By Jonathan Brockmeier, Global Chief Compliance Officer, OKX & Sandra Ro, CEO, Global Blockchain Business Council
Jonathan Brockmeier
The Coldcard exploit has pushed customers to reconsider how and where they hold digital assets. The firmware flaw had drained more than $115 million in bitcoin across thousands of addresses as of August 16, with new waves still surfacing. Exchanges have since seen record inflows as customers weigh the burden of self-custody against the risk of getting it wrong alone. It’s a reminder of how fast confidence shifts when protection fails, and how much is now at stake for any firm holding customer assets.
That is why customer protection is becoming the industry’s defining priority. The cost of getting protection wrong is measured not just in funds lost to a single scam, but in the customers and credibility a firm never wins back.
The uncomfortable part is that rulemaking can’t keep pace on its own. Criminals iterate faster than any regulator can regulate. While regulations set the floor and provide accountability, the firms doing the most to protect customers are building beyond those baseline requirements. That evolution — from compliance as a response to compliance as a proactive function — is a sign of an industry becoming more mature.
Numbers make the abstraction concrete: in the first half of 2026, OKX protected $1.1 billion in assets for more than half a million users, while preventing $26.3 million in scam-related losses. These are moments in which a real account was about to be drained and wasn’t. Together, they show why customer protection belongs alongside risk assessment and verification as a core and daily compliance function, not an occasional intervention.
Beyond the Rulebook
Stopping theft means solving two different problems. The first is keeping bad actors out of accounts that aren’t theirs. The starting principle: security can’t rest on one password, device, or verification step. If a credential is compromised, other checks should still stop an attacker from taking control or moving funds. In practice, that means layered authentication — for example, biometrics and hardware-backed passkeys — along with a requirement for fresh verification before sensitive actions, such as withdrawals or address changes, even mid-session. This prevents an already-open session from being used to bypass security controls. Friction should scale with risk: routine activity flows through, while a high-risk request can trigger a freeze or a live check.
The second problem, socially engineered scams, is harder because the customer is the one giving the instruction. In most of these schemes, the victim authorizes the transfer themselves, fully convinced it’s legitimate. To the system, that first looks like an ordinary payment. Blocklists of known-bad addresses help, but they never catch the wallet spun up an hour before the theft. What works better is tracing the relationships between wallets: graph-based analysis, paired with intelligence from partners like Chainalysis and Elliptic, that surfaces coordinated activity invisible when you look at one address alone. When risk is high, the intervention that matters most is often the simplest: a deliberate pause. Scammers run on manufactured urgency, and a cooling-off period gives a pressured customer the one thing the scammer is trying to deny them: time to reconsider.
This works because compliance, engineering, security, and support are pointed at the same outcome rather than assembled as features bolted on after the fact. That coordination is also what lets the system keep learning: confirmed scam cases and customer reports feed back into detection models, so each attempt that succeeds today makes the next one easier to catch.
Leading, Not Waiting
The point reaches past any single platform. Across the industry, the firms earning durable trust are distinguished less by their technology than by their posture: they treat customer protection as something they own, not something they wait to be told to do. The tools bad actors use will keep evolving; the deepfake calls that work today will look primitive in two years. Protections have to hold and innovation in fraud prevention needs to continue.
This should be the standard the industry works to make ordinary rather than exceptional, by continuously interacting with regulators around the world to raise the bar and build truly resilient systems. The return compounds past any single firm: every customer protected is a customer who stays and tells a different story, and an industry’s reputation is only the sum of those stories. Regulation will make sure everyone plays by the same rules. The firms that define the next decade will be the ones already building above them.
Clear Street, a cloud-native financial infrastructure technology firm on a mission to give every sophisticated investor access to every asset in every market, announced the launch of electronic execution in Europe and Asia-Pacific, extending its algorithmic trading offering beyond the US and Canada for the first time. Clients can now execute across 27 new markets through one single connection, and see positions and trades in the same real-time ledger that powers Clear Street’s U.S. business.
Uri Cohen, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of Clear Street, said, “With the launch, our platform now spans three regions — giving investors institutional-grade execution, smart order routing and a single view of their positions wherever they trade, backed by 24-hour coverage that matches the hours our clients actually work. Launching Europe and Asia-Pacific together is a defining step in building our global platform and we’re just getting started.”
In EMEA, Clear Street now executes across primary exchanges in 22 markets, alongside dark venues, systematic internalizers, periodic auction books and ETF liquidity via RFQ. European emerging markets are included from launch, with out-of-hours German venues to follow.
In Asia-Pacific, the firm is live across Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore with South Korea and Taiwan to follow in the coming months.
Both regions support nine headline strategies and seamlessly integrate with major EMS/OMS technologies. Clients can also choose from over 100 configurable execution parameters, with bespoke configurations deployed within 24 hours.
