Thank you, Alan, and thank you to the Griswold and Julis-Rabinowitz Centers for the opportunity to speak to you today.1 As someone who has worked in both the public sector and academia, I applaud the common purpose of both centers in connecting researchers, policymakers, and the private sector to pursue policy ideas that serve the public good. To that end, I can think of few individuals who have done more—as a teacher, researcher, government official, and public figure—than Alan Blinder. That includes educating the public about economic policymaking. In the spring of 2022, as many wondered whether Russia's war on Ukraine would add to the factors then driving up inflation, Professor Blinder wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a more important factor would probably be the public's expectations of future inflation.2 As I will relate in these remarks, he was, of course, absolutely correct. As in the past, inflation expectations have played a crucial role in the course of inflation since the spring of 2022, and I expect they will be important in the Federal Reserve's ongoing effort to achieve sustained inflation of 2 percent. For that reason, I would like to focus on inflation expectations today, before discussing my outlook for the U.S. economy and the implications for appropriate monetary policy. First, I will describe inflation expectations within the conceptual framework that many economists use to connect inflation to broader economic activity, known as the Phillips curve. Second, I will discuss the central importance of the stability of these expectations, which we have come to call the "anchoring" of inflation expectations. Third, I will explain how firms and households form their inflation expectations and how these expectations affect their economic decisionmaking. Throughout, I will make some references to historical experiences with inflation but focus on the period since the pandemic. Economists have long recognized the connection between inflation and overall macroeconomic conditions, but it was in trying to explain this empirical relationship and measure it with some precision that the importance of inflation expectations was revealed. The foundation of this work was laid by New Zealand economist A.W. Phillips, a fascinating figure who was, among other things, a mechanical genius who built an early economic model operated by hydraulics rather than electronics. In contemplating the mechanics of the economy, in 1958 Phillips set about to explain why nominal wage growth was slower when unemployment was high and faster when unemployment was low. His and other subsequent research showed that a crucial factor was the utilization of resources, such as labor and capital.3 Generally, when firms use labor and capital very intensively, production costs tend to rise, and firms have more scope to pass those cost increases along in the form of higher prices for their products and services, which, in turn, may push up inflation across the economy. In contrast, when that level of utilization is low, costs tend to rise more slowly (or even fall), and firms have less scope for raising prices, thus pushing down inflation. This tradeoff has been called the Phillips curve. In this simple form, this tradeoff implies that governments can achieve and maintain very low unemployment only if they allow inflation to rise to a certain level. In the latter 1960s, Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps asserted that this orderly tradeoff was only temporary and would ultimately break down because of the role of expectations and, in particular, inflation expectations.4 To use an example, while current production costs are important to a factory owner setting prices, that owner will also consider future production costs, future levels of demand, and expectations for inflation throughout the economy. Likewise, workers will factor expectations of future economic conditions into their pay demands, and banks will consider future inflation in deciding loan rates. Consumers, whose purchases constitute some two-thirds of economic activity, make decisions about whether to purchase something today with an idea of what it will cost in the future. All these decisions are influenced by expectations, and this is the way in which expectations may shape inflation now. In turn, when we think about the Phillips curve and its tradeoff nowadays, we account for the important role of expectations of different individuals throughout the economy. There are different measures of inflation expectations, some from surveys polling business owners, others asking consumers, and yet others estimating expectations among bond investors based on the differences in yields between nominal and inflation-indexed securities. While most of my points apply broadly to all measures of expectations, my examples come mostly from surveys of consumers and businesses. While there are questions, which I will address, about how well these surveys measure inflation expectations, I closely monitor them because they complement market-based indicators of future inflation that are affected by dynamics intrinsic to financial markets, such as changes in risk premiums. Let me note that, in addition to the way expectations of future inflation influence prices in the near term, there are economic mechanisms that link current inflation with past inflation, such as those that set wages and the terms of rental contracts. In these cases, adjustments in these terms are often benchmarked on past inflation, as, for instance, when workers and landlords aim to recoup losses from increases in general prices. To cite one example, as the economy reopened after the pandemic, workers sought higher wages to compensate for the early wave of inflation in food and core goods, thus further pushing up inflation, especially in the services sector, where labor accounts for the largest share of this sector's costs.5 And, because rental agreements typically last for 12 months or more, landlords faced a lag in adjusting rents to reflect the escalation of inflation after the pandemic and sought to recoup those losses when renewing leases. By looking at price changes this way, in a rearview mirror, some decisionmakers in the economy end up making inflation more persistent. That is important to me as an economic policymaker who must pay attention to both expectations of future inflation and the persistence of current inflation. When we speak of expectations of future inflation, it is crucial to define the time horizon, and different surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve and others ask about inflation from 1 year to as many as 10 years in the future. Surveys with a shorter horizon, such as the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers' question on inflation 1 year ahead, shown in figure 1, are heavily influenced by current inflation. Near-term inflation expectations tend to be more volatile, moving up when, for example, energy prices increase, or down when energy or some other volatile set of prices decreases. These expectations are important because many economic decisions, such as major consumer purchases and hiring and investment for firms, focus on horizons of only a few years ahead. By contrast, inflation expectations over longer horizons, such as the Michigan survey's question on inflation during the next 5 to 10 years (the red line in figure 1), say less about current conditions than about the trend for inflation for some time in the future. You can think about these longer-term expectations as much less affected by the forces that push inflation up or down in the short term, what economists call "shocks." Longer-term inflation expectations tend to be less volatile, affected less, for example, by what oil or food prices have done lately than by the stability of inflation over years or decades. I mention these different time horizons because they matter in my job as a central banker. Expectations a year from now reflect short-term shocks to the economy, as well as ongoing efforts from monetary policymakers to bring the economy back to its longer-run state. Thus, while short-term expectations may indicate whether inflation is expected to move toward its target, they are not the best gauge of monetary policy credibility. Longer-term inflation expectations, however, should be much less influenced by short-term shocks to the economy, and a change in those expectations has implications for the Federal Reserve's prospects for meeting its price-stability goal. When these longer-term expectations are reasonably low and unresponsive to shorter-term developments, we say they are "anchored." It is not clear who first defined the term, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2007 gave a speech on inflation expectations in which he described "anchored" expectations as "relatively insensitive to incoming data."6 So how should we think about the process of anchoring and de-anchoring of inflation expectations? The dynamics of short- and long-term inflation expectations shed light on this issue. If the public experiences a spell of inflation higher than their shorter-run expectations, they will revise up these shorter-term expectations to ensure that their near-term plans account for the change in the economic environment. That's what happened after the pandemic, when inflation based on personal consumption expenditures (PCE) rose to a peak of 7.2 percent and one-year expectations rose to more than 5 percent. But longer-term inflation expectations remained anchored, with values within the range seen since 1995. I would contrast this experience with the United States' previous bout of high inflation from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Among other issues, such as high energy prices and accommodative monetary policy, rising inflation and inflation expectations fed a cycle of escalating inflationary pressures.7 Inflation was high and very volatile over this period, and that is reflected in shorter and longer-term inflation expectations that were high and volatile, too. Another important difference between these two episodes has to do with the performance of the Federal Reserve. As opposed to the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, most recently the Fed acted aggressively to tighten monetary policy, raising the federal funds rate more rapidly than in previous tightenings and lowering inflation more quickly than ever before. This came after 30 years of success in keeping inflation in check, and the credibility earned by the Fed's inflation discipline surely helped keep longer-term expectations stable. This shows that an important role of the central bank is to convince the public, through actions and communications, about its intention to shape economic conditions and to use its policy tools to bring inflation to its target.8 By committing to keep inflation low in the future, central banks seek to influence expectations of future inflation, which, in turn, influence conditions now and over time. The Fed's credibility in keeping inflation low and stable, won over decades, kept longer-term inflation expectations stable, and that contributed significantly to the Fed's success in reducing inflation while keeping the labor market strong. Those are some of the basics about inflation expectations and how they influence the economy and the conduct of monetary policy. Next, I want to note some of the patterns we see in survey measures of inflation expectations, what influences expectations, and how inflation expectations are used by the public in their decisionmaking. Fortunately, there is a rich body of economic research that has shed light on these questions, and I will focus on the evidence for households and firms.9 We can then take some lessons from these empirical patterns for monetary policymaking. One important observation is that both short- and long-term inflation expectations are often notably higher than actual inflation, even after a period of very low inflation. There is evidence that survey respondents often believe the inflation they have experienced is higher than it is. Another pattern is that there is a wide dispersion of views about both shorter and longer-term inflation expectations, reflecting, at least in part, the dispersion of inflation in the consumer baskets of goods and services purchased by different people. Research also finds that some groups, such as women and lower-income households, tend to have systematically higher inflation expectations. In addition to this variation in expectations, there is high uncertainty in forecasts of future inflation. When people are asked to assign probabilities to different forecasts for inflation, surveys report wide distributions in the likelihood of one outcome or another. Finally, short-term inflation expectations tend to be correlated with both recently realized inflation and perceptions about recent inflation.10 These patterns tell policymakers that inflation expectations of households and firms are diffuse and likely harder to influence through monetary policy relative to financial market participants and professional forecasters who follow the news more closely. Still, expectations from business owners and workers ultimately inform firms' pricing decisions and costs and, thus, may even be more relevant for inflation outcomes; therefore, it is important for policymakers to communicate clearly with the public our intentions to bring inflation back to our target.11 So, because inflation expectations are diffuse and heavily influenced by recent experience, let's consider the reasons for the dispersion in these expectations. Unsurprisingly, it starts with the considerable variation in the sources that the public uses to collect information about inflation. Households report that their main source of information is their own shopping experiences, making regular purchases such as groceries and gasoline, and the price changes in those goods and services are what affect inflation expectations the most.12 Also, it seems that inflation expectations of homeowners tend to respond to changes in mortgage rates because homeowners have more of an incentive to track changes in rates that might affect, for example, their prospects for loan refinancing.13 Another important source of information is energy bills, with evidence also pointing to households' inflation expectations being more sensitive to energy prices when inflation is higher.14 More generally, consumers and firms seem to pay more attention to news related to inflation when inflation is high, and this has been found for many countries.15 While the unique experiences of survey respondents matter, this evidence points to inflation expectations being dependent on the state of the economy. Thus, we policymakers should account for different economic conditions when assessing the risks of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations. For instance, with fresh memories of the post-pandemic inflation and with recent surges in prices of some food items regularly purchased, inflation expectations of workers and firms may now be more sensitive to anticipated future price increases relative to the pre-pandemic period. Let me now turn to how households and businesses employ their inflation expectations in their economic decisionmaking, with much of the evidence consistent with what one would expect based on long-standing economic theory. Starting with households, in addition to any influence on wages from past inflation, expectations of future inflation help shape demands for pay raises. Workers care about their inflation-adjusted wages, rather than nominal wages, and (as shown in figure 2) we see a positive correlation between inflation expectations from consumers and wage growth, with a close co-movement during the recent inflationary bout. A complementary decision for the worker is to look for a new job that pays more, especially if the person envisions a low probability of getting a raise in the current job or if the raise will likely not fully cover losses in real incomes from inflation. Indeed, measures of general wage growth are more sluggish relative to those of job switchers. Moreover, researchers also find evidence of higher job-to-job transitions for workers who have higher inflation expectations.16 So inflation expectations of workers are an important influence on nominal wage growth and an important indicator of inflationary pressures for us policymakers. Now let's consider how these expectations influence firms' decisions. As I discussed in the context of the Phillips curve, firms with higher inflation expectations would be expected to increase prices more, and, indeed, researchers find causal evidence for this.17 During the recent period of high inflation, the fact that business owners' short-term expectations about costs or input prices rose only modestly and soon returned to levels close to 2 percent just suggests that firms' inflation expectations were not a strong source of inflationary pressures (as seen in figure 3). Still, researchers at the Richmond Fed also found that during this period, business leaders incorporated more information about aggregate inflation measures in their own pricing decisions compared with times before the pandemic inflation surge.18 While researchers also find that business leaders paid less attention to inflation as it came down, this evidence points to the inflation expectations of businesses being sensitive to underlying inflationary dynamics, and monetary policymakers should remain attentive to this. Now let me turn to the recent developments in inflation expectations, the current U.S. economic outlook, and the implications for monetary policy. In recent months, we have seen several measures of inflation expectations increase, with both consumers and businesses reporting new and proposed tariffs as an important reason. Among surveys looking one year ahead, there have been notable increases for surveys by the University of Michigan, the Conference Board survey of consumers, the Atlanta Fed's survey of businesses, the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters, and the New York Fed's consumer survey. For instance, last Friday's release of longer-term inflation expectations from the Michigan survey was the highest since February 1993. Additionally, the recent spike in short-term inflation expectations appears to be mostly "anticipatory," as one can infer from the divergence between falling inflation perceptions—what consumers think price increases have been in the past year—and climbing short-run inflation expectations, both data from the Michigan survey. This anticipatory nature of the recent increase in short-run expectations may allow for price pressures through a second channel: Businesses may feel a greater ability to pass along higher costs to consumers when they come from external factors out of the control of these businesses. Indeed, firms are already reporting not only higher costs, but also expectations of higher costs, according to some surveys, such as the one conducted by the Atlanta Fed, along with other manufacturing surveys. For now, I take some comfort from the much smaller increases in longer-term expectations as measured by the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters, as well as the stability of longer-term measures of what we call inflation compensation, which is based on yields from nominal and inflation-indexed Treasury securities. As in past episodes when inflation expectations increased, uncertainty about future inflation seems to have also gone up, as measured by the disagreement between the 75th and 25th percentiles of the distribution of individual respondents to the Michigan survey. Simultaneously, in recent months, we have also seen measures of economic policy uncertainty increase (seen in figure 4), and there is evidence that policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time.19 One possibility is that policy uncertainty may be contributing to a rise in inflation expectations as well as to uncertainty about future inflation. Still, it is hard to say at this point, and I will keep monitoring these developments. Let me turn from developments on expected inflation to realized inflation. After the substantial decline in inflation from its peak in 2022, recent disinflation has been slower, and the latest data indicate that progress toward the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) 2 percent goal may have stalled. Core PCE inflation was 2.8 percent in the 12 months ended in February, which puts us back at the same level seen in the last quarter of 2024. The best news for February comes from housing services inflation, which has come down steadily for at least a year to a 12‑month rate of 4.3 percent, even if it is still above the pre-pandemic level of 2.5 percent. For the rest of the inflation categories, the news was less positive. Core goods inflation, which had been negative for a large share of 2024, increased to 0.4 percent relative to a year before. February likely also marked an upward shift in market-based services inflation. While I do not discount price pressures in nonmarket services, which remain elevated, the acceleration in market-based services in February from an estimated 3.1 percent to 3.5 percent is also not welcome, given that this category often provides a better signal of inflationary pressures across all services. On the other side of the FOMC's dual mandate, employment continues to grow at a moderate pace, and the overall labor market has remained resilient through February. The net 151,000 jobs added last month was not too far from the 177,000 average of the previous six months. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.1 percent, and labor force participation moved down to 62.4 percent. Other labor market indicators suggest continued moderation in the labor market but not significant weakening. Given the recent lack of progress on inflation, recent increases in inflation expectations, and upside risks associated with announced and prospective policy changes, I strongly supported the FOMC's decision at our March meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. Going forward, I will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and changes in the balance of risks. Thank you. 1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.  2. See Alan S. Blinder (2022), "Wish the Fed Luck as It Seeks a Soft Landing on Inflation," Wall Street Journal, April 6.  3. For a literature review on the relationship between inflation and resource utilization, also called the slope of the Phillips curve, see Francesco Furlanetto and Antoine Lepetit (2024), "The Slope of the Phillips Curve (PDF)," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2024-043 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May). 4. See Milton Friedman (1968), "The Role of Monetary Policy," American Economic Review, vol. 58 (March), pp. 1–17; and Edmund S. Phelps (1967), "Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time," Economica, vol. 34 (135), pp. 254–81.  5. For a discussion about the timing of the inflation waves of different categories, see Adriana D. Kugler (2025), "Navigating Inflation Waves: A Phillips Curve Perspective," speech delivered at the Whittington Lecture, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, February 20.  6. See Ben S. Bernanke (2007), "Inflation Expectations and Inflation Forecasting," speech delivered at the Monetary Economics Workshop of the National Bureau of Economic Research Summer Institute, Cambridge, Mass., July 10, quoted text in paragraph 7.  7. For evidence on how longer-run inflation expectations may be driven by short-run inflation surprises, see Carlos Carvalho, Stefano Eusepi, Emanuel Moench, and Bruce Preston (2023), "Anchored Inflation Expectations," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 15 (January), pp. 1–47.  8. For a survey on how central banks communicate with the general public and the effectiveness of such communications, see Alan S. Blinder, Michael Ehrmann, Jakob de Haan, and David-Jan Jansen (2024), "Central Bank Communication with the General Public: Promise or False Hope?" Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 62 (June), pp. 425–57.  9. For a literature review on this topic, see Michael Weber, Francesco D'Acunto, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Olivier Coibion (2022), "The Subjective Inflation Expectations of Households and Firms: Measurement, Determinants, and Implications," Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 36 (Summer), pp. 157–84.  10. See David Lebow and Ekaterina Peneva (2024), "Inflation Perceptions during the Covid Pandemic and Recovery," FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19).  11. See Ricardo Reis (2023), "Four Mistakes in the Use of Measures of Expected Inflation," AEA Papers and Proceedings, vol. 113 (May), pp. 47–51.  12. See Francesco D'Acunto, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber (2021), "Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 129 (May), pp. 1615–39.  13. See Hie Joo Ahn, Shihan Xie, and Choongryul Yang (2024). "Effects of Monetary Policy on Household Expectations: The Role of Homeownership," Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 147 (October), 103599.  14. See Francesco D'Acunto and Michael Weber (2024), "Why Survey-Based Subjective Expectations Are Meaningful and Important," Annual Review of Economics, vol. 16 (August), pp. 329–57. For evidence on the higher sensitivity of inflation expectations when inflation is higher, see Paula Patzelt and Ricardo Reis (2024), "Estimating the Rise in Expected Inflation from Higher Energy Prices," CEPR Discussion Paper 18907 (Paris: Centre for Economic Policy Research, March).  15. See, for instance, Anat Bracha and Jenny Tang (2024), "Inflation Levels and (In)Attention," Review of Economic Studies; and Michael Weber, Bernardo Candia, Hassan Afrouzi, Tiziano Ropele, Rodrigo Lluberas, Serafin Frache, Brent Meyer, Saten Kumar, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Dimitris Georgarakos, Olivier Coibion, Geoff Kenny, and Jorge Ponce (2025), "Tell Me Something I Don't Already Know: Learning in Low‐ and High‐Inflation Settings," Econometrica, vol. 93 (January), pp. 229–64.  16. See Ina Hajdini, Edward S. Knotek II, John Leer, Mathieu Pedemonte, Robert W. Rich, and Raphael S. Schoenle (2022), "Low Passthrough from Inflation Expectations to Income Growth Expectations: Why People Dislike Inflation," Working Paper Series 22-21 (Cleveland: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June); and Laura Pilossoph and Jane M. Ryngaert (2024), "Job Search, Wages, and Inflation," NBER Working Paper Series 33042 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, October).  17. For the relationship between inflation expectations and pricing decisions, see Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Tiziano Ropele (2020), "Inflation Expectations and Firm Decisions: New Causal Evidence," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 135 (February), pp. 165–219.  18. For evidence on the recent inflationary episode, see Felipe F. Schwartzman and Sonya Ravindranath Waddell (2024), "Inflation Expectations and Price Setting among Fifth District Firms," Economic Brief 24‑03 (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, January).  19. For evidence on how policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time, see Carola C. Binder (2017), "Measuring Uncertainty Based on Rounding: New Method and Application to Inflation Expectations," Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 90 (October), pp. 1–12. The measure of economic policy uncertainty is from Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis (2016), "Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131 (November), pp. 1593–1636. The measure of trade policy uncertainty is from Dario Caldara, Matteo Iacoviello, Patrick Molligo, Andrea Prestipino, and Andrea Raffo (2020), "The Economic Effects of Trade Policy Uncertainty," Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 109 (January), pp. 38–59.   View speech charts and figures   Accessible Version

