Category: Central Bank of Ireland

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

19 May 2026 Speech

Thank you for the invitation to speak this afternoon.

I want to talk about the Single Market, which is one of Europe’s greatest political and economic achievements. Over more than three decades, it has been an engine of European growth and resilience, delivering scale, opportunity, and tangible benefits for citizens and businesses across the Union.  As António Costa has pointed out, it connects 450 million consumers and 32 million companies, supporting around 56 million jobs through trade within the EU.

But we have taken too narrow a view of what the Single Market should be at a cost of missing out on greater growth, greater resilience and greater opportunities for the citizens of Europe. What follows is an argument for more ambition for Europe’s Single Market, building on what already exists in order to continue to grow the income per capita of our citizens, and at the same time build resilience to the new geoeconomic context we are facing.

The title of my speech, “One Single Market: Goods, Services and Capital”, captures the point I want to emphasise. A well-designed Savings and Investments Union (SIU) is important, and I have spoken about it before, including at Eurofi in March. But the SIU alone will not deliver the productivity boost Europe requires if the Single Market it sits within is not working as it should.

So my question for today is this: what would Europe actually look like if it were operating as a genuine Single Market in goods, services and capital simultaneously, and what will it take to get there?

Single Market ambitions

The European Commission estimates that the Single Market has already raised EU GDP by 3-4%.  Completing it – that is, removing outdated rules, standards and inconsistent national regulations that hamper trade in goods and services within the bloc – could double these gains.

The biggest upside is in services, which account for around 75% of EU GDP and the largest share of European jobs, yet intra-EU trade in services stands at just 7.6% of EU GDP. Notably, this figure is no higher than Europe’s services trade with countries outside the bloc.  Many of the barriers that produce this outcome are long-standing, well-known, and persistent.

The European Commission’s recent Single Market Strategy identified the ten most harmful barriers holding back intra-EU trade and investment. They include restrictive national regulations on services that prevent companies from operating across borders, lack of common standards, and complicated business establishment rules.

The Commission also identified a lack of single market ownership by national governments as contributing to an inconsistent implementation of already agreed rules.  In other words, the rules exist, the political commitment was made, but the implementation has lagged. This is not a problem that more EU legislation will solve on its own. It requires national governments to take active ownership of the Single Market agenda.

I was very pleased to see that last week the Irish Government acted on this ownership challenge and launched a comprehensive new national framework for Single Market implementation. This includes a new dedicated Single Market Office, an Advisory Panel from the private and public sector, and a senior official appointed as Ireland’s Single Market ‘Sherpa’ to translate political direction into practical action. This positive development reflects something important: that a key step in truly completing the Single Market will be Member States taking responsibility to deliver it at home.

Why does all of this matter for a room of financial services professionals? Because financial services are a services sector. The barriers that limit a law firm or an accounting practice from operating seamlessly across EU borders are close relation of the barriers that fragment European capital markets, raise the cost of cross-border investment, and keep European savings trapped in national systems (or outside of the EU) rather than flowing to their most productive use within Europe. The single market for capital cannot be separated from the single market for services. The cost of this unfinished project falls on every business, every household, and every citizen in Europe.

Capital markets diagnosis

The EU banking sector has assets of around €33 trillion. Debt securities add a further €24 trillion, with the bulk of this public or banking sector debt. Europe has a substantial financial system, yet when it comes to debt or equity-financing for non-financial firms – the part of the financial system most directly associated with risk capital, innovation, and growth – the picture changes. We see this in EU stock market capitalisation, which at 73% of GDP in 2024 is around a quarter of the size of the US equivalent. This is a structural feature of how Europe’s financial system is built, and it has consequences.

As Mario Draghi’s Report makes clear, the capital market gap and the innovation gap are two sides of the same coin. EU venture capital investment in 2025 totalled around €66 billion, or around one-fifth the equivalent figure in the United States, and the gap widens sharply as firms mature: at the scale-up stage, EU venture capital drops below 10% of US levels.  As Draghi points out, Europe has no shortage of innovative start-up firms. Rather, what it lacks is a deep capital market to grow them into large ones.

A common response to this diagnosis points to regulatory fragmentation. This matters, of course, but I see it as a symptom as much as a cause. We need to address the underlying constraint, which is that we do not yet have a genuine Single Market, especially for trade in services. And without one, regulatory harmonisation alone will not close the gap.

The SIU addresses part of the gap. It is welcome, it is necessary, and I support the Commission’s work on it.  In the next section I mention two conditions that need to be met to deliver SIU.  But we also need to remember that SIU operates within the Single Market as it currently exists. If that market remains fragmented then the SIU’s ambitions will be constrained by the architecture it sits within.

Single capital market – what would it actually take

I see two primary conditions that need to be met.

The first is completing the regulatory architecture, including harmonised insolvency frameworks, convergent tax treatment of cross-border investment, and deeper and more liquid post-trade settlement infrastructure. The Commission’s Market Integration Package, published last December, moves in the right direction, as do the ongoing SIU initiatives.

The second condition is that a genuine single capital market requires a single safe asset – something I and my colleagues on the Governing Council have pointed out before. This is the foundation for the architecture of the SIU. In its absence, pricing and collateral remain fragmented, and the prospect of building a deep European capital market at scale is hampered from the outset.

The NextGenerationEU (NGEU) programme demonstrated that Europe could issue common bonds at scale, backed collectively by member states, and that when it does, markets respond. Outstanding debt now stands at close to €800 billion, carrying a AAA rating, with secondary market liquidity that has deepened over time.

And yet, NGEU bonds do not yet fully behave like safe assets. The spread over German Bunds has averaged around 50 basis points since 2022, although this is not too different from GDP-weighted spread on European Sovereigns. Their one-off and time-limited nature means they are also excluded from the main sovereign bond indices, limiting the investor base. NGEU showed that when there is a will there is a way, but it should not be viewed as the end goal.  We need to look further, to create the infrastructure for a genuine common safe asset.

So, what could the end goal look like? One option is a permanent, scaled European safe asset to finance investment in European public goods, as proposed by Joachim Nagel and, more recently, Philip Lane. Examples include the green transition, digital infrastructure, and security and energy independence. Olivier Blanchard and Ángel Uribe have argued persuasively for the creation of a deep, large and liquid market for Eurobonds in order to deliver the financial strength needed for its strategic autonomy.  As the Draghi Report showed, financing the required level of spend through fragmented national bond markets, each priced differently and held in national portfolios, is both less efficient and less resilient than the alternative. Europe has shown it can do the alternative. The question is whether this can be moved onto a more permanent basis, and not just crisis-linked and time-limited cases. 

A safe asset would also support the greater internationalisation of the euro, building on the ECB Governing Council’s recent revisions to the ECB’s repo facility (EUREP) to make euro-denominated assets more attractive to global investors.

I acknowledge that this is not all a ‘win-win’ proposition. If it was, we would not be in a situation where the barriers to completing the Single Market are acting as a structural drag on European competitiveness, as Enrico Letta puts it, or its productivity as I prefer to put it.  There are trade-offs involved, not least that more integration could mean less national flexibility.  But the question is not whether there are trade-offs – there always are – but whether the cost of not acting now exceeds the cost of acting. And on that question, I believe the evidence is clear. The productivity gap with other countries such as the US is widening, not narrowing.  And the longer we delay, the more expensive the adjustment becomes and the less competitive Europe will be in a world where capital, talent, and innovation remain mobile.

Ireland as illustration: the demand side

Let me bring this closer to home, because the Irish experience illustrates another aspect of the European challenge: the demand side.

Ireland is a major global financial hub, home to both a large funds sector and a growing fintech sector.  And yet on the retail or household side participation in capital markets remains among the lowest in Europe (e.g. see recent Central Bank of Ireland research on Irish households’ fund holdings and savings behaviour).  As of March this year, Irish households had €172 billion on deposit with banks, with around 85% of it in overnight accounts earning little interest. Household wealth stands at a new high, averaging around €724,000 per household, with two-thirds concentrated in housing.

Why do we see this gap between what the Irish financial sector is providing at a global level and what households are choosing to participate in? The answers go beyond the supply-side fragmentation I have previously mentioned. One issue is uneven tax treatment, which tends to incentivise deposits or property over other investments. Another is financial literacy, which is a national priority. Cultural norms and attitudes to savings and investment that are focused on real assets – i.e. housing – are also an important factor.

These are not problems that harmonising EU regulations will fix.  They also require national action on a range of fronts. Last month the Irish Government brought together industry and regulators to begin addressing these barriers in a structured way. The Government has committed to legislating for a new Personal Investment Account framework by 2027, alongside a retail investment tax roadmap.  Pension auto-enrolment is also now live.

These changes represent significant structural interventions to channel household savings into long-term investment, with auto-enrolment alone bringing many Irish workers into pension saving for the first time, through default funds invested in diversified asset classes.

The point I want to make is this. Even if everything at the European level goes right, the SIU will still fall short of its potential if national barriers like these are not addressed alongside it. Europe cannot build a single capital market if its citizens are not active participants in it. Progress on the demand side will not be swift – changing cultural attitudes to investment is not something that moves quickly – but it needs to start.

The Central Bank of Ireland: what we’re doing

Central banks underpin stable capital markets through delivering monetary and financial stability – an essential pre-requisite for successful capital markets. Regulators also play a key role in ensuring the market is well-functioning and that investors are protected.

I am conscious that arguments for deeper European integration can sometimes sound better from a podium than they look in practice. So let me say something about what the Central Bank of Ireland is doing to advance this agenda, because it matters that words and actions point in the same direction.  I’ll mention two things.

First, supervisory convergence, and here I want to be precise about what I mean. There is broad agreement that Europe needs more convergent supervision. This means that the same rules should be applied in the same way across Member States, that regulatory arbitrage is avoided, that compliance costs for cross-border groups are minimised, and that supervisory processes are faster and more predictable.

I share those objectives fully, and we prioritise and actively contribute to supervisory convergence at the European Supervisory Agencies, promoting best practices in authorisation, supervision and a common approach to risk identification across the EU, among other things.

But having said that, I would add a note of nuance on the question of how convergence is best achieved. The answer is not necessarily always more centralisation. It can also be achieved through even greater collaboration between national and European authorities, through stronger common standards applied consistently at a national level, and through the kind of mutual trust and shared supervisory culture that takes time to build but, once built, is likely to be more effective and more durable than any institutional restructuring. Convergence in outcomes is what matters.

Second, regulatory simplification.  Last December we published our roadmap, Regulating and Supervising Well (PDF 440.55KB), a multi-year programme to make our framework more effective, clearer to navigate, and more proportionate, without compromising resilience. It covers four areas: supervision, regulation, gatekeeping, and data reporting. Specific commitments include retiring domestic AML publications that duplicate the new EU rulebook, streamlining authorisation processes for funds and market participants, and introducing “discipline-by-design” tests for any new reporting requirement, checking necessity, proportionality, and potential for re-use before a request is made. Our guiding principle is implementation before legislation: simplify the application of existing rules before layering on new ones. Simplification is not the enemy of robust regulation. Done properly, it is what makes robust regulation credible and durable.

Conclusion

Europe has the talent and the institutional foundations it needs to grow. But that potential is not self-realising.

We have seen that Europe can, when it chooses to, build common instruments that work.  The starting point for doing that well is not to take a narrow view of what the Single Market should be.  The Single Market for Capital cannot be separated from the Single Market for Services.  If Europe’s Single Market continues to remain fragmented then the ambitions we all have for a successful Savings and Investment Union will remain contained.  We all know we can do better.

Thank you.

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

15 May 2026 Warning Notice

Warning	Unauthorised Banking Business
Unauthorised Firm Name	Aviva Life & Pensions Ireland DAC (Clone)
Website	N/A
Email address used	[email protected]
Phone numbers used	01 265 7180 +353 (0) 1 265 7180
Authorisation in Ireland	Aviva Life & Pensions Ireland DAC (Clone) is not authorised to provide Banking Business in Ireland.
Additional information	This Unauthorised Firm has cloned the name and details of a Central Bank authorised firm, and has been seeking to pass itself off as the legitimate firm, Aviva Life & Pensions Ireland DAC, in order to deceive consumers. The fraudulent entity is holding itself out as accepting deposits or other repayable funds from the public, though it does not hold an authorisation or licence to do so.  It reached out to consumers directly via phone, email and brochures, seeking to sell fake ‘Fixed Term Deposit Accounts’.  It should be noted that there is no connection between the Central Bank authorised firm and the Unauthorised Firm.

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

15 May 2026 Press Release

The Central Bank has today (15 May 2025) announced the appointment of Glenn Calverley to the role of Director of Finance and Business Performance. Mr Calverley will take up his role with effect from 1 September 2026.

Glenn brings a wealth of experience to this role, most recently as Director of Strategy & Governance, a role he has held since 2021. He joined the Central Bank in 2015, initially as Head of Organisational Risk and later as Head of Strategy & Foresight. Prior to joining the Central Bank, his career included various senior management roles within commercial banking in the areas of risk management and organisational change.

Announcing the appointment Governor Makhlouf said: “I am very pleased to announce Glenn Calverley’s appointment as the Central Bank’s new Director of Finance & Business Performance.  Glenn brings strong strategic leadership and organisational experience to this important portfolio; where he will lead the Central Bank’s financial strategy and financial management; and oversee the monitoring of our organisational performance.”

ENDS

Further information

Elaine Scanlon [email protected] 087 2136313 

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

15 May 2026 Press Release

Central Bank of Ireland has made the memoir of former Governor T.K. Whitaker available digitally for the first time.

While the memoir has been available for in-person viewing in the Central Bank’s archives, it is now accessible online at www.centralbank.ie, allowing a wider audience to engage with this important historical document.

The publication of T.K. Whitaker’s Memoir: Central Bank and Government, 1969-1976 marks 110 years since T.K. Whitaker’s birth and 50 years since the end of his term as Governor.

The memoir provides a first-hand account of a formative period in Ireland’s economic history, and the relationship between government policy and central banking.

The publication also coincides with the 2026 Whitaker Lecture, which was delivered by former Governor Patrick Honohan, who served as Governor from 2009 to 2015. The lecture series was established to honour Whitaker’s legacy and features a well-known figure from the field of economics. Past speakers include Mark Carney, Gita Gopinath, and Augustín Carstens.

Speaking on the publication, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf said: “I am delighted that we are making this memoir more widely available. In doing so, we are helping to preserve an important part of the Central Bank’s own history and of the wider story of economic policymaking in Ireland. Contemporary readers can engage directly with Whitaker’s reflections on the responsibilities of central banking, the pressures of public finance, and the complexities of policy formation in a small open economy.

“T.K. Whitaker stands among the most consequential figures in modern Irish public life. His contribution to the economic development of the State, to the quality of public administration, and to the shaping of policy through disciplined analysis and principled advice is of lasting significance.”

ENDS

Further information

Martin Grant, [email protected], 086 078 7868 

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

07 May 2026 Speech

Introduction

Good morning – I am delighted to be here, and many thanks to Brian and the BPFI for hosting us.¹

I very much look forward to the discussion, and to hearing from you all today, but before I do I would like to set out some reflections on a number of topics which are currently high on the regulatory agenda.

While the discussion is multifaceted, and tied up with a regulatory cycle which has turned,  an economic one which has become more challenging, not to mention a renewed focus by policymakers on longer term challenges to productivity, innovation, and growth –  I will focus my remarks on what I would broadly categorize as the ‘3 Cs’, namely:

1. Capital;
2. Competition; and
3. Complexity

Given their importance, and indeed their prevalence in the regulatory debate, I would like to set out my perspective on these 3 Cs as Deputy Governor for Financial Regulation at the Central Bank of Ireland – informed by our mandate, our experience, and the data and analysis we undertake.

But before I do, let me very briefly touch on the current risk environment – the crucial context in which we are having this debate.

Current risk environment

We are living through a time of extraordinary change – with significant geo-economic shifts and fragmentation, coinciding with rapid and potentially transformative technological innovation.

Such change is reshaping our economies, our financial system, and the risk landscape of the sectors we supervise and of the consumers and investors we work to protect.

We set our views and thinking on this challenging risk environment and our priorities in our Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook (RSO) – and so I won’t go into detail on them now.² I would just note that some of these risks are intensifying, and reiterate that while the sector has demonstrated its resilience in the face of such uncertainty, instability and complexity, you must continue to respond, ensuring that response is characterised by

• Resilience – financially and operationally, to withstand and respond to both traditional and novel shocks;
• Adaptability – so that the sector is able to continue to deliver on its important function, now and into the future, in the face of uncertainty and rapid change; and
• Trustworthiness – providing confidence to consumers and in the financial system through times of challenge and change, by maintaining trust, the crucial underpinning of the modern economy.

Capital

Let me turn now to my first C – Capital – and the capital requirements in place for the banking sector.

Since the first Basel capital accord in 1988, there has been a near continuous global debate on bank capital – a debate which is often procyclical, and follows the regulatory cycle, inevitably learning lessons, often hard learned, from that cycle.

Alongside liquidity, the very oxygen of the financial system, capital is a crucial part of the resilience of the financial sector and banks’ own ability to withstand shocks. We have all seen what happens when the banking sector does not have enough capital – when it cannot absorb shocks, but rather amplifies them. And so robust capital positions play a fundamental role in the safety and soundness of banks and the wider system.

