Perspecta Diligence combines advanced AI with human expertise, adding an additional layer of confidence in output with reduced false positives and contextual insights  Leading global corporate intelligence and cyber security consultancy S-RM has announced the launch of Perspecta Diligence, an AI-powered due diligence solution designed to help organisations efficiently triage and assess third-party risk at scale.   Perspecta Diligence addresses the growing pressure on compliance teams to deliver accurate screening and due diligence quickly, despite increasingly complex supply chains and tighter budgets. Sitting between traditional sanctions and watchlist screening and enhanced due diligence, it offers a scalable, cost-effective way to conduct reliable checks on lower- and medium-risk third parties.  At the heart of the solution is Perspecta Pulse, a bespoke AI platform powered by Xapien. Xapien’s combination of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and sophisticated AI tooling makes third-party research faster, more accurate, and more robust, enabling Perspecta Pulse to deliver in minutes comprehensive due diligence reports that go beyond sanctions, PEP, and watchlist searches.   To give clients additional assurance, S-RM overlays this process with human expertise. A team of more than 200 analysts review AI outputs, removing and verifying a large number of false positives and adding contextual insights. This produces reliable, digestible reports that can be shared confidently with compliance teams, management, and stakeholders.  The platform can be adopted as a stand-alone solution through a simple interface for uploading subjects and downloading reports, or integrated seamlessly via an API into existing Third-Party Risk Management programmes. It also complements S-RM’s broader services, including Compliance Due Diligence for higher-risk entities and S-RM Monitor for continuous monitoring of adverse media and compliance events.  Chris Oehlert, Head of Third-Party Risk Solutions at S-RM, said: “Perspecta Diligence represents a significant investment in AI and innovation to meet market demands. By combining automated research with expert human review, we are helping organisations manage third-party risk more efficiently, at scale, and with greater confidence.”  Martin Devenish, Board Director and Global Head of Corporate Intelligence at S-RM, said: “Our clients are increasingly faced with complex supply chains and third-party populations. Perspecta Diligence provides a solution that saves time, reduces costs, and enhances the quality of due diligence, supporting smarter decision-making across compliance programmes.”  Zachary Rothstein, Head of Growth and Partnerships at Xapien, said: “The Perspecta Diligence platform is a powerful example of how AI and human expertise can come together to transform compliance workflows. By powering S-RM’s new solution with Xapien’s AI-driven platform, we’re enabling compliance teams to perform faster, more reliable due diligence without compromising on accuracy or assurance. It’s exciting to see our technology helping a leading intelligence firm like S-RM deliver real, measurable impact for their clients.”  S-RM will showcase Perspecta Diligence at the UK Risk Summit in London on 9 October. 

The European Energy Exchange (EEX) has seen a significant traded volume growth on its Nordic Power derivatives market following the start of the comprehensive liquidity programme on 1 September. The total monthly volume exceeded 2 TWh, a 334% growth compared to the same period last year, which was the highest reported monthly volume in 2025. In September alone, trading volumes exceeded the volume level of the total first half of the year (January – June 2025; 1.8 TWh) The first month of the programme also saw the first trade in the Norwegian NO3 zone trade, in addition to several trades concluded with System Price and other Danish and Swedish Zonal futures.  The EEX member base on the Nordic power derivatives market covers Scandinavian, continental European and US-based market participants.    Peter Reitz, CEO of EEX, comments: “While the market is just starting to kick off, it’s positive to see that the Nordic trading community, including international and local trading participants, is ready to restore the volumes and thus liquidity on this market. We are delighted to see the significant growth over the first month of our initiatives and looking forward to working together to drive this trend forward.”  EEX’s product offering for the region includes both Nordic System Price contracts, the so-called Zonal Futures with price determination for each Nordic delivery area, and Implied EPADs, a combination of Zonal Futures and the Nordic System Price Futures, which provide the benefit of the location spread effect. This setup reduces capital requirements through cross-margining effects. The European Energy Exchange (EEX) is a leading energy exchange which builds secure, successful and sustainable commodity markets worldwide – together with its customers and partners. As part of EEX Group, it serves international power, natural gas, environmental, freight and agricultural markets, and provides data, reporting and registry services. EEX is an enabler of the energy transition and decarbonisation, advancing renewables integration through dedicated products and services, including those related to guarantees of origin

The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) meets to identify risks to financial stability and agree policy actions aimed at safeguarding the resilience of the UK financial system. Record of the Financial Policy Committee meeting on 2 October 2025 Headline judgements and policy actions Risks associated with geopolitical tensions, global fragmentation of trade and financial markets, and pressures on sovereign debt markets remain elevated. The risk of a sharp market correction has increased. A crystallisation of such global risks could have a material impact on the UK as an open economy and global financial centre. Despite persistent material uncertainty around the global macroeconomic outlook, risky asset valuations have increased and credit spreads have compressed. Measures of risk premia across many risky asset classes have tightened further since the last FPC meeting in June 2025. On a number of measures, equity market valuations appear stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on Artificial Intelligence (AI). This, when combined with increasing concentration within market indices, leaves equity markets particularly exposed should expectations around the impact of AI become less optimistic. There have been some notable credit defaults in the US automotive sector since the last meeting. These underscore some of the risks the FPC have previously highlighted around high leverage, weak underwriting standards, opacity, and complex structures. Term premia in sovereign bond markets have increased in many advanced economies, driven in part by expectations of higher debt issuance. Some key jurisdictions have experienced political uncertainty over the level and pace of reforms to improve the fiscal outlooks (e.g. political deadlocks in France and Japan). This increases the vulnerability of sovereign debt markets and adds to pressure on governments’ capacity to respond to shocks. In the US, there has been continued commentary about Federal Reserve independence. Central bank operational independence underpins monetary and financial stability – and therefore lowers borrowing costs for households and businesses. A sudden or significant change in perceptions of Federal Reserve credibility could result in a sharp re-pricing of US dollar assets, including in US sovereign debt markets, with the potential for increased volatility, risk premia, and global spillovers. Uncertainty around the global risk environment increases the risk that markets have not fully priced in possible adverse outcomes, and a sudden correction could occur should any of these risks crystallise. A sharp correction could interact with vulnerabilities in the system of market-based finance, adversely affecting the cost and availability of finance for households and businesses. As an open economy with a global financial centre, the risk of spillovers to the UK financial system from such global shocks is material. Domestically, the Committee judged that UK households and corporates have remained resilient but face continued pressure from higher costs of living and the continued adjustment to higher borrowing costs. The FPC maintains its judgement that the UK banking system has the capacity to support households and businesses even if economic and financial conditions were to be substantially worse than expected. The FPC decided to maintain the UK countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB) rate at 2%. 1: The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) seeks to ensure the UK financial system is prepared for, and resilient to, the wide range of risks it could face, so that it is able to absorb rather than amplify shocks, and serve UK households and businesses, thus supporting stability and long-term growth in the UK economy. 2: The Committee met on 2 October 2025 to agree its view on the outlook for UK financial stability. The FPC discussed the risks faced by the UK financial system and assessed the resilience of the system to those risks. On that basis, the Committee agreed its intended policy actions. The overall risk environment 3: Risks associated with geopolitical tensions, global fragmentation of trade and financial markets, and pressures on sovereign debt markets remained elevated. The risk of a sharp market correction had increased. A crystallisation of such global risks could have a material impact on the UK as an open economy and global financial centre. Global risk outlook and vulnerabilities in financial markets 4: Measures of risk premia across many risky asset classes had further tightened since the last FPC meeting in June 2025, and credit spreads remained compressed despite high levels of uncertainty. 5: Equity market valuations had increased since Q2, to near all-time highs, partly driven by strong Q2 earnings of US technology firms. The price appreciation of the largest technology firms this year had increased the concentration within US equity indices to record levels. The market share of the top 5 members of the S&P 500, at close to 30%, was higher than at any point in the past 50 years. 6: Equity valuations appeared stretched, particularly in backward-looking metrics in the US. For example, the earnings yield implied by the Cyclically-Adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) ratio was close to the lowest level in 25 years – comparable to the peak of the dot com bubble. Forward-looking valuation metrics and compression in US equity risk premia also remained elevated relative to historical levels, with the S&P 500 at a one-year forward price-to-earnings ratio of 25 times, but remained below the levels reached during the dot com bubble. Some technology companies were trading at valuation ratios which implied high future earnings growth, and concentrations within US equity indices meant that any AI-led price adjustment would have a high level of pass-through into the returns for investors exposed to the aggregate index. 7: The Committee noted the future outlook for valuations was uncertain, with both downside and upside risks. Downside factors included disappointing AI capability/adoption progress or increased competition, which could drive a re-evaluation of currently high expected future earnings. Material bottlenecks to AI progress – from power, data, or commodity supply chains – as well as conceptual breakthroughs which change the anticipated AI infrastructure requirements for the development and utilisation of powerful AI models could also harm valuations, including for companies whose revenue expectations are derived from high levels of anticipated AI infrastructure investment. 8: Many measures of risk premia had compressed further since the Q2 meeting, with global credit spreads getting close to historically low levels and leveraged loan spreads remaining in the bottom quartile. The risk of sharp corrections in asset prices remained high. There had been some notable credit defaults since the last meeting. These involved two US corporates active in the automotive sector. While operating different business models, their financing appeared to display several common factors including high leverage, weak underwriting standards, opacity, complex structures, and the degree of reliance on credit rating agencies, illustrating how corporate defaults could impact bank resilience and credit markets simultaneously. These events highlighted some of the risks the FPC had previously set out. 9: Existing vulnerabilities in market-based finance set out in the July 2025 Financial Stability Report (FSR) remained, and could amplify price moves across markets, potentially affecting the availability and cost of credit in the UK. 10: The economic impacts of US tariffs, and reciprocal tariffs on US goods in other jurisdictions, had not yet been fully realised. The impact on businesses in heavily impacted industries – such as manufacturing, automotives and construction – remained unclear. Uncertainty around further developments in trade policy posed a risk to the global macroeconomic outlook. While measures of correlation between the dollar and US assets had returned to within historical norms, this could change as investors reassess their positions. 11: In the US, there had been continued commentary about Federal Reserve independence. Central bank operational independence underpins monetary and financial stability – and therefore lowers borrowing costs for households and businesses. A sudden or significant change in perceptions of Federal Reserve credibility could result in a sharp re-pricing of US dollar assets, including in US sovereign debt markets, with the potential for increased volatility, risk premia, and global spillovers. The consequences for other sovereign borrowing costs, which had tended to be correlated with US interest rates, would be a key uncertainty in such a scenario. 12: World and Advanced Economies Gross Debt to GDP ratios increased to 92.3% and 108.5%, respectively, in 2024 and were forecast to increase each year to 2030 – peaking at 99.6% and 113.3%, respectively.footnote[1] Term premia in sovereign bond markets had increased in many advanced economies, driven in part by higher real interest rates as the outlook for debt issuance was high. Some key jurisdictions had experienced political uncertainty over the level and pace of reforms to improve the fiscal outlook (e.g. political deadlocks in France and Japan). These challenges had been reflected in sovereign debt yields. 13: As highlighted in the July FSR, there were a number of risk channels through which pressures on sovereign debt globally could affect financial stability, including in the UK via cross-border spillovers. These channels included: higher interest rates leading to tighter global financial conditions; increased market volatility interacting with vulnerabilities in market-based-finance; the reduced ability of governments to respond to future shocks; and the potential for capital outflows from overseas investors. Correlations between movements in yields across sovereign issuers could act to transmit and amplify stress in government bond markets. 14: Global geopolitical risks remained elevated. Conflicts in Europe and the Middle East had raised concerns about global energy supply. There had been concerns that these conflicts might escalate and create supply chain volatility. However, oil prices and shipping costs had moderated since the Q2 meeting. UK Household and corporate debt vulnerabilities 15: The Committee judged that UK households and corporates had remained resilient, but faced continued pressure from the adjustment to higher debt servicing costs and the cost of living. 16: The outlook for households was gradually improving as the share of households expected to refix at higher rates was falling. The aggregate household debt to income ratio was at its lowest level since 2001. Lenders had changed their behaviour following the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) statement on mortgage stress rates in March. A number of lenders had recently taken up the Prudential Regulatory Authority's (PRA) option to modify their loan-to-income (LTI) flow limit, following the FPC’s updated Recommendation in Q2, but the full impact of these policy changes had not yet been felt in the mortgage market. 17: Aggregate measures of UK corporate debt remained significantly below their pandemic peaks. Some highly leveraged corporate borrowers relying on market-based finance remained particularly exposed to global shocks. But the share of vulnerable borrowers with low interest coverage ratios had remained steady since Q2. The FPC was considering the availability of finance for high growth potential SMEs as part of its work on supporting economic growth and welcomed the publication of a staff literature review. The FPC would present its conclusions on this work in Q4. Banking sector resilience 18: The FPC maintained its judgement that the UK banking system had the capacity to support households and businesses, even if economic and financial conditions were to be substantially worse than expected. 19: The UK banking system remained appropriately capitalised, had high levels of liquidity and asset quality remained strong. Aggregate resilience for the major UK banks across the Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) risk-weighted capital ratio, Tier 1 leverage ratio and the liquidity coverage ratio were broadly unchanged compared to Q1 results at 14.5%, 5.1% and 151%, respectively. Major UK banks continued to report robust earnings, with return on tangible equity above their cost of equity and the aggregate Price to Tangible Book ratio reaching 1.3 times. 20: The FPC discussed its setting of the UK CCyB rate. The Committee’s principal aim in setting the UK CCyB rate was to help ensure that the UK banking system was better able to absorb shocks without an unwarranted restriction in essential services, such as the supply of credit, to the UK real economy. Setting the UK CCyB rate enabled the FPC to adjust the capital requirements of the UK banking system to the changing scale of risk of losses on banks’ UK exposures over the course of the financial cycle. The approach therefore included an assessment of financial vulnerabilities and banks' capacity to absorb such losses, including the potential impact of shocks. 21: In considering the appropriate setting of the UK CCyB rate, the FPC discussed its judgements around underlying vulnerabilities that could amplify economic shocks. The Committee noted that while the global risk environment remained elevated, UK households and corporates remained resilient in aggregate and credit conditions reflected the macroeconomic outlook. The UK banking system also remained resilient, maintaining appropriate levels of capital. 22: In view of these considerations, the FPC decided to maintain the UK CCyB rate at 2%. Maintaining a neutral setting of the UK CCyB rate in the region of 2% would help to ensure that banks continued to have capacity to absorb unexpected future shocks without an unwarranted restriction in essential services, such as the supply of credit, to the UK real economy. 23: The Committee would continue to monitor the evolution of financial conditions closely, as well as reviewing the results of the 2025 Bank Capital Stress Test, to ensure the setting of the CCyB remained appropriate. 24: In line with its statutory obligations, the FPC reviewed its Direction to the PRA on the leverage ratio, issued in September 2022. 25: The FPC continued to consider a leverage ratio to be an essential part of the framework for capital requirements for the UK banking system, and judged that the leverage ratio set out in the 2022 Direction should remain unchanged. 26: Having regard to the interaction between monetary and macroprudential policy, the Committee confirmed the appropriateness of continuing to exclude central bank reserves from the leverage ratio, and of not recalibrating the minimum leverage ratio requirement of 3.25% to reflect an increase in reserves since 2016. The FPC would keep this under review as part of future reviews of the leverage ratio framework. 27: More generally, as noted in the 2025 Q2 Record, the Committee would refresh its assessment of the overall level of capital requirements in the UK banking system and provide an update on progress and next steps in the December 2025 FSR. Given it is an important part of the capital framework, the leverage ratio would form part of the considerations. The Committee agreed that robust prudential standards and a resilient financial system supported growth and competitiveness by ensuring a continuous supply of financing to the real economy even in times of stress or high uncertainty, and by providing firms, customers, and counterparties with reassurance that they could do business in the UK safely and with confidence. 28: The FPC welcomed the commencement of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 on 16 July. The Act introduced a new recapitalisation payment mechanism, primarily designed to facilitate UK small bank resolution if that was in the public interest. The FPC supported this targeted enhancement of the UK bank resolution regime which had helped to ensure the regime remains fit for purpose and ready for use. Resilience of the gilt repo market 29: The FPC welcomed the publication of the Bank’s Discussion Paper Enhancing the resilience of the gilt repo market. The Discussion Paper seeks views from market participants on the effectiveness and impact of a range of potential reforms to enhance the resilience of the gilt repo market in stress. It focuses on greater central clearing of gilt repo and minimum haircuts on non-centrally cleared gilt repo transactions, as well as views on a broader range of other potential initiatives. The Committee noted that this work would help advance a finding of last year’s System Wide Exploratory Scenario exercise that there was merit in exploring market structure reforms to improve resilience in this area. The following members of the Committee were present at the 2 October Policy meeting: Andrew Bailey, Governor Nathanaël Benjamin Sarah Breeden Jon Hall Randall Kroszner Clare Lombardelli Liz Oakes Dave Ramsden Carolyn Wilkins Sam Woods Gwyneth Nurse attended as the Treasury member in a non-voting capacity. IMF Fiscal Monitor, April 2025 Record of the Financial Policy Committee meeting on 2 October 2025 

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the financial markets regulator and supervisor for the EU, has announced the upcoming publication of SMS for equity and equity-like financial instruments. This announcement is intended to assist market participants with their preparations to apply the new quoting requirements, even though the official implementation date has not yet been specified.  The Markets in Financial Regulation Review (MIFIR) has introduced lower and upper limits to the new quoting obligations for SIs. The revised regulatory technical standard (RTS) 1, once published in the Official Journal (OJ) in the coming weeks, will introduce several provisions. Although the exact publication date is not yet known, ESMA is reminding some of these changes now to enable market participants to prepare in advance.   Among the provisions applicable 20 days after publication are:    - the minimum quoting size for SIs and  - the threshold up to which transparency obligations apply to SIs.   Both thresholds depend on the standard market size (SMS), determined by the average value of transactions (AVT) liquidity bands which has been recalibrated in the RTS 1. The day before the application date of the revised RTS 1, ESMA will publish the SMS for liquid equity and equity-like financial instruments.    The full list of new SMS will be available through FITRS in the XML and through the Register web interface.   Another important provision applying 20 days after the publication in the OJ is the exclusion of give-up and give-in transactions from post-trade transparency reporting when executed off venue.  The remaining RTS 1 provisions, including a new set of pre-trade transparency requirements and amended post-trade transparency details, will take effect on 2 March 2026. 

Oxford Risk, a leading provider of behavioural finance risk suitability technology, is proud to announce its strategic partnership with Aviva Investors to risk map the Aviva Multi-Asset Core (MAF Core) and Multi-Asset Plus (MAF Plus) fund ranges. This collaboration brings together Oxford Risk’s advanced behavioural risk assessment capabilities with Aviva Investors’ long-standing expertise in multi-asset investing. The partnership aims to enhance suitability beyond providing a fit-for-purpose risk score, giving financial intermediaries deeper insight into the behavioural appropriateness of Aviva Investors’ five MAF Core funds and five MAF Plus funds. The MAF Core range, designed to offer low-cost, globally diversified investment solutions, includes five risk-rated funds targeting varying levels of equity market exposure – from defensive to adventurous. By risk mapping the funds with Oxford Risk, advisers and wealth managers can now more confidently match clients to the most appropriate fund based on an assessment of an individual’s risk appetite and financial personality. “We’re delighted to be working with Aviva Investors to bring greater clarity and confidence to the fund selection process,” said James Pereira-Stubbs, Chief Client Officer at Oxford Risk. “Our unique behavioural approach helps improve investor engagement, grow and retain assets under management, and provide regulatory peace of mind to clients across the globe.” Hayley Randall, Head of UK Advisory Distribution at Aviva Investors, added: “Partnering with Oxford Risk allows us to provide financial intermediaries with a more robust framework for assessing fund suitability. It’s a natural extension of our commitment to transparency, value, and investor outcomes.” The risk-mapped MAF Core funds and MAF Plus funds are now available through Oxford Risk’s Fund Search platform, enabling advisers to filter and compare portfolios by provider and risk level. They can also be found within Oxford Risk’s behavioural risk suitability solution, Investor Compass. For more information, visit Oxford Risk Fund Search or Aviva Investors MAF Core.

