Transcript from the ASIC Annual Forum 2025 Plenary session 7: The future of capital markets panel, held in Melbourne on 12 - 13 November 2025. Speakers: Simone Constant, Commissioner, ASIC Andrew Fraser, Chair, ART Simon Rothery, CEO, Goldman Sachs Australia and New Zealand Jason Collins, Head of Australia, BlackRock Facilitator: So I’ll start with you, Simone. ASIC’s recent report, Public Private Markets: a Roadmap for Strengthening Market Practices and Regulatory Approaches. Obviously, a new sort of focus really on private credit. Just worth asking you sort of what’s the reaction been to it? What are the, how do you think it’s going to influence the evolution of the markets over the coming years? Simone Constant: I think it’s probably only fair to let my three fellow panellists talk about the reaction. And it’s probably fair for me to make a few remarks while they gather their thoughts as they comment, as the regulator population on their reaction to the regulator. However, in terms of the impact or effects, the sort of shaping, I think, was the nature of the question, I think to answer that, we have to just anchor back in what we did and why we did it. And that’s because just to scotch any confusion, this is not ASIC picking market winners. This is not ASIC trying to be a market maker. It’s not preferring one market over another or overstepping what a regulator should and shouldn’t do. This is just ASIC trying to meet our mandate, right? So by law, we’re required to promote, maintain, facilitate an efficient, effective financial system, and promote confident and informed participation in it. That’s the law. In practice, like many people in this room know better than me, but in my experience, we know that strong, and we heard it all morning, that message, like strong, predictable regulation that’s enforced and enforced fairly and with consistency, is an important regulatory moat for the country. A couple of weeks ago, I was actually with John Lonsdale and Gina in a different conversation with Australian investors who were saying that regulatory moat, not to be anti-competitive, if Gina’s still in the room, but that regulatory moat is a really important feature for Australia for Australia’s competitiveness. And that requires us to be informed and confident in ourselves, right? And to ask the sort of questions we have. And we see that, we see that benefit manifest. The question was asked by James Thompson about what would you like to see in regulation? And something I’d like to see is us better capture the benefits of regulation as well. But you see it, right? When I was close to the balance sheets of a couple of Australia’s largest banks, we saw that not just in good times could we get issuance away with pricing and execution certainty, but actually, our relative performance compared to global peers got better in times of volatility. And we also saw, we saw after the Trump tariff effect, that Australian corporates like Transurban, they were back out issuing globally within days, right? So in volatile times in particular, these sorts of moats in Australia and their dependability are really important for our competitiveness. And at the moment, they’re good times at the moment. We heard this morning, the bulls are running and capital’s flowing back and in between. But it’s important to protect that. So with that what were we trying to achieve? What do we hope will be the impact? Well, we’re trying to operate the way we ask the regulated population to, right? We’re trying to be transparent. So we asked some really meaty questions and we asked them openly. And I was glad to hear that comment this morning about us putting ourselves out there, because we really did. We’ve spent 12 to 18 months publicly asking, are we part of the reason, for example, that public markets are flat? And is that something that’s not competitive for Australia? So that’s transparency. We tried to be, we’ve tried to be accountable. I think we have been accountable. We asked some open questions, which is really uncomfortable for a regulator, but now we’ve been accountable for the answers. And we’ve put together a package of work that’s about that high with those answers. And we’re trying to be consistent. And that consistency was the theme this morning, that good regulation. You heard it from Sarah, that consistency, we will enforce where you need to, you heard it from Joe, you heard it from John, that consistency. We will do, to use Sarah’s words, what we say we will do. And so we’ve given a plan of what that is. And just to round that out, well, what is that? It’s a plan that says, actually, we heard that not that much of what’s going on in public markets being flatter is specifically ASIC or specifically Australia, but you know what, we’re going to be accountable for these things we’re going to do. And there’s a plan around that, some things that we’re going to change that are within our gift. And we’ve said we’ll be accountable for our views on some other things that aren’t in our gift. And invite us into the conversation when folks are ready, and this is probably what we’ll say. We’ve said, we know that financial markets infrastructure is really important, dependability of the ASX and other things. And here’s what we’re going to do. Here’s the panel, we’ve opened ourselves out again transparently to a panel of three eminent Australians, as they were described this week, who will say what they say about what we need to do. And we have that energy. I won’t say nervous energy, which was the word of yesterday, because we’re not nervous, but we have the energy to respond to that with gusto. We heard that, and we’re being accountable for the fact that our data and information fall short of others around the world. And we might talk more about that later. Well, we’ve said, this is what we’re going to do. This is the pilot we’re going to pursue. These are the steps we’re going to take like openly. And then I think on the private market set, I think we’ve been accountable for what we are and aren’t concerned about in private markets. It’s like with super. We’ve called it out, identified it like everyone as being this massive force here. We’ve said what we are and aren’t worried about. We have said that beyond our work on member services or market integrity, we will be balancing our work to ensure we’re paying close attention to them meeting their responsibilities to markets and members, whether it’s disclosure, whether it’s conduct, whether it’s take private transactions, whether it’s financial reporting. In the private markets, more broadly, we’ve said, this is what we are and aren’t worried about. And then within that, you touched on private credit and that’s probably a bigger conversation. But on the private credit side, we continue to say that private markets, private credit, when done well, are really good for the economy and for investors and borrowers. But I do want to be really honest. There are some things that are really not being done well, and we’re really worried. Like that’s why we have absolutely put our back into the private credit space. That’s why when I was asked recently, is this it? I think I was publicly quoted as saying, we are far from done. We’ve announced our next surveillance. You heard this morning when Sarah spoke about the enforcement priorities. A couple of weeks ago, we were asked, why are you ruling out enforcement? I think today we’re very clearly ruling it in. And that’s because with those growth rates, with what we’ve seen, we’re concerned about building on what our expert report said when they looked at what are the sort of practices you’d like to see, building on the 10 principles we’ve laid out. We think that we need to keep pressing into this. This is something we’re worried about, and we will be dependable and consistent in that regard until we see private credit consistently done well. Now, what I would say by the way is, it’s good that you’re going to ask what the reactions are, because that’s a lot of work. We have done a lot of work. We’ve done work with academics, with industry, with panels. A lot of our own work, revealed what we think, used our own surveillance, our own tools. We kind of think we’ve given a really clear plan and you can depend on us to follow it through. But what we would say is, kind of it’s over to business and industry to take it from here. Simon Rothery: Yeah, thanks, Simone. Look, first of all, I’d actually like to commend ASIC on the report and not just because I’m sitting next to Simone. I think it’s a really forward looking report, and I think it’s unprecedented in many ways. The fact that you released a discussion paper, what, over a year ago, you’ve had feedback from 100 market participants, goes I think to what the report outlines and the principles that it puts forward. So I think it’s a great thing for the industry, and we’ll talk about it later, but I think it’s now up to us to make sure that we’re adhering to those principles and benchmarking to the 10 principles. And I think it’s great that it’s principle-based and it’s not re-regulation. And so it gives us a very clear roadmap in terms of private markets, and we can talk about public markets. But I think also that you address public markets and private markets in the same report. Because I think certainly in my 30 years of banking, probably other than the creation of the superannuation industry in this country, I think we are now faced with the biggest structural change in terms of the formation of capital, particularly private capital and what that means for public markets. And it’s profound. And we see it in our business every single day. There’s probably no better example that in January of this year, Goldman Sachs globally announced the formation of a new division called the Capital Solutions Group, a dedicated division that looks at how we raise capital, public or private, for our clients all over the world. And that is driving our business. And it’s something that we need to think about every single day. So I think it comes at a great time. It’s very clear. There’s some, I think, very clear, as I said, principles. And as you said, Simone, in the surveillance report, you saw some good practices and some bad practices. I think the great thing for us, and we strongly believe that private credit and private markets are great for the economy. Private credit sustains businesses that otherwise wouldn’t operate. In the US, it’s a big driver of the economy, it always has been, private equity in particular and now private credit. We see private credit as just, it’s in its infancy. We say in the US, we’re only in the first innings. There’s a long way to go. So to be able to look at this report in Australia as the market is just developing, and to be able to have a framework to put in place, I think positions us really well from a competitiveness perspective. I think investor confidence, both domestically and overseas, investors will look at this and have confidence in private markets, and you’ll raise standards. There’s no question. Assuming people benchmark and you surveil, standards will be increased as a result. So we’re very, very positive about the report. Facilitator: What are your views, Andrew? Andrew Fraser: So substantially in alignment with all of that, and I would make the observation that I think it’s a timely report. There’s a lot of chat in the marketplace about private markets and private credit, and so leaning into that and actually doing the discovery and surfacing the information, and in fact finding out that one of the key issues here is that the information gap was one of the areas to address for the future, I think was really important, and meeting the mandate. I did really love the box of the regulatory strike zone. I think the idea that there’s this target where regulators should try and land the regulation is a pretty cool idea. If you grow up thinking about regulation, that sort of stuff can get you a bit excited. But I would also make the observation that I think one of the important things out of the whole report and out of the conversation is I think we get to reduced binary debates often, especially in Australia. So we’ve had this kind of, private markets are bad and it’s going to be the end of the world, and private credit is particularly evil. And all we need is really good public markets that actively traded and the world will be fine. Well, actually private markets need really good functioning public markets in order to contribute what they can contribute, and there is a role for private markets. And by the way, people have been engaging in private credit for a while now, not just the last five minutes, not just the last 100 years. Old mate’s been learning to old mate a few shekels and a few bob for a few 1,000 years actually. And so there’s a place for that. What I think is really important here is that where we understand what’s the difference for where regulation needs to sit for institutional investors, like Australian Retirement Trust, and where it needs to sit for the retail investor, and making sure that we have that very large distinction in the regulatory setting. So that we’re not having lowest common denominator regulation that doesn’t proportionally fit with what we actually want to see, as we want to see capital formed and flow through the economy. Facilitator: Jason. Jason Collins: Well, it’s a tour de force. I mean, there’s just so much to consume. It covers public markets, private markets, product structures, superannuation, data, and for a lot of market participants, they could look at one component part and have a lot to lean into. And for us, we actually cover all component parts. And so we’re really keen to work with the industry and work with the regulator, and the road forward is going to be really important. I think on public markets, Dr Comerton-Forde wrote some great, great research. I think the commentary around index and the validity of index is really important. The notion that the benchmarking regime, there’s a lot of debate and a lot of work going on on that at the moment. In private markets, it might surprise the people in the room but we have more private market investors in Australia now than we’ve got public market investors. So we invest nearly $40 billion in private markets, in Australia’s capital markets. So we looked at the work there. I think it’s very restricted in one component part to the retail private credit space. We don’t have any evergreen structures here, no wholesale trusts that are marketed to individuals. But we may do in the future. So it’s very instructive for us. On data, I mean, clearly you’ve identified an asymmetry of information between fund managers, investors and regulators. It’s more pervasive definitely in the wealth space. In the super space, I think you identified the people that had direct holdings in private markets. The transparency was very good, but if they’re allocating to third parties, there’s room to grow there, and I think we’ll debate that transparency point later. Facilitator: Good stuff, thank you very much. So what steps are most critical for industry participants in promoting [unintelligible 00:14:23] on that confidence in international investors. What do you think are the most critical steps to get right to promote that consistency and trust? Simon Rothery: Yeah, so I think the next steps, certainly for us are very clear, and I think the great thing out of the report, and I think the phrase line was, ASIC is very supportive of private credit done well. But of the 28 funds that you looked into for the better part of a year, there were some good practices, that there were not so good practices, particularly around fee disclosure, aggressive marketing of products to people who maybe didn’t understand what they were buying. But for us now, the 10 principles are there, and I think every private credit fund in the country, wholesale and retail, and this needs to be done at the fund level, needs to conduct a benchmarking exercise against the 10 principles, and document and report against those 10 principles. We’ve certainly started that process in the private credit funds that we operate in Australia, and I think everybody should be doing that. And I think it’s incumbent upon boards and management to ensure that that happens moving forward because it’s very clear. Facilitator: Yes. Do you have a view, Andrew? Andrew Fraser: So I would agree with that, and I think one of the reasons that it’s timely to do it is the growth of private credit in recent times has come through a fairly benign credit cycle, and so I’d make the observation that it’s pretty easy to lend money. The trick is getting it back. And so I think the idea here that there is an enhanced level of disclosure about where funds are is going to add to the transparency of the market, which can only improve the position for investors and for the economy more generally. I think that is at the retail space rather than the insto space. I don’t have a concern for that sitting here as Australian Retirement Trust Chair. Because our team is there to be able to get to that info, and if they can’t see it, then they shouldn’t invest. That’s a different equation to where retail investors are. I only provide them with one Chair request overlay, which is count the grey hair. And the reason I say that is, if you think about the credit cycle in the last while, then the growth of private credit hasn’t matched a downturn in the credit cycle, and so it’s quite easy, as I said, to let the money out, but the trick is getting it back. So you want to understand the position of the fund, but you also want to understand the experience. Facilitator: Segues nicely in transparency, I think, which is a key thing Jason alluded to before. High quality recurrent data can transform regulatory oversight, but there does seem to be gaps. So I’m presuming that’s going to be where you think you need to see more action. Jason Collins: Yes, so we approach data in two ways in our business. The first is through data collection, and we have a business that was quoted in the report, several reports, which is called Preqin. And essentially Preqin collects private market data. And then we have another business which helps private market fund managers and asset owners, like Australian Retirement Trust, to understand what they own in private markets and to better plan and do risk scenarios around that. On the private market side with data, it’s really complex. Because in public markets you’ve got this disclosure regime and standardisation of reports, and so you’ve got structured data. But in private markets, it’s really unstructured data. So if you’re a private capital manager, you’re going out to your portfolio companies, you’re getting information, you’re then publishing letters to your LPs, limited partners, and so you’re trying to put together the data across, say, 10 portfolio companies across 10 vintages, and the data you’re getting is inconsistent. And so it’s really hard to pull that unstructured data together. So we’ve got a data acquisition team that looks at pulling it together and making sense of it, and providing private market managers with greater insight and regulators also with greater insight. I think if you’re an asset owner or a private capital manager, it’s really easy to understand what you own from the public lens, because you can look at the security level up and you can evaluate the risk that you’ve got. So the idea is to try and understand what you own from the company level up within private market funds. And then if you can understand the cash flow, the leverage, the valuation principles, and you’ve got a set regime, you’re much better placed at the enterprise level to understand exactly what you own across public markets, across private markets, and then you can do an assessment about the risk that you face in certain scenarios. And the sophisticated investors in Australia, the large super funds in particular, the sovereign funds, they’ve got the budget to buy the data, they’ve got the budget to have the workflow systems, and they’ve got this kind of this confluence now of workflow, software, and data working really well. It gets really hard for smaller managers to do that. And so there’s sort of a gradual process. So I’m not surprised there’s been some missteps. Facilitator: Simone. Simone Constant: Yes, I think we have, we look at it from a different dimension and with a different perspective, the data question. Although I’d probably reinforce a couple of things that Jason’s already said. It’s good to hear industry talking about the benefits of data, including us having data, and the way that can help for growth, for investment, and widening access and participation. Because informed investors can participate, right? So sometimes we talk about the concept of convergence of public and private markets, not being too binary, to pick up on Andrew’s point. So I think that’s really important, but it’s better for the market to talk to that. From the regulator perspective, I think it’s good that something that’s just come out then is what we are and aren’t worried about in terms of superannuation, for example. So actually, we should say that we get pretty good data and information about private markets investment when it’s held through APRA-regulated super, for example. And really great work is done within ASIC now to make sure that what is disclosed as well is accurate, and that’s the work on financial reporting and audit that was released a month or two ago, and that’s what’s really important. The whole system is really important for getting those disclosures right. But we do have very mature tools there, just like we have very mature tools, of course, in the public market. ASIC continues to say we want both markets, but there are some advantages, of course, in terms of transparency of the public market. When it comes to private market side, like, I’m just going to own it. We think there’s a gap. And actually, I’m so pleased, like if you asked me my top four parts of the report, top four or five, I’d say that that strike zone, that disclosure strike zone is one of the most powerful pieces of all of the swathe of work. And what’s really interesting is it shows where we sit. And we sit well south, right, of comparable economies and systems. We sit south of Switzerland. Like, OK, so Switzerland’s really beautiful, got lots of great things going for it, and lots of great banks, but it’s admired less for its beautiful disclosure regime and approach to disclosure, I’d have thought, than its geographical features, or maybe some of the banks that originated there, or its Toblerone. So I think the fact we are south of Switzerland in that strike zone, let alone Singapore, let alone Canada, let alone the US and the UK, kind of hammers home when you put it up against the fact private credit’s grown 500% in a decade. Like, once upon a time, that was like a greenfield toll road growth rate or something. Like that’s massive. Put that growth rate, put the risks if we get this wrong and our kind of poorer practices that we’ve seen in the surveillance report, some of our enforcement work is showing that, like the risk of harm, together with the fact that we’re not even in the strike zone, let alone approaching the middle or the sweet spot. We need data. We need to do something. Now, to set everyone’s mind at ease, like I’ve said, we’re going to be transparent, accountable, consistent. We have said, here’s a plan. We’re going to approach this with some rigour. We’re listening to industry. We’ve got a pilot for how we’re going to approach it. But we do need to move on this, and that’s for the sake of system stability, and also knowing what investors are getting in and having that confidence. Facilitator: Is that a concern, Simon, where we’re sitting below in terms of what Simone’s talking about there? Simon Rothery: No, I think it’s very valid, and I think the glaring thing in the report was obviously the lack of data that we’re getting in Australia compared to foreign jurisdictions. And I know that you’re consulting with foreign jurisdictions in terms of how they get the data, and they do have access to a lot of data, but we need a consistent data collection process. I think to Andrew’s point, private credit’s been around since day one, but a big part of our business is private wealth management. Every time I go to see a family office, and there’s a lot of them in Melbourne, they’re all starting private credit operations. Now, how do you collect that data, for example? So I think it’s the key point. Facilitator: Very good. Andrew Fraser: I think the only thing to add into that potentially is I think one of the things that we lose in the debate or the discussion around private credit is it often sits on the other side of private equity. And so the challenge here for us as investors, I think, and for the investment community is, if you’re not seeing the exits in private equity, then you can have really sophisticated valuation models, but actually you can value something. You will know what it’s worth when it’s sold, and so you need the exit pathway to actually inform the market. And I think one of the things that perhaps just hasn’t been as significant feature of the discussion about private credit growth is private equity growth went like that, private credit growth went like that, and we’re not seeing as many exits in the private equity space. And so to my mind, there is an issue there for all of us to think about collectively about what that means, and in fact, the confluence of the two can start to provide a different type of question for us to think about. Facilitator: That’s an interesting point. Jason Collins: I think, just adding onto that, I think in terms of the data and collecting the data, I think is important, but also, and the report touched on this, but it’s also just the consistency of the data. It’s OK getting data on valuations or liquidity or default rates, but actually, is there a consistent methodology across all of the funds? Otherwise, the data’s not that valuable. So I think we really need to ensure that there is a consistent approach, particularly when it comes to things like liquidity to valuation to definitions of default. Simone Constant: Yes, the effective – I mean, just because it’s such an important point, effective disclosure is what we’re talking about, effective disclosure that gives effective transparency. You need some common terms, right? From the fact that it’s still, can’t believe the wide view on what investment grade looks like, through to, in our report, the wide view of what default is, right? Quite a wide view, and we laid that out in a table. You actually need alignment on those things before you can get to that effective disclosure that really supports the transparency we want. And again, it’s for the benefit of both end investor what this disclosure means, through to understanding where Andrew was going, or what happens if there’s a stress event and you’ve got financial engineering and leverage interlinking things? Facilitator: Yeah, very good. So trying to get ahead of that. And I was just going to ask as well, the financial time seeks investors everywhere, but Australia at the moment on private credit seems to be a hot topic, and Asia, Australia and India seem to be places that at least some international investors are looking at. So I guess, does this conversation then frame that for them and improve that confidence? And are you seeing that as well? Perhaps Simon? Are you seeing that sort of international interest in private credit in Australia? Possibly because of growth rates? Simon Rothery: Yeah, absolutely. I think if you look at the numbers in terms of private credit, in terms of investors into the Australian market, I think it’s only roughly 5% super funds. So far, it’s sort of 55% domestic other funds. And then it’s the offshore players. And so, we’ve got BlackRock, we’ve got pretty much every alternative manager, as they call themselves, is setting up an office in Australia. It’s a very attractive market. They’re getting returns, which are probably 1 or 2% higher than they’re getting in the States and Europe at the moment. And that sort of goes back to my initial point. We’re just – I know there’s been a lot of private credit provided and the growth is enormous, 500%, but it’s just the beginning. Facilitator: Are you seeing that as well, Jason? Jason Collins: Yeah, I mean, you’ve got a bank-dominated lending market still in Australia. It’s probably 75, 80% of lending to corporates. In the US, it’s the inverse of that. And following Basel III, you’ve seen it really take off generally around the world. I think there’s further room to grow. I mean, we’ve got a subsidiary business here that was acquired during the last year, which has quite a lot of capital lent out. It’s mainly in the sponsor space. Very different to the private credit that was caught under the surveillance, which is mainly the wholesale space and real estate in focus. But it’s certainly a growing market here. And I think in general in private markets, and if I take it sort of up to the highest level, there’s not enough capital in the world. The demand for capital is so great, it breaks the traditional sources of capital. And traditional sources of capital are banks, governments, and corporates. And governments around the world have huge high debt-to-GDP levels, around 90%. In Australia, it’s a lot better. It’s like 35%. But we’re forecasting deficits for the next 10 years. And banks are originating to hold, but banks will more than likely start to originate to distribute. And private credit firms are really important to take on that credit. So in a world where there’s huge infrastructure investment needed because of AI, transition to a low-carbon economy, regionalisation, demographic trends, in a world where there’s a lot of capital needed, private markets are going to grow. And so this work’s really important, because even though Simone was quoting growth figures over the last decade, our expectation is it continues to grow at a rapid rate. Not at the expense of public markets, by the way. I think both grow quite substantially. Facilitator: Very good. I think we have a question from the floor here. Sorry. Does Australia’s capital market have a regular, a negotiated market, but not OTC, that allows transactions to occur outside regular markets, which could potentially distort the market? How is that supervised? Simone Constant: I think there’s a quick answer to that. It’s a very specific and yet great and open question, in the sense it’s exactly what we’re talking about. We’re literally talking about the difference here between the mature public market and the private market and everything in between, and that convergence. And you can broaden that. People will want to talk about tokenisation. They’ll want to talk about, we have new exchanges here like FCX, so there’s so much in between. But absolutely there are, and what we’re trying to make sure as ASIC is that at least we understand what those changes are. And is this dynamic and change? Is this distortion? Why is it happening? What part do we need to play in it? Simon Rothery: I think one of the big question marks in relation to this question is there’s definitely a negotiated market in private markets. And for example, when somebody is selling an asset in a private market, but may own a similar asset in a public market, and the access to that information in the private market they get. And that obviously comes down to internal controls and Chinese walls. But I think that’s something that you have looked at and probably need to continue to look at. Simone Constant: It’s actually genuinely, I mean, it was interesting to see what everyone’s responses were going to be earlier. But actually getting behind it, the things that folks seem to have been picking up on in themes, it’s really good to hear. I mean, we talked about the disclosure strike zone. I also heard Simon mention those principles. Again, if I gave you my top four or five pages from the hundreds of pages we did, those principles and those poorer practice, and we can spend more time on them later, they’re really important. But also that message that Simon’s just picked up on, that we will continue to be observing where there’s touch points for big fund managers, big superannuation entities, others, where you’re touching public and private. And when we’ve got a rise in private markets where assets are transacting at the 20 plus billion, you’re thinking AirTrunk, you’re thinking airports, for example, that take privates. And actually those investors have public holdings where the valuation might be reverse affected. These days, it’s not just taking a public valuation and thinking about your private, it can go the other way. We are absolutely, we’ve written it down, again, with that being consistent on what we’ll do, we will continue to be supervising, looking closely at those transactions as part of our ongoing market supervision. Facilitator: To guard against that distortion and conflict, I guess. So do you have anything? Andrew Fraser: No. Facilitator: I will go back to you, Andrew, though about superannuation funds coming up more and more in the conversation. What impact will continued growth have on the capital markets? And do you see any difference in perspective as you make your own career transition? Andrew Fraser: So I have one week to go as Australian Retirement Trust Chair. My last public duty is to be accountable at the annual member meeting. So I can’t go the full run up here, but I might go a little way on the run up. I would make a couple of comments. One is, I think when you think of the sweep of time here, I’m old enough to remember when we had a national anxiety about a current account deficit, and the need for a source of domestic capital that would come into the country and help fund business, and the development of the economy in Australia. And then we’ve got one over the last 30 years. And ever since then, we’ve had this massive anxiety about the fact that we got what we wanted. We’re a bit like the dog that chased the bus and then caught the bus here, I think. And so in that observation, I do think that we need to kind of level set on what the report actually said. The growth of superannuation, and concomitant to that, the growth in private markets is a good news story for Australia. And so if I think about that point that Jason just made about, where is the capital going to come from to generate what is needed for the Australian economy, then I think we need to just check ourselves about the idea that it’s sometimes the narrative that superannuation is a big part of the problem. I actually think it’s a big part of the solution. And so is it a problem or a benefit that the register of the ASX 200 has a bunch of superannuation funds that are domiciled here in Australia, that represent Australian residents’ money, that are not going to be taken anywhere else, and are not trading in or out on a kind of daily basis in a substantive way, but are there as the patient capital that underpins the register? My answer to that is, that’s a good thing. That doesn’t mean that the rest of the market can’t be active. That doesn’t mean that that’s a good thing. But I do think we need to just gain a bit of perspective here as in the way that we talk about ourselves, the regulator’s talked about, how do we talk about ourselves? And I think the way that we talk about super in this country at times doesn’t reflect the fact that when you go offshore and you meet people in market, they look at our superannuation system with envy, not with an idea that it’s a massive part of the problem. So what does this mean for the future? It means this; that ultimately the flow that will come into the super sector over time as demography changes is going to be part of our national kit bag. And it doesn’t kind of escape me to make this observation that a lot of commentary in the last year or so has been about the need to have a different or improved or better access relationship with the new American administration for national security reasons, which is fundamentally important, and any nation should talk about this. And a big way that that was achieved was through the presence of Australian superannuation. And so let’s kind of just remember that the team here and the idea of a national sovereignty debate is something that is real in this world. The other side of the discussion that was had yesterday is geopolitical risk is high. And so therefore, what is truly valuable to us as a community, as an economy, as a society, as a sovereign nation? And I’m going to say it’s two things; compulsory voting and superannuation. Facilitator: And obviously there’s been more recently questions in the UK on that front as well. I mean, I think you’re right to highlight the US, but quite recently the UK government also asking these sort of questions, and feeling the presence of Australian super. Andrew Fraser: And same through the neo-Pacific, right? So this is a way that we have to think about the future of this country in a different world. The answer to the challenges put in the last 24 hours are not just about defence assets. They’re about sports diplomacy. They’re about investment diplomacy. They’re about all of those things together. And I, for one, as I think about the way that we think about these things or that we talk about them, I think it’s time for us to level set. Facilitator: What’s your view, Simon, of the role super’s playing in the capital markets? Simon Rothery: I think the superannuation system, I said at the beginning, has fundamentally changed the way that capital is being formed and raised in Australia, and will only continue. Super has outgrown the growth in the equity market. There’s no more room in the ASX for super. It’s got to go offshore or it’s got to go into private markets. And we see that continuing. But we actually see that’s actually a good thing. As Andrew said, I go around the world and I talk about the Australian business that we have, and the superannuation system in Australia is the envy of the world. We’ll outstrip the UK and Canada and become the second biggest pool in, I think, by 2030. And as Jason said, the banks have pulled back from lending, and I think super has a real role to play in public and private markets moving forward. Simone Constant: You’d expect ASIC to just want to add, we’ve been very public. Super is a really positive force and here to stay, structural in markets. And we’re just building that into our work plan and how we approach things. And I really welcome that point about not being binary. Actually, in many ways, Andrew’s been talking today about taking vested interest hats off and not thinking you’re a unicorn, not being binary about things. So it’s from the market’s perspective. But you’ll forgive an ASIC Commissioner for also saying, we’re also really focused on responsibilities of super funds to the members. So for all that this is a markets, capital markets discussion, we are also always conscious every day that the money is there for members, and those responsibilities to members and services need to be as paramount as the responsibilities, of course, to market and market integrity. Facilitator: Absolutely. And just back to, I mean, one thing obviously the consolidation of the super industry has made the bets bigger, right? So that’s opened up a little bit of a gap at the bottom. Family offices have filled that to some extent. Has private credit got to be more active there as well, do you think below that super threshold? Andrew Fraser: I’m happy to jump in with a couple of perspectives. I guess one is, I think one of the things to ask ourselves continually also is, is the growth of private credit also a function of the fact that we’ve got the regulatory settings for the way that banks lend in this country in the sweet spot? And so if at the margin, that credit is going to a private provision when in other jurisdictions, it might be provided through the public banking system, then I think there is a question for us to keep in mind as well. I would probably go a little further than that and say, we need to make sure that in Australia, we don’t just have some really, really, really safe, big building societies. We actually need banks to be out there and providing the credit that supports growth. I think one of the things here when we talk about where is the gap in the market is, we need to make sure that we’ve got enough agility in the market and enough capacity to enter into the market. Whether that’s banking, as John talked about earlier, or whether that’s super for new entrants to provide the competition pressure. And just in referencing the previous regulator discussion, I do want to say this really clearly, which is, I think that our regulators in this country have done historically a very good job. They are a national asset. I think in the last while, they’ve listened to a debate and a discussion about where the regulatory settings are, and they’ve heard it, they’ve played it back, and I don’t think many people go out there and say, actually, well done to APRA, well done to ASIC for listening, but I would on this occasion. I do think it is on the participants next to step up to the plate, to walk through that open door and to walk through and have that discussion. John asked for some earlier examples. I’ve got a couple, but I won’t put them in this panel unless we want to get to that point at the end. Simone Constant: Of risks to private credit, I actually think the risks to private credit are – and by the way, I actually would thank Andrew for the remarks. You don’t often get them, but you can hear – Facilitator: It’s all very friendly here. Simone Constant: Actually, we’ve really put ourselves out there, and this is pleasing to see that you often get a comment on the day something’s released, oh, industry welcomes it. But it’s whether they’re stepping up and into it and actually reading the materials. And you can hear and understanding the points and where the concern’s coming from and that’s travelling through. But risks to private credit, I actually think the risks to private credit in Australia are as much private credit itself, like themselves, the industry itself. You probably expect me to say global contagion and the concerns that we’ve seen in the UK and in the US, and we’re really aware of that. And by the way, even though there’s differences here, and I’ll come to that, we’re very conscious financial engineering and leverage and system interconnectedness, like APRA, John was talking about earlier, it can bring it all together quickly and transmission can happen quickly. That said, I think some of the unique features of Australian private credit are probably, as we’re seeing it at the moment, our areas of concern are the greatest risk to itself. Like the focus on property, our experts found that about 60% of private credit here is in property lending. Property’s great, and Australia is, the market is so much driven by property, but gee, that’s a concentration. And no crisis repeats, I always say that, but yet you need to learn from the crises, and we do know property, and levered property lending can quickly escalate in a crisis. So I think a breadth, and if we get that breadth in terms of the offering and what is being financed, we’ll get a growth of maturity. The growth of maturity will be part in part the data. Like when we get better data collection and have more certainty about what it is, we will be able as regulators, for example, to even more confidently say, when done well, good for economy, good for borrowers, good for investors. And actually we might see more access of private credit, not just to property, but to businesses who want to be productive and want to grow. And I think the third part is just the conduct part. And you’ve heard mentioned today, it was actually really good to hear that Simon mentioned those principles. Those 10 principles we’ve got in the private credit surveillance. Our expectation, I don’t think we said this publicly because I don’t think we felt we needed to, anyone who is in private credit, and actually to a degree even private equity – OK, I know you’re owners, I know it’s different to being a lender, I’ve been both – but some of those principles, they are not rocket science, but they are the law and they are guidance about fair treatment of investors. Transparency and proper governance over valuations, about your right policies when it comes to credit and liquidity management. So those principles, you should be looking at your practices against them, because that’s how you’re going to get that confidence. And by the way, we’re going to be looking, like we’re going to be coming back and coming back to it. And then I think to really shine a light on that and why I say so, I think, like I’ve mentioned parts of the report that I think are really important. And just forgive me, there is a little bit, I rarely do this, but because the words in the report speak so well themselves, I’ve been taking this with me everywhere. So pages 4 and 5 of the Private Credit Surveillance report – that’s why it looks so ratty – but because the team put so much effort into these words to show you what poorer practice looks like, I just want to do it justice and read a few of them. So inconsistent and unclear reporting in terms. Well, what do we mean? We mean that whilst we looked at 28 funds, who were just meant to be representative, not the best, not the worst, by the way, OK, it looked like default range from 0% to 6%, which was Simon’s point about default. You get behind it and the variability and what default means can be anything from you’ve just missed a payment, through to basically you’re in enforcement. OK, is that reliable? No, that does not give confidence. You look at opaque interest margins and fee structures, four of the 28 funds only published information about interest rates and charges charged to borrowers. And only one of the wholesale funds passed on the full economic benefits of the interest earned from its assets and borrower fees. The other end of the spectrum, we saw one manager took a substantial interest margin of 7.5%. Again, with that inconsistency of practice, right? Consistency gives confidence. And just forgive me, two more that are worth talking about. Less than half of the funds had detailed written credit or impairment and default management policies. Pretty important in credit funds. Half of the wholesale funds did not have a policy governing fair allocation of investment opportunities across multiple related funds. And finally, in terms of valuation and liquidity, most funds didn’t have effective separation between their IC that approved the loan and those that are responsible communities for overseeing loan performance and valuations. And only two of the eight wholesale, only two of them, formed stress testing as part of their liquidity risk management. So that’s why we’re concerned, because those practices are concerning. And as I said, it was a representative sample to just think about the industry generally. we’re not specifically saying these funds that were surveilled are the particularly bad or particularly good ones. But when you see those practices, you see those growth rates, we’re sitting here talking about the importance of it to the economy, and then you think about the simplicity of those 10 principles, you can see why I say I actually think domestically the biggest risk to private credit is itself, and whether it seizes the moment to just get the practices consistently good. Facilitator: Do you recognise that, Jason? Jason Collins: That’s a long list. And it’s a very relevant list. And it makes me wonder across the value chain how it comes to being that these practices take place. As I said before, we don’t have any wholesale structures out available in private credit in Australia. And I think the sophisticated investors in the market, whether they be operating at the private advisory level or at the super fund level, are giving out larger sums of money and have a due diligence process which is really extensive. And somewhere along the way, whether it be in the research house regime, whether it be in the platform regime, in the MIS regime, somewhere along the way, some of these practices have evolved, and you kind of look at it and say, well, that’s inconsistent with the policy settings, inconsistent with what we’re trying to achieve as an industry since the Royal Commission, the Productivity Commission. And so I think it’s great work by ASIC to have identified these things. It’s great work, the forward roadmap that’s been put forward. It’s very detailed, and as an industry it would be sensible for everyone to adhere. Facilitator: We skirted around a bit, but public markets. I might turn to you here, Simon, but as a journalist, about once a year we write a story about what’s happening and IPOs, why aren’t there more of them? But my colleagues in other parts of the world write very similar stories sometimes. How do we make IPOs great again? Obviously ASIC’s tried to address this in the report. We’ve got some proposals on the table. What’s it going to take to move the dial on this? Simon Rothery: Yeah, it’s a question, it’s a very good question, it’s a question we’ve been asking ourselves every day for about the last 10 years. I mean, in Australia, the value of the amount of equity raised in the last decade is down 82%, so it is significant. And I think that’s why I made the comments earlier. I think it was fantastic that the report not just focused on private markets, but how do we enhance and support public markets, and particularly public markets’ equity? Because private markets are great and they’re going to keep growing in this country, but to me the public equity market is the foundation of the economy. Without a public market, a transparent and efficient, a liquid public market, that underpins everything. And I think the example that we’ve seen of that in the last decade is the COVID era. Now, if we did not have an efficient functioning public equity market, we raised billions and billions of dollars of capital quickly, ASIC gave relief on certain things in terms of placement thresholds, private markets would not have been there in that timeframe, and businesses would have gone broke. And that’s the value of public markets. So we absolutely have to ensure that we have a public market which is as strong as a private market. And the two can coexist and converge, but public markets are vitally important to this country. The ASIC report referenced the decline of public markets being sort of cyclical and structural. I think a little bit of it is cyclical. There’s certainly been money flowing out of equity markets because of high valuations into private credit. I would probably say that it’s a more structural issue, which I think we need to spend a lot of time on. The IPO process, in terms of your question, it’s about efficiency and speed to market. And the IPO process has been too slow. Particularly in volatile markets, you have a very small listing window after you do all the work. If markets aren’t there, you can’t do the IPO, you lose investor confidence. The fast-track IPO process that ASIC has recommended, I think is very good. It’s going to obviously need consultation with the ASX. Things like promoting dual-track structures, I think will put us on a competitive playing field with offshore. Thinking about disclosure around forecasts and work around that. That makes boards very nervous in terms of the forward forecasts that have to go into an IPO prospectus. Of course, we still have to ensure that investors are going to be as informed as they can be. Sell-side research, research analysts being able to engage with the company, with investment banks, and bankers working on the transactions so that the market again is fully informed. I think they’re all fantastic initiatives, and they will help the speed to market of IPOs, which is part of the problem. I think the second big thing that we need to work on, which I don’t think has been addressed, and what puts most of our clients off IPOing, as opposed to a private transaction, is the ongoing red tape, compliance, governance, and regulatory concerns about being a listed public company. And that’s a massive issue. Most of our clients would prefer not to be public for those reasons. And I think there’s another leg of work to be done in relation to the efficiency and speed to market of IPOs, of actually the framework around being public. Simone Constant: We, ASIC absolutely would agree with that. It’s not our job to pick market winners, and it’s not our job to make IPOs great again. But we are very invested in the idea of healthy public markets for all the reasons we’ve travailed. It’s not just about going on the boards, it’s staying on the boards. So something that did come through really clearly in everything we did, whether it was Professor Carole Comerton-Forde’s work, through to the 100 responses we got, was it’s hard to grow at the moment in Australia as a listed entity. And our Chair spoke beautifully last week about the differences between, what if you’re a smaller biostock trying to raise capital publicly on the listed market? The weight of what you face into – and it’s all there for very good reason. Compare that to, at the moment, wholesale funds which can raise billions and actually not be registered here and not be audited. It’s not for us to necessarily fix that at ASIC. But we did hear that, and we do, again, with that being accountable for what we heard and what we see, we do absolutely acknowledge that. Facilitator: Andrew? Andrew Fraser: I was just going to reinforce the point that Simon made. So I think the IPO pathway and what it takes to IPO is a really important focus, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. I think sometimes this debate turns into the prospectus and the actual IPO is the proposal and the wedding. We need to talk about the marriage. So once you’re there, what does it then take to keep invested in that? And I think that last point is the really important point. It’s get the IPO structure right, absolutely, and get those settings right. But what does it take to stay there is the much larger issue, in my view. Facilitator: That’s interesting. Do you have a view, Jason? Jason Collins: Well, public markets are a great democratiser. I mean, in Australia, we’ve got a really fortunate system with the superannuation system, where working Australians get access to public and private markets, and can generate wealth and store wealth for the future. But without public markets people can’t invest outside of super. It’s a lot harder, because private markets aren’t accessible yet, and Simone’s work and her team’s work is really important to try and open up the private market space. But if you don’t have vibrant public markets that represent the broader economy, it’s really hard for savers to generate wealth outside of their super or house. I think 51% of Australians own shares directly. And as housing gets more expensive, a lot of younger Australians are turning to shares to save money to get their housing deposit. And there’s almost an inverse correlation between home ownership and share ownership, which has emerged since 2021, since COVID. It’s fascinating if you look at the stats, right? So Australia is below the OECD average in terms of home ownership, and really high up on the average on share ownership. So you just need a vibrant public market to make a more equitable society. Facilitator: So how do you, I mean, to Simon’s point, you were just saying a lot of your clients don’t want to go public. And I’m thinking about this as well, because there seems to be a lot of volatility at the moment. Post earnings, obviously valuations, especially in larger cap companies are high, so you do get steam coming out. But if you are large, mid-sized, small, there are going to be different reasons. But how do we encourage more companies to make that step if they don’t seem to want to do it? And there’s capital available elsewhere that doesn’t cause so many headaches. Simon Rothery: Yeah, I mean, there’s a good live example today. There’s a stock on the ASX that’s down 25% because the CEO sold his holdings last week and it was disclosed this morning. Now, there’s a very different regime in terms of director, management, founder, sell-down process, particularly in the US, where it’s a more consistent drip feed. I think we’re probably moving maybe towards that, and looking at that, but they’re those types of issues that scare people and scare investors. And so I think we know what the issues are. We have good dialogue. It’s not just up to ASIC, though. It’s a number of regulators and exchanges, but they’re the types of issues that we need to be thinking about. Simone Constant: And we are continuing to work in the space. Sell-side research was just mentioned by Simon. We’re actually about to be consulting on that because we’ve listened. It came through in this work, it came through in the simplification work. But I think what’s really interesting is all four, we’ve got four very different perspectives here and actually large and significant role. You’ve got the biggest, almost the biggest public and private investor at the end through super and through the investment bank that sees both sides. You can hear the commitment across the system that we need both, right? For that access, for that participation, for the effectiveness of the system. We’ve just got to grasp the challenge. Like the whole point of the last two days has been about dynamism and grasping it. And we’ve got a productivity challenge step into it. We just got to step into it and not be binary. I think maybe Andrew’s is the catchphrase, right? Got to not be binary about this. We want both, we’ve got to pursue both and we’ve got to do it with maturity. Facilitator: Excellent. Well, thank you very much to my panel. It’s a fascinating discussion, obviously very broad ranging, but I really appreciate all your time.

