London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSEG) announces today that it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each on the London Stock Exchange from Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc (Morgan Stanley) as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 26 February 2026: Ordinary Shares   Date of purchase: 10 March 2026 Number of ordinary shares purchased: 161,851 Highest price paid per share: 8,736.00p Lowest price paid per share: 8,508.00p Volume weighted average price per share: 8,649.89p   LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares.   Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 502,617,179 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 21,451,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 502,617,179. 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 Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (as it forms part of the law of the United Kingdom by virtue of 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 trades made by the Morgan Stanley on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/1212W_1-2026-3-10.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: 161,851 Date of purchases: 10 March 2026 Investment firm: Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc     Aggregate Information: Venue Volume weighted average price Aggregated Volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share XLON 8,648.40p 134,209 8,508.00p 8,736.00p TRQX 8,657.11p 27,642 8,512.00p 8,736.00p

Reason for the Update Update to Appendix 3A.1 released on 12 February 2026 to notify the NZD equivalent amount per security, the NZD currency exchange rate, and the dividend reinvestment plan (DRP) price (and, as part of doing so, providing the DRP participation rate) - refer to sections 2B.2a, 2B.2b, 4A.6, and 5.1. Click here for full details.

Key points By 2030, industry projects that Australia’s superannuation pool could be approaching $6 trillion dollars, comparable in size to where the banks are today. As super continues to grow, trustees will become stewards of more than Australia’s retirement future – but of our economic future too. Right across the superannuation sector there is a need to scale governance, capability, skills, systems, and operations to match this growing role in the system. Acknowledgements I would like to begin this afternoon by acknowledging the Bunurong people of the Kulin nation and their ongoing connection to and custodianship of the lands on which we meet today and paying my respects to elders past and present. I’d also like to begin by acknowledging Margaret Cole. Being the last time I may be on a stage with Margaret, I actually wanted to take a moment to formally recognise her significant contributions as a regulator, not just here domestically but internationally as a regulator. Thinking domestically, “the Margaret Cole era” has indeed been a transformational one for APRA. Whether holding underperforming funds accountable through the mandatory performance testing or putting more data in the hands of customers and indeed developing that relationship that ASIC and APRA share. She’s been pivotal, certainly for my part in that journey, so thank you. It has been an honour to work alongside you. Introduction The last time we were here, I remember all the delegates ranking their priority issues for the year ahead. You might remember it was a really long list, and I remember that scams and fraud were somewhere near the bottom. You might remember I found that pretty interesting because I was up here at the time telling you – I’ll admit – pretty sternly that you needed to look at your controls. Fast forward two months and a number of super funds were hit with cyber-attacks[1]. We saw up to 9000 member accounts impacted, and more than half a million dollars of customers’ money stolen.[2] I think it was an important reminder of just how big of a business superannuation is now. Around $4.5 trillion in assets as of last September[3]. That makes it a very big target for bad actors. It also means it now comes with very big obligations. And if you want to meet these obligations to members and markets, your size means you actually now need to think differently about your role in the system. Custodians of confidence Look at it this way. By 2030, industry projects that Australia’s superannuation pool could be approaching $6 trillion dollars, which is more-or-less where the banks are today.[4], [5] So, it's not a moonshot to say that super will one day – and one day not too far away - be the biggest part of our economy. That will make you stewards of more than Australia’s retirement future – but of our economic future too. Custodians of stability and confidence. In a lot of ways, the shoe already fits. Look at the role super has played in private markets. As our work as shown prudentially regulated super is one of the safer and more common ways for Australians to access private markets. But in other ways of course, there are still growing pains. Take our current review into how trustees use complaints to identify and address service issues as an example. I stress it’s still very early days in this review. But already, a tale of two cities is emerging. Some trustees are streets ahead in terms of how they identified issues from complaints. And well done to you. Others are lagging behind. And like what we’ve seen with the Retirement Income Covenant implementation, size is not a predictor of success. Incredibly, five of the 10 trustees we are looking at in depth have not identified a single systemic issue from analysis of their complaints data over our period of review. So, let’s just sit with that for a minute. These trustees received thousands of complaints but told us they haven’t identified one single systemic issue through regular review of complaint data? Really? And at least one trustee failed to analyse their complaints data at all. Okay so why does this matter? Well, aside from it being an enforceable requirement to regularly analyse complaint data, complaints are, of course, a free source of intelligence. You don’t need an expensive consultant to tell you you’ve got a problem. Your customers are telling you, loud and clear through complaints. And listening and responding to them is customer service 101. What’s become really clear to me over the past few years is that right across the superannuation system and sector there is a need to invest in governance, capability, skills, systems, and operations to deliver on the promise of super to Australians and move towards best practice. You only need to look to the ASX for a cautionary tale on what happens when your investment and aspiration doesn’t match your role in the system. The ASX is one of the most critical limbs of Australia’s financial services, but it’s failed to deliver on its promise to its customers because it has looked backward, not forward, whilst seeing its issues separately rather than listening to customers and bringing them together, for best practice. We are all one system. Every part of the system has its gaps – platforms, industry, retail, specialists, everyone. And it will require action from everyone – from all of us – to address. The low-hanging fruit It’s absolutely true that some of the challenges you are facing are complex. I don’t deny that at all. But it’s also true that there’s plenty of low hanging fruit. And at the risk of triggering déjà vu for all of us in this room, one of the ripest areas for early action remains scams. Last year, Scamwatch received more than 800 reports related to superannuation, with more than $22 million lost. We recently benchmarked the websites of 47 superannuation funds against the big 4 banks when it came to scam communications. Banks such as NAB, ANZ, CBA, and Westpac generally scored pretty positive results over 80% of the time. Which is probably not surprising given they now have to protect Australians from scams by law. Super funds, on the other hand, mostly scored between 40 and 60% – so not even a passing grade in some cases. And some of it is really basic stuff. For instance: Only 9 funds clearly defined a scam One third of funds failed to provide messaging on common signs of a scam Only 4% - so two funds who might have links to other financial services - offered members fraud or scam alert subscriptions, and Only one in five super fund websites provided a dedicated telephone or email contact for members to report potential scams or fraud. Again, why does this matter when super is only one link in the chain? Well, remember your role in the system as trusted stewards. Your website is your front door for your customers. It’s the first place they’ll go for information if worried about their super, because they trust you. You are their trustees. Absolutely it’s not the job of the board, of yourselves, to write websites. But it is absolutely and unequivocally your job to oversee risk. More than that, it’s absolutely your job to hold management accountable for identifying and managing risk effectively. And with the amount of super in the system, this is a risk that anyone can see coming. The place to start to manage it is by having a scams strategy. At this point, I want to note with cautious optimism the work underway among some of your industry groups, including the Financial Services Council’s Scam and Fraud Prevention Exchange in collaboration with the Super Members Council, and ASFA’s new scams and fraud tool kit. I ask you though to keep lifting on this in 2026 and evolve the collaboration and toolkits into safer customer outcomes. Looking forward We know this audience likes to hear what our priorities are. So what else are we looking at this year? Our priorities in superannuation are largely consistent with our priorities from last year, because there is more to do – and in fact, there’s more we’re concerned about – when it comes to supporting better outcomes in member services and in retirement. I’ve already mentioned how we will shine a spotlight on how trustees are using complaints to identify and drive systemic improvements, as you are required to by law. We will also follow up and follow through on our death benefits review to work to determine if you’re making progress on our recommendations. We will not rest on our laurels on this work, and we would encourage you not to rest on your laurels either. We will continue to disrupt harmful superannuation switching behaviours. And we will hold trustees accountable for ensuring the Retirement Income Covenant finally moves beyond implementation to delivery, for the benefit of those four million people who will be in the retirement phase of super over the next decade. Looking then to markets, we will continue to drive transparency and consistency in fair outcomes in all capital markets, public and private, including where they intersect with superannuation. And we’ll continue our related important work on superannuation financial reporting and audit surveillance to ensure confidence and transparency regarding the investment of Australians’ retirement savings. This includes bringing forward our review of RG97 to ensure the guidance remains robust and relevant for 2027 and beyond. Our enforcement focus will continue to be holding super trustees to account for member service failures. We will continue to target those responsible for the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds through a new and dedicated enforcement priority in 2026. As always, we will have an enduring enforcement focus on market integrity matters across all market types – all the market types you are some of the biggest investors into. Finally, we will be increasing our enforcement focus on poor private credit practices, following our work on evolving capital markets. The stop orders we issued last year were only the beginning. This year, we’re ratcheting up, with more on this to follow soon. Conclusion So, we think all of this will help deliver what we have laid the foundation for in the past two years – a step-change in superannuation. A change that will ultimately enable confident and informed participation, and transparency and efficiency for members and markets. Let’s not all re-trade on the momentum from last year. In 2026, it’s time to step it up and see it through. Thank you to Aleks and Conexus for the invitation to speak today. As always, I welcome your questions.   [1] Australian superannuation funds hit by cyber attacks, with members' money stolen - ABC News [2] Super cybersecurity attack: Funds propose real-time platform to combat cybercrime [3] APRA releases superannuation statistics for September 2025 | APRA [4] Australia’s superannuation system estimated to grow to around $5.6 trillion in 2030 in Super Members Council’s, ‘Retirement revolution: Super’s coming of age’, August 2025. [5] Banks currently hold about 42% of the $14 trillion in assets in the Australian financial system, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia’s October Stability Review, which equates to approximately $5.8 trillion in assets. (3. Resilience of the Australian Financial System | Financial Stability Review – October 2025 | RBA)