On March 10, 2025, the SEC instituted proceedings to approve or disapprove FINRA's proposal to amend the Codes of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and Industry Disputes to make changes to certain provisions relating to arbitrator list selection. Please refer to the following Regulatory Circulars for more information: MIAX Options RC 2025-22 MIAX Pearl Options RC 2025-22 MIAX Emerald Options RC 2025-22 MIAX Sapphire Options RC 2025-22 MIAX Pearl Equities RC 2025-04 Direct Regulatory inquiries to Regulatory@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7309.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published its annual peer review report on the supervision of European Union (EU) Central Counterparties (CCPs) by National Competent Authorities (NCAs). The peer review measures the effectiveness of NCA supervisory practices in assessing CCP compliance with the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) requirements on outsourcing and intragroup governance arrangements. For this exercise, the review of the functioning of CCP colleges remains overall positive. The NCAs participating in the current peer review have overall met the supervisory expectations in relation to the supervision of CCP’s outsourcing and intragroup governance arrangements. In particular, the NCAs consistently assessed the CCPs’ ongoing compliance of outsourcing and intragroup governance arrangements with the respective regulatory requirements in EMIR. In the cases where NCAs met supervisory expectationsonly partially, ESMA has issued recommendations to address the shortcomings identified. The peer review has also identified the need to promote further supervisory convergence in respect of the definition of major activities linked to risk management.  Next steps ESMA will follow up on the implementation of the recommendations made to NCAs and work to identify, where relevant, the most appropriate tools to further enhance supervisory convergence on the identification of major activities linked to risk management. Related Documents Download All FilesDownload Selected Files DateReferenceTitleDownloadSelect 02/04/2025 ESMA91-1505572268-3891 2024 CCP Peer Review Report - Outsourcing and intragroup governance arrangements

