The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Enforcement today alerts customers on how to respond to a civil enforcement action it filed Sept. 30, against Traders Domain FX Ltd., and other defendants. Customers who believe they may be victims in this alleged fraud scheme are urged to complete this voluntary confidential customer survey, which will provide CFTC with pertinent information on this case. Completion of this customer survey is voluntary and not required. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging fraud and misappropriation against defendants: Traders Domain FX Ltd., doing business as The Traders Domain; Ares Global Ltd., doing business as Trubluefx; Fredirick Teddy Joseph Safranko aka Ted Safranko; David William Negus-Romvari; Algo Capital LLC.; Algo FX Capital Advisor LLC., now known as Quant5 Advisor LLC.; Robert Collazo Jr.; Juan Herman aka JJ Herman; John Fortini; Steven Likos; Michael Shannon Sims; Holton Buggs Jr.; Centurion Capital Group Inc.; Alejandro Santiestaban aka Alex Santi; Gabriel Beltran; and Archie Rice. [Civil Action No. 24-cv-23745-RKA] [See CFTC Press Release No. 8997-24] In its continuing litigation, the CFTC seeks full restitution to defrauded customers, disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, as charged. Customers can find information on the court-appointed receivership here. Before completing the survey, please review the Commission’s Statement to Persons Directed to Provide Information Pursuant to A Commission Subpoena or Requested to Provide Information Voluntarily and the Privacy Act Statement below. CFTC PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is providing this statement to you as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), to inform you about why we are requesting this information. Authority: The Commission has the authority to collect information and evidence pertinent to the effective enforcement of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and the Commission’s Regulations. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2, 5, 9, 12(a), 13a-1, 15. Purpose: The Commission will use the information you provide primarily to enforce compliance with the Act and Commission regulations, develop additional facts, and identify potential witnesses in the above-referenced litigation. The Commission may also use the information you provide to contact you to further discuss your responses. Routine Uses: In addition, the Commission may also disclose the information you provide as a “routine use” to, for example, other parties in the litigation, such as the court-appointed receiver; other law enforcement agencies to address a potential violation of law within their jurisdiction; or to other agencies when necessary to meet statutory or regulatory requirements.  A complete list of routine uses may be found in the relevant Privacy Act system of records notice, CFTC-10, Investigatory Records, available at CFTC.gov/privacy/SORN/index.htm. Consequences of Failing to Provide the Information: Providing this information to the Commission is voluntary and there are no direct effects or sanctions for failing to provide any or all of the requested information. Any information you do provide, however, must be truthful. A person who is found to have knowingly and willfully submitted false, fictitious and/or fraudulent statements to the Commission may be fined and/or imprisoned up to five years for such conduct. 18 U.S.C. §1001; 17 C.F.R. §11.6(b). SURVEYMONKEY The CFTC is using the SurveyMonkey platform to facilitate the collection of the requested information. You are not required to set up an account with SurveyMonkey to complete the survey and provide the requested information. If you elect to set up an account, SurveyMonkey may collect additional information not required or requested by the CFTC. You may wish to review the SurveyMonkey Privacy Policy and Terms of Service before using its services to understand how and when SurveyMonkey collects, uses, and shares the information you submit.

Reeves to say regulatory changes post-financial crisis created a system which sought to eliminate risk taking ‘that has gone too far’ and led to unintended consequences.  Growth focused remit letters sent to regulators and first-ever Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy to be published. The Chancellor will announce a package of reforms to drive growth and competitiveness in financial services, as she argues that regulatory changes to eliminate risk after the financial crisis have ‘gone too far’ and led to unintended consequences.   In her first Mansion House speech as Chancellor, Rachel Reeves will say that the UK’s status as a global financial centre cannot be taken for granted.   She will argue that, while the UK will always uphold high standards, a system has been created which seeks to eliminate risk taking and holds back economic growth. “The UK has been regulating for risk, but not regulating for growth,” she will say.  The Chancellor will outline a plan to rebalance the system, setting the financial services sector up to innovate, grow and seize the opportunities for investment in businesses, infrastructure and clean energy across Britain.    This will include setting new growth-focused remits for financial service regulators, the publication next year of the first ever Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy and creating pension mega funds to boost investment so that ordinary people benefit from growth. Speaking in the City of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will say: Before we came into government, I was clear that the financial services sector must play a central part in our economic vision and our plan for economic growth.   Because I know that this sector is the crown jewel in our economy. It employs 1.2m people, from London to Edinburgh, and from Manchester to Belfast. It is one of the country’s largest and most productive sectors, accounting for 9% of our economic output.   And it is a global success story: we are the second largest exporter of financial services in the G7.  But we cannot take the UK’s status as a global financial centre for granted. In a highly competitive world we need to earn that status and we need to work to keep it. She will add: While it was right that successive governments made regulatory changes after the Global Financial Crisis, to ensure that regulation kept pace with the global economy of the time, it is important that we learn the lessons of the past.  These changes have resulted in a system which sought to eliminate risk taking. That has gone too far and, in places, it has had unintended consequences which we must now address. She will conclude by saying: The changes I have set out today will drive growth and competitiveness through investment and through reform.   A long-term strategy to harness the strengths of the financial services sector: making the UK a global leader in sustainable finance, developing the right approach to redress to reduce uncertainty, reinvigorating our capital markets by unlocking private investment through our pension funds, and reforming our approach to regulation to make it more dynamic and more competitive.  Taken together, these measures represent the most pro-growth financial services package since the financial crisis. Reform to unlock innovation and growth   While the UK’s regulatory model for financial services is respected around the world, reform is needed to unlock innovation, drive more investment and deliver sustainable economic growth.   High regulatory standards will be maintained but parts of the regulatory system will be rebalanced to drive economic growth and competitiveness. The Chancellor has written to the Financial Conduct Authority, Prudential Regulation Committee, Financial Policy Committee and Payment Systems Regulator to ensure a greater focus on supporting economic growth.   The Financial Ombudsman Service framework will also be modernised so that it continues to play a vital role for consumers to get redress while giving clearer expectations around its decisions for consumers and for financial services firms.   The government will also consult on replacing the current Certification Regime, which applies to staff below senior management level, with a more proportionate approach that reduces costs so that businesses are freed up to focus on growth.    To combat the scourge of fraud that cost UK consumers almost £8.3 billion last year alone and steals money away from investment and lending by the financial services sector, a coordinated effort across sectors, law enforcement and government is needed. The Chancellor, Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology have therefore written to the tech and telecommunication sectors calling for them to go further and faster in reducing the scale of fraud taking place on their platforms and networks – with an update on progress requested by March 2025 ahead of an expanded fraud strategy.  Further action is being taken to drive innovation in payments with the publication of a National Payments Vision, and reinvigorate the UK’s capital markets by committing to legislate to establish PISCES by May 2025 - a world-first regulated market for trading private company shares where transfers will be exempted from stamp duty taxes on shares.    The government is launching a pilot to deliver a Digital Gilt Instrument, using distributed ledger technology (DLT), demonstrating the government’s commitment to innovation in the financial services sector.  The government is also consulting on introducing a new framework for UK-based captive insurance companies to make the UK insurance market a more attractive hub for businesses seeking efficient risk solutions. Stability – confidence to invest   Building on the Budget - which fixed the foundations of the economy by repairing the public finances and bolstered economic and fiscal stability – the Chancellor will set out a clear path for growth in the financial services sector.    The government will publish the first ever Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy in the Spring to deliver long-term certainty and cement the sector’s place at the heart of the government’s 10-year modern Industrial Strategy.   The government will propose focusing on five priority growth opportunities in financial services to take advantage of the UK’s existing strengths and maximise the potential for growth.    These will be FinTech, sustainable finance, asset management and wholesale services, insurance and reinsurance, and capital markets. A Call for Evidence will be published alongside the announcement to ensure that industry voices are at the heart of designing the new Strategy.   The Strategy will reflect the fact that the success of the financial services sector is built on strong ties with international partners. This means strengthening partnerships with established and fast-growing financial centres will be a cornerstone of the government’s approach to financial services: critical to attracting foreign investment and delivering economic benefits for the UK. Investment through financial services   To deliver more investment in businesses, infrastructure and clean energy, the Chancellor will also announce bold reforms to the pension system and lay the foundations for a world-leading sustainable finance regulatory regime.   Two consultations will be published ahead of the Pension Schemes Bill in the Spring to merge defined contribution pension schemes and the Local Government Pension Scheme in England and Wales into megafunds – mirroring the pensions landscape in Australia and Canada. This, along with reforms to ensure better value from these pension schemes, could unlock around £80 billion new investment in businesses and infrastructure, while boosting savers’ pension pots.    The Chancellor will announce that the British Growth Partnership has secured the support of two UK pension funds for its future launch. Aegon UK – as a substantial cornerstone investor – and NatWest Cushon, who have combined assets worth over £219 billion, have both agreed to work with the British Business Bank with a view to investing in the UK growth companies of the future, subject to commercial and regulatory steps and, where appropriate, agreement from the Trustees. She is also expected to announce that, alongside Phoenix Group, the British Business Bank has completed its LIFTS investment in Schroders Capital, to create a new £500 million investment vehicle to invest in UK science and technology. The government expects 20% of the LIFTS capital to be invested into life sciences.    The Chancellor will also set out plans to mobilise trillions of pounds of private capital to support clean energy and growth as part of the UK’s efforts to reclaims its position as a global leader in climate change. This follows action at the International Investment Summit and Budget to unlock investment, including £27.8 billion of capitalisation for the National Wealth Fund, which is expected to mobilise over £70 billion of private investment.   To deliver a world-leading sustainable finance framework, the Treasury will publish draft legislation to boost investor confidence in sustainable companies by regulating ESG ratings providers, publish a consultation on the value case for a UK Green Taxonomy, commit to consult on economically significant companies disclosing information using future UK Sustainability Reporting Standards and launch a set of integrity principles for voluntary carbon and nature markets ahead of a consultation in the new year.   To underpin continued UK leadership on transition finance, the government is delivering one of the key recommendations of the Transition Finance Market Review by co-launching the Transition Finance Council with the City of London Corporation. The government will also consult in the first half of next year on how best to take forward the manifesto commitment on transition plans in support of its ambition to become the global hub for transition finance -  ensuring the UK’s regulatory framework is growth-focused, internationally competitive and maintains the UK’s status as a global financial hub. It has also emphasised the transition to net zero in the government’s economic strategy within the remit of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, and reinstated sustainable finance as an area the Financial Policy Committee should support as part of its secondary objective.   These announcements come alongside COP29’s ‘Finance, Investment, and Trade Day’ currently underway in Baku, Azerbaijan. Representing HM Treasury at COP29, Growth Minister Lord Spencer Livermore laid out the UK’s commitment to making the UK the sustainable finance capital of the world, mobilise climate finance from a range of sources and reform the global financial system so it delivers better on climate change.    The government recognises the invaluable role of the mutual and co-operative sector in driving inclusive growth across the UK. It is therefore announcing a package to help unlock the full potential of the sector. This includes publishing a call for evidence on reform to credit union common bonds in Great Britain, writing to the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority asking them to produce a report on the mutuals landscape in 2025, and welcoming the establishment of an industry-led Mutual and Co-operative Business Council.    The government has already laid legislation to support modernisations to the Building Societies Act 1986 and continued funding the Law Commission to conduct reviews considering how the laws governing co-operatives, community benefit societies, mutual insurers, and friendly societies can be modernised.   The Chancellor will also announce an upcoming Financial Conduct Authority consultation to help households make better-informed decisions about their finances, as part of the government and regulator’s joint Advice Guidance Boundary Review. Stakeholder reaction to the Chancellor’s Mansion House package David Postings, Chief Executive of UK Finance said:  The Chancellor has set out a positive vision for financial services, which are a UK success story and vital to our economy. I strongly welcome her support for the sector, coupled with the fact that she is addressing how we can best balance risk and consumer protection to help support economic growth. Key to this is the regulatory environment, with the new remit letters rightly stressing the importance of growth and competitiveness in regulators’ work. The Chancellor has listened to industry and is delivering across a range of areas we have called for action on, including a digital gilt, tackling payment fraud, reforming the Financial Ombudsman Service, supporting green finance, and the National Payments Vision. I look forward to continuing to work closely with her and the government to ensure the UK retains a strong and globally competitive financial services sector. BVCA Chief Executive Michael Moore said:  The private capital industry warmly welcomes the decisive action taken by government to reform our pensions system to boost investment and deliver growth to the UK economy.  Creating greater opportunity for investment by pension funds into private capital could have a transformational impact on the UK’s most promising businesses whilst delivering strong returns for pension savers. Richard Oldfield, Group CEO Schroders said:  We have all the building blocks we need to generate growth in the UK. We have great, innovative companies; we have the capital, and we have the expertise and a world class capital market to link the two. What we need now is an injection of optimism and a healthier attitude to taking risk in the pursuit of reward. It is great to see the government putting sensible risk taking back at the centre of our economy. Whether that’s on green finance, infrastructure, science or tech; firms like Schroders working in partnership with pension schemes, regulators and the government can unlock the potential of the UK for the benefit of all of us. James Alexander, CEO, UKSIF said:  We welcome the new Chancellor’s prioritisation of sustainable finance in her first Mansion House speech. We are pleased to see this ambitious suite of measures including further progress on transition plans, harmonisation with international standards, and carbon market integrity. If delivered, these measures could position the UK as a world-leading centre for sustainable finance.

On 15 November 2024, the following updated constituents list for OFZ Zero Coupon Yield Curve will come into force. № Name Registration number 1 OFZ 26234 SU26234RMFS3 2 OFZ 26229 SU26229RMFS3 3 OFZ 26219 SU26219RMFS4 4 OFZ 26226 SU26226RMFS9 5 OFZ 26207 SU26207RMFS9 6 OFZ 26232 SU26232RMFS7 7 OFZ 26212 SU26212RMFS9 8 OFZ 26242 SU26242RMFS6 9 OFZ 26228 SU26228RMFS5 10 OFZ 26218 SU26218RMFS6 11 OFZ 26241 SU26241RMFS8 12 OFZ 26221 SU26221RMFS0 13 OFZ 26244 SU26244RMFS2 14 OFZ 26225 SU26225RMFS1 15 OFZ 26233 SU26233RMFS5 16 OFZ 26240 SU26240RMFS0 17 OFZ 26243 SU26243RMFS4 18 OFZ 26230 SU26230RMFS1 19 OFZ 26238 SU26238RMFS4 20 OFZ 26239 SU26239RMFS2 21 OFZ 26247 SU26247RMFS5 22 OFZ 26236 SU26236RMFS8 23 OFZ 26237 SU26237RMFS6 24 OFZ 26248 SU26248RMFS3 25 ОФЗ 26235 SU26235RMFS0 Read more on the Moscow Exchange: https://www.moex.com/n74905

LME Clear has today issued a consultation proposing a range of measures aimed to further bolster the resilience, transparency and fairness of its markets. The proposals include an increase to the minimum net capital requirement for members and the introduction of a default fund mutualisation limit and anti-procyclicality control. Michael Carty, LME Clear CEO commented: “Last year we committed to an ambitious programme of change to strengthen our markets, and these are the latest set of proposals designed to increase transparency, predictability and overall resilience for clearing members and market participants more broadly. I would like to thank members for their collaboration in the process so far and look forward to working together as we continue to advance our business and further enhance the health and vibrancy of our markets.” LME Clear has undertaken a review of its membership terms and proposes to enhance credit-related requirements by increasing clearing members’ minimum net capital requirement from US$10 million to US$30 million. This proposal, which has been discussed with the relevant committees and advisory groups, would better align member capital requirements with those of peer CCPs and reassure market stakeholders of the resilience of LME Clear markets. Following a comprehensive review of its default fund methodology, LME Clear is also proposing to move further towards a “defaulter pays” model and introduce an upper limit to the default fund, which would restrict the size of the mutualised component of the pre-funded resources paid by clearing members. This would ensure that the proportion of mutualised risk is fairly and more stably correlated with unmutualised risk, which is calculated by LME Clear as initial margin or additional margin. The limit would also be calculated in accordance with the published default fund methodology, providing transparency and determinism to the calculation process. Additionally, LME Clear has proposed to introduce an anti-procyclicality control to improve the stability of the default fund. This would limit the percentage by which the default fund can fall in any one re-calculation and would work with the default fund limit to ensure member contributions are more stable and predictable. The consultation also proposes a minor LME rulebook revision related to the refinement of Category 5 membership as well as a number of technical and administrative changes to the LME Clear rules and procedures. The consultation invites feedback from all stakeholders by 16 December 2024.

IOSCO marks COP29 by releasing its Final Report on promoting the financial integrity and orderly functioning of the Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs). IOSCO’s work on carbon markets spans three years, during which it has published recommendations for Compliance Carbon Markets (CCMs), with a particular focus on Emissions Trading Schemes (ETSs). Today’s Final Report on Voluntary Carbon Markets outlines a comprehensive set of 21 Good Practices aimed at ensuring financial integrity in VCMs, which could be applicable across all carbon credit markets. In addition, IOSCO and the World Bank have today published a policy note outlining high-level elements for promoting financial integrity in carbon markets generally, using the occasion to announce a new partnership in 2025. Building on IOSCO’s Good Practices and today’s joint publication, IOSCO and the World Bank will work hand in hand to assist those jurisdictions looking to establish and enhance carbon markets in their countries. Presenting the Final Report at COP29, Jean-Paul Servais, Chair of the IOSCO Board and Chairman of the Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) said: “Today’s report is the result of meaningful engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders, from regulators to market participants and beyond. Their insights have been invaluable in shaping our work on voluntary carbon markets over the past three years with a view to promote financial integrity in voluntary carbon markets.” Chair Servais further emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach when it comes to bringing financial integrity to carbon markets. “Our partnership with the World Bank will empower jurisdictions worldwide in their efforts to establish robust, transparent, and effective carbon markets”, he said. “Growing Voluntary Carbon Markets could contribute much more to financing investments in mitigating climate change,” said Jean Pesme, World Bank Director, Finance. “We look forward to working with IOSCO to support countries in implementing the guidelines in the policy note published today, which will help ensure carbon markets function with financial integrity, under sound regulation and supervision, and with built-in safeguards against fraud.” IOSCO’s 21 Good Practices will support sound market structures and enhance financial integrity in VCMs, facilitating orderly and transparent trading of carbon credits. IOSCO’s 21 Good Practices have three overarching objectives: To support the establishment of sound market structures and appropriate architecture for custody, trading, and settlement. To promote transparency to foster information symmetry and ensure orderly and fair trading; and To advocate for adequate market conduct and behaviour – to prevent fraud, market abuse, insider dealing and scams. Rodrigo Buenaventura, Chair of IOSCO’s Sustainable Finance Task Force (STF) and Chairman of the Spain CNMV, said: “Financial and market integrity is an essential component to the sound functioning of carbon markets. Today’s Good Practices seek to be both practical and effective in fostering transparency, trust and integrity in voluntary carbon markets”. The 21 Good Practices address five key principles of traditional financial market regulation, offering guidance for jurisdictions and market participants in developing and operating voluntary carbon markets: Clear and effective regulatory frameworks that provide legal certainty and proportional oversight; Enhanced transparency in carbon credit creation, trading and use; Strong governance standards, risk management frameworks, and policies to address conflicts of interest within the carbon credit ecosystem; Comprehensive market surveillance to detect and prevent fraud, abuse, and disruptive behaviours, and; Open, fair, and accessible trading for all participants, and standardization to boost market liquidity. Verena Ross, co-Chair of IOSCO’s STF Carbon Markets Workstream and Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), said: “Establishing financial integrity and transparency within voluntary carbon markets is crucial for their credibility and impact. Our Good Practices build on the experience of securities markets regulators with the aim to empower market participants to engage confidently in this important sector in the future”. Rostin Behnam, IOSCO Vice-Chairman and co-Chair of the STF Carbon Markets Workstream, and Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (U.S. CFTC), said: “We developed the Good Practices in this report to create a roadmap for regulatory alignment, financial market integrity, and transparency. If taken onboard by regulators, relevant authorities, and market participants, these Good Practices can help to further enhance the utility of voluntary carbon markets while reflecting foundational characteristics of well-established and sound financial markets.” Notes to Editors IOSCO is the leading international policy forum for securities regulators and the global standard setter for financial markets regulation. It develops, implements and promotes adherence to internationally recognized standards for financial markets regulation and works closely with other international organizations on the global regulatory reform agenda. The organization's membership regulates more than 95% of the world's securities markets in some 130 jurisdictions. By providing high quality technical assistance, education and training, IOSCO supports its members to come together to achieve the following three objectives. Enhance investor protection; Ensure markets are fair and efficient; Promote financial stability by reducing systemic risk. The IOSCO Board is the governing and standard-setting body of IOSCO and is made up of 35 securities regulators. Mr. Jean-Paul Servais, the Chair of Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) is the Chair of the IOSCO Board. Mr. Shigeru Ariizumi, Vice Minister for International Affairs, Financial Services Agency, Japan, Dr. Mohamed Farid Saleh, Executive Chairman of the Financial Regulatory Authority, Egypt, and Mr. Rostin Behnam, Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are the Vice-Chairs of IOSCO Board. The Growth and Emerging Markets (GEM) Committee is the largest Committee within IOSCO, representing more than 75% of the IOSCO membership, including ten of the G20 members. Dr. Mohamed Farid Saleh, Executive Chairman of the Financial Regulatory Authority, Egypt, is Chair of the GEM Committee. The Committee unites members from four growth and emerging markets and communicates their views at other global regulatory discussions. IOSCO counts four regional committees: (1) Africa / Middle-East (AMERC) chaired by Ms. Nezha Hayat Chairperson and CEO of the Moroccan Autorité Marocaine du Marché des Capitaux, (2) Asia & Pacific (APRC) chaired by Ms. Julia Leung Chief Executive Officer of the Hong-Kong Securities and Futures Commission, (3) European Regional Committee (ERC) chaired by Mr. Jean-Paul Servais Chairman of Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority, and (4) Inter-American Regional Committee (IARC) chaired by Ms. Lucia Buenrostro Vice President of Regulatory Policy at the Mexican Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores.For further information, please visit www.iosco.org

The private2000® index, representing a sample of private company investments across 30 countries, achieved a 0.72% return in September 2024, 4.45% YTD, and an 8.85% annualized return over the past 12 months. This week, we compare it with the PECCS Manufacturing sector (Code: AC06), which has underperformed with a 0.53% monthly return and 3.10% YTD, highlighting sector-specific dynamics that present unique opportunities for investors.Scientific Infra & Private Assets offers hundreds of indices and comparable data points in private markets to help investors assess performance across various PE segments. In this report, we explore the flagship private market indices and examine the performance of key PECCS Activities.Table 1: Performance of private2000 Index and Manufacturing sector Index 1-month 3m YTD 5Y 5Y Volatility private2000 VW USD 0.72% 4.20% 4.45% 8.85% 15.47% PEU Global Manufacturing EW USD 0.53% 2.16% 3.10% 9.79% 18.65% Source: privateMetrics, as of 30/9/2024 Performance drivers of private2000 and Manufacturing sectorThe private2000 index spans a diverse range of industries, resulting in various revenue models and business activities. For example, service-oriented companies led the private2000® VW US$ index's performance, contributing approximately 70% to the 0.72% monthly return in September 2024, demonstrating the private equity market's expansion into sectors with predictable, recurring revenue streams.In comparison, manufacturing companies are heavily influenced by traditional production-based revenue models, and rely on value creation through physical goods, which are the primary drivers of their returns in Sep 2024. While this sector underperformed relative to the private2000 in September, its five-year annualized return of 9.79% demonstrates a solid potential for long-term growth.On a risk-adjusted basis, the Manufacturing sector aligns with the market index (Sharpe ratio: 0.52 vs. 0.54). Investors with exposure to the manufacturing sector and an appetite for higher returns will need to ensure that their portfolio companies are well-positioned to capitalize on positive trends, such as increased demand for automation and robotics, to be rewarded for assuming higher risk.This comparison between the global market index represented by the private2000 and the index that represents the manufacturing sector underlines the importance of granularity of information as far as capturing the market dynamics and investment valuations in private markets is concerned. This granularity often has a negative trade-off, which is the low number of observations at relevant industry or activity levels. By evaluating the values and performance of more than 80,000 assets each month for all segments representing the sector, customer and business models of the private asset market, Scientific Infra & Private Assets is able to meet the dual requirement of information relevance and robustness.Technical information: privateMetrics market indices and benchmarks are asset-level private equity indices that reflect the dynamics of private markets with a beta of 1. They are built by repricing thousands of private companies each month using the latest private market transactions to calibrate an asset pricing model. These market indices are different from manager indices, the contributions to which solely reflect their choices for managing and valuing their investments.Links to key documents: Latest factsheet Our methodology Report: how did the private equities market perform this September?

