Earston Limited t/a Earston Wealth Management (Clone) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm

In his latest blog, the Governor Gabriel Makhlouf reflects on the publication of the Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook 2026 and the recent Access to Cash report.

The Central Bank has today published its Regulatory & Supervisory Outlook 2026, which sets out its latest assessment of the risk landscape facing the financial sector and the supervisory work it will undertake in response. This follows on from the Governor’s letter to the Tánaiste on the economic outlook and regulatory priorities in January. This is the third year of the report, which continues to be set against a backdrop of a changing, uncertain and increasingly complex external environment, characterised by geoeconomic fragmentation, rapid technological developments, and the structural transitions for economies and society underway. In this context, the Central Bank’s assessment is that operational risks remain very high for the financial sector given current geopolitical tensions, advancing digitalisation and increasingly complex operating models. Relative to last year asset valuation and market risks are judged to have increased, as have the risks associated with data, models and AI. Inflation and interest rate risks have abated for the financial sector, reflecting both the evolution of inflation and monetary policy in the euro area, as well as the preparedness of the sector itself. The Central Bank’s regulatory and supervisory priorities are set in the context of this risk environment and assessment, as well as our international responsibilities, and is delivered through our integrated supervisory approach. Speaking on publication Governor Makhlouf said: “The world we are operating in continues to be characterised by geoeconomic shifts and fragmentation, alongside rapid and accelerating technological change. This backdrop is reshaping the financial system, as well as the risk landscape of the sectors we supervise and of the consumers and investors we work to protect.” “While many of these developments provide clear opportunities, they have the potential to introduce or expose vulnerabilities. And risks once thought remote are now becoming more likely. The question is no longer whether change will come, but the nature, degree and speed of that change and how we respond collectively. Resilience, adaptability and trustworthiness are the qualities that must define that response.” “It is against this backdrop that we have set out our supervisory priorities, as well as the focus areas and key supervisory work we will undertake for each sector in the period ahead. In particular, operational and cyber risks remain a key concern with rising risks and threats. As such there will be a significant focus again this year on operational resilience given its critical nature. How firms are securing their consumers’ interests in this rapidly changing world, and how they are responding to technological change, are also key priorities.” “In 2026 we will also continue to build on the progress we have made in recent years to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our regulation and supervision. This includes continuing to embed our integrated supervisory approach, continuing to improve our gatekeeping processes, and delivering on our roadmap of initiatives set out at the end of last year.” ENDS

The Central Bank of Ireland has today (24 February) published its first quarterly Access to Cash report. The Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 has put in place a framework to ensure sufficient and effective access to cash across the State. Today’s report uses newly collected data to show the number, location and opening hours of ATMs and cash service points across eight geographical regions in Ireland, as of 31 December 2025. The Minister for Finance set the access to cash criteria in November 2025.  These criteria include the minimum percentage of the population in each region that must be within 10km of an ATM and a cash service point, as well as the minimum number of ATMs per 100,000 people in each region. The current criteria aim to maintain the number of ATMs and cash service points at 2022 levels, accounting for KBC and Ulster Bank’s exits from the market. The Central Bank monitors whether these criteria are met. It is the responsibility of designated entities (currently AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB) to address identified shortfalls, and the Central Bank has written to them today in this regard.Today’s report shows that, overall, the cash infrastructure in Ireland remains largely in line with the criteria set by the Minister. There are just over four thousand ATMs in Ireland, and just over 1200 cash service points.  There are six instances where the criteria are not met. In all those cases, the shortfall relative to expected levels of the cash infrastructure is small.Deputy Governor Vasileios Madouros said: “The Central Bank is committed to ensuring that cash is available and accessible as a means of payment. Today’s publication is an important part of our work to safeguard sufficient and effective access to cash by consumers and businesses across the country. “The data shows that Ireland’s cash infrastructure is largely in line with the criteria set by the Minister for Finance. “However, there are some instances where the criteria are not met, and this will need to be rectified by the firms responsible under the legislation. We have outlined the identified shortfalls to firms, and they will provide us with their proposals to address these in the coming weeks.“We also recognise that, at a more local level, there may be specific challenges in accessing cash. From July onwards, people can make a submission to the Central Bank if they believe there is a local deficiency in relation to access to cash. We have a public consultation currently live outlining the guidelines and our proposed approach to assessing local deficiencies. I encourage people to visit our website where they can provide their feedback before the consultation closes on 4 March.”ATM Proximity Criteria: The percentage of the population that should be within 10km of an ATM in each NUTS 3 regionNUTS 3 RegionCapacity RequirementCurrent Capacity DifferenceBorder98100.4+2.4Dublin7072.4+2.4Mid-East7072.1+2.1Midland7272.6+0.6Mid-West7779.2+2.2South-East7373.9+0.9South-West8079.9-0.1West9089.5-0.5Cash Service Point (CSP) Proximity Criteria: The percentage of the population that should be within 10km of a CSP in each NUTS 3 region

Gabriel Makhlouf, Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, today delivered a keynote address at the Blavatnik School of Government, outlining the critical role of central bank independence in delivering price stability and supporting economic prosperity for society.Speaking on “Institutions, Anchors, and Their Discontents: The Role of Central Banks”, Governor Makhlouf highlighted how central bank independence, underpinned by clear mandates and robust accountability frameworks, enables monetary policy to be set according to economic cycles rather than political cycles.“Independence is sometimes portrayed as a shield. I see it more like an anchor providing stability, while also allowing for some movement and flexibility when required,” said Governor Makhlouf. “Independence gives central banks the confidence to take difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the people that we serve.”The Governor emphasised that credibility is a central bank’s most valuable asset, and that this credibility depends on far more than institutional distance alone. “Credibility also depends on a number of elements including competence, engagement, coherence, and public trust that decisions will be reached consistently and without bias.” he noted.Reflecting on historical lessons, Governor Makhlouf pointed to the macroeconomic instability of the 1960s and 1970s, when monetary policy was often subject to short-term political pressures, resulting in persistently high inflation and poor anchoring of inflation expectations. He contrasted this with the more recent post-pandemic period, where central banks with established credibility were able to act decisively to bring inflation down to target while avoiding recession.“The credibility that had been built up over time underpinned the effectiveness of that response, reducing its ultimate costs,” he said.Governor Makhlouf stressed that independence cannot be taken for granted and must be continuously earned and maintained. “There is no ‘natural law of central bank independence’. Rather it must be explained, understood and earned continuously if it is to be sustained,” he said.On accountability and trust, Governor Makhlouf noted: “Independence does not mean isolation. In an interconnected world, credible and effective central bank policies require dialogue with society more broadly and with other institutions responsible for economic governance.”Concluding, Governor Makhlouf said: “Independence is a means to a public end; it requires continuous maintenance – analysis, engagement and review. Our legitimacy rests on delivering outcomes for the people we serve and being accountable for the decisions we make.”ENDS

