Category: Central Bank of Ireland

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

17 June 2026 Warning Notice

Warning:	Unauthorised Investment Firm / Unauthorised Investment Business Firm
Unauthorised Firm Name	LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE)
Website	https://larlfs.com/
Email addresses used
Authorisation in Ireland	LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (Clone) is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland.
Additional Information	This firm is cloning the identity of the legitimate Central Bank authorised firm LARL Financial Services Limited (C176004). The clone firm is falsely claiming to be regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland under reference number C176004 in order to add an air of legitimacy to the scam. It should be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the legitimate Central Bank authorised firm and the scam entity.

Notes:

1. Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800 or report an unauthorised firm directly to the Central Bank.
2. For more information on how to protect yourself from financial scams, please visit www.centralbank.ie/financialscams
3. The name of the above firm is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

16 June 2026 Speech

Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to speak today.

Last week, the ECB’s Governing Council decided to raise interest rates by 0.25%. This is the first change since June 2025 – the first increase since 2023 – and brings the main policy rate, the Deposit Facility Rate, to 2.25%.

Our decision is a response to inflation pressures from higher oil prices and other supply disruptions arising from the war in the Middle East. My colleagues and I on the Governing Council were unanimous in making the decision; all of us are committed to a monetary policy that delivers our 2% inflation target over the medium term.

In the first part of my speech, I set out the context for last week’s decision, outlining the economic outlook for the euro area. The experience of inflation in 2022 showed that net energy importers like Europe — and Ireland in particular, where 80% of our energy is imported, compared to an EU average of 60% — are very exposed to energy price shocks. As our latest Financial Stability Review put it, if the conflict in the Middle East is unresolved, rising inflation and slower growth will be acutely felt by households and businesses.

In the second part of my remarks I focus more closely on Ireland, covering the implications of the energy price shock for the Irish economy and  my take on the extremely volatile GDP data we saw recently.  On Thursday this week, we will publish our second Quarterly Bulletin of the year which will set our views on the outlook for the Irish economy more fully.

The outlook for the euro area economy

The conflict in the Middle East has delivered a significant supply-side shock to the global economy. Oil prices rose sharply at the onset of the war and remain exceptionally volatile, driven in-part by reporting around how an agreement to end the war might work in practice. The price of energy-intensive products, particularly where production is concentrated in the Gulf region such as fertiliser and helium have also jumped. More generally, rising petrochemical prices, a key factor in the production of many everyday items we consume from food packaging to cosmetics and clothing, are contributing to upward price pressures across the supply chain.

The direct effects of the energy shock have already shown up in consumer prices, while the indirect effects are beginning to emerge. The flash estimate for euro area headline inflation in May was 3.2%, up from 3% in April and 1.9% in February. Energy inflation alone was close to 11% in May.

Global supply chain pressures intensified in March and April, pointing to further upward pressure on goods prices in the months ahead. Other upstream indicators reinforce this picture: surveys show rising input prices and lengthening supplier delivery times and firms are telling us they expect selling prices to increase in the next three months. All of this shows that the initial energy shock is spreading and, notably, these patterns are broad-based, across all sectors, that is, retail, services, industry, and construction.

These are not comfortable numbers, and they are moving in the wrong direction. The question is whether this is a repeat of the 2022 experience that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The two shocks rhyme – in that they are both geopolitical events that push up energy prices – but it is also that case that starting economic backdrop today is quite different, and this could matter for how the initial shock transmits to the broader economy.

In 2022, the energy shock arrived into an economy recovering strongly from the pandemic, with demand momentum and labour markets exceptionally tight. The inflation that followed was a combination of supply disruption and demand pressure. The policy response was a rapid sequence of rate increases calibrated to cool demand as well as anchor expectations.

Today, demand is well below the levels we experienced coming out of the pandemic.  And since the start of the war, euro area GDP growth has been revised down.  Consumer confidence has fallen and private investment is hesitant in the face of ongoing uncertainty. The latest shock also arrives at a challenging time for European manufacturers, who are impacted by China’s transition to a producer and exporter of complex, high-tech goods that directly compete with Europe’s core industrial sectors.

This relatively weaker economic matters, because we know from previous episodes the pass-through of oil shocks to consumer prices tends to be weaker in low-inflation or weaker demand environments. This can happen because, in the face of weaker demand, firms find it harder to pass-on extra costs and workers have weaker bargaining power when it comes to wage demands.

The timing and scale of the impact on core consumer goods and services will also depend on the persistence and scale of the shock itself, which remains highly uncertain, notwithstanding this weekend’s news. In addition, how wages and profit margins respond to the initial inflation shock — so-called ‘second-round effects’ — could contribute to stickier services inflation.

While conscious of the economic backdrop, I am also wary of taking too much comfort from a ‘this time is different’ narrative, for a few reasons. As I already indicated, the incoming hard and soft data shows clear upward price pressures. Another concern I have is the potential for longer-term energy supply disruption relating to the destruction of infrastructure, on which we have little clarity at this stage.

And of course, a channel I pay close attention to is what is happening to inflation expectations. We track expectations because the prices that businesses and consumers expect in the future can shape price-setting and wage demands today.

ECB research shows that after the outbreak of the latest Middle East conflict in February, euro area consumers revised their short-term inflation expectations upward sharply while simultaneously marking down their growth expectations. At the median, consumers’ twelve-month ahead expected inflation rose from just over 2.5 to 4 per cent in March and has remained there since. Short-term inflation expectations tend to react quickly to spikes in energy prices, and if the initial shock fades, these expectations can revert.  This is why we also pay attention to medium-term expectations, which have been more stable of late, across consumers, firms, and financial markets. For example, data from inflation swaps that allows us to gauge average inflation over the coming five years showed little movement since the onset of the war, currently sitting just above 2.1%.

Despite this, we also need to account for the fact that households are encountering this new shock already carrying the memory of the post-pandemic inflation surge. That accumulated experience has made them more sensitive to price developments: even as inflation had returned close to our 2% target last year, close to 41% of consumers surveyed in the ECB Consumer Expectations Survey said they were still paying close attention to price changes. When the conflict escalated at the end of February, that figure rose again to 50%. The message is clear: consumers have not forgotten, and they are watching closely.

Let me be clear about what raising rates in this environment does and does not mean.

It does not automatically mean we are embarking on a new extended tightening cycle equivalent to 2022 and 2023. The context is different, the starting point is different, and the calibration should be different. Yet we know from the past, as well as from the incoming data, that supply shocks cannot simply be accommodated when they risk being persistent and when expectations are as sensitive as the data suggest they currently are.

It does mean that the path ahead remains genuinely uncertain and, for policy, data-dependent. The latest staff projections have inflation in the baseline averaging 3% in 2026 but peaking in the second half of the year at 3.4%.  For 2027 and 2028 it averages 2.3 and 2.0%, respectively. It is worth comparing these with the projections from June 2022, where the communication from the Governing Council at the time was that this was the start of a hiking cycle: inflation was projected to average 6.8% in 2022, 3.5% in 2023, and 2.1% in 2024. 

Reflecting uncertainty around energy prices, the June 2026 projections also consider the impact of milder, adverse, and severe energy scenarios on inflation.  In these scenarios, inflation ranges from 2.9 to 4.0% in 2026, 1.8 to 5.0% in 2027, and 1.8 to 3.0% in 2028.

Prior to the weekend’s announcements, my view was that we were tracking closer to a scenario where oil prices only come down slowly through 2027 and 2028 but remain above pre-war levels. The ‘milder’ scenario had a faster decline through the second half of 2026, returning to pre-war levels by mid-2027.

While much remains unclear, I welcome news of the proposed memorandum of understanding to end the war, in particular for the people and families in the region directly impacted by the conflict.

But let me be clear: an end to the conflict does not necessarily mean an immediate end to the shock. The balance of risk in staff projections – that is considering the mild-to-severe scenarios I outlined – showed that a rate increase in June was the right approach to bring inflation back to our 2% target over the medium term. It remains to be seen how quickly supply chains normalise and energy prices adjust. The direct price pressures might not fade so quickly if the infrastructure damage from the war means production only recovers with a lag. Then there is the question of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, on which there remains little clarity.

So, despite the recent and relatively positive news, we really need clarity around energy supply. And until then, I continue to monitor the pass-through of the shock, focusing on the indirect and second-round effects I have described.

What might this latest shock mean for Ireland?

For Ireland, Modified Domestic Demand, our preferred measure of underlying activity, is expected to slow to a more moderate pace compared to more recent years.

Our March projections incorporated the initial effects of the Middle East war on international energy prices. This resulted in inflation being revised significantly higher, prompting knock-on downward revisions to households’ real disposable income and consumption.

Working in the opposite direction, the outlook for modified investment has improved on the strength of double digit, broad-based growth in 2025 and a continued robust performance in the first quarter of 2026.

Compared to our projections from March, and up until the recent announcement, we had been moving closer to the oil price assumptions embedded in the ‘adverse’ scenario set out in those projections. That is, where oil prices remain about $90/barrel through 2026, and only come down very gradually to around $70/barrel through 2027 and 2028. In this scenario, inflation was closer to 3.6% on average in 2026 as opposed to the baseline projection of 2.9% (2.3%) from March (December). Growth was also marginally weaker in a more adverse energy scenario, averaging 2.7% in 2026. Later this week, we will publishing our updated projections and fuller assessment of the outlook for the Irish economy.

Ireland’s Q1 GDP in the spotlight

Finally, I want to highlight recent developments in the Irish economic data which have been the subject of much discussion among economists and others.

Ireland’s Q1 2026 GDP figures showed a striking 12.1 per cent quarterly decline, which was significant enough to drag overall euro area GDP growth into negative territory for the quarter. But as is often the case with Irish data, the headline figure reflects the outsized role of foreign-owned multinationals in the Irish accounts rather than a genuine deterioration in domestic economic conditions. Foreign multinationals account for around half of measured Irish GDP, and trade equates to 230 per cent of GDP, reflecting Ireland’s role as a globalised production and export hub, particularly in pharmaceuticals and ICT.

The Q1 decline had two distinct drivers. First, a base effect: an exceptional surge in exports of polypeptide hormones (a high-value input into diabetes and weight-loss medicines) during Q1 2025 made for a difficult comparison this year, an effect that had already been anticipated. Second, and more of a surprise, was a sharp fall in net trade related to “merchanting” and contract manufacturing (activity undertaken abroad on behalf of Irish-resident companies as part of their global value chains). This is the main driver of the decline.

Importantly, Modified Domestic Demand, the measure that strips out these globalised factors and captures consumer spending, investment, and government spending within Ireland, actually rose by 0.6 per cent over the same quarter. This divergence underlines why modified measures, rather than headline GDP, are the better guide to underlying conditions facing Irish households and businesses, and why this volatility, while dramatic, does not, in my view, signal a material change in the fundamentals relevant to the broader economic outlook.

The financial sector

My speech this evening focuses on economic developments.

But, before I conclude, allow me to say a word about our approach to regulating the financial sector.  The volatile and uncertain environment I have just described has direct implications for how we think about regulation and supervision.

Our Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook (PDF 1.85MB) report set out our priorities for the year ahead, shaped by three themes: building resilience to geopolitical risk and macro-financial uncertainty,  protecting consumers and investors in a rapidly changing world, and responding to technology-driven transformation across the financial sector. These are, in many respects, the same forces I have been describing throughout this speech, viewed through a different lens.

Alongside this, we continue to deliver on our roadmap for regulating and supervising well (PDF 440.55KB), making our framework more effective, more proportionate, and easier to navigate, without compromising resilience.  We will shortly consult on a refreshed framework for how we assess the impact of our regulatory decisions, to ensure that approach is evidence-based and transparent. In a world that is becoming less predictable, firms and consumers need a regulatory environment that is a source of stability, clear, and proportionate and consistent in its approach to managing evolving risks.

Conclusion

Let me close by connecting the threads of what I have covered this evening.

Europe is navigating a serious near-term shock. The energy price surge driven by the Middle East conflict has pushed near-term inflation higher, is softening growth and putting real pressure on households and businesses. This is acutely so in Ireland, given our energy import dependency. Last week’s rate rise was necessary to prevent temporary energy-driven inflation from becoming embedded in wage and price expectations, reflecting the ECB’s primary mandate to maintain price stability across the eurozone.

This latest shock is a reminder of just how exposed a small open economy such as Ireland is to these sorts of increasingly frequent geoeconomic fragmentation shocks. The volatility I highlight, in energy prices and in our own national accounts, underlines why building economic resilience domestically remains so important, and increasingly urgent.

Earlier this year, in my letter to the Tánaiste (PDF 3.24MB), I set out a number of domestic priorities for exactly this reason: growing the supply-side capacity of our economy (including energy infrastructure), strengthening the indigenous business sector alongside FDI, building fiscal buffers for the investment still needed, and enabling greater household participation in financial markets.

None of those priorities were written with these particular events in mind, but they illustrate precisely why they matter. An economy with deeper buffers, energy independence, and more diversified sources of growth is better placed to absorb shocks, whatever their origin.

I will return to these themes, and to the outlook for the public finances specifically, in my annual pre-budget letter to the Minister.  For now, the lesson from recent weeks is a familiar one, but worth repeating: resilience is not something built once and then set aside. It needs to be tended to and reinforced, particularly in a world where the shocks keep coming, and where their origin is increasingly hard to predict.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

12 June 2026 Blog

Yesterday, the ECB Governing Council decided to raise interest rates by 0.25 per cent. This first change since June 2025 brings the Deposit Facility Rate to 2.25 per cent.

I supported the decision and, along with my colleagues on the Governing Council, am committed to delivering our 2 per cent inflation target over the medium term.

Let me explain the context for this decision and what it means for the period ahead.

The Inflation Picture

Oil prices have risen sharply on foot of the latest conflict in the Middle East. Energy-intensive products, particularly those produced in the Gulf region, have followed suit. I have previously highlighted fertilisers and helium as prominent examples that could have downstream implications for consumer prices in food and electronic goods (for example, helium is a critical input in semiconductor fabrication).

The flash estimate for euro area headline inflation in May was 3.2 per cent, up from 3 per cent in April and 1.9 per cent in February. Energy inflation alone was close to 11 per cent in May.

Services inflation rose from 3 per cent in April to 3.5 per cent in May. Global supply chain pressures intensified in March and April, pointing to further upward pressure on goods prices in the months ahead. Survey data point to rising input prices and lengthening supplier delivery times and suggest firms expect selling prices to rise over the summer. 

These are not comfortable numbers, and they are moving in the wrong direction. 

Is This 2022 All Over Again?

The two shocks have a similar impetus – both were geopolitical events that pushed up energy prices- but the economic backdrop today is different, and this matters.

In 2022, the energy shock arrived into an economy recovering strongly from the pandemic, with inflation already above 5 per cent, strong demand momentum and tight labour markets. The inflation that followed combined supply disruption with demand pressure. Policy responded strongly with a sequence of rate increases calibrated to cool demand and anchor expectations.

Demand today is below the levels we experienced coming out of the pandemic and, prior to the start of the war, inflation was around our 2 per cent target. Labour demand is also cooler than in 2022, which is also reflected in the easing of wage growth across the euro area. Consumer confidence and business sentiment has fallen. GDP has been revised down, from 1.2 per cent in 2026 in December, to 0.8 per cent in the latest projections.

This weaker economic backdrop matters, because, as the economic literature suggests, the pass-through of oil shocks to consumer prices tends to be weaker in low-inflation or weaker demand environments. This can happen because, in the face of weaker demand, firms find it harder to pass-on extra costs and workers have weaker bargaining power when it comes to wage demands.

While conscious of this backdrop, I am also wary of taking too much comfort from a “this time is different” narrative, for a few reasons. As I already indicated, the incoming hard and soft data shows clear upward price pressures. Another concern I have is the potential for tipping points around oil supply that may not be fully reflected in energy price futures.

I am also keeping a close eye on inflation expectations. We know that at the outbreak of the war in February, euro area consumers revised their short-term inflation expectations upward. We also know that households are encountering this new shock already carrying the memory of the recent post-pandemic inflation surge: before the war, 41 per cent of consumers surveyed said they were still paying close attention to price changes, and this has since risen to 50 per cent. The message I take from this is that this accumulated experience could make them more sensitive to price developments.