The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) today announced new enhancements to the Cross-boundary Wealth Management Connect Pilot Scheme (Cross-boundary WMC) to foster closer communication between participating licensed corporations (Participating LCs) and their clients under the scheme (Note 1).          The SFC has set out in a circular the implementation details of the enhancements for client interaction, with key arrangements including: Participating LCs can now obtain one-off written consent – valid for up to one year – from Southbound Scheme clients (Note 2) who are not physically present in Hong Kong, thereby enabling these LCs to explain product information based on each client’s needs and selected product categories; Upon the request of Southbound Scheme clients, Mainland partner brokers (Note 3) within the same corporate groups as the Participating LCs (Partner Brokers) can arrange online three-party dialogues with the Participating LCs at their respective places of business, where the Participating LCs can explain product information to their clients; With one-off written consent from Southbound Scheme clients, Participating LCs can provide their clients with research reports on individual investment products prepared by their Partner Brokers. The above arrangements also apply to the Northbound Scheme. “These enhancements to the Cross-boundary WMC would enhance client experience with Participating LCs during their interaction,” said Ms Julia Leung, the SFC’s Chief Executive Officer. “With enhanced communication and improved access to information, investors can be better informed when making investment decisions which would support the continuous and sustainable development of the Cross-boundary WMC.” The SFC will continue to work closely with the industry and regulatory authorities to further enhance the Cross-boundary WMC and support its growth as a vital initiative for cross-boundary financial connectivity and development in the Greater Bay Area. Notes: Please see “Circular to Licensed Corporations - Participation in Cross-Boundary Wealth Management Connect Pilot Scheme” published by the SFC on 24 January 2024  for details and relevant Annexes. The Southbound Scheme clients refer to Mainland investors who have opened dedicated investment accounts with the Participating LCs and have opened or designated their personal fund accounts with eligible Mainland brokers as dedicated remittance accounts under the Southbound Scheme, whilst the Northbound Scheme clients refer to Hong Kong investors who have opened dedicated investment accounts with eligible Mainland brokers and have opened dedicated remittance accounts with the Participating LCs under the Northbound Scheme. Mainland partner broker refers to a Mainland broker that has been confirmed by the relevant Mainland regulatory authorities as eligible to provide Cross-boundary WMC services.

FanDuel, the premier online gaming company in North America, part of Flutter Entertainment (NYSE: FLUT, LSE: FLTR), and CME Group (NASDAQ: CME), the world's leading derivatives marketplace, unveiled that they will launch prediction markets through the new FanDuel Predicts app that will expand access to financial markets for millions of customers in the United States.  FanDuel Predicts will launch in December as a standalone mobile application. Subject to appropriate regulatory filings, the app will provide access to sports event contracts across baseball, basketball, football, and hockey. In states where online sports betting is not yet legal, customers who are not on tribal lands will be able to trade event contracts on the outcome of sporting events. As new states legalize online sports betting, FanDuel will cease offering sports event contracts in those states. In addition to sports, event contracts will be offered on benchmarks such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100, prices of oil and gas, gold, cryptocurrencies, and key economic indicators such as GDP and CPI. FanDuel will extend its industry-leading consumer protection program to the FanDuel Predicts app. The platform will empower customers to trade responsibly with tools to help manage exposure, track spending and make informed trading decisions. Within the app, customers will find educational resources to learn about prediction markets and how to buy and sell event contracts. Customers may set deposit limits and deposit alerts that apply to all FanDuel products and may self-exclude, just as they can on all FanDuel products today. "We can't wait to bring FanDuel's proven approach to product innovation into this dynamic sector," said Amy Howe, CEO at FanDuel. "Our partnership with CME Group allows us to leverage their deep market expertise built over decades while delivering the seamless, accessible and trusted experience our customers expect." "Our new event contracts on benchmarks, economic indicators and now sports will appeal to a new generation of potential participants who are not active in these markets today," said CME Group Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Terry Duffy. "This launch will dramatically expand our distribution and reach, connecting directly with FanDuel's millions of registered U.S. users." When customers sign up for FanDuel Predicts, they will undergo FanDuel's thorough "Know Your Customer" sign up process providing information including their birth date, Social Security number, home address, banking information and a valid ID. Once the account is created, they will then be able to buy or sell event contracts ranging in price from as little as $0.01 to $0.99. About The PartnershipThis groundbreaking alliance combines FanDuel's market-leading customer experience and mobile technology with CME Group's 100+ year expertise in derivatives and risk management, creating a unique platform that bridges entertainment and financial markets. About FanDuelFanDuel Group is America's premier mobile gaming company, consisting of a portfolio of leading brands across mobile wagering including America's #1 Sportsbook FanDuel Sportsbook, its leading iGaming platform FanDuel Casino, the industry leader in horseracing and advance-deposit wagering FanDuel Racing, and its daily fantasy sports product. In addition, FanDuel Group operates FanDuel TV, its broadly distributed linear cable television network, and FanDuel TV+, its leading direct-to-consumer OTT platform. FanDuel Group has a presence across all 50 states with approximately 17 million customers and 25 retail locations. The company is based in New York with offices in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Jersey City. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for that kind introduction and for the invitation to join you today as we continue the conversation about how America will lead the next era of financial innovation. When I spoke recently about American leadership in the digital finance revolution, I described “Project Crypto” as our effort to match the energy of American innovators with a regulatory framework worthy of them. Today, I would like to outline the next step in that journey. At its core, this next step is about basic fairness and common sense as it relates to the application of the federal securities laws to crypto assets and related transactions. In the coming months, I anticipate that the Commission will consider establishing a token taxonomy that is anchored in the longstanding Howey investment contract securities analysis, recognizing that there are limiting principles to our laws and regulations. Much of what I will describe builds upon the pioneering work of the Crypto Task Force that Commissioner Hester Peirce leads. Commissioner Peirce has laid out a framework for coherent, transparent treatment of crypto assets under the federal securities laws, grounded in economic reality rather than in slogans or fear. Let me reiterate that I share her vision. I value her leadership, her hard work, and her perseverance in championing these issues over the years. She and I have a long history of working together. I am very pleased that she agreed to take this task on. I will organize my remarks around three themes: first, the importance of a clear token taxonomy; second, how Howey applies in a way that recognizes the fact that investment contracts can come to an end; and third, what that could mean in practice for innovators, intermediaries, and investors. Before I begin, I would also like to reiterate that while Commission staff diligently drafts amendments to our rules, I wholeheartedly support Congressional endeavors to codify a comprehensive crypto market structure framework into statute. What I envision aligns with legislation currently being considered by Congress and aims to complement, not replace, Congress’s critical work. Commissioner Peirce and I have made it a priority to support Congressional efforts, and we will continue to do so. It has been a pleasure working with Acting Chairman Pham, and I wish President Trump’s nominee for CFTC Chairman, Mike Selig, a smooth and speedy confirmation. Having worked with Mike these past months, I know that we are both dedicated to helping Congress swiftly advance nonpartisan market structure legislation to President Trump’s desk. There is no stronger tool to future-proof against rogue regulators than sound statutory language from Congress. To make my compliance people happy, let me offer the usual disclaimer: my remarks reflect my own views as Chairman and do not necessarily represent the view of my fellow Commissioners or the Commission as a whole. A Decade of Uncertainty If you are tired of hearing the question “Are crypto assets securities?”, I very much sympathize. It is a confounding question because “crypto asset” is not a term defined in the federal securities laws. It is a technological description. It tells you something about how records are kept and value is transferred. But it says little about the legal rights attached to a particular instrument or about the economic reality of a particular transaction, which are key to determining whether something is a security. I believe that most crypto tokens trading today are not themselves securities. Of course, it is possible that a particular token might have been sold as part of an investment contract in a securities offering. That is not a radical statement; it is a straightforward application of the securities laws. The statutes defining securities list familiar instruments like stocks, notes, bonds, and then add a more open-ended category: the “investment contract.” That latter term describes a relationship between parties; it is not an unremovable label attached to an object. It also, unfortunately, was not defined by statute. Investment contracts can be performed and they can expire. They do not last forever simply because the object of an investment contract continues to trade on a blockchain. Yet over the last several years, too many have asserted the view that if a token was ever subject to an investment contract, it would forever be a security. This flawed view extends even further presuming that every subsequent trade, everywhere and always, is a securities transaction. I struggle to reconcile that view with the text of the law, with Supreme Court precedent, or with common sense. Meanwhile, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors have been trying to navigate in a fog, without SEC guidance, but obstruction. They see tokens that function as payment instruments, governance tools, collectibles, or access keys. They see hybrid designs that do not fit neatly into any existing box. And they see a stance that, for too long, has treated all of these tokens as if they were shares of common stock. That perspective is not sustainable or practicable. It comes with substantial costs, yet little benefit. It is not fair to market participants or to investors, and it is not consistent with the law. It also invites a destructive race to move offshore.  The reality is that if the United States insists on making every on-chain innovation run the through a securities-law minefield, those innovations will migrate to jurisdictions that are more willing to distinguish among different kinds of assets, and more willing to write down the rules in advance. Instead, we are going to do what regulatory agencies are supposed to do. We are going to draw clear lines and explain them in clear terms. Core Principles of Project Crypto Before I walk through how I view the securities laws as applied to crypto tokens and transactions, let me state two basic principles that guide my thinking. First, that a stock is still a stock whether it is a paper certificate, an entry in a DTCC account, or represented by a token on a public blockchain. A bond does not stop being a bond because its payment streams are tracked using smart contracts. Securities, however represented, remain securities. That is the easy part. Second, that economic reality trumps labels. Calling something a “token” or an “NFT” does not exempt it from the current securities laws if it in substance represents a claim on the profits of an enterprise and is offered with the sorts of promises based on the essential efforts of others. Conversely, the fact that a token was once a part of a capital-raising transaction does not magically convert that token into a stock of an operating company. These principles are hardly novel. They are embedded in the Supreme Court’s repeated insistence that we look to the “substance” of a transaction, not its “form,” when deciding whether the securities laws apply. What is new is the scale and speed at which asset types evolve in these new markets. This pace requires us to be nimble in response to market participants’ urgent requests for guidance. A Coherent Token Taxonomy With that backdrop, let me outline my current thinking on the various categories of crypto assets, though please keep in mind that this list is not exhaustive. This framework follows months of roundtables, more than a hundred meetings with market participants, and hundreds of written submissions from the public. First, as contemplated in legislation currently before Congress, “digital commodities,” or “network tokens,” are, in my opinion, not securities. These crypto assets are intrinsically linked to and derive their value from a programmatic operation of a crypto system that is “functional” and “decentralized,” rather than from the expectation of profits arising from the essential managerial efforts of others. Second, “digital collectibles”, in my opinion, are not securities. These crypto assets are designed to be collected and/or used and may represent or convey rights to artwork, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or digital representations or references to internet memes, characters, current events, or trends. Purchasers of digital collectibles are not expecting profits from the essential managerial efforts of others. Third, “digital tools”, in my opinion, are not securities. These crypto assets perform a practical function, such as a membership, ticket, credential, title instrument, or identity badge. Purchasers of digital tools are not expecting profits from the essential managerial efforts of others. Fourth, and finally, “tokenized securities” are and will continue to be securities. These crypto assets represent the ownership of a financial instrument enumerated in the definition of “security” that is maintained on a crypto network. Howey, Promises, and Endings Now, while most crypto assets are not themselves securities, crypto assets can be part of or subject to an investment contract. These crypto assets are accompanied by certain representations or promises to undertake essential managerial efforts that satisfy the Howey test. The Howey test, at its core, entails an investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the essential managerial efforts of others. A purchaser’s reasonable expectation of profits depends on the issuer’s representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts. In my view, these representations or promises must be explicit and unambiguous as to the essential managerial efforts to be undertaken by the issuer. One must then ask, “how can a non-security crypto asset separate from an investment contract?” The simple yet profound answer: the issuer either fulfills the representations or promises, fails to satisfy them, or they otherwise terminate. For context, in the heart of Florida’s rolling hills—land that I know well from my own upbringing—stood the site of William J. Howey’s citrus empire. In the early twentieth century, Howey purchased over 60,000 acres of largely untamed land to plant orange and grapefruit groves in the shadow of his mansion. His company sold tracts of the grove land to individual investors, and then offered to cultivate, harvest, and market the fruit on their behalf. The Supreme Court examined Howey’s arrangement and established the test that would define “investment contract” for generations.[1] But today, Howey’s land tells a different story. The original mansion that he built in 1925, in Lake County, Florida, still stands a century later, hosting weddings and other gatherings, while the citrus groves that once surrounded it are largely gone, replaced by resort grounds, championship golf courses, and residential neighborhoods. It is a good retirement area. It is difficult to imagine anyone standing amid those fairways and cul-de-sacs today and concluding that they constitute a security. And yet, for years, we have watched this same test applied rigidly to digital assets that have undergone transformations just as profound, but still carry the label of their launch as if nothing had changed. The soil surrounding Howey’s mansion itself was never a security. It became subject to one through a particular arrangement—and ceased to be subject to one when that arrangement ended. Of course, all the while, the land remained the same even as the enterprises built upon it changed completely. Commissioner Peirce has rightly observed that while a project’s token launch might initially involve an investment contract, those promises may not remain forever. Networks mature. Code is shipped. Control disperses. The issuer’s role diminishes or disappears. At some point, purchasers are no longer relying on the issuer’s essential managerial efforts, and most tokens now trade without any reasonable expectation that a particular team is still at the helm. In short, a token is no more a security because it was once part of an investment contract transaction than a golf course is a security because it used to be part of a citrus grove investment scheme. Once the investment contract can be understood to have run its course, or expires by its own terms, the token may continue to trade, but those trades are no longer “securities transactions” simply by virtue of the token’s origin story. As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of “super-apps” in finance that allow for the custody and trading of a variety of asset classes within a single regulatory license. I have asked Commission staff to prepare recommendations for the Commission to consider that would allow tokens tied to an investment contract to trade on non-SEC regulated platforms, including those intermediaries registered at the CFTC or through a state regulatory regime. While capital formation should continue to be overseen by the SEC, we should not hamstring innovation and investor choice by requiring the underlying assets to trade in one regulated environment versus another. Importantly, this does not mean that fraud is suddenly acceptable or that the Commission’s interest has waned. Anti-fraud provisions can still apply to misstatements and omissions made in connection with the sale of an investment contract, even when the underlying asset is not itself a security. Of course, to the extent the tokens are commodities in interstate commerce, the CFTC also has anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority to pursue misconduct in the trading of these assets. What it does mean is that we will align our rules and enforcement with the economic reality that investment contracts can end and networks can stand on their own. Regulation Crypto In the coming months, as contemplated in legislation currently before Congress, I hope that the Commission will also consider a package of exemptions to create a tailored offering regime for crypto assets that are part of or subject to an investment contract. I have asked the staff to prepare recommendations for the Commission’s consideration that facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation while, at the same time, ensuring investors are protected. By streamlining this process, innovators in the blockchain space can focus their energies on development and user engagement rather than navigating a maze of regulatory uncertainty. Additionally, this approach would cultivate a more inclusive and dynamic ecosystem—one in which smaller and less resource-intensive projects are free to experiment and to thrive. Of course, we will continue to work closely with our counterparts at the CFTC, with the banking regulators, and with Congress to ensure that non-security crypto assets have an appropriate regulatory regime. Our goal is not to expand the SEC’s jurisdiction for its own sake, but to allow capital formation to flourish while ensuring that investors remain protected. We will continue to listen. The Crypto Task Force and Division staff have already convened multiple roundtables and reviewed a vast body of written input. We will need more. We will need feedback from investors, from builders worried about shipping code, and from traditional financial institutions eager to participate in on-chain markets without running afoul of rules written for a paper-based era. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we will continue to support Congressional efforts to codify a sound market structure framework into statute. While the Commission can provide a rational view under current law, there will always be risk that a future Commission could reverse course. That is why fit-for-purpose legislation is so vital—and why I am pleased to support President Trump’s goal of crypto market structure legislation by year-end.  Integrity, Intelligibility, and the Rule of Law Now, let me be clear about what this framework is not. It is not a promise of lax enforcement at the SEC. Fraud is fraud. While the SEC protects investors from securities fraud, the federal government has a host of other regulatory bodies well equipped to police and protect against illicit conduct. That said, if you raise money by promising to build a network, and then take the proceeds and disappear, you will be hearing from us, and we will pursue you to the full extent of the law. This framework is a commitment to integrity and intelligibility. To the entrepreneur who wants to build here in America and is willing to comply with clear rules, we should offer more than a shrug, a threat, or a subpoena. To the investor trying to discern the difference between buying a tokenized share of stock and buying a collectible in a video game, we should offer more than a web of enforcement actions. Most importantly, this framework is a commitment to humility about the SEC’s own reach. Congress crafted the securities laws to address specific problems—situations in which people part with their money based on promises that depend on the honesty and the competence of others. They were not designed as a universal charter to regulate every novel form of value, digital or otherwise. Contracts, Freedom, and Responsibility Let me end where Commissioner Peirce began her “New Paradigm” remarks in May of this year, with a reminder of our history.[2] She evoked the spirit of an American patriot who took a stand—at great personal risk and in fact, near death—for the principle that free people should not be governed by arbitrary decrees. Our work, thankfully, does not demand that kind of sacrifice. But the principle remains the same. In a free society, the rules that govern economic life should be knowable, reasoned, and appropriately constrained. When we stretch the securities laws beyond their proper scope, when we treat every innovation as presumptively suspect, we stray from that core principle. When we recognize the limits of our authority, when we acknowledge that investment contracts can end and networks can stand on their own merits, we honor it. A reasonable Commission approach to crypto will not by itself decide the fate of the market—or of any particular project. Markets will do that. But it will help to ensure that the United States remains a place where people can experiment and learn, fail and succeed, under rules that are both firm and fair. That is what Project Crypto is about. That is what the Commission should be about. And that is the commitment I make to you today as Chairman: we will not let fear of the future trap us in the past. And we will not forget that behind every token debate, there are real people—entrepreneurs striving to build solutions, workers striving to invest for the future, and Americans striving to share in the prosperity of this country. The Commission’s role is to serve all three. Thank you, and I look forward to continuing this conversation with you in the months ahead.   [1] See SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-299 (1946). [2] Hester Peirce, New Paradigm: Remarks at SEC Speaks (May 19, 2025), available at: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-sec-speaks-051925-new-paradigm-remarks-sec-speaks

