US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw has criticized recent staff guidance on liquid staking, warning that it fails to reflect the practice’s complexities.

On Aug. 5, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance asserted that certain liquid staking arrangements, specifically those involving receipt tokens, do not fall under securities regulations.

However, Crenshaw pushed back, arguing that the statement adds confusion rather than clarity to the legal treatment of liquid staking.

“Instead of clarifying the legal landscape, today’s statement, like other recent staff statements before it, only muddies the waters.”

Crenshaw pointed to two major flaws in the SEC staff’s position. First, she said the guidance relies on a long list of questionable assumptions about how liquid staking operates. Second, the staff’s legal conclusions are heavily caveated, making them unreliable for firms trying to navigate compliance.

She noted that any staking activity not fitting the precise conditions described in the document would fall outside its scope. Because of this, she argued, the guidance offers little protection or direction to those involved in staking-related services.

Crenshaw also reminded investors that the guidance represents the opinion of SEC staff, not the official stance of the Commission itself. As such, she believes it should have been framed as a cautionary alert, not a position of regulatory clarity.

Lehman-like risks in crypto staking

Adding to the concerns, Amanda Fischer, a former SEC Chief of Staff under Gary Gensler, drew parallels between liquid staking and the risky financial practices that led to Lehman Brothers’ collapse in 2008.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Fischer warned that liquid staking could expose crypto markets to cascading failures. She explained that the practice allows users to deposit digital assets and receive a synthetic version of the same token, which can be reused to earn additional rewards.

According to Fischer, this mirrors how Lehman reused client assets to back high-risk trades. She argued that liquid staking could replicate the same vulnerabilities without strong regulatory oversight.

The former SEC official also highlighted the risks of relying on token issuers, the possibility of long delays when unstaking, and the threat of technical failures or hacks. Together, these factors could amplify systemic risk across the crypto sector.

Mentioned in this article

Fresh US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff guidance on liquid staking is stoking expectations that US regulators will soon allow staking within spot crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Co-founder of The ETF Institute Nate Geraci called the guidance “the last hurdle” before the SEC can approve staking in spot Ethereum (ETH) ETFs.

Furthermore, he noted that liquid staking tokens (LSTs) would be used to manage liquidity inside funds, a key concern for the Commission.

His comments echo the SEC Division of Corporation Finance’s view that, under the structures described, liquid staking activities do not involve offers or sales of securities.

Additionally, staking receipt tokens (SRT) function as receipts for the underlying assets rather than as securities themselves.

Industry read-through

LSTs allow funds to keep staked exposure liquid, maintaining on-chain staking rewards while holding a transferable receipt token that can be used for portfolio operations, collateral, or redemptions without fully unwinding staking positions.

Lucas Bruder, CEO of Jito Labs, said in a note that the statement showed an “incredibly nuanced understanding” of current liquid staking arrangements. 

He added:

“We will see expanded use for LSTs in both traditional and novel financial instruments, including ETFs.” 

Regarding the impact of the decision, Bruder is looking forward to fully-staked ETFs via LSTs coming to market.

The CEO of Jito Labs and other industry players met with the SEC in mid-February to discuss staking rules for ETFs. 

According to the meeting logs, LSTs were discussed to address the agency’s concerns about redemption timing. The participants highlighted that LSTs within an ETP framework avoid direct involvement in the staking process, streamlining the process.

The liquid staking statement builds on a May 29 staff view that other forms of protocol staking likewise do not require registration, and that features such as early withdrawals or slashing protection do not by themselves convert staking into a securities offering. 

However, the SEC emphasized that its view applies to administrative and ministerial provider roles and specific fact patterns. Consequently, arrangements that go beyond those boundaries may be treated differently.

Mentioned in this article

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released a joint statement explaining how existing banking rules apply when institutions custody crypto for customers. 

The guidance describes “safekeeping” as the act of holding a digital asset on a client’s behalf and stresses that it does not create new supervisory demands.

Risk control centers on cryptographic keys

Regulators instructed boards and executives to view crypto custody as a service that relies on exclusive control of private keys and other sensitive data. They note that a bank must prove no other party, even the customer, can unilaterally move an asset once it enters custody. 

Management must assess how key-generation tools, wallet types, and contingency plans align with the institution’s broader control environment and ensure that staff possess the necessary technical skills to maintain these safeguards.

The statement also told banks to weigh the volatility of the asset class and the rapid pace of technological change when allocating capital and staffing for custody operations. 