What This Decision Means

The decision to increase rates yesterday does not automatically mean we are embarking on a new extended tightening cycle equivalent to what happened in 2022 and 2023. As I have said, the context is different and so the calibration should be different. The rate increase is guided by our commitment to the 2 per cent target and to the principle that supply shocks cannot simply be accommodated when they risk being persistent and near-term inflation expectations are as sensitive as the data suggest.

The path ahead remains genuinely uncertain and, for policy, data-dependent. The eurosystem staff projections released yesterday have headline inflation in the baseline averaging 3.0 per cent in 2026, 2.3 per cent in 2027 and 2.0 per cent in 2028. But given the ongoing uncertainty, a milder (than the baseline), more adverse, and more severe energy price scenario were also considered. The range of inflation under these scenarios is 2.9-4.0 per cent in 2026, 1.8-5.3 per cent in 2027, and 1.8-3.0 per cent in 2028. 

If there is a peaceful and sustainable resolution to the war, supply chains should start to normalise and energy prices ease. In this scenario, policy could adjust. But the longer the conflict persists and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the more distant this scenario becomes. So, I remain equally focused on the potential for tipping points, and on indirect and second-round effects. If indirect effects intensify or second-round effects emerge, monetary policy will need to respond.

In short, we will follow the data and do what is necessary to deliver price stability.

Irish GDP in the Spotlight: Understanding the Volatility

One piece of data that has had a bit of coverage recently has been the latest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures for Ireland. Understandably, they have attracted significant attention: the dramatic 12.1 per cent quarterly decline caused overall euro area GDP growth in Q1 to be revised down to -0.2 per cent. But as is often the case with Irish GDP, the headline number tells only part of the story, and understanding what lies beneath it is important.

Ireland is a small, open, and highly globalised economy that has become a key export hub for multinational enterprises, most prominently in pharmaceuticals and information technology. The share of our measured economic activity accounted for by foreign-owned multinationals is high, around half of GDP. Trade as a share of GDP, at 230 per cent, is also exceptionally high, compared with the euro area where trade is between 50 per cent and 100 per cent of GDP (depending on whether you include trade outside of the EU or also include trade between Member States).

GDP measures the aggregate volume of production of – and expenditure on – goods and services. This includes activities done within a jurisdiction, but also activities done elsewhere in the globe on behalf of corporate entities resident there. (This calculation is an international standard and based on the UN System of National Accounts.)  In Ireland’s case, for example, an Irish-resident pharmaceutical or ICT company may own raw materials and intellectual property used in the production of a good on their behalf in another country, which is subsequently exported from that other country to the Irish entity’s customer.

This is one reason the contribution of exporting multinationals to Irish GDP is so large relative to their contribution to Irish employment, which in itself is quite significant at approximately 12 per cent. The bottom line is that the scale of multinational activity here means that developments in those industries and firms can heavily influence aggregate activity measures such as GDP.

Modified Measures Tell a Different Story

That GDP is not the best measure of domestic economic conditions and inflationary pressures in Ireland is not news. To address this, the Central Statistics Office also publishes modified measures of economic activity that seek to abstract from the hyper-globalised elements in the National Accounts. In particular, Modified Domestic Demand (MDD) is a measure of consumer spending, home building, government spending, and investment by businesses in Ireland in commercial buildings, most types of machinery, software, and some other intangibles. In my view, it is a more useful measure of economic activity in Ireland.

Despite the GDP decline of 12.1 per cent in Q1 2026, MDD rose in the quarter by 0.6 per cent. For the euro area, total GDP contracted by 0.2 per cent including the Irish GDP data. Using MDD for Ireland instead, euro area GDP rose by 0.2 per cent in Q1. This divergence illustrates why we focus on modified measures when assessing domestic economic conditions.

What Happened in Q1?

The GDP decline in Q1 is concentrated in the pharmaceutical sector, and likely in a small number of firms, and there are two elements.

First, during Q1 2025 there was a substantial increase in the exports out of Ireland of a chemical called “polypeptide hormones”. This is a high-value input to the production of medicines for diabetes and weight loss. Most of the growth in Irish goods exports in 2025 came from this.

However, exports of these goods were exceptionally volatile during last year, and we had accounted for how these unusually high volumes could distort growth estimates for 2026 (so-called ‘base effects’). In addition, the available information on demand and inventory levels in key markets suggested relatively weak export activity through most of 2026. Our expectations were partly corroborated by preliminary Q1 GDP data published by the CSO on April 29th, which estimated a quarterly decline of 2 per cent in Q1, or 6 per cent year-on-year. However, even this was marginally weaker than our expectation at the time.

Second, and more of a surprise, was the decline during Q1 in net trade related to offshore goods, specifically merchanting and contract manufacturing activity.¹ Data on these activities, which relate to how multinationals manage the globalised nature of their value chains, are not available at the time of the flash GDP estimate and only became available when the full quarterly national accounts and balance of payments data were published on June 4th.

It is the decline in net trade related to this activity (reflecting production and trade undertaken abroad on behalf of Irish-based companies) that accounted for the substantial drop in Irish GDP during Q1, leading to the large downward revision from -2 per cent in the flash release to -12.1 per cent in the full release.

What does this mean for the Irish and euro area economy?

So, have these Q1 GDP developments changed my perspective of the overall conditions in the Irish and euro area economy relevant to our monetary policy decisions? No, not to any great extent.

Given that industry, and possibly even product-specific, factors were key in the Irish GDP outturn, and that these developments are not a good signal of broader economic conditions in Ireland or the euro area, these factors are not relevant to the fundamental economic drivers of inflation dynamics. To the extent that volatility in the Irish GDP data also influence the euro area aggregate, then this also is relevant when interpreting euro area GDP numbers.

This is why it remains useful to also consider modified measures such as MDD. It is a better measure of broad economic conditions facing households and businesses in Ireland and provides a closer link between that activity and inflationary pressures.

Conclusion

The Governing Council is determined to deliver on its price stability mandate and ensure inflation returns to our 2 per cent target in the medium-term. Our analysis of the evidence persuaded us to raise interest rates yesterday. We are not committing to a pre-determined path and will continue to base our decisions on a meeting-by-meeting and data-dependent approach. At the Central Bank, we will publish our next Quarterly Bulletin on 18 June which will include further analysis on the drivers and implications of the Q1 outturn on the Irish economic outlook.

Gabriel Makhlouf

---

[1] Merchanting is when a company resident in Ireland buys and sells goods that never enter Ireland, but this activity still gets counted in Irish GDP. Contract Manufacturing involves hiring a third-party outside of Ireland to produce goods according to an Irish-resident company’s specific designs and requirements. The value-added (total sales minus cost of materials) from this production is also counted in Irish GDP.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

11 June 2026 Speech

Introduction

Good morning, I am delighted to be here and many thanks to Patricia at FSI for the invitation.¹

You have a busy agenda today, discussing some of the key issues currently facing the financial sector and financial regulators.

As the title of this conference suggests, we are living through a time of fragmentation; and, as I said earlier this week, this is coming alongside a period of rapid technological transformation.²

While they say that there is nothing permanent except change³ I think it is fair to say that the scale and pace of change underway is potentially unprecedented – and comes on top of an already complex and interconnected risk landscape.⁴

Managing, navigating and responding to this is the clear and present challenge which we are all facing.

It presents both risks and opportunities for global financial services firms, and for global financial centres, and it is against this backdrop I would like to set out some perspectives this morning.

Firstly, on financial regulation amidst financial fragmentation – both the approach of Central Bank of Ireland as well as what we expect of firms.

And secondly, our commitment to Regulating and Supervising well – which includes risk-based, outcome-focused supervision, robust and efficient gatekeeping, and delivering on simplification, all of which I would like to update you on today.

Combined – a strong and well-run sector, operating in a robust and well-regulated environment – these represent to me important foundations for financial services firms as you look to respond to an increasingly complex and challenging world in 2026 and beyond.

Global responsibilities

So, what does it mean to me, as Deputy Governor, Financial Regulation at the Central Bank of Ireland, and my teams to regulate and supervise a significant international financial centre – in particular in the context of international fragmentation.

We have spoken before of the sectors’ rapid growth, and how it has become bigger, more complex, more digital and more international.⁵

This has been the defining feature of the changing landscape of financial services in Ireland over the last decade, and as the people in this room represent, Ireland is home to significant parts of the international banking, insurance and asset management sectors – while being an increasingly important EU hub for fintech and payments.

As I said early this week, global significance comes with global responsibilities.

And our international responsibilities are something we take seriously at the Central Bank, indeed something we embrace – as we work to contribute our part to the global public good that is global financial stability.

For me this involves a number of things, but in particular:

1. A continued commitment to international engagement, standards, cooperation and scrutiny; and, crucially,
2. Ensuring the sector is resilient and well run, so that consumers and the financial system in Ireland, Europe and beyond are well served and well protected by Irish based firms.

On the first point, while the narrative and focus is very much on fragmentation, it would be remiss not to recognise that the global economy and financial system remains highly interconnected – and indeed I believe is likely to remain so.

International trade, including in financial services, and the inter-connectivity of our economies and financial sectors continues – and even if globalisation may be in retreat, this is the primary context in which we continue to operate. 

For our part, we remain fully committed to the global regulatory framework and global supervisory cooperation.

We actively support the work of the international standard setting bodies, and the implementation of global standards in Europe. And we work  closely with supervisory colleagues in Europe and around the world.

As you all know, as regulators we think through the cycle.

While this applies to our regulatory frameworks, I have always firmly believed in also building regulatory relationships that operate through that cycle – part of why we put such an importance on bilateral engagement, as well as our commitment and contribution to the wide range of EU and International fora we are part of.

Speaking to you, I would say that firms should also be thinking through the regulatory and political cycle.

And rather than championing, and capitalising, on divergence, they should continue to advocate for, and indeed practice, convergence.

Which means for me taking a longer-term view, and applying the best standards internationally, rather than the lowest standards locally.

This is something I know first-hand many of the international firms here do – knowing the value of high standards and resilience.

And indeed I have seen many upstream benefits from international subsidiaries, in terms of best practices from local entities influencing better outcomes at group level.

Opportunities and responsibilities

This brings me to my second point – namely our focus on ensuring our sector is resilient and well run, and what we expect of you in this world of fragmentation, volatility and rapid change.

Speaking to this audience, let me focus my remarks on how we think about – and what we expect from – those firms that are part of wider international groups.

The first thing to say is we are clear on the commercial and practical implications of being part of these groups – in terms of competing for resources alongside other entities across the globe, the leveraging of functions, and the down-streaming of group decisions.

But secondly, while this is important context that we understand, we believe that it is in the best interest of everyone that subsidiaries based in Ireland are part of a well-regulated, stable jurisdiction – and subject to the high standards and risk-based supervision that sets them up sustainably for success.

This includes being resilient, financially and operationally, but also in terms of governance and risk management – ensuring the local entity is substantive, and sufficiently independent.

Thinking in particular of the current risk landscape, Irish entities part of global groups, have distinct opportunities and responsibilities.

In terms of opportunities, having access within your groups to global networks and intelligence, global infrastructure and data, as well as exposure to global best practices in risk management, can provide real benefits. In the face of a rapidly changing external environment, including rapid technological change, this can be something that you can harness to the benefit of your consumers and the wider economy.

But alongside these opportunities you have clear responsibilities, to ensure that your Irish and European franchise is substantive and well governed.

This means that leveraging of group resources is not done to the extent to which it compromises the independence of the local board, or creates conflicts of interest that are not adequately managed, or leaves boards unable to fulfil their oversight function, their regulatory obligations or, simply, their duty to their customers.

This has always been the firm principle under which we regulate our large internationally oriented financial sector – and one that I reinforce today.⁶

And while as I said these benefits can be a distinct advantage navigating the current external risk environment, amidst global fragmentation and rapid innovation, such local responsibilities become all the more important.

This is something my teams and  I have discussed with many of you – and I know of the ongoing commitment of our sector to robust boards demonstrating both autonomy and responsibility, understanding and expertise.

Regulating and Supervising well – minding the gate…

Turning to our broader regulatory framework, you have heard me speak before about Regulating and Supervising well – which for me means robustly, effectively and efficiently. 

As you know our revised integrated supervisory approach,  introduced in January 2025, builds on the strong foundations of our risk-based approach to supervision, incorporates our European and international supervisory responsibilities, and the domestic and European regulatory framework in which we operate.

Through risk-based and outcomes focused supervision, robust and efficient gatekeeping, and clear and predictable regulation, we deliver the high standards and stable environment which underpins a strong financial services sector.

In particular today, I would like to cover two aspects of this: our approach to authorisations and gatekeeping and how we are delivering simplification.

Firstly, gatekeeping – which is a key part of the regulatory and supervisory framework, and indeed a large part of our work.

Over the last 10 years we have authorised or approved:

• 3 Banks, 32 Payment Institutions and 30 E-Money Institutions;
• Over 9,000 Funds⁷;
• 60 (re)insurance firms, and 11 Solvency II special purpose vehicles;
• 57 MIFID Investment Firms and around 1,900 retail intermediaries⁸; and
• around 9,000 debt prospectuses and nearly 30,000 people in key roles in financial services as part of the Fitness and Probity Regime.

And today we are publishing our annual Authorisation and Gatekeeping report⁹, which sets out expectations and metrics on how we are delivering on this role, and demonstrates that the pipeline is still strong, and that it is expected to continue to be so.

But why is gatekeeping important?

Well, gatekeeping  is all about ensuring firms, individuals and products meet the required standards, in particular those responsible for the public’s money – and in this way it plays a fundamental role in contributing to our safeguarding outcomes, namely: financial stability, the safety and soundness of firms, the protection of consumer and investor interests, and the integrity of the system.

Given the volume and importance of this role, our approach to authorisations is:

• Risk-based and is framed in the context of legislative requirements, guidelines and best practice.
• Proportionate and reflects the nature, scale and complexity of firms’ activities.
• Outcomes focused, in that it is not about checking boxes but about ensuring we deliver the right outcome, which is a firm set up to be well run, sustainable and to serve its consumers well.
• Robust – considering an authorisation granted by the Central Bank is an entry point for providing services into the Irish and European financial markets and therefore has to mean something in terms of high standards. We also work hard on supervisory convergence across Europe to ensure common high standards for our single market.

But recognising the importance of innovation, new entrants, and the proper and orderly functioning of our financial sector, in addition to ensuring our process is robust, in recent years we have also focused our efforts on ensuring it is efficient.

We know that the speed and predictability of regulatory processes matter to firms making investment decisions; but at the same time we also know the importance of the high standards that should be associated with regulatory approval from Central Bank of Ireland.

As such, this does not mean we prioritise speed over rigour. But it does mean we have sought to enhance our gatekeeping process, to be more clear, more transparent, more efficient and more predictable.

We have done this out of a desire to continuously improve. But also in the face of feedback that our clarity and responsiveness to incoming applications could be improved, as well as the review of our Fitness and Probity approval process in 2024 – which has helped further strengthen our approach.¹⁰

We have listened and acted on that feedback, have learned the lessons where our processes may not have always been up to the required standards and have fully implemented the recommendations from that review. The positive response from industry and other stakeholders underlines the progress we believe we have made here.

To enhance transparency, today we are publishing our second report on implementing the F&P review recommendations.¹¹ All 12 recommendations are now fully implemented and embedded. Highlights include:

• Efficiency: 97% of F&P application assessments are completed within 90 days – with average approval time of 50 calendar days.
• Clarity – we have consolidated our guidance into streamlined and user-friendly materials;
• Governance – we have established a dedicated F&P unit, as well as a Gatekeeping Decisions Committee, which I chair; and
• Engagement – we have actively engaged with industry stakeholders, including through workshops, increasing transparency and building trust.

While satisfied with our progress – both on this work and our broader approach to authorisations – we know we are not perfect, and that there is always room to improve.

But we also know it is not about being perfect – for fear it becomes the enemy of the good.

Rather it is about being a mature regulator committed to learning and improving. It is about responding to feedback, changes in the framework and legal clarifications. It is about being more effective and efficient, as well as addressing any issues identified with our processes or communications – all of which is designed to support good supervisory judgement, and good outcomes.

As we continue to improve in our gatekeeping work, I would highlight three areas for the future:

• First, as noted in our simplification roadmap, following the success of our F&P Unit we are centralising our broader gatekeeping functions to make it more effective, while bringing greater, clarity, consistency and efficiency to this work.

• Secondly, we are investing in and improving our technology, including through automation and AI – which will provide efficiencies, transparency and consistency in the internal and external experience of the authorisation process for all sectors and products.

• And thirdly, we are firmly committed to continuing to deepen our understanding of innovation in the financial sector, which includes our own internal expertise, our innovation engagement – through the hub and the sandbox –  but crucially also our engagement at the gate, where we are increasingly seeing innovative business models and applications from both new and incumbent providers.

All of this is aligned with our commitment to being more forward looking, more open and engaged, and to regulating and supervising well.  And sets us up well to continue to deliver on our important gatekeeping role into the future, helping to maintain the stability of the sector while ensuring the financial system is operating the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.

…and delivering a more effective and efficient framework

Finally, let me touch on a topic we are very much engaged with in the Central Bank, namely the simplification agenda.

In my first speech as Deputy Governor a little over a year ago, I set out my thinking on simplification and how my teams and I would approach this issue.¹²

I said we would proactively look for areas to simplify; and we would engage with stakeholders on their views.

I said we would enhance our approach to weighing the costs and benefits of regulatory interventions; and that we would be effective and efficient in our regulation and supervision.

And I said that while engaging on these issues, we would remember and remind others of the lessons from past – and call out instances where we believe simplification was sliding into deregulation.

Over the last year I believe we have done that, though of course with more to do.

We have engaged openly with our stakeholders, and have looked at our own frameworks.

We have continued to embed our new supervisory approach, which is more integrated, more risk based and more outcomes focused, building on the strong foundations of our previous model.

We have broadened and enhanced our evidence-based policy making, further embedding this in our regulatory approach.

And in December we published a comprehensive multi-year roadmap of simplification initiatives across regulation, supervision, gatekeeping and reporting – of which I would like to give you an update today.¹³

I am pleased to say we are on track on our commitments.

Some examples include:

• Setting out in more detail our annual supervisory plans – which were included in our Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook this year, and I was glad to hear this was useful and well received.
• Completing a review of our Cross-Industry Guidance on Outsourcing, which was specifically called out in our engagement with stakeholders. Following this review we have decided to remove the current guidance and replace it, removing any duplication while still assisting firms through non-mandatory good practices. We will be engaging with the sector on this new guidance later this year.
• In terms of our review of more than 50 domestic insurance artefacts – we have prioritised areas affected by the Solvency II reforms, and will be engaging with the sector on proposed changes over the rest of this year, including at a half-day event next week.
• On data and reporting, we are centralising our approach to data in the Bank. We have streamlined new data requests, and are engaging in a comprehensive review of data collections. We have already identified early candidate reports for retirement/consolidation – and will progress this in the second half of this year.

And finally, we have developed a new regulatory impact assessment framework – which we will publish and consult on in the coming weeks. This work further embeds and brings greater consistency to how we do policy in the Central Bank, as well as how we conduct and publish regulatory impact assessments for those areas of policy where we are exercising meaningful discretion.

This will bring greater clarity and transparency to our approach, will enhance and support good evidence-based policy making, as well as deepening the consultation process through a better and clearer articulation of the trade-offs and outcomes we want to achieve.

Conclusion

Let me conclude.

We are undergoing a period of fragmentation and rapid change, which presents risks and opportunities for the financial sector.

For our part, we are firmly committed to global cooperation and standards – and through regulation and supervision playing our role in a well-functioning financial sector operating in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy in Ireland, Europe and beyond.

For your part, while internationally oriented you must do so from strong domestic foundations. This includes your ongoing commitment to resilient and well-run firms, leveraging the best of your international opportunities while firmly delivering on your local responsibilities.

For we must remember our financial sector is built on the foundations of robust supervision, high standards, strong global connections, and innovation done well.

In uncertain and challenging times these foundations are more important, not less. And so we should focus on reinforcing them – thinking through the cycle, and recognising that resilience is a strategic advantage, rather than a burden to be undone.

As the old saying goes: When the roots are deep, there is no reason to fear the wind.¹⁴ Wise words to heed in times of challenge and change  – as we look to, and indeed weather, the future to come.

Thank you!

---

[1] Many thanks to Cian O’Laoide for his help preparing these remarks.

[3] Attributed to Heraclitus

[8] Including debt management firms

[14] African proverb

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

10 June 2026 Speech

My thanks to the Tánaiste and his Department for the invitation to be here today.

I am delighted to take part in this National Financial Literacy Strategy Stakeholder Forum. It is an important event as part of a necessary collaborative approach across public and private stakeholders in delivering Ireland’s National Financial Literacy Strategy – a strategy in which Central Bank of Ireland is proud to participate.

As we are here in the oldest continuously operating maternity hospital in the world, it seems fitting to start by noting the parallels between financial literacy and health literacy. Research has shown that lower levels of health literacy¹ result in higher mortality rates.² If you are better informed about your health, you typically have more effective consultations with health care providers, are better informed about medications or treatments, and as a result have improved health outcomes. The same principle applies to financial literacy. The more financially literate you are, the more resilient you become to economic shocks and the better equipped you are to secure your financial future.

As Deputy Governor of Consumer and Investor Protection at Central Bank of Ireland, I am responsible for leading the strategic development and execution of the Central Bank’s consumer and investor protection mandate across all sectors within the Irish financial system. I am here today to talk to you about the work the Central Bank does to advance the objectives of the Financial Literacy Strategy through that Consumer Protection mandate.

Financial Literacy and Awareness as a principle in financial consumer protection

Let’s start with the global standard.

“Principle 4 of the G20/OECD High Level Principles on Financial Consumer Protection requires all stakeholders to promote financial literacy and develop mechanisms that equip consumers to understand risks, make informed choices, and support their financial wellbeing.”

The Central Bank supports Ireland’s achievement of this principle by working to ensure the firms we regulate act in a manner that helps the achievement of these objectives. Our recently modernised Consumer Protection Code is central to this effort.

The Consumer Protection Code as an enabler of financial literacy

The Code creates an environment that helps support the promotion of financial literacy. Here are some examples:

• The Code requires firms to ensure that information is provided in a way that the material features of the product or service can reasonably be understood and that all customer information is clear, accurate, up to date, written in plain and accessible language, and avoids unnecessary technical terms.
• Firms are now specifically required by the Code to ensure digital services are designed to be easy to use and navigate, that the technology is tested, and that it produces consistent and objective outcomes.
• Mortgage Switching is made easier under the new Code and when buying on credit online (like “buy now, pay later”), firms must give consumers enough time to think about whether this type of credit is right for them.
• The Code contains new requirements for firms to counter the risk of frauds and scams, keeping consumers informed and supporting them if they fall victim.

Through measures such as these – and there are many more in the Code – we aim to create an environment that supports the better consumer outcomes.  

And we will work to ensure that these requirements are properly implemented by the firms we regulate, who have a critical role to play in promoting financial literacy. I have noted on previous occasions, for example, how industry could make their contribution to the important policy objective of simplification by making their product offerings and processes simpler for the consumers who use them.

Making consumers aware of the risks and their rights

The Central Bank also has a role to play to inform consumers of the risk landscape that we see in a way that is meaningful for those consumers when it comes to making key financial decisions. We also want to ensure consumers understand the protections available to them when using financial services and products.

We do this in a number of ways including through our Consumer Hub, where we continue to provide information to support consumers, through the publication of plain language explainers and videos to inform and educate. This includes warnings to consumers about potential risks such as our recent consumer information campaigns dealing with frauds and scams, crypto, and Buy Now Pay Later.

Advancing Financial wellbeing through Consumer Protection

The financial decisions consumers make – at different points in their lives – can have a profound impact on their long-term financial wellbeing, and as a result, their overall quality of life. We know that consumers who are financially literate are better placed to make good financial decisions and to look after their interests to safeguard their financial wellbeing.

A strong, effectively supervised, consumer protection framework supports financial wellbeing by ensuring that consumers are informed effectively, and that they have access to quality financial products and services that support them in managing their finances.

Through a comprehensive programme of work in 2026 and beyond, we will continue to ensure that firms are placing consumers at the centre of their decision-making and operations. By holding firms to account on how they treat their customers and by monitoring their compliance with our modernised consumer protection code, we aim to create an environment where consumers are better protected, better informed, and better equipped to make sound financial decisions. This is how, working with the stakeholders here today, we advance financial literacy and financial wellbeing at scale.

Concluding remarks

The G20/OECD principles I referred to speak about “financial wellbeing”.