Abstract Digital assets and distributed ledger technology (DLT) are frequently characterised as disruptive innovations that challenge the foundations of financial regulation. This paper argues that such claims overstate novelty and understate continuity. Financial services have historically evolved through successive technological shifts, while retaining stable economic functions: capital allocation, payments, and risk management. Drawing on financial history, Australian financial services law, and emerging international standards, this paper argues that digital assets can and should be regulated primarily by reference to economic substance rather than technological form. While certain features of digital assets justify tailored regulatory responses, the core regulatory principles of technology neutrality, functional regulation, and proportionality remain both viable and desirable in the digital economy. Introduction The rapid expansion of digital assets has intensified debates concerning the adequacy of existing financial regulatory frameworks. Crypto-assets, stablecoins, tokenised securities and decentralised finance (DeFi) platforms are frequently described as unprecedented innovations that undermine the conceptual foundations of financial services law. In policy discourse, this framing has encouraged calls for bespoke regulatory architectures designed specifically for blockchain-based technologies, often on the assumption that existing regulatory categories are incapable of accommodating decentralised or tokenised forms of value.[1] This paper challenges that narrative. It argues that digital assets largely represent new technological instances of longstanding financial activities. While the mechanisms of issuance, transfer and record-keeping have changed, the underlying economic functions served by these instruments have not. Financial history demonstrates that regulatory systems have repeatedly adapted to technological change – from paper instruments to electronic records – without abandoning foundational principles such as consumer protection, market integrity and systemic stability. The tendency to treat digital assets as fundamentally different risks repeating a familiar regulatory policy error: confusing technological novelty with economic novelty.[2] Similar claims were made during the initial emergence of e-commerce, dematerialisation of securities, the rise of electronic payments, and the emergence of complex securities and derivatives.[3] In each case, regulators and policymakers ultimately responded not by discarding existing legal frameworks, but by extending and adapting them to new products and services, and new forms of intermediation. The central argument in this paper is that digital assets should be regulated primarily by reference to economic substance rather than technological form. This approach is consistent with Australian financial services law, comparative jurisprudence, and emerging international regulatory standards. By situating digital assets within the broader evolution of financial regulation, this paper argues that continuity, rather than exceptionalism, provides the most coherent and resilient regulatory response in the digital economy. Enduring functions of financial services Financial systems generally exist to perform three core economic functions: capital allocation, payments and risk management.[4] These functions have remained stable across time and across very different social, institutional and technological contexts. Capital allocation involves the mobilisation of savings and their deployment into productive investment. Payment systems facilitate the exchange and settlement of value across space (e.g. traditional payments) and time (e.g. trade finance). Risk management enables individuals and firms to manage uncertainty through insurance, derivatives and other risk-transfer arrangements so that the risks are allocated to those who are best able to bear them. Throughout history, these functions have been performed by different institutions and supported by different technologies. Early banking arrangements relied on merchant houses and goldsmiths, while modern banking systems operate through highly regulated deposit-taking institutions supported by electronic clearing systems. Insurance markets have evolved from informal risk-sharing arrangements organised in coffee houses to complex global industries, yet their core purpose remains unchanged. Derivatives markets have expanded dramatically in scale and sophistication, but still perform the essential function of allocating and pricing risk.[5] Digital assets do not disrupt these fundamental economic functions. Instead, they provide new technical means through which capital can be raised, value transferred and risk allocated. Token issuance may resemble equity or debt financing, stablecoins may function as payment instruments and certain crypto-derivatives mirror traditional risk-management products. Generally, the novelty lies in the infrastructure, not the economic function or purpose.[6] Recognising this continuity is essential for policy and regulatory analysis. Unless digital assets are understood primarily as technological innovations rather than economic ones, regulatory responses risk being either excessively permissive or unduly restrictive. A functional understanding allows policy-makers to calibrate obligations according to risk and impact, rather than novelty alone. Some genuinely new business models and functionalities have emerged with DLT. For example, digital assets allow combinations of fundraising and pre-purchase of goods and services, where the sale of tokens can provide starting capital for a business while also entitling purchasers to a certain amount of goods or services from that business, once established. The smart contracts running on blockchains are capable of more complex automated sequential transactions (sometimes described as composability), where multiple related or unrelated transactions are executed together if certain conditions are met, allowing for chains of transactions to proceed together and for some automated functions (eg coupon payments at certain frequencies) to be built into the system’s code. The full potential impact of DLT and tokenisation on financial services is not yet clear. Many commentators have predicted huge cost savings, risk reduction and functional benefits, but these have not yet been proven out.[7] Pilots and experiments using tokenisation across the financial services spectrum are widespread, some with extensive involvement of both government and industry. For example, ASIC has been working with the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre to test the potential of tokenisation in wholesale financial asset markets in Australia.[8] Financial instruments and ledger technologies Most financial instruments depend on some form of ledger to record ownership, obligations and transfers. The history of finance is therefore closely intertwined with the history of record-keeping technologies. Early economies relied on physical ledgers, whether inscribed on stone, papyrus or paper. Some were centralised ledgers (e.g. a goldsmith’s paper ledger), others were distributed (e.g. tally sticks or passbook accounts). Obviously, some non-ledger-based payments were and continue to be in use, including precious metals, notes and coins. As international trade grew, methods of communicating and verifying financial instruments were needed to facilitate trade and payments at a distance. Where the payer and payee were in the same town, using the ledger of the local goldsmith or banker was sufficient. But where long-distance trade was involved, merchants needed methods to move money and demonstrate financial viability at a distance. Sometimes this involved a series of connected local ledgers, such as when using correspondent banking. Precious metals could be used for long-distance payments, but practical limitations around transport costs and security were a disadvantage. At other times, long-distance transactions involved bearer instruments that could be trusted and relied upon as proof of payment or financial soundness, without having to go back to a central ledger for validation. These had the advantage that they could be transferred from one holder to another without the need to consult with or any processing by the issuer, and the holder following such a transfer was generally assumed to be the valid owner of the instrument. Examples included letters of credit, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments. These instruments were developed by merchants in common law jurisdictions and can be traced back at least 2000 years.[9] The rise of modern financial markets was accompanied by increasingly sophisticated systems of centralised record-keeping, culminating in electronic databases and real-time settlement systems.[10] In Australia, this includes the Reserve Bank Information and Transfer System (RITS), Austraclear and the Clearing House Electronic Sub-register System (CHESS). DLT represents the latest stage in this evolution. By enabling shared, synchronised records across multiple participants, DLT allows a novel approach to the allocation of trust and verification within financial systems. It does not eliminate the need for ledgers (the DLT is the ledger itself), nor does it obviate legal concepts of ownership, transfer or custody. Instead, it reconfigures how these concepts are operationalised. From a legal perspective, claims that DLT-based instruments are incompatible with existing regulatory frameworks often rest on an overly narrow understanding of financial law.[11] Legal systems have long accommodated a wide variety of record-keeping arrangements, including decentralised and bearer-based instruments. What matters is not primarily where the ledger is held or by whom, but how rights and obligations are defined, transferred and enforced. Some digital assets exhibit similarities to historical bearer instruments, in that control over a private cryptographic key can confer effective control over the asset (as represented on the DLT).[12] However, bearer instruments have long been subject to legal regulation, particularly where their use poses risks of loss, theft or misuse. Far from placing digital assets beyond regulation, the bearer analogy reinforces the need for clear rules on custody, loss allocation and consumer protection.[13] Layered financial regulation Financial regulation has historically been deployed in layered form, reflecting different levels of consumer, market and systemic risk. In Australia, this structure can be understood as comprising three interrelated layers: general consumer protection law, broad financial services regulation and prudential regulation.[14] General consumer protection law applies economy-wide and addresses misleading or deceptive conduct, unfair practices and unconscionable behaviour.[15] This layer provides baseline protections that apply regardless of whether a product is financial in nature. Broad financial services regulation applies to investment, payment and risk-management products above defined thresholds. It relies on licensing, disclosure and conduct obligations designed to address information asymmetries, fair dealing and conflicts of interest. The financial services regulation is also layered to consider different levels of risk and different types of conduct concerns. Prudential regulation is reserved for institutions whose failure would have systemic consequences, and is supported by capital, liquidity and governance requirements.[16] Most modern jurisdictions also have a systemic risk regulator (often the central bank), with oversight of lender of last resort and similar functions. This layered structure reflects an implicit theory of regulatory proportionality. As the potential harm to consumers and the broader economy increases, so too does the intensity of regulatory oversight. Importantly, this structure is flexible. It allows new products and technologies to be accommodated without wholesale legislative redesign, provided that their economic characteristics can be identified. Digital assets and associated services can be mapped onto this layered framework. Some will fall primarily within general consumer law; others will trigger general financial services regulation; and a subset – particularly widely used payment instruments – may eventually warrant prudential oversight. This approach avoids the binary choice between over-regulation and under-regulation that often characterises debates about crypto-assets.[17] Technology neutrality and functional regulation Technology neutrality is a foundational principle of modern financial regulation. It reflects the view that regulatory obligations should be determined by the economic activities rather than the technologies used to perform them. This principle promotes competitive neutrality by ensuring that functionally equivalent services are subject to equivalent regulatory treatment, regardless of delivery channel or technological architecture.[18] Australian financial services law embodies this approach through broad, technology-agnostic definitions of financial products and services.[19] The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) defines a financial product by reference to its economic function – making a financial investment, managing financial risk, or making non-cash payments – rather than by reference to form or technology.[20] Australian courts have consistently emphasised substance over form in applying these provisions.[21] Applying a functional approach to digital assets yields differentiated regulatory outcomes. Tokenised securities will generally fall within existing securities regulation. Payment stablecoins will generally trigger payment services regulation. Non fungible tokens (NFTs) representing digital art likely fall outside financial regulation altogether. Hybrid cases require careful analysis, but they do not justify regulatory exceptionalism. The functional approach also supports regulatory certainty. By focusing on economic characteristics rather than technological labels, regulators can provide clearer guidance to market participants and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. Regulatory challenges and policy implications Despite this continuity, digital assets raise some genuine policy and regulatory challenges. Classification uncertainty can undermine investor protection and market confidence. Decentralised issuance and governance structures, and composibility of arrangements (the ‘money legos’ of blockchains, as it is sometimes referred to) complicate the identification of entities responsible for the provision of the products or services. This is particularly so with some arrangements such as decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs). Cross-border activity strains jurisdictional boundaries and enforcement capacity. These challenges, however, are not unprecedented. Financial regulation has long grappled with complex products, opaque operating structures and global markets.