Reporting & Disclosure regulatory updates from Netherlands.
We track 34 Reporting & Disclosure updates from Netherlands regulators, published by AFM. The archive covers 10 guidance notes, 8 reports and 5 speeches. Most recent update: November 2026.
Het maken van cryptoactiva is tegenwoordig vaak vrij eenvoudig en binnen enkele minuten geregeld. Maar wie een cryptoactivum aan het publiek wil aanbieden, moet zich houden aan wettelijke Europese regels rond cryptoactiva (MiCAR). De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) wijst personen die cryptoactiva maken en…
AI Analysis
The AFM has reminded token creators and promoters that launching a crypto-asset or memecoin through an online platform does not avoid MiCAR obligations. For public offerings, the regulator highlights the need for an eligible legal-person issuer, a generally required white paper that is notified and published, and advertising that is fair, clear, recognisable and consistent with the white paper. Independent market reporting and Dutch legal commentary read this as a practical enforcement signal aimed particularly at informal token launches and social-media promotion, rather than as a new rule.
Key dates
2024-06-30
MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.
2024-12-30
Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.
2026-11-06
The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.
What changed
The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.
Compliance impact
The publication is guidance rather than a new binding rule, but it is a concrete supervisory signal that the AFM may scrutinise informal token launches and social-media marketing for MiCAR breaches. The AFM states that non-compliance may result in warnings, formal directions or fines, and its focus on misleading claims, fraud and market abuse increases conduct, financial-crime and reputational risk for issuers, promoters, platforms and CASPs.
Update 31 augustus 2026: In beroep heeft de rechtbank de boete met €52.500 gematigd en vastgesteld op € 142.500, onder andere vanwege de evenredigheid in algemene zin en vanwege een overschrijding van de redelijke termijn uit artikel 6 EVRM. Zie hier de actuele stand van zaken . Grinta Invest was een illegale…
AI Analysis
The AFM sanctioned finfluencer J. van den Brink for jointly carrying out unlicensed asset management with Grinta Invest by promoting it, recruiting investors, supporting onboarding and acting as a contact point. Although the AFM announced a €195,000 fine, the Rotterdam District Court reduced it to €142,500 on 31 August 2026, citing proportionality, delayed regulatory action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR. The case signals that an individual promoter may face direct enforcement exposure where marketing and referral activity materially enables unlicensed investment services, particularly when remuneration is linked to invested capital.
Key dates
2021-12-20
The AFM published its exploratory report on finfluencing, identifying unlicensed advice, risky recommendations, cooperation with unlicensed firms and customer-referral fees as key pitfalls.
2026-08-31
The Rotterdam District Court reduced the Van den Brink fine by €52,500 to €142,500, citing proportionality, delayed AFM action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR.
2026-11-05
The AFM published the enforcement update describing the original €195,000 fine and the court's final €142,500 outcome.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams should consider inventorying all finfluencer, affiliate, introducer and referral arrangements, including website links, discount codes, lead forms and onboarding assistance.
Firms should consider verifying the AFM authorisation status of every investment-service provider, platform or asset manager promoted by employees, affiliates or contracted influencers before publication or referral activity begins.
Investment firms should consider testing whether any payment is calculated by reference to the number of referred customers, account openings, onboarding progress, deposits or invested assets, as these features create heightened Dutch inducement and conduct risk.
Firms should consider separating permitted advertising services from customer-introduction or onboarding activities and documenting why each arrangement does not involve unauthorised investment advice, portfolio management or participation in unlicensed services.
Marketing and compliance teams may wish to review influencer scripts, direct messages, Q&A responses and customer-support practices for advice, personalised recommendations or operational assistance that exceeds passive advertising.
Firms should consider collecting and retaining contracts, commission calculations, communications, approval records and evidence of licence checks so that the commercial purpose and control framework for each promotion can be demonstrated.
Governance committees may wish to treat unusually high or asset-based referral commissions, including percentages of customer deposits, as escalation indicators requiring enhanced legal and compliance review.
Firms should consider reviewing legacy arrangements in light of the AFM's 2021 finfluencer findings and subsequent enforcement against referral-fee models, including arrangements involving execution-only services.
What changed
This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or general licensing amendment. The AFM treated Van den Brink's combined activities—promotion through social media and a website, investor introduction, assistance with registration, responses to investor questions and acting as a contact person—as participation in illegal asset management, not merely advertising. The AFM stated that Grinta Invest had no required licence and that Van den Brink received substantial referral remuneration, including 10% of investors' deposited capital; the remuneration was relevant to the original fine.
Compliance impact
The enforcement demonstrates potentially severe personal exposure for an influencer whose promotional, referral and onboarding activities materially facilitate unlicensed asset management; the regulator expressly linked the original penalty to high commissions and investor losses. It also reinforces that Dutch inducement and licensing risks extend beyond the authorised investment firm to third parties and commercial arrangements surrounding customer acquisition, although the court's reduction shows that proportionality and procedural delay can affect the final penalty.
Het verliezen van een naaste is verdrietig en gaat vaak ook gepaard met een periode van veel geregel, uitzoekwerk en het wegvallen van inkomen. Een nabestaandenpensioen beschermt de nabestaanden (deels) tegen een onverwachte inkomensterugval bij overlijden van de deelnemer. De AFM ziet dat pensioenuitvoerders veel…
Why this matters
This AFM press release announces a report on survivors' pensions (nabestaandenpensioen). It presents the AFM's findings that information provision by pension providers can improve and that some participants are unknowingly uncovered.
De AFM heeft zo’n 120 communicatieplannen pensioentransitie beoordeeld. We zien dat pensioenuitvoerders hun boodschappen (onder meer over compensatie en nabestaandenpensioen) steeds concreter uitwerken. Maar realistische verwachtingen wekken blijft een aandachtspunt.
Why this matters
The document reports the AFM's assessment findings across roughly 120 communication plans, so it is a report rather than guidance or a formal rule. It concerns pension transition communication to participants (realistic expectations, transition overviews, compensation, survivor's pensions), mapping to Insurance &...
Onderzoek laat zien dat Nederlanders zich in 2026 vaker verdiepten in hun pensioen dan daarvoor. Ze lezen ook vaker de (nieuws)brieven van hun pensioenuitvoerder. Ook weten ze Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl steeds beter te vinden. Over de communicatie van hun pensioenuitvoerder oordelen ze bovendien positiever dan vroeger.
Why this matters
The document presents research data (LISS-panel survey by Centerdata, commissioned by the AFM) on how Dutch citizens read pension communications, use Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl and the UPO, and rate transition information.
The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) asks listed companies, when preparing their 2026 reporting, to pay particular attention to the supervisory priorities of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Establishing supervisory priorities at the European level promotes greater consistency…
AI Analysis
On 21 October 2026, the AFM identified the areas it will emphasise when reviewing listed companies’ 2026 corporate reporting, aligning its supervision with ESMA’s 13 October 2026 European Common Enforcement Priorities. The publication is not a new binding rule, but it signals heightened supervisory scrutiny of geopolitical risks, restructuring and debt restructuring, sustainability materiality and connectivity, ESEF tagging, cash-flow reporting, and IFRS 8 segment disclosures.
Key dates
2026-10-13
ESMA published its European Common Enforcement Priorities for the 2026 annual financial reports of listed issuers.
2026-10-21
The AFM published its guidance identifying the ESMA priorities and continuing Dutch focus areas for 2026 reporting.
Suggested considerations
Issuers should map the ESMA 2026 priorities against their 2026 IFRS financial statements, sustainability statement, annual report and ESEF package, documenting conclusions for each material issue.
Finance and risk teams should assess how geopolitical developments affect assumptions, impairment testing, liquidity, going-concern assessments, provisions, commitments and other relevant IFRS disclosures, rather than relying only on generic risk-factor language.
Companies undertaking restructurings or debt modifications should consider whether IAS 37 provisions, IFRS 9 derecognition or modification accounting, covenant effects, liquidity disclosures and related management judgments are complete and internally consistent.
Sustainability reporting teams should retain evidence supporting the double materiality assessment and consider whether positive and negative impacts are presented with comparable granularity, including for ESRS E1 and ESRS S1 where relevant.
Issuers should reconcile each material impact, risk and opportunity to the relevant policies, actions, targets and metrics, explain gaps where no policy, action or target exists, and ensure targets are measurable, time-bound and outcome-oriented.
Reporting owners should perform a cross-document consistency review between the sustainability statement, management report, financial statements, risk disclosures and other parts of the annual report.
ESEF specialists should validate the statement of changes in equity taxonomy selections, anchoring, sign conventions, extensions and completeness of tags, and should conduct technical validation before filing.
