On July 20, 2026, ESMA published a follow-up to its 2022 peer review on how investment firms’ cross-border activities are supervised. The report assesses actions by six national competent authorities and says the earlier review helped strengthen supervision across the supervisory cycle. It reviews regulatory work, not whether every cross-border firm is safe or unsafe. ESMA: Follow-up report on supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms
Follow the evidence
Trace how the event could reach markets, then inspect a competing explanation.
Compare explanations
Switch lenses to see what each account explains—and what remains uncertain.
ESMA reports improvements following its 2022 review of six regulators’ cross-border supervision.
ESMA reports improvements following its 2022 review of six regulators’ cross-border supervision.
A follow-up report cannot certify every firm or guarantee identical supervision across jurisdictions.
Six national authorities were checked against earlier recommendations
ESMA’s follow-up covers the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta. It revisits recommendations from the 2022 peer review on supervision of investment firms providing services across borders to retail clients. The focus is how regulators supervise authorisation, ongoing activity and enforcement—not a league table of broker performance. ESMA: Follow-up report on supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms
The authority says the peer review drove improvements across the supervisory cycle and helped strengthen oversight within the EU Single Market. That is ESMA’s assessment of regulatory progress. It is not a guarantee that supervisory practice is identical in all countries, or that a particular investment firm has been individually assessed by this report. ESMA: Follow-up report on supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms
Cross-border services matter because a firm may be authorised in one Member State and serve customers in another under EU passporting arrangements. The home authority has a central role, while host authorities may receive information and cooperate on risks. ESMA’s review examines how national supervisors handle those responsibilities; it does not replace legal rules or individual firm registers.
A passport does not make every firm or service interchangeable
For a retail client, the practical task is to identify the legal entity that opened the account, the regulator that authorised it and the investment services covered. Brand names can be shared across subsidiaries, and an app may route products through different entities. The ESMA report is a reason to check the record, not rely on a logo or marketing statement.
For a brokerage group, cross-border supervision affects how complaints, conduct risks and emerging problems are escalated between home and host markets. A robust operating model should track client locations, which entity serves them, how sales practices are monitored and how issues reach the responsible regulator. These are analytical implications, not separate findings about a named broker.
For policymakers, consistent oversight can reduce the chance that differences in national practice leave gaps in authorisation or monitoring. Yet cross-border business varies in scale and risk, so proportional supervision matters. ESMA’s summary says progress has been made; it does not say every recommendation has been implemented identically or supervisory work is complete.
Use official records and keep the jurisdiction visible
Clients should compare the broker’s contract, account statement and payment recipient with the national regulator’s register. Confirm that the entity name matches, permissions cover the service and cross-border status applies where the client resides. If a record is unclear, contact the authority through its independently located website.
Firms can use the report as a governance prompt: document home-host responsibilities, maintain a current client-country inventory, test escalation routes and retain evidence that local rules appear in customer communications. A control that exists only in a manual may fail during a complaint or market disruption unless owners and deadlines are clear.
ESMA’s follow-up is a progress report, not a live warning or authorisation list. Combine it with current national registers and more recent firm-level notices. The central distinction is between sector-level convergence and the authorisation, conduct and financial position of an individual brokerage. ESMA: Follow-up report on supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms