I would like to thank Policy Exchange for the invitation to speak with you today.1 Engagement abroad is essential for gaining a better understanding of the common forces shaping the global economy and financial system. It also promotes a better understanding of the drivers of differences between the economic and financial environments across countries and jurisdictions. My remarks will offer some perspectives on recent developments in monetary policy and bank regulatory policy—specifically, bank capital reform—in the U.S. These are two areas in which I am actively engaged as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Monetary PolicyI'll begin with monetary policy. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the monetary policymaking body of the Federal Reserve System—has been keenly focused on restoring price stability following the surge in inflation during 2021 and in 2022 in the aftermath of the global COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, inflation reached levels not seen in the U.S. since the 1970s and 1980s. The high inflation experienced in the U.S. in the wake of the pandemic was also experienced in many economies around the world, reflecting, in part, the common global nature of the shocks that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. In many economies during the pandemic, supply constraints related to social-distancing measures, reduced labor supply, and supply chain disruptions, coupled with strong demand for goods as economies emerged from pandemic restrictions, acted as catalysts, pushing inflation up to very high levels. Aggregate demand was also supported by accommodative monetary and fiscal policies, which served to bolster the balance sheets of households, businesses, and local governments, and contributed to very tight labor markets. The global inflation experience since the pandemic was highly synchronized across the major world economies, reflecting similar shocks that acted to reduce supply, while fiscal and monetary policy interventions stimulated demand. Early in the pandemic, many economic sectors, especially in services, were affected by lockdowns and both mandatory and voluntary social distancing. Many workers also transitioned to working remotely. Aggressive fiscal policies helped support personal and business income, and monetary policy became highly accommodative. The large shift in the composition of demand toward goods resulted in rising supply bottlenecks and higher goods prices. Reduced immigration and lower labor force participation led to very tight labor markets as the economy reopened and demand recovered. Consumer spending was supported by excess savings accumulated from extraordinary fiscal support and reduced spending during lockdowns. Wage growth and services price inflation also picked up and have remained persistently elevated, reflecting a tight labor market and the protracted adjustment of prices and wages to the shocks during the pandemic. A sharp rise in food and energy price inflation, and their pass-through to core inflation, also contributed to a more synchronous inflation dynamic across major advanced foreign economies in recent years. Food and energy prices are mostly set in global markets, and their sharp increases also reflected the effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, especially for major European economies including the U.K. Many central banks facing these dynamics tightened monetary policy in an effort to better balance demand and supply and to bring inflation back down to target. In the U.S., by late 2021, it became clear that the FOMC's monetary policy stance was too accommodative in the presence of growing inflationary pressures, due to broader and more persistent supply constraints, and that the Committee needed to move toward a tighter policy. It seems likely to me that the U.S. experience during the years leading up to the pandemic, when inflation was persistently low, made it hard for many to foresee how quickly that situation could change. Additionally, the domestic inflation and labor data did not accurately reflect the economic conditions prevailing at the time and were subsequently substantially revised.2 In my view, these factors, combined with new forward guidance introduced in the September and December 2020 FOMC statements following the revisions to the Committee's monetary policy strategy consensus statement in August 2020, contributed to a delay in the removal of monetary policy accommodation in 2021.3,4 In late 2021, the FOMC did begin to move toward tightening the stance of monetary policy and, beginning in 2022, increased the policy rate rapidly to bring monetary policy into restrictive territory. Since March 2022, the FOMC has raised the target range of the federal funds rate by 5‑1/4 percentage points. The target range has remained at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent since July 2023. Since June 2022, the Federal Reserve has also been reducing its securities holdings, which had increased substantially during the pandemic period. The tightening in monetary policy has had an effect. Over 2023, we saw significant progress on lowering inflation in the U.S. while the economy and labor market have remained strong. The 12-month change in core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) prices slowed to 2.9 percent in December 2023, nearly 2 percentage points less than one year earlier. The restrictive stance of monetary policy reduced demand-side inflation pressures. Rising interest rates continued to act as a drag on growth of residential and business investment, outside of an increase in construction of new electric vehicle battery and microprocessor factories. Labor demand also moderated, contributing to some loosening of labor market tightness. The job openings and quits rates fell and payroll employment gains slowed significantly throughout last year.5 Some of the progress on inflation last year also reflected favorable supply-side developments, including the resolution of supply chain disruptions and increased labor supply—both from higher immigration and higher labor force participation of prime-age workers—as well as lower energy prices. Since the beginning of 2024, however, we have seen only modest further progress on inflation. The 12-month measures of total and core PCE 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. Recent data suggest some moderation in economic activity 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. In contrast to the past two years, it is possible over the coming months that the path of monetary policy in the U.S. will diverge from that of other advanced economies, including the U.K., as the underlying economic developments and outlooks across jurisdictions exhibit greater heterogeneity. Inflation and labor market developments in the U.S. have unfolded differently in recent quarters compared to many other advanced economies, likely reflecting a more open immigration policy and significantly larger discretionary fiscal stimulus since the pandemic. Economic activity in the U.S. has recovered considerably more than in other advanced foreign economies, including in the U.K. This likely reflects higher levels of fiscal support and productivity growth in the U.S. compared to other major economies.6 A more flexible labor market in the U.S. likely allowed for greater movement of workers across sectors following the COVID-19 shock, with higher unemployment in the early stages of the pandemic followed by stronger job creation during the recovery. A rebound in new business formation in the U.S. also likely enhanced productivity growth in recent years. With economic activity remaining weaker in other advanced foreign economies than in the U.S. and given differing economic and inflation outlooks in their own jurisdictions, central banks in these economies may ease monetary policy sooner or more quickly than in the U.S. Inflation in the U.S. remains elevated, and I still see a number of upside inflation risks that affect my outlook. First, it is unlikely that further supply-side improvements 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 that added millions of new immigrants in the U.S. over the past few years 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 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 the U.S., the FOMC pursues monetary policy in support of price stability and maximum employment. These goals mandated to the Federal Reserve by the U.S. Congress are focused on domestic economic conditions. However, international economic and financial developments can influence U.S. monetary policy to the extent that these developments affect the economic outlook for the U.S. For example, weaker foreign activity and an appreciation of the dollar driven by easier monetary policy abroad would both reduce foreign demand for U.S. exports and lower the outlook for economic growth in the U.S. Likewise, geopolitical developments or trade restrictions could affect the outlook for the prices of energy, food, and goods. Looking ahead, I will be closely watching the incoming data as I assess whether monetary policy in the U.S. is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to our 2 percent goal over time. The extent and frequency of revisions to U.S. economic data since the pandemic have made the task of assessing the current state of the economy and the outlook even more challenging. My baseline outlook continues to be that U.S. inflation will return to the FOMC's 2 percent goal, with the target range of the federal funds rate held at its current level of 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent for some time. 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. 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. I remain willing to raise the target range for the federal funds rate at a future meeting should progress on inflation stall or even reverse. Given the risks and uncertainties regarding my economic outlook, I will remain cautious in my approach to considering future changes in the stance of policy. Reducing our policy rate too soon or too quickly could result in a rebound in inflation, requiring further future policy rate increases to return inflation to 2 percent over the longer run. Bank Capital ReformI will now briefly touch on bank capital reforms, which are particularly important when it comes to our global and interconnected banking and financial systems. The U.S. has lagged its EU and U.K. counterparts in fully implementing the Basel III capital standards. In July 2023, the U.S. federal banking agencies issued a public consultation on implementing what we call the Basel III "endgame" capital reforms.7 The U.S. proposal was notable for a number of reasons, but I would highlight two in particular. First, the U.S. proposal would significantly expand the scope of application and calibration of these capital requirements. And, second, this proposal went beyond the Basel framework in several areas, undermining the goal of increasing consistency in capital standards across jurisdictions and potentially creating competitive concerns. The response to the U.S. capital proposal was overwhelmingly negative from a broad range of commenters. Calibration and scopeA key consideration in evaluating reform efforts is whether the benefits of a change outweigh the costs, both for the financial institutions subject to these reforms and for the broader economy. The benefits of reform, like Basel III, are clear—on a basic level, higher capital can make the banking system safer. At a minimum, this increased safety comes at a cost; in its more extreme forms, it can actually increase financial stability risks. The Basel III proposal in the U.S. is complex and, if it were to apply today as proposed, could have very significant, detrimental impacts. Federal Reserve staff estimated that the proposed changes would result in an aggregate 20 percent increase in total risk-weighted assets across bank holding companies subject to the rule, with some commenters projecting much greater effects.8 And, instead of these standards applying only to large, internationally active banks, the U.S. proposal would "push down" these standards to a much broader range of domestic institutions. A change of this significance could impact U.S. market liquidity and lending as well as force firms that lack sufficient economies of scale to stop providing certain products and services. Capital increases of this scale could reduce the cost and availability of credit, particularly for certain types of loans, and could disproportionately harm underserved markets, businesses, and communities. In my view, the proposal insufficiently considered these direct costs. These are costs that would ultimately be imposed on bank customers. Of course, the evaluation of reforms should not end at their direct costs. Many of the costs are indirect or unintended and may be substantial, creating further concerns, including risks to financial stability. These reforms could create an exodus of activities and products from the banking system due to the indirect costs and unintended consequences. Over time, activity tends to migrate to where it can be conducted efficiently and at the least cost. Capital requirements can play a significant role in determining where and by whom an activity is conducted. Banks are often best positioned to provide financial products and services due to their expertise and experience as well as their requirement to operate safely and soundly. When the over-calibration of regulatory costs becomes too significant, activities often migrate out of banks and into the nonbank financial system, potentially leading to greater systemic risks. Up until this point, I have focused primarily on the "cost" side of the analysis, and I think it is fair to characterize the direct and indirect costs of the proposed Basel III rule as substantial. But we must also measure these costs against the benefits such capital increases could provide. As a starting point for this analysis, we must evaluate the current state of the banking system. In the U.S., given the increase in capital following the 2008 financial crisis, I do not see undercapitalization of large banks as a current vulnerability. While some have argued that large capital increases should be part of the regulatory response following the 2023 U.S. banking stress, I think this argument lacks a solid foundation. First, as we know, the Basel reforms were being developed long before last year's banking stress. The U.S. proposal included regulatory changes that had previously been considered and rejected as part of the Basel III implementation—specifically, a significant accounting change regarding the treatment of unrealized losses on securities portfolios.9 While revisiting this one element of Basel III has been used to try tying the rulemaking initiative to the regulatory response to the bank failures last spring, the majority of the proposed changes are unrelated to last spring's banking stress. Second, linking this rulemaking to the banking stress implies that the causes of individual bank failures in the spring of 2023 were in some way a signal of broader banking system weakness, which could best be addressed by significant capital increases. This argument seems to rely on the philosophy that more capital makes stronger banks, regardless of costs and tradeoffs, or possible more efficient approaches. Linking the proposed capital increases to the bank failures in the spring of 2023 should not be used as a pretext to avoid the challenges of identifying and evaluating the tradeoffs involved with setting capital requirements, nor should it excuse regulators from taking a hard look at the root causes of the bank failures with the goal of identifying more targeted solutions than across-the-board capital increases. In the case of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), both bank management and supervisors failed to appreciate, appropriately identify, and mitigate the known, significant, and idiosyncratic risks of a business model that relied on a highly concentrated, uninsured base of depositors. They also overlooked the buildup of interest rate risk without appropriate risk management. These management failures arguably support an honest and critical look at how supervision was conducted in the lead-up to the firm's failure. And it would then be appropriate to propose changes to remediate those deficiencies. But the failures did not suggest either that "capital" was the major problem contributing to SVB's failure or that undercapitalization was a broader problem in the banking system. Basel III capital reforms and international consistencyBefore discussing the path ahead, I will also address one of the factors that should be a focus for regulatory reforms that may resonate in this forum: the issue of international comparability and competitive disadvantages. One of the primary purposes of the Basel capital standards is to promote minimum standards across jurisdictions that not only improve competitive equity in banking markets, but also result in making the financial system safer. While I have expressed some skepticism of the U.S. Basel III proposal, I see value in engaging in ongoing discussions about international coordination through multilateral organizations like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Some degree of consistency in international banking and financial markets can be helpful in fostering a cross-border level playing field for internationally active banking organizations while establishing minimum standards that can help mitigate global financial stability risks. In internationally active banking and financial markets, there are often "choices" about where activity can be conducted. Financial products and services are offered around the world in different markets, and there is often some degree of flexibility as to how a customer can access a product or service. This competitive "choice" aspect of international banking and financial markets can itself create downward pressure on regulatory standards and create opportunities for forum shopping. In the absence of some degree of international coordination, there is a risk of creating a regulatory "race to the bottom," as regulators compete to grow their banking and financial systems by lowering regulatory and supervisory standards below levels that are appropriate based on risk. But this desire for greater international consistency can be equally frustrated when U.S. regulators excessively calibrate requirements. As I previously noted, the U.S. proposal was calibrated at a level well in excess of other international jurisdictions as well as without sufficient analytical support and evidence that the proposed increases were proportionate to risk. This is not only a problem for international competitive equity, but also a concern for global financial stability. Significant banking activities occur in the international and cross-border context, and we know that financial stability risks can spread throughout global financial markets. The U.S. Basel proposal reflects elements of the agreed-upon standards, but it far exceeds them. Adjusting the calibration could have the important secondary benefit of enhancing this international consistency. The path forwardNotwithstanding what has brought us to this point, I do see a path forward to implement Basel III, one that addresses not only the overall calibration as well as international consistency and comparability, but also makes more granular changes that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the rule. In October 2023, the Federal Reserve launched a data collection to gather information from the banks affected by the U.S. proposal. I am hopeful that this data will allow regulators to better understand the impact of the proposal and to identify areas for revision. Any next step in this rulemaking process will require broad and material changes. It should also be accompanied by a data-driven analysis of the proposal and informed by the significant public input received during the rulemaking process. This should assist policymakers in creating a path to improve the rulemaking. My hope is that policymakers pay closer attention to the balance of costs and benefits and consider the direct and indirect consequences of the capital reform. I have previously identified a number of specific areas and procedural steps that would be necessary to address in any future efforts to revise this proposal. Some of these issues include addressing redundancy in the capital framework (for example, between the new market risk and operational risk requirements, and the stress capital buffer) recalibrating the market risk rule specifically, where some of the biggest outlier increases in risk-weighted assets would appear (for example, these revisions alone will increase risk-weighted assets from $430 billion to $760 billion for Category I and II firms, and from $130 billion to $220 billion for Category III and IV firms) adopting a more reasonable treatment for non-interest and fee-based income through the operational risk requirements, which could deter banks from diversifying revenue streams, even though such diversification can enhance an institution's stability and resilience reviewing the impact of capital requirements, including leverage ratio requirements, on U.S. Treasury market intermediation and liquidity incorporating tailoring in the applicability of Basel III capital reforms, specifically looking at whether each element of the Basel III capital proposal is appropriate for non-G-SIB firms that are not internationally active re-proposing the Basel III standards to address the broad and material reforms that I believe should be included in any final rule, including granular changes to address the specific issues raised by commenters, as appropriate.10   While these steps would be a reasonable starting place, they are not a replacement for a data-driven analysis and a careful review of the comments submitted. This would result in a better proposal that includes changes to address not only these concerns, but also many other concerns raised by the public. Closing ThoughtsI would like to thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. My experience over the past five and a half years at the Federal Reserve highlights the enduring challenge of setting monetary policy amid a wide and evolving range of risks and uncertainties in the global economy. An important question I will be considering is how to make monetary policy durable to a wide range of possible shocks and changes in the macroeconomy, such as those experienced globally during the pandemic. We will continue to learn about the post-pandemic global economy, and, if history is any guide, new shocks to and changes in the economy will eventually and inevitably occur. While the economic outlook is uncertain, the FOMC's mandate of fostering price stability and maximum employment in the U.S. remains very clear. Restoring price stability is essential for achieving maximum employment over the longer run. I also look forward to ongoing international discussions about bank capital and regulatory frameworks, and I hope that my brief remarks today relay both my support for ongoing international discussions on these matters and my firm belief that we must engage in regulatory reform efforts with our eyes wide open, acknowledging the benefits, costs, and tradeoffs. While our interconnected banking and financial system provides many benefits, we must also continue to focus on the opportunities it creates for financial stability risks to shift from domestic concerns to global vulnerabilities. Bank capital policy is an important measure to control these risks, but we know that capital is only one of many tools in our supervisory arsenal. And it is insufficient without the complement of other regulatory tools. So, as we continue the process of considering regulatory reform, I hope that we approach every issue with a broader lens, focusing on data-driven identification of the problems we are trying to solve, and with an openness to solving these problems in a more targeted and efficient way. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  2. For example, both the August and September 2021 employment reports suggested much lower job growth than did consensus forecasts, and these initial estimates were subsequently sizably increased. Similarly, total personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation for nearly all quarters in 2021 has been revised higher than initially reported. See the real-time data on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis's ALFRED website at https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series/downloaddata?seid=PAYEMS (job growth) and https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series/downloaddata?seid=PCECTPI (PCE inflation).  3. See Michelle W. Bowman (2024), "Risks and Uncertainty in Monetary Policy: Current and Past Considerations," speech delivered at "Frameworks for Monetary Policy, Regulation, and Bank Capital" Spring 2024 Meeting of the Shadow Open Market Committee, hosted by the Manhattan Institute, New York, New York, April 5.  4. The new forward guidance in the September 2020 FOMC statement emphasized that the federal funds rate would remain near zero until "inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time" (paragraph 4) and "labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment" (paragraph 4). In the December 2020 FOMC statement, the FOMC added forward guidance regarding asset purchases that stated that the Federal Reserve would continue to purchase Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities at the then current pace of $80 billion and $40 billion per month, respectively, "until substantial further progress has been made toward the Committee's maximum employment and price stability goals" (paragraph 4). (The September and December 2020 FOMC statements are available on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm.) The September and December 2020 forward guidance followed the August 2020 revisions to the FOMC's Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, which are described on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm.  5. The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) report for the fourth quarter of 2023 suggests that the slowdown in payroll employment gains was likely more pronounced than currently reported by the Current Employment Statistics (CES) establishment survey. The Q4 QCEW administrative data show employment gains that are about 110,000 per month lower than what the CES survey reported from March 2023 to December 2023. Although the BLS benchmarks CES payroll employment based on the Q1 QCEW, to be released on August 21, the Q4 QCEW data point to a substantial downward revision to CES employment gains last year.  6. See Francois de Soyres, Joaquin Garcia-Cabo Herrero, Nils Goernemann, Sharon Jeon, Grace Lofstrom, and Dylan Moore (2024), "Why Is the U.S. GDP Recovering Faster Than Other Advanced Economies?" FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17).  7. See Governor Bowman's dissenting statement on the proposed rule to implement the Basel III endgame agreement for large banks; Michelle W. Bowman (2023), "Statement by Governor Michelle W. Bowman," press release, July 27.  8. See, for example, Financial Services Forum, American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (2023), "Comments on Regulatory Capital Rule: Large Banking Organizations and Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity (PDF)," December 22, (noting that for the largest U.S. firms, the proposal would result in a greater than 30 percent increase in capital requirements, and a greater than 33 percent increase in risk-weighted assets).  9. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2013), "Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital Rule," final rule, Federal Register, vol. 78 (October 11), pp. 62018–291.  10. See Bowman, "Statement by Governor Michelle W. Bowman," in note 7; Michelle W. Bowman (2023), "Remarks on the Economy and Prioritization of Bank Supervision and Regulation (PDF)," speech delivered at the New York Bankers Association's Financial Services Forum, Palm Beach, Florida, November 9; 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, D.C., January 17. 

Temenos (SIX: TEMN) today announced it has been recognized as the global market leader by IBS Intelligence in the IBSi Sales League Table (SLT) 2024 in eight categories. These include Core Banking, Digital Banking & Channels, Payments and Risk Management, as well as Core and Risk Management for Islamic Banking. Temenos also ranked #1 in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America in the Regional Sales Awards. The results highlight the breadth of Temenos’ leadership as the banking platform of choice across regions and product segments. Temenos has been ranked #1 in the core banking category for the last 19 consecutive years. The IBS Intelligence Annual Sales League Table (SLT) received a steady level of interest and participation with 50+ technology suppliers submitting 2,100+ deals spanning 151 countries across the Americas, Europe, Middle East, Africa, and APAC. It is an annual benchmarking exercise, which has been running for over 30 years and is based on the number of new customer contracts signed in a calendar year. The SLT is recognized as the barometer for financial technology providers’ sales performance across the banking industry. In the 2024 IBSi analysis, Temenos has retained its position as market leader, continuing to rank number 1 across the following eight categories: Universal Banking - Core Digital Banking & Channels Payment Systems – Retail Neo, Challenger & Digital-Only Banks Risk Management Treasury & Risk Management Islamic – Universal Banking - Core Islamic Banking – Risk Management   Temenos’ open platform for composable banking allows financial institutions to easily assemble, test and extend their broad banking capabilities. This enables them to bring innovative products to market faster to meet growing customer expectations while reducing the cost of development. With a single platform and code base across all business segments, from core to digital to payments, Temenos clients benefit from a higher sustained level of investment in R&D. Recent innovations include the launch of the first Generative AI solutions for core banking and the introduction of Temenos Positions, a lean financial processing solution designed to transform banking operations for institutions with complex, multi-core systems. Jean-Pierre Brulard, Chief Executive Officer, Temenos, said: “The latest IBSi Sales League Table rankings reconfirm Temenos’ position as the global market leader in banking software. Our winning combination of customer-centricity and innovation makes Temenos the platform of choice for banks of all sizes, regardless of how they choose to deploy our software – on-premise, on public or hybrid cloud, or as SaaS. As banks look to meet the challenges of an evolving industry and changing customer demands, Temenos’ flexible, cloud-native platform, infused with Responsible AI, gives them the market-leading capabilities and agility they need to succeed now and in the future.” Nikhil Gokhale, Director - Research & Digital Properties at IBS intelligence, commented: “The keen adoption of FinTech tools by consumers led banks to further invest in innovation, making the IBSi Sales League Table 2024 (SLT 2024) more important than ever. Our findings in the SLT 2024 show an increased focus on being digital-ready with a strong uptake in deals in digital channels & universal core. On behalf of IBSi, I would like to congratulate Temenos for continuing to lead the industry and for being at the forefront of banking innovation, addressing the needs of banks and financial services institutions, whether they are retail, corporate, SME or wealth-focused, and regardless of size or location. The SLT continues to be a barometer for the health of the banking and financial services industry globally and, at IBSi, we are proud to be a valued source of insight for the global banking industry.”This recognition from IBS Intelligence is the latest of several analyst accolades for Temenos, which was named a Leader in North America in two IDC Marketscape Reports on small business lending earlier this year and recognized as a Leader in Digital Banking Platforms and Cloud Core Banking by Omdia in 2023.

