Singing the Same Tune: SEC and CFTC Announce Oversight Harmony

On March 11, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) aimed at closer coordination across areas of overlapping jurisdiction. The MOU does not create any legally binding obligations between the agencies, but it signals a meaningful shift in how they intend to approach rulemaking, data sharing, examinations, and enforcement policy in areas where the agencies’ responsibilities intersect.

The MOU supersedes a prior July 2018 agreement that addressed information-sharing and coordination and emphasized the agencies’ joint responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. This MOU reflects the more recent need for clarity and collaboration around digital assets, and is designed to address “regulatory friction” in order to promote SEC-CFTC coherence and strengthen the competitive position for U.S. markets. In a speech preceding the MOU’s release, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins characterized the compliance burden on dual registrants. Specifically, a single firm registered with both the SEC and the CFTC often must navigate two regulatory regimes, including two exam cycles, reporting pipelines, and competing supervisory cultures, even where the underlying risks are substantially the same. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig later echoed that sentiment, calling the MOU a commitment to “eliminate duplicative, burdensome rules and close gaps in regulation.”

The MOU sets forth six stated goals of coordination:

• Clarifying product definitions through joint interpretations and rulemakings
• Modernizing clearing, margin, and collateral frameworks
• Reducing frictions for dually registered exchanges, trading venues, and intermediaries
• Providing a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for crypto assets and other emerging technologies
• Streamlining regulatory reporting for trade data, funds, and intermediaries
• Coordinating cross-market examinations, economic analyses, risk monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement

An important guiding principle in the MOU is the agencies’ joint acknowledgement of the need to provide fair notice to market participants and a commitment to avoiding regulation through enforcement.

Focus on Digital Assets

The MOU adopts what the agencies describe as a “minimum effective dose” regulatory philosophy — a framing that reflects the goals of preserving investor protection and market integrity, while fostering innovation and U.S. global competitiveness, particularly in the area of digital assets. The MOU expressly contemplates the facilitation of alternative compliance frameworks for digital asset firms subject to both agencies’ jurisdictions. For example, the MOU reflects the agencies’ shared commitment to enable a path toward regulated “super-apps” — integrated platforms where firms can offer securities and derivative products and services while satisfying the applicable regulatory requirements of each agency through a single, coordinated compliance framework. The MOU also adds a new provision under which the agencies will coordinate procurement of on-chain market data and related analytical tools. The emphasis on digital asset data infrastructure aligns with broader administration priorities around digital asset market regulation. It also reflects a recognition that surveillance across modern, interconnected markets cannot be siloed.

Changes for Dual Registrants

The MOU’s most immediate practical relevance is for firms registered with both agencies: for example, broker-dealers that are also futures commission merchants, investment advisers that are also commodity pool operators, and dually-registered securities and derivatives clearing organizations. For these firms, the MOU introduces three targeted commitments that merit particular attention:

• Examinations. The agencies commit to coordinating exam planning, conducting joint or aligned examinations where appropriate, and exchanging exam letters, reports, registration data, and risk assessment information. Where a dual registrant appears on both agencies’ exam schedules, the agencies will consider whether a coordinated examination is appropriate to reduce the firm’s burden. For firms accustomed to managing separate, sometimes overlapping, exam cycles, this coordination — if it materializes in practice — could reduce duplicative requests and limit conflicting supervisory demands.
• Enforcement. At the outset of any investigation where there is potential jurisdictional overlap, the agencies will identify the matter as a subject of consultation under the MOU. They further commit to conferring on areas of mutual programmatic interest, including before issuing any Wells notice, and coordinating on charges, relief, sequencing, and public communications where parallel enforcement actions are practicable. Pre-Wells coordination between the two agencies is a welcome development that could enable firms, subject to potential enforcement actions, to coordinate their response to both agencies. Such coordination also allows them to understand the full scope and timing of their enforcement exposure if the conduct implicates both securities and commodities laws
• Advance Notice. The MOU also establishes a mutual notification framework, whereby each agency commits to advance notice to the other of planned rulemakings, material events affecting dual registrants, novel product listings, and enforcement actions or investigations affecting entities under common jurisdiction. For dual registrants, this means that a significant regulatory development at one agency is more likely to prompt a corresponding (or even simultaneous) response, or at least awareness, at the other.

What To Watch

The MOU is a framework with flexibility in important respects. Coordination commitments are subject to applicable law, and the MOU expressly preserves each agency’s independent statutory authority and enforcement discretion. Neither agency is required to create, maintain, or share information under the MOU, as the decision of when, what, and how to share remains firmly in each agency’s sole discretion. And while the agencies have invited public input on implementation of the MOU, the mechanisms for turning coordination commitments into operational reality will unfold over time. The MOU contemplates a senior-level coordination structure at each agency, with the composition and authority soundly left to the discretion of each agency’s Chairman.

Still, the MOU reflects a positive and serious effort to rethink the regulatory architecture for dual registrants and converging markets, particularly digital assets. Firms subject to both agencies’ jurisdictional purview should view the MOU as an early signal that examination and enforcement coordination may accelerate, and should consider how their compliance programs and regulatory engagement strategies can benefit from the more unified regulatory front.

Public input may be submitted through the written input form or by requesting a meeting on the SEC’s website. 

Enforcement Edge continues to monitor developments at the SEC, CFTC, and other regulatory agencies. For questions on this or any other subject, please reach out to the authors or any of their colleagues in Arnold & Porter’s Securities Enforcement & Litigation, Financial Services Regulatory, or White Collar Defense & Investigations practice groups.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.