As an active member of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), the European Banking Authority (EBA) is proud to announce the release of the NGFS Declaration on the Economic Cost of Climate Inaction on the occasion of the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil. The declaration underscores the mounting macroeconomic and financial risks of delayed climate action and reaffirms the NGFS’s commitment to supporting a well-managed transition to a low-carbon economy. With this Declaration, the NGFS, a coalition of 146 central banks and financial supervisors and 23 observers from around the world: Highlights the rising economic costs of climate inaction, with material economic and financial risks that have implications for the core mandates of central banks and financial supervisors. Warns that delayed action could halve the effectiveness of transition efforts, with transition costs rising from 0.5% to 1.3% of global GDP by 2030 in the case of a three-year delay. Stresses that climate-related shocks could trigger global spillovers, by disrupting food systems, energy markets and supply chains, resulting in macro-financial instability and disproportionately impacting vulnerable economies. Calls for financial institutions to factor climate and nature-related risks into their strategies and operations, through scenario analysis, climate disclosure standards and transition planning. The Declaration draws on recent NGFS deliverables, such as climate scenarios, which provide tools for central banks and financial supervisors to integrate climate and nature-related risks into their strategies. Through its work, the NGFS shows that addressing climate-related financial risks like any other financial risk benefits both the financial system and the planet. As a member of the NGFS the EBA is committed to contributing to the greening of the financial system. In line with its Roadmap on sustainable finance, the EBA continues to integrate sustainability factors in the EU banking regulation consistently with its broader objective of contributing to the stability and orderly functioning of the financial system. The EBA supports banks’ identification, assessment and management of environment-related financial risk, including through scenario-based methods, as well as effective supervision, by providing guidelines for institutions and their supervisors. It contributes to improved data availability and transparency through specification of climate-related disclosures, and publication of the ESG risk dashboard based on the disclosed data. Finally, the EBA incorporates climate in the assessment of risks in the EU banking sector, including in its stress testing activities. José Manuel Campa, the Chairperson of EBA said: “Financing sustainability and facilitating the needed change is a key opportunity for the EU banking sector. At the same time, we need to ensure that financial risks stemming from ESG factors are well-managed.” François-Louis Michaud, the Executive Director of the EBA further emphasised the role of risk management stating: “Sound environmental risk management is needed as only a robust banking sector can effectively fund the transition towards a sustainable European economy”. Background The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) was launched at the Paris One Planet Summit on 12 December 2017. It represents a group of central banks and supervisors, which are willing to share best practices and contribute to the development of environment and climate risk management in the financial sector, and to mobilise mainstream finance to support the transition toward a sustainable economy. The NGFS brings together 146 central banks and supervisors and 23 observers. For more details, visit the NGFS website, LinkedIn account, and the EBA 2024 Annual Report. 

DMIST, the Derivatives Market Institute for Standards, announced the publication of its standard on self-match prevention, the latest addition to the globally recognized standards framework designed to enhance market integrity, operational efficiency and regulatory compliance across the exchange-traded derivatives industry. Download the Self-Match Prevention Standard "This standard represents a major milestone for our industry, setting a clear path toward greater efficiency and transparency for on-exchange self-match prevention functionality," said Don Byron, executive director of DMIST. "We are confident that its adoption will empower trading participants and foster continued innovation across the marketplace."  Why Self-Match Prevention Matters  Self-matching – when buy and sell orders with common beneficial ownership are matched – can occur inadvertently and often leads to regulatory scrutiny and fines. The lack of uniformity in SMP tools across exchanges has created operational challenges for brokers and clients. The new DMIST standard addresses these issues by providing a consistent, transparent and flexible approach to SMP and:    Reduces inadvertent wash trades and regulatory risk,  Enables broader and more efficient use of SMP tools,  Improves operational efficiency and supports multi-broker/API access,  Enhances market integrity and orderly trading and  Supports low-latency trading and regulatory compliance.  “The latest DMIST standard introduces a unified and adaptable framework for preventing self-matching, helping brokers and clients avoid compliance issues and streamline their operations, while also promoting fairness and efficiency in fast-paced trading environments,” said Staci Parrish, vice president, global industry operations and execution at DMIST.  What the Standard Delivers  The DMIST SMP standard applies to all exchanges globally, offering a roadmap for those without SMP capabilities. It also offers a benchmark for those seeking to enhance their existing offerings.  Key requirements include:  Registry and management of unique SMP identifiers,  Flexible configuration and granularity for SMP settings,  Transparent documentation of covered products and order types,  No additive latency in SMP deployment and  Clear guidance for trading participants on registration, configuration, and monitoring. 

Introduction Good morning. It’s an honor to be here. To begin, I would like to thank the New York Fed for hosting this meeting and for inviting me to join you. It’s fitting that the Treasury Market Conference is held each year in the fall. Late fall offers us the opportunity both to look back and to look forward. And since the fall of last year, much has changed. November 2024 marked an inflection point for the nation and its fiscal future. The American people had just elected President Trump to put the country on stronger financial footing. The previous Administration had run up the highest deficit in US history outside of a recession or wartime. As a result, inflation had skyrocketed to generational highs. Families watched their hard-earned savings melt away as prices of consumer goods climbed ever higher. Seeking a course correction, voters elected President Trump in a landslide. And they gave him a clear mandate: to Make America Affordable Again. My commitment to that cause—to improving affordability and putting our fiscal house in order—is what motivated me to come out from behind my desk in the private sector to enter public service. Treasury Markets as a Barometer for Affordability As the 79th Treasury Secretary, my duty is to serve as the primary caretaker of the Treasury market. Maintaining a robust Treasury market—and strengthening it even further—is essential to Making America Affordable Again. That’s because Treasury yields set the global risk-free rate. Domestically, the risk-free rate sets the pricing for everything else: from bank loans and home mortgages to stocks and corporate bonds. In that sense, Treasuries are not only the bedrock of the global financial system but also the American Dream. Treasury yields have a trickle-down effect on the broader economy that determines whether a young family can afford a home, a college student can buy a car, or an entrepreneur can get a small business loan. The work we do here directly impacts affordability and quality of life out there. Which is why we must succeed. The good news is, we are succeeding. The US Treasury market is more robust and more liquid than it’s ever been. The Treasury Department has made significant progress in increasing demand and expanding accessibility to US debt. And we are poised to make even more progress towards this goal in the months to come. The purpose of my remarks this morning is twofold: First, to highlight the breadth, depth, and enduring importance of the US Treasury market; and second, to outline the strategies we are using to keep it that way. The State of the Treasury Market As Treasury Secretary, my job is to be the nation’s top bond salesman. And Treasury yields are a strong barometer for measuring success in this endeavor.  By this metric, we are making substantial progress in keeping rates down following the spending blowout from the Biden years. In fact, the US Treasury market has been the best-performing developed bond market this year. The Treasury market’s total returns year to date are 6 percent—its best year since 2020. The US 10-year term premium is basically unchanged while US borrowing costs across all other areas of the curve, from 2-year notes all the way to 30-year bonds, are down year to date. Lower Treasury borrowing costs mean lower corporate borrowing costs, lower mortgage rates, and lower car payments—which all translates to greater affordability for all Americans. Other developed bond markets, by contrast, have had nowhere near the same success. Some countries have seen demand for their debt reduced or even dry up, especially at the long end. And they have had to react by curtailing sales. But not the United States. We continue to see robust demand at Treasury auctions from a wide range of investors, including foreign investors whose holdings of Treasury securities are at record levels. This impressive performance comes in spite of the negative rhetoric and doomsaying of market pundits, especially this spring. For the past ten months, the press has been pushing a “Sell America” narrative. But the data and the price action have been saying the opposite: “Buy America.” And the market always rewards those who put fundamentals over fear. Suffice it to say, the Treasury market remains the deepest and most liquid market in the world—which is a testament to the efficacy of the Trump Administration’s economic policies.  Investors around the globe trust the Treasury market because of its utility as a safe, liquid, and reliable store of value. Treasury securities are used for a wide variety of purposes in the financial system, including: as a vehicle to finance the US government; as a means for the Fed to implement monetary policy; as an asset for global investors; as high-quality collateral for a range of different transactions and institutions; and as a reference benchmark for a wide variety of other borrowers. Daily trading volume for US Treasuries averages around $1 trillion per day—and that is just in the cash securities. Volumes in associated derivatives represent another major source of liquidity. During periods of market volatility, volumes in the Treasury market increase substantially. When markets continue to facilitate effective risk transfer, despite unexpected events, that is a sign of things working. Having traded many different markets across the world throughout my career, it is moments when markets stop trading that most concern me. Strategies to Strengthen Treasury Markets It is impossible to eliminate market volatility altogether. That’s why our goal must be to ensure a robust and resilient market that can withstand volatility when it inevitably arrives. To that end, Treasury is pushing several forward-thinking initiatives to strengthen the Treasury market. This includes the Treasury buyback program, which is an important tool in supporting market liquidity. While the program has been a success so far, we continue to look for ways to improve its efficacy. We have already expanded the size of long-end operations in the Treasury buyback program and will expand the counterparty set in the first half of next year to continue building on the progress we have made. Treasury is also supportive of reforms to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio, or eSLR. In its current form, the eSLR risks becoming a consistently binding constraint rather than a backstop to risk-based capital requirements. That can distort banks’ incentives to engage in low-risk activities, such as Treasury intermediation. The eSLR must be improved to prevent this distortion. Expanding central clearing is also key to strengthening markets. The SEC is currently leading an effort to expand central clearing in the Treasury market, which will enhance resilience, expand netting opportunities, and standardize risk management. This effort also supports competition in the marketplace, as several central counterparties are launching new business lines to facilitate the expanded clearing activity. Maintaining the “Regular and Predictable” Issuance Framework Demand for US Treasuries remains strong as ever, and these strategies will help us feed that growing demand. But equally important is maintaining Treasury’s “Regular and Predictable” issuance framework. Our guiding principle at the Treasury Department is to finance the government at the least cost over time. The phrase “over time” acknowledges that Treasury issuance decisions are not to be made ad hoc, but rather as part of an overall strategy to accomplish our goals over the long term. And the “Regular and Predictable” issuance framework has proven to be the most effective means of achieving those goals. Although Treasury has regularly sold Treasury bills for nearly 100 years, it generally sold coupon securities on an ad hoc basis prior to the late 1970s. At that time, the rising federal debt burden rendered the previous ad hoc approach infeasible, and Treasury adopted regular offerings of coupon securities that have continued to this day. Thus was born the “Regular and Predictable” issuance framework. There are manifold benefits to this framework: First, “Regular and Predictable” issuance promotes transparency and investor confidence by giving market participants a clear, consistent auction schedule. The single-price auction format further supports strong participation and fair pricing. Second, by spreading maturities evenly over time, “Regular and Predictable” issuance limits rollover risk and avoids large concentrations of debt coming due at once. Third, it reduces supply uncertainty and the risk of a market premium that could arise if investors expected sudden shifts in issuance. Finally, “Regular and Predictable” issuance reinforces Treasury’s role in setting the global risk-free rate, providing a reliable reference point for other borrowers and financial products. To implement this “Regular and Predictable” framework, Treasury sells all its securities at a regular cadence and sizing based on a transparent schedule. And it adjusts coupon issuance gradually over time. Gradual adjustments are more important for these securities because of their duration. Guiding Principles for “Regular and Predictable” Issuance Our guiding lights in thinking about appropriate adjustments are durable trends in investor demand and Treasury’s assessment of the issuance mix that best achieves its low-cost-borrowing goal. In making these decisions, Treasury stays in close contact with investors, utilizing bilateral engagements with many of you in the room here today. And it solicits the advice of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee and the primary dealers.      When borrowing needs change quickly, bills are our issuance “shock absorber.” Because we want nominal coupon securities to adjust gradually, bills play an important role in managing changes in borrowing needs that are seasonal, short-term, or unexpected. Bills also facilitate flexibility, particularly in times of uncertainty and amid quickly evolving changes in demand profile. Importantly, being “Regular and Predictable” does not mean that Treasury’s issuance policy cannot or should not evolve as investor demand changes. If our borrowing outlook changes, so will the amount we issue. And if structural demand for certain products or tenors evolves over time, we will be responsive and adjust how we allocate issuance accordingly. For example, we are closely monitoring growth in money market funds and the stablecoin market, which are both large investors in Treasury bills. Money market funds are now valued at about $7.5 trillion, having grown by nearly $1 trillion in the last year alone. The stablecoin market, meanwhile, is valued around $300 billion and could grow tenfold by the end of the decade thanks to the innovation made possible by the GENIUS Act. As money market funds and stablecoins grow, so too will the demand for Treasury bills. In addition to growing demand for Treasury bills from money market funds and stablecoin providers, we are witnessing increased demand from banks as they shake off the excessive oversight that held them back. Since the start of this year, bank portfolios have expanded their Treasury holdings. Additional reforms, including the potential eSLR reform I mentioned earlier, could further accelerate this process. As Treasury watches these trends play out, we will assess whether they are structural or temporary shifts. And we will adjust our long-term issuance plans accordingly. For Treasury auctions to be successful, we need to be attentive to market participants, but we will not change our overall protocols. We will remain analytical in our decision-making, adjusting issuance gradually to avoid market disruptions. We will provide public forward guidance to the extent practicable. And we will regularly canvass the market for feedback on how our issuance decisions are being received. Looking Ahead Now let’s look to the year ahead. At Treasury, we have already provided forward guidance that we will likely not need to change coupon auction sizes for at least the next several quarters. Existing financing capacity from current auction sizes and robust demand in the bill market have given us flexibility to manage our upcoming potential borrowing needs. Recent developments have also given us additional time and flexibility before we need to make any such decisions. These developments include the reduction of the national deficit and the FOMC’s announcement that they will start purchasing Treasury bills with proceeds from their MBS holdings. At the most recent TBAC meeting, the Committee determined that the current issuance mix is “well-positioned to balance a low cost of debt with the low volatility of a productivity boom.” While keeping proper risk management in mind, our long-term economic outlook is consistent with an expectation of increased productivity stemming from an additive boost of artificial intelligence, increased investment into the United States, and elevated capital expenditure investment. As such, we will continue to monitor trends in investor demand. And we will continue to consider where and if additional issuance could best achieve Treasury’s debt management goals. When and if the time comes to make changes, we will be prepared, and we will socialize our plans with market participants. Conclusion Now allow me to offer a few thoughts in closing. We are gathered this morning in New York’s Financial District, historically the beating heart of global capital. A few blocks south of here is the New York Stock Exchange. While today’s venue is Wall Street—or maybe in a few years, Y'all Street in Dallas—my main audience is, and always will be, Main Street. I answered the call to serve because I wanted to help President Trump usher in a new era of Parallel Prosperity—a decade of economic expansion where Wall Street and Main Street grow together. President Trump’s Golden Age stands to benefit Americans on every rung of the economic ladder. And maintaining a strong and robust Treasury market is critical to that goal. Properly managing our nation’s debt is a solemn responsibility that will affect generations of Americans to come. That’s why maintaining a healthy Treasury market and strengthening it even further is my foremost responsibility as Treasury Secretary. Treasury is committed to safeguarding the world’s benchmark for stability while ensuring that the American people can borrow, build, and thrive. By keeping the risk-free rate low and the Treasury market strong, we are Making America Affordable Again. And we are ensuring that our nation’s prosperity endures far beyond our own time. Thank you for being our partners in this effort.

The Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has today announced that Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, will succeed Jerome H Powell, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as Chair of the Global Economy Meeting (GEM) and Economic Consultative Committee (ECC) from May 2026. The GEM and the ECC are among the principal meetings held at the BIS every two months.

Finansinspektionen is issuing Avida Finans AB a remark and an administrative fine of SEK 20 million. Avida Finans AB (Avida or the company) is a Swedish credit market company authorised to conduct financing business pursuant to the Banking and Financing Business Act (2004:297). The company, among other services, offers loans to consumers. Finansinspektionen has investigated whether Avida has met in its creditworthiness assessments the requirements set out in sections 6 and 12 of the Consumer Credit Act (2010:1846). The scope of the investigation includes loans that the company granted to consumers during weeks 24, 25, 29 and 30 in 2024. The loan amounts ranged from SEK 10,000 to SEK 125,000. The investigation shows that, in general, Avida has a thorough creditworthiness assessment process. However, due to the lack of coordination between its application form and creditworthiness assessment process, the company has granted and paid out loans to at least 34 consumers whose financial situation at the time of the application – and based on the company’s own calculation model – would not have allowed them to meet their commitment under the loan agreement. Avida has thus been in violation of section 12, first paragraph of the Consumer Credit Act. The identified violations are of such a nature that Finansinspektionen considers there to be grounds on which to intervene against Avida. The violations are not so serious that there is cause to consider withdrawing the company’s authorisation or issuing the company a warning. Finansinspektionen is therefore issuing Avida a remark that, in order to be an adequate intervention, will be accompanied by an administrative fine of SEK 20 million. Decision: Remark and administrative fine Avida Finans ( < 1MB)

Haruko, a leading provider of institutional digital assets technology, is proud to announce its integration with EDX Markets’ spot trading venue and EDXM International’s perpetual futures exchange. This move will strengthen risk and portfolio management capabilities for institutional clients. Through this integration, EDX and EDXMI clients can now leverage Haruko’s platform to access real-time insights into their trading activity, portfolio positions and market exposure. Haruko consolidates data from EDX and EDXMI alongside other venues, giving clients the benefit of a unified, institutional-grade view of their digital asset portfolios alongside advanced pricing, risk analytics and performance reporting. “Our collaboration with EDX is another step toward building a more connected, transparent and efficient institutional digital asset ecosystem,” said Shamyl Malik, CEO and Co-Founder of Haruko. “By integrating with EDX’s venues, we’re enabling clients to gain a more complete understanding of their exposures across multiple markets, supporting better decision-making and operational control.” “As a client of both EDX and Haruko, we’re thrilled to see two leading platforms come together to enhance institutional digital asset trading,” said Xin Song, CEO, GSR. “This integration provides meaningful operational efficiencies, delivering a clearer, real-time view of our positions and risk across venues while streamlining how we manage and optimize trading activity. Innovations like this are essential as the digital asset market continues to mature.” EDX Markets and EDXM International provide secure and efficient venues for institutional spot and perpetual futures trading. EDX’s market structure is designed to bring the best of traditional finance to digital assets, delivering a trading environment tailored for institutional investors. “Partnering with Haruko brings additional transparency and efficiency to institutional digital asset trading,” said Tony Acuña-Rohter, CEO of EDX Markets. “By integrating with Haruko’s platform, we’re meeting clients where they already operate and are opening the door for more institutions to access EDX’s venues, expanding the reach and depth of our ecosystem.”

TMX Group today announced its financing activity on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) for October 2025. TSX welcomed 51 new issuers in October 2025, compared with 29 in the previous month and 11 in October 2024. The new listings were 30 exchange traded products, 17 Canadian Depositary Receipts (CDRs), one consumer products & services company, one industrial products & services company, one technology company and one special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). Total financings raised in October 2025 increased 249% compared to the previous month, and were up 264% compared to October 2024. The total number of financings in October 2025 was 84, compared with 55 the previous month and 37 in October 2024. For additional data relating to the number of transactions billed for TSX, please click on the following link: https://www.tmx.com/resource/en/440. There were six new issuers on TSXV in October 2025, compared with three in the previous month and four in October 2024. The new listings were three Capital Pool Companies, two mining companies and one technology company. Total financings raised in October 2025 increased 97% compared to the previous month, and were up 152% compared to October 2024. There were 133 financings in October 2025, compared with 119 in the previous month and 110 in October 2024. TMX Group consolidated trading statistics for October 2025 can be viewed at www.tmx.com. Related Document:TMX Group Equity Financing Statistics – October 2025  

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) today published its Final Report (“Report”) on Neo-Brokers. “Neo-brokers” are a sub-set of broker-dealers that provide services through a business model characterized by use of engaging client interfaces, leverage of social media, and provision of online-only investment services. They typically provide their services with limited or no human interaction, and their service offerings are frequently limited to only trade execution services. They have created new opportunities for investors and frequently operate with lower costs. However, in order to address the challenges posed by emerging neo-broker business models, the Report proposes a set of recommendations as guidance for securities regulators to help foster a more transparent and accountable environment in which neo-brokers operate in compliance with securities regulations, including investor protection measures. The Report sets forth five recommendations for IOSCO members and neo-brokers: Acting honestly and fairly with retail investors – Neo-brokers should act honestly, fairly and professionally with retail investors. Appropriate disclosure of fees and charges to retail investors and advertising – Neo-brokers should provide retail investors with fair, clear and simple disclosure of material charges that may occur by entering the trade. Ancillary services - Where neo-brokers offer ancillary services to core trade execution services, neo-brokers should: disclose to retail investors the material sources of revenue the firm derives from each service and, where relevant, the type of conflicts of interest arising from them; and obtain retail investor consent before providing ancillary services. Non-commission related trading revenue such as payment for order flow (PFOF) – Neo-brokers should consider the impact of PFOF on the best execution of customer orders. IT infrastructure – Neo-brokers should ensure they have robust systems in place to promptly address disruptions that may prevent investors from using their platform effectively. This report is the final milestone of IOSCO's Roadmap to Retail Investor Online Safety, concluding a year of spotlight on the new challenges to retail investor protection. “Neo-brokers are reshaping the retail investment landscape through digital platforms, low-cost trading models, and new forms of investor engagement. This report provides regulators with a clear view of the risks and opportunities posed by these evolving business models, and offers practical recommendations to strengthen transparency, manage conflicts of interest, and protect retail investors in an increasingly digital market environment.”- Jean-Paul Servais, Chair of IOSCO’s Board “In today’s changing demographic and economic environment, broadening retail investor access to financial market is critical, and neo-brokers can play a positive role. However, their business models may introduce risks when products and services don't align with investors' best interests. IOSCO’s recommendations provide clear guidance on how to mitigate these risks and ensure investor protection.”- James Adronis, Chair of IOSCO’s Committee on Regulation of Market Intermediaries (C3)

Mondo Visione today released its performance report for October. Global markets showed general upward movement, driven by easing inflation and strong economic data. However, the FTSE Mondo Visione Index closed the month at 91,079.1 points, marking a 3.2% decrease from its September close. Central banks presented a mixed outlook; while the US Federal Reserve implemented a rate cut, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England held their rates steady. Regional market performance was also influenced by ongoing political events and trade negotiations. At the end of October, CME Group maintained its position as the world's largest exchange by market capitalisation, valued at $95.67 billion USD. It was followed by Intercontinental Exchange ($84.04 bn), Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing ($69.10 bn), London Stock Exchange Group ($65.96 bn), and Nasdaq ($49.08 bn). India's BSE was the month's top performer in capital returns (in USD), with a significant 21.5% increase. Multi Commodity Exchange of India followed with an 18.6% rise, and Boursa Kuwait Securities saw a 16.9% increase. Conversely, Intercontinental Exchange was the worst performer with a 13.2% decrease in capital returns. Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SAB de CV experienced an 8.4% decline, and Hellenic Exchanges SA fell by 7.7%. Herbie Skeete, Managing Director of Mondo Visione and Co-founder of the Index, commented on the results: "CME Group maintains its position as the world's largest exchange by market capitalisation, driven by a strategic focus on expanding product offerings, enhancing retail engagement, and facilitating 24/7 trading for cryptocurrency futures and options. Key partnerships, including upcoming event-based contracts with FanDuel and technological collaborations with Google, are anticipated to be crucial drivers of future growth for the organization." For a full breakdown of October 2025's performance, click here to download the report. 1-YEAR PERFORMANCE CHART OF THE FTSE MONDO VISIONE EXCHANGES INDEX (USD CAPITAL RETURN) Source: FTSE Group, data as at 31 October 2025 Monthly FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index Performance (Capital Return, USD) July 2014 3.1% August 2014 2.3% September 2014 -3.6% October 2014 2.8% November 2014 2.5% December 2014 -0.5% January 2015 -1.0% February 2015 8.5% March 2015 0.0% April 2015 10.7% May 2015 0.1% June 2015 -3.2% July 2015 -2.7% August 2015 -5.3% September 2015 -2.1% October 2015 7.6% November 2015 0.4% December 2015 -2.2% January 2016 -4,7% February 2016 -0.7% March 2016 6.7% April 2016 0.4% May 2016 1.8% June 2016 -2.2% July 2016 5.3% August 2016 2.3% September 2016 -1.6% October 2016 -1.6% November 2016 2.1% December 2016 0.1% January 2017 6.0% February 2017 -0.8% March 2017 1.4% April 2017 0.8% May 2017 1.6% June 2017 5.6% July 2017 2.7% August 2017 0.3% September 2017 3.6% October 2017 -0.7% November 2017 6.4% December 2017 -0.7% January 2018 10% February 2018 -0.5% March 2018 -1.6% April 2018 -1.0% May 2018 -1.5% June 2018 -0.8% July 2018 -0.7% August 2018 2.4% September 2018 -1.7% October 2018 1.0% November 2018 3.1% December 2018 -4.2% January 2019 5.4% February 2019 1.7% March 2019 -2.6% April 2019 4.6% May 2019 1.5% June 2019 4.3% July 2019 2.2% August 2019 3.7% September 2019 -0.8% October 2019 2.0% November 2019 -0.5% December 2019 1.6% January 2020 5.0% February 2020 -7.4% March 2020 -11.5% April 2020 8.0% May 2020 6.7% June 2020 2.3% July 2020 6.6% August 2020 4.9% September 2020 -5.2% October 2020 -6.7% November 2020 8.9% December 2020 7.2% January 2021 0.8% February 2021 1.4% March 2021 -2.7% April 2021 3.3% May 2021 2.5% June 2021 0.4% July 2021 0.4% August 2021 0.1% September 2021 -4.2% October 2021 5.9% November 2021 -5.6% December 2021 4.9% January 2022 -2.2% February 2022 -3.5% March 2022 3.5% April 2022 -8.6% May 2022 -5.1% June 2022 -0.7% July 2022 2.4% August 2022 -3.9% September 2022 -8.8% October 2022 -1.1% November 2022 11.5% December 2022 -2.9% January 2023 3.8% February 2023 -4.1% March 2023 5.0% April 2023 0.9% May 2023 -3.9% June 2023 3.8% July 2023 4.6% August 2023 -2.3% September 2023 -3.0% October 2023 -0.6% November 2023 7.7% December 2023 3.8% January 2024 -2.7% February 2024 4.3% March 2024 -0.1% April 2024 -3.8% May 2024 1.3% June 2024 -0.4% July 2024 3.2% August 2024 8.2% September 2024 4.7% October 2024 -1.2% November 2024 2.6% December 2024 -3.1% January 2025 4.3% February 2025 5.6% March 2025 2.2% April 2025 3.5% May 2025 4.4% June 2025 0.8% July 2025 -2.9% August 2025 -0.7% September 2025 -3.1% October 2025 -3.2%   About FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index, a joint venture between FTSE Group and Mondo Visione, was established in 2000. It is the first Index in the world to focus on listed exchanges and other trading venues. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index compares performance of individual exchanges and trading platforms and provides a reliable barometer of the health and performance of the exchange sector. It enables investors to track 33 publicly listed exchanges and trading floors and focuses attention of the market on this important sector. The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index includes all publicly traded stock exchanges and trading floors: Australian Securities Exchange Ltd B3 SA Bolsa de Comercio Santiago Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SA Boursa Kuwait Securities BSE Bulgarian Stock Exchange Bursa de Valori Bucuresti SA Bursa Malaysia Cboe Global Markets CME Group Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange PLC Deutsche Bourse Dubai Financial Market Euronext Hellenic Exchanges SA Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd Intercontinental Exchange Inc Japan Exchange Group, Inc Johannesburg Stock Exchange Ltd London Stock Exchange Group Multi Commodity Exchange of India Nairobi Securities Exchange Nasdaq New Zealand Exchange Ltd Philippine Stock Exchange Saudi Tadawul Group Singapore Exchange Ltd Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TMX Group Warsaw Stock Exchange Zagreb Stock Exchange The FTSE Mondo Visione Exchanges Index is compiled by FTSE Group from data based on the share price performance of listed exchanges and trading platforms.

