successful cmu. another reason for a limited “ cmu effect ” is that some of the agreed initiatives were only recently implemented. take the securitisation package, for example. important technical regulatory acts are still pending which prevent the new framework from being applied in full and are a source of uncertainty for those who would like to use it. it is therefore too early to assess the success of this measure. more importantly however, some proposals will not deliver their full potential. in the case of the pan - european personal pension product, the recent agreement gave birth to a rather complex product for which key elements are left to the discretion of member states. lack of ambition in the cross - border portability of the instrument may limit its capacity to facilitate labour mobility and the mobilisation of savings across borders in the absence of geographical diversification requirement for investments. this underpins the relevance of the cmu agenda for the coming years and the importance of making cmu a reality. revitalising the cmu agenda to face new challenges my second point today is that a revamped cmu agenda would help the eu to face up to new challenges. the departure of the united kingdom from the eu is undoubtedly one such challenge. as a response, cmu should continue to aim to develop and integrate the eu ’ s capital markets in a context in which capital market activities throughout europe are being reorganised. in the new post - brexit reality, we could see one or more financial centres emerge in continental europe, possibly in competition with each other, or perhaps each specialising in certain areas. cmu should facilitate this transition by creating a framework that supports the emergence of an integrated financial market and avoids a return to a fragmentation of activities. in this context, a successful cmu means that the continued expansion of the non - bank sector should be accompanied – rather than followed – by a revision of the prudential and supervisory 2 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches framework. importantly, we need to develop macroprudential policies for the non - bank sector at the system level to ensure that the system absorbs shocks, rather than amplifying exuberance and stresses. ultimately, this would warrant a discussion on a potential move towards more centralised supervision of financial markets. the recent reform of the european supervisory authorities falls short of adapting europe ’ s supervisory framework to the ambition of cmu. the review did not result in a broad revision of the powers and mandate of the esas,

far away is a european capital markets union? first, the good news : we are seeing a change in the structure of financial markets. the non - bank sector continues to grow. it is playing an increasing role in providing a stable source of funding to the european economy. financing of euro area companies ’ via debt securities and non - bank loans has increased from 24 % to 36 % in the last ten years. 3 in fact, in this period, issuance by companies grew from 8 % to 10 % of gdp. 4 turning to equity financing, listed equity issued by non - financial companies increased from 36 % of gdp in 2014 to 41 % in 2018. the total market capitalisation of listed companies in the eu is now above pre - crisis levels. another positive is that european investment funds are playing an increasingly important role in 1 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches cross - border integration. this helps investors spread their holdings across countries and achieve better diversification than they would through direct holdings of assets. the sector is also contributing to integration in the euro area corporate bond markets : almost 80 % of investment funds ’ holdings of euro area - issued bonds are non - domestic, i. e., issued outside their own domicile. 5 but the picture for the overall financial system is mixed. we see positive developments in the convergence of asset prices across the euro area – what we call price - based integration. however, the post - crisis reintegration of cross - border asset holdings, which we call quantitybased integration, has stalled. 6 consequently, while most initiatives under the cmu action plan are on the path to completion, a “ cmu effect ” on the cross - border integration of capital markets is yet to be seen. one reason is that despite general support for the cmu project, progress in addressing core barriers to further integration has been too slow. let me take a few examples : steps have been taken in harmonising elements of insolvency frameworks, such as ‘ early restructuring ’ and ‘ second chance ’. but these do not cover the conditions for opening insolvency proceedings nor the ranking of claims. as such, they are not enough to facilitate cross - border investment. similarly, more should be done to remove overlaps in cross - border withholding taxes and reduce home bias in investment strategies. in my view, we need a single rulebook in a wide range of areas also covering consumer protection, anti - money laundering, or accounting rules for a