Financial decisions are often complex and difficult. Just like the decisions we make about our health. And I wish we could say we are as attentive to our financial wellbeing as we are to our health more generally, accessing the professional help we need and getting better outcomes.

This is why building financial literacy and creating supportive systems is so essential.

With better financial literacy we will have better financial wellbeing outcomes.

I hope that years from now, perhaps in this very venue, future generations will remark on the journey to bring those better financial wellbeing outcomes into being.

---

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

08 June 2026 Speech

Good morning. I am delighted to be here, and many thanks to Mary O’Dea and the IOB for the invitation.¹

In my remarks today I would like to set out some reflections on the Irish funds sector – its significance, the environment in which it operates, and what we at the Central Bank see as some of the key priorities for the period ahead – a period likely to continue to be characterised by rapid structural change.

As you all know Ireland’s funds sector is one of the largest fund domiciles in Europe, and plays a critical role in the global asset management ecosystem.

10 years ago Irish Investment Funds had approximately €1.6 trillion in assets under management across around 6,000 funds. Today those figures are c. €5.6 trillion, in more than 9,000 funds – making Ireland now the third largest funds domicile in the world.²

By any measure this is a success story for Ireland, and indeed Europe, and one which has been built through decades of deliberate investment – in legal and regulatory infrastructure, in human capital, in operational capability, and in relationships of trust with investors and asset managers around the world.

But of course with such global significance comes global responsibilities – all the more important amidst global challenges and change.

For the environment in which the sector operates is changing rapidly and profoundly – through geopolitical realignment, technological transformation, evolving investor expectations, and a regulatory landscape that must keep pace with all of these developments.

These are the forces shaping the future of this industry, and they demand our collective attention – ensuring the sector adapts, evolves and reinforces its resilience, so that it can continue to play its important role, domestically and globally, into the future.

In this vein I want to address three themes today.

• First, the broader context of geopolitical and technological change and what it means for the funds sector;
• Secondly, the increasing importance of resilience in the face of this change;
• And thirdly, how regulation must adapt to continue to ensure we are harnessing the benefits, for investors and the economy, while appropriately managing the risks.

The changing landscape: Geopolitical risks…

So, let me begin with the macro backdrop.

We are operating in a period of significant geopolitical shifts, and rapid technological transformation.

While clearly under threat, it is important to say that Globalisation has been unequivocally good for global growth and living standards.³

Ireland knows this well, and openness has been a key part of the country’s and the financial sector’s own transformation.

In many ways the Irish funds sector is globalisation in action.

When capital flows freely across borders, when investors can access diversified portfolios spanning multiple jurisdictions, when specialist expertise can be sourced wherever it resides, these are hallmarks of an open and integrated global economy.

But as we all know the rules-based international order that underpinned decades of globalisation is under strain.⁴

Trade relationships are being reconfigured, and supply chains re-routed.

Sanctions regimes have expanded in scope and complexity – and capital flows are increasingly subject to political considerations that would have seemed remote only a few years ago.

And in the last few years we have seen an unprecedented spike in global policy uncertainty and have all witnessed the speed at which (geo)political events can crystallise into market stress in our globally interconnected economy and financial system.

For a funds sector as internationally oriented as Ireland’s, these shifts are not abstract. They are felt in portfolio construction, in counterparty relationships, in operational arrangements, in risk management and in the regulatory expectations that attach to all of these.

We are all alive to these challenges; but we must also respond to them – through adaptability, resilience and maintaining trust.⁵

And as you look to respond, the changing global risk environment says a number of things to me.

Firstly, Geopolitical risk must be an increasingly core element of risk management frameworks.

Secondly, the changing risk landscape demands a level of resilience, preparedness and agility that goes beyond traditional risk modelling – and which we must continually challenge, test and reinforce.

And finally, we must no longer take openness for granted –  but rather continue to advocate for it, while being strategic in how we ensure we preserve the benefits of openness while managing the risks that a more fragmented geopolitical landscape presents.  

… and technological transformations

Alongside geopolitical change, we are witnessing a technological transformation of extraordinary breadth and pace.

Artificial intelligence, distributed ledger technology, cloud computing, and advanced data analytics are reshaping how financial services are delivered, how risks are managed, and how supervision is conducted. This transformation presents both opportunity and risk.

Let me turn first to opportunity as the Central Bank is not an institution that views technological change solely through the lens of risk. Rather we firmly believe, well managed, technology can be a powerful enabler of better outcomes – for investors, for firms, for the financial system and for our economy.

In finance in particular, AI and tokenisation represent the twin technological transformations currently underway – both providing real opportunities.

While much wider, I will focus on the significant potential of these innovations for asset management.

In terms of Artificial Intelligence, we are seeing huge benefits across the funds sector:

• In portfolio management, it can enhance the identification of patterns and opportunities in ways that augment human judgment.
• In risk management, machine learning techniques can improve the detection of anomalies and the calibration of pricing models.
• In compliance and regulatory reporting, natural language processing and automation can reduce cost and error while improving the timeliness and quality of information.
• In investor communications, AI can support more personalised and accessible engagement.

While the various types of AI provide enormous possibilities, its deployment in financial services raises important questions about explainability, accountability, bias, and operational resilience.

Firms, including fund management companies, deploying AI must be able to explain how their models work, who is accountable for their outputs, and how they are governed. The principle of human oversight remains paramount. AI is a powerful tool, but humans decide to deploy it. Therefore it does not displace the responsibility of boards and senior management to understand and govern the activities of the firms they lead.⁶

In this way we expect firms to approach AI with the same ambition we have for it: thoughtful deployment, well-governed, and appropriately evaluated throughout its lifecycle. Good governance, robust risk management and sound evaluation are not constraints on AI’s potential. Rather they are ways for it to sustainably deliver services that work, and that your customers can trust.

Tokenisation is another area of considerable promise and my colleague, Deputy Governor Madouros, spoke recently about the transformative potential of the technology. This includes the potential for greater efficiency in settlement, enhanced transparency, broader access to investment opportunities, and reduced friction in cross-border transactions.⁷

For a funds sector that serves investors globally, these are potentially significant.

As you will be aware, we are proactively engaging with developments in tokenisation across our broad mandate and engaging constructively with industry participants exploring its application – in our policy work, at the gate, and through our innovation engagement, both our hub and sandbox.

To facilitate deeper engagement we set out our thinking in a discussion paper earlier last year, and many thanks to those we have engaged with on the paper and the all who have responded formally.⁸

And as part of the Eurosystem we are playing our part too, evolving our systems to support market needs and innovation by enabling settlement of wholesale DLT-based transactions in central bank money.⁹

This mirrors our broader approach – which is to be open to innovation while ensuring that the fundamental protections that regulation provides are maintained regardless of the technology through which financial services are delivered. The regulatory perimeter must be technology-neutral: the same risks should attract the same regulatory treatment, whether assets are held on a distributed ledger or in a traditional custody chain.

I would observe that the combination of AI and tokenisation has the potential to be particularly transformative.

Imagine a funds ecosystem where portfolio management is enhanced by AI-driven analytics, in which fund units are tokenised and can be transferred with near-instantaneous settlement, in which regulatory reporting is automated and continuous rather than periodic and manual, and in which investors have real-time visibility into the composition and performance of their holdings.

This reality is becoming ever closer.

But realising this vision at scale will require the sector to proactively adapt, while thinking carefully about governance, about operational resilience, about the management of model and AI specific-risk, and about the regulatory frameworks within which such innovation occurs.

We are genuinely enthusiastic about these possibilities. But to paraphrase the old proverb – technology is like fire: it is a good servant but a bad master.¹⁰

And so it is crucial the implementation and transition of these innovations is well managed, robustly governed – and they are used to enhance, not undermine, resilience.

Reinforcing resilience in the face of change

This brings me to my second theme — resilience, in the widest sense of the word.

This is something we have worked hard on building for the NBFI sector more broadly over the last number of years – learning the lessons and responding to a number of market episodes that have tested the resilience of different aspects of this sector, including the dash for cash, the LDI crisis, and the market turmoil in April 2025.

Much of the work has focused on mitigating vulnerabilities in the sector in terms of excessive leverage and liquidity mismatch, reflecting the experience of many of these episodes and in particular the need to ensure levels of liquidity are higher, and indeed more usable.

