The European Banking Authority (EBA) published its final draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) clarifying the extraordinary circumstances for continuing the use of internal models and disregarding certain overshootings in accordance with the Fundamental Review of the Trading book (FRTB) framework Under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), competent authorities may permit institutions to derogate from certain requirements for the use of internal models in accordance with the FRTB, or apply a softer version of those requirements, under extraordinary circumstances. The occurrence of extraordinary circumstances will be determined by the EBA, which must issue an opinion to that effect. The RTS published today set out the conditions and indicators that the EBA shall use to determine whether extraordinary circumstances have occurred. Legal basis The draft RTS have been developed in accordance with Article 325az(10) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (‘CRR3’).  Documents Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on on extraordinary circumstances (349.6 KB - PDF) Download Related content Draft Regulatory Technical StandardsFinal draft RTS/ITS adopted by the EBA and submitted to the European Commission Regulatory Technical Standards on extraordinary circumstances for continuing the use of an internal model

The European Banking Authority (EBA) published today its amended Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure following the changes introduced in the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD). The EBA assessed the impact of the recent revision of Article 28(1) of the MCD and concluded that, in order to adhere to the principle that EBA Guidelines must not repeat, amend or contradict requirements set out in Level 1 legislation, the EBA Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure needed to be amended. Guideline 4 on ‘resolution process’ has therefore been removed from the EBA Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure, as its content is now embedded in binding Union Law. The aggregate requirements set out in the MCD and the EBA Guidelines have remained unchanged. Background and legal basis The EBA issued its Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure (EBA/GL/2015/12) in 2015 to support the transposition of the provisions of Article 28 on arrears and foreclosure of Directive 2014/17/EU on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property (MCD). The EBA Guidelines became applicable on the same day as the MCD itself on 21 March 2016. In December 2021, Directive (EU) 2021/2167 on credit servicers and credit purchasers (Credit Servicers Directive – CSD), regulating the sale, purchase, and servicing of non-performing loans (NPLs) entered into force. The CSD introduced, inter alia, amendments to Article 28(1) MCD on arrears and foreclosure by replacing the existing wording with a near verbatim wording of Guideline 4 of the EBA Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure, which covers the resolution process between creditor and borrower. The amended Level 1 text became applicable at the end of December 2023. The amended Guidelines will apply within two months of the publication of the translated versions. Documents Final report on amending Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure (221.63 KB - PDF) Download Related content GuidelinesFinal and awaiting translation into the EU official languages Guidelines on arrears and foreclosure

The Chicago Business Barometer™, produced with MNI increased 12.0 points to 47.4 in June. This is the first monthly rise after sixth consecutive monthly falls, making this month’s reading the highest since November 2023 with the index seeing the largest monthly increase since September 2020. All five subcomponents rose with New Orders leading the improvement, followed by Order Backlogs, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries.  New Orders increased by 16.9 points, after three consecutive months of decline, returning to similar levels seen in Q1-24.  Production expanded 11.0 points bringing it to the highest since December 2023.  Order Backlogs also rose 14.2 points, marking the highest level since November 2023.  Employment progressed 6.9 points, making it the highest for 3 months, largely reversing the weakness seen across April and May. This improvement was in part due to 75% of respondents reporting the same level of employment, whilst less than a fifth reported lower levels of employment.  Supplier Deliveries also edged up for the second consecutive month by 2.6 points.  Prices Paid decreased by 11.9 points, moving to their lowest level since June 2023.  Finally, Inventories grew by 10.2 points to the highest since November 2023.    The survey ran from June 1 to June 17

Click here to download Malawi Stock Exchange's weekly summary.

Click here to download the 'Index Dashboard' for the month ended June 2024. 

ASX confirms it is progressing with the targeted delivery of the first phase of the CHESS replacement project in 2026, as previously announced in November 2023. This comes as ASX today released its response to feedback received on the proposed two stage approach to implementation and the scope and design for delivery of clearing services (Release 1).  ASX Group Executive, Securities and Payments, Clive Triance, said: “The completion of the first of two key industry consultations on CHESS replacement is a notable milestone and the strong support we received for our initial proposals reflect the detailed engagement and consultation undertaken in the reassessment of the solution design.” The majority of respondents support a staged implementation of the CHESS replacement system and ASX intends to proceed with its overarching approach of implementing CHESS replacement across two main releases, with Release 1 delivering the clearing services and Release 2 focused on settlement and subregister functionality. “This delivers a level of certainty over the first phase of the timeline of the project,” Mr Triance said. “We are pleased at the engagement from the industry on this consultation and would like to thank stakeholders for providing their feedback.”  The Release 1 go-live date will be set with industry stakeholders as part of finalising the Release 1 Cutover and Migration Approach documentation, targeted for publication in Q2 2025. ASX will release Consultation Paper 2 – which focuses on the settlement and subregister functionality – in August 2024.  Background On 14 March 2024, ASX released Consultation Paper 1 on the proposed staged implementation approach to the new CHESS replacement system and implementation of Release 1, clearing services. ASX sought feedback on the: staged approach and timing for replacing CHESS in two separate releases (Releases 1 and 2);  design, scope and schedule for Release 1; and  industry testing approach for Release 1.   The response to feedback paper provides a summary of the feedback received in response to the proposals made and questions posed in the consultation paper, and ASX’s response to the feedback. The paper also sets out a design, scope and schedule, as well as an industry testing approach and duration for Release 1, which has been informed by the feedback received.  