The launch is paired with a 24-hour smart order router that gives clients overnight access to US equities from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. ET, routing across Blue Ocean, Bruce, MOON and OTC Link N and pivoting automatically to the best available price. Together, the two launches extend coverage to the full span of hours clients trade, across the markets where they trade them.
A fund manager can achieve incremental annual inflows of 0.5% to 1% of assets under management by deploying artificial intelligence to support distribution.
BCG said in a report that asset managers have faced rising costs outpacing revenue for more than a decade despite heavy technology investment. Over the past 15 years, global assets under management have more than tripled and revenues have more than doubled, but margins have remained unchanged as costs have historically scaled with assets, according to the consultancy.
Assets under management grew 11% to $147 trillion in 2025, but BCG said more than 80% of revenue growth came from market performance, while fees continue to compress at between 1% to 3% annually.
The study, The AI-First Asset Manager, said autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step workflows such as reconciliation and NAV oversight offer a new way to fight this problem.
“Early evidence suggests that a traditional asset manager with a cost of 15 to 20 basis points that reshapes their organization to deploy AI at scale could reduce expenses by 3 to 6 basis points, perhaps a 25% to 30% cut,” said BCG.
The consultancy argued that AI agents decouple costs from assets under management, so AUM per head can rise significantly with a limited increase in marginal costs.
For example, AI can increase research coverage two to five times as agents can continuously scan thousands of names and present the analyst with curated, ranked opportunities for review. Agents can also systematically stress test the investment thesis so that portfolio construction and risk analysis become real-time, quickly responding to market movements and changing correlations.
Source: BCG
“Our modeling shows that an AI-first asset manager can, within three to five years, achieve incremental annual inflows of 0.5% to 1% of AUM just through deploying AI to support distribution,” said BCG.
For example, AI-driven efficiency helps turn more prospects and increase the addressable client base. BCG said managers who previously handled only custom mandates above $500m can now profitably offer them at significantly lower amounts.
NBIM
The consultancy gave the example of the successful use of AI by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), which manages the Nkr 22,683bn ($2,438bn) sovereign wealth fund.
Source: BCG
NBIM has integrated large language models and custom machine learning tools to drive an estimated 20% boost in overall workplace efficiency.
Last week, Nomura Asset Management Internationalappointed Linda Galsim as Global Head of Product, a newly created role focused on leading the firm’s global product strategy across its institutional and wealth businesses. Traders Magazine spoke with Galsim about the convergence of public and private markets, and what the industry can do to support the next generation of women leaders.
Linda Galsim
You’re coming into this new role at a time when institutional investors’ needs are changing quickly. What are you hearing most from clients right now, and what has changed most in recent years?
First, the traditional boundaries between asset classes and investment vehicles are blurring. Institutional clients are looking at their portfolio holistically across public and private markets, liquidity profile, and investment structures, rather than starting with a particular product or vehicle. They’re focused on outcomes they are trying to achieve and how different capacities can work together to get them there.
Second, clients want their asset managers to be more anticipatory. They want us to understand where their needs are headed and help them get there, not just respond to what they’re asking for today. That means having conversations about portfolio construction and bringing together different capabilities to work together to solve specific investment challenges.
Third, there is a significant shift in how clients want to access investment expertise. In the private markets, we are seeing continued innovation in semi-liquid and interval structures that can broaden access. In the public markets, active ETFs are creating new ways to deliver investment strategies efficiently and at scale. At the same time, institutional clients continue to value customization through separate accounts and tailored mandates.
What makes a product successful with institutional investors today?
Three things: clarity of purpose, consistency of execution, and flexibility of delivery.
Clarity of purpose starts with solving a real client need. A product should have a clearly defined role in a portfolio, and investors should be able to understand what the strategy is designed to do, where it fits, and how it complements the exposures they already have.
Consistency of execution means delivering what you said you would deliver. Performance matters, but institutional clients are equally focused on whether a strategy is behaving as expected. They are looking for discipline in the investment process, strong risk management, and transparency through different market environments.
And flexibility of delivery is increasingly important. The investment strategies may be the same, but the optimal structure can differ based on client’s portfolio objectives, liquidity needs, regulatory requirements, and operating constraints. For one client that may mean a separate account; for another, a commingled fund, ETF or semi-liquid structure.
How much more tailored are institutional investors expecting their asset managers to be, and what does that mean for how products are built?
Institutional investors have always expected customization, but what’s changed is the scale and breadth of that expectation. Clients increasingly want solutions tailored to their specific objectives without sacrificing the operational efficiency and economic advantages that come with scale.
That requires us to think differently about how products are built. Rather than creating one-off solutions for every client, the opportunity is to build scalable investment capabilities that can be delivered and customized in different ways. I think of it as mass customization: the investment expertise and process remain consistent, but the vehicle, liquidity profile, guidelines or combination of strategies can be tailored to meet different client needs.
