Latest news with #marketparticipants
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Food Empire Holdings (SGX:F03) stock performs better than its underlying earnings growth over last three years
For us, stock picking is in large part the hunt for the truly magnificent stocks. Not every pick can be a winner, but when you pick the right stock, you can win big. For example, the Food Empire Holdings Limited (SGX:F03) share price is up a whopping 366% in the last three years, a handsome return for long term holders. On top of that, the share price is up 66% in about a quarter. Since it's been a strong week for Food Empire Holdings shareholders, let's have a look at trend of the longer term fundamentals. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. By comparing earnings per share (EPS) and share price changes over time, we can get a feel for how investor attitudes to a company have morphed over time. Food Empire Holdings was able to grow its EPS at 40% per year over three years, sending the share price higher. This EPS growth is lower than the 67% average annual increase in the share price. This suggests that, as the business progressed over the last few years, it gained the confidence of market participants. It is quite common to see investors become enamoured with a business, after a few years of solid progress. The graphic below depicts how EPS has changed over time (unveil the exact values by clicking on the image). We know that Food Empire Holdings has improved its bottom line over the last three years, but what does the future have in store? Take a more thorough look at Food Empire Holdings' financial health with this free report on its balance sheet. What About Dividends? When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. Whereas the share price return only reflects the change in the share price, the TSR includes the value of dividends (assuming they were reinvested) and the benefit of any discounted capital raising or spin-off. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Food Empire Holdings the TSR over the last 3 years was 459%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. This is largely a result of its dividend payments! A Different Perspective We're pleased to report that Food Empire Holdings shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 136% over one year. Of course, that includes the dividend. That gain is better than the annual TSR over five years, which is 41%. Therefore it seems like sentiment around the company has been positive lately. Someone with an optimistic perspective could view the recent improvement in TSR as indicating that the business itself is getting better with time. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. For example, we've discovered 2 warning signs for Food Empire Holdings (1 is potentially serious!) that you should be aware of before investing here. If you are like me, then you will not want to miss this free list of undervalued small caps that insiders are buying. Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Singaporean exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
South China Morning Post
6 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
HKEX starts consultation on shortening settlement cycle in cash equities market
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEX) published a discussion paper outlining plans to shorten the settlement cycle in the cash equities market to further modernise its financial infrastructure. The city's bourse operator said the move would create a path for how and when to implement the idea as global financial markets had started adopting faster timelines, according to a document released on Wednesday. It aimed to build consensus and develop a detailed implementation timeline with views from other stakeholders, it added. Up to 88 per cent of global cash equities by trade value were expected to settle a day after trade, commonly known as T+1, HKEX said. The US has moved to T+1, while Australia and the European Economic Area are exploring similar transitions. Hong Kong has operated under a T+2 settlement cycle since 1992. 'In a rapidly evolving global market landscape, there is urgency to seek a way forward,' CEO Bonnie Chan Yiting said. As a market operator, HKEX was fully committed to 'ensuring that our financial ecosystem remains robust and fit for purpose', she added. HKEX was inviting feedback from all market participants until September 1, adding that any changes to the settlement cycle would be a multi-year process. The discussion would focus on secondary market transactions and exclude initial public offerings, it added. The paper detailed the pros and cons of shortening the cycle. Potential benefits included enhanced market efficiency, reduced systemic risk and closer alignment with global markets. Navigating time-zone differences, foreign-exchange impacts and shorter post-trade timelines were among major challenges, it noted.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SM Energy (SM) Stock Dips While Market Gains: Key Facts
SM Energy (SM) ended the recent trading session at $27.56, demonstrating a -3.37% change from the preceding day's closing price. The stock's performance was behind the S&P 500's daily gain of 0.14%. Meanwhile, the Dow gained 0.2%, and the Nasdaq, a tech-heavy index, added 0.27%. Shares of the independent oil and gas company have appreciated by 0.92% over the course of the past month, underperforming the Oils-Energy sector's gain of 2.89%, and the S&P 500's gain of 3.97%. Market participants will be closely following the financial results of SM Energy in its upcoming release. The company's earnings per share (EPS) are projected to be $1.22, reflecting a 34.05% decrease from the same quarter last year. In the meantime, our current consensus estimate forecasts the revenue to be $784.5 million, indicating a 23.63% growth compared to the corresponding quarter of the prior year. Regarding the entire year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates forecast earnings of $5.73 per share and revenue of $3.3 billion, indicating changes of -15.74% and +22.62%, respectively, compared to the previous year. Any recent changes to analyst estimates for SM Energy should also be noted by investors. These latest adjustments often mirror the shifting dynamics of short-term business patterns. As a result, we can interpret positive estimate revisions as a good sign for the business outlook. Our research shows that