Keeping the sector strong and resilient, is not about resilience for resilience’s sake – but rather so banks can continue to perform their important functions through good times and bad. This is why I firmly believe that a resilient, stable and well-capitalised banking sector is not just good for consumers: but good for banks, good for their investors, and good for the economy.

In terms of setting capital, we think carefully about capital requirements, and follow what for me are some key tenets of modern capital setting, which include being:

• Risk based – to state the obvious, capital requirements should reflect the risks of a banks’ exposures, as well as the risks facing the system as a whole.
• Forward looking – capital requirements should be set to anticipate risks, and to prepare for future shocks, informed through regular stress testing;
• Coherent – while different aspects of the framework have different purposes, and are looked at through different lenses, the parts of capital setting must be cognisant of the whole – avoiding either underlaps or overlaps – something as an integrated central bank and regulator we are focused on³; and
• Countercyclical – a key principle is that capital is built up in the good times, rather than trying to build it in the bad times – given the vicious circles we have seen from pro-cyclicality in the past. 

So what does that mean in practice?

Well it means that capital requirements go up and down depending on the risk profile of an institution as well as the magnitude of the risks facing the system as a whole – and so banks will see reductions or increases in capital requirements informed by the risks they face. There is an onus on regulators to clearly explain movements in either direction, and be open to constructive challenge and debate.

Capital requirements will be based on a robust and realistic assessment of the future, including plausible worst case stress scenarios.

And capital should be used – and indeed requirements lowered – in the bad times, to ensure banks continue to lend through the cycle. This is why we have releasable capital buffers, on which strong institutions can and should draw in times of economic stress.

But the capital framework we have is not a theoretical exercise – but a very real part of regulation in practice. And so in this regard, it is important to look at the numbers – the requirements themselves – not in isolation but in action.

The 2020s so far has been an extraordinary one in terms of economic shocks and shifts.

 While many of these shocks have seen unprecedented policy responses⁴, Ireland and the EU’s banking sector has shown real resilience in the face of the global shocks and financial volatility that has so far characterised this decade.

We should take confidence from this. But of course confidence should not be confused with complacency – and policymakers may not always have the policy space to intervene.

I would argue that a huge part of the strength demonstrated through the difficult times, has been the strength built up in the better times – of which ex ante resilience in the form of robust capital and liquidity positions are key.

Furthermore, looking at the capital requirements during this period bears out a framework working broadly as intended and in line with good capital setting – with the requirements themselves built in advance, and broadly stable at the aggregate level throughout, aside from the reduction of the countercyclical buffer as part of the regulatory response to Covid, demonstrating that regulators will release buffers and reduce requirements when necessary.

Figure 1: Capital Requirements by component parts, Irish and EU banks⁵

Such strength built in good times, and relied on at times of stress, has been a huge asset for the sector, our financial system and the economy.  However, despite this, in the face of an increasingly challenging global outlook, there are now emerging – and increasingly explicit – calls for a lowering of capital requirements.

I fully believe that regulators and policymakers should be humble, accountable and open to challenge and debate. But I also believe that independent regulators should actively engage in that debate – given the different interests at play, and their responsibility to serve the public interest.

In that regard while it is healthy that regulations and requirements are regularly reviewed, to ensure different aspects of the framework are working right – which for me is the essence of simplification – an explicit focus on reducing levels of capital in itself to be honest sounds much more like de-regulation.

This is why central bankers and regulators across the Eurosystem endorsed the firm principle last December that any proposals to change the EU prudential banking framework must sustain current levels of resilience.⁶

This recognises that financial stability, and the stability of the banking sector, are a pre-requisite for sustainable growth.

I of course acknowledge that mine is a regulatory perspective, and that there are others who believe the opposite, and that capital requirements are simply too high.

In my experience proponents of lowering capital, usually focus on three things: boosting credit to the real economy, boosting profitability of the sector itself, and international competitiveness.

But looking at the data and considering these three aspects suggests to me that lowering capital requirements is a solution in search of a problem.

Firstly, credit growth has recovered significantly in the last few years, following the inevitable tightening that came alongside an unprecedentedly rapid monetary policy tightening cycle. Bank Credit growth in the euro area now stands at c.3%; and in an Irish context this figure is above 6%.⁷

This is in the context of a banking sector with significant headroom above regulatory requirements – over 600bps in Ireland and nearly 500bps in the EU, meaning capital requirements are far from binding, with banks having ample additional capital to support additional new lending.⁸

Combined this data does not suggest capital requirements are unduly constraining credit to the real economy – which is very much consistent with a large body of economic literature showing that at a steady state the level of capital requirements has little effect on bank lending, and that well-capitalised banks typically lend more to the real economy.^9 10

It is also consistent with information we have on bank lending conditions in the euro area over the last two decade, which indicates that while banks’ capital position (and related costs) was a constraint on lending during the Financial Crisis and early sovereign debt crisis, since then it has had limited effect on banks’ credit standards (with a slight exception during the pandemic).¹¹

Figure 2: Bank Lending Survey, credit standards loans to firms¹²

Figure 3: Bank Lending Survey, credit standards loans to firms, Ireland

In terms of profitability, return on equity of euro area banks is at its highest since the introduction of the post crisis reforms, aided by aforementioned monetary policy normalisation. Now standing above 10% in both Ireland and the EU, this does not suggest to me that capital is unduly dampening profitability. This is also consistent with many studies that find that there is no evidence that higher capital requirements lead to lower profitability.¹³

Figure 4: Return on Equity compared to CET1 requirements and headroom – Irish and EU banks¹⁴

Or to put it another way this does not suggest to me that the balance between the resilience of the sector – crucial to the economic wellbeing of the country and our citizens – and the profitability of its banks – an important part of a long term safe and sound sector – is in conflict.