Report notes that the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) offers several benefits but may also amplify certain financial sector vulnerabilities, such as third-party dependencies, market correlations, cyber risk and model risk, potentially increasing systemic risk. While existing financial policy frameworks address many of the vulnerabilities associated with use of AI by financial institutions, more work may be needed to ensure that these frameworks are sufficiently comprehensive. Report calls for financial authorities to enhance monitoring of AI developments, assess whether financial policy frameworks are adequate, and enhance their regulatory and supervisory capabilities including by using AI-powered tools. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published today The Financial Stability Implications of Artificial Intelligence, a report outlining recent developments in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in finance and their potential implications for financial stability. Widespread adoption and more diverse use cases of AI have prompted the FSB to revisit its 2017 report on AI and machine learning in financial services. Financial firms currently use AI mainly to enhance internal operations and improve regulatory compliance, but generative AI (GenAI) and large language models have given rise to new use cases, such as document summarisation, information retrieval, and code generation. While many financial institutions appear to be taking a cautious approach to using GenAI, interest remains high and the technology’s accessibility could facilitate more rapid integration in financial services. Financial authorities are also using AI for more efficient supervision. The fast pace of innovation and AI integration in financial services, along with limited data on AI usage, poses challenges for monitoring vulnerabilities and potential financial stability implications. The report notes that AI offers benefits from improved operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, personalised financial products and advanced data analytics. However, AI may also amplify certain financial sector vulnerabilities and thereby pose risks to financial stability. Several AI-related vulnerabilities stand out for their potential to increase systemic risk. These include: (i) third-party dependencies and service provider concentration; (ii) market correlations; (iii) cyber risks; and (iv) model risk, data quality and governance. In addition, GenAI could increase financial fraud and disinformation in financial markets. Misaligned AI systems that are not calibrated to operate within legal, regulatory, and ethical boundaries can also engage in behaviour that harms financial stability. And from a longer-term perspective, AI uptake could drive changes in market structure, macroeconomic conditions and energy use that may have implications for financial markets and institutions. The report notes that existing regulatory and supervisory frameworks address many of the vulnerabilities associated with AI adoption. However, more work may be needed to ensure that these frameworks are sufficiently comprehensive. To this end, the report calls on the FSB, standard-setting bodies and national authorities to: (i) consider how to address data and information gaps to better monitor AI adoption and assess the related financial stability implications; (ii) assess whether current financial policy frameworks are sufficient to address AI-related vulnerabilities both at domestic and international level; and (iii) enhance regulatory and supervisory capabilities, for example by sharing information and good practices across border and sectors as well as leveraging AI-powered tools. Background This report revisits the 2017 FSB report on AI and machine learning in financial services by taking stock of recent advancements, current use cases in the financial sector and drivers of adoption, as well as new potential benefits and AI-related financial sector vulnerabilities. The report draws on the experience and initiatives of FSB member jurisdictions, existing literature, and stakeholder outreach events including an OECD-FSB joint AI roundtable. The FSB coordinates at the international level the work of national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies and develops and promotes the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other financial sector policies in the interest of financial stability. It brings together national authorities responsible for financial stability in 24 countries and jurisdictions, international financial institutions, sector-specific international groupings of regulators and supervisors, and committees of central bank experts. The FSB also conducts outreach with approximately 70 other jurisdictions through its six Regional Consultative Groups. The FSB is chaired by Klaas Knot, President of De Nederlandsche Bank. The FSB Secretariat is located in Basel, Switzerland and hosted by the Bank for International Settlements. Publication 14 November 2024 The Financial Stability Implications of Artificial Intelligence This report outlines recent developments in the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in finance, including current use cases, and their potential implications for financial stability.

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is pleased to note the successful implementation of its Severe Weather Trading (SWT) programme on the first SWT trading day since the new arrangements took effect. HKEX confirms that all trading, settlement and clearing operations in its securities and derivatives markets functioned normally today (Thursday), maintaining fair and orderly trading as in any regular trading day. HKEX Chief Executive Officer, Bonnie Y Chan, said: “HKEX is committed to the continued development of its market infrastructure and trading mechanism, working together with our market participants and other stakeholders to support the vibrancy of Hong Kong’s international facing markets. We are pleased today to see the successful implementation of Severe Weather Trading. This is testament to the vision, determination, and collaboration of our entire financial services community on ensuring the sustainable and long-term development of Hong Kong as an IFC. We thank all our participants and stakeholders for their support and cooperation, prioritising personnel safety to enable the success of this key initiative.” Please refer to the HKEX website for more details on the Severe Weather Trading arrangements.

The annual ACER report on EU electricity wholesale market integration: Evaluates progress in EU electricity market integration across all market time periods (forward, day-ahead, intraday). Highlights challenges in integrating balancing markets, developing forward markets, and the slow progress in implementing methodologies that define operations in day-ahead and intraday markets. Outlines ACER's recommendations and ongoing efforts to improve electricity market efficiency, infrastructure investment and usage, and enhance flexibility through demand response. Check out ACER’s new interactive electricity dashboards For the first time, this annual monitoring report is accompanied by three separate dashboards on key market indicators such as prices and churn rates (a liquidity metric), balancing data (e.g., volumes, prices and cross border exchanges of balancing services) and data on long-term transmission rights (including risk premia). What are the key findings?  In March 2024, ACER reported frequent occurrences of negative electricity prices in the EU. In June 2024, the Agency warned of rising congestion management costs in the EU power grid, which reached €4 billion in 2023. ACER emphasised the importance of increased cross-zonal trading capacity. Today’s report by ACER finds that: With the expansion of renewable energy, the role of fossil fuels in electricity systems is diminishing. The new generation mix is marked by a 10% rise in hours of mostly non-responsive generation (generation that does not adapt to short-term changes in demand) in 2023. ACER stresses the need to enhance power system flexibility for an efficient energy transition. However, delays in implementing market design changes hinder flexibility. 27% of market design rules (methodologies, terms, and conditions) are delayed in terms of implementation. Balancing market integration remains limited in 2023. The Transmission System Operators (TSOs) of only four Member States have joined the balancing platforms which went live in 2022. ACER encourages more TSOs to join the balancing energy platforms, highlighting that increased participation can expand cross-zonal exchanges and reduce occurrences of high electricity balancing prices. Current electricity forward markets offer investors visibility on future electricity prices for only up to one year. ACER has identified shortcomings in regulatory measures aimed at addressing this challenge and proposed improvements. What are ACER’s recommendations? The report contains a suite of recommendations. In short, ACER: Recommends taking a proactive approach to further integrate power markets and strengthen connections. Recommends an efficiency-first approach for both power infrastructure investments and usage, ensuring that every installed megawatt is fully used. Stresses that improving long-term investment structures and ensuring better market integration will drive Europe's energy transition and economic growth. What’s next? ACER will: Publish a new report on power infrastructure investment in December 2024. Review the rules (terms, conditions and methodologies) that define market operations starting in 2025. Propose a network code on demand-side flexibility to the European Commission by March 2025. Continue to monitor power TSOs' involvement in balancing platforms. These steps aim to enhance market efficiency and contribute to a resilient, flexible electricity infrastructure that can support Europe’s energy transition and long-term economic stability. Read more.

ASX announces the appointment of Leanne McDougall as its interim Chief Risk Officer, commencing in the role later this month.  Ms McDougall is a highly experienced risk professional with more than 30 years’ experience in financial services in Australia and the United States. She was most recently the Chief Risk Officer of Suncorp Bank with responsibility for governance and management of all risk types. Prior to Suncorp Bank, Ms McDougall held a number of senior and executive roles in risk management at National Australia Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The appointment follows the decision of current ASX Chief Risk Officer, Hamish Treleaven, to retire. Mr Treleaven’s intention to retire was announced in September 2024 and he will depart ASX following a short period of transition to Ms McDougall.  Helen Lofthouse, ASX Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, said: “I’m pleased to announce the appointment of Leanne as our interim Chief Risk Officer. She brings deep skills and experience across all risk management asset classes and has a strong background in operational risk within the financial services sector.  “This appointment will support our ongoing work to strengthen and improve risk culture at ASX which is a key focus of our New Era strategy.” Ms McDougall, who will commence at ASX on Monday 18 November, will report directly to the ASX CEO and join the Executive Team.   Leanne McDougall biography Ms McDougall is a seasoned risk professional with more than 30 years’ experience in financial services across Australia and the United States. She brings extensive experience in risk management with deep expertise in nonfinancial and financial risk, and has a proven track record in regulatory engagement programs and risk culture change.  Most recently, Ms McDougall was the Chief Risk Officer at Suncorp Bank with responsibility for governance and management of all risk types, including operational risk, compliance, credit risk, liquidity and financial crime compliance. She has also held senior positions at National Australia Bank and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

