The current reports for the week of October 08, 2024 are now available. Report data is also available in the CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE), which allows users to search, filter, customize and download report data. Additional information on Commitments of Traders (COT) | CFTC.gov Historical Viewable Historical Compressed COT Release Schedule CFTC Public Reporting Environment (PRE) PRE User Guide PRE Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for newly added symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Monday, October 14, 2024. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2024-59 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2024-56 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2024-58 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2024-63 Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.

The consultation paper defines the IT solutions and processes that large and other institutions shall follow to publish Pillar 3 information centrally in the EBA data hub. The proposed IT solutions leverage the EBA’s past and ongoing work and infrastructures  in the area of disclosures and reporting. The Pillar 3 data hub will centralise on the EBA website the Pillar 3 disclosures of all EU institutions, thus allowing users to download data and visualize the Pillar 3 information in a standardised format. The European Banking Authority (EBA) launched today a consultation on the Pillar 3 data hub, which will centralise prudential disclosures by institutions through a single electronic access point on the EBA website. This project is part of the Banking Package laid down in the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR3) and Capital Requirements Directive (CRD6). This consultation runs until 11 November. The draft Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) present the IT solutions and processes to be followed by large and other institutions when submitting their respective Pillar 3 disclosures. This includes the IT solutions to be used, the data exchange formats to be considered, the technical validations to be performed by the EBA. The EBA welcomes feedback both from institutions and users of Pillar 3 information. The current proposals in the consultation paper consider the feedback received from the industry on the discussion paper published in December 2023. The summary of this feedback and respective EBA analysis is included in the consultation paper. In parallel, the EBA continues to run a pilot exercise with voluntary institutions to test the process for large and other institutions. Conclusions from the pilot exercise, together with the feedback received during this consultation, will be taken into account when finalising the draft ITS to be submitted to the European Commission for adoption. Consultation process Comments to this consultation paper 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 11 November 2024. All contributions received will be published following the end of the consultation, unless requested otherwise. A public hearing will be organised in the form of a webinar on 21 October from 15:00 to 16:30 CET. Please register for the hearing here by 17 October 13:00 CET. Legal basis, backgrounds d next steps The new Banking Package (CRR3/CRD6), which will implement the latest Basel III reforms in the EU, includes a mandate to the EBA to develop a Pillar 3 data hub. The EBA’s plan on how to implement the mandates included in the banking package is explained in the ‘EBA Roadmap on strengthening the prudential framework’, published in December 2023. The CRR3 (Articles 434 and 434a) mandates the EBA to publish on its website all the prudential disclosures for all institutions subject to these disclosure requirements, making it readily available in a centralised manner to all the relevant stakeholders through a single electronic access point on its website. To comply with this mandate the EBA is building a data hub putting together all the disclosures required under Part Eight of the CRR. The CRD6 (Article 106) mandates the EBA to issue guidelines, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, to specify the requirements set out in paragraph 1 under which Competent Authorities are empowered to require disclosures more frequently than required under CRR3, set deadlines to institutions to submit the information to EBA and require institutions to use specific media and locations for publication, other than the EBA website for centralised disclosures. The draft ITS for small and non-complex institutions and on the resubmission policy will be consulted separately, at a later stage. Documents Consultation paper on draft ITS on Pillar 3 data hub (692.46 KB - PDF) Download Annex I - P3DH Draft template on contact persons information (17.66 KB - Excel Spreadsheet) Download Related content Consultation11 NOVEMBER 2024 Consultation on draft Implementing Technical Standards on Pillar 3 data hub Discussion Pillar 3 data hub Press Release14 December 2023 The EBA publishes roadmap on the implementation of the EU Banking Package Draft Implementing Technical StandardsFinal draft RTS/ITS adopted by the EBA and submitted to the European Commission Implementing Technical Standards on supervisory reporting changes related to CRR3/CRD6 in step 1 Draft Implementing Technical StandardsUnder consultation Implementing Technical Standards on Pillar 3 data hub Topic Transparency and Pillar 3

