The Memorandum of Understanding the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) signed on March 11, 2026 supersedes their July 11, 2018 agreement and quadruples the text devoted to examinations, but it carries exactly the legal force of the document it replaced: none by its own terms, and terminable by either agency on 30 days’ written notice.

The MOU was signed by SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins and CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig and runs to 4,579 words, against 3,175 in the 2018 MOU it expressly supersedes under Article III, paragraph 5(d). Article III, paragraph 4 states that the agreement “does not supersede any applicable laws or regulations nor does it create any legally binding obligations” — the same disclaimer the 2018 text carried in its own closing article. This analysis compares the two documents clause by clause, sets the American twin-agency split against four jurisdictions that never needed such an instrument, and identifies where binding change is actually being made: three joint comment files opened in June 2026, two of which close this month.

Key facts

• The MOU was signed on March 11, 2026 by Chairman Paul S. Atkins (SEC) and Chairman Michael S. Selig (CFTC), announced the same day in CFTC Release Number 9192-26.
• Article III, paragraph 5(d) states that the July 11, 2018 MOU signed by Jay Clayton and J. Christopher Giancarlo “is superseded by this Memorandum of Understanding”. Paragraph 5(c) reaffirms the older security futures product MOU of March 17, 2004.
• Length: 4,579 words versus 3,175 in 2018, an increase of 44%. The word “examination” appears 18 times against four in 2018; “enforcement” 16 times against five; “cross-train” four times against zero (author’s word count of both primary texts).
• The 2026 text introduces a defined class of “Covered Firms” built from seven dual-registration pairings. The term does not appear anywhere in the 2018 document.
• Article VII permits either agency to terminate the MOU “upon 30 days’ written notice” — wording carried over verbatim from the 2018 agreement.
• Three joint requests for comment followed: swap and security-based swap data reporting and derivatives product definitions (both June 18, 2026, comments due August 24, 2026) and portfolio margining and cross-margining (June 26, 2026, comments due August 31, 2026).
• SEC enforcement filings fell to 456 actions in fiscal 2025, down 22% year on year with standalone actions down 30%, the lowest total in roughly two decades (SEC Release 2026-34, April 7, 2026).

Methodology and sources

This analysis rests on the two primary instruments themselves: the March 11, 2026 MOU as published by the CFTC and the July 11, 2018 MOU it replaces, both read in full and compared article by article. Word counts, defined-term counts and term frequencies quoted above were computed by the author directly from the machine-readable text of both PDFs, not taken from secondary summaries. Supporting material is drawn from CFTC Releases 9192-26, 9198-26, 9247-26, 9257-26 and 9262-26; SEC Releases 2026-26, 2026-34, 2026-45, 2026-56 and 2026-59; the CFTC’s Harmonization Initiative page; and the September 27, 2022 recordkeeping orders of both agencies. The time window runs from June 2018 to August 17, 2026. Jurisdictional comparison covers the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Singapore and Australia. One caveat applies throughout: an MOU is not a rule, and nothing described here has been through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

What the March 11 MOU actually says, article by article

The 2026 MOU runs to seven articles where the 2018 version had six. Two are new. Article II sets out six guiding principles, the first of which states that “nothing in this MOU alters, expands, or limits either Party’s statutory authority or jurisdiction” and that the agencies will “reject a ‘turf war’ mentality”. Article V sets out procedures for examinations, enforcement, and economic analysis and surveillance — a subject the 2018 text addressed only through a designated point of contact and a general undertaking to exchange examination information.

“Covered Firms” is the 2026 MOU’s central new defined term, and it did not exist in the 2018 text. Article I defines it as firms of common regulatory interest to both agencies, listing seven registration pairings: investment advisers that are also commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisors; broker-dealers that are also futures commission merchants or introducing brokers; clearing agencies that are also derivatives clearing organizations; swap execution facilities that are also security-based swap execution facilities; swap data repositories that are also security-based swap data repositories; and swap dealers that are also security-based swap dealers. The list is expressly not exhaustive — the text reads “including but not limited to” — but it is the first time either agency has written down, in a joint instrument, the population whose duplicative supervision it intends to address. Every operative commitment in Article V is scoped to that class.

The operative verbs, however, are hedged throughout. Across 4,579 words the agencies “endeavor” eight times, “strive” four times, and qualify commitments with “as practicable” four times, “where appropriate” four times and “as appropriate” eight times. Article V, paragraph 1 says the agencies “will strive to conduct coordinated exam planning, joint or aligned examinations where appropriate”. Paragraph 1(e) says only that where a Covered Firm appears on both examination plans, the agencies “will consider how to minimize the burden”. Article III, paragraph 4 removes any doubt about what that adds up to: the MOU “does not require either Party to create, maintain, provide, or share any information with the other Party”, and all sharing is “at the sole discretion of each Party”.

Why four other jurisdictions never needed this MOU

The United States is the only major market that splits securities and derivatives oversight between two independent agencies, which is why it is the only one that needs an interagency memorandum to reconcile them. The split is statutory: the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 gives the SEC jurisdiction over securities and security-based swaps, while the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC jurisdiction over futures, swaps and commodity interests. Neither agency can cede jurisdiction by agreement, which is precisely why Article II, principle 1 of the March 11, 2026 MOU concedes that nothing in it alters either party’s statutory authority. The United Kingdom, the European Union, Singapore and Australia each supervise securities and derivatives conduct through a single authority under a single statute, so their coordination instruments address prudential-versus-conduct boundaries rather than product-definition boundaries — a materially easier problem.

Jurisdiction / regulator	Securities and derivatives split?	Coordination instrument (date)	Legal force of the coordination duty	Escalation route
US (SEC + CFTC)	Yes — Securities Exchange Act of 1934 vs Commodity Exchange Act	MOU on Harmonization in Areas of Common Regulatory Interest, March 11, 2026	None. Article III, para 4: creates no “legally binding obligations” and no right “enforceable against the Parties”	Article VII: unresolved issues go to the two Chairmen; either agency may terminate on 30 days’ notice
UK (FCA + PRA / Bank of England)	No — FCA is single conduct regulator for both; split is conduct vs prudential	FCA-PRA Memorandum of Understanding, required and maintained under statute	Statutory. Sections 3D and 3E, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, impose a duty to coordinate and to maintain the MOU	PRA veto powers over FCA action under FSMA sections 3I and 3J
EU (ESMA + national competent authorities)	No — MiFID II covers transferable securities and derivatives in one framework	Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 establishing ESMA	Binding. Article 19 empowers ESMA to settle disagreements between national authorities by decision	Article 19(4): where an authority does not comply, ESMA may address a decision directly to the firm
Singapore (MAS)	No — securities and derivatives contracts sit in one statute	Not required; Securities and Futures Act 2001 vests both in MAS	Not applicable — single-regulator model, no interagency instrument	Internal to MAS; capital markets services licence conditions under Part 4 of the SFA
Australia (ASIC + APRA)	No — Chapter 7, Corporations Act 2001 covers derivatives and securities alike	ASIC-APRA Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation and information sharing	Administrative. The conduct perimeter itself is set by section 764A, Corporations Act 2001	Single Australian financial services licence under section 913B covers both product classes

Sources: SEC-CFTC MOU (March 11, 2026); Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010; Securities and Futures Act 2001 (Singapore); Corporations Act 2001 (Australia). Last updated: August 17, 2026.

The asymmetry is concrete. A dually registered broker-dealer and futures commission merchant in New York must satisfy two rulebooks written under two statutes and cannot compel the agencies to reconcile them; its London affiliate answers to one conduct regulator whose duty to coordinate is written into primary legislation; its Singapore affiliate holds one licence from one supervisor. That gap is the regulatory-arbitrage risk the agencies say they are closing, and it is why the distinction between being registered and being regulated keeps recurring in cross-border compliance work.

“For decades, regulatory turf wars, duplicative agency registrations, and different sets of regulations between the SEC and CFTC have stifled innovation and pushed market participants to other jurisdictions. This updated Memorandum of Understanding will serve as a roadmap for a new era of harmonization between the agencies.”

— Paul S. Atkins, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (CFTC Release 9192-26, March 11, 2026)

The September 2022 recordkeeping orders are the problem the MOU describes

The clearest illustration of what the MOU is trying to fix is the pair of actions both agencies brought on the same day for the same conduct. On September 27, 2022 the SEC charged 16 Wall Street firms — 15 broker-dealers and one affiliated investment adviser — with failures to maintain and preserve electronic communications, with combined penalties of more than $1.1 billion. The same day, the CFTC ordered 11 financial institutions to pay more than $710 million for recordkeeping and supervision failures arising from the same use of unapproved messaging channels, charged through their swap dealer and futures commission merchant affiliates.

The overlap was not incidental. The two sets of orders reached largely the same corporate groups, for largely the same underlying facts, under two different statutes — recordkeeping provisions of the Exchange Act on one side and CFTC recordkeeping and supervision regulations on the other. Firms in scope paid twice, ran two remediation programmes and retained compliance consultants under two orders. That is precisely the “duplicative relief and conflicting remedial obligations” that Article V, paragraph 2 of the 2026 MOU now says the agencies will “endeavor” to avoid.

What the 2026 text adds on this point is narrow but real. Article V, paragraph 2(b) says the agencies will confer on jurisdictional overlap “as appropriate in the circumstances, prior to the issuance of any Wells notice or similar instrument” — the first time pre-Wells consultation appears in an SEC-CFTC MOU. Paragraph 2(d) says that where parallel filings are practicable the agencies will confer on “potential charges and relief, sequencing of filings, litigation strategy, and public communications”. Neither paragraph obliges either agency to do anything, and neither gives a respondent standing to complain if they do not. The baseline is falling in any event: SEC filings dropped to 456 in fiscal 2025, and the agency brought 122 standalone and follow-on actions in the first half of fiscal 2026 against 146 a year earlier, per Gibson Dunn’s 2026 mid-year update. Both agencies also dropped their no-deny settlement policies within three weeks of each other — the SEC on May 18, 2026 under Release 2026-45, the CFTC on June 3, 2026 under Release 9247-26 — a sequence TIS covered when the CFTC’s no-deny reversal reset US enforcement settlements.

What this means for dual registrants, venues and compliance teams

For broker-dealers registered as futures commission merchants or introducing brokers, nothing in the MOU changes a filing obligation, a capital charge or an examination cycle as of today. The practical step is to confirm whether the firm falls inside the Article I “Covered Firms” definition, because that class scopes every examination commitment in Article V, and to expect examination staff from the two agencies to share findings under paragraph 1(a) without a further request. Documentation produced in a coordinated examination is treated under paragraph 1(h) as information of both agencies, not as material shared under the MOU’s confidentiality article — a meaningful distinction for privilege logs.

For exchanges, clearing agencies and derivatives clearing organizations, the live question is margin. The June 26, 2026 joint request for comment on portfolio margining and cross-margining asks about cross-product offsets, segregation, collateral treatment and customer protection across securities and futures accounts. That file, not the MOU, is where capital held in separate margin silos may actually be released. Comments close on August 31, 2026.

For fund managers and custodians, the relevant workstream is reporting. The June 18, 2026 joint request on swap and security-based swap data reporting asks whether the design and scope of the two reporting frameworks should be aligned. Advisers dually registered as commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisors sit squarely inside the Covered Firms class and should model what a single reporting taxonomy would cost to implement.

For legal and compliance teams, the operative advice is to treat the MOU as a statement of supervisory intent and not as a defence. It confers no right, creates no obligation and can be terminated on 30 days’ notice under Article VII. Where it is genuinely useful is in engagement: the agencies have opened a written input channel through the Harmonization Initiative, and the two comment files closing in August are the only formal opportunity this quarter to put a firm’s duplication costs on the record.

“What is happening right now across the SEC, the Fed, and the CFTC is not accidental, and it is not routine. It is a coordinated, accelerating effort to take the cops off the beat, reduce transparency, and give the financial industry free rein before anyone notices, and before anyone can stop it.”

— Dennis M. Kelleher, Co-founder, President and Chief Executive, Better Markets, June 30, 2026 (Better Markets)

Kelleher’s objection is worth stating precisely because it is the mirror image of the industry reading. Katten Muchin Rosenman partners Zachary Schmitz, Carl Kennedy, Dan Davis and Matt Kluchenek, writing with colleagues, put the practitioner view plainly: “While not a binding authority, the MOU provides a roadmap market participants can use to understand how the Agencies intend to coordinate and cooperate across many aspects of their regulatory functions” (Katten). Both readings can be true at once: an instrument with no legal force still reallocates staff attention, and staff attention is what a supervised firm actually experiences.