We have actively engaged on this work internationally, given the nature of the sector means international coordination and responses are key. And we have made changes domestically – including macroprudential measures for property funds and for sterling-denominated LDI funds.¹¹

More recently we published an analysis in April on the availability and use of liquidity management tools by Irish domiciled investment funds.¹²

And today, in close cooperation with our counterparts, the French AMF and Luxembourg CSSF, we are publishing a consultation setting out national guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels.¹³

This guidance will supplement the European Commission’s recently published report and FAQs on the functioning of the MMF sector¹⁴ by setting out our expectation that Money Market Funds should hold liquidity levels in line with the market resilience level identified by the Commission. Implementation will be supported by enhanced supervisory engagement processes to ensure a consistent and harmonised supervisory approach across the EU.

Taken together with the Commission’s publications this package recognises the lessons from recent crises, strengthens Europe’s regulatory framework, and, importantly, further strengthens the resilience of EU MMFs.

But resilience is not simply about managing liquidity and leverage-related risks – though these matter enormously, and are a perennially priority for me, my colleagues, and our teams

It is about much more than that.

It is about the quality of governance, the rigour of stress testing, the robustness of operational arrangements, and the capacity of boards and senior management to make sound decisions under pressure.

And it is about ensuring that governance, and risk management and control frameworks themselves, are genuinely capable of identifying, escalating, and responding to risks before they crystallise into harm.

In the face of a challenging global risk landscape, and rapid technological change, resilience across all of these components, is increasingly crucial.

This is particularly true given the range of possible outcomes that could happen has widened considerably in recent times, and what we might have considered tail risks a few years ago, may no longer be so.

In such an environment the financial sector, and not just financial regulators, needs to be thinking seriously about minding these tails. ¹⁵

This means scenario planning that goes beyond historical precedent.

It means liquidity management frameworks that are tested against severe but plausible conditions.

It means operational resilience planning that accounts for an increased threat landscape, as well as the simultaneous failure of multiple systems or service providers. ¹⁶

And it means governance arrangements that ensure the right people are asking the right questions at the right time.

I want to say something specific about governance frameworks in the context of resilience.

A governance framework that functions adequately in benign conditions may prove wholly inadequate under stress. When markets are calm, when redemptions are orderly, when service providers are performing as expected, governance can appear robust even when it is, in reality, untested.

The true measure of a governance framework is how it performs when conditions deteriorate.

Does information flow to decision-makers with sufficient speed and granularity? Are escalation pathways clear and well understood? Do boards and senior management have the expertise and confidence to take difficult decisions – to suspend redemptions, to override a delegate, to challenge a valuation – when circumstances demand it?

These are not hypothetical questions. They are the questions my supervisors ask, and they are the questions that fund management companies should be asking of themselves on a continuing basis.

Governance resilience is not achieved through documentation alone. It is achieved through practice, through testing, through the cultivation of a culture in which challenge is welcomed and in which complacency is recognised as a risk in its own right.

And at the end of the day, like all aspects of resilience – we are not focused on resilience for resilience’s sake; rather because it is a fundamental part of safe and sound firms and the protection of investors, ensuring the sector can perform its important role for investors and the economy.

Regulation – adapting with the times

This brings me to the question of regulatory adaptation.

The financial sector is not static, and neither can regulation be. If regulation fails to keep pace with the evolution of markets, business models, and technology, it risks falling behind – both in its enabling role and in the important guardrails it provides.

At the Central Bank, we are committed to ensuring that our regulatory and supervisory framework remains fit for purpose, which means several things.

First, it means embracing technology in our own supervisory practices. We are investing significantly in our data and analytical capabilities. We are developing tools that allow us to supervise more effectively – to identify emerging risks earlier, to process larger volumes of information more efficiently, and to deploy our supervisory resources with greater precision. The use of technology in supervision is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a financial system of the scale and complexity we oversee.

Second, it means ensuring our regulatory and supervisory approach continues to be more effective and efficient, as well as responsive to the evolving environment in which firms operate.¹⁷ This is why we moved to a new supervisory approach in January last year; and also why we are committed to delivering simplification – across regulation, supervision, gatekeeping and reporting – ensuring our requirements remain proportionate, our guidance is clear, and our processes are efficient.

But as I said before: simplification should not mean lower standards. ¹⁸ Our mandate and objectives have not changed, though we are open to simpler ways of achieving them. And strong financial and operational resilience, good governance and risk management, and the protection of consumers and investors are the very foundations of a stable, well-run and well functioning financial sector – and indeed are arguably now more important than ever. This is why, while we will be risk based and proportionate, we will continue to be robust and outcome focused – which includes a supervisory approach underpinned by the credible threat of enforcement.

Third, it means engaging constructively with European and international developments. This is particularly important given we operate within the European regulatory architecture, and many of the most significant regulatory initiatives are driven at a European level. We are an active and constructive participant in these processes, advocating for frameworks that support open, resilient and well-functioning markets while maintaining robust investor protection.

Fourth, and relatedly, it means ensuring that our authorisation and ongoing supervisory processes are efficient while remaining robust. We are conscious that the speed and predictability of regulatory processes matters to firms making investment decisions about where to locate their operations. We are also conscious of the high standards investors expect from funds located in Ireland.

We want Ireland to be a jurisdiction in which firms can engage with their regulator in a manner that is professional, timely, and constructive. This does not mean that we will lower the bar for authorisation or  supervision – it means that we will endeavour to make our processes as clear, as efficient, and as well-resourced as they need to be to deliver outcomes that are both timely and robust.

Lastly, ensuring regulation remains fit for purpose is not just about process and clarity but also substance. In particular during times of rapid change, we must continuously ask whether the regulatory and supervisory framework adequately captures the risks that exist. Examples in the modern funds landscape, include the growth of private markets, the increasing use of leverage in certain fund strategies, and the expansion of delegation chains.

All of these developments raise questions about whether existing rules remain appropriately calibrated. We engage actively with these questions, both in our domestic supervisory practice and in our contributions to European and international policy development.

One aspect of this that is important for this sector, has been our  supervisory review  of delegation practices in fund management companies in Ireland – a review which forms part of our ongoing robust risk-based supervision. We have completed that review, and we will be publishing our report next month.

Conclusion

Let me conclude.

The Irish funds sector operates in an environment of considerable change – geopolitical, technological, and regulatory. This environment presents challenges that are real and complex, but also opportunities that are significant and exciting.

To both navigate and capitalise on this change we must respond to it – proactively, not just reactively.

And to meet these clear challenges – to openness, and from rapid digitalisation – by reinforcing our resilience.

So that we can not just endure but we can prevail. ¹⁹

At the Central Bank, we are committed to playing our part – as a supervisor that is robust but fair, as a regulator that is adaptive but principled, and as an institution that is forward looking and engages constructively with the sector it oversees.

The sector must also respond and adapt. By also being forward looking and innovative – while strengthening, rather than neglecting, the fundamentals.

In this way you can ensure you continue to play your important role for investors and the economy, through good times, through bad times and through changing times.

Thank you

---

[1] Many thanks to Catharine Dwyer and Cian O’Laoide for their help preparing these remarks, and Simon Sloan, Micheal O’Keeffe and Vasileios Madouros for their helpful comments.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

05 June 2026 Press Release

Central Bank of Ireland has today (Friday 5 June 2026) published its Annual Report and Annual Performance Statement for 2025 (PDF 3.9MB).

Speaking on publication of the report, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf said: “2025 was a year of significant uncertainty and adjustment.

“Inflation across advanced economies continued to moderate from the highs experienced in previous years. In the euro area, we kept interest rates at levels necessary to ensure that inflation returns sustainably to our 2% target even as geopolitical tensions, technological change and the climate transition continued to reshape the landscape of our economies and financial systems. The uncertainty continues even now, and my colleagues and I will continue to act in line with our mandate, remaining data-dependent.

“The Irish economy demonstrated resilience, supported by strong employment and investment. We continued to face the challenges of infrastructure constraints and the uncertain external environment which so affects us as a small open economy with a large, internationally-connected financial sector. We must continue to strengthen Ireland’s resilience to global shocks – while 2025’s disinflationary process was driven primarily by the continued unwinding of energy price shocks, the supply shock from the war in Iran is already showing up in higher energy commodity prices, passing quickly into consumer and business energy costs.”

