President Trump's push for retail access to private market sees a new expansion, including a FINRA test for anybody willing to study up.

2025 natural catastrophes caused ~$220bn in economic losses, under half insured, as Counterpoint Global explores how quantum computing could unlock solutions for complex climate models.

At the White House state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sept. 24, Mark Zuckerberg was seated beside House Speaker Mike Johnson. The Meta chief executive talked to the Louisiana Republican about regulatory concerns around AI, people familiar with the conversation said. The idea for the accord President Donald Trump and six technology executives signed five days later, on Tuesday, came from that conversation. The text ran to about 300 words. Zuckerberg, a recurring target of both parties at congressional hearings, originated and circulated the industry's latest self-regulation pledge. In August, he had opposed a standing body modeled on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to oversee AI companies, while the pledge leaves each company to apply controls to itself. The Breakdown * The idea for the White House Accord on Super Intelligence came from Mark Zuckerberg's conversation with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Sept. 24 state dinner for Xi Jinping. * Zuckerberg circulated a draft, Jensen Huang gathered support among the AI labs, and Trump signed the roughly 300-word accord with six executives on Sept. 29. * In August, Zuckerberg opposed a standing body modeled on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; the accord leaves each company to apply four layers of controls to itself. * All accounts of his role come from anonymous sources. Meta declined to comment, and Hakeem Jeffries called the agreement entirely unenforceable. AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. More on our AI guidelines. ## The dinner Semafor's exclusive account traced the proposal to the dinner conversation. Zuckerberg subsequently approached Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang, who sat next to Trump at Tuesday's lunch, about principles the executives could take to their next meeting with Trump. Huang gathered support among the AI labs, and Zuckerberg circulated a draft before Tuesday's lunch. Every account of Zuckerberg's role rests on people who spoke on condition of anonymity; Meta declined to comment, and the White House and Nvidia did not immediately respond. As the text took shape, Zuckerberg frequently spoke with Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees a key government AI testing unit, people familiar with the discussions said. Huang and administration officials also helped shape the agreement. Johnson had already set out his position. “We do not need a moratorium,” he said on Monday. “We do not need to jump in and hyperregulate this, because we'll lose the race to China.” ## The plan that was scrapped During the summer, Anthropic, OpenAI and Google had coalesced around a different arrangement the administration was considering: a self-regulatory organization modeled on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees brokerage firms. The proposal also included stronger internal reviews during model development and external testing. FREE WEEKDAY MORNING BRIEFING Follow who is writing the rules for AI. The Implicator Morning Briefing filters the AI news cycle to the stories worth your attention and explains their consequences. From San Francisco, every weekday at 4:45 a.m. Pacific, 7:45 a.m. Eastern. Email address Send me tomorrow’s briefing Check your inbox for the confirmation link. About five minutes. No hype. No spam. Huang, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk told Trump they worried that arrangement would concentrate too much power in the leading AI companies, people familiar with the talks said. The idea was scrapped. Zuckerberg opposed it directly in an August phone call with Trump. The September agreement retained internal reviews and outside evaluation. Its four voluntary layers consist of internal controls to monitor models during training and use, including cybersecurity and biological or chemical risks; an internal team to check the controls and fixes; an outside auditor or evaluator to assess them; and an independent board committee to receive reports and oversee corrective action. The text does not say who carries out outside evaluations, who appoints or pays the auditor, or whether findings will be published. Trump signed the two-page accord on Sept. 29 alongside Google's Sundar Pichai, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Zuckerberg, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, xAI's Musk and Huang. The companies also pledged to meet regularly to establish safety standards. Its final paragraph states: “Over time, it may make sense to codify these steps into laws or regulations.” Meta had signed voluntary safety commitments with President Joe Biden in July 2023. Trump revoked the executive order that followed those commitments on his first day back in office in January 2025. ## The lunch Amodei had dined with Trump on Sunday, their first face-to-face meeting. At Tuesday's lunch, he raised safety concerns. Zuckerberg answered that the best way to address them was for the industry to follow through on the principles, people familiar with the exchange said. Later, in the Roosevelt Room, a smaller group of executives and White House advisers worked on the principles. Other executives, including Huang, asked Amodei why he was being so extreme in public about AI capabilities and risks. Amodei replied that being honest with the public mattered and that the dangers should not be played down, people familiar with the discussion said. Outside, a reporter called Amodei forward to answer a question. He spoke about winning safely with the president and the industry, then retreated to the back. Zuckerberg was smiling and laughing with Trump as they took questions. Know someone who'd find this useful? ✉️ Email it to a friend in one click, or they can subscribe free here. His company had settled Trump's lawsuit over the suspension of his social media accounts after the Capitol attack. During Trump's second term, Meta also rolled back fact-checking, hired executives friendly to the president and donated to his causes. Trump called Tuesday's agreement “morally binding.” Asked why the executives should be trusted to regulate themselves, he answered: “Because they're outstanding people.” Zuckerberg described the agreement as a beginning. “The idea isn't that this is the only thing that we will ever do. It is that this is a start and an accord that the whole industry could come to.” ## The critics Outside the Capitol on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for Congress to act immediately. He pointed to episodes in which AI agents had operated outside their parent companies' instructions without detection and called for action “not in the next Congress, but right now.” “The notion of entering into a voluntary agreement that is entirely unenforceable, and that allows the industry writ large to police itself, is not the right response at this moment given the potentially grave harm and danger that industry leaders themselves are now flagging for the American people,” Jeffries said. Alvin Wang Graylin, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Center for China Analysis, saw value in getting the rivals to commit. “Putting that on paper, with Zuckerberg and Huang in the room alongside Amodei, is better than another year of 'we cannot regulate because China will not'.” Graylin said: “What is missing is independence and anything that crosses a border. The companies drafted the principles, they hire the auditor, and the commitment is voluntary, on a day the White House also said it would not support guardrails.” Frequently Asked Questions How did Mark Zuckerberg shape the White House AI accord? The idea came from his conversation with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Sept. 24 state dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping. Zuckerberg then approached Nvidia's Jensen Huang about a set of principles, circulated a draft before the Sept. 29 White House lunch, and spoke frequently with Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as the text took shape. What does the White House Accord on Super Intelligence require? The roughly 300-word, two-page accord asks each company to adopt four voluntary layers: internal controls to monitor models, an internal team to check them, an outside auditor or evaluator, and an independent board committee. It does not say who appoints or pays the auditor, or whether findings will be published. Who signed the accord? President Trump signed it on Sept. 29 with Google's Sundar Pichai, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, xAI's Elon Musk and Nvidia's Jensen Huang. Trump called it "morally binding." What alternative did Zuckerberg oppose? Over the summer, Anthropic, OpenAI and Google coalesced around a self-regulatory organization modeled on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Zuckerberg opposed it in an August phone call with Trump, and he, Huang and Musk said it would concentrate too much power in the leading AI companies. The idea was scrapped. How have critics responded? House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the voluntary agreement entirely unenforceable. Alvin Wang Graylin of the Asia Society Policy Institute said putting it on paper beat another year of “we cannot regulate because China will not,” but noted the companies drafted the principles and hire the auditor. AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. More on our AI guidelines. Six AI Chiefs Sign a Pledge With No Penalty as Washington Declines to RegulateOn Tuesday, September 29, 2026, President Donald Trump came outside the West Wing after lunch with technology executives. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg stood with the group as reporters asked aThe ImplicatorTrump Orders Agencies to Call AI 'Super Intelligence' but Keeps the Legal DefinitionPresident Donald Trump signed an order Tuesday requiring federal agencies to call AI “Super Intelligence.” The order defines the new term as the same technologies covered by the existing statutory defThe Implicator

