Sec Speeches Cryptocurrency Remarks at the 2026 Corporate Financial Reporting Insights (CFRI) Conference

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, John [White], for your generous introduction. I should also like to thank Financial Executives International for inviting me to participate in today’s conference. Before I go any further, I must note that the views I express today are my own as SEC Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission or my fellow Commissioner. 

There is much ground to cover and little time to spare. So, I will keep my remarks brief to allow maximum time for discussion with John [White]. But first, I would like to share a few thoughts on the priorities of the FASB and PCAOB in light of today’s ever-changing technological landscape. 

On the front lines of producing, auditing, overseeing, and using financial information, this group—perhaps more than most—understands that markets are rapidly evolving, business models are recalibrating, and technology is advancing at warp speed. In the face of such change, the institutions that support our financial reporting and auditing systems must remain strong—yet nimble, while staying tethered to their core responsibilities.

Of course, confidence in our capital markets depends on more than the quality of financial reporting and auditing. It also depends on trust in the oversight of those functions. Oversight should respond to marketplace developments, but it must remain focused on issues that are material to investors. Rigorous due process and meaningful stakeholder engagement can help achieve that goal. 

The institutions that the Commission oversees—namely the FASB and the PCAOB—must be able to respond to change, but they must do so with careful discipline. That means weighing costs and benefits, focusing on materiality, and achieving outcomes that serve both investors and the broader market. By addressing the right issues in a thoughtful and timely manner, these institutions can strengthen market confidence without imposing unnecessary costs or creating barriers to capital formation. Let me begin with accounting oversight.

Accounting Oversight

One of the FASB’s most important responsibilities, as the Commission’s designated accounting standard setter, is keeping its agenda centered on material issues. To that end, I applaud the addition of a Current Trends and Emerging Issues project to the FASB’s research agenda. This project monitors changes in the markets and evolving business practices, including current trends related to data infrastructure investments, non-traditional lending, and semi-annual reporting. I understand that it has already led to additions to the technical agenda based on stakeholder feedback, including the addition of the private credit disclosure project. Moving forward, I trust that it will continue to yield meaningful results for issuers and investors alike. 

By actively monitoring marketplace developments and seeking stakeholder input early in the process, the FASB is well positioned to identify areas where existing guidance may need to change, and to focus on the matters of greatest significance to the capital markets and to those who participate in them. 

Of course, evaluating potential changes makes up only half of the picture. The expected benefits of any change must also justify its costs. To be sure, meeting that objective requires more than broad, early stakeholder participation. It requires input that is thoughtful and meaningful. Indeed, detailed feedback from preparers regarding one-time versus ongoing costs, coupled with investor feedback on what information is material to investment decisions, is critical to the FASB’s success in developing standards that are both practical and effective. 

Auditing Oversight

The same principles must be applied to auditing oversight. Like the FASB, a strong auditing oversight institution should be able to respond appropriately as markets, businesses, and technology evolve. However, as it does, it should remain firmly grounded in its core statutory responsibility: protecting investors and furthering the public interest through informative, accurate, and independent audit reports.

For the PCAOB, that means getting back to basics. Specifically, registration, inspections, standard setting, and enforcement should each clearly tie back to the PCAOB’s mission. That starts with how projects are chosen. 

Before taking on a project, the PCAOB should plainly identify the problem that it seeks to address, evaluate the available evidence, and consider reasonable alternatives. At the same time, a rigorous cost-benefit analysis should inform the Board’s decisions from the beginning—assessing whether the anticipated benefits substantiate the imposed costs on audit firms, issuers, and ultimately shareholders. 

Meaningful stakeholder engagement is equally essential to that process, so I am encouraged to see the PCAOB’s openness to public input. This year, for example, the PCAOB invited comment on its strategic priorities and on proposed amendments to QC 1000, which the Commission approved earlier this month. It also completed its first-ever request for public comment on its standard-setting and research agenda. Seeking input early in this way can help uncover potential consequences, sharpen priorities, and ensure that the matters most consequential to audit quality are being addressed. I urge the PCAOB to make this engagement a regular part of its work, rather than an isolated exercise. 

Responsible Stewardship

Now, just as stakeholder engagement is essential to informed decisions, responsible stewardship is central to both the FASB’s and the PCAOB’s obligations. The accounting support fee that funds these institutions is borne in large part by issuers, and ultimately their shareholders. With that in mind, the FASB and PCAOB should begin with a clearly articulated strategy and connect their resources to measurable mission outcomes. They should also regularly evaluate whether programs remain both necessary and cost-effective. At the end of the day, high-quality accounting standards, improved audit quality, and greater confidence in audited financial statements should be the standard of success—not organizational growth, regulatory activity, and spending. 

Conclusion

Let me close by echoing the notion that I outlined at the beginning: strong institutions earn trust through disciplined action. If we let the principles that I have discussed today guide us—including engaging stakeholders and aligning costs with benefits—we can strengthen financial reporting, improve audit quality, protect investors, and uphold confidence in our capital markets for years to come. 

With that, thank you very much for your time and attention this morning. I look forward to the conversation ahead.