these estimate changes are directly correlated with near-term stock prices. To capitalize on this, we've crafted the Zacks Rank, a unique model that incorporates these estimate changes and offers a practical rating system. The Zacks Rank system, which varies between #1 (Strong Buy) and #5 (Strong Sell), carries an impressive track record of exceeding expectations, confirmed by external audits, with stocks at #1 delivering an average annual return of +25% since 1988. Within the past 30 days, our consensus EPS projection has moved 1.13% higher. SM Energy presently features a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold). From a valuation perspective, SM Energy is currently exchanging hands at a Forward P/E ratio of 4.98. This valuation marks a discount compared to its industry average Forward P/E of 11.44. The Oil and Gas - Exploration and Production - United States industry is part of the Oils-Energy sector. With its current Zacks Industry Rank of 190, this industry ranks in the bottom 24% of all industries, numbering over 250. The Zacks Industry Rank gauges the strength of our individual industry groups by measuring the average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within the groups. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1. Make sure to utilize to follow all of these stock-moving metrics, and more, in the coming trading sessions. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report SM Energy Company (SM) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
07-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Why Jane Street Was a Target in India's Option Trading Crackdown
India has gone from being a small player in the highly speculative equity derivatives market to the world's largest, all within just five years. Daily turnover in the market now sits at around $3 trillion. Demand for so-called equity options in particular has exploded as large numbers of relatively inexperienced retail investors came in search of quick returns. There are concerns that some large market participants have been using sophisticated technology to manipulate the system to their advantage. A study by the Securities and Exchange Board of India found that retail investors lost more than $20 billion on option trades over three years.
Reuters
01-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Deregulation Orders Under the Second Trump Administration Practical Law The Journal
The second Trump administration has issued a number of broadly applicable executive orders and releases on deregulation designed to reduce rulemaking, eliminate certain existing rules, and exert broad presidential control over most federal regulatory agencies. These orders and releases have the potential to disrupt or even upend the modern US federal regulatory system, as well as many regulatory areas, including capital markets and finance, health care, the environment, energy, trade and investment, antitrust, consumer protection, and labor and employment. Market participants in regulated industries and their counsel must stay informed as these orders are implemented and their impact trickles down through various federal regulators. This article provides an overview of these developments and their implications for federal regulation. (For a collection of resources and commentary to help counsel manage developments arising during the second term of the Trump administration, see Trump Administration Toolkit on Practical Law; for the complete version of this resource, which includes information on Executive Order 14294 concerning 'overcriminalization' in federal regulations, see Deregulation Orders Under Second Trump Administration on Practical Law.) Freeze on New Rules Pending Administration Review On January 20, 2025, the White House issued a release (freeze order) referred to as a presidential action, ordering 'all executive departments and agencies' to: Refrain from proposing or issuing any rule in any manner, including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the president reviews and approves the rule. The department or agency head may delegate this power of review and approval to any other person appointed or designated by the president, consistent with applicable law. Immediately withdraw any rules that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, so that they can be reviewed and approved. Consider: postponing for 60 days from the date of the freeze order the effective date for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued but have not taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise; opening a comment period during this 60-day period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rules postponed under the freeze order; re-evaluating 'pending petitions' involving such rules; and 'further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment, proposed rules further delaying' such rules beyond the 60-day period, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy. Consult with the director or acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB director) for rules that raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy. Comply in all circumstances with any applicable executive orders concerning regulatory management. If rules do not raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy during the 60-day postponement, no further action needs to be taken. Under the freeze order, the OMB director may exempt any rule deemed necessary to address emergency situations or other urgent circumstances, including rules subject to statutory or judicial deadlines that require prompt action. The term 'rule' in the freeze order follows the definition set out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. § 551(4)). The freeze also applies to any: Regulatory action, as defined in Section 3(e) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended. Guidance document, as defined in Section 2(b) of Executive Order 13891, Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents (Oct. 9, 2019), when that order was in effect. The freeze order expressly applies to any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that 'promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking,' as well as to 'any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.' The freeze order directs that any communications regarding any matters relating to this review be addressed to the OMB director. Offsetting New Regulations On January 31, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Deregulation EO), which requires: Federal agencies that promulgate a new rule, regulation, or guidance to identify at least ten existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed. Any new incremental costs associated with new regulations, to the extent permitted by law, to be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. The OMB director to identify and eliminate regulations, standardize cost measurements, and ensure compliance with the APA. The OMB director to provide the heads of agencies guidance on implementing this executive order, which includes, but is not limited to: processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, in fiscal year 2025 to be significantly less than zero. The head of each agency to: identify the offsetting regulations on an aggregated basis for regulations that increase incremental cost (as described in the Deregulation EO); and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. The OMB director to identify for each agency the total amount of additional incremental costs that will be allowed for that agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations during each fiscal year after fiscal year 2025. Expanded Oversight of Federal Agencies On February 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14215, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (Oversight EO), which expands White House oversight of federal regulatory agencies, including independent agencies (as defined in 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5)) like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (for more information, see Federal Independent Agencies in the June 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal). Under the Oversight EO: All executive departments and agencies, including independent regulatory agencies, must submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. Independent regulatory agencies must consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans, and the White House will set their performance standards. The attorney general, subject to the president's supervision and control, will provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The Oversight EO notes that it: Does not apply to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) or to the Federal Open Market Committee in its conduct of monetary policy. Applies to the Federal Reserve Board in relation only to its supervision and regulation of financial institutions. The Oversight EO requires the OMB director to: Provide guidance on implementation of the Oversight EO to the heads of executive departments and agencies submitting new regulatory actions for review under the Oversight EO. Agency submissions by independent regulatory agencies may begin within the earlier of 60 days from the date of the Oversight EO or completion of the implementation guidance. Establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and report periodically to the president on their performance and efficiency in attaining these standards and objectives. Review on an ongoing basis the independent regulatory agencies' obligations for consistency with the president's policies and priorities. Consult on an ongoing basis with independent regulatory agency chairs and adjust the agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project, or object, as necessary and appropriate, to advance the president's policies and priorities. The adjustments to apportionments may prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects, provided the restrictions are consistent with law. Additionally, each independent regulatory agency chair or head must: Regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities with the OMB director and the directors of the White House Domestic Policy Council and the White House National Economic Council. Establish a White House liaison position in each agency. Submit an agency strategic plan developed under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993)) to the OMB director for clearance before finalization. The fact sheet accompanying the Oversight EO states that Article II of the US Constitution vests all executive power in the president, 'meaning that all executive branch officials and employees are subject to his supervision.' The Oversight EO asserts that previously the independent agencies 'have exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight.' Rescission or Modification of 'Unlawful Regulations' On February 19, 2025, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative (DOGE EO), which: Sets out a process for identifying, reviewing, and rescinding or modifying 'unlawful regulations.' Provides directives to agency heads regarding revised priorities for handling new and ongoing enforcement actions. 'Unlawful Regulations' and Regulations That 'Undermine the National Interest' The DOGE EO instructs agency heads, in coordination with their DOGE team leads (as described in Executive Order 14158, Establishing and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative (Jan. 20, 2025)) and the OMB director, to initiate a process to review all regulations subject to their sole or joint jurisdiction for consistency with law and administration policy. Within 60 days of the date of the DOGE EO, agency heads, in consultation with the attorney general as appropriate, are instructed to identify regulations that: Are 'unconstitutional' or 'raise serious constitutional difficulties,' such as those 'exceeding the scope of the power vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution.' Are based on: 'unlawful delegations of legislative power'; or 'anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition.' Implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance 'that are not authorized by clear statutory authority.' Impose: 'significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed by public benefits'; or 'undue burdens' on small business and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship. '[H]arm the national interest by significantly and unjustifiably impeding' technological innovation, infrastructure development, disaster response, inflation reduction, research and development, economic development, energy production, land use, and foreign policy objectives. In conducting this review, agency heads are instructed to: Prioritize review of those rules that 'satisfy the definition of 'significant regulatory