Key takeaways: Digital asset investment products saw US$619M of inflows, with strong early-week demand offset by late-week outflows as oil prices rose despite weak payroll data. The US drove nearly all positive sentiment, recording US$646m of inflows, while Europe, Asia and Canada collectively saw modest outflows. Bitcoin dominated flows with US$521M, while Ethereum and Solana attracted notable inflows; XRP was the only major asset to see meaningful outflows. The full research features in CoinShares’ weekly newsletter, which can also be found here.

Key points Being a company director is not for the fainthearted. It comes with an ever-expanding thicket of risks, liabilities and obligations. Given the immense significance of well-run and successful businesses to the community, ASIC has a keen interest in ensuring that organisations have good directors at the table. The law doesn’t expect directors to be oracles or soothsayers. Rather, directors are expected to take considered risks in the face of considerable uncertainty. Acknowledgements I would like to begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and their ongoing connection to and custodianship of the lands on which we meet today. I pay my respects to elders past and present and I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present today. I would also like to congratulate the AICD on its 10th Governance Summit. It’s a year for birthdays – it’s ASIC’s 35th birthday this year, which I thought I would mention. This will be my fifth and final time speaking here as Chair of ASIC, and I’ve always found it to be an exceptional forum for significant and thoughtful conversations. Introduction More than 400 years ago, an unlikely trio solved a puzzle that had confounded mathematicians for centuries and laid the foundations for modern risk management. The characters in question were Chevalier de Mere, a French nobleman with a penchant for gambling; Blaise Pascal, a brilliant but highly-strung mathematician who himself was a regular visitor to the gambling tables of Paris; and Pierre de Fermat, a lawyer who dabbled in mathematics for fun – if you can imagine such a thing – and who explored many of the fundamental concepts of calculus before even Sir Isaac Newton. Their dilemma was this: how do you fairly divide a pot of money if two players agree to play the best of seven games of chance, but are interrupted before they finish? How should the stakes be divided if, for example, one player triumphed in three games while the other prevailed only once? Some of you might be thinking that the pot should go to the leader. Others might say it’s only fair to split it 3:1. But de Mere, our inveterate – and thankfully, numerate – gambler, suspected that by assuming the past would look exactly like the future he was coming up short. He invoked the seventeenth century version of phoning a friend and wrote to Pascal and de Fermat and from their correspondence was born the concept of probability.[1] So, what do renaissance gamblers and jurisprudent polymaths have to do with the duties of a modern company director? Their tale, recounted in Peter Bernstein’s engaging book, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, reminds us that risk is a choice, and we are not passive recipients of the whims of the gods or the fates. I suspect everyone sitting in this room today knows a lot about risk. No matter what industry you’re in, that is ultimately your business as a company director – risk. Last week, Justice Michael Lee had rather a lot to say about directors engaging with risk. He said that: “... in determining whether a director or other officer has engaged in contravening conduct, it is necessary to balance the foreseeable risk of harm to the company against the benefits that could have reasonably been expected to accrue to the company by reason of the director's or officer's action, along with the difficulties attending any alleviating action."[2] I’ll be returning to this decision shortly, as I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I’m doing, but it’s fair to say that the law doesn’t expect directors to be oracles or soothsayers. Rather, directors are expected to take considered risks in the face of considerable uncertainty. Risk is not a dirty word. Risk helped to build the world around us. Medicine, space exploration, artificial intelligence, quantum computing – every human advancement has relied on risk-taking. But risk is a two-sided coin. It has upsides and it has downsides. And today, being the director of a company means managing more risks for seemingly fewer rewards. So today, I want to examine some of these risks, and ask what might be a provocative question: is it worth the risk to be a company director in Australia these days? The two-sided coin First though, let’s get a lay of the land. If you ask any director in this country, they’ll tell you their job is getting harder and harder. Let’s face it - the boardroom seat just isn’t as comfortable as it once was – if it ever was. It could be argued that the role of the company director has been fundamentally reshaped in the decade since the AICD’s Governance Summit began. The Hayne Royal Commission was a critical turning point. For directors, it was no longer good enough to ask, ‘can we do this?’. The question instead became ‘should we do this?’. New legislation has meant issues like cybersecurity or poor consumer outcomes are no longer bureaucratic departmental problems, but can be laid directly at the feet of the board. All of this has occurred in a business environment that is increasingly unpredictable and uncertain. A project that has monitored global economic policy uncertainty since the 1980s found that the five highest measurements of uncertainty have all come in the past five years.[3] The latest World Economic Forum Global Risks Report shows that, across the world, “risks continue to spiral in scale, interconnectivity and velocity”.[4] And as the events of the past week in the Middle East have made clear, geopolitical risk is not expected to ease anytime soon. Meanwhile, recent research for the AICD suggests Australia is now one of the most complex and high-risk legal environments in the world to operate in.[5] Australia is one of the few places in the world where directors’ duties are enforced publicly, and I might just pause there to explain what that means. It means that ASIC as the regulator can itself bring court action against companies and directors for failures of corporate governance. So, our law courts are full of cases run by ASIC. You will not see that in the UK or the US, for example. And more than half (59%) of directors say compliance and regulation is the main factor impacting their board's risk appetite.[6] Since 2000, federal legislation has increased in volume by 142%. Pages of legislation have increased by 190%. Board time spent on compliance has doubled from 24% to 55% over 10 years. And spending on compliance-specific roles has nearly tripled, from $1.9 billion in 2010 to $5.7 billion in 2024.[7] Now then, all this complexity comes at a cost – an opportunity cost. There are fears that Australia is falling to the back of the pack in the global race for innovation. Australian business resources devoted to research and development (R&D) was 0.9% of GDP in 2023-24 – a figure largely unchanged since 2017-18[8] and I regret to say, well below the OECD average of 1.99%.[9] Productivity growth remains a challenge, with multifactor productivity decreasing by 0.5% over 2024-25, below the 20-year average of 0.4% growth per year.[10] I don’t shy away from the role of regulators in all this. In fact, this is why I convened the ASIC Simplification Group more than one year ago. I should add the AICD’s contribution to the group has been outstanding, and I thank [AICD Chair] Naomi [Edwards] and her team for that. The group’s feedback has helped to hone ASIC’s focus on reducing regulatory complexity. As a result, we have improved access to information, including our regulatory guidance, simplified ASIC’s instruments, and initiated pilots to make it easier for small business directors to navigate ASIC’s processes. Our next priority will be improving digital interactions with ASIC and exploring opportunities with Treasury to streamline our regulatory framework. So, we are doing what we can to reduce regulatory complexity. I also want ASIC to be backers, not blockers, of innovation. I’ve said before that Australia faces a choice – to innovate or stagnate. This requires fresh thinking, smart risk-taking, and collaboration across the private and public sectors. This is why last year we launched a review of the ASIC Innovation Hub, which has assisted around 1,000 fintech and regtech businesses to navigate Australia’s regulatory system since 2015. As a result, we’ve identified several areas where ASIC will take the lead, so that Australia’s markets are fit for the future. This includes convening a roundtable of senior financial market experts and practitioners, to work with us on future regulatory models for financial market infrastructure. It’s also why we are working with collaborators to embrace innovation in our own operations. We are piloting access to advanced supercomputing infrastructure, working with the University of Technology Sydney’s Human Technology Institute and the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre based in Perth, Western Australia[11] to explore early signal intelligence in life insurance claims and disputes. But this is only one part of the equation. Boards and executives have a defining role to play in driving innovation. And it starts with who is in the boardroom. Almost 80% of board members had a background in legal, finance, and general management last year. By contrast, those with a background in technology was less than 8%.[12] Those numbers have scarcely changed in the past year.[13] This raises serious questions about whether boards are equipped to seize the increasingly technologically driven opportunities before us. The privilege of being a director I said before that being a director means taking considered risks in the face of considerable uncertainty. But does that mean the job is getting too tough and that good people are shying away from it? Looking around the room, I wouldn’t say that’s the case at all. There are more than two million directors in Australia[14] of companies large and small who are making an invaluable contribution to this country. In my term as Chair, I’ve had the great privilege of talking to many of you. Directors who bring skill and heart to the job, and who leave organisations better than they found them. As John Mullen put it in his speech here last year: “A directorship is a privilege. It is intellectually challenging and rewarding, you learn new stuff every day,” – a bit like being the Chair of ASIC! – “You get to contribute to making your company and the world a better place, and you get to meet some fascinating and brilliant people with whom you would probably never otherwise cross paths.” So, it really is a job that demands the best of you, every day. Now then, the more cynical among you may be surprised to hear a corporate regulator speak in such terms of directors. Yet, given the immense significance of well-run and successful businesses to the community, the public interest is also served by directors performing well. Moreover, ASIC has a keen interest in ensuring that organisations have good directors at the table. ASIC cannot be everywhere, all at once. We rely on good directors to act as the first line of defence of good corporate governance. It is always better to have a fence at the top of the cliff rather than an ambulance stationed at the bottom, and that’s what good directors are – among other things, they’re guardrails that can prevent consumer and investor harm. So, ASIC is very interested in ensuring there are good directors. Thankfully, we are fortunate in Australia to have a mature ecosystem of corporate governance. We have a pool of very capable directors, with significant experience. We have organisations such as the AICD developing and promoting excellence. We have strong investor and consumer advocacy groups who play a vital role in holding companies to high standards. And we have strong rule of law, with robust institutions including regulators, to hold directors to account. The role of the board The community rightfully has high expectations of directors. I don’t resile from that in any way. It’s not money for nothin’, as the song goes. As Justice Lee observed last week, directorships “are not just tokens or glittering prizes decorating a CV; the job requires intelligent people prepared to engage actively.”[15] Stepping back for a moment, I think there is also a common misunderstanding about what the work of boards and directors actually entails in larger entities – particularly for non-executive directors. It is often put to me by both parliamentarians and members of the general community that when things go wrong at a company, the directors should face severe penalties, including criminal sanctions. However, the fact that a board has presided over disappointing or unattractive corporate conduct, doesn’t always mean that the law has been broken or that directors have breached their duties. So, there is sometimes a gap between what the community expects and what the corporations law requires – in other words, between the court of public opinion versus the court of law. Boards are not there to run the company day-to-day. That is the job of management. And there have long been questions about where the line should be drawn, and about what reasonable reliance on executive management looks like in practice. This issue was at the heart of the case we took against the former directors and officers of Star Entertainment.[16] This is probably the most significant corporate governance case we have taken in my time at ASIC. This was a case that we had to take on. Not only because matters such as this define and enforce the standards of care, diligence, and accountability expected of senior corporate leaders. But because of widespread community concern about what happened at Star Entertainment. The findings against the former CEO and General Counsel are serious and significant. They underscore the responsibility of senior executives in these roles to recognise serious risks, and ensure those risks are addressed and properly brought to the board’s attention. More broadly, they help to clarify expectations about the role of the management versus the board. While His Honour found that the non-executive directors had not breached their directors' duties in proceedings brought by ASIC for a pecuniary penalty, he went on to make a range of observations that in my mind make a serious contribution to what's expected of directors in this country. This judgment, in my view, is not a backwards step for directors’ duties – quite the opposite in fact. I think it will be studied by directors, executive management, and their advisers for years to come. There is much in Justice Lee’s judgment that is noteworthy. For me, there are three key observations that every director must take heed of. The first is that: “Directors are remunerated, sometimes handsomely, to do their job, which requires real engagement with information provided to them.”[17] The second is that: “Directors cannot substitute reliance upon the advice of management for their own attention and examination of an important matter that falls specifically [within] the board’s responsibilities.”[18] And the third is that: “Directors cannot rely upon an inability to cope with the volume of information they receive” and must “take reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company”.[19] In other words, directors are not “passive recipients of information”[20]. They must discharge their duties with a high degree of curiosity and care. It’s not enough to merely skim the board packs – directors should interrogate – if not outright challenge – information put to them. And that being overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of information provided to them is not an incontrovertible excuse. I should say, nothing in this judgment has changed our appetite to hold corporate leaders to account for their governance failures. We will also continue to look for cases where we can define the line of responsibility for directors. Provided we have a reasonable basis for taking action, we won’t shy away from cases where the outcome is uncertain. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to all of you to say if regulators only took on the easy cases, the hard questions would never be answered, and directors would be left to navigate this uncertainty alone. And I would hope you wouldn’t expect your regulator to simply take on the easy cases. The risks and opportunities of AI So, if it is not the job of the board to run companies day-to-day, what is the work of a director then? As I said earlier, your business is ultimately risk. And that includes risks that are increasingly technologically driven. AI represents one of the most momentous and significant areas of change in today’s world. Like any tool, of course, it can be used well or badly. And the opportunities it presents for directors are undeniable, which Justice Lee recognised last week too.[21] And I should note in passing that he called out a piece of research that the AICD commissioned and found that really helpful, so I think that reflects really well on the AICD. [That] report on AI use by directors and boards showed some directors were already using generative AI platforms to support their meeting preparation, with appropriate risk mitigations.[22] The technology has the potential to enhance scenario planning, improve risk monitoring and compliance, and complete real-time analysis that could take humans days or weeks to generate.[23] This is a far cry from where many of us thought we would be a decade ago. In 2015, nearly half (45%) of technology executives surveyed by the World Economic Forum predicted that by 2026, AI directors on boards would be commonplace – that is, AI bots appointed to the board of directors.[24], [25] Well, that hasn’t happened yet. The robots are yet to gain a foothold. [26] However, a "two-speed dynamic” is emerging[27], obscuring the true use of, and reliance on, artificial intelligence in an area where human judgment remains paramount. Boards are right to be cautious about using AI as a governance tool. Indeed, our review of artificial intelligence use by financial services licensees showed a growing governance gap for entities that had or were considering deploying the technology.[28] I should say that piece of research happened about 18 months ago. I’m hoping ASIC will be able to refresh it. In a recent essay, the CEO of Anthropic – an AI company – Dario Amodei warned that, “humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it.”[29] That includes our models of ordinary corporate governance. The arrival of agentic AI raises the stakes significantly. Agentic AI is not just another moment of technological upheaval – it will be an inflection point in how organisations manage risk.[30] With it comes greater autonomy and unpredictability, new harms that can arise from autonomous decision‑making, and new risks that can be accentuated from existing governance gaps. This is a risk that every director needs to get on top of, and you won’t do so by sticking your heads in the proverbial sand. That means every director should embrace AI, to understand its risks and benefits with both eyes open, and to harness its potential for community and customer benefit. And it means that every board needs to have a conversation about AI use and determine their risk appetite and policies rather than turning a blind eye to the issue and hoping it all sorts itself out. I said earlier that risk is a choice. But failing to choose is also a risk. And in the age of AI, it is a risk directors cannot afford. To put it another way, if you are not on the cutting edge, you might end up finding yourself on the bleeding edge. This does not mean going all-in blindly, of course. There are many commercial, governance, and legal considerations. But it does mean having a conversation and laying some ground rules. Should you become a director? So, with all this said, let me return to the question I asked at the beginning: is it worth the risk these days to be a company director in Australia? You’ve heard today that being a director is not for the fainthearted. It comes with an ever-expanding thicket of risks, liabilities and obligations in an environment growing more complicated by the day, with the weight of community expectations on your shoulders. However, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. Quite the opposite in fact. What it means is that we need good directors more than ever before. Directors who are curious and capable and pay attention to the details. Directors who are bold enough to take risks but draw the line at recklessness. Directors who are hungry to learn but humble enough to admit what they don’t know. Directors who embrace new technology and are clear-eyed about risks and opportunities in equal measure. If you have all of these qualities and more, then of course you should say yes to becoming a director. To return to the words of Peter Bernstein, “The word risk derives from the early Italian risicare, which means ‘to dare’. In this sense risk is a choice, rather than a fate”.[31] With this in mind, I hope you dare to be the kind of director who dares to build a better future for all of us. Thank you. [1] Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pgs 58-72. [2] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196, at [110]. [3] Economic Policy Uncertainty Index [4] The Global Risks Report 2026 | World Economic Forum, pg. 7. [5] Director Liability: Comparative assessment of Australia and international peers [6] How directors can empower boards to drive productivity growth [7] $160 billion and counting: The cost of Commonwealth regulatory complexity [8] Research and Experimental Development, Businesses, Australia, 2023-24 financial year | Australian Bureau of Statistics [9] National productivity won’t be boosted with flatlining business investment in R&D | Australian Academy of Science [10] Annual productivity bulletin 2026 | Productivity CommissionNote: Multifactor productivity (MFP) is a measure of how well labour and capital inputs are combined to produce outputs and is a key determinant of growth in income and living standards. [11] The Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre is an unincorporated joint venture between CSIRO, Curtin University, Murdoch University and The University of Western Australia (core members) and Edith Cowan University (founding associate member). It is supported by the Western Australian and Federal governments. [12] 2025 Board Diversity Index [13] The times they are a-changin’– but directors’ duties aren’t [14] To nation’s 2.5m directors: stand up and be counted [15] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196, at [1945]. [16] In this case, we alleged these individuals breached their duties for failing to properly deal with money laundering risks. The Court found that Star’s former CEO and Managing Director, Matthias Bekier, and former General Counsel and Chief Legal & Risk Officer, Paula Martin, breached their duties but dismissed ASIC’s case against the former non-executive directors. [17] Ibid, [1840]. [18] Ibid, [370 – 371]. [19] Ibid, [395]. [20] Ibid, [1956]. [21] Ibid, [394]. [22] AI use by directors and boards: Early insights [23] ’How to bring AI into the boardroom’, AICD, October 2025. [24] World Economic Forum ‘Deep Shift - Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact’ September 2015, p. 21 WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf [25] In 2014, In Deep Knowledge Ventures assigned an AI as the sixth member of its board called Vital (Investment Tool Verification to Advance Life Sciences). in 2016 a software company called Tieto became the first in the Nordic nations to nominate an AI named Alicia T. to its leadership team in a new data-driven business unit. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Corporate Board Diversity Policies and Regulations - PMC [26] In 2024, Abu Dhabi-based International Holding Company (IHC) has created a new non-voting board observer position for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Observer, named Aiden Insight. Artificial Intelligence board observer appointed by International Holding Board of Directors [27] AI use by directors and boards: Early insights, pg. 6. [28] 24-238MR ASIC warns governance gap could emerge in first report on AI adoption by licensees [29] Dario Amodei — The Adolescence of Technology [30] Organizations Aren’t Ready for the Risks of Agentic AI [31] Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pg. 8.

