ContextSpeech by the ESMA Chair at the Eurofi conference in Dublin, a meeting of EU policymakers and financial industry leaders.
Why it mattersAt Eurofi, the ESMA Chair warns that too many carve-outs could empty the reform of EU-level supervision of its purpose.
- Supervision of cross-border firms is fragmented and duplicative.
- Divergent national expectations create uneven outcomes.
- Technology, cyber risk and geopolitics make markets more complex.
- Strengthen EU-level supervision of significant cross-border entities.
- Avoid carve-outs that would weaken the reform.
- Cut complexity that adds little value while keeping strong oversight.
Read the speech summary
1. Markets that are European need supervision that is too
Speaking at the Eurofi conference in Dublin, ESMA Chair Verena Ross argued that firms, risks and data now cross borders so quickly that oversight confined to one country no longer fits. The EU wants deeper, more liquid markets, wider investment choice for savers and easier company funding, and she links that goal to the Commission's market integration and supervision package. Moving certain large cross-border entities under EU-level supervision is, in her view, a practical step rather than centralisation for its own sake: if firms meet different expectations in each state, they simply organise themselves around the fragmentation.
2. Simpler does not mean weaker
Ross ties the reform to burden reduction. Part of the complexity firms face comes from the rules, but part comes from uneven national application, repeated requests and slow coordination. A single integrated supervisor for truly cross-border activities could cut duplication, speed up time to market, make better use of data and let scarce expertise focus on the biggest risks. She insists this is not about doing less: cyber threats, new technology and geopolitical uncertainty make the supervised world harder, so the aim is to remove low-value complexity, not vigilance.
3. A message to lawmakers
With the Council and Parliament both aiming to settle their positions by the end of the year, she urges them not to dilute the proposal. Clear responsibilities, simple governance and matching resources are needed. A text riddled with exceptions, partial transfers or boundaries drawn to shield national champions, or EU supervision merely stacked on top of existing arrangements, would keep fragmentation alive while only looking European. She recalls that ESMA was born after a crisis, has matured since, and will implement whatever is agreed.