La deuda en cuentas de margen de clientes en Estados Unidos llegó a 1,453,832 millones de dólares al cierre de agosto de 2026, 2.6% más que en julio, según FINRA. El saldo todavía estaba 3.2% por debajo del nivel de junio. El repunte siguió a la crisis de Situational Awareness, el fondo de inversión centrado en inteligencia artificial que vendió la mayor parte de su cartera pública a Citadel en julio. Reuters informó el 24 de agosto que la Comisión de Bolsa y Valores de Estados Unidos (SEC) había enviado citaciones a bancos para examinar las operaciones y el financiamiento del fondo. ## El crédito de margen se recuperó parcialmente en agosto FINRA registró 1,502,072 millones de dólares en saldos deudores de cuentas de margen en junio, 1,417,225 millones en julio y 1,453,832 millones en agosto. Entre julio y agosto el aumento fue de 36,607 millones; faltaban 48,240 millones para volver al nivel de junio. Frente a agosto de 2025, el saldo era 37.2% mayor. La entidad reúne los saldos que le reportan las firmas de corretaje con cuentas de margen de clientes al último día hábil de cada mes. La serie indica cuánto deben en conjunto esos clientes contra sus cuentas de valores. No separa los préstamos a Situational Awareness, la exposición de cada banco ni todas las formas de apalancamiento que usan los fondos de inversión. Tampoco permite atribuir el descenso de julio a una sola firma. La cobertura anterior de FomoEra explicó la pérdida estimada del fondo y su venta a Citadel. El 67% de caída en julio era una estimación no auditada comunicada por Situational Awareness a sus inversionistas. Ese porcentaje mide el rendimiento del fondo y no debe confundirse con la variación de la deuda de margen de todo el mercado. ## Qué buscan las citaciones a los bancos De acuerdo con Reuters, la SEC pidió información sobre el momento de las operaciones que desencadenaron llamadas de margen y las comunicaciones del fondo con sus prestamistas acerca del uso de dinero prestado. La agencia identificó a Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup y Bank of America entre sus principales bancos. El regulador y los cuatro bancos declinaron comentar para Reuters. Una llamada de margen exige aportar dinero o garantías adicionales cuando las posiciones financiadas pierden valor. Reuters reportó que Situational Awareness tuvo que vender la mayor parte de su cartera pública a Citadel después de la caída de acciones de chips y otras empresas vinculadas con la IA. El fondo dijo a la agencia que cooperaría con cualquier solicitud regulatoria. Las citaciones se conocieron en agosto. Reuters precisó entonces que una solicitud de información no implica que los bancos o el fondo sean objeto de cargos ni que la indagatoria termine en una sanción. El dato posterior de FINRA muestra un rebote del crédito de margen agregado en agosto, pero no cuánto riesgo había asumido cada prestamista en este caso. _Fuentes:_ 1, 2

Washington, Wednesday, 30 September 2026.The SEC proposed rules allowing everyday investors to access private equity by passing a FINRA competency exam, bypassing traditional wealth requirements to br

President Trump's push for retail access to private market sees a new expansion, including a FINRA test for anybody willing to study up.

FINRA has completed a major restructuring initiative, consolidating its member supervision, market oversight, and enforcement functions into a...

FINRA has completed a major restructuring initiative, consolidating its member supervision, market oversight, and enforcement functions into a...

FINRA has completed a major restructuring initiative, consolidating its member supervision, market oversight, and enforcement functions into a...

President Trump's push for retail access to private market sees a new expansion, including a FINRA test for anybody willing to study up.

Read more on rbnhd.co

Rudy Anguiano allegedly took funds from two customers and transferred them to an account he controlled without their knowledge

The FINRA Investor Education Foundation (FINRA Foundation) and the Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education® (AFCPE®) are excited to announce the selection of the 2026 cohort of the FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellowship. This year, 30 military spouses will take steps toward achieving their Accredited Financial Counselor® (AFC®) designation, setting the groundwork for meaningful careers in financial counseling. Since 2006, the FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellowship has offered more than 1,835 military spouses the opportunity to obtain their AFC® certification while building a thriving global network of financially confident and empowered military families. To date, FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellows have provided financial counseling and education to more than 289,700 service members and their families worldwide. By equipping military spouses with the expertise required for flexible, rewarding careers in financial counseling, the fellowship strengthens financial security and enhances overall readiness across military communities.  "The FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellowship has filled a critical need—equipping military spouses with portable, rewarding careers in financial counseling while delivering expert financial education and guidance to hundreds of thousands of service members and their families around the world," said Christine Kieffer, President of the FINRA Foundation. "Military families face real and distinct financial challenges. From frequent moves and deployments to the underemployment that too often follows, our military spouse fellows understand those challenges firsthand and are uniquely positioned to strengthen financial readiness and resilience across military communities.” “For 20 years, the FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellowship has opened doors for military spouses to build portable, purpose-driven careers while strengthening the financial well-being of the communities they know best,” said Rachael DeLeon, Executive Director of AFCPE®. “We are proud to welcome the 2026 class of fellows into an incredible community of AFC® professionals who are creating lasting impact for military service members and their families—at home, across the country, and around the world.” The FINRA Foundation Military Spouse Fellowship is open to qualifying spouses of active-duty or retired Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, Coast Guard, and Army or Air National Guard or reserve component service members, as well as spouses of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration professionals.  For more information and to sign up for program updates, visit https://www.afcpe.org/education/finra-foundation-fellowship/

FINRA has barred Rudy Anguiano of Chino Hills, CA, a former registered representative of LPL Financial LLC, from associating with any FINRA member firm in all capacities for conversion—the intentional and unauthorized taking of another person’s property—of $1,731,000 from two customers’ accounts into an outside business bank account. LPL has since reimbursed both customers in full. FINRA opened an investigation into Anguiano’s activities in December 2025 after LPL disclosed that Anguiano had been discharged for failing to disclose his outside business.  “Converting customer funds is among the most serious violations a broker can commit,” said Bill St. Louis, Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement at FINRA. “Investors trust their brokers with their financial assets and protecting that trust is central to FINRA’s mission. Staff across FINRA’s newly consolidated Regulatory Operations team collaborated quickly and effectively to make this serious matter a priority and to bring it to a quick and appropriate resolution.” Between July 2023 and August 2025, Anguiano transferred funds from LPL accounts belonging to two of his customers into the bank account of a limited liability company he solely owned and controlled. In five separate transactions, Anguiano received $1,528,000 from the account of one customer. In five additional transactions between September 2024 and May 2025, he received $203,000 from the second customer’s account. Neither customer authorized the transfers nor was aware that Anguiano was redirecting their funds to his business. By converting these funds, Anguiano violated FINRA Rule 2150 (Improper Use of Customers' Securities or Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in Accounts). This conduct also violated FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) because using access to customer accounts for personal gain is fundamentally unethical conduct and undermines investor confidence in the financial markets. In settling this matter and agreeing to a bar from associating with any FINRA member firm, Anguiano consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings, without admitting or denying the charges. 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. Information about individual brokers is also available on FINRA’s BrokerCheck website.

FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 26-15 represents a fundamental administrative and microstructural misstep that attempts to erect an expansive, centralized command-and-control auditing regime over an unfinalized Federal legal vacuum. By conditioning its sweeping Best Execution (BestEx) overhauls on the passive assumption that the SEC will completely rescind Rule 611 and dismantle locked and crossed prohibitions under Rule 610(e), a.k.a. Order Protection Rules (OPR), FINRA is prematurely prejudging open SEC rulemaking under File No. S7-2026-20. This regulatory overreach seeks to force broker-dealers to absorb the costs, documentation burdens, and liability of a self-inflicted structural collapse. A fundamental limitation for policymakers pursuing evidence-based regulations is that every quantitative model faces a harsh trade-off between tractability and reality; liquidity is a moving target that no static framework can capture. If the foundational anchors of Reg. NMS are dismantled, the National Best Bid Offer will be legally stripped of its enforcement teeth, degrading the public consolidated tape into a series of unlinked, disconnected trading “echo chambers” streaming conflicting, uncoordinated prices. In this fragmented landscape, the public tape functions solely as one of the sources of access, not a universal anchoring reference price to depend on for compliance. Attempting to pass prescriptive, check-the-box routing standards, transaction-level mandates, or artificial safe harbors is a mathematical and statistical impossibility. Any attempt by FINRA to dictate how independent firms handle price improvement, verify connectivity, or navigate internalization mechanics will fundamentally morph a self-regulatory organization into a central-planning command economy, which destroys free-market pricing mechanics. This heavy-handed intervention directly contradicts the SEC’s stated principle under the current administration to encourage competing market forces to maintain the orderly function of the market and minimize regulatory intervention. FINRA cannot legally or logically restrict members’ engagement in activities that are explicitly or implicitly permissible under the SEC's policy choices. * The Invalidation of Safe Harbors and the “Europeanization” of US Markets: Proposing compliance-driven safe harbors under FINRA Rule 5310 is a futile exercise. Once the OPR pillar collapses, the definition of a single “best market” ceases to exist. The market will shift toward a fractured, Europeanized framework reminiscent of Europe’s deeply flawed MiFID II calibration regime, where rigid mathematical models misfired, perversely driving institutional volume away from transparent lit exchanges and into dark, unregulated pockets. * The Illegality of Transaction-by-Transaction Auditing Mandates: FINRA lacks statutory authority to mandate the order-by-order best execution review standard. Attempting to enforce a microscopic, transaction-level checking process directly contradicts established federal regulatory precedent. In 79 FR 5592 (Footnote 711) regarding the Dodd-Frank Volcker Rule, the joint regulatory agencies – including the SEC, CFTC, Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC – unequivocally rejected a “transaction-by-transaction” approach as “unduly burdensome,” “impractical,” and “inconsistent”. Fabricating an order-by-order standard against unlinked books creates an impossible compliance nightmare plagued by sub-millisecond sequence drift and artificial audit anomalies within the opaqued Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT). * The Cross-Asset Asymmetry and Derivative Blind Spots: The SEC and FINRA are operating in complete denial by trying to treat the equity and options markets as isolated, separate ecosystems. Options market makers do not quote derivatives in a vacuum; they survive by instantly delta-hedging their structural inventory risk using underlying NMS stocks. Completely unlinking equity protections while keeping the Options Order Protection NMS Plan active creates an uncompensated market asymmetry. To manage risk, firms rely heavily on CFTC-regulated futures, exotic derivative products, and complex cross-border sweeps executed through foreign affiliated entities – such as short-selling 23-hour E-Mini futures on CME Globex – all of which operate outside the statutory scope of the SEC and FINRA. Any attempt to pass rigid, equity-only routing standards ignores these vital global hedging loops and forces severe synthetic quote widening, perversely inflating transaction costs for investors. * The Reality of Algorithmic Warfare and Private Internalization: Real-world market participants are not passive bystanders; they are actively counting their own securities inventory and margin constraints, as well as those of their opponents. Forcing firms to disclose or standardize their “secret sauce” – such as automated Smart Order Routers (SOR), signal detection tools, and real-time obfuscation techniques used to play active defense or offense against toxic liquidity – is an invasive overreach. In an unprotected market, forcing uniform compliance parameters eliminates the “Variety” factor among the 4Vs of Big Data, creating synchronized algorithmic echo chambers that escalate the probability of flash crashes and systemic default cascades. * Boilerplate Retail Waivers versus Tactical Discretion: FINRA possesses the clear statutory authority to prohibit blanket, pre-emptive “not held” disclaimers embedded in new retail account documentation. These boilerplate waivers act as a predatory legal shield, allowing firms to systematically stall retail orders to pocket wider spreads or facilitate internal matching while claiming “discretionary immunity”. However, this contractual boundary is separate from the live algorithmic battleground. FINRA must stay out of micro-regulating real-time tactical order handling, signaling flags, and mid-flight re-categorizations (“held” to “not held” downstream), because the SEC provides absolutely no framework to judge underlying intent by realized economic outcomes – such as net-effective price improvement – rather than by mechanical routing semantics. * Technology-Specific Guidance Traps for AI and Tokenization: Standard tools like Transaction Cost Analyzer (TCA) and SOR are not the holy grail. Real-world market participants are actively counting the securities inventory and margin constraints of themselves and their opponents. Policy makers must recognize this microstructural reality rather than prescribing certain trade practices, technologies, or demanding additional data reporting requirements. Any added burden heightens the cost to transact in the US, eroding the competitiveness of US markets while completely failing to improve the trust factor if the market is left without OPR. FINRA should refrain from providing any BestEx guidance specific to the use of AI or tokenized securities. Before Congress and the Commissions sort through these jurisdictional entanglements, FINRA can only observe policy directions – not develop independent rules. Because an unprotected, crossed market tape strips broker-dealers of an objective baseline, FINRA must reject this arbitrary guidance expansion. FINRA’s objective enforcement boundaries would be narrowed to merely verifying the mechanical accuracy of public disclosures under SEC Rule 605 and Rule 606. If the regulators’ true objective is to deemphasize speed as a factor for trading success, the correct mechanism is mandating the use of time-lock encryption to make market data available securely in synchronized time across all venues. If the goal is to eliminate data-fee waste and protect the public tape from rent-seeking behaviors, the Commission must implement a Venue Trading Volume Threshold for Protected Quotes alternative (e.g., a rolling 1% ADV benchmark). This surgical model strips protection from illiquid platforms while anchoring a hyper-liquid, protected core tape that market makers can safely hedge against. Additionally, instead of implementing complex compliance requirements that benefit ONLY the lawyers and big consulting firms while exacerbating the gap between the “Haves” and “Have-Nots,” the Commission should adopt a Copyright Licensing Mechanism. By treating market data rebate incentives as standardized copyright royalties – drawing direct policy lessons from the music industry’s 4-part test objective rate-setting models – the clearinghouse can parse encrypted metadata tags to generate a robust cash cushion to absorb defaults, enhance capital velocity, and permanently lower the transaction cost barrier in the US. FINRA can, and should, warn and remind the Commission of how the SEC’s attempt to completely rescind OPR is fundamentally faulted, but cannot legally or logically demand that broker-dealers expend private capital to absorb and correct the fallout of that structural policy misstep. Download our full 45-page comment letter to FINRA at: https://www.databoiler.com/index_htm_files/DataBoiler FINRA BestEx 20260925.pdf

