. Abusing our discretionary authority undermines the regulatory predictability that efficient markets require or chills market activity that may be socially valuable. The author finds that sweep investigations opened during the broken windows era were 8-9% more likely to result in an enforcement action, which can be partially explained by strict liability violations that do not require proving negligence or scienter.[6] The author also divides SEC enforcement actions based on the tenure of various SEC chairman. However, the paper does not appear to make adjustments to reflect that SEC enforcement investigations, particularly for complex accounting cases, can take years between initiation and the bringing of any actual action. Thus, the enforcement actions taken during the early tenure of any chairman often reflects investigations initiated under the prior chairman – and enforcement initiatives undertaken by one chairman may only come to fruition, if at all, during the tenure of his or her successor. Nonetheless, I appreciate the efforts of researchers to study the actions of regulatory agencies. Their efforts play a role in holding the government accountable to the people. Active ETFs Another paper that caught my attention was regarding active exchange-traded funds (ETFs).[7] The first ETF launched in 1993, as a passive, index-tracking tool designed for low-cost, broad market exposure, combining mutual fund diversification with stock-like intraday trading. The ETF space has since experienced exponential growth. In 2005, the ICI Fact Book reported that mutual funds held nearly $8.9 trillion in assets as compared to a mere $296 billion for ETFs.[8] Thus, ETFs represented about 3.2% of assets in SEC-registered open-end fund assets. By 2025, mutual funds held $31.4 trillion in assets while ETFs had grown to $13.4 trillion – with ETFs now representing almost 30% of open-end fund assets.[9] Among other trends, there is an emerging market of active ETFs. The paper on active ETFs that will be presented tomorrow during the asset management track finds that the growth in the active ETF space is driven by a shift in investor base and expansion of the retail clientele. The authors conclude that active ETF managers benefit from chasing extreme performance, in either direction, which incentivizes asset managers to pursue high-volatility strategies. As we continue to see innovation and growth in the ETF space, ongoing empirical research such as this is essential for understanding market implications and informing sound policymaking. Conclusion I have mentioned only two examples from the array of thoughtful and relevant topics in the program. There are many other interesting topics, including with respect to crypto regulation, nocturnal trading of U.S.-listed equities, and corporate loan ratings. Thank you again to the economists for your work and your participation in this conference. Your work helps to understand the markets and ensure that economic analysis contributes to sound policy development. [1] My remarks reflect solely my individual views as a commissioner and do not necessarily reflect the views of the full U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or my fellow Commissioners. [2] Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar, Remarks to the First Annual Conference on the Regulation of Financial Markets (May 16, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/2014-spch051614msp. [3] Nathan Herrmann, Broken Windows Securities Enforcement (Oct. 2025). [4] James Q. Wilson & George L. Kelling, Broken Windows, Atlantic Monthly (1982). [5] Michael S. Piwowar, Remarks to the Securities Enforcement Forum 2014 (Oct. 14, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/2014-spch101414msp. [6] Herrmann, supra note 3, at 29. [7] Da Huang, Vasudha Nair, Christopher Schwarz, Active ETFs as Attention Assets: Retail Trading Meets Managed Funds (Apr. 2026), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5426275. [8] Investment Company Institute, 2006 Investment Company Fact Book, at 7, available at https://www.ici.org/system/files/attachments/2006_factbook.pdf. [9] Investment Company Institute, 2026 Investment Company Fact Book, at 13, available at https://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2026-factbook.pdf.

Today, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent met with state insurance commissioners and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Secretary Bessent and the state insurance commissioners discussed the U.S. life insurance sector, including recent developments in private credit markets, the movement of U.S. life and annuity reserves to offshore jurisdictions, and state and NAIC regulatory responses. Secretary Bessent emphasized the need for fit-for-purpose regulation that encourages innovation while appropriately managing risk. Treasury and the state insurance commissioners agreed to continue staff- and senior-level engagement on topics including the NAIC’s work on risk-based capital, private letter ratings, offshore reinsurance jurisdictions, and the oversight of evolving business models.