Preparers should use the AFM’s cash-flow points of attention and self-assessment to test classification, non-cash transactions, reconciliation disclosures, consistency with the financial statements and clarity of significant judgments.
What changed
The AFM has stated that its 2026 supervisory work will focus on ESMA’s priorities for annual reports of issuers admitted to trading on EEA regulated markets. For IFRS financial statements, this covers geopolitical risks and uncertainties, restructuring provisions, and debt restructuring. For sustainability reporting under the ESRS, issuers should demonstrate a robust double materiality assessment and connected disclosures linking impacts, risks and opportunities with related policies, actions, targets and metrics, with market commentary indicating particular attention to balanced treatment of...
Compliance impact
The impact is supervisory and potentially significant for listed issuers: deficiencies may lead to AFM review, requests for clarification or corrective disclosure and increased scrutiny of future reporting, although the publication does not itself create a new binding obligation. The focus on sustainability connectivity, ESEF errors, cash-flow quality and IFRS 8 indicates that compliance will be assessed across the reporting package for consistency, completeness and understandability, not only against isolated disclosure checklists.
Beleggingsondernemingen die een tekortkoming in hun MiFIR-transactierapportages constateren, moeten dit zelf melden bij de AFM. De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) introduceert een nieuw boetebeleid, waarmee zij duidelijkheid geeft over haar verwachtingen en de gevolgen wanneer zo’n melding uitblijft.
AI Analysis
On 14 October 2026, the AFM published a policy on administrative fines for investment firms that fail to report discovered deficiencies in MiFIR transaction reporting. Where an unreported deficiency exceeds specified volume or duration thresholds, the AFM’s starting point is a reduced fine of €25,000 for a first infringement and €50,000 for a second infringement within five years, despite a statutory base amount of €500,000.
Key dates
2026-10-14
AFM publishes the policy on fines for deficiencies in MiFIR transaction reporting that firms fail to report voluntarily.
Suggested considerations
Firms should compare their transaction-reporting incident procedures with the new AFM thresholds, while recognising that the AFM’s existing incident process can require notification before those thresholds are reached.
Compliance teams may wish to establish documented escalation triggers for missing or late reports exceeding 100,000 transactions or 25% over at least two weeks, and for incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports exceeding 500,000 transactions or 50% over at least four weeks.
Firms should consider treating the thresholds as minimum enforcement indicators rather than safe harbours, because the AFM separately expects firms to report significant incidents immediately and requires firms to decide reportability based on all available information.
Transaction-reporting owners may wish to monitor rejected reports, failed resubmissions, invalid or missing LEIs, duplicate or unnecessary reports, and data-field errors, with evidence of detection dates, affected populations, root cause and remediation.
Firms should consider retaining a defensible audit trail for incidents not reported to the AFM, including the issue scope, the reportability assessment, root-cause analysis, corrective controls and management approval.
Where notification is required, firms should consider using the AFM incident form promptly rather than waiting for the investigation to finish, updating the AFM as facts develop and documenting any request for additional time.
Senior management and compliance committees may wish to review recurring incidents and prior infringements because a second infringement within five years has a stated starting fine of €50,000, twice the first-infringement amount.
Firms should consider validating their procedures against Article 26 of MiFIR, Article 15(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 and the Dutch Wft framework, including the requirement to report transactions completely, accurately and no later than the end of the following working day.
What changed
The AFM has formalised when an unreported transaction-reporting deficiency will be treated as involving a substantial quantity of transactions. For missing or late reports, the threshold is more than 100,000 affected transactions or more than 25% of reportable transactions over a period of at least two weeks. For incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports, the threshold is more than 500,000 affected transactions or more than 50% of reportable transactions over a period of at least four weeks.
Compliance impact
The publication increases enforcement risk for firms that detect material transaction-reporting failures but do not notify the AFM, with periodic supervisory checks intended to identify non-reporting. The policy materially lowers the stated starting fines compared with the €500,000 statutory base amount, but it does not remove the underlying MiFIR reporting obligation or create a general safe harbour below the published thresholds.