It also changes how product development happens. Product teams can’t operate in isolation. We need an ongoing dialogue among investment teams, distribution and clients to understand the problem we’re trying to solve and then work backward to determine the right investment offering and delivery structure.
You’re bringing Nomura’s product capabilities together under one group. What do you want to do differently in the way the firm develops and brings products to institutional clients?
The biggest opportunity is creating a truly global view of our investment expertise and client needs, and then connecting the two more systematically. Nomura Asset Management International has tremendous investment expertise across regions and asset classes. The opportunity is to make those capabilities more visible across the organization and identify where they can address client needs beyond the markets in which they were originally developed.
I see the product organization as a bridge between our investment teams, distribution teams and clients across all regions. With a more unified view of our capabilities, product pipeline and client demand, we can be more deliberate about where we invest, where we see investment opportunities, and where we can bring existing capabilities to new markets or through different vehicles.
It is particularly exciting when we think of bringing together public and private market capabilities to develop more holistic solutions for clients. The goal is to make the full breadth of our investment expertise work harder for our clients globally.
Looking ahead, what trends do you think could have the biggest impact on institutional asset management over the next few years?
First, the traditional lines between public and private markets will continue to blur. Investors are increasingly thinking about exposures and outcome across the full capital structure rather than treating public and private assets as separate allocations. This creates opportunities for managers with capabilities across both markets to develop portfolio solutions.
Second, technology, data and AI will continue to reshape the industry. Institutional investors are becoming more sophisticated in how they evaluate managers, construct portfolios and monitor risk. While asset managers have more tools to analyze markets, understand client needs. I think that will raise expectations on both sides.
Third, we are seeing an evolution in how investment strategies are accessed. Institutional strategies are being delivered through a broader range of vehicles, while wealth investors are gaining access to capabilities that historically were primary available to institutions. Active ETFs, SMAs, and semi-liquid structures are all part of the evolution.
You’ve spent more than 25 years in asset management, including senior product roles. What has changed most for women trying to build a career and move into leadership in the industry?
There has been meaningful progress. When I started in the industry, there were far fewer women in senior investment and leadership roles, and there weren’t as many visible paths to leadership. What I think has changed most is that women are encouraged to build careers around their strengths rather than fit a predefined model of leadership. You don’t have to lead the same way as the person who came before you.
At the same time, advancement still requires being willing to take on opportunities before you feel completely ready. Some of the most important steps in my own career came from taking on broader responsibilities, moving beyond my immediate areas of expertise, and continuing to learn along the way.
My advice for women building their careers is to develop deep expertise, stay curious, build relationships across the organization, and don’t wait until you check every box before raising your hand.
What would make the biggest difference for the next generation of women in institutional asset management?
I think the biggest difference will come from access to opportunities, relationships, and people who are willing to invest in your success.
I’ve been fortunate throughout my career to have a strong support system. I’ve had mentors who shared their experience with me, colleagues and managers who challenged me and helped me grow, and sponsors who gave me opportunities and advocated for me. I learned something different from each of them, and those relationships played an important role in helping me develop as both a professional and a leader.
That’s something I want to help create for the next generation. Mentorship is important, but sponsorship can be transformative. A mentor gives you advice; a sponsor gives you an opportunity. We need senior leaders who are willing to develop and recognize talent, provide meaningful opportunities, and advocate for those individuals.
I also believe in giving people stretch opportunities beyond what they already know. Some of the most valuable experiences in my career came from being exposed to different parts of the business, taking on new challenges, and learning from people with different expertise and perspectives.
I benefited from people who invested in me throughout my career. I think one of our responsibilities as leaders is to pay that forward, to create opportunities, open doors and invest in the next generation.
The image for this article was generated using AI.
By Simon Forster, Managing Director and Global Co-Head of Digital Assets, TP ICAP
Simon Forster
The debate around tokenisation is shifting. The question is no longer simply which assets can be represented on-chain, rather it is what kind of market structure tokenisation makes possible.
This has been evident in recent weeks, with the FCA sounding out market participants on a legal framework for trading tokenised gold ahead of an announcement on regulatory standards expected in the coming months. The interest is not in the token itself but in what it enables, since the tokenised metal can be mobilised as collateral alongside cash and government bonds.
At the start of this year, we conducted an exercise at TP ICAP to assess what tokenisation could mean for the clients and markets we serve. The discussion covered rates, credit, FX, equities and commodities. While the answers differed across asset classes, three themes emerged consistently: continuous markets, precision settlement and on-chain cash.
None of these themes is new. What is different today is the degree of alignment now emerging across the industry. The conversation is becoming less theoretical and more focused on where tokenisation can create practical value.
That shift is visible in the actions of major financial institutions and market infrastructure providers. Traditional firms continue to invest in digital asset infrastructure, while exchanges and market operators are exploring extended trading models and tokenised market infrastructure. London Stock Exchange’s recently announced plans for a 24/5 trading venue illustrate how the industry is increasingly rethinking market access, liquidity and settlement in new ways. Taken together, these developments suggest that tokenisation is becoming less a technology story and more a market structure story.