Scope Markets (www.scopemarkets.com), the retail CFD and FX brokerage, is this month marking another year of success in the MENA region. Whilst the business is known for its truly global footprint, the Scope Markets ethos has always been built on delivering services which are tailored to meet the needs of the regions it operates in – a proposition which continues to resonate well with a global audience.  Reflecting this momentum, Scope Markets was recognised with Best Partnership Programme – MENA at Forex Expo Dubai 2025, highlighting the strength and growth of its IB and affiliate network in the region. The company also achieved two major honours at the Middle East Financial Markets Awards Dubai 2025: the "Top 100 Trusted Financial Institutions Award" (3rd Edition), and recognition for Pavel Spirin, CEO of Scope Markets, among the Top 50 CEOs in Financial Markets. Together, these accolades underscore the company’s leadership, innovation, and sustained impact in one of the world’s fastest-growing financial hubs.  Pavel Spirin, commented:  “There’s no escaping the fact that Dubai is rapidly becoming the next global financial hub, but as a business we understand the way to maximise the potential here is to tailor our product offering and meet the local geographic need. That’s why for years, across the MENA region we have been providing local language support and access to relevant markets. The creation of proprietary index CFDs to mirror the performance of local markets has further cemented our popularity in the region.”  This localisation strategy has delivered tangible results. In 2023, Scope Markets initiated a partnership with First Abu Dhabi Bank, whilst in 2024, the brokerage launched its AD15 and DXBI proprietary index CFDs, enabling seamless global access to instruments which mirror the performance major underlying equity markets. Over 60 CFDs reflecting single stocks listed on both the Dubai and Abu Dhabi index have also been incorporated into the tradable universe, providing investors globally with increased access to UAE financial markets through familiar, locally priced instruments.  The momentum is reflected in market data. The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) saw a 16 per cent year-on-year increase in wealth and asset managers, whilst Dubai’s IPO market captured 2.2 per cent of global IPO volumes in 2024, highlighting the region’s rising engagement and influence.  Pavel Spirin, added:  “We have already established a meaningful presence in the MENA market with increased interest from the UAE, and we look forward to building on this. In the past few days, members of Scope Markets teams from across the globe have been in Dubai, participating in industry events like the annual Forex Expo and the Smart Vision Middle East Financial Markets Awards. Occasions such as these allow us to connect with existing and prospective customers alike, ensuring we can continue to develop our product set in a way that always maintains relevance with the markets we want to serve.”  From its network of physical offices, Scope Markets serves clients in almost 200 countries across the globe, offering online access to more than 40,000 tradable assets.  

The Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) is inviting applications for a new training programme catering for women seeking to return to the capital market after a career break.  The initiative, known as investED for Returning Women, is open to professionals aged 50 or below, who have been out of the workforce for up to 10 years, and who last worked in the capital market or a public listed company.   Supported by a few partners, investED for Returning Women is aligned with the Government’s Budget 2025 announcement, which has called for inclusive growth by promoting gender diversity and inclusive economic development. The partners for the programme are the 30% Club Malaysia, LeadWomen Sdn Bhd, Securities Industry Development Corporation (SIDC), PricewaterhouseCoopers Malaysia Holdings Sdn Bhd (PwC) and Talent Corporation Malaysia Berhad. investED for Returning Women builds on the success of the investED Leadership Programme, launched by the SC, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Higher Education in 2023 to develop a new generation of capital market leaders. The first cohort of investED for Returning Women will be limited to 100 people, primarily professionals in middle management roles. From next month, participants will undergo a two-month comprehensive programme to refresh their skills and equip them with the right competencies to succeed in the job market. These will include mentorship and career clinics alongside personalised guidance, practical insights, and professional networking opportunities. They will receive RM2,000 in incentive and a certificate upon completion of the programme.   Applications are open from 8 to 31 October 2025. All submissions will undergo a selection process before candidates are shortlisted. Interested candidates can apply directly by submitting their application through the investED website.   The programme also accepts curriculum vitaes from the TalentCorp Career Comeback Programme database.   For more information, please visit https://www.invested.my/invested-for-women/.  

LSEG announces it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each from Goldman Sachs International ("GSI") on the London Stock Exchange as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 04 August 2025. Date of purchase: 07 October 2025 Aggregate number of ordinary shares purchased: 279,588 Lowest price paid per share: 85.3800 Highest price paid per share: 87.6400 Average price paid per share: 86.2986   LSEG intends to hold the purchased shares in treasury. Following the above transaction, LSEG holds 23,111,276 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury and has 520,488,690 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares). Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 520,488,690. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules. In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (the Market Abuse Regulation) (as such legislation forms part of retained EU law as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter), a full breakdown of the individual purchases by GSI on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/4563C_1-2025-10-7.pdf  This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction.   Schedule of Purchases   Shares purchased: 279,588 (ISIN: GB00B0SWJX34)   Date of purchases: 07 October 2025   Investment firm: GSI   Aggregated information:     Venue Volume-weighted average price Aggregated volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share London Stock Exchange 86.2744 239,588 85.3800 87.6400 Turquoise 86.4432 40,000 86.0000 87.6000

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) announces that trading in the shares of Verisure plc (ticker: VSURE) will commence today on the Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market. Verisure is the 31st company to be admitted to trading on Nasdaq’s Nordic and Baltic markets* in 2025. Founded in Sweden in 1988, Verisure is now the leading provider of professionally monitored security services with 24/7 response in Europe and Latin America. Every day, Verisure teams use leading technology to Deter, Detect, Verify and Intervene to protect over 5.8 million families and small businesses from intruders, fire, life-threatening emergencies and other hazards across 17 countries. With over 35 years of insights, experience and innovation, Verisure is known for category-creating marketing, sales excellence, innovative products and services, and customer-centricity. "Listing on Nasdaq Stockholm is a major milestone on our journey which started in Sweden over 35 years ago and has led Verisure to become the market leader we are today. The listing will enable us to gain access to Swedish and international capital markets, take full advantage of our exciting opportunities for future growth and to build a relationship with our new shareholders. I look forward to leading the company in this next chapter and to delivering lasting value for our colleagues, customers, partners and investors," says Austin Lally, CEO of Verisure. "We are proud to welcome Verisure to the Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market as they begin this exciting new chapter. Following Telia’s landmark IPO in 2000, Verisure now stands as the largest initial public offering on Nasdaq Stockholm by total transaction volume and the biggest European IPO in three years. This achievement underscores the continued strength and appeal of Nasdaq Stockholm as the listing venue of choice for Europe’s leading companies," says Adam Kostyál, Head of European Listings at Nasdaq and President of Nasdaq Stockholm. Euroclear Sweden has contributed in the admission of Verisure to trading on the Nasdaq Stockholm Main Market through the opening of their CSD-links. This facilitates trading of foreign shares that are settled in Sweden through Euroclear. It also opens for the possibility of listings of other foreign companies at Nasdaq Stockholm. *Main markets and Nasdaq First North at Nasdaq Copenhagen, Nasdaq Helsinki, Nasdaq Iceland and Nasdaq Stockholm as well as Nasdaq Baltic.

The Athens Stock Exchange proudly welcomes the decision of global index provider FTSE Russell to upgrade the Greek capital market from “Advanced Emerging Market” to “Developed Market” status.The official announcement was published on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, after the close of U.S. market.This upgrade represents a major international recognition of the significant progress and structural reforms implemented in recent years at the Athens Stock Exchange and underscores the growing attractiveness of the Greek capital market to international investors.The new market classification will take effect at the opening of trading on Monday, September 21, 2026, allowing the investment community a full year to prepare for the transition.Yianos Kontopoulos, CEO of the Athens Exchange Group, commented:“The reclassification of the Athens Stock Exchange to Developed Market status by FTSE Russell is a landmark achievement. It validates our ongoing strategy to upgrade our infrastructure and services, positioning the Greek capital market alongside the world’s most established exchanges.This development is also expected to significantly expand the pool of international investors eligible to invest in the Greek capital market, attracting substantial capital inflows from funds tracking Developed Market indices. It is a development that creates new opportunities for growth and financing for our listed companies.”The Athens Stock Exchange remains committed to working closely with global index providers and the investment community to ensure a smooth transition to Developed Market status.

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today reported monthly volumes for September 2025, as well as quarterly volumes, estimated revenue capture, number of listings, and index statistics for the quarter ended September 30, 2025, on its Investor Relations website. A data sheet showing this information can be found at: http://ir.nasdaq.com/financials/volume-statistics.

Welcome to the 2025 community banking research conference. While I regret that I cannot join you in person this year, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions this conference has made and continues to make in promoting research on community banking and related issues. Since 2013, this conference has synthesized insights and perspectives from research and regulatory and banking communities with a single goal: deepening our understanding of the community bank business model in order to better inform future policy decisions. We share this goal, and the sponsorship of this event with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). We are proud of this ongoing partnership with CSBS and FDIC and the effort to further actionable bank industry research. As the former Kansas state bank commissioner and a community banker, I very much appreciate the goals of this conference. And again this year, the organizers have included valuable research and created a conference program that includes a wide range of perspectives that create an opportunity for discussion and debate. Ensuring the future and viability of the community banking industry continues to be a top priority, especially as the President appointed me to serve as the Vice Chair for Supervision of the Federal Reserve Board. This position, which was created under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, requires the Vice Chair to "develop policy recommendations for the Board regarding supervision and regulation of depository institution holding companies and other financial firms supervised by the Board" and to also "oversee the supervision and regulation" of these firms. It is an honor and an absolute privilege to be entrusted with these important responsibilities, and I look forward to working with all of our stakeholders in the financial industry to modernize supervision and regulation that allows for continued economic growth and innovation in the banking system and that enhances the critical role of community banks. Community banks are the cornerstone of local economies, providing credit to local customers and businesses with few alternatives for accessing financial services. The community bank relationship model requires just that relationship. Direct knowledge of and a connection with the community, which makes this banking model truly unique and even more valuable. But this model continues to face challenges—challenges that I am confident this conference will explore in greater detail that will help us to inform future policy developments. When I spoke at this conference last year, I described a framework for community banking regulation for the future. In those remarks, I discussed the necessary building blocks for building an effective framework, which include reviewing, reconsidering, and indexing the asset size thresholds that are used throughout our current supervisory and regulatory framework; gaining a better understanding of the tradeoffs of regulation; identifying the hidden costs of supervision and supervisory guidance; streamlining the mergers and acquisitions review and approval process; and identifying ways to promote new bank formation. Since that time, the Federal Reserve has already launched several initiatives to advance these goals, but there's more work ahead. We are refocusing supervisory efforts on core material financial risks, reviewing the CAMELS ratings framework, revising the community bank leverage ratio, and considering ways to improve the treatment of mutual banks. We are also prioritizing work to assist in the fight against fraud. In the coming years, this conference will be an important mechanism for continuing to explore challenges facing the banking industry, and especially community banks. And with the work we are undertaking, we will continue to prioritize changes to the community bank regulatory and supervisory framework that will allow community banks to continue to thrive. Over the years, this conference has highlighted the important role community banks play in our economy, the impacts of regulation on our banks, the disproportionate cost burden from regulation on our nation's smallest banks, and the importance of having a strong diversified network of community banks. It is critical that our regulatory and supervisory framework continues to support a network of these banks across and throughout the country so that they are positioned to support the economy and to meet the credit needs of their communities. As I work with staff across the Federal Reserve to enhance the Fed's supervision of banks, I'm reminded how the research presented at this conference over the years, along with the findings from the CSBS annual survey of community banks, has consistently demonstrated the need for regulatory tailoring. This has given us a better perspective to understand and measure the cost of compliance. In short, this conference truly matters. Each year, the research presented here moves us forward; improves our understanding; and, combined with other insights from key stakeholders and our own experiences, enables us to make better regulatory and supervisory decisions. From the first year of the conference in 2013, we've seen a number of changes in the banking and financial systems, in our economy, and in our supervisory and regulatory structures. The research presented here each year has evolved with these changes and has delivered critical and timely insights. I'm so pleased that this conference has not strayed from its original mission and continues to provide a forum for the discussion of thoughtful, timely research into our country's unique community banking business model. Community banks are vital to the U.S. economy and to the thousands of smaller local economies they serve across the country. It's important that we continue to study and understand the important role they play. This conference helps to increase this understanding. In addition to presenting thoughtful research, it provides an opportunity for open dialogue between community bankers, academics, regulators, and policymakers. In these ever-changing times, the unique combination of research presented in combination with real-world perspectives provides insights that help to ensure that the community banking model endures well into the future. This conference is just one aspect of the Federal Reserve System's engagement on issues affecting community banks. Outreach to banks of all sizes, including community banks, has been a top priority for my work because your voices must be a part of the conversation in Washington. In a few days, the Board will host a Community Bank Conference in D.C., bringing together bankers, industry experts, and other stakeholders to discuss and identify the most relevant issues facing the industry. This event will be live-streamed on the Board's website and will include several unique and exciting speakers and panelists, covering a number of current issues. Thank you for your continued interest and engagement in supporting this conference. 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. 

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould issued the following statement today at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) board meeting about his areas of focus in his capacity as an FDIC board member: Thank you for the warm welcome to the FDIC board. I am very excited to work with Acting FDIC Chairman Hill and Director Vought to advance the President’s agenda on matters both interagency and FDIC-specific. With respect to the former, we will be considering several interagency initiatives today in which the OCC and FDIC teams worked collaboratively and that exemplify how the interagency process works best. With respect to FDIC-specific matters, I intend to focus on and look forward to working with the Acting Chairman on the following areas: 1.  Rebuilding resolution execution capabilities. I want to distinguish specifically here between resolution “execution”—the ability to take actions that facilitate orderly resolution—and resolution “planning”—the hypothetical exercise of how an organization would or should fail. I am skeptical of the efficacy of the latter as well as, in some cases, the legality of related agency requirements and expectations. On the other hand, resolution execution is one of the FDIC’s core functions, and I will be focused on ensuring that the FDIC has the capabilities to carry out these core functions effectively. Relatedly, and as I have previously said in Congressional testimony following the bank failures of 2023, I believe greater transparency into the FDIC’s actions during that time should inform our efforts to improve its resolution execution in the future. 2.  Clarifying the agency’s approach to the management of the Deposit Insurance Fund. The methodologies employed by the agency to calculate insurance premiums or determine ratings that affect premiums, whether in the ordinary course or for special assessments, have, at times, lacked clarity and have spawned litigation, gaming or both. Insurance premiums should be clear, fair, and designed to limit market distortions. 3.  Addressing remaining issues around agency culture. I know the FDIC has already taken a number of steps under Acting Chairman Hill’s leadership to address these past abuses and restore a culture of accountability. I look forward to supporting his continued reform efforts. 4.  Reforming the FDIC’s process for evaluating deposit insurance applications. The agency’s approach since the Financial Crisis has been an impediment to the chartering of new banks in this country. This needs to change if we want to restore a dynamic banking system. As the statutory factors for granting deposit insurance are largely taken into account by the chartering authority, the FDIC should perform a circumscribed review, as it did in the years following the enactment of FDICIA. The OCC is committed to collaborating with the FDIC to align and improve upon our de novo bank application process. It is vitally important for all federal banking agencies to have clear and transparent application processes with established timeframes that are actually followed absent extraordinary circumstances, whether for chartering, deposit insurance, business combinations, or other applications. 5.  Supporting state bank preemption rights. Federal preemption is not the exclusive purview of the federal banking system. In the 1997 amendments to the Riegle-Neal Act, Congress put state banks on parity with national banks when it comes to preemption of state laws affecting host state branches. Similarly, state banks benefit from interest rate preemption under Section 27 of the FDI Act. State banks should get the benefit of this federal preemption, and I encourage the FDIC to take additional steps to support these Congressionally-granted rights. 6.  Updating our understanding of bank funding. The FDIC, like the OCC, still utilizes funding and deposit categories that do not have clear predictive value when it comes to managing liquidity risk. We should re-examine these antiquated notions and develop a more flexible predictive framework going forward, including for assessments. 7.  Supporting community banks. The FDIC supervises more community banks than any other federal banking agency. These institutions are vitally important to our economy and our local communities. For too long, regulation and supervision have been insufficiently tailored for community banks, which has hampered their ability to serve our communities and drive economic growth. The Acting Chairman is already taking steps to deliver relief on this front. I support these efforts, and the OCC is moving in similar fashion. I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence in letting me outline my areas of focus, and I look forward to working with him and Director Vought on these and other matters. I am confident that the FDIC is now back on track under the Acting Chairman’s leadership. Related Link Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould

In light of World Investor Week (Oct. 6-12), the FINRA Investor Education Foundation (FINRA Foundation) released today first-look findings from its forthcoming report, “Investors in the United States: A Report of the National Financial Capability Study,” which will be published in December. The report provides an in-depth exploration of the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and experiences of retail investors in the United States. As part of the study, researchers asked a sample of investors across the United States a question about investment fraud: If you heard about an investment opportunity that promises a guaranteed, risk-free 25% annual return every year for the next 5 years, would you invest in it?1. Yes2. No3. Don’t know  Despite describing guaranteed and very high investment returns, two hallmarks of investment fraud, half of respondents (50%) indicated they would invest in the hypothetical offer, indicating a lack of recognition about the warning signs of fraud. Investors who are younger, less experienced and less knowledgeable about investing are even more likely to say they would invest in the “opportunity.” The data further reveals that investors who engage with investments that can carry greater risk, such as cryptocurrencies and meme stocks, as well as those who rely on social media for financial information, are particularly open to a hypothetical investment that promises much more than it can deliver. Would invest in a “guaranteed high-return” opportunity Notably, the differences by income in the proportion of investors willing to invest in the hypothetical offer were less pronounced, with only four percentage-points separating those earning under $50,000 and those earning $100,000 or more.   Would invest in a “guaranteed high-return” opportunity “These findings reveal that a concerning number of investors might be vulnerable to investment fraud,” said Gerri Walsh, President of the FINRA Foundation. “All investments involve some level of risk, and investors must understand their own risk tolerance to make informed decisions. At the same time, investors must learn to spot the red flags of investment fraud—including the promise of little to no risk with unusually high returns,” she said. The full report, part of the FINRA Foundation’s triennial National Financial Capability Study, will provide comprehensive insights to help financial professionals, educators, regulators and others serve and protect investors of all backgrounds and experience levels. Additional findings: Investing knowledge: Investors with high investing knowledge were less likely to invest in the hypothetical opportunity than those with low investing knowledge. Thirty-six percent of those with high investing knowledge report they would invest, compared to 49% of those with low investing knowledge. Crypto and meme stock investors: More crypto investors report they would invest in this “opportunity” than non-crypto investors (65% vs. 44%, respectively), while those who have purchased a meme-stock or viral investment are even more likely to look favorably upon the hypothetical investment than those who have not purchased a meme stock (77% vs. 45%, respectively). Influenced by social media personalities: Almost three-quarters (72%) of study respondents who at least sometimes make investing decisions based on the advice of a social media personality said they would invest in the hypothetical opportunity. The survey found those relying on social media would be much more likely to invest than those who don’t (69% vs. 42%, respectively). About the National Financial Capability Study In 2009, the FINRA Investor Education Foundation launched the first national study of financial capability of adults in the United States. Since its start, the National Financial Capability Study has provided data on multiple indicators of capability—including financial behaviors, attitudes and knowledge. National Financial Capability Study survey data is collected every three years. The Investor Survey is an online survey of 2,861 U.S. adults who have investments outside of retirement accounts. The data provides detailed information on a wide range of investing topics, such as attitudes towards risk and investing, investor knowledge, and reliance on so-called “finfluencers.” More information about the National Financial Capability Study—including reports, data and interactive data visualizations—can be found at www.finrafoundation.org/nfcs.

Nodal Exchange today announced growth in power, environmental and natural gas trading. In power, Nodal set a calendar month record for September 2025 with 301 million MWh of traded power futures volume, up 18% from the prior year.  Nodal also achieved a Q3 trading record with 725 million MWh of traded power futures volume, up 9% from the prior year. Nodal continues to be the market leader in North American power futures having the majority share of the open interest with 1.504 billion MWh at the end of September. Environmental futures and options on Nodal Exchange posted volume in September 2025 of 59,054 lots, and in Q3 of 161,684 lots. Open interest ended the month and quarter at 410,998 lots, up 3% from a year earlier. Nodal also achieved 33% YoY growth for natural gas futures volumes for the calendar month of September. “I am pleased to see strong performance across all of our markets and record volumes in power for both the calendar month and the third quarter,” said Paul Cusenza, Chairman and CEO of Nodal Exchange and Nodal Clear. “We are proud to serve these markets and appreciate the ongoing support of this community.”