[22] Investment schemes, structured products and over-the-counter derivatives have posed similar difficulties in the past. The appropriate regulatory response lies in consultation, clarification and targeted intervention where risks are most acute. A particular challenge arises where decentralisation is said to mean a product or service is not or even cannot be regulated. Legal analysis should focus on practical control and benefit, rather than formal claims of decentralisation. Where identifiable parties exercise influence over protocol design, governance, or economic outcomes, regulatory obligations can and should attach.[23] There are also some non-regulatory (i.e. private law) issues still to be worked through in relation to digital assets. For example, most common law jurisdictions have accepted that digital assets are a form of personal property.[24] Many have done this organically, others following minor legislative clarification.[25] Emerging regulatory responses International standard-setting bodies have emphasised the application of existing regulatory principles to digital assets. The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has highlighted the functional equivalence between certain crypto-assets and traditional securities, while the Financial Stability Board has focused on systemic risks posed by stablecoins and interconnected crypto markets.[26] Jurisdictions have adopted varied approaches. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation represents the most comprehensive bespoke regime, yet it largely builds upon existing regulatory concepts.[27] Australia has pursued a hybrid approach, combining application of existing law with targeted reforms for digital asset platforms, custody providers and payment stablecoins.[28] This incremental strategy reflects a degree of regulatory continuity (and perhaps even regulatory humility).[29] Rather than assuming that digital assets require entirely new legal frameworks, policymakers have sought to adapt existing structures while remaining responsive to emerging risks. ASIC guidance - clarifying continuity in Australian law ASIC Information Sheet 225 represents the regulator’s most detailed guidance on the application of Australian financial services law to digital assets. Rather than introducing new legal concepts or bespoke categories, INFO 225 adopts a functional and technology-neutral approach. It emphasises that existing definitions of ‘financial product’ and ‘financial service’ under the Corporations Act 2001 can apply to digital asset arrangements according to their substantive characteristics rather than their technological form.[30] ASIC’s guidance explicitly rejects the notion that digital assets constitute a discrete asset class for regulatory purposes. Instead, it confirms that a digital asset may fall within the regulatory perimeter where it functions as a security, derivative, managed investment scheme interest or non-cash payment facility.[31] This mirrors the historical treatment of earlier financial innovations, including derivatives and dematerialised securities, which were regulated through extension and interpretation of existing legal concepts rather than wholesale legislative redesign. ASIC INFO 225 is significant in its treatment of intermediaries. ASIC highlights that many consumer harms in the digital asset sector arise not from the tokens themselves, but from the conduct of platforms that provide custody, trading, lending or yield-generating services.[32] The best-known example is the 2022 collapse of FTX.[33] This observation reflects longstanding regulatory experience with relying on agents to provide services in traditional finance, where control of client assets creates acute vulnerabilities in insolvency, governance, and operational resilience. Importantly, ASIC’s approach underscores that decentralisation, in itself, does not determine regulatory outcome. Where an identifiable person or entity exercises practical control over a digital asset arrangement – whether through custody, governance rights, or economic incentives – existing obligations may attach notwithstanding claims of technological decentralisation.[34] This focus on practical control echoes judicial approaches to substance over form in financial regulation more generally. From a policy perspective, INFO 225 demonstrates incrementalism. By clarifying how existing law applies, ASIC has sought to reduce uncertainty while preserving flexibility for future developments. This reinforces the central argument of this paper: digital assets challenge regulatory administration, not policy and regulatory foundations. The law already possesses the conceptual tools required to address these arrangements; what is required is careful application rather than reinvention. The Digital Assets Framework Bill 2025: legislating functional regulation The recently introduced Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 represents the most substantial legislative intervention in Australia’s digital asset regulatory landscape to date. Significantly, the Bill does not abandon the existing financial services framework. Instead, it introduces tailored amendments that integrate digital asset platforms into the established regulatory architecture.[35] The Bill’s central innovation lies not in redefining ‘digital assets’ as a novel asset class, but in defining new regulated facilities - ‘digital asset platforms’ and ‘tokenised custody platforms’ – through which digital tokens are acquired, held, transferred or represented.[36] This shift in regulatory focus reflects an explicit policy judgment that intermediated holding arrangements are a key source of consumer and systemic risk. Consistent with the most recent Treasury consultations, the Bill does not create a bespoke taxonomy of digital assets. Instead, it preserves the existing approach under which digital tokens may represent commodities, bearer-like assets or claims under external legal arrangements.[37] The Bill’s definition of ‘digital token’ centres on the concept of factual control and rivalrous transferability, aligning statutory language with emerging common law recognition of crypto-assets as property.[38] A particularly notable feature of the Bill is its treatment of custody. By applying a modified custodial framework to digital asset platforms, the legislation draws directly on existing regulatory models developed for investor-directed portfolio services and managed investment schemes.[39] Operators who possess digital tokens on behalf of clients will be subject to licensing, conduct, disclosure and asset-holding standards, reflecting the long-standing regulatory principle that custody creates fiduciary responsibilities irrespective of the technological medium. The Bill also embodies the principle of proportionality. Small-scale platforms are subject to exemptions, while ministerial and ASIC powers provide flexibility to address emerging risks and new business models without constant legislative amendment.[40] This approach mirrors international trends favouring incremental adaptation over sweeping reform. Viewed in historical context, the Digital Assets Framework Bill does not mark a radical departure from Australian financial regulation. Rather, it represents a Government decision that digital assets can be accommodated within existing legal concepts, supplemented by targeted adjustments as necessary. In doing so, the Bill reinforces the argument that effective regulation of digital assets depends less on technological novelty than on enduring principles of financial services law. Conclusion History demonstrates that financial and technological innovation rarely displaces the core functions of finance. Instead, it reshapes the technologies through which those functions are performed. Digital assets are no exception. While they introduce novel technical features, they do not replace or retire the foundational principles of financial regulation. By adhering to technology neutrality, functional analysis and proportionality, regulators and policymakers can accommodate innovation while preserving consumer protection, market integrity and systemic stability. In this sense, the regulation of digital assets represents not a rupture with the past, but another instance in which history rhymes. The long-term impact of recent technological innovations like DLT are not yet clear. In the end, the ‘free hand’ of the market will decide which technologies provide the greatest net benefit to the end-users of financial services. However, the policy and regulatory framework is well placed, with some modest refinements, to contribute by ensuring that consumer protection, market integrity and financial safety standards are maintained in the meantime.   [1] Vakul Talwar, ‘Why the new government must prioritise crypto regulation’, Investor Daily, 10 June 2025 (https://www.investordaily.com.au/why-the-new-government-must-prioritise-crypto-regulation/); Digital Economy Council of Australia, Submission to ASIC CP 381, March 2025, (https://download.asic.gov.au/media/nt5hmwy5/deca_redacted.pdf) [2] Similar arguments occurred in the early 2000s with the emergence of e-commerce and the internet – where they fundamentally new services needing fundamentally new law, or just new ways of delivering products and services to clients? [3] Sancak, Ibrahim E., Implications of Germany’s Electronic Securities Act for Supervisory Technology (November 3, 2021). Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation / Thomson Reuters - Sweet & Maxwell, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3936211 [4] J G Gurley and E S Shaw, Money in a Theory of Finance (Brookings Institution, 1960). [5] N Ferguson, The Ascent of Money (Penguin, 2008). [6] Digital assets allow forms of blended fundraising and pre-purchase of goods and services, where the sale of tokens can provide starting capital for a business while also entitling purchasers to a certain amount of goods or services from that business, once established. [7] DFCRC, Report on Key Policy Reforms to Support Tokenisation of Real World Assets in Australia, 10 October 2024 [8] RBA Consultation Paper, Project Acacia: Exploring the role of digital money in wholesale tokenised asset markets, November 2024 [9] Frederick Read, ‘The Origin, Early History, and Later Development of Bills of Exchange and Certain Other Negotiable Instruments’, 1926 4-10 Canadian Bar Review 665, 1926 CanLIIDocs 12, (https://canlii.ca/t/t74b) [10] J Yermack, ‘Corporate Governance and Blockchains’ (2017) 21 Review of Finance 7. [11] Sometimes this argument is made by those who do not want their DLT-based product or service regulated under existing financial services arrangements. It is therefore not a disinterested position, but rather an advocacy point.. [12] However, many digital assets are not likely to be bearer instruments (even if they seem to operate as such) because the obligation is recorded on a ledger and parties need the consent or cooperation of the network to process transactions. [13] Bridge, Michael, The International Sale of Goods 5e, 5th Edition (2023; online edn, Oxford Law Pro), (https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192882424.001.0001) [14] Financial System Inquiry (1996), Final Report (https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p1996-fsi-fr); R Bollen, ‘Best Practice in the Regulation of Payment Services’ (January 24, 2010). Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, Vol. 2010, p. 370 (available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1747222) [15] Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2; Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 [16] Banking Act 1959 (Cth); Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). [17] Hemenway Falk, Brett and Hammer, Sarah, A Comprehensive Approach to Crypto Regulation (May 25, 2023). The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, Vol. 25:2, 2023, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4245285 [18] Almada, Marco, Two Dogmas of Technology-neutral Regulation (September 11, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4953377 [19] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) pts 7.1–7.9 [20] Corporations Act 2001 s763A [21] ASIC v Westpac Banking Corporation (2016) 258 CLR 525. [22] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209. [23] SEC v W J Howey Co 328 US 293 (1946). [24] J Jackman, ‘Is cryptocurrency property?’ Commercial Law Association, 21 June 2024 (https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-jackman/jackman-j-20240621) [25] Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (UK) [26] IOSCO, Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets (2023); Financial Stability Board, Regulation, Supervision and Oversight of Global Stablecoin Arrangements (2023). [27] Markets in Financial Instruments Directive [28] ASIC INFO 225; Treasury (Cth), Regulating Digital Asset Platforms (Consultation Paper, 2023). [29] https://www.ftc.gov/es/system/files/documents/public_statements/635811/150401aeihumilitypractice.pdf [30] ASIC, INFO 225: Digital assets – financial products and services (2025) [31] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 764A. [32] ASIC, INFO 225 [Key risks and harms]. [33] E Helmore, ‘‘Old-fashioned embezzlement’: where did all of FTX’s money go?’, The Guardian, 29 March 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/27/where-did-ftx-money-go [34] ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) (2016) 336 ALR 209. [35] Explanatory Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. [36] Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 sch 1. [37] Treasury, Token Mapping Consultation Paper (2023). [38] Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 690; Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7. [39] Explanatory Memorandum ch 1 [40] Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 ss 761GB–761GD.