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) today announced, as part of April’s National Financial Literacy Month, it will highlight the key role investing plays in both powering the U.S. economy and preparing U.S. investors for their own financial future. Investing is an important tool for individuals and families in achieving their financial goals, such as affording higher education, supporting retirement, or simply building wealth for the future. While building for their own financial future, investors are also playing a key role in powering the innovation-based U.S. economy by providing capital to businesses of all sizes. “Financial Literacy Month provides an excellent opportunity to highlight the importance of investors saving and investing for their financial future. From stocks, bonds, and funds to newer products in the marketplace, investing ultimately supports our nation’s overall economy,” said Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda. “All investors have an opportunity to reach their personal financial goals while also playing a role in capital formation, which makes our economy so dynamic.” During the month of April, SEC regional and headquarters staff will encourage investors to take advantage of  the free saving and investing tools and resources available on Investor.gov. OIEA’s “Ten Investment Tips for 2025 Investor Bulletin” provides investors with information on how to avoid investment scams, the importance of diversification, how to be an informed investor, and more. Investors can also test their investing knowledge by taking April’s Financial Literacy Month Quiz. “Whether you’re new to investing or a seasoned investor, Investor.gov has resources that can help you build wealth for a strong financial future,” said Lori Schock, Director of the SEC’s OIEA. “Starting early and creating a long-term diversified saving and investing plan that considers your risk tolerance can help you build wealth to live the life you want to lead.” SEC outreach events in April include financial education activities for teachers and high school and college students; webinars and events providing investor education and fraud prevention information to older investors; and presentations to military service members focusing on building wealth, avoiding scams, and discussing the benefits of tax-advantaged retirement plans, like the Thrift Savings Plan. In addition, Ms. Schock posted a new Director’s Take article, entitled “Ten Building Blocks to Building Wealth.”

Basel Committee publishes assessment reports on the implementation of its global standards in Türkiye. Assessments find Turkish regulations compliant with the Basel Committee's Net Stable Funding Ratio standard and large exposures framework. These publications form part of the Committee's Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme. Türkiye's implementation of the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) standard and large exposures framework (LEX) were assessed as compliant with the global standards set by the Basel Committee, which is the highest overall grade. These were the conclusions of assessment reports on the implementation of the NSFR and the LEX in Türkiye, published today by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Basel Committee's assessment reports form part of its Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP), a series of reports on the implementation of Basel standards by member jurisdictions of the Basel Committee.

Interactive Brokers (Nasdaq: IBKR), an automated global electronic broker, announced updates to IBKR Desktop, a next-generation trading platform for investors who demand simplicity but value Interactive Brokers’ advanced technology. With no platform fees and a user-friendly interface packed with advanced features, clients can easily facilitate simple trades across asset classes and complex order types. The platform is designed to be intuitive and easy to navigate, making it suitable for experienced traders and novice investors. “IBKR Desktop is a powerful, intuitive platform designed for traders and investors of all experience levels. Whether you’re just getting started or managing advanced trading strategies, IBKR Desktop provides the tools, research, and customization needed to trade with confidence,” said Steve Sanders, Executive Vice President of Marketing and Product Development at Interactive Brokers. “These enhancements reflect our ongoing commitment to deliver a world-class trading experience across an advanced and easy-to-use platform.” With IBKR Desktop, clients can trade products from over 160 global exchanges, including stocks, options, futures, currencies, bonds, and funds, from a single unified platform and access popular and exclusive tools that prioritize customization and flexibility. IBKR Desktop offers superior order execution, competitive pricing, and an extensive suite of global investment products designed to optimize trading and enhance investment strategies. Power meets simplicity in the IBKR Desktop platform, allowing clients to feel at ease and in control of their trading experience. Recent updates include: Multi-Monitor Support: View multiple IBKR Desktop monitors by detaching layout screens. Link panels across IBKR Desktop screens to view selected products on multiple screens. ForecastTrader: Use forecast contracts to trade predictions on political, economic, and climate events. The availability of forecast contracts may vary depending on region. Overnight Trading Hours Support: Trade over 10,000 US stocks, ETFs, and US Equity Index futures and options around the clock to react immediately to market-moving news in IBKR Desktop. This service was already available across other trading platforms.  Screeners: Use MultiSort to find stocks that align with trading strategies across a universe of over 70,000 global stocks, and standard screeners to quickly scan markets to return top securities based on region, product, sector, and factor criteria. Alerts and Notifications: Enable sounds for price alerts and trade notifications.

