Key learnings from SIFMA

Last week more than 2,100 legal and compliance professionals descended to Austin, Texas. Here’s a recap of what Alex de Lucena, Shield’s Director of Product Strategy, took note of… 

Regulators back to business(ish) 

Considering the recent change in administration, a predictable chorus of “back to our traditional mission” pervaded—I mean, the actual words were repeated. Regulators emphasized charging bad actors while also signaling a shift back toward guidance-first leadership. (Read: The creative thinking that birthed Panuwat need not apply.) 
 
Mary Jo White dusted off her cross-examination skills, pressing a panel of regulators to confirm whether penalties would decrease under the new regime. None affirmed — how could they? — but a collective pause suggested she might be onto something. 
 
Meanwhile, in the hallways and bars, a different wind blew. Several regulatory panelists insisted that deeper stances would only emerge once other executive branches were fully staffed. Boilerplate evasion or the first signs of more structural changes? No one could say for sure. 

Tales from the crypto

Crypto got a more welcome, albeit still vague, reception. Regulators gave nods to its potential while reaffirming that enforcement remains grounded in time-tested violations — think Rule 2110 and its ilk. 
 
The SEC’s Emerging Technologies unit continues to focus on AI-washing cases, many of which conveniently intersect with digital asset promotions. But broader, consistent guidance around crypto regulation remains a work in progress. 

AI: On the other hand…

AI was presented as both promise and risk — with a strong preference for the present-tense, acceptable uses over speculative ones. One striking reminder: If AI speeds up legal workflows, the billable hour can’t pretend otherwise. 
 
A panel of surveillance leads highlighted compelling AI use cases: 
– Alert closure and QA of those decisions 
– A centralized U4 repository 
– Sentiment surfacing in written communications 
 
One panelist noted issues with emoji and multilingual coverage — both areas where AI has a clear use case. (FWIW, Shield offers native emoji and language coverage OOTB). 

What are off-channel comms again? 

SIFMA’s straight-faced panel laid out the full arc of off-channel comms enforcement. They traced the fines, the SEC’s dissents, and the more retooling of consequences — lighter monetary penalties, no ICCs, and no heightened supervision. 
 
The takeaway? The regulatory posture is shifting, but that doesn’t mean the pressure is off. The expectation is clear: Firms must proactively define and defend their communication boundaries. 

Bottom Line: 

The themes are familiar — enforcement, guidance, crypto, AI, off-channel comms. But beneath them is a regulatory community recalibrating. Not pulling back. Not pushing forward. Just shifting gears.