Solactive is excited to partner again with Themes ETFs in launching the Solactive Transatlantic Aerospace & Defense Index, which serves as the underlying index for the Themes Transatlantic Defense ETF. Responding to evolving international dynamics, this ETF focuses on investment opportunities arising from increased defense spending among NATO nations. Furthermore, it addresses the growing demand for cutting-edge technology and defense systems in these markets. With NATO’s collective security commitments and defense partnerships, the sector benefits from a foundation of long-term stability. The Solactive Transatlantic Aerospace & Defense Index represents a rules-based selection of equities headquartered in NATO member countries and classified within relevant aerospace and defense industry segments. Focusing on this core geographic alliance, the index aims to provide targeted exposure to the evolving dynamics supporting long-term demand within these industries. Index constituents are selected from the Solactive GBS Global Markets All Cap USD Index, based on minimum liquidity criteria. Weighting is based on free-float market capitalization subject to concentration limits to avoid overweighting of the largest companies. The rebalance process ensures timely constituent changes every quarter. The ETF is listed on 11th October on the Nasdaq with the ticker code “NATO”.  Timo Pfeiffer, Chief Markets Officer at Solactive, commented: “Our collaboration with Themes ETFs provides investors tailored access to a sector that benefits from both technological advancements and defense spending trends. We are always committed to providing client-oriented services to their evolving needs.” Jose C Gonzalez, Chief Executive Officer at Themes ETFs, comments: “The Themes Transatlantic Defense ETF (Ticker: NATO) offers targeted exposure to defense companies headquartered in NATO member states, uniquely positioned to capitalize on rising defense spending amid recent geopolitical tensions. As nations prioritize military modernization and security innovation, this ETF provides investors with access to firms at the forefront of advancing transatlantic defense strategies.” Disclosure The Themes Transatlantic Defense ETF (Ticker: NATO) is neither sponsored by nor affiliated with The North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX), a wholly owned subsidiary of Miami International Holdings, Inc., hosted a ceremonial “Ring the Bell for Financial Literacy” event as part of the World Federation of Exchanges’ (WFE) support for World Investor Week. This initiative is led by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and aims to raise awareness about the importance of investor education and protection on a global scale. “BSX is pleased to once again participate in IOSCO’s World Investor Week and the WFE’s Ring the Bell for Financial Literacy global initiative,” said Greg Wojciechowski, BSX President and CEO. “Promoting financial literacy while supporting our local community by encouraging investment in domestic and international markets is an important initiative for BSX. We were delighted to host the CFA Society Bermuda and Bermuda College at the bell ringing ceremony and help raise visibility for their financial literacy programs.” As one of 63 stock exchanges worldwide participating in the bell ringing ceremony, BSX teamed up with Bermuda College and the CFA Society Bermuda to promote the Society’s Building Financial Literacy workshop series as part of the College’s Athora Division of Professional and Career Education (APACE) programme. The three-week programme aims to drive financial literacy across Bermuda by teaching fundamental money and financial concepts including the basics of budgeting and savings, income and expenses, and planning for retirement. The workshops begin on 30 October. "Money influences our lives directly and indirectly every day and building financial literacy helps to improve confidence and reduce anxiety when facing financial decisions,” noted Romari Tucker, Education Chair of the CFA Society. “The CFA Society Bermuda has promoted financial literacy within the community through this course since 2019, with the goal being to empower individuals to make informed financial decisions. We are pleased to continue offering this program in partnership with the Bermuda College." Tawana Flood, Director of the Athora Division of Professional and Career Education stated, “Today’s bell ringing is a signature moment for Bermuda College. Money is often referred to as the global language of success and it is important that everyone learns how to speak that language, regardless of one’s economic status or standing. A strong foundation in financial literacy is key and Bermuda College’s Financial Literacy Series, in partnership with the CFA Society Bermuda, is proud to provide access to that financial literacy.” This year’s workshops run from 30 October to 13 November.  For more information or if you are interested in registering for this year’s series, please visit www.college.bm. 