SIFMA today unveiled the results of its biannual US Economic Survey: Mid-Year 2024. This survey compiles the median economic forecast from the chief U.S. economists from over 20 global and regional financial institutions that make up the SIFMA Economist Roundtable. It includes expectations for key economic metrics and policy moves, including key findings such as the expectation of 2 rate cuts in 2024 and an expected real GDP growth of 1.6% this year. “As we reach the midpoint of the year, our survey results found a generally upbeat near-term outlook for the U.S. economy,” said Jay Bryson, Ph.D., Chair of the SIFMA Economist Roundtable. “Despite some challenges, such as inflation and monetary policy concerns, our findings suggest a path towards sustained growth and stability, with expectations of a ‘soft landing’ and gradual easing of policy in the near future.” Key Takeaways: Inflation & Monetary Policy: The majority of our economists expect 2 rate cuts in 2024 and 4 rate cuts in 2025. Over 50% of our economists expect 100-175 bps of cuts by 4Q25. Over 50% of survey respondents expect a rate cut in September, followed by around two-thirds in November and over 85% in December. However, around 14% of our economists expect no rate cut in 2024. Economic Outlook: Core PCE estimated to end 2024 at +2.8%; +0.4 pps from the last full survey in December 2023, +0.3 pps from the March 2024 flash poll. The top factor to core inflation estimates is wage growth. Averaging 4.2% in 2024, wage growth remains 1.2 pps above the three-year pre-COVID average. Labor Market: Real GDP growth estimated at +1.6% in 2024 and +2.0% in 2025; +0.9 pps from our last full survey in December 2023 but no change from our flash poll in March 2024. Over 80% of our economists put the probability of recession from 0% to 30%. As to factors impacting U.S. economic growth, monetary policy – unsurprisingly – came in on top. This factor also shows up near the top in both upside and downside risks to the economy.   The full report can be found here. You can view the recorded briefing on the report here.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Market Oversight (DMO) and Division of Data (DOD) today issued a staff no-action letter regarding certain Part 43 and Part 45 swap reporting obligations for swaps transitioning under the ISDA LIBOR fallback provisions from referencing the Canadian Dollar Offered Rate (CDOR), to referencing the risk-free Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average (CORRA) following the cessation of CDOR after June 28, 2024. The letter states DMO and DOD will not recommend the CFTC take enforcement action against an entity for failure to timely report under Part 45 the change in a swap’s floating rate. This letter covers those floating rate changes that are made under the ISDA LIBOR fallback provisions from CDOR to CORRA, but only in the event the entity uses its best efforts to report the change by the applicable deadline in Part 45 and in no case reports the required information later than five business days from, but excluding, July 2, 2024. The letter also states DMO and DOD will not recommend the CFTC take enforcement action against an entity for failure to report under Part 43 the change in the floating rate for a swap modified after execution to incorporate the ISDA LIBOR fallback provisions to tra RELATED LINKS CFTC Staff Letter No. 24-08

Interest rate derivative trading will cease at 1:30 p.m. today, June 28, 2024. Furthermore, the Exchange's markets will be closed on July 1, 2024.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced it is extending the deadline for public comment on a proposal to amend its event contract rules. The extended comment period will close on August 8, 2024. The CFTC is providing an extension to allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.  The proposal would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to further specify types of event contracts that fall within the scope of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and are contrary to the public interest, such that they may not be listed for trading or accepted for clearing on or through a CFTC-registered entity.   Among other things, the proposal would define the term “gaming” for purposes of CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and CFTC Regulation 40.11, and would provide illustrative examples of “gaming,” such as staking or risking something of value on the outcome of a political contest, an awards contest, or a game in which one or more athletes compete, or on an occurrence or non-occurrence in connection with such a contest or game. The proposal would also include a determination that event contracts involving each of the activities enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) (gaming, war, terrorism, assassination, and activity that is unlawful under any Federal or State law) are, as a category, contrary to the public interest and therefore may not be listed for trading or accepted for clearing on or through a CFTC-registered entity. The proposal was approved by the CFTC, and published on its website, on May 10, 2024, and was made available for public comment for a period of 60 days, until July 9, 2024. [See CFTC Press Release No. 8907-24] The proposal was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2024. Comments may be submitted electronically through the CFTC Comments online process. All comments received will be posted on CFTC.gov. RELATED LINKS Federal Register: 17 CFR Part 40 Event Contracts

EMIR Refit took effect in the EU derivatives market on April 29th and will be implemented in the UK on September 30th, five months later. Commenting on this regulatory development, Syed Ali, Managing Director of Repository & Derivatives Services at DTCC, said: "As the financial services industry prepares for the upcoming implementation of the UK EMIR Refit on 30 September 2024, DTCC remains committed to ensuring a seamless transition for all market participants. The UK EMIR Refit represents a divergence from the EU EMIR reporting regime, with unique challenges and opportunities for those reporting under both jurisdictions. We recognize the complexities introduced by these new regulations, particularly the shift to standardized ISO 20022 XML reporting formats, increased reporting fields, and the mandatory use of Unique Product Identifiers (UPIs) and Unique Trade Identifiers (UTIs). We are currently in a five-month period where entities need to navigate dual reporting requirements under both the old UK EMIR and the new EU EMIR standards. DTCC has been actively engaging with clients to provide the necessary tools and support to navigate this period. We have been conducting extensive outreach, including roundtables and testing sessions, to ensure our clients are fully prepared for the new regulatory requirements. The UK EMIR Refit is a significant step towards a more robust and transparent derivatives market. The increased standardization of data fields and formats will enable better data aggregation and risk analysis, ultimately improving market integrity and investor protections. At the same time, broader adoption of standard reporting formats will increase interoperability and the efficiency of data exchange, reducing errors and speeding up processing times within the financial ecosystem. DTCC remains committed to supporting the industry through this important regulatory transition, fostering safer, more efficient, and transparent global markets.”

I would like to thank the Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington Bankers Associations for the invitation to join you this morning.1 It's a pleasure to be here in Washington State to speak with your members. Direct interactions like this, outside of Washington, D.C., enable me to develop a deeper understanding of what is happening in the banking industry and the regional economy. Before sharing some thoughts about the current trajectory of regulatory approvals and bank merger policy, I will discuss my views on the economy and monetary policy. Update on the Economy and Monetary Policy OutlookOver the past two years, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has significantly tightened the stance of monetary policy to address high inflation. At our meeting earlier this month, the FOMC voted to continue to hold the federal funds rate target range at 5-1/4 to 5‑1/2 percent and to continue to reduce the Federal Reserve's securities holdings. After seeing considerable progress on slowing inflation last year, we have seen only modest further progress this year. The 12-month measures of total and core personal consumption expenditures inflation have moved roughly sideways or slightly down since December and remained elevated at 2.7 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, in April. The consumer price index (CPI) report for May showed 12-month core CPI inflation slowing to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent in April. However, with average core CPI inflation this year through May running at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent, notably above average inflation in the second half of last year, I expect inflation to remain elevated for some time. The recent pickup in inflation in the first several months of 2024 was evident across many goods and services categories, suggesting that inflation was temporarily lower in the latter half of last year. Prices continue to be much higher than before the pandemic, which is weighing on consumer sentiment. Inflation has hit lower-income households hardest since food, energy, and housing services price increases far outpaced overall inflation throughout this episode. Economic activity increased at a strong pace last year but appears to have moderated early this year. First-quarter gross domestic product growth was slower than in the second half of last year, though private domestic final purchases continued to rise at a solid pace. Continued softness in consumer spending and weaker housing activity early in the second quarter also suggest less momentum in economic activity so far this year. Payroll employment continued to rise at a solid pace in April and May, though slightly slower than in the first quarter, partly reflecting increased immigrant labor supply. Despite some further rebalancing between supply and demand, the labor market remains tight. The unemployment rate edged up to 4.0 percent in May, while the number of job openings relative to unemployed workers declined further to near its pre-pandemic level. Labor force participation dropped back to 62.5 percent in May, which suggests no further improvement in labor supply along this margin, as labor force participation among those aged 55 or older has been persistently low. At its current setting, our monetary policy stance appears to be restrictive, and I will continue to monitor the incoming data to assess whether monetary policy is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to our target. As I've noted recently, my baseline outlook continues to be that inflation will decline further with the policy rate held steady. And should the incoming data indicate that inflation is moving sustainably toward our 2 percent goal, it will eventually become appropriate to gradually lower the federal funds rate to prevent monetary policy from becoming overly restrictive. However, we are still not yet at the point where it is appropriate to lower the policy rate, and I continue to see a number of upside risks to inflation. First, much of the progress on inflation last year was due to supply-side improvements, including easing of supply chain constraints; increases in the number of available workers, due in part to immigration; and lower energy prices. It is unlikely that further improvements along this margin will continue to lower inflation going forward, as supply chains have largely normalized, the labor force participation rate has leveled off in recent months below pre-pandemic levels, and an open U.S. immigration policy over the past few years, which added millions of new immigrants in the U.S., may become more restrictive. Geopolitical developments could also pose upside risks to inflation, including the risk that spillovers from regional conflicts could disrupt global supply chains, putting additional upward pressure on food, energy, and commodity prices. There is also the risk that the loosening in financial conditions since late last year, reflecting considerable gains in equity valuations, and additional fiscal stimulus could add momentum to demand, stalling any further progress or even causing inflation to reaccelerate. Finally, there is a risk that increased immigration and continued labor market tightness could lead to persistently high core services inflation. Given the current low inventory of affordable housing, the inflow of new immigrants to some geographic areas could result in upward pressure on rents, as additional housing supply may take time to materialize. With labor markets remaining tight, wage growth has been elevated at around or above 4 percent, still higher than the pace consistent with our 2 percent inflation goal given trend productivity growth. In light of these risks, and the general uncertainty regarding the economic outlook, I will continue to watch the data closely as I assess the appropriate path of monetary policy. The frequency and extent of data revisions over the past few years make the task of assessing the current state of the economy and predicting how the economy will evolve even more challenging. I will remain cautious in my approach to considering future changes in the stance of policy. It is important to note that monetary policy is not on a preset course. In my view, we should consider a range of possible scenarios that could unfold when considering how the FOMC's monetary policy decisions may evolve. My colleagues and I will make our decisions at each FOMC meeting based on the incoming data and the implications for and risks to the outlook. While the current stance of monetary policy appears to be at a restrictive level, I remain willing to raise the target range for the federal funds rate at a future meeting should the incoming data indicate that progress on inflation has stalled or reversed. Restoring price stability is essential for achieving maximum employment over the longer run. Regulatory Approvals in the Banking SystemBefore turning directly to regulatory approvals in the banking system and merger and acquisition policy, it is important to consider these issues in the broader context. Regulatory approvals and bank mergers and acquisitions do not occur in a vacuum. The choices that regulators make on regulatory and supervisory policy issues have profound implications for mergers and acquisitions and for the appetite of bank management to engage in those transactions. In recent months, the banking agencies have issued or finalized a large number of regulatory changes. These changes are shaping the future of the banking system. From bank capital requirements to liquidity reform, significant revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act, a regulatory attack on banks charging fees for services (including debit card interchange fees), the trend of dialing supervision up to "11" for banks of all sizes, and the ongoing erosion of tailoring all shape the contours of the banking system, including bank size, the activities in which they engage, and where activities occur within the broader financial system.2 These policy decisions also create incentives and impacts that we must acknowledge and understand. When policymakers flatten and standardize regulations and supervisory expectations, we create strong incentives for banks to achieve greater economies of scale through merger and make it harder for new banks to successfully compete with existing banks. Actually implementing clear merger standards would reduce the number of necessary application denials and withdrawals. Where clear standards exist, those seeking regulatory approval will only file for approval of those transactions that will meet the banking agency standards. In my mind, this would be responsible and effective public policy. De Novo Bank FormationI continue to be concerned about the decline in the number of banks in the U.S. As I have noted in the past, there are several indications that there is an unmet demand for new bank creation demonstrated by the ongoing preference for "charter strip" acquisitions, the ongoing shift of activities out of the banking system, and the rising demand for banking-as-a-service partnerships.3 For the past decade, de novo bank formation has been largely stagnant, even as the banking industry has rapidly evolved over the same time. Many factors influence the pursuit of de novo bank charters, including the interest rate environment, business opportunities, the intense competition for qualified bank management and staff, and potentially less onerous alternatives for financial services to be provided outside of the regulated banking system. The decision to form a de novo bank is also informed by normal business considerations, including identifying investors, establishing a viable business plan, and ensuring the ability to navigate the "start-up" phase of a new bank and manage upfront operational costs, all while being subjected to intense supervisory oversight over the first several years of operation. Yet perhaps the most important factor that influences de novo bank formation is the regulatory and supervisory framework. This includes the application process and receipt of regulatory approval. This application process can be a significant obstacle to de novo bank formation. Applications often experience significant delays between the initial charter application filing with the chartering authority and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation application for deposit insurance. It often takes well in excess of a year to receive all of the required regulatory approvals to open for business. Of course, this uncertainty remains after the initial capital has been raised, shareholders identified, and a management team is ready to begin work. These delays present unique challenges for de novo founders, including incurrence of more start-up expenses, difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified management to obtain approval, and challenges in raising additional start-up capital investment. In my view, the absence of de novo bank formation over the long run will create a void in the banking system, a void that could contribute to a decline in the availability of reliable and fairly priced credit, the absence of financial services in underserved markets, and the continued shift of banking activities outside the banking system. Bank Mergers and AcquisitionsAnother pressing area of concern is the rapidly shifting approach to bank mergers and acquisitions (M&A) by some prudential regulators.4 M&A transactions allow banks to evolve and thrive in our dynamic banking system and can promote the long-term health and viability of banks. M&A also ensures that banks have a meaningful path to transitioning bank ownership. The absence of a viable M&A framework increases the potential for additional risks, including limited opportunities for succession planning, especially in smaller or rural communities, and zombie banks that continue to exist but have no competitive viability or exit strategy. The impact of a more restrictive M&A framework affects institutions of all sizes, including larger institutions that are vying to compete with the very largest global systemically important banks. They may choose to pursue M&A to remain competitive with larger peers who can achieve growth organically through sheer scale. M&A is an important part of a healthy banking system. So when considering changes to the framework, I think we need to first identify the problem that needs to be solved and then ask whether any proposed solution is fair, transparent, and consistent with applicable statutes—and, critically, whether the proposed solution has the potential to damage the long-term viability of the banking system. Are there identified shortcomings in the current process or standards, and are the proposed reforms targeted and effective to address these shortcomings? One argument I have heard about the M&A regulatory approval process is that the lack of application denials demonstrates that regulators are failing to meaningfully review and pressure-test proposals and have effectively become a rubber stamp. I think this argument lacks a strong foundation. There is ample evidence that undermines this argument, including the resource demands on institutions pursuing M&A activity and the extended time it takes to complete the regulatory review and approval process (and the not insignificant failure rate we see represented in withdrawn applications). We also have to acknowledge that choosing the path of a merger or acquisition is not undertaken lightly. These transactions require significant upfront and ongoing investment and commitment of resources. At the outset, this includes finding an appropriate acquisition target, conducting due diligence, and negotiating the terms of the transaction. Once a target is identified, the banks must prepare appropriate regulatory filings, engage with regulators during the application process, and prepare for post-approval business processes, including scheduling necessary and costly systems conversions and customer transition. This is an expensive and reputationally risky process that bankers and their boards of directors take extremely seriously. One would also expect to see different patterns emerging if regulators were truly acting as a rubber stamp for banking applications. We know from data published by the Federal Reserve that filing an application does not guarantee approval, even in the absence of a regulatory denial. The Federal Reserve's most recent report on banking applications activity identifies a significant portion of bank M&A transactions in which applications have been withdrawn.5 The processing timelines we see also seem inconsistent with a process that is operating truly as a rubber stamp. To be clear, I think we have room to do better when it comes to timely regulatory action, while maintaining a rigorous review of applications. But extended review periods are not uncommon, particularly when you include preliminary discussions and pre-filings with regulators in the published processing timelines. Some contemplated regulatory reform efforts will likely make the M&A application process slower and less efficient. One of the key risks to an effective process is a lack of timely regulatory action. The consequences of delays can significantly harm both the acquiring institution and the target, causing greater operational risk (including the risk of a failed merger), increased expenses, reputational risk, and staff attrition in the face of prolonged uncertainty. Reducing the efficiency of bank M&A can be a deterrent to healthy bank transactions. This inefficiency limits activity that ensures the value of community banks located in underserved areas, prevents institutions from pursuing prudent growth strategies, and undermines competition by preventing firms from growing to a larger scale, effectively creating a "protected class" of larger institutions. At the same time some federal regulatory agencies are imposing more onerous requirements, credit unions have increased their acquisitions of banks.6 While this could solve some succession planning concerns, it is not clear how these acquisitions will ultimately impact the banking system going forward. Could these acquisitions reduce the availability of certain products and services? Will these institutions have the same incentives to serve all of the consumers in a particular community? If there are fewer banks and more credit unions, how will this data impact the competitive analysis of traditional banks merging? Historically, credit unions have had limited membership requirements and have not engaged in the same wide range of activities as banks. But in recent years, their memberships have expanded, and they are offering more of the same products and services that banks provide. Yet, unlike banks, credit unions are not required to meet the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act or other laws that apply to banks. As some prudential regulators continue to increase the regulatory scrutiny of bank M&A, it may increase the incentives for credit unions to acquire banks if there are fewer delays and more regulatory certainty related to those transactions. Unfortunately, the past year has shown that regulatory attention is increasingly focused on other issues, with the timeliness of processing regulatory applications by banking regulators appearing to be lower on the list of priorities. Closing ThoughtsThe bank regulatory reform agenda has many implications for banks of all sizes. As regulators continue to propose and make changes to the regulatory and supervisory processes, it is vital that policymakers understand the tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of what they are changing. It is equally important that policymakers also understand the unintended consequences of their decisions. While some of the proposed changes may be designed to address particular issues, they will have broader follow-on consequences. Because of these potentially broader consequences, we must address policy from a holistic perspective rather than in a piecemeal fashion. One way to better understand the outcomes of our decisions is to hear directly from you and other stakeholders about the specific impacts—intended and unintended—of changes to the bank regulatory framework. Your feedback helps us to understand the real-world impacts of regulatory and supervisory reforms. Thank you, and I look forward to discussing these and other important issues with you today. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. See Michelle W. Bowman (2024), "The Path Forward for Bank Capital Reform (PDF)," speech delivered at Protect Main Street, sponsored by the Center for Capital Markets at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, January 17; Michelle W. Bowman (2024), "Reflections on the Economy and Bank Regulation (PDF)," speech delivered at the Florida Bankers Association Leadership Luncheon Events, Miami, February 27; Michelle W. Bowman (2024), "Reflections on the Economy and Bank Regulation (PDF)," speech delivered at the New Jersey Bankers Association Annual Economic Leadership Forum, Somerset, N.J., March 7; and Michelle W. Bowman (2024), "Tailoring, Fidelity to the Rule of Law, and Unintended Consequences (PDF)," speech delivered at the Harvard Law School Faculty Club, Cambridge, Mass., March 5.  3. See Michelle W. Bowman (2023), "The Consequences of Fewer Banks in the U.S. Banking System (PDF)," speech delivered at the Wharton Financial Regulation Conference, Philadelphia, April 14.  4. See Jonathan Kanter (2023), "Merger Enforcement Sixty Years after Philadelphia National Bank," speech delivered at the Brookings Institution's Center on Regulation and Markets Event "Promoting Competition in Banking," Washington, June 20; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2024), "Business Combinations under the Bank Merger Act: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," OCC Bulletin 2024-4, January 29; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (2024), "FDIC Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Revisions to Its Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions," press release, March 21.  5. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2023), Banking Applications Activity Semiannual Report, January 1–June 30, 2023 (PDF) (Washington: Board of Governors, September). This report notes that in the first half of 2023, 46 M&A applications were approved by the Federal Reserve, while 12 such applications were withdrawn.  6. See Alex Graf, Zuhaib Gull, and Gaby Villaluz (2024), "Credit Unions Dominate Early-Year Bank M&A in Washington State," S&P Global, April 15; and Arizent (2024), "15 Credit Unions That Have Acquired Banks since 2023," American Banker, February 12. 

Earlier today, Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen met with International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to discuss this year’s Article IV consultation with the United States. Secretary Yellen reiterated the importance of frank and thorough assessments of all IMF member economies through the annual surveillance process. They discussed the remarkable performance of the U.S. economy over the past few years, including economic growth and employment that continue to exceed expectations. The Secretary and Managing Director also discussed the key economic priorities of the Biden Administration, including climate change and poverty alleviation, as well as boosting resilience and diversification in global supply chains. As part of its longstanding support for transparency, the Treasury Department will publish all U.S. Article IV documents on its website following the Executive Board’s discussion in July, including the IMF’s Concluding Statement and Staff Report and the U.S. statement in response to the report.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published an Opinion addressed to Consob, the Italian Securities Commission, in response to the Competent Authority’s notification of its decision to grant the permission referred to in Article 26e(10) of the Securitisation Regulation, which specifies the eligibility criteria for high-quality collateral for on-balance-sheet securitisations to qualify as Simple, Transparent, and Standardised (STS). The EBA has assessed the evidence provided by the Consob, namely the current classification of Italian credit institutions and the composition of the Italian synthetic securitisation market. On the basis of the evidence provided, the EBA is of the opinion that due to the objective impediments related to the credit quality step (CQS) assigned to Italy, the use of a partial waiver to allow collateral in the form of cash on deposit with the originator, or one of its affiliates, qualifying for CQS 3 is justified. Legal basis, background, and next steps The EBA’s competence to deliver this Opinion is based on Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010. In accordance with the process set forth in Decision of the European Banking Authority EBA/DC/462 , the Opinion has been adopted. Article 26e(10) of the Securitisation Regulation (EU) No 2017/2402 specifies that the credit protection provided in on-balance-sheet securitisations must meet high-quality collateral standards. By way of derogation, if certain conditions are met, the originator may use high-quality collateral in the form of cash on deposit with the originator or its affiliates, provided they qualify for at least CQS 2. Competent authorities may, under specific conditions and after consulting the EBA, permit collateral in the form of cash on deposit with the originator or its affiliates if they qualify for CQS 3. Consob will regularly review the conditions of the waiver and appropriate measures will be taken if the impediments cease to exist. Documents Opinion on Consob decision to grant the permission referred to in the Securitisation Regulation (252.82 KB - PDF)

A national survey commissioned by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) found that 23 per cent of Canadians report encountering possible fraudulent investments, an increase of five percentage points since 2020. “How Canadians research and manage their investments continues to change, with more investors seeking information from social media and turning to do-it-yourself (DIY) investing,” said Stan Magidson, CSA Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission. “Surveying investor behaviour on a regular basis allows the CSA and its member jurisdictions to enhance existing investor education tools and develop targeted new programs to help Canadians invest wisely and avoid fraud.” The 2024 CSA Investor Index provides valuable insight into Canadian investing trends and fraud in an ever-evolving financial landscape. The long-running survey, first published in 2006, tracks key measurements, including investor behaviour, knowledge, confidence, attitudes towards risk, and incidences of investment fraud.  More findings include:  More Canadians are using social media for investment information: Investors who use social media for investment information increased 18 per cent since 2020 to 53 per cent. Notably, 82 per cent of 18- to 24-year-old investors use social media, with YouTube, Instagram and TikTok being the most popular choices in this age group. Moreover, 46 per cent of Canadians report encountering investment opportunities on social media, which is a 17 per cent increase from 2020, and is also especially common among younger age groups. Nearly half of investors say they DIY invest: Forty-five per cent of investors say they have a self-directed account, and 30 per cent of these DIY investors first opened that account within the last two years. Fewer investors report having a financial advisor in 2024: Sixty-one per cent of investors said they currently work with a financial advisor, down eight per cent from 2020. The largest drop was for investors under the age of 45 and those with portfolios less than $100,000.  Investment fraud trends upward for younger investors: While investment fraud has decreased in older demographics since 2006, reported fraud doubled with almost all other age groups.  Younger investors 18-24 years old saw the highest reported increase from 0.4% to 5%.   The 2024 CSA Investor Index survey was conducted in March 2024 by Innovative Research Group. It consisted of a representative sample of 7,215 Canadian adults, weighted by age, gender, province, and education using 2021 Statistics Canada census data to reflect the actual demographic composition of the population. Additionally, weighting targets were set by investment portfolio size and type of investment accounts, using data from Statistics Canada’s Survey of Financial Security, to accurately reflect the population of Canadian investors within the sample. The 2024 CSA Investor Index is available on the CSA website. The CSA website has a variety of tools and resources to help investors avoid fraud and verify the registration of any individual, firm or platform they plan to work with. Canadian investors are encouraged to visit the site to learn more about making informed investment decisions.The CSA, the council of the securities regulators of Canada’s provinces and territories, co-ordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Investor Advocate today delivered its Report to Congress on the Office’s objectives for fiscal year 2025. As detailed in the Report, the Investor Advocate’s priorities for fiscal year 2025 include:  Assisting investors victimized by fraud and monitoring the measurable surge in investment fraud schemes; Enhancing Ombuds services to resolve questions, complaints, and concerns about the SEC and self-regulatory organizations (SROs) subject to SEC oversight; Evaluating ways in which broker and adviser standards of conduct might be impacted by technological changes in the market; Exploring means to increase transparency in and maintain investor access to the private markets; Encouraging innovative and effective disclosure through investor testing of existing and proposed disclosures, especially those associated with complex products and private markets; Increasing investor engagement and input on matters of significance to retail investors.   “This report reaffirms our commitment to identify and address the unique challenges faced by retail investors, advocate for transparency, mitigate fraud schemes, and support the interests of all investors,” said Cristina Martin Firvida, the SEC’s Investor Advocate. The Office of the Investor Advocate is an independent office that was established by Congress to: assist retail investors in resolving problems with the Commission and SROs; identify areas where investors would benefit from changes in SEC and SRO rules and regulations; identify investor problems with financial service providers and investment products; analyze potential impact on investors of proposed regulations and rules of the SEC and SROs; and propose regulatory or legislative changes to the Commission and to Congress that might mitigate investor problems and promote investor interests. Related Materials Office of Investor Advocate - Objectives for Fiscal Year 2025 Report

