AFM Consultations

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...

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.