Lastly, people cite international competitiveness – with the US and UK the jurisdictions often compared to by advocates for capital lowering.

The first thing to say is it is very hard to compare like for like – there are different markets, different business models, and indeed different types of balance sheets. But as ECB research published last week shows, US large banks in fact face higher capital requirements than their European counterparts.¹⁵

This is the starting point for comparisons. I would also note that when Europe finalised its implementation of Basel III, it resulted in a lowering of capital requirements for some banks – including a 6% reduction in capital requirements for Irish banks, important context for the future debate.¹⁶

But when we think of the competitiveness of the US vs Europe, it is the competitiveness of our economies  – indeed their productivity – that we should be focused on. And as we seek to close any competitiveness gap, it is not the overall levels of their bank capital that comes to mind for me – but rather it is their deep and liquid capital markets, providing risk capital and funding for innovation, alongside the dynamism and investability of their companies, that stands out.

This is what we should be focused on as we seek to boost the productivity of our economy, and why Savings and Investment Union remains a priority for Europe.

Competition

This brings me to my second ‘C’, namely Competition – another topic with many facets, and of course competition and competitiveness is subject to huge focus in the international debate.

For my part I will focus on our sector here in Ireland – namely in terms of a) the domestic banking sector, b) Ireland’s broader banking and financial sector, and c) the role I feel central banks and regulators can and should play in this issue.

Firstly, for the last number of years there has been understandable focus and concern about competition in the retail banking sector in Ireland.

While no one has been advocating for the return to the unsustainable competition of the 00s, the exit of two full service retail banks in recent years naturally intensified concerns about competitive conditions in the sector and led to the Government’s Retail Banking Review.

We fully recognise the importance of a competitive retail banking landscape for our economy. We engaged fully with and supported the Retail Banking Review and have been conducting our own research and analysis into this issue – in particular considering the profound structural transformation that has taken place in the financial system over recent decades, meaning it is not as simple as comparing like for like.

Given the evolving financial system, we have always felt that focusing on the number and balance sheet of domestic retail banks gives an increasingly incomplete assessment of market structure in retail credit provision in Ireland, and does not capture an increasingly diverse lending market made up of foreign banks, non-bank lenders, and credit unions.

In light of this colleagues in the Central Bank have undertaken an analysis of the state of the Irish loan market using granular loan-level data from the Central Credit Register.¹⁷

Analysing market concentration based on new lending, firm borrowing patterns across lender types, and loan pricing using loan-level data, the research yields a number of findings that offer a more nuanced perspective on the question of competition in the Irish loan market.

The full paper is being published today but I will briefly highlight a few aspects.

In business lending and consumer credit – key channels for the real economy – the paper shows the presence of these different lenders alongside domestic retail banks significantly reduces estimates of market concentration.

When taking the full market into account, new business lending is more than 50% less concentrated and concentration metrics for consumer credit fall by almost 80%. 

Importantly, this is not non-bank lenders merely serving borrowers excluded from the banking sector – rather a third of Irish firms, and 40 per cent of SMEs, borrow from multiple lender types – typically combining a core domestic banking relationship with non-bank credit. This points to an increasingly competitive, and much more dynamic, market than is often understood.

As I noted, we will be publishing the full analysis today, but taken together the findings paint a much more diverse landscape than analysis relying exclusively on data related to domestic retail banks – and rather evidences a loan market characterised by a diverse ecosystem in which alternative lender types both contribute to market depth and provide alternative funding options for both SMEs and households.

Such increasing diversity in terms of credit provision, is echoed in other segments of retail banking services, with an increasing number of digital banks, payments firms and e-money institutions adding competition in the areas of payments and deposits. Our focus here is on ensuring such new entrants are well-run and well-regulated, and subject to a robust authorisation and supervision, given their important responsibility being trusted with the public’s money.

More broadly, as we have said before the last decade has seen extraordinary growth in Ireland’s financial sector – both in terms of scale and complexity – with some of the highest rates of growth occurring in the most complex parts of the system.

For example, over the last decade the number of trading venues has increased from 2 to 5 and the number of complex trading firms has tripled to 10, with the size of that sector in terms of assets having grown more than 600%. Total assets under management by Irish authorised investment funds has grown from €1.7 trillion to €5.3 trillion.

While there has been some consolidation in the number of banks, there has been significant growth in terms of scale of the banking sector– with total assets of Irish authorised credit institutions now above €770bn, growing by 70% since 2016.

This comes alongside the pace at which the Payments and E-Money sectors have developed – with the number of PIEMI firms growing from 14 in 2016 to 58 in 2025, which includes 15 fold increase in safeguarded funds, now standing at near €12bn.

2025 also saw the first new authorisation of a retail bank in some time; and judging by the authorisation pipeline we are currently dealing with our financial sector is growing and set to continue to grow.

These metrics in terms of size and scale of the entities we supervise, are echoed by other metrics.

When the Government launched its IFS strategy in 2015, international financial services was providing work to 35,000 people across the country.¹⁸ 10 years later when it consulted on its upcoming strategy  in 2025, employment had near doubled to over 60,000.¹⁹ This growth is seen elsewhere, and indeed the BPFI’s own membership has also nearly doubled over that period from 70 members to over 125.

All of this is exceptional growth by any measure.

It is a success story for the sector and the Government – but it also says to me that Ireland’s international financial centre is strong, diverse and it is growing – and that Ireland does not appear to be unable to compete for financial services due to its regulations or its regulator.

In fact I would argue in the long run a stable, robust regulatory environment is a key part of developing, and maintaining, an international financial centre – and so strong regulations and a strong regulator is in fact an advantage.

This brings me to my final point on Competition – namely the role of central banks and regulators.

This has become something of a debate once more – and both in Europe and domestically there have been some calls to give regulators a mandate to promote the competitiveness of the sector.

