- performing exposures, could lead to higher market values of these assets. this would support the clean - up of bank balance sheets. alongside these opportunities of capital markets union, we need to recognise that such fundamental changes in the structure of the financial system would require revisiting regulatory approaches. 6 in this regard, i want to highlight three aspects : first, a single rulebook and an integrated supervisor for capital markets are key ingredients to support the integration of capital markets and would ultimately also allow banks to thrive from more stable capital markets. the establishment of esma has been a major step towards fostering convergence of national supervisory practices. but the supervision of securities markets remains at the national level, which fragments the application of eu legislation. esma could play a much larger role in ensuring consistent transposition and effective enforcement of rules agreed at eu level. in the longer term, capital markets union warrants a single european capital markets supervisor. in this context, the move towards direct european supervisory powers for certain segments of capital markets seems justified, particularly when major financial market infrastructures have systemic implications on the entire eu market. a medium - term centralisation of supervision for central counterparties ( ccps ) would enhance the supervisory framework for these highly systemic infrastructures, as well as ensure consistent cross - border supervision. second, an increased non - bank sector should go hand in hand with an expansion of the 3 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches microprudential framework for non - banks. what we need is a coherent and well - supervised regulatory perimeter for non - banks that are engaged in bank - like activities to avoid regulatory arbitrage. at times when risks legitimately shift towards the non - bank sector, heightened vigilance is required to avoid that such risks spill back and compromise the soundness of credit institutions and of the financial system as a whole. for example, large investment firms with substantial cross - border links can pose risks that need to be addressed at the european level. third, an adequate regulation and supervision of the non - bank financial system from a macroprudential perspective will contribute to the resilience of banking union. it is crucial that macroprudential tools become available and operational in the eu for non - banks. 7 in this context, the commission seems to have no intention of proposing changes in the macroprudential policy instruments, which is not helpful. all in all, a more unified set up of regulation and supervision of capital markets and its market participants would increase

on the commission ’ s consultation on the future of the eu macroprudential framework ” 8 see directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending directive 2012 / 30 / eu. 9 see the giovannini report, the clearing and settlement fiscal compliance expert group fisco, the tax barrier advisory group ( t - bag ) as well as the ecb ’ s t2s advisory group. 10 the importance of financial market data standards and global identifiers has also been discussed in box 2 of last year ’ s ecb report on financial integration in europe. 5 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches