Fiserv, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISV), a leading global provider of payments and financial services technology, announced today that Finxact from Fiserv has been named the best SaaS for FinTech at The 2026 FinTech Awards, recognizing the platform’s role in enabling modern, cloud‑native banking infrastructure at scale. Finxact is an API‑first core banking platform that provides financial institutions with a cloud-native, real‑time system of record for accounts and transaction processing engine. With over 30 million accounts live, Finxact enables banks, fintechs and customer-centric platforms with large, loyal user bases to build and scale modern embedded financial services through a secure, cloud-native architecture. “This recognition underlines what financial institutions are asking for — a core foundation they can rely on as they evolve on their own terms,” said Frank Sanchez, Head of Finxact and Vice Chairman, Fiserv. “Finxact provides the flexibility to introduce new capabilities, serve clients in new ways, and meet rising expectations without disruption to the banking business or the people who depend on these services.” “We highlighted ‘trust’ as a key theme for the year within FinTech. Exciting feats of innovation draw a crowd, but it’s trust earned and demonstrated through tangible outcomes, outstanding results, and external validation through awards, that keeps users coming back for more,” James Williams, CEO of The Cloud Awards, said: “Fiserv has done an excellent job in demonstrating to our judges the perfect balance between innovation and trust.” Finxact features a microservices‑based architecture, real-time continuous processing, and full access to all data and transactions via open APIs, positioning clients to integrate seamlessly with modern applications and make optimal use of AI. Finxact, with its asset-agnostic account structure, extensible design and temporal data model, enables banks, fintechs, and customer‑centric platforms with large, loyal user bases to build and scale modern embedded financial services through a secure, cloud‑native architecture. The FinTech Awards are operated by The Cloud Awards, an international awards body recognizing innovation and achievement across the global financial technology landscape. Winners were selected from organizations across North America, Europe, and APAC, spanning a broad range of FinTech use cases and industries. About The FinTech Awards   The FinTech Awards focuses on the major innovations in the world of financial technology, including personal and corporate banking, insurance, and wealth management, business finance processes, and FinTech use within a selection of sectors, across 23 categories.

EuroCTP, the European initiative delivering the EU’s first real-time pre- and post-trade Consolidated Tape for shares and ETFs, has selected Exegy, the global leader in high-performance market data and trading technology, as its core technology partner. Under this collaboration, Exegy’s ticker plant technology will power the data normalization and consolidation engine of the platform, contributing to a robust and resilient consolidated tape.   Following its official selection by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in late 2025, EuroCTP is building a unified, real-time view of trading activity across more than 130 European trading venues and reporting platforms. The service, designed by EuroCTP, is targeted for a July 2026 launch and will provide the official European best bid and offer (EBBO) as well as comprehensive access to European trade data, ultimately enhancing transparency and price discovery for all market participants.  Exegy’s solution will act as the market data engine for EuroCTP’s downstream applications, integrating with its website, data lake, and real-time data distribution infrastructure. The high-capacity, FPGA-accelerated Ticker Plant is designed to consume pre-trade and post-trade data from trading venues and APAs, then compute the EBBO, ensuring the highest level of accuracy and speed for market participants.  “Exegy is honoured to provide the state-of-the-art foundation for this transformative project,” said David Taylor, CEO of Exegy. “Building an Equities consolidated tape across the fragmented European landscape requires proven experience in mission-critical roles and technology that provides the necessary level of capacity and reliable performance. By delivering purpose-built FPGA appliances and providing a comprehensive 24/7, ‘Follow the Sun’ managed service model, we are helping EuroCTP create a robust, efficient, and future-proof platform that supports the next generation of growth in European capital markets.”  “Selecting Exegy as a strategic technology partner was a critical milestone in our mission to foster transparency and equal access to market data,” said Eglantine Desautel, CEO of EuroCTP. “EuroCTP is committed to delivering a consolidated tape that serves retail and institutional investors alike. Exegy’s proven track record, building on its history of powering the Canadian Equities Consolidated Tape and supporting a large number of industry participants with high industry standards and operational resilience, is crucial to delivering on our promise of a more integrated EU Single Market.”   Building on a collaboration initiated in 2024, including the successful development of a prototype consolidated data feed featuring the novel EBBO computation, EuroCTP and Exegy are working closely together as European trading and trade publication venues are onboarded ahead of the go-live later this year. 

Crypto will be regulated in the UK from October 2027. The FCA is finalising the wider cryptoasset regime, with rules to be published this summer. Parliament has now confirmed which cryptoasset activities will fall within the scope of regulation. Building on that, the FCA is consulting on new guidance to help firms understand how they might be affected by the regulatory regime for cryptoassets. The FCA is seeking feedback on its interpretation of the following regulated cryptoasset activities: issuing qualifying stablecoin  operating trading platforms  dealing and arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets safeguarding cryptoassets  staking The proposed guidance supports the FCA’s aim for an open, sustainable and competitive crypto market people can trust. Crypto firms will be able to start applying for authorisation from September 2026. Ahead of this, the FCA is providing crypto firms with support on how to apply and to understand how the future regime could work. Until the new regime comes into force, crypto is largely unregulated except for financial promotions and financial crime purposes. As with all high-risk investments, people should only put in what they can afford to lose. Background Read the full consultation. The consultation closes on 3 June 2026. This publication marks another step towards crypto regulation in the UK, following the making of the statutory instrumentLink is external  in Parliament on 4 February 2026. The FCA has set out the timeline for crypto regulation in its crypto roadmap. The FCA has consulted on stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody (CP25/14), prudential rules (CP25/15 and CP25/42), the application of the FCA Handbook (CP25/25 and CP26/4), regulating cryptoasset activities (CP25/40), and admissions and disclosures and market abuse (CP25/41). The FCA’s consultations on rules for the future cryptoasset regime are substantively complete, with policy statements to be published this summer. This perimeter guidance consultation complements that work by clarifying which activities fall within scope, with a final policy statement due in autumn. The authorisations gateway opens on 30 September. The FCA is hosting authorisation-focussed webinars to support prospective applicants, with an introduction to the upcoming regulatory changes and an intro to anti-money laundering regulations available on demand. The next webinar, on 29 April, focuses on the Senior Managers and Certification Regime. Later this year, the FCA will consult on decentralised finance (DeFi) guidance and separately on operational resilience guidance for firms using distributed ledger technology (DLT). It will also consult on updates to the Financial Crime Guide relevant to cryptoasset firms. Find out more about requirements firms must comply with.

CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today announced plans to expand its Equity Index Dividend suite on May 11, with the addition of Mid-curve options on S&P 500 Annual Dividend Index futures, alongside Nasdaq-100 and Russell 2000 Quarterly Dividend Index futures, pending regulatory review. "Amid shifting interest rates and economic uncertainty, managing dividend exposure has become a strategic necessity for investors," said Joe Hickey, Global Head of Equity Products at CME Group. "Trading in our dividend products has increased more than 50% year-over-year. To meet this increased demand, we are launching these new Mid-curve options on S&P 500 Annual Index futures and Quarterly Dividend futures on the Nasdaq-100 and Russell 2000 to provide clients with additional, and even more precise tools to mitigate index-specific risk and hedge around critical dividend events." These new products are the latest addition to CME Group's deeply liquid Equity Index Dividend suite, which includes: Options on S&P 500 Annual Dividend futures; S&P 500 Annual and Quarterly Dividend Index futures; Nasdaq-100 Annual Dividend Index futures; and Russell 2000 Annual Dividend Index futures. Year-to-date trading highlights include: Dividend futures and options open interest of 860,000 contracts, up 27% year-over-year. S&P 500 Quarterly Dividend Index futures average daily volume (ADV) up 21% year-over-year. Options on S&P Annual Dividend Index futures ADV of 3,900 contracts, up 80% year-over-year. These products will be listed on and subject to the rules of CME. For more information, please visit cmegroup.com/dividends.

On 22 January 2026, the transmission system operators (TSOs) of the Core capacity calculation region submitted a proposal to their national regulatory authorities to amend the day-ahead capacity calculation methodology. As the national regulators could not reach an agreement, the proposal was referred to ACER on 30 March 2026 under the Capacity Calculation and Congestion Management Regulation. What is the methodology about? The Core day-ahead capacity calculation methodology (initially established by ACER in 2019 and first implemented in June 2022) aims to maximise the capacity made available to the market while maintaining operational security. This methodology is based on a flow-based approach, meaning cross-zonal capacities are calculated by taking into account transmission networks’ physical constraints. This approach significantly improves the efficiency of cross-zonal capacity allocation, as it better reflects real network conditions. Why change the rules? Core TSOs propose to amend the methodology to better harmonise it with other electricity market timeframes (i.e. intraday and long-term capacity calculation) operating in the same region. The main purpose of this amendment is to remove long-term allocations from the day-ahead capacity calculation. Removing long-term allocations from the day-ahead capacity calculation decouples operational safety from long-term capacity volumes, allowing their determination without direct operational security constraints. This will improve the efficiency of the process, as long-term capacities will be calculated independently, reflecting the separation between the day-ahead and long-term frameworks. What are the next steps? ACER, in cooperation with relevant energy regulators and TSOs, will reach a decision by 30 September 2026. Read more.

Ondo, Clearstream, and 360X partner to bring tokenized securities into regulated market infrastructure Ondo tokenized stocks and ETFs are now live on 360X, marking the largest listing on the venue to date Clearstream partnership will enable custody, settlement, and collateralization of tokenized assets within institutional workflows Partnership establishes a foundation for global distribution of tokenized securities, with future expansion into EU-listed assets Ondo Finance, Clearstream, and 360X today announced a partnership to connect traditional financial markets with onchain infrastructure built on public, permissionless blockchains. Starting now, the firms will combine their strengths across the full lifecycle of tokenized securities spanning trading, custody, settlement, and collateral management forming a unified framework for tokenized assets within regulated financial infrastructure. In the first phase, Ondo tokenized stocks and ETFs are now live on 360X, the regulated digital asset trading venue backed by Deutsche Börse Group. Broker-dealers and institutional investors across Europe can access and trade these assets within a market environment that meets the EU’s high regulatory standards. The assets are issued on public, permissionless blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain. In the subsequent phase, Ondo tokenized assets will be integrated into custody, settlement, post-trade infrastructure and collateral pool of Deutsche Börse Group’s post-trade business Clearstream, enabling institutional investors to access these products similarly to existing workflows, alongside the added benefits of onchain assets. Ondo also plans to tokenize EU-listed instruments on the Ondo Global Markets platform, with Clearstream supporting the custody of the underlying assets. Equally, Clearstream will make assets it holds in custody in tokenized form available to Ondo for distribution to its existing vast network of clients globally (outside the U.S.). As part of the first phase, the initial listing on 360X includes AAPLon, AMZNon, CRCLon, GOOGLon, METAon, MSFTon, NVDAon, TSLAon, SPYon, and QQQon – the largest tokenized securities bulk listing on 360X to date. This launch follows Ondo Global Markets’ recent regulatory approval to offer tokenized stocks and ETFs across 30 European countries in the EU and EEA. The approval enables access for more than 500 million investors to regulated, onchain exposure to U.S. markets. Together, Ondo, 360X, and Clearstream are advancing issuance, custody, trading and collateralization of tokenized assets across global financial markets. Matthieu de Vergnes, MD, Global Head of Institutional at Ondo Finance, said: “By collaborating with Clearstream and 360X we're excited to see Ondo Global Markets become part of the core infrastructure underpinning European institutional markets. Having Ondo tokenized assets custodied within Clearstream's network means institutions can access the benefits of onchain securities through the same trusted infrastructure they already rely on. This is a major turning point for the adoption of tokenized securities within regulated markets and enables the largest institutions across Europe to enter the onchain economy.” Carlo Kölzer, CEO of 360X, 360T and Global Head of FX & Digital Assets at Deutsche Börse Group said: “The listing of Ondo’s first 10 tokenized stocks and ETFs on our trading venue allows us to broaden the range of digital assets accessible to our clients. This integration utilizes our robust infrastructure enabling participants to trade, settle, and hold onchain assets, while meeting the specific technical and oversight requirements of our institutional participants.” Jens Hachmeister, Head of Issuer Services & New Digital Markets at Clearstream, said: “Together with our partners, Clearstream is bridging traditional and digital assets to build a more efficient, future-proof market. By enabling seamless access to tokenized securities in a regulated environment, we are expanding the choices for investors and paving the way for a more integrated financial ecosystem.”

Global financial markets experienced significant volatility in March following a major oil shock that saw Brent crude prices spike by over 60%. The surge, triggered by geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, prompted a hawkish pivot from major central banks, which are now signaling potential interest rate hikes to curb rising inflation. Amid the turbulence, the FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index fell 4.1% in March, closing at 95,982.73 points. However, the index recorded a 2.1% gain for the first quarter of 2026. FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX AND THE FTSE ALL-WORLD INDEX PERFORMANCE SINCE 17 AUGUST 2001 (USD CAPITAL RETURN) Herbie Skeete, Managing Director of Mondo Visione and Co-founder of the Index, commented on the market's performance: "Deutsche Börse demonstrated robust resilience and growth throughout March, driven by a significant uptick in trading activity, particularly within the derivatives segment. We view this performance as a validation of the company's diversified business model. The combination of stable cash market revenues and aggressive growth in derivatives provides a defensive buffer against volatility while capturing upside from increased market activity. Investors should monitor whether this volume growth can be sustained or if it was primarily driven by specific end-of-quarter rebalancing." March 2026 Highlights: Top Performer (Capital Returns, USD):Deutsche Boerse led with a 5.4% increase, followed by Singapore Exchange (+5.1%) and TMX Group (+4.8%). Worst Performer (Capital Returns, USD): Japan Exchange Group saw a 17.0% decrease, followed by Zagrebacka Burza (-16.6%) and NZX (-15.9%). Largest Exchanges by Market Capitalisation: CME Group ($106.43bn), Intercontinental Exchange ($90.36bn), and Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing ($62.84bn). Q1 2026 Performance: Top Performer (Capital Returns, USD): Tel Aviv Stock Exchange delivered an impressive 47.4% increase, followed by Brazil's B3 (+39.0%) and Singapore Exchange (+14.7%). Worst Performer (Capital Returns, USD): Boursa Kuwait Securities experienced a 27.5% decrease, followed by Bulgarian Stock Exchange (-26.9%) and Zagrebacka Burza (-21.8%). 12-Month Performance: Over the past year, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange has been the standout performer in the FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index, with a remarkable 274.9% increase in capital returns (USD). Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange (+187.1%) and Nairobi Securities Exchange (+181.5%) also posted strong gains. Conversely, Saudi Tadawul Group (-31.5%), London Stock Exchange Group (-21.0%), and NZX (-17.0%) were the weakest performers over the period. 1 YEAR CONSTITUENT PERFORMANCE (USD CAPITAL RETURN) 1 YEAR EXCESS CAPITAL RETURNS AGAINST THE FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX (USD CAPITAL RETURN) For a full breakdown of March 2026's performance, click here to download the report. 1-YEAR PERFORMANCE CHART OF THE FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX (USD CAPITAL RETURN) Monthly FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index Performance (Capital Return, USD) July 2014 3.1% August 2014 2.3% September 2014 -3.6% October 2014 2.8% November 2014 2.5% December 2014 -0.5% January 2015 -1.0% February 2015 8.5% March 2015 0.0% April 2015 10.7% May 2015 0.1% June 2015 -3.2% July 2015 -2.7% August 2015 -5.3% September 2015 -2.1% October 2015 7.6% November 2015 0.4% December 2015 -2.2% January 2016 -4,7% February 2016 -0.7% March 2016 6.7% April 2016 0.4% May 2016 1.8% June 2016 -2.2% July 2016 5.3% August 2016 2.3% September 2016 -1.6% October 2016 -1.6% November 2016 2.1% December 2016 0.1% January 2017 6.0% February 2017 -0.8% March 2017 1.4% April 2017 0.8% May 2017 1.6% June 2017 5.6% July 2017 2.7% August 2017 0.3% September 2017 3.6% October 2017 -0.7% November 2017 6.4% December 2017 -0.7% January 2018 10% February 2018 -0.5% March 2018 -1.6% April 2018 -1.0% May 2018 -1.5% June 2018 -0.8% July 2018 -0.7% August 2018 2.4% September 2018 -1.7% October 2018 1.0% November 2018 3.1% December 2018 -4.2% January 2019 5.4% February 2019 1.7% March 2019 -2.6% April 2019 4.6% May 2019 1.5% June 2019 4.3% July 2019 2.2% August 2019 3.7% September 2019 -0.8% October 2019 2.0% November 2019 -0.5% December 2019 1.6% January 2020 5.0% February 2020 -7.4% March 2020 -11.5% April 2020 8.0% May 2020 6.7% June 2020 2.3% July 2020 6.6% August 2020 4.9% September 2020 -5.2% October 2020 -6.7% November 2020 8.9% December 2020 7.2% January 2021 0.8% February 2021 1.4% March 2021 -2.7% April 2021 3.3% May 2021 2.5% June 2021 0.4% July 2021 0.4% August 2021 0.1% September 2021 -4.2% October 2021 5.9% November 2021 -5.6% December 2021 4.9% January 2022 -2.2% February 2022 -3.5% March 2022 3.5% April 2022 -8.6% May 2022 -5.1% June 2022 -0.7% July 2022 2.4% August 2022 -3.9% September 2022 -8.8% October 2022 -1.1% November 2022 11.5% December 2022 -2.9% January 2023 3.8% February 2023 -4.1% March 2023 5.0% April 2023 0.9% May 2023 -3.9% June 2023 3.8% July 2023 4.6% August 2023 -2.3% September 2023 -3.0% October 2023 -0.6% November 2023 7.7% December 2023 3.8% January 2024 -2.7% February 2024 4.3% March 2024 -0.1% April 2024 -3.8% May 2024 1.3% June 2024 -0.4% July 2024 3.2% August 2024 8.2% September 2024 4.7% October 2024 -1.2% November 2024 2.6% December 2024 -3.1% January 2025 4.3% February 2025 5.6% March 2025 2.2% April 2025 3.5% May 2025 4.4% June 2025 0.8% July 2025 -2.9% August 2025 -0.7% September 2025 -3.1% October 2025 -3.2% November 2025 3.6% December 2025 -0.4% January 2026 3.2% February 2026 3.2% March 2026 -4.1%   About FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index, a joint venture between FTSE Group and Mondo Visione, was established in 2000. It is the first Index in the world to focus on listed exchanges and other trading venues. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index compares performance of individual exchanges and trading platforms and provides a reliable barometer of the health and performance of the exchange sector. It enables investors to track 33 publicly listed exchanges and trading floors and focuses attention of the market on this important sector. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index includes all publicly traded stock exchanges and trading floors: Australian Securities Exchange Ltd B3 SA Bolsa de Comercio Santiago Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SA Boursa Kuwait Securities BSE Bulgarian Stock Exchange Bursa de Valori Bucuresti SA Bursa Malaysia Cboe Global Markets CME Group Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange PLC Deutsche Bourse Dubai Financial Market Euronext Hellenic Exchanges SA Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd Intercontinental Exchange Inc Japan Exchange Group, Inc Johannesburg Stock Exchange Ltd London Stock Exchange Group Multi Commodity Exchange of India Nairobi Securities Exchange Nasdaq New Zealand Exchange Ltd Philippine Stock Exchange Saudi Tadawul Group Singapore Exchange Ltd Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TMX Group Warsaw Stock Exchange Zagreb Stock Exchange The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index is compiled by FTSE Group from data based on the share price performance of listed exchanges and trading platforms.

It is great to be here with you today.1 During my career, I've had the opportunity to work on issues affecting rural communities, especially access to capital. My time at the Federal Reserve has only deepened my appreciation for the opportunities and challenges of rural America, as I've traveled over the past several years to rural communities. These communities share many challenges, and they also face distinct obstacles that require flexible solutions. What has stood out to me is the level of innovation and creativity behind many of those solutions. We should do more to elevate these examples, sharing what works and spreading ideas that can expand opportunity and support economic growth across rural America. For example, in 2023, I had the opportunity to travel the Blues Trail in the Mississippi Delta, from Jackson to Memphis. Along the way, I met with local leaders and financial institutions, some of whom are represented here today, to learn how once-thriving rural railroad towns are adapting to both long-standing and emerging challenges. In Moorhead, Mississippi, "where the Southern crosses the Yellow Dog,"2 I saw how a bank that had struggled to maintain a branch chose to donate its building to a community development financial institution (CDFI), preserving access to banking services for a community that needed it. In Clarksdale, Mississippi, I visited the Travelers Hotel, which was redeveloped using New Markets Tax Credits and is now contributing to the resurgence of the Blues tourism industry in that historic community. I also connected with the Delta Philanthropy Forum, a collaborative network of philanthropic partners investing in the region to deepen impact in sustainable ways. We discussed how philanthropy can serve as a critical bridge, providing capital for essential infrastructure like broadband and water systems, while also amplifying the voices of community members who are too often left out of local decisionmaking. On another trip, I met with leaders of banks serving members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana. They spoke candidly about the challenges of providing affordable, accessible credit, particularly for home mortgages on trust lands. And I spoke with tribal leaders on the Blackfeet Reservation about the health and education challenges their communities were facing. And when I met with farmers, ranchers, and community leaders in Nebraska, I heard about how shifts in labor availability, production costs, and technology are creating uncertainty for them, as well as for anchor institutions like hospitals and schools. At the same time, I heard powerful examples of resilience and opportunity, from young entrepreneurs planting the seeds of innovation to farmers reaching new markets with their crops. Rural Communities Are Diverse but Face Some Common ChallengesMy travels have shown me the great diversity across rural communities and reinforced the importance of adapting approaches rather than relying on a single narrative or uniform community development policy. As this audience knows well, rural America is not one story but many. Its economic foundations, geographic characteristics, and future trajectories differ not just from region to region but often from one community to the next. Rural communities are highly diverse in ways that shape both their challenges and opportunities. Their economic outlooks are closely tied to local industries, which vary widely from oil and gas or manufacturing to agriculture. At the same time, the physical and spatial nature of rural areas differ across regions, with some places featuring closely connected, denser towns and others defined by vast distances and limited access to urban centers, influencing everything from services to labor markets. The outlook for rural communities is far from uniform: while some struggle with workforce shortages, affordability issues, and institutional decline, others are adapting and thriving by diversifying their economies, strengthening local leadership and institutions, and leveraging natural or cultural assets to attract residents and visitors. While each rural community is unique, these areas share a common reality: vitality requires sustained effort, coordination, and intention. This is true whether the challenges stem from intrinsic issues, such as population trends; externally generated events, such as trade policy and geopolitical events; or longer-term trends, including artificial intelligence. I will discuss each of these. Intrinsic Constraints in Rural AreasResearch shows many communities face overlapping intrinsic structural challenges that complicate economic revitalization. A key constraint is population decline and aging. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data show that in 2023 rural counties had relatively low shares of prime working-age adults, those aged 25 to 54, while residents 65 and over grew from 7.4 million in 2010 to 9.7 million in 2023. This imbalance leaves a smaller labor force supporting both younger and older populations.3 At the same time, migration—especially from foreign-born individuals—has become critical: between 2020 and 2025, 47 percent of rural counties grew, but only 25 percent did so through increases in their local population, while over 86 percent relied on net migration.4 Rural areas also face the loss of key institutions like banks, hospitals, and sometimes regional colleges, weakening access to capital, services, and economic stability. Often, communities that rely on a large employer or single industry struggle when those employers and industries leave. Long-term employment declines in agriculture and manufacturing—driven by automation and globalization—have further reduced traditional job pathways without consistently replacing them.5 Even though regional universities and community colleges can buffer these losses, many communities risk losing this support because of college closures and financial strains.6 Affordable housing shortages are also a major constraint. Studies show that over one-third of rural renters are cost-burdened.7 But homeownership can be more attainable in some rural areas, with costs averaging 26 percent of median income versus 33 percent in metropolitan areas. Despite these challenges, there are numerous examples of resilience where rural communities have managed or overcome internal constraints. Before I turn to externally generated challenges, I'll highlight a few success stories that I have heard about. Success Stories in Rural Economic DevelopmentLike many small Mississippi Delta towns, DeWitt, Arkansas, depended heavily on agriculture and a single major employer. When a shoe manufacturing plant closed, the town lost a significant share of its jobs, exposing the risks of economic concentration. Young people began to leave, investment slowed, and a broader sense of decline set in. An early attempt to reverse this—a biofuel project built around a new crop and local processing—ultimately failed because of a poor fit with local conditions and market challenges. However, that failure proved pivotal: it brought community members together, introduced new ways of thinking about economic development, and shifted the local mindset from resignation to experimentation. What followed was a fundamentally different approach to growth. Instead of attracting one large employer, DeWitt focused on building many small, locally owned businesses, creating a more resilient and diversified economy. Leaders leaned into the town's natural assets, particularly its proximity to major hunting and fishing areas. This spurred growth in tourism, outdoor retail, and hospitality. Entrepreneurs began launching and adapting businesses based on real demand, supported by modest placemaking efforts and outside organizations that provided guidance without taking control. In the end, DeWitt's revitalization was not driven by a single project but by a combination of mindset change, local ownership, economic diversification, and a willingness to adapt, turning a failed initiative into the foundation for long-term renewal.8 Similarly, Thomas and nearby Davis, West Virginia, are two former coal and timber towns that reinvented themselves as hubs for arts, culture, and outdoor recreation after a period of economic decline. As traditional extractive industries faded, new residents—artists, entrepreneurs, and small business owners—helped rebuild the local economy around tourism, creative industries, and the natural landscape. A central player in that process was a CDFI, which acted as both a financial engine and a connector across sectors. It provided small business loans, grants to entrepreneurs and artists, technical assistance, and support for local government capacity. Just as importantly, it aggregated and deployed funding from multiple federal sources such as the U.S. Treasury's CDFI Fund, USDA lending programs, AmeriCorps staffing, and Appalachian Regional Commission capital. This is where public–private partnership became critical: federal dollars flowed through a locally embedded institution, which then partnered with municipalities, nonprofits, and private entrepreneurs to finance businesses, revitalize buildings, and address constraints like housing. The result was a networked development model that enabled sustained growth while trying to preserve community character.9 There are also impressive partnerships addressing the mortgage challenge in Indian Country. Several CDFIs are helping deliver home mortgages on trust lands through a collaboration with USDA Rural Development. By combining culturally appropriate credit practices with character-based underwriting, in one region local CDFIs were able to make 35 loans—86 percent of them on reservations—representing a 400 percent increase in these types of loans in those communities.10 Recent External Developments Affecting Rural CommunitiesThese examples highlight how rural communities deal with some of the intrinsic constraints discussed above, such as losing a major employer. But recent external events are weighing heavily on rural areas as well. Rapidly changing trade policy and geopolitical events have affected rural communities dependent on foreign markets and foreign suppliers. International partners purchased roughly $175 billion in agricultural products in 2024, about 20 percent of all U.S. production. For certain commodities, reliance on international markets is particularly concentrated, such as soybeans, where more than 40 percent of U.S. production is ultimately exported.11 These relationships have been significantly disrupted by tariff policy. For example, according to the USDA, U.S. soybean exports to China during the first three quarters of 2025 were 38 percent lower than the same period in 2024. Higher U.S. tariffs, especially on steel and aluminum, impose further costs on farmers as they have raised the price of agricultural machinery. Most recently, supplies and prices for fertilizer have been affected by conflict in the Middle East. More than a third of global exports of urea passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and the interruption has led to a sharp price increase in this important fertilizer, up about 55 percent since the beginning of the year.12 Prices for diesel, another important input for agricultural producers, rose 50 percent over the past year.13 Rising fuel prices place significant pressure on cattle farmers in rural communities by increasing both direct and indirect production costs. Higher diesel prices raise expenses for operating equipment and transporting livestock, while also driving up the cost of key inputs like fertilizer and feed. Transportation costs across the beef supply chain also rise with fuel prices, contributing to higher consumer prices and squeezing returns for producers.14  Similarly, higher diesel prices are burdensome for dairy farmers because fuel is used at every stage of milk production and transport. Given rapidly changing circumstances, it is too early to know the path for prices as events in the Middle East unfold. Longer-Term Trends Affecting Rural CommunitiesThere are also several evolving economic trends that are likely to have enduring consequences for rural communities in the United States, among them the rise of data centers, the shift toward high-skilled service sectors, and the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI). AI may improve agricultural productivity. For example, research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City suggests that in some regions, more than half of agricultural employment could experience substantial productivity gains through the adoption of AI-enabled technologies.15 Other research finds that the rapid expansion of AI-driven data centers is increasingly concentrating in rural areas, bringing potential benefits such as tax revenue and infrastructure investment but also significant trade-offs, including high energy and water demands, strain on local infrastructure, and uncertainty about the quantity and quality of long-term jobs created.16 At the same time, broader structural changes in the U.S. economy—particularly the long-term shift away from goods-producing industries toward knowledge-intensive service sectors—have disproportionately affected rural regions, which often lack the capital, connectivity, and workforce needed to fully participate in these higher-skill industries, contributing to widening rural–urban economic gaps. The Federal Reserve and Rural CommunitiesAt the Federal Reserve, supporting a healthy economy that works for all Americans is core to our mission. Monetary policy plays an important role in that effort. By promoting maximum employment and stable prices, it helps create the conditions for businesses to invest, households to plan, and local economies—those in rural and urban communities—to grow and adapt. While monetary policy affects the whole country, understanding how those policies transmit through rural labor markets, rural small businesses, and agricultural economies contributes to broad-based, inclusive growth. This responsibility is reflected in how the Federal Reserve System was designed. From the beginning, it has maintained a presence throughout the country, ensuring that the diverse experiences and perspectives of people across America inform the decisions we make. At each Federal Reserve Bank, as well as at the Board of Governors, dedicated community development teams work to ensure those voices are heard and meaningfully integrated into our understanding of the economy. We actively seek to engage with as many communities as possible. One of the most important ways we do that is through our long-standing relationships with organizations working on the ground to build strong and sustainable communities. We listen closely—through local sessions, through regional convenings like the "Investing in Rural America" series hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, and through national gatherings such as the recent National Community Investment Conference held in Phoenix. At that conference, we brought together a wide range of experts and practitioners to explore innovative solutions and emerging opportunities—particularly in public–private partnerships that can expand community investment. We highlighted issues central to rural economic growth, including supporting Tribal and rural small business development through innovative finance, building local capacity for investment, and catalyzing community development capital to support small-town and rural revitalization. In addition to these engagements, the Federal Reserve works to develop a deep, data-driven understanding of local economic conditions across the country. We conduct original research through tools such as the Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, the Survey of Community Perspectives, and the Small Business Credit Survey. Just as importantly, we complement this quantitative work with qualitative research to better understand the "why" behind the data. We also recognize that a community's ability to attract and deploy capital is essential to its vitality and resilience. Within our broader framework, our implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) plays an important role in encouraging financial institutions to meet the needs of the communities they serve. Activities aimed at revitalizing or stabilizing distressed or underserved rural communities are part of CRA. Despite this progress, the needs of rural communities often exceed the resources available. And yet, what we consistently see—both in research and in communities across the country—is that when multiple sources of capital come together, when public, private, and philanthropic partners align, communities can truly thrive. That is why your work is so important. Thank you very much. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. The phrase "where the Southern crosses the Yellow Dog" refers to the junction of two railroad lines in Moorhead, Mississippi: the Southern Railway running north-south, and the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad, nicknamed the "Yellow Dog." W.C. Handy, often called the "Father of the Blues," immortalized this crossroads in his 1914 composition Yellow Dog Blues.  3. Richelle L. Winkler, "As Rural Populations Grow Older, Communities Increasingly Rely on Smaller Labor Force." Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, May 20, 2025.  4. Census Bureau, Population and Housing Unit Estimates Program. Analysis by staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.  5. Andrew Dumont, "Changes in the U.S. Economy and Rural-Urban Employment Disparities," FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19, 2024.  6. Robert Kelchen, Dubravka Ritter, and Douglas Webber, "Predicting College Closures and Financial Distress," In Financing Institutions of Higher Education, edited by John Campbell and Kaye Fealing, 103–162, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2026.  7. Sharon Cornelissen and Adam Staveski, "Rural Homeownership Support Requires Home Construction, Repairs, and Small Mortgage Financing," The Pew Charitable Trusts, June 3, 2025. 8. Anthony F. Pipa, "An Entrepreneurial Spark in DeWitt, Arkansas," Reimagine Rural, The Brookings Institution, January 31, 2023.  9. Anthony F. Pipa, "Protecting Community Integrity During a Creative Transformation in West Virginia," Reimagine Rural, The Brookings Institution, February 14, 2023.  10. Matthew Gregg and Harley Kell, "Native CDFI Relending Program Expands Access to Affordable Homeownership in Indian Country," Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, October 7, 2025.  11. Betty Resnick, "Over 20% of U.S. Agricultural Production Is Exported," Agricultural Exports 101, Market Intel, American Farm Bureau Federation, February 12, 2025.  12. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, "Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz Pressure Fertilizer Priced Ahead of U.S. Growing Season," Insights on Agriculture and Rural Economies, March 26, 2026.  13. SMC³, Weekly Fuel Prices, https://www.smc3.com/weekly-fuel-prices.jsp.  14. SMC³, Weekly Fuel Prices, https://www.smc3.com/weekly-fuel-prices.jsp.  15. John McCoy, "Artificial Intelligence Could be Useful for Increasing Productivity and Managing Labor Costs in the Agricultural Sector," Insights on Agricultural and Rural Economies, January 13, 2026.  16. Brookings Institution, "Brookings-AEI Commission on U.S. Rural Prosperity." 