Please be advised that the MIAX Options Exchange, MIAX Pearl Options Exchange, MIAX Emerald Options Exchange and MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange will have an abbreviated trading session on Wednesday, July 3, 2024.  All Option Classes and Equity Issues will close 3 hours early.   On Thursday, July 4, 2024, the MIAX Exchanges will be closed in observance of Independence Day.If you have any questions please contact Trading Operations at TradingOperations@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7302.

BME, through Iberclear, has brought together part of the Spanish financial community and will contribute to the proposal its solution for the issuance and settlement of bonds with blockchain technology The initiative will simulate settlement in Central Bank money issued under DLT technology Iberpay and Deloitte will collaborate with BME in the program as technical suppliers   BME, through Iberclear, has been admitted to the Eurosystem's exploratory work as a DLT market operator to conduct experiments on new technologies applicable to the settlement of wholesale operations in central bank money. After a first phase of experimentation already underway, on June 21, the ECB's Governing Council gave its approval for an additional group of participants to test Distributed Logging Technology (DLT) for the settlement of trades in central bank money, as part of the experimentation program it is maintaining through 2024. The proposal made by BME will allow to evaluate the integration of digital tokens (wholesale central bank digital currencies or wCDBC) during the different phases of the life cycle of a digital bond. This initiative has been supported by 10 large custodians, including CaixaBank, Cecabank, CACEIS Bank Spain, Kutxabank Investment Norbolsa, Banco Sabadell, Renta 4 Banco, BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Unicaja and Banco Cooperativo Español. Iberpay, given its position and sectorial experience as a European payment system, and Deloitte will also collaborate in the initiative as technical suppliers. Both will contribute their experience, both in the financial sector and in DLT network projects. These two entities facilitate the activities of the custodians in the experimentation to increase the learning capacity that this initiative offers. Jesús Benito, Iberclear's CEO, explains that "participation in this experimentation program is a new demonstration of BME's innovative spirit, which is constantly seeking improvements through technologies such as blockchain, in order to continue to play a leading role in the digitization and modernization of the financial market. Additionally, it gives us the exceptional opportunity to experiment together with large Spanish custodians in the issuance and use of digital tokens in the Eurosystem. It is a unique opportunity to help our clients understand what these new technologies can bring to financial environments." The Eurosystem's experimentation program is scheduled to end in November 2024, with subsequent publication of the findings.

Supervisory Board for the new term of office. The Exchange Supervisory Board is composed of Paweł Homiński, Waldemar Markiewicz, Piotr Prażmo, Wiesław Rozłucki, Małgorzata Rusewicz, Iwona Sroka, Katarzyna Szwarc. The GPW Supervisory Board is composed of up to seven persons The term of office of the Exchange Supervisory Board is three years   On 27 June 2024, the Annual General Meeting of the Warsaw Stock Exchange (GPW) has elected a seven-member Exchange Supervisory Board for a new three-year term of office. The following persons have been appointed to the Exchange Supervisory Board: Paweł Homiński  Waldemar Markiewicz Piotr Prażmo Wiesław Rozłucki Małgorzata Rusewicz Iwona Sroka Katarzyna Szwarc   The new joint term of office of the Exchange Supervisory Board will commence on the day following the date of the Annual General Meeting of the Warsaw Stock Exchange. The curricula vitae of the newly appointed Exchange Supervisory Board members are available at: www.gpw.pl *** The Warsaw Stock Exchange Group (GPW Group) operates trading platforms for shares, Treasury and corporate bonds, derivatives, electricity and gas, and provides indices and benchmarks including WIBOR and WIBID. The index agent FTSE Russell classifies the Polish capital market as a Developed Market since 2018. The markets operated by the GPW Group are the biggest in Central and Eastern Europe. For more information, visit www.gpw.pl

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is today (Thursday) pleased to announce the introduction of Weekly Hang Seng TECH Index Options on 2 September, subject to regulatory approval. Weekly Hang Seng TECH Index Options are options that expire every week, supporting needs of investors to manage their positions in response to short-term risks and specific events. There will be two groups of weekly contracts, a spot week and next week, which will be offered. HKEX will apply a market-wide 50 per cent trading fee discount on the new contracts until further notice. The Commission Levy will also be waived for the first six months upon the commencement of trading. HKEX successfully launched Weekly Hang Seng Index Options and Weekly Hang Seng China Enterprises Index Options in 2019, with average daily volume (ADV) growing from about 6,000 contracts in 2020 to over 19,000 contracts so far this year. The launch of Weekly Hang Seng TECH Index Options and the planned launch of weekly stock options later this year further enrich HKEX’s suite of derivatives products, and support our offering of short-dated options. HKEX’s Hang Seng TECH Index derivatives product suite has become one of the most actively traded products since the launch of the futures contracts in 2020, with ADV growing from about 14,000 contracts in 2021 to over 116,000 contracts so far this year. Hang Seng TECH Index Options also reached a daily volume record of 31,577 contracts on 3 May 2024. HKEX’s derivatives market set a record ADV of 1.35 million contracts in 2023, up 4 per cent from a year earlier. This momentum has continued into 2024, with ADV of 1.56 million contracts as of 31 May, up 13 per cent from a year earlier.  More details about the product are available in a circular published today.