News Articles

FINRA Fines Revere Securities $800,000 For Small-Cap IPO-Related AML And Supervisory Failures - Firm Ignored Red Flags Of Potentially Manipulative Trading Tied To Foreign-Based IPOs

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:31:34 GMT

FINRA has fined Revere Securities LLC $800,000 for anti-money laundering (AML) and supervisory violations related to small-cap initial public offerings (IPOs) for foreign-based issuers. As part of the settlement, FINRA also required Revere to retain a third-party consultant to conduct a review of compliance with FINRA rules, obtain a report from the consultant with recommendations on how to remediate its supervisory procedures and systems, and implement those recommendations.

FINRA found that Revere acted as a lead underwriter or selling group member for foreign-based, small-cap IPOs that bore hallmarks of potential “ramp-and-dump” schemes, failed to detect and report potentially suspicious transactions related to those issuers, and did not have a reasonable customer identification or due diligence program.

“Ramp-and-dump schemes are a direct threat to investors and to the integrity of U.S. markets, and broker-dealers that underwrite or distribute offerings for these issuers are on the front lines of defense,” said Bill St. Louis, Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement at FINRA. “When a firm builds its core underwriting business around IPOs of this type, it must implement robust compliance controls tailored to the risks and take seriously its responsibility to detect and investigate suspicious activity. At FINRA, we remain vigilant in identifying, investigating and addressing risks involving small-cap issuers and the firms that serve them.”

Since 2022, Revere’s core business has included serving as a lead underwriter or selling group member in IPOs for predominantly foreign-based small-cap issuers, more than 40 of which involved issuers that operated in Hong Kong or China. In some of Revere’s small-cap IPOs, the issuers’ stock prices experienced significant, unusual price increases immediately after the IPO before rapidly collapsing, resulting in millions of dollars in secondary market losses. Trading in Revere accounts bore multiple indications of potential manipulation, including coordinated trading and trading a significant portion of the daily volume.

Revere’s customers for these offerings included customers from foreign jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong or China. Despite this, the firm did not have adequate procedures to verify its customers’ true identities. Multiple sets of seemingly unrelated customers opened new accounts on the same dates, reported living at the same residential addresses, and then proceeded to engage in identical, or substantially similar, trading patterns in the same issuers.

In one instance, Revere allocated more than $1.5 million worth of IPO shares, almost all its allotment, to just eight customers who all were referred to Revere by a foreign broker-dealer. Four of those account holders claimed to be unemployed yet reported income exceeding $200,000 annually, and seven of the eight applications contained contradictory information about the source of deposited funds. Revere opened all eight accounts anyway, without adequately verifying the accuracy of the customers’ information.

On IPO day, the stock surged 318% before collapsing more than 50% by the close of the market. All eight customers sent emails on the same day directing Revere to liquidate their shares from IP addresses that could be traced back to countries other than where the customers purportedly lived. Revere did not identify any of these factors as potentially suspicious.

Prior to the issuance of the letter of acceptance, waiver and consent, Revere had already engaged a third-party consultant to review and recommend changes to Revere’s AML program. In settling this matter, Revere Securities consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings without admitting or denying the charges.

This matter underscores FINRA’s heightened focus on the risks involved with small-cap issuers. In October 2025, FINRA announced a review of firm practices regarding public and private offerings of small-cap exchange-listed issuers with business operations in foreign jurisdictions such as China. That sweep, which commenced after this matter was underway, remains ongoing.

FINRA makes available disciplinary actions and other information on its Disciplinary Actions Online database. In addition, FINRA publishes on its Monthly Disciplinary Actions page a summary of disciplinary actions against member firms and individuals for violations of FINRA rules; federal securities laws, rules and regulations; and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. FINRA’s use of fine monies is limited to specific purposes set forth in its public Financial Guiding Principles, which are approved by its Board of Governors. FINRA publicly itemizes and discloses how it uses fine monies each year.

SEC To Host Virtual National Compliance Outreach Seminar For Investment Companies And Investment Advisers

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:26:34 GMT

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Compliance Outreach Program announced today that it will host a virtual national seminar for investment companies and investment advisers on November 19, 2026. The purpose of the event is to help chief compliance officers and senior personnel at investment advisory firms and investment companies enhance their compliance programs to protect investors.

The conference will include panel discussions on:

Information security and operational resiliency
Registered investment adviser topics
Private fund adviser topics
Registered investment company topics
Effectiveness of compliance programs
Briefings on current issues

View the full agenda. To submit questions for the panel, either in advance or during the event, use the links provided in the agenda.

Advance registration is not required. A link to the live webcast will be made available the morning of November 19 on SEC.gov.

The SEC's Divisions of Examinations and Investment Management, and the Asset Management Unit of the Division of Enforcement, jointly sponsor the compliance outreach program. The program promotes open communications and coordination among securities regulators and the industry on mutual fund, investment adviser, and broker-dealer compliance issues.

Please visit the SEC's compliance page for additional compliance-related resources.

Modernizing The Regulatory And Supervisory Landscape, Federal Reserve Vice Chair For Supervision Michelle W. Bowman, At The 2026 Community Banking Research Conference, Sponsored By The Federal Reserve System, The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors, And The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:19:53 GMT

Good morning. It is good to be here with you this morning for the Community Banking Research Conference.1 Today I will discuss the work we have under way to modernize the bank regulatory and supervision framework. These frameworks are the foundation for the long-term stability and success of the banking system, and for community banks around the country.

Targeted Reforms to Support Community Banks
At this conference two years ago, I described actionable approaches to support and enhance the role of community banks in the U.S. financial system.2 Since that time, we have made progress in a number of areas. At the Federal Reserve, we have refocused supervision with our Statement of Supervisory Operating Principles. These principles focus supervision on risks that could lead to a material deterioration in a firm's financial condition. We are also improving our coordination with federal and state banking agency counterparts. Together with the OCC and FDIC, we updated the community bank leverage ratio—a material simplification of the capital framework for community banks—to the statutory level of 8 percent. We demonstrated our support for community bank innovation by eliminating the Novel Activities Supervision Program, which had operated as a barrier to innovation.

We are continuing our initiative to update and index outdated asset thresholds, including the thresholds defining the scope of community banks for supervisory purposes, and making supervisory ratings (like the "M" rating in "CAMELS") more reflective of financial condition and financial risk. In issuing regulations or guidance that applies to community banks, we include tools, additional guidance, and compliance guides to clarify new expectations, like the recent compliance guide for third-party risk-management guidelines.

More work remains.

First, mergers and acquisitions. The Federal Reserve's competitive analysis in bank mergers has a disproportionate effect on rural banks in small and underserved markets. This analysis systematically understates the competition banks in these markets face—downplaying or ignoring credit unions, nonbank lenders, farm credit institutions, and branchless banks that compete in local markets across the country. This analysis is antiquated and harmful to community banks that may face greater difficulties in merging, even when doing so may actually create a stronger and more competitive banking environment.

Second, de novo formation. In June, the FFIEC issued a statement reaffirming its support for de novo bank formation. While this was an important show of broad-based support for de novos, federal and state banking agencies can and should do more to promote new bank formation—including clarifying approval standards (like capital requirements), adhering to specific and reasonable processing timelines, and issuing conditional approvals where appropriate.

Third, rationalizing and streamlining the call report. The FFIEC issued a request for information on call report streamlining in December 2025, seeking public comment about excessive burden on banks that file the call report and requesting stakeholders to identify options for streamlining.

I also highlighted the necessity of community banking and state bank commission experience for those involved in regulatory and supervisory oversight processes. Understanding the business of banking and how supervision and regulation hinder or support this business is fundamental to a safe and sound banking system. Since becoming the Vice Chair for Supervision, I have served as the Board's FFIEC member, and as its chairman. During this time, we have made progress on long-standing issues within the FFIEC's purview, including updating the CAMELS rating system, which I will discuss more in a moment.

Bank regulators rely on an effective and proportionate approach to bank regulation and supervision, based on size, complexity, business model, and risk profile. This includes updating asset-based thresholds to reflect changes over time and indexing them to economic growth to help ensure that they remain appropriately calibrated in the future.

Asset Thresholds and Regulatory Tailoring
Bank regulation and supervision must be appropriately tailored, calibrated, and updated over time. Asset thresholds that are established in regulation (like low, fixed-dollar thresholds that limit a bank's lending to directors and officers) or static standards are used to create different tiers of institutions for regulatory and supervisory purposes (like the definition of a community bank being generally set at $10 billion in assets) become irrational over time.

These thresholds matter. They limit a bank's activities and impact the proportionality of supervisory oversight. Every standard reflects a policy decision at a particular point in time, but over time, without adjustment, policy judgment is replaced by a miscalibration.

The Board has taken steps to address these issues. In July, we proposed revisions to Regulation O, which governs the extension of credit by banks to bank "insiders," including bank executives, board members, and major shareholders.3 Regulation O has not been comprehensively updated since 1979. While the original transaction limits may have been appropriate at that time, these limits create a significant administrative burden on community banks and go beyond what is appropriate or necessary for safety and soundness.

The Board's regulations include other thresholds that are similarly outdated. Later this year, the Board will consider updates to fixed-dollar asset thresholds in the Board's regulations to account for inflation and economic growth. The proposal will increase static thresholds, with a mechanism to update them every five years. This will preserve the policy intent at the time the threshold was implemented. This regulatory housekeeping should not require comprehensively and routinely revisiting our regulations to update thresholds so that they remain appropriate for future economic conditions, so we have included mechanisms that will allow this adjustment on a regular cadence.

Later this year, the Board will consider broader structural reforms to bank portfolios defined by asset size and updates to the large bank tailoring framework. For the past 15 years, a community bank has been defined as a bank with assets of less than $10 billion.4 Fixed asset thresholds can push a smaller noncomplex bank into a higher supervisory tier with standards designed for more complex institutions and stronger supervisory scrutiny—like those based on the risk of their activities. This approach is not appropriate for firms with straightforward business models that should be subject to the risk tier appropriate for their risk profile. Both directions of change could be appropriate if based on an assessment of a bank's activities and risk profile. By expanding the range of institutions treated as community banks that operate using a traditional community bank business model and relationship banking and appropriately modifying the supervisory expectations and regulatory requirements for these firms, we will preserve safety and soundness while effectively applying appropriately tailored and risk-calibrated supervision and regulation.

Congress has given the federal banking agencies discretion to modify thresholds and to tailor requirements for institutions based on size and complexity. Our work will ensure that our requirements remain appropriate for this purpose.

Refocusing Supervision on the Risk of Material Financial Harm
Effective bank supervision requires an approach that prioritizes risk that can result in material financial harm. One year ago, the Federal Reserve implemented a risk-based supervisory program with the introduction of our Statement of Supervisory Operating Principles (SSOP). These principles outline our enhanced approach to supervision describing what supervisors do and how they do it for both examiners and for the broader public.5

Publishing the SSOP enabled us to begin the process to shift our culture to encourage and direct our supervisors to return our focus to the fundamental purpose of supervision. This emphasizes our mandate to preserve safety and soundness in the banking system and support U.S. financial stability. In recent years, our examinations had drifted to focus on process over substance, prioritizing checklists of requirements instead of applying judgment and expertise to evaluate safety and soundness. The SSOP begins by reiterating the core purpose of supervision—which is to identify material vulnerabilities as early as possible and take prompt, decisive, and proportionate action to encourage or require firms to mitigate them. It then clarifies expectations for examiners to use reasoned judgment and escalate matters of concern, including where additional tools may be needed to identify or address risks.6

The SSOP marks a turning point that memorializes the beginning of our work to address the long-standing issues in our supervisory culture. Of course, we know that the SSOP is an initial step. It must be followed up with clear expectations and actions. Therefore, we have followed that formal document with targeted examiner trainings, outreach, and necessary structural reforms to ensure these messages have permeated throughout the entire supervisory system and enhance how we conduct supervision.

The Federal Reserve's supervisory approach should not be a mystery. Supervisory expectations should be transparent, clear, and consistent. A bank should not learn about and then be held accountable for changed expectations during an examination. In recent months, we published a number of LISCC examination manuals and provided targeted guidance to further this goal of transparency. One example is our new third-party risk-management guidance, which includes a guide that is tailored to community banks. These banks face unique challenges in managing third-party relationships, particularly where there is a mismatch in negotiating power between banks and service providers. These should clarify supervisory expectations and encourage effective third-party relationship due diligence and ongoing compliance.

While these examples demonstrate the commitment to updating and modernizing the bank regulatory and supervisory framework, there is much more to be addressed. Together, through the FFIEC, the agencies and states are working to finalize revisions to the CAMELS rating system.7 The CAMELS proposal revises the bank ratings framework to focus on material financial risks and provides clarity to each component and the weight of each element that comprises the components and leads to a composite rating. Importantly, the proposal also provides transparency and clarity to the assignment of a Management rating. The "M" rating will no longer singularly drive a composite rating.

Our revised supervisory approach adopts humility and openness, acknowledging that some elements should be periodically updated and refined over time to reflect changing economic conditions, evolving banking and financial system risks and practices, and the broader economy.

Updating the Structure of the Supervisory Function
To effectively implement a robust framework, we must also change our organizational structure and approach, our culture, and work to promote accountability and transparency. These reforms are not easy. We have to address long-standing issues embedded in our institutional culture, long-held assumptions and beliefs, and institutional inertia. But in the context of bank supervision and regulation, we must not be distracted from our core mission of safety and soundness while we achieve these goals.

We have identified a number of structural issues that hinder our ability to optimally perform the supervisory function. Starting with the role of committees in the operation of the supervisory function.

For many years, Federal Reserve system supervision relied on a complex web of committees. These committees were well intentioned and appropriately deliberated issues but over time became a source of delay, created barriers to prompt action, and obfuscated decisionmaking responsibility and accountability.

While committees can be effective in breaking down information silos, delayed action results in fractured and inconsistent communication and supervisory approaches. The Federal Reserve's distributed supervisory system encompasses an extensive geographic area, including unique institutions across the country, with a wide range of bank sizes, business models, activities, and risk profiles. Lessons from our supervisory experiences inform examiner judgment. When a committee shields accountability or discourages examination teams from using informed judgment in a timely manner to defer to an unaccountable committee, safety and soundness can suffer as a result. In practice, these committees became a source for plausible deniability and a disincentive for examiners to take prompt and decisive action to address identified risks.

Improving the use of committees is an important first step, but broader changes are needed.

Last month, the Starling Advisory Group released its preliminary report on the failure of Silicon Valley Bank.8 This independent review marks an important milestone in public accountability and transparency for the supervision of banks. It serves as an opportunity identify and address challenges in the implementation of Federal Reserve supervision responsibilities. While we have already made progress in several areas, we must also modernize our organizational structure so that our supervisory operations are well positioned to assess the current landscape and future of the U.S. economy and financial system. This requires a thorough examination of our systemwide operations, our existing footprint, and a recognition of the importance of our state supervisory structure. After all, our banks are "state member banks," and each state conducts supervision jointly with us and, ultimately, holds the state bank charter.

The independent review highlighted a long-standing structural issue in the supervisory function—a mismatch between authority for decisionmaking and accountability for supervisory decisions. The execution of Federal Reserve supervision is the responsibility of the Vice Chair for Supervision, but it is conducted by the Reserve Banks. As the review noted, for decades that structure has disincentivized a critical link between responsibility and accountability and has been further complicated by a complex web of dozens of committees, resulting in dysfunction when critical decisions are most needed.

Today, we begin to restructure the Federal Reserve's supervision function. Informed by the regional structure implemented by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the Federal Reserve supervisory function will be realigned to implement a culture of accountability and clear decisionmaking authority. This will initially take the shape of a realignment into five regions. Each of these regions will be led by a regional leader accountable for all supervisory activity in region, supported by the existing Reserve Bank footprints but aligned to recognize and reflect state boundaries.

This simplified regional structure will provide a number of benefits.

By following state lines rather than Reserve Bank District boundaries, we can coordinate more effectively and efficiently with our state and federal regulatory partners. The regional structure creates scale in our operations. It simplifies our leadership structure while preserving local supervision by examiners. They will remain in the existing Reserve Bank locations across each region, continuing to oversee the banks they currently supervise. This approach clarifies accountability and decisionmaking and enables a consistent application of supervision. We look forward to realizing the benefits of this structure.

Closing Thoughts
In just over a year, we have made meaningful progress. But much lies ahead. As we continue to move forward, it is important to reiterate our commitment to risk-focused regulation and supervision, and a strong foundation of capital and liquidity. Our supervision prioritizes those matters that present or could lead to material financial impairment. These approaches allow us to empower examiner judgement and expertise, leading to more timely and effective supervisory outcomes. Our structure and organization will support our examination workforce by better aligning responsibility and accountability for decisionmaking.

I look forward to hearing your feedback as we implement these approaches, as we continue to enhance the regulatory framework, and as we improve our supervision. Thank you for your work to ensure the future of banking for communities across the United States. It is an honor and a privilege to work with you.

1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee.

2. See Michelle W. Bowman, "Building a Community Banking Framework for the Future," speech delivered at the 2024 Community Banking Research Conference, sponsored by the Federal Reserve System, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, St. Louis, MO, October 2, 2024.

3. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, "Federal Reserve Board Requests Comment on a Proposal to Modernize Its Rule Governing the Extension of Credit to Bank 'Insiders'—Bank Executives, Board Members and Major Shareholders Who Could Potentially Influence a Bank's Lending Decisions," press release, July 31, 2026.

4. See, for example, Michelle W. Bowman, "Modernizing Supervision and Regulation: 2025 and the Path Ahead (PDF)," speech delivered at the California Bankers Association Bank Presidents Seminar, Laguna Beach, CA, January 7, 2026; Michelle W. Bowman, "Community Banking: Looking Toward the Future (PDF)," speech delivered at the Community Bank Conference, hosted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., October 9, 2025; and Michelle W. Bowman, "Defining a Bank (PDF)," speech delivered at the American Bankers Association 2024 Conference for Community Bankers, San Antonio, TX, February 12, 2024.

5. See "Statement of Supervisory Operating Principles (PDF)," press release, October 29, 2025.

6. Id. ("Examiners and other supervisory staff should be focused on the responsibility of the Board to promote the safe and sound operation of banks and the stability of the U.S. financial system. In furtherance of this mission, examiners are encouraged and expected to use their reasoned judgment. . . . If an issue arises that may present a material financial risk to a regulated firm's safe and sound operation, but this issue is not sufficiently addressed by existing supervisory tools, those issues should be escalated up the management chain for review.").

7. See Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, "Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (PDF)," 91 Fed. Reg. 29128, May 19, 2026; Bowman, "Modernizing Supervision and Regulation"; Michelle W. Bowman, "Welcome Remarks (PDF)," speech delivered at the 2025 Community Banking Research Conference, St. Louis, MO, October 7, 2025; Michelle W. Bowman, "Taking a Fresh Look at Supervision and Regulation (PDF)," speech delivered at the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy, Washington, D.C., June 6, 2025.

8. See Michelle W. Bowman, "Initial Findings from Independent Review of Silicon Valley Bank," speech delivered at the Luncheon of the Lord Mayor City of London at Mansion House, London, United Kingdom, September 18, 2026.

Economic Secretary To The UKI Treasury Speech For UK Digital Assets Week

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:24:01 GMT

Thank you, and good morning everyone.

It is a real pleasure to open UK Digital Assets Week.

Just across the road are the Crown Jewels: some of the most valuable assets in the country, protected by centuries of law, institutions and very serious-looking security. And here we are, discussing assets of a very different form, but those that will undoubtedly play a very significant role in our country’s future and indeed our future prosperity.

And, the question facing us today is not whether digital technologies will change financial services.

They already have.

The question is whether we in the UK are prepared to move quickly enough and ambitiously enough to shape that change.

And my message today is very simple.

We are prepared, we are moving quickly, and we are more than ambitious enough to lead the world in digital assets.

When we take a step back, and we should take a step back, looking at the last couple of centuries, it’s fair to say that we are used to technological development giving us new products and new services.

But on occasion, technology changes something more fundamental: it changes the infrastructure on which an economy operates.

The move from paper to electronic trading transformed our financial markets in the 1980s and 1990s.

And I believe the shift from electronic markets to truly digital markets will prove just as significant.

This isn’t just about getting rid of paper or putting existing processes onto a slightly better computer system.

It is asking whether the architecture of finance itself can be better.

Whether assets can move more efficiently.

Whether transactions can settle faster.

Whether collateral can work harder.

Whether new forms of money can improve payments.

And whether technology can open markets to greater competition and innovation.

That is why digitalisation is not a niche technology agenda.

It is an economic agenda.

A competitiveness agenda.

And, increasingly, a national endeavour.

Government can create the conditions.

Regulators can provide clarity, confidence and appropriate safeguards.

But it is firms, investors and entrepreneurs who will deploy capital, build products and compete in these markets of the future.

That partnership is the basis on which the UK will succeed.