ASIC has withdrawn and updated certain regulatory guides as part of its push to make financial regulation simpler, clearer and easier to apply. ASIC has withdrawn outdated guidance: Regulatory Guide 64 Failure to lodge documents (RG 64), and Regulatory Guide 40 Good transaction fee disclosure for bank, building society and credit union deposit and payments products (transaction accounts) (RG 40). ASIC has also updated: Regulatory Guide 104 AFS licensing: Meeting the general obligations (RG 104), and Regulatory Guide 205 Credit licensing: General conduct obligations (RG 205). ASIC has made minor and technical updates to RG 104 and RG 205 to maintain accuracy and clarity for industry. These changes form part of ASIC’s broader program to review, update and simplify our regulatory guidance. More information Following on from the withdrawal of RG 64 and RG 40: Companies can find information about their obligations to lodge certain company documents on ASIC’s Company annual review webpage Consumers seeking information about transaction accounts, credit cards, and other banking products can visit Moneysmart.gov.au, and Retail payment and deposit product providers can also refer to ASIC’s regulatory resources on good disclosure practices including: Regulatory Guide 168 Product Disclosure Statements: Disclosure and other obligations (RG 168), and Regulatory Guide 221 Facilitating digital financial services disclosures (RG 221). Background RG 64 outlined ASIC’s approach to companies that failed to lodge certain documents and when ASIC would withdraw proceedings against a company secretary. RG 40 was a reference guide for retail payment and deposit product providers and consumers on transaction fee disclosure. ASIC undertook targeted consultation with industry prior to withdrawing this guidance. RG 104 and RG 205 set out what ASIC looks for when assessing how Australian financial services licensees and credit licensees meet their general obligations under the law.

ASIC is consulting on proposals to enhance corporate transparency by increasing investor visibility of who ultimately owns or controls entities listed on Australian financial markets. The proposals will enable more accurate due diligence for prospective acquisitions, and improved market conditions for investment decisions. They will also increase visibility when someone may be seeking greater influence over a listed company by building positions including through derivative exposures over securities in the company. The proposals are in response to reforms in Schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Act 2025 (Strengthening Financial Systems Act). These reforms form part of the government's commitment to improve corporate transparency, market efficiency and oversight. Under Schedule 1, transparency of ownership and control of listed entities has been improved by broadening market disclosures to better capture interests arising through equity derivatives. Schedule 1 has also strengthened the existing substantial holding and tracing notice regimes that govern the disclosure of interests in listed entities. Consultation Paper 387 Enhanced beneficial ownership disclosure–Proposed legislative instrument, form and guidance (CP 387) includes proposals on: a new legislative instrument (draft ASIC Corporations (Listed Enhancements Beneficial Ownership Disclosure) Instrument 2026/XX) a new ‘Substantial Holding Notice’, and amendments to regulatory guides: RG 5 Relevant interests and substantial holding notices (RG 5) RG 9 Takeover bids (RG 9) RG 222 Substantial holding disclosure: Securities lending and prime broking (RG 222). ASIC also proposes to make consequential updates to other regulatory guidance and existing legislative instruments in response to the Schedule 1 reforms. These updates are considered technical and will not be consulted on. Providing feedback ASIC welcomes feedback from industry on its proposals by 5pm AEST on 21 April 2026. Submissions should be sent to rri.consultation@asic.gov.au. Background The Strengthening Financial Systems Act amends the Corporations Act 2001 to enhance beneficial ownership disclosure obligations for entities listed on Australian financial markets. Key features of the reforms include: Expanded scope: Extended disclosure obligations to interests arising from equity derivatives. Foreign entity alignment: Requirements on foreign-registered entities listed on Australia’s financial markets to meet the same disclosure standards as Australian-registered listed entities. Clearer triggers and flexibility: Clarification of when beneficial ownership disclosure obligations apply and greater flexibility to simplify certain disclosures. Improved transparency: Enhanced access to and usability of existing registers of relevant interests in listed entities. Stronger enforcement: Increased penalties for existing offences under Chapter 6C of the Corporations Act 2001. The reforms commence on 4 December 2026.

Welcome to Boca 51!  As we begin the conference, I want to acknowledge the difficult situation in the Middle East and its impact on many lives. Our hearts go out to those affected. We are all hoping for a speedy resolution to the conflict.   Such events underscore the importance of our risk management markets and the dialogue we will have over the next three days.   To help frame the week, I want to discuss another unexpected event that offers some lessons for our industry. And as you saw from the opening video, it has brought me a great deal of joy. And that’s Indiana University’s undefeated college football season. We Hoosiers aren’t accustomed to winning national championships. Or for that matter, winning at all!  For those not from America, Indiana University was the most losing football program of all-time. IU won the College National Championship in January after just two seasons under Head Coach Curt Cignetti.   The story of the Indiana football team has captured the imagination of many sports fans. It's a real-life Ted Lasso story. How did Coach Cignetti do it?  Analysts are debating this; football coaches are trying to replicate it.   All I know is that this underdog story was one of the most improbable and inspiring seasons that anyone can remember.  As I’ve reflected on this winning formula, I’ve drawn some parallels to our markets.   Markets are also a team sport. They have rules, referees and individual participants that take on various roles to the benefit of the whole. Markets also require leadership.  Coach Cignetti brought three foundational ingredients to Indiana that turned this losing program into a National Champion. These ingredients apply equally to successful markets.  Those are trust, fairness and integrity.  Trust in Teams and Markets  Another word for trust might be belief or faith. You can’t have success unless you change the belief system of an organization. People must have a mindset that they can win. For Indiana, this involved erasing 75 years of low expectations.   But the coach set clear standards for his players, held them accountable and never wavered from his winning game plan. And his team trusted him and fought for his vision.  Markets also require trust, and there are no shortcuts. Markets cannot survive without participants believing that the system is fair and devoid of self-dealing. When markets lose trust, investors flee, credit dries up, and panic instills. Trust lives at the center of strong markets and football teams alike.  Fairness in the Game  The second ingredient is fairness. Fairness rewards merit, demands accountability, and despises favoritism.   Coach Cignetti created an environment where players were rewarded for talent and performance, not star ratings or expectations. This environment of accountability brought the team together as a unit, allowing them to thrive in big moments.   Like coaches, markets also have a privileged responsibility under law to create a fair and accountable marketplace for investors. Fair markets give participants confidence that prices are discovered efficiently, and that rules are applied equally and free of conflicts.   Foundational Integrity Now the last critical ingredient for football teams and markets alike is integrity. Team integrity is about the depth of character of individual players. Individuals with strong character make good decisions during challenging times and always advance the team over self.   Coach Cignetti recruited high EQ athletes with deep experience who developed a resilient brotherhood with their teammates. If one athlete went down, others would step up.   Market integrity also favors the collective good over the health of any one participant. Markets gain their financial strength through an orchestrated series of individual responsibilities that protect the marketplace from a meltdown.   The system’s integrity is built to withstand the failure of any one participant, just like a team. And like human integrity, market integrity has been honed from the lessons learned from past crises.  Responsible Innovation  At a time when finance is innovating at breakneck speed, it’s hard to keep pace. We often lose sight of where we are on the journey. It is exactly at these times that trust, fairness and integrity should lead us.  Our industry instinctually supports responsible innovation. Just look at our history. But I want to emphasize the word “responsible.”  We must act sensibly as we embrace innovation.   And these three themes of trust, fairness and integrity provide us with a north star for guiding us to responsible innovation and strong markets.  To prove my point, let’s revisit a time when our financial system lacked these ingredients – the 2008 financial crisis.   After the failures of Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG, people lost trust in the financial system and the institutions that represented it. Remember Occupy Wall Street? Ordinary citizens saw the system as rigged. No one would lend money. The markets froze up. Trust was gone.  It took a massive amount of taxpayer funds and regulation to build back trust in the system. A decade and a half later, we’re still digging out from those regulatory reactions.   And you know what, Wall Street deserved it. The financial system violated the trust of the society it was meant to serve.   Our markets – the cleared derivatives markets – were seen as the model for reform because our markets worked. They were trusted. And we must work every day to keep up this confidence.   Our industry, not the public sector, must be the stewards of our markets. It falls to us. We must nurture and protect the system. Because if we don’t, history will repeat itself.   So, let’s follow Coach Cignetti’s lead and go back to the basics.  Here’s my suggested playbook:  The Playbook for Trust, Fairness and Integrity First, sound markets must have clear and consistent rules. We instinctively know these common sense principles, which are reflected in law:  Markets should be open, transparent and competitive  Markets should protect against fraud and manipulation   Markets should safeguard customer assets and manage systemic risk  Markets should avoid conflicts of interest  These form the foundation of what constitutes trusted and fair markets.   Our Playbook should start by enacting a sound regulatory framework for digital assets. This will instill trust, promote competition, and offer consumers innovative products for decades to come.   Most importantly, we will unlock responsible innovation that will revolutionize finance and modernize our markets. FIA urges Congress to reach a sensible agreement and finalize market structure legislation that puts strong regulatory standards in place.  Second, we need to bring legal clarity to prediction markets. If we step back and set aside the current politics around event contracts, we should admire the innovative nature of these markets. When I ran the CFTC in 2008, we issued the first request for information on event markets due to their pioneering nature.   The reason this product has taken off is simple: it’s easy to understand, incredibly accessible, and the information “discovered” by these markets has proven pinpoint accurate. These markets have truly shown the “wisdom of crowds.”  I’m encouraged that CFTC Chair Selig has pledged to launch a rulemaking process to establish clarity on the regulatory boundaries of these markets. There are many unique aspects of prediction markets that need guidance, like the strain these markets place on the self-certification process and the need to address head-on concerns around insider trading.   I applaud those prediction markets that have begun to exercise strong surveillance and enforcement actions around insider trading, and I look forward to hearing from some of these leaders tomorrow.  As we continue to fill out our Playbook, we should tackle the transition to 24/7 trading.   Last week, FIA published its 24/7 markets paper that identifies many of the challenges and offers some solutions. Most importantly, FIA proposes aligning clearing with trading as the markets move to 24/7. This will ensure extended trading hours won’t increase customer or market risk. And I look forward to our 24/7 roundtable tomorrow for more insights.   Lastly, our Playbook must tackle the new clearing models coming out. As markets evolve, we should ensure these new models provide customers and the marketplace with the same levels of protection as traditional structures.   The CFTC has taken the lead on this issue and asked the industry for feedback on the various new direct clearing models. On this journey, we must not stifle responsible innovation. But we should speak clearly if innovative models change the risk profile of the markets or its participants.   In the traditional structure, clearing members stand as the first and last layer of defense in protecting customers and the markets. Importantly, clearing members contribute their own capital to the clearinghouse default fund – which represents 97 percent of the financial resources backstopping the clearing system globally.   If new direct clearing models remove this intermediation layer, those safeguards and resources will need replacing.   FIA has suggested a simple approach.  For exchanges offering fully collateralized and pre-funded products, direct clearing models are appropriate because the leverage and customer risk in the system is negligible. Clearing for direct models more closely resembles settlement, and customer losses are limited to what they put up.   But when exchanges offer margined products where leverage could lead to exponential customer losses, we believe an FCM should be in the chain, given its significant customer protection and risk management responsibilities.   This is a fair, simple and clean approach that supports the development of innovative models without having to rebuild the protections inherent in the existing system.   And when these new market models stack various registrations within one legal structure, it is common sense that exchanges have strong rules to manage these inherent conflicts. Just look at FTX’s collapse. I’m glad Congress has included language in its crypto market structure bill that requires the CFTC to provide such guidance on market conflicts.  So, that’s my playbook.  If we can courageously tackle these challenges – from crypto legislation to prediction markets to innovative clearing models – and do so using our guiding principles of trust, fairness and integrity, the sky is the limit for our industry.   In my thirty years in this business, this is one of the most exciting times to be in our industry. Just look around at the new energy, the new companies, and the fresh ideas.  For years, we were considered the stepchild of finance. I would go to cocktail parties and people’s eyes would glaze over when I described what I did.   Not today, my friends.   Our markets, from traditional derivatives to crypto to event contracts, are now in the starting lineup of finance and stand ready to shape our future.   To channel Teddy Roosevelt, credit goes to those who bravely enter the arena and directly take on the challenges ahead. Folks, it’s up to us.   So, let’s follow Coach Cignetti’s game plan and continue to instill trust, fairness and integrity in supporting our markets. And if we do, it will be a winning formula! 

Good afternoon, everyone. Before I begin, as is customary, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission. It’s a privilege and an honor to be here—especially in my home state of Florida, to talk to you about the next era of American market leadership. Thank you, Walt, for the invitation to attend this great event at the historic Boca Raton Hotel and to speak with an audience that understands what is at stake. And thank you to the Futures Industry Association (FIA) for being a constant leader in this space for the past half-century. In December, I was honored to be confirmed as the 16th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an institution that has been dear to me since I first interned there during law school many years ago. I want to thank President Trump for the trust and confidence he has placed in me to guide this vital institution at such a pivotal moment in our nation’s history. In less than four months, our nation will be celebrating its 250th anniversary. This milestone is an opportunity to reflect on where we have been as a nation, and where we wish to go. The Founding generation of Americans lived very different lives from the ones we live today. They spent as much time working with their hands each day as we spend looking at our screens. What we can glean from their writings is that they knew the decision to fight for independence against the British Empire was consequential; that it would reverberate across the years. James Madison, the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in its preamble that a key goal was to secure “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” in order to protect the freedom of future generations.[1] As significant as the Founders’ innovations in politics were, the century following independence saw a flood of inventions remake the physical world. By some measures, no earlier age had ever witnessed such a transformation. The liberty that Americans granted to themselves was channeled into this innovation. The telegraph, the railroad, the telephone, and the first electric grid created a national market where none had existed before. This is what Americans do: we innovate, we invent, we build. It’s in our blood. We created our nation from scratch and have been updating ourselves every day since. We are at the beginning of another great wave of innovation, as markets continue to digitize and crypto assets become mainstream. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1790, Madison wrote that stable government required a “fiduciary obligation” to the future.[2] My team and take this sentiment to heart because we must look to the future in every decision we make. Needless to say, I have thought deeply about the proper role of regulation in our markets for a long time. Given the rate of technological change that we are seeing today, the CFTC must do everything it can to ensure we don’t smother innovators with rules and regulations designed for a different era. We all know that at their core, American commodity and derivatives markets perform a vital, timeless function. My regulating philosophy is simple. Like the practice of medicine, our focus should be on finding and then administering the minimum effective dose. Regulate too little—and markets lose integrity. Regulate too much, markets atrophy; innovation is exiled offshore. What I propose over the next several years is a focus on “future-proofing” derivatives markets oversight via the minimum effective dose of principles-based regulation.  We at the CFTC support innovation in American financial markets. We understand that these technologies deserve smart, clear regulations. It is our hope that innovation in new derivatives products can increase liquidity by unlocking more collateral while making products more programmable and global. By looking at history, we can see cultures reach new heights, both economically and socially, when a vein of new liquidity is discovered and brought into the open. The Renaissance of the Italian city-states springs to mind, as does the Dutch Golden Era, and more recently, the Reagan-era expansion that helped end the Cold War. All these examples involved new independence from centralizing authority, deregulatory pressures, and reduced systemic risk. These examples are not dissimilar from the environment we live in today. If we do this, if we future-proof properly, we will reclaim American leadership in these markets, return to principles-based regulation, ensure innovation-forward oversight, and drive American prosperity for decades more to come. This can be the beginning of a new Golden Age of American Markets, as we think of future generations and learn from past mistakes. From Trading Pits to 2008 Stepping back a bit, the first organized futures exchange in the United States, the Chicago Board of Trade, began on the second floor of a flour store in Chicago on April 3, 1848. It is no coincidence that, only three days later, Chicago was linked by telegraph to the East Coast for the first time. The Board of Trade was created at a time when members knew a radical new technology had arrived, allowing new suppliers and customers to access commodity prices in real time across the country. They took action, organized, and once connected to eastern demand, their arbitrage costs collapsed, making the Chicago Board of Trade the central hub for agricultural commerce in the United States. By the end of the 19th century, innovations advanced with the emergence of dozens of standardized “exchange-traded” forward contracts. Commodities were now traded in “pits” filled with yelling and gesturing traders, demonstrating a kind of transparency and price discovery that had not been practiced before.  Later, in the wake of the Great Depression, the modern regulatory framework was born with the creation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), followed in the 1970s by the CFTC. Fast forward to 2008. It’s important to remember that at its root, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis was a government failure, not a market failure. This government failure began with overly aggressive federal mandates that pushed banks to acquire massive amounts of risky, low-quality mortgages, which created a housing bubble that finally burst. This bust, in turn, caused the U.S. bankruptcy rate to double between 2007 and 2010, pushing more than 2 million people into bankruptcy who otherwise would not have had to do so.[3] Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate and renowned economist, once said that “most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement by government.”[4]  In the case of 2008, I believe he was right. This crisis in confidence in our financial system left a permanent mark on the American public. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—a sweeping reform intended to restore stability and introduce transparency to the swaps market.[5] In some ways, the effort succeeded. It promoted clearing and exchange trading, and it reinforced the plumbing of the financial system. But we must also be honest. Dodd-Frank became, in many respects, an autoimmune response that, over time, began to do more harm to our country’s economic health than good. The implementation phase of the law brought a substantial volume of new rules, definitions, and compliance obligations, creating a complex web of new requirements. Complexity carries real-world consequence: After the passage of Dodd-Frank, severe regulatory burdens were put on futures commission merchants (FCMs) and swap dealers. The number of FCMs, the intermediaries that handle trades and hold customer funds, consolidated dramatically, falling from roughly 90 merchants in 2007 to less than 50 today.[6] Many of us in this room can easily list most of the eight banks that have been tagged as “too big to fail” under Dodd-Frank, many of which have their own FCMs, due to concentration in the industry. Elevated capital requirements meant that farmers who had been able to open a $25,000 hedging account found that the remaining FCMs required minimum capital requirements of $1 million to $5 million. And increased regulations made the onboarding process for a family farm as complex as that of a multinational corporation. The result? After the consolidation cycle ended, brokers no longer served smaller agricultural producers because the accounts were so “compliance-heavy.” Smaller firms experienced reduced access to hedging tools, as intermediaries focused on larger clients, leading to our farmers and producers paying larger fees just to hedge their risk. And over time, the compounding effect has been profound. Today, the cost and complexity of accessing our markets are increasingly too much to bear for the small and medium-sized businesses. The farmer. The trucker. The energy wholesaler. The entrepreneur—the Americans who sustain our economy and institutions. The Biden administration’s onerous regulations did not help the situation—but burdened producers more. This certainly is not a system that the Founders had in mind. We recognize this—and help is coming. I have a big agenda for improving traditional commodity markets for our farmers, ranchers, and energy producers. To improve the current system, I have directed staff to:  Revive the Agricultural Advisory Committee to ensure that traditional market participants have a seat at the table.[7] Reduce duplicative compliance burdens for entities registered with both the CFTC and the SEC. Consider amending capital, margin, and reporting rules where they exceed what is necessary for risk management. Support efforts by prudential regulators to reduce the past burdens of the Basel III and Global Systemic Important Bank capital surcharge framework, making it easier for market participants to access clearing.  Explore the potential to enhance cross-margining, which would allow agriculture and energy participants to manage margins across their futures and options positions. And explore the value of publishing the Commission’s Commitment of Traders report more frequently. With these changes and more to come, I hope to see improvements in market conditions for end-users. Additionally, we will continue to listen to the needs of the agriculture and energy communities, and we recognize that certain asset classes may not be suitable for 24/7 trading and perpetual contracts. Innovation in our markets is certainly not a “one size fits all” approach. American Leadership at Stake For over a century, the United States has been the center of global markets because we have balanced regulation with freedom. And thanks to the leadership of President Trump, a new technological revolution is underway in the United States—and these technologies are a response to government overreach. But given the governance mistakes of the past, we now have to be laser-focused on ways to future-proof our rules and regulations to withstand the test of time. We shouldn’t forget that, in the recent past, regulatory agencies were weaponized against these innovative industries. It is no secret that under the prior administration, Gary Gensler’s SEC regulated through enforcement and drove the crypto industry offshore, while the prudential regulators debanked law-abiding businesses with any nexus to politically disfavored industries.  The Biden CFTC attempted to ban political prediction markets ahead of the 2024 elections.[8] The Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published the burdensome Basel III endgame proposal,[9] which would have significantly increased the cost of clearing and the capital required to hedge risk. And software developers were encouraged to hardcode DEI and “woke” ideologies into their AI models to force ideological conformity, censorship, and historical revisionism. Everyday Americans paid the price for these regulatory failures. We lost faith in many of the institutions that were previously the trusted, established gatekeepers of conventional wisdom. And we can only begin to rebuild this faith if we are seen making progress toward our goal of writing regulations that protect customers, prevent fraud, ensure transparency, and enable broad participation. Because liquidity is the lifeblood of markets.  Recent efforts, including interagency harmonization with the SEC and the formation of advisory bodies like the Innovation Advisory Committee, reflect this direction.[10]  Harmonization initiatives began years ago but stalled in the wilderness for a while, as interagency competition and turf battles got in the way. But SEC Chairman Atkins and I have put an end to the days of CFTC-SEC infighting by partnering on the Project Crypto Initiative.[11] This historic harmonization initiative will increase coordination between our agencies, lead to a partnership on substituted compliance, and deliver clarity for market participants. And harmonization is already well underway. The Chairman and I meet on a regular basis and look forward to partnering with industry in ways that haven’t been possible in the past, when our agencies were not in sync. 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. We are also witnessing a fascinating new market develop here in the United States around AI compute. America is home to some of the largest data centers in the world, and companies across the country are harnessing AI in their workflows. The White House’s AI Action Plan directed the CFTC and other agencies to ensure access to large-scale compute for startups and academics by improving the financial market for compute.[12] I believe a robust compute market could further this policy, and I am glad to say that the CFTC is hard at work making the U.S. a global leader in the market for this new digital commodity, which is critical to America winning the AI race. We are also focused on bringing other markets, such as critical minerals, back to the U.S. to decrease reliance on foreign nations and diversify reference pricing. And we want to make America the world leader for on-delivery minerals. We’ll be working with the White House, our registrants, and market participants to make this a reality. American leadership here is so important. We can’t allow the algorithms that connect traders across markets for compute, critical minerals, and other essential commodities to be based on technology developed in an adversarial nation—this is a national security issue. The Promise of Digital Markets And—through the Project Crypto partnership—the U.S. is leading again. America is now the crypto capital of the world.[13] This means the CFTC has a generational opportunity to build on its historical role as a forward-looking regulator that applies principles-based oversight. We cannot and will not shy away from this opportunity. Today, the adoption of blockchain technologies, crypto assets, and smart contracts is introducing new methods for trading, clearing, settling, and collateralizing commodity price exposure. Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems are streamlining processes and evolving systems that execute orders at speeds and volumes far beyond human capacity. To build a predictable, American-led digital finance infrastructure that takes advantage of the current conditions, we must protect and unleash innovation. The U.S. economy was built on this principle. Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison didn’t fear prosecution from Washington, D.C., neither did the Wright Brothers or Henry Ford. That spirit of building—without fear of prosecution—is part of our national DNA. We need to reclaim it. And Project Crypto is an important part of that reclamation. By now, the message to innovators should be clear: build in the U.S.A. While these words sound nice, let me give you a preview of how we’re putting this into practice. First, we will advance a clear crypto asset taxonomy so that market participants can understand whether their products fall within CFTC jurisdiction, SEC jurisdiction, both, or neither. Next, some of you may be pleased to hear that I have directed staff to provide guidance concerning the application of the CFTC’s intermediary registration requirements to developers of non-custodial software systems, like digital wallets and decentralized finance applications. For too long, there has been an open question as to whether software providers trigger the CFTC’s registration requirements. We intend to address this question head-on. Indeed, clarity must extend across the full market stack. Not only do we want clear rules of the road for software developers, but we must also ensure that our traditional participants benefit from crypto clarity as well. In this vein, CFTC staff is giving considerable thought to new rules that could clarify when leveraged, margined, or financed retail commodity transactions in crypto may be offered off-exchange under an “actual delivery” exception and establish purpose-fit standards for margined spot trading on exchanges.[14] I would also be remiss not to mention that I have directed the CFTC staff to consider how to clarify their views on the classification of true crypto-perpetuals. These things don’t happen quickly or easily in Washington, and thankfully, President Trump is in the White House, and it is he who deserves all the credit for pushing the U.S. marketplace to finally fully commit to a financial future with crypto playing a central role. If we don’t do this now, we drive innovation elsewhere as regulators have done in the past. Today, capital is borderless. Entrepreneurs are borderless. Technology is borderless. Future-Proofing the CFTC Under my leadership, the agency is taking steps to future-proof its rules and regulations so that future administrations cannot govern through enforcement and staff discretion. To make this happen, we must get back to basics. And there are a lot of basics to cover, so please bear with me as I go through this list of actions. For starters, through a recently established pilot program, the CFTC is considering removing Energy Commodity End-User Swaps[15] from the swap dealer de minimis threshold calculation.[16] We anticipate this exclusion will provide commercial end-users in the energy commodity markets with a significant number of additional counterparties. This will deliver cost savings to those users in energy commodity markets.  We are considering extending this regulatory relief to certain agricultural and critical minerals swaps as well. America’s producers deserve access to additional swap counterparties, and if we can reduce regulatory burdens and provide cost savings to the energy and agricultural community and critical minerals markets, we will do so. We will also consider whether any other types of transactions should be excluded from the swap dealer de minimis calculation. And we will use the CFTC’s substituted compliance framework as another tool to reduce unnecessary burdens. For example, the Commission is currently considering issuing comparability determinations for the European Union and the United Kingdom regarding swap dealer capital and financial reporting requirements.[17] A comparability determination is an effective tool for decreasing regulatory burdens on registrants and breaking through the regulatory maze that would otherwise be created by different governments imposing multiple similar, but not identical, requirements. We will work with our allies who have similar views on the role of regulators in markets to extend this benefit to jurisdictions that share our values.  I have also asked the staff to undertake a rulemaking to address the increasingly common model of derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) that allow retail participants to get market access without intermediation by an FCM. The Commission will consider what requirements should apply to a DCO and a DCM when no intermediary is present. I think about this with two objectives in mind. First, how do we protect customers? We must consider which customer protections are missing when there is no FCM present in the chain and how we can maintain the protection inherent in the intermediated model. Second, how do we maintain a level playing field? It is unfair to permit an entity to provide fewer customer protections (from advertising to customer segregation) based on its choice of registration category. I know that this audience has, for years, raised concerns about the increasingly common practice of one corporate family, and sometimes one corporate entity, owning a DCM, a DCO, an FCM, and sometimes a market maker—all at the same time. The Commission will consider whether any new guardrails should be present in such a structure. Since 2017, CFTC staff have issued more than a dozen no-action letters providing relief from certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. This has essentially created a new framework for binary options.[18] To clarify this issue, the Commission is drafting a rulemaking to address how certain swaps traded in a manner similar to futures are reported, while taking into account the unique aspects of these markets. If you couldn’t tell by now, I’m not pleased with the way Dodd-Frank has been implemented. To this day, almost 16 years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have a patchwork of no-action letters serving as band-aids to compensate for unworkable regulations. I have directed CFTC staff to draft rules to address these well-known issues, and we will no longer rely on no-action letter extensions when we should be working to get the rules right. Our responsibility is to provide clear, workable regulations. Your job is to comply with them. When we find that the rules have created complexity, we will fix them through notice-and-comment rulemaking. For example, there are several no-action letters surrounding reporting requirements that need to be addressed with certainty and finality through rulemaking. These include swap data error correction notifications, filing certain ownership and control reports, and reporting requirements for swaps cleared through an exempt DCO. In the swaps trading space, we must finally decide whether and how the trade execution requirement applies to a package transaction in which at least one individual component is subject to the trade execution requirement, and all of the other components are futures contracts. I also plan to review what kind of trading functionality a swap execution facility (SEF) must provide for swaps that aren’t subject to the trade execution mandate—also known as “permitted transactions.” More than ten years of real-world experience with SEFs shows that people almost never use order books for permitted transactions. We’ve been told that the rule forcing SEFs to provide an order book for permitted transactions wastes time and money while failing to achieve the goals the Commission had in mind when it created the rule.[19] That's not the kind of outcome I want to leave behind. I have recently directed staff to work on a rulemaking that would reinstate what is known as “the QEP Exemption.”[20] Before 2012, this exemption reduced the level of regulatory burdens placed on investment advisers who offered pool investments only to sophisticated investors. Unfortunately, the Commission eliminated this exemption while implementing Dodd-Frank. We look forward to soon remedying this error in judgment. Another overzealous implementation of Dodd-Frank takes the shape of Form PF.[21] The CFTC and the SEC are working together on a proposal to revise Form PF and recalibrate the data collection to align with its original statutory purpose. We have an opportunity to streamline data reporting and eliminate redundancies, thereby reducing the costs of compliance and vulnerability to inadvertent disclosure. I believe firmly that both Commissions should not be collecting more data than necessary to fulfil their statutory obligations. Like I said before, the minimum effective dose. In this case, that means the information necessary to monitor for systemic risk rather than information that would be nice to have for government pet projects. As we have seen, the federal government is not immune to cyberattacks. Any mandate to disclose data to the federal government asks market participants to put sensitive information at risk of disclosure. We must not impose that risk any more than is absolutely necessary. Finally, I’m future-proofing the agency by redirecting it towards its core mandate and away from rabbit holes like climate. The CFTC’s statutory mandate is market integrity, customer protection, and price discovery—not environmental or climate policy. Today, the Commission is formally disavowing the Market Risk Advisory Committee’s (MRAC) 2020 Climate Risk report, which contained 53 recommendations on alleged risks to the financial system posed by climate change.[22] The CFTC never formally adopted the report, so we’re announcing today that the Commission does not adopt, endorse, or rely on the findings or recommendations of the MRAC’s Climate Change Subcommittee Report dated September 9, 2020. Climate-related financial risk is not a distinct regulatory category under the Commodity Exchange Act. Climate risk is fully addressed through existing authorities. We do not need a special regime. We are also eliminating the MRAC’s Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee. And we are dismantling the CFTC’s Climate Risk Unit. Finally, the Commission is withdrawing the Request for Information on Climate-Related Financial Risk published on June 2, 2022. The Commission does not intend to pursue any initiatives in response to this request. We remain focused on our core mission, not political pet projects. Also, a short word on enforcement. The CFTC is not a merit-based regulator—we do not decide what people should be able to trade. Nor are we going to regulate through enforcement. I have directed the Division of Enforcement to focus on its core purpose of policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy. What we will do is ensure that there are purpose-built rules of the road that protect customers and catch fraudsters who would otherwise cheat the system. Markets as Information Engines In a similar fashion to the Constitution’s use of checks and balances to prevent overreach and tyranny, markets can be a check and balance against dishonesty and abuse, so I would like to take the opportunity to talk about prediction markets—or event contracts as we refer to them—and the role the agency plays in their regulation. A properly functioning financial market enables legitimate price discovery, ensuring transactions are fair and orderly. The CFTC has regulated prediction markets for decades. The agency first recognized the University of Iowa’s political prediction markets through a no-action letter in 1992 that was then expanded into a full-fledged policy under the Clinton administration.[23] I would also remind folks that the CFTC’s authority over a broad definition of the term “commodity” has been upheld repeatedly in the federal courts. That is why the onslaught of lawsuits by states attempting to undermine our authority to regulate these markets is not going to work and, candidly, surprising.[24] These markets are comfortably within the CFTC’s regulatory authority. I do admit, however, that we need to make up for lost time as prior administrations ignored these critical markets. As I suspect most of you are aware, the agency filed an amicus brief in a state-led lawsuit against one of our registrants a few weeks back.[25] The CFTC has the responsibility to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over commodity derivatives. And we will continue to assess litigation strategies to make sure the agency’s voice is heard. I am also pleased to announce that I have directed staff to draft guidance addressing how event contracts may be listed and traded consistent with the CFTC’s statutory framework. Market participants deserve clarity. And—once that clarity is provided—the CFTC will be an active and vigilant overseer of these markets. While clarity is helpful, we must do more. And in this spirit, I have asked staff to prepare an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking so that the agency can solicit critical feedback on important issues permeating throughout this market. Make no mistake—the CFTC is no longer going to sit idly while these markets develop within our framework. The reality is that prediction market platforms are now viewed by the public as more accurate   than political polls, which have been shown to be weighted against certain opponents, especially in the past 10-15 years. This type of weaponized disinformation reminds us of earlier days in our country’s history, when newspapers published “yellow journalism,” or sensationalized, inaccurate reporting, to push unverified partisan claims that contributed to political instability and potentially pushed the country into foreign wars.[26] You must look no further than the 2024 presidential election when these prediction markets captured the scale of President Trump’s victory in ways that pollsters either could not capture or refused to capture. When participants express views on future events—and back those views with capital—they create accountability, transparency and information. These markets, when properly regulated, are as valuable as any stock or commodity price movement. An ever-increasing number of Americans are checking prediction markets to learn about everything from the projected amount of snowfall in their hometowns to the likelihood of a government shutdown. They don’t trust the news media or so-called “experts” anymore and are looking to social media, podcasts, and prediction markets for reliable information. Markets that work well are truth machines. Additionally, highly liquid prediction markets better inform Americans about the likelihood and underlying nature of political elections and global events. Prices then aggregate dispersed information. Money disciplines those who take losing positions. It’s my hope that, by marrying prediction markets with blockchains, we can see how decentralized trust and truth can act as a check on disinformation, outright falsity, and the threat of debanking. Conclusion Our charge, as regulators, is not to pick winners and losers. The CFTC’s job is to be vigilant against fraud and manipulation, but we must also be vigilant against unnecessary barriers that diminish prosperity. Regulators must relentlessly modernize, harmonize, and future-proof their approach to regulation, without forgetting the age-old principles of investor protection, anti-fraud, anti-manipulation, and market integrity. And speaking of the CFTC’s job, if you look at the USAJOBS website right now you will find that we are hiring. There are about a dozen openings currently, with more to come. If you’re interested in our vision, please join us. We have published a new, updated logo that was just released on Friday, and there will be more of these types of housekeeping and branding announcements to come, so stay tuned. We need people—both at the CFTC and in markets—who can operate in a future that is both analog and digital, both centralized and decentralized, both global and domestic, but built in America, with American values and American leadership. Thanks in large part to the wisdom of men like Madison, who wrote that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary,” our Republic has found ways to successfully renew itself for 250 years, making America the world’s most consequential nation-state.[27]  Under President Trump’s leadership, we should expect nothing less. I want to thank the FIA for this opportunity to speak before you today. I hope everyone can support our work as we continue to deliver on American leadership in commodity and derivatives markets for many years to come. Thank you. [1] U.S. Const. pmbl. [2] Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 4, 1790), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0020. [3] Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Just the Facts: Consumer Bankruptcy Filings, 2006-2017 (Mar. 7, 2018). [4] Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (1962). [5] Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). [6] CFTC, Agency Financial Report: Fiscal Year 2014, at 11 (2014). [7] Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Selig to Sponsor the CFTC’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (Jan. 23, 2026),  https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9171-26. [8] Event Contracts, 89 Fed. Reg. 48,968 (proposed June 10, 2024).  Event Contracts; Withdrawal of Proposed Regulatory Action, 91 Fed. Reg. 5386 (Feb. 6, 2026) (withdrawing proposal published at 89 Fed. Reg. 48,968). [9] Regulatory Capital Rule: Large Banking Organizations and Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity, 88 Fed. Reg. 64028 (Sept. 18, 2023). [10] Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Selig Launches the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee (Jan.12, 2026), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9167-26. [11] See Speech of SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Opening Remarks at Joint SEC-CFTC Harmonization Event – Project Crypto (Jan. 29, 2026); see also SEC-CFTC Joint Staff Statement (Project Crypto-Crypto Sprint) (Sept. 2, 2025). [12] America's AI Action Plan (White House July 23, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf. [13] Public Statement, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, The Next Phase of Project Crypto: Unleashing Innovation for the New Frontier of Finance (Jan. 29, 2026). [14] Withdrawal of Interpretive Guidance: Retail Commodity Transactions Involving Certain Digital Assets, 90 Fed. Reg. 58,149 (Dec. 16, 2025). [15] As defined in CFTC Letter No. 25-51 (Dec. 19, 2025), https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-51/download.  [16] CFTC Staff No-Action Letter No. 25-51(Dec. 19, 2025). [17] 17 C.F.R. § 23.106 (2025).  [18] See CFTC Letter No. 17-31 (June 30, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-31/download;CFTC Letter No. 17-32 (June 30, 2017), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/17-32/download;CFTC Letter No. 21-11 (Apr. 22, 2021), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/21-11/download;CFTC Letter No. 24-09 (July 12, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-09/download;CFTC Letter No. 24-12 (Sept. 3, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-12/download;CFTC Letter No. 24-15 (Oct. 4, 2024), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/24-15/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-02 (Jan. 31, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-02/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-23 (Jul. 22, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-23/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-26 (Aug. 7, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-26/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-28 (Sept. 3, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-28/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-35 (Sept. 30, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-35/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-44 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-44/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-45 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-45/download;CFTC Letter No. 25-47 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-47/download;and CFTC Letter No. 25-48 (Dec. 11, 2025), available at https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-48/download. [19] See 17 C.F.R. § 37.3(a)(2) (mandating that a Swap Execution Facility (SEF) must provide an “order book”). [20] See 17 C.F.R. § 4.13(a)(4)(allowing CPOs to avoid registration if they only solicit funds from QEPs, such as sophisticated institutional investors). It was rescinded in 2012 but since 2026 staff has issued no-action positions in this regard to registered investment advisors. See No-Action Letter 25-50. [21] Form PF is a confidential reporting form for certain SEC-registered investment advisers to private funds, including those that also are registered with the CFTC as a commodity pool operator (a “CPO”) or a commodity trading adviser (a “CTA”) with at least $150 million in AUM, to report systemic risk data. https://www.sec.gov/files/formpf.pdf. [22] Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, Market Risk Advisory Committee, CFTC, Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System (2020). [23] CFTC Letter No. 93-66, [1992–1994 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 25,658 (Feb. 5, 1992). [24] See, e.g., State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Blockratize, Inc. et. al, Case No. 26-OC-00012 1B (Nev. 1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 16, 2026); Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. v. Raoul, et al., No. 1:25-cv-15406 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2025); Robinhood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer, et al., No. 25-7831 (9th Cir. Dec.12, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Hendrick, et al., No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2025); N. Am. Deriv. Exch., Inc. v. State of Nevada et al., No. 25-7187 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Martin, No. 25-01892 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, No. 25-01922 (3d Cir. May 15, 2025). [25] Brief for the CFTC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant and Reversal, N. Am. Derivatives Exch., Inc. v. Nevada, No. 25-7187 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026).  [26] Office of the Historian, U.S. Diplomacy and Yellow Journalism, 1895–1898, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism. [27] The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).

CFTC's Weekly Swaps Report has been updated, and is now available: http://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/SwapsReports/index.htm.Additional information on the Weekly Swaps Report. Archive Explanatory Notes Swaps Report Data Dictionary Release Schedule Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m.

Good afternoon and welcome to this year’s Small Business Forum.  Each year, the Forum provides an opportunity to identify areas and topics where the SEC’s rulebook can be better adapted for small businesses.  According to some sources, “[s]mall businesses employ nearly half of the American workforce and represent 43.5% of America’s GDP.”[1]  They are the cornerstone of the American economy, and the Commission’s rules should reflect this importance. Since the change in Administration in January 2025, the Commission’s regulatory priorities have been re-focused on capital-raising policy recommendations, particularly for small businesses.  How can we reduce the costs and burdens for small businesses seeking capital, without compromising investor protection? One issue underpins many small business capital raising topics: eliminating the duplicative qualification processes between federal and state authorities.  In 1997, the Commission and state securities regulators acknowledged the need for “[e]fforts by federal and state regulatory authorities to craft a more efficient ‘division of labor’ with respect to securities offerings….”[2](emphasis added). Nearly three decades later, this exercise remains incomplete.  This is even more important for small businesses, who may be seeking to raise only a modest amount of capital – such as through a Rule 504 or Regulation A Tier One offering – and might have to qualify in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to use general solicitation.  The costs and time delays make such efforts often untenable. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA) [3] preempts state “blue-sky” registration for securities listed on the national securities exchanges—and also offerings under Rule 506(b) under the Securities Act of 1933.[4]  The overarching aim of NSMIA was to promote efficiency and capital formation in the financial markets.[5]  With regard to duplicative state regulation, NSMIA focused on whether the potential lack of uniformity in state law impacted cost of capital, innovation and technological development in capital markets – including any impacts on small businesses.[6] Under NSMIA, regulatory predictability was a key concern for all offerings—not merely those subject to preemption.  Congress tasked the Commission with studying the extent to which uniformity of state regulatory requirements for securities that are not covered by the NSMIA preemption provisions, which was completed in 1997.[7]  But this effort should not have been a “one-and-done.” The interplay between federal and state securities laws should be a matter of continuing study by the Commission.  It is both impractical, costly and unrealistic to expect an issuer to register a small securities offering in dozens of states. This is especially true given the lack of uniformity among states.  However, states can play an important role in preventing fraud for offerings conducted in their jurisdiction. Regulators should consider moving beyond a binary approach to preemption.  For example, when an offering is qualified in the state of a company’s principal place of business, should the offering still be reviewed by multiple other states? Why should not a notice filing in the other states be sufficient?  Such a framework could promote more effective oversight among state regulators, reduce the time it takes to fully comply with offering regulations, and maintain effective investor protection.  I look forward to reviewing the Forum’s policy recommendations and a read-out of today’s sessions.  Thank you to the team in the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for planning this event.  I hope that you all enjoy the Forum. [1] Small Business Data Center (last visited March 7, 2026) https://www.uschamber.com/small-business/small-business-data-center. [2] Report on the Uniformity of State Regulatory Requirements for Offerings of Securities That Are Not “Covered Securities” Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (October 11, 1997), Executive Summary, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/uniformy.htm (Uniformity Report) (hereinafter, "Uniformity Report") ("emphasis added"). [3] National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–290, 110 Stat. 3416 (1996) (hereinafter, "NSMIA") [4] For background, refer to https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/exempt-offerings/private-placements-rule-506b. [5] Uniformity Report, at Section II, and NSMIA [6] Id. [7] Uniformity Report, at Section IV.A.

Good afternoon and welcome everyone to the 45th Annual Small Business Forum. Today’s event is a wonderful opportunity to hear from a wide range of folks with a shared passion for the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Essential to our nation’s prosperity is the willingness of founders and the investors who fund them to take on the risk of building and growing new businesses. As SEC Commissioner Barbara Thomas explained 45 years ago, “We at the Securities and Exchange Commission must help foster the kind of environment which will encourage people to accept, rather than avoid, the opportunity to take a risk in search of reward.”[1] I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how the SEC can foster such an environment.  Today’s panels cover capital formation challenges across all stages of the corporate cycle. We will hear about problems that are a universal experience as well as those that are unique to a particular stage of development. Fittingly, the first panel starts at the start, funding founders. Founders’ paths to raising money for their promising idea are riddled with regulatory landmines—a source of deep dismay and consternation for well-intentioned founders. The first thing they may encounter is the much-discussed concept of “Accredited Investor.” But simply knowing what makes an investor “accredited” does not solve a founder’s problems. Rather, it is just the beginning of a list of questions without neat answers. Can you sell only to accredited investors? It depends. What do you need to do to make sure that your investors are accredited? It depends. What information do you need to give to investors? It depends. Founders can find some help in wading through these questions on the SEC’s website.[2] Today’s discussions could help to shape substantive steps by the SEC to make life easier for founders.  Among the topics you might want to consider are a micro-offering exemption that would simplify early-stage fundraising: under such an approach, as long as an issuer stays below a set offering amount, it would be able to sell shares of its company to investors without any strings other than avoidance of fraud.[3] A regulatory structure for finders, an idea under consideration by the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee, also might help founders find funders. The second panel takes on the next step in a company’s development—the growth stage. Business development companies, venture capital funds, and small private funds provide much needed capital to growth-stage companies, which are engines of innovation. Broadening access to these smaller funds would increase the capital available for investment in growth-stage companies. Ideas for increasing capital for growth-stage companies include an idea embodied in the INVEST Act, which passed the House and would amend section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to enable a qualifying venture capital fund to have 500 investors and $50 million, up from 250 and $10 million, respectively. Additional changes could include increasing the limit for issuers that are not qualifying venture capital funds and expanding the definition of “Qualified Purchaser” under the Investment Company Act. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these and other ideas for helping growth-stage companies. Today’s final panel will discuss the IPO process and key considerations for smaller public companies. Last year at this forum we heard from the CFO of a smaller reporting company who explained how, with limited personnel in-house, the quarterly reporting process can be a continuous year-round activity.[4] Moving away from mandatory quarterly reporting could allow smaller companies to more effectively allocate their limited resources. More generally, the Commission’s ongoing initiative to streamline Regulation S-K could benefit small public companies. An important part of that initiative is listening to feedback from issuers that are already public or are considering becoming public. [5] We already have heard that executive compensation disclosures, having ballooned over the years, rankle issuers of all sizes, particularly because investors show a complete disinterest in much of the information our rules require. Similarly, because some disclosure obligations are based on dollar thresholds that have not been updated in years, disclosure burdens have increased over time. What disclosure obligations are the most onerous, and how could the SEC lower the burden on small public companies while still protecting investors? The Small Business Forum convenes people who care deeply about creating a healthy environment for entrepreneurship. I would like to thank all the offices and teams that worked together to make this event possible. Thank you especially to today’s panelists, moderators, and participants who have volunteered their time to provide the Commission with ideas about how best to help small businesses find the capital they need to serve the communities in which they operate.  [1] Barbara Thomas, Commissioner, Risk Taking and Capital Formation: Remarks before the Town Hall of California (July 7, 1981), https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/1981/070781thomas.pdf. [2] Securities and Exchange Commission, Resources for Small Businesses, https://www.sec.gov/resources-small-businesses. [3] See e.g. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, Bridging the Gap: Remarks before the Northwest Securities Institute (May 30, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-northwest-securities-institute-053025. [4] 44th Annual Small Business Forum (April 10, 2025), pg. 137, https://www.sec.gov/files/2025-SBF-508-Transcript.pdf.  [5] https://www.sec.gov/comments/cll-15/regulation-s-k#no-back.

Corastone, the hyperscaler for private-market investing, today announced Fidelity Investments, Future Standard, and Hamilton Lane (Nasdaq: HLNE) as investors in Corastone and its alternative-investing operating platform. This growing institutional participation builds on Corastone’s recent platform launch and comes as demand for private markets investments expands across investor types. As global private markets investment activity and volumes rise, firms are increasingly seeking transaction technologies that can perform at scale while meaningfully lowering operational friction and manual interventions. Corastone, through its proprietary private, permissioned blockchain network, is increasingly functioning as the shared network infrastructure and data standard for private markets workflows — replacing legacy file-based processes and point-to-point integrations with a single solution that supports straight-through processing for all market participants. “As access to private markets continues to scale, firms need standardized, digital infrastructure that supports higher volumes and more complex structures without adding operational burden,” said Hamid Gayibov, Co-Founder and President of Corastone. “Corastone was built to serve as a common operating layer for the ecosystem, and adding Fidelity, Future Standard and Hamilton Lane reflects how the industry is coalescing around shared, enterprise-ready infrastructure. Our goal is to help investors of all sizes access private market assets as efficiently and reliably as public markets.” Unlike legacy approaches that rely on multiple disconnected systems and point-to-point integrations, Corastone connects general partners, wealth managers, and administrators on a single, shared private markets platform. This unified architecture helps firms scale activity across asset types and volumes without increasing operational complexity. “We are thrilled to see the Corastone platform live with such a distinguished group of industry leaders,” said Rashad Kurbanov, Co-Founder & CEO at Corastone. “This milestone validates our vision for how private markets should operate: faster, more transparent and ready to scale. We look forward to powering innovation and efficiency for all market participants.” Client Quotes: Future Standard – “As private markets continue to expand across wealth and institutional channels, we saw a need in the marketplace for an infrastructure technology that connects the various point-to-point systems used by investors and enables true straight-through-processing of transactions. We adopted Corastone because it provides a modern, scalable approach to delivering this connective layer for the industry, and does so in a way that improves transparency, controls, and investor experiences. Our decision to invest reflects our confidence in the platform’s long-term role in facilitating the growing demand for private markets investments.” – Hari Moorthy, Chief Technology Officer at Future Standard Hamilton Lane – “We’ve seen firsthand how operational complexity can limit participation in private markets, and have prioritized building or investing in technology that aims to enhance transparency and efficiency. Corastone’s platform removes that friction, which we believe will help unlock the industry’s next growth phase.” – Griff Norville, Head of Technology Solutions at Hamilton Lane With Fidelity Investments, Future Standard and Hamilton Lane investing in the platform, Corastone’s institutional footprint continues to expand. This follows recent momentum across the ecosystem, with participants such as Apollo, Franklin Templeton, KKR, and Morgan Stanley using Corastone’s technology to modernize private market distribution.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the SEC’s forty-fifth Annual Small Business Forum. Warm greetings as well to those of you who are joining us by livestream. And of course, my sincere thanks to the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation for organizing today’s program and for its steadfast advocacy on behalf of America’s entrepreneurs. Let me also add the customary disclaimer that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners. For four and a half decades, this gathering has grown to become one of our most anticipated events, perhaps because it is rooted in the premise that those who write the rules have an obligation to hear from those who operate under them. So, to all of the entrepreneurs here today, thank you for deepening our understanding with your experiences, and for enhancing our rulemaking with your recommendations. Although today marks my first forum as Chairman, I attended several of them as a Commissioner in the Aughts, when we convened across the country. There is something bracing about meeting small businesses in their own communities. And as we look ahead, I would welcome the opportunity to bring this program back on the road. After all, as capital formation rarely originates in Washington, so we should look beyond city limits on how best to facilitate it. For now, though, we have a terrific program ahead of us, organized around three panels that I think reflect real friction points in our current framework. Let me say a brief word about each. Our first panel will focus on how we can better support early-stage entrepreneurs in accessing capital. For context, the Commission last reviewed the exempt offering framework in 2020, when it adopted rule changes intended to open those pathways to small businesses. That framework continues to function well for relatively larger offerings. Yet 84 percent of early-stage businesses struggled to secure capital last year. Access to affordable capital clearly remains a challenge for entrepreneurs. And I have instructed the Commission staff to explore solutions to these barriers that these businesses face so that our rules work as much for the established as for the aspiring. Our second panel will then turn to the role that smaller funds play in supporting growth-stage companies. Two pieces of proposed legislation in Congress — the House’s INVEST Act and the Senate’s Empowering Main Street in America Act—include several policies that are relevant to this space. I especially look forward to hearing our panelists’ views on provisions that affect small fund managers and growth-stage companies. This panel will also examine trends of increased concentration in the venture capital industry. For example, in the first seven months of 2025, roughly forty percent of all venture capital dollars flowed to just ten companies, while the share of deals below $5 million fell to a decade low of forty-nine percent. On the fundraising side, thirty firms accounted for approximately seventy-five percent of the total venture dollars raised in 2024. Early‑stage investors are often the first to identify breakthrough innovation and to broaden the pipeline of emerging companies. So smaller, nimble investment firms must continue to have the opportunity to thrive across both industries and regions. Finally, our third panel will reflect on how to Make IPOs Great Again, especially for small cap companies. One of my highest priorities with respect to the SEC’s disclosure rules is to scale the requirements with the company’s size and maturity. Balancing disclosure obligations with a company’s ability to bear the burdens of compliance is particularly important where Congress has directed the SEC to promulgate a disclosure rule whose costs may have a disproportionate impact on some companies. For newly public companies, the SEC should consider building upon the “IPO on-ramp” that Congress established in the JOBS Act. For example, allowing companies to remain on the “on-ramp” for a minimum number of years, rather than forcing them off as soon as the first year after the initial offering, could provide companies with greater certainty and incentivize more IPOs, especially among smaller companies. Raising capital through an IPO should not be a privilege reserved for those few “unicorns.” More and more, public investments are concentrated in a handful of companies that are generally in the same one or two industries. Our regulatory framework should provide companies in all stages of their growth and from all industries with the opportunity for an IPO, particularly one that represents a capital raising mechanism for the company, instead of a liquidity event for insiders. As we pursue each of these priorities, let me close by once again thanking the organizers of today’s program—and each of you for participating in it. I would also be remiss not to note that today marks the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations—a fitting occasion to convene a forum dedicated to the proposition that free individuals, unencumbered by unnecessary regulation, can build and innovate in ways that no sovereign hand could prescribe. For forty-five years, this forum has facilitated the kind of honest discussion on which positive policy outcomes depend. For forty-five years, it has reminded us that durable rules are forged not through imposition but through dialogue—and that they must be not only well-intentioned, but well-informed. So I look forward to a constructive conversation and to the work ahead of us. Thank you.

New index designed to measure the 30-day forward-looking volatility of bitcoin Applies Cboe's proprietary VIX® methodology and is based on iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF options Expands Cboe's volatility index suite across new asset classes Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), the world's leading derivatives and securities exchange network, today announced plans to launch the Cboe IBIT Volatility Index (Ticker: BITVX) on Monday, March 23. This new index will further expand Cboe's growing suite of volatility indices and bring the firm's proprietary VIX® Index methodology to the bitcoin market. BITVX is designed to measure the market's expectation of 30-day forward-looking volatility for the bitcoin market, as conveyed by options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (Ticker: IBIT) -- one of the most actively traded U.S. options tied to digital assets. The new index is calculated and administered by Cboe Global Indices, using Cboe's well-established VIX Index methodology, which derives expected volatility directly from option prices rather than from historical returns. The VIX Index, widely regarded as the world's premier barometer of 30-day forward-looking volatility for the U.S. equity market, is based on S&P 500 Index (SPX) options. Consistent with the VIX framework, BITVX aggregates information across a broad range of out-of-the-money option strikes to produce a model-free measure of implied volatility. "With the new BITVX Index, we're taking the proven framework of Cboe's VIX Index methodology and applying it to bitcoin, giving the market a transparent, rules-based benchmark for expected volatility derived from IBIT options activity," said Rob Hocking, Global Head of Derivatives at Cboe. "Bitcoin ETF options are a popular way for investors to access and manage bitcoin exposure, and we believe a dedicated volatility index will be an additive piece to the ecosystem, helping investors better analyze, price, and hedge risk in digital assets." Calculation for the BITVX Index is based on weekly Friday expirations of IBIT options, using two maturities that bracket a constant 30-day target horizon. The resulting index reflects the market's consensus expectation of near-term volatility implied by listed IBIT option prices. To learn more about Cboe's indices, visit the website.