Reflecting on the Central Bank’s achievements over the last year, Governor Makhlouf said: “During 2025, the modernised Consumer Protection Code came into effect, following a comprehensive review of the existing framework to stay abreast of the way financial services are provided in a digital world. The revisions enhance the areas of informing effectively, protecting consumers in vulnerable circumstances, mortgage switching, insurance auto-renewals, frauds and scams, and the provision of unregulated products and services by regulated firms.  

“We continued to develop our Innovation Sandbox programme with a call-out for projects on the theme of innovation in payments, strengthening engagement with innovators in this area and enriching our insight into emerging technologies and business models in the Irish financial system. The 2025 theme was combatting financial crime and we brought together seven projects across innovation areas such as information sharing, identity verification and fraud prevention.

“In 2025, we implemented our new supervisory approach aimed at delivering on four critical and overarching safeguarding outcomes: the protection of consumer and investor interests; the integrity of the financial system; the safety and soundness of firms; and financial stability. We continue to signal our priorities and methodologies through the annual Regulatory & Supervisory Outlook Report (PDF 1.85MB), and in December, we published our ‘Regulating & Supervising well – a more effective and efficient framework’ report (PDF 440.55KB) which outlines our approach and experience to date in reducing complexity and improving clarity while maintaining resilience and important protections in the system.

“At an organisational level, our new framework created multi-disciplinary teams working together within and across sectors to deliver our supervisory priorities in a more effective way.

“We progressed implementation of new EU regulatory regimes such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, the Digital Operational Resilience Act, and the EU AI Act, applying its responsible AI governance model to the deployment of our own internal AI tool, BankChat, and AI-enhanced business intelligence.

“At the beginning of 2025, we set up a dedicated team to investigate and prosecute offences under financial services legislation. We became a Trusted Flagger and began our efforts to have illegal online content removed by certain large technology firms and ran an advertising campaign to raise awareness about scams and empower people to avoid them.

“We also issued two commemorative coins, one to mark Daniel O’Connell’s 250th birthday, and the other the achievements of George Bernard Shaw on the 100-year anniversary of his becoming a Nobel laureate.

“Reflecting our commitment to the continued availability of cash, we commenced our responsibilities under the Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025, processing the registrations of cash-in-transit companies and ATM Deployers operating in the State, designating entities responsible for compliance with the Act, and launching two public consultations (one on Local Deficiency and another on Requirements for ATM Operators).

“We responded to the Government’s 2025 insurance reform action plan, delivering on greater market transparency to deliver a fairer and more affordable insurance market with faster releases from the National Claims Information Database.

“Our multifaceted and demanding work is only made possible by the people who work here, whose dedication and professionalism are commendable in rising to the challenge. Our values – integrity and care, courage and humility, teamwork and excellence – guide all of us. Our diversity and inclusiveness strengthen us, and on behalf of myself and the Commission, we thank them for their dedication and commitment to the public interest and the welfare of the people as a whole.”

ENDS

Further Information

Gheorghe Rusu | 086 102 9986 | [email protected]

Media Relations Office | [email protected]

 

Notes to Editor

Governor Makhlouf has written a blog on the Annual Report, containing an overview of the economic outlook, a summary of the Central Bank’s achievements and an update on our financial position at the end of last year.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

05 June 2026 Blog

We published our latest Annual Report and Annual Performance Statement today. As always, it’s an important moment each year when we set out how we have delivered on our mandate for the people of Ireland.

I would like to use this blog to give an overview of the economic outlook, summarise our achievements and provide an update on our financial position at the end of last year. 

Economic outlook

Looking back on 2025, the global environment continued to be shaped by uncertainty, fragmentation and geopolitical tensions. Inflation continued to moderate across advanced economies, but the external environment remained challenging. At the same time, familiar longer-term transitions – technological, demographic, climate-related –  continued to reshape economies and financial systems.

The Irish economy demonstrated resilience in 2025, with solid growth supported by strong investment and high employment. As set out in our Quarterly Bulletin earlier this year, modified domestic demand grew by around 5 per cent in 2025. However, the outlook has become more uncertain, with growth expected to slow over the coming years as momentum outside multinational-dominated sectors eases and as global developments weigh on activity.

Recent developments in the Middle East have added further uncertainty. Higher oil and gas prices are expected to lead to lower growth and higher inflation than previously anticipated. Our Quarterly Bulletin noted that futures markets were pricing oil around 30 per cent higher and gas almost 60 per cent higher for 2026 than at the time of the previous Bulletin (in mid-December last year). That shock is expected to push inflation higher, to 2.9 per cent in 2026 and 2.6 per cent in 2027, with more severe outcomes possible if energy supplies are further disrupted.

Together with my colleagues on the ECB Governing Council, we continued during 2025 to take the decisions necessary to ensure that inflation returns sustainably to our medium-term target of 2 per cent. As inflation moved closer to target, we reduced interest rates further during the year, while remaining data-dependent and alert to risks around the inflation outlook.

As I discussed in a recent speech , policymakers are increasingly operating in a world characterised by geoeconomic fragmentation and heightened uncertainty, where supply shocks can affect both inflation and economic activity. For a small, highly open economy such as Ireland, it reinforces the importance of building resilience across the economy, public finances and financial system.

The Central Bank in 2025

Against this backdrop, the Central Bank continued to deliver across its mandate. Over the course of 2025, we published a revised Consumer Protection Code (following a comprehensive review of the existing framework), continued to develop our Innovation Sandbox programme and took on new statutory responsibilities to safeguard access to cash across Ireland. We also undertook analytical work on the implications of the evolving global trade environment (and the impact of US tariffs on the Irish economy) and continued to strengthen our supervisory frameworks. We published a roadmap to deliver a more effective and efficient approach to regulation and supervision, reducing unnecessary complexity and improving clarity while maintaining resilience and important protections.

Financial Performance

Notwithstanding the fact that the Central Bank recorded a loss of €104.6 million last year, our financial position remains robust. As in recent years, the losses reflect the use of the Central Bank’s balance sheet as a tool for monetary policy (to deliver our mandate to safeguard price stability).

As I have said previously, the role of a central bank is not to maximise profits but to serve the public interest by maintaining monetary and financial stability. The losses being experienced across the Eurosystem are a consequence of the policy actions taken in recent years to respond to exceptionally low inflation, the pandemic and the inflation shock that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Central Bank remains financially strong and well-positioned to continue delivering on its mandate. (Last year’s losses are covered by reserves which have been built up to manage such circumstances.

Conclusion

Our Annual Report outlines the priorities that will guide our work in the year ahead, including maintaining resilience to macro-financial and geopolitical risks, securing consumer and investor interests and responding to technology-driven transformation.

In a period of continued uncertainty and change, maintaining trust and confidence in the financial system remains critically important. As we look ahead, the Central Bank will continue to adapt to a changing environment while remaining focused on delivering on our mandate in the public interest. 

Gabriel Makhlouf

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

05 June 2026 Warning Notice

Warning:	Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm
Unauthorised Firm Name	FTI Finance Limited (CLONE)
Website	• https://client.ftifinanceltd.com/auth/login • https://ftifinance-ltd.com/  • https://ftifinancelimited.com
Email address used
Authorisation in Ireland	FTI Finance Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm or investment business firm in Ireland.
Additional Information	This scam firm cloned the details of a Central Bank of Ireland authorised entity of the same name in order to add an air of legitimacy to the scam.  It should be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the legitimate firm and the scam entity.

Notes:

1. Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800 or report an unauthorised firm directly to the Central Bank.
2. For more information on how to protect yourself from financial scams, please visit www.centralbank.ie/financialscams
3. The name of the above firm is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

03 June 2026 Warning Notice

Warning:	Unauthorised Irish Collective Asset-Management Vehicle (ICAV)
Unauthorised Firm Name	Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE)
Website Address	https://investmentsolutionsfunds.eu/
Telephone Number	02890137409
Email Address	[email protected]
Authorisation in Ireland	The Clone Firm is not authorised to provide financial services in Ireland.
Additional Information	The Clone Firm is using the name and  Central Bank Registration Number of the legitimate Central Bank authorised Fund, Insight Investment Solutions ICAV, in order to deceive consumers. It should be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the Central Bank authorised fund and the scam entity.

Notes:

1. Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800 or report an unauthorised firm directly to the Central Bank.
2. For more information on how to protect yourself from financial scams, please visit www.centralbank.ie/financialscams
3. The name of the above firm is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.