Driven by structural reforms and policy support, China’s new economy fosters growth across multiple sectors, including EVs, solar energy, industrial automation, medical devices and fintech. The Invesco ChiNext 50 UCITS ETF is the first European-listed ETF tracking this flagship index and provides investors liquid and transparent access to the ChiNext market, which is the innovation segment of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SZSE). Solactive is privileged to be chosen by SSIC, a wholly owned subsidiary of SZSE responsible for the SZSE Index and CNI Index brands, and Invesco, the world’s fourth largest ETF issuer by assets under management, to act as the calculation agent and administrator under the European Benchmark Regulation for the underlying ChiNext 50 Capped Index.   The original ChiNext 50 Index comprises the 50 most liquid stocks from the 100 largest stocks on the ChiNext market of SZSE, based on six-month trading volume, using a free-float market cap weighting, with semi-annual review. It serves as a flagship index for the ChiNext market with no explicit sector constraints.   The ChiNext 50 Capped Index is a UCITS-compliant version of the ChiNext 50, containing the same constituents, but with individual security caps at 8%. Moreover, those securities with weights exceeding 4.5% are collectively capped at 38%. The index undergoes quarterly rebalancing and is calculated and administered by Solactive.   The Invesco ChiNext 50 UCITS ETF listed on 21 June 2024 on major European exchanges with ticker symbol CN50.  Timo Pfeiffer, Chief Markets Officer at Solactive, commented: “We are thrilled to have entered an MOU with Invesco and SSIC, and be part of the collaboration that brings the rapidly growing China New Economy to the European Market. Over the years we have been expanding our footprint all over the world, and the fast-developing investment market in China has increasingly become a particular focus for us. To be working alongside such esteemed institutions like Shenzhen Stock Exchange and Invesco honors our commitment to bringing the most innovative solutions to investors. We highly appreciate the trust put into us and look forward to continuously supporting the China related investment landscape, inside and outside of China.”  The head of the Fund Management Department of Shenzhen Stock Exchange, comments: “Internationalization is an important strategic direction for ETF development, including not only layout of cross-border products to provide opportunities for domestic investors to invest overseas, but also international promotion of domestic indices to provide opportunities for overseas investors to invest in Chinese assets.”

Digital Vega, the leading FX Options e-trading platform and provider of FX Options trading solutions, today announced that its service has been integrated with FactSet’s FX execution management system, Portware. This collaboration adds to Digital Vega’s distribution and client base, while enabling FactSet to extend its product coverage to include FX Options, in addition to Fixed Income, Equities, Futures, and FX. Driven by regulation and efficiency, FX Options workflows are becoming increasingly automated, which is driving volume growth in electronic trading. As Asset Managers aim to maximise workflow efficiencies, they are looking to utilise electronic trading for FX Options in addition to other asset classes. FactSet’s Portware platform provides Asset Managers with a single method of execution across all assets, combining deep liquidity with high levels of automation. Integrating with Digital Vega enables its clients to automate complex FX Options workflows and access pricing in an extensive list of currencies, from the largest group of Liquidity Providers. “Growing regulatory pressure and increasing competition is driving demand for more automated and efficient solutions,“ said Mark Suter, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, Digital Vega. “By partnering with FactSet we are able to extend our coverage to large Asset Managers, which will deepen liquidity for the benefit of all our clients. We are fortunate to be recognised as a leader in our field, and as a specialist provider of FX Options technology we have successfully automated some of the most complex trading workflows. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with FactSet.” John Marchese, Head of FX Sales at FactSet commented, “As the FX Options market has become increasingly electronic, we wanted to work with a best-in-class e-FX Options provider in that market. Adding FX Options to Portware was a logical decision, which will provide our clients with high levels of workflow automation by our EMS, combined with a deep pool of liquidity from Digital Vega.”  Toby Baker, Head of FX Trading  at T. Rowe Price commented, “For some time, we have been using Portware for our day-to-day cash trading requirements and have also been aware of Digital Vega’s capabilities. Adding Digital Vega’s FX Options liquidity and workflow management into Portware’s EMS to provide a single, fully integrated solution will bring huge benefits to the team.” Digital Vega is recognised as the leading multi dealer platform (MDP) for FX Options trading, with liquidity provided by all the major global FX banks.

Chronicle Software is delighted to announce its accreditation as an Amazon Web Services (AWS) Partner.  As an AWS Partner, users can access certain Chronicle services directly through the AWS Marketplace. Following a diligent functional technical review by AWS, the first of these, Chronicle Tune, is available from today to be licensed directly from the AWS Marketplace.  Chronicle’s cloud-based solution optimises operational performance for traditional financial markets participants including banks, hedge funds and trading venues, as well as new digital asset (crypto) exchanges and venues operating ‘in the cloud’. Beyond financial markets trading applications, it benefits all industry sectors and segments subject to low latency data exchange performance drivers. Modern production environments have a vast number of hardware and software hooks that may impact latency and throughput. Built on our decades of experience meeting the rigorous data exchange latency demands of global financial markets participants, institutional-grade Chronicle Tune software enables IT and infrastructure teams to fine-tune applications within any operating environment to achieve low and predictable latency and achieve optimal performance.  Reflecting Chronicle’s deep understanding of the complexities involved in OS tuning,Chronicle Tune delivers immediate improvements in latency, throughput and jitter. Incorporating established best practices and innovative software solutions, Tune is easy to install and configure - both in the cloud and on bare metal hosts - maximising performance. Significant, immediate and continuing performance improvements can be measured with an accompanying benchmarking suite. Tune users will also benefit from continuous service enhancements and upgrades. Peter Lawrey, Chronicle Founder and CEO said: “Chronicle's commitment to Enabling Technology already transforms the business operations of the world’s largest investment banks. Today, 8 of the top 11 investment banks, exchanges, hedge funds and crypto trading firms are using our high performance, low-latency solutions to improve their trading efficiency.   “Chronicle Tune enables other industry segments and businesses to benefit from our proven software expertise and institutional-grade service delivery to enhance their own business performance. We are delighted to be a certified AWS Partner and to be able to leverage its global presence and reach to bring our services and solutions to a broader and deeper audience.” In the coming months, Chronicle will add further services and products to the AWS Marketplace, including Chronicle FIX, its world-leading, microsecond latency, multi-asset FIX engine already trusted by top tier banks, exchanges and hedge funds for enhanced performance and efficiency of the most demanding trading applications.

Mr David Gerald, Founder, President & CEO, Securities Investors Association (Singapore); Friends from SIAS, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome everyone to today’s Securities Market Open, which we mark together with our valued partner, SIAS.  Technology and product innovation have revolutionised the landscape and complexion for securities investors internationally. So Singapore investors today enjoy these innovations, with a wide range of channels for trading and investment in securities. As product choices and information channels grow in sophistication and novelty, so has the Singapore investor.  SGX has moved quickly to meet these constantly evolving demands from investors and issuers. We have broadened our product shelves: listing the first active ETF, introducing structured certificates and offering depository receipts on blue-chip Thai companies. Product development on the Exchange is one factor in the equation. Another important factor is that our brokers and industry partners continue to develop and sustain a healthy Singapore securities market.  This is why having SIAS join us today is so special. SIAS will be marking its 25th anniversary this year. We look forward to many more years together, of empowering and encouraging retail investors in their wealth provisioning and investing journey.   We share SIAS’ commitment to building a vibrant Singapore capital market. The range of commitment spans sponsorships and research/policy collaborations, investor education, listed company outreach and corporate governance matters.   As a mark of our continued and purposeful dedication to grow market participation, I am delighted to announce that SGX is committing to a one-time $10 million investment, over and above our ongoing investments in the Securities Market.   The monies will be channeled to industry partners for initiatives that can significantly improve market vibrancy. Such catalysts will grow momentum in our investor ecosystem, so as to enhance the liquidity flywheel of Singapore’s capital market.   The intention is for industry partners to address three broad areas with their initiatives: First, grow distribution channels to reach out to more investors;  Second, develop new services to engage investors and facilitate investments; and Finally, support the expansion of the SGX product shelf and development of regional connectivity with ASEAN markets and exchanges.    We wake up every day to a 24-hour global market news cycle of product innovations and investment opportunities. Our investors deserve to benefit from these innovations and opportunities. With our partners, with SIAS, the Exchange will work hard to continuously grow the relevance of Singapore’s securities market.  I look forward to our partnership and continued journey together.   Thank you. 

Please refer to the Regulatory Circulars listed below for newly added symbols and the corresponding market for the underlying security used for openings on the MIAX Exchanges. The newly listed symbols will be available for trading beginning Tuesday, June 25, 2024. MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2024-36 MIAX Pearl Options Regulatory Circular 2024-35 MIAX Emerald Options Regulatory Circular 2024-37   Please direct questions to the Regulatory Department at Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published its final draft amending Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on the standardised approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR). This regulatory product is part of the new roadmap on the Banking Package. The amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR3) have expanded the EBA mandate to specify the formula to calculate the supervisory delta of options under the SA-CCR framework. Alongside the supervisory delta formula for interest rate options compatible with negative interest rates, the mandate now also requires the specification of the supervisory delta formula for commodity options compatible with negative commodity prices. Therefore, the existing RTS on SA-CCR have been amended to include the formula for commodity options. Legal basis and background The draft RTS on SA-CCR have been developed according to Article 277(5) and 279a(3) of the CRR, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1623 (CRR3), which mandates the EBA to specify: the method for identifying transactions with only one material risk driver or with more than one material risk driver and for identifying the most material of those risk drivers; the formulas to calculate the supervisory delta of call and put options mapped to the interest rate or commodity risk categories compatible with negative interest rates or commodity prices, and the supervisory volatility suitable for those formulas; the method for determining whether a transaction is a long or short position in the primary risk driver or in the most material risk driver in the given risk category. Documents Draft amending Regulatory Technical Standards on standardised approach for counterparty credit risk (458.7 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 the standardised approach for counterparty credit risk Topic Market, counterparty and CVA risk

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today requested comment on a proposal to revise its recovery planning guidelines for certain large insured national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches (banks). The proposed rulemaking is part of the OCC’s effort to ensure that large banks are adequately prepared and have developed a plan to respond to the financial effects of severe stress, particularly in light of the contagion effects and systemic risks they may pose. The proposal would: Expand recovery planning guidelines to apply to banks with at least $100 billion in assets; Incorporate a testing standard for recovery plans; and Clarify the role of non-financial risk (including operational and strategic risk) in recovery planning.   Comments from the public are due 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Related Link Federal Register Notice (PDF)

The latest data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives statistics shows a rise in the notional outstanding of OTC derivatives during the second half of 2023 versus the second half of 2022, driven by growth in interest rate and foreign exchange (FX) derivatives. The gross market value of outstanding OTC derivatives fell during the period, attributed to a slower pace of US dollar rate tightening. Gross credit exposure also declined. Global OTC derivatives notional outstanding grew by 7.9% at the end of 2023 compared to the previous year. The gross market value of OTC derivatives contracts dropped by 12.7% and gross credit exposure – gross market value after netting – fell by 12.3% over the same period. Total mark-to-market exposure was reduced by 82.8% as a result of close-out netting. Credit exposure was further lowered by the collateral that market participants posted for cleared and noncleared transactions. Clearing rates for both interest rate derivatives (IRD) and credit default swaps (CDS) remained high over the period. Firms posted $392.2 billion of initial margin (IM) for cleared IRD and CDS transactions at all major central counterparties (CCPs) at year-end 2023 compared to $384.4 billion at year-end 2022. The leading derivatives market participants also collected $1.4 trillion of IM and variation margin (VM) for non-cleared derivatives exposures at the end of 2023, flat compared to the year before. Documents (1)for Key Trends in the Size and Composition of OTC Derivatives Markets in the Second Half of 2023  Key Trends in the Size and Composition of OTC Derivatives Markets in the Second Half of 2023(pdf)

The attached option classes will begin trading on the MIAX Options Exchange, the MIAX Pearl Options Exchange, and the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange on Tuesday, June 25, 2024.Market Makers can use the Member Firm Portal (MFP) to manage their option class assignments.  All LMM and RMM Option Class Assignments must be entered prior to 6:00 PM ET on the business day immediately preceding the effective date.  All changes made after 6:00 PM ET on a given day will be effective two trading days later.MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald Primary Lead Market Maker (PLMM) assignments and un-assignments will not be supported via the MFP. Please contact MIAX Listings with any questions at Listings@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7308. MIAX Pearl Options Exchange MIAX Options Exchange MIAX Emerald Options Exchange

This statement is provided in the author’s official capacity as the Commission’s Director of the Division of Corporation Finance but does not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, Commissioners, or other members of the staff. This statement is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement, like all staff statements, has no legal force or effect: it does not alter or amend applicable law, and it creates no new or additional obligations for any person. This Statement describes, among other things, my opening remarks and other matters discussed among Jessica Barberich, Johnny Gharib, Bobby Klein, Jim Lopez, Lilyanna Peyser, Tiffany Posil, and Amanda Ravitz during a Division of Corporation Finance panel discussion at the 2024 SEC Speaks Conference held on April 2, 2024, in Washington, D.C.[1] Director’s Remarks Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again today as part of the Corp Fin Workshop. I wanted to make a few remarks about the important work being done in the Division’s Disclosure Review Program and highlight some of our areas of focus going forward. This is part of an initiative to be more transparent and communicate with the marketplace about what is going on in the Disclosure Review Program. Before I begin, I do need to provide our standard disclaimer: The views we express today are provided in our official capacities in the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or any other members of the staff. This disclaimer also extends to my colleagues on the panel today, who are also speaking in their official capacities. The Division of Corporation Finance has over 400 professionals, primarily comprised of accountants and attorneys, who carry out the Commission’s important three-part mission of protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Of those Division individuals, over 70% are focused on disclosure review. It is that work I would like to highlight for you this afternoon because of the key role that it plays furthering the SEC’s mission. I am happy to share the stage with our panelists this afternoon and spend some time looking back at the state of disclosure for fiscal year 2023 and then lay out some of our disclosure priorities for fiscal year 2024. It is through disclosure that investors are provided with the information they need to make informed investment and voting decisions. And, while high-profile IPOs and de-SPACs receive a lot of attention, it is important to remember that investment and voting decisions are not only made when a company initially offers its securities to the market. Those decisions happen daily in secondary markets, which is why public companies are charged with the responsibility to provide updated information to investors through their periodic reporting. Corp Fin’s annual report review program is the primary mechanism that we use to monitor and enhance compliance with disclosure rules and accounting requirements in these periodic reports filed by public companies. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandates that we review each reporting company at least once every three years; however, we review a significant number of companies more frequently. In fiscal year 2023, we reviewed approximately 3,300 companies as part of our annual review program. While the nature of comments varies significantly depending on the specific facts for each company, the top areas of comment in fiscal year 2023 probably come as no surprise to this audience and include, among others, China-related matters, non-GAAP disclosures, management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), revenue recognition, and financial statement presentation. In addition to annual report reviews, Division staff considers trends and emerging risks in the market where our additional focus could significantly improve disclosures. In some instances, we address these topics as part of the review of annual reports, while in others, we may target a particular issue in other periodic filings such as a quarterly report. This flexibility in our approach allows for more timely engagement as issues arise. Emerging areas of focus in 2023 included market disruptions in the banking industry, cybersecurity risks, the impact of inflation, and disclosure related to newly adopted rules, such as pay versus performance. We also continued to monitor disclosures by companies based or with a majority of their operations in the People’s Republic of China, what we call “China-Based Companies.” Many of these topics are going to be covered in more detail by my colleagues as part of this Workshop, but I did want to spend just a few minutes going over two initiatives where 2023 marked the first year of disclosures and share how we approached the new requirements in SEC filings. I will start with Commission Identified Issuers or “CIIs.” Public companies identified as CIIs under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act of 2020,[2] or HFCAA, were required to comply with submission and disclosure requirements under the HFCAA and Commission rules.[3] These disclosures required, among other things, at both the issuer and consolidated foreign operating entity level the following: information on ownership and controlling financial interests by foreign government entities; identification of Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, officials who are on the issuer’s board; and whether the issuer’s articles of incorporation (or any equivalent organizing document) contain any “charter” of the CCP.[4] There were 174 companies identified as CIIs, and Division staff reviewed the disclosures for all CIIs that filed annual reports to assess their compliance with these submission and disclosure requirements. Comments in this area sought additional transparency in instances where the disclosure was missing or deficient or where the scope of representations by the company were vague or unclear. I also want to touch briefly on the pay versus performance, or PVP, disclosure requirements that went into effect in late 2022. We try to approach the first-year implementation of new rules pragmatically, and pay versus performance is a great example of that. In August 2022, the Commission adopted the final PVP rule, which requires disclosure of information reflecting the relationship between executive compensation actually paid by a company and the company’s financial performance.[5] In 2023, Division staff assessed the first year of PVP disclosures through several lenses, including using XBRL tagging to analyze disclosures in a large number of filings. As part of that work, we looked at over 2,400 inline XBRL disclosures. We also conducted a more detailed review of PVP disclosure in a random sample of proxy statements across industries, and in some instances issued future (i.e., forward-looking) comments. As with any new rule, we were not looking to play “gotcha.” At the same time, given the forward-looking orientation of our comments in the first year, we also don’t see the first season as establishing a settled market practice. Based on our review of PVP disclosures, we were able to observe some of the more obvious disclosure issues in complying with the new rule and identify areas where staff observations, through comments and compliance and disclosure interpretation (C&DIs), could be helpful to the registrant community and ultimately to investors. In response to questions and comments after the PVP rule adoption, and in response to issues we saw in our review, we ended up publishing a number of C&DIs on the PVP rules.[6] We hope registrants and their advisors find these useful as they prepare or adjust their disclosure for this current year. The staff in the Disclosure Review Program also plays an integral role in facilitating capital formation through their reviews of registration statements. The Division staff selectively reviews filings made under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, or pursuant to Regulation A to monitor and enhance compliance with the applicable disclosure and accounting requirements. In fiscal year 2023, the SEC received over 2,200 registration statements, including initial public offerings and follow-on offerings, which collectively sought to register the offer and sale of approximately $1 trillion of securities. To close out the discussion of 2023, I want to talk about transparency, and our engagement with companies as we sought to drive better disclosure last year. While we do not publicly disclose the criteria we use to select a company or filing for review, we do understand the importance of transparency in our comment process. Once our review is complete, we publicly disseminate, via the Commission’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR), both our comment letters and the company’s response to those letters. However, it is important to keep in mind those comments are tailored to a company’s specific facts and circumstances and do not necessarily apply to other filings. As a result, we have put an emphasis on using a multi-pronged approach to communicating, especially as it relates to emerging disclosure issues that may be relevant to a critical mass of issuers or investors. Recently, we have issued Sample or Dear Issuer letters and other “one-to-many communications” on topics such as China-related matters (which builds on a previous Dear Issuer Letter and other staff statements we have issued over the past several years), as well as on disruptions in crypto markets and data-tagging. These letters often focus on emerging issues and are designed to better help companies understand what disclosures might be required under existing disclosure rules in order to help ensure that investors are receiving information they need to make informed investment and voting decisions. We will keep doing this sort of work – analyzing emerging issues, thinking about what disclosures might be required under our existing rules, and communicating with the public. Finally, I’d like to briefly touch on our disclosure priorities for 2024, which we will discuss more during this Workshop. Certain financial reporting topics, especially areas that involve judgment or where the Financial Accounting Standards Board or the International Accounting Standards Board have recently issued accounting standards, are generally areas of particular focus. Examples of these areas include: Segment reporting, including compliance with new U.S. GAAP disclosures effective in annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023; Compliance with non-GAAP regulations and rules; Critical accounting estimates disclosure in MD&A; and Disclosures related to supplier finance programs in the notes to the financial statements and any related information in MD&A.   In addition to those financial reporting topics, I anticipate that many of the disclosure priorities from 2023 will continue through the upcoming year. We will continue our focus on China-Based Companies and eliciting disclosure from companies on material risks they face from the PRC government intervening in, or exercising control over, their operations in the PRC. While it appears that inflation is beginning to come down, this is not the time for issuers to revert to boilerplate disclosures. Any material ongoing impacts should be disclosed and we ask companies to not just note high level trends, but discuss the more particularized risks and impacts on their specific company. Given the market disruptions in the banking industry that began about a year ago, we will be continuing to take a close look at updated disclosures related to interest rate risk and liquidity risk.   There will be some new additions to our priorities as well, many of which you may have already heard us mention in recent conferences or seen through the comment letter process, such as artificial intelligence and potential exposure due to changes in the commercial real estate market. We are also tracking how companies are navigating the disclosure requirements resulting from newly adopted rules including, clawbacks,[7] SPACs,[8] and cybersecurity.[9] Thank you for allowing me to speak with you this afternoon about the hard work that our disclosure operations staff continue to do. Disclosure Priorities Artificial Intelligence Over the last year, we have observed a significant increase in the number of companies that mention artificial intelligence in their annual reports. These companies often discussed the topic in the risk factors or description of business sections, or both. There are also a number of companies that discuss the topic in their management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A). As companies incorporate the use of artificial intelligence into their business operations, they are exposed to additional operational and regulatory risks. A number of existing rules or regulations may require disclosure about how a company uses artificial intelligence and the risks related to its use, including disclosure in the description of business section, risk factors, MD&A, the financial statements, and the board’s role in risk oversight. In 2024, the Division staff will consider how companies are describing these opportunities and risks, including, to the extent material, whether or not the company: clearly defines what it means by artificial intelligence and how the technology could improve the company’s results of operations, financial condition, and future prospects; provides tailored, rather than boilerplate, disclosures, commensurate with its materiality to the company, about material risks and the impact the technology is reasonably likely to have on its business and financial results; focuses on the company’s current or proposed use of artificial intelligence technology rather than generic buzz not relating to its business; and has a reasonable basis for its claims when discussing artificial intelligence prospects.[10]   Disclosures by China-Based Companies In the last several years, the Division staff has published Dear Issuer Letters regarding the disclosure obligations of China-Based Companies.[11] The letters address an array of disclosure issues, including those related to the variable interest entity (VIE) structure, the reliability of financial reporting, the regulatory environment in China, and corporate governance matters. The Division staff will continue to focus on these and other emerging risks these companies face in 2024. The Division staff noted, in the context of the Commission’s rules under the HFCAA, that it monitored disclosures by certain China-Based Companies and provided additional guidance where appropriate. As part of its filing review process, the Division staff also issued comments to China-Based Companies to enhance their compliance with disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws. The Division continues to believe that companies should provide more prominent, specific, and tailored disclosures about China-specific matters so that investors have the information they need to make informed investment and voting decisions. Commercial Real Estate Banks with significant commercial real estate (CRE) exposure and real estate investment trusts (REITs), including office and retail REIT sub-sectors, are subject to several CRE risks, including heightened vacancy rates, elevated interest rates, extended loan maturities, and increased loan delinquencies. While these risks are not new,[12] in light of increased attention on these risks, the Division staff has been considering, and will continue to consider how, among other matters: banks are disclosing disaggregation of loan portfolio characteristics, geographic and other concentrations, loan-to-value ratios, loan modifications, nonaccrual loan policies, policies around timing, frequency and sources of appraisals, and risk management; and office and retail REITs are describing default risks or liquidity issues and any mitigating efforts, debt maturity and lease term schedules, trends in lease renewals, major tenant rollovers, financial viability of tenants, property dispositions, asset impairments, and tenant receivables.   We would encourage companies to consider other areas of their disclosures where more granular information could be provided to improve investors’ understanding of the material risks inherent in the company’s CRE or other loan portfolios and any mitigating steps they are taking to address those risks.[13] Companies should also keep in mind that other types of industries outside of banks and REITs could be impacted by the current CRE environment, and they should continue to re-evaluate these disclosures as the interest rate environment changes. Recently Adopted Rules The Division staff will review disclosures made pursuant to certain recently adopted rules to assess compliance, provide guidance to companies, and improve disclosures for investors. Cybersecurity On July 26, 2023, the Commission adopted new rules to enhance and standardize disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and incidents by public companies that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[14] The new rules have two main components: Disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents in Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. Annual disclosure of cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance matters.   In addition, in December, the Division issued a C&DI which clarified that consultation with the Department of Justice regarding a cybersecurity incident does not necessarily result in the determination that the incident is material, and noted that the requirements of Item 1.05 do not preclude a registrant from consulting with the Department of Justice, including the FBI, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, or any other law enforcement or national security agency at any point regarding the incident, including before a materiality assessment is completed.[15] Further, I issued a statement in December that, among other things, “encourag[ed] public companies to work with the FBI, CISA, and other law enforcement and national security agencies at the earliest possible moment after cybersecurity incidents occur” and stated “I believe this timely engagement is in the interest of investors and the public.”[16] The Division staff will review both current reports about material cybersecurity incidents and selected annual disclosures to assess compliance with the rules, provide guidance, and improve disclosures. Clawbacks On October 26, 2022, the Commission adopted new rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which direct national securities exchanges to adopt listing standards that require listed companies to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by current or former executive officers (a Clawback Policy) and to disclose such policy.[17] The Division staff will review disclosures to confirm the filing of the Clawback Policy and to assess disclosures when a recovery analysis is triggered. Pay Versus Performance[18]  Consistent with the remarks above concerning pay versus performance disclosures, in 2024, the Division staff will continue its efforts to monitor disclosures made in response to this rule requirement and issue comments as necessary to improve disclosures. As it did in 2023, the Division staff will continue to leverage machine-readable data to make preliminary assessments of compliance with the rules. Universal Proxy On November 17, 2021, the Commission adopted rules requiring parties in a contested election to use universal proxy cards that include all director nominees presented for election at a shareholder meeting.[19] The Division staff is committed to helping ensure the smooth implementation of these important new rules and answering interpretive questions ahead of the proxy season. Since the universal proxy rules were adopted, the Division has published several C&DIs addressing questions soliciting parties had about the new universal proxy rules and related disclosures.[20] In 2023, the first proxy season with universal proxy cards, the rules generally worked well, and there was no significant change in the number of proxy contests. In 2024, the Division staff will continue to review proxy contest filings to assess compliance with the universal proxy rules and improve disclosures regarding shareholders’ voting options. Beneficial Ownership Reporting On October 10, 2023, the Commission adopted amendments to modernize the rules governing beneficial ownership reporting.[21] The Division staff is closely monitoring the implementation of these new rules. The Division staff will review selected beneficial ownership reports to assess compliance with the new, shortened filing deadlines and issue comments as necessary to improve required disclosures. [1] A live stream of The SEC Speaks in 2024 event is available at both https://www.sec.gov/news/upcoming-events/sec-speaks-2024 and https://www.pli.edu/sec-speaks-2024. [2] Pub. L. No. 116-222, 134 Stat. 1063 (Dec. 18, 2020). [3] Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act Disclosure, Release Nos. 34-93701; IC-34431 (Dec. 2, 2021) [86 FR 70027 (Dec. 9, 2021)]. [4] Id. [5] Pay Versus Performance, Release No. 34-95607 (Aug. 25, 2022) [87 FR 55134 (Sep. 8, 2022)] (“PVP Adopting Release”). [6] See Regulation S-K C&DIs, Sections 128D and 228D, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/regs-kinterp.htm (“PVP C&DIs”). [7] Listing Standards for Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation, Release Nos. 33-11126; 34-96159; IC-34732 (Oct. 26, 2022) [87 FR 73076 (Nov. 28, 2022)] (“Clawbacks Adopting Release”). [8] Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, Shell Companies, and Projections, Release Nos. 33-11265; 34-99418; IC-35096 (Jan. 24, 2024) [89 FR 14158 (Feb. 26, 2024)]. [9] Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure, Release Nos. 33-11216; 34-97989 (July 26, 2023) [88 FR 51896 (Aug. 4, 2023)] (“Cybersecurity Adopting Release”). [10] See, e.g., 17 CFR 229.10(b). See also Chair Gary Gensler, “AI, Finance, Movies, and the Law” Prepared Remarks before the Yale Law School, Feb. 13, 2024, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/gensler-ai-021324. [11] Sample Letter to China-Based Issuers, Dec. 2021, available at https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/sample-letter-china-based-companies; and Sample Letter to Companies Regarding China-Specific Disclosures, July 2023, available at https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/sample-letter-companies-regarding-china-specific-disclosures. [12] See, e.g., CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 5, Apr. 20, 2012, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidance-topic5.htm#:~:text=Disclose%20the%20relevant%20thresholds%20they,changes%20in%20charge%2Doff%20policies.; and Sample Letter Sent to Public Companies on MD&A Disclosure Regarding Provisions and Allowances for Loan Losses, Aug. 2009, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/loanlossesltr0809.htm. [13] We would also encourage companies to review their critical accounting estimates and revise their disclosures accordingly, to communicate changes in any specific estimate, input and/or assumption(s), as well as the various judgments and determinations contemplated by management as part of this process. [14] See Cybersecurity Adopting Release. [15] See Exchange Act Form 8-K C&DIs, Question 104B.04, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/8-kinterp.htm#104b.04. See also Exchange Act Form 8-K C&DIs, Section 104B, available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/8-kinterp.htm#104b.04. [16] Erik Gerding, Director, Division of Corporation Finance, Cybersecurity Disclosure (Dec. 14, 2023), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/gerding-cybersecurity-disclosure-20231214#_ftnref15. [17] Clawbacks Adopting Release. See also Exchange Act Rules C&DIs, Section 121H, https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/exchangeactrules-interps.htm. [18] See PVP Adopting Release. See also PVP C&DIs. [19] Universal Proxy, Release Nos. 34-93596; IC-34419 (Nov. 17, 2021) [86 FR 68330 (Dec. 1, 2021)]. [20] Proxy Rules and Schedules 14A/14C C&DIs, Section 139. Rule 14a-10, available at https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/proxy-rules-schedules-14a-14c-cdi.htm. [21] Modernization of Beneficial Ownership Reporting, Release Nos. 33-11253; 34-98704 (Oct. 10, 2023) [88 FR 76896 (Nov. 7, 2023)].