action'' in Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended, issued September 30, 1993. Provide a list of all regulations, classified in accordance with the DOGE EO guidelines, to the administrator of OIRA within OMB within 60 days of the date of the DOGE EO. Agencies are instructed to follow the processes set out in Executive Order 12866 for submitting regulations for review by OIRA. The administrator of OIRA is then instructed to consult with agency heads to develop a 'Unified Regulatory Agenda that seeks to rescind or modify these regulations, as appropriate.' Agency heads are further instructed to consult with their DOGE team leads and the administrator of OIRA on potential new regulations as soon as practicable. In evaluating any potential new regulations, agency heads, DOGE team leads, and the administrator of OIRA are instructed to consider, in addition to the factors set out in Executive Order 12866, the factors set out in the DOGE EO. Revised Enforcement Priorities The DOGE EO establishes revised priorities for handling new and ongoing enforcement actions and instructs agency heads to: '[P]reserve their limited enforcement resources by generally de-prioritizing actions to enforce regulations that are based on anything other than the best reading of a statute and de-prioritizing actions to enforce regulations that go beyond the powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution,' subject to their obligation to discharge their legal obligations, protect public safety, and advance the national interest. Determine whether ongoing enforcement of any regulations identified in their regulatory review is compliant with law and administration policy. Agency heads, in consultation with the OMB director, are instructed to 'direct the termination of all such enforcement proceedings that do not comply with the Constitution, laws, or Administration policy,' on a case-by-case basis and 'as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.' The DOGE EO instructs the OMB director to issue implementation guidance, as appropriate, and provides the OMB with the authority to issue exemptions from application of the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO language, together with the process specified in the EO, introduces the potential for subjective decision-making and inconsistency into determinations on amendments or other action on existing rules that are well established, provide market utility, or had a sound basis for agency adoption. The DOGE EO does not apply to any: Action related to a military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, or immigration-related function of the US. Matter pertaining to the executive branch's management of its employees. The DOGE EO includes broad language without definition (for example, 'best reading') and grants wide discretion to agency heads and acting heads to identify for rescission or amendment regulations that they believe fit the criteria set out in the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO language, together with the process specified in the EO, introduces the potential for subjective decision-making and inconsistency into determinations on amendments or other action on existing rules that are well established, provide market utility, or had a sound basis for agency adoption. Repeal of 'Unlawful Regulations' On April 9, 2025, the Trump administration issued a presidential memorandum (PM) entitled Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, which directs federal regulatory agency heads to prioritize repeal of regulations that are 'unlawful' under ten notable US Supreme Court decisions in undertaking the review and repeal of regulations directed under the DOGE EO. The DOGE EO directs the 'heads of all executive departments and agencies' to identify certain categories of 'unlawful and potentially unlawful' regulations within 60 days of the date of the order and begin plans to repeal those regulations. The PM notes that in undertaking this process, agency heads are instructed to prioritize evaluating each existing regulation's 'lawfulness' under the following US Supreme Court decisions: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 597 U.S. 697 (2022). SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024). Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015). Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024). Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021). Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022). Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020). The White House also released a fact sheet with further explanation regarding the cited cases. The PM asserts that 'notice-and-comment proceedings are 'unnecessary' where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court,' and that '[a]gencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations.' Notably, the PM specifies that, in effectuating repeal of 'facially unlawful' regulations, agency heads are directed to finalize rules without notice and comment, where doing so is consistent with the good cause exception under the APA. The PM asserts that this exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be 'impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.' The PM further asserts that 'notice-and-comment proceedings are 'unnecessary' where repeal is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with a ruling of the United States Supreme Court,' and that '[a]gencies thus have ample cause and the legal authority to immediately repeal unlawful regulations.' The PM directs that: Immediately following the 60-day review period for identifying unlawful and potentially unlawful regulations under the DOGE EO, agencies take steps to effectuate the repeal of any regulation, or the portion of any regulation, that 'clearly exceeds the agency's statutory authority or is otherwise unlawful.' The repeal of each unlawful regulation is to be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons that the APA's good cause exception applies to permit the agency to dispense with applicable notice-and-comment requirements. Within 30 days of the conclusion of the review period, agencies submit to OIRA a one-page summary of each regulation that was initially identified as falling within one of the categories specified in the DOGE EO but which has not been targeted for repeal, explaining the basis for the decision not to repeal that regulation. Practical Implications and Further Action Trump's EOs and PM raise questions