It is a pleasure to be here in Oxford1  While I’m aware that this is a school of government and I’m a central banker, the two are inextricably linked. Societies and indeed economies are shaped by their institutions, specifically the legal, social, cultural, formal and informal norms that impact the way citizens interact with each other.  Successful institutions are those that are trusted by the societies that created them and for which they ultimately serve.Today I am going to resist the opportunity to deliver a lecture on institutional economics.  I will instead concentrate on central banks as institutions, their mandates, the way they deliver their responsibilities, the way they hold themselves accountable and some of the challenges ahead.  It is not a particular surprise that central banking finds itself in the news.  In the normal course of events, decisions taken and judgements exercised by central banks affect economies and financial systems in individual countries and across the world.  What has been relatively recent, at least in advanced economies, is the resurfacing of questions around the independence of central banks, in some countries at least.  I want to approach this subject not as a defence of technocracy, but as a reflection on institutional design: why certain arrangements persist, why others fail and why independence, properly understood, has become a defining feature of modern monetary frameworks. InstitutionsLet me begin by briefly considering institutions more broadly.A large and influential body of economic research shows that institutions matter profoundly for long run economic performance. Ronald Coase taught us that well-designed institutions reduce transaction costs and enable complex economic organisation.  Yet, in his Nobel speech in 1991, he also remarked how institutions within economic systems can sometimes feel so obvious as to be overlooked; part of the background tends to get ignored.2 Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of their importance so that their value is not eroded.  Douglass North showed how credible rules and constraints shape incentives and economic outcomes over time.3  While Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that carefully designed governance arrangements can sustain cooperation even when interests diverge and information is incomplete.4 More recently, Acemoglu and Robinson have argued that inclusive and credible institutions are a prerequisite for sustainable prosperity.5The common thread in this research is not that well-designed institutions guarantee success but rather they are the building blocks upon which that economic success is built. Institutions shape expectations, discipline behaviour, and determine whether commitments are believed. Institutions influence whether policies are credible and whether short term pressures overwhelm long term objectives.Central bankingCentral banking should be understood through this institutional lens.While central banks date back to the founding of the Sveriges Riksbank in 1668, mandated independent central banks are a relatively recent development. Central banks’ functions and activities have evolved over centuries, in line with the growing sophistication of the financial system and our understanding of monetary policy. They are the product of experience, theory, and, sadly, past policy failure. Their purpose is to support a stable and sustainable macroeconomic framework, to the net benefit of society at large.Successful economies are characterised by stable and predictable prices, prudent fiscal policy, sustainable public finances, well-regulated financial systems, and well-functioning markets.6 Central bank independence is one of the institutional foundations that makes such a framework credible and durable.Independence is sometimes portrayed as a shield. I see it more like an anchor providing stability, while also allowing for some movement and flexibility when required.  Importantly, it gives central banks the confidence to take difficult decisions, drawing on different perspectives and sometimes longer horizons.Independence is not an end in and of itself.  It is an institutional tool, delegated by elected legislatures, to enable central banks to serve the public interest.The value of that tool lies in credibility. As many economists have noted, credibility is the central bank’s most valuable asset.7  It allows central banks to act when action is least convenient politically but most necessary economically.  But credibility is not generated by distance alone. It also depends on a number of elements including competence, engagement, coherence, and trust that decisions will be taken consistently within the mandate and in-line with the long-term interests of the people.These issues are particularly salient today. Following a period of elevated inflation and rapid monetary tightening, central banks face heightened scrutiny.  Interest rates have entered mainstream political discourse, with some questioning whether decisions should be based solely on economic fundamentals.  As I mentioned earlier, the debate around central bank independence has resurfaced in some parts of the world.  It is a reminder that independence can neither be assumed, nor is it self-sustaining.  There is no "natural law of central bank independence".  Rather it must be explained, understood and earned continuously if it is to be sustained.  Why does independence and credibility matter?  Thankfully, or not for those who had to live through it, we have plenty of historical experiences to show us why.The macroeconomic record of the nineteen sixties and seventies provides a clear counterfactual. During this period, monetary policy was often subject to short term political pressures. Inflation became persistently high. Inflation expectations were poorly anchored. Macroeconomic volatility increased. The theoretical explanation for this experience is well established. Research has demonstrated that discretionary policy without credible commitment is vulnerable to time inconsistency even when policymakers are well intentioned.8  Barro and Gordon formalised the inflation bias that arises when policymakers face incentives to pursue short run output gains.9 Rogoff showed how delegating policy to a “conservative” central banker – in the sense that they care about inflation more than the average citizen, could improve welfare by reducing that bias while preserving stabilisation capacity.10The shift in the early nineteen eighties marked a turning point. Under Paul Volcker’s leadership, the Federal Reserve prioritised price stability despite intense political and social pressure. Reflecting on his time as Fed Chair, Volcker argued that restoring credibility required resisting short term expediency in order to secure long term stability.11 The monetary policy actions to re-anchor inflation expectations were, ultimately, necessary, but very costly from the perspective of the economy, businesses and households. Compare that to the inflation spike following Covid. Central banks were in a position to act decisively and relatively quickly to bring inflation down to target, while avoiding a recession. The credibility that had been built up over time underpinned the effectiveness of that response, reducing its ultimate costs.Europe during the 1970s and 1980s was certainly no bastion of prudent monetary policy either. Central bank mandates varied and their independence was either weak or non-existent. In Italy during the 1970s and early 1980s, the central bank was required to engage in government financing, contributing to persistently high inflation and exchange rate instability (one of the main reasons from the 1981 "divorce" reforms that granted the Banca d’Italia independence in conducting monetary policy).12 In the United Kingdom prior to 1997, interest rates were set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, including during the turbulent period leading up to Sterling’s withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992.13The response was institutional reform.For Ireland, monetary policy independence is exercised through the Eurosystem: I participate in the ECB’s Governing Council, whose mandate and independence are set out in EU law and the Statute of the European Central Bank. Otmar Issing has described this framework as a deliberate attempt to insulate monetary policy from fiscal dominance while anchoring it in a clear price stability mandate.14 Accountability is exercised through the European Parliament and, nationally, through the Oireachtas, Ireland’s Parliament, and formal reporting obligations.  In the United Kingdom, operational independence was granted to the Bank of England through legislation, with objectives defined by government and implementation delegated to the central bank.These frameworks differ in design, reflecting national preferences and histories. But they share common fundamentals: clear mandates, operational autonomy and an accountability in law.  An institutional framework that has enabled the evolution of the modern monetary policy toolkit.15Independent monetary policy allows interest rates to be set according to economic cycles rather than political cycles.  Monetary policy operates with lags.  A longer horizon is therefore essential if policy is to stabilise inflation rather than chase short term outcomes.A substantial empirical literature supports these observations.  Early work by Cukierman, Webb, and Neyapti16, and by Alesina and Summers17, showed that higher levels of central bank independence are associated with lower inflation without adverse effects on growth.  More recent research confirms that these relationships remain robust in the post global financial crisis environment.18Work by Davide Romelli of Trinity College Dublin and his co-authors shows that reforms enhancing independence improve monetary credibility, particularly in economies facing fiscal pressures.19 Adam Posen has emphasised that formal independence must be supported by political and financial system structures if it is to be effective.20The evidence is strongest for monetary policy. The case for independence in other areas of a central bank’s mandate, such as macroprudential policy and financial regulation, is compelling, there is clear evidence that political economy cycles impact regulation and supervision, but also complex (as, unlike inflation, the target is not observable, although that does not make it any less important).  In Ireland, our mortgage measures provide a practical example: independently set, transparently explained, and regularly reviewed, they have helped improve resilience and protect consumers, while remaining accountable to the Oireachtas and the public.  Financial regulation of banks, or microprudential supervision, takes place either at a national or at a European level, with shared responsibility and oversight with ECB Banking Supervision.AccountabilityThis brings me to mandates and accountability.  Independence is credible when a mandate is clear. In democratic systems, societies, through their parliaments, delegate specific powers to central banks.  Central banks are accountable to parliaments.  We publish our analysis and we explain our decisions.  Our mandates are defined in law and our appointments as governors are time-bound.Accountability enhances trust which in turn safeguards independence.Paul Tucker, former Deputy Governor at the Bank of England, argued persuasively that the sustainability of delegation depends on careful institutional design.  Independence without accountability is fragile.  Accountability without independence is ineffective.21 An anchor is more than a hook. It is the weight of the chain that holds the ship in place.  In institutional terms, that chain is the legal accountability framework.Which brings me to trust.  Trust is at the heart of our society: trust in the rule of law, trust in the structures of our government and trust in the state’s institutions. Without trust the ability of central banks to tackle inflation, preserve financial stability, and even issue money is undermined.  Christine Lagarde has emphasised that trust is the foundation of central banking and that trust is earned through transparency, dialogue, and international cooperation.22  Agustín Carstens has argued that independence must be actively safeguarded in the face of heightened political expectations.23Central bank independence is best understood as an institutional bedrock. It stabilises policy making.  It allows difficult decisions to be taken in the long-term interests of the economy and the country.  But like all institutions, it depends on trust.That trust is reinforced through engagement, transparency, and accountability.  Independence does not mean isolation. In an interconnected world, credible and effective central bank policies – and not only in the area of monetary policy – require dialogue with society more broadly and with other institutions responsible for economic governance such as government departments, fiscal authorities and watchdogs, regulators, and international institutions.  It also means being well-connected with those institutions in our society that shape economic ideas. There are different examples of the type of institutions I have in mind, but universities, where we are today, are a prime example.  This is one of the reasons why at the Central Bank of Ireland we have prioritised a fundamental rethink of our research engagement strategy.  Being more open in how we engage with the academic community – through, for example our Research Affiliate and Visiting Scholar programmes, has not only raised our game in terms of the quality of our research and skill-set but has also challenged our own thinking around policy, guarding against group-think.24 ChallengesBeing well-connected to the external environment also helps to understand and prepare for the challenges ahead.  There are two in particular that I want to flag today.The first is the risk of fiscal dominance.  In January the IMF expressed concern at the level of public debt in several major economies, pointing out that fiscal sustainability worries could not only put pressure on borrowing costs but also tighten broader financial conditions and amplify financial market volatility.25 The responsibility is on governments to make sure they do not put central banks in a position where they are forced to choose between sovereign solvency and price stability.  The second challenge is the responsibility of central banks.  The ongoing communications revolution means that tastes and preferences for the consumption of news and information are also undergoing change.  If they are going to continue to be trusted and if they are going to continue being credible, central banks will have to make sure they also keep up to speed with the changes taking place in the communities they serve.  This puts greater weight on engagement, and on being prepared to do things differently and, indeed, do different things.ConclusionAny sailor will tell you that anchors matter in all waters.  Their design matters.  In a democracy, the design of institutions, their roles and functions, their measures of success and their accountability mechanisms – are ultimately a matter for societies and their parliaments.  The design is a political decision reflecting preferences and intentions.26The case for price stability is strong: to protect real incomes, reduce uncertainty for households and firms, and support sustainable employment. As the founding legislation of the Central Bank of Ireland makes clear, it is about the “welfare of the people as a whole”.  Equally strong is the case for price stability to be delivered by an independent central bank. Maintaining that independence and its legitimacy requires sound institutional design, rigorous analysis, and open engagement with the societies we serve. It also requires humility, self-reflection, and an openness to learn and change.  While central banks’ goals are often given by statute or laws, the strategy to achieve those goals is not. This is why central banks should hold regular reviews of their policies and frameworks to ensure that they remain fit for the future, even if those policies and frameworks have proved successful in the past.  As I’ve said before, if we simply focus on preserving institutions, we may in fact find that we are weakening them.27Independence is a means to a public end; it requires continuous maintenance, analysis, engagement and review. As a central banker let me finish by acknowledging that our legitimacy rests on delivering outcomes for the people we serve and being accountable for the decisions we make.  [1] Thank you to Seán O’Sullivan, Vasileios Madouros, Reamonn Lydon and Giuseppe Corbisiero for their help with these remarks.[2] Coase R H. (1991) “The Institutional Structure of Production”, Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 9, 1991. [3] North D C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. 1990.[4] Ostrom E. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press. 1990.[5] Acemoglu D and Robinson J. Why Nations Fail. Crown Business. 2012.[6] Makhlouf G. Remarks at the Royal Irish Academy. Central Bank of Ireland.[7] Blinder A. Central Banking in Theory and Practice. MIT Press.[8] Kydland F and Prescott E. Rules Rather than Discretion. Journal of Political Economy. 1977.[9] Barro R and Gordon D. A Positive Theory of Monetary Policy. Journal of Political Economy. 1983.[10] Rogoff K. The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1985.[11] Volcker P. The Great Inflation. Federal Reserve History. [12] Banca d’Italia. Historical Monetary Policy Overview. [13] Bank of England. Monetary Policy Before Independence. [14] Issing O. The Birth of the Euro. Cambridge University Press. [15] See. for example, Bernanke B. Federal Reserve Speeches on Unconventional Monetary Policy, and of course, Draghi M. Global Investment Conference Speech. ECB. 2012 [16] Cukierman A, Webb S, Neyapti B. Measuring the Independence of Central Banks. World Bank Economic Review. 1992.[17] Alesina A and Summers L. Central Bank Independence and Macroeconomic Performance. Journal of Money Credit and Banking. 1993.[18] Bianchi F, Faccini R, Melosi L. A Fiscal Theory of Persistent Inflation. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2023.[19] Romelli D. Central Bank Independence Reforms and Inflation. Journal of Money Credit and Banking. 2022.[20] Posen A. Declarations Are Not Enough. NBER Macroeconomics Annual. 1995.[21] Tucker P. Unelected Power. Princeton University Press. 2018. [22] Lagarde C. Speeches on Trust and International Cooperation.  ECB[23] Carstens A. Central Bank Independence in the Face of Present and Future Challenges. BIS 2025[24] View more information on the Central Bank of Ireland research engagement strategy and more information on our innovation hub.[25] IMF, World Economic Outlook, January 2026[26] Makhlouf, G. Central Bank Independence is a Political Question, Remarks at Les Rencontres Économiques, 2025[27] Makhlouf, G. Modernising the Three Pillars of New Zealand's Macroeconomic Framework, 2018