Minutes Date: 11 June 2025 Item 1: Welcome Nick McLaren (chair) welcomed members to the fifth meeting of the CBDC Academic Advisory Group. He gave a brief update on the upcoming Innovation in Money and Payments Conference highlighting the aim was to bring together academics, central bankers, and industry participants. He noted that the call for papers was open and encouraged members to consider participating and to share amongst their networks. The chair highlighted recent Bank publications: a design note focusing on digital pound intermediaries and an experiment report on offline payments. The chair outlined the agenda for the meeting where each of the five subgroups would give presentations updating the group on their work since the last meeting. Item 2: Subgroup presentation – Financial & Monetary Stability Subgroup headline question: Is a digital pound consistent with the BoE’s statutory objectives? The subgroup explained that a key theme from their work has been considering the risks of low adoption and around a failure to incentivise enough intermediaries to offer digital pound services. But set against that, there are also considerable risks around inaction and not developing a digital pound. In their view it was, therefore, right for the Bank to take a proactive but cautious approach to the design phase. They introduced insights from existing surveys and models, particularly focusing on the topic of adoption and disintermediation of the banking sector. On adoption, the subgroup highlighted challenges in CBDC-related modelling. Some approaches in the literature rely on theoretical assumptions based on other forms of money, or they use existing banking data. However, the subgroup proposed conducting surveys of households and businesses to improve the accuracy of models of CBDC adoption. It was noted that early adopters of CBDC are likely to be individuals already using digital assets. This is reflected by some responses to consumer research summarised in the Annex of the digital pound Consultation Paper. They also cited findings from a survey by The BundesbankOpens in a new window , which suggested adoption would vary across the population, influenced by factors such as inflation expectations, demographics, and trust. Bank for International Settlements researchOpens in a new window highlighted that privacy expectations could also be a key determinant of adoption. Turning to bank disintermediation, the subgroup noted an emerging consensus that CBDC could be welfare-enhancing, though it may also pose risks to financial stability. Two types of disintermediation were identified in the existing literature: slow (linked to CBDC substituting for bank deposits in normal times) and fast (associated with increased withdrawal risks during financial stress). The latter would pose greater risks to financial stability. To explore these dynamics in greater detail, the subgroup presented a UK-focused agent-based model, aiming to identify likely CBDC adopters, estimate expected adoption, and therefore support an assessment of systemic risk implications. The model does not include interoperability costs between different forms of money, as they are assumed to be zero. The model adopts Myerson’s binomial frameworkOpens in a new window, where individuals make a binary choice whether to adopt CBDC or not based on an initial probability of successful adoption. Therefore, there is a need to reach a critical mass of adoption before network effects can take over in driving further adoption. The subgroup summarised their suggestions for further considerations. These included exploring whether limits and remuneration of a digital pound could be tailored to support financial inclusion. They emphasised a need to balance the trade-off between mitigating disintermediation risks through the use of limits and not remunerating a digital pound, versus the public good benefits from universal provision of a new risk-free form of retail money. The group also suggested collaboration between central banks to ensure research and analysis are shared. Discussion Members questioned the model’s assumption that CBDC is primarily a store of wealth and not a means of payment, as this framing could overstate the risk of bank disintermediation. Members also discussed the differences between switching an account into a digital pound wallet versus the choice of whether to make an individual payment in a digital pound or alternative form of payment. They also discussed the impact a digital pound would have on existing digital asset markets, and the likelihood of secondary market pricing. Members determined that without full knowledge of banks’ liquidity positions, it is not possible to fully determine the financial stability risks of CBDC adoption. Item 3: Subgroup discussion – Security Subgroup headline question: Does the digital pound design proposition meet best practice for a secure provision? The subgroup presented an overview of privacy and governance considerations for a digital pound, raising questions around benchmarks, safeguards, and the Bank’s role in protecting both individual and collective privacy. One member challenged the assumption that current UK bank accounts and payment systems are the appropriate benchmark for a digital pound. The subgroup proposed that cash, particularly for everyday transactions, may offer a more meaningful standard, given its anonymity and public trust. They introduced a framework distinguishing between personal privacy (control over one’s own data), third-party privacy (where one person’s data may reveal information about others), and collective privacy (where aggregated data can shape societal or political outcomes). The subgroup highlighted that even though the Bank and HMT will not have access to personal information, there may still be implications to privacy due to data aggregation by private intermediaries. The subgroup questioned whether PIPs and ESIPs would be held to equivalent privacy standards and called for stronger safeguards on how these entities collect, use, and monetise data. They emphasised the need for users to be empowered to make informed choices, while also underlining the limitations of individual consent-based models. Instead, they supported structural protections, such as default privacy-preserving settings and regulatory mechanisms, to address the broader externalities of data sharing. The subgroup supported the Bank’s proposal for full anonymity at the core ledger level. They noted that pseudo-anonymity, seen in some blockchain systems, would not be sufficient. Examples from OpenCBDC and Project Hamilton were referenced to illustrate how transaction data can be anonymised effectively. The subgroup also highlighted challenges related to the UK’s lack of a national digital ID infrastructure, contrasting it with the EU’s progress on EUID. The subgroup raised concerns about the effectiveness in PIPs being able to carry out sufficient KYC and AML checks in the case where users can hold multiple wallets at different PIPs – although it was noted banks face similar challenges today. They encouraged the Bank to consider this as part of the design phase and consider the benefits of system-wide fraud analysis. Finally, the subgroup addressed the challenges and opportunities of offline and cross-border payments. They supported the introduction of offline payments for resilience and privacy, with the potential to replicate the anonymity of cash. However, cross-border use cases were flagged as complex, involving regulatory, enforcement, and data protection challenges. While the Bank’s consultation proposed that non-UK residents would be able to hold digital pounds, the subgroup called for greater clarity on the role of non-UK intermediaries and the need for international coordination to manage associated risks. Discussion One member asked whether there was a tension between regulatory KYC requirements and the use of privacy-enhancing technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs). It was clarified that while a user’s PIPs would know their customers’ identities, ZKPs could be used to validate transactions without exposing personal data to the core ledger, maintaining a balance between compliance and privacy. A discussion followed on whether the system should aim for perfection from the outset. One view stressed the importance of pragmatism – arguing that the current system already fails to protect privacy and that a ‘good enough’ solution could still offer meaningful improvements. Others cautioned that launching with an imperfect model could embed foundational flaws that are difficult to correct later. Concerns were raised about how restrictions on data use and monetisation might affect the competitiveness of PIPs, particularly in comparison to traditional payment systems. The potential impact on innovation and market dynamics was noted. Additionally, the balance of privacy for low-value transactions was questioned, with one member suggesting low value prepaid cards may be warranted. Item 4: Sarah Breeden Q&A session Sarah Breeden, Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, joined the meeting to provide members with her perspective on the Bank’s work on a digital pound and how this related to broader work on the future of retail and wholesale payments. She opened the session by expressing her appreciation for the work of the group, highlighting the value of its multidisciplinary expertise and diverse perspectives. She emphasised that the Bank deeply values the AAG’s contributions, particularly in areas outside our core areas of expertise, such as privacy, AML/KYC, and behavioural economics. The AAG’s work informs the Bank and HM Treasury’s assessment of the case for a digital pound. This includes evaluating the digital pound within the broader payments ecosystem. Sarah noted that the digital pound design phase is part of the Bank’s work across the payments landscape, including work on new forms of money such as retail and wholesale CBDC, tokenised deposits and stablecoins, as well as innovation in existing domestic and cross-border payment infrastructure. Sarah noted that the Bank’s work aligns with global developments and is being coordinated with other UK authorities, notably HM Treasury. She stressed the importance of supporting innovation, resilience, and effective governance across the financial system. Discussion One member asked whether the digital pound should be considered in isolation or as part of a wider account-to-account payments strategy. Sarah agreed that the Bank’s work is considering the full payments ecosystem, including improvements to account-to-account infrastructure, tokenised deposits, and stablecoins. A key area of focus was how to achieve interoperability across these different forms of money and infrastructures. Members also raised concerns about public understanding and the implications for adoption of a digital pound. Anecdotal evidence illustrated the high cost of current payment methods and the need for simpler, more affordable alternatives. The importance of early public education was emphasised, with examples showing how informed debate can shift public opinion. Sarah agreed that public engagement was an important part of the digital pound work, noting citizen panels and academic outreach are being used to gather public perspectives. At this stage engagement was focused on payments industry and more expert audiences, but if a decision were made to progress with a digital pound, then further engagement with the broader public would be necessary. Questions were also raised about the benefits and costs of disintermediation of the banking sector. One member argued that a digital pound could enhance stability by offering the public a risk-free alternative to commercial bank money and reducing systemic risk. Sarah noted it’s also important to consider the impact on lending and the cost of credit. Members asked about the sequencing of payments innovation, and how the Bank would define success or failure. Sarah responded that the Bank’s focus was on achieving public policy objectives such as stability, innovation, and resilience. Item 5: Subgroup discussion – Innovation Subgroup headline question: Is a digital pound likely to meet the core objective of payments innovation? The subgroup presented findings from their literature review to explore whether a digital pound could catalyse innovation in the UK. The presentation focused on two key themes: payment system efficiency and financial inclusion. Kyeyoung Shin (Saïd Business School, University of Oxford) was invited to join this session, reflecting his contribution to research conducted for the subgroup. In terms of payment system efficiency, the subgroup highlighted that CBDCs could streamline payments by reducing intermediation, enabling faster settlement, supporting 24/7 availability, and fostering competition and innovation. They also offer potential for improved cross-border functionality and user driven programmability. However, challenges include high development costs, the presence of existing digital payment systems, private sector inertia, and risks related to interoperability and cybersecurity. The subgroup observed that while CBDCs have potential to improve financial inclusion, they are not a universal solution. Their impact depends heavily on design and implementation. Opportunities identified include enabling offline functionality, tiered KYC to reach unbanked populations, reducing merchant acceptance costs, and using smart contracts to support inclusive financial tools. CBDCs could also serve as gateways to broader financial services such as credit, savings, and insurance. However, barriers remain which may limit adoption, particularly among marginalised groups. The subgroup discussed which potential use cases for a digital pound might prove of most unique value. In particular, they noted that offline capabilities could support digital resilience. It recommended evaluating innovations based on their time to impact, and their alignment with public policy goals. The presentation also included a case study on China’s retail CBDC, e-CNY, which launched in 2020 and has since expanded to 28 cities. Despite promotion – including salary payments, discounts, and giveaways – adoption remains relatively limited, with e-CNY accounting for just 0.16% of China’s cash-equivalent money supply. Platforms like AliPay and WeChat Pay, which already offer low transaction fees, have limited the incentive to use e-CNY. The subgroup also raised Project mBridgeOpens in a new window, where cross-border CBDC transactions have demonstrated significant efficiency gains compared to SWIFT. These developments were presented as valuable international lessons for the UK’s own exploration of cross-border functionality. Discussion Members discussed ‘multi-homing’, referring to consumers using multiple digital payment platforms simultaneously. It was noted that merchants are generally open to accepting multiple forms of payment, especially when integration is seamless. While platforms like AliPay and WeChat Pay charge fees, these are often lower than other forms of payment system, making them attractive to merchants. One member questioned the relevance of China’s experience for countries like the UK, where debit cards are more common. The issue of interoperability between e-CNY and private platforms was also discussed. It was confirmed that transfers between platforms are now possible. Greater transferability is seen as key to driving adoption and reducing platform dominance. It was suggested that mBridge’s effectiveness may be limited without broader CBDC adoption. Members also discussed tiered wallet access, particularly for foreign users. It was explained that KYC requirements for lower-value wallets may be lower, though a fixed mobile number is typically required. This requirement may be a constraint on foreign users, who often rely on disposable numbers. The discussion concluded with broad agreement that a digital pound has strong potential to support payments innovation in the UK. However, its success will depend on thoughtful design, ecosystem readiness, and overcoming barriers such as public trust and the dominance of existing platforms. It was also noted that there may be other ways to achieve these goals, through existing or other new digital payments platforms and infrastructure. Item 6: Bank presentation on the Digital Pound Lab The Bank presented an update on the newly launched Digital Pound Lab, a significant step in its practical experimentation phase. The Lab is designed to test real-world use cases in a controlled environment and is intended to inform, but not determine, the final design of a digital pound. It was emphasised that the Lab is not a pilot and does not involve real money or users. Instead, it serves as an experimental platform for industry participants to explore potential use cases and business models. The Lab’s objectives include: Co-creating and testing use cases with industry Assessing the viability of emerging business models Identifying features that support or hinder innovation Informing the Bank’s broader thinking on digital currency technology The infrastructure of the Lab is based on the platform model. The Lab will operate in two phases. The first phase will last up to three months and involve up to six firms. Phase one will test predefined use cases, including: Point-of-sale payments Micro-merchant acceptance Omnichannel payments Tourist wallets Salary payments Business-to-business conditional payments Tiered wallets The second phase is a broader call for participation, inviting firms to propose their own innovative use cases. Applications for this phase will open in July, and the second phase is expected to last around 9 months. Findings from the Lab will be shared through demo events, experiment reports, and public statements from participating firms. Discussion Members asked whether data generated in the Lab could be shared with academics. The Bank confirmed that only synthetic data would be used, but noted the potential for academic collaboration with participants in the Lab. Clarification was sought on the distinction between third-party initiation and smart contracts, particularly given the instant nature of digital pound payments. It was explained that the Lab will include functionality to support atomic settlement between tokenised assets in a smart contract platform and digital pound payments in the core system. The role of software development kits (SDKs) was also discussed. The Bank noted that the Lab would help assess how easily firms can innovate using the infrastructure, and feedback from participants may inform future SDK development. One member asked whether participants in the Lab are incentivised to participate. The Bank confirmed that participants would not be paid but that the Bank is interested in understanding their business perspectives and motivations. The potential for the Lab’s infrastructure to support broader account-to-account payments was also discussed. It was suggested that, even if a digital pound is some way off, the Lab could help inform improvements to the wider payments system. The Bank agreed that while the architecture may differ, lessons from the Lab could support broader payments innovation. Item 7: Subgroup discussion – Uniformity & Alternatives Subgroup headline question: Is a digital pound likely to meet the core objective of money uniformity, and is it the best option? The subgroup first set out their working definition of uniformity, defined as a fixed 1:1 exchange rate between different forms of money. It was clarified that, in their definition, uniformity does not imply identical features across money types, but rather equal valuation at the margin. The group noted that full uniformity requires at least one side of the market (supply or demand) to be highly elastic. This has implications for proposed design features such as holding limits, which may restrict elasticity and undermine uniformity, in extremis. In contrast, remuneration was suggested as a tool that could help maintain indifference between forms of money. The subgroup argued that uniformity is desirable because it reduces transaction costs, supports the public good function of the unit of account, and reinforces the central bank’s role in maintaining monetary sovereignty. They explored the trade-offs involved in pursuing uniformity. While some view it as an all-or-nothing concept, the group noted that economists typically consider marginal trade-offs and that there are some historical monetary regimes where uniformity did not hold at all times and across all forms of money. A key question raised was whether the acceptable trade-off should be determined by the market or by government policy. The group also examined whether retail access to central bank money is necessary to support uniformity. While the academic literature is not conclusive on whether it plays an essential role in underpinning public trust e, it may play a role in reinforcing the unit of account and monetary sovereignty. The subgroup concluded that the more channels available for converting between different forms of money, the stronger the reinforcement of uniformity. In closing, the subgroup stated that while they do not believe a digital pound is not strictly necessary to achieve uniformity, it could significantly support it. They proposed three areas for further research: What are the critical margins needed to safeguard a fixed exchange rate? Does retail access to central bank money foster trust in the monetary system? What are the indirect effects of a digital pound on uniformity? Discussion One member suggested that uniformity should be considered in both normal and stressed conditions. In times of stress, differences in the attributes of various forms of money could amplify instability, particularly for less-informed users who may struggle to distinguish between them. The role of a digital pound in enhancing monetary and financial stability was discussed, particularly in contrast to emerging non-bank payment solutions like stablecoins. Members discussed how limits and the existence of deposit insurance may influence how a digital pound was viewed. The chair suggested members consider a state of the world where a broader range of new digital monies emerge. Members agreed on the importance of a stable and trusted unit of account. It was argued that the long-term case for a digital pound lies in providing a simple, reliable unit of account without relying on a complex network of regulated institutions. The Bank has a role to ensure public access to a trusted benchmark to anchor the monetary system. Others noted that while a digital pound could support growth as a base settlement asset, near-term priorities should focus on solving practical issues, such as high transaction costs for small businesses. The discussion also touched on international comparisons. It was noted that India’s UPI system has achieved significant digitisation without a CBDC, although the Reserve Bank of India was still considering the adoption of a retail CBDC as part of the UPI. The session concluded with reflections on the broader implications of uniformity. Some members questioned whether the existing system was the right benchmark. Current approaches may not be optimal, and the future may demand new solutions. Item 8: Subgroup discussion – Public and Private Subgroup headline question: Can a digital pound be financially viable for the public sector and private sector participants? The subgroup presented their analysis on the financial viability of a digital pound, reframing the question beyond infrastructure costs and revenue models to focus on adoption dynamics, market competition, and incentive structures from both public and private sector perspectives. The presentation was structured around eight key themes: Adoption and scalability – it was emphasised that widespread adoption by both consumers and merchants is essential for a digital pound to achieve the scale necessary to justify investment. The interdependence between consumer and merchant uptake was identified as a central challenge, with demand-side behaviours playing a critical role. Current and future payments landscape – the group highlighted the growing complexity of the payments ecosystem, driven by mobile wallets, buy-now-pay-later services, peer-to-peer platforms, and embedded payments. Large platforms create lock-in effects that pose challenges for new entrants like a digital pound. Geopolitical and regulatory drivers – communications by policymakers on the digital euro have emphasised the importance of maintaining monetary sovereignty and reducing reliance on non-European payment providers. Initiatives like the digital euro and regulatory frameworks such as the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) are shaping the future of digital payments infrastructure in the EU. Consumer behaviour and preferences – research suggests UK consumers value real-time payments, cross-device accessibility, simplicity, and customisation. Trust and privacy remain essential. While transactional use of cash is declining, it remains very important for certain groups and continues to be held by a large portion of the population. Data-driven services, such as budgeting tools and loyalty programmes, are becoming standard expectations and should be considered in the digital pound’s design. Merchant incentives and barriers to adoption – research suggests merchants are motivated by lower transaction fees, reduced chargebacks, and operational efficiency. However, integration costs, technical complexity, and lack of interoperability with existing systems remain significant barriers. Adoption is likely to vary by sector, with retail and hospitality showing higher potential. Design and communication – design features such as privacy, user defined programmability, settlement speed, and budgeting tools were identified as key levers for adoption. Communication strategies, particularly short educational videos, can improve consumer understanding and willingness to adopt. Behavioural economics suggests that awareness, trust, and perceived utility often outweigh rational cost-benefit analysis. Chicken-and-egg problem – the group addressed the two-sided market dilemma: consumers won’t adopt without merchant acceptance, and vice versa. Three potential solutions were proposed: Interoperability with existing payment systems Incentives for early adopters Strategic partnerships with incumbent players Policy and strategic considerations – the subgroup suggested a digital pound should be positioned as a strategic asset for the UK’s financial infrastructure. Delays in developing a digital pound could risk entrenching private alternatives and weakening public control over digital money ecosystems. Financial viability will depend on clear purpose, robust ecosystem design, and targeted adoption strategies. Discussion Members discussed that merchant service charges in the UK vary significantly by merchant size. Additional fees from facilitators can often increase costs for small businesses. One member noted the potentially regressive nature of the current system, where high-income consumers often benefit more from credit card rewards which are paid for through merchant fees, and ultimately consumers. This dynamic may partly reinforce a payment structure that favours cards over lower-cost alternatives such as a digital pound. Concerns were raised about the business model for PIPs. Without clear revenue streams, participation may be unattractive for both incumbents and new entrants. The failure of PayM in the UK was cited as a cautionary example. The importance of a balanced value proposition across consumers, merchants, and intermediaries was emphasised. It was noted that achieving lower fees for merchants, value-added services for consumers, and commercial viability for intermediaries is essential. The challenge of the Day 1 proposition, when user numbers and features could be limited, was also highlighted. Members discussed the timeline for the potential launch of a digital pound. It was argued that too long a timeline risks entrenching private digital money solutions and weakening the UK’s strategic position. Some members felt a digital pound should be seen as a response to global competition and a tool for monetary sovereignty, not merely a technical upgrade. Item 9: Closing remarks The chair thanked all presenters and participants for their contributions throughout the day, noting the ability to draw connections across the different subgroups had been especially valuable. The chair noted the forthcoming Innovation in Money and Payments conference in September and said the group would likely meet again towards the end of the year to summarise the work. Attendees Nick McLaren (chair) Members Alexander Edmund Voorhoeve, London School of Economics Anna Omarini, Bocconi University Alistair Milne, Loughborough University Andrew Theo Levin, Dartmouth College Bill Buchanan, Edinburgh Napier University Burcu Yüksel Ripley, University of Aberdeen Danae Stanton Fraser, University of Bath Darren Duxbury, Newcastle University David Robert Skeie, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick Davide Romelli, Trinity College Dublin Dirk Niepelt, University of Bern & CEPR Doh-Shin Jeon, Toulouse School of Economics Gbenga Ibikunle, University of Edinburgh Iwa Salami, University of East London Jonathan Michie, Kellogg College, University of Oxford Marta F. Arroyabe, University of Essex Michael Cusumano, Sloan School of Management, MIT Sheri Marina Markose, University of Essex Non members Kyeyoung Shin, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford Sarah Breeden, Bank of England Apologies Pinar Ozcan, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