Precision settlement
Of the themes identified across our business, precision settlement attracted the strongest consensus.
Traditional market infrastructure has become progressively more efficient over time. Settlement cycles have compressed and operational processes have improved. Even so, many markets still rely on standardised settlement windows designed around the constraints of legacy infrastructure.
Tokenisation creates the possibility of greater flexibility. Settlement can be aligned more closely with the specific requirements of a transaction rather than a standard market convention.
That matters because different transactions place different demands on the market infrastructure. A liquidity provider trading large volumes on an exchange may prioritise
netting and operational efficiency. A participant moving collateral or transferring liquidity between venues may place greater value on immediate settlement and the certainty that provides.
The ability to settle to predefined conditions, or within shorter timeframes, has the potential to release capital, improve collateral mobility, and reduce operational friction. This is particularly relevant in markets such as repo, securities lending and derivatives, where significant amounts of collateral and liquidity remain tied up within existing settlement frameworks.
Early implementations are already demonstrating the potential benefits. Euroclear recently completed a pilot involving tokenised gold, Gilts and Eurobonds for collateral management, demonstrating how previously illiquid collateral can be mobilised and used in real-time transactions.
Continuous markets
The second theme is continuous markets.
The underlying point is straightforward: markets operate within defined trading hours; risk does not. Geopolitical events, economic shocks and policy announcements occur around the clock, yet market participants are often constrained by fixed market hours when managing exposures and accessing liquidity.
Digital asset markets have operated on this basis from the outset, providing an early example of round-the-clock price discovery and liquidity. The result is most visible during periods of uncertainty, with crypto assets often among the first markets to react to major geopolitical or macroeconomic developments.
The broader industry is beginning to move in a similar direction. CME already provides near-continuous access for certain products, while exchanges including NYSE and London Stock Exchange are exploring extended trading models. The objective is not simply longer opening hours, but greater flexibility for market participants operating across global time zones and responding to events as they happen.
On-chain cash
The third theme sits at the centre of any future tokenised ecosystem.
Much of the industry’s attention over the last decade has focused on bringing assets on-chain. Bonds, funds, commodities and other financial instruments are increasingly being tokenised. Every transaction, however, still requires a settlement asset.
If the asset exists on blockchain infrastructure but the cash leg remains dependent on systems designed for a different market structure, many of the potential efficiencies are constrained.
This is why stablecoins, tokenised deposits and other forms of digital cash have become such an important area of focus. Efforts by institutions such as Swift and major banks to connect traditional payment infrastructure with tokenised assets reflect growing recognition that digital assets ultimately require a digitally compatible settlement mechanism.
Regardless of the model, the objective is the same: to provide a settlement mechanism capable of operating in the same environment, and at the same speed, as the assets themselves.
Without a reliable settlement asset, tokenisation risks remaining incomplete. Assets may become digital, but the broader efficiencies promised by tokenisation become far harder to achieve.
On-chain cash is therefore not simply a supporting development. It is a critical component of how tokenised markets may function at scale.
What comes next
Each of these developments is valuable in isolation. Their combined significance is greater.
More precise settlement can improve capital efficiency. More continuous markets can help participants respond to risk when it emerges. Digital cash can allow assets and settlement to operate within compatible infrastructure.
Together, these capabilities create the foundation for a more flexible market structure.
Adoption will not be linear. Regulatory, operational and commercial challenges remain substantial, and market structure transitions are typically measured in years rather than months. Interoperability, resilience and liquidity formation will all play an important role in determining the pace of change.
What is becoming clearer is that the next phase of tokenisation will be defined less by the tokenisation of individual assets and more by the infrastructure and market structure that develop around them.
For market participants, the question is no longer simply which assets can be tokenised. It is whether markets can provide access to liquidity when risk emerges, settlement that reflects the needs of the transaction, and cash that moves at the speed of the asset.
The institutions that solve those challenges are likely to shape the next phase of market structure evolution.
Cross-asset implied volatilities rose across the board as Treasury market concerns trickled into equities and the other major asset classes. The 30-year yield hit 5.33% intraweek, its highest since 2007, before Treasury Secretary Bessent’s late-week policy intervention to double the size of the Treasury’s bond buyback program to $4B. Accordingly, interest rate volatility as measured by the MOVE Index has reversed its 2-week decline and is trading at 73 (54th percentile) while the VXTLT 20-Year Bond Volatility Index jumped from 13th to 32nd percentile levels w/w.
The VIX® Index underperformed skew last week, bouncing off its YTD low and rising 0.9 pts w/w to 15.1 on the -1.4% SPX pullback. The 0.4 underperformance in the VIX Index is due primarily to short iron-flies (short ATM straddle, long DOTM wings) which lowered ATM vols while elevating low-delta puts and calls.
Options sentiment for Nvidia leans slightly bearish with NVDA put skew steepening into its Weds earnings. Options mkt expected move = 6.5-7%.
Chart: NVDA Earnings (8/26) to Dictate Upcoming Stock Dispersion
Jim Hraska has rejoined Barclays as their Global Head of Fixed Income Prime Brokerage, according to a LinkedIn post. Based in New York, Hraska returns to Barclays after nearly 10 years at The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), where he held a series of senior roles spanning fixed income clearing, client solutions and consulting. He most recently served as Managing Director of Consulting Services at DTCC, a role he took on in March 2026. Previously, he was Managing Director and Head of Client Solutions and Managing Director and Head of Product Development at DTCC’s Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. He also served as General Manager of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation. Before joining DTCC, he spent nearly nine years at Barclays Investment Bank.
Fasanara Capital has named Chris Drew as head of trading and Darran Specter as head of quant equity, Global Trading reported. Drew joins the company from Jump Trading’s specialist company Jump Crypto, where he was most recently a director. Between 2023 and 2024, he was head of trading at the company. Earlier in his career, Drew was a multi-asset quantitative trader at Sun Trading. Specter has 21 years of industry experience and was most recently a senior portfolio specialist at Brevan Howard. More than a decade of his career has been spent at the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, where he was an investment and portfolio manager.
Jesse Forster is set to join the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE) in September, following a four-year tenure at Coalition Greenwich, The TRADE reported. He most recently served as Head of Equity Market Structure & Technology at Coalition Greenwich, a division of CRISIL, a role held since August 2022. Previously, he was Head of US Electronic Trading at Berenberg Capital Markets from July 2020 to July 2022. Earlier, Forster spent nearly two years at Evercore as Director of Electronic Sales & Trading, where he worked on the firm’s algorithmic trading business, institutional client relationships, trading algorithms and market structure. He also analyzed more than 30 trading venues, including exchanges and dark pools, and worked on best-execution initiatives.
Mike Joo
Barclays has announced that it will appoint Mike Joo and Adeel Khan as Co-CEOs of its Investment Bank with effect from February 2027, subject to regulatory approval. Joo will join in early 2027 from Bank of America, where he served most recently as Co-Head of Global Investment Banking. He joined Bank of America in 2006 and has held a range of senior leadership roles across Global Corporate and Investment Banking and Global Markets. Khan leads Global Markets and has served as Co-Head of the Investment Bank since 2021. Both Khan and Joo will sit on the Group Executive Committee.
Transient.AI has appointed Michael Ponniah as Chief Technology Officer (CTO), according to a press release. Ponniah brings over two decades of experience across high-frequency trading technology on Wall Street and large-scale cloud services, AI, and logistics infrastructure at Amazon. In his role as CTO, Michael will lead Transient’s global engineering, technical strategy, and platform architecture as the firm accelerates commercial adoption of its Declarative Agentic Framework across financial institutions.
Fireblocks has appointed Elad Roisman as Chief Regulatory and Policy Officer and General Counsel, Regulatory, according to a press release. Roisman will lead Fireblocks’ regulatory strategy and policy engagement, along with legal work on regulatory matters. He will also serve as Fireblocks’ principal liaison to regulators and standards bodies as digital asset legislation and regulation takes shape across the United States, Europe, and other major markets. He joins the leadership team and is based in Washington, D.C. As an SEC Commissioner and Acting Chairman, Roisman voted on more than one hundred rulemakings and over one thousand enforcement actions, and represented the agency before Congress and international bodies.
If you have a new job or promotion to report, let me know at alyudvig@marketsmedia.com
By Gus Sekhon, VP Strategy at FINBOURNE Technology
Most asset managers believe they have an IBOR. Most of them do not, at least not in any meaningful sense.
Operations teams battle to manually post elections on their corporate actions or coordinate regional closes and reruns. Reconciliation teams switch between systems, batches, and Excel to match their start of day, while senior leaders wait hours, or even days, for a whole-of-book view of positions, risk or exposure. Around it all, the steady drumbeat of human errors leading to incidents, missed opportunities, P&L hits, restatements.
If a firm experiences these problems in their daily workflow, it should question whether it really has an IBOR.
The term IBOR was embraced by the market before many systems could deliver what it implied. Recent shifts in the technological landscape have given people awareness of the shortfall; but it’s too late to rectify this alone – the market has evolved, and a coordinated view of positions should now be the starting point, not the end state.
The long-lived problem with position data
For most of its history, position data in asset management have been a by-product of accounting. Accounting systems were built to produce accurate, auditable records of what a fund owns, at what cost. They are good at that job, but they were not built to provide the front office with a live, intraday view of positions across all asset classes, trading states, and time zones.
The structural consequence is familiar; portfolio managers start the day with positions that reflect the previous close. Intraday trades, corporate actions, collateral movements, and cash flows are invisible until a scheduled batch process incorporates them.
For a global, multi-asset fund, this is an organisational weak spot. It tends to lead to repeated outages, slow resolution, and sometimes delayed or incorrect investment decisions.
Over time, systems were added to improve visibility, but many continued to rely on starting snapshots and stored balances. The label changed; the underlying architecture often did not.
Displaying a position is not enough
A genuine IBOR should construct positions on demand from the full history of underlying transactions and cash movement, in any state and at any point in time.
Every trade execution, corporate action, cash movement and collateral call creates a position impact. The IBOR should capture that impact from the moment it first becomes available, track it through its full life cycle, and use it to construct position views on demand.
The position is therefore a derived output of that event history, not a stored record requiring periodic refresh.
This distinction is important for the simple reason that different users need different states. Portfolio managers, for instance, need estimated and committed positions for investment decisions, while compliance teams need contractual positions for pre-trade checks. Settlements teams, on the other hand, need physical positions to manage fails.
A genuine IBOR serves front, middle, and back-office teams from the same underlying data, without maintaining separate books for each function.
A diluted definition?
While the industry has allowed the definition of an IBOR to become more elastic, there are some defined capabilities that separate a genuine IBOR from a system that merely claims the label.
For one, users must be able to specify the timing, perspective, scope, status assumptions, and exclusions of any position extract, and to reconstruct positions for any scenario at any point in historical time. Every event and every correction must be retained in full.
What’s more, data quality management must be a core IBOR function, not something tacked on. The system should project the expected lifecycle of every event; validate that state transitions are within tolerance; suspend and flag anomalies when they are not; and generate alerts to data owners when position data quality is in question.
Reconciliation with an accounting or custodian feed also remains necessary. But an IBOR should be able to stand behind its positions independently, so reconciliation acts as a cross-check between two authoritative sources rather than the process by which the IBOR establishes what it holds.
Cutting through the marketing
The term IBOR was captured by marketing well before most vendors could deliver what it implies. The market filled with snapshot-based and rolling-balance systems carrying the IBOR label, and buyers had no reliable way to distinguish them from the real thing.
The simplest test is to ask how positions are constructed. If the answer involves a starting snapshot, an overnight process, or a stored balance, alarm bells should ring, regardless of what it is called.
Buyers should also ask how quickly an intraday event appears, whether any historical position can be reconstructed, and whether different users can obtain the views they need from the same underlying data.
Getting these fundamentals right is now the floor, not the ceiling; a genuine IBOR must also connect cleanly with the rest of the firm’s investment data architecture rather than becoming another platform to integrate, maintain and reconcile. The industry should, therefore, stop judging IBORs by the label and start examining the machinery beneath it.
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., a global investment management firm, has announced an agreement to acquire F/m Investments LLC, the fixed income asset manager and ETF specialist with approximately $19 billion in assets under management as of July 31, 2026, across exchange-traded funds (ETFs), institutional separate accounts, and both taxable and municipal separately managed accounts (SMAs).
The acquisition is expected to deepen T. Rowe Price’s fixed income capabilities, accelerate growth across its ETF franchise, and broaden its liquidity, cash management, and customized fixed income offerings. The transaction also reflects T. Rowe Price’s disciplined approach to acquisitions and partnerships that strengthen its investment capabilities and expand scalable solutions for clients.
Founded in 2019 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., F/m Investments is an asset manager focused on delivering precise, transparent, and accessible fixed income solutions and is an affiliate of 1251 Capital Group, Inc. Its US Benchmark Series, the first standardized suite of single-security U.S. Treasury ETFs, is designed to provide maturity-specific exposure to U.S. Treasury securities through an ETF structure.
F/m’s suite of 20 ETFs covers the fixed income landscape from Treasuries and TIPS to corporate bonds and municipal securities. F/m also has been a driver of innovation in the ETF industry through the launch of the first dual-share class ETF and the filing of a first-of-its-kind SEC application for tokenized ETF shares. In addition, F/m provides customized municipal bond and liquidity solutions to institutional and high-net-worth clients.
Arif Husain
“F/m Investments is a strong strategic and cultural fit with T. Rowe Price. The acquisition reflects a thoughtful, disciplined approach to expanding our capabilities in areas where we see durable client demand, clear strategic alignment, and the opportunity to create long-term value. F/m brings unique ETF product development capabilities that will complement T. Rowe Price’s active fixed income lineup across our Intermediary, Institutional, Retirement, and Wealth platforms,” said Arif Husain, Head, Global Fixed Income and CIO.
At closing, the acquisition is expected to increase T. Rowe Price’s fixed income assets under management by nearly 9%, more than doubling its fixed income ETF assets under management and expanding its fixed-income SMA business.
