Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), the world's leading derivatives and securities exchange network, today announced the recipients of The Options Institute Research Grant Program for 2024, sponsored by S&P Dow Jones Indices (S&P DJI) and SpiderRock Advisors. The recipients for the grant programs are as follows: The Options Institute S&P Dow Jones Indices Fixed Income Index Ecosystem Research Grant: Siamak Javadi Dr. Ali Nejadmalayeri William Campbell The Options Institute SpiderRock Advisors Derivatives Solutions for Private Wealth and Institutional Investors Research Grant Anup Basu Adam Clements   The Options Institute, Cboe's education arm, has been providing best-in-class investor education on the responsible use of options and trading strategies for more than 35 years. The Options Institute Research Grant Program supports academic research that catalyzes the understanding and advancement of derivatives usage and financial exchange marketplace structures. Recent grant topics have included the exploration of dispersion as an asset class, the impact of inflation on options markets, and retail options trading behaviors. "Academic research plays an important role in educating market participants and shaping the conversation around our products and markets, especially as they evolve and new innovations come to the forefront," said Alexandra Szakats, Head of The Options Institute at Cboe. "Cboe congratulates this year's esteemed grant recipients, and we are excited to support academic research that explores how derivatives can offer opportunity to private wealth and institutional investors. We are also very interested to delve into the cross-section of indexing and the fixed income ecosystem." The Options Institute S&P Dow Jones Indices Fixed Income Research Grant As recipients of The Options Institute S&P Dow Jones Indices Fixed Income Index Ecosystem Research grant, Mr. Javadi, Dr. Nejadmalayeri and Mr. Campbell will conduct research focused on price efficiency and liquidity in the fixed income index ecosystem. Mr. Javadi, the lead researcher for the grant, is an Associate Professor of Finance at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and has held academic positions at Ohio University and California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. His primary research interests include corporate finance, corporate governance, climate finance and empirical asset pricing. Dr. Nejadmalayeri is the John A. Guthrie Endowed Chair in Banking and Financial Services and a Professor of Finance at the University of Wyoming College of Business. Mr. Campbell, who has over three decades of experience as a risk manager, trader and consultant to the financial industry, is a consultant and university lecturer in economics and finance at the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign. "S&P Dow Jones Indices is proud of our ongoing collaboration with Cboe and to sponsor this timely and essential research on the fixed income marketplace. S&P DJI believes in the trusted and reliable performance metrics of fixed income indices and hopes that this grant only further advances the crucial role that indices serve in fixed income markets," said Frans Scheepers, Head of Fixed Income, Currency and Commodity Products at S&P Dow Jones Indices. The Options Institute SpiderRock Advisors Derivatives Solutions Research Grant The Options Institute SpiderRock Advisors Derivatives Solutions for Private Wealth and Institutional Investors Research Grant, awarded to Mr. Basu and Mr. Clements, will be focused on derivatives solutions within private wealth management and institutional investing. SpiderRock Advisors, as of May 2024, is a wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock. Mr. Basu, a Professor of Finance at Queensland University of Technology, has many years of experience in the banking and financial services industry and will serve as the lead researcher. His previous research focused on pension economics, investment management, and investor behavior. In 2023, Mr. Basu received the Government of India's SPARC grant for examining strategic asset allocation choices for India's National Pension System (NPS). Mr. Clements is a Professor in Finance at Queensland University of Technology, and his main research interests include financial econometrics, nonparametric estimation, time series modelling of asset return volatility and correlation and forecast evaluation. "SpiderRock Advisors (SRA) has always incorporated research and academic principles in our investment management philosophy and commercial offering. SRA is committed to augmenting its investment management capabilities with industry leaders to continually deliver the highest value to our clients. We look forward to working alongside Mr. Basu and Cboe to further educate investors within the growing derivatives marketplace," said Eric Metz, President & Chief Investment Officer at SpiderRock Advisors. Both research teams may claim Cboe historical data sets valued up to $35,000, subject to applicable terms and regulatory approvals.

Good afternoon and welcome back to the second half of today's conference on Financial Inclusion Practices and Innovations.1 It is really a pleasure to join you to discuss this important topic. This morning, our panelists provided their perspectives on issues related to supervision and regulation and payment frictions and innovations both domestically and internationally. The research and perspectives they discussed can certainly help to broaden our understanding of financial inclusion and all of the associated challenges. Together, our work to promote initiatives that further this work will enable greater access to financial services. An economy that works for everyone necessarily includes a more inclusive financial system. More expansive inclusion opportunities improve the financial well-being of both consumers and small businesses, thereby contributing to overall economic growth. Click here for full details.

SIFMA today announced Stephen Byron has been appointed Managing Director, Head of Technology, Operations and Business Continuity. In this role, Mr. Byron will oversee SIFMA’s technology and operations activities including market operations and resiliency, business continuity planning and cyber security.  In addition to serving as SIFMA’s principal liaison to member firm senior operations personnel, he will manage relationships with relevant regulators, industry utilities and technology providers. Mr. Byron joins SIFMA from Goldman Sachs where he served as Vice President and Operations Senior Leader of Equities Post Trade Transformation and Strategy. “I am excited to welcome Steve to SIFMA,” said SIFMA president and CEO Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr. “Steve’s extensive financial market operations experience will be a tremendous benefit to this critical role and the work SIFMA does on behalf of our members and the markets, as well as complement our tech, ops and BCP team.” Joseph Seidel, chief operating officer of SIFMA added, “Steve brings significant industry, operations, and technology experience to SIFMA.  His understanding of SIFMA priorities and the technological innovation within our member firms will help effect change by creating efficiencies and reducing risk across the markets. We are thrilled to welcome him.” “I am honored to join SIFMA and look forward to working with SIFMA’s talented technology, operations and BCP team,” said Mr. Byron. During his 24 years with Goldman Sachs, Mr. Byron has held senior leadership positions overseeing both global and regional cross functional teams, supporting the Global Markets division. Most recently, he was responsible for the firms’ Equities post trade transformation, focused on building front to back scale, increasing resiliency & recoverability. He also led the firms’ successful transition to T+1 settlement. Mr. Byron earned his Master of Arts from St. Andrew University. Mr. Byron will report directly to Joseph Seidel, SIFMA COO, and will serve as a member of SIFMA’s management committee.  He will begin with SIFMA on September 3, 2024, in the New York Office.

TMX Group today announced its financing activity on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) for June 2024. TSX welcomed 12 new issuers in June 2024, compared with 16 in the previous month and eight in June 2023. The new listings were 11 exchange traded funds and one closed-end fund. Total financings raised in June 2024 increased 110% compared to the previous month, and were up 65% compared to June 2023. The total number of financings in June 2024 was 56, compared with 37 the previous month and 32 in June 2023. For additional data relating to the number of transactions billed for TSX, please click on the following link: https://www.tmx.com/resource/en/440 TSXV welcomed five new issuers in June 2024, compared with three in the previous month and five in June 2023. The new listings were a Capital Pool Company and four mining companies. Total financings raised in June 2024 increased 11% compared to the previous month, but were down 8% compared to June 2023. There were 94 financings in June 2024, compared with 105 in the previous month and 115 in June 2023. TMX Group consolidated trading statistics for June 2024 can be viewed at www.tmx.com. Related Document:TMX Group Equity Financing Statistics – June 2024  

ETFGI, a leading independent research and consultancy firm covering trends in the global ETFs ecosystem, reported today that Korean retail investors were active purchasers of ETFs listed in the United States in June.  During June, 26 of the top 50 overseas securities purchased by Korean retail investors were ETFs listed in the United States. The number of ETFs on the top 50 list increased by 3 from 23 in May, it is up by 1 from 25 in April, and it is up by 1 from March. Highlights In June, 26 of the top 50 overseas securities purchased by Korean retail investors were ETFs listed in the US. Thirteen of the twenty-six ETFs on the top 50 list provide leverage or inverse exposure. The largest purchase was US$2.04 billion of the Direxion Daily Semiconductors Bull 3X SHS ETF listed in the US.                                      Top 10 overseas ETF purchased in June ETF Name Purchase Amount in USD DIREXION DAILY SEMICONDUCTORS BULL 3X SHS ETF                                        2,041,116,784 GRANITESHARES 1.5X LONG NVDA DAILY ETF                                        1,351,814,086 DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST DAILY                                            650,198,099 PROSHARES ULTRAPRO QQQ ETF                                            388,084,022 DIREXION DAILY TSLA BULL 1.5X SHARES                                            277,674,185 PROSHARES ULTRAPRO SHORT QQQ ETF                                            243,293,799 DIREXION DAILY 20 YEAR PLUS DRX DLY 20+ YR TREAS BULL 3X SPLR 953438320 US25459W5408                                            203,240,205 SPDR SP 500 ETF TRUST                                            175,454,862 GRNTSHR 1.5X ETF                                            160,156,256 2X BITCOIN STRATEGY ETF                                            144,030,064 Source, Korea Securities Depository. (All dollar values in USD unless otherwise noted)   The ETFs industry in South Korea has 1,255 ETF, with assets of $122.57 Bn, from 37 providers listed on the Korea Exchange at the end of June, according to data from ETFGI. Twenty six percent of the ETFs in Korea provide leverage or inverse exposure and account for 10.4% of the overall assets invested in the ETF industry in Korea. Asset Growth in the ETFs industry in Korea at the end of June

SIX has decided to make changes to the index baskets on the basis of a recommendation from the Index Commission and in compliance with the SMI®, SLI®, SPI® and SXI® index rules. The indices will be adjusted on 20 September 2024 after closing. The adjustment takes effect on 23 September 2024. Changes to the SMI® and SPI®20 index baskets NO CHANGES TO THE INDEX COMPOSITION   Changes to the SMIM® index basket Admission to the SMIM® Galderma Group N CH1335392721 Exclusion from the SMIM® MEYER BURGER N CH1357065999 Changes to the SLI® index basket Admission to the SLI® ADECCO N CH0012138605   Exclusion from the SLI® ROCHE I CH0012032113   SLI® 9% cappings Based on the SLI® index rules, section 6.15.4, and according to the capping selection list 9%1, the weight of the following securities will be limited to 9%: NESTLE N CH0038863350 NOVARTIS N CH0012005267 ROCHE GS CH0012032048 UBS GROUP N CH0244767585   Changes to the SPI® Small, Mid and Large index baskets Changes from SPI® Mid to SPI® Large KUEHNE+NAGEL INT N CH0025238863 Changes from SPI® Large to SPI® Mid SGS N CH1256740924 Changes from SPI® Small to SPI® Mid DocMorris N CH0042615283 JUNGFRAUBAHN HLD N CH0017875789   Changes from SPI® Mid to SPI® Small IDORSIA N CH0363463438 SCHWEITER N CH1248667003 Changes to the SXI Life Sciences® Admission to the SXI Life Sciences® Kuros N CH0325814116 NEWRON PHARMA N IT0004147952 XLIFE SCIENCES N CH0461929603   Changes to the SXI Bio+Medtech® Admission to the SXI Bio+Medtech® Kuros N CH0325814116 NEWRON PHARMA N IT0004147952 XLIFE SCIENCES N CH0461929603   Changes to the SXI Swiss Real Estate® Funds Admission to SXI Swiss Real Estate® Funds SWISSCANTO IFCA CH0037430946 Exclusion from SXI Swiss Real Estate® Funds REALSTONE CH0039415010 Changes to the SXI Swiss Real Estate® Shares NO CHANGES TO THE INDEX COMPOSITION     Further Links The equity selection list, which is compiled four times a year on the basis of the admission and exclusion criteria, is available on the website[1]: Equity Index Selection List [1] Access to the Closed User Group required.

The Basel Committee has published a consultation on Principles for the sound management of third-party risk. The proposed principles provide guidance to banks and prudential supervisors on effective third-party risk management, aiming to enhance banks' ability to withstand operational disruptions and mitigate the impact of severe disruptive events. Comments on the proposed principles are requested by 9 October 2024.   The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published a consultative document proposing Principles for the sound management of third-party risk in the banking sector. Ongoing digitalisation has led to rapid adoption of innovative approaches in the banking sector. As a result, banks have become increasingly reliant on third parties for services that they had not previously undertaken. This increased reliance on third parties beyond the scope of traditional outsourcing, coupled with the expansion of supply chains and rising concentration risks, has necessitated an update to the 2005 Joint Forum paper Outsourcing in financial services, specifically for the banking sector. The consultative document consists of 12 high-level principles offering guidance to banks and supervisors on effectively managing and supervising risks from third-party arrangements. The Principles introduce the concept of a third-party life cycle and emphasise overarching concepts such as criticality and proportionality. Furthermore, they delve into the topics of supply chain risk and concentration risk and highlight the importance of supervisory coordination and dialogue across sectors and borders. The Principles complement and expand on the Financial Stability Board's 2023 report Enhancing third-party risk management and oversight – a toolkit for financial institutions and financial authorities. While primarily directed at large internationally active banks and their prudential supervisors, these Principles also offer benefits to smaller banks and authorities in all jurisdictions. They establish a common baseline for banks and supervisors for the risk management of third parties, while providing the necessary flexibility to accommodate evolving practices and regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions. To remain adaptable and applicable to a wide range of technologies, the Principles maintain a technology-neutral stance. As a result, they can be applied to recent trends like artificial intelligence, machine learning and blockchain technology, even though these trends are not explicitly referenced. The Committee welcomes comments on the proposed Principles for the sound management of third-party risk, which should be submitted here by 9 October 2024. All submissions will be published on the BIS website unless a respondent specifically requests confidential treatment. Backgrounr: The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its mandate is to strengthen the regulation, supervision and practices of banks worldwide with the purpose of enhancing financial stability. The Committee reports to the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision and seeks its endorsement for major decisions. The Committee has no formal supranational authority, and its decisions have no legal force. Rather, the Committee relies on its members' commitments to achieve its mandate. The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is chaired by Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Basel Committee is chaired by Erik Thedéen, Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank. More information about the Basel Committee is available here.

WHAT: Chairman Rostin Behnam will testify at the U.S. Senate Committee on Agricultural, Nutrition and Forestry’s hearing on the Oversight of Digital Commodities. WHEN: Wednesday, July 10, 202410:00 a.m. (EST) WHERE: 328A Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515Virtual/livestream:Hearing: [2024-07-10] Oversight of Digital Commodities | Senate...

Iress today announced the appointment of Alistair Morgan to the newly created role of Executive Managing Director - UK, following a successful internal and external recruitment process.  Mr Morgan has held the role of Chief Financial Officer for the UK since 2018 working closely with Iress’ local and Global Leadership Team since that appointment. In his new role as Executive Managing Director - UK he assumes day-to-day leadership and oversight of Iress’ UK business strategy and financial outcomes. He will join Iress’ extended Global Leadership Team reporting into Iress’ Group Executive for Wealth & the UK, Harry Mitchell, whose role and commitment to the UK remains unchanged. Prior to joining Iress, Mr Morgan held leadership roles at Jaguar Land Rover and KPMG. Iress’ Group Executive Wealth and UK, Harry Mitchell, said: “Alistair brings the right balance of internal and external experience to this newly created and pivotal leadership role for Iress’ UK business. He has the strategic mindset and financial acumen to successfully lead our UK business going forward. “As Executive Managing Director Alistair will assume day-to-day responsibility for Iress’ UK Business Unit including accountability for our commercial, product, risk and technology outcomes. This is a great appointment for the UK and further demonstrates the depth of talent we have at Iress.” Iress’ incoming Executive Managing Director - UK, Alistair Morgan, said: “I’m delighted to be taking on this role which reinforces our commitment to the UK market at an exciting time for Iress. We have a strong team and clear focus on driving better outcomes for our clients through improved product and service experiences, and I look forward to leading Iress towards continued success in the UK.”

The Spring 2024 regulatory agenda (the “Agenda”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was recently published as part of the government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.[1]  These semiannual submissions set out the CFTC’s Agenda of rulemakings that it expects to propose or finalize over the next year. I do not object to the rulemaking matters that are listed in the CFTC’s Agenda.  Rather, I object to what is missing because it was withdrawn from the Agenda—with neither transparency nor explanation. The matter conspicuously missing from this Agenda is an important proposed rulemaking regarding the CFTC’s uncleared swap margin rules, which was approved by the Commission during an Open Meeting just last year (the “Proposal”), based on recommendations from a CFTC Global Markets Advisory Committee (“GMAC”) report.[2] The Facts:  What the Proposal Is, and More Importantly, what it is NOT The Proposal addressed two recommendations in the comprehensive GMAC Report.  Specifically, it proposed to— Revise the definition of a margin affiliate to prevent triggering the requirement to exchange initial margin with certain eligible seeded investment funds for a limited, three-year period (the “Seeded Funds Proposal”); and Eliminate the disqualification of securities in certain money market funds that would otherwise be acceptable from being used as eligible initial margin collateral (the “MMF Proposal”).[3]   I set out the Proposal’s merits in lengthy remarks that I delivered during the CFTC’s Open Meeting on July 26, 2023, at which the Commission voted to adopt the Proposal.[4]  For convenience, I am re-printing those remarks in full at the conclusion of this Statement. But, in short:  1) the Seeded Funds Proposal was an effort to tailor the CFTC’s uncleared margin rules—which were written with uncleared swap transactions between the largest, most systemic and interconnected banks in mind—to account for very real challenges arising when they are applied to financial end-users; and 2) the MMF Proposal would have addressed an instance where the Commission’s rules fail to achieve the Commission’s objective in adopting them. The Proposal was thus an effort to calibrate margin requirements for uncleared swaps to the circumstances of (and modest risk presented by) certain end-user market participants, and to better achieve the Commission’s original goals.  This Proposal was NOT an attempt to water down any existing CFTC rules.  And this proposal certainly was NOT an attempt to roll-back rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act.[5] As happens with most proposed rulemakings, after the Commission voted to approve the Proposal, it was then published in the Federal Register (on August 8, 2023) for public comment.  The Commission received comment letters both supporting and opposing the Proposal, which is what usually occurs for most proposed rules with a public comment period.  But what I find very unusual, and questionable, is the decision to withdraw the Proposal from the agency’s regulatory Agenda more than 6 months after the close of the comment period on October 10, 2023. Unfortunately, the Unified Agenda does not require a public explanation as to why a proposed rulemaking was withdrawn,[6] so we are left to make assumptions as to motivation.  Without a stated reason, the only logical conclusion is that the agency has decided that the opposing, minority views in the comments to this Proposal were more important than those supporting the Proposal, which made up the majority of comments.  Under these circumstances, I feel I have a duty to publicly address some of the shortcomings in the arguments offered by the opponents. The Argument:  Opposing Comment Letters Fail to Substantively Address the Proposal’s Provisions To start, any suggestion that this Proposal somehow calls into question the importance of the uncleared swap margin requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act is factually incorrect.  NOT a single supporter of this Proposal disputes the importance of the Dodd-Frank Act margin requirements for uncleared swaps. With respect to the Seeded Funds Proposal, the opponents’ comments lack any analysis of the numerous safeguards and conditions that our Staff included in the Proposal to assure that it would not endanger the objectives of the Dodd-Frank Act.  Indeed, several comment letters supportive of the intent underlying the Seeded Funds Proposal voiced concern that this intent would go unfulfilled because its conditions were too restrictive. Similarly, none of the Proposal’s opponents acknowledged that the Commission’s uncleared margin rules already include money market fund securities in their “expansive” list of collateral that can be pledged as initial margin in order to provide flexibility,[7] or that what the Proposal is addressing is another aspect of the rules that effectively removes that intended flexibility.[8] The Proposal received strong support from the buy-side community, representing financial end-users such as, among others, pension plans, endowments, and insurance providers.  Financial end-users are vital to American investors and to the U.S. economy, and they utilize uncleared swaps to manage their risks.  Yet, these end-users’ voices were deemed completely irrelevant when the decision was made to withdraw the Proposal from the CFTC’s Agenda. The Process:  Notice-and-Comment Public Rulemaking is the “Gold Standard” for Transparency in Regulatory Efforts The decision to withdraw the Proposal from the Agenda was not made by our Staff.  In fact, our Staff was ready to prepare a final rulemaking that, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, would consider the comments received (both supporting and opposing), and recommend any changes to the Proposal that Staff felt were appropriate as a result. Rather, the withdrawal of the Proposal secretly rescinded a decision that was publicly voted on during an Open Meeting of the Commission.  But if Commissioners were having any second thoughts and regrets, then we as Commissioners should have done what we were nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress to do—deliberate, debate, and seek consensus.  Ultimately, if three or more Commissioners felt that a final rulemaking on the Proposal was unwarranted, they could have cast their vote to that effect, and publicly explained it. Instead, a decision was made outside of the public eye to withdraw the Proposal from the Agenda, apparently based on a view that neither market participants nor the public are entitled to any explanation.  This runs directly counter to the Commission’s stated Core Value of transparency about our rules and processes.[9] The Outcome:  Withdrawal of the Proposal Diminishes the Work of Our Advisory Committees and Staff, and Undermines the Agency’s Historical Comity Opposition to the Proposal included suggestions that it should not be adopted because it was recommended by an Advisory Committee consisting largely of industry representatives during the last Administration.  The suggestion that our Advisory Committees’ recommendations amount to nothing more than partisan political statements not only diminishes the hard work and independent analysis that go into making formal Advisory Committee recommendations—it is harmful to one of the most valuable tools for public engagement at the CFTC. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act,[10] which governs GMAC, agencies are required to ensure that Advisory Committee membership is fairly balanced in terms of the viewpoints represented and the functions to be performed by the committee.[11]  And it is hardly surprising (and entirely appropriate) that the membership of an Advisory Committee to assist the CFTC on global issues relating to the regulation of the derivatives markets would include representatives of those who actually participate in the derivatives markets. Regardless of which political party has a majority on the Commission, our Advisory Committees are sponsored by Commissioners from both parties.  And I am not aware of any other instance in which the work of a CFTC Advisory Committee has been criticized based on the political party that holds the White House at the time.  To be clear, we may not all agree with the recommendations offered by an Advisory Committee, but questioning the integrity of the recommendations that were put forth by the Advisory Committee members—who all volunteer to do this work without compensation—is disrespectful and demeaning to those members and diminishes the collaborative process and hard work that goes into producing these recommendations. In this particular case, the Subcommittee that produced the GMAC Report did so on a very tight timeline—while enduring the challenges of shutdowns that occurred at the start of the pandemic during the first half of 2020.  It is truly frustrating to see the Commission acquiesce to opponents’ attacks, rather than recognize and appreciate the dedication of the professionals who served on GMAC and its Subcommittee when it presented the GMAC Report.[12] I will stand up for CFTC Staff here as well, since their hard work and efforts are also disregarded by the decision to withdraw the Proposal.  As noted, our Staff included several safeguards and conditions in the Proposal to assure that achieving the policy goals of the recommendations in the GMAC Report would be done without undercutting the protections that Congress enacted in the Dodd-Frank Act to avoid a recurrence of the financial crisis.  I have no doubt that our Staff would have welcomed a robust debate (as would I) as to whether the Proposal struck the right balance, and whether its safeguards and conditions were too loose, too restrictive, or just right.  But opponents of the Proposal engaged in no such debate, simply dismissing it out-of-hand without any analysis of our Staff’s efforts to get it right.  The Commission similarly ignores the conscientious efforts of our Staff by “pulling the plug” on the Proposal altogether. The CFTC is an independent financial regulatory agency.[13]  It is not part of the Administration, and it does not work for, or at the direction of, the White House.  It is bipartisan—when fully empaneled as it is now, there are three Commissioners from one political party and two from the other.[14]  And most of the Commission’s actions also are bipartisan.  In fact, the Commission’s approval of the Proposal was itself bipartisan, a fact that seems lost in the subsequent withdrawal of the Proposal. Conclusion To be crystal clear:  The Proposal would NOT “roll back” the Commission’s uncleared margin requirements that apply to the largest financial institutions for their swap transactions with one another.  Rather, it reflects carefully considered steps to refine our rules to achieve the Commission’s objectives in adopting them, and to account for adverse consequences their application has for financial end-users of our derivatives markets in specific circumstances.  If given the chance, we could have done what CFTC Commissioners are supposed to do:  Work together, in a bipartisan manner, to adopt acceptable revisions to the Proposal in order to find a path forward for a final rule.  Sadly, in this instance, the Commission instead has abandoned the public comity for which we historically have been known, and which has always served the agency well. * * * * * * * * * * Remarks of Commissioner Summer K. Mersinger on Proposed Uncleared Margin Rule Amendments Regarding Seeded Funds and Money Market Funds at the Open Meeting of the CFTC on July 26, 2023 I support the proposed rulemaking before us today, which addresses two recommendations regarding margin requirements for uncleared swaps that the Commission received from the Global Markets Advisory Committee, and are based on a comprehensive report proposed by GMAC’s Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps back in 2020 under former Commissioner Dawn Stump’s leadership.  These proposals demonstrate the value added to the Commission’s policymaking by its advisory committees, in which market participants and other interested parties come together to provide us with their perspectives and potential solutions to practical problems. The Commission promptly and unanimously undertook two rulemakings that implemented four of the recommendations put forward in the GMAC Margin Subcommittee report.  Before us today is a proposal to adopt two more of those recommendations.  These two rule changes further several important objectives: first, the need to tailor our rules to ensure they are suited to the circumstances of those required to comply with them; second, the imperative of harmonizing our margin requirements with those of our international colleagues in order to facilitate compliance and coordinated regulatory oversight; and third, our obligation to periodically review our rules to ensure they’re achieving the purposes that led the Commission to adopt them in the first instance. Specifically, the two proposals before us would, first, revise the definition of a “margin affiliate” to prevent triggering the requirement for an eligible seeded investment fund to exchange initial margin for a limited, three-year period, and second, eliminate a provision disqualifying securities in certain money market funds from being used as initial margin collateral. With respect to the proposal regarding seeded funds, it’s necessary to first recognize that the Commission’s uncleared margin rules for swap dealers, like the Framework of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions on which they are based, were designed primarily to ensure the exchange of margin between the largest, most systemic and interconnected financial institutions for their uncleared swap transactions with one another.  These institutions and transactions have been subject to the uncleared margin requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act for several years now.  However, due to a phased-in implementation schedule, our uncleared margin rules only recently took effect for a different type of swap counterparty: financial end-users, such as pension plans, endowments, insurance providers, and as relevant here, seeded investment funds.  And we as regulators have a responsibility to make sure the rules are appropriate for that purpose. A seeded investment fund is seeded by a sponsor entity that provides a portion or all the fund’s start-up capital as the fund starts out to develop a performance track record in the expectation of attracting unaffiliated investors going forward.  The sponsor does not have transparency into the management or trading of the seeded fund, and does not guarantee its obligations.  Seeded funds often have limited individual swap exposure themselves. Because the Commission’s margin rules require that the fund’s exposure be aggregated with that of the sponsor and all the sponsor’s other affiliates, the fund may become subject to initial margin obligations on uncleared swaps, and this can present a serious challenge.  For example, management of margin obligations in the context of seeded funds is difficult since they are legally and operationally distinct entities that may not be able to share information about their exposure with the sponsor or other affiliates.  And given their typically small size, seeded funds may encounter difficulties in establishing the necessary margin documentation and processes, as counterparties and custodians, which face competing demands for resources and services, may prioritize larger counterparties. Accordingly, the proposal would provide that for purposes of determining whether a seeded fund must exchange initial margin for uncleared swaps, the fund would be treated as a separate legal entity not affiliated with the sponsor entity.  This is a very sensible approach and an appropriate refinement to make the Commission’s uncleared margin rules workable for seeded funds, given the realities of the modern investment management environment.  Equally important, it is consistent with the principle that margin requirements be commensurate with the risk of uncleared swaps.  Given their generally small size and limited swap exposure, seeded investment funds do not pose significant risks to their swap counterparties or the financial system. Nevertheless, the proposal includes a series of safeguards and conditions.  Most notably, the proposal adopts the recommendation of the GMAC Margin Subcommittee that this margin treatment be applicable only for a period of three years from the date that the seeded fund begins trading as it works towards establishing a performance track record and attracting unaffiliated investors.  Further, the fund’s sponsor and its other affiliates would still have to include the seeded fund’s exposure in their calculation of whether they’re subject to initial margin requirements, and the proposed treatment would only apply to initial margin, as the uncleared swaps entered into by seeded funds would remain subject to applicable variation margin requirements. Finally, the proposal contains a host of conditions designed to ensure that it can be relied on only by funds that are sufficiently independent and risk-remote from their sponsor and its other affiliates, and that are engaging in genuine efforts to test their investment strategy and attract unaffiliated investors.  These conditions were not included in the GMAC Margin Subcommittee report, and, frankly, I question whether they’re all necessary, but I support proposing them for public comment in order to make clear that we are seeking to craft a rule that is narrowly tailored to address a particular set of challenges presented by the application of our uncleared margin rules to a particular set of financial end-users, and no more. In addition, the proposed changes would align the Commission’s margin rules with respect to seeded funds with both the BCBS/IOSCO Framework and the manner in which these issues are handled by our regulatory colleagues in other major market jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, and the European Union.  Given the global nature of derivatives markets, international harmonization of our margin regulations is imperative.  Indeed, in the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress specifically directed the Commission, in order to “promote effective and consistent global regulation of swaps,” to “consult with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards” with respect to the regulation of swaps and swap entities.” And when the G-20 leaders met in Pittsburgh in the midst of the financial crisis in 2009, they, too, recognized that solutions for global derivatives markets demand coordinated policies and cooperation.  Congress and the G-20 leaders thus recognized that because modern swap markets are not bound by jurisdictional borders, they cannot function absent consistent international standards.  Fragmented regulation can hinder compliance with margin requirements, encourage regulatory arbitrage, and undermine the resilience of global derivatives markets.  Harmonization and coordination, on the other hand, foster enhanced compliance and strengthen the effectiveness of our regulatory oversight. Turning to the money market funds proposal, this is a case where the Commission’s rules are failing to achieve the Commission’s objective in adopting them.  The Commission’s rules provide that the types of collateral that can be posted or collected as initial margin include, among other things, securities issued by money market and similar funds (which I’ll refer to collectively as “money market funds”), but there is a catch: securities of money market funds are not eligible collateral if the assets of the fund can be transferred through securities lending, securities borrowing, or repurchase agreements, or similar means (which I’ll refer to as the “asset transfer restriction”). When it adopted its uncleared margin rules, the Commission stated that it included money market fund securities in its expansive list of collateral that can be pledged as initial margin in order to provide flexibility, but the flexibility that the Commission granted with one hand, it took away with the other since most money market funds available to the institutional marketplace use repurchase or similar arrangements, or are authorized to do so, as part of their management strategy. The widespread use of repurchase and similar agreements by money market funds severely limits the number that satisfy the Commission’s asset transfer restriction and qualify as eligible collateral.  In fact, research cited in the GMAC Subcommittee report suggests that the number of U.S. money market funds that may be available is as few as four.  Thus, the asset transfer restriction significantly restricts the availability of money market funds as a form of margin collateral for swap counterparties.  Not only can this contribute to a concentration of margin collateral in the securities of a few money market funds, which can be worrisome from a systemic risk perspective, it also runs contrary to the intent of the Commission underlying the uncleared margin rules. Under these circumstances, I believe the Commission is rightly re-visiting a rule that is failing to achieve its intended purpose, and I support proposing the removal of the asset transfer restriction for public comment.  That’s a reasonable approach, particularly since: one, the proposal is limited in scope, in that it would not amend any other condition applicable to the use of money market fund securities as eligible initial margin collateral; two, the Commission’s rules permit the investment of customer margin by futures commission merchants in money market funds without an asset transfer restriction; and three, removal of the restriction would bring the Commission’s eligible collateral framework in line with the approach that has been adopted by our colleagues at the Securities and Exchange Commission. In conclusion, I want to be very clear:  These two proposed changes to the uncleared margin rules do not constitute any kind of roll-back of the margin requirements that apply today to the largest financial institutions in their uncleared swap transactions with one another.  Rather, they reflect a reasonable refinement of our rules that: first, with respect to seeded investment funds, would take account, with significant guardrails, circumstances in which the rules impose significant practical and operational challenges when applied to a type of financial end-user that has recently come into their scope, and that aligns our rules with those of the international regulatory community; and second, would remedy the Commission’s hollow promise when it adopted the margin rules that securities of money market funds may be posted and collected as eligible initial margin collateral. I want to express my deep appreciation for the efforts of the members of the GMAC, especially the GMAC Margin Subcommittee, who provided us with a well-reasoned and high-quality report on complex margin issues, and this was, no less, at the start of a pandemic.  The GMAC and its Margin Subcommittee that produced the report was comprised of a wide range of market participants with expertise and experience in the impact of uncleared margin requirements in the marketplace.  They devoted a tremendous amount of time to working through differences of opinion and reaching consensus. I definitely want to also thank the staff of the Market Participants Division, whose efforts today with the Office of the General Counsel and the Chief Economist’s Office have enabled us to advance these initiatives to ensure that our uncleared margin rules are appropriately risk-based for all, are in line with international standards, and achieve their stated objectives, consistent with our oversight responsibilities under the Commodity Exchange Act. [1] Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (“Unified Agenda”) is published during the Spring and Fall of each year by the General Services Administration, Regulatory Information Service Center, and the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  The CFTC’s Agenda of rulemakings in the Spring 2024 edition of the Unified Agenda is available at CFTC Agency Rule List - Spring 2024 (reginfo.gov). [2] The report was prepared by GMAC’s Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps (the “Subcommittee”).  See “Recommendations to Improve Scoping and Implementation of Initial Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps,” Report to the CFTC’s Global Markets Advisory Committee by the Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps (May 19, 2020), available at https://www.cftc.gov/media/3886/GMAC_051920MarginSubcommitteeReport/download (“GMAC Report”). [3] Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 88 Fed. Reg. 53409 (August 8, 2023).  The Proposal also included a technical amendment to the haircut schedule set forth in CFTC Rule 23.156(a)(3)(i)(B), 17 C.F.R. § 23.156(a)(3)(i)(B), to add a footnote that was inadvertently omitted when the rule was originally promulgated. [4] See CFTC to Hold a Commission Open Meeting on July 26 (July 26, 2023), available at CFTC to Hold a Commission Open Meeting on July 26 | CFTC. [5] Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, Title VII, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (“Dodd-Frank Act”). [6] The Unified Agenda somewhat misleadingly describes this rulemaking as a “completed action.”  See CFTC Completed Rule List - Spring 2024 (reginfo.gov).  In fact, it has been withdrawn. [7] Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 81 Fed Reg. 636, 666 (January 6, 2016). [8] The uncleared margin rules provide that securities of money market funds are not eligible collateral if the assets of the fund can be transferred through securities lending or borrowing, or repo or reverse repo agreements.  CFTC Rule 23.156(a)(1)(ix)(C), 17 C.F.R. § 23.156(a)(1)(ix)(C).  This significantly limits their availability as eligible collateral since most money market funds available to the institutional marketplace use repurchase or similar arrangements, or are authorized to do so, as part of their management strategy.  In fact, research cited in the GMAC Report suggests that the number of qualifying U.S. money market funds may be as few as four.  See GMAC Report, supra n.2, at 24. [9] CFTC Core Values, Clarity, available at https://www.cftc.gov/About/AboutTheCommission. [10] 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. [11] 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.30(c). [12] Notably, the Commission has previously voted unanimously to implement four other recommendations from the GMAC Report.  See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 86 Fed. Reg. 229 (January 5, 2021); and Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 86 Fed. Reg. 6850 (January 25, 2021). [13] Section 2(a)(2)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(2)(A). [14] Id.

Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and other members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present the Federal Reserve's semiannual Monetary Policy Report. The Federal Reserve remains squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people. Over the past two years, the economy has made considerable progress toward the Federal Reserve's 2 percent inflation goal, and labor market conditions have cooled while remaining strong. Reflecting these developments, the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals are coming into better balance. I will review the current economic situation before turning to monetary policy. Current Economic Situation and OutlookRecent indicators suggest that the U.S. economy continues to expand at a solid pace. Gross domestic product growth appears to have moderated in the first half of this year following impressive strength in the second half of last year. Private domestic demand remains robust, however, with slower but still-solid increases in consumer spending. We have also seen moderate growth in capital spending and a pickup in residential investment so far this year. Improving supply conditions have supported resilient demand and the strong performance of the U.S. economy over the past year. In the labor market, a broad set of indicators suggests that conditions have returned to about where they stood on the eve of the pandemic: strong, but not overheated. The unemployment rate has moved higher but was still at a low level of 4.1 percent in June. Payroll job gains averaged 222,000 jobs per month in the first half of the year. Strong job creation over the past couple of years has been accompanied by an increase in the supply of workers, reflecting increases in labor force participation among individuals aged 25 to 54 and a strong pace of immigration. As a result, the jobs-to-workers gap is well down from its peak and now stands just a bit above its 2019 level. Nominal wage growth has eased over the past year. The strong labor market has helped narrow long-standing disparities in employment and earnings across demographic groups.1 Inflation has eased notably over the past couple of years but remains above the Committee's longer-run goal of 2 percent. Total personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices rose 2.6 percent over the 12 months ending in May. Core PCE prices, which exclude the volatile food and energy categories, also increased 2.6 percent. After a lack of progress toward our 2 percent inflation objective in the early part of this year, the most recent monthly readings have shown modest further progress. Longer-term inflation expectations appear to remain well anchored, as reflected in a broad range of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, as well as measures from financial markets. Monetary PolicyOur monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. In support of these goals, the Committee has maintained the target range for the federal funds rate at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent since last July, after having tightened the stance of monetary policy significantly over the previous year and a half. We have also continued to reduce our securities holdings. At our May meeting, we decided to slow the pace of balance sheet runoff starting in June, consistent with the plans released previously. Our restrictive monetary policy stance is helping to bring demand and supply conditions into better balance and to put downward pressure on inflation. The Committee has stated that we do not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range for the federal funds rate until we have gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. Incoming data for the first quarter of this year did not support such greater confidence. The most recent inflation readings, however, have shown some modest further progress, and more good data would strengthen our confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. We continue to make decisions meeting by meeting. We know that reducing policy restraint too soon or too much could stall or even reverse the progress we have seen on inflation. At the same time, in light of the progress made both in lowering inflation and in cooling the labor market over the past two years, elevated inflation is not the only risk we face. Reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. In considering adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will continue its practice of carefully assessing incoming data and their implications for the evolving outlook, the balance of risks, and the appropriate path of monetary policy. Congress has entrusted the Federal Reserve with the operational independence that is needed to take a longer-term perspective in the pursuit of our dual mandate of maximum employment and stable prices. We remain committed to bringing inflation back down to our 2 percent goal and to keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. Restoring price stability is essential to achieving maximum employment and stable prices over the long run. Our success in delivering on these goals matters to all Americans. Let me conclude by emphasizing that we understand that our actions affect communities, families, and businesses across the country. Everything we do is in service to our public mission. Thank you. I am happy to take your questions. 1. A box in our latest Monetary Policy Report, "Employment and Earnings across Demographic Groups," discusses differences in labor market outcomes among segments of the population. Return to text

The U.S. Department of the Treasury is calling for Large Position Reports from those entities whose positions in the 4-3/4% Treasury Bonds of November 2043 equaled or exceeded $1.6 billion as of Tuesday, December 19, 2023, or Friday, December 29, 2023. Entities must submit separate reports for each reporting date on which their positions equaled or exceeded the reporting threshold.  Entities with positions in this Treasury Bond below $1.6 billion as of the reporting dates are not required to submit Large Position Reports. Reports must be received by Treasury before 12:00 P.M. (ET) on Monday, July 15, 2024, and must include the required positions and administrative information.  Large Position Reports may be submitted using Treasury’s LPR webform available at https://www.treasurydirect.gov/laws-and-regulations/gsa/lpr-form/.  Reports may also be faxed to Treasury at (202) 504-3788 if a reporting entity has difficulty using the webform. DETAILS ON CALL FOR LARGE POSITION REPORTS Security Description:              4-3/4% Treasury Bonds of November 2043 4-3/4% Treasury Bonds of November 2043 CUSIP Number: 912810TW8 912810TW8 CUSIP Number of STRIPS Principal Component: 912803GX5 912803GX5 Maturity Date: November 15, 2043 November 15, 2043 Reporting Dates: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 Friday, December 29, 2023 Reporting Threshold:             $1.6 Billion (Par Value) $1.6 Billion (Par Value) Date Report Is Due: July 15, 2024, before 12:00 P.M. (ET) July 15, 2024, before 12:00 P.M. (ET) This call for Large Position Reports is pursuant to Treasury's Large Position Reporting rules (17 CFR Part 420).  The notice calling for Large Position Reports is also being published in the Federal Register. This public announcement, a copy of a sample Large Position Report (which appears in Appendix B of the rules at 17 CFR Part 420), Supplementary Formula Guidance, and a series of training modules are available at https://www.treasurydirect.gov/laws-and-regulations/gsa/lpr-reports/.  Non-media questions about Treasury's Large Position Reporting rules and the submission of Large Position Reports should be directed to Treasury’s Government Securities Regulations Staff at (202) 504-3632 or govsecreg@fiscal.treasury.gov.  

The global AI infrastructure market has grown significantly against the backdrop of increasing global adoption of AI technologies across various industries, driven by the data explosion and advancements in AI algorithms. In response to this fast-growing industry, Solactive is pleased to announce that Samsung Active Asset Management has listed the KoAct AI Infrastructure Active ETF, benchmarked against the Solactive Korea AI Infrastructure Index. Undergoing rapid growth amidst the blooming AI transition, the global AI infrastructure market is set to expand rapidly and reach approximately USD 223 billion by 2030 from its 2023 valuation at USD 57 billion with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of c. 30% from 2024 to 2030[1], making it a highly attractive investment opportunity for international investors. Home to some of the most critical semiconductor and tech companies, South Korea is well-positioned for the development of AI and in particular the AI infrastructure ecosystem that is poised for strong government support and favorable policies such as the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy and the Digital New Deal, further fostering AI development and innovation.[2] The Solactive Korea AI Infrastructure Index aims to capture the performance of the top 30 South Korean companies that contribute to the infrastructure supporting Artificial Intelligence technologies and applications.  The constituents are selected and weighted by market capitalization, as well as by their revenue generated in the three major sectors semiconductor, power infrastructure and network, with a weighting capped at 40%, 30% and 30%, respectively. Thereby, the index offers investors strategic exposure to the highly relevant AI infrastructure ecosystem and companies with advanced technological capabilities fueling the continued innovation in global AI developments. The ETF listed on 9 July 2024 on the Korea Stock Exchange (KRX) with the ticker code 487130 KS. Timo Pfeiffer, Chief Markets Officer at Solactive, commented: “As a leader in advanced technology, South Korea’s progress in AI infrastructure developments present a tremendous investment opportunity. We are very pleased to partner with Samsung Active Asset Management in launching this product that uses our Korea AI Infrastructure Index as a benchmark and we look forward to further providing the tools that offer investors access to this dynamic sector.” [1]  https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-ai-infrastructure-market [2]  https://asianinsiders.com/2024/04/02/the-korean-artificial-intelligence-industry/

Volante Technologies, the global leader in payments as a service, today announced that Azqore, a business and technology partner for wealth managers, has selected Volante’s Payments as a Service (PaaS) to deliver SEPA instant payments and ISO 20022 messaging services to its customer base. Azqore and Volante started working together when Azqore selected Volante’s low-code ISO 20022 service to accelerate its multi-country, multi-bank, ISO 20022 adoption programme. Today’s PaaS announcement, extending the partnership to incorporate SEPA instant payments, represents an important step forward in Azqore’s payments modernization strategy.  "As customer demand continues to evolve, it is crucial that financial institutions of all kinds have the solutions they need to stay competitive, especially as we’re seeing an increase in the pace of regulatory change," stated Anders Ohrneman, Head of IT Post-Trade & Operations, Azqore. Regulatory considerations played a crucial role in Azqore’s selection of Volante’s Payments as a Service, due to the requirement to meet the aggressive deadlines for SEPA Instant Payments mandated by the European Union. Other key factors were the need for rapid time to market for new services, tight integration into Azqore’s core banking infrastructure and the opportunity to create an extensible platform for future payments modernization.   Belhassen Belkhechine, Payments & Operations Product Manager, Azqore continued, “With Volante’s Payments as a Service, we can bring new instant payments and ISO 20022 services to market faster. We also have built the foundation of a platform for innovation for all our customers, easily extensible to future payment types and services.” Azqore joins a growing number of European institutions who have adopted Volante’s PaaS to realize their payments modernization goals. In welcoming Azqore as a customer, Volante extends its track record as a pioneer in ISO 20022 and instant payments. The company processed the first U.S. RTP® transaction and the first instant payment in Saudi Arabia. "We are excited about the payments modernization journey we have embarked upon with Azqore. Our track record of delivering innovation through PaaS, combined with Azqore’s experience and extensive reach, paves the way for financial businesses to reap the benefits of new services such as instant payments and ISO 20022 messaging,” commented Deepak Gupta, EVP Product, Engineering & Services, Volante Technologies. “With our PaaS value proposition, we are ideally positioned to drive the digital transformation of the payments ecosystem for consumers and businesses alike.” Find out how Volante’s PaaS can help financial institutions address their modernization challenges here. 

SET Index closed at 1,300.96 points, a 3.3 percent decrease from the previous month and an 8.1 percent decline from the end of 2023. Investors remain cautious, awaiting clarity on government economic stimulus measures and assessing the impact of capital market confidence-boosting measures announced late in June 2024. For the six months through June, Consumer Products, Agro & Food Industry, and Technology industry groups outperformed the broader SET Index. The average daily trading value was THB 45.24 billion (approx. USD 1.24 billion), down 22.9 percent year-on-year for the January-to-June period. Foreign investors maintained their dominant position in trading activity for the 26th consecutive month, though with a net sell position of THB 115.98 billion. The Thai capital market continued to attract new listings, with six listings on SET and 11 debuting on Market for Alternative Investment (mai), raising a combined THB 15.64 billion in the first half of 2024. SET Senior Executive Vice President Soraphol Tulayasathien said that developing countries show promising signs of the rising production capacity for exports, indicating that the global economic recovery is gaining momentum. Moreover, several major central banks have slashed their policy rates after three years of monetary policy tightening as the global disinflation is back on track and nearing the target. Investors are eagerly awaiting the US Federal Reserve (Fed)’s first rate cut expected later this year. According to the historical data, the Fed’s rate cuts have typically been a boon to the emerging markets. Thailand's macroeconomic indicators signal continuous improvement, with exports and tourism performing better than expected. The benign imports for private sector production and the higher government spending on consumption and investment, following earlier budget delays, indicate the robust economic outlook in the second half of 2024. Regarding price to book (P/B) ratio, 51.5 percent of Thai stocks are trading below their book value, indicating undervaluation. The enforcement of the uptick rule in July 2024 is set to reduce daily short-selling volume and SET Index volatility. Additionally, the lockup period for investment in the ThaiESG fund has been shortened, bringing it closer to that of the former tax-saving Long-Term Equity Fund (LTF). This adjustment is expected to attract more domestic institutional investment, potentially boosting SET Index in the future. Key highlights for June At the end of June 2024, SET Index dropped 3.3 percent from the previous month and 8.1 percent from the end of 2023 to close at 1,300.96 points. Investors are awaiting a clearer picture of the stimulus and weighing the impact of market confidence-boosting measures announced in late June 2024. For the six months to June, industry groups that outpaced SET Index were Consumer Products, Agro & Food Industry, and Technology. SET’s and mai’s average daily trading value for the first half of 2024 declined 22.9 percent over the same period last year to THB 45.24 billion. Foreign investors sold Thai shares with a net THB 115.98 billion for the first six months of 2024 as their trading ratio remained the highest among other types of investors for 26 consecutive months. In June 2024, there were two newly listed companies on mai : Chuwit Farm 2019 pcl (CFARM) and Maguro Group pcl (MAGURO). The Thai stock exchange’s forward P/E ratio at the end of June 2024 was 14.0 times, above the Asian stock markets’ average of 12.4 times. The historical P/E ratio stood at 15.6 times, exceeding the Asian stock markets’ average of 15.2 times. Dividend yield ratio at the end of June 2024 was 3.62 percent, higher than the Asian stock markets’ average of 3.16 percent.   Derivatives Market Thailand Futures Exchange (TFEX)’s daily trading volume in June 2024 averaged 545,083 contracts, up 38.7 percent from the previous month largely due to the increase in trading volume of SET50 Index Futures and Single Stock Futures. For the first six months of 2024. TFEX’s daily trading volume dropped 19.8 percent over the same period last year to 448,045 contracts mainly due to the decline in trading volume of Single Stock Futures and SET50 Index Futures.

Hedge funds posted mixed performance in June as election and political risks surged throughout Asia, Europe and the US; as European and Asian central banks cut interest rates despite persistent inflationary pressures, while US large cap Technology stocks extended gains to record highs. With declines in uncorrelated Macro strategies offsetting gains in fixed income based Relative Value Arbitrage and Equity Hedge strategies, the HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index (FWC)® declined -0.2 percent in June, posting only the 2nd decline in the last eight months, according to data released today by HFR.  The HFRI Relative Value Arbitrage Index (Total) Index gained +0.4 percent for the month, while the HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index added +0.3 percent. A fluctuating political environment dampened the performance of several hedge fund strategies during June leading to overall mixed performance. In a year of unprecedented national elections with countries comprising half the world’s population heading to the polls in 2024, sharp swings in political fortune and leadership have already been returned in many key democratic nations. Destabilizing fragmentation of political parties, shock election results (most recently in the French National Assembly elections), and the creeping polarization of voters into opposing right-wing and left-wing camps have become a pattern in European and US politics throughout 1H24. Hedge fund performance dispersion declined again in June, as the top decile of the HFRI FWC constituents advanced by an average of +5.4 percent, while the bottom decile fell by an average of -5.7 percent, representing a top/bottom dispersion of 11.1 percent for the month. By comparison, the top/bottom performance dispersion in May was 12.4 percent. In the trailing 12 months ending June 2024, the top decile of FWC constituents gained +39.1 percent, while the bottom decile declined -11.9 percent, representing a top/bottom dispersion of 51.0 percent. Approximately 55 percent of hedge funds produced positive performance in June. Fixed income-based, interest rate-sensitive strategies led industry gains in June as tension and speculation increased on 2H24 rates cuts, with the ECB and Bank of Japan cutting rates despite persistent inflation, while investors positioned for US Federal Reserve interest rate cuts. The HFRI Relative Value (Total) Index gained an estimated +0.4 percent for the month, increasing its 1H24 return to +3.8 percent. RVA sub-strategy performance was paced by the HFRI RV: FI-Sovereign Index and HFRI RV: FI-Asset Backed Index, each of which gained +0.7 percent in June, while the HFRI RV: Volatility Index added +0.4 percent. Equity Hedge (EH) funds, which invest long and short across specialized sub-strategies, also posted gains in June, with gains in Quantitative Directional and Technology strategies partially offset by declines in Energy exposures. The HFRI Equity Hedge (Total) Index advanced an estimated +0.3 percent for the month, bringing the 1H24 return to +6.3 percent. EH sub-strategy gains were led by the HFRI EH: Quantitative Directional Index, which surged an estimated +3.8 percent, and the HFRI EH: Sector- Technology Index, which jumped +2.6 percent. Offsetting these gains, the HFRI EH: Energy/Basic Materials Index fell -1.9 percent for the month, while the HFRI EH: Multi-Strategy Index declined -0.85 percent. Through the first half of 2024, the HFRI EH: Quantitative Directional Index led all sub-strategies with a +12.9 percent return. Event-Driven (ED) strategies, which often focus on out-of-favor, deep value equity exposures and speculation on M&A situations, declined narrowly in June, with losses driven by Activist and Special Situations exposures. The HFRI Event-Driven (Total) Index fell -0.10 percent for the month, with declines led by the HFRI ED: Activist Index, which fell -2.1 percent, and the HFRI ED: Special Situations Index, which lost -1.1 percent. Partially offsetting these, the HFRI ED: Multi-Strategy Index gained +0.6 percent. Macro strategies posted declines in June, driven by losses in quantitative, trend-following CTA strategies and fundamental Commodity exposures, as geopolitical election risk and global interest rate uncertainty surged. The HFRI Macro (Total) Index fell -1.65 percent in June, the second consecutive monthly decline, with losses led by the HFRI Macro: Commodity Index, which fell -4.1 percent, while the HFRI Macro: Systematic Diversified Index declined -1.8 percent for the month. Despite declining in the last 2 months, the Macro (Total) Index was the second-leading area of strategy performance in 1H24, gaining +5.1 percent. Liquid Alternative UCITS strategies posted gains in June, as the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index advanced +0.3 percent for the month, led by the HFRX Equity Hedge Index, which returned +1.2 percent. The HFRX Market Directional Index also advanced in June, adding +1.0 percent for the month. The HFRI Diversity Index advanced an estimated +0.2 percent in June, while the HFRI Women Index added +0.3 percent. “Hedge funds posted mixed performance in June as election and geopolitical risks continued to surge, with fluid policy transitions adding to global interest rate and inflation uncertainty, with leadership from Relative Value credit and Equity Hedge strategies. Uncorrelated Macro hedge funds, which led strategy performance in the first four months of the year, posted its second consecutive monthly decline to end 1H24 on weakness in Commodity and trend following CTA exposures,” stated Kenneth J. Heinz, President of HFR. “Unprecedented election and geopolitical risk continue to drive positioning for hedge funds, accentuating an already unstable interest rate and inflation environment with these adding to dislocation risk associated with ongoing, active and potential military conflicts. Despite ongoing strength in the US large cap Technology sector, the performance of global Currency, Commodity and Bond markets continues to be volatile and impacted by fluid, and potentially destabilizing, policy changes and dislocations. As these powerful trends evolve in 2H24, institutions interested in accessing specialized opportunities created by this uncertainty, are likely to increase exposure to hedge funds which have demonstrated their strategy’s robustness of navigating these building and evolving risks over recent months and years.” NOTE: June 2024 index performance figures are estimated as of July 8, 2024 HFR Indices are ESMA registered HFRI Monthly Performance Indices - June 2024 HFR Media Reference Guide - June 2024

IPC, the leading provider of secure, compliant communications and multi-cloud connectivity solutions for the financial markets, has been certified as a Google Cloud Interconnect Partner, and is now listed as one of its global providers of Supported Services. IPC customers are now able to connect to Google Cloud locations globally. The Google Cloud Interconnect partnership is the most recent expansion of IPC’s Cloud Connect Direct solution, its network-to-network interface with all major public cloud providers. Many of the world’s top financial institutions already use Connexus Cloud for order creation and placement, trade execution, market data delivery, clearing, settlement, and access to other trade life cycle services. By leveraging IPC’s core Network-to-Network Interface (NNI) with Google Cloud, IPC customers now have even faster, more secure, and efficient access to Google Cloud services. Customers can connect directly and on a managed, hosted, or dedicated basis to Google Cloud, with flexible bandwidth options (50MB to 50G). Nitish Gupta, Senior Global Product Manager, Cloud Services, IPC said: “We want every customer’s ’cloud journey’ and experience to be unique, faster and more flexible, reliable and secure. We already enable financial market participants to effortlessly leverage cloud-based exchange platforms and execution venues, and to establish efficient direct connectivity to cloud providers. Further expansion of Connexus Cloud’s network-to-network connectivity with cloud providers like Google gives IPC customers more choice in terms of cloud access and service provision, and greater service flexibility with respect to seamless interoperability and interconnectivity between cloud services, and other IPC solutions.” IPC’s multi-cloud platform Connexus Cloud is an interconnected trading ecosystem of more than 7,000 capital market participants in 750+ cities and 60+ countries. Connexus Cloud connects all entities involved in the capital markets trading lifecycle, including buy-side and sell-side counterparties, trading platforms, liquidity venues, interdealer brokers, application and market data providers and clearing and settlement services.

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) today (Tuesday) welcomed the announcement from the People’s Bank of China to allow China Government Bonds and Policy Financial Bonds, held by international investors through Bond Connect, as collateral for Northbound Swap Connect. HKEX’s clearing subsidiary, OTC Clear, plans to start accepting these instruments as collateral for Swap Connect, with a targeted launch by the end of 2024. OTC Clear and will work closely with the Securities and Futures Commission and the Central Moneymarkets Unit of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in preparation for this enhancement. More details will be announced in due course. This latest enhancement to Northbound Swap Connect will help improve capital efficiency of investors in the programme by offering them more non-cash collateral options. It will also further boost the attractiveness of holding onshore RMB bonds for international investors participating in Bond Connect. HKEX Co-Head of Markets, Glenda So, said: “We warmly welcome this latest enhancement to Swap Connect, the world’s first derivatives mutual market access programme. This development will add even more synergies between the Bond Connect and Swap Connect programmes, and help to further support international investors’ participation in China’s bond market. We look forward to working closely with our Mainland partners, regulators and market participants to continue enhancing Swap Connect and explore the application of China bonds as collateral for more HKEX products, facilitating the continued opening of China's financial markets and supporting the internationalisation of the RMB.” Swap Connect, which links the Hong Kong and Mainland China interbank interest rate swap markets, has seen smooth operations and steady growth in trading volume since its launch in May 2023, adding vibrancy to the region’s financial markets. As of the end of May 2024, a total of 61 overseas institutions have participated in Northbound Swap Connect. The average daily turnover of Swap Connect totalled RMB20 billion in May 2024, up sharply from about RMB3 billion in May 2023.  

ASX exchange traded funds (ETF) has surged with total funds under management (FUM) growing 36% to $199 billion in the 12 months ended 30 June 2024. An ETF trades on ASX like an ordinary share but it is an open-ended investment that usually tracks a basket of securities or other asset classes such as gold. Investors are often attracted to ETFs for their ability to offer diversification to an investment portfolio and this trend has continued with 59 new products admitted in the financial year, bringing the total number of ETFs available to 351. Andrew Campion, General Manager, Investment Products & Strategy said: “ETFs continue to be a popular investment vehicle with the average number of transactions over the 12 month period increasing by 50%. The rate of growth is very impressive – it was only a decade ago that FUM was below $10 billion.  “ETFs offer investors an efficient way to diversify their portfolios and gain targeted exposure to specific sectors. In the past 12 months, we’ve welcomed a number of new issuers including Macquarie and Dimensional Fund Advisers. We also admitted ASX’s first spot bitcoin ETF last month, issued by VanEck, and launched Australia’s first ever Shariah-compliant Sukuk active ETF, issued by Hejaz Financial Services. “A trend that we’ve observed in the past year is that we’re seeing many more active ETFs coming to market, offering investors more tailored investment portfolios.  “Looking ahead, if I had to sum up in a single word of what’s to come for the Australian ETF market, it would be ‘choice’ – more choice of fund managers, more thematic ETFs, more active strategies, and more alternative assets such as cryptocurrencies. There’s lots of innovation taking place and it will be an exciting space to watch.”  According to ASX’s latest Investment Products Report, Australian and global equities account for most of the FUM growth over the past 12 months – increasing by $15 billion (up 37%) and $29 billion (32%) respectively – followed by strong growth in fixed income of $5.2 billion (up 24%) reflecting the higher interest rate environment.  As the number of investors continues to grow, the popularity of ETFs is expected to rise. Currently, 7.7 million Australians invest in on-exchange investments, with 1.5 million holding at least one ETF, according to the ASX Australian Investor Study 2023.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) today announced that major retail banks in Singapore will progressively phase out the use of One-Time Passwords (OTPs) for bank account login by customers who are digital token users within the next three months. This will better protect them against phishing.  2 Customers who have activated their digital token on their mobile device will have to use their digital tokens for bank account logins via the browser or the mobile banking app. The digital token will authenticate customers’ login without the need for an OTP that scammers can steal, or trick customers into disclosing. Customers who have not activated their digital tokens are strongly encouraged to do so, to lower the risk of having their credentials phished.  3   The use of OTP was introduced in the 2000s as a multi-factor authentication option to strengthen online security.  However, technological developments and more sophisticated social engineering tactics have since enabled scammers to more easily phish for customers’ OTP, for example through setting up fake bank websites that closely resemble the genuine websites.  This latest measure will strengthen the authentication process, making it harder for scammers to fraudulently access a customer's account and funds without the customer’s explicit authorisation using his mobile device. 4   Phishing scams remain a concern in Singapore [1] , and banks continue to work closely with MAS and the Singapore Police Force to develop and introduce solutions and measures to strengthen our collective resistance in the ever-evolving scam landscape.  5 Mrs Ong-Ang Ai Boon, Director, ABS, said, “This measure provides customers with further protection against unauthorised access to their bank accounts. While they may give rise to some inconvenience, such measures are necessary to help prevent scams and protect customers.” 6 Ms Loo Siew Yee, Assistant Managing Director (Policy, Payments & Financial Crime), MAS, said, “MAS continues to work closely with banks to protect consumers by leaning hard against digital banking scams. This latest measure will complement good cyber hygiene practices that customers must continue to practise, such as safeguarding their banking credentials.”  *** [1] Phishing scams were among the top five scam types last year, with at least $14.2 million lost to these scams - Singapore Police Force Annual Scams and Cybercrime Brief 2023.