Eva Contreras. El Economista

The European Commission has just presented a strategic report aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the banking sector, which will serve as the basis for a broad legislative reform beginning in 2027. María Abascal has worked tirelessly to advocate, in all instances and forums, for the need to strengthen financial institutions based on her dual roles at the Spanish Banking Association (AEB) and as chair of the Executive Committee of the European Banking Federation, where strategic priorities are set for a sector comprising more than 3,000 institutions. She believes the proposals are moving in the right direction, particularly regarding issues such as addressing financial market fragmentation and simplifying regulation and supervision, although she feels greater ambition is needed in areas such as the single guarantee fund. Above all, he sends a key message: he urges political leaders and lawmakers to accelerate regulatory changes because they determine Europe’s ability to finance its reform agenda.

Why is it so important to improve the competitiveness of a bank that is currently posting record results and experiencing a strong rise in its stock price?

It is extremely important, especially looking ahead. The conclusion reached by Europe is that the international economic order has changed, as the Commissioner—Maria Luís Albuquerque, the EU Commissioner for Finance—has said, and we have enormous financing needs within this new international economic order. We at the European Banking Federation, in collaboration with Oliver Wyman, have updated these estimates, and they now amount to 1.4 trillion euros per year to finance all strategic sectors such as defense, the energy transition, energy security, digitalization, and the rebuilding of industrial capacity… Therefore, it is urgent to undertake these reforms so that Europe can grow and make the investments that so many companies and sectors need.

Has the European Commission been ambitious enough with its proposals?

This is a very important milestone. I believe it is the most significant proposal for regulatory and supervisory reforms since 2008, when all the new regulatory frameworks began to be implemented. The Commission emphasizes the importance of having a profitable banking sector to ensure sustainable growth because, without profitable, sound, and well-capitalized banks, credit cannot flow properly. The reform is ambitious because it incorporates the vast majority of the industry’s suggestions and demands and structures them into three pillars that I believe are well defined: strengthening the integration and scale of European banks, with specific mention of deepening the Banking Union; applying international standards while taking into account Europe’s specific characteristics and ensuring greater proportionality; and simplifying both regulation and supervision.

And perhaps one of the most significant issues is the cultural shift the commissioner proposes when addressing regulatory matters. She speaks of changing the mindset and always striving for simplicity—of course, without jeopardizing financial stability. There is a clear recognition that the European regulatory framework had become excessively complicated, resulting in 24 billion in compliance and other costs for banks—which leads to a loss of competitiveness. She calls for this cultural shift among authorities, politicians, and the banks themselves.

Where do you think it falls short?

We welcome you, and it is very important to reaffirm the need to strengthen integration, the single market, and complete the Banking Union, but the 2015 EDIS proposal (the common guarantee fund) is being ruled out or withdrawn, and it is stated that work is underway on a revised guarantee fund mechanism at the Banking Union level, which remains somewhat vague. This is extremely important. Perhaps in peacetime, no one fully appreciates the benefits of having a single deposit guarantee mechanism at the European level, but what we saw in 2012 is that this is essential because, if we believe we have a Banking Union—that is, a single jurisdiction and a single market—the deposits of all citizens of the Member States should have exactly the same level of protection. And this also helps break the link between sovereign risk and banking risk. I believe the measures now being proposed are sound because they are addressed as a whole: looking at how to complete this single deposit guarantee fund mechanism, how to better manage capital and liquidity within that single jurisdiction, and there’s also the aspect of sovereign debt and liquidity in resolution… In other words, it’s a set of mechanisms; it’s a complicated discussion, but now is precisely the time to have it, because things are going well—the funds are already in place. We’ll have to wait and see how the legislative package takes shape.

Could that joint approach break the political deadlock surrounding EDIs?

As I was saying, this has to be viewed as a whole. Taken in isolation, it’s a measure that probably won’t be very well received, but within the context of a broader discussion—such as truly completing the Banking Union and moving forward, for example, on those capital and liquidity waivers that give host countries —where the bank operates through a subsidiary or branch—the certainty that if things go wrong, they’ll have a safety net within the Banking Union—these are commitments, and it’s certainly worth having that conversation.

You estimated that, by implementing all the measures proposed by the sector, an additional two trillion euros in financing could be mobilized in Europe and 250,000 million in Spain. How far will the announced reforms go?

We know that the legislative proposals are expected to be introduced in March 2027, after which the negotiations will begin. The important thing is that as these measures are rolled out, European and Spanish banks will be able to take on more risk and finance those strategic projects, which are typically also riskier: in defense, energy security, data center construction, quantum computing… People sometimes ask me, “What happens if we don’t do this?” It means depriving very important reforms of the funding they need to be implemented: You could choose not to do it, but it will come at a cost in terms of growth, productivity, relevance, and—if you push me—possibly even the security of your supply chain. It’s now or never; it’s absolutely crucial that this gets done during this legislative session.

They’ve stressed the urgency of the matter; I’m not sure if the legislative timelines are too lenient and need to be shortened… Yes, it is one of the main challenges. The Commission plans to present the measures in the first quarter of 2027 and aims to have them approved by the end of the year. We find this unrealistic, and I believe we should, in fact, urge our leaders—both the governments in the European Council and our representatives in the European Parliament—to speed up the negotiations because the future of Europe, the future of businesses, and the future of households depend on it.

As the commissioner rightly said, this isn’t about the banking sector; it’s about the strength and competitiveness of the European economy.

The Commission has asserted itself as the authority responsible for safeguarding competition in the face of calls from the sector to grant this mandate to the supervisors as well. Why is it better for the supervisors to have it?

It’s not that we want to undermine the Commission’s focus on competitiveness; what we’re saying is that it’s important for this shift in perspective—this cultural shift—to take place, and for supervisors and regulators, when making decisions, to incorporate the impact on competitiveness into their analysis alongside that of financial stability. Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of the report is that the Commission makes clear the importance of doing so.

Do Brussels’ proposals—to mandate the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the Single Resolution Board to conduct regular reviews of the regulations and improve coordination among authorities—adequately address the issue?

We would prefer there to be that secondary mandate on competitiveness, but this helps. It’s a step in the right direction because those reports will analyze whether the system’s capital level has been adequate. This forces a discussion of whether the decisions were sound or not and whether they yield the results we wanted; it reinforces accountability in the decision-making process on the part of the various regulators and supervisors.

Brussels is committed to eliminating national regulatory differences, but industry representatives have pointed out that such differences also exist within Europe. Which ones are the most burdensome compared to other jurisdictions, such as the U.S.?

There are clear examples of national and European “gold plating .” In Europe, two very illustrative examples are the systemic risk buffer—which does not exist under the Basel Accords—and a backstop for NPLs ( non-performing loans), which the supervisor is further tightening. We are calling for its elimination. At the national level, even though there is a single rulebook, differences persist in data protection, insolvency, and taxation that prevent the same products from being offered in all countries and hinder integration.

How much does regulatory fragmentation cost?

The International Monetary Fund has provided an estimate that quantifies these frictions and barriers in the single market —the organization states that their cost is equivalent to a tariff of 44%–45% on goods and around 110% on services, which limits economic integration and companies’ ability to grow—.

Are the proposals on capital ratios ambitious enough, or do they fail to sufficiently “strip away” the additional solvency that a bank enjoys simply by being European compared to other markets?

It is good news that the macroprudential framework is being simplified. The proposal calls for merging the systemic risk buffer with the countercyclical buffer, making supervision more efficient and focusing more on material risks—and thus making it somewhat more proportionate. This is not expected to lead to a reduction in capital requirements, but it is a step in the right direction in terms of streamlining the framework and reducing its complexity.

The European Commission is also setting requirements for banks: they should not request so many clarifications that end up resulting in costs or surcharges… How can they share this responsibility?

It is very important that this cultural shift begins to take hold. We’ve spent the last 20 years moving only in the direction of stricter measures and more regulation. These continuous improvements in the banking sector did not translate into a reduction in capital. Our pursuit of “zero risk” has only served to shift the risk to other actors and sectors that, of course, are neither as regulated nor as closely supervised as the banking sector, which is actually better off.