“We started F/m because fixed income investments were too hard for investors to use. To continue to innovate and provide client value at scale, we needed a partner with relevant expertise, deep resources, and a shared vision. T. Rowe Price has been clear that the way we work is the thing they’re investing in. Our mission will remain the same. We are excited to align our approach with T. Rowe Price’s scale to better serve clients for years to come,” commented Alexander Morris, CEO and Co-Founder of F/m Investments.
Upon closing, F/m will operate as “F/m Investments, a T. Rowe Price Company,” retaining its brand, leadership, investment approach, and day-to-day operating model. Alexander Morris will report to Arif Husain, and F/m employees will become T. Rowe Price associates. This structure preserves what has made F/m successful while extending its fixed income capabilities across T. Rowe Price’s platforms.
The transaction is expected to close in early 2027, subject to customary filings and closing conditions. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Dechert LLP served as legal counsel to T. Rowe Price.
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. acted as exclusive financial advisor to F/m Investments, and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP served as legal counsel to the majority owners of F/m Investments.
As MarketAxess’ run as an independent company nears an end, there’s one person uniquely qualified to offer the final word: Rick McVey.
Rick McVey, MarketAxess
McVey founded MarketAxess in April 2000, served as Chairman and CEO until 2023, and then was Executive Chairman until his retirement in December 2024.
In an exclusive interview with The DESK, McVey discussed MarketAxess’ journey – from its founding as an electronic fixed income trading platform at the turn of the century, to the halcyon days of the 2010s and the challenges of the 2020s, to the recently announced $6 billion planned acquisition by Intercontinental Exchange.
How would you encapsulate the story of MarketAxess?
The incubation of MarketAxess took place in 1999 at J.P. Morgan while I was running N.A. Fixed Income Sales. I led the effort internally, with a big assist from one of my bosses and friend, Nick Rohatyn. Rich Schiffman was an important part of the effort to map out a technology strategy. I spent time with trading heads, the syndicate desk, and J.P. Morgan Asset Management to zero in on the right trading model.
Once we were satisfied that our model served the client needs of both bank trading desks and asset managers, we approached other banks about investing in the new multi-bank credit trading platform. Three other banks joined J.P. Morgan in the early funding rounds, and four more followed soon after. The market validation gave us the confidence to spinout the business to make it an independent company in January, 2000. There were about 50 other electronic bond-trading startups at the time.
The first year focused on building the 1.0 technology platform, and securing client trading documents. Onboarding clients was arduous and painfully slow with the legal reviews.
Trading began in late 2000. We started with U.S. corporate bonds, followed by Eurobonds, High Yield, and Global Emerging Markets. Our management team was skilled, focused, and scrappy – a true start-up mentality.
Client adoption and trading volume grew strongly in 2002 and 2003. Our bid and offer wanted list trading capabilities were a major breakthrough for investor rebalancing trades. By the end of 2003, several bank owners pitched an IPO for the company. We completed the IPO in November, 2004 at $11/share. That was the step that made the company truly independent, with a balanced focus on serving the needs of market makers and asset management clients.
The business was growing according to plan until the financial crisis in 2008. That led to a year-long setback due to bank balance sheet challenges which led to bank regulatory reform in 2012. The permanent changes to bank capital requirements led to our innovation and expansion into all-to-all trading, which we call Open Trading. In 2013, we announced a joint venture with BlackRock to support Open Trading and build alternative sources of liquidity for global credit markets. These new sources of liquidity were transformational for credit trading and supported both investor and dealer liquidity needs.
MKTX became the #1 public company for shareholder returns in the entire U.S. equity market for the decade from 2010-2020. We started the decade at $13/share and ended at $354/share. In 2019, we became part of the S&P 500 Index. This was incredibly exciting for the company.
Our management team deserves credit for the hard work and persistence that led to this outcome. We had tremendous support from our clients, and our board also made important contributions.
Open Trading was invaluable to our clients during the volatile period of the Covid pandemic in 2020. Clients were able to find liquidity, and credit market volumes kept pace throughout the market disruption. Market share on MKTX continued to grow strongly through 2022.
At the end of Q1 2023 I stepped down as CEO and transitioned to Executive Chairman, a position I held until full retirement at the end of 2024.
MarketAxess is a long-term success story, but the 2020s have been challenging. How would you characterize recent years?
As is often the case, business success and high operating margins attract competition. Tradeweb started corporate bond trading in 2004 but it was not their primary focus. They ramped up their investment in credit trading around 2014, and became a formidable competitor over time. Bloomberg was also a strong competitor, especially in Europe. Competitors looked for opportunities to serve institutional clients in areas where we were not entrenched, namely D2D trading and portfolio trading. Their success led to a decline in MKTX market share from late 2023 to the present. At the same time, the company also lost some of its edge for innovative trading solutions.
What are your thoughts on ICE acquiring MarketAxess – as the company founder and as a MKTX shareholder?