On 15 April 2026, the following updated constituents list for OFZ Zero Coupon Yield Curve will come into force. № Наименование Номер государственной регистрации 1 OFZ 26245 SU26245RMFS9 2 OFZ 26219 SU26219RMFS4 3 OFZ 26226 SU26226RMFS9 4 OFZ 26207 SU26207RMFS9 5 OFZ 26232 SU26232RMFS7 6 OFZ 26212 SU26212RMFS9 7 OFZ 26242 SU26242RMFS6 8 OFZ 26228 SU26228RMFS5 9 OFZ 26218 SU26218RMFS6 10 OFZ 26241 SU26241RMFS8 11 OFZ 26221 SU26221RMFS0 12 OFZ 26244 SU26244RMFS2 13 OFZ 26225 SU26225RMFS1 14 OFZ 26233 SU26233RMFS5 15 OFZ 26240 SU26240RMFS0 16 OFZ 26243 SU26243RMFS4 17 OFZ 26230 SU26230RMFS1 18 OFZ 26238 SU26238RMFS4 19 OFZ 26239 SU26239RMFS2 20 OFZ 26247 SU26247RMFS5 21 OFZ 26236 SU26236RMFS8 22 OFZ 26237 SU26237RMFS6 23 OFZ 26248 SU26248RMFS3 24 OFZ 26235 SU26235RMFS0 25 OFZ 26224 SU26224RMFS4 26 OFZ 26246 SU26246RMFS7 27 OFZ 26249 SU26249RMFS1 28 OFZ 26250 SU26250RMFS9 29 OFZ 26252 SU26252RMFS5 30 OFZ 26251 SU26251RMFS7 31 OFZ 26253 SU26253RMFS3 32 OFZ 26254 SU26254RMFS1

In his speech Andrew Bailey argues that modern central bank independence is well-defined for monetary policy. He goes on to highlight the challenges in this respect for a central bank’s financial stability mandate - particularly that the objectives are harder to measure, and that the decisions interact more directly with private interests and other public policies. Andrew Bailey Governor, Bank of England Speech Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I am going to use my time to reflect on central bank independence and to point to where I believe the concept is incomplete and hence more challenged. I will use the term CBI hereon. Modern CBI emerged out of the high inflation era of the 1970s. This does not mean that the concept originated then, it has a much longer history. But in its modern form the 1970s was the experience that prompted change. I will use the Bank of England as a brief case study to illustrate the antecedents to the change. The first stop is 1802, when Henry Thornton wrote “An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain”footnote[1]. Thornton is sometimes described as the father of the modern central bank. He asserted that: “The Bank of England is quite independent of the executive government” (p61). Reconciling this with the extensive lending of the Bank to the Government, he commented that: “The ground on which the bank lends so much to government is clearly that of mutual convenience as well as long habit” (p61). “The preference is no symptom of a want for independence of its directors” (p62). “The government of Great Britain is under little or no temptation either to dictate to the Bank of England, or to lean upon it in any way which is inconvenient or dangerous to the bank itself” (p63). And finally, “To suffer either the solicitation of merchants, or the wishes of government, to determine the measure of the bank issue, is unquestionably to adopt a very false principle of conduct” (p295). Two points I would draw out from Thornton’s description. First, the older notion of independence relied on what in modern terms we would call an alignment of interests and incentives between government, private interests and the central bank. It did not provide for anything more formal in terms of the form of independence. Second, it did though require an anchor, and that was the value of money. On this point, let’s go back to John Locke writing in the 17th centuryfootnote[2]. He emphasised the importance of “money being constantly the same, and by its interest giving the same sort of product, through the whole country” (p35). “Money is the measure of commerce, and of the rate of everything, and therefore ought to be kept as steady and invariable as may be” (p113). In the wake of the experiences throughout the twentieth century, and particularly after the 1970s, the idea of CBI being assured only by a balance of interests and incentives looked past its time, but the anchoring on the value of money remained as important as ever. Three things followed from this. First, for many countries, the UK included, CBI evolved to a system of formal statutory powers established in legislation. I do, of course, recognise that some other countries reached this point earlier in the twentieth century. Second, CBI remained anchored on the stability of the real value of money, achieved through monetary policy. Third, there are differences between countries in terms of whether monetary policy independence relates to setting the objective, the target, or operating to achieve these two. Broadly speaking, few independent central banks set their own objectives, all are responsible operationally speaking, and the picture is mixed when it comes to setting the target. The UK system is more to the operational end of the distribution in that theBank of England does not set the objective or the target – it has operational independence. However, de facto, modern central banks typically have two objectives – monetary and financial stability. The substance of my comments today will be around how these two fit together in the theory and practice of CBI. Given what happened in the 1970s, it is no surprise that modern CBI was based around monetary policy. A core element of the case for CBI in respect of monetary policy is the so-called time consistency argument. Ex ante, a government wants low inflation and stable growth, but ex post it may be tempted to create a little extra inflation to reduce unemployment or ease debt burdens. If people expect this to happen, there is no lasting benefit in terms, say, of lower unemployment, but there is higher inflation, so the worst of both worlds. Delegating monetary policy to an independent central bank is a commitment device to reduce the incentive to renege on the promise of low inflation, which can thereby anchor inflation expectations. Thus, to take the UK case, an inflation target set by the Government combined with operational CBI to meet that target ensures that the central bank’s incentives are aligned with the public interest in price stability. In principle at least, the argument for financial stability is similar. Governments want a stable financial system, but can be tempted to lower standards to increase lending and growth. So, delegation to an independent central bank makes sense. Where I think financial stability differs from monetary policy is that the act of delegation is a less robust contract, reflecting the completeness of the remit and the measurability of the objective, and also because of the different direct impact of financial stability on the long-run growth of the economy, a point I will come to later. This opens financial stability up to differences in the way conflicts of interest can arise. Financial stability policies interact with private interests in a variety of ways, so a difference is between monetary policy operating through an aggregate tool and financial stability through many levers directly affecting private interests in many ways. Seen in insolation, each of these levers may not be essential for the financial stability objective, but they are essential when viewed as a set. For financial stability, there is more scope for conflict between the public good interest and private interests. This can put governments in the position of having to choose which side to take – to use Thornton’s words, between the salutations of merchants and the central bank. The current debate on levels of bank capital is a good illustration of this. It is striking therefore that the literature has given little attention to the concept of CBI in respect of financial stability. In practice, the issue goes further. Two features of the commentary stand out for me. The first is a tendency to describe other activities of central banks as tangential to monetary policy. This set of activities includes financial stability. The second feature goes rather further and suggests that an objective of financial stability can require the central bank to compromise on the objective of monetary stability, particularly when the financial system appears to be under threat of instability. So, this feature moves from tangential to actual conflict of interest. What then are the consequences of the system we have today? I will pick out two such consequences. The first consequence is that, to the extent there is tension between the objectives of monetary and financial stability, it can be pro-cyclical. In other words, the relative priority given to financial stability can depend on the conditions at the time. The period before the financial crisis saw a relative neglect of financial stability. The crisis necessarily led to a surge of interest in and emphasis on financial stability. This sort of pro-cyclicality is not, I would argue, the best form of organisation. It needs to be more steady over time in terms of the intensity of focus. This in itself is an argument for robust CBI for financial stability. The second consequence is that the nature and definition of CBI differs between monetary and financial stability. This is a very important and a, perhaps surprisingly, under-discussed issue. The two notions of CBI – in the context of monetary and financial stability - do differ in important ways. Why is this the case? Monetary stability is easier to define and certainly easier to capture in a single numerical target – as the UK system does in an inflation target. To be clear, this does not inevitably make the task at hand easier for monetary policy. But it certainly creates a focus. I think it also means that the structure, system and governance of monetary policy is more straightforward to capture in legislation, though not in a way that removes the need for judgement to be exercised by the monetary policymaker. What is it about financial stability that makes it less straightforward? A number of elements of financial stability are relevant to this question. First, financial stability is a large canvas and there are many elements to it. This means that not only is it impossible to capture in a single numerical target but it is defined as the absence of something that operates dynamically and across many dimensions and thereby engaging many private interests. It is also the case that determining the line between acceptable risk and the potential for instability is difficult to ground. Success in the world of financial stability comes when nothing happens. Second, it is important to consider how monetary and financial stability affect the real side of economies. The canonical view of the impact of monetary policy on the long run growth of economies is that if anything it does so only indirectly by preserving price stability and thereby reducing uncertainty so that businesses and households can better plan for the future. An older argument with respect to monetary policy is based on the so-called neutrality of money, such that long-run changes in the money supply affect only nominal variables (prices, wages, exchange rates). They do not affect real variables (real GDP, employment, investment, consumption). The idea goes back to the classical economists, who drew the distinction between the real and nominal spheres of the economy and treated money as a veil over an underlying barter system of exchange. It followed that the monetary policy was assumed not to affect the long-run trend growth rate of economies. This view has been modified in more recent times. While holding to the view that there is no long-run trade-off between inflation and output, in the short run modern economists tend to treat money as non-neutral because sticky prices and wages mean that changes in money and monetary policy can have a temporary effect on output and employment. Added to this, there is now considerable support for the credit channel effect of monetary policy, working through the supply and cost of credit, not just risk free interest rates. Financial stability on the other hand has a more immediate and direct effect on the level and growth of real output, employment and investment. For instance, a stable banking system directly supports economic growth, while an unstable one will tend to disrupt lending and have negative consequences for growth. In this sense, there is no long-run trade-off between financial stability and growth either. This distinction between monetary and financial stability matters in at least two other important respects when thinking about CBI. First, it follows from the point on growth that financial stability will have clearer distributional effects within the economy and society broadly. This point is important when thinking about CBI, and it can be uncomfortable for central banks (who generally do not wish to be involved in distributional issues). Second, and closely linked to the distributional point, financial stability will interact with many more areas of public policy. Many other parts of government will state an interest as a consequence because they will consider themselves to be directly affected by the outcomes of decisions taken by central banks in respect of financial stability. In my experience there are many examples of this mechanism at work. It will usually operate most powerfully in other areas of financial and economic policy, but the reach goes further – think of, for instance, policies to do with IT security, cyber risk, etc. The same goes for private interests. They are more directly engaged by issues of financial stability. This might seem like a strange thing to say. Surely, people have views on interest rates? Of course they do, but in keeping with the more background property of monetary policy – and critical though that is – the private interests are not as sharply defined typically. The consequence of this difference is that financial stability in its broader sense tends to induce a lot more direct lobbying by affected private interests. It is therefore more talked about in a specific sense, whereas monetary policy is very widely talked about in a more general sense. It means that more interest groups feel that they should have a direct say in financial stability decisions. Moreover, I would draw a further distinction within financial stability, between macroprudential and microprudential, in other words system-wide and firm specific regulation. The issue is most acute for the latter. If the activity involves directly regulating individual firms, and the objective of that regulation is to get firms to do, or not do, things that had not occurred to them based on their private interest, it is pretty easy to see that the challenge to independence will be more direct and more forceful. And, in my experience, this is exactly what we do see. Another element relates to an important difference in the process of conducting financial stability policy when compared to monetary policy. Financial stability policy-making often involves setting rules, something which does not arise in the same way for monetary policy (where rules have a different meaning). This can place financial stability work more closely adjacent to the work of governments and parliaments, because as financial stability-focused rules change it will sometimes be necessary for aspects of legislation to change at the same time. My point is not that this is inevitably problematic, but it creates two phenomena. The first is that the rule-making process drives a regular need for intensive and detailed coordination between central banks’ financial stability work and government policy-making. The second is that where the boundary is drawn between central bank financial stability rule-making and what is done by governments and parliaments varies widely across jurisdictions and through time. So, the conclusion here is that the meaning and substance of CBI is different between monetary policy and financial stability. I am interested that this point is not often made quite so directly. What are the consequences of this distinction? I can think of times when there has been pressure to avoid compromising monetary policy by placing emphasis on the financial stability sibling. It can also cause approaches towards financial stability to be pro-cyclical, in the sense of only wanting/having to deal with it when times are difficult. There is also a noticeable pro-cyclical nature to the private interests and the lobbying. Thus, as episodes of financial instability recede into the past, the lobbying grows. This can be challenging, because an important part of financial stability policy is counter-cyclical – in other words use the better times to build up the defences. The best statement of this condition came from the economist Hyman Minsky:- “As a previous financial crisis recedes in time, it is quite natural for central bankers, government officials, bankers, businessmen and even economists to believe that a new era has arrived. Cassandra-like warnings that nothing basic has changed, that there is a financial breaking point that will lead to a deep depression, are naturally ignored in these circumstances.” (p237)footnote[3]. I have used the quotation from Minsky before. After I did so, someone came up to me and said politely, “don’t you think it’s time to retire Minsky”. This intervention illustrated perfectly what Minsky was talking about. But that leaves the question what to do about all of this? More particularly, we are left with a situation where we have two rather different forms of CBI, or at least sufficiently different to be an issue. In terms of responses, let me rule out either end of the possible range. I don’t think ignoring the difference is acceptable. Nor do I think we can try to override the underlying drivers and make each form the same. That leaves two options I think. One is a form of status quo. It is to accept that central banks have two objectives – monetary and financial stability – and there are versions of legislated independence attached to both which can differ, and then to say let’s limit our ambition to being more transparent in setting out the differences. That would be a step forward, but I am going to argue that we should be more ambitious. By arguing for ambition, my view is that we should start by identifying what ties the two objectives together rather than what makes them different. Is there a single unifying definition of the objective of central banks which, while not ignoring the differences I have described, seeks to set out the common ground? And, in doing this, is it possible to use this common ground to create a more useful and resilient objective? The simple answer to whether there is a single unifying definition and objective is yes, and it is I think staring us in the face. It is that the objective of central banks is the value of money, to go back to John Locke. One way in which I have come to this argument is the experience – highly enjoyable I should say – of visiting schools on my trips around the UK. I usually talk to the Economics and Business students at our equivalent of high schools, and I give a few minutes introduction on the Bank of England and what we do before taking questions. Over the years, I have concluded that the best way to start is by saying that at the Bank we are in the money business, and then describing what I mean by this. So, what does this mean for an overarching central bank objective, the Value of Money? In some ways, the easy part is monetary policy. The objective of price stability is the stability of the real value of money. Defining financial stability is the harder part. But, can we anchor financial stability in the stability of the nominal value of money? I think that has potential as a definition. The key element of financial stability is the banking system. Most of the stock of money is on the balance sheets of banks. Fractional reserve banking ties together the money and credit systems. Key here is the assured value of the stock of bank deposits – the stock of commercial bank money (also known as “inside money”). And, for payments, another of the core functions of central banks, the system also depends on the assured nominal value of this inside money. In other words, we trust that a dollar or pound in my account is worth the same as the dollar or pound in your account. There is, of course, an important anchor to underpin the assured nominal value, namely, the ability to convert inside money into central bank money (outside money). As Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz documented, this assured value of inside money was not always true in the history of American banking, where there was an absence of outside money, and the system was unstable. Beyond providing outside money, as a central bank we regulate banks in good part because we want to ensure trust in money, which means an assured nominal value. This also helps to explain why it tends to be very hard in practice not to assure the nominal value of uninsured bank deposits. It is also why when I look at an innovation such as stablecoins, my reaction is that if you want to be in the payments business in scale, and payments are a key function of money, you have to meet the test of money, and trust in it, which is assured nominal value. It’s another talk, so I will not go any further than to say that I think some more work is needed on some stablecoin design to get to this point. There is though a big question outstanding in my attempt to capture more thoroughly financial stability under the single central bank objective of stability of the value of money. Is the objective of central banks only about money? This is a genuinely open question. It may be that nominally stable money is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that the financial system is able consistently to deliver essential financial services to households and businesses. Definitionally, this would still be a good step forwards however. But, let me set out why I don’t think this issue of whether it is only about money is as large as it may seem. I will start by recognising an important point. Since the financial crisis, the non-bank financial system has expanded in size relative to the bank system. Moreover, if you look at the agenda of the global Financial Stability Board, which I chair, you cannot help notice that it has a very large component of non-bank items, indeed larger than the bank agenda. On the face of it, this looks like a problem for my argument that the central bank financial stability objective can be captured under the value of money. I’m not sure this is the case. Yes, the non-bank sector has expanded. It reinforces the separation between banks, whose liabilities are money with assured value, and non-banks, whose liabilities are investment type instruments, where the investor should not expect assured value (they take more risk that way, and can earn and lose value). But, it would be a mistake to believe that we have separated the bank and non-bank systems in a rigid way. We have not. The non-bank system relies on the bank system for liquidity, and in turn the banks are underpinned by central bank liquidity (outside money). The bank and non-bank systems are highly inter-connected but in somewhat different ways to those before the financial crisis. To give an example, banks support non-bank leverage in financial markets via their prime brokerage activities. So, when central banks look at financial stability in today’s world, a lot of our focus is on the interlinkage between the banking and non-banking financial systems. Moreover, some of this interlinkage is on-balance sheet, some is off-balance sheet but contractual, and some is the potential for contagion in spite of the absence of formal contractual connections. Another interesting question here is whether the money anchor of a financial stability definition should factor in more explicitly the velocity of as well as value of money. For purely illustrative purposes, let’s think in terms of the simple traditional quantity theory of money. MV=PY, where M is money supply, V is the velocity of money, P is the price level, and Y is real output. The typical simplifying assumption is that V and Y are broadly stable, and thus the price level responds to changes in the money supply. But what if that is not the case? Let’s take the so-called Dash for Cash at the outset of Covid as a very good illustrative case study. There was a precipitous fall in Y (real output) as economies shut down. At that time, the rate of growth of P (inflation) was generally very low. There was a so-called Dash for Cash – e.g. firms drew down credit lines with banks out of fear of access as economies entered such a difficult state. In other words, they hoarded money. So, as M (money supply) rose, V (velocity) fell very sharply. Let’s assume central banks had not stepped in to provide money via QE. There was a risk of a major financial stability problem as the demand for liquidity was not met, and that would have further rebounded onto the state of the economy and monetary policy. I recognise that this does not provide an answer to whether the QE should have been short-term or more prolonged. That is another question, not for today. But, it does illustrate how there was a strong money anchor to the financial stability question. A core element of financial stability is that financial institutions which hold money should be trusted, and thus that the value of money can be trusted. Let me illustrate this briefly with a contemporary issue. There is more concern, following recent events, about the resilience of so-called private credit. This is a non-bank activity that has grown rapidly since the financial crisis. The point is sometimes made that private credit – lending to corporates outside the banking system – has grown rapidly because the banks have been over-regulated, and therefore are not so lending. This misses an important point. The main liability of banks is money. We regulate banks to ensure the value of that money. The liability of private credit is not money – it doesn’t and shouldn’t come with the same assurance of value. That’s important to generate lending to support economic activity. The difference if fundamental. The job of financial stability is to ensure that distinction is robust – that is what we have to challenge, test and design in. I therefore want to leave open the question, can we usefully capture the objectives of central banks - monetary and financial stability – under a single description of the value of money? This needs to have its tyres kicked. But a key part of financial stability is maintaining the integrity of money. That said, frictions and imperfections in the financial system can lead to sub-optimal outcomes in many states of the world and, notably in bad states when amplification mechanisms can kick in. As with any other type of public policy, there is a role for financial stability policy in mitigating the effects of these frictions. Financial frictions can however have much broader effects than just via risks to the integrity of money. In theory, at least, that motivates a much broader role for FS policy, particularly with a wider focus on continuity of financial service provision. It is, however, interesting, and I think remains an open question to consider where are the limits of what an independent central bank should do in the financial stability space. It is then even more incumbent on us to explain what we are doing and why than it is in the more tightly defined monetary policy space. But, I see merit in creating a single overarching narrative with a strong focus on the value of money. It would remove descriptions of financial stability such as “tangential” or “in conflict”. Even more important, it would help to anchor financial stability by emphasising the importance of the value of money. This is important because independence in respect of financial stability is otherwise not as robust, and I would argue not robust enough. Thank you. I would like to thank Sarah Breeden, Nicki Dukelow, Jonathan Hall, Richard Harrison, Karen Jude, Catherine Mann, Dawn Plummer, Martin Seneca, Matthew Waldron, Carolyn Wilkins and Sam Woods for their comments and help in the preparation of these remarks. Henry Thornton, “An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain”. J. Hatchard, 1802. John Locke “Economic Writings” London: Rivington, 12th Edition, 1824. Hyman P. Minksy: Stabilizing an Unstable Economy: Yale University Press, 1986.