High-value* venture capital (VC) activity during the first three quarters (Q1-Q3) of 2025 remained overwhelmingly clustered within the world’s top 10 investment markets, with the US extending its dominance across both deal volume and value. The sharp concentration of mega-deals signals a maturing late-stage funding landscape, where capital increasingly flows toward established ecosystems, reshaping competitive positioning and leaving other markets with a shrinking share of global investor attention, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company. An analysis of GlobalData’s Deals Database shows that the US saw the announcement of 258 high-value VC deals totaling $121.4 billion in Q1-Q3 2025, capturing about 60% of global deal volume and nearly 80% of total value. In fact, it was the only market with triple-digit high-value VC deal volume during the review period. Aurojyoti Bose, Lead Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The US is setting the pace for high-value VC investments globally. The sheer volume of deals not only reflects the robust health of the US startup ecosystem but also indicates a growing confidence among investors in the potential for high returns in the market.” The US is distantly followed by China that saw the announcement of 37 high-value VC deals of worth $6.5 billion during Q1-Q3 2025. The UK, India, Germany, and Israel followed with 23, 20, 11 and 10 high-value VC deals respectively, raising $6.2 billion, $3.4 billion, $2.3 billion and $1.6 billion. Canada, Singapore, the Netherlands and South Korea were among the other countries in the top 10 list. During Q1-Q3 2025, these top 10 countries collectively attracted more than 90% of the total number of high-value VC investments announced globally. In terms of value, the combined share of these markets stood at around 94%. Bose concludes: “As US mega-deals continue to dominate, we expect capital to concentrate further in sectors and companies demonstrating clear path-to-scale, driving premium valuations and intensifying competition for late-stage assets. On the other hand, other markets need stronger policy support and ecosystem development to stay competitive. The gap may widen unless other regions accelerate their innovation and funding pipelines.” * ≥ $100 million Note: Historic data may change in case some deals get added to previous months because of a delay in disclosure of information in the public domain.

LSEG announces it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each from Citigroup Global Markets Limited ("Citi") on the London Stock Exchange as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 04 November 2025. Date of purchase: 11 November 2025 Aggregate number of ordinary shares purchased: 207,500 Lowest price paid per share: 9,124.00p Highest price paid per share: 9,244.00p Average price paid per share: 9,197.67p   LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares. Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 515,816,262 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 24,051,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 515,816,262. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules. In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (the Market Abuse Regulation) (as such legislation forms part of retained EU law as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter), a full breakdown of the individual purchases by Citi on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/1379H_1-2025-11-11.pdf This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction. Schedule of Purchases Shares purchased:       207,500 (ISIN: GB00B0SWJX34) Date of purchases:      11 November 2025 Investment firm:         Citi Aggregate information: Venue Volume-weighted average price Aggregated volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share London Stock Exchange 9,197.67 207,500 9,124.00 9,244.00 Turquoise        

DFSA AI Survey 2025 report reveals: AI integration within DFSA Authorised Firms has accelerated rapidly: 52% of firms now use AI – up from 33% in 2024 – with growth particularly pronounced in the adoption of Generative AI (GenAi) which has nearly tripled in the last 12 months (+166%).​​​​ Momentum continues to build: 60% of firms expect to increase their use of AI over the next 12 months, and 75% over the next three years – signalling that AI is on track to become a core operational component of financial services within the DIFC. Governance practices continue to develop: While 60% of firms have some form of governance structure for AI, 21% still lack clear accountability or oversight mechanisms, even in cases where AI use is critical to business operations. Firms are calling for greater regulatory clarity and guidance: on AI governance, ethical use, and supervisory expectations. Harmonisation of regulatory expectations across the UAE financial sector was also a request from firms. The Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA), the independent regulator of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), has today released the results of its artificial intelligence (AI) survey 2025, revealing a rapid acceleration in AI adoption among financial firms in the Centre, with 52% of firms actively using AI – up from 33% in 2024 – with growth particularly pronounced in the adoption of Generative AI (+166%). The survey, conducted in June 2025, captured data from 661 Authorised Firms (88% participation rate) operating across Banking, Capital Markets, Wealth & Asset Management, and Fintech – providing an insight into how AI is being adopted and governed within the financial services sector in the DIFC. The findings reflect a significant shift in the market, with most firms now integrating AI in at least one area of their operations – and a clear majority planning further AI deployment, with expected continued adoption over the next 12 months. The DFSA emphasised that, while the pace of innovation is welcome, it must be underpinned by effective governance and oversight, ethical use of data, and sound risk management practices. The regulator continues to engage closely with the industry to develop guidance and frameworks for responsible AI adoption. Justin Baldacchino, Managing Director, Supervision, of the DFSA, said: "The DIFC’s financial services ecosystem is embracing AI at pace. While AI adoption remains at a nascent stage for many firms, there is growing recognition of its strategic potential to enhance organisation-wide performance, from operational efficiency and regulatory compliance to customer engagement and sales. Our priority at the DFSA is to balance innovation with integrity – ensuring that when firms harness AI’s potential, they do so within frameworks that protect customers, manage risk, and uphold market confidence. It is therefore important that governance frameworks evolve in parallel, with clear accountability and oversight at every stage of adoption.” The survey results also underscore a cautious and controlled approach to deployment. Many firms continue to focus their use of AI on internal functions and processes, rather than external or customer-facing applications. This caution is reflected in the divergence of AI applications in use, as well as the need to build experience and develop appropriate governance frameworks. The DFSA will continue to follow a risk-based approach to regulation, ensuring that its oversight remains proportionate and responsive to emerging risks without imposing unnecessary burden on firms. In the months ahead, the Authority will continue to engage actively with firms and other financial regulators in the UAE and globally to chart a path forward that reinforces our commitment to balance the enabling of responsible innovation with safeguarding financial stability and investor protection. For more information on the DFSA AI survey 2025, access the full report here.

Key points Australia is a highly attractive place to invest, with a sophisticated economy and strong institutions supported by an effective regulatory and governance framework. We are entering a very different economic era from the one we’ve known and Australia is not immune to global developments and disruption. If we want our economic prosperity to continue, we need to be ambitious and collaborative. Australia has a choice: innovate or stagnate. Good morning and welcome to the 28th ASIC Annual Forum. Thank you Uncle Tony, who's just left the room, for a very warm and, if I may say so, humorous Welcome to Country. It was very, very thoughtful. I would also like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, and their ongoing connection to and custodianship of the lands on which we meet today, and to pay my respects to elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be present today. There are too many distinguished guests here today to individually acknowledge everyone, but I do want to thank the many ASIC people who have made the Forum possible. I also want to acknowledge ASIC's Commissioners who are here today: Deputy Chair Sarah Court, Kate O’Rourke, Alan Kirkland, and Simone Constant. And of course, a particular welcome to Mike Burgess, Director-General of Security for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, who will officially launch today's program and is perfectly placed to speak to our Forum theme ‘Australia in a Dynamic World’. At an event earlier this year, I said that we were living in ‘tumultuous times’ and indeed that feels even more the case today. We are entering a very different economic era from the one that we've known. We face a more fragmented world order where trust has broken down between major powers and world trade policy uncertainty is at a record high[1]. The head of the International Monetary Fund recently warned the world to ‘buckle up’[2]. At the National Press Club last week, I spoke about the shifts occurring across global financial markets and increased competition for capital and investment. And how Australia must put in place the foundations and guardrails now for the markets we want in the future. This includes public and private sector collaboration to accelerate innovation in our country. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and tokenisation are reshaping the financial services landscape, providing significant opportunity for business and investors. But new technology also poses new challenges. For example, in a tokenised world where capital moves instantly across borders and traditional gatekeepers are gone, what happens if something goes wrong? And when quantum computing can decrypt algorithms, that once took 200 years to break, in a matter of minutes, how do we keep global payments and transactions secure[3]? I said last week Australia has a choice: innovate or stagnate. While I was talking about our financial markets, this is a choice that applies to a whole range of issues that will ensure Australia maintains a strategic place in the world. And that's why we're here today and tomorrow. To explore what that choice looks like in practice. How it applies to so much that is important to what we all do every day. As we engage in these discussions during the coming days, it's worth remembering our starting point. Australia is a highly attractive place to invest. We're regarded as a sophisticated economy with strong institutions and a stable rule of law, supported by an effective regulatory and governance framework. This means we're in a better starting position than most, but it doesn't make us immune from global developments and disruption. If we want our economic prosperity to continue, we need to be ambitious and collaborative in our thinking and our approach. We need to seize opportunities before us. Of course, we have to be mindful of risks that undermine confidence - whether they relate to conduct, capital, economic cycles, geopolitical instability, or trade. There will always be risk, there will always be disruption, and somewhere there will always be a crisis. This is the premise of Robert Kaplan's recent book, Wasteland: A World in Permanent Crisis[4]. Kaplan argues that today's interconnected world will cause even more conflict writing that, ‘Isolation is the past: full immersion in a chaotic world is the inevitable future’. Geography has been shrunk by technology, he says. But we're not defeated by technology - however, the world is now smaller and, in his words, ‘more anxious, more claustrophobic, more interconnected than ever before’[5]. Australia is not immune. Our first speaker today is someone who knows this well. It's my very great pleasure to introduce him: Director-General of Security for ASIO, Mr Mike Burgess. [Audience applause] I haven't finished yet… I’ve got to say some nice things about him first. Before being appointed as Director-General in 2019, Mr Burgess spent the better part of three decades code making and code breaking, working across cyber security, counter-terrorism and counter-espionage. This work has taken him from the Defence Signals Directorate - now the Australian Signals Directorate - to Chief Information Security Officer at Telstra, to work as an independent cyber security consultant, and then back to the ASD. In last week's Lowy Lecture, he addressed some of the possible risks and disruptors to Australia's continued strength, stability and prosperity. Today, he will be expanding on that by highlighting the current risks in Australia and abroad, and what they mean for business and what businesses can do to help mitigate these risks. This promises to be a dynamic opening to two days of what I hope will be followed by lively discussion. In Mr Burgess's words when he was out doing some unpaid advertising for today's address: ‘Strap in!’   [1] Yeaman, Luke. Fasten your seatbelt: making sense of the new economic era, Global Economics and Markets Research, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, 23 October 2025, Fasten your seatbelt: making sense of a new economic era [2] Stewart, Heather. IMF chief warns ‘uncertainty is the new normal’ in global economy, The Guardian, 9 October 2025, IMF chief warns ‘uncertainty is the new normal’ in global economy | International Monetary Fund (IMF) | The Guardian [3] Eyers, James. Bullock warns of scary quantum computing threat, Australian Financial Review, 24 October 2025, Michele Bullock: RBA governor warns banks about quantum computing data threat [4] Kaplan, R (2025). Wasteland: A World in Permanent Crisis. Hurst Publishers (UK) and Random House (US). [5] Kaplan, Robert. A New US Grand Strategy: A World in Permanent Crisis, interview by James Lindsay, Council on Foreign Relations, 11 February 2025, A New U.S. Grand Strategy: A World in Permanent Crisis, With Robert Kaplan | Council on Foreign Relations

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.1 It is an honor and a pleasure to be here with you in Singapore, a crossroads for global trade and finance, to discuss the transformational nature of artificial intelligence (AI). Like other central banks around the world, including the Monetary Authority of Singapore, we at the Federal Reserve have been exploring the use of AI in our operations for quite some time as well as considering the implications of AI's adoption for the financial sector and the broader economy. At the Fed, we've been interested in the effects of AI on the economy and its role in the financial system for decades. Remarkably, in 1997, Governor Susan Phillips delivered a speech noting the use of AI in consumer loan underwriting.2 In the past year, no fewer than seven speeches by Fed Governors have had "AI" in the title. Today I'll discuss the opportunities presented by AI relevant for central bankers as well as the risks it may pose that policymakers should consider. I will leave you with three main takeaways. The State of AI Innovation and DeploymentMy first main point is that while AI is a big deal that will transform economies, there are a range of outcomes for how it could do so. AI—algorithms that mimic human thought, communication, and choices—has been with us for decades, but AI entered a new era with the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022. Generative AI (GenAI) captured our imagination with convincing conversations in which it is possible to go deep on a wide range of topics. Earlier forms of AI were often the bailiwick of digitally native companies, but GenAI is spreading rapidly through the economy. As of 2024, three in four large companies were using GenAI, though some report it has yet to improve their bottom line.3 Smaller companies have been slower to adopt GenAI, with adoption rates reported in the high single digits, albeit with a high degree of heterogeneity among sectors. Also, one could surmise, based on other surveys of individuals, that work-related use is more widespread among employees than their CEOs realize.4 A recent survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that firms plan to retrain their workforces to take advantage of AI to enhance productivity, with widespread layoffs limited.5 But survey respondents also report that AI has led firms to scale back hiring, a development that may be contributing to the recent low levels of job creation in the U.S. economy, a concern for many workers and particularly for newer entrants to the job market. Taking a step back, as I have noted in the past, I see two basic scenarios for how AI can transform the economy.6 In the first scenario, there is incremental adoption of GenAI that augments existing tasks and jobs. In the second scenario, a revolution occurs. GenAI transforms the nature of work and leisure, boosting the efficiency of research and development, remaking industries, and creating firms with new—perhaps radically new—business models. Right now, it is difficult to predict which scenario (or perhaps one or more intermediate scenarios) will come to pass. We can already see incremental change as GenAI is increasingly integrated with standard workplace software. With its natural language interface, GenAI is inherently user friendly, so few workers need special skills or unusually onerous training to use it. At the same time, some start-ups have a more revolutionary flavor because they are centered on AI from the outset. One indicator of how the labor market is evolving toward deeper integration with AI is the skills mentioned in job postings. While overall the share of job listings that mention AI-related skills is small—about 5 percent—in the information sector, it is about 20 percent. The financial sector, where firms are always looking for a technological edge, is not far behind, with 1 in 10 job postings mentioning AI.7 So we can see that the skills needed in some key sectors are already changing. The speed of that change is likely to increase. If the AI changes happen gradually, workers and firms will have time to adjust, but if they happen rapidly, there may be significant dislocations in the short term. A massive wave of data center investment has begun, pointing to signs of confidence among leading AI companies that the use of AI at scale throughout the economy is just around the corner. If they're right and AI is useful enough to keep what is currently projected to be $3 trillion of new data center capacity utilized effectively, we can expect significant changes in economies. Investment in capital generally raises labor productivity and offers the potential for higher output growth without pressure on inflation over the longer term. As I have discussed in previous remarks, if these changes are significant, they can also affect the conduct of monetary policy.8 Of course, it may be the case instead that investment exceeds short-term demand, in which case there may be losses and adjustments to the AI sector. AI and the Financial SectorThe second key point I would like to make is that the financial sector is adopting AI quickly, and while there are many benefits to this adoption, the risks will need to be managed carefully. So far, AI adoption in the financial sector appears to be most concentrated in areas that can enhance operational efficiency, including applications that involve text analysis, classification, and information search inside the firm, as well as customer-facing functions. These incremental improvements to common business functions are a key reason to be hopeful about AI raising labor productivity in that sector. At the same time, there is significant investment in experimentation with AI for core functions for financial services. Data-driven financial-sector-specific tasks, including credit decision support, fraud detection, and trading are using AI-specific tools. Ensuring that AI is used appropriately for these functions faces appreciable challenges. First, the amount of organizational change needed by financial services firms to utilize GenAI may be substantial. History suggests progress may be slow. Adoption of machine learning, an AI technology that preceded GenAI, was concentrated in firms that were highly digitized from their founding—and even in those cases, adoption was a long process.9 Fintech firms organized to exploit AI from their founding can play a key role in driving efficiency forward in the sector, providing services to the incumbent firms.10 But productivity may even decrease in the short term, as heavy investments in business-process improvements take time to play out to productivity gains. A second challenge is the practical constraints of rushing into AI for core business activities in the financial sector, as firms need to ensure that the resulting processes and outcomes are consistent with relevant laws and appropriate risk management. Large institutions are exploring the use of GenAI, including agentic AI, in their financial models—but doing so requires care. To successfully leverage the potential of GenAI on a sustainable basis, decisions based on those models must be well controlled, numerically and legally precise, explainable, and replicable. AI developers still struggle to some extent with all of those criteria. We need to reduce the risk that AI reinforces biases in consumer lending. And we also need to guard against the risks that could result from the use of AI in financial markets. For example, profit maximization by AI-powered trading algorithms may result in tacit collusion, market manipulation, or trading strategies that result in significant market volatility or even systemic risk.11 We will need innovation that is responsive to these risks to see additional advances in the use of AI for a broad array of core financial services functions. AI and Central BankingA third and final point I would like to leave you with is that central banks, including the Fed, need to keep up with AI by increasing our speed of adoption for our own operations. The nature of central banking work is inherently careful, considered, and measured when evaluating anything new. This is particularly true for any new technologies.12 But it seems clear already that the many advantages offered by AI could assist central banks in at least some of their operations, and the speed at which this technology is moving makes it appropriate to proactively engage in using AI for our own operations. That is why the Federal Reserve is using AI, where appropriate, to increase staff efficiency and effectiveness. My view is that GenAI is a transformative technology that central banks need to remain engaged with to ensure an ability to execute as technology evolves. As we push ahead on efficiency gains, it is important that we leverage the right tools for the task at hand, recognizing that GenAI is not always the best choice. Some of the challenges that we face can be addressed by robotic process automation or traditional AI methods. These are the same kinds of questions that every business and organization considering AI should be weighing. At the Federal Reserve, we have focused on ensuring we can leverage AI capabilities by establishing an AI program and governance framework for the use of AI technologies.13 We are taking an enterprise-wide approach of learning-by-doing and broadly adopting high-value uses of GenAI, such as writing, coding, and research activities. We have taken a "hands on keys" approach to having staff engage with it. We are identifying the business processes that can be improved and transformed with the technology. One internal application of GenAI I am particularly excited about that helps us achieve all these goals is technology modernization. We are applying GenAI-enabled tools within clear guardrails to translate legacy code, generate unit tests, and accelerate cloud migration. So far, the result of this usage is faster delivery, improved quality, and enhanced developer experience. And it will likely mean better outcomes in support of the American people. Given AI's current and prospective role in economic activity, we are devoting the necessary resources to understanding it, including by analyzing not only AI's economic and financial implications, but also exploring how AI can enhance our financial stability work, strengthen supervisory and regulatory capabilities, and ensure the smooth functioning of our payment systems. These are just some of the ways that the Fed, like other organizations, is using AI to make us more productive and capable. These efforts may also help us understand the effect of AI on the economy, the banking system, and the payment system. That task will be a major job for central banks in the years ahead. AI has the potential to fundamentally change the economy and society. And as central bankers, we need to keep up. 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 Susan M. Phillips (1997), "Risk Management," speech delivered at the Asset/Liability and Treasury Management Conference of the Bank Administration Institute, Chicago, November 4.  3. See Aditya Challapally, Chris Pease, Ramesh Raskar, and Pradyumna Chari (2025), "The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025," MIT NANDA Report, July, https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Business_2025_Report.pdf. There are a range additional surveys with various results; see, for example, Richard Horton, Jan Michalski, Stacey Winters, Douglas Gunn, and Jennifer Holland (2025), "AI ROI: The Paradox of Rising Investment and Elusive Returns," October 22, https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/issues/generative-ai/ai-roi-the-paradox-of-rising-investment-and-elusive-returns.html.  4. On adoption by large firms, see McKinsey & Company (2025), "The State of AI: Agents, Innovation, and Transformation," November 5, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai. On adoption by smaller firms, see the Business Trends and Outlook Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, which is available on its website at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/btos.html. On adoption by individuals, see Alexander Bick, Adam Blandin, and David J. Deming (2024), "The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI," Working Paper Series 32966 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, September; revised February 2025).  5. See Ben Hyman, Jaison R. Abel, Natalia Emanuel, Nick Montalbano, and Richard Deitz (2025), "Are Businesses Scaling Back Hiring Due to AI?" Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics (blog), September 4. Other surveys have shown similar results; see, for example, Jeremy Korst, Stefano Puntoni, and Prasanna Tambe (2025), "Accountable Acceleration: Gen AI Fast-Tracks Into the Enterprise (PDF)," 2025 Report, October 29.  6. See Michael S. Barr (2025), "Artificial Intelligence: Hypothetical Scenarios for the Future," speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, February 18.  7. Job-posting statistics are based on the classification by Lightcast and are calculated using the methodology developed in Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, Jonathon Hazell, and Pascual Restrepo, "Artificial Intelligence and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies," Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 40 (April), pp. S293–340. Data are available by subscription from Lightcast at https://lightcast.io.  8.  See Michael S. Barr (2025), "Artificial Intelligence and the Labor Market: A Scenario-Based Approach," speech delivered at the Reykjavík Economic Conference 2025, Central Bank of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, May 9.  9. See Timothy Bresnahan (2024), "What Innovation Paths for AI to Become a GPT?" Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 33 (Summer), pp. 305–16.  10. See Michael S. Barr (2025), "AI, Fintechs, and Banks," speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, April 4.  11. The most recent Financial Stability Report is available on the Federal Reserve Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-20251107.pdf.  12. A report from the Bank of International Settlements notes that central bankers have the prospect of improving data quality, enhancing operations, and improving decisionmaking with the use of AI and provides a framework for considering questions of governance and risk management when doing so; see Bank of International Settlements (2025), "Governance of AI Adoption at Central Banks (PDF)," January.  13. See the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Compliance Plan for OMB Memorandum M-25-21," which is available on the Federal Reserve's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/compliance-plan-for-OMB-memorandum-m-25-21.htm. 

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) is pleased to announce that it entered into agreements today (Wednesday) to acquire a 20 per cent stake in the holding company of CMU OmniClear Limited (CMU OmniClear), as the leading financial market infrastructure operators bolster their strategic partnership to advance the long-term development of Hong Kong’s fixed-income and currencies (FIC) ecosystem. HKEX will invest up to HK$455 million1 in CMU OmniClear Holdings Limited (CMU OmniClear Holdings) through the subscription of new shares. Upon completion, HKEX and the Exchange Fund managed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) will hold 20 per cent and 80 per cent of CMU OmniClear Holdings, respectively. A signing ceremony was successfully held today between HKEX, the Exchange Fund and CMU OmniClear Holdings in connection with the subscription. This strategic investment builds on the Memorandum of Understanding signed between HKEX and CMU OmniClear in March 2025, and underscores HKEX’s commitment to cement Hong Kong’s position as a leading FIC centre and an international Renminbi (RMB) hub. CMU OmniClear is a company established to carry out the operations of the Central Moneymarkets Unit (CMU) on behalf of the HKMA. Through this partnership, HKEX and the HKMA will harness their combined resources, technology, talent and market expertise to accelerate the development of Hong Kong’s post-trade securities infrastructure into a major central securities depository (CSD) in the region. Specifically, this will involve the continued commercialisation of CMU and the pursuit of business development initiatives in areas such as expansion of its investor CSD services,  asset classes coverage and collateral management services, with the goal of enhancing CMU’s competitiveness, and the cross-asset class efficiency of CSD platforms in Hong Kong. Bonnie Y Chan, Chief Executive Officer of HKEX, said: “We are delighted to be joining forces with the HKMA and CMU OmniClear on this journey to support the next chapter of growth in Hong Kong’s FIC ecosystem. Developing our FIC capabilities sits at the core of HKEX’s strategic objectives, and this important investment reflects our commitment to building a diversified and vibrant multi-asset class product network, supporting the long-term resilience of our markets. As global investors seek more opportunities centred around our region, we look forward to working with regulators and market participants to further enhance Hong Kong’s status as a global bond fundraising, risk management and offshore RMB business centre, unleashing Hong Kong’s potential as a global FIC hub.” Eddie Yue, Chief Executive of the HKMA and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of CMU OmniClear Holdings, said: “The strategic collaboration between the HKMA, CMU OmniClear and HKEX marks a significant milestone in the development of Hong Kong’s financial infrastructure.  This partnership establishes a strong foundation for transforming CMU into a multi-asset class platform that provides investors with one-stop access to equity and debt securities while facilitating efficient two-way investment flows between the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong and international markets. Together with HKEX and CMU OmniClear, we look forward to unlocking synergies and creating many more new business opportunities, further strengthening Hong Kong’s position as a leading international financial centre, global risk management centre and global offshore RMB business hub.” The strategic partnership forms part of broader efforts to develop Hong Kong’s FIC ecosystem, facilitating future growth areas that include offshore bond repo, OTC clearing, and interest rate derivatives, whilst enabling broader use cases for non-cash collateral, particularly RMB-denominated bonds such as Chinese Government Bonds. Proceeds of the investment, which will be funded by HKEX’s existing corporate funds, will be used to support future growth and market development initiatives of CMU OmniClear. CMU, Hong Kong’s fixed-income CSD operated by CMU OmniClear, has around HK$5 trillion equivalent of assets under custody as of 30 September 2025 and plays a key role in managing the clearing and settlement of bond transactions conducted on Bond Connect, as well as supporting the growth of Swap Connect by facilitating efficient use of collateral held with CMU. These two Connect arrangements were jointly developed by HKEX and the HKMA, whose long-term close collaboration has contributed to the continued success of both programmes, which hit fresh trading records this year.   In the presence of Mr Paul Chan (back row, middle), Financial Secretary of the Hong Kong SAR; Mr Carlson Tong (back row, left), Chairman of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited; and Mr Howard Lee (back row, right), Deputy Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Deputy Chairperson of the Board of Directors of CMU OmniClear Holdings Limited, Ms Bonnie Chan (front row, left), Chief Executive Officer of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited; Mr Eddie Yue (front row, middle), Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of CMU OmniClear Holdings Limited; and Mr Stanley Chan (front row, right), Group Chief Executive Officer of CMU OmniClear Holdings Limited signed agreements at a signing ceremony to deepen strategic partnership.   Note: Investment Subscription Price will be subject to customary closing adjustments to account for net cash positions of CMU OmniClear Holdings and CMU OmniClear at transaction close.  

The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) - Te Mana Tātai Hokohoko - has published its latest Audit Quality Monitoring Report which provides a snapshot of its monitoring of audit firms. The 2024/25 report provides information for directors and auditors to assist with driving and maintaining improvements in audit quality, highlighting areas of strength as well as those areas where additional focus and improvement is needed. FMA Head of Audit, Financial Reporting, and Climate Related Disclosures, Jacco Moison, said: “This report is intended to be constructive, and to support continuous improvement, not to penalise. Non-compliance does not necessarily mean financial statements were incorrect.” “The focus for this year's reviews was on whether firms appropriately designed and performed procedures to test the effectiveness of their quality management systems as well as how they comply with auditing and assurance standards for the number of audit files reviewed.” The report highlighted some key considerations for audit firms, to further enhance the quality of audits in New Zealand, with three main findings. Auditors did not always obtain sufficient evidence to verify the accuracy and completeness of related party disclosures in financial statements. Although firms successfully implemented the new Professional and Ethical Standard 3 (PES 3) that require the firms to have good systems of quality control, the operational effectiveness of their quality management systems needs improvement. Variable remuneration for CEOs and senior managers (e.g. performance-based bonuses) can create incentives or pressures that increases the risk of management override of controls and fraud. Auditors should enhance documentation on how they assess and respond to these risks.  The report also provides insights into the early observations on mandatory assurance reports for climate statements and FMA’s oversight on overseas licensed auditors and registered audit firms. “High-quality audits play a critical role in enhancing investor confidence,” said Mr Moison. “They provide assurance that a company’s financial statements are free from material misstatement and can be relied upon for making informed investment decisions. This trust is foundational to the integrity and efficiency of capital markets.” The FMA’s Audit Quality Monitoring Report for 2024/25 reviewed 6 of the 12 registered audit firms in New Zealand and 14 audit files, 8 of which were of listed entities. It was the second time the FMA has reviewed most audit firms in the same year. Until last year, audit firms were previously reviewed every two to three years. Some resourcing constraints and the focus on our larger bank audits limited the number of firms reviewed this year. Most of the audit firms will be subject to a review in the upcoming year. Download the 2025 Audit Quality Monitoring Report [PDF 3.3MB]