European Union Updates

Centralised Supervision
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) chair, Verena Ross, plans to extend its oversight to stock exchanges, crypto firms, and clearing houses, marking a major move toward centralised E.U. financial supervision. She has cited inefficiencies in the current fragmented system, where national regulators duplicate efforts.
The proposal follows Mario Draghi’s 2024 report calling for ESMA to become a single E.U. - wide market regulator, akin to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Smaller member states like Luxembourg, Malta, and Ireland, along with industry groups such as European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA), however oppose the idea, warning it could create an overpowered “monster” regulator.
For more details on this expansion you can read more in ESMA 2026 Work Programme or in the Financial Times article EU watchdog prepares to expand oversight of crypto and exchanges
For information about the opposition to this you can find out more in the EFAMA insight European asset managers maintain their opposition to centralised supervision or in Ignites Europe’s piece Luxembourg regulator slams Esma plan to tighten Ucits rules
On 21st October, the European Commission published its 2026 Work Programme with the following key points in the area of finance:
- Completing the Savings & Investment Union (SIU): the EC will bring forward the final set of proposals.
- Simplification, not deregulation: more than 50% of initiatives will include simplification measures, aiming to cut admin burden by 25% across the board. Competitiveness is becoming a formal policy objective.
- Digital Sovereignty: be prepared for new legislation including a Cloud and AI Dev Act and a Quantum act.
You can read more about this from the European Commission in their update Commission unveils 2026 work programme.
ESMA’s first EU-wide study of total investor costs in Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) provides a data-backed view of how management, performance, and distribution costs affect investor outcomes. It underscores persistent transparency gaps and signals stronger supervisory coordination ahead of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD)/UCITS review.
Key Insights from the study:
- Distribution costs dominate: they represent 48% of total UCITS costs and 27% of AIFs, with wide variation across channels and countries.
- Inducements remain significant: averaging 45% of ongoing costs for UCITS and 34% for AIFs.
- Maximum fees do not equal actual fees: Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products Key Information Documents (PRIIPs KIDs) often overstate entry and exit charges.
- Transparency gaps persist: ESMA finds that fragmented disclosures across PRIIPs, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) and AIFMD still make it hard for investors to get a full picture.
For more information you can access the study here, Report on total costs of investing in UCITS and AIFs
