News Articles

Nasdaq EVP & CFO Sarah Youngwood To Present At Upcoming Investor Conferences

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 21:40:02 GMT

Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) will be presenting at the following conferences in November with webcasts available at Nasdaq’s Investor Relations website: https://ir.nasdaq.com/.

Who: Sarah Youngwood, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Nasdaq
What: J.P. Morgan 2026 Ultimate Services Investor Conference
When: Tuesday, November 17th, 9:00 AM ET

Who: Sarah Youngwood, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Nasdaq
What: 2026 RBC Capital Markets Global Technology, Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference
When: Wednesday, November 18th, 8:40 AM ET

CFTC Swaps Report Update

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 21:43:50 GMT

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.

Released: Weekly on Mondays at 3:30 p.m.

CFTC Sanctions Eight Individuals For Acting As Unregistered Associated Persons Of Foreign Introducing Brokers

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 21:42:24 GMT

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced eight orders filing and settling charges against Michael Talento, Anthony Tyler Williams, Quillan Roberto Black, Christopher Williams, Michael Levi Peters, Jordan Taylor Morgan, Lewis Matthew Neal, and Tyler Evan MacKechnie for acting as unregistered associated persons of unregistered foreign introducing brokers.

According to the orders, the introducing brokers engaged in the solicitation of orders for off-exchange leveraged or margined retail foreign currency and retail commodities transactions with U.S. customers who were not eligible contract participants. The respondents solicited those customers without registering as associated persons of the introducing brokers, as required.

Under the orders, the respondents must cease and desist from engaging in their illegal conduct. They also are barred for two years from registering with the Commission in any capacity or acting as a principal, agent, or employee of any CFTC registrant. Each order also recognizes the penalty the respondent owes in a related Securities and Exchange Commission proceeding.

These orders relate to a prior Commission order sanctioning Netrios LP Ltd. and Red Acre Ltd. for facilitating illegal off-exchange commodity transactions with U.S. customers. [See CFTC Press Release No. 9263-26]

The SEC has filed and settled charges against the respondents based on the same underlying conduct.

The CFTC thanks the SEC for its assistance.

S&P Global Market Intelligence Data | Top 10 Most Shorted Stocks In The US

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 20:26:57 GMT

S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Top 10 Most Shorted Stocks in the United States, calculated using our Securities Finance data set, follows.

The metric used to calculate the short interest is the percentage of outstanding shares on loan.

*Please note: This was produced by S&P Global Market Intelligence, not S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.

CalPERS’ Climate Solutions Investments Surge To $71 Billion - Pension Giant Also Releases Approach For Responsibly Investing In Artificial Intelligence

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 19:27:50 GMT

CalPERS announced Monday that its investments in climate solutions had grown to reach $71 billion as of June 30, 2026. The new figure represents an increase of $11 billion since last year, and $24 billion since the strategy initially launched in November of 2023.

“The strong and steady growth means CalPERS remains on track to meet our goal of capitalizing on the transition to a low-carbon economy by investing $100 billion by 2030 in climate solutions as part of our Climate Action Plan,” said CalPERS Chief Executive Officer Marcie Frost. “CalPERS remains committed to finding opportunities in climate solutions to help power future generations and provide the pension benefits that our members have earned.”

The Climate Action Plan outlines a global strategy to generate strong performance on behalf of CalPERS members by investing in opportunities created by the ongoing shift to a low-carbon economy.

“Money from around the world continues to pour into the climate market, with $2.3 trillion invested in energy transition and clean technology projects in 2025,” said CalPERS Chief Investment Officer Stephen Gilmore. “Renewable energy is cleaner, cheaper and faster to bring to market than conventional power sources, and CalPERS is providing the capital necessary to meet those needs.”

Investments include those that support increased electricity generation, improved power grid efficiency, and utilities seeking to transition from fossil fuel-based energy sources to renewable ones. CalPERS also invests in climate solutions that reduce the threat that pollution and rising global temperatures pose to the overall health of the pension fund. The increase to $71 billion is a result of new investments and the appreciation of existing investments.

“Investing in climate solutions is increasingly important because global temperatures continue to rise around us, which can impact the financial performance of the portfolio.” said CalPERS Managing Investment Director of Sustainable Investing Peter Cashion. “Since the physical climate risk is likely to grow across our portfolio, our targets include investments that make assets, communities, and supply chains more resilient to a changing world.”

Responsible AI Approach

CalPERS also announced it will present its Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) approach at its upcoming board meeting on November 16. The framework looks at AI through the lens of risk management, as well as value creation and preservation.

“This is one of our top priorities, and CalPERS is working with its partners on how AI projects use energy and water, as well as the impact they have on a community,” Frost said. “The AI buildout has moved so quickly, and a key part going forward is to ensure that these investments are done in a sustainable way.”

In April, CalPERS updated its proxy voting guidelines to include that directors could be held accountable for failing to oversee AI risk. The issue of AI was also a topic of discussion in more than 100 company engagements during the 2026 proxy season. On the private side, CalPERS is beginning to incorporate Responsible AI in its diligence program and is also actively taking part in industry efforts to promote consistent expectations on AI oversight and disclosure.

“Effective AI policies and governance processes are important for the performance, stability, and resiliency of the market and the long-term performance of our portfolio,” Gilmore said. “We will engage policy makers and support policies that promote transparency in AI application and decision-making.”

Opening Remarks At The Roundtable On Machine-Understandable Data In The Age Of Super Intelligence, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda, Washington D.C., Nov. 9, 2026

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 19:23:26 GMT

Good morning, and welcome to today’s roundtable on machine‑understandable data and super intelligence. Thank you to everyone who is here in person and to those who are joining online. I regret that I cannot be with you in person, but I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

The Commission’s disclosure-based regime rests on the premise that investors and markets make better decisions when companies provide timely, accurate, honest and financially material information. For much of our history, the reader of disclosures was a person with a printed document. Then it was an analyst with a screen. Today, increasingly, the first reader of a filing is a machine. Whether it is a quantitative model, a large language model, or other super-intelligence tool, these machines extract, ingest, and interpret disclosures at a speed and scale that humans cannot match. As super-intelligence tools become more widely used, that trend will only accelerate.

So, how can machine-readable data complement super intelligence? Does a format that was introduced over two decades ago still have value in an SI environment?

The Commission mandated XBRL starting in 2009,[1] and we have since required Inline XBRL[2] and expanded structured data requirements to additional filings.[3] While these requirements carry compliance costs that we as regulators should be mindful of, they have also led to significant benefits. Structured data is critical to attracting research analyst coverage, especially for smaller companies, even when that coverage is automated or aggregated in large databases. In other words, machine-readable data can increase visibility, which in turn lowers the cost of capital by making information easier to find, compare, and analyze for investors.

Super intelligence, far from making XBRL irrelevant, may make this connection even stronger as machine-readable data can feed the SI tools with more reliable and consistent data inputs. SI tools can potentially analyze smaller companies that were historically overlooked or spot patterns and trends in data in ways that prior technology did not. The technology is advancing so quickly that none of us can say what these tools will be capable of in a few years.

Today’s discussion is a valuable step in thinking about how SEC filing data can be better utilized in the age of super intelligence, including whether there are new methods that are superior to XBRL. The first panel will explore how market participants are currently using these tools. The second panel will examine the risks and costs the Commission should consider and how we might better facilitate progress. I encourage everyone to be candid, including about where the Commission can do better. Facilitating capital formation is part of our tripartite mission, and high-quality structured data can help advance it.

I want to thank Dr. Joshua White, Julie Marlowe, Valerie Szczepanik, and the staff of the Division of Economic Risk Analysis who organized this event, as well as our panelists for sharing their time and expertise. Thank you.

[1] See Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting, Release Nos. 33-9002; 34-59324; 39-2461; IC-28609 (Jan. 30, 2009), 74 FR 6776 (Feb. 10, 2009).

[2] See Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged Data, Release Nos. 33-10514; 34-83551; IC-33139 (June 28, 2018), 83 FR 40846 (Aug. 16, 2018).

[3] See Structured Disclosure at the SEC: History and Rulemaking, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (last accessed on Nov. 9, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/data-research/structured-data/structured-disclosure-sec-history-rulemaking.

London Stock Exchange Group plc Transaction In Own Shares

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 18:52:42 GMT

London Stock Exchange Group plc (LSEG) announces that it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each on the London Stock Exchange from Citigroup Global Markets Limited (Citi) as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 2 November 2026:

Date of purchase	Number of ordinary shares purchased	Highest price paid per share (pence)	Lowest price paid per share (pence)	Volume weighted average price paid per share (pence)
2 November 2026	105,559	9,566.00p	9,384.00p	9,473.35p
3 November 2026	105,939	9,552.00p	9,378.00p	9,439.35p
4 November 2026	104,715	9,772.00p	9,296.00p	9,549.72p
5 November 2026	101,347	9,926.00p	9,780.00p	9,867.09p
6 November 2026	104,733	9,618.00p	9,384.00p	9,471.33p

LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares.

Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 479,729,302 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 20,188,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 479,729,302. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA’s Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules.

In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (as it forms part of the law of the United Kingdom by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter), a full breakdown of the individual trades made by Citi on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at:

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/4169C_1-2026-11-9.pdf

This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction.

Central Bank Independence In Today’s World - Speech By Andrew Bailey, Governor, Bank Of England, Given At The SIAF Lecture Series, Zurich University

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 19:08:11 GMT

In this speech Andrew Bailey argues that today’s shock prone world makes independent and accountable central banks more important than ever, both to control inflation and safeguard financial stability. Andrew is also optimistic about the potential benefits of AI to productivity and sustainable economic growth, but also outlines the financial stability risks posed by AI.

Andrew Bailey

Governor, Bank of England

Speech

It is a great pleasure to be here in Zurich.

The main focus this evening is to have a discussion. I am just going to make a few opening comments across the subjects of central bank independence, financial stability and technology – as a prompt to get our discussion going.

We are living through difficult times. Imagine if any of us had been asked ten years ago what were the odds of major military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The economics of these events are supply shocks – which tend to push prices and inflation up and activity down at the same time. Such shocks are challenging for central banks, and particularly when they are large and more frequent. A shock prone world is more difficult.

At the same time, we are seeing growing signs of the beginnings of a positive supply shock coming from AI and the investment required for that. In the UK, economic activity is turning out to be more resilient than we had expected, and some of that is due to AI investment, particularly in the business services sector.

These are challenging times for independent central banks setting monetary policy and for the people we serve. These shocks push inflation away from our targets – our definitions of price stability. Our task is to set interest rates to bring inflation back to target. I do recognise that in Switzerland you have experienced a record of more subdued inflation.

When it comes to the independence of central banks, I would say two things. Yes, these conditions are more challenging. But, it is in the challenging times that we need robust institutions more than ever.

There is though an important further step in this line of argument, which may seem obvious but needs stating. As independent institutions, we are not independent of the people of our countries. We serve them and are accountable to them. This is our public legitimacy. And by this I mean the whole people. I think our independence and legitimacy depends on this – we don’t and shouldn’t select those whom we serve and we are therefore inherently plural in our approach to our societies. This is a critical feature of independence.

Let me turn now to financial stability and central bank independence. Monetary and financial stability are in my view inseparable as the core principles of central banks. They are both equally and firmly anchored around the stability of the value of money. But, notwithstanding this in my experience, the political economy of independence is different. When it comes to monetary policy, while there can be debate around the form and precise structure of the arrangements, the independence of the actual decisions on interest rates is not in doubt. But this does not carry over to financial stability, where the decisions are much more contested. The lobbying moreover is much louder, and the interests much more sharply defined I would argue.

This is illustrated by the current state of affairs. Memories of the financial crisis are receding. But it is contributing to pressure to ease back regulation. I don’t pretend that every one of our rules and regulations in the UK is perfect.

But, I do contend that sustained economic growth depends on financial stability. So, it matters. It also matters that so far we have come through the latest adverse economic shocks with a resilient financial system. That’s not an accident. The post crisis regulatory reforms have made a difference here. And, the final “it matters”, we are seeing the risks shift into new areas of the financial landscape.

Which brings me to my last subject – technology, and particularly AI. I am an optimist on AI, digital technology and most probably robotics too. They have the potential to lift the sustainable growth rates of many economies through raising productivity growth. That is a good thing.

But with that do come risks, the risks of how to come to terms with AI for instance. In our world, Frontier AI has increased the risk from cyber-attacks – something that was already prominent. More broadly, it has led to concerns which may call into question public trust in AI. This is critical. We must act promptly to identify ways to give the public the level of trust they want and deserve. To achieve this, we must be clear what public interest objectives we are pursuing and how we achieve them. A clear case for me is that we need more extensive model testing, pre and post release. This may lead us to conclude that we want more or different points or means of human user intervention in the operation of AI. We also certainly want better incident reporting, monitoring and follow up (to make sure we learn the lessons from them). The key point is that public trust will depend on assured human intervention. AI will succeed as a tool of humans.

Why does this matter for central banks you may well ask? It matters a lot I would argue. Let me briefly set out two reasons for this, which are closely interconnected, and linked to financial stability.