As Jeff Sprecher mentioned during the recent announcement of the ICE acquisition of MKTX, we had been discussing the strategic rationale of the combination since 2010. The combined electronic trading, data, and clearing solutions for clients create a unique offering with scale. MKTX will also benefit from the vast technology resources of ICE. I am confident that Jeff, Chris Edmonds, and the ICE leadership team will be strong operators of the business. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the best combination for MKTX, and the business is likely to restore growth momentum following the close.
What are you doing now, professionally and personally?
Retirement is not to be taken lightly, especially after 42 years in financial markets! It is a big adjustment, but it is also a lot of fun.
I am enjoying more time with my wife Lara, our combined families, and my four grandchildren.
I am thrilled to support my undergraduate alma mater on the Miami University (OH) Board of Trustees. I am also a senior advisor for an AI company that is focused on building unique data sets for illiquid assets like commercial real estate and private credit, where transparency is sorely needed.
My biggest gratification comes from my philanthropic work with Miami University, Colby College, as well as youth organisations like Hope Ignites in Cleveland, and Good Shepherd Services in New York City.
I am also fortunate that I now have time to play golf more regularly. Golf is a real passion that feeds my competitive side and is great socially and physically.
Digital Finance Is Growing Up Faster Than the Rulebook
By Jonathan Brockmeier, Global Chief Compliance Officer, OKX & Sandra Ro, CEO, Global Blockchain Business Council
The Coldcard exploit has pushed customers to reconsider how and where they hold digital assets. The firmware flaw had drained more than $115 million in bitcoin across thousands of addresses as of August 16, with new waves still surfacing. Exchanges have since seen record inflows as customers weigh the burden of self-custody against the risk of getting it wrong alone. It’s a reminder of how fast confidence shifts when protection fails, and how much is now at stake for any firm holding customer assets.
That is why customer protection is becoming the industry’s defining priority. The cost of getting protection wrong is measured not just in funds lost to a single scam, but in the customers and credibility a firm never wins back.
The uncomfortable part is that rulemaking can’t keep pace on its own. Criminals iterate faster than any regulator can regulate. While regulations set the floor and provide accountability, the firms doing the most to protect customers are building beyond those baseline requirements. That evolution — from compliance as a response to compliance as a proactive function — is a sign of an industry becoming more mature.
Numbers make the abstraction concrete: in the first half of 2026, OKX protected $1.1 billion in assets for more than half a million users, while preventing $26.3 million in scam-related losses. These are moments in which a real account was about to be drained and wasn’t. Together, they show why customer protection belongs alongside risk assessment and verification as a core and daily compliance function, not an occasional intervention.
Beyond the Rulebook
Stopping theft means solving two different problems. The first is keeping bad actors out of accounts that aren’t theirs. The starting principle: security can’t rest on one password, device, or verification step. If a credential is compromised, other checks should still stop an attacker from taking control or moving funds. In practice, that means layered authentication — for example, biometrics and hardware-backed passkeys — along with a requirement for fresh verification before sensitive actions, such as withdrawals or address changes, even mid-session. This prevents an already-open session from being used to bypass security controls. Friction should scale with risk: routine activity flows through, while a high-risk request can trigger a freeze or a live check.
The second problem, socially engineered scams, is harder because the customer is the one giving the instruction. In most of these schemes, the victim authorizes the transfer themselves, fully convinced it’s legitimate. To the system, that first looks like an ordinary payment. Blocklists of known-bad addresses help, but they never catch the wallet spun up an hour before the theft. What works better is tracing the relationships between wallets: graph-based analysis, paired with intelligence from partners like Chainalysis and Elliptic, that surfaces coordinated activity invisible when you look at one address alone. When risk is high, the intervention that matters most is often the simplest: a deliberate pause. Scammers run on manufactured urgency, and a cooling-off period gives a pressured customer the one thing the scammer is trying to deny them: time to reconsider.
This works because compliance, engineering, security, and support are pointed at the same outcome rather than assembled as features bolted on after the fact. That coordination is also what lets the system keep learning: confirmed scam cases and customer reports feed back into detection models, so each attempt that succeeds today makes the next one easier to catch.
Leading, Not Waiting
The point reaches past any single platform. Across the industry, the firms earning durable trust are distinguished less by their technology than by their posture: they treat customer protection as something they own, not something they wait to be told to do. The tools bad actors use will keep evolving; the deepfake calls that work today will look primitive in two years. Protections have to hold and innovation in fraud prevention needs to continue.
This should be the standard the industry works to make ordinary rather than exceptional, by continuously interacting with regulators around the world to raise the bar and build truly resilient systems. The return compounds past any single firm: every customer protected is a customer who stays and tells a different story, and an industry’s reputation is only the sum of those stories. Regulation will make sure everyone plays by the same rules. The firms that define the next decade will be the ones already building above them.