Sinds juli 2026 is de Europese richtlijn Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) van kracht. Deze richtlijn stelt specifiekere eisen aan duurzaamheidsclaims, inclusief concrete verboden. De regels gelden ook voor financiële ondernemingen, naast de informatieverstrekkingsnormen vanuit de Wet op het…
AI Analysis
AFM has reminded financial undertakings that the Dutch implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT or EmpCo) Directive, applies to consumer-facing sustainability claims and marketing, in addition to sectoral requirements under the Wft, SFDR, MiFID II and IDD. The rules prohibit specified greenwashing practices, including unsupported generic environmental claims, certain compensation-based climate-neutrality claims and unverified sustainability labels; independent commentary also highlights that existing claims and financial-services marketing fall within the broad cross-sector regime.
Key dates
2024-02-28
Directive (EU) 2024/825 was adopted, amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive.
2026-03-27 Deadline
EU Member States were required to adopt and publish national transposition measures.
2026-06-24
The Dutch Implementatiewet richtlijn betere duurzaamheidsinformatie voor consumenten was published in the Staatsblad, according to the AFM publication.
2026-07-16
The Dutch implementation legislation entered into force, according to the AFM publication.
2026-09-27
The ECGT rules became applicable to consumer-facing commercial communications across the EU, including relevant financial-services marketing; the regime is applicable as at the publication date of 2026-10-09.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to inventory all consumer-facing sustainability claims, labels and environmental references used in websites, fund marketing, advertisements, product names, brochures, social media, sales scripts and corporate marketing.
Firms should consider mapping each claim to the specific product, service, activity or business component to avoid implying whole-product or whole-enterprise sustainability where the evidence covers only part of the offering.
Firms should consider maintaining an evidence file for every material claim, including the scope of the claim, methodology, data sources, verification, assumptions, limitations and approval owner.
Marketing and product-governance reviews may wish to identify generic terms such as green, sustainable, environmentally friendly, climate positive and eco-friendly and confirm whether the required recognised excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated.
Firms should consider removing or rewriting claims that describe products or services as climate neutral, carbon neutral or having reduced climate impact where the claim depends solely or materially on offsetting emissions, and should distinguish mitigation from compensation.
Compliance teams may wish to review all sustainability labels, badges and proprietary ESG marks and confirm that each is supported by an eligible certification scheme or public scheme with appropriate independent verification.
Firms communicating net-zero, climate-neutrality or other future environmental objectives should consider documenting a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable interim targets, deadlines, governance, monitoring and evidence of progress.
Firms should consider testing claims against both the ECGT/BW 6 requirements and applicable Wft, SFDR, MiFID II, IDD and other sectoral disclosure and conduct standards, because satisfying a sectoral disclosure rule does not cure a claim prohibited under the consumer-law framework.
What changed
The Dutch Implementatiewet richtlijn betere duurzaamheidsinformatie voor consumenten amended Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, including the rules on unfair commercial practices in Articles 6:193a et seq., to implement Directive (EU) 2024/825, which amends Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices and Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. For consumer-facing commercial communications, sustainability claims should be specific, accurate, verifiable and supported by appropriate evidence.
Compliance impact
The impact is high for firms using sustainability language in retail marketing because prohibited practices are unlawful irrespective of whether a specific Wft rule addresses the claim. AFM describes enforcement as already possible, while independent commentary from PwC, Dirkzwager, Holla, Arthur Cox and Grant Thornton confirms a broad cross-sector scope, heightened substantiation expectations and practical exposure for existing claims, labels and future-performance statements.
De Europese autoriteit die zich bezighoudt met het voorkomen van witwassen en terrorismefinanciering, AMLA, heeft technische standaarden ( Regulatory Technical Standard (RTS)) gepubliceerd. Deze geven nadere invulling aan onderdelen van de nieuwe Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) waaronder het cliëntenonderzoek…
Why this matters
This is a policy statement and technical standard publication from AMLA that provides concrete regulatory guidance on implementing the new European AML/CFT framework.
Waarover maken pensioenspecialisten zich concreet druk in de pensioentransitie? En welke tip hebben ze voor de AFM? In deze interviewserie stellen we drie vaste vragen aan een pensioenprominent. Vandaag Kaya de Lange, algemeen directeur van premiepensioeninstelling (ppi) BeFrank: ‘Ik vind communicatie echt een…
Why this matters
This is an AFM news article featuring an interview with Kaya de Lange, CEO of BeFrank (a premium pension institution). The content discusses the Dutch pension system transition (transitie), emphasizing the importance of participant understanding and trust, communication clarity, and layered disclosure.