Good afternoon, I'd like to begin by thanking the event organizers, including our staff at the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors for inviting me to share my thoughts with you at the 18th Annual Community Bankers Symposium.1 I always enjoy the opportunity to speak to bankers across the country and share perspectives on the issues facing the banking and financial system, especially when it's related to community banks. Banks are a critical component of the U.S. economy.2 Their work often extends well beyond the provision of credit— providing services and volunteer and financial support within their community. Among many things, banks offer financial education, sponsorships and funding for community programs and events. Without question, community banks are important and integral to the local economy. But community banks also face challenges that require proactive risk management, effective and efficient prioritization of compliance resources, and the need to innovate. Today, I would like to briefly highlight some of the issues banks are facing and discuss ways that community banks and regulators can more effectively work together in the future. The Challenges Facing Community BanksAs this audience knows well, community banks face a number of challenges. They often rely on third-party service providers to offer products and services to their customers. It may be more difficult for them to hire and retain qualified staff or plan for future leadership with management succession planning. Given limited staffing, they may be overwhelmed by the recent onslaught of new regulations and guidance. And in light of all of this, it may be challenging to prioritize resources in order to appropriately focus on the most important risks facing their businesses. While the headwinds may seem overwhelming, community banks are always resilient in the face of change. Often, one of the greatest challenges facing a community bank is not about managing any particular risk but rather how to address all of the risks they face—and how to prioritize the approach to address each of those risks. Regulators have, at times, exacerbated these challenges through policy choices. The risk of mis-prioritization is not limited to community banks. In my mind, this was most recently evident in the events and supervision leading to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. Management failed to address growing interest rate risk and funding risks, and supervisors failed to prioritize and escalate these issues. Our goal should be to identify, understand, and learn from these past mistakes, and to avoid repeating them. Both regulators and banks should be working toward a common goal—a banking system that supports economic activity throughout the country, in which banks operate in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with consumer laws and regulations. In considering the challenges facing community banks, both regulators and banks have an important role to play. CompetitionCommunity banks face competitive pressures from many sources. These pressures may result from local or regional economic conditions, the needs of retail and business customers, and the products and services available in the market. Competitors can take the form of traditional banks, internet banks, and non-banks like fin-techs and mortgage companies. While fin-tech partnerships can be beneficial to both the customer and the bank, if the relationship is not managed according to safe and sound banking principles, serious problems can result. When deposits are accepted through fin-tech relationships but not handled appropriately, deposit insurance can be jeopardized and the ability to access deposited funds may be impacted.3 Competition can also come from other local competitors like credit unions, large banks with a broader operational footprint, payday lenders, or other nonbank credit sources. As bank customers grow increasingly comfortable and familiar with new mechanisms for doing business, the use of online banking has continued to expand. This has tended to increase the footprint of non-local banks or lenders, enabling them to effectively compete for business outside of their geographic area. Even against this backdrop, research shows that community banks have maintained an important role in many banking markets, including in small- and medium-sized business lending.4 The regulatory framework establishes expectations for how community banks can compete, and often creates an unlevel playing field with many of these competitors. This includes whether they are subject to the same regulation as banks that engage in the same activities and how competition is evaluated. A core concept in financial regulation is to impose the same regulation—and I suggest we expand this to include the same regulation, guidance, and supervisory expectations—on entities that are engaged in the same activities. Banks compete against many non-bank providers, including financial technology firms, credit unions, and other non-bank lenders. In some of these head-to-head competitions, community banks face distinct disadvantages that can pose challenges when competing for the same banking opportunities. For example, banks are subject to taxes and additional regulatory requirements (including the Community Reinvestment Act). They are also subject to a broader range of restrictions imposed by regulatory requirements or the "soft" power of supervision. In all of these cases, the disparity in the legal framework can have a distortive effect on competition. In short, where the financial regulatory framework can provide for parity of treatment, it should do so. The regulatory framework should not knowingly distort competition, or effectively impose a regulatory allocation of credit. The framework also plays an important role in assessing competition among banks. The mergers and acquisitions (M&A) approval process can have a disproportionate impact on community banks because the "screens" that are used to evaluate the competitive effects of a proposed merger often result in a finding that M&A transactions in rural markets can have an adverse effect on competition and should therefore be disallowed.5 Even when these transactions are eventually approved, the mechanical approach to analyzing competitive effects—which is grounded in the effect of proposed transactions on the control of deposits within individual banking markets—often requires additional review or analysis, and can lead to delays in the regulatory approval process. CybersecurityCommunity banks often note cybersecurity and third-party risk management as areas that raise significant concerns. Cyber-related events, including ransomware attacks and business email compromises, are costly and time-consuming experiences, and they pose unique challenges for community banks. For example, the maintenance of and the technology resources required to support a successful cybersecurity program are often difficult for smaller banks. Regulators can promote cybersecurity, and stronger cyber-incident "resilience" and response capabilities by identifying resources and opportunities for banks to develop "muscle memory" in cyber incident response. Recent incidents, like the Crowdstrike-related outage, have highlighted the heavy dependence many banks have on technology, third-party providers, and the broader supply chain. In the current risk environment, it is important for banks of all sizes to implement sound operational resilience, cybersecurity, and third-party risk-management practices. One important resource for community banks is the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) website, which includes the FFIEC Cybersecurity Resource Guide and links to other external cybersecurity resources. The Federal Reserve plays an important role in supervising banks and supporting risk management practices. For example, the Federal Reserve hosts the Midwest Cyber Workshop, with the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Louis.6 Over the past two years, this workshop has provided a forum to further cyber risk discussions among community bankers, regulators, law enforcement, and other industry stakeholders. Today's Symposium also includes an interactive cyber workshop, during which participants will participate in a cyber exercise, working through the various decisions that would be required in responding to a hypothetical cyberattack.7 We know well that cyber threats pose real risks to the banking system. We also recognize that community banks may have unique needs in preventing, remediating, and responding to cyber threats. Therefore, regulators should ensure that a range of resources are available to support community banks and seek further opportunities to help build community bank resilience against these threats. Third-Party Risk ManagementThird-party risk management can pose an additional challenge for community banks. Due to their size and scale, community banks often leverage centralized resources—technical experts who have greater expertise than the bank could fully maintain on staff—to advise and assist on a range of issues. Often these third-party service providers are significantly larger, and their bank clients—including smaller banks—may lack leverage in conducting due diligence and negotiating the terms of the relationship. In 2023, the federal banking agencies published supervisory guidance addressing third-party risk management, which was expressly applicable to community banks. As I noted at the time it was issued, the guidance included shortcomings that were known and identified but not addressed in advance.8 What many of you may not know is that after nearly a year from the original publication, the regulators published a guide to assist community banks interpret and apply the guidance to their third-party risk management activities. The guide was intended to provide additional context for the guidance—including step-by-step examples of how to address third-party risk management—making the guidance more useful. While I am pleased that the community bank implementation guide was eventually published, the delays in its publication suggest a shortcoming in our regulatory approach. We must ensure new guidance provides clarity to regulated firms on its own, or that we provide additional resources at the time the guidance is published. Consumer ComplianceLike third-party risk management, consumer compliance can be another area that may present challenges to community banks given their size and scale. An effective and well-run consumer compliance program balances consumer protection with the complexity and cost to establish a robust compliance