ApexInvest Markets LLC ("ApexInvest Markets"), the U.S. broker-dealer and alternative trading system (ATS) of Apex Group Ltd. ("Apex Group"), today announced it has received approval from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to transact in digital securities, expanding its ability to support the issuance, distribution and secondary trading of digital and tokenized securities. The approval also enables ApexInvest Markets to chaperone non-U.S. broker-dealers under SEC Rule 15a-6, supporting cross-border access to U.S. institutional investors. The approval enables ApexInvest Markets to facilitate capital formation, primary distribution and secondary market activity within a regulated framework. The expanded remit supports issuers, asset managers and institutional investors seeking access to private market opportunities through tokenized investment structures. Issuers working with ApexInvest Markets may also choose to leverage Tokeny, Apex Group's tokenization platform, through Apex Digital, Apex Group's digital infrastructure business, to issue, manage and service tokenized investment products. Built on the ERC-3643 standard, the platform enables compliance and investor eligibility requirements to be embedded directly within smart contracts. "This approval marks an important milestone for ApexInvest Markets and expands the range of services we can provide to participants in digital markets," said Greg Cignarella, Head of Business Development at ApexInvest Markets. "As tokenization gains traction across private markets, issuers and investors are looking for trusted partners that can combine regulatory oversight, market access and operational expertise. This approval strengthens our ability to support clients throughout the investment lifecycle while deepening Apex Group's integrated digital asset offering." The approval further strengthens Apex Group's integrated digital asset offering, spanning tokenization infrastructure, broker-dealer services, capital formation, liquidity solutions and ongoing asset servicing.

Suleyman told Bloomberg AI needs a red line on control, and that government should drive outside audits of the labs.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Benjamin Schiffrin, Director of Securities Policy for Better Markets, issued the following statement in connection with Better Markets’ comment letter to FINRA in response to its req...