Euro area must function more as a single jurisdiction, with capital and liquidity moving freely within banking groups Barriers still hold back cross-border banking integration and scale Resilient banks underpin sustainable growth and competitiveness Simplification must cut undue complexity, not lower resilience Governing Council’s 2025 simplification proposals integral to today’s response The European Central Bank (ECB) today published proposals to make banks, and the financial infrastructure in which they operate, better able to support the economy. These proposals are endorsed by all euro area central banks. The proposals form the ECB Governing Council’s response to the European Commission’s public consultation on the competitiveness of the EU banking sector. The Governing Council’s proposals to simplify EU banking rules, published in December 2025, form the basis for this response and are integral to it. Those proposals and the ones released today should be read together. Resilient banks are a prerequisite for the euro area’s long-term growth and competitiveness, especially in today’s uncertain environment. Competitiveness arises from harmonisation, integration and scale, not from deregulation. Competitiveness is now being held back by unnecessary complexity and cross-country fragmentation. To overcome these challenges, the euro area must function more as a single jurisdiction in terms of financial regulation. To break the current deadlock in advancing the banking union, the Governing Council calls for synchronised progress on the key components, including concrete steps towards creating a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS), with a clear timetable for implementation. Capital and liquidity should be allowed to flow freely within a cross-border banking group in the euro area. The Governing Council also urges policymakers to foster deeper capital markets by progressing on the savings and investments union. “Euro area central banks are united: the crucial step to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness is a truly single banking market where capital and liquidity can move across borders and all deposits are protected equally,” said Luis de Guindos, Vice-President of the ECB. “The Eurosystem is firmly committed to addressing undue complexity in the EU.” “Better integrated markets and more cross-border competition can allow banks to better reap economies of scale and diversify their activities. This, together with guardrails that safeguard financial stability, can strengthen banks' business models and their resilience,” said Claudia Buch, Chair of the ECB’s Supervisory Board. Moves to simplify regulation must tackle undue complexity without weakening resilience. The reforms implemented after the global financial crisis were instrumental in restoring confidence in euro area banks: they made banks more resilient without restricting their ability to finance the economy. Backstops like the output floor and the prudential treatment of non-performing loans help cover risks adequately and should be maintained. Capital requirements for euro area banks are broadly comparable to those in other jurisdictions and in line with international standards. Euro area banks have been able to maintain lending, even during recent periods of acute stress. There is no evidence that capital requirements have hampered banks’ efficiency or lending capacity. The Governing Council calls for concrete changes to EU banking rules, including: shifting the banking rules from directives to directly applicable regulations; merging the existing five macroprudential buffers[1] into two; increasing proportionality for small banks; streamlining reporting; being made responsible for taking a holistic view of the overall level of capital. Notes In February 2026, the European Commission launched a targeted public consultation to inform its forthcoming report on the competitiveness of the EU banking sector. The ECB’s Governing Council response released today builds on the Governing Council’s proposals to simplify EU banking rules published in December 2025. The five macroprudential capital buffers are: the Capital Conservation Buffer (CCoB), which is intended to improve banks’ general loss absorbing capacity; the Global Systemically Important Institution (G-SII) and Other Systemically Important Institution (O-SII) buffers, which address the risk that the failure of systemically important institutions may pose to the economy and the financial system as a whole; the Countercyclical Capital Buffer (CCyB), which is aimed at building resilience to cyclical systemic risks; and the Systemic Risk Buffer (SyRB), which targets systemic risks not covered by other instruments.

The Joint Bank Reporting Committee (JBRC), jointly set up by the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Central Bank (ECB), today launched a public call for expressions of interest to join its Reporting Contact Group (RCG). The RCG brings together stakeholders with expertise in banks’ regulatory reporting and serves as a regular forum for cooperation, exchange of views and sharing of best practices with authorities. The call is open to candidates representing stakeholders across the European Economic Area (EEA). The deadline for applications is 28 April 2026 (23:59 CEST). Application process Applications must be submitted via the online application form (password: RCGApril2026) and include a CV (preferably in Europass format). Selection process and next steps Further details on the selection process are provided in the Call for candidates document. The JBRC will decide on the final composition of the RCG, aiming, to the extent possible, to ensure, diversity of the banking sector, geographical and gender balance and broad representation of stakeholders across the EEA. Applicants will be informed of the outcome of their application. The final composition of the RCG will be published on the EBA and ECB websites. A reserve list will also be established. For further information, please contact the RCG Secretariat at ecb-jbrc@ecb.europa.eu and eba-jbrc@eba.europa.eu Background information The JBRC was established by the EBA and the ECB under a Memorandum of Understanding signed on 18 March 2024, following a feasibility study conducted by the EBA in accordance with Article 430c(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. The JBRC promotes cooperation among European institutions and authorities involved in supervisory, resolution and statistical banking reporting and facilitates transparent engagement with stakeholders to support the development of an integrated reporting system. The RCG is a permanent substructure of the JBRC, composed of up to 22 members appointed for a three-year renewable mandate. Members are expected to dedicate at least one full day per week to RCG activities and to have strong expertise in supervisory, resolution and/or statistical reporting, or in related areas such as data modelling and standardisation. The mandate of the current RCG composition expires at the end of 2027. Documents Call for interest (292.23 KB - PDF) Related content Invitation Meeting28/04/2026 - 23:59 Protected entity Page Joint Bank Reporting Committee (JBRC)

The Montréal Exchange (MX), Canada’s derivatives exchange, today announced the FTSE Canada Bank Credit Index Futures (BCS), launched on April 8, 2026. The BCS, initially announced in June 2025, is a first-of-its kind credit derivatives product offering market participants an efficient, capital-effective way to manage Canadian credit risk. It is based on the newly created FTSE Canada Bank Credit Spread Index, where the contract isolates the credit spread component of a portfolio of Canadian Bank bonds providing transparent, flexible and direct exposure to Canadian bank sector credit risk. “Combining our premier derivatives franchise with FTSE Russell's expertise in index-based solutions allows us to provide a tailor-made and transparent Credit product for our clients,” said Robert Tasca, Managing Director, Derivatives Products and Services, Montréal Exchange. “The launch of BCS Futures marks a natural progression from our current yield curve Futures, delivering the Canadian hedge the Credit space has required.” The BCS contract was designed to complement existing fixed income instruments, like cash bonds, exchange-traded funds and total return swaps, while offering benefits beyond traditional alternatives. "Credit futures offer a practical, efficient way for investors to hedge Canadian credit risk. They provide transparent, scalable risk transfer for institutions, with exchange-traded contracts that simplify execution and reduce operational complexity,” said Anthony Farinaccio, Head of Canadian Investment Grade Credit Trading, TD Securities. “We believe this product has the potential to be a leading, made-in-Canada tool for managing Canadian credit risk." "The BCS contract could prove beneficial for those looking to add beta and manage financial sector exposures,” said Alan Bogos, Managing Director & Head of Global IG Credit Trading, BMO Capital Markets. “The underlying basket represents a clean and clear liquid subset." For more information on FTSE Canada Bank Credit Index Futures, please visit m-x.ca/bcs.

