Nos derniers articles

Insurance Europe calls on the EU to simplify the Retail Investment Strategy (RIS) to improve consumer access to investment, protection, and advice. Their recommendations include streamlining the "value for money" assessment by allowing supervisors to use benchmarks without requiring peer grouping by insurers and avoiding new reporting. They also advocate for a smoother consumer journey by shortening suitability tests and removing duplicative inducement tests. Finally, they propose reducing information overload by focusing on key disclosures and avoiding overly technical cost details. These simplifications, they argue, will boost investment and EU competitiveness.

The ESAs Spring 2025 update highlights geopolitical tensions and cyber risks as major threats to EU financial stability. Trade disputes, policy shifts, conflicts, and economic fragmentation demand increased vigilance. Financial institutions face uncertainties in international markets, liquidity, and AI's role. Proactive risk management, cyber resilience, and monitoring global linkages are crucial.

Banks’ digital accessibility communication varies, reflecting strategic priorities. ING and Santander proactively integrate it into long-term goals, while Deutsche Bank focuses on compliance, often superficially. Société Générale aspires to improve, but gaps persist between claims and action. Swedbank and Danske Bank offer limited transparency, prioritizing sustainability over accessibility. This fragmentation highlights differing stakeholder pressures and strategic ambitions, suggesting a need for stronger collaboration to embed inclusivity beyond compliance in self-service banking.

Insurance Europe supports simplifying the EU’s Taxonomy Regulation, advocating for reduced reporting burdens. It calls for suspending the insurance underwriting KPI, introducing a 10% materiality filter for the investment KPI, and simplifying reporting templates. The industry backs EU efforts to enhance sustainability while ensuring practical and effective regulatory measures.

En 2024, la France vit plus que jamais dans une « société du risque» face aux tensions géopolitiques, au décrochage économique européen et à l'aggravation des risques climatiques (année la plus chaude, événements naturels coûteux). Les Français se sentent vulnérables et inquiets face aux risques de guerre et à la capacité future d'assurer les risques climatiques et autres. Le secteur de l'assurance, bien que créateur d'emplois et gérant un grand nombre de sinistres (dont le coût des événements naturels a atteint 5 milliards d'euros en France), fait face à une hausse de la sinistralité (dégâts des eaux, sinistres graves pour les professionnels, cyberattaques, sinistralité agricole record) et des coûts (réparation automobile, dépenses de santé).

EIOPA highlights the lack of consistent regulatory treatment for crypto assets in the (re)insurance sector, raising concerns about risk sensitivity. Current capital weight options may underestimate crypto risks. To ensure prudence, EIOPA proposes a uniform 100% capital requirement for all crypto holdings. This approach balances risk management with simplicity while acknowledging that future market growth may require revisions. A review of crypto treatment under Solvency II is recommended as the sector evolves.

The report assesses regulatory capital requirements, leverage ratios, liquidity metrics, and the implementation of total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) standards.It provides insights into the banking sector's resilience and the effectiveness of Basel III reforms.Detailed analyses and underlying data are provided.

The EBA report highlights payment fraud, driven by social engineering circumventing security, as the top concern for EU consumers. Rising indebtedness due to "Buy-Now-Pay-Later" schemes and poor lending practices is the second key issue. Thirdly, unwarranted de-risking limits vulnerable consumers' access to essential payment accounts. The EBA will consider actions in 2025/26 to address these issues and enhance EU consumer protection.

Quantifying ESG risks is challenging due to unique measurement issues beyond traditional financial risks, hindering firm-level and systemic analysis. Concentrated ESG investments by large institutions correlate with systemic risk, as their simultaneous decisions can destabilize markets. Regulatory frameworks promoting diversification are needed to address this "herd behavior." Further research should explore how ESG risks create hidden systemic vulnerabilities.

« Dans le contexte de la mise en œuvre de DORA, l’ACPR vient, à travers la mise à jour de sa FAQ, préciser certaines informations relatives aux nouvelles obligations qui s’appliquent aux entités financières concernant notamment : les modalités de remise du registre d’information, la réalisation de tests d’intrusion ou le champ d’application de cette nouvelle règlementation. »