management program. One challenge for community banks is the difficulty in retaining qualified consumer compliance experts. Notwithstanding these challenges, community banks devote significant time and resources to their consumer compliance risk management programs. Compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations, including fair lending laws, is essential to ensuring that the banking system provides fair and broad access to credit and financial services. Community banks take these responsibilities seriously, and the overwhelming majority of banks that we supervise invest in strong compliance management systems to prevent violations and detect problems before they occur. When consumer compliance concerns arise, banks address them by making their customers whole and adopting the necessary changes to ensure that issues do not persist or reoccur. In a very small subset of cases, banks fall short of their obligations, and we hold those institutions accountable through enforcement actions or other supervisory actions. The Federal Reserve's consumer compliance supervision program is risk-focused and tailored to a bank's compliance risk, focused on the activities that present the greatest risk. One example related to third-party risk management is our recent system supervisory focus on consumer compliance risks associated with fin-tech relationships. As a result of this work, our supervisors seek to identify the parties to relationships that pose the greatest risk of consumer harm. This effort promotes our understanding of higher risk fin-tech partners across the Federal Reserve System, and helps supervisors proactively identify relationships that pose greater risk of consumer harm. Other Core RisksThere are a number of "core" risks that are essential for bank management to address. These "core" risks—including funding, liquidity and credit risk—should already be integrated into management priorities, since they pose the greatest threats to a bank's operations. Focusing on core risks is second nature for community banks. In contrast, supervision can be susceptible to diversion from core to non-core risks leading supervisors to neglect the build-up of traditional risk. Diverting resources to non-core risks can often leave a bank vulnerable, especially when regulators direct banks to allocate resources in other ways, whether by regulation, guidance, or through supervisory expectations. Mitigating Risks to Community BanksThe design of regulation, guidance, and supervisory approach regulators rely upon for community banks—and the intentional policy choices that underpin this framework—are important for ensuring their effectiveness in supporting the safety and soundness of the banking system. These design choices can enable community banks to operate successfully while mitigating risks, leveraging tailoring, transparency, and consistency across institutions.9 I have spoken at length about these themes in the past, but I would like to reiterate just a few of the critical elements of a regulatory agenda that will allow community banks to thrive in the future: First, we need to revisit size thresholds over time as inflation and economic growth slowly erode our regulatory categories. The bank regulatory framework is built largely upon asset-based size thresholds, and these thresholds should reflect a deliberate policy choice. But, over time, these fixed thresholds effectively result in more firms being "scoped in" to higher compliance tiers over time, even when there has been no change in a bank's underlying risk profile.10 We need to have a regulatory system in which M&A transactions and de novo bank formations are possible for banks, not one in which regulatory approval requirements are used to impose additional (and extra-regulatory) requirements on firms.11 Viable formation and merger options for banks of all sizes are necessary to avoid creating a "barbell" of the very largest and very smallest banks in the banking system, with the number of community banks continuing to erode over time. Left unchecked, an applications process that imposes additional costs and delays on healthy and appropriate banking transactions will result in a reduction in available credit and services, an increase in the number of unbanked or underbanked communities, and economic harm. We should prioritize direct experience in our regulatory efforts, giving greater voice and opportunities for input from policymakers with banking or state supervisory experience currently at the Federal banking agencies, and by soliciting and accepting feedback from our state banking counterparts. Greater coordination and participation by a wider set of policymakers in regulatory reform efforts would bring several benefits. For example, discussion of competing ideas and compromise in the drafting of regulatory proposals often results in a more moderate approach, reducing dramatic swings of the regulatory pendulum. And in many instances, we can better anticipate the unintended consequences of reform proposals if policymakers engage in good faith discussions and coordination of these efforts. While regulatory reform brings many benefits, we should also shift our mindset to focus on the tradeoffs of regulation, guidance, and supervision. Changes to the regulatory framework often yield benefits in terms of greater visibility into the workings of the banking system, additional capital that can absorb losses and promote financial resiliency, and more conservative risk-management standards for interest rate risk and funding risk. But we need to evaluate not only the benefits of proposals but also the costs and unintended consequences. How will banks adjust their activities in response? Will they raise prices on lending activities or for other banking products or services? Will they exit certain low-margin businesses, resulting in greater concentration and increased financial stability risk? By considering the cumulative burden, we can better address and acknowledge these concerns. And finally, we must incorporate "tailoring"—calibrating the regulatory framework based on the size and complexity of banks' activities—as a required input for regulatory consideration. Tailoring helps us to better allocate finite resources both in banks and among regulators and helps us avoid threatening the long-term viability of community banks by simply adding to the mass of existing regulations, guidance, and other supervisory material. We simply cannot ignore the "cumulative" or "compounding" effect of increasing the complexity of the regulatory framework and we must make room in our reform agenda for the unglamorous work of "maintenance" in promoting an efficient framework. By no means is this proposal for regulatory reform exhaustive, but these critical components must be integrated into our future approach to ensure a diverse banking system for the future. Closing ThoughtsThank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for your commitment to community banking. You serve a critical role within the banking system, and in support of the U.S. economy. Your work to leverage the power of the community banking model enables you to serve your customers, promote financial inclusion and expand access to banking services. But policymakers have an important responsibility to make sure that the community banking model remains viable into the future. To function effectively, the banking system requires the presence of banks of all sizes—larger, regional, and community banks. This diversity of our financial institutions is the greatest strength of our banking system, and it can easily be imperiled by insufficiently targeted regulation, supervision, and guidance. 1. These remarks represent my own views and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. See Michelle W. Bowman, "Building a Community Banking Framework for the Future (PDF)" (speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Community Banking Research Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 2, 2024).  3. See, e.g., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Arkansas State Bank Department, "In the Matter of Evolve Bancorp, Inc. and Evolve Bank & Trust, Cease and Desist Order (PDF)," news release, June 11, 2024.  4. Allen N. Berger, Nathan H. Miller, Mitchell A. Petersen, Raghuram G. Rajan, and Jeremy C. Stein, "Does Function Follow Organizational Form? Evidence from the Lending Practices of Large and Small Banks (PDF)," National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8752 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2002).  5. Michelle W. Bowman, "The Role of Research, Data, and Analysis in Banking Reforms (PDF)" (speech at the 2023 Community Banking Research Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 4, 2023); Michelle W. Bowman, "The New Landscape for Banking Competition (PDF)," (speech at the 2022 Community Banking Research Conference, St. Louis, MO, September 28, 2022).  6. See Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Midwest Cyber Workshop 2024 (June 25‑26, 2024).  7. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Community Bankers Symposium (October 11, 2024).  8. Michelle W. Bowman, "Defining a Bank (PDF)" (Speech to the American Bankers Association 2024 Conference for Community Bankers, San Antonio, TX, February 12, 2024); Statement by Governor Michelle W. Bowman, "Third-Party Risk-Management Guidance," news release, June 6, 2023 ("...Federal Reserve regional bank supervisors have indicated that we should provide additional resources for community banks upon implementation to provide appropriate expectations and ensure that small banks understand and can effectively use the guidance to inform their third-party risk management processes…I am disappointed that the agencies failed to make the upfront investment to reduce unnecessary confusion and burden on community banks").  9. See Michelle W. Bowman, "Building a Community Banking Framework for the Future (PDF)" (speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Community Banking Research Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, October 2, 2024).  10. See, e.g., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, "Regulatory Capital Rule: Large Banking Organizations and Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity," 88 Fed. Reg. 64,028, 64,095 (September 18, 2023) ("[t]o reflect inflation since 1996 and growth in the capital markets, the agencies are proposing to increase the trading activity dollar threshold [applicable to the market risk rule] from $1 billion to $5 billion.").  11. FDIC, "Final Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions (PDF)," (September 17, 2024). 