As previously announced in the March 26, 2025 Alert, MIAX Options upgraded the 10G ULL Extranet switches and related network analytics infrastructure.The existing MIAX Options 10G ULL Extranet switches and related network analytics infrastructure will no longer be available beginning Friday, April 11, 2025. All firms with existing 10G ULL Cross Connects (CCs) must establish and migrate their 10G ULL CC usage to the upgraded MIAX Options 10G ULL Extranet by April 11, 2025.The MIAX Options 10G ULL Extranet upgrade is intended to improve the network’s latency performance and precision of the analytics infrastructure’s timestamp measurements. Please contact MIAX Trading Operations at TradingOperations@miaxglobal.com or (609) 897-7302 to arrange testing or to receive additional information on the planned network refresh.

Contract Volume    March 2025 Contracts March 2024 Contracts % Change 2025 YTD ADV 2024 YTD ADV % Change Equity Options 603,733,346 498,211,676 21.2% 30,973,457 24,938,499 24.2% ETF Options 513,096,542 363,007,938 41.3% 21,751,675 18,372,329 18.4% Index Options 112,098,007 82,239,260 36.3% 4,760,534 4,141,473 14.9% Total Options 1,228,927,895 943,458,874 30.3% 57,485,666 47,452,301 21.1% Futures 5,984,504 4,342,096 37.8% 245,326 220,036 11.5% Total Volume 1,234,912,399 947,800,970 30.3% 57,730,992 47,672,337 21.1% Securities Lending   March 2025 Avg. Daily Loan Value March 2024 Avg. Daily Loan Value % Change March 2025 Total Transactions March 2024 Total Transactions % Change Market Loan + Hedge Total 181,451,990,995 164,442,116,102 10.3%  311,828  219,635 41.98% Additional Data Market share volume by exchange Open interest Historical volume statistics

Smaller-sized, longer-dated contracts will create new trading opportunities across the leading cryptocurrency and equity index markets CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today announced plans to launch Spot-Quoted futures on June 30, pending regulatory review. Spot-Quoted futures will allow investors to trade futures positions in spot-market terms (i.e., the price quoted on screen on financial media and investment sites). Contracts will be available for the two leading cryptocurrencies, bitcoin and ether, as well as across the four major U.S. equity indices, including the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, Russell 2000 and Dow Jones Industrial Average. In addition, investors will be able to hold these contracts for up to five years – without needing to roll – making a long-term position easier to hold than ever. "Market participants will now be able to trade benchmark cryptocurrency and equity index futures at spot prices, making these instruments more accessible and easier to use than ever before," said Tim McCourt, Global Head of Equities, FX and Alternative Products at CME Group. "In response to growing retail demand for smaller-sized, longer-duration products, these capital-efficient contracts – designed with similar features of perpetual contracts –  will provide greater precision and market accessibility to clients. Spot-Quoted futures will provide retail traders more flexibility by allowing them to either maintain the position in accordance with their longer-term view, or to more easily trade in and out of positions, without having to roll positions frequently." "CME Group continues to deliver products that meet the evolving needs of active traders," said Steve Sanders, EVP of Marketing and Product Development at Interactive Brokers. "With Spot-Quoted futures, investors can trade directly at the spot level while gaining the capital efficiency and margin benefits of a futures contract. It is a smart solution for traders looking to optimize both execution and cost." "The introduction of Spot-Quoted futures is another example of innovation by CME Group in bringing futures to active traders," said Martin Franchi, CEO of NinjaTrader. "The smaller size and longer-dated nature of these new products will allow investors to gain access to the leading cryptocurrencies and equity index markets in a capital-efficient way. We look forward to continuing to work with CME Group to provide our clients with access to these new products." "The launch of these new contracts further diversifies our product offering to best serve our clients' needs," said Thomas Texier, Head of Clearing at Marex. "At Marex we are always excited to be part of innovation and support the development of new products where there is demand. This is an exciting step for CME Group, and Marex is pleased to be clearing these Spot-Quoted futures for our clients at launch." Spot-Quoted futures are listed on and subject to the rules of CME and CBOT. For more information on these products, please visit: www.cmegroup.com/spotquoted.

BlockFills, a premier destination for digital asset trading and market technology leveraged by institutions and professional traders, and Fordefi, a self-custody multi-party computation (MPC) platform built for institutions to securely access decentralized finance (DeFi) across multiple blockchains, announced that they have partnered to enable BlockFills to access Fordefi’s cryptocurrency wallet infrastructure. Expanding its token coverage and meeting clients’ growing interest in DeFi trading opportunities, BlockFills will leverage Fordefi’s extensive supported blockchain networks. Customers of Fordefi – including venture capital (VC) firms investing in blockchain projects and the DeFi community – will also have access to BlockFills’ comprehensive trading capabilities across a broad range of digital assets. A means of enhancing security and resilience, an MPC wallet for digital assets uses a private key that is split into multiple parts, or shares, and distributed among different parties to ensure no single entity holds the entire key. Fordefi’s unique browser extension offers seamless connection to thousands of digital applications (dApps) across more than 90 blockchains including Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana. Because Fordefi built and controls the entire technology stack, the transaction lifecycle is protected end-to-end. Josh Schwartz, CEO and Co-Founder at Fordefi, said; “Fordefi’s platform is the first institutional MPC wallet to solve for DeFi by providing such a high level of connectivity, security and clarity. We’re delighted to partner with BlockFills, which shares in our commitment to the highest security standards for institutions looking to grow their crypto and DeFi opportunities.” Nick Hammer, CEO and Co-Founder of BlockFills, said: “Our clients increasingly want to access DeFi instruments on-chain through the BlockFills ecosystem. The Fordefi tools – which support a much wider variety of Layer-1 tokens than other providers – offer our clients additional security and product depth, enhancing the trading experience for all involved. Its MPC wallet platform will enable BlockFills’ veteran trading team to connect to thousands of dApps and manage operations with enterprise-grade performance. We’re also excited to introduce Fordefi’s wide base of DeFi fund and venture capital customers to the BlockFills platform as we offer liquidity and access to so many of the digital instruments they hold.” Patrick Zielbauer, BlockFills Managing Director of Sales, said: “BlockFills has long served sophisticated trading teams at top digital asset funds. The VC community has voiced a need for white-glove support that’s missing from centralized exchanges, especially for tokens over-the-counter providers struggle to handle. We’re committed to delivering deep liquidity, broad product coverage and a seamless trading experience to this vital segment.”

The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the premier post-trade market infrastructure for the global financial services industry, today announced a digital collateral management platform. DTCC and industry leaders will demo the new platform in a live event, “The Great Collateral Experiment” on April 23, representing a diverse cross-section of financial market assets and participants. It’s the first industry demonstration developed on DTCC’s digital ecosystem that launched last October – DTCC Digital Launchpad. Collateral is an essential risk mitigation tool that helps support overall financial stability. But as the markets grow more complex and cost pressures rise, the demand for high quality collateral increases. Blockchains present a significant opportunity to streamline the flow of collateral across siloed infrastructure, unlocking major capital and operational efficiencies. The new AppChain-based approach demonstrates the power of tokenized collateral management to: Increase the mobility and velocity of collateral movement globally, Increase capital efficiencies and liquidity for all participants, Facilitate the convergence of traditional and digital assets, and Enable an open digital liquidity ecosystem for market participants to deploy digital applications that enhance collateral operations. The collateral management platform is an application on the DTCC AppChain, built atop LF Decentralized Trust’s Besu blockchain. The DTCC AppChain offers greater control over privacy, security, and data and uses DTCC ComposerX. DTCC is giving our participants a robust digital financial infrastructure to help navigate the fragmented data landscape that spans traditional and digital networks. The platform leverages a scalable, industry-driven framework rooted in open architecture and common standards. “Our goal is to highlight how we can enable real-world, institutional-grade digital collateral market infrastructure,” said Nadine Chakar, Global Head of DTCC Digital Assets. “This platform is unique in that we’ve created something that’s more open, flexible, dynamic, and comprehensive than any previous digital collateral initiative.” “Our work does not stop today,” added Chakar. “We plan to continue building on this collateral model, engaging with the industry and our regulators to develop the standard for tokenized collateral across global jurisdictions, working with the buy-side to give them more direct market access, and laying out the regulatory and legal path to implementation.” “Collateral mobility is the ‘killer app’ for institutional use of blockchain – we’ve pulled together a coalition of technologists and market participants to successfully showcase how the speed and openness of this technology can safely and reliably unlock liquidity in traditional markets at scale,” said Dan Doney, Chief Technology Officer of DTCC Digital Assets. “By using smart contracts to automate the full range of collateral operations, we enable complex trade execution across markets in real-time at any time, even in volatile conditions.”

WHAT: Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero will speak on a panel titled “A New Era of Finance” at the 2025 Trilateral Commission Global Meeting. WHEN: Thursday, April 3, 20253:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT) WHERE: Salamander D.C.1330 Maryland Ave SWWashington D.C, 20024 More information here: The 2025 Global Meeting of the Trilateral Commission

Overview In Q1 2025, LME average daily volumes (ADV) were up 5.9% on Q1 2024. This quarter registered the second highest quarterly ADV in the last 11 years, while March 2025 saw the third highest monthly ADV in the last 10 years. LME Nickel ADV was up by 28.0% over Q1 2024; this follows a strong year in 2024 when annual ADV rose by 58.8% over 2023. LME Tin was up 22.0% on Q1 2024 and LME Copper was up 10.6% over the same period. Matthew Chamberlain, LME CEO, said: “This has been another strong quarter for the LME, driven by an ever-widening set of participants accessing the market. With increasing global focus on both the opportunities and challenges in the base metal complex, we remain committed to enhancing market liquidity for both physical and financial users – including through the successful launch of our new trading platform, and the forthcoming outcome of our Enhancing Liquidity White Paper. “With LME volumes in the quarter at their second highest for 11 years, and nickel ADV in March at its highest level in five years, we are grateful to our members and clients for their continuing support.” Quarterly volumes   ADV Q1 2025 (lots) ADV Q1 2024 (lots) % Total 698,209 659,436 5.9 Aluminium 263,040 259,914 1.2 Copper 165,976 150,059 10.6 Zinc 106,654 103,241 3.3 Nickel 78,081 60,991 28.0 Lead 72,080 74,135 -2.8 Tin 7,306 5,989 22.0   LME Copper had its second highest quarter since Q2 2016. February and March were the third and fourth highest monthly ADVs over the past eight years. LME Aluminium hit its second highest quarterly ADV since 2020. LME Tin has seen particularly notable volumes against a backdrop of market supply challenges: o   It reached its highest ever daily volume on 13 March with 16,817 lots. o   ADV over Q1 2025 was the highest since Q3 2014. o   February and March saw the two highest monthly ADVs over the past six years. LME Lead saw its second largest quarter on record (after Q1 2024) with an ADV of 72,080 lots. Cash-settled futures highlights LME Steel HRC FOB China (Argus) continued a strong run that started midway through 2024. Q1 2025 saw the second highest ever ADV, up by over 500% from Q1 2024. March saw the third highest month ever for LME Steel Scrap CFR Turkey (Platts) with an ADV of 5,177 lots. More LME volumes data can be found here. NB: Data excludes UNA trades.

Verisk (Nasdaq: VRSK), a leading global data analytics and technology provider, and Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today announced that Verisk has acquired Nasdaq subsidiary Simplitium Limited, which owns and operates Nasdaq Risk Modelling for Catastrophes (NRMC), a SaaS platform that supports an open ecosystem where specialized model partners make their models, hazard data and analytics available to the industry to help assess and address the global insurance protection gap. The acquisition will provide Verisk clients with access to 300+ third-party models, providing unique, niche views of risk across the globe.  NRMC is powered by the OASIS Loss Modelling Framework, the industry standard for open-source catastrophe risk modelling, and delivered as a cloud-based service. With access to a wide array of models and support for in-house developed models, clients will be able to evaluate more views of risk, look at potential losses through different model lenses and apply the models that align with their business needs. “We’re excited to welcome this talented team to Verisk,” said Gayatri Natarajan, senior vice president of product management at Verisk. “Verisk risk modelling powers mitigation strategies and disaster financing to narrow the insurance protection gap, reducing uncertainty and empowering people to protect what matters most – their families, homes and livelihoods. Access to more views of risk, especially covering niche areas of risk, strengthens our clients’ ability to make decisions that will deliver resiliency to our communities and businesses.” Built on Open Standards, the platform standardizes and streamlines data exchange, allowing (re)insurers to optimize their catastrophe risk strategies with precision and efficiency. Verisk has a long history of supporting open exposure formats, Catastrophe Exposure Data Exchange (CEDE) and the Open Exposure Database (OED), to facilitate accurate and transparent data exchange. This commitment to transparency allows for efficiencies and faster new innovations with common frameworks for encoding, transferring and interpreting data throughout the insurance value chain. “This transaction will refine Nasdaq’s focus as we look to foster deeper client relationships within our Financial Technology business,” said Magnus Haglind, Head of Marketplace Technology at Nasdaq. “We are pleased that NRMC will become part of an organization with a scaled presence in catastrophe risk modelling and we look forward to NRMC’s continued success under Verisk’s ownership.” NRMC will become part of Verisk’s Extreme Event Solutions, which delivers unparalleled access to risk management with sophisticated catastrophe risk modelling, global loss indexes and advanced analytics. No financial details of the transaction are disclosed. This transaction is not expected to have a material impact on financial results.