Throughout modern history there has been a close relationship between economic growth, the interest of businesses in fuelling that growth, and the public interest as defined and represented by governments and in some areas of public policy put into effect by institutions such as central banks. You don’t need to take any ideological position to believe in this nexus of connections – you could be Hayek, Keynes, Marx or Schumpeter.

The question we face today is whether AI poses a new and more forceful challenge to the nexus, in the sense that the risk of a loss of public trust requires a careful but determined response to underpin that trust and support the economic growth that we all want to see? My response to this question would be yes it does pose such a challenge. Put simply, if you say “very good things can come from this, but bad things may happen too”, you can’t leave it there. And, it deepens the dependency between commercial success and public policy.

But second, and finally, there is a powerful connection to financial stability here. There is a lot of speculation on the subject of whether there is an asset price bubble in AI, and the financial stability risks that go with that. Bubble spotting is an imprecise science. But, let’s recognise that such a risk exists, which we should do. How might the bubble burst and potentially cause a problem? Four arguments can I think be advanced here.

First, it is the job of financial markets to value uncertain future returns. The returns from AI may be good, but still markets may overvalue them. That’s in the nature of the task of valuing uncertainty.

Second, the returns may be good, and they may match expectations, but they take longer to be realised than predicted. This has been the case historically with big General Purpose Technology innovation – take Edison and electricity for instance. There are good reasons to believe that the world moves faster now, but still the timing may not live up to market expectations.

Third, everyone is priced to be a winner, but history tends to tell us that this is not the case. Remember Netscape.

Fourth, the public trust point – there is a certain fragility created by this nexus. Arguably it is not new. A British Prime Minister was killed by one of the earliest steam locomotives, people worried about the dangers of electricity. I would argue that at present the argument seems more powerful with AI – but as I noted earlier, I treat that as a problem to be solved. But, until we have done so it could affect asset valuations.

So, there are clear financial stability risks here, and that’s without talking explicitly about cyber risks.

I said I would use my opening remarks to stir up some questions. Let’s see!

I would like to thank Sarah Breeden, Karen Jude, Clare Lombardelli, Dave Ramsden and James Talbot for their assistance in preparing these remarks.

The EBA Streamlines The 2027 EU-Wide Stress Test With More Than 55% Reduction In Requested Data

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 19:01:46 GMT

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today released the final methodology, draft templates, and template guidance for its 2027 EU-wide stress test, together with the key milestones for the exercise. Following extensive engagement with industry participants, the EBA has significantly streamlined the exercise, reducing the number of required data points by 55% through the simplification of reporting templates and closer alignment with supervisory reporting. These changes will reduce operational burden and improve efficiency while preserving the robustness, risk-sensitivity and comparability of stress test results. The 2027 exercise will also include, for the first time, a dedicated module assessing climate-related risks. The 2027 EU-wide stress test will formally start in January 2027, following the release of the macroeconomic and climate scenarios, with the results scheduled for publication by the end of July 2027.

The 2027 EU-wide stress test will continue to follow a constrained bottom-up approach, complemented by top-down elements, and based on a static balance sheet assumption. It will assess the impact of adverse shocks on banks’ solvency across key risk areas and income streams under both baseline and adverse scenarios. The methodology also defines the sample of participating banks for the 2027 EU-wide stress test, although the sample may be subject to changes ahead of the launch of the exercise.

Compared with the previous exercise, the number of required data points has been reduced by 55%, mainly by streamlining the templates and relying more closely on regular supervisory reporting concepts, particularly in credit risk. These improvements are expected to reduce reporting burden and improve data quality and consistency.

For the first time, physical and transition climate risks will be assessed through a dedicated module, without affecting the core stress test results.

The draft stress test templates and guidance published today may be subject to minor technical adjustments before the formal launch of the exercise.