WHAT: Commissioner Caroline D. Pham will participate in a keynote fireside chat on recent trends in CFTC enforcement and compliance, including cross-border issues and developments in digital assets and crypto markets as a part of Skadden’s “Meet the Regulators” series. WHEN: June 27, 2024 5:00 p.m. (EDT) WHERE: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Manhattan West 38th Floor New York, NY, 10001

ETFGI, a leading independent research and consultancy firm covering trends in the global ETFsecosystem, reported today that assets invested in the ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) reached a new record high of US$899.65 billion at the end of May. ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) gathered net inflows of US$8.61 billion during May, bringing year-to-date net inflows to US$118.00 billion, according to ETFGI's May 2024 Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) ETFs and ETPs industry landscape insights report, the monthly report which is part of an annual paid-for research subscription service. (All dollar values in USD unless otherwise noted.) Highlights Assets invested in the ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) reached a new record of $889.65 Bn at the end of May beating the previous record of $884.51 Bn at the end of April 2024. Assets have increased by 14.7% YTD in 2024, going from $784.24 Bn at end of 2023 to $889.65 Bn. Net inflows of $8.61 Bn during May. YTD net inflows of $118.00 Bn are the highest record, the second highest YTD net inflows are $63.59 Bn in 2022, followed by YTD net inflows of $44.12 Bn in 2023. 35th month of consecutive net inflows.   “The S&P 500 index increased by 4.96% in May and is up by 11.30% YTD in 2024. The developed markets excluding the US index increased by 3.62% in May and is up 6.09% YTD in 2024.  Norway (up 10.84%) and Portugal (up 8.72%) saw the largest increases amongst the developed markets in May. The emerging markets index increased by 1.17% during May and is up 4.97% YTD in 2024. Egypt (up 11.82%) and Czech Republic (up 9.44%) saw the largest increases amongst emerging markets in May,” according to Deborah Fuhr, managing partner, founder, and owner of ETFGI.   ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) asset growth as at the end of May  At the end of May 2024, the ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) had 3,414 ETFs, with 3,601 listings, assets of $899.65 Bn, from 255 providers listed on 20 exchanges in 15 countries. During May, ETFs industry in Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) gathered net inflows of $8.61 Bn. Equity ETFs gathered net inflows of $1.64 Bn over May, bringing YTD net inflows to $83.44 Bn, much higher than the $25.53 Bn in YTD net inflows in 2023. Fixed income ETFs reported net inflows of $4.64 Bn during May, bringing YTD net inflows to $27.80 Bn, higher than the $11.39 Bn in net inflows YTD in 2023. Commodities ETFs reported net inflows of $571.47 Mn during May, bringing YTD net inflows to $2.76 Bn, higher than the $192.33 Mn in net inflows YTD in 2023. Active ETFs  had net inflows of $1.60 Bn during the month, gathering net inflows for the year of $4.14 Bn, lower than the $5.85 Bn in net inflows YTD in 2023. Substantial inflows can be attributed to the top 20 ETFs by net new assets, which collectively gathered $7.10 Bn during May. CAPITAL ICE ESG 20+ YEAR BBB US CORPORATE ETF (00937B TT) gathered $1.26 Bn, the largest individual net inflow.Top 20 ETFs by net new assets in May 2024: Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) Name Ticker Assets($ Mn)May-24 NNA($ Mn) YTD-24 NNA($ Mn)May-24 CAPITAL ICE ESG 20+ YEAR BBB US CORPORATE ETF 00937B TT           5,036.68                4,072.11             1,259.19 Fuh Hwa Taiwan Technology Dividend Highlight ETF 00929 TT           6,516.56                2,572.08               719.51 Yuanta US Treasury 20+ Year Bond ETF 00679B TT           6,705.21                2,307.45               466.17 Yuanta/P-shares Taiwan Top 50 ETF 0050 TT          10,086.50               (1,335.29)               391.26 China Asset GEM Index Investment Fund - Acc 159957 CH              448.42                   385.15               378.78 HFT CSI Commercial Paper ETF 511360 CH           4,478.23                1,032.63               373.01 GLOBAL X MSCI CHINA ETF 3040 HK              857.35                   750.68               338.66 Cathay Taiwan Select ESG Sustainability High Yield ETF 00878 TT           8,690.71                   628.80               333.60 Nippon India ETF Nifty 50 BEES NBEES IN           3,238.78                   699.62               281.05 Betashares Geared Long Australian Government Bond Fund Hedge Fund GGAB AU              272.22                   271.93               269.82 BetaShares Australia 200 ETF A200 AU           3,350.38                   647.16               255.26 HuaAn Yifu Gold ETF 518880 CH           2,914.53                   689.84               252.19 Ping An China Bond - Medium-High Grade Corporate Bond Spread factors ETF Fund - Acc 511030 CH           1,559.96                   707.43               247.04 SAMSUNG KODEX 25-11 Bank Bond AA- or higher Plus Active ETF 476810 KS              558.37                   539.27               234.19 Penghua CSI 300 ETF 159673 CH              395.49                   270.96               228.09 SAMSUNG KODEX CD Rate Active ETF SYNTH 459580 KS           6,629.83                1,491.45               223.10 KGI 15+ Years AAA-A US Corporate Bond ETF 00777B TT           1,879.49                   384.45               221.76 GTJA Allianz CSI All-share Semi-conductor Product and Equipment ETF - Acc 512480 CH           2,871.09                  (240.75)               213.87 Capital Tip Customized Taiwan Tech High Dividend and Growth Exchange Traded Fund 00946 TT              209.04                   209.04               209.04 HFT SSE Municipal bond ETF - Acc 511220 CH           1,174.87                   765.00               208.68     The top ETPs by net new assets collectively gathered $99.67 Mn during May. MiraeAsset Securities Miraeasset -1.5X Natural Gas Futures ETN 92 (520077 KS) gathered $46.73 Mn, the largest individual net inflow.   Top ETPs by net inflows in May 2024: Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) Name Ticker Assets($ Mn) May-24 NNA($ Mn) YTD-24 NNA($ Mn)May-24 MiraeAsset Securities Miraeasset -1.5X Natural Gas Futures ETN 92 520077 KS 46.73 46.73 46.73 MiraeAsset Securities Miraeasset 1.5X Natural Gas Futures ETN 91 520076 KS 28.34 28.34 28.34 Value Gold ETF - Acc 3081 HK 283.64 16.61 12.84 Global X Physical Silver ETPMAG AU 228.16 4.65 8.71 Shinhan SOL IHS Markit Global Carbon Emission Synthetic ETF 400590 KS 18.29 2.75 1.93 Perth Mint Gold - Acc PMGOLD AU 583.25 (71.47) 0.76 Global X Physical Platinum ETPMPT AU 13.70 0.20 0.19 Schroder Real Return Fund GROW AU 35.36 (2.19) 0.17                           Investors have tended to invest in Fixed income ETFs/ETPs during May.