LDA Technologies (LDA), the leader in developing advanced ultra-low latency FPGA and network solutions for capital markets, is announcing today NeoTap X, the only off-the-shelf timestamping and tap aggregation solution on the market to provide this level of enhanced bandwidth, extensive memory capacity and unique set of features, responding to the growing challenges of increasing data volumes. It is also unveiling its Neo X FPGA platform, which delivers uniquely high processing powers, enabling clients to develop highly sophisticated products. NeoTap X, built by LDA on the Neo X platform, provides industry-standard precision with 100 picoseconds timestamping accuracy, and features 96GB of on-chip memory per FPGA for efficient packet buffering, ensuring it can handle high data throughput. It also provides 100G timestamping, meeting the growing need for high-bandwidth capabilities among large financial institutions and trading firms.     LDA’s Neo X platform uniquely supports up to three LDA Orion HBM FPGA boards with AMD Versal™ Premium chips, and offers optional on-device storage with up to 10 PCIe SSDs, providing optimized computing performance. With Neo X, clients can save server storage and rack space, while gaining greater processing power in a single rack unit (1RU) than any other FPGA-based networking platform available on the market. Vahan Sardaryan, CEO and co-founder, said: “We are providing a high-performance turnkey solution, NeoTap X, and a new FPGA-based development platform, Neo X. With its capability of up to 1 Tbit/sec processing power per FPGA and 400 Gbit/sec storage bandwidth, it can handle large data volumes while maintaining high performance for most demanding applications in capital markets.”     In addition to its powerful processing capabilities, LDA’s solution eliminates the use of external servers and optimizes rack space. He continues: “NeoTap X, built on Neo X, provides the ultimate timestamping and tap aggregation solution, which addresses the market’s need to accommodate for increased bandwidth. This future-proof device not only includes all the standard features of an advanced tap aggregation and timestamping system but also introduces powerful enhancements, such as 100G capabilities. With up to 60 TB of on-device storage option, NeoTap X also enables trouble-free record-keeping for regulatory compliance (MiFID II, FINRA), troubleshooting, and advanced analytics. This reduces the reliance on additional storage solutions, making NeoTap X a self-contained tap aggregation and capture system, highly valuable for financial applications.”  NeoTap X also offers LDA’s signature ultra-low latency Layer 1 connectivity and flexible software packet processing option for optimized traffic handling and real-time analytics. Whether for trade monitoring, compliance reporting, advanced analytics, or optimizing network performance, NeoTap X delivers the speed, accuracy, and reliability essential for high-speed, real-time operations. 

Second-Highest March ADV of 30.8 million contracts, up 27% year-over-year Record quarterly ADV for interest rate, equity index, agricultural, foreign exchange and cryptocurrency products Record quarterly ADV in U.S. Treasury and Henry Hub Natural Gas complexes Record quarterly international ADV of 8.8 million contracts CME Group, the world's leading derivatives marketplace, today reported its Q1 and March 2025 market statistics, with average daily volume (ADV) reaching a new, all-time quarterly record of 29.8 million contracts and the second-highest March ADV on record with 30.8 million contracts. In Q1, the company's ADV grew 13% year-over-year, with record volume in interest rate, equity index, agricultural, foreign exchange and cryptocurrency products. CME Group's deeply liquid U.S. Treasury complex hit a quarterly ADV record of 9.2 million contracts and its Henry Hub Natural Gas complex set a quarterly ADV record of 1.1 million contracts. March ADV grew 27% year-over-year, with record monthly equity index ADV of 9.7 million contracts and double-digit ADV growth in interest rate, energy, agricultural, foreign exchange and cryptocurrency products. Market statistics are available in greater detail at https://cmegroupinc.gcs-web.com/monthly-volume. Q1 2025 highlights across asset classes compared to Q1 2024 include: Record quarterly Interest Rate ADV of 15 million contracts Record U.S. Treasury futures and options ADV of 9.2 million contracts Record 10-Year U.S Treasury Note futures ADV of 2.6 million contracts Record 5-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV of 1.9 million contracts Record 10-Year U.S Treasury Note options ADV of 1.2 million contracts Record 2-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV of 1.1 million contracts SOFR futures ADV increased 14% to 4.1 million contracts Record quarterly Equity Index ADV of 8 million contracts Record Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 futures ADV of 1.8 million contracts Record E-mini Nasdaq-100 options ADV of 98,000 contracts Micro E-mini S&P 500 futures ADV increased 57% to 1.3 million contracts Energy ADV of 2.9 million contracts, an increase of 20% Record quarterly Energy options ADV of 558,000 contracts Record quarterly Henry Hub Natural Gas futures ADV of 698,000 contracts Record quarterly Henry Hub Natural Gas options ADV of 355,000 contracts Record quarterly Agricultural ADV of 2 million contracts Record Agricultural options ADV of 412,000 contracts Corn futures ADV increased 44% to 520,000 contracts Soybean futures ADV increased 12% to 288,000 contracts Record quarterly Foreign Exchange ADV of 1.1 million contracts Record Canadian Dollar futures ADV of 125,000 contracts Japanese Yen futures ADV increased 11% to 194,000 contracts Metals ADV of 732,000 contracts, an increase of 8% Micro Gold futures ADV increased 107% to 134,000 contracts Gold options ADV increased 32% to 92,000 contracts Record quarterly Cryptocurrency ADV of 198,000 contracts ($11.3 billion notional) Record Micro Ether futures ADV of 76,000 contracts Record Bitcoin futures ADV of 18,000 contracts Record Ether futures ADV of 13,000 contracts Micro Bitcoin futures ADV increased 113% to 77,000 contracts Record quarterly International ADV of 8.8 million contracts, including record EMEA ADV of 6.5 million contracts and record Asia ADV of 2 million contracts March 2025 highlights compared to March 2024 include: Interest Rate ADV of 14.6 million contracts, an increase of 31% SOFR futures ADV increased 40% to 4.5 million contracts 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV increased 39% to 2.4 million contracts 5-Year U.S. Treasury Note futures ADV increased 31% to 1.6 million contracts 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note options ADV increased 27% to 1.1 million contracts Record monthly Equity Index ADV of 9.7 million contracts Record Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 futures ADV of 2.2 million contracts E-mini S&P 500 futures ADV increased 21% to 2.4 million contracts Micro E-mini S&P 500 futures ADV increased 91% to 1.6 million contracts Energy ADV of 2.6 million contracts, an increase of 21% Henry Hub Natural Gas futures ADV increased 40% to 678,000 contracts Henry Hub Natural Gas options ADV increased 71% to 316,000 contracts Agricultural ADV of 1.8 million contracts, an increase of 20% Corn futures ADV increased 52% to 476,000 contracts Corn options ADV increased 47% to 158,000 contracts Foreign Exchange ADV of 1.4 million contracts, an increase of 12% Japanese Yen futures ADV increased 7% to 236,000 contracts Canadian Dollar futures ADV increased 24% to 143,000 contracts Metals ADV of 720,000 contracts Micro Gold futures ADV increased 81% to 137,000 contracts Cryptocurrency ADV of 176,000 contracts, an increase of 59% ($8.4 billion notional) Micro Bitcoin futures ADV increased 18% to 72,000 contracts Micro Ether futures ADV increased 180% to 67,000 contracts Ether futures ADV increased 122% to 12,000 contracts International ADV increased 31% to 9.3 million contracts, with EMEA ADV up 33%, Asia ADV up 30% and Latin America ADV up 7% Micro Products ADV Micro E-mini Equity Index futures and options ADV of 4.1 million contracts represented 42.6% of overall Equity Index ADV and Micro WTI Crude Oil futures accounted for 2.1% of overall Energy ADV BrokerTec U.S. Repo average daily notional value (ADNV) increased 23% to $351.5 billion and European Repo ADNV increased 13% to €336.9 billion and U.S. Treasury ADNV increased 31% to $119.5 billion EBS Spot FX ADNV increased 39% to $76.2 billion and FX Link ADV increased 84% to 49,000 contracts ($4.4 billion notional per leg) Customer average collateral balances to meet performance bond requirements for rolling 3-months ending February 2025 were $75.8 billion for cash collateral and $179.8 billion for non-cash collateral

IOSCO publishes a Final Report following its review of IOSCO Standards Implementation Monitoring (ISIM) for Regulator Principles 6 and 7 which address systemic risk and perimeter of regulation. IOSCO’s Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation 6 and 7 stipulate that regulators should have or contribute to processes to identify, monitor, mitigate and manage systemic risk, as well as have or contribute to a process to review the perimeter of regulation regularly. This ISIM Review by IOSCO’s Assessment Committee found a high level of implementation across the 55 jurisdictions from both emerging and advanced markets. The ISIM Report highlights some good practices and also identifies a few areas where there is room for improvement, observed primarily in some emerging markets. For example, the Report notes that some jurisdictions do not have clear responsibilities, definitions and regulatory processes with respect to systemic risk. Other jurisdictions lack a proper information-sharing framework among various regulators to manage systemic risk. On the perimeter of regulation, some members mentioned the lack of a formal process to review any unregulated products, activities or markets. Jean-Paul Servais, IOSCO Board Chair and Chair of the Belgium Financial Services & Markets Authority, said: “To effectively fulfil the core objectives of IOSCO, regulators should adhere to the principles set forth in IOSCO’s Principles 6 and 7. This includes ensuring that regulatory processes are robust enough to manage systemic risk, with adequate resources and formal mechanisms for reviewing the regulatory perimeter on an ongoing basis.” Laurent Van Burik, Assessment Committee Chair, said: “We are highly encouraged by the results of this Review, which demonstrate significant progress in adhering to IOSCO’s Principles 6 and 7 across both developed and emerging markets. We will continue to assist those members where the Report identified gaps in implementation by sharing best practices and providing capacity-building support.”

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recognizes April as National Financial Literacy Month and encourages national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) to support efforts to improve the financial literacy and financial health of their customers. Banks can promote financial literacy by supporting high-quality financial literacy education and resources and by identifying opportunities to expand access to financial services that can help build customers’ financial health. “National Financial Literacy Month emphasizes the importance of helping consumers increase their knowledge and skills to make sound financial choices, enabling them to build wealth now and into the future,” said Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney E. Hood. “During National Financial Literacy Month, we encourage banks to consider innovative strategies to educate and empower consumers to use capital wisely, build financial assets, and understand and avoid increasingly sophisticated financial frauds and scams.” The OCC is dedicated to making resources available to help banks support financial literacy education and services. The OCC provides resources for banks on financial capability and financial literacy topics including the Community Developments Fact Sheet on Financial Capability, Financial Health Resource Directory, the quarterly Financial Literacy Update, the Financial Literacy Resource Directory, and consumer fraud awareness and prevention resources. The OCC also has Community Affairs Officers across the nation to assist banks in supporting quality financial literacy education, services, and resources in their communities. These officers can explain how banks can support National Financial Literacy Month and how banks can find ways to expand access to financial literacy education, credit, and capital in their communities. Related Links OCC’s Community Affairs Officer Contacts OCC’s Financial Literacy Update OCC’s Financial Literacy Resource Directory OCC’s Community Development Fact Sheet: Financial Capability OCC’s Financial Health Resource Directory Consumer Fraud Awareness and Prevention Resources

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Randall “Randy” Miller, Chad Miller, and Jeffrey De Laveaga with creating false documents that were provided to investors in two municipal bond offerings that raised $284 million to build one of the largest sports venues of its kind in the United States. As alleged in the SEC’s complaint, in August 2020 and June 2021, Randy Miller’s nonprofit company, Legacy Cares, issued approximately $284 million in municipal bonds through an Arizona state entity to finance the construction of a multi-sports park and family entertainment center in Mesa, Arizona. Investors were to be paid from revenue from the sports complex, and investors were given financial projections for revenue that were multiple times the amount needed to cover payments to investors, according to the complaint. However, the complaint alleges that the defendants fabricated or altered documents forming the basis for those revenue projections, including letters of intent and contracts with sports clubs, leagues, and other entities to use the sports complex. The sports complex opened in January 2022 with far fewer events and much lower attendance and generated tens of millions less in revenue than expected under the false projections, and the bonds defaulted in October 2022, according to the complaint. “As our complaint alleges, these defendants used fake documents to deceive municipal bond investors into believing a sports complex would generate more than enough revenue to make payments to bondholders,” said Antonia Apps, Acting Deputy Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. “Maintaining the integrity of the approximately $4 trillion municipal bond market is critical for local governments and investors alike. The SEC will hold accountable individuals who defraud municipal bond investors.” The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Randy Miller, Chad Miller, and De Laveaga with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges for similar conduct. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by William T. Salzmann, Jonathan Grant, Joseph Chimienti, and Creighton Papier and supervised by David Zhou and Rebecca Olsen of the Public Finance Abuse Unit. They were assisted by Steven Varholik of the San Francisco Regional Office. The litigation will be led by Jason Bussey of the San Francisco Regional Office, Mr. Salzmann, and Mr. Grant. The SEC’s investigation is ongoing. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI. Resources SEC Complaint

WHAT: Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham will speak at a keynote fireside chat on developments in derivatives law hosted by the New York City Bar Association. WHEN: Thursday, April 3, 202511:30 a.m. (EDT) WHERE: White & Case LLP42 West 44th StreetNew York, NY 10036