The agencies said sound programs include continuous reviews of each supported token’s software dependencies and ledger design to spot vulnerabilities that could threaten safety and soundness.

Compliance, governance, and third-party oversight

The three agencies reminded institutions that crypto custody must satisfy Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, and Office of Foreign Assets Control rules, including the “travel rule” that attaches identifying information to transfers. 

Boards must involve the BSA officer and senior managers early in any custody rollout to gauge illicit-finance exposure and document controls. 

Additionally, banks that delegate storage to sub-custodians remain responsible for the performance of those vendors. The guidance instructed firms to examine a sub-custodian’s key management methods, segregation of assets, and insolvency protections before signing contracts.

Firms will also be required to build notice requirements for any breach or operational event. Institutions that keep assets in-house but buy third-party software must apply the same vendor-risk disciplines. 

Finally, the agencies requested that auditors expand their testing to include crypto-specific elements, such as key generation, wallet security, and on-chain settlement controls. 

When internal teams lack expertise, management should hire independent specialists to validate safeguards and report directly to the audit committee.

The joint statement concluded that existing fiduciary, custody, and information security regulations already provide a framework for banks that wish to safeguard their crypto.

However, those banks must demonstrate that they can control keys, manage vendors, and comply with federal financial crime statutes in real time.

PepsiCo (PEP -0.27%) kicked off its 2025 reporting year with weak results and cut its full-year guidance — pushing shares down to a new 52-week low. In fact, Pepsi is down over 24% in the past year and is knocking on the door of a five-year low.

The sell-off has pole-vaulted Pepsi’s yield up to 4.1%. And with 53 consecutive years of dividend increases, the beverage and snack giant has an extensive track record of delivering reliable passive income to shareholders.

Here’s why the fizz has evaporated from Pepsi stock and whether the Dividend King is worth buying now.

Image source: Getty Images.

Pepsi’s dividend is intact despite its guidance cut

Pepsi reported a 1.8% decline in revenue and a 4% decline in constant currency earnings per share (EPS). Constant currency adjusts for changes in currency conversions between reporting periods, making it a more accurate way to measure operating results.

The owner of several beverage brands as well as Frito-Lay and Quaker Oats saw flat beverage volume growth and a 3% decline in convenient foods — illustrating strain on consumer demand. The opening quote from CEO Ramon Laguarta in Pepsi’s earnings release was bleak:

Our businesses remained resilient in the midst of increasingly dynamic and complex geopolitical and macroeconomic conditions in the first quarter. As we look ahead, we expect more volatility and uncertainty, particularly related to global trade developments, which we expect will increase our supply chain costs. At the same time, consumer conditions in many markets remain subdued and similarly have an uncertain outlook.

In 2025, Pepsi is now guiding for a low-single-digit organic revenue increase, $7.6 billion in dividends, and $1 billion in buybacks. It expects flat year-over-year core constant currency EPS compared to prior guidance of mid-single-digit growth. Core EPS excludes restructuring, acquisition, and one-time costs. All told, Pepsi expects 2025 core EPS to decline by 3% compared to previous guidance for a slight increase.

Value is top of mind for consumers

Pepsi cited three factors for its guidance cut: tariffs, macroeconomic uncertainty, and consumer weakness. On past earnings calls, Pepsi has discussed balancing quantity and price by offering more chips per bag to drive value and boost demand. However, pressure on consumers has intensified. Laguarta said the following on the call:

What we’re seeing is that consumers are giving a lot of value to absolute dollars now. So clearly, entry price points and absolute outlay of money per unit is a very important relevant metric. And so, we’re putting more emphasis on those entry price points and making sure that we’re not asking for a large amount of money for participating in our brands … that’s why smaller, single-serve, smaller multi-packs, those are all tools for us to keep the consumers in the brand.

In sum, tariffs are far from Pepsi’s only challenge. Consumer demand continues to deteriorate, which is pressuring Pepsi to make changes just to keep buyers engaged. Pepsi’s struggling snack business is relying on single-serve options below the $2 price point. When buyers spend more, they often gravitate toward multipacks. Pepsi has lowered the price of its 10-count multipacks to increase consumer frequency and shift its focus to a price-per-pack mindset.

In other words, if consumers can think of a low cost per pack rather than a higher cost for a larger quantity in a single bag, then it could make the purchase more appealing.

Adjusting to changing consumer preferences

Despite years of challenges and slowing growth, it may come as a surprise that Pepsi has continued to invest in product innovation and acquire new brands. In the last six months, Pepsi has become the sole owner of Sabra and Obela snack and dip products, completed its acquisition of the Mexican-American food brand Siete Foods, and announced its intention to acquire the prebiotic soda brand Poppi.

Together, these acquisitions diversify Pepsi’s convenient food and beverage lineup, making it less centered on chips and high-sugar soda, more adaptable to health-conscious consumers, and featuring ready-to-eat meal replacements.

These deals are too small on their own to move the needle in the near term. However, they reveal an element of self-awareness, suggesting that Pepsi is overly reliant on unhealthy snacks and beverages and recognizes the need to diversify to adapt to shifting consumer preferences.

However, Pepsi has been having some noteworthy successes with its core bands. The Pepsi brand has been gaining market share and focusing on the zero-sugar category. Gatorade and Propel have helped Pepsi maintain its leadership in the sports drink category. Pepsi believes it can improve its value chain by optimizing the processes of making, moving, and selling products, which can drive long-term margin growth.

Pepsi’s valuation has gone from inexpensive to bargain bin

Tariff turmoil adds another layer of complexity to what has already been a challenging few years for Pepsi. However, Pepsi has simply become too cheap to ignore. A 3% decline implies 2025 core EPS of $7.92 — giving Pepsi a price-to-earnings ratio based on its core EPS forecast of just 16.8. That’s a dirt cheap valuation for a high-yield Dividend King stock.

What’s more, Pepsi can continue supporting its capital return program even during this period of slowing growth. The company remains highly profitable, so its challenges are not severe enough to threaten a dividend cut.

However, Pepsi’s acquisition spree, paired with slowing growth, has added debt to its balance sheet. Its leverage ratios remain in decent shape, but investors should monitor Pepsi’s net debt position to see if it can decrease over time as the company leverages its global supply chain, distribution, and marketing to maximize the benefits of its recently acquired brands.

A reliable income stock that’s worth buying and holding

Entering 2025, Pepsi was not at the top of its game. And now that tariffs are expected to add further cost pressure, short-term investors may feel compelled to sell the stock.

Management’s lack of enthusiasm for Pepsi’s 2025 outlook is palpable, but the stock is simply too cheap to ignore. With expectations down, Pepsi doesn’t have to do much to surprise to the upside. In the meantime, the 4.1% dividend yield offers a worthwhile incentive to hold the stock during this period.

Add it all up, and Pepsi stands out as a high-conviction buy for value investors with at least a three to five year investment time horizon to boost their passive income stream.

Microsoft has published guidance for users of Microsoft Publisher as it will no longer be supported after October 2026 and removed from Microsoft 365.

Specifically, the products to be deprecated are Publisher for Microsoft 365, Publisher 2021, 2019, 2016, 2013, 2010, and 2007, and also 2010 and 2013 Developer.

Microsoft Publisher is an Office application designed for layout-focused projects and visually rich print materials. Compared to Word, it provides better layout control, an extensive set of pre-designed templates, and convenient drag-and-drop functionality.

The product is popular among non-professional designers in education (schools), churches, hobbyists/home users, nonprofit and community organizations, and small businesses.

Microsoft had announced plans to sunset Publisher since last year, but as the time approaches, the tech giant has now shared additional information on what impacted users can do not to lose their projects.

The main recommendation is to convert existing Publisher files (.pub) to PDF or Word formats, depending on how much further editing they need.

To do this, open the said files, go to ‘File’ > ‘Save as’, and select the file type (DOCX or PDF) and location to save it.

For large sets of files where doing this process individually can be cumbersome, Microsoft recommends automating the process by means of a macro.

The tech company acknowledges the existence of third-party conversion tools but notes that these aren’t officially supported. Microsoft also warns about their varying quality and consistency.

Microsoft recommends that impacted users replace Publisher with Word or PowerPoint, although these solutions cannot accommodate some use cases at the same level.

The company has shared the following information on how you can achieve a certain task in another Microsoft Office application:

For more advanced and specialized projects that Microsoft Office applications cannot support, users can also try third-party cools like Canva (subscription), Adobe InDesign (subscription), and Affinity Publisher (one-time payment).

The updated FAQ page in the Publisher’s announcement explains that those who wish to continue using the product and have the ‘Perpetual’ version may do so indefinitely outside of Microsoft 365. 

However, there will be no security updates, new features, or technical support after October 2026.