REGnosys, the collaboration platform for regulatory reporting, has successfully contributed the language underpinning its digital regulatory reporting solution to the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS), the financial services umbrella of the Linux Foundation.  The language – formerly known as the Rosetta DSL (Domain-Specific Language) and renamed the Rune DSL – is now available under the FINOS open source governance, enabling members to contribute, test and share regulatory logic in a system- and technology-agnostic way. The language integrates seamlessly with REGnosys’s award-winning data-modelling platform, Rosetta, which is also made available under a free version to the community. This contribution further advances REGnosys’s mission to build the future of data and reporting for financial markets through industry-wide collaboration – a goal that aligns with FINOS’s Open RegTech initiative.  Rune has been deployed for production implementations of regulatory reporting under ISDA’s Digital Regulatory Reporting (DRR) programme. The ISDA DRR leverages another FINOS project, the​​​Common Domain Model (CDM)​, to express global trade reporting rules as open-access, unambiguous, machine-executable code using the Rune language. The CDM – an open-source data standard for financial products, trades and lifecycle events developed by the FINOS community – is also supported in Rune.   Several financial institutions and market infrastructure firms have championed these Rune-powered collaboration projects as critical for operational efficiency and resilience. In November 2022, BNP Paribas announced that it had successfully implemented ISDA’s DRR for trade reporting under the US CFTC Rewrite. Global financial institutions including J.P. Morgan Chase and Standard Chartered are also​supporting​its ongoing development. In April this year, DTCC and REGnosys announced their collaboration to support ISDA’s DRR. REGnosys connected its Rosetta platform to DTCC’s Global Trade Repository, the industry leader in trade reporting, to enable the reliable testing of trade reporting submissions generated using the ISDA DRR in support of evolving trade reporting requirements.  Leo Labeis, Founder and CEO at REGnosys, said: “From the outset, our vision has been to create a regulatory reporting solution that is built for the industry and by the industry. In a year of sea change within global regulatory reporting, with six major jurisdictions updating their trade reporting rules, the contribution of Rune to FINOS reinforces our commitment to community-driven compliance through modern, open-source initiatives.”   Thomas Louis, GM CDO and Head of Regulatory & Surveillance technology platform at BNP Paribas said: “BNP Paribas has been at the forefront of the development of CDM and its application to ISDA’s DRR for several years, and welcomes the step taken by REGnosys to open source a critical supporting component of these projects. Having a language to co-develop regulatory code between market participants allows us to build compliance assurance at industry level.”  Eleanor Kelly, Global Head of Markets Regulatory Change and Control at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, stated: “Ensuring we adhere to the highest standard of data quality and control in our regulatory reporting is of critical importance for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Being able to express all of our data requirements’ best practice into code and through industry consensus is a very effective way to achieve operational excellence and we recognise the benefits that open-source technology such as that contributed by REGnosys and FINOS offers to facilitate this.”   Syed Ali, Managing Director of Repository & Derivatives Services (RDS) at DTCC, stated: “DTCC remains committed to helping the industry achieve complete, accurate and timely derivatives trade regulatory reporting. By leveraging open-source, standardised and machine-readable logic, with capabilities that evolve as regulatory requirements evolve, firms are better placed to achieve compliance. We are pleased to be working with REGnosys and FINOS as we collectively champion operational efficiency and data accuracy in the derivatives trade reporting space.”    Scott O’Malia, Chief Executive of ISDA, said: “The ISDA DRR allows firms to implement new reporting requirements cost-effectively and accurately, reducing the risk of regulatory penalties for misreported data. We support all efforts to facilitate adoption of the ISDA DRR and CDM, so welcome the contribution of Rune as open source on FINOS.”   Jane Gavronsky, Chief Operating Officer at FINOS, said: “We are excited to welcome Rune to the FINOS portfolio of open source and open standards projects. Regulatory reporting is one of the biggest challenges facing financial institutions today and FINOS's Open RegTech initiative brings the industry together to mutualize the creation of innovative solutions in an area ripe for open source disruption. Based on Rune's success, we look forward to its continued potential to enable the industry goal of more efficient compliance.” 

Apex Group Ltd. (“Apex”) has announced global investment firm Carlyle’s Global Credit business (“Carlyle”) and Goldman Sachs Private Credit (“Goldman Sachs”), have jointly committed in excess of $1.1bn into the global financial services provider. This commitment endorses Apex’s sustainable growth strategy, following the successful integration of a number of previous acquisitions, continued strong organic growth and technological innovations. Apex’s assets on platform now stand at ~$3.1tn serviced across custody, administration, depositary and under management by over 13,000 employees worldwide. Carlyle and Goldman Sachs have committed to Holdco PIK Notes of Apex to continue to support the company’s growth plans that will focus on optimising the current platform, strategy and combined investment in technology innovation. This builds on the firms’ continued relationship with Apex, following an initial Preferred Equity Note in 2020 and a follow-on issuance in 2021. Upon completion of the transaction Apex will have enhanced its financial profile, both in terms of leverage and liquidity. Peter Hughes, Founder and CEO at Apex Group, said: “We are extremely pleased to further expand our relationship with Carlye and Goldman Sachs. The new issuance validates Apex’s strong business model but will also enable product and geographic expansion as well as further technology investment.” Financial terms were not disclosed.