While the regulatory cycle has clearly turned, I have to admit I am still surprised that so soon after the financial crisis – for which we are in many ways still paying the price – proposals for such a mandate have returned.

A mandate, which as set out so well in the Honohan report²⁰,  contributed so significantly to the failings of that period, and therefore the enormous economic and societal costs borne by the country and our citizens.

While ultimately a matter for legislators, to address the suggestion directly let me say that I think our mandate is already broad, and I firmly believe well balanced. 

As such – to be frank – I think adding a competitiveness mandate, even secondary, is simply a bad idea – and it is not clear to me what this has to with simplification as opposed to deregulation.

A competitiveness objective risks blurring our mandate at best, and at worst risks having a corrosive effect on decision-making leading to financial stability issues – precisely what happened the last time, not so long ago, we had a secondary mandate to promote the sector.

Lastly the evidence doesn’t suggest to me a financial centre struggling for growth – indeed Ireland’s financial sector has seen exceptional growth over the last 10 years.

None of this is to say we don’t think a productive and competitive economy and financial sector is important. We do – and indeed competition and innovation, subject to appropriate guardrails, is clearly in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.

But a regulator focusing on the “competitiveness” of the sector is unlikely to end well, with this job better left to others. Indeed the last time the Regulator had such a mandate it did not end well. It was clearly not in the interests of the public, the economy or indeed the country – and in the long run was certainly not in the interests of the sector itself.

So how do I think we can and should contribute to competitiveness of our economy? Put simply, by doing our job.

By maintaining monetary and financial stability – two key pillars of stable growth.

By working to ensure the financial system operates in the best interest of consumers and the wider economy.

By delivering robust, clear and predictable regulation, including through considering the costs and benefits of regulatory interventions, as well effective and efficient supervision and a clear, transparent and timely authorisation processes.

And by ensuring we discharge all of these in a way that is consistent with  the orderly and proper functioning of financial markets.

This is a mandate that I firmly believe is broad, balanced and in the best interests of us all.

Complexity

Let me turn now to my third C, namely Complexity – a defining feature of the modern world.

Complexity in itself is complex, but let me just cover two aspects now, and we can get into more detail in the discussion. The first is the increasing complexity of the sector and its risk landscape; and secondly what we are doing to reduce regulatory complexity.

In terms of the complexity of the sector, we are all grappling with increasingly complex organisations in an increasingly complex world.

Geo-economic shifts and rapid digital developments have only served to intensify these challenges.

In the face of such complexity it is imperative that banks are resilient and prepared – and are focused on the interconnections and dependencies of your businesses within and without the financial system.

In particular I would highlight the importance of operational and cyber resilience.

We called this out again in the RSO in February as a key risk and priority and even since then the risk has intensified – with geopolitical tensions as well as the potential deployment of the new generation of AI models making this priority all the more urgent.

In the face of this constantly evolving technological and cyber-threat landscape, including related to frontier AI models, firms need a future-proofed strategic response with senior sponsorship and appropriate levels of investment.

I would underline three objectives, in this regard:

1. Maintain a clear view of your ICT risks – firms should continuously assess their ICT risk landscape, ensuring that cyber and operational vulnerabilities are identified and addressed in a timely and effective way. Existing known gaps need particularly urgent remediation.
2. Ensure ICT controls evolve with emerging threats – ICT risk management and control frameworks should continuously adapt to an evolving threat landscape, including increasingly sophisticated cyber risks and emerging technologies such as frontier AI.
3. Be prepared to respond and recover – firms need a capability to manage disruption effectively, with robust response and recovery capabilities supported by regular testing.

All of these are in line with DORA, and existing expectations – though the potentially accelerating risk landscape makes them all the more important.

Finally let me say a few brief words about the complexity of the regulatory framework.

I would not like you to take my strong beliefs on Capital and Competitiveness mandates for hubris – in particular, as I have spoken of before, I believe in the importance of humility.²¹

Rather they reflect the importance of these topics, the data, our lived experience and the current risk landscape.

But as regulators I firmly believe we should be open to challenge, accountability, and to review – and that we should listen and we should engage.

This is why we have focused on continuous improvement over the last number of years, in terms of our engagement and our processes – including how we regulate, authorise and supervise our financial sector. This is also why we are serious about simplification and have been proactively engaging on it both domestically and internationally. 

I have spoken about this on a number of occasions, about the real opportunities – as well as the risks – from the agenda. And following engagement with many stakeholders, including the industry, at the end of last year we set out our ongoing commitment to Regulating and Supervising well. This includes a roadmap for domestic simplification which is a comprehensive multi-year programme of initiatives to deliver further efficiencies and effectiveness across regulation, supervision, gatekeeping and reporting.

We do this as we see there is an opportunity to streamline rules and processes without weakening the important protections we have built over the past decade.

But as I have said before we cannot simplify so much that we do not capture complex risks. Nor can simplification mean no new rules – or regulation risks falling behind.²²

In a world of complexity and rapid change, regulation must adapt too – ensuring it remains fit for purpose in a changing world.

But while adapting we should ensure new regulations, and the overall framework itself, is as simple as possible – but no simpler!²³

Conclusion

Let me conclude.

A competitive, productive economy is crucial for growth and better living standards for our citizens. So too is a well-functioning financial sector.

Central banks and regulators play a key role in delivering these aims.

Not through promoting growth or competitiveness but by underpinning them through monetary and financial stability – pre-conditions for sustainable growth.

Nor through lowering standards, but by ensuring that the financial system is well-regulated, resilient and operating in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.

In this way we serve the public interest by delivering on our mission and mandate, including by Regulating and Supervising well – which means for me robustly, effectively and efficiently.

And so as we look to the future and to delivering on our productivity and competitiveness aims –  in an age of challenge, change and complexity – there is an onus on all of us to remember the lessons of the past.