We are consulting on an industry-wide scheme to compensate motor finance customers who were treated unfairly between 2007 and 2024. A compensation scheme is the best way to ensure consumers who have lost out receive fair compensation in an orderly, consistent, quick, and efficient way, while ensuring a well-functioning and competitive motor finance market. An alternative to a compensation scheme would require consumers to complain to firms, then to the Financial Ombudsman Service if dissatisfied with the firm’s response, or through the courts. This would result in significantly higher administrative and legal costs for firms and consumers, lengthy delays and uncertain outcomes for all involved. Why are we proposing a scheme? Many firms broke laws and regulations in force at the time by failing to disclose important information. Our extensive review, covering data from 32m agreements, found widespread failures to adequately disclose the existence and nature of commission and contractual ties between lenders and brokers. Of the agreements reviewed involving a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) - where the broker could adjust the interest rate offered to a customer to obtain a higher commission - there was no evidence that the customer had been told about the DCA. On 1 August 2025, the Supreme Court found a lender acted unfairly – and therefore unlawfully - because of the high, undisclosed commission paid to the broker and the failure to disclose a contractual tie. On 17 December 2024, the High Court ruled that the Financial Ombudsman was entitled to find that a dealer and lender did not adequately disclose a discretionary commission arrangement and that meant the relationship between the lender and the borrower was unfair. Inadequate disclosure means consumers were unable to make informed decisions and less likely to negotiate or shop around. Consequently, many may have overpaid on car finance. There is now sufficient legal clarity to move ahead with a compensation scheme. Scope and design of redress scheme The scheme would cover regulated motor finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 where commission was payable by the lender to the broker. The Financial Ombudsman and courts consider complaints from 6 April 2007 and therefore firms’ liabilities arising from their breaches of the law and regulation already exist. The end date is based on when we know firms moved to more transparent practices following the Court of Appeal judgment on 24th October 2024 that was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The majority of motor finance agreements will not qualify for compensation. We estimate 14.2m agreements – 44% of all agreements made since 2007 – will be considered unfair because they involve inadequate disclosure of one or more of the following: a discretionary commission arrangement high commission (where the commission is equal to or greater than 35% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan) contractual ties that gave a lender exclusivity or a right of first refusal. Our 35%/10% threshold is the point at which our analysis best indicates that borrowing costs may have been more strongly affected by the commission, such that its size would likely to have been a major consideration in the consumer's mind had they been aware of it when they took out the loan. We are inviting feedback on the proposed definition of high commission for the scheme and providing data on alternative thresholds. We make clear that these thresholds are solely for the purpose of the design of this redress scheme and should not be read across to any other retail financial services market. We propose enabling lenders to rebut the presumption of unfairness in some limited circumstances. For example, lenders would be entitled to determine there was no unfair relationship under the scheme if: there is evidence of adequate disclosure of the relevant arrangement in question, or in cases only featuring a DCA, the lender can provide evidence that the broker selected the lowest interest rate at which they would not have made any additional commission, or disclosure of the relevant arrangement in question was inadequate, but the lender can provide evidence that the consumer was sufficiently sophisticated to have nonetheless been aware of the relevant feature(s). Furthermore, those with a motor finance complaint about inadequate disclosure of a commission or tie that doesn’t involve one of the three features above would therefore not receive compensation under the scheme. They would have the right to test this with the Financial Ombudsman, but would only get a different outcome if it decides the scheme rules weren’t followed. They could still make a claim in court. Opt in / opt out We estimate there are already just over 4 million complaints with firms. We propose lenders contact consumers who complained before the scheme starts within 3 months. They will be included in the scheme unless they opt out. If consumers opt out of the scheme, they cannot opt back in. Consumers who have not complained when the scheme starts would be contacted within 6 months, where lenders can identify them, and asked if they would like to opt-in. Any consumers who have not been contacted can ask their firm to review their case at any time within one year of the scheme start date. We will run an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the scheme. Consumers who have already been compensated for complaints covered by the scheme would be excluded. The Financial Ombudsman will resolve complaints they have already received and not through the scheme. Consumers who have had their complaints rejected and not taken them to the Financial Ombudsman will be contacted by lenders and invited to opt in. While many complaints have been paused since 11 January 2024, and others from December 2024, firms have still been required to progress investigations of complaints. When the scheme goes live, we expect firms to resolve promptly those complaints they already have – so customers who have already complained are likely to have their case dealt with sooner. Redress calculation We propose that compensation is calculated in a way which balances the Supreme Court’s approach and our evidence of consumer loss, to provide fairness and consistency. The Johnson case considered by the Supreme Court was a very serious case and we do not think that courts would necessarily award the same high level of compensation in all motor finance cases. But consumers whose cases align closely with the Johnson case would under the scheme receive the commission plus interest. We define these as cases involving an undisclosed contractual tie and commission equal to, or greater than, 50% of the total cost of credit and 22.5% of the loan. These serious cases will be relatively rare. For all other cases, we propose consumers are compensated the average of what we estimate they have overpaid, or lost, and the commission paid, plus interest. Our estimation of loss is based on economic analysis, drawing on independent statistical advice, that there was a difference in the interest rate charged on loans with discretionary commission arrangements compared to those with flat fee arrangements. For example, it is estimated that a loan with an interest rate of 10% charged to the consumer should have carried a market-adjusted interest rate of 8.3% (an adjustment of 17%). We believe we can also use this estimation as a reasonable proxy for losses in the relatively small number of non DCA cases covered by our scheme that do not align closely with the Johnson case. We consider the average of the two approaches as the fairest way to reflect the Courts’ judgments and our legal obligation to consider evidence of loss. We welcome feedback on our proposed approach and provide data on alternative approaches in the consultation. Interest We propose that simple interest should be paid on the compensation, based on the annual average Bank of England base rate per year plus 1% from the date of overpayment to the date compensation is paid. Consumers will be able to challenge this with evidence if they feel this is unfair. We now estimate the weighted average interest rate payable will be 2.09% and have used this for modelling purposes. Total cost of redress We estimate around 85% of eligible consumers would take part in the scheme, which would mean estimated redress of £8.2bn (including interest). This estimate of 85% is based on participation rates in past redress schemes and our consumer research which shows 14% of past and current motor finance holders do not intend to make a claim. In the very unlikely event of 100% take-up, firms would owe up to £9.7bn in redress. And if there was a lower 70% take up, the redress owed would be £6.8bn. If there is 85% take-up of the scheme, the estimated costs to firms of implementing and operationalising the scheme would be £2.8bn, taking the total cost to £11bn. We estimate that this would result in consumers being compensated an average of around £700 per agreement. Inevitably, given the scale and complexity of such a scheme and limitations in the data we have spanning such a long time period, the estimates remain highly indicative and susceptible to change. The consultation sets out the details underpinning these estimates and an accompanying cost-benefit analysis (CBA), reviewed by our independent CBA panel, as well as sensitivity analysis which means estimates could in some circumstances be either higher or lower. Many firms have raised the possibility of highly automated approaches to paying compensation and we will work closely with them on these and this may help reduce estimated non-redress costs. We will continue to refine all our estimates during the consultation as we receive more precise data and will publish updated estimates alongside our final rules. Market impact The motor finance market continues to function well, including after the Supreme Court judgment and our announcement of an intention to consult on a scheme on 3 August 2025. Our detailed analysis concludes there will continue to be good product availability and competition among lenders in the finance market for new and used vehicles. While we cannot rule out some modest impacts on product availability and prices, we estimate the cost of dealing with complaints would be several billion pounds higher in the absence of a redress scheme. In that scenario, impacts on access to motor finance and prices for consumers could be significantly higher with uncertainty continuing for many more years. We have heard concerns about the impact of paying redress on non-bank, non-captive lenders focused on non-prime markets. Some of these lenders are smaller and have less access to funding than larger motor finance firms focused on other parts of the market. Access to funding for such non-prime lenders had been a challenge even before the motor finance commissions issue became prominent. Some non-prime lenders have told us they did not engage in discretionary commission or tied arrangements. If that is the case, they are less likely to have to pay redress under the scheme. These lenders may also be able to rebut the presumption of loss or damage proposed at the liability assessment stage if they have clear evidence that the consumer would not have secured a better offer from any other lender the broker had arrangements with at the time of the transaction. If the presumption of loss or damage is rebutted, the lender would not have to pay any redress to the consumer. While these non-prime lenders represent a small share of the overall motor finance market, we will remain vigilant to the effect on them as the consultation progresses and as we make final rules. Complaints deadline We are also consulting on extending the deadline for firms to send a final response to certain motor finance complaints to 31 July 2026. This will help ensure consistent and orderly outcomes for consumers and minimise disruption to firms and the market. We may shorten the period to align with the timetable of our compensation scheme if confirmed. We propose no extension to handling complaints about leasing agreements as they are not caught by the legislation relating to unfair relationships and so are not covered by the scheme. Firms need to start sending final responses to any motor leasing complaint from 5 December 2025. Our expectations of firms We propose that lenders deliver the scheme, rather than brokers. This will be simpler and ensure more timely and comprehensive redress, given there are many more brokers than lenders. Brokers played a part in the failings and will have to cooperate, providing information lenders need to operate the scheme promptly. We have written to motor finance lender and broker CEOs, outlining the preparatory steps we expect them to take now, as well as when the scheme starts. We would expect firms to:  accurately identify and effectively contact impacted consumers (with support from third parties where required) gather information to assess whether cases are in scope of the scheme and liability (with support from brokers as required) and reach appropriate decisions ensure compensation calculations are accurate, and payments are made quickly ensure no undue delay at any stage of the proposed redress scheme. The principles underpinning a redress scheme In designing this proposed scheme, we have sought to balance key principles so that the scheme would: Be simpler for consumers than bringing an individual complaint, meaning more consumers, particularly vulnerable ones, receive compensation they are owed. Provide timely and fair compensation to consumers, with clear communication about how their claim is being dealt with, as we will set rules firms must follow and will act if they don’t. Be comprehensive so consumers do not need to go through the courts to secure compensation. Be free to access for consumers and cost effective for firms. Without a scheme, many cases would go through the courts or the Financial Ombudsman, resulting in significantly higher administrative costs for firms and lengthy delays. Consumers do not need to use a claims management company or law firm to make a claim. We set out on 6 October 2025 how we have joined forces with other regulators to deal with some poor claims management practices. Protect the integrity of the market. Our analysis shows the motor finance market will continue to function well, as it has been since we announced our intention to propose a scheme, and will continue to attract investment, with limited disruption to competition. We continue to monitor securities and funding markets for motor finance firms, and these remain orderly and functioning. Give affected consumers certainty that they have had the opportunity to secure compensation, and firms and investors finality by drawing a line under this issue. To achieve this balance on such a complex issue has required us to make regulatory judgments on trade-offs. We recognise that not everyone will get everything they would like from a scheme. We welcome views on our proposals and potential alternatives. This feedback will enable us to further enhance our evidence base, assumptions and estimates to ensure a robust and operationally effective scheme. Our aim is to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, in the interest of consumers, firms, the long-term health of the market and investors. Next steps We are seeking comments on extending the complaint handling rules by 4 November 2025. The consultation on the proposed redress scheme closes on 18 November 2025. If we introduce a redress scheme, we expect to publish our policy statement and final rules by early 2026. This timetable depends on the feedback we receive and firms and other parties working constructively together and with us. The scheme would launch at the same time, with consumers starting to receive compensation later in 2026.

Payouts on an expected 14m unfair motor finance agreements could start next year, under an industry-wide compensation scheme proposed by the FCA. The FCA estimates people would receive around £700 per agreement, on average. Based on the number of consumers the FCA estimates could take part in the scheme, lenders could pay out £8.2 billion in compensation. Motor finance companies broke laws and regulations in force at the time by failing to disclose important information. This led to unfairness, with consumers denied the chance to negotiate or find a better deal and, in some instances, paying more for their loan.   A compensation scheme is the best, most efficient way of getting compensation to those owed it and would make it simpler for those who would otherwise struggle to claim.   Research commissioned by the FCA shows almost half of those aware of possible compensation, but who had not yet made a claim, (46%) cite a lack of clarity on whether a claim would be eligible as a barrier, and nearly a quarter (24%) say uncertainty about the level of compensation makes it less likely they would seek compensation. However, 81% of those who were considering making a claim say a compensation scheme would give them the confidence to do so. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'Many motor finance lenders did not comply with the law or the rules. Now we have legal clarity, it’s time their customers get fair compensation. Our scheme aims to be simple for people to use and lenders to implement.   'We recognise that there will be a wide range of views on the scheme, its scope, timeframe and how compensation is calculated. On such a complex issue, not everyone will get everything they would like. But we want to work together on the best possible scheme and draw a line under this issue quickly. That certainty is vital, so a trusted motor finance market can continue to serve millions of families every year.' The scheme would be free to access for consumers and cost-effective for firms. Without a scheme, many cases would go through the courts or the Financial Ombudsman Service, resulting in significantly higher legal and administrative costs for firms and consumers, lengthy delays and uncertain outcomes for all involved.     The FCA is now asking for feedback. It has sought to balance several principles to deliver an easy-to-access and simple-to-deliver scheme, providing fair compensation promptly while ensuring the continued integrity of the motor finance market.   How the scheme would work The scheme would cover motor finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 where commission was payable by the lender to the broker.  Those who are concerned they weren’t told key details about their motor finance arrangement – for example, about commission payments – should complain to their lender now if they haven’t done so already.   Four in 10 (41%) of those who've had motor finance agreements and know about possible compensation are unaware they needn’t use a claims management or law firm to make a claim. However, there’s no need as people can submit their own complaint using a template letter (DOCX) on the FCA’s website. Those who choose to use a claims manager or law firm could lose a significant amount of any compensation owed.   Once the proposed scheme goes live, lenders will contact those who have already complained. If they don’t hear back after 1 month, lenders will assume they should review the case.   Those who have already complained before the scheme gets up and running are likely to receive compensation faster.   Those who haven’t complained will be contacted by their lender within 6 months of the scheme starting. People will be asked if they want to opt-in to the scheme to have their case reviewed. They’ll have 6 months to decide.   Those motor finance borrowers who don’t receive a letter – for example, because lenders no longer have their details and can’t trace them - will have a year from the scheme starting to make a claim. They will be able to do so by making a claim to their lender directly. If consumers don’t know who their lender was, there’s information on how to check on the FCA website. The FCA will run an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the scheme.   People will only receive compensation under the scheme proposed if they weren’t told details of at least one of 3 arrangements between the lender and the broker who sold the loan, often a car dealer, which are found in some motor finance agreements: A discretionary commission arrangement, which allowed the broker to adjust the interest rate the customer would pay to obtain a higher commission. A high commission arrangement (35% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan). A contractual arrangement or tie between the lender and broker, which provided exclusive or near exclusive rights to lenders to provide credit.   There could be rare circumstances in which a lender may be able to show that even if one or more of these features was undisclosed, that there was no unfairness. Where evidence is missing about what was disclosed, lenders must presume that they didn’t give borrowers enough information. The FCA will monitor if firms are meeting the proposed scheme's rules and will act if they’re not. If people disagree with their firm's decision, the Financial Ombudsman will be on hand to assess whether the scheme rules have been followed.   Those with a motor finance complaint about inadequate disclosure of a commission or tie that doesn’t fall within the 3 features above – and who are therefore not owed compensation under the proposed scheme –would only get a different outcome from the Financial Ombudsman if it decides the scheme rules weren’t followed. People in this situation could still make a claim in court if they believed they had lost out.   Consumers can choose not to take part in the FCA's compensation scheme and instead go to court, where they may get more or less compensation, based on the facts of their case. However, the outcome of a court claim is uncertain and accounting for legal fees they may pay, many consumers could end up with less. The FCA's scheme is also likely to be faster and simpler than going to court. Background The FCA's statement to the markets on the motor finance compensation scheme. The FCA's consultation on the scheme (PDF), along with supporting evidence and analysis. The FCA's statement dated 3 August 2025 announcing its intention to consult.   The Supreme Court's judgment (PDF)Link is external  in Hopcraft, Johnson and Wrench, dated 1 August 2025.   Letter from Lord Forsyth (PDF)Link is external  to the FCA regarding motor finance, dated 8 August 2025. And the FCA's response (PDF)Link is external, dated 3 September.  

Euronext, the leading European capital market infrastructure, today announced trading volumes for September 2025. Monthly and historical volume tables are available at this address: euronext.com/investor-relations#monthly-volumes 

SmartSearch has agreed to acquire Credas Technologies Ltd, a leading provider of identity verification solutions for the legal and property sectors. This strategic acquisition, subject to regulatory approval, enhances SmartSearch’s position as one of the UK’s foremost digital Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance platforms. By integrating Credas’ respected brand and specialist technology, SmartSearch expands its product offering and market reach, delivering even greater flexibility and value to clients across regulated industries. The combined expertise will drive innovation, enhance customer experience, and support continued growth in a market facing increasing regulatory scrutiny. Credas currently supports over 1,000 legal and property clients, streamlining onboarding and improving customer journeys. This acquisition enhances SmartSearch’s industry presence, serving more than 7,500 clients today and builds on a record of 31% year-on-year growth since 2013. The move follows significant private equity investment from Triple Private Equity in 2024, fuelling SmartSearch’s ambitious expansion plans. Phil Cotter, CEO, SmartSearch, comments: “Regulated firms are under pressure to meet rising KYC and AML demands while delivering seamless onboarding. By joining forces with Credas, we combine our strengths to deliver unmatched innovation and service. Our clients will see immediate benefits as we continue to set the standard for digital compliance.” Tim Barnett, CEO, Credas, added: “With financial crime on the rise and fraud tactics evolving, digital identity verification is more critical than ever. Partnering with SmartSearch empowers us to help even more businesses protect themselves and focus on delivering quality service.” Ben Shepherd, Head of Value Creation & Founding Partner of Triple Private Equity and Chairman of SmartSearch, comments: “The acquisition of Credas reflects SmartSearch’s continued upward trajectory in the market for digital compliance solutions. In 2024, Triple was impressed by the organisation’s consistent growth and customer-centric approach, together with its high-quality technology platform. Today’s news confirms that our confidence was well founded; we have no doubt that SmartSearch, with the addition of Credas will continue to trailblaze in this fast-moving market.”