There’s just one week left in the nomination period to fill three positions representing state, school, and public agency members on the CalPERS Board of Administration. The candidate nomination deadline is Thursday, May 14 at 5:00 p.m. Required documents include: Nomination petitions with 250 valid signatures, the nomination acceptance/ballot designation form, and the optional candidate statement. Candidates who meet all the nomination criteria will be announced on May 15. A random drawing will be held June 4 to determine the order in which candidate names will appear on the election ballot. To view the drawing live, email Board_Election_Coordinator@calpers.ca.gov.  The 13-member CalPERS Board of Administration is the governing body that oversees the approximately $600 billion CalPERS pension fund on behalf of its 2.4 million members. It also supervises the delivery of healthcare to 1.5 million public employees, retirees, and their families. The current state member representative is Theresa Taylor, who will be stepping down after serving in the position since 2015. She is not seeking re-election and will finish her term through January 15, 2027. The current school member representative is Kevin Palkki, who has served in the position since 2023.  The current public agency member representative is Mullissa Willette, who has served in the position since 2022.  The election period will be held August 28 through September 28, with voting by mail, phone, and online available to eligible members.  Information on the upcoming board elections and resources for members and candidates can be found on the Board Elections page.

Nodal Exchange today announced strong performance in power, natural gas, and environmental markets. Nodal continues to be the market leader in North American power futures with 56% share of open interest at the end of April with 1.517 billion MWh open interest, up 2% from a year earlier, representing $170 billion of notional value based on both sides. Traded power futures volume ended the month of April at 324 million MWh. Open interest in Nodal’s natural gas markets reached 130,820,000 MMBtus as of the end of April 2026, a 615% increase from a year ago. Nodal posted a calendar month record for April in environmental futures and options with volume of 89,703 lots, up 26% from the prior record of 71,138 lots in April 2025. Open interest in environmental products on Nodal Exchange reached 491,790 lots in April, up 16% from 424,247 at the end of April 2025. Carbon futures and options posted volume of 18,179 lots in April 2026 up 41% from April 2025, with open interest of 61,745 lots, up 22% from a year earlier. Renewable energy certificates (RECs) on Nodal posted volume of 71,013 lots, up 23%, with open interest of 412,404 lots, up 24% from April 2025. Nodal, in collaboration with IncubEx, offers the largest suite of environmental contracts in the world, with more than 120 futures and options products listed on the exchange. “I am excited to see strong performance across all of our markets,” said Paul Cusenza, Chairman and CEO of Nodal Exchange. “We are proud to serve these markets in managing risk and appreciate the ongoing support of this community.”

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today launched a public consultation on proposed amendments to its Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), set out in a Delegated Regulation, on the assignment of risk weights to specialised lending exposures under the Supervisory Slotting Criteria Approach (SSCA). The purpose of the amendments is to update the RTS in light of the changes introduced by the revised Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR 3) and to enhance the risk sensitivity, clarity and usability of the framework. Overall, the RTS aim to ensure a consistent and robust prudential treatment of specialised lending exposures under the SSCA across the EU, supporting sound risk management and financial stability. The consultation runs until 7 August 2026. With the proposed amendments, the RTS are aligned with the definitions and terminology introduced by CRR3. In addition, certain constraints in the current RTS methodology are removed to allow for a better reflection of risk, and several clarifications to the assessment criteria are introduced with a view to simplifying their application. Consultation Process Responses to this consultation can be sent to the EBA by clicking on the "send your comments" button on the consultation page. Please note that the deadline for the submission of comments is 7 August 2026. A public hearing will take place via conference call on 27 May 2026 from 10:00 to 11:00 CEST. Please register here by 22 May 2026, 10:00 CEST. Legal basis and background The EBA has developed these draft amending RTS under Article 153(9) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which mandates the Authority to specify how institutions are to take into account the factors referred to in Article 153(5), when assigning risk weights to specialised lending exposures under the Supervisory Slotting Criteria Approach. The mandate already existed under CRR2 and was renewed by CRR3.  Documents Consultation Paper on RTS amending RTS for assessing risk weights to specialised lending exposures (1.79 MB - PDF) Related content Draft Regulatory Technical StandardsAdopted and published in the Official Journal of the EU Regulatory technical standards on specialised lending exposures Consultation7 AUGUST 2026 Consultation on Regulatory technical standards on specialised lending exposures Topic Credit risk