Collectively we have worked hard to build up resilience in the system, which is now serving the sector well. We should now focus on maintaining and reinforcing such strength – recognising that resilience and stability are not the enemy of growth; but rather its foundation.

Thank you!

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

07 May 2026 Press Release

• Central Bank loan-level research shows the Irish lending market is significantly less concentrated when considering the full diversity of lenders.
• Robust capital and liquidity positions have served the sector well – with the evidence not supporting a lowering of overall levels of resilience on the basis of bank credit, profitability or international competitiveness.
• Central Banks best serve these broader objectives related to productivity and growth by delivering on their core mandates, effectively and efficiently.

Speaking at the Banking and Payments Federation today (Thursday 7 May 2026) Deputy Governor Mary Elizabeth McMunn set out the Central Bank’s position across three key issues — capital, competition, and complexity – and discussed new research into the lending landscape in Ireland which was also published today.

The Deputy Governor spoke of the importance of capital requirements and a safe and sound banking sector, and how, looking at the data, there is little evidence to support calls to reduce bank capital requirements on the basis of boosting lending and competitiveness.

Deputy Governor McMunn said: “Keeping the sector strong and resilient is not about resilience for resilience’s sake — but so banks can continue to perform their important functions, through good times and bad. A resilient, well-capitalised banking sector is not just good for consumers: it is good for banks, good for their investors, and good for the economy.”

The Central Bank today published new research “Beyond the Big Three: A Broader View of Competition in the Irish Loan Market (PDF 1.9MB)” drawing on granular loan-level data from the Central Credit Register — the most comprehensive analysis yet of competition in the Irish loan market.

The research found that when non-bank lenders, foreign banks, and credit unions are included alongside domestic retail banks, new business lending is 60% less concentrated and concentration in consumer credit falls by more than 80%. Crucially, one-third of Irish firms including 40% of SMEs  borrow from multiple lender types, indicating an active and competitive ecosystem rather than a captive market.

The research found that when non-bank lenders, foreign banks, and credit unions are included alongside domestic retail banks, new business lending is 50% less concentrated and concentration in consumer credit falls by around 80%. Crucially, one-third of Irish firms including 40% of SMEs  borrow from multiple lender types, indicating an active and diverse  ecosystem.

On proposals to give the Central Bank a competitiveness mandate, the Deputy Governor was unequivocal. Invoking the Honohan Report’s findings on the causes of Ireland’s banking crisis, she warned that the last time the regulator carried such a mandate it contributed directly to the failures that imposed enormous economic and societal costs on the country. Ireland’s financial sector has grown strongly over the past decade — evidence that regulation is not a barrier to growth. Central Banks best serve the economy by delivering on their core objectives, effectively and efficiently.

Deputy Governor McMunn said “ The last time the regulator had such a mandate it did not end well — it was not in the interests of the public, the economy, or the country, and in the long run was certainly not in the interest of the sector itself”.”

Reaffirming the Central Bank’s commitment to reducing regulatory complexity, the Deputy Governor continued:

“Regulators should, however, be open to challenge, accountability and to review – and we should listen and we should engage. This is why we are serious about the simplification, and have set out a comprehensive multi-year domestic simplification programme to deliver further efficiencies and effectiveness across regulation, supervision, gatekeeping and reporting.

– ENDS –

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

01 May 2026 Blog

I was in Washington for the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) two weeks ago and this week I was in Frankfurt at the latest meeting of the ECB Governing Council, to decide interest rates to achieve our price stability target of 2 per cent inflation over the medium term.  I wanted to use this blog to offer some reflections on both meetings.

Inevitably the war in the Middle East cast a shadow over both meetings. Uncertainty about the global outlook dominated the discourse: the duration of the conflict, the damage to infrastructure, the impact on supply chains, and, given all of this, the optimal policy response. My colleagues and I are once more looking at scenarios to communicate the breadth of uncertainty and to ensure we stand ready to respond to evolving second round effects that could give rise to more persistent inflation.

On top of these developments, two other topics dominated conversations: first the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on cyber security and operational resilience as well as productivity and employment, and second digital financial innovation.

As a highly open and very well-connected economy with a significant financial system, these developments matter to Ireland.

The global economy and financial system 

The IMF’s message was that the global economy faces renewed tests as the war in the Middle East threatens to disrupt growth and disinflation. After withstanding higher trade barriers and greater uncertainty in 2025, global activity now faces a major test from the war in the Middle East. 

Downside risks dominate the growth outlook. A longer or broader conflict, worsening geopolitical fragmentation, a reassessment of expectations surrounding artificial‑intelligence‑driven productivity, or renewed trade tensions could significantly weaken growth and destabilise financial markets. High public debt levels and eroding institutional credibility further heighten vulnerabilities. At the same time, more rapid productivity gains from AI or a sustained easing of trade tensions could provide a boost for growth. 

From a financial stability perspective, the IMF called on policymakers to act decisively and bolster resilience. This means being prepared for market dysfunction, ensuring that liquidity and funding facilities are ready accessible and operationally ready. While market functioning has remained orderly, risks are asymmetric and could intensify if the conflict persists.

The IMF also emphasised the importance of international cooperation to build resilience, in particular completing the implementation of the Basel framework and avoiding regulatory arbitrage and weakening prudential standards. In the growing non-bank financial intermediation sector, the need to close data gaps, improve cross-jurisdictional data sharing, and enhancing oversight are critical. Strengthening the financial stability lens in the regulation of the non-bank sector has been – and continues to be – a priority for us at the Central Bank of Ireland. We recently published a financial stability assessment of Irish hedge funds (PDF 1.4MB) and the availability and use of certain types of liquidity management tools (reflecting our position towards effective implementation of internationally agreed standards and strengthened surveillance respectively).

Key themes – AI and digital financial innovation

Digitalisation was a dominant theme in my conversations.