LME proposes to introduce copper Certificate of Analysis requirement to strengthen transparency and operational efficiency Auditing of warehouse companies’ procedures around confidentiality to be extended to cover all warehouse operators Continuation of charge cap on Rents and Free on Truck (FOT) rates to cover the period 2027-2032 The London Metal Exchange (LME) has today issued a combined consultation and discussion paper that considers a number of possible enhancements to its physical market operations – and, in particular, its warehousing network. The LME undertook an extensive programme of reform to its warehousing rules between 2013-2016 and has kept them under active review since then, including further changes in 2019-2020. Recently, several topics have emerged on which the LME would like to take action to ensure that its operations keep pace with developments in the market and continue to meet the needs of users. The changes set out in the paper have been developed with the broad aims of improving operational transparency and efficiency, supporting fair access and competition between warehouse operators and enhancing the robustness of physical delivery mechanisms. Georgina Hallett, LME Chief Sustainability Officer and Head of Physical Markets, said: “These proposed changes are significant for both the LME approved warehouses that are such a critical element in the physical delivery mechanism that supports our market, and to the requirements for copper, one of our core metals. “We recognise the need to keep pace with an ever-evolving environment. The suggested changes are designed to ensure that our requirements provide the transparency and efficiency that are so important to the physical market. We welcome views from all those interested as we work to deliver the right changes for the sector.” Consultation The proposals on which the LME is consulting are: Copper is the only metal for which the LME does not require a Certificate of Analysis (CoA) when it is placed on warrant. The LME proposes to make a CoA a requirement for copper to align it with other metals and promote wider market efficiency and transparency and is seeking market views on this, as well as requiring indelible markings of production cast references on bundles of copper. Extending the requirements for the auditing of warehouse companies’ procedures around confidentiality to cover all warehouse operators (the current requirements apply just to those warehouse companies that have close links to an LME trading entity). The LME believes that requiring all warehouse companies to audit their information barriers would ensure good practice in relation to confidentiality of stock information. Rents and Free on Truck (FOT) charge cap rates are currently frozen, but this is due to end for the 2027-2028 charge year. Although the effect of relatively high inflation in recent years has been to reduce the gap between LME charge cap rates and both off-warrant and bilaterally negotiated LME storage costs, a material difference still exists. The LME is proposing, therefore, to freeze charge cap rates for a further five years between 2027 and 2032 to facilitate a further closing of the cost gap. The other areas for consultation are: the standardisation of FOT quoting, the introduction of a charge cap for re-warranting fees, and requiring warehouse companies to submit standard reports for warranted metal on LMEpassport. Discussion The paper also sets out a number of areas where the LME seeks the views of the market: Queue based rent-capping (QBRC): the paper asks whether the current cap on rents (which lowers rent to zero should a warehouse fail to load out required metal within 80 days) and the requirements around the speed of loading metal in and out of warehouses, could be replaced with a requirement to load-out 1.5% of metal on warrant on a daily basis. It also asks whether, alternatively, QBRC could instead be disapplied to cancellations of metal over 10,000 metric tonnes to ensure larger warehouses are not disincentivised from loading in metal due to the additional load-out requirements of a percentage-based load-out model. Evergreen rent deals give a metal owner that sells metal on warrant in an LME warehouse an entitlement to a share of the rent collected from the new metal owner. Proponents of evergreen deals suggest that they provide incentives for metal to be put and kept on warrant, while others point to an increase in the trend for metals shifting between warehouses to qualify for new evergreen rent deals, which has the effect of creating “noise” in stock movements. The LME is interested in views on whether evergreen rent deals should be ended. The other topics under discussion are designed to confirm that the structure of the LME’s warehousing network remains best-in-class, and comprise an anti-abuse provision for the Linked Load-In Load-Out requirement (LILO); requiring additional metal to have indelible markings of production cast references; the re-assessment of the need for aluminium to be stored indoors and the need for warehouses to be located in areas of net consumption. Alongside the consultation and discussion elements of the paper, it also includes details of a number of areas where the LME is informing the market of minor amendments to its requirements that do not require a consultation. Responses to the consultation or discussion sections of the paper should be made by 8 May 2026. Background Please see the combined consultation and discussion paper 26 063 LME Physical Markets Consultation and Discussion Paper (PDF). The warehouse reforms from the period 2013-2016 can be found on the LME warehouse reform 2013 to 2016 page. The warehouses reforms from the period 2019-2020 can be found on the LME warehouse reform 2019 page.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced Marc H. Sielski has been named the agency’s executive director. “Marc brings decades of experience in financial services and management consulting, with a strong track record of improving organizational effectiveness, operational excellence, and enterprise transformation,” Chairman Selig said. “As the agency continues to modernize and respond to rapidly evolving markets, he will help ensure our workforce and internal operations are positioned to support mission execution efficiently and effectively. “I thank John Einstman for his service since October 2025 as acting executive director. I am very pleased he will continue serving the Commission in a new role.” In this role, Sielski will oversee the Commission’s administrative operations to support mission execution and ensure effective stewardship of public resources. “I am honored to join the CFTC and thank Chairman Selig for the opportunity to serve as executive director,” Sielski said. “I look forward to supporting the Commission by strengthening core administrative functions, enabling a high-performing workforce, and modernizing how we deliver services across the agency in a fiscally responsible manner. Drawing on my experience, I am committed to building durable operating rhythms, strong internal controls, and a culture of continuous improvement to enhance operational excellence and help the CFTC deliver on its priorities.” Sielski has an extensive background in financial services and management consulting, including proven expertise in organizational effectiveness, operational excellence, strengthening governance and controls, enterprise transformation, finance/administration, procurement, HR coordination, and technology. Sielski holds a B.B.A. in Finance and Investments (cum laude) from Baruch College.

Keith Todd, veteran fintech executive, today announced the establishment of a new London-based company, Sapphire Technology Group Ltd., focused on two initiatives to drive sustainable high growth and profitability in technology businesses globally. The foundation of the new company is “The Sapphire Doctrine,” a set of principles Todd and his team have developed and implemented over the years to transform multiple technology businesses. The Sapphire Doctrine is agile and based on clarity of vision, authentic leadership and culture reflecting the axiom that business is “a team game,” and where optimal results are achieved when all stakeholders win. Todd said that over the past 30 years, largely in capital markets technology, the Doctrine has evolved to a point where it is repeatable as an approach for driving success. The company’s two primary initiatives include an intensive leadership program and an investment company that will serve as a vehicle for fueling transformation and growth in capital markets technology firms. The first initiative, Sapphire Leadership, will guide C-suite executives in the understanding and implementation of the Sapphire Doctrine, beginning with its inaugural, invite-only, event, Sapphire Transform 2026, in Boulder, Colorado, Sept. 21 - 25. The immersive event is aimed at helping CEO and other C-suite executives enhance their skills, knowledge and understanding of how to optimize their business activities in the pursuit of sustainable, scalable growth and profitability.  The second initiative within Sapphire Technology Group will be a partnership with Charlesbank Capital Partners, a leading U.S. private equity firm. The initiative will seek to invest in high-growth opportunities within capital markets, applying the Sapphire Doctrine to help support operational improvement and drive long-term value creation. Todd said: “As capital markets participants continue to invest heavily in technology to improve efficiency, resilience and outcomes, they face the headwinds of rapid advancements in technology and increasing market and regulatory complexity. Firms must navigate transformation with both precision and discipline, and Sapphire, alongside Charlesbank, will bring deep operational experience, a history of high-performance transformation and tangible culture change, and an established doctrine for stakeholder-aligned growth.” Todd said the Sapphire Technology Group team will be announced in due course. Sapphire Leadership events will be defined and delivered in partnership with Josef Schroeter and Chris Cherrington of Kintail Consulting. About Keith Todd Todd has repeatedly driven growth and established high-performance teams in technology businesses. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) has been a primary focus at the large institutions and smaller firms he has led, with strategic and operational experience spanning 40 years in public and private markets. Most recently, he served from 2022 to 2025 as CEO and then Deputy Chairman of Trading Technologies (TT), a global capital markets technology platform services provider, leading the transformation into new asset classes and value creation following its acquisition by 7RIDGE and meeting the ambitious strategic goals of the five-year plan in just three years. Prior to TT, Todd founded KRM22 plc, where he remains a director and served as CEO and Executive Chairman in its formative years. He was Executive Chairman and CEO of FFastFill plc, transforming it into a global derivatives SaaS provider acquired by ION Group, where he became Executive Chairman of ION Agency Trading. His career also includes leadership positions with Marconi Defense Group and ICL plc and several other non-executive roles in the technology industry. He was non-executive Chairman of the UK Broadband Stakeholder Group that led the transformation of broadband capability in the UK. In February, Todd received the 2026 Lifetime Achievement Award at the FOW International Awards 2026, a significant honor bestowed by Futures & Options World (FOW) magazine. In 2004, Todd was awarded the CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) by Queen Elizabeth II for his services to the telecommunications industry. He is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (FCMA) and has an honorary doctorate from the UK’s Open University for his services to the OU, as honorary treasurer. Todd was awarded Life Membership of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) for his services to the Academy supporting the new world of online media. About Sapphire Technology Group Ltd. Headquartered in London, Sapphire was founded in 2026 to help capital markets technology businesses worldwide transform into high-growth organizations with strong cultures. The Sapphire brand, like the gemstone, evokes clarity of purpose, strength under pressure, the rarity of true leadership and durable, long-term value creation. Grounded in discipline and resilience, the firm’s approach helps organizations perform under pressure and build enduring value. About Sapphire Leadership Ltd. Todd’s partners in delivering on the Sapphire Leadership mission include: Joe Schroeter, who has played prominent roles in multiple business transformations in technology companies including Agilent Technologies, Excite@Home, CQG and Trading Technologies. Chris Cherrington, head of Kintail Consulting. With over 20 years of experience, Cherrington is a respected transformation leader who partners with senior executives and boards to steer organizations through complex change and deliver lasting results. His perspective and approach are informed by senior roles in leading consultancies, leadership positions at Morgan Stanley and Sky, and formative experience leading teams in demanding, high-stakes environments as a British Army officer. For more information on Transform 2026, visit www.sapphiretransform.com.

Europe has an EU-wide framework (called “REMIT”) to detect and deter market manipulation and abuse in wholesale energy markets. It enhances transparency and trust in the integrity of Europe’s energy markets. In 2024, EU legislators updated the REMIT framework giving ACER additional tasks, including the power to investigate cross-border cases.ACER’s REMIT Quarterlies provide updates on REMIT-related activities, helping stakeholders stay informed. What's new? The latest REMIT Quarterly (43rd edition) features ACER’s new Rules of Procedure for cross-border investigations. These rules set out the procedural framework within which ACER carries out its cross-border investigatory mandate under REMIT.  Find out more in this Quarterly about: ACER’s stakeholder engagement plan for 2026. ACER’s ongoing preparatory work on data reporting under the revised REMIT, pending finalisation of the revised REMIT Implementing Regulation. Updates on market surveillance and statistics on the 456 REMIT breach cases under review at the end of Q4 2025. A case report on an attempt to manipulate the Spanish gas market, investigated and sanctioned by Spain’s energy regulator (CNMC). A summary of market activity, showing a year-on-year increase in trading on Organised Market Places, driven by growth in natural gas forward markets. Takeaways from November 2025 events, including Expert Groups’ meetings on Wholesale Energy Market Data Reporting and the ACER-European Commission REMIT workshop. Coming soon ACER will soon launch a public consultation on a new guideline on REMIT transaction reporting to reflect evolving obligations under the revised REMIT framework. Details on the scope and timeline will follow shortly. See the 43rd REMIT Quarterly.All REMIT Quarterlies.  

Nasdaq (Nasdaq:NDAQ) today announced a strategic partnership with Seturion, Boerse Stuttgart Group's pan-European settlement platform for tokenized assets, to advance the modernization of Europe's post-trade infrastructure. Boerse Stuttgart Group recently launched Seturion as a settlement platform open to all market participants and is set to connect its own trading venues to the platform. It supports all asset classes on public and private DLTs, as well as cash settlement against central bank money and on-chain cash. Through this partnership, Nasdaq's European trading venues will connect to Seturion to facilitate trading of tokenized securities that will be settled through the platform. With an initial focus on structured products, Nasdaq and Seturion will work to expand the network of financial institutions connecting to Seturion, building an ecosystem of issuers, brokers, and other industry partners across Europe. The collaboration is a step towards transforming Europe’s fragmented settlement landscape and improving efficiency in European capital markets through distributed ledger technology (DLT). Issuers and investors will benefit from faster, more cost-efficient settlement of the tokenized assets while preserving trusted market structures and existing client workflows. Over time, the partners are seeking to accelerate the ecosystem for trading and settling tokenized securities across Europe.   Industry Partnership Tackles Post-Trade Fragmentation Europe's capital markets are highly fragmented, with numerous post-trade infrastructure providers and legal divergence across the European Union, resulting in higher costs, longer settlement cycles, and operational complexity. The partnership between Nasdaq and Seturion addresses these challenges by leveraging DLT to create a single, unified settlement platform while maintaining full alignment with European regulation, including MiFID II and the DLT Pilot Regime. Roland Chai, President of European Market Services and Head of Digital Assets at Nasdaq, said: “European capital markets face fragmentation and efficiency challenges that limit the region’s competitive potential. Tokenization presents a transformative opportunity to address inefficiencies in settlement and securities processing workflows, while preserving the trust, stability, and regulatory rigor that underpin well-functioning markets. This partnership builds on our broader vision for the future of market infrastructure, encompassing continuous operation across trading, clearing, settlement, risk management, and collateral. As an operator of critical market infrastructure and a leading financial technology provider, Nasdaq is uniquely positioned to lead this transformation.” Dr. Matthias Voelkel, CEO of Boerse Stuttgart Group, said:  “With Seturion, we are building the pan-European settlement platform for tokenized assets. As an open industry solution, Seturion contributes to overcome current national settlement infrastructure silos and to turn a unified European capital market into reality. We are delighted to welcome Nasdaq – an absolute leader in its field – as Seturion’s first partner and look forward to scaling Seturion across Europe.” Dr. Lidia Kurt, CEO of Seturion, said:  “Financial markets should no longer rely on legacy post-trade infrastructure that was not designed for a digital world. Seturion was created to fundamentally improve how transactions are settled by removing friction, reducing complexity, and enabling a new level of efficiency. Our partnership with Nasdaq marks a defining step in bringing this vision to life. Together with our partner - and many more joining us going forward - we are establishing the post-trade infrastructure of the digital age.”.

