Senior Managers / Governance regulatory updates from Netherlands.
We track 23 Senior Managers / Governance updates from Netherlands regulators, published by AFM. The archive covers 6 reports, 4 guidance notes and 4 policy statements. Most recent update: November 2026.
Financieel dienstverleners zetten AI steeds vaker in. Verantwoord gebruik vraagt daarom om duidelijke kaders. Tegelijkertijd blijven cyberdreigingen toenemen en vraagt de naleving van vergunningseisen om aandacht. Ook zien we een belangrijke rol voor financieel dienstverleners bij het versterken van de financiële…
Why this matters
The item is an AFM news piece presenting the findings of the 'Sector in beeld financieel dienstverleners' overview, so the content type is report. It covers AI governance expectations, cyber risk and outsourcing of critical ICT services, and the timely notification and fit-and-proper testing of daily policymakers.
Met nog een jaar te gaan tot de invoering van T+1-settlement op 11 oktober 2027 roept ESMA marktpartijen op hun voorbereidingen af te ronden, hun operationele gereedheid te beoordelen en zo snel mogelijk te starten met testen in de handels- en afwikkelingsketen. Met de publicatie van de laatste technische standaarden…
AI Analysis
AFM is relaying ESMA’s confirmation that the EU T+1 settlement framework is complete and that securities transactions will move from T+2 to T+1 on 11 October 2027. The immediate compliance priority is the first phased requirement, applying from 7 December 2026, for investment firms and their professional clients to exchange allocations and confirmations through electronic, standardised and machine-readable channels; industry commentary highlights material impacts on automation, matching, settlement instructions, custody, FX, liquidity and cross-border operating models.
Key dates
2026-12-07 Deadline
First phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline and related ESMA guidelines apply to allocations and confirmations, including electronic, standardised and machine-readable communications, subject to the temporary technical disruption exception.
2027-07-01 Deadline
Additional phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline become applicable, as specified in the regulation’s transitional provisions.
2027-10-11 Deadline
Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 applies and the EU standard securities settlement cycle changes from T+2 to T+1; the final phase of related settlement-layer requirements also applies.
Suggested considerations
Firms should map every affected transaction type, market, currency, venue, CSD, custodian, broker, client and outsourcing provider across the full trading and settlement ecosystem rather than assessing only internal readiness.
Compliance and operations teams may wish to confirm whether allocations and confirmations can be completed on trade date and transmitted through electronic, standardised and machine-readable channels from 7 December 2026, including accurate place-of-settlement data where required.
Firms should assess and test ISO or other applicable international messaging standards, matching platforms, standing settlement instruction governance, exception handling and the documented process for temporary technical disruptions.
Firms should identify manual processing steps that cannot reliably operate within the shortened timetable and consider automation, straight-through processing, reconciliation, controls over data quality and resilient fallback arrangements.
Firms should obtain implementation commitments and test plans from clients, brokers, custodians, CSD participants, CSDs, CCPs, vendors and outsourcing providers, with evidence of end-to-end testing and defect remediation.
Firms should review liquidity, collateral, margin, FX funding, corporate-action, securities-lending, fund dealing and investment-operation processes for the reduced interval between trade and settlement.
Firms should maintain a regulatory change plan covering the phased milestones on 7 December 2026, 1 July 2027 and 11 October 2027, with senior management oversight, documented risk acceptance and escalation of unresolved dependencies.
What changed
Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 amends Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) and provides for the EU settlement cycle to apply on a T+1 basis from 11 October 2027. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1536 amends the RTS on settlement discipline in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1229, with phased application beginning on 7 December 2026. From 7 December 2026, the allocation and confirmation process must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communications required except during temporary technical disruptions.
Compliance impact
This is a high-priority operational and regulatory change rather than merely a future-market convention: the 7 December 2026 allocation and confirmation requirements are binding requirements under the amended settlement-discipline framework, while the 11 October 2027 T+1 date is established by Regulation (EU) 2025/2075.
Ook bij verzekeraars is sprake van verdere digitalisering, toenemend gebruik van data en AI, veranderende klantverwachtingen én nieuwe wet- en regelgeving. Ontwikkelingen die kansen bieden, maar mogelijk ook risico’s voor het klantbelang. De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft onderzocht hoe verzekeraars het…
Why this matters
The document presents AFM research findings from self-assessments validated by office visits on how insurers embed client interest in governance, culture and decision-making.
De AFM heeft het beleid voor het vaststellen van de hoogte van bestuurlijke boetes geactualiseerd. Het beleid is op onderdelen aangepast en verduidelijkt. Per 15 oktober 2026 treedt het nieuwe Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 in werking. De wijzigingen zijn overwegend technisch en verduidelijkend van aard.
AI Analysis
De AFM vervangt per 15 oktober 2026 het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2021 door het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026. Hoewel de AFM de wijzigingen hoofdzakelijk technisch en verduidelijkend noemt, neemt de beleidsruimte toe om aanzienlijk af te wijken van het wettelijke basisbedrag en wordt de berekening van omzetgerelateerde boetes voor grotere ondernemingen voorspelbaarder maar potentieel aanzienlijker.
Key dates
2026-10-14
AFM publiceert de actualisering van het boetetoemetingsbeleid.
2026-10-15
Het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 treedt in werking en vervangt in beginsel het beleid van 2021, behoudens toepasselijke overgangsregimes.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map each relevante overtreding tegen het toepasselijke wettelijke basisbedrag, de boetecategorie en het wettelijke omzetgerelateerde maximum onder de Wft, het Bbbfs en toepasselijke EU-regels.
Grotere ondernemingen may wish to model exposure using three- to ten-times the applicable basisbedrag for potential zware zaken, followed by a documented proportionality assessment and review against the relevant percentage-of-turnover ceiling.
Firms should consider strengthening evidence on remediation, cooperation, duration, limited impact, absence of recidive, financial position and any other mitigating circumstances, because the updated policy gives the AFM greater scope to move materially away from the basisbedrag.
Boards and senior compliance owners may wish to review open investigations, pending enforcement matters and historic breaches to assess whether the 2026 policy or an applicable transitional regime is relevant.
Legal and compliance teams may wish to verify the final AFM 2026 policy and its transitional provisions, particularly where the alleged conduct occurred before 15 October 2026 or where the applicable legal maximum has recently changed.
Firms may wish to update enforcement-risk scenarios, management information and provisions to reflect that a lower basisbedrag is not necessarily a reliable proxy for the final penalty in a serious case.
What changed
Het beleid blijft gebaseerd op het bestaande stappenplan, maar verduidelijkt dat het wettelijke basisbedrag slechts een globaal uitgangspunt is. De ernst van de overtreding kan aanleiding geven tot een aanzienlijke verhoging of verlaging, waardoor de AFM meer ruimte krijgt voor vergaand maatwerk in lijn met recente jurisprudentie.
Compliance impact
De wijziging creëert geen nieuwe primaire gedragsnormen, maar kan de financiële en litigation exposure bij handhaving vergroten doordat de AFM in ernstige zaken verder van het wettelijke basisbedrag kan afwijken. De omzetgerelateerde methodiek voor grotere ondernemingen wordt duidelijker: een uitgangspunt van drie- tot tienmaal het basisbedrag kan vervolgens worden gematigd wegens evenredigheid, maar blijft begrensd door het toepasselijke wettelijke maximum, zoals 10%, 15% of 20% van de netto-jaaromzet waar de wet dat voorschrijft.
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.
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.
Interne auditfuncties bij financiële ondernemingen worden steeds professioneler. Uit onderzoek van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) bij zes grote banken, vier verzekeraars en vijf grote financieel dienstverleners blijkt dat zij in toenemende mate investeren in onafhankelijke toetsing. We moedigen ondernemingen…
Why this matters
This is a regulatory guidance document from the AFM (Dutch financial regulator) presenting findings from a market survey on internal audit functions. It identifies expectations for banks, insurers, and financial service providers regarding independent testing and governance controls.
Per 23 juli 2026 is de verplichte driejaarlijkse herbeoordeling van de betrouwbaarheid van (mede)beleidsbepalers bij financiële ondernemingen in Caribisch Nederland (Bonaire, St. Eustatius en Saba) vervallen.Financiële instellingen en betrokken (mede)beleidsbepalers blijven verplicht om relevante wijzigingen of nieuwe…
Why this matters
The update announces the elimination of mandatory three-yearly trustworthiness reassessments for policy-makers at financial institutions in Caribbean Netherlands (effective 23 July 2026), aligning local oversight with European Netherlands practice.
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...
De naleving van de normen uit de Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft) en de Sanctiewet (Sw) door beheerders van beleggingsinstellingen is op belangrijke onderdelen verbeterd. Dat blijkt uit de vragenlijst van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) over 2024. (Een groot deel van) de…
Why this matters
This is a regulatory news item reporting AFM's 2024 questionnaire findings on Wwft (AML) and Sanctiewet compliance by investment fund managers (AIFM). The update identifies specific compliance gaps (66% lack transaction profiles, 55% unregistered with FIU-Nederland, ~45% of daily policymakers lack Wwft training),...
Jos Heuvelman, bestuurder bij de Autoriteit Financiële Markten, mag zich voortaan Officier in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau noemen. Hij kreeg de Koninklijke onderscheiding opgespeld door Hans Vijlbrief, minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, in het bijzijn van Monique Bonsen-Lemmers, burgemeester van Woerden. Dit…
Why this matters
The content is a press release announcing a royal decoration (Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau) awarded to Jos Heuvelman upon his retirement from the AFM. While it mentions his contributions to financial market confidence, pension transition, and consumer financial literacy, these are retrospective descriptions...
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) publiceert de Beleidsregel geschiktheid Wta 2027 . De beleidsregel bevat het toetsingskader dat de AFM gebruikt voor geschiktheidstoetsingen van beleidsbepalers van accountantsorganisaties. Aanleiding is een wetswijziging waarin de geschiktheidseis wordt uitgebreid van…
AI Analysis
De AFM heeft de Beleidsregel geschiktheid Wta 2027 gepubliceerd als nieuw toetsingskader voor beleidsbepalers van accountantsorganisaties. Naar verwachting treedt de beleidsregel op 1 januari 2027 tegelijk met de Wijzigingswet accountancysector in werking, waardoor de geschiktheidseis wordt uitgebreid van uitsluitend OOB-accountantsorganisaties naar de grootste reguliere accountantsorganisaties.
Key dates
2026-08-20
De AFM publiceert de Beleidsregel geschiktheid Wta 2027.
2027-01-01
Beoogde inwerkingtredingsdatum van de Beleidsregel geschiktheid Wta 2027, gelijktijdig met de verwachte inwerkingtreding van de Wijzigingswet accountancysector.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map de omzet uit wettelijke controles en het aantal wettelijke controles over de laatste drie aaneengesloten boekjaren tegen beide cumulatieve drempels van €3 miljoen en 150 controles.
Betrokken accountantsorganisaties should consider identifying all functies die als beleidsbepaler of intern toezichthouder onder de Wta kunnen kwalificeren, inclusief relevante personen binnen het hoogste netwerkonderdeel.
Firms should consider performing a gap assessment against the Beleidsregel geschiktheid Wta 2027, met bijzondere aandacht voor collectieve geschiktheid, kennis en ervaring, tijdsbesteding, onafhankelijk oordeel, governance en integriteit.
Organisaties may wish to establish a forward-looking appointment and notification timetable so that nieuwe beleidsbepalers tijdig aan de AFM kunnen worden voorgelegd en eventuele wijzigingen in taken of verantwoordelijkheden afzonderlijk worden beoordeeld.
Accountancy groups should consider monitoring de publicatie in de Staatscourant, de definitieve inwerkingtreding van de Wijzigingswet accountancysector en eventuele overgangsbepalingen voordat zij formele conclusies trekken over de toepasselijkheid op een specifieke organisatie.
Firms involved in assurance over sustainability reporting should consider reviewing their role descriptions and competence matrices, while avoiding reliance on specifieke vereisten uit de Implementatiewet duurzaamheidsrapportering totdat de toepasselijke wetgeving daadwerkelijk in werking is.
What changed
De geschiktheidstoetsing gaat naar verwachting ook gelden voor beleidsbepalers van reguliere accountantsorganisaties die gedurende drie aaneengesloten boekjaren per boekjaar ten minste €3 miljoen omzet uit wettelijke controles behalen én ten minste 150 wettelijke controles uitvoeren. De criteria zijn cumulatief en zien op de accountantsorganisatie als geheel; marktcommentaar van SRA en Accountancy Vanmorgen bevestigt dat de uitbreiding vooral de grotere reguliere kantoren raakt, naar schatting ongeveer 10 tot 15 SRA-kantoren.
Compliance impact
De wijziging breidt een formele geschiktheidseis en AFM-toetsing uit naar een nieuwe, afgebakende groep reguliere accountantsorganisaties; niet-geschikte of niet tijdig beoordeelde beleidsbepalers kunnen daardoor gevolgen hebben voor benoeming, taakuitoefening en governance. De publicatie zelf geeft geen nieuwe sancties of definitieve datum naast de beoogde inwerkingtreding, zodat de praktische impact mede afhangt van de definitieve wet, overgangsregels en de toepasselijke toetsmomenten.