WHAT: Chairman Rostin Behnam will participate in a fireside chat with Congressman Ro Khanna at DC FinTech Week. WHEN: Wednesday, October 23, 20249:05 a.m. – 9:25 a.m. (ET) WHERE: The International Spy Museum700 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024Additional information: DC Fintech Week

A total turnover of 2.966 billion shares worth N31.508 billion in 42,482 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 2.872 billion shares valued at N132.811 billion that exchanged hands last week in 39,867 deals. Click here for full details.

WHAT: Chairman Rostin Behnam will give a keynote address at the Bloomberg Global Regulatory Forum. WHEN: Tuesday, October 22, 20242:05 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. (ET) WHERE: Bloomberg HQ731 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10022Additional information: Global Regulatory Forum 2024 (bloombergevents.com)

Basel Committee provides update to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on its analytical work of the 2023 banking turmoil. Report summarises empirical analysis on liquidity risk dynamics observed during the turmoil. Committee will continue work to strengthen supervisory effectiveness and assess whether specific features of the Basel Framework performed as intended. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is today publishing a progress report to the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on its analytical work of the 2023 banking turmoil. The report, requested by the G20 Brazilian Presidency, provides an update on the Committee's analytical work on liquidity risk dynamics observed during the turmoil. It builds on the Committee's stocktake report published in October 2023. The progress report includes updated empirical analysis on the liquidity outflow rates experienced by distressed banks during the turmoil and assesses the materiality of liquidity risk factors that are not explicitly covered by the Basel III Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). The report also analyses the impact of the accounting treatment and valuation of liquid assets eligible to meet the LCR and other potential impediments to banks' ability and willingness to draw down their liquidity buffer. It also assesses the use and role of supervisory monitoring tools and other stress indicators. Drawing on the findings of this progress report, the Committee is continuing to pursue a series of follow-up initiatives related to the turmoil, including: prioritising work to strengthen supervisory effectiveness and identify issues that could merit additional guidance at a global level; and pursuing additional follow-up analytical work based on empirical evidence to assess whether specific features of the Basel Framework, such as liquidity risk and interest rate risk in the banking book, performed as intended during the turmoil and assess the need to explore policy options over the medium term. This follow-up work is fully in line with the imperative of implementing the Basel III standards in a full and consistent manner, and as soon as possible.  Background The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its mandate is to strengthen the regulation, supervision and practices of banks worldwide with the purpose of enhancing financial stability. The Committee reports to the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision and seeks its endorsement for major decisions. The Committee has no formal supranational authority, and its decisions have no legal force. Rather, the Committee relies on its members' commitments to achieve its mandate. The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is chaired by Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Basel Committee is chaired by Erik Thedéen, Governor of Sveriges Riksbank.  More information about the Basel Committee is available here.

CUSIP Global Services (CGS) today announced the release of its CUSIP Issuance Trends Report for September 2024. The report, which tracks the issuance of new security identifiers as an early indicator of debt and capital markets activity over the next quarter, found a decrease in request volume for new corporate and municipal identifiers. North American corporate CUSIP requests totaled 7,160 in September, which is down 5.8% on a monthly basis. On a year-over-year basis, North American corporate requests closed the month up 4.3%. The monthly decline in volume was driven by a 7.7% decrease in request volume for U.S. corporate equity identifiers and a 10.0% decrease in request volume for Canadian corporate identifiers. Request volumes for short-term certificates of deposit (-5.4%) and longer-term certificates of deposit (-19.1%) also fell in September. The aggregate total of identifier requests for new municipal securities – including municipal bonds, long-term and short-term notes, and commercial paper – fell 10.2% versus August totals. On a year-over-year basis, overall municipal volumes are up 7.2%. Texas led state-level municipal request volume with a total of 167 new CUSIP requests in September, followed by New York (134) and California (69). “While CUSIP request volume is down across most asset classes, this month, that is largely a reflection of difficult comparisons to last month, where we saw a significant surge in new issuance activity,” said Gerard Faulkner, Director of Operations for CGS. “On an annualized basis, we’re seeing a positive trend in CUSIP request volume as we turn the corner to the fourth quarter.” Requests for international equity CUSIPs fell 9.5% in September and international debt CUSIP requests rose 13.2%. On an annualized basis, international equity CUSIP requests are down 2.4% and international debt CUSIP requests are up 100.3%. To view the full CUSIP Issuance Trends report for September, please click here. Following is a breakdown of new CUSIP Identifier requests by asset class year-to-date through September 2024: Asset Class 2024 YTD 2023 YTD YOY Change International Debt 4,732 2,363 100.3% Long-Term Municipal Notes 533 302 76.5% Private Placement Securities 3,331 2,562 30.0% U.S. Corporate Debt 18,845 15,372 22.6% U.S. Corporate Equity 8,783 7,503 17.1% Syndicated Loans 2,226 1,945 14.4% Municipal Bonds 7,452 6,970 6.9% Canada Corporate Debt & Equity 4,520 4,299 5.1% International Equity 1,135 1,163 -2.4% CDs > 1-year Maturity 6,558 7,362 -10.9% Short-Term Municipal Notes 862 1,025 -15.9% CDs < 1-year Maturity 7,602 9,136 -16.8%

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Moog Inc., a New York-based global manufacturer of motion controls systems for aerospace, defense, industrial and medical markets, agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1.1 million to resolve the SEC’s charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) arising out of bribes paid by its wholly owned Indian subsidiary, Moog Motion Controls Private Limited (Moog Motion Controls). The SEC’s order finds that, from 2020 through 2022, Moog Motion Controls employees bribed a variety of Indian officials to win business and also used a variety of schemes to make the improper payments, including by funneling them through third-party agents and distributors. These same Moog Motion Controls employees also offered cash bribes to Indian officials in an attempt to cause public tenders in India to favor Moog’s products and exclude competitors. “The SEC’s action against Moog highlights the need for issuers operating internationally to have appropriate compliance and internal accounting controls over third parties and third-party payments, as weaknesses in those systems heighten corruption risk,” said Charles E. Cain, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit. The SEC’s order found that Moog violated the recordkeeping and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Moog consented to the entry of the SEC’s order requiring it to cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations and agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling nearly $600,000, and a civil penalty of $1.1 million. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Irene Gutierrez, Michelle L. Ramos, Maria F. Boodoo, and Tracy L. Price of the SEC’s FCPA Unit. Resources SEC Order

We are delighted to announce that BMLL has won “Best Data Science Solution Provider” at the HedgeWeek US Awards 2024. These awards recognise excellence among fund managers and service providers in the US across a wide range of categories. BMLL was awarded for providing harmonised, Level 3, Level 2 and Level 1 historical data and analytics to hedge funds, helping them improve predictability, quality and speed of alpha through a scalable, managed data and analytics service.   The award recognises BMLL’s support for start-up hedge funds such as Aleto, who leverage BMLL’s data science platform to reduce set-up costs and shorten time to market, as well as BMLL’s capabilities for supporting large systematic hedge funds with alpha generation and operational needs.  Specifically, BMLL helps quant teams deliver predictive alphas: using BMLL’s suite of predictive analytics and scalable research, they can unlock patterns in market behaviour, improve signal generation and optimise algorithm performance at a fraction of the cost of building the capabilities in-house. BMLL’s ready-to-use, quant-built data science platform, provides hedge funds with the necessary research infrastructure to support their specific operation and growth from the outset, without the high upfront costs and lengthy timelines normally associated with launching a quantitative or systematic fund. Paul Humphrey, CEO of BMLL, said: “We are thrilled to be named Best Data Science Solution Provider at the Hedgeweek US Awards 2024. Hedge funds face significant challenges in obtaining high-quality historical market data, as incumbent real-time data providers often only supply commoditised historical data that lacks the granularity and accuracy needed for effective quantitative strategy development. These data gaps can negatively impact strategy performance and lead to excessive resource allocation for data cleansing and normalisation. At BMLL, we address this issue by providing hedge funds with high-quality, Level 3, 2, and 1 historical order book data that captures and displays the trading intentions of all market participants. This enables our clients to access clean, reliable data without the need for extensive in-house infrastructure, allowing them to focus on research and development. Our platform not only simplifies access to deep market insights but also scales with the growing data needs of our users, helping them optimise their strategies and stay competitive in a fast-evolving market.”