As we take this partnership forward, we also need to work closely with international partners to realise the benefits and avoid fragmented markets.

I am keenly aware of this as we gear up for our Presidency of the G20 in 2027.

Of course, saying that we want to succeed is the easy bit.

The substantive question is what we are actually doing about it.

And that is where I think the UK story is at its most compelling.

Last year we published our Wholesale Financial Markets Digital Strategy, built around market optimisation, transformation and leadership.

We are removing legacy processes;

Creating the regulatory environment in which new infrastructure can develop;

Building a regulatory framework for cryptoassets and stablecoins;

We are putting our own sovereign issuance onto digital infrastructure.

And critically industry is forging the path ahead.

That is why I appointed Chris Woolard as our Wholesale Digital Markets Champion.

His first report in July set out a clear challenge: that tokenised markets are fundamental to the future of financial services, and that the decisions we take now will help determine whether the UK remains at the heart of the next generation of global markets.

Since then, Chris has announced the composition of his industry action groups, bringing together firms from across the sector to tackle the practical barriers to adoption.

It is fantastic to see both the variety of firms and the seniority of the people involved. I would like to thank everyone involved in the process for committing your time and enthusiasm to this project.

That commitment matters.

Because the challenge now is not proving that the technology works.

It is creating the conditions in which markets can adopt it at scale.

The prize is significant. And this is a moment when the UK has an opportunity to move as one, be brave, and establish itself at the forefront of the next generation of global financial markets.

We can see momentum building across the system.

Take the Digital Securities Sandbox.

The Sandbox was designed to give firms a route from testing new technology to using it in live UK financial markets.

And that journey is now happening.

In July, HSBC became the first firm to receive approval to operate a live Digital Securities Depository in the Sandbox.

ClearToken has become the second firm to receive that approval.

That is real progress.

And as part of making sure the sandbox continues to work for firms, we intend to lay secondary legislation over the coming months to support the delivery of digital services and issuances in the DSS.

So we are moving from experimentation to live activity, with digital financial-market infrastructure trading digital securities here in the UK.

DIGIT is a symbol of the government’s commitment to this agenda, and of its willingness to play an active role in digitalisation.

The Digital Gilt Instrument – DIGIT - will be a digitally native UK Government debt issuance issued onto the HSBC Orion platform in the Digital Securities Sandbox.

The DIGIT pilot issuance in the first quarter of 2027. And, we are taking steps to prepare for potential further issuances, subject to the success of that first transaction.

To support the government’s objectives, HSBC and LSEG are working together to develop a bilateral link - the first of its kind - which will allow investors to access DIGIT through either infrastructure.

We are intending to list DIGIT as the first digital asset on the LSEG main market. And we are engaging the sector more widely to support the delivery of the pilot.

Today, I am pleased to be able to announce that we have appointed six firms to act as Joint Lead Managers for the pilot issuance of DIGIT.

This is an important moment for the project and is another major step toward delivering on our ambitions for digital assets in the UK.

These institutions will bring vast experience from both traditional sovereign debt issuances, and from digital markets, and their appointment reaffirms the commitment to ensuring the success of DIGIT.

The United Kingdom’s strength comes from being one of the world’s great meeting places for international capital.

And our ambition is that the same should be true of digital capital markets. One of the objectives of DIGIT is to act as a catalyst to support the development of DLT.

We want to build an ecosystem that connects the world with the UK right at the centre.

But digital securities are only one part of this transformation.

If we are going to build genuinely digital markets, we also need to think about digital money.

There is little point transforming one half of a transaction if the other half remains dependent on older technology.

And this is an area where developments are moving quickly.

Our approach is not to pick which form of digital money will ultimately win.

Instead, our job is to create conditions in which responsible innovation can compete.

Stablecoins.

Tokenised commercial bank deposits.

A diverse system, where different forms of money play their own role and can be freely exchanged.

And over recent months we have made substantial progress towards putting that framework into practice.

This year marked an important change in the UK’s approach to cryptoassets.

We moved from debating the shape of regulation to implementing it.

The regulations I took through in February bring a broad range of cryptoasset activities within the FCA regulatory perimeter from 25 October 2027.

In June, the FCA published a substantial package of final rules and guidance covering stablecoin issuance, regulated cryptoasset activities, prudential requirements and more.

And just last month, the FCA published its final perimeter guidance to help firms understand where authorisation will be required. The application window opened last week (30 September) for firms seeking to use the transitional arrangements.

That is a significant step forward.

We want businesses to build here.

We want them investing here.

Hiring here.

And launching products here.

Being a leading digital assets centre means having standards as well as ambition.

The two go hand in hand.

Trust is an asset.

Clear rules are an asset.

And a jurisdiction in which consumers, investors and counterparties know where they stand has a genuine competitive advantage.

Our approach to stablecoins brings that philosophy to life.

Stablecoins have real potential to support growth and make financial markets more efficient.

They can enable faster, lower cost transactions, more efficient settlement and new forms of innovations, including programmable payments.

But that potential can only be realised if stablecoins are appropriately regulated and truly stable.

That is why we have acted to create a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins in the UK.

Through the cryptoassets regulatory regime, we have established a regulated activity for issuing stablecoins, giving firms certainty to invest, innovate and grow.

And we are continuing to refine that framework.

In September, we laid legislation making targeted amendments to the cryptoassets regulations, following extensive engagement with industry.

These changes are designed to provide greater certainty for firms providing stablecoin payment services and to remove barriers to important use cases.

As many of you will know, we are consulting on reforms to the payments regulatory framework, including proposals to bring UK-issued stablecoin within the payments services perimeter.

The amendments to the cryptoassets regime will ensure firms are not required to secure cryptoasset permissions now, only to seek reauthorisation following the planned payments reforms.

Taken together, these are the building blocks for a credible and competitive UK stablecoin market.

We also recognise that stablecoins are inherently global.

That is why international cooperation matters.

Through the Transatlantic Taskforce, we are working with the United States to promote appropriate alignment on stablecoins; helping to provide firms with the confidence and clarity they need to operate across borders.

Because if we get this right, stablecoins could be transformative for consumers, businesses and financial markets alike.

We are also considering how we use our powers to establish Overseas Recognition Regimes for digital assets.

And this brings me back to the bigger picture.

It is easy to view each of these initiatives separately.

But that misses the point.

These are different components of the same strategy.

Transactions need digital forms of money with which they can settle.

A digital asset needs infrastructure on which it can be issued, traded, settled and held.

That infrastructure needs appropriate regulation.

Markets need standards and interoperability between platforms

Firms want government vision, to enable innovation to follow and capital to flow.

And international markets require connectivity across borders.

Money. Assets. Infrastructure. Regulation. Industry adoption. International connectivity.

That is the package.

And it is why I am so optimistic about the UK’s prospects.

Because few jurisdictions can combine everything that Britain can.

Deep capital markets.

Global financial institutions.

World-class regulators.

A strong legal system.

A thriving technology sector.

And an international financial centre that has spent centuries adapting itself to the needs of global commerce.

Digitalisation doesn’t make those advantages irrelevant.

It gives us an opportunity to renew them.

But we cannot be complacent.