Central Bank of Ireland Deputy Governor Vasileios Madouros spoke at Technological University Dublin on the need to increase domestic investment over the next decade to support Ireland’s long-term economic success.Looking back, Deputy Governor Madouros discussed how, despite very strong economic growth, investment in key domestic sectors has been relatively subdued over the past decade. Looking ahead, like many other countries, Ireland is facing profound economic and societal shifts in years to come, and a common denominator in terms of how we navigate them is higher investment.Deputy Governor Madouros said: “Raising Ireland’s domestic investment rate is an opportunity to strengthen the foundations – and resilience – of our economy into the future. But it is not without trade-offs. It will require an orientation of economic policy that both enables higher investment and ensures that it happens in a sustainable – and sustained – manner.” He added that amid a strong recovery from the financial crisis, our core infrastructure has become increasingly strained. “Addressing those infrastructure needs matters for people and businesses across the country, and for the long-term success of the economy,” said Deputy Governor Madouros. “In response to those shortfalls, the government has rightly outlined a significant planned increase in public investment over the next decade.”The Deputy Governor also highlighted the importance of higher investment by indigenous businesses to support innovation, productivity and strengthen their contribution to the domestic economy. He said that progress on the EU’s Savings and Investment Union is critical to unlocking capital to facilitate investment. Deputy Governor Madouros added that raising domestic investment sustainably will require careful fiscal choices, improvements in the efficiency of investment delivery, fostering indigenous business dynamism, as well as diverse and resilient financing.Read full speech here. ENDSFurther InformationMartin Grant: 086 078 7868 / martin.grant@centralbank.ie Media Relations: media@centralbank.ie