Aflevering 9 van de AFM-pensioenpodcast gaat over een uitspraak van de Geschilleninstantie pensioenfondsen (GIP) over het niet beantwoorden van deelnemersvragen door een pensioenfonds. Verder aandacht voor het verstrekken van informatie via de MijnOmgeving; hoe zorg je ervoor dat deelnemers die informatie ook gaan…
Why this matters
This is a podcast episode by the AFM (Dutch financial regulator) discussing a dispute resolution decision regarding pension fund obligations to answer participant questions and information disclosure via MijnOmgeving.
Een persoonlijke, evenwichtige en duidelijke toelichting. Die moeten pensioenuitvoerders hun deelnemers geven bij bedragen op het definitieve transitieoverzicht die afwijken van het prognose-transitieoverzicht. Bij haar onderzoek naar transitieoverzichten heeft dit de speciale aandacht van de AFM.
Why this matters
This is an AFM regulatory guidance article addressing pension administrators' obligations to provide clear, balanced, and personal explanations of differences between forecast and final transition statements.
Communicatie door pensioenuitvoerders over de uitkeringsfase heeft de nadrukkelijke onze aandacht. Het is belangrijk dat communicatie bijdraagt aan realistische verwachtingen bij deelnemers zodat voorzienbare teleurstellingen worden voorkomen. Het moment van toetreden tot de uitkeringsfase is een belangrijk…
Why this matters
The AFM (Dutch financial regulator) is announcing a formal compliance investigation into whether pension funds are meeting statutory communication requirements when participants enter the payout phase.
Informatieverstrekking aan deelnemers gebeurt steeds vaker via de MijnOmgeving of de website van de pensioenuitvoerder. De deelnemer ontvangt daarbij een attendering, vaak via e-mail. Dat mag, als die attendering goed duidelijk maakt waarom de informatie belangrijk is. Dat vergroot de kans aanzienlijk dat de deelnemer…
Why this matters
This is an informational AFM bulletin clarifying regulatory expectations for how pension administrators (pensioenuitvoerders) must notify participants when providing information via websites or portals.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) stelt elk kwartaal de toetsrente vast voor hypotheken met een rentevastperiode korter dan tien jaar. De toetsrente voor het vierde kwartaal van 2026 bedraagt 5%.
Why this matters
This is an informational announcement of the AFM's quarterly determination of the toetsrente (test rate) for mortgages with fixed-rate periods under 10 years, set at 5% for Q4 2026. The toetsrente is a pre-existing consumer protection mechanism used by mortgage lenders to calculate financing capacity.
Verzekeraars rapporteren over 2025 opnieuw minder klachten dan over 2024. In 2024 nam het aantal klachten in álle deelmarkten af. In 2025 was diezelfde lichte daling te zien, maar wel stijging van het aantal klachten in de schadeverzekeringsmarkt. In 2025 werden klachten gemiddeld sneller afgehandeld. Dit blijkt uit…
Why this matters
This is an informational news release presenting AFM's annual complaints data collection from 170 insurers covering 2025. The report documents trends (overall 3.2% decline to 121,000 complaints, but a 5.1% rise in damage insurance complaints) and improved processing times (15.5 days average).
The financial sector has made major progress since the introduction of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). At the same time, as a result of its supervision and requests for information, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified areas requiring further action from financial…
Why this matters
AFM regulatory update on DORA compliance progress and implementation gaps. Informational content summarizing sector-wide developments, compliance improvements (94% register approval), and areas requiring attention (incident reporting, policy documentation, threshold calculations).
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.
Met zo’n 175 professionals uit de pensioenwereld, was het AFM-pensioenevent op 4 juni afgeladen vol. Uit de enquête achteraf bleek dat een ruime meerderheid van de deelnemers tevreden was over het event. Enkelen stoorden zich aan de discussie tussen de AFM en de Pensioenfederatie bij de break-outsessie over…
Why this matters
This is an informational article about an AFM pension industry event covering cost transparency, choice guidance, and survivor pensions. The content discusses regulatory engagement with pension funds, execution organizations, and insurers on conduct and disclosure matters.
Waarover maken pensioenspecialisten zich concreet druk in de pensioentransitie? En welke tip hebben ze voor de AFM? In deze interviewserie stellen we drie vaste vragen aan een pensioenprominent. Vandaag Jeroen Steenvoorden, ombudsman pensioenen: ‘Een goede toezichthouder is soepel op het moment dat iets goed gaat, en…
Why this matters
Interview with pension ombudsman discussing Dutch pension system transition, focusing on member communication, choice guidance, and regulatory oversight. Content is informational/editorial rather than announcing new regulatory requirements.