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) will be presenting at the following conference with a webcast link available at Nasdaq’s Investor Relations website: https://ir.nasdaq.com/. Who:    Sarah Youngwood, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Nasdaq What: 2026 Bank of America Information and Business Services Conference   When: Thursday, March 12th, 8:40 AM ET   

At the end of the settlement date of February 27, 2026, short interest in 3,629 Nasdaq Global MarketSM securities totaled 15,794,218,322 shares compared with 15,834,216,597 shares in 3,595 Global Market issues reported for the prior settlement date of February 13, 2026. The February short interest represents 2.64 days compared with 2.25 days for the prior reporting period. Short interest in 1,653 securities on The Nasdaq Capital MarketSM totaled 3,685,699,100 shares at the end of the settlement date of February 13, 2026, compared with 3,724,995,849 shares in 1,654 securities for the previous reporting period. This represents a 1.65 day average daily volume; the previous reporting period’s figure was 1.43. In summary, short interest in all 5,282 Nasdaq® securities totaled 19,479,917,422 shares at the February 27, 2026 settlement date, compared with 5,249 issues and 19,559,212,446 shares at the end of the previous reporting period. This is 2.37 days average daily volume, compared with an average of 2.02 days for the prior reporting period. The open short interest positions reported for each Nasdaq security reflect the total number of shares sold short by all broker/dealers regardless of their exchange affiliations. A short sale is generally understood to mean the sale of a security that the seller does not own or any sale that is consummated by the delivery of a security borrowed by or for the account of the seller. For more information on Nasdaq Short interest positions, including publication dates, visithttps://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/quotes/short-interestor http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/asp/short_interest.asp.      

NYSE today reported short interest as of the close of business on the settlement date of February 27, 2026. SETTLEMENT DATE EXCHANGE TOTAL CURRENT SHORT INTEREST TOTAL PREVIOUS SHORT INTEREST (Revised) NUMBER of SECURITIES with a SHORT POSITION NUMBER of SECURITIES with a POSITION >= 5,000 SHARES 02/27/2026 NYSE 16,947,364,681 16,735,266,868 2,872 2,619 02/27/2026 NYSE ARCA 2,323,474,800 2,314,632,970 2,560 1,792 02/27/2026 NYSE AMERICAN 892,896,103 928,802,671 309 261 02/27/2026 NYSE GROUP 20,163,735,584 19,978,702,509 5,741 4,672 *NYSE Group includes NYSE, NYSE American and NYSE Arca           Reports will be archived here.

Nigerian Exchange Group Plc (NGX Group), in collaboration with Central Securities Clearing System Plc (CSCS) and Women in Management, Business and Public Service (WIMBIZ), convened leaders from across the public and private sectors to commemorate International Women’s Day 2026 through the global Ring the Bell for Gender Equality initiative. Aligned with the UN Women theme “Rights, Justice, Action – For All Women and Girls,” the event, held during the Nigerian Exchange Closing Gong Ceremony, served as a call for sustained action to advance gender equality and expand women’s participation in economic leadership. Delivering the welcome address, Temi Popoola, Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of NGX Group, emphasized the critical role capital markets must play in shaping inclusive economic growth. “Capital markets are powerful engines for economic transformation. When women participate fully as leaders, entrepreneurs, and investors, markets become stronger, deeper, and more resilient. At NGX Group, we remain committed to advancing policies, partnerships, and platforms that expand opportunities for women and accelerate inclusive prosperity,” he said.  Delivering special remarks, Honourable Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, commended NGX Group and its partners for advancing gender inclusion through the initiative. “I congratulate NGX Group and its partners for sustaining this important global movement and for championing gender equality within our financial ecosystem. Together, let us continue to open the doors of opportunity so the next generation of women can lead with confidence and help transform our world,” she said. Chioma Uzodimma, First Lady of Imo State, called for collective action to expand opportunities for women and girls. “As we sound the NGX Gong today, let it symbolize our shared pledge to protect every girl child, expand opportunities for every woman, and build an inclusive economy where every woman and girl can flourish,” she said. Jude Chiemeka, Chief Executive Officer of Nigerian Exchange, emphasized the importance of broadening women’s participation in the capital market ecosystem. “When more women participate in the market as investors and professionals, we deepen the market and strengthen the foundation for sustainable growth,” he said. Speaking on the role of development finance institutions in advancing gender inclusion, Claude Owona, Regional Industry Manager for Financial Institutions at the International Finance Corporation (IFC) for Central Africa and Anglophone West Africa, emphasized the economic benefits of gender equality. “When women and men participate equally in the economy, our societies function better and our economies become more prosperous,” she said. Media entrepreneur and founder of EbonyLife Media, Mo Abudu, encouraged women to pursue their ambitions with clarity and confidence. “For me, it comes down to four things, purpose, passion, progress, and power. Find your purpose, let passion fuel your journey, stay consistent even when challenges arise, and most importantly, stand firmly in your power. Do not shrink,” she said. Award-winning actor and filmmaker Funke Akindele urged women to pursue their ambitions with discipline and courage. “To every woman out there, you can do it. But beyond the words, we must put in the hard work, build structure into our businesses, and do things the right way. It takes courage to take the first step even when you’re not ready, courage to stay consistent when no one is clapping, and courage to hold firmly to your vision,” she said. The Ring the Bell for Gender Equality ceremony celebrated the contributions of women to Nigeria’s capital markets and the broader economy while reinforcing the need for sustained action to close gender gaps in leadership, finance, and opportunity. The 2026 edition was organized in collaboration with global partners including the International Finance Corporation (IFC), UN Women, the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE), the United Nations Global Compact, and the Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative (SSEI). The event also featured the participation of female board members of NGX Group of companies, Ojinika Olaghere, Fatima Wali-Abdulrahman, Lilian Olubi, Ummahani Ahmad Amin, Amina Mohammed, and Fiona Ahime, alongside key ecosystem leaders including Onome Komolafe, Divisional Head, Business Services and Client Experience, CSCS Plc; Jumoke Olaniyan, Group Chief Strategy Officer, NGX Group; Uto Ukpanah, Chairperson, UN Global Compact Network Nigeria; and Mrs. Omowumi Akingbohungbe, Executive Director, WIMBIZ. As the closing gong sounded, stakeholders echoed a common message: advancing gender equality requires more than dialogue. It requires sustained collaboration, deliberate action, and a collective commitment across governments, institutions, and markets to expand opportunities for women and girls. Through initiatives such as Ring the Bell for Gender Equality, NGX Group and its partners continue to champion inclusive markets, recognizing that empowering women is essential to building stronger capital markets and a more resilient economy.

Today, SIFMA announced Richard G. Ketchum as the 2026 recipient of the SIFMA Compliance & Legal (C&L) Society’s Alfred J. Rauschman Award. The award acknowledges individuals who have made significant contributions to the financial services compliance and legal profession, fostered open communications among industry practitioners, and dedicated their careers to promoting trust and confidence in the securities industry. “Rick Ketchum’s career has been defined by a deep commitment to investor protection and market integrity,” said Karen O’Toole, President, SIFMA Compliance & Legal Society. “Through his leadership across many of the industry’s most important regulatory institutions, Rick helped advance a more transparent, collaborative approach to oversight that has strengthened trust and confidence in our markets. We thank him for his long-standing commitment and contributions to our profession and the financial system.” From 2009 to 2016, Ketchum served as the former Chairman of Board of Governors and Chief Executive Officer of FINRA. Under his leadership, FINRA reinvented the way it examines the industry and dramatically improved its ability to detect fraud before investors are harmed by improving collaboration with the SEC, DOJ, and FBI. Upon his retirement, FINRA created The Ketchum Prize in his honor to recognize outstanding service by those advancing investor protections and financial capabilities. In 2010, Ketchum was appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability, a group established to promote and enhance financial literacy for Americans. Prior to joining FINRA, Ketchum was the Chief Executive Officer of NYSE Regulation, Inc. from 2006 to 2009, and previously was the first Chief Regulatory Officer of the New York Stock Exchange from 2004 to 2006. Before that, Ketchum held a twelve-year tenure at the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., where he served as President of both organizations. Prior to working at NASD and Nasdaq, Ketchum was at the SEC for 14 years, including serving eight of those years as the Director of the Division of Market Regulation. Ketchum earned his J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 1975 and his B.A. from Tufts University in 1972. He is a member of the bar in both New York and the District of Columbia. The Alfred J. Rauschman Award will be presented to Ketchum at the C&L Annual Seminar in Orlando, Florida on March 23, 2026. Alfred J. Rauschman was a visionary in the securities industry compliance and legal profession. The humble roots of SIFMA’s C&L Society go back to a time in the late 1960s when Al Rauschman and a group of his contemporaries began meeting informally to discuss current compliance, legal, and regulatory topics affecting the securities industry. These early efforts led ultimately to the founding of what is today known as the SIFMA Compliance & Legal Society, and Al Rauschman served as its first president.

Thank you, Ken [Rosh], for that kind introduction. And thank you, everyone, for the warm welcome. It is a pleasure to be back with you all in my role as the Director of the SEC’s Division of Investment Management. As you know, we in IM have a mandate from our chairman, and from the president, to explore retail access to private markets. A key part of that exploration is discussion: discussion not only with our colleagues in other divisions and across agencies, but with industry participants and you, their counsel. I hope that you feel free to, and will, speak up—in conferences like this, yes, but also in person in DC or virtually. We have an open-door policy and are attempting to lead by listening. Your input as counsel, with first-hand knowledge of the issues on the ground, will be invaluable as we chart the path forward. Thank you again and I look forward to our future conversations.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to join you here at Boca 2026—a gathering that represents both the depth of the derivatives industry and the dynamism of the ideas and infrastructure that undergird modern risk transfer. The derivatives markets represented in this room are among the most sophisticated in the world. When these markets function well, they distribute risk to those who are best positioned to bear it. When these markets are burdened by fragmentation and regulatory friction, liquidity recedes, costs rise, and resilience weakens. The coherence of our regulatory frameworks determines which of those outcomes prevails. So today, I want to speak about regulatory harmonization between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).[1] Learning from Our History Now, before I proceed further, it is instructive to place the harmony that we are working toward within the context of our history. For decades, Congress has maintained a functional division between the regulation of securities and commodity derivatives. That framework has served our markets well. After all, the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act reflect different histories and distinct purposes. The SEC, born from the ashes of the 1929 market crash, has overseen securities markets with a mission to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. The CFTC, while formally created in 1974, has deep roots regulating commodity futures and commodity derivatives markets with its own statutory framework and regulatory philosophy. This division perhaps made some sense at a time when these two markets were distinct ecosystems. But over time, innovation has a way of blurring those boundaries. When regulatory regimes fail to keep up—and diverge without clear justification—efficiency does not improve, and market integrity does not strengthen. Instead, unnecessary divergence simply imposes cost. Regulatory friction is a tax on efficient risk allocation, and in globally competitive markets, that burden is ultimately borne by American investors, savers, and businesses. With these principles in mind, and under President Trump’s leadership, I am pleased to report that we are reorienting our approach toward a new golden age of regulatory coherence. Yesterday, Chairman Selig eloquently offered you all a glimpse into that golden age by affirming that “harmonization is not a side-show; it is integral to opening up new avenues for entrepreneurs. Once innovators know that regulators are paying attention to their own core mandates, these risk-takers are more likely to move forward.” Recognizing Equivalence: Substituted Compliance  Which is why I should now like to turn to substituted compliance—not in the traditional cross-border sense, but as a principle to apply between the SEC and the CFTC themselves. I have previously described the concept of a regulated “super-app.” In the technology world, a super-app integrates multiple services into a single seamless interface. The user does not toggle between separate systems to complete related tasks. Instead, integration occurs invisibly behind the scenes. Financial regulation today reflects the opposite design. A dually registered firm must navigate two agencies, two regulatory regimes, two or more examination cycles, two reporting pipelines, and often two supervisory cultures, even where the underlying risks are substantially similar. And that is before accounting for the additional layers that may apply if the firm is part of a bank holding company or subject to oversight by an SRO. The principle that ought to guide us instead is straightforward: where one agency’s framework achieves comparable regulatory outcomes, then it should be capable of satisfying overlapping requirements of the other. Of course, our objective is not to precipitate regulatory arbitrage, but to produce regulatory coherence. Product Coordination: Transparency and Collaboration Now, more than aligning our rules, a harmonized framework also demands coordinating our responses to the firms that operate within it, including those that have questions of interpretation or request exemptive relief. When firms approach the agencies, they should receive clear answers, not prolonged silence. Derivatives traders are a creative, energetic bunch that should not feel compelled to avoid a bespoke arrangement just because it is near the jurisdictional lines. To these ends, I have directed staff to begin joint meetings with CFTC staff on product applications. We have also launched a SEC-CFTC Harmonization webpage where market participants can request coordinated discussions with staff from both agencies. Firms should not be shuffled back and forth between regulators when a product touches elements of both regulatory frameworks. Nor should clarity depend on which agency happens to speak first.  Where jurisdiction overlaps, the most effective response is a coordinated one. Cross-margining offers one clear opportunity to unlock liquidity that would otherwise have remained frozen in separate accounts. We have also received significant interest in innovation earlier in the trade lifecycle. Tightly correlated cash and futures products reflect market efficiency. Market participants may explore approaches to “trade a package” to bring about this efficiency. Speaking in broad terms, both the CFTC and SEC may need to consider relief to make these sorts of products possible. I encourage the industry to continue to bring these ideas to us and have instructed the staff to work with the CFTC staff to find viable paths forward where possible. Paving the Way for Innovation in SEC-regulated markets  We should also consider whether our own procedural timelines appropriately reflect the pace of modern markets. For example, the statutory framework governing exchange rule filings was designed to provide a meaningful review period, but not to impose unnecessary delay. Congress contemplated a baseline review period measured in weeks, not months, and the Commission should remain attentive to whether current practices are consistent with that intent—particularly for bringing novel products to market. In addition, it is past time that the Commission work with the CFTC to provide clarity on a range of Title VII definitional issues, including whether certain event contracts may be security-based swaps or other types of securities, such as options on securities. National securities exchanges are increasingly exploring the role that event-based products might play within SEC-regulated markets. These instruments can offer transparent, exchange-traded ways for market participants to express views about economic outcomes or hedge discrete risks. Whether registered with the SEC or with the CFTC, market participants deserve clarity and good-faith cooperation from their regulators. Through our efforts to do so, we can create a level playing field where established firms and new entrants alike can compete and innovate on equal footing – each having a seat at the table in shaping the future of our financial markets. Whether you are based in Chicago, New York City, Dallas, or Miami, I am confident that we can work together to facilitate increased competition in the marketplace. Coordinated Oversight: Examinations and Enforcement Harmonization is not limited to rulemaking. As we speak, the SEC and CFTC are considering an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies to guide coordination and collaboration that can support innovation, uphold market integrity, and ensure investor and consumer protection. As will be highlighted in our Harmonization MOU, examination and enforcement oversight present opportunities for coordination—and can create similar costs in its absence. Many institutions operate under both regulatory regimes simultaneously. Yet examinations may proceed without regard for each other and the burdens imposed by multiple, potentially overlapping exams. Coordinated exam planning for dually regulated entities should become standard practice.  Shared supervisory findings, subject to assurances of confidentiality, should be the norm rather than the exception. In practice, this will require that the SEC often coordinate not just with the CFTC, but also with SROs that deal with registrants daily, such as FINRA and the National Futures Association. With regards to enforcement, let me be clear: the regrettable era of duplicative enforcement actions and conflicting remedial obligations for the same conduct is over. Conduct in a single operating environment means that the SEC and CFTC, within the bounds of their independent statutory authority and regulatory interests, should coordinate legal theories and remedial strategies. Fragmented, redundant enforcement does not increase deterrence—it only increases confusion. Quality over Quantity: Data Reform Swap and security-based swap data is another area where harmonization has delivered, and can continue to deliver, significant benefits. Since the advent of security-based swaps reporting in 2021, SEC market participants have universally relied on the Commission’s temporary SBSR Compliance Statement to report security-based swap transactions in a manner consistent with CFTC rules. The Compliance Statement is set to expire in 2029, and I have asked the staff to consider any necessary amendments to Regulation SBSR with the goal of codifying a harmonized reporting regime. We also plan to work closely with the CFTC to ensure that we are collecting the data necessary to meet statutory objectives—no less, no more. When we require extensive data without appropriately calibrating the burdens and benefits, we can actually hinder rather than enhance understanding and accountability. I welcome feedback from market participants on how we can further improve and modernize our security-based swap data reporting regime. The Path Forward: Coherence as a Competitive Advantage In closing, I take as my final words those of Adam Smith, who published the Wealth of Nations exactly 250 years ago yesterday. In his abiding wisdom, Smith posited that prosperity requires little more than “easy taxes” and the “tolerable administration of justice.” By that measure, the regulatory morass that has been built, including duplicative obligations for identical risks, falls short. The SEC and the CFTC operate under distinct statutes entrusted to us by Congress, and we must administer those mandates faithfully. But fulfilling our responsibility does not require fragmentation; in fact, it calls for coordination. Properly executed, harmonization furthers our statutory mission through a commitment to coherence across markets that increasingly function as an integrated whole. We can do better—and we intend to. The United States leads global derivatives markets because our regulatory system is credible. Credibility rests on more than rules alone. It rests on clarity. On consistency. And on a widely held confidence that regulators coordinate intelligently in lieu of competing in turf wars that offer no benefit to investors. As we continue this work, I want to thank the many market participants here who are engaging constructively with our agencies. I am also grateful for the dialogue that this forum helps to facilitate. It has been a pleasure speaking with you today. You all have been a very patient and indulgent audience. And Walt [Lukken], I very much look forward to the discussion to follow. Thank you. [1] The Chairman’s views expressed in these remarks do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners.  

Speaker: David Geale, executive director, payments and digital finance and PSR managing director.Event: MoneyLIVE Summit 2026, London.Delivered: 10 March 2026. Key points While the consolidation of the PSR and FCA will simplify how we engage externally, the PSR’s work remains important to the FCA’s mission. We support growth and innovation, but never at the expense of consumer protection. We are simplifying rules and stepping back where possible, but always with guardrails in place. Introduction Einstein had 3 rules of working: Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. Now, look. I’m certainly no Einstein. But he was on to something. Those rules could apply to our work at the PSR and FCA. Let me tell you how. Consolidation Rule 1 is ‘Out of clutter, find simplicity.’ The Government announced its intention to consolidate the PSR into the FCA about a year ago. It was a decision we welcomed. Our work has always been complementary, and we made it work. As an economic regulator, the PSR is focused on getting the foundations right – the payment systems and infrastructure that enable the ecosystem to operate. And as the conduct authority, the FCA focuses on what sits on top – the delivery of the services and products consumers rely on. But, that separation was a product of its time. The world was different then – we needed the specific focus on competition, innovation and access in payments infrastructure that came from the PSR. Since then, both we and the market have evolved and grown. The ecosystem is too intertwined to treat parts in isolation. Consolidation helps us take a more joined-up approach. One of greater coordination, clearer responsibilities and smoother delivery for firms, who will no longer have to navigate two sets of front doors to get answers. And for us, one view across the ecosystem. Ahead of legislation, we have worked to find simplicity where we can. For example, many PSR colleagues have moved to the FCA as part of a phased transition and creation of new organisational structure. This allows us to maintain our momentum while realising the benefits of closer alignment. So that the regulation of payment systems continues, the PSR will stay in place, with its own governance, while its powers are transferred. We expect both the outcome of the Government’s consultation and a roadmap to the completed consolidation soon. However, already under our new structure, a single, joint payments horizon scanning team ensures our priorities across the FCA and PSR are aligned. So we can plan the work programme and areas of focus – together. This will change how we engage externally, but it is important to be clear: the PSR’s work will remain a core part of the FCA’s mission. And our objective to look across the ecosystem is as important as ever. Competition, access and innovation are essential components of making the market work well. And key in how we help the FCA be a smarter regulator and drive growth. Taking a step back Which brings me to rule number 2: From discord, find harmony. In regulation, harmony is about striking a balance between innovation and preventing harm. So, as we consider what needs to change, we are looking closely at the balance of risk. Where does harm occur, and who carries risk when things go wrong? Before I get into payments, let me begin with an FCA example that strongly illustrates the point: our recent work on mortgages. Even with historically low arrears and repossession, homeownership had become a far-off dream for many by 2025. Older first-time buyers, and first-time buyer deposits rising to 94% of household incomeLink is external . Several demographics left underserved and facing additional troubles accessing a mortgage, higher costs and less security in renting. We had to act. Because when access to homeownership is slipping out of reach, doing nothing isn’t neutral – it’s harmful. So, with the Consumer Duty in place, we are rebalancing risk in a proportionate way. The Duty provides a more outcomes-focused approach to regulation, allowing firms to innovate and serve consumers better. It also lets us streamline our rules, cutting costs and complexity for firms and improving outcomes for consumers. After we clarified that alternative approaches could meet our requirements, 85% of lenders updated their approach and can now offer about £30,000 more to many borrowers. We are not weakening the safeguards. Responsible lending is still a core principle of our mortgage framework. Lenders must be satisfied that borrowers can afford and sustain their repayments. We’ve simply made the framework less prescriptive, so good outcomes can be delivered in different ways. And last year, first-time buyers borrowed a record £82.8 billionLink is external – accounting for 20% of all spending in the UK housing market. A near-20-year high, supported by our interventions. Buying a home is a big financial decision and there is more we are doing throughout this year to help mortgage borrowers and potential borrowers. But it’s just as important we make things easier for the smaller financial decisions we make every day – which brings me to payments. Making the everyday easier Contactless has become the preferred method of payment. It was used for nearly 1.6 billion transactions in November 2025Link is external, and will account for 43% of all payments by 2034Link is external. But when we took feedback on contactless limits, we heard that the existing £100 limit lacked flexibility. It’s true that a one-size-fits-all cap creates friction at the point of sale, whether you’re picking up the week’s groceries, a new household appliance or even a train ticket. So we proposed to remove the limit entirely. Starting this month, firms will have the power to set their own limits. We’ve heard concerns that this could invite higher rates of fraud, but the reality is more measured. Although the limit is being removed, consumer protection remains – which is why this change is only available to firms with strong fraud controls in place. And in the event of unauthorised fraud, such as a lost or stolen card, firms will still need to reimburse consumers. Moreover, we don’t expect a sudden jump in limits overnight. Most major high street banks – who together process most contactless payments – already let consumers set their own limit, currently up to £100. Or even remove contactless functionality completely. And we’re encouraging firms that don’t offer this to do so, and give their consumers the choice. Simply put, this change means more control and convenience for consumers. And less friction at the till for businesses. Without weakening the safety net. We’re taking the same approach to Open Banking. We needed to move on and accelerate the program from a good base. The Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee originally took on this mantle and made good progress, but it was another product of its time and potentially added complexity. We therefore combined the FCA and PSR teams into one single team under single leadership to sort the governance and add pace and clarity behind the scenes. Those changes helped us accelerate this year, in partnership with the industry. We now have a framework in place, the first commercial variable recurring payments are happening, and we have the foundations on which to build and expand into e-commerce and wider use cases. We have continued to make progress: this month, we’ll publish our roadmap for Open Finance. It will set out how we’re going to take the safe, permissioned data sharing we’ve seen through Open Banking and apply it to more parts of consumers’ financial lives. From credit, to banking and insurance. This has huge potential to improve consumers’ financial lives and drive growth. For example, by unlocking smoother mortgage journeys and helping applicants understand their eligibility much earlier. In each of these instances, we took a different approach to find a sense of harmony. One of simplifying the rules without lowering our standards. Of rebalancing risk and taking a step back where we can, with guardrails in place to ensure good outcomes for consumers. This mindset underpins the broader steps we’re taking to support growth. Both the FCA and PSR set out our pro-growth initiatives in a letter to the Prime Minister last year. By the time we published a joint update in December, we had achieved most of them. That includes reducing burden; progressing new sandboxes and boosting support in those that already exist; and launching our Provisional Licence Regime in partnership with the Treasury. These examples are all part of a wider shift in how we regulate to support growth – which matters even more as we begin to write new rulebooks. Writing new rulebooks We’ve come a long way, but the landscape will continue to change. So our approach must evolve with it. Sometimes, that means creating new regulation – for instance, around cryptocurrency and stablecoins, which are becoming increasingly mainstream. From the beginning, we have been clear: we are open for business. We want firms to succeed here, so have been working at pace to build a crypto regime that is proportionate and competitive. Open to innovation, but grounded in market integrity and trust. We’ll publish our final rules this summer, before the gateway opens in September. You still have time to share your views, and we encourage you to do so. The deadline for our latest consultation paper closes this Thursday. We’re exploring and testing stablecoins as well, and working closely with industry through our stablecoins cohort in the Regulatory Sandbox. Just last week, we hosted a stablecoin sprint and are grateful for the brilliant ideas that we’re seeing. Of course, we aren’t working alone. We’re staying closely connected with the Transatlantic Task Force for Markets of the Future to further financial market innovation, with a particular focus on digital assets and capital markets. We’re also working alongside the Bank of England on our approach to regulation of systemic stablecoins, and with the Treasury to Modernise Payments Regulation. And we are part of the Payments Vision Delivery Committee, which published the Payments Forward Plan in February. The Plan maps out what’s coming next, and when, across retail and wholesale payments, plus key elements of digital aspects. It’s a key deliverable of the Government’s National Payments Vision of a trusted, world-leading payments ecosystem. One built on next-generation technology, and in which consumers and businesses have a choice of payment methods to meet their needs. These initiatives are exciting. But we find ourselves at a crossroads, grappling with the perceived tension between growth and protection. Striking the right balance Which brings me to Einstein’s third rule: ‘In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.’ Outcomes-based regulation brings opportunity. It also brings risk. And it asks more of all of us. The regulator, government, firms and consumers alike. We need a shared view of our goals and how we will measure them, so we can act quickly when needed. And a public-private partnership helps with that. Because we want to foster growth. For consumers, growth means higher living standards, greater choice and more confidence. And for firms, smoother markets, more innovation and higher productivity. The Government has called it their ‘number one mission’, and we have made it a priority in our 5-year strategy. But we cannot – and should not – remove risk entirely. It’s a normal part of consumers’ financial lives, and a source of the innovation and competition that propels growth. The opportunity we have now is to rebalance it. To keep it proportionate and effective, and ensure consumers can make informed decisions suited to their tolerance and goals. And to find that sweet spot of growth and appropriate protection. As we’ve seen with mortgages, that can mean changing mindset and considering where the risk sits. Some will see better outcomes than others. While updating our mortgage rules supports wider homeownership, we must also recognise and assess the trade-offs and potential risks – of financial difficulty for some, or an impact on house prices. Likewise, removing the contactless limit could boost convenience for consumers, increase efficiency for businesses and encourage innovation in the payments space. But we are alive to concerns about fraud and overspending. These are real risks. Which is why we put the right guardrails in place before we stepped back. For example, firms can remove the contactless limit only where risk is low and fraud controls are strong. Our approach is simple. Be precise about risk. Open to innovation. And uncompromising on integrity. We are not lowering our standards. We are applying them in a way that allows us to step back when markets deliver safely, and step in when they don’t. Through it all, our commitment to consumer protection and market integrity will remain at the forefront. But as I said, this is a shared challenge. One we should all meet with confidence. Conclusion It was saidLink is external that Einstein’s 3 rules for working ‘stand out for use in our science, our problems, our times.’ And in the world of payments, regulation and innovation, they serve as a useful test. Are we cutting through clutter? Reducing friction? Finding opportunity in change? That’s what we’re trying to do as we bring the PSR into the FCA. We’ll do it with 3 commitments. Ensuring our work remains central to the FCA’s mission. Simplifying and stepping back wherever possible. And supporting competition, innovation and growth – but never at the expense of consumer protection or market integrity. Because that’s how you build a market that earns confidence and builds sustainable growth.

Euronext today announced the results of the March 2026 annual review for the AEX®, AMX®, AMS Next 20® and AEX® ESG, which will be implemented after markets close on Friday 20 March 2026 and will be effective from Monday 23 March 2026. Results of the Annual Review AEX® Inclusion of:                                                                                                                                                             Exclusion of: SBM OFFSHORE                                                                                                                                                     RANDSTAD NV AMX® Inclusion of:                                                                                                                                                             Exclusion of: RANDSTAD NV                                                                                                                                                        SBM OFFSHORE THEON INTERNATIONAL                                                                                                                                   OCI AMS Next 20® Inclusion of:                                                                                                                                                             Exclusion of: OCI                                                                                                                                                                                THEON INTERNATIONAL AEX® ESG Inclusion of:                                                                                                                                                             Exclusion of: HAVAS                                                                                                                                                                         INPOST ARCADIS                                                                                                                                                                    VAN LANSCHOT KEMPEN The Independent Supervisor retains the right to change the published selection, for instance in the case of a removal due to a takeover, until the publication of the final data after close of Wednesday 18 March 2026. All events taking place after that date will not result in the replacement of any company that may need to be removed from the final index selection.   Review AEX® Family The AEX® is reviewed quarterly (March, June, September, December). The full annual review is in March. Next Index Steering Committee Review: Tuesday 9 June 2026.

The Vienna Stock Exchange is further expanding its digital information services by providing sustainability data on all companies listed in the prime market. The widgets provided by Austrian start-up money:care offer transparent and clearly structured access to ESG-relevant key figures. With this expansion, the Vienna Stock Exchange is strengthening its role as the central digital hub for capital market information in Austria. With daily updates on prices, indices, company data, relevant analyses and news as well as comprehensive market statistics, it achieves high visibility and usage in the domestic financial ecosystem. "Sustainability criteria can be of significant importance for investment decisions. The impact score determined by money:care offers valuable assistance by illustrating ESG parameters in a user-friendly way. As a stock exchange, we are thus deepening our range of information for existing and future investors," says Silvia Stenitzer, Project Lead CSRD, Wiener Börse AG. money:care combines the Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPIs) of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) with AI-supported data collection and expert analysis. It is based on a curated selection of 12 key climate, society and gender indicators, which are bundled in a Sustainability Performance Scorecard. The assessment is conducted in accordance with publicly available company data and relates to clearly defined sustainability thresholds, such as the CO2 budget in line with the 1.5-degree target. 

eBay UK today announced a new partnership with global finance provider Liberis, to introduce ‘Flexible Growth Financing’. This new funding product will be available for UK business sellers starting from April 2026 as part of eBay's Seller Capital  program.  ‘Flexible Growth Financing’ will provide sellers a funding limit tailored to their business needs and access to funds as and when they need them, either in full or in stages. This funding is commonly used to restock or expand inventory, enhance product listings, and invest in strategic marketing.     52% of UK SMEs report poor access to affordable credit. They are held back by  lengthy and complex application processes, fear of rejection, and high borrowing costs,.The result is a funding gap that is actively limiting the growth of small businesses across the UK. eBay and Liberis have proven experience in the US, where the model has already supported thousands of small businesses as part of eBay Seller Capital, with 90% of Liberis small business customers agreeing that working capital provided by Liberis had a positive impact on their operations.  According to Arthur Smith, StudioCityCowboy, a vintage car parts seller: “You can take the whole thing at once, or you can take it in smaller amounts — three, four, five times — whatever you need. It gives you a lot of security knowing it’s there and you can use it how you need it. It makes me feel in control as a business owner.” Eve Williams, General Manager of eBay UK, said: “Small business growth is vital to the UK economy, but access to the right kind of funding remains one of the biggest barriers for many entrepreneurs.  “Through eBay Seller Capital and our partnership with Liberis, we’re embedding flexible finance directly into our platform, giving sellers fast, data-driven access to funding that adapts to their sales and puts them firmly in control of their growth.” The launch of Flexible Growth Financing builds on eBay’s commitment to helping small businesses grow and succeed. Last year alone, eBay’s Seller Capital programme delivered over $250 million in working capital through its partners to more than 10,000 sellers globally. To date, well over $1 billion in growth capital has been disbursed through the programme across the US, UK and Germany. Trang-Thu Trang, CCO of Liberis, said: “In the US, we have seen how embedded, flexible finance can give eBay sellers greater control over how and when they access capital. We are bringing that same model to the UK, with funding built around real commercial data, tailored limits and payments that adjust with sales. It gives sellers the confidence to invest in growth and act on opportunity, without rigid commitments that do not reflect their performance.” The new financing option will be available to eligible eBay UK business sellers through eBay Seller Capital from 6 April 2026, with funding decisions often delivered within 24 hours. Flexible Growth Financing supports sellers with forward planning without requiring an upfront commitment, allowing them to access funds only when a specific need or opportunity arises. Transparent pricing and re-payments that adjust in line with sales help keep cash flow aligned as the business evolves.

FNZ, the leading global wealth management platform, today announced a series of leadership appointments to support its continued global growth and strengthen execution across North America and Asia Pacific. Appointments: Anthony Habis appointed Group Head of North America, in addition to current role as Group Chief Commercial Officer Peter Hiom appointed Group Head of Asia Pacific, in addition to current role as Group Head of Markets Alasdair Munro appointed Chief Communications Officer Anthony Habis has been appointed Group Head of North America, in addition to his ongoing role as Group Chief Commercial Officer. Anthony’s appointment reflects FNZ’s strong commitment to North America, an important growth region where the firm is seeing increasing demand for its AI-enabled, end-to-end wealth management platform, demonstrated through partnerships with clients including BMO and Raymond James. His leadership will support FNZ’s next phase of expansion across the United States and Canada, executing on our new business pipeline, strengthening client partnerships and delivery execution, while also bringing greater commercial consistency and discipline across FNZ globally. Anthony brings more than 25 years of global leadership experience across wealth and asset management, including senior roles at MA Financial Group (Moelis Australia) and BNY Mellon, where he oversaw its client franchise across all investor segments and more than US$46 trillion in assets under administration. Anthony previously led FNZ’s Asia Pacific region. Peter Hiom has been appointed Group Head of Asia Pacific, in addition to his ongoing role as Group Head of Markets. He will lead strategic direction, client delivery and growth across Asia Pacific, while continuing to lead FNZ’s strategy to provide technology and dealing services across the global capital markets value chain. Peter brings extensive experience in global capital markets and market infrastructure. Before joining FNZ, he served as Deputy CEO at ASX, leading primary and secondary markets, clearing and settlement, data and technical services. Earlier in his career, he held business development and technology roles at the London International Financial Futures Exchange and the Sydney Futures Exchange. Alasdair Munro has been appointed Chief Communications Officer, responsible for leading FNZ’s global marketing and corporate communications. He brings over 20 years of experience across PR, communications and marketing, and has been with FNZ since 2010, giving him deep knowledge of the business and the wealth management technology sector. His role also includes strengthening FNZ’s brand strategy to support the company’s growth. Roman Regelman, Group President at FNZ, commented: “These appointments reflect our focus on building world-class leadership and delivering transformational value to our clients, their advisors and end customers. Anthony’s experience and leadership will help us accelerate momentum in North America while strengthening the commercial discipline that underpins our growth across all regions. Peter’s deep markets and technology expertise will support our continued expansion across Asia Pacific and the global markets value chain. And Alasdair’s experience will ensure we continue to tell FNZ’s story with clarity and impact as we deliver our mission to open up wealth.” Anthony Habis added: “North America is a key market for FNZ, and I’m excited about what we can deliver next. By helping clients modernize and scale on FNZ’s AI-enabled, end-to-end wealth management platform, we can reduce friction, enable more transparent and digital-first experiences, and deliver on our mission to open up wealth for all.” Peter Hiom said: “Asia Pacific is a critical region for FNZ and a major growth market for our clients. I’m looking forward to building on our progress in the region while continuing to strengthen FNZ’s Markets capability across the global capital markets value chain.” Alasdair Munro added: “FNZ’s story is one of scale, innovation and long-term partnership. I’m excited to lead our global marketing and corporate communications as we continue to build trust, support our clients, and deliver on our mission to open up wealth.”