KEY POINTS 2024 has been a significant year. Our new investigations have jumped by 25%, and our civil enforcement cases have similarly increased. In addition, we have seen a lot of ‘firsts’. Turning to 2025, and recognising current cost of living pressures, we have selected our enforcement priorities for the coming year with a focus on protecting consumers from financial harm. These priorities communicate our intent to industry and our stakeholders and give a clear indication of where we will direct our resources and expertise. Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here again to announce our annual enforcement priorities, and to set out for you some of the important work we have been doing over the last 12 months. This work comes at an important time. Despite a challenging geopolitical situation, and pressing climate-related issues, all research points to cost-of-living pressures as the paramount issue of the time for Australians. Our enforcement and compliance work through 2025 will reflect that reality. Last year I talked about the evolution of ASIC’s enforcement approach to one that is proactive, strategic and bold. I add to that now, based on our work of the last 12 months, that we are taking an increasingly confident and ambitious approach to the outcomes we are seeking. Confident because we are unapologetically putting the interests of consumers and investors at the heart of everything we do, including, from time to time, in the face of resistance from those who have been misled about the safety or performance of their investment. And ambitious because we seek to extend the full reach of the protective laws we administer. This year we have clarified and tested the extent of laws in unfair contract terms, the design and distribution obligations, greenwashing and crypto, and we will continue to take this approach. Before I turn to some of our 2024 outcomes, I should remind you of why we have enforcement priorities in the first place. First, they respond to industry requests for transparency as to where we intend to direct our focus. Second, they make the Commission’s enforcement agenda clear to our staff, which helps with case selection, resource allocation and prioritisation. Third, the announcement of particular areas of interest has a deterrent and compliance impact in and of itself. Finally, they hold us to account – have we done what we said we would do? Important as our priorities are, they do not mark the full extent of our enforcement work. Misconduct requiring our attention will inevitably emerge in the course of a year, and we will always retain sufficient capacity to respond to issues of this kind. Highlights of 2024 2024 has been a significant year. Our new investigations have jumped by 25%, and our civil enforcement cases have similarly increased. In addition, as the Chair mentioned earlier, we have seen a lot of ‘firsts’. We have had our first important court outcomes with significant penalties imposed in greenwashing and design and distribution matters. We have seen what will be, if accepted by the court, one of the largest penalties imposed on a superannuation trustee, in our proceedings against Australian Super. We have had a record penalty imposed by the Markets Disciplinary Panel against Macquarie. And, after our teams spent time in remote Indigenous communities taking evidence from First Nations consumers, we have seen the first final stop order imposed to prevent further harm to these consumers. We have remained resolute in our determination to halt what we consider to be unlawful business models operated by Cigno, and in a strongly contested, long-running matter against Harvey Norman and Latitude Finance, both were found to have engaged in a widespread, misleading advertising campaign across multiple media channels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as Harvey Norman is reputed to be the most prolific advertising purchaser in the country, this outcome received muted coverage. In the criminal area, while we are often restricted in what we can say about our cases, they are extensive and resource-intensive. This year has seen charges laid against several individuals for alleged ‘pump and dump’ market manipulation; a former director sentenced to 11 years in prison for charges relating to the Courtenay House Ponzi scheme; a former financial adviser sentenced to 12 years in prison for causing nearly $6 million in losses to his clients; and a former financial planner sentenced to imprisonment for dishonest conduct. Add to this Daniel Ali, former director of DanFX Trade, sentenced to more than seven years’ imprisonment for fraud and Rosemary Flegg, former company secretary of Continental Coal, convicted of stealing and forging bank statements. Cameron Waugh pleaded guilty to insider trading relating to the gold exploration company Genesis Minerals; William O’Dwyer, former Managing Director of the Ralan Group, was sentenced to immediate imprisonment for obtaining financial advantage by deception, and just this week Brett Trevillian, investment manager at AlphaThorn, was sentenced to three years in prison for forging reports about the performance of his trading strategy. As this list demonstrates, ASIC is an active criminal law enforcement agency. Indeed, while figures fluctuate, as at today we have more matters in the criminal courts than we do civil. We are executing warrants, freezing assets, and restricting people from fleeing the country so they can be held to account on a frequent basis. Turning then to some of our priority areas of 2024. This year we rounded off a suite of important matters relating to the design and distribution obligations. These cases helped test and clarify the breadth of these important new laws which have been a recent feature of our enforcement work. In the first decisions in the area, we saw the court make orders against Firstmac for cross-selling a product to consumers outside of the relevant target market, and against Amex for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the inappropriate distribution of its credit cards. It was penalised $8 million for this conduct. In demonstrating the broad application of these laws, including in new and emerging conduct areas, the operator of the Kraken crypto-exchange was also found to have failed to comply with these obligations when offering a margin trading product to Australian consumers. What we take from these decisions is that the laws are flexible, product-neutral, and have much work to do. Given our extensive efforts in the area, including courts cases, surveillances, regulatory guidance, and reports, we will now transition our focus here to business as usual – that is, the design and distribution obligations are now just another tool in our enforcement armoury. Turning to another priority area, you are likely aware that the court this year imposed significant penalties on Mercer and Vanguard in separate proceedings for greenwashing misconduct. Mercer was penalised more than $11 million for misleading investors as to the sustainable nature of some of its superannuation investment options; and shortly afterwards Vanguard was subject to the highest greenwashing penalty to date, in the amount of $12.9 million. In another proceeding, following a strongly contested hearing, the court determined that Active Super made various misleading representations about its ESG credentials. The penalty in that matter remains to be determined. These cases have confirmed that first, when an entity uses unqualified language or unequivocal terms such as we will ‘not invest’ or we will ‘eliminate’ in relation to investments, it cannot correct those representations by relying on a consumer searching around for some investment policy that might otherwise qualify those statements. Second, when superannuation trustees or managed investment schemes make representations as to investment screens or their green credentials, there is no valid distinction to be made between direct and indirect investments. Going forward into 2025 we will retain our focus on greenwashing and misleading claims relating to ESG credentials, and we will particularly consider claims that are inaccurate or made without reasonable grounds. Our work will span a broad range of sectors including listed companies, managed funds, and superannuation funds. Turning now to some important outcomes in the area of high-cost credit and predatory lending, there is unfortunately no end of demand for our work. The business models we encounter often appear to have been designed for the very purpose of avoiding consumer credit protections, and often impact the most financially vulnerable consumers. Such a business model is at the heart of our allegations in the Oak Capital Mortgage case, where we allege that Oak Capital engaged in systemic unconscionable conduct by using a lending model requiring a company to be the named borrower for the loans, in circumstances where the company did not benefit from, or have any genuine interest in, the loan. The impact of this was that the individuals seeking these loans were required to secure them with residential property, and they had no consumer credit protections when in default. A similar model was evident in our proceedings against Rent4Keeps, where the company sought to argue that arrangements with customers which were styled as ‘consumer leases’ were not subject to the credit laws because – despite the name of the company – the customers were purportedly not entitled to keep their products. The court found to the contrary, and that the arrangements were credit contracts, such that the consumer protection laws had been broken. We have had a range of other like matters in court this year; and the Cigno saga that I talked about last year has continued. The practices we see in this area are unethical, unscrupulous, and deliberate. They emerge in the form of business models designed to get around consumer credit protections, and they take advantage of those who are the most vulnerable. We will continue our focus on these issues in 2025, including holding the individuals behind these schemes to account. Finally, in relation to our priority of tackling gatekeeper and market operator misconduct, as you are likely aware, significant proceedings were launched this year against Australia’s largest market operator, ASX Limited, for allegedly making misleading statements related to its CHESS replacement project. That matter is continuing, and followed the first infringement notice issued to ASX following an ASIC investigation into its compliance with the market integrity rules. We have also taken action against Macquarie and JP Morgan for failing to prevent suspicious client orders being placed on futures markets, with, as I mentioned earlier, a record penalty imposed. Insurance and superannuation – observations on some emerging issues Turning to 2025, I want to make some observations on some emerging areas of concern. Insurance and superannuation make up key parts of our regulatory remit. Both are taking on increasing importance to Australians. Insurance because of issues surrounding climate change, extreme weather events, and affordability; and superannuation because it makes up such a large part of each person’s wealth and standard of living in retirement. In relation to insurance, I suspect many of us in this room have at one time or another faced the daunting task of trying to find a better insurance offer. The ability to compare insurance products and pricing offers is critical for consumers seeking to purchase insurance that is both affordable and appropriate for their circumstances. Equally important is being able to rely on promises made by insurers when they send renewal notices referencing discounts for loyalty or the number of policies held. Promises like these are why we have continued our focus on insurance this year, building on significant court outcomes in 2023. We recently instituted proceedings against QBE alleging it failed to deliver on pricing discount promises made to renewing customers on thousands of occasions. We will continue our work in this area next year, with a focus on failures by insurers to deal fairly and in good faith with their customers. Turning to superannuation, this year we have had a number of cases in court against large superannuation trustees including Australian Super, Mercer, Active Super and Telstra Super. As of Tuesday we can add United Super or Cbus to that list. Commissioner Constant, who leads our work in this area, talks frequently about the importance of superannuation trustees delivering for their members, and member services failures in the superannuation sector will continue as an area of focus in 2025. Further to this, we are increasingly seeing disturbing scenarios involving the partial or complete loss of superannuation savings. A common example is where a consumer is advised, enticed or misled to withdraw superannuation savings from a regulated fund, and to invest them, often through the vehicle of a self-managed super fund, into a property development scheme or cryptocurrency asset. An example of this is reflected in our recent investigation into investments in the Shield Master Fund. You may have seen reporting of ASIC’s work on this matter. It makes for sobering reading. We understand that in a two-year period more than $480 million was invested in this fund by thousands of people. Potential investors were called by lead generators and referred to financial advisers. They were advised to withdraw their superannuation investments and to put part or all of them into the Shield Master Fund. This fund sat on the platforms of Macquarie and Equity Trustees, and many superannuants did so. While our work on this matter continues with great intensity, we are concerned that substantial investor funds may have been misapplied. This is but one of several like matters that have come to our attention this year. We are therefore adding a new priority described broadly as misconduct exploiting superannuation savings. We see this as an emerging and concerning area for vigilance, and we are calling on both superannuants and superannuation trustees to exercise caution in such circumstances. Before I turn to some new areas of focus for 2025, I want to remind you of our enduring enforcement priorities. They should be on the screen now. I won’t go through these in any detail but suffice to say that these are types of conduct we consider to be so important as to always be a priority for our work. Let me turn to some new areas of focus for 2025. First – auditors. Auditors play a critical role across the financial system, as the principal external check on a company's reporting. The integrity of our markets depends on performance of the auditor role with independence and integrity. There has been considerable recent public attention on the role of auditors and audit firms, and indeed a parliamentary joint committee delivered a report on this subject just last week. Given this interest, and the important and unique role played by auditors, we propose to intensify our oversight and enforcement work in this sector. Second, I have already set out some of the harms we are seeing in relation to the promotion and mis-selling of high-risk property schemes. This misconduct is increasingly revealing itself to be on an industrial scale. The conduct usually involves a chain of participants, with each person in the chain collecting a fee from the unsuspecting investor along the way. This can include lead generators, cold callers, financial advisers, and conflicted directors of highly speculative property schemes. The investment is often done through the vehicle of newly created self-managed super funds, and increasingly we see investments described with reference to NDIS-compatible housing, presumably to suggest guaranteed or high returns due to a purported connection with the government scheme. Accordingly, we have a new enforcement priority relating to unscrupulous property investment schemes. Third, ASIC has award-winning real-time surveillance technology that helps to ensure that Australia has one of the cleanest markets in the world. To maximise the regulatory benefits of this surveillance, we have established a specialist team – what I might call a hit squad – to more intensively follow up and investigate our surveillance results. This team has its work well underway, and strengthening our investigation and prosecution of insider trading will be a key area of work for us in 2025. Fourth, given the cost-of-living issues I have already referred to, we think it likely that some consumers will find it increasingly challenging to make payments for essential services. There are important consumer protections for the management and collection of debts, and we will be taking action where we see practices that fall short of these obligations. Debt management and debt collection misconduct will be a focus for us while current economic conditions prevail. Finally, one of the obligations of holding a financial services or credit licence is to have adequate cyber security protections, and to respond appropriately to safeguard consumers’ personal information and data in the event those protections are breached. We are considering a range of matters where we consider licensees may have not adequately prepared for these events, particularly in their oversight and supervision of others. We will be further focusing on this issue next year. Conclusion Before I conclude, I want to touch for a moment on the concept of ‘self-reporting’. I do this because one of the most frequent questions I get following ASIC taking court action is: ‘but they self-reported, and are paying compensation – why is it necessary to take them to court?’ To this, I say three things: First, if you have the privilege of holding an Australian financial services or credit licence the law requires you to report to ASIC as soon as you are aware there may be a material breach of the law. It is an offence not to. That is, the law requires self-reporting, and we generally do not laud people for simply complying with the law. Second, the law also requires self-reporting to occur within 30 days. Despite this, we frequently see instances where reports to ASIC are made months, if not years, after issues are first raised internally by staff or other complainants. That’s also a breach of the law. Third, a report to ASIC is the beginning of the process, not its conclusion. Sometimes a self-report is followed by an internal review, or an externally commissioned independent report. At some stage we will be told about the outcome of such a review. More often than not, a privilege claim is made over its contents. We are assured though that there is nothing more for us to see. Of course, we do not accept that assurance. As a former colleague of mine once said, a good regulator should always be sceptical. We will never simply look a gift-horse in the mouth – we will look at it, open its mouth, pull out its tongue and counts its teeth. We are sceptical of what is put to us, and with good reason. There is often a good deal more to see than what is reported to us, and we will generally conduct our own investigation and make our own assessment of the misconduct. Even where there is full and prompt disclosure and remediation, it may well be appropriate for a court to determine what contravention of the law has occurred, and what appropriate penalty should be imposed. This is important for community confidence and sends deterrent messages to the industry more broadly. Thank you for your attention today. I am looking forward to the panel discussion with my colleagues.

Qatar Stock Exchange (‘QSE’) again led a delegation of its leading listed companies to New York this week, at a roadshow which took place on November 12 and 13, hosted at Bank of America’s offices. The roadshow, was part of QSE’s strategy to expand its investor base, attract further foreign investment and showcase the strength and potential of Qatar’s capital markets. The New York Roadshow brought together international investment managers with senior representatives from QNB, CBQ, QIB, Masraf Al Rayan, MPHC, Industries Qatar, GIS and QAMCO, Qatar Insurance, Milaha, Nakilat. The conference offers US investors an opportunity to expand their relationship with Qatar as an investment destination and strengthen their understanding of investment opportunities with Qatar’s leading companies. It also reflects the increased penetration of foreign institutional investors into Qatar’s capital markets.  Most recently foreign institutional investors have typically accounted for thirty-forty percent of average daily turnover and continue to be an active presence in its market.  Abdul Aziz Nasser Al Emadi, Acting, CEO of QSE said: “QSE’s, and our listed companies, commitment to our ongoing outreach is part of a long-term commitment.  In fact, the Third Financial Sector Strategy, contains as one of its key objectives the “internationalisation” of our markets overall.  This covers not just equity investors, the focus this week, but also fixed income investors as well as the regional and global market participants who provide the international ‘connectivity’ that has been such an important part of Qatar’s overall growth. The two go hand-in-hand with raised awareness requiring the further development of market access and market infrastructure that will make portfolio investment more efficient.”  He added “Post World Cup and its related infrastructure build-out, Qatar is not standing still embarking on a new phase of growth driven by the proposed North Field expansion which will increase capacity to 142 MTPA by 2030, an 85% increase.” It is expected that over the two days Qatar’s listed companies will receive over one hundred meeting requests with fund managers.

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) confirms that, as the Typhoon Signal No. 8 warning remains hoisted, its Severe Weather Trading arrangements are in effect. This means that Hong Kong’s securities and derivatives markets, including Stock Connect and After-Hours Trading, will remain fully operational today (Thursday).Please refer to the HKEX website<https://www.hkex.com.hk/Services/Trading-hours-and-Severe-Weather-Arrangements/Severe-Weather-Trading-Arrangements?sc_lang=en> for more information on the Severe Weather Trading arrangements.

The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday invited comment on a report, as prescribed by law, that discusses the impact of a proposed international capital standard for large, internationally active insurance groups on U.S. consumers and markets. The joint report was completed with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Comments on the report are due by January 12, 2025. For media inquiries, please email media@frb.gov or call 202-452-2955. The Impact of the International Insurance Capital Standard on Consumers and Markets in the United States (PDF) Federal Register notice: Study and Report to Congress on the Impact on Consumers and Markets in the United States of a Final International Insurance Capital Standard (PDF) Related Content The Impact of the International Insurance Capital Standard on Consumers and Markets in the United States

Thank you, Erica. I would like to extend my congratulations to the new members of this Committee, Jennifer Newton, Rose Standifer, Wendy Stevens, and Emily Underwood. I look forward to your individual contributions to this Committee and thank you for your willingness to serve. Thanks to the rest of the Committee and our guest panelists for being here today.[1] A belated thank you for your recommendation that the Commission “increase the [Crowdfunding] offering threshold at which reviewed financial statements are required from $124,000 to $350,000.”[2] Such a change could help make crowdfunding a viable fundraising avenue for more small companies. Thank you also for your observations at the Committee’s last meeting on the state of small business capital raising, which I found illuminating. At future meetings, I would welcome similar reflections on your own on-the-ground experiences. To be effective, capital markets must be able to get money into the hands of good managers, regardless of whether they have rich friends and family. Only then will investors’ funds find their way to the companies that can put those funds to their best use. Today’s panels about emerging fund managers will help us explore ways we can lower barriers to entry for such managers and thus ensure that their expertise is being drawn upon to deploy capital. The first panel will discuss the underutilization of Rule 506(c) under Reg. D, which allows issuers, including funds, to publicly advertise a private offering provided that each purchaser is accredited and that the issuer takes “reasonable steps to verify” the purchaser’s accredited investor status.[3] Most recently, issuers raised around $169 billion annually under Rule 506(c) compared to $2.7 trillion under 506(b), which does not permit general solicitation.[4] I have some questions for your consideration during today’s meeting: According to Professor Sabrina Howell’s paper, an average of only 8.4% of venture capital funds have used general solicitation since 2013.[5] Based on her paper, one of the reasons for the lack of interest in 506(c) seems to be the cost and legal risk associated with the “reasonable steps to verify” requirement.[6] How could the Commission mitigate these costs and legal risk? Should we allow an investor to self-certify her accredited investor status? Professor Howell’s paper suggests that use of 506(c) may send a “negative signal to investors” that the fund is incurring the cost of 506(c) only because it “does not have the requisite personal network to fundraise without general solicitation.”[7] Would reducing the cost of verification sufficiently address this negative signal? The paper posits that reforming Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act could expand the use of Rule 506(c) because “a 100-investor cap for 3(c)(1) private funds creates a regulatory barrier to 506(c) managers’ access to small-time retail [accredited] investors.”[8] Where should the cap be set to address this regulatory barrier? Congress in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act created a new exemption for “qualified venture capital funds” under Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act, which can raise capital from up to 250 investors and $12 million of aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital.[9] What types of businesses and investors do qualified venture capital funds typically serve? Would a higher cap on investors or capital raise increase the usefulness of Rule 506(c), expand access to investing opportunities for smaller or less connected investors, or help fund managers access the capital they need? If so, what should the caps be? What else can the SEC do to create a regulatory environment in which talented emerging fund managers, including those who do not have wealthy networks, can get a competitive toehold? Thank you. I look forward to listening to today’s discussion. [1] The views I express are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or my fellow Commissioners. [2] Letter from the Small Bus. Cap. Formation Advisory Comm., U.S. Sec, & Exch. Comm’n, to Gary Gensler, Chair, U.S. Sec, & Exch. Comm’n (July 11, 2024), letter-re-recommendations-regulation-crowdfunding-approved-5624-meeting.pdf. [3] 17 CFR § 230.506(c)(2)(ii). [4] See Annual Report, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n Off. of the Advoc. for Small Bus. Cap. Formation at 15 (2023), https://www.sec.gov/files/2023-oasb-annual-report.pdf. These statistics are for July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. [5] See Sabrina T. Howell & Dean Parker, VC Funds and Regulation D’s Rule506(c): Did Permitting General Solicitation Open the Door for Emerging and Underrepresented Managers?, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n Off. of the Advoc. for Small Bus. Cap. Formation at 17 (Oct. 2024), https://www.sec.gov/files/howell-parker-sec-regulationd-report.pdf. [6] Id. at 40.  [7] Id. at 38. [8] Id. at 1. [9] See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(c)(1).

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today released an updated list of third-country groups (TCGs) and third-country branches (TCBs) operating across the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). This annual publication enhances market transparency by providing stakeholders with clear information on the ownership structures of institutions operating within the EU/EEA under foreign control. The 2024 update identifies 439 third country groups from 50 countries outside the EU/EEA that are currently active in the area. Among these, 8 groups have established intermediate EU parent undertakings (IPUs), as required by EU regulations, with 2 groups having dual IPUs. Additionally, 61 TCGs have branches in the EU/EEA, resulting in a total of 95 third country branches spread across EU/EEA. This Report is part of the EBA's efforts to ensure that market participants have clarity regarding the direct ownership and presence of foreign institutions within the EU/EEA, contributing to a stable and transparent banking environment. Legal basis and background According to Article 21b of Directive 2013/36/EU (Capital Requirements Directive - CRD), third country groups (TCGs) operating through ​more than one institution in the Union and with total assets of EUR 40 billion or more are required to have an intermediate EU parent undertaking (IPU). The EBA has a key role to play in facilitating cooperation between National Competent Authorities and in supporting their IPU decision-making process. In July 2021, the EBA Guidelines (EBA/GL/2021/08) provided a common methodology for the calculation of the total value of assets in order to achieve consistent application of Union law. In May 2022, the EBA published the decision (EBA/DC/441) on supervisory reporting for the threshold monitoring of the intermediate EU parent undertaking to ensure a timely application of the IPU requirement. Documents List of TCGs with IPU(s) and TCBs (58.59 KB - Excel Spreadsheet) Download Related content Page Threshold monitoring of intermediate parent undertakings Link Interactive tool with list of TCGs and TCBs operating across the EU/EEA

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today announced the promotions of Robert Barnes and Kevin Greenfield as Deputy Comptrollers for Large Bank Supervision (LBS). “Robert and Kevin have each had distinguished careers at the OCC and are recognized throughout the agency for their diverse experience, considerable expertise, and strong leadership,” said Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision Greg Coleman. “Their extensive backgrounds and knowledge of the industry bolsters the OCC’s leadership of our large bank portfolio and further advances the agency’s strategic goals.” Mr. Barnes has served as National Bank Examiner for more than 30 years. He has supervised banks of all sizes with domestic and international operations, and currently serves as the Examiner-in-Charge of Bank of America. Mr. Barnes’ experience has included leading highly complex commercial credit examinations in addition to evaluating the quality of bank risk management programs, including those relating to information technology, cybersecurity, operational, and compliance risks. Mr. Barnes has held critical leadership positions on OCC Peer Review Work Groups and interagency efforts, and is an advocate for leadership development within his examiner teams. He received a master of science degree in business administration and management from William Carey University and a bachelor of science degree in finance from Jackson State University. Mr. Greenfield has served as a National Bank Examiner for more than 25 years and has been the Acting Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision since August 2024. He returned to LBS following five years as Director for Bank Information Technology Policy then five years as Deputy Comptroller for Operational Risk Policy. In his most recent position, Mr. Greenfield oversaw the development of policy and examination procedures addressing operational risk, bank information technology, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure resilience, payments systems, and corporate and risk governance. He has represented the OCC on several interagency groups that focus on coordination and collaboration on operational and technology risks impacting the financial sector. Mr. Greenfield received his bachelor of science degree in business administration from the University of Dayton.

SIFMA and Ernst & Young LLP (EY US) today published “U.S. Treasury Central Clearing – Industry Considerations Report,” designed to capture and organize the various considerations and activities market participants should evaluate while assessing and completing preparations for the upcoming U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Treasury Clearing Rule compliance dates. It is intended to be utilized as a guide by sell-side and buy-side market participants alike as they implement changes in response to new U.S. Treasury clearing requirements. “Treasury securities play a key role in the U.S. and world economies.  SIFMA has long supported efforts to make the Treasury market more resilient.  At the same time, we recognize the need to ensure liquidity is not negatively impacted,” said Joe Seidel, SIFMA Chief Operating Officer.  “As we transition to central clearing in compliance with the new SEC rules, it is important that the industry focuses on preparedness efforts to ensure as little market disruption as possible.  The report is designed to offer a roadmap of considerations and actions firms need to take now to be ready for the coming deadlines.  This is also part of SIFMA’s broader efforts, including the development of standard clearing documentation, to coordinate a smooth transition with the industry.” Clearing transactions involves a clearing agency stepping in between a buyer and seller to handle certain elements of transaction processing, manage risk and pay down obligations.  In December 2023, the SEC approved a final rule which mandates the clearing of certain eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities. It triggered a significant structural change to the U.S. Treasury market and will have significant impacts on broker-dealers, institutional investors, asset managers, hedge funds, interdealer brokers, principal trading firms, banks, and covered clearing agencies (CCAs). The first compliance date is March 31, 2025, by which time CCAs must implement enhanced practices as outlined in the respective rulebook of each CCA, which include risk management, margin, customer asset protection, and access to clearance and settlement services. The second compliance date is December 31, 2025, by which time direct participants of CCAs must comply with the requirements to clear eligible cash secondary market transactions. The third compliance date is June 30, 2026, by which time direct participants of CCAs must be compliant with the requirements to clear eligible Treasury repo transactions. “The SEC’s new Treasury clearing requirements represent a pivotal shift for the U.S. Treasury market, and firms must act quickly to meet the upcoming compliance deadlines,” said Brendan Maher, Managing Director, Financial Services Consulting, EY. “This report offers market participants a practical framework to navigate this complex transition, highlighting key considerations and actions. At EY, we are committed to helping our clients adapt to these new regulations by providing actionable insights and strategic guidance to ensure a seamless and efficient transition to central clearing.” The SEC Rule will drive a number of changes to the overall U.S. Treasury market structure and require the integration of market participants who will now be mandated to centrally clear transactions for the first time. New CCAs may also emerge, and market participants may decide to connect to one or more CCAs to support their trading and clearing strategies. Such changes to the market will require new operations and capabilities to accommodate increased clearing volumes and new relationships between firms. The report details the critical activities that institutions should consider as they design and implement a process for Treasury clearing. The primary objectives of the report are to: Provide an implementation blueprint for industry participants on implementation priorities. Identify the key steps to operationalize change across different clearing access models. Surface key issues, open questions, and gaps in market structure and provide recommendations on the path to resolution. Provide views on the target state transaction lifecycle from execution through margin processing, including proposed high-level transaction flows. Provide insights on implementation dependencies across work efforts, where possible. Serve as an educational resource on the rule and its implications. The report includes input and subject-matter analysis from market participants on both the buy-side and sell-side that was gathered 1) via a survey issued to SIFMA member firms by SIFMA and EY, 2) from information workshops hosted with SIFMA member firms, and 3) from bilateral conversations with market participants. It is available at the following link:  https://www.sifma.org/resources/general/us-treasury-central-clearing-industry-considerations-report/

Amal Express Ekonomisk förening shall pay an administrative fine of SEK 100,000. Amal Express Ekonomisk förening is a registered payment service provider pursuant to the Payment Services Act (2010:751). The association offers cross-border money remittances via informal remittance systems, so-called hawala, to Somalia, other countries in Eastern Africa and other locations. Cross-border transactions – in some cases for a significant value – have been executed through the hawala service, and to some extent these transactions have been paid in cash. The service has entailed a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, and Amal has thus been exposed to a high risk of being used for such purposes. Given this background, the association has been obligated to take particularly strong measures. Finansinspektionen has investigated Amal's compliance with the anti-money laundering regulations and identified deficiencies in the company's general risk assessment, customer risk classification, and due diligence measures. These relate to central provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations, and Finansinspektionen makes the assessment that there is cause to view these breaches seriously. This applies in particular given that Amal should have taken particularly strong measures to counteract the high risk of the payment system provided by the association being used for money laundering and terrorism financing. Amal has taken a number of measures to rectify the deficiencies Finansinspektionen identified. Finansinspektionen therefore makes the assessment that the expectation that Amal will be able to comply with the regulations going forward is sufficient to only issue an administrative fine of SEK 100,000. Decision regarding administrative fine ( < 1MB)

Good morning. First, I would like to echo Erica and my fellow Commissioners in extending a warm welcome to the newest members of the Committee. I appreciate your commitment to public service and look forward to your contributions to the Committee’s work, which has included recommendations on the accredited investor definition and Regulation Crowdfunding, and looking at changes to the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. Today, the Committee continues to discuss important issues, including how venture capital funds raise capital, the section 3(c)(1) exception under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the challenges that emerging managers face in raising capital and finding investment opportunities. As you will hear about in more detail from Commission staff, section 3(c)(1) permits a private fund to raise capital without registration, provided that there are 100 or fewer beneficial owners and the fund is not making a public offering. Section 3(c)(1) also provides under certain conditions that certain venture capital funds with less than $12 million in aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital are not required to register, so long as there are 250 or fewer beneficial owners. Private and venture capital funds can provide nontraditional funding to small startups to help them innovate and grow. I wonder, however, if section 3(c)(1)’s 100 investor limit for private funds remains appropriate. This limitation dates back to 1940, while the venture capital exception was promulgated by Congress as part of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018. Much has changed since 1940. In some ways, it may be easier for smaller funds to raise capital, considering that they may engage in general solicitation by using the internet or other means if all of the purchasers are accredited, among other things. However, the 100 investor limit may be too small to effectively contribute capital to small businesses or to be successful as an ongoing fund. I look forward to hearing about the Committee and guests’ insights about smaller private and venture capital funds, emerging managers, and how to facilitate capital raising for smaller businesses. I have been particularly concerned about the lack of appropriately tailored and therefore disproportionate compliance burdens on small advisers starting out. This can be a significant barrier to entry and a hurdle for emerging fund managers. Thanks again to the Committee for their continued commitment to small business and I hope you have a successful and productive meeting.