Over the course of the next decade, we will need to allocate more of our collective resources towards domestic investment.1In part, that is because of where we are coming from. Despite very strong economic growth in recent years, investment in key domestic sectors has been lacklustre. But it is also because of where are going. Ireland, like many other countries, is facing profound structural transitions. Navigating these will require additional investment in the years ahead.Raising Ireland’s domestic investment rate is an opportunity to strengthen the foundations – and resilience – of our economy into the future. But it is not without trade-offs. It will require an orientation of economic policy that both enables higher investment and ensures that it happens in a sustainable – and sustained – manner.The current state of the economyBefore I turn to investment specifically, let me focus on where the Irish economy is now.  In the context of what has been an unprecedent level of global policy uncertainty and an acceleration of geopolitical shifts, the economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience.  Overall, we expect the domestic economy – based on modified national income (GNI*) – to have grown by around 4.8% in 2025, a similar rate to 2024. Exporting multinational companies have been adapting to the changing trading environment, and that adjustment has been benign so far, with exports growing overall last year. Domestic demand grew steadily in 2025, supported by continued growth in real incomes as well as rising public spending. While labour demand has softened, unemployment remains low by historical standards, at around 5%. Looking ahead, our central expectation is that the economy will continue to expand, albeit at a slower pace, after several years of growth above potential. But the risks around that central outlook are tilted to the downside. The most pressing risks are external, with Ireland particularly exposed to further abrupt shifts in the international trading and investment environment, amid rising geopolitical tensions. Domestic risks stem from increasingly binding supply-side constraints, especially in terms of infrastructure, which are limiting the growth potential of the economy.Already, the theme of the need to increase investment is emerging. So let me turn to that. Where we are coming from: a decade of subdued domestic investmentI’ll start by looking back: where we are coming from.Over the past half century, investment has played an important role in driving growth in Irish living standards and supporting the transformation of the Irish economy. Overall, it has accounted for around 40% of the growth in the economy’s productive capacity since the 1970s.Chart 1: Historical decomposition of average potential output growth in IrelandThroughout the course of that half century, however, there have been amplified swings in the economy’s investment rate.Chart 2: Aggregate domestic investment rate in Ireland over the past half centuryThe latest swing was after the financial crisis, which followed an unsustainable, credit-fuelled property boom. Since then, the recovery in aggregate investment has been relatively muted, even though the economy overall has performed very strongly. In fact, investment has only contributed around 20% to growth in potential output over the past decade – around half of its historical average. To better understand where we are coming from, it is useful to look beyond aggregates. So let me take a sectoral lens.Public investmentStarting with the public sector, the fiscal crisis that accompanied the financial crisis led to a sharp contraction in public investment. Chart 3: Public investment has gradually recovered and is expected to increase significantly under the NDPIndeed, public investment is typically amongst the first areas of public spending to be cut amid a broader fiscal retrenchment.This has been one of the most persistent costs of the financial crisis, and we are feeling the consequences today. Amid a strong recovery, and faster than expected population growth, our core infrastructure – whether it is housing, energy, transport or water – has become increasingly strained.Addressing those infrastructure needs matters for people and businesses across the country, and for the long-term success of the economy. In response to those shortfalls, and as the public finances have improved, the government has rightly outlined a significant planned increase in public investment over the next decade.2Household investmentTurning to the private sector, the investment rate of households, while recovering from the lows of the financial crisis, remains well below historical averages.Chart 4: Amid a slow recovery in housing supply, the household investment rate has remained subdued since the crisisAt its core, that stems from the persistent challenges in the housing market – because housing is the main component of real investment by households.To be clear, the low investment rate by households is not due to a lack of demand. Far from it. Demand has been very strong, as evident by the increases in both rents and prices. Rather, it reflects the slow recovery in housing supply since the financial crisis. That has constrained household’s ability to invest in new housing.Increasing housing supply has been, and remains, a policy priority for the government. And housing output increased to around 36½K new homes last year, which is welcome. But it remains below estimates of the underlying demand for housing, which stand at around 50-55K new homes annually.3 Reaching those levels of housing supply will also imply an increase in the investment rate of the household sector over the course of the next decade.Business investmentNext, let me turn to business investment. Here, there is a marked difference between the multinational sector of the economy and indigenous businesses. Since 2013, (modified) investment by multinational companies has increased twice as fast as investment by indigenous companies.Chart 5: The recovery in private business investment since the crisis has been driven by multinational companiesCross-country comparisons also point to relatively muted levels of investment by indigenous companies. The average domestic company in Ireland invests around €7,500 per employee. That is 25% below the average domestic company across the EU.  Chart 6: Investment per employee by domestically-owned companies in Ireland is below the EU averageThis is partly due to the structure of economy, with domestically-owned firms typically being smaller than in peer countries, given the large presence of multinational companies in Ireland.Of course, that dual nature of the Irish economy, in and of itself, entails vulnerabilities, if multinational activity is not complemented by a dynamic domestic sector. Moreover, research that controls for company-specific factors, such as size and sector, still finds an investment gap between indigenous companies and European peers. That is concentrated in investment in knowledge-based capital, such as research and development.4 The weakness in investment by indigenous companies appears to be driven mainly by factors related to businesses’ willingness to invest, rather than factors related to the supply of credit. Credit demand has been low amongst SMEs over several years, indebtedness has fallen markedly, while deposits have increased substantially.Chart 7: Credit demand by Irish SMEs has been relatively low, for a number of yearsConsistent with cautiousness amongst businesses, in survey evidence, one in two Irish SMEs see uncertainty as a key barrier to investment.5In part, this cautiousness has been due to the various shocks businesses have had to navigate over the past decade, including Brexit, the pandemic, the energy crisis, and the current geopolitical environment.Analysis by Central Bank colleagues suggests that attitudes to risk and recent firm performance are much more important determinants of SME investment, relative to credit constraints.6Financing frictions, however, might be more prevalent in relation to equity financing, including scale-up financing. In our engagement with start-ups, for example, the availability of scale-up financing for innovative companies is often raised as an issue, mirroring broader patterns in Europe.7Ultimately, the comparatively low investment rate by domestic businesses – especially in knowledge-based capital – matters for productivity, at a firm level and an economy-wide level.8And productivity of domestic companies is around 15% lower compared to businesses in other small, open European economies.9This also points to the importance of increasing the investment rate of domestic businesses in the decade ahead, especially in knowledge-based capital. To summarise, we are coming from a period of subdued investment in key domestic sectors, all pointing to the need to raise the investment rate over the coming decade.Indeed, in aggregate, domestic businesses and households save significantly more than they invest.Chart 8: Irish households and domestic businesses save more than they investThose excess savings are, in turn, exported to the rest of the world, as reflected in Ireland’s (modified) current account surplus.To me, that is a further signal pointing to the scope that exists to sustainably increase the domestic investment rate into the future.Where we are going: the need for investment to navigate structural transitionsLet me now turn to the future. Like many other countries, Ireland has to navigate profound economic and societal shifts in years to come.  