Other jurisdictions are moving quickly.

Leadership in the next generation of financial markets will be earned by jurisdictions that can combine innovation, regulation, infrastructure and adoption.

That’s why we’re laying the necessary foundations for success.

There is a lot still to do, but we are making substantial progress.

And I want the markets of that future to be built, connected, financed and scaled here in the United Kingdom.

That is the opportunity.

That is our ambition.

And that is the national endeavour I hope everyone in this room will join us in delivering.

Thank you.

Canadian Securities Administrators Encourages Informed Investing And Fraud Prevention During Investor Education Month

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:16:20 GMT

As Canadians increasingly encounter investment information and opportunities online, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) is marking Investor Education Month by encouraging investors to stay focused on long-term goals, critically assess and verify information they see online, and take steps to protect themselves from investment fraud.

“Knowledge is one of the most effective tools investors have to achieve their financial goals and protect themselves from fraud,” said Stan Magidson, CSA Chair and Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission. “Taking the time to develop an investment plan, check registration, and question unsolicited offers can mean the difference between making an informed decision and falling victim to a scam.”

The themes align with those identified by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) through its annual World Investor Week, a global initiative that raises awareness about investor education and protection. This year's World Investor Week takes place October 6 to 12 bringing together securities regulators and investor-focused organizations from around the world to raise awareness of key issues affecting investors. IOSCO has identified investor resilience, digital deception and fraud prevention as key focus areas amid rapid technological change and evolving risks for investors.

Investor resilience

Market volatility, economic uncertainty and online commentary can influence investment decisions. Building resilience is about developing habits and a plan to help investors stay focused on their long-term goals when uncertainty arises. Investors can build their resilience by:

Focusing on long-term goals rather than short-term market headlines when making investment decisions.
Understanding their risk tolerance and investing accordingly.
Recognizing that market ups and downs are a normal part of investing and avoiding investment decisions driven by fear or anxiety.
Reviewing their financial plans regularly.
Seeking advice from registered professionals when needed.

Digital deception

Technology and artificial intelligence (AI) are changing how investors access information, but they can also be used to create convincing misleading content. Investors should:

Be cautious of investment advice from unverified sources on social media. Use trusted sources to confirm investment claims beyond social media posts and videos.
Be wary of investment advice that relies on hype or emotional appeals
Confirm that investment professionals, firms, robo-advisors, and crypto asset trading platforms that they are considering engaging with are registered through a Canadian securities regulator.

Investment scams

Fraudsters continue to use increasingly sophisticated tactics to target investors online. Common warning signs include:

Promises of high returns with little or no risk.
Pressure to act quickly.
Unrequested investment offers.
Limited or confusing details about how the investment works.
Resistance to answering questions.
Investment opportunities that seem too good to be true.

Resources for investors

The CSA offers tools and resources to help investors make informed decisions and protect themselves from fraud, including:

National Registration Search to check whether an individual or firm is registered.
CSA Investor Alerts to identify firms and individuals that may pose a risk to investors.
CSA Investor Tools to find information on avoiding fraud, conducting due diligence and connecting with local securities regulators.

Money In The Digital Age: Digital Euro, Tokenisation And The Role Of Central Banks - Speech By Piero Cipollone, Member Of The Executive Board Of The ECB, MNI Connect Webcast, Frankfurt am Main, 6 October 2026

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:02:09 GMT

For centuries, issuing money and safeguarding its value has been at the heart of central banks’ mandate.

But the technological environment is changing.

People increasingly pay digitally. Financial institutions are experimenting with distributed ledger technology (DLT). Assets are being represented as digital files, or tokens. New actors have entered markets traditionally served by banks.

This transformation opens up significant opportunities.

It can make payments more convenient and finance more efficient. And it can pave the way for new products and business models.

But it also creates risks.

If we do not provide a digital form of cash, the role of public money may continue to decline. And we may find ourselves trapped in a situation where there is no pan-European digital payment solution that caters to every type of day-to-day transaction.

If tokenised finance develops on closed, incompatible platforms without a safe settlement asset, fragmentation could increase and the singleness of money could be weakened.

And when Europe depends excessively on infrastructures, technologies or solutions controlled elsewhere, our resilience and monetary sovereignty is diminished.

The question, therefore, is not whether payments and finance will become more digital. They already are.

The question is how we can ensure that our monetary system continues to preserve the singleness of money, trust and stability, while also supporting efficiency, resilience and autonomy as this transformation unfolds.

Our answer is to extend central bank money into the digital environment while preserving the two-tier monetary system in which public and private money coexist.

In retail payments, this means preparing for a digital euro. In wholesale markets, it means ensuring that central bank money can be used to settle tokenised transactions – through Pontes – while working with the market – through Appia – to shape the wider digital finance ecosystem.

These initiatives are often discussed separately. But they are all part of one comprehensive strategy: to keep central bank money at the heart of retail and wholesale finance, while giving European market participants the infrastructure they need to innovate, grow and remain competitive internationally.

Central bank money as the anchor

Our monetary system rests on the coexistence of public and private money.

Central bank money is the ultimate risk-free settlement asset. And it supports the role of private money because trust in commercial bank money rests on its convertibility at par into central bank money.

This convertibility ensures the singleness of money. One euro has the same value as any other, throughout the euro area.

Our objective is not therefore to replace private money or private innovation. It is to provide a stable public foundation to ensure day-to-day payments are cheap, resilient and inclusive. And to enable financial innovation to develop safely, at scale, in an integrated European market.

Preparing a digital euro for retail payments

Let me turn first to retail payments. This is what the digital euro is for: our day-to-day transactions.

A Europe-made, Europe-wide payments solution

There is still no European digital means of payment that works across all euro area countries and all major use cases.

European private solutions tend to cover specific markets or payment situations. This means that banks and their customers depend heavily on international card schemes and global technology companies.

Two-thirds of euro area card payments rely on international schemes. Of the 21 euro area countries, 13 have no domestic card scheme. And where a domestic payment solution exists, it does not always cater to all use cases and cannot be used in other euro area countries without co-badging with international schemes.

This is not just a question of sovereignty, resilience and freedom of choice. It is also a question of competitiveness.

European payment service providers have so far been unable to compete with international payment solutions on a European scale, let alone at global level. This is mainly because it would be costly for each individual provider to develop a Europe-wide acceptance network.

The recent announcement of an interoperability platform that would allow private payment solutions to share customers, enabling users to pay wherever interoperable solutions are accepted, is a step in the right direction and one we very much welcome. But much remains to be done: cross-border transactions account for just 5% of the market and interoperability does not expand acceptance domestically, nor does it broaden the use cases covered.

The digital euro would fill this gap.

It would provide a digital form of central bank money for everyday payments, complementing cash and private solutions. It would be available both online and offline and would be usable throughout the euro area for most use cases: person-to-person payments, e-commerce transactions and payments in physical shops.

But the ECB would not provide customer-facing services. Banks and other regulated payment service providers would distribute the digital euro, manage customer relationships and develop complementary services.

Our objective is not to take over the role of banks. On the contrary, the digital euro would equip banks with the infrastructure they need to compete in the digital age and help them expand the reach and use cases of their own solutions.