Many fund managers have their compliance and internal audit functions well organised. Nevertheless, improvements are needed. For example, documentation is not always up to date, fund managers do not always retain sufficient control when outsourcing, and decisions based on proportionality are often insufficiently…
Why this matters
AFM guidance on compliance and internal audit function improvements for fund managers. Addresses documentation quality, outsourcing oversight, and proportionality justification. Informational supervisory guidance from European Common Supervisory Action (CSA) coordinated by ESMA.
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.
Het intern kwaliteitsonderzoek (IKO) moet een helder en diepgaand beeld geven van de kwaliteit van de afgeronde wettelijke controles. Plus leer- en verbeterpunten waarmee de accountantsorganisatie de controlekwaliteit verder kan versterken. De zes onderzochte OOB-accountantsorganisaties voeren het IKO uit volgens wet…
Why this matters
AFM guidance on improving internal quality reviews (IKO) for statutory audit organizations. This is informational content addressing audit quality assurance, monitoring mechanisms, and governance practices.
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.
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 Elske Heringa, onder andere vicevoorzitter van Bedrijfstakpensioenfonds Levensmiddelen: De overgang naar het nieuwe…
Why this matters
Interview-based news article featuring pension fund governance insights. Discusses board member competencies, diversity and inclusion in pension fund governance, and participant communication in the context of Dutch pension system transition. No regulatory action or deadline-driven content; informational in nature.
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.
Het convenant tussen de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en Stichting DSI over de vakbekwaamheid van beleggingsprofessionals is een efficiënt en effectief instrument binnen het risicogestuurde toezicht van de AFM. Dat is de conclusie van de audit door onderzoeksbureau KWINK groep in opdracht van de AFM. Het…
Why this matters
AFM audit report on DSI covenant for professional competency requirements under MiFID II and Wft. Informational news about covenant effectiveness, renewal plans, and recommendations for improvement. Addresses professional qualification standards for investment professionals at regulated firms.
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.
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...
Financial institutions are working to make their digital services accessible. This is important, because it ensures that people with disabilities can manage their finances independently. To provide further guidance to the sector, the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) shares expectations and points of attention in…
AI Analysis
AFM’s third EAA update makes clear that Dutch financial institutions must not only fix accessibility gaps, but also **assign clear internal accountability**, **embed accessibility compliance in governance and monitoring**, and **submit more specific non-compliance notifications**. AFM also announced a **sector-wide compliance review in the coming months**, with a focus on whether websites meet WCAG criteria, especially **level A** requirements, so compliance teams should treat this as an active supervisory campaign rather than routine guidance.
Key dates
28 June 2025
- The European Accessibility Act came into force, and Dutch national measures began applying to covered new products and services
Coming months (TBD, est. late 2026) Deadline
- AFM will conduct an accessibility compliance review of the sector, focusing on WCAG compliance, especially level A criteria
23 April 2026 Deadline
- AFM published its third EAA update and announced a forthcoming sector compliance review
Suggested considerations
Firms should map all consumer-facing digital services and identify which websites, apps, and digital documents fall within EAA/WCAG scope.
Firms should assign a named internal owner for accessibility compliance, monitoring, remediation tracking, and regulatory notifications.
Firms should document accessibility risks and remediation plans for each in-scope digital service, including the precise pages, functions, or documents affected.
Firms should embed accessibility checks into design, development, testing, and change-management processes so compliance is monitored continuously.
Firms should review EAA non-compliance notifications and make them more specific, including the exact accessibility issues, affected locations, and remediation status.
What changed
- AFM expects financial institutions to identify accessibility risks in their digital services and implement improvements that meet the required WCAG criteria.
AFM expects firms to embed and monitor accessibility through internal processes, rather than treating accessibility as a one-off remediation project.
AFM is emphasizing clear accountability for safeguarding digital accessibility, which means firms should be able to show who owns accessibility compliance, monitoring, and remediation internally.
AFM says EAA notifications of non-compliance must be more specific, because current submissions often do not describe the exact accessibility issues or where they are located.
AFM has published further instructions on how to answer certain questions in the EAA notification form, indicating a stronger supervisory focus on the quality of regulatory reporting.
Compliance impact
The compliance risk is material because AFM is moving from guidance to active review and may directly challenge firms with shortcomings. In practice, poor documentation, vague notifications, or weak governance can expose firms to supervisory intervention, remediation orders, and escalating scrutiny over the accessibility of consumer-facing channels.
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.