ASIC has cancelled two Australian financial services licences (AFS licence) and 11 Australian credit licences (collectively, the Licensees). The Licensees were required by law to be a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). AFCA membership gives consumers access to a free, fair, and independent dispute resolution scheme if a complaint cannot be resolved internally by a Licensee. ASIC works with AFCA to identify AFS licence and credit licence holders that do not comply with their obligation to maintain their AFCA membership. If an entity is expelled from the scheme or requests to withdraw membership, AFCA must notify ASIC. Where an entity fails to comply, or is otherwise in breach of general conduct obligations, ASIC will continue to take action to cancel AFS licence or credit licences. The Licensees have, varyingly:   failed to be a member of AFCA failed to lodge annual compliance certificates on time (credit licence holders)  failed to prepare and lodge an annual profit and loss statement and balance sheet (AFS licence holders) failed to comply with a condition on the licence failed to pay industry funding levies owed to ASIC ceased to carry on a financial services business (AFS licence holders), and/or ceased to engage in credit activities (credit licence holders). In the period 4 July 2024 and 10 July 2024, ASIC cancelled the AFS licences of:  Colleen Hennequin ABN 67 456 235 051(AFS licence 486117)Licence cancelled 4 July 2024  Aretean Pty Ltd ACN 159 826 114 (AFS licence number 460754). Licence cancelled 10 July 2024 In the period 6 June 2024 and 16 September 2024, ASIC cancelled the credit licences of:  George Frossinos (credit licence number 391981). Licence cancelled 20 August 2024. J F Consultancy and Investments Pty Ltd ACN 119 365 605 (credit licence number 392778). Licence cancelled 22 August 2024. Aspirepay Pty Ltd ACN 628 508 930 (credit licence number 511877). Licence cancelled 22 August 2024. The Finmark Group Pty Ltd ACN 000 710 029 (credit licence number 391404). Licence cancelled 28 August 2024. Fast Track Finance Group Pty Ltd ACN 085 407 512 (credit licence number 383791). Licence cancelled 29 August 2024. Supreme Funding Pty Ltd ACN 114 525 094 (credit licence number 389728). Licence cancelled 2 September 2024.  Julie Kruger (credit licence number 392085). Licence cancelled 6 September 2024. Indra Tengara (credit licence number 512598). Licence cancelled 9 September 2024. Yeung Cheng (credit licence number 387485). Licence cancelled 11 September 2024. Danielle Hobbs (credit licence number 443478). Licence cancelled 11 September 2024. Elancorp Pty Ltd ACN 096 634 561 (credit licence number 386741). Licence cancelled 16 September 2024. Background Under section 915C of the Corporations Act, ASIC has the power to cancel an AFS licence if an AFS licence holder has not complied with its obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act. This includes the obligation to:  be a member of AFCA to comply with conditions on the licence, for example, the condition to require the AFS licence holder to lodge an opinion by a registered auditor on the AFS licence holder’s compliance with the financial requirements, and to comply with the financial services laws, including section 989B of the Corporations Act to prepare and lodge an annual profit and loss statement and balance sheet. Under section 55 of the Credit Act, ASIC has the power to cancel a credit licence if a credit licence holder has contravened its general conduct obligations under section 47. This includes the obligation to be a member of AFCA and the obligation to comply with the credit legislation. Section 53(1) of the Credit Act outlines the obligation to lodge an ACC and is defined as credit legislation in section 5 of the Credit Act. Under section 54(1)(d) of the Credit Act, ASIC may cancel a credit licence if the levies and late payment penalties relating to those levies have not been paid in full within 12 months after the due date for payment. 

ASIC has provided an update on its licensing and professional registration activities to assist current and prospective Australian financial services (AFS), and credit licensees understand the licensing regime. Report 797 Licensing and professional registration activities: 2024 update (REP 797) provides the latest information on registration and licence applications from the 2023-24 financial year and key changes to licensing processes. ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said, ‘ASIC’s licensing and professional registration function plays a key gatekeeping role by ensuring new licensees and registered professionals meet the necessary thresholds. ‘The report provides guidance to AFS and credit licensees and financial services industry professionals about ASIC’s rigorous licensing and professional registration decision-making processes.’ ASIC’s licensing report also discusses current and emerging licensing issues including in relation to digital (crypto) assets, Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) services, and payments systems. Between July 2023 and June 2024, ASIC: received 1,531 licensing and registration applications finalised 1,246 applications for new and varied AFS and credit licences granted 280 new AFS licences and 143 new credit licences approved 495 AFS and credit licence variation applications from existing licensees registered 113 company auditors, 45 self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) auditors and 17 liquidators, and decided on 80% of new AFS licence applications and 75% of AFS licence variation applications within 150 days. In the same period, 239 AFS licences and 204 credit licences were cancelled or suspended. In addition, 44 professional registration applications were withdrawn and two were refused. Commissioner Kirkland said, ‘This year we are continuing to improve ASIC’s licensing processes and systems through our stakeholder and applicant engagement process. ‘We’re also building a new digital portal for AFS licensees and applicants to make it easier and more efficient to apply for, maintain, and vary their licence, enabling a modern and user-friendly application process.’ Downloads Report 797 Licensing and professional registration activities: 2024 update (REP 797) Background ASIC’s licensing report is released annually to increase transparency and provide guidance to licensees, professional auditor registrants, service providers and prospective applicants about licensing and professional registration requirements and our performance against ASIC’s service charter timeframes. ASIC determines AFS and credit licensing and professional registration applications on the facts and circumstances of each applicant. ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator.

This video can be viewed at the below link.[1] In 1950, the famous mathematician Alan Turing asked, “Can machines think?” What does that mean for securities law, particularly the laws related to fraud and manipulation? Bad actors, ever since antiquity, have found new ways to deceive the public. With artificial intelligence, fraudsters have yet a new tool to exploit. But make no mistake. Under the securities law, fraud is fraud. Former SEC Commissioner Kara Stein recently wrote about what happens when you combine AI, finance and the law of fraud. She spoke of three types of harm. The first: Programmable Harm. It's kind of straightforward. If someone uses an algorithm and is optimizing to manipulate or defraud the public, that's just fraud. Gets interesting when we get to the second category: Predictable Harm. Again, I think it's reasonably straightforward. In essence, has someone recklessly or knowingly disregarded a foreseeable risk in deploying a particular AI model? In essence, did they act reasonably? You see, under the securities law, you aren't supposed to trade in front of your customers. That's called front running. You aren't supposed to spoof. In other words, place a fake order. You aren't supposed to lie to the public. Well, it's equally important that the robots, I mean AI models, don't do these things either. Investor protection requires that the humans who deploy the model put in place appropriate guardrails. Some might ask, what if the AI models themselves are self-learning? They're changing. They're adapting. What if the AI models hallucinate, which we all know sometimes they do. I still believe that those who deploy the AI models should have appropriate guardrails for that as well. That brings up the third category. In essence, when firms might deploy an AI model that create Unpredictable Harm. How do we hold those firms responsible? While some of that might play out in court, I think right now the harms are mostly either programmable or predictable, because we do know that these models may self-learn, may hallucinate. We do know that there are things that you're not supposed to do, like lie to the public. You know, there was a famous early movie executive, Joseph Kennedy. He also went on to be the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And his son became president. Well, what did Chair Kennedy say in this seat 90 years ago? He said, “The Commission will make war without quarter on any who sell securities by fraud or misrepresentation.” And I think he meant the AI model deployers as well. [1] https://youtu.be/Tym3pO261Gc