A platform payment service providers can build on

The digital euro would provide a common acceptance layer across the euro area.

Its legal tender status would give it pan-European reach: it would be accepted wherever digital payments can be made.

The digital euro’s open standards could be used by private payment services providers, thereby simplifying acceptance at physical points of sale, online and in mobile commerce.

The ECB has signed agreements with the European Card Payment Cooperation, nexo standards and the Berlin Group to reuse established European technical standards for digital euro payments. This should minimise adoption costs.

Co-badging would add to these benefits. Banks could integrate the digital euro into existing cards or mobile applications alongside their own payment solutions. Where a private solution is accepted, it could remain the preferred option. Where coverage is incomplete, the digital euro would step in to ensure that private solution users can still pay.

A sustainable economic model

The digital euro is also being designed with a sustainable economic model in mind.

The Eurosystem would bear the costs of establishing and operating its core infrastructure and would not charge any scheme or processing fees for digital euro transactions. Banks and payment service providers would be compensated for the services they provide. The precise arrangements are currently being discussed as part of the legislative process.

The digital euro is not therefore simply a new public payment instrument. It would provide public infrastructure that can help private European solutions scale up, offer value-added services and compete more effectively Europe-wide.

Safeguarding financial stability

Whenever a central bank proposes a digital form of money, a legitimate question arises: could deposits leave banks, impairing their capacity to provide credit?

We have taken this question very seriously.

The digital euro is being designed as a means of payment, not an investment product. It would not be remunerated, and individual holdings would be subject to limits.

Users would be able to link their digital euro holdings to a commercial bank account. A waterfall mechanism would allow users to make payments exceeding their digital euro balance by drawing the difference from that account. A reverse-waterfall mechanism could be used to automatically transfer to the linked bank account incoming amounts above the holding limit – or an even lower threshold if the customer so wishes. Behavioural research suggests that this approach could drive up digital euro adoption while reducing individual holdings.^[1]

The limits will have to be calibrated to balance three objectives: making the digital euro convenient to use, safeguarding financial stability and preserving the smooth implementation and transmission of monetary policy.

Detailed analysis supports these safeguards.^[2]

At the request of the European Parliament, the ECB examined the possible effects of hypothetical holding limits from €500 to €3,000 on the balance sheets of 2,025 banks, including both significant and less significant institutions.

It considered two scenarios: business-as-usual and flight-to-safety. The flight-to-safety scenario is an extreme tail scenario that has not occurred over the first 25 years of the euro. It also assumes no monetary policy response, although a crisis of this sort would normally lead the central bank to consider taking action.

The results are reassuring under both scenarios.

Under the business-as-usual scenario the introduction of the digital euro is projected to have an extremely contained impact on banks’ liquidity and funding metrics.

Indeed, digitalisation itself supports bank deposits, as payments migrate from cash to deposit-based instruments. Our analysis estimates a potential €127 billion deposit inflow by 2034, equivalent to 0.4% of banking sector assets or 1.5% of retail sight deposits. At aggregate level, this exceeds the estimated digital euro-related outflows in the business-as-usual scenario for holding limits up to and including €3,000. No aggregate outflow would thus be recorded.^[3]

If we disregard the deposit inflows resulting from the continuing decline in the use of cash, the aggregate liquidity coverage ratio would fall only slightly, from 166% to 163%, for a limit of €3,000. The aggregate net stable funding ratio would decline from 128% to 127%.

The extreme scenario also produces manageable results, even when we take a very conservative view and ignore the trend towards digitalisation. On aggregate, regulatory liquidity metrics remain well above 100%. With a holding limit of €3,000, the liquidity coverage ratio falls to 100% for only 13 banks, representing 0.3% of total banking sector assets. And only nine of those, representing 0.1% of total banking sector assets, would be at risk of liquidity buffers going below that level.

These findings must be interpreted within the scope and assumptions of the analysis. The figures are illustrative and do not represent a decision on the eventual holding limit.

But the conclusion is clear: within the range assessed, holding limits are effective in containing deposit outflows and safeguarding financial stability.

The digital euro is therefore not designed to disintermediate banks. It is designed to safeguard their role as the monetary system becomes increasingly digital.

It is also worth noting that the discussion about the financial stability implications of the digital euro often disregards the fact that people can already easily and instantly transfer their deposits from bank accounts to other entities, where – unlike with the digital euro – they may be remunerated, unlimited or denominated in foreign currencies.

Where the project stands

So where do we stand?

The legislative process is advancing. The Council of the European Union agreed on its position in December 2025, the European Parliament adopted its position in July 2026 and the trilogue negotiations are now under way. The European Council has called for the negotiations to be concluded by the end of this year.

The Governing Council of the ECB will only decide whether to issue a digital euro after the legislation has been adopted. Assuming the legislative process is fully concluded by the end of 2026, we aim to be ready for a potential first issuance in 2029.

But technical preparation must advance in parallel.

The digital euro pilot is planned to begin in the second half of 2027 and run for 12 months. We have selected 36 payment service providers from across the euro area, following a call that attracted more than 50 applications.^[4] Last week, the selected providers and the Eurosystem met to start work on the next stage.

The objective is not merely to try out the technology. A payment system is an ecosystem, involving service providers, merchants, central banks, infrastructure operators and users. The pilot will allow that ecosystem to test the design, learn from experience and identify areas for improvement.

On 15 September we opened a call for e-commerce and mobile-commerce merchants to take part in the pilot. Participants will test customer payment journeys, assess integration with existing checkout systems and provide feedback on the user experience.^[5]

Moreover, the digital euro is not intended just to fix any shortcomings in the existing euro area payments landscape. It is also an opportunity to think about the future and provide a platform to innovate, to enhance the quality and breadth of payment services. New opportunities are emerging, and we want to make sure that European payment service providers are fully equipped to seize them and gain a strong competitive edge.

Last week we therefore launched a new wave of activities through the digital euro innovation platform, building on an initial exercise that involved around 70 market participants.^[6]

One workstream will experiment with integrated electronic receipts, payments involving multiple payers or recipients, conditional payments and new features offered through payment apps.

A second workstream will look further ahead, exploring developments that could enhance digital euro payments in the future. This includes possible applications of artificial intelligence, such as AI-enabled payments or micropayments. The workstream will also explore digital euro use in public services, including payments for transportation, mobility and parking services or payments to and from public authorities.

We cannot know precisely how Europeans will want to pay in 20 years’ time. But we can build a foundation that is open to innovation, robust enough to earn public trust and able to develop as users' needs evolve.

Tokenisation and the future of finance

Let me now turn to wholesale markets.

Tokenisation can bring issuance, trading, clearing, settlement, custody and asset servicing into a shared digital environment. Smart contracts can automate coupon payments, collateral movements and compliance checks. Cash and assets can be exchanged atomically, meaning that either both legs of a transaction are settled together or neither is.

The potential benefits include greater automation, faster settlement, lower processing costs and more efficient use of liquidity and collateral. But these benefits will only materialise fully if tokenised markets have access to a safe and scalable settlement asset.

Pontes: central bank money for tokenised finance

This is why the Eurosystem launched Pontes on 21 September.

Pontes enables wholesale transactions in tokenised assets to be settled in central bank money. It connects market DLT platforms with Eurosystem services. It is an operational service that banks, market infrastructures, issuers and investors can use to expand safely into digital finance.

The service will be enhanced progressively in line with market needs and technological developments, for instance by extending operating hours and offering immediate settlement finality on the Eurosystem DLT platform.Full implementation is expected by mid-2028, when we plan to offer a 24/7 service as well as greater programmability, state-of-the-art resilience and multi-currency capability.

Appia: shaping the wider ecosystem

Appia looks further in the future.

Appia addresses the architecture, standards and governance required for an integrated European tokenised financial ecosystem. It covers asset interoperability, collateral management, tokenised central bank money infrastructure, cross-border transactions, resilience and interaction with the legal framework.

The work on Appia is based on analysis, experimentation and cooperation between the Eurosystem and other central banks and private market participants. Our goal is to deliver a blueprint in 2028.

The market is already actively involved in this work. The public consultation on the Appia roadmap received 127 responses, and 90% of respondents made at least one proposal to contribute. Our market contact group, comprising 61 entities chosen from among the more than 100 that applied, will provide continuous input and direction for the work.^[7] We also plan to run concrete work involving teams that bring together market participants, national central banks and the ECB.

The guiding principle is straightforward: we should lay the foundations of an integrated European digital finance ecosystem before incompatible systems become entrenched.

For banks, this means access to an ecosystem in which they can issue tokenised deposits, provide custody services and asset servicing, mobilise collateral and develop programmable financial products across a European market.

Together, Pontes and Appia can help European banks keep pace with the transformation of global finance, while avoiding dependence on foreign infrastructures or settlement assets denominated in foreign currencies.

Supporting tokenised deposits across banks

Pontes and Appia are also important for the future of commercial bank money.

Tokenised central bank money is not intended to crowd out tokenised commercial bank deposits. On the contrary, it can provide the settlement anchor that allows tokenised deposits to develop safely and achieve scale.

This is because it will enable deposits issued by different banks to be exchanged. Without central bank money, commercial bank money would fragment into separate tokens circulating within closed networks. This would give a built-in advantage to the largest international bank.

Our approach is to preserve, in the tokenised environment, the principle that applies today: a euro issued by one regulated bank should be exchangeable at par with a euro issued by another.

Pontes can thus be the bridge between private settlement assets, enabling tokenised deposits to be transferred between banks.

Conclusion

Let me conclude.

We are modernising public money and public infrastructure so that private innovation can flourish on a stable and integrated foundation.

The digital euro would give banks access to common standards and a pan-European acceptance network. It would help them maintain customer relationships, develop value-added services and compete more effectively across borders. And it would incorporate safeguards, supported by detailed analysis, protecting bank intermediation and financial stability.

When it comes to digital finance, we are front-runners. Pontes is already making central bank money available for tokenised transactions. Appia looks ahead to an ecosystem in which tokenised central bank money, tokenised deposits and other regulated assets can coexist and interact across institutions and networks without friction.

Together, these initiatives serve one objective: a European financial system that is innovative, integrated, resilient and internationally competitive. We will build it together.

The history of money is one of continuous adaptation.

Our task is to preserve what makes money trustworthy as technology evolves. That is the role of central banks in the digital age.

And by playing that role in close partnership with market participants, we can ensure that the digital transformation strengthens Europe’s financial system and benefits all Europeans.

Thank you.

Garcia, T., Lambert, C., Pancaro, C., Rimbaud, C. and Soldà, A. (2026), “When Less Is More: Behavioural Effects of CBDC Holding Limits”, Working Paper Series, ECB, forthcoming.
ECB (2025), Technical data on the financial stability impact of the digital euro, October.
The model results indicate that only a few banks would lack sufficient excess reserves to sustain their preferred liquidity buffers. Among these, most would borrow from the interbank market, while banks without market access would be able to borrow from the central bank, as they retain sufficient unencumbered collateral.
ECB (2026), “ECB selects 36 payment service providers to join digital euro pilot”, press release, 14 July; see also the ECB’s digital euro pilot webpage.
ECB (2026), “Call for online and mobile merchants to participate in digital euro pilot now open”, press release, 15 September.
ECB (2026), “Call for expressions of interest in a new wave of digital euro innovation platform activities”, MIP News, 28 September.
ECB (2026), “Eurosystem selects members for the Appia contact group”, press release, 19 August.

Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer Survey: Farmer Sentiment Drops As Concerns About Input Costs Increase

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:48:42 GMT

In the September Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer survey, 52% of respondents cited higher input costs as their top concern, marking a new record high. Alongside an 18-point drop in the Index of Current Conditions, overall farmer sentiment weakened in September, falling from 135 points in August to 123. Although the Long-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index also reached a new high of 168, up 5 points from August, the Index of Future Expectations fell 9 points, as more respondents expected their operation to be worse off financially (35%) than better off (22%) a year from now. The survey was conducted among 400 farmers across the nation from Sept. 14-18.

"Producer sentiment this month reflects a growing divide between concerns about the near term and expectations for the longer term," said Michael Langemeier, the barometer's principal investigator and director of Purdue's Center for Commercial Agriculture. "While higher costs and financial pressures are clearly shaping producers' views of current conditions, strong expectations for farmland values point to a more positive outlook for some aspects of the agricultural economy."

Growing pessimism about financial prospects over the next 12 months was reflected in the Farm Financial Performance Index, which fell from 103 in August to 90 in this month's survey. This negative outlook on current financial conditions coincided with a 6-point drop in the Farm Capital Investment Index to 39.

This month's survey included three sets of questions for corn and soybean producers, covering expectations for cash rents, cover crop use, and soybean exports and competitiveness. A majority of producers (73%) expected cash rents to remain the same in 2027. Of the 22% who expected cash rents to increase next year, about 47% anticipated an increase of 0% to 5%. A little less than half (46%) of this month's respondents said they currently plant cover crops, with about one-third of those indicating they have planted cover crops for more than 10 years, and 15% said cover crops are planted on a majority of their acreage. Twenty-two percent of respondents indicated that they have planted cover crops in the past.

When asked about the future of U.S. soybean exports over the next five years, 37% of corn and soybean producers expect U.S. soybean exports to increase, while 10% anticipate a decline. However, competitiveness remains a concern for many producers comparing U.S. soybean production with Brazil's; just under 20% of respondents said they were not concerned about the U.S. position relative to Brazil.

The Short-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index fell 1 point to 126 in September, while the Long-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index climbed to a new high of 168. Respondents cited alternative investments, inflation and interest rates as the three factors expected to have the greatest influence on farmland values.

Since July 2025, producers have been asked whether they believe the U.S. is headed in the "right direction" or on the "wrong track." The share of producers who said the U.S. was headed in the right direction averaged 71% in the final six months of 2025 and 62% in the first six months of 2026. That share fell to between 51% and 54% in July and August before dropping below 50% in September. September marks the first time since the question was introduced that fewer than half of respondents said the U.S. was headed in the right direction.

About the Purdue University Center for Commercial Agriculture

The Center for Commercial Agriculture was founded in 2011 to provide professional development and educational programs for farmers. Housed within Purdue University's Department of Agricultural Economics, the center's faculty and staff develop and execute research and educational programs that address the different needs of managing in today's business environment.

TMX Group Consolidated Trading Statistics – September 2026 - Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX Venture Exchange, TSX Alpha Exchange, Including Alpha-X & Alpha DRK, And Montréal Exchange

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:12:16 GMT

TMX Group Limited today announced September 2026 trading statistics for its marketplaces – Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX Venture Exchange, TSX Alpha Exchange (Alpha), including Alpha-X & Alpha DRK, and Montréal Exchange (MX).

Bank Of England: Minutes Of The UK Money Markets Code Sub-Committee – September 2026

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:05:48 GMT

The Money Markets Committee is a forum for market participants and authorities to discuss the UK unsecured deposits and funding market and securities lending and repo markets.

Date: 8 September 2026

Time: 3.30pm – 5pm | Location: Bank of England / Hybrid

Minutes

Item 1. Introduction & Minutes of last meeting

The Co-Chair welcomed Committee members to the Code Sub-Committee hybrid meeting and noted that the minutes of the last meeting (held on 9 June 2026) was published on the Bank’s website.

Item 2. Attestation Update

Nine firms have attested to the UK Money Market Code (the Code) in 2026, including two banks which attested since the last Code Sub-Committee meeting in June. To date, 234 firms have signed the Statement of Commitment since the Code was launched in April 2017. No firms have withdrawn from that list.

The Committee noted that understanding the potential population of firms in scope would help future promotion of the Code. The Committee asked the secretariat to undertake further analysis on the potential population of firms within scope. This, it was argued, should allow for a more targeted engagement approach for encouraging wider adoption of the Code. The Committee also considered whether the revised Code could include a proportionate, voluntary expectation for existing signatories to encourage relevant market participants to support wider adoption of the Code.

Item 3: Ratifying the Terms of Reference for the UK Money Market Code Sub-Committee

This agenda item provided the opportunity for members to review and update the Terms of Reference to ensure that it was up to date and remained relevant. The Committee briefly discussed the definition of jurisdictional coverage of transactions captured by the Code, and it was agreed that a clearer definition would be helpful. This would be updated and applied consistently across the Terms of Reference, Code and Explanatory Notes.

There was a question about whether the Code should include additional instruments and securities, but it was agreed that these will be addressed as part of the substantive Code review.

Item 4: Review of the UK Money Market Code

The Terms of Reference states that the Code Sub-Committee will deliver a full review of the Code approximately every three years. An updated version of the Code was published in June 2024. The next update is due to be published in 2027, and the Committee agreed to begin the review process in October.

The Committee agreed that the review process should be ‘light touch but thorough’ with an emphasis on material developments in the UK Money Markets, clarifications and futureproofing.

Item 5: AOB

The Committee noted Euroclear UK & Ireland’s work on contingency arrangements for a CREST outage (“mini-CREST”) and the potential implications for gilt and repo market settlement. The Committee will monitor this development.

Committee attendees

Attendees (in-person)

Antony Baldwin - LCH

Andrew Welch - LGIM

Ina Budh-Raja (Co-Chair) - ISLA

James McKerrow - Insight Investment

Ned Taylor - HSBC

Philip Chilvers - TP ICAP

Attendees (Virtual)

James Winterton - Association of Corporate Treasurers

Alessandro Cozzani - BofA

Iain de Weymarn - DMO

Mimi Yan (Observer) - FMSB

Ian Mair - LMMA

Hamish Thornton - Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets

Nic Erevik (Co-Chair) - Newcastle Building Society

Bank of England

Simon Dolan

Kpakpo Brown

Apologies

Gordon Lowson - Aberdeen Standard Investments

Denisa Sokolova - Barclays

Helen Willingale - BlackRock

Veronica Iommi - IMMFA

Canton Foundation And LG CNS Partner To Advance Institutional Adoption Of Canton In Korea - Partnership Will Combine Institutional Market Development, Technical Enablement And Development Of A Broader Technical Partner Ecosystem To Support Canton Adoption

Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:19:20 GMT

Canton Foundation and LG CNS today announced a strategic partnership to advance institutional adoption of the Canton Network in Korea and support the development of the technical ecosystem required for institutions to build and deploy on Canton Network.

Under the partnership, Canton Foundation and LG CNS will jointly pursue institutional opportunities in Korea, develop technical capabilities to support Canton implementations, and contribute to the development of a broader technical partner ecosystem for Canton Network.

The collaboration brings together LG CNS’s enterprise technology and implementation expertise and relationships across Korea’s financial sector with Canton’s growing global ecosystem of financial institutions, technology providers and market participants.

Since 2015, LG CNS has led Korea's blockchain-based financial business for more than a decade. Beginning with the issuance of blockchain-based electronic securities, the company has built infrastructure for the issuance, distribution, settlement, and trading of digital assets such as CBDC, tokenized deposit, security tokens, and stablecoins, as well as digital wallets and KYC (Know Your Customer) systems for financial institutions. LG CNS has also developed and operated core systems for major commercial banks, securities firms, credit card companies, and insurers for over 30 years. With both blockchain technology and financial system integration capabilities, LG CNS holds a differentiated competitive edge.

Hongkeun Kim, Executive Vice President and head of Digital Business Division at LG CNS, said: “Financial institutions are increasingly moving from exploring blockchain technology toward practical implementation. Through our partnership with Canton Foundation, we look forward to combining LG CNS’s technology and implementation capabilities with the Canton ecosystem to develop meaningful opportunities with institutions in Korea. We also look forward to contributing our experience to the development of a broader technical partner ecosystem that can support institutional adoption over the long term.”

The partnership will focus on three areas:

Institutional Market Development

Canton Foundation and LG CNS will jointly engage financial institutions and other market participants in Korea to identify relevant use cases and opportunities for Canton. The organizations will collaborate on market education, customer engagement, workshops and the development of potential institutional projects.

Technical Enablement and Implementation

The organizations will work together to develop technical capabilities and implementation approaches that can support financial institutions and enterprises exploring Canton, including technical enablement, architecture and implementation requirements.

Technical Partner Ecosystem

Canton Foundation is developing a broader technical partner framework to support institutional adoption of Canton Network. As part of the partnership, LG CNS will contribute its technical and implementation expertise to this initiative and develop capabilities aligned with the framework.

Thomas Chou, Head of APAC at Canton Foundation, said: “Korea is a critical market for institutional adoption of Canton in Asia. This partnership is about building the market together, combining Canton’s growing institutional ecosystem with LG CNS’s deep technology capabilities and relationships across the Korean financial sector. Together, we aim to help institutions move from identifying opportunities to implementation, while building the broader technical ecosystem needed to support adoption at scale.”

While Korea will be an initial focus of the collaboration, the organizations will also explore opportunities to apply their respective capabilities to support institutional adoption in other markets.

The partnership establishes a foundation for longer-term collaboration between Canton Foundation and LG CNS across institutional market development, technical enablement and ecosystem growth.