Aflevering 8 van de AFM-pensioenpodcast 'Toezicht aan tafel' gaat over het opheffen van de leenrestrictie en transparant communiceren daarover naar je deelnemers. Verder aandacht voor fouten in digitale tools voor keuzebegeleiding. De luisteraarsvraag is dit keer van Jeroen Steenvoorden, de ombudsman pensioenen.
Why this matters
AFM podcast episode discussing pension plan loan restrictions removal and transparent member communication requirements. Covers conduct of business and disclosure obligations for pension providers. Informational/educational content from regulator, not urgent directive.
Vrijwillige voortzetting van de pensioenregeling kan het mislopen van compensatie voorkomen. Stel je deelnemers in staat om hierover een passende keuze te maken. Deelnemers moeten weten dat deze keuze bestaat en wat de voorwaarden zijn.
Why this matters
AFM guidance on pension scheme voluntary continuation and compensation communication. Addresses inadequate disclosure practices by pension administrators regarding participant choice options and financial consequences. Informational regulatory guidance requiring improved consumer communication standards.
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.
Het partnerpensioen is in het nieuwe stelsel standaard op risicobasis geregeld. Bij slechts een klein gedeelte van de actieve deelnemers die in 2024 overgingen naar het nieuwe stelsel, blijkt de dekking van het partnerpensioen dicht bij het maximum van 50 procent van het pensioengevend salaris, blijkt uit ‘Sector in…
Why this matters
AFM informational update on partner pension (partnerpensioen) coverage changes in the new Dutch pension system. Focuses on consumer protection through disclosure requirements and conduct expectations for pension providers and employers to inform participants about coverage gaps.
Van de eerste groep actieve deelnemers die overging naar het nieuwe pensioenstelsel (allemaal bij verzekeraars en ppi’s) blijkt een substantieel deel beperkt pensioen op te bouwen. Dat is een van de bevindingen in ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’, dat we vorige week publiceerden.
Why this matters
AFM regulatory update on pension sector transition to new system. Focuses on consumer protection issues (limited pension accrual, unrealistic expectations, information gaps) and reporting findings from 'Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026'. Informational content about regulatory monitoring and consumer complaint data.
Aflevering 7 van de AFM-pensioenpodcast Toezicht aan tafel staat in het teken van onze publicatie ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’.
Why this matters
AFM podcast discussing pension accumulation gaps ('grey area') among participants at insurers and PPIs based on 2024 data analysis. Focuses on consumer awareness of limited pension benefits and pension transition progress. Informational content from regulator, no immediate action required.
Vooral jongeren blijven achter bij het maken van beleggingskeuzes. Terwijl zij juist nog een lange beleggingshorizon hebben. Dat schrijft de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) in haar rapport ‘Sector in beeld pensioenen 2026’, gebaseerd op data van pensioenuitvoerders over 2024. Dit jaar bevat het rapport ook…
Why this matters
AFM sector report on pension developments in 2024, focusing on young participants' investment choices, complaint handling procedures, and transition to new pension system. Informational content for pension providers regarding conduct standards and disclosure requirements.
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.
De Europese Anti-Witwasautoriteit (AMLA) heeft op 12 mei in een persbericht het definitieve eligibility reporting package gepubliceerd en kondigt aan dat zij extra data opvraagt via de nationale toezichthouders. Financiële ondernemingen onder Nederlands toezicht hoeven geen afzonderlijke rapportage volgens het…
Why this matters
AFM announcement clarifying that Dutch financial firms will not receive separate AMLA eligibility reporting requests, as requirements are integrated into existing questionnaires. This is informational guidance on regulatory implementation for anti-money laundering compliance under the new European AMLA framework.
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).
De Europese anti-witwas- en anti-terrorismefinanciering autoriteit (AMLA) is twee openbare consultaties gestart. De ontwerpinstrumenten geven richting aan hoe meldingsplichtige instellingen de risico’s op witwassen en terrorismefinanciering moeten identificeren, beoordelen en beheersen. Hiermee wordt gewerkt aan een…
Why this matters
AMLA launches public consultations on AML-CFT risk assessment guidelines and regulatory technical standards for group-wide minimum requirements. This is informational content announcing consultation periods (deadline May 8, 2026) affecting multiple financial sectors on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism...
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.