Key Milestones for the 2027 EU-wide Stress Test

Launch of the exercise: end of January 2027
First submission of results to the EBA: end of April 2027
Second submission to the EBA: end of May 2027
Final submission to the EBA: early July 2027
Publication of results: end of July 2027

Note to the editors

The simplification of the 2027 stress test templates and methodology is part of the forthcoming supervisory reporting changes announced on 10 April 2026.
The 2027 EU-wide stress test methodological package marks another important milestone under the EBA’s communication campaign “Simplifying to strengthen: building a more efficient EU prudential and supervisory framework”. This initiative is part of the EBA’s broader priority to simplify and enhance the efficiency of the regulatory and supervisory framework, in line with the work of its Task Force on Efficiency (TFE) and the EBA’s Report on the efficiency of the regulatory and supervisory framework, published on 1 October 2025. The proposed changes aim to reduce unnecessary operational burden while preserving a robust, consistent and risk-sensitive framework across the EU banking sector.
The aim of the EU-wide stress test is to assess the resilience of EU banks to a common set of adverse economic developments, identifying potential risks (including environmental ones), informing supervisory decisions, and increasing market discipline.
The EBA conducts the stress test in a bottom-up fashion with some top-down elements, using consistent methodologies, scenarios, and key assumptions developed jointly with other authorities.
The exercise is coordinated by the EBA in cooperation with the European Central Bank, the European Systemic Risk Board, and the Competent Authorities from all relevant national jurisdictions.
To give banks sufficient time to prepare, the EBA published the methodology and templates (including scenario templates) well ahead of the formal launch by end of January 2027, when the relevant macroeconomic scenarios will be released.

Documents

2027 EU-wide stress test - Methodological Note

(2.34 MB - PDF)

2027 EU-wide stress test - Template Guidance

(1.58 MB - PDF)

2027 EU-wide stress test - Templates

(7.89 MB - Excel Spreadsheet)

Machine-Understandable Data In The Age Of Super Intelligence, Joshua White, Chief Economist And Director, SEC Division Of Economic And Risk Analysis, Washington D.C., Nov. 9, 2026

Mon, 09 Nov 2026 16:13:18 GMT

Good morning and thank you for joining us today. I am Josh White, Director of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, or DERA.

Before I begin, let me offer our standard disclaimer on behalf of all of today’s SEC participants. Our remarks are provided in our official capacities as Commission staff but do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission, the Commissioners, or other members of the staff.

We are here today because something fundamental is changing in how financial information is used in our markets.

Investors have long relied on financial disclosures to make informed decisions: reading filings and studying tables. Increasingly, they also use databases, analytical systems, and superintelligence models to help them access and analyze that information.

However, while tools are changing, the purpose of disclosure remains the same: to provide investors with material information to inform their decisions. And this purpose leads me to the focus of today’s event: How disclosed information is organized, accessed, and used; and where structured formats offer benefits that justify their costs. As you will hear shortly, downloads of the SEC’s structured datasets have increased dramatically over the past year. That is a striking change and one that makes understanding how these data are being used especially important.

It also brings us to the topic at the heart of today’s discussion: making information machine-readable may not be the same as making it machine-understandable. The question is not simply whether a system can extract a number from a filing. It is whether that system can identify what the number represents, interpret it in context, and compare it appropriately.

With that in mind, I would like to frame today’s conversation around three questions.

First, what are the benefits? We want to understand whether and how structured data help investors make faster, better-informed decisions, reduce the cost of analysis, and improve the allocation of capital. We are also interested in how these data can help regulators and economists understand market dynamics, and how advances in superintelligence are changing the ways you use structured and unstructured data.

Second, what are the costs and risks? Reliable data require resources to produce, validate, and use. We want to understand where those costs are greatest and where there are opportunities to reduce them. That includes exploring whether superintelligence can help issuers prepare structured disclosures more efficiently while improving their quality. It also means understanding where the same disclosed information can be used effectively without a structured format, and whether the benefits of structuring it justify the associated costs. We want to hear about the risks that arise when automated systems rely on information that is inaccurate, inconsistent, or missing important context, and how those risks can be addressed.

Third, what is working in practice and what is not? We want to hear concrete examples where structured disclosed information is most useful, where it adds less value, and why. That includes your experience with financial statement disclosures and other types of structured information. We also welcome your perspectives on the quality and usability of these data, and on what changes, if any, the SEC should consider.

As analytical tools become more capable, our focus should remain on the investors those tools serve. Reliable information and the context needed to interpret it remain essential.

Our goal today is to better understand when structuring disclosed information makes it more useful, and how to achieve those benefits efficiently.

Thus, the central question before us is how structured formats can best support the use of disclosed financial information, with careful attention to both benefits and costs. Your experience and insights are essential to answering that question. We want to understand not just what the technology promises, but what it delivers: the benefits you are realizing, the costs you are bearing, and the problems that remain. Those insights will help inform how the SEC approaches the format and usability of disclosed information as technology and market practices evolve.

Thank you for being here and sharing your perspectives. I look forward to the conversation ahead.