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) is inviting applications for membership on its Registrant Advisory Committee (RAC or the Committee). In recognizing the importance of consulting with our stakeholders, the OSC’s RAC serves as a forum to discuss issues and challenges faced by registrants in interpreting and complying with Ontario securities law, including registration and compliance related matters. The Committee also plays a consultative role by providing feedback to the OSC on the development and implementation of policy and rule making initiatives that promote investor protection, fair and efficient capital markets and confidence in those markets. The OSC welcomes having diverse perspectives represented on all OSC advisory committees. Established in 2012, the RAC meets approximately four times a year, in addition to ad hoc meetings as required. The Committee consists of up to 15 members representing the different registration categories and business models overseen by the OSC. Membership terms for the RAC are for twenty-four months, after which membership may be reconstituted. The RAC is currently chaired by Matthew Onyeaju, Senior Vice President, Registration, Inspections and Examinations Division. All interested parties, including representatives with industry experience and expertise in regulatory compliance, are invited to submit applications for membership on the RAC in writing, indicating their relevant experience by November 8, 2024. Resumes to be considered for membership may be forwarded in writing to: compliance@osc.gov.on.ca. Any questions regarding the RAC can be addressed to: Felicia TedescoDeputy Director, Registration, Inspections and Examinations DivisionOntario Securities Commission 416-593-8273ftedesco@osc.gov.on.ca. Daniel PaniciSenior Accountant, Registration, Inspections and Examinations DivisionOntario Securities Commission416-593-8113dpanici@osc.gov.on.ca. The OSC is an equal opportunity employer committed to a diverse, equitable and inclusive environment that fosters belonging where diverse perspectives are represented. It is our priority to ensure opportunities are visible and barrier-free to all under-represented groups, including, but not limited to, Indigenous, Black, and racialized groups, people with disabilities, women, and people from the 2SLGBTQI+ community. If you require an accommodation during the recruitment process, please let us know by contacting our confidential inbox HRRecruitment@osc.gov.on.ca. Visit Accessibility at the OSC to review the OSC’s policies on accessibility and accommodation in the workplace. The OSC is a proud partner with the following organizations: BlackNorth Initiative, Canadian Centre for Diversity and Inclusion, Ascend Canada, and Pride at Work Canada. 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 https://www.osc.ca.  

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) today published a consultation paper aimed at improving retail investor access to illiquid investments through a framework proposal for a long-term asset investment fund product structure. The consultation proposes the creation of a new investment fund category, the Ontario Long-Term Asset Fund (OLTF), which would allow Ontarians to invest in assets they may not traditionally have exposure to. These assets include venture capital, private debt and equity, and infrastructure and natural resource projects. OLTFs could offer opportunities for more retail investors to participate in capital-intensive projects, while enabling businesses to lower funding costs and raise the capital necessary for growth. Investors would have an opportunity to diversify their portfolio across assets, but also across different types of businesses or projects. There are existing investment vehicles that would allow access to these assets, but many are privately funded and unavailable to retail investors. “Long-term assets provide a unique opportunity for investors to diversify their portfolios and potentially achieve higher returns over an extended period,” said Raymond Chan, Senior Vice President, Investment Management. “Through this consultation, we hope to identify how to broaden investor access to these benefits while also mitigating the risks inherent in illiquid assets.” Long-term assets are illiquid assets that cannot be readily disposed of, may be difficult to value, and generally have longer investment time horizons than other assets. An investment fund would provide retail investors with an investment vehicle whose regulatory framework is more specifically tailored to their needs. The proposed new framework would allow retail investors to gain exposure to these long-term assets through the professional management of a registered investment fund manager and registered portfolio manager. Distribution through a prospectus-qualified investment fund product would mean that suitability, “know-your-client” (KYC) and “know-your-product" (KYP) requirements would generally apply. The consultation also seeks feedback on investor access to OLTFs through order-execution-only, or “DIY” dealers. “The long-term asset fund proposal aims to create a framework that protects investors while fostering innovation and capital formation,” continued Chan. The feedback received will guide the next phase of the proposal, which is anticipated to be the publication for comment of proposed rule amendments and policy changes. Please submit comments in writing on or before February 7, 2025. 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 http://www.osc.ca.

Interest rate derivative trading will cease at 1:30 p.m. today, October 11, 2024. Furthermore, the Exchange's markets will be closed on October 14, 2024.

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for newly added symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Friday, October 11, 2024. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2024-58 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2024-55 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2024-57 MIAX Sapphire Options Regulatory Circular 2024-60 Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.