During the official unveiling of Environmental Finance’s Sustainable Debt Awards 2026 winners, the Luxembourg Stock Exchange was once again crowned ‘Exchange of the Year’ - marking the eighth time that the Exchange has received this prestigious recognition of its efforts in the field of sustainable finance.Luxembourg, 14 April 2026: The Luxembourg Stock Exchange (LuxSE) today announced that it has been awarded the title of ‘Exchange of the Year’ at Environmental Finance’s Sustainable Debt Awards 2026.Marking the eighth time that this title has been awarded to the Exchange and its leading platform for sustainable finance, the Luxembourg Green Exchange (LGX), this year’s award recognised the new sustainable finance initiatives brought to the market by LuxSE in 2025 – namely, its Transition Finance Gateway and EU Taxonomy Issuers Window. This comes in addition to the continued development of its education and data initiatives, the LGX Academy and LGX DataHub.Facilitating the transitionIn 2025, a year that saw the global sustainable finance agenda challenged by geopolitical events, LuxSE and LGX welcomed 601 new sustainable bonds, raising a total of EUR 233 billion for sustainable development across the world.In addition to continuing to mobilise finance for sustainable development projects all over the world and foster sustainable finance developments in emerging markets, LuxSE took important strides in 2025 to move beyond its traditional security-level focus and shine the spotlight on issuer-level climate transition data and EU Taxonomy alignment.“2025 was an important year for our Exchange, marking how we stepped up our commitment to facilitating a more low-carbon and inclusive world, and it is an honour to have our efforts recognised by Environmental Finance. Stock exchanges play a crucial role in bringing both high-emitting sectors and emerging markets into global transition efforts, and the concrete initiatives LuxSE launched last year reflect this important responsibility,” commented Laetitia Hamon, Head of Operations and Sustainable Finance at LuxSE, who will assume the role of Chief Operating Officer of LuxSE from 1 May.A more holistic approachIn July 2025, LuxSE announced the launch of a brand-new initiative which aims to support issuers in their transition journey and provide transparency to investors. The Transition Finance Gateway highlights the transition efforts of the exchange’s 500+ non-financial corporate debt issuers, regardless of whether they have brought conventional or sustainable bonds – or a mixture of both – to LuxSE.In November 2025, LuxSE launched its next important step in moving beyond its previous security-level focus by unveiling the EU Taxonomy Issuers Window of the LGX Platform. This is the first such window exclusively dedicated to issuers with significant EU Taxonomy alignment launched by a European exchange. The EU Taxonomy Issuers Window showcases LuxSE issuers with either Significant Turnover Alignment or Significant CapEx Alignment with the EU Taxonomy.Advancing sustainable finance through education and dataBeyond launching two new initiatives that place a specific focus on transition finance and Europe’s sustainable finance agenda, LuxSE continued to develop the LGX Academy and LGX DataHub in 2025 – a year that saw both initiatives celebrate their fifth anniversaries.Through the LGX Academy, LuxSE’s experts travelled to nine different countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America to facilitate the development of sustainable finance in these key regions.2025 was also an important year for LuxSE’s centralised sustainable bond database, the LGX DataHub, which closed out 2025 with up to 200 data points on 23,000+ sustainable bonds listed worldwide, and powered a report on the global sustainable bond market and two market intelligence studies focusing on the sustainability-linked bond market and gender-focused bonds.

The 19 new companies operate across 14 key sectors of the national economy generating an aggregate turnover of nearly €730 million ELITE includes over 2,000 companies from 24 countries, with a total combined turnover of €216 billion An analysis of ELITE’s potential in Italy identifies a further 2,200 small and medium-sized enterprises with all the characteristics to join the ecosystem               ELITE, the Euronext ecosystem that supports small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in growing and accessing private and public capital markets, today welcomes 19 Italian companies.  The new companies operate in 14 sectors key to Italy’s economy, ranging from IT services and construction to retail, leisure, the metals industry, engineering, and transport. These are ambitious entities operating both in Italy and abroad, with an aggregate turnover of €726 million. Partners contributing to the entry of these new firms into ELITE include Deloitte, IPOCoach, and Pedersoli Gattai. By joining ELITE, these companies will gain access to an extensive range of expertise and services designed to support their long-term sustainable growth, underpinned by a pan-European network, proximity to various forms of complementary finance alongside traditional funding, and a training programme tailored to strengthen the capabilities of owners and management, while increasing visibility and supporting internationalisation processes. Since its founding in 2012 by Borsa Italiana and its subsequent integration into the Euronext Group in 2021, ELITE has continued to expand its network. It now includes over 2,000 companies from 24 countries across continental Europe, representing a total turnover of €216 billion. Through ELITE, 78 companies have undertaken the listing process, raising €4.7 billion; 156 have issued 221 corporate bonds with a total value of €2.4 billion; and 712 have completed over 2,400 M&A transactions. According to ELITE’s annual analysis, there are over 2,200 high-growth-potential Italian SMEs that meet all the characteristics required to join this ecosystem. These companies are present in every region of the country, with the highest concentration in Lombardy and Veneto, while southern regions are increasingly gaining prominence. They reflect Italian entrepreneurial excellence and are ready to join ELITE. Marta Testi, CEO of ELITE – Euronext Group, said: "Today, 19 new companies embark on a journey that is not just about training, but about a living connection between entrepreneurs, managers, investors, and advisors: an alliance of visions, energies, and responsibilities that looks toward economic development with ambition and awareness. Our role is to act as a strategic partner to businesses that place innovation and growth at the core of their business model. The annual analysis of Italian companies’ potential confirms this: a universe of over 2,200 firms, generating more than €113 billion in turnover and employing 300,000 people, with levels of performance and profitability that reflect the strength and vitality of our entrepreneurial fabric. This is a clear demonstration of how rich Italy is in stories of excellence that deserve to be supported, valued, and accelerated". New ELITE companies admitted to the ecosystem COMPANY’S NAME REGION BUSINESS ACTIVITY WEBSITE Agrieuro Umbria E-commerce for agricultural and gardening machinery www.agrieuro.com Arbi Dario Tuscany Production and sale of frozen seafood www.arbi.it Autorimessa Battagli e Spinelli - BASPI Tuscany Tourist transport, private hire (PHV) and coach rental with driver www.baspibus.com Aversana Petroli Campania Marketing and distribution of petroleum products www.aversanapetroli.IT Castello - Società Benefit Apulia Mineral water bottling www.acquaamata.it Cavicondor Sicily Electronic & Electrical Equipment www.cavicondor.eu Dott. Mario Ticca Sardinia Civil and industrial construction https://www.dottmarioticcasrl.it Ecocontrolgsm Molise Waste sorting solutions, environmental technologies and waste management www.ecoctrl.com Flyon Aero Piedmont Aviation training www.flyon.aero/it/ Imeva Campania Design and construction of road barriers www.imeva.it Impresa di Costruzioni Albini e Castelli Lombardy Construction and Materials www.albiniecastelli.it Laserwall Lombardy Technology and digital communications www.laserwall.it/ Messana Saverio Sicily Oil & Gas Website not available Packing Campania Production and distribution of pallets www.packingsrl.it Ramet Lombardy Processing of non-ferrous materials www.ramet.eu PrestitoSì Finance Campania Loans and Mortgages www.prestitosifinance.it Trasporti Pesanti Lombardy Freight transport services www.pesantisrl.it Venticento Lombardy Communication and events agency www.venticento.eu

CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today announced it will launch options on Eris SOFR Swap futures on June 16, 2026, pending regulatory review. "Our new options on Eris SOFR Swap futures will provide clients with additional flexibility in managing U.S. dollar interest rate risk," said Agha Mirza, CME Group Global Head of Rates and OTC Products. "Eris SOFR Swap options will complement our existing interest rate product suite, which delivers deep liquidity, price transparency and unmatched margin efficiencies to global market participants." "Eris SOFR Swap options will help institutional investors manage risk with greater precision as they navigate varying expectations on the direction of U.S. interest rates," said Michael Riddle, CEO of Eris Innovations. "By mirroring the structure of forward-premium OTC swaptions, Eris SOFR Swap options can deliver cost optimization, margin efficiencies and trading simplicity amid shifting economic conditions." "From the beginning, the goal of Eris was to rethink how swap spread risk could be accessed, combining the precision of OTC markets with the efficiency of futures," said Don Wilson, CEO of DRW and co-inventor of the technology behind Eris Innovations. "Because of these unique design characteristics, the product has obtained significant adoption by a wide range of market participants. CME Group's addition of options will enable more sophisticated risk management strategies while preserving the capital and liquidity advantages that have driven the impressive growth of Eris SOFR Swap futures." "Our client base is primarily hedgers managing complex interest rate exposure, and we've seen strong demand for listed options on SOFR swap rates," said Jeff Bauman, Senior Vice President of Fixed Income at R.J. O'Brien & Associates. "Eris SOFR Swap options will enable clients to better manage the convexity of their portfolios, while providing a flexible, capital-efficient extension of risk management solutions at CME Group." CME Group is the world's leading interest rate market, offering futures and options for a broad range of benchmark products, including U.S. Treasuries, SOFR, Fed Funds, TBAs, credit and more. Its U.S. Treasury and SOFR contracts trade side-by-side on the CME Globex platform with BrokerTec cash securities. Since launching in October 2020, more than 10 million Eris SOFR Swap futures contracts have traded at CME Group. In March 2026, Eris SOFR Swap futures reached an all-time open interest record of 707,000 contracts ($71B notional), including a single-day volume record of 299,513 contracts on March 10. Eris SOFR Swap futures replicate interest rate swap cash flows, offering the standardization and capital savings of exchange-traded instruments. The addition of options on 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Eris SOFR Swap futures will support more sophisticated hedging strategies, such as managing non-linear risk in mortgage-backed portfolios. Eris SOFR Swap options will be eligible for margin offsets with other cleared interest rate futures and options at CME Group. The products will be listed by, and subject to, the rules of CBOT. More information is available at cmegroup.com/eris-options.