First, demographic changes. Ireland’s population is ageing at amongst the fastest rate in the EU. As that happens, the potential growth rate of the economy is expected to slow significantly over the next few decades.10Chart 9: The potential growth rate of the economy is expected to slow markedly, driven by population dynamicsUnder a baseline scenario, it could slow to around 1.2% by 2050, less than half its current rate. That matters for living standards. Investment, including in knowledge-based capital that can boost productivity, is one of the key levers that can offset that decline over the next few decades.Second, an increasingly fragmented global economy.11 Ireland has benefited enormously from its openness, its growing integration into global value chains and investments by multinational companies. The shifting geoeconomic environment has the potential to reshape trade and investment flows, with competition for foreign investment becoming increasingly fierce. That requires investment in our infrastructure, for Ireland to remain attractive as a destination for foreign investment.It also requires investment by indigenous business, to enhance productivity and strengthen their contribution to domestic economic activity, supporting economy-wide resilience.Third, climate change and the transition to net zero. Mitigating climate change will require decarbonisation of our economy, from retrofitting our homes, to transitioning to clean energy sources, to electrifying our transport. Adapting to a changing climate will require building our flood defences, protecting against rising sea levels and coastal erosion or adapting agricultural practices to a changing climate.12And, finally, digitalisation. The current wave of transformative technologies, including artificial intelligence, have the potential to substantially boost productivity and economic growth. But adoption of these technologies requires investment. As does further innovation, to expand the frontier of technological possibilities.These are all profound economic and societal transitions – and a common denominator in terms of how we navigate them is higher investment. How to get there: raising Ireland’s domestic investment rate sustainablyThis context then begs the question: what does the need to increase investment over the next decade imply for the orientation of economic policy?Ultimately, policy should aim to enable a rising domestic investment rate in a sustainable – and sustained – manner. And, importantly, this not just about domestic policy. It also about actively contributing to, and supporting, efforts to strengthen the European economy, of which we are a core part.13 Let me highlight four dimensions.First, creating the necessary fiscal and economic space for the increase in investment.For Ireland – a small, open economy in a monetary union – fiscal policy has a key role to play in achieving that.That requires prioritising investment, within an overall fiscal envelope that does not add too much to demand when the economy is operating close to capacity. Under the Government’s updated Medium-Term Fiscal and Structural Plan, overall net spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 6.7% from 2026 to 2030.14Within that, it is not just public investment that is growing quickly. Current spending is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 5.9% over the same period.15These growth rates exceed the potential growth rate of the economy – at a time when the economy is already performing well. Such a stance risks creating an underlying vulnerability in the public finances, as it relies on spending an increasingly large share of excess corporate tax receipts, which are potentially very volatile.Chart 10: The government’s headline budget surplus (net savings) will fall as a share of excess corporate tax receiptsIt also risks contributing to domestically-generated inflationary pressures. If the economy continues to perform well, raising investment – while managing those risks – will require more difficult, offsetting choices on current spending or tax revenues in future budgets. That would also better enable the building of fiscal buffers, which could be used to maintain continued funding for investment in future downturns.The government’s Infrastructure, Climate and Nature fund is a welcome policy initiative in this respect. Ultimately, building sufficient fiscal buffers can guard against the “start-stop” patterns of public investment we have seen the past, which is costly in the long term. Second, focusing on the efficiency of investment delivery. From a public infrastructure perspective, financing is only one part of the equation. Efficiency of delivery is equally important.Indeed, it is clear that delays in public investment projects have been commonplace in Ireland. Reducing these delays and improving efficiency would ensure that the benefits of higher public investment accrue sooner and have a larger overall positive impact on the economy.16This speaks to the implementation of the recommendations of the Accelerating Infrastructure Taskforce, which cover a range of dimensions, including legal and regulatory reforms.Similar enabling structural policies – such as the implementation of the legislated planning reforms – are also needed to enhance the efficiency of private investment. Third, fostering domestic business dynamism. A policy orientation towards strengthening the contribution of Ireland’s indigenous businesses to the economy, complementing FDI activity, will be important over the next decade. A key foundation is continuing to foster an environment that enables new firm entry and the growth of young firms, making entrepreneurship more appealing and attainable.There are some positive sings here, with the birth rate of new companies gradually increasing and – after many years – now exceeding the EU average.Chart 11: The birth rate of Irish companies has recovered in recent yearsMaking R&D and innovation policies more SME-friendly, as suggested by the OECD and the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, can help reduce the investment gap in knowledge-based capital amongst domestic companies.17 This needs to be complemented – at a national level – by a continued focus on education and life-long learning, to ensure people have the right skills for the jobs of the future.Indeed, while I have not focused on human capital today (that is another speech in and of itself), this has been a key factor in Ireland’s success, and it is important that it is maintained. Beyond domestic policy, progress at a European level matters hugely.As you know, more than three decades after the creation of the Single Market, trade barriers within the EU remain significant.18Deepening and further integrating the Single Market will enable European – including Irish – companies to scale. This is crucial, because scale can enable businesses to flourish. For European, including Irish, companies to genuinely perceive their ‘domestic’ market as one of 450 million people, concrete progress is needed to strengthen the Single Market. Finally, ensuring financing for investment is available and sustainable, through the cycle. Investment, of course, requires financing.  As I mentioned earlier, there are significant savings in the Irish economy, if the investable opportunities are there. But, especially for innovation-related investment, the nature of financing matters. Bank financing is typically less well suited for innovative projects, given their higher risk and lack of tangible collateral.19 This is why progress on the EU’s Savings and Investment Union policy agenda is critical. That aims to foster deeper and more integrated capital markets across the EU, helping to unlock private capital and facilitate investment, including in new technologies.Finally, it is important that financing of higher investment is sustainable, through the cycle. The lessons from history – including our own history – are plentiful. Fragilities in financing of investment can lead to economy-wide damage. Resilient finance that is able to provide services to the economy, both in good times and in bad, serves the public interest best.This has been – and will continue to be – our core focus from a regulatory and supervisory perspective at the Central Bank. ConclusionLet me conclude. Investment is critical to the long-term success of any economy and to support growth in living standards. That principle is timeless, but it is particularly relevant for Ireland now.The next decade offers an opportunity to strengthen the foundations, and resilience, of our economy into the future. That will require an economic policy orientation that enables allocating a greater share of our collective resources towards domestic investment, and doing so in a sustainable manner. Thank you for listening. [1] I am very grateful to Thomas Conefrey, Niall McGeever, Martin O’Brien, Sean O’Sullivan and Cian Ruane for their advice and help in preparing these remarks, as well as other colleagues at the Central Bank for their comments and suggestions. [2] See ‘National Development Plan Review 2025’[3] See, for example, Central Bank of Ireland (2024) ‘Economic policy issues in the Irish housing market’[4] See Gargan et al (2024) ‘A cross-country perspective on Irish enterprise investment: Do fundamentals or constraints matter?’, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 173-215.[5] See Kren et al (2025) ‘SME investment report 2024: Developments between 2016 and 2023’, ESRI Survey and Statistical Report Series, No 129[6] See Mahony and O’Neill (2025) ‘The drivers of SME investment in Ireland’, Central Bank of Ireland Staff Insights, No. 3[7] See Kukies and Noyer (2026) ‘Financing innovative ventures in Europe’[8] See, for example, Lööf et al (2017) ‘CDM 20 years after’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol 26, No. 1-5.[9] See Lawless (2025) ‘Hare or tortoise? Productivity and growth of Irish domestic firms?’, The Economic and Social Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 139-161.[10] See Conefrey et al (2024) ‘Long-term prospects for the Irish economy’, Central Bank of Ireland Signed Article, as well as Department of Finance (2025) ‘Future Forty: A fiscal and economic outlook to 2065’[11] See Ruane at el (2025) ‘On the fault line? The Irish economy in a time of geoeconomic fragmentation’, Central Bank of Ireland Signed Article[12] On climate adaptation, see Central Bank of Ireland and Climate Change Advisory Council (2025) ‘Funding Climate Adaptation in Ireland’[13] See Draghi (2025) ‘The future of European competitiveness’, and Letta (2024) ‘Much more than a market’[14] See the Government’s Medium-Term Fiscal and Structural plan. This expressed on a general government basis. [15] Ibid. This is expressed on an Exchequer basis. [16] See Box B Delivery of public investment in the presence of planning and construction delays, in Boyd et al (2025) ‘Managing Risks and Building Resilience in the Public Finances’, Central Bank of Ireland Signed Article[17] See National Competitiveness and Productivity Council (2025) ‘Ireland’s competitiveness challenge 2025’; and OECD (2019) ‘SME and entrepreneurship policy in Ireland’[18] See, for example, Bernasconi et al (2025) ‘What is the untapped potential of the EU Single Market?’, ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8[19] See Arnold et al (2024) ‘Stepping up venture capital to finance innovation in Europe’, IMF Working Paper

I would like to welcome you all to the Central Bank of Ireland today1.  We are delighted to host this gathering of EU Heads of Missions, representatives of our friends and partners from across the EU.A little over a year ago I had the pleasure to meet with you all. I spoke then of a geopolitical landscape facing significant strain and complexity; of the rise of economic nationalism and trade disputes; as well as the shift from cooperation to competition, and its impact on our ability to meet the great structural challenges of our times.2While I take no joy in this, the year since then has unfortunately only served to strengthen those reflections.We are over halfway through a decade which looks set to be a defining one in modern history. Global pandemics, the return of war to Europe, the rapid advance of artificial intelligence, and the dawn of a changing international order, all unthinkable a decade ago – are now a reality that we need to respond to.Moreover, while we have been discussing societal shifts, geoeconomic risks, climate change and rapid innovation for a number of years, these profound changes look now to be accelerating.  And some of the risks they bring are already crystalising.If we were in any doubt, 2026 has already seen extreme examples of these changes, be it from global conflict (both armed and economic), continued technological development (including its increasing use and mis-use), not to mention the implications of climate change, with extreme weather events across the globe, including here in Ireland and other parts of Europe.It is against this backdrop that Member States and institutions of those States need to deliver for their citizens. And it is in the face of this rapidly changing and challenging world that we need to adapt, and that we need to respond.In remarks today I will set out some reflections on responding to these changes, in particular what it means for domestic policy, what it means for Europe, and what it means for the Central Bank of Ireland.Building economic resilience domesticallyAs I outlined in my recent letter to the Tánaiste, this backdrop underlines the ongoing, and increasingly urgent, need to build economic resilience.3The Irish economy and its financial system have shown remarkable resilience in recent years and enter these turbulent times from a strong position.This includes demonstrating resilience in the face of unprecedented policy uncertainty, heightened volatility and increased geo-economic fragmentation last year, helped in part by the more robust than expected performance of the global economy and financial markets.But given the size of the headwinds, and the potentially profound nature of the change underway, as well as the fact that they come alongside known challenges and economic vulnerabilities related to a narrow and concentrated tax base and a deficit in infrastructure delivery, there is a need for Ireland to both weather any near-term shocks while strategically orientating policy towards the medium and the long term.This means maintaining, building and broadening the resilience of the State, of its economy and its financial sector.In my view this means that domestic economic policy should focus on the following priorities:First, growing the supply side capacity of the economy, in particular by managing the delivery of necessary infrastructure which is acting as a constraint on sustainable growth; Second, strengthening the indigenous business sector and its contribution to growth, complementing FDI activity and enhancing the economy’s resilience; Third, continuing to build fiscal buffers, and creating economic space for the necessary increase in investment – by maintaining a prudent fiscal policy and rigorous expenditure control, to manage longer-term challenges;Fourth, supporting household resilience by enabling greater retail participation in financial markets, while also addressing any barriers to debt and equity finance by domestic businesses; and,Fifth, working with others (in the EU and beyond) to develop a new set of multilateral trading rules that deliver the certainty and stability that economies and businesses need. Underpinning all of this is maintaining macroeconomic stability, which remains a prerequisite for a successful economy, through appropriate monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy. For monetary policy, we will continue to focus resolutely on delivering on our price stability mandate for the euro area as a whole.  In an increasingly uncertain world this means continuing to respond to developments in the inflation outlook, while also taking into account surrounding risks and uncertainty, including through the appropriate use of scenario and sensitivity analyses. For the Government, prudent fiscal policy with a medium-term orientation remains key, avoiding pro-cyclicality and ensuring spending growth is anchored to the economy’s sustainable revenue-raising ability.  And regulatory policy needs to continue to promote resilience, including by keeping pace with rapid innovation in finance, while supporting financial markets to work effectively for the wider economy.What it means for EuropeTurning to Europe, the seismic structural shifts underway are obviously a huge moment for the continent and for the Union.This has been recognised by many, as has Europe’s tendency to progress through times of crisis. As Jean Monnet famously said, “l’Europe se fera dans les crises et elle sera la somme des solutions apportées à ces crises.”4There has been a lot of talk too about how Europe needs to change and, undoubtedly with the world changing fundamentally around us, it is clear we cannot stand still.But as Victor Hugo wrote, “changez d'avis, maintenez vos principes; changez vos feuilles, gardez intactes vos racines”.5  To paraphrase: change your opinions, but stick to your principles.These are wise words which should frame how we choose to respond, protecting the Union’s roots and identity, while adapting with the times.For we must not forget the incredible success story that is the European Union and the peace and prosperity it has brought for its Member States. In Ireland we are very clear on this, and Europe’s success has been crucial to our own.In this vein, while the focus can often be on Europe’s weakness, and we are undoubtedly facing many challenges, I firmly believe that Europe should act on the basis of its strengths and its potential. In my view those strengths includes:Our openness, which we should not forget as we rightly seek to enhance our autonomy. This means a continued commitment to open trade and open financial markets, for resilience in the modern era is unlikely to be found through a lurch towards autarky, but rather through collaboration and embracing strategic diversity.Our market, which is our single biggest asset, with a potential that is still yet to be fully realised. Our shared values, including fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law, which for me are the bedrock of societal and economic progress and stability. And our shared sovereignty, through which we show the world that in collective action we increase our individual resilience and our individual strength.On this last point, as I have said before I firmly believe that Europe is at its best when harnessing the combination of its internal market alongside its international openness, outlook and leadership.6 In doing this it has sought through single rule-books, level playing fields, a belief in both the centre and the periphery as well as the equal interest of states big and small, to engender the “seek[ing] of advantage in the common advantage”7of strength in our diversity. These are the very roots we must keep intact as we seek to preserve and forge our place in a potentially very different world.Policy focus – the biggest issues, with the biggest dividendsSo, we should focus on our strengths while being clear-eyed in addressing the areas of greatest potential.  And we should be prepared to change our opinions while keeping to our principles.But if we are to meet this moment I also believe Europe needs to focus on our long term strategic objectives, and the biggest things, that pay the biggest dividends, that we need to deliver them.There are no shortage of policy options for Europe to take. Indeed many reports from many eminent people have presented a suite of recommendations which we could follow, my former colleague Mario Draghi, and his compatriot Enrico Letta, to name but two.To be fair, while many of these options sound simple to onlookers, in reality they are not easy.  If they were, we would have done them already. In lieu of lots of low-hanging fruit we must focus on maximising the dividends.For if our choices are hard, and if they come with costs for some, whether political or economic or indeed ideological, then we should choose those that are most worthwhile, that make the biggest difference.For this reason, I think we really need to focus and to slay the sacred cows that yield the most meat.For what it’s worth I will touch on three areas which I suggest deserve the greatest attention, while recognising that not everyone will agree with me.The first, perhaps the easiest, is trade, both internal and external, and in both goods and services.Internal of course means completing the single market, our greatest asset. In a world where we are advocating against tariffs and trade barriers, we are, simultaneously, putting tariffs on ourselves, in particular in terms of services.  The IMF has estimated internal barriers within the Single Market are equivalent to a 45 per cent tariff on goods and a 110 per cent tariff on services.8 ECB analysis suggests further deepening of integration could unlock significant economic potential, with estimated welfare gains of up to 1.3 per cent for convergence in the goods sector and up to 1.8 per cent in the service sector.9Clearly we must work to remove such barriers so we can continue to grow Europe, for Europe.External trade of course must also remain a key priority, and this means continuing to be open, deepening existing agreements and forming new trade partnerships, recognising that the majority of the world continues to believe in a multilateral rules-based trading system.Second, and relatedly, we must continue deepening and developing the Savings and Investment Union. To do this we must also purposefully focus on what matters, in terms of allocating capital for our economies, and serving the needs of our citizens. While many are focused on who supervises what and where, I don’t believe that this is something that we should prioritise but rather that it should be a secondary focus. On the basis of the evidence, we already have a robust regulatory system and high-quality regulators across the financial centres of Europe. While supervision and convergence can always be, and indeed has room to be, improved, for me that is not what we are missing.Europe’s capital markets are often compared unfavourably to the US, and rightly so. But when I look at the ingredients that make up that system, it is not the centrality of their supervisor that stands out. Rather it is their deep and liquid markets underpinned by a large supply of a globally systemic safe asset; it is their high level of retail investor participation, including deep pension pools; and it is a thriving and dynamic economy with businesses which the world wants to invest in. These are the elements I would suggest Europe should prioritise, again following that balance of developing the internal while remaining open to the world.  I would therefore focus on the following three aspects in terms of developing our capital markets:One: Expanding the supply of European safe assets, through exploring ways to develop common or “euro” safe assets.  There are many different proposals how to do this, including from my predecessor and colleague Philip Lane, all of which would strengthen the resilience, liquidity and depth of our capital markets and bolster the international role of the Euro.Two: Mobilising our internal capital, in particular through greater retail investment and participation, both in the interests of our citizens and long term household resilience, as well as the financing of our businesses and long term economic resilience. This should include learning from others, including other Member States, and look seriously at reforming pension regimes in ways that would support the triple imperative of deepening our capital markets, enhancing long term fiscal sustainability and helping our citizens and economies manage the demographic challenges that are coming.Three: Increasing the attractiveness of our market to external capital and removing barriers to the flow of capital internally.  This involves the dual aim of making the European economy more investable as well as promoting internal market integration and indeed consolidation, which includes both our capital markets as well as our banking sector.This last point leads me to the third area I believe we need to prioritise, namely productivity, which, as Paul Krugman told us over thirty years ago, “isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything”.10 Likewise, here, I think we need to focus on what matters. Mario Draghi set out a number of areas to address with a clear need for more risk taking, more innovation and more strategic support for our economy. For me it boils down to ensuring we are adapting to the economy of the future, which inevitably means much greater development and adoption of technology, as well as continuing to focus on the transition to a net zero world and the future economic model that implies as Nick Stern set out in his recent book.11In that context, while I welcome the focus on regulatory simplification, we should not pretend that reducing rules alone will achieve the productivity gains we need if we are to become more competitive and, indeed, raise our living standards.  While improving the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation across the European Union would be a positive initiative, we need to focus on more fundamental issues, such as closing our innovation gap, removing internal barriers and accelerating our decarbonisation. Central Banking in times of changeLet me touch on what all this means for the Central Bank of Ireland.  I’ll be brief because I have spoken about this before, and will probably do so again.The strategy we set out in 2021 was grounded firmly in responding to the external environment we are witnessing today.  While the trends we identified have in many ways accelerated, and the horizon we were looking at has closed-in quicker than anticipated, the strategic shift we made to be more open and engaged, more future-focused, and to transform the Central Bank and our approach to our safeguarding mandate, has put us in a strong position to continue to deliver in the face of these challenges.And indeed the challenges, geoeconomic fragmentation, digitalisation, climate change, and the need to respond to them, cut across all of our mandate from maintaining price and financial stability, and understanding and advising on the economic consequences of these changes, to regulating and supervising the financial sector and ensuring it is resilient and operating in the best interests of consumers and investors.On this last point, in the next few weeks we will publish our Regulatory and Supervisory priorities, which are set in the context of, among other things, the prevailing risk environment and Ireland's large and increasingly complex financial sector.  Our over-arching priorities represent a direct response to the extraordinary external environment we are operating in and include (1) maintaining and building resilience to geopolitical risks and macro-financial uncertainties, (2) securing consumer and investor interests in a rapidly changing world, and (3) responding to technology-driven transformations.We will continue to focus on regulating and supervising well, which includes our integrated supervisory approach, and delivering on our Roadmap to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our supervision and domestic regulatory framework, improving gatekeeping processes, and delivering a more integrated and less burdensome reporting and data framework.12 We will also consult on a new Regulatory Impact Assessment Framework, which will further embed evidence-based policymaking into our processes and support us to ensure the orderly and proper functioning of financial markets.  And of course, we are looking forward to supporting the Government in the second half of this year as Ireland takes on the Presidency of the Council of the EU.Finally, in terms of responding to the external environment, in times like this central banks must tend to their own resilience as critical institutions of the state, the economy and the financial system. This includes financial and operational resilience, with the latter becoming ever more important. But it also includes institutional resilience which means adapting and responding to change, while also staying firm and resolutely focused on delivering on our important mandates regardless of the external winds and headwinds. This is why, particularly in these testing times, central banks remain fundamental to ensuring monetary and financial stability, and delivering long term stable growth. But this is for a whole other speech (indeed one I will deliver next week!).Conclusion Let me conclude there.We are living through an extraordinary period of change, one that may well define the generations to come.  And so we must respond, but by keeping our roots intact while adapting to the times.Domestically, we need to focus on building economic resilience, reinforcing what’s been done already, growing the supply side capacity of the economy, diversifying through strengthening the domestic business sector, and ensuring we are building resilience in both the public and household finances, through appropriate fiscal and financial policy.In Europe, we should act on the basis of our strengths and our potential. Most of all, we should channel our energies into those areas that pay the biggest dividends. And while being clear-eyed in needing to respond to the changing world we operate in, we should continue to do what Europe does best by balancing the strength of our own market with our openness for others’.Central banks, including the Central bank of Ireland, need to respond to the challenges ahead by delivering on their mandate while recognising that doing so successfully in a changing world will require us to change as well.  We need to recognise the great structural transitions underway and respond appropriately so that we continue to maintain monetary and financial stability, and ensure the financial sector operates in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.  [1] Thank you to Cian O’Laoide for his help with these remarks and to Vasileios Madouros, Caroline Mehigan and Simon Sloan for their helpful comments[2] See Makhlouf Remarks at the EU Heads of Mission Meeting Jan 2025[3] See Economic Outlook and Regulatory Priorities 2026 Letter from Governor Makhlouf to Tánaiste and Minister for Finance [4] Jean Monnet: “Europe [is] forged in crises, and [is] the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises” See: The Journal of Economic Historic Mémoires, (Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayard) 1976[5] Victor Hugo: “Change your opinions, keep to your principles; change your leaves, keep intact your roots” See: Intellectual Autobiography: Ideas on Literature, Philosophy and Religion[6] See Makhlouf Meeting Challenges of a Changing Financial System November 2024[7]  See Monnet Memoirs – Jean Monnet[8] See IMF Regional Economic Outlook Europe October 2024[9] See ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8/2025 What is the untapped potential of the EU Single Market?[10] Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, MIT Press (1994)[11] Nicholas Stern, The Growth Story of the 21st Century, LSE Press (2025)[12] Regulating & Supervising Well – A More Effective and Efficient Framework

Capital Horizon Loans (Clone) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm

The Central Bank of Ireland has set out its regulatory and supervisory priorities for 2026 and provided detailed advice to Government on building economic resilience in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.  In his letter to the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance Simon Harris, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf set out his views on the macro-financial environment, the financial services landscape and the Central Bank of Ireland’s financial regulation priorities for the year ahead. Governor Makhlouf emphasised that Ireland's economy and financial sector, while starting from a strong position, must adapt to a rapidly changing international environment characterised by geopolitical tensions, trade fragmentation, technological disruption and climate transition.Building economic resilience domesticallyThe Governor has advised Government to focus on building economic resilience and to prioritise five key areas:Growing the supply-side capacity of the economy, particularly through delivering necessary infrastructure in housing, transport, energy and waterStrengthening the indigenous business sector to complement foreign direct investment and enhance economic resilienceBuilding fiscal buffers through prudent fiscal policy and rigorous expenditure controlSupporting household resilience by enabling greater retail participation in financial markets and improving access to debt and equity financing for domestic businessesWorking with partners to strengthen Europe’s economic infrastructure, and working with others to develop a new set of multilateral trading rules that deliver certainty and stability. Governor Makhlouf said: "The overarching context that our small open economy and large international financial sector are operating in is particularly challenging. The implications of the ongoing transition of the international order and global trade environment are yet to be fully borne out, and indeed this transition has potentially accelerated in recent weeks.  We must continue to ensure that our economy, our public finances and our financial sector remains resilient and adapts to these risks.” Regulatory prioritiesGovernor Makhlouf said that regulatory policy also needs to continue to promote resilience, and the Central Bank has identified four overarching supervisory priorities for 2026:Maintaining and building resilience to geopolitical risks and macro-financial uncertainties – including strengthening the financial sector's operational and financial resilienceSecuring consumer and investor interests in a rapidly changing world – including implementing the revised Consumer Protection Code and enhancing safeguards against financial crimeResponding to technology-driven transformations – including continued focus on artificial intelligence in the financial sector and delivering the second Innovation Sandbox programme on paymentsHelping to address environmental and societal transitions – including assessing firms' responses to climate-related risks and the increasing frequency of severe weather events. The Central Bank will also deliver new responsibilities under Access to Cash legislation and continue its work on innovation, including a forthcoming Discussion Paper on tokenisation.Europe must act on its strengths In remarks to EU Heads of Missions today, Governor Makhlouf said the seismic structural shifts underway are a huge moment for Europe, but we must not forget the success, peace and prosperity it has brought. “In this vein, while the focus can often be on Europe’s weakness – and we are undoubtedly facing many challenges – I firmly believe that Europe should act on the basis of its strengths and its potential,” said Governor Makhlouf. “Most of all, we should channel our energies into those areas that pay the biggest dividends.” The Governor identified three priority areas for Europe:Trade – both completing the internal single market (which faces internal barriers equivalent to a 45 per cent tariff on goods and 110 per cent on services) and maintaining openness to external trade partnerships.Deepening the Savings and Investment Union – prioritising the expansion of European safe assets, mobilising internal capital through greater retail investment participation, and increasing the attractiveness of European markets to external capital, rather than focusing primarily on supervisory centralisation.Productivity – focusing on adapting to the economy of the future through greater technology development and adoption, accelerating decarbonisation, and closing Europe's innovation gap.Concluding, Governor Makhlouf said that a changing world will require central banks to also change, adding: “But it also includes institutional resilience which means adapting and responding to change, while also staying firm and resolutely focused on delivering on our important mandates regardless of the external winds and headwinds. This is why, particularly in these testing times, central banks remain fundamental to ensuring monetary and financial stability, and delivering long term stable growth.” The Central Bank will publish its full Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook in the coming weeks.ENDSFurther InformationMartin Grant: 086 078 7868 / martin.grant@centralbank.ie

In his latest blog, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf explains why the Governing Council kept its main policy interest rate (the deposit facility rate) unchanged at 2% for the fifth consecutive time since June 2025.

In his latest blog, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf argues that economists must adapt their analytical frameworks and expand their focus beyond traditional topics to address emerging challenges—such as geopolitical upheaval and defence spending—in order to provide robust evidence-based policy advice that serves the public interest.

Central Bank of Ireland has successfully completed the sale of its Spencer Dock (East Wing) building to the Office of Public Works for €23.7m.The sale of Spencer Dock was a key element of the Central Bank’s longer term property strategy aligned to our decision to develop a single Dockland Campus through the purchase of our North Wall Quay building and subsequent purchase of our Mayor Street building. This sale of the East Wing, to Office of Public Works on 22 January 2026, follows the earlier sale of Spencer Dock (West Wing) to the National College of Ireland in September 2022. Spencer Dock is situated on the north side of Mayor Street, Dublin, directly behind the National Convention Centre. Built in 2008, Block R1 is a semi-detached, six-storey over basement with its own separate ground floor office entrance and reception area. The Office of Public Works currently leases a portion of the Ground Floor and floors 1 -5 on a 20-year lease (from 11 May 2015) and it currently accommodates various Government agencies.NotesIn November 2018, the Central Bank announced plans to purchase Dublin Landings DL4/5. This acquisition will secure the organisation’s long-term accommodation needs.Spencer Dock is an office block building, which the Central Bank had rented since 2008. In November 2015, the Central Bank took the opportunity to purchase this building for €104m.Read further information on the Central Bank’s Dockland Campus. 

DEV Limited (CLONE) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm

Alan Finance Group (Clone) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm

Doherty Bergin Financial Services Ltd (Clone) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm

Central Bank of Ireland and Banca d’Italia are launching the Innovation Data Challenge 2026, a joint initiative designed to foster cutting-edge research and innovation in the retail payments sector. The Challenge reflects the shared commitment of the two Institutions to promoting applied research, international collaboration, and the responsible use of data and technology to shape the future of payments.The initiative brings together leading Irish and Italian universities, including University College Dublin, University College Cork, University of Galway, University of Limerick, Università commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Politecnico di Milano, and Università degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope.Students will work with both synthetic and real-world financial datasets accessed through a secure data platform, enabling them to develop innovative, data-driven research while meeting the highest standards of data protection.At the conclusion of the Challenge, selected research projects will be presented to an international panel of experts, providing students with valuable opportunity to explore the transformative role of technology and data in retail payments.  Through the Innovation Data Challenge 2026, Central Bank of Ireland and Banca d’Italia reaffirm their commitment to supporting academic excellence and applied research, while encouraging new perspectives on shaping the future of payments.