The announcements of the latest AI developments meant that the risk posed by cyber threats and the value of operational resilience kept coming up in discussions.   The implications of rapid advancements in AI capabilities for cyber threats – as well as cyber defences – has been expected for some time. But the pace of change underpins the importance of continued investment by all organisations (not least for financial institutions) in order to safeguard their systems against rapidly evolving threats, as well as their ability to recover from an attack.  

On the productivity and employment impacts, the over-arching view was that the effects were potentially large, but likely to be spread over time. 

And not surprisingly, digital finance was a key theme, in particularly on payments. Discussions with peers and industry covered the rapidly evolving landscape (stablecoins, tokenised deposits, central bank digital currencies) and the implications for public policy outcomes, as well as the cross-border elements and the regulatory approaches by different authorities. This is an area which we are focused on (including via our recent Discussion Paper), reflecting the breadth of our mandate and the need to consider the issue from a consumer, investor, financial stability, and macroeconomic perspective.

No change to policy rates this week, but upside risks to inflation and downside risks to growth have intensified

And so to our meeting this week in Frankfurt where we kept its main policy interest rate (the deposit facility rate) unchanged at 2 per cent.

The oscillation between a potential resolution to the conflict and an escalation of tensions is driving energy commodity price volatility. Oil prices are fluctuating in a wide range roughly between the baseline from the ECB staff projections in March ($90 peak in Q2 2026, before gradually easing) and the adverse scenario ($119/barrel). The baseline-adverse range for gas prices was a peak of €50-€87/MWh, before falling back. At the time of writing gas spot prices are just below the bottom of this range.

Without a clear timeline for the end of the conflict and a reopening of the Straits of Hormuz, combined with a lack of clarity on the extent of infrastructure damage from the war and what this might mean for supply, I am concerned about a higher-for-longer energy price scenario. A point also made by the European Commission and the International Energy Agency. The longer this goes on, the greater potential for higher commodity prices and quantity disruptions to take hold, and not only in energy but across the supply chain. This is reminiscent of the non-linear propagation of supply chain stresses we saw after Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which can give rise to more persistent inflation.

We are already seeing these effects in the prices for energy intensive commodities, with production concentrated in the Gulf region. Since the start of the war, prices for helium, sulphur, and fertilisers have all increased sharply. This is putting upward pressure on downstream producer prices in semiconductor, chemicals, and food production sectors.

Of course, pass through from producer prices to consumer prices is not always one-for-one.  It depends on the demand environment that firms are facing. Yesterday’s initial estimate for euro area GDP, which shows growth slowing to just 0.1 per cent in Q1, combined with weaker consumer and business confidence, suggests near-term headwinds to growth.  

Having sat around our 2 per cent target for the last year, April’s initial estimate of 3 per cent inflation (year-on-year) for the euro area is driven almost entirely by energy prices, which increased by almost 11 per cent year-on-year in the euro area, and 3 per cent in the month of April alone. Core inflation, which strips out energy and food, was more or less unchanged in April. For Ireland, April’s headline inflation figure was 3.6% (year-on-year), unchanged from March.

While the incoming information has been broadly consistent with our previous assessment of the inflation outlook, the upside risks to inflation and the downside risks to growth have intensified. In other words, the longer energy prices remain elevated the greater the risk of more broad-based and persistent inflation, and the more entrenched the drag on growth becomes.

We will have a much clearer picture of underlying inflation momentum in the months ahead as more data comes in. We have seen the direct effects of this shock in higher energy prices. Going forward, I will be paying close attention to indirect effects, that is how higher energy prices are contributing to cost-push inflation in production, transportation, and services. Potential second-round effects via wages will take longer to show up, given the staggered nature of wage-setting in Europe. In the meantime, inflation expectations need to be closely monitored for signs of de-anchoring. We are committed to setting monetary policy to ensure that inflation stabilises at our 2 per cent target in the medium term.

One reflection 

One final comment on my trip to Washington. It reaffirmed for me the value of engaging with global institutions to address shared challenges. Operating in a small open economy means we value relationships that support our commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation, collaboration and understanding.

Gabriel Makhlouf

Source: Central Bank of Ireland

01 May 2026 Warning Notice

Warning	Unauthorised Retail Credit Firm
Unauthorised Firm Name	Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company (Clone)
Websites	https://promontoriascariffdesignatedactivitycompany.com http://www.promontoriacariffdac.com
Email addresses used
Phone numbers used	+353 89 960 9024  +353 89 985 6205 +353 89 951 3163 +353 89 968 2392
Authorisation in Ireland	Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company (Clone) is not authorised to provide retail credit services in Ireland.
Additional information	This fraud is an example of an ‘advanced fee fraud’, where a payment is sought upfront for providing credit services, which are then not provided. This unauthorised firm has used the details of a legitimate firm authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland, Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company (C185873) to pass itself off as the legitimate firm to deceive consumers. There is no connection between the legitimate firm and the unauthorised firm.

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

01 May 2026 Warning Notice

Warning:	Unauthorised Retail Credit Firm
Unauthorised Firm Name	Patrick Loans Ireland
Website	https://patrickloansie.com
Email addresses used
Phone numbers used	083 207 7826 089 946 0081
Authorisation in Ireland	Patrick Loans Ireland is not authorised as a retail credit firm in Ireland.
Additional information	This fraud is an example of an ‘advanced fee fraud’, where a payment is sought upfront for providing credit services, which are then not provided.

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

01 May 2026 Warning Notice

Warning	Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm
Unauthorised Firm Name	LPL Enterprise LLC (Clone)
Website	https://lplenterprisellc.com
Telephone Numbers Used	518-360-0781 518-360-0780 extension 9 +1 532-348-8311
Email addresses used
Authorisation in Ireland	This firm is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland.
Additional Information	This entity cloned the name and details of a legitimate firm and has been seeking to pass itself off as the legitimate firm in order to deceive consumers. There is no connection between the legitimate firm and this 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.