about the administration's authority over independent agencies created by Congress and will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. In the meantime, they are sure to have a chilling effect on the federal agency rulemaking and enforcement process, at least in the intermediate term. These orders can also be expected to significantly impact, and have already begun to impact, the activities of most major federal regulatory agencies, including: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Department of Commerce. The EPA. The FCC. The FTC. The Food and Drug Administration. The SEC. Federal prudential bank regulators including: the Federal Reserve Board; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Trump orders are already making a notable impact on banking and crypto and digital asset regulation (for more information, see 2025 Trump Administration Transition Toolkit: The First 100 Days on Practical Law and SEC Regulation of Crypto and Digital Assets Under Trump 2.0 in the June 2025 issue of Practical Law The Journal). Trump's EOs and PM raise questions about the administration's authority over independent agencies created by Congress and will likely be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. In the meantime, they are sure to have a chilling effect on the federal agency rulemaking and enforcement process, at least in the intermediate term. Recent regulatory actions in response to the Trump deregulation orders and the PM include: Banking deregulatory activity. US prudential bank regulators, including the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC, have undertaken or been directed to engage in significant deregulatory efforts. (For more information, see Trump Administration Toolkit on Practical Law.) OMB notice of request for information (RFI). On April 11, 2025, OMB issued an RFI soliciting 'ideas for deregulation from across the country.' OMB seeks comment from the public on regulations that are 'unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.' Comments should address the background of the rule and the reasons for the proposed rescission, with particular attention to regulations that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution, where costs exceed benefits, where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary, or where regulation is burdening US businesses in unforeseen ways. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) repeal release. On April 15, 2025, the Treasury issued a 'direct' final rule entitled Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations, in which the Treasury states that it is conducting a review of existing regulations with the goal of reducing regulatory burden by revoking or revising existing regulations that meet the criteria set out in the DOGE EO and the PM. The rule states that, 'In support of that objective, this direct final rule streamlines titles 12 and 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)' by removing regulations and portions of regulations that are 'no longer necessary, or have no current or future applicability and, therefore, no longer provide useful guidance.' The regulations or portions of regulations removed are: Federal Financing Bank Bills, 12 CFR Part 810; Book-Entry Procedure for Federal Financing Bank Securities, 12 CFR Part 811; TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance, 31 CFR Part 30; TARP Conflicts of Interest, 31 CFR 31.211 through 216; and Civil Penalty, 31 CFR 1010.820. CFTC actions. An April 8, 2025 keynote address by Acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham noted the following actions that she has taken in furtherance of the Trump orders: realignment of the CFTC Division of Enforcement task forces to 'end regulation by enforcement and refocus on fighting fraud and helping victims'; issuance of an advisory on the CFTC's new policy regarding self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation and another advisory related to DOE referrals; and launch of an initiative aimed at expeditiously resolving a backlog of noncompliance matters that do not involve customer harm or market abuse. House Committee on Financial Services (HFSC) Letters On April 1, 2025, HFSC Chair French Hill and committee members issued a release on a series of letters sent to agencies requesting the rescission, modification, or re-proposal of specific Biden-Harris administration actions that 'reduce competition and innovation and must be rescinded or significantly modified.' According to the release, 'These rules and guidance lacked proper cost-benefit analysis, would have significant negative economic consequences, and frequently ran afoul of statutorily-mandated procedures intended to ensure well-formulated rulemaking.' The committee sent the following letters on specific rules: Interagency letter to Acting FDIC Chair Travis Hill, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney Hood, and Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell. Letter to Acting FDIC Chair Hill. Letter to Acting Comptroller of the Currency Hood. Letter to Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell. Letter to Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought. Letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in his capacity as Financial Stability Oversight Council chair on subjecting nonbank financial companies to prudential supervision by the Federal Reserve Board through updates to the Analytic Framework and Nonbank Designation Guidance. Digital Assets and Financial Technology HFSC Chair Hill and Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence Chair Bryan Steil and subcommittee members sent letters urging the federal banking agencies and the CFPB to withdraw several regulatory actions that they assert have restricted financial institutions' engagement in digital assets and hindered the growth of fintech companies: Interagency letter to Acting FDIC Chair Hill, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Hood, and Federal Reserve Board Chair Powell. Letter to Acting CFPB Director Vought. SEC Rules On March 31, 2025, the HFSC sent a letter to then-Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda, stating that the SEC had recently lost sight of its mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. The committee encouraged the SEC to withdraw the following final and proposed rules: These SEC rules appear to be candidates for review and potential rescission under the DOGE EO.