The Listing Nominating Committee of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the Exchange), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX), reminds potential applicants that the deadline for submitting applications for nomination to the Listing Committee1 or the Listing Review Committee is 10 April 2026.  For more details please refer to the news releases published on 12 January 2026 inviting applications for nomination to the Listing Committee and the Listing Review Committee on the HKEX website. Applications should be made by e-mail and accompanied by a resume.  They should be headed “Application for Nomination to the Listing Committee” or “Application for Nomination to the Listing Review Committee” (as applicable) and sent to Katherine Ng, Secretary to the Listing Nominating Committee using the email address LNCSecretary@hkex.com.hk.  Applications will be treated in strict confidence.  Personal data provided will only be used for the purpose of application for appointment.   Note: The Exchange’s Listing Committee and the GEM Listing Committee have operated as an integrated committee since 2003.  References to the Listing Committee include the GEM Listing Committee.

Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. (NYSE: BR), a global Fintech leader, today announced the integration of Crypto.com with its NYFIX order routing network worldwide, while also marking NYFIX’s first cryptocurrency integration in Asia. This collaboration enables crypto order to flow through the same trusted FIX-based infrastructure used across global financial markets. "As interest in digital assets continues to accelerate, this relationship reflects Broadridge’s commitment to expanding access to emerging asset classes while maintaining compliance and operational resilience," said George Rosenberger, Senior Vice President, Broadridge Trading & Connectivity Solutions. “With Crypto.com we are extending NYFIX’s robust connectivity into the digital asset space, enabling our clients to route orders with the same reliability and transparency they expect from all their trading activity.” Broadridge and Crypto.com will integrate across their technology infrastructure, allowing Crypto.com’s users to access NYFIX Marketplace. This connectivity allows market participants, who are already on NYFIX to route crypto orders seamlessly to Crypto.com, combining Broadridge’s reliable market access and connectivity with Crypto.com’s deep liquidity and low-latency performance. "Working with Broadridge allows us to connect with a trusted global network that has long served the world’s leading financial institutions," said Eric Anziani, President and Chief Operating Officer of Crypto.com. "This collaboration strengthens our ability to serve professional trading firms with robust FIX connectivity solutions and supports our ongoing mission to expand Crypto.com’s presence across key global markets." Built to deliver standardized, secure, and interoperable trade workflows, the integration underscores the adaptability of the NYFIX network beyond traditional asset classes. Participating clients gain consistent order routing, drop copies, and market data handling through the industry-standard FIX protocol—mitigating fragmentation and operational friction across both traditional and digital markets. This connectivity through NYFIX supports Crypto.com’s business expansion by extending its access to Broadridge’s global network of over 2,200 buy- and sell-side participants, unlocking new opportunities for growth and cross-market collaboration. With this partnership, Crypto.com can leverage Broadridge’s global connectivity and experience to broaden its market access today and explore additional capital markets capabilities on the platform as its business expands.

Solactive is pleased to announce the collaboration with KB Asset Management by the launch of the RISE China AI Semiconductor Top 4 Plus ETF, which tracks the Solactive China AI Semiconductor Top 4 Plus Index. The product is designed to provide exposure to Chinese companies active in the artificial intelligence (AI) semiconductor value chain, reflecting China’s strategic focus on strengthening domestic AI infrastructure and semiconductor capabilities. Amid increasing global investment in artificial intelligence technologies, China has expanded efforts to strengthen domestic capabilities across AI ecosystem. Research published by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) highlights China’s policy focus on advancing AI chips and large language model development as part of broader technology self-reliance initiatives. Industry research further indicates continued development in AI infrastructure, cloud computing, and high-performance computing applications, supporting sustained activity across semiconductor sectors, such as foundry, optical communication modules, and semiconductor equipment segments. The Solactive China AI Semiconductor Top 4 Plus Index comprises 15 companies selected through a rules-based methodology from an eligible universe of securities listed in Hong Kong or accessible via the Shanghai-Hong Kong and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect programs. Companies must meet defined liquidity and size requirements and be classified into one of four Index Categories—Semiconductor Foundry, AI Chip, Optical Communication Module, and Materials & Equipment. In addition, Solactive’s ARTIS® framework is applied as an additional layer of analysis to further ensure strong thematic alignment of each company with its respective category. The largest company by total market capitalization within each category is selected and assigned a fixed weight of 15%, while the remaining constituents are selected by market capitalization across categories and weighted using an equal blend of ARTIS-based relevance ranking and free-float market capitalization weighting, subject to a 10% cap. The Index is rebalanced quarterly and includes a monthly IPO review mechanism. The ETF was listed on 10th March 2026 on the Korea Exchange with ticker code “0164G0.KS”. Timo Pfeiffer, Chief Markets Officer at Solactive, commented: “We are pleased to expand our collaboration with KB Asset Management through this strategy focused on China’s AI semiconductor ecosystem. The index applies a systematic methodology to capture companies active across key segments of the value chain, reflecting Solactive’s commitment to delivering differentiated and innovative index solutions.” Soojin Lee, Head of ETF Product Division at KB Asset Management, commented: “Investment in domestic AI infrastructure in China is catalyzing activity across semiconductors and related components. Our ETF is designed to reflect that ecosystem by spanning foundry, AI chip, optical module, and materials & equipment companies—supporting a more balanced approach than a single-focus strategy.” MERICS, JUL 22, 2025, “China’s drive toward self-reliance in artificial intelligence, chips and large language models.”

GCEX Group, a leading provider of digital assets, foreign exchange solutions and trading technology, has strengthened its offering with the addition of tokenised gold trading. This is available through relevant GCEX group entities in accordance with their respective regulatory permissions. This latest development from GCEX enables institutional and professional clients to trade Pax Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUt) against major stablecoins (USDC and USDT) and USD. It enables clients to gain exposure to physical gold while remaining fully on-chain, with access to deep liquidity in leading gold-backed tokens 24x7/365. GCEX also offer PAXG and XAUt to be traded as a CFD against the USD, where the PnL is settled in USD, with no direct ownership of the underling. Pax Gold (PAXG) is a regulated gold-backed ERC-20 token issued by Paxos Trust Company and regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services. Each PAXG token represents one fine troy ounce of London Good Delivery gold held in LBMA-accredited London vaults. Token holders have direct ownership rights and benefit from independent monthly audits and full bar-level transparency, as described by the respective token issuers. Tether Gold (XAUt), issued by TG Commodities, similarly represents one troy ounce of 99.99% pure physical gold stored in secure Swiss vaults. The token is designed for easy on-chain transferability and ownership of allocated gold bars, with quarterly attestations for transparency. Lars Holst, CEO of GCEX Group, commented: “Following the introduction of Gold Futures CFDs last month, the addition of tokenised gold trading represents a natural next step in expanding our offering. We look forward to offering institutional clients efficient, fully on-chain access to physical gold via leading tokenised products. It is an offering which is welcomed by clients as it enables them to trade through digital settlement mechanisms.” CFD trading on gold is available through relevant GCEX group entities in accordance with their respective regulatory permissions. CFDs are complex instruments and carry a high level of risk. Clients should ensure they understand how CFDs work and whether they can afford to take the high risk of losing their money. This offering is available exclusively to institutional and professional clients, and is not available to retail clients. GCEX Group empowers institutional and professional clients to access a comprehensive range of Forex brokerage and crypto-native technology solutions under its XplorDigital suite. XplorDigital features, its recent XplorDigital App, innovative plug-and-play solutions, ‘Crypto in a Box’ and ‘Broker in a Box’ which encompass technology-agnostic platforms addressing regulation while covering, staking solutions, safety of funds, established institutional liquidity providers, connectivity to the biggest price makers, advanced risk management, and innovative technology partnerships. Headquartered in London, with multiple offices across the globe, GCEX is regulated by the UK’s FCA,  is authorised and regulated by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet) as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and as a Currency Exchange and has a Virtual Asset Service Provider license by the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. True Global Ventures are investors in GCEX. For further information, please visit www.gc.exchange or LinkedIn