What’s next: two comment deadlines this month and a statute that has not passed

The Joint Harmonization Initiative announced alongside the MOU is co-led by Meghan Tente for the CFTC and Robert Teply for the SEC. Its output so far has been faster than the MOU’s hedged language suggested. Six days after signing, on March 17, 2026, the two agencies issued a joint interpretation of how the federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, setting out a taxonomy of digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities, with the CFTC undertaking to administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistently with the SEC’s reading. That document, unlike the MOU, is a formal interpretive act of both agencies — the contrast between the two instruments issued a week apart is the clearest available illustration of what an MOU is and is not.

Three comment files are now open. Comments on derivatives product definitions and on swap data reporting close on August 24, 2026; comments on portfolio margining close on August 31, 2026. Any resulting rule changes would then need proposal, comment and adoption at both commissions, placing binding text in 2027 at the earliest. Running underneath all of it is market-structure legislation that has not been enacted: the jurisdictional boundary the agencies are interpreting between them is the same boundary the pending market-structure bill would redraw by statute. Separately, the CFTC’s rulemaking on conflicts at exchange-owned futures commission merchants runs on its own track outside the joint initiative. Firms should also watch how the interpretive approach meets product-level decisions such as the SEC’s handling of tokenised stocks and the unsettled treatment of perpetual contracts under the swap definition.

FAQ

Does the SEC-CFTC MOU create any right a dual registrant can enforce?

No. Article III, paragraph 4 states that the MOU does not create “any legally binding obligations”, does not confer on any person the right to obtain or challenge information, and does not create “any other right enforceable against the Parties or any of their officers or employees or any other person”. A firm subjected to two separate examinations, or to parallel enforcement actions for the same conduct, has no claim under the MOU. The 2018 agreement contained materially identical language.

What is a “Covered Firm” under the 2026 MOU?

Article I defines Covered Firms as firms of common regulatory interest to both agencies, including firms registered both as investment advisers and commodity pool operators or commodity trading advisors; both as broker-dealers and futures commission merchants or introducing brokers; both as clearing agencies and derivatives clearing organizations; both as swap execution facilities and security-based swap execution facilities; both as swap data repositories and security-based swap data repositories; and both as swap dealers and security-based swap dealers. The list is expressly non-exhaustive.

Does the MOU stop parallel enforcement actions for the same conduct?

It does not prohibit them. Article V, paragraph 2 says the agencies will “endeavor, as practicable and as appropriate”, to consult on overlapping investigations, to identify overlap before any Wells notice is issued, and to confer on charges, relief and sequencing where parallel filings occur. Every one of those commitments is discretionary. The September 27, 2022 recordkeeping orders — $1.1 billion from the SEC across 16 firms, more than $710 million from the CFTC across 11 institutions — remain the reference case for how costly the overlap can be.

What happened to the 2018 MOU, and does anything from it survive?

Article III, paragraph 5(d) supersedes the July 11, 2018 MOU on coordination and information sharing in full. Paragraph 5(c) separately reaffirms the March 17, 2004 MOU on the oversight of security futures product trading, which remains in force. Paragraph 5(b) preserves the existing practice of enforcement-division information sharing through customary access requests, which the new MOU says it does not modify or replace. The 2018 document had itself updated a 2008 agreement.

Which harmonisation comment deadlines are open now?

Two files close in August 2026. Comments on the joint request regarding derivatives product definitions and on the joint request regarding swap and security-based swap data reporting, both issued June 18, 2026, are due by August 24, 2026. Comments on the joint request regarding further implementation of portfolio margining and cross-margining of securities and derivatives, issued June 26, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2026, are due by August 31, 2026.

Is the March 17, 2026 joint crypto interpretation part of the MOU?

No, and the distinction matters. The MOU is a coordination instrument with no legal force. The interpretation issued six days later is a formal interpretive action of both commissions addressing how the definition of “security” applies to crypto assets, including airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking and wrapping, with the CFTC stating it will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistently with it. The MOU created the forum; the interpretation is a substantive act taken within it.

Can either agency simply walk away from the agreement?

Yes. Article VII provides that the MOU becomes effective on signing, remains effective unless terminated, and that “either Party may terminate this MOU upon 30 days’ written notice to the other Party”. Any revision or modification also requires 30 days’ written notice from the proposing agency. Confidentiality obligations over information already exchanged survive termination. The identical 30-day termination right existed under the 2018 agreement.

This article is informational analysis only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or investment advice. Regulatory frameworks change frequently and interpretation depends on facts and circumstances; primary documents and official regulator guidance always supersede summaries. Firms should consult qualified legal counsel and their relevant supervisory authority before taking any action based on the analysis above.