Nasdaq to support the tokenization of equities in a manner that preserves issuer control, existing regulatory frameworks, and the underlying rights associated with company shares  Nasdaq’s equity token design aims to improve the experience for public companies by leveraging tokenization to modernize processes such as corporate actions, proxy voting, and shareholder engagement Nasdaq to engage public issuers, investors, and market participants on token design and token-based services Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today announced its intention to launch an equity token design, a new approach to tokenizing equities that puts public companies at the center of ownership rights, the investor experience, transparency, and governance. Nasdaq will facilitate the tokenization of equities, allowing public issuers to have more control over their shares in tokenized form. This also aims to introduce programmable investor engagement that modernizes the connection that issuers have with investors, notably as it relates to proxy-related actions, corporate actions, and governance rights. Nasdaq’s equity token design intends to preserve the fundamental principles and benefits of regulated market infrastructure that ensures deep liquidity, investor transparency, and market integrity, while driving industry standards and interoperability to accelerate the next wave of growth and accessibility in global capital markets. “Tokenization has the potential to unlock the benefits of an always-on financial ecosystem – enhancing how investors access markets, how issuers engage with shareholders,” said Tal Cohen, President, Nasdaq. “We believe that public companies should always remain at the center of the equity market ecosystem. This issuer‑sponsored approach for tokenized equity securities is designed to empower public companies and enhance global accessibility to U.S. equity markets.” The initiative builds upon Nasdaq’s tokenization proposal, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in September 2025, in which Nasdaq proposed enabling equity securities – including, but not limited to the issuer-sponsored tokens – to trade on its markets and to settle in token form through the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). Nasdaq’s initiative is also consistent with the SEC's 2026 Staff Statement on Tokenized Securities, which classifies tokenized equities the same under federal law as it does regular equity securities. Nasdaq’s equity token design intends to integrate existing regulated equity markets and unregulated blockchain networks, supporting a coherent and transparent market structure for equities regardless of where they are traded.Markets are moving toward round-the-clock trading. The infrastructure that underpins how equities are traded, held, transferred, and governed must evolve to support continuous operations in an always-on trading environment. Additionally, the investor base of public equities has the potential to expand as markets remain open across multiple time zones, making it increasingly important to have modern tools for public issuers to engage with investors worldwide. As tokenization accelerates, the number of platforms where tokenized equities and other forms of third-party synthetic equity contracts can circulate is growing rapidly. Nasdaq’s equity token design will ensure blockchain records are integrated directly into the issuer’s official share registry, providing a regulated bridge between on‑chain records and off‑chain identity. A transfer of the token will represent a transfer of the underlying security itself, preserving full legal and regulatory equivalence. This approach will maintain the same robust price discovery, consolidated liquidity, transparency, and investor protections that have long defined the U.S. equity markets. Connecting Permissioned and Permissionless EnvironmentsToday's tokenization landscape includes a range of approaches. Each tokenization model serves different participants and use-cases across the market. Nasdaq views these approaches as part of a broader ecosystem that will increasingly need to interact within an expanded, integrated system. Today, U.S. equities already trade across dozens of permissioned trading venues, with networked connectivity driven by regulatory requirements to ensure that liquidity, connectivity, and price discovery remain robust and resilient for investors. As permissionless and unregulated blockchain networks introduce synthetic equity contracts, it is becoming increasingly critical to introduce an issuer-centric approach to tokenized equities that delivers the integrity of our regulated markets to investors on digital networks in a permissioned environment. Nasdaq’s equity token design will create a bridge between the two market paradigms – permissioned and permissionless – while preserving issuers’ control of their equity in different technological forms. Nasdaq’s partnership with Payward, the parent company of global crypto platform, Kraken, and the infrastructure layer behind xStocks, will also be focused on designing an equities transformation gateway to enable issuers and investors to move seamlessly between permissioned and permissionless environments. The partnership will enable tokenized equities to move fluidly between regulated markets and global on-chain markets while preserving issuer rights, regulatory compliance, and price integrity. By connecting Nasdaq’s market infrastructure with the xStocks ecosystem, the gateway is designed to create interoperability between financial systems and decentralized networks. The equities transformation gateway will be available to clients in jurisdictions around the world where xStocks are available. This market infrastructure connectivity is intended to bring together parallel systems while enabling the development of advanced distributed ledger technology (DLT)‑based services for corporate issuers. “Tokenization improves market infrastructure at the asset layer by enabling equities to exist as interoperable instruments across regulated financial systems and open blockchain networks while preserving issuer rights and price integrity,” said Arjun Sethi, Co-CEO of Payward and Kraken. “For international customers, this expands access to public markets where traditional distribution has been limited. For U.S. customers, it will enable greater collateral efficiency and capital mobility across trading and financing workflows. Our partnership with Nasdaq helps build the liquidity layer and applications needed for tokenized equities to function within a global, always-on market structure.”  Nasdaq’s approach to tokenized equities advances Nasdaq’s vision for always‑on markets by modernizing infrastructure across trading, clearing, settlement, risk management, and collateral. As an operator of critical market infrastructure and a global market‑technology provider, Nasdaq is uniquely positioned to define standards that can scale responsibly across public markets. Nasdaq will engage with issuers, transfer agents, regulators, industry infrastructure operators, and market participants as the token framework evolves, with participation remaining voluntary and future enhancements guided by evidence and necessary regulatory review. Nasdaq expects this program to be operational and additional DLT-based services to be available to issuers starting in H1 2027.

The Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) today unveiled the Capital Market Masterplan 2026–2030 (CMP), a strategic blueprint to position Malaysia’s capital market as a key driver of national growth and economic prosperity.   With a long-term 20-year vision, the CMP supports economic transformation by accelerating growth in emerging sectors while strengthening the market’s role in building a more advanced, inclusive, sustainable and regionally integrated economy. Under the CMP, Malaysia’s capital market is projected to outpace GDP growth, expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6-8%, to RM5.8-6.3 trillion by 2030 from RM4.3 trillion in 2025. This is driven by new listings, institutional capital mobilisation, value-creation programmes, and stronger corporate bond financing to support future economic growth.    Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is also the Minister of Finance, launched the CMP at the SC today with key Cabinet Ministers and financial and capital market industry leaders in attendance. CMP is a whole-of-nation effort aligned with national growth priorities including the MADANI Economy framework, the 13th Malaysia Plan, the New Industrial Master Plan 2030 and National Energy Transition Roadmap.   The CMP also directly supports Malaysia’s aspirations to ‘raise the ceiling’ for economic performance and ‘raise the floor’ for the rakyat’s quality of life, with the capital market fundamental to an effective ecosystem for fundraising and investment. SC Chairman Dato’ Mohammad Faiz Azmi said the CMP reflected collective efforts by policymakers and capital market participants to advance Malaysia’s capital market and support national aspirations. "The Masterplan is an ambitious plan. We are aiming to grow the capital market size by RM1.5 to RM2 trillion in five years. It reflects our belief that we have more room to continue improving and accelerate growth," he said. Taking into account Malaysia’s aspirations and global megatrends, the CMP is anchored on four broad but interconnected themes of vibrancy, inclusivity, sustainability and regional opportunities. These will leverage Malaysia’s Islamic capital market and regulatory and governance strengths: 1) Vibrancy   The CMP seeks to significantly enhance Malaysia’s market valuations, trading activity and access for companies seeking capital. Key to this ambition is optimising market valuations of equity as well as reinforcing the value proposition for bond and sukuk within Malaysia’s capital market.   Targeted initiatives will be put in place to increase the visibility of high quality public listed companies (PLCs) through greater innovation and improved capital efficiency, leading to better value creation.   2) Inclusivity To ensure all Malaysians benefit equitably from the nation’s growth, the CMP aims to ‘raise the floor’ by broadening access to the capital market products and services for long term wealth creation. These efforts will be supported by enhancing financial literacy, leveraging digital technology for effectiveness. 3) Sustainability In support of Malaysia’s sustainable development commitments, the CMP aims to mobilise financing for climate mitigation, transition, adaptation, resilience and broader social outcomes. This supports Malaysia’s sustainability agenda and reinforces the capital market’s role in advancing the nation’s net-zero transition and long-term resilience.    4) Regional Opportunities:  To solidify Malaysia’s position as a trusted regional gateway, the CMP will support the regional expansion of homegrown champions, facilitate issuances of niche and competitive products with foreign underlying, attract more listings and bond/sukuk issuances by foreign companies.    These outcomes are further reinforced by Malaysia’s global leadership in Islamic finance, embedding the principles of Maqasid al-Shariah (higher objectives of Shariah) into investable and globally competitive offerings. In addition, regulatory and governance excellence is critical to ensure the capital market remains adaptive, stable and future-ready. To ensure effective delivery and accountability, a Capital Masterplan Steering Committee, comprising key government officials and private sector representatives, will be established to oversee the CMP implementation.   To learn more about CMP, please visit https://www.sc.com.my/capital-marketmasterplan .  

Teciem, a global provider of front-to-back treasury and capital markets software solutions, today announced the appointment of Didier Bouillard as Chairman of its Board of Directors. As an independent Chair, Didier brings more than three decades of global governance and leadership in financial technology, having built, scaled, and led multiple private-equity-backed platforms across capital markets infrastructure and enterprise software. Based in London, Didier will work closely with the Teciem Board, management team and shareholder representatives to ensure strategic clarity, strong governance, and rigorous execution of the company’s long-term growth agenda. Didier’s career includes senior roles at Ubitrade and SunGard, where he contributed to the development and expansion of major trading, risk, and post trade platforms. He later served as CEO of Ullink, leading its global growth and value creation, before becoming CEO of Calypso Technology in 2018. In 2021, he assumed leadership of Adenza after the merger of Calypso Technology and AxiomSL. During his tenure there he oversaw the integration of trading, treasury, risk, and regulatory compliance capabilities and guided the company through its subsequent acquisition by Nasdaq. Throughout his career, Didier has demonstrated his success in scaling complex enterprise financial systems and in driving disciplined growth in private‑equity environments. Wissam Khoury, Chief Executive Officer and Board Director, Teciem, commented: “Welcoming an independent chairman of Didier’s caliber and experience to our Board of Directors marks an important milestone in Teciem’s evolution as a standalone, private-equity backed provider of treasury and capital markets technology. The appointment reflects our commitment to balanced oversight and governance standards consistent with leading institutional fintech platforms. Didier’s expertise in scaling fintech businesses in partnership with private equity, combined with his independent perspective, will be instrumental as we grow the business and execute our strategic roadmap.” Didier Bouillard said: “Teciem combines deep domain expertise, strong customer relationships, and significant growth potential. I’m thrilled to take on the role of Chairman, working closely with the management team and other board members, sharing my experience in supporting disciplined execution, robust governance and sustained growth.” Gabriele Cipparrone, Partner at Apax and Board Director of Teciem, added: “We are delighted to welcome Didier to the role of Chairman of Teciem’s Board. His deep sector expertise and experience governing high-performance fintech platforms will further strengthen the Board as the company accelerates its next phase of growth. We look forward to partnering closely with Didier, Wissam and the rest of this board to support Teciem’s long-term value-creation strategy.” Following this appointment, the Teciem Board of Directors consists of Didier Bouillard (Independent Chairman), Wissam Khoury (Chief Executive Officer), Gabriel Cipparrone (Apax), Jason Wright (Apax), Jesus Rueda (Apax) and Mike Jackowski (Independent Director).