The EACB welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission’s proposal on the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP), a key component of the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) strategy aimed at fostering more integrated and competitive EU capital markets.
Overall, the EACB supports the objective of strengthening supervisory convergence and enhancing market integration across the European Union. However, it emphasises the need to strike the right balance between European and national supervision, ensuring clear allocation of responsibilities and avoiding unnecessary complexity or additional costs for market participants.
In this context, the EACB raises concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the ESMA’s mandate. While acknowledging the benefits of improved coordination, it stresses that any extension of ESMA’s powers must be clearly defined, proportionate, and should not undermine the role and accountability of National Competent Authorities (NCAs). In particular, the proposed governance changes and direct supervisory powers risk creating imbalances between decision-making authority and responsibility, as well as increasing costs and legal uncertainty.
The EACB also expresses reservations regarding several measures affecting market structure and operations. Proposals to tighten transparency, trading, and clearing requirements may generate significant operational and IT costs without sufficient evidence of added value. Ensuring non-discriminatory access to trading venues and clearing infrastructures remains essential, and any remaining exemptions should be carefully reassessed to preserve open and competitive markets.
Regarding custody and settlement, the EACB highlights concerns about stronger intervention measures and, in particular, the introduction of an EU-wide depositary passport. It cautions that such a measure could create risks for investor protection, increase systemic vulnerabilities, and provide limited tangible benefits, while diverging supervisory practices across Member States remain an underlying issue.
In the area of asset management, the EACB supports the facilitation of cross-border fund distribution but warns against the creation of a dual supervisory structure through expanded ESMA oversight of large asset managers. Such an approach risks increasing costs, duplicating supervision, and undermining the role of national authorities without clear benefits.
The EACB broadly supports the extension of the DLT Pilot Regime but stresses the need for a clear and permanent regulatory framework beyond the pilot phase to avoid legal uncertainty for market participants.
On crypto-assets, the EACB is cautious about transferring supervisory responsibilities for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to ESMA, particularly for smaller domestic entities. It calls for a more proportionate approach, including the use of thresholds to ensure that supervision remains efficient and aligned with the realities of national markets.
Finally, while welcoming the objective of harmonising rules on settlement finality through the transition from a directive to a regulation, the EACB raises concerns about the introduction of additional layers of regulation that go beyond the core objective of ensuring legal certainty. It advocates for a more targeted and proportionate framework, aligned with existing principles and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens.