Capital Markets & Trading regulatory updates from Netherlands.
We track 20 Capital Markets & Trading updates from Netherlands regulators, published by AFM. The archive covers 15 news items, 2 consultations and 2 enforcement actions. Most recent update: September 2026.
"As Europeans, we all are in the same boat, and therefore we should act in unison," zei Hanzo van Beusekom op de tiende Annual European Compliance and Legal Conference. "Not just because ‘we all breath the same air and we are all mortal’, as President John. F Kennedy once said. But also because we are all part of a…
Why this matters
This is a speech by AFM leadership at a compliance conference emphasizing the importance of unified European action on financial market regulation. The content references three themes—Resilience, AI, and Europe—and five conditions for centralized supervision, but provides no specific rules, guidance, or enforcement...
Hanzo van Beusekom houdt zich sinds 1 september in het AFM-bestuur bezig met pensioenen. Hij is een oudgediende bij de AFM, die ruime ervaring heeft met toezicht, onder meer in de accountancysector en de beurshandel. Wat is Hanzo voor persoon en waarop legt hij straks de accenten? Een portret.
Why this matters
The article is a biographical portrait of Hanzo van Beusekom, a newly appointed AFM board member responsible for pensions, insurance, and asset management. It discusses his background, management philosophy, and approach to risk-based supervision, but contains no binding rules, guidance, enforcement precedent, or...
Op 11 oktober 2027 stappen de financiële markten in de Europese Unie over op een T+1-afwikkelingscyclus. De Europese Commissie heeft inmiddels de detailregels voor deze overgang vastgesteld. Daarom vraagt de AFM marktpartijen om verder te gaan - of te starten - met de T+1-voorbereidingen. Financiële ondernemingen die…
Why this matters
AFM announcement regarding T+1 settlement cycle transition scheduled for October 11, 2027 in the EU. Informational guidance on regulatory requirements and implementation deadlines (December 7, 2026 and October 11, 2027).
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and the French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) support the European Commission’s proposals to strengthen supervisory convergence and market integration through the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP). As discussions on the future of European…
AI Analysis
AFM and AMF have issued a joint position paper supporting the EU Commission’s Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP) and setting out **five enablers** they see as conditions for effective, centralised EU‑level supervision by ESMA. This matters for compliance teams because it signals a medium‑term shift towards more **risk‑based, data‑driven, and ESMA‑centric supervision**, with impacts on funding models, governance expectations, data and reporting architecture, and enforcement across all major EU capital‑markets activities.
Key dates
22 July 2026
– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP
TBD (MISP legislative timeline)
– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision
Suggested considerations
Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.
What changed
- ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...
Compliance impact
The immediate impact is strategic rather than operational, but non‑compliance with future ESMA‑level requirements on data, governance, and cross‑border conduct could lead to EU‑wide enforcement, higher sanctions, and constraints on passporting and market access. Early alignment with the five enablers will position firms better for the coming supervisory architecture and reduce transition risk once binding rules are adopted.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft op 16 januari 2026 een boete van €625.000 opgelegd aan de heer M. van Wettum wegens marktmanipulatie. Via een investeringsmaatschappij handelde Van Wettum op zo’n manier in aandelen van een beursgenoteerd bedrijf, dat daardoor een misleidend signaal aan de markt werd…
Why this matters
AFM enforcement action against individual for market manipulation through 'marking the close' trading practice on Euronext Amsterdam. Violation of EU Market Abuse Regulation Article 15. Informational regulatory enforcement news with €625,000 fine imposed on M.
Businesses procuring IT services should join forces more often, as this is key to strengthening their digital autonomy. Public authorities and businesses should make digital autonomy a core consideration in their procurement decisions, helping to drive the development of European digital services.
Why this matters
Dutch supervisory authorities' joint press release on digital autonomy and reducing IT service provider dependencies. Addresses operational resilience through supply chain risk management and cybersecurity considerations aligned with DORA and NIS2 Directive implementation.
Het Financieel Stabiliteitscomité (FSC) constateert tijdens zijn vergadering van 26 juni 2026 dat geavanceerde AI-modellen het cyberdreigingslandschap ingrijpend veranderen. Het FSC benadrukt dat financiële instellingen hun cyberweerbaarheid hierop moeten aanpassen en pleit voor sterkere coördinatie en betere…
Why this matters
FSC press release discussing AI-driven cybersecurity threats to financial stability, private credit growth monitoring, and resilience requirements. Informational statement from regulatory committee addressing systemic risks and coordination needs across financial sector.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) is een professionele en doelmatige toezichthouder die haar wettelijke taken doeltreffend uitvoert en aantoonbare resultaten boekt. Dat blijkt uit de onafhankelijke evaluatie van het functioneren van de AFM als zelfstandig bestuursorgaan (zbo) over de periode 2021–2025. In het…
Why this matters
This is an informational news article announcing the AFM's five-year regulatory evaluation results (2021-2025). The evaluation covers the AFM's supervisory effectiveness across multiple domains including crypto, cybersecurity, and sustainability. It is a positive assessment with recommendations for improvement.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) consulteren wijzigingen in regels voor financiële ondernemingen in Caribisch Nederland. Het betreft regels die zijn vastgelegd in een beleidsregel en een regeling: de Beleidsregel AFM en DNB toepassing en uitvoering Wfm BES en Wwft BES 2012 en de…
Why this matters
AFM and DNB consultation on updated regulatory rules for financial enterprises in Caribbean Netherlands. Covers application of Wfm BES and Wwft BES legislation. Consultation period runs until 28 August 2026 with expected implementation in H2 2026.
In its SREP Market Overview 2025, the AFM notes that many firms have their foundations in order, but that implementation is lagging behind. Internal control and IT risks, in particular, require improvement. The message is clear: ensure that policies are not merely in place, but that they demonstrably work in practice.
Why this matters
AFM's SREP Market Overview 2025 provides regulatory guidance on implementation gaps in internal controls, IT risk management, and governance. This is informational content highlighting supervisory expectations rather than announcing new rules.
This is a general newsletter subscription announcement from AFM highlighting their commitment to fair and transparent financial markets. It contains no specific regulatory requirements, deadlines, or actionable guidance.
Sections 16 and 16b of the Dutch Audit Firms Supervision Act (Wta) ensure that Auditors occupy a central position within the audit firm, enabling them to act in the public interest. Auditors must have a decisive influence within the audit firm. Following market consultation, the Netherlands Autoriteit Financiële…
AI Analysis
The AFM published a refined interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after market consultation, saying the rules require auditors to occupy a central governance role and to have decisive influence in audit firms. The guidance matters because the AFM will assess not only formal ownership and voting structures but also whether investor rights, shareholder agreements, and approval rights undermine auditors’ real control, especially in firms with private equity or other external capital.
Key dates
03 March 2026 Deadline
- Deadline for submitting consultation responses on the interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b
15 June 2026
- AFM publishes the refined interpretation and feedback statement on Wta Articles 16 and 16b
Suggested considerations
Audit firms must review their governance model to confirm that auditors genuinely hold a central position in both management and ownership decision-making.
Audit firms must test whether their current structure gives auditors decisive influence in practice, not just on paper.
Audit firms with external capital must review shareholder agreements, voting agreements, veto rights, and reserved matters to ensure these do not override auditor control.
Audit firms must assess whether approval rights are limited to fundamental matters and do not extend to routine business control or editorial influence over audit judgments.
Compliance teams must map who actually determines day-to-day policy and who can block or steer decisions in practice.
What changed
- The AFM has refined its interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after receiving market feedback, while keeping the core principle that auditors must remain central and influential in the firm.
The AFM now expressly states that auditors must have decisive influence within the audit firm, not merely formal status or nominal voting rights.
The AFM confirms that the requirements also apply when an audit firm admits external investors, including private equity investors.
The AFM indicates that it will look at the actual exercise of control, not just the legal form, when assessing compliance with the Wta.
The AFM’s interpretation allows investor participation only so long as it does not prevent auditors from using their majority rights in practice or from acting in the public interest.
Compliance impact
The compliance impact is high because the AFM is signaling a substantive supervisory focus on whether investor-backed governance models preserve auditor independence and real control. Firms that rely on formal majority ownership without effective auditor decision-making power may face supervisory intervention, remediation demands, or pressure to restructure governance arrangements.
The escalation of the Middle East conflict leaves the global economy in a clearly worse state than previously expected. Higher inflation expectations, lower growth and heightened uncertainty are also affecting the financial sector, according to the annual Financial Stability Report from the Dutch Authority for the…
AFM-bestuursvoorzitter Laura van Geest verzorgde op 20 mei de keynote tijdens de AFME Sustainability Conference in Amsterdam.
Why this matters
This is a speech by AFM board chair at AFME Sustainability Conference emphasizing sustainability as economic necessity. It is informational/news content rather than regulatory requirement, hence null urgency.
Een gelijk speelveld, meer duidelijkheid voor marktpartijen, ruimte voor verantwoorde innovatie en een zorgvuldige bescherming van beleggers. Vanuit die visie wil de AFM zorgen voor meer duidelijkheid over beleggingsconcepten, waaronder automatisch herbalanceren en risicoafbouw binnen execution-only. De markt vroeg…
Why this matters
AFM announces regulatory clarification initiative on execution-only investment services, specifically addressing automatic rebalancing and lifecycle investing. This is informational guidance development with consultation expected Q3 2026.
Vanaf 11 oktober 2027 verkort de afwikkelingscyclus voor effectentransacties van T+2 naar T+1. Dit vraagt om aanpassingen in systemen en processen in de hele kapitaalmarktketen. Om de voortgang te monitoren, roept de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) marktpartijen op om twee T+1-gereedheidsenquêtes in te vullen. Het…
Why this matters
AFM announcement regarding T+1 settlement cycle transition (from T+2 to T+1 effective October 11, 2027). Calls for market participants to complete readiness surveys by June 9, 2026.
On 12 November 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) issued an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. (Euronext) due to breach of the rules on providing access for central securities depositories (CSDs). Euronext complied with the instruction. European legislation requires trading venues to provide…
AI Analysis
AFM has issued and published an instruction against Euronext Amsterdam for breaching the **open access obligations under Article 53(1) of CSDR** by imposing restrictive conditions on CSDs’ access to its transaction feeds, linked to a new settlement model. Euronext has withdrawn the conditions and confirmed continued and new access for non‑linked CSDs, signalling that trading venues must ensure any changes to settlement models, default CSDs or connectivity rules do not directly or indirectly restrict non‑discriminatory, transparent CSD access.
Key dates
12 November 2025
- AFM issues an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam for breach of CSDR Article 53(1) open access rules and sets a period for remediation
13 May 2026
- AFM publishes the instruction decision after it becomes irrevocable and confirms that Euronext has remediated by withdrawing the restrictive conditions and confirming continued and new access for CSDs
Suggested considerations
Trading venues must review settlement models, CSD linkage arrangements and related policies to ensure that all conditions for CSD access to transaction feeds are non‑discriminatory, transparent, and fully aligned with Article 53(1) of CSDR.
Compliance and legal teams must identify and remove any contractual or operational provisions that directly or indirectly favour a linked or in‑house CSD over independent or alternative CSDs in terms of access to transaction feeds.
Trading venues must implement internal governance and change‑management controls to ensure that future settlement model changes, including the introduction of a preferred CSD, are subject to ex‑ante compliance review against CSDR open access obligations.
Market infrastructure firms must establish documented criteria and procedures for handling CSD access requests, ensuring these criteria are objective, transparent, and applied consistently to linked and non‑linked CSDs.
Compliance functions should conduct periodic audits of access arrangements, transaction feed connectivity, and any associated fees or technical requirements to confirm that no indirect barriers to CSD access exist.
What changed
- Trading venues subject to CSDR must ensure that access for central securities depositories to transaction feeds is provided on a non‑discriminatory and transparent basis as required by Article...
Conditions or criteria attached to the designation of an alternative CSD (other than a venue’s preferred or “linked” CSD) that have the effect of limiting access to transaction feeds are treated as a...
AFM has clarified, through enforcement, that settlement model changes and associated contractual or operational conditions are within the scope of supervisory scrutiny for compliance with CSDR open...
Euronext has withdrawn three announced conditions that restricted access for certain CSDs and has confirmed continued access for CSDs with existing connectivity to its transaction feeds.
Euronext has also confirmed access for other CSDs that requested access to act as alternative CSDs, establishing a practical expectation that trading venues respond positively to reasonable access...
Compliance impact
Non‑compliance with CSDR open access obligations can lead to formal instructions, ongoing supervisory monitoring, reputational damage through public enforcement decisions, and potentially further sanctions where breaches are not timely remediated. Given the centrality of CSD access to post‑trade infrastructure, persistent breaches may also trigger broader scrutiny of governance, conflicts of interest, and competition concerns.
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has adopted a decision regarding the deferred publication of the volume of certain transactions in Dutch sovereign bonds. Pursuant to this decision, which enters into force on 4 May 2026, market operators and investment firms operating a trading venue shall make…
Why this matters
AFM regulatory decision on deferred publication requirements for sovereign bond transactions. Affects market operators and investment firms operating trading venues. Implements MiFIR transparency rules with extended deferral periods for large transactions (€15-50M).
Per 1 september 2026 treedt Richard Doornbosch toe tot het bestuur van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM). Hij wordt als bestuurslid verantwoordelijk voor het toezicht op de kwaliteit van de accountantscontrole en verslaggeving en de integriteit en veerkracht van de kapitaalmarkten. De benoeming is voor een…
Why this matters
This is an informational press release announcing the appointment of Richard Doornbosch as board member of the AFM (Dutch Financial Authority) responsible for capital markets and accounting oversight. It is governance/organizational news rather than a regulatory requirement or enforcement action.
On 20 April 2026, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, Limited Partnership for the systematically incorrect notifications of its net short positions in two companies listed on Euronext Amsterdam. Arrowstreet thus violated the rules on…
AI Analysis
AFM has imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for **systematic underreporting and underdisclosure of net short positions** in two Euronext Amsterdam issuers between July 2020 and November 2024, caused by an error in its short position calculation methodology. The case underscores that AFM expects robust calculation, control and reporting frameworks around short selling, and that repeated methodology errors leading to incorrect notifications and public disclosures will be treated as serious violations of the EU short selling and Dutch transparency regimes, even where firms later cooperate.
Key dates
July 2020
– Start of the period in which Arrowstreet’s incorrect calculation methodology led to systematically incorrect net short position notifications to AFM and underdisclosures to the public
November 2024
– End of the period during which Arrowstreet violated short selling rules through inaccurate notifications and disclosures of its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos
20 April 2026
– AFM imposes an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for the systematic incorrect notifications and underdisclosures of net short positions
22 April 2026
– AFM publishes the enforcement notice stating that the case has been settled via a simplified procedure and is closed
Suggested considerations
Review and document the firm’s methodology for calculating net short positions in EU‑listed shares, ensuring alignment with the EU Short Selling Regulation and AFM’s thresholds and definitions, including aggregation rules and treatment of derivatives.
Perform a comprehensive back‑testing and reconciliation of historical and current net short position calculations against trade data, positions and corporate actions to identify any systemic discrepancies or underreporting risks.
Implement or enhance controls that validate short position calculations prior to submission, including independent second‑line checks, exception reporting, and automated variance checks for large movements or threshold breaches.
Map all AFM short selling notification and disclosure thresholds and timing requirements into the firm’s surveillance and reporting systems, ensuring automated alerts when positions reach, exceed or fall below relevant levels.
Establish robust governance over short selling reporting, including clear ownership between trading, operations, risk and compliance, formal sign‑off procedures, and regular reporting to senior management on short‑selling compliance.
What changed
- AFM has reaffirmed strict enforcement of notification and disclosure obligations for net short positions in shares admitted to trading on Euronext Amsterdam, including the expectation of accurate...
The case confirms AFM’s interpretation that systematic underreporting (wrong figures in 101 notifications) and underdisclosure to the public (wrong figures in 85 cases) constitutes a material breach...
AFM emphasises that net short positions must be notified promptly and accurately, and that disclosures above the public threshold are a key tool for market participants to understand negative...
AFM demonstrates that self‑reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and remediation can result in a reduced fine and simplified settlement, signalling a clear incentive structure for firms to...
The publication reinforces that AFM will use the short selling register and underlying notifications to monitor for market abuse, market distortion and systemic risks, increasing scrutiny on firms...
Compliance impact
Non‑compliance with AFM short selling notification and disclosure obligations can result in significant administrative fines, reputational damage, and heightened supervisory scrutiny, particularly where errors are systemic or affect numerous notifications. AFM’s willingness to reduce the fine in this case was contingent on proactive self‑reporting and remediation, but the underlying violations still triggered a sizeable penalty and public enforcement notice.