ETFGI, a leading independent research and consultancy firm covering trends in the global ETFs ecosystem, reported today that assets invested in actively managed ETFs listed globally reached a new record high of US$889.03 billion at the end of May. Actively managed ETFs listed globally gathered net inflows of US$27.53 billion during May, bringing year-to-date net inflows to US$125.11 billion, according to ETFGI's May 2024 Active ETF and ETP industry landscape insights report, an annual paid-for research subscription service. (All dollar values in USD unless otherwise noted.) Highlights Assets invested in actively managed ETFs listed globally reached a new record of $889.03 Bn at the end of May beating the previous record of $840.09 Bn at the end of April 2024. Assets have increased 20.3% year-to-date in 2024, going from $739.23 Bn at the end of 2023 to $889.03 Bn. Net inflows of $27.53 Bn gathered during May. Year-to-date net inflows of $125.11 Bn are the highest on record, followed by YTD net inflows of $71.70 Bn in 2021, and the third highest YTD net inflows was $59.68 Bn in 2023. 50th month of consecutive net inflows.   “The S&P 500 index increased by 4.96% in May and is up by 11.30% YTD in 2024. The developed markets excluding the US index increased by 3.62% in May and is up 6.09% YTD in 2024. Norway (up 10.84%) and Portugal (up 8.72%) saw the largest increases amongst the developed markets in May. The emerging markets index increased by 1.17% during May and is up 4.97% YTD in 2024. Egypt (up 11.82%) and Czech Republic (up 9.44%) saw the largest increases amongst emerging markets in May,” according to Deborah Fuhr, managing partner, founder, and owner of ETFGI.   Global Actively managed ETFs asset growth as at end of May   At the end of May 2024, there were 2,612 actively managed ETFs listed globally, with 3,246 listings, assets of $889.03 Bn, from 449 providers listed on 37 exchanges in 29 countries. Equity focused actively managed ETFs listed globally gathered net inflows of $16.28 Bn during May, bringing year to date net inflows to $74.32 Bn, higher than the $41.02 Bn in net inflows YTD in 2023. Fixed Income focused actively managed ETFs listed globally attracted net inflows of $10.45 Bn during May, bringing YTD net inflows to $43.36 Bn, much higher than the $18.56 Bn YTD net inflows in 2023.   Substantial inflows can be attributed to the top 20 active ETFs/ETPs by net new assets, which collectively gathered$10.49 Bn during May. Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF (JAAA US) gathered $1.43 Bn, the largest individual net inflow. Top 20 actively managed ETFs/ETPs by net new assets May 2024 Name Ticker Assets($ Mn) May-24 NNA($ Mn) YTD-24 NNA($ Mn)May-24 Janus Henderson AAA CLO ETF JAAA US          9,842.62              4,414.17           1,429.25 FT Energy Income Partners Enhanced Income ETF EIPI US             994.65                 980.72              980.72 JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF JEPQ US        13,938.30              4,623.16              951.45 Capital Group Dividend Value ETF CGDV US          8,244.95              2,117.14              802.37 SPDR Blackstone/GSO Senior Loan ETF SRLN US          6,465.73              1,258.04              660.19 Fidelity Total Bond ETF FBND US          9,494.43              2,998.98              600.91 Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box ETF BOXX US          3,124.54              2,395.73              527.97 Fidelity Hedged Equity ETF FHEQ US             445.56                 448.40              442.79 JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF JPST US        23,371.30                 889.97              415.03 Dimensional International Core Equity Market ETF DFAI US          6,306.65              1,066.45              391.66 JPMorgan ETFs (Ireland) ICAV - Global Research Enhanced Index Equity (ESG) UCITS ETF JREG LN          5,534.59              1,214.35              382.31 T. Rowe Price U.S. Equity Research ETF TSPA US             556.05                 441.68              364.94 Capital Group Core Bond ETF CGCB US             579.48                 488.55              351.66 CI Global Artificial Intelligence ETF CIAI CN             336.33                 335.74              335.74 Capital Group Growth ETF CGGR US          5,728.24              1,364.63              335.07 Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF DFAC US        27,920.88              1,460.61              334.86 Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF AVUV US        11,572.84              2,128.67              325.32 JPMorgan US Research Enhanced Index Equity ESG UCITS ETF - Acc JREU LN          7,756.47              1,860.79              323.68 Betashares Geared Long Australian Government Bond Fund Hedge Fund GGAB AU             272.22                 271.93              269.82 JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF JEPI US        33,630.96              2,075.22              260.07     Investors have tended to invest in Equity actively managed ETFs/ETPs during May.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), a leading global provider of technology and data, today announced it will leverage its proven track record and expertise in central clearing and the fixed income market to launch a clearing service for all U.S. Treasury securities and repurchasing agreements. This follows the recent announcement by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandating for the expansion of U.S. Treasury securities clearing to enhance resilience in the market. ICE operates many of the largest clearing houses globally and brings decades of experience in clearing products ranging from interest rates, energy, agricultural and equity derivative futures and options, as well as credit derivatives. The new Treasury clearing service will leverage ICE’s existing clearing house, ICE Clear Credit, which is the leading global clearing house for credit default swaps (CDS). The Treasury clearing service will be established as a distinct offering from the current CDS clearing service, and will have a separate rulebook, membership, risk management framework, financial and liquidity resources, and risk committee. “Over the last fifteen years, ICE Clear Credit has become the leading global clearing house for credit derivatives, and we believe it is strategically positioned to offer Treasury clearing services that will promote competition and help facilitate the SEC’s policy objective of bringing increased transparency and standardized risk management to the Treasury securities market,” said Stan Ivanov, President of ICE Clear Credit. “The rich experience we’ve developed creating and operating ICE Clear Credit and the work we’ve done to ensure its compliance with all U.S. and foreign regulatory regimes has created a fertile environment for adding Treasury clearing to our suite of credit clearing services.” ICE Clear Credit was founded during the financial crisis in 2009 to bring confidence and stability to the CDS market. Since then, it has become the leading global clearing house for credit derivatives, including Single Name and Index CDS instruments, and options on index CDS. ICE Clear Credit offers clearing for more than 650 Single Name and Index CDS instruments referencing corporate and sovereign debt, and has reduced counterparty risk exposure by clearing approximately $200 trillion in two-sided notional amount, with open interest of over $1.75 trillion. “The history of ICE Clear Credit and the way the team at ICE identified a market need that could benefit from modernization is the core of who we are as a company,” said Chris Edmonds, President of ICE’s Fixed Income and Data Services. “As we look to add Treasury clearing to the breadth of services we offer for fixed income markets, we will leverage the successful playbook we developed in the past to offer an industry-trusted clearing solution along with the front-, middle- and back-office workflows our customers rely on to manage their daily business operations.” As an SEC-registered Securities Clearing Agency, ICE Clear Credit has years of experience navigating and complying with complex regulatory requirements. Additionally, ICE Clear Credit is designated as a systemically important financial market utility (SIFMU) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and deemed a qualified central counterparty (QCCP) under U.S. bank capital rules.

Delta Capita, a leading global financial services consulting, managed services, and technology provider, today announces the appointment of Nick Frost as Global Chief Financial Officer (CFO).  Based in London, Nick will join Delta Capita’s Executive Committee reporting directly to Group CEO, Joe Channer. He will work closely with the global business leadership team to develop the company’s financial strategy and assist Delta Capita with its ambitious growth plans. With over 20 years of finance experience, Nick brings a wealth of knowledge and industry expertise to his new role, having previously held CFO positions at other firms, including the London Stock Exchange Group. Nick Frost, Chief Financial Officer at Delta Capita, said, “I am delighted to be joining Delta Capita at such an exciting and critical time in its growth trajectory. I look forward to collaborating with the team to ensure strong financial growth as Delta Capita continues its mission to reinvent the financial services value chain.” Joe Channer, Chief Executive Officer at Delta Capita, said, "I’m very pleased to announce the appointment of Nick Frost as the new Chief Financial Officer of Delta Capita. Nick brings significant experience to the business having previously held CFO roles at institutional public companies, such as the London Stock Exchange Group. His leadership will be pivotal in shaping our financial strategy and preparing us for the next phase of accelerated growth." Delta Capita is the Financial Services division of Prytek.

Demetrios Hadjigeorgiou and David Stephen have referred their Decision Notices to the Upper Tribunal where they will each present their respective cases. Any findings in these individuals’ Decision Notices and the descriptions of those findings in this press release are therefore provisional and reflect the FCA’s belief as to what occurred and how it considers their behaviour is to be characterised. Kulvir Virk has not referred the FCA’s decision to the Upper Tribunal and his Final Notice has not been the subject of any judicial finding. To the extent that Kulvir Virk’s Final Notice contains criticisms of Demetrios Hadjigeorgiou and David Stephen, they have received Decision Notices which set these out. They dispute many of the facts and any characterisation of their actions in Kulvir Virk’s Final Notice and have referred their Decision Notices to the Upper Tribunal for determination. The Tribunal's decision in respect of the individuals' references will be made public on its website. The FCA has decided to ban and fine 3 individuals who were involved in running SVS Securities Plc (SVS), a discretionary fund manager. SVS managed investments held on behalf of its customers. Under FCA rules, the firm was required to act in the best interests of its customers and not let conflicts of interests interfere with its obligations to them. Kulvir Virk, the former CEO and majority shareholder, recklessly caused SVS to use a complex business model intended to maximise the flow of customer funds into high-risk illiquid bonds. These bonds were operated by directors of SVS and a close business associate of Mr Virk. The model involved inducements to SVS and unauthorised introducers with undisclosed commissions of up to 12% of the customers’ investments. The model created systematic conflicts of interests and inappropriately prioritised income to SVS over the best interests of customers. 879 customers paid in a total of £69.1m. Bonds into which they were invested by SVS have since defaulted, with customers unlikely to receive more than a fraction of their investment back. In the FCA’s view, as Head of Compliance, David Stephen failed to fulfil his responsibilities to ensure SVS was following the rules. Demetrios Hadjigeorgiou, SVS’s former finance director then CEO, also failed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage conflicts of interest and ensure proper due diligence was carried out. The FCA has found that the 3 individuals acted recklessly in deciding to mark-down customers’ valuations when they disinvested from fixed income assets, with the result that SVS kept 10% of customer funds. This allowed them to generate £359,800 in income for SVS at the expense of its customers. The FCA has decided to fine Mr Virk, £215,500; Mr Hadjigeorgiou, £84,600; and Mr Stephen, £52,100. The FCA has banned Mr Virk from working in financial services, and decided to ban Mr Hadjigeorgiou and Mr Stephen from holding senior management roles. Therese Chambers, Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, said: 'These three individuals and SVS were a central part of a tangled web which concealed the fact that customers’ pension money was being invested into high-risk bonds. Customers were entitled to trust that SVS would act in their best interests, but it repeatedly prioritised income for itself and its associates. 'The actions of those in charge threatened the ability of their customers to enjoy a secure and comfortable retirement. This kind of behaviour has life-changing consequences for consumers.' Background Final Notice 2024: Kulvir Virk (PDF) Decision Notice 2024: David John Alexander Stephen (PDF) Decision Notice 2024: Demetrios Christos Hadjigeorgiou (PDF) Warning Notice statement 23/5 (PDF) The FCA considers that the three individuals acted without integrity and/or without due skill, care and diligence in carrying out these acts. ‘Third party rights’ were awarded to Stuart Anderson, David Ewing and Andrew Flitcroft pursuant to section 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on the basis that the three Decision Notices identified and prejudiced them (the FCA is not taking action against them). They have not referred the FCA’s decisions to the Upper Tribunal. On 2 August 2019, the FCA took action to require SVS to cease all regulated activities, safeguard assets and notify affected third parties. SVS entered into Special Administration on 5 August 2019.  SVS customers can find more information about making a claim to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme on their website . Find out more information about the FCA.