EIOPA Chair urges stronger funded pensions for Europe

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to join you tonight in Brussels. As head of EIOPA, I visit the Belgian capital quite often, but tonight’s event is not the usual setting. Let me start by thanking the organisers for inviting me to speak to you.

Bringing together the leaders of Europe’s major banks and insurers is no small matter. The institutions represented in this room manage trillions of euros in assets, finance businesses across the continent and safeguard the savings of millions of European citizens.

In many ways, the strength of Europe’s financial system — and its ability to support the real economy — depends on what happens in rooms like this.

Tomorrow’s panels will offer an opportunity to dive deep into geopolitics, digitalisation and regulatory simplification — and I very much look forward to these discussions.

In my remarks today, I would like to focus on a timely and important topic that looms behind all these and much more: the Savings and Investments Union.

[SIU]

The SIU is not a completely new idea. In fact, its roots go back at least a decade.  But the SIU is also not a simple rebranding of the Capital Markets Union either.

When we look at the SIU project, we see a broader, more consumer-centric initiative, one that goes beyond the sole goal of better integrating capital markets.

At its core, the initiative addresses two longstanding challenges in Europe’s financial architecture.

First, the need to remove the frictions that still prevent us from fully reaping the benefits of a genuine Single Market.

And second, the need to mobilise Europe’s vast pool of savings — particularly through stronger funded pension systems — so that these resources can support investment, finance innovation and spur economic growth, while also helping citizens accumulate wealth over time.

Both objectives have been discussed in Europe for many years.

But today they carry a new sense of urgency.

We are living in a world that is becoming more uncertain and more competitive. Geopolitical tensions are rising. Global economic alliances are shifting. Technological leadership is becoming a defining factor of economic power.

In these turbulent times, Europe cannot afford to weaken itself with internal barriers.

If anything, we must do the very opposite.

When the external environment turns more volatile and reckless, the case for strengthening our internal market becomes paramount.

Europe’s Single Market is one of our greatest assets. Yet its full potential remains far from realised, including in financial services.

The SIU intends to change that.

But making it a success will require more than a new label and a broader dimension. For the time being, the SIU is still an idea on the drawing board.

Turning it into reality will require principled agreements, a shared vision and collective effort by everyone involved:

• National and EU policymakers must make choices that favour integration rather than fragmentation.
• Regulators and supervisors must design rules that are effective, proportionate and informed by constructive engagement with the industry.
• And financial institutions must offer products that are transparent, understandable and deliver real value for money — especially as many first-time investors are being encouraged to put their savings into financial products. If we all pull our weight, the SIU can benefit European business, European citizens and Europe as a whole.

By connecting people’s savings with productive investments, we can strengthen Europe’s growth prospects and help everyday citizens receive a share of the value created in the process.

But this connection needs to be as frictionless as possible, happen at scale and take place in a system that has adequate safeguards.

[PENSIONS]

Across Europe, traditional pension systems are approaching a structural turning point. The need for imminent reforms in many member states offers a timely opportunity to transition to a stronger, more diversified and more sustainable model.

Demographic change is reshaping the foundations of our social systems. People live longer — which is a success story — but the number of workers relative to retirees is steadily declining. Some thirty years ago, there were 5 working-age people for every pensioner on our continent. Today, we have three. By the middle of this century, there will be fewer than two on average.

Many member states rely heavily on unfunded pay-as-you-go systems, where today’s workers finance today’s pensions without generating investment returns. These systems have served Europe well for decades, but they are running on borrowed time and into unsustainable territory.

At the same time, governments face significant spending pressures elsewhere.

The climate transition requires large-scale investment. Digital transformation demands new infrastructure and skills. And defence spending is rising in response to geopolitical threats and instabilities.

Public finances are under increasing strain. The implication is clear.

Europe cannot rely on unfunded public pensions alone to ensure adequate retirement income for its citizens.

[SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS]

Supplementary pensions — both occupational and personal — must therefore play a stronger role.

Funded pension systems offer clear advantages.

1. They help future pensioners diversify their sources of retirement income and reduce their dependence on demographic trends.
2. They allow savers to accumulate wealth over time through interest and capital gains.
3. They ease pressure on public budgets.
4. And crucially, they create large pools of long-term capital that can be invested productively in the European economy. This is precisely the type of capital Europe needs — patient capital that can support infrastructure, finance innovation and help companies scale up within the Union.

The broadened SIU rightly recognises this connection between retirement savings and economic growth.

But pensions are deeply rooted in national systems — shaped by tax regimes, labour markets and social contracts. No single European model can simply be imposed across all Member States.

This is why the Commission has adopted a pragmatic approach.

Rather than prescribing a single solution, it offers a menu of tools that Member States can adapt to their own circumstances.

Some of these tools focus on transparency.

Pension dashboards can provide governments with realistic insights into the state of their systems and serve as a reference point for forward-looking reforms. Tracking systems can help citizens better understand their future retirement income across different pillars. When people understand their pension prospects, they are better equipped to take action.

Other instruments focus on participation.

Automatic enrolment mechanisms, for example, have proven effective in expanding participation in occupational pension schemes in several countries.

[PEPP]

And then there are the European frameworks designed to support adoption and scale.

The Pan-European Personal Pension Product — the PEPP — was created to provide a simple and accessible long-term savings product that can operate both nationally and across borders and ensure good value for money for savers.

The Commission’s proposals mirror many of EIOPA’s recommendations to reform PEPP. These proposals open the way for PEPP to reach the scale that it needs to be viable by enabling employer contributions, supporting auto-enrolment, eliminating a number of administrative burdens that created a high entry threshold for potential providers and allowing transfers from existing savings pots.

Moving from a rigid cost-cap to more flexible value-for-money assessments will also make the product more attractive to providers.

For consumers, a clear European label could enhance visibility and trust, and lower the reluctance of traditionally conservative European savers to invest in financial products.

The review of the IORP II Directive follows a similar approach, seeking to strengthen occupational pension institutions by improving transparency, facilitating cross-border activity and supporting efficient long-term investment strategies.

Taken together, these initiatives could put pension systems on a more sustainable path, provide better retirement income to future pensioners and create a large pool of patient capital.

The ideas are solid, but member states and the financial sector will play a decisive role in determining whether they can succeed.

European households currently hold around €10 to €11 trillion in cash and bank deposits, often generating limited returns or none at all.

To put this into perspective, Europe’s insurers, reinsurers and occupational pension funds — including some of the world’s largest balance sheets — together manage a comparable volume of assets. These assets are already heavily invested in the European economy through equity holdings, corporate bonds and sovereign debt. Around 70% of insurers’ and reinsurers’ investments in these asset classes are directed towards Europe, while more than half of pension fund investments stay on the continent, helping to finance key projects and create jobs.

Patient capital is therefore already a cornerstone of Europe’s economy. But there is scope to deepen this contribution further.

Lawmakers have recently lowered capital requirements for certain long-term assets, with the expectation that insurers will channel additional capital into the real economy. This will become part of the framework, and we will be watching closely how it translates into actual investment decisions and whether it supports Europe’s strategic priorities.

Redirecting even a modest share of idle savings on bank accounts could build on these foundations and significantly expand Europe’s ability to finance its future.

And this should not be seen as a zero-sum shift away from the banking sector.

Initiatives such as the PEPP are open to banks as well as insurers, asset managers, investment firms and pension funds. Banks can play an important role in connecting savers with long-term investment opportunities.

In that sense, the Savings and Investments Union represents an opportunity for the entire financial ecosystem.

But two further ingredients are needed for the SIU project to take off. One of them is simplification.

[SIMPLIFICATION]

Over the years, Europe’s regulatory framework has become increasingly complex, despite policymakers’ best intentions. Simplification has the potential to deliver substantial benefits — by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and by making rules clearer and easier to apply across the Single Market.

Yet simplification is easier to put on a banner than to deliver in practice.

In reality, policymakers seeking to streamline regulation must confront several fundamental tensions, make clear decisions and explicitly recognise any trade-offs.

The first concerns the balance between regulatory speed and thoroughness.

European legislative processes are often criticised for moving too slowly. But at the same time, there are equally strong demands for deeper analysis, longer consultations and extended implementation periods.

These conflicting calls cannot be reconciled. Therefore, every new legislative process must begin with a clear choice: does urgency override caution for this file or is the topic sensitive enough to allow time for a genuine weighing up of pros and cons.

The second tension concerns how regulation is designed.

European financial legislation often relies on high-level principles that are later translated into detailed technical standards and supervisory guidance.

While principle-based legislation can appear simpler at first glance, it can produce divergent interpretations, regulatory and supervisory fragmentation and an unlevel playing field.

If Europe opts to rely more on principle-based legislation, it must either accept the risk of greater divergence or strengthen EU-level supervisory tools to pre-empt or correct inconsistencies.

Closely tied to the previous tension is the tension between harmonisation and national discretion – or the question of how much autonomy member states should and can still retain in shaping rules for the EU's Single Market.

Minimum-harmonisation frameworks inevitably give Member States flexibility, while maximum-harmonisation directives can become overly complex if they accommodate too many national specificities.

Initial legislative proposals by the European Commission are typically straightforward, but complexity tends to accumulate during the legislative negotiation process as a byproduct of incorporating national demands. To avoid this, simplicity must guide the entire legislative cycle.

A more integrated market will require greater readiness to accept harmonisation and, where necessary, centralisation. Such steps are often politically sensitive, but they are certain to yield more durable simplification than repeated rounds of incremental adjustments. That is a topic where our interests align, and I want to challenge you to raise your voice for true simplification when talking to national policymakers.

And finally, there is the tension about different notions of competitiveness.

Calls to enhance competitiveness are sometimes thinly veiled calls for fewer rules and lighter safeguards.

But credible and predictable regulatory frameworks are themselves a source of competitiveness. They reduce uncertainty, strengthen investor confidence and support well-functioning markets.

In that sense, sound regulation is not the enemy of competitiveness. It is in fact one of its foundations.

We need to recognise these tensions and chart a credible path towards a genuine Single Market. If we ignore them, simplification risks becoming another layer of regulatory complexity.

True, complexity can be reduced in other ways.

EIOPA has shortened Guidelines, strengthened proportionality principles, streamlined reporting templates, reduced data points for reporting and decreased the frequency of stress tests.

These changes are meaningful. I do not mean to belittle their importance. But they are almost cosmetic compared to the simplification gains that a Single Market with a truly harmonised rulebook would bring.

[FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TRUST]

A genuinely integrated Single Market with simpler rules should be in the interest of every European financial institution in this room.

With fewer barriers, clearer and more uniform rules and the distribution possibilities offered by digital technologies, banks and insurers would be well positioned to offer services with ease and without much additional cost across the entire Union.

But even if policymakers can agree to set up the right institutional framework for the SIU, one last element will ultimately determine whether it will work.

That element is trust.

If the initiative succeeds in bringing more citizens into financial markets, many of them will be first-time investors.

They will invest their savings not because they have studied financial markets in detail, but because they trust the system to treat them fairly.

That trust must be earned and continuously maintained.

It requires financial products that are easy to understand.

It requires strong value-for-money principles.

And it requires supervision that is effective, agile and capable of protecting consumers across borders.

These principles — transparency, fairness and credible supervision — form the foundation of a consumer-centric Savings and Investments Union.

Because even the best-designed frameworks will fall short if citizens do not trust its architects and actors.

[CONCLUSION]

But if we succeed — if we simplify intelligently, remove frictions from our markets and earn consumers’ trust — Europe will be far better positioned to mobilise its savings, finance its innovation and strengthen its economic resilience in an uncertain world.

That is a goal that should unite policymakers, supervisors and financial institutions.

Let there be no doubt: we will do our part. I — and supervisors across Europe — expect you to do yours.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Details

Publication date 31 March 2026
Share this page