Adverts which used edited, unauthorised clips of Martin Lewis to make misleading claims about average motor finance compensation and used the FCA logo without permission, have been banned by the FCA. Conclusive Financial Ltd (Conclusive), a claims management company (CMC), which also trades as PCP Refunds, was required to remove its advertising and update or take down its website until it complied with the FCA's rules. Conclusive has since removed the banned adverts. The FCA was also concerned that some of the firm’s adverts stated consumers would receive £1,846 on average for compensation for motor finance claims, with no explanation of how they reached this figure. Conclusive also promoted a 'No Win, No Fee' service on its websites, without a proper explanation of the fees, including any exit fees, people would be charged. It did not tell consumers that they could make claims for free to their lender or to the Financial Ombudsman Service without the need to use a CMC. Alison Walters, director of consumer finance at the FCA, said: 'Consumers should be wary of adverts that overpromise or give the impression they are endorsed by the FCA or well-known individuals. We will take swift action where rules are being broken. 'Our scheme is free and people don’t have to use a CMC or law firm. If they do, it’s important that they can trust them.' A joint taskforce with the FCA, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Advertising Standards Authority and Information Commissioner’s Office was recently formed, which is the latest measure by the regulators to improve standards. Following FCA action, CMCs have removed or amended 899 misleading adverts since January 2024. Advice for consumers Consumers who have engaged with Conclusive and believe they have been misled by its advertising, should complain directly to Conclusive. If consumers are unhappy with the outcome, they can refer their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If a consumer, as a result of seeing these adverts, has signed up with a law firm, then they should complain to the law firm directly and the Legal Ombudsman if they remain unsatisfied. Background First Supervisory Notice: Conclusive Financial Limited (PDF). Millions of car finance customers to get payouts this year as FCA goes ahead with compensation scheme. Consumers can make a motor finance claim for free. Check our website for more information.

Deutsche Börse Group is deepening its partnership with Kraken (Payward, Inc.) through a strategic investment of $200 million.  The partnership encompasses regulated crypto, tokenized markets and derivatives, as well as enhanced liquidity for institutional clients across geographies. Deutsche Börse Group today announced a strategic investment of $200 million in Payward, Inc., the unified infrastructure layer behind global cryptocurrency platform Kraken. The investment is made through the acquisition of shares in a secondary transaction, resulting in a 1.5 percent fully diluted stake in the company. This investment deepens the strategic partnership between Deutsche Börse Group and Kraken. As announced in December 2025, the two firms will leverage their complementary capabilities to bridge traditional financial markets and the digital asset economy. Spanning trading, custody, settlement, collateral management, and tokenized assets, the partnership will unlock a new range of enhanced products and services that deliver frictionless access to both ecosystems, creating a holistic experience for institutional clients. This investment highlights Deutsche Börse Group's commitment to its digital asset strategy, which involves the development of a comprehensive, hybrid market infrastructure. This infrastructure will be capable of processing assets of any technical form, including traditional securities and blockchain-native tokens, within a unified liquidity pool. The completion of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including applicable regulatory approvals. Closing is expected in Q2.

ETFGI reports that the European ETF industry recorded record net inflows in the first quarter, as the industry celebrated its 26th anniversary on April 11th. During March the ETFs industry in Europe gathered net inflows of US$13.62 billion, bringing year-to-date net inflows to US$128.71 billion, according to ETFGI's March 2026 European ETFs industry landscape insights report, the monthly report which is part of an annual paid-for research subscription service. ETFGI, is a 14 year old leading independent research and consultancy firm renowned for its expertise in subscription research, consulting services, 6 annual ETFGI Global ETFs Insights Summits, and ETF TV on global ETF industry trends. (All dollar values in USD unless otherwise noted.) Highlights The European ETF industry marked its 26th anniversary on April 11. Assets invested in the ETFs industry in Europe stood at $3.29 trillion at the end of March, down from the record high of $3.53 trillion at the end of February 2026. Net inflows reached $13.62 billion in March 2026. Year‑to‑date net inflows of $128.71 billion are the highest on record, surpassing the previous highs of $99.04 billion in 2025 and $59.30 billion in 2021. March marked the 42nd consecutive month of net inflows into European ETFs. During March the S&P 500 declined 4.98% in March and is down 4.33% year‑to‑date in 2026. Developed markets excluding the United States fell 10.99% in March but remained up 0.18% for the year. Within developed markets, Korea (‑24.15%) and Luxembourg (‑21.47%) recorded the largest declines during the month.  Emerging markets declined 10.13% in March and were down 2.84% year‑to‑date. Egypt (‑19.42%) and South Africa (‑17.24%) experienced the steepest losses among emerging markets in March. According to Deborah Fuhr, Managing Partner, Founder, and Owner, ETFGI Growth in assets in the ETFs industry in Europe as of the end of March The ETFs industry in Europe had 3,683 products, with 15,350 listings, assets of $3.29 Tn, from 149 providers listed on 32 exchanges in 25 countries at the end of March. iShares is the largest provider by assets, with $1.31 trillion, representing a 39.8% market share. Amundi ETF ranks second, with $407.38 billion in assets and a 12.4% market share, followed by Xtrackers with $331.99 billion and a 10.1% market share.  Together, the top three providers—out of 149—account for 62.3% of total assets in the European ETF industry, while the remaining 146 providers each hold less than 8% market share. Net Flows highlights During March, ETFs attracted net inflows of $13.62 billion. Equity ETFs led flows, gathering $9.62 billion during the month and bringing year‑to‑date net inflows to $95.39 billion, significantly higher than the $72.15 billion recorded at the same point in 2025. Fixed income ETFs experienced net outflows of $424.08 million in March. Despite this, year‑to‑date net inflows reached $21.86 billion, exceeding the $13.67 billion attracted by fixed income ETFs through March 2025. Commodity ETFs reported net inflows of $456.64 million in March, although they remained in net outflow territory year‑to‑date at $1.99 billion, compared with $5.46 billion of net inflows at the same point in 2025. Active ETFs continued to gain traction, attracting $3.68 billion of net inflows during March. This brought year‑to‑date net inflows in Europe to $11.08 billion, well above the $6.65 billion recorded year‑to‑date in 2025. Substantial inflows can be attributed to the top 20 ETFs by net new assets, which collectively gathered $18.24 Bn in March. Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF (VWRD LN) gathered $2.46 Bn, the largest individual net inflow.Top 20 ETFs by net new assets March 2026: Europe Source: ETFGI data sourced from ETF/ETP sponsors, exchanges, regulatory filings, Thomson Reuters/Lipper, Bloomberg, publicly available sources and data generated in-house. Note: This report is based on the most recent data available at the time of publication. Asset and flow data may change slightly as additional data becomes available. The top 10 ETPs by net new assets collectively gathered $1.69 Bn during March. WisdomTree Agriculture (AIGA LN) gathered $355.35 Mn, the largest individual net inflow. Top 10 ETPs by net new assets March 2026: Europe Source: ETFGI data sourced from ETF/ETP sponsors, exchanges, regulatory filings, Thomson Reuters/Lipper, Bloomberg, publicly available sources and data generated in-house. Note: This report is based on the most recent data available at the time of publication. Asset and flow data may change slightly as additional data becomes available. Investors have tended to invest in Equity ETFs during March.

Consumers and businesses could be given greater control over their financial data to help secure better deals, under a vision for open finance published by the FCA. Open finance will unlock the potential for people and businesses to share their financial data securely with a range of financial services providers, helping them access mortgages, investments, savings and pensions. This will give financial services firms a more complete picture of consumers’ and businesses’ finances, enabling more personalised and inclusive services, alongside more competitive pricing and stronger fraud protection. The FCA will prioritise exploring how open finance can help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) improve access to credit and speed up loan applications. It will also examine how open finance can help consumers manage and improve access to mortgages. David Geale, executive director for payments and digital finance at the FCA, said: 'Open finance has the potential to transform how people interact with financial services. By giving consumers and businesses more control over their own financial data, we can help them access credit, secure better deals and receive more customised support – while fuelling innovation, competition and supporting economic growth.' To progress plans as quickly as possible, the FCA will engage with industry, consumer groups and fellow regulators in 2026 to develop a range of practical open finance use cases. This will be done through the FCA's Smart Data Accelerator and PRISM (Prioritisation and Real-world Insights Selection Matrix) Taskforce. Adam Jackson, chief strategy officer at Innovate Finance, said: 'Just as open banking has sparked the growth of many UK fintechs, so open finance can power a new wave of innovation. By unlocking high-quality data in a way that secures consumer trust, open finance can be a foundation for widespread adoption of agentic AI. We support collaboration between industry and the FCA to deliver the roadmap at pace, enabling agreement on priority use cases and datasets, and appropriate regulatory action to open these up to competition and innovation.' The FCA will work with HM Treasury on options for a regulatory framework for open finance by the end of 2027. Firms will be supported to introduce open finance products sooner where they are already able to access data and appropriate permissions are in place. Background Read the roadmap: Open finance: our vision for a smart data future. The FCA’s Smart Data Accelerator allows firms to test emerging technologies and use cases for open finance in a secure space, supporting agile and dynamic policymaking. The FCA-led PRISM (Prioritisation and Real-world Insights Selection Matrix) Taskforce will create a clear, reusable framework for assessing the impact of open finance use cases. The FCA will consult on its proposed long-term regulatory framework for open banking before the end of 2026. Open banking is a secure and regulated way for people and businesses to share access to payments data from their bank account with trusted apps and services. Open banking has approximately 17 million usersLink is external , representing nearly 1 in 3 adults in the UK. Research by Open Banking Limited and EY suggests that the economic impact of open banking and open finance combined could reach £7.4bn per year in 5 yearsLink is external.   For more information, visit open banking and open finance.