Introduction Good morning and thank you to Michael for inviting me to speak at the Compliance Institute’s Annual General Meeting. It is always a real pleasure to engage with compliance professionals.At the Central Bank, we recognise the essential role played by the compliance community in ensuring that financial firms are well-run and contributing to a financial system that is trusted and resilient.We also recognise the important role played by the compliance institute, equipping those working in compliance with the necessary competence and skills to undertake their roles in a professional manner. We also appreciate the collaborative ethos that you instil and the constructive two-way engagement that you support.The Central Bank serves the public interest by maintaining monetary and financial stability while ensuring that the financial system operates in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy. For us, delivering on our four safeguarding outcomes, the protection of consumer and investor interests, the integrity of the financial system, the safety and soundness of firms, and financial stability, guides all our work.The Central Bank is a risk-based, outcome-focused regulator and we constantly challenge ourselves to ensure that we can continue on our journey to ever more effectively deliver in a changing world. Regulators and compliance professionals have significant common ground in this regard:The compliance function plays a hugely important role in linking the regulatory framework to the culture, approach and decision making of their firms;Technology continues to transform how businesses operate, and compliance professionals must support firms to navigate this evolution, staying within the guardrails set by financial regulation;Compliance can apply a risk-based approach to its monitoring activities, that fully considers the business model of the firm, thus ensuring that efforts are directed towards those areas that pose the greatest potential risks to consumers or investors, to market integrity or to safety and soundness.Done well, both regulation and compliance support businesses to be well run and sustainably successful over the medium and longer term. My remarks today will address a number of important topics of relevance to compliance professionals and regulators: The important objective of securing customers’ interests;Individual accountability;Simplification;Resilience;Leveraging technology; and The Central Bank’s evolving approach to supervision.Together these aspects represent critical components in a system of regulation that is seeking to become more outcomes focused, more straightforward, and more effectively supportive of the economy and the financial wellbeing of citizens.We expect that, as compliance professionals, you will be at the heart of your firm’s engagement with these important topics.  Securing customers’ interestsA regulatory and supervisory framework focused on delivering good outcomes is essential to ensuring the financial system is operating in the best interest of consumers and the wider economyThe Central Bank’s Consumer Protection Code is the cornerstone of consumer protection in financial services in Ireland. The recent review of the Code was a significant initiative for the Central Bank. The revised Code will come into force in March this year.Our review of the Code included extensive engagement with industry, with other organisations and with individuals. I want to thank the Compliance Institute and its members for your valuable contribution to that process. Over the last 10 months since the publication of the revised Code we have continued that engagement, which has included cross-sectoral and sector specific workshops and meetings on some of the key themes of the Code. Topics have included informing customers effectively, supporting customers in vulnerable circumstances,1 digitalisation, data protection requirements, etc. Through that engagement and the queries that have arisen on particular aspects of the Code, we have recognised that in some instances we needed to provide further clarification or guidance. To that end, in December, we updated our General Code Guidance and also published a number of FAQs to support industry in implementing the revised Code.  We recognise the commitment that we have seen across firms in the sectors that we regulate to ensure readiness to implement the revised Code from 24 March 2026. And we want to see this effort continue as the revised Code is further embedded and as firms apply its provisions on an ongoing basis in their operations. With that in mind, I want to call out the new Standards for Business which are now being introduced. There are nine of these Standards. They bring together in one place a clear high-level statement of the overall regulatory expectation of firms. They are of course essential material for the compliance community to fully engage with, internalise and help give effect to within their firmsOne of these Standards for Business is that a regulated entity shall at all times secure its customers’ interests.  This standard is designed to ensure that good outcomes for customers is always the driver of firms’ business models and decision-making. (And for clarity, “customers” is explicitly stated to include potential customers.)In a previous engagement with members of the Compliance Institute, I discussed some key aspects of the Securing Customers’ Interests requirement.2 There I noted that, amongst the important aspects of this new articulation of firms’ consumer obligations, is that the “how” is as important as the “what”—it is not enough to comply with the process, there needs to be a clear focus on the outcome. If a disclosure is being made for example, it needs to be done in a way that is effective in really supporting customer understanding. I also noted that the new standard ensures that where firms are faced with new or complex situations or decisions “the obligation to secure their customers’ interests provides a robust and helpful reference point by which firms can orient themselves”.As compliance professionals you play an essential role in assessing the impact of the Standards for Business on your firms’ current activities, as well as confirming on an ongoing basis that new products and procedures are aligned with them. Ensuring that these standards are embedded across financial services firms is hugely important to support trust and confidence in the financial system, and ultimately the achievement of good outcomes for consumers of financial services. Individual Accountability When we introduced the Individual Accountability Framework (IAF) 18 months ago, we said that it would be underpinned by proportionality and reasonable expectations; that it was fundamentally about supporting good governance and well run financial firms - and not about more enforcement in itself; and that it was not something that would be the focus of compliance supervision but rather something that would support the further maturing of our supervisory approach and the delivery of regulatory outcomes.While we are still in the relatively early stages of the implementation of the IAF framework, we are already seeing the positive effects that it is having. These include:Enhanced clarity as to who is responsible for what within financial firms;Support for the effectiveness of collective and individual decision making within firms;Providing an underpinning of responsibilities and accountability which is supporting our new approach to supervision (see below) and its ongoing evolution;Contributing to a context where the improvement and simplification of other areas of regulation can be envisaged - for example in the area of our fitness and probity framework.For compliance professionals, the introduction of the Individual Accountability Framework has been a significant development. Representing a change in how regulatory outcomes are delivered by financial firms, with more responsibility and more expectation accruing to firms and in particular their senior leadership, it means that the role of the compliance function should be evolving to respond to those changes. It means that an enhanced focus on outcomes and on judgement in support of senior management and the firm as a whole should be increasingly at the heart of what the compliance function does. And this of course is consistent both with the Securing Customers’ Interests duty discussed above and with the overall simplification approach which is designed to be less detailed rules-focused and more outcomes focused. Significant engagement with stakeholders was a hallmark of the development of the Individual Accountability Framework. This engagement was very valuable. It is important that it continues and we very much welcome the ongoing views and perspectives of the Compliance Institute and its members, as well as stakeholders more generally, on this issue as we continue with its implementation. Simplification An outcomes-focused approach is also an essential ingredient in engagement with the simplification agenda. Given the productivity and innovation challenges identified in the Draghi and Letta reports, policymakers are placing a renewed focus on the productivity and resilience of our economy. And one aspect of that is simplification of regulatory frameworks. This is not about regulatory standards having been set too high or expectations being too great. It is however a recognition that the proliferation of too many detailed or overlapping rules can have the opposite effect to what is intended. Rather than bringing about better outcomes, too many detailed rules can lead to an undue focus on the rules themselves. Rather than demanding judgement and responsibility from economic actors, too many detailed rules can lead them to see rule compliance as an end in itself. It can result in a perception that the elimination of risk is the ultimate outcome, rather than a sustainably successful economy and the financial wellbeing of citizens.For the Central Bank, this entails an openness to reviewing and considering existing frameworks to assess whether the same outcomes can be delivered in different, and simpler, ways. Achieving robust and high-quality regulation and supervision means being both effective and efficient. We see the drive for simplification as an opportunity to remove unnecessary complexity and undue burden without compromising the resilience and the consumer and other protections that have been established over the years since the global financial crisis. In addition to being engaged on this topic at European level, we are also proactively considering simplification in the domestic context.  Our recent publication “Regulating & Supervising well – a more effective and efficient framework”3 explains how we think about simplification. It also provides an overview of European initiatives to simplify and enhance the regulatory and supervisory framework in financial services, and sets out a domestic programme spanning supervision, regulation, gatekeeping, and reporting.Simplification is an important topic for compliance professionals, you understand the purpose of regulation and have first-hand experience of the businesses that you operate within and where the compliance burden is most significant. You are well placed to identify possibilities for simplification that can meaningfully reduce burden while not compromising on the important outcomes that financial regulation and supervision are designed to achieve. While we may not always agree with you, we very much welcome your engagement on this important topic.ResilienceResilience is at the heart of a successful financial system.For financial firms and the financial system, financial resilience has always been critical to success. We saw this to the huge cost of society and individuals during the Great Financial Crisis. Since then, significant work has been done to reform the regulatory regime and rebuild financial resilience. That a good deal of success has been achieved in this area can be seen from the way in which the financial system has weathered a number of recent periods of turbulence and stress. Financial resilience will always be a focus of our regulatory and supervisory work. This is to ensure that it remains firmly at the top of firms’ agenda, without continuing attention it can quickly be eroded. Moreover the nature and dynamics of financial risks in the system continue to change and evolve - for example in the non-bank sector. It is important that firms and regulators continue to assess and respond to these changing risks.Operational resilience is rightly a key priority at the current time. The combination of the centralisation of digital processes in the functioning of the financial system, rapidly evolving technology, the major role of third-party providers, and the consequence of the threat landscape makes it a critical concern for firms and for regulators.The Digital Operational Resilience Act (which came into application almost 1 year ago today) represented a major policy response from the EU to growing cyber and ICT risks in an increasingly digital and interconnected financial system. At the firm level, it requires institutions to strengthen their operational resilience frameworks. Importantly it also seeks to address operational resilience at a system level, taking a holistic view of the ecosystem within which firms operate. At the system level, it enhances incident reporting and intelligence sharing and establishes a new oversight framework for critical ICT third-party providers which takes into account the dimensions and nature of the financial sector’s reliance on such providers.Much has been achieved over the past 12 months with the commencement of incident and cyber threat reporting, the collection of registers of information on contractual relationships with ICT third party providers, the national identification of firms subject to Threat Led Penetration Testing, the identification of critical ICT third-party providers and preparation for their direct oversight by the ESAs. Now firms are getting ready for the second collection of DORA registers of information and the first TLPTs are about to begin. We have approached this work keeping in mind that DORA recognises that removing all risk is not achievable, and that therefore the objective is to strengthen the digital operational resilience of the financial system as a whole. This is not a once and done exercise, firms will need to actively ensure their digital operational resilience on an ongoing basis, deepening the maturity of their practices as new norms become embedded and new risks emerge, in a spirit of continuous improvement. This is reflected in the finding from our recent thematic work on operational resilience in the MiFID investment firm sector.4 Through this piece of work we observed a maturing of operational resilience frameworks in this sector. We identified areas where some firms need to make enhancements, including in important areas like identifying their critical or important business services and mapping how these services are delivered. More broadly, rising cyber threats, coupled with concentrated reliance on a relatively small number of third parties for ICT services, increase the risks of technological disruption. I therefore want to emphasise the need for firms to continue to build on these foundations especially in the area of digital operational resilience.Leveraging technologyThe importance of operational resilience reflects the extent to which the financial system has become wholly integrated with digital technology.More broadly, one of the key challenges for firms, compliance professionals and regulators is to ensure that as digital technology rapidly evolves and becomes ever more the basis of new and changed business models, processes and practices, this happens in a way that is aligned with the sound running of firms, consumers’ interests and financial stability.AI is an innovation that will be transformative. AI tools and technologies have the potential to deliver significant benefits for consumers, investors and for the financial sector. We are also looking to how AI can assist us in our work as supervisors.However risks arise that could adversely affect firms, their customers and wider society. One of the Central Bank’s supervisory objectives is to be close to how AI is being used by the firms that we regulate, with the overarching aim of seeking to ensure that its adoption is beneficial and done in a way that supports our regulatory objectives. Before deploying AI, firms need to understand the technology itself and how its adoption is aligned with the firm's overall strategy, risk tolerance, and compliance framework. And whether AI is an appropriate tool in each circumstance taking into account its characteristics, including challenges around the explainability of the output produced.The model inputs need to be right. if data inputs include an element of bias, that may feed through to model output. Ethical use of data and consideration of data privacy is also hugely important to avoid erosion of trust in this new technology.The model itself needs to be correct for the use case and model outputs must be used in a well-considered manner.In some cases AI has the potential to interact with an existing risk, causing it to evolve in a new or a different way. Consideration must be given to how the adoption of AI interacts with the firm’s operational risk profile or its cyber resilience.All of this must be underpinned by effective governance and oversight. When using AI to deliver products or services, firms need to adhere to the same standards expected when deploying more traditional technology. Both the new EU AI Act and much of the existing relevant technology-neutral regulation will be important for firms and their compliance functions as this journey continues.Delivering supervision under our new approachThe final topic that I want to address today is the Central Bank’s supervisory approach. During 2025 and continuing into 2026 we have been introducing a revised approach that continues to be risk-based, that is more outcomes focused, less process driven, and integrated across all our safeguarding outcomes—financial stability, protection of consumer and investor interests, safety and soundness and the integrity of the system.5This evolution of our supervisory approach will enable us to deliver ever more effectively on our regulatory objectives. Amongst the ways it seeks to do this are the following:By being more integrated it allows us:To take a holistic view of the risk landscape and allocate our resources accordingly;To act more efficiently and effectively so that our supervisory activities and interventions support multiple outcomes at the same time;To really focus on the outcomes we seek, and not unduly on the process.By being more outcomes focused, it allows us:To have better engagement with regulated firms, through clearer communication of our concerns and the outcomes we want to see;To enhance the degree to which firms and their leadership and staff internalise the regulatory objectives;To focus more on delivering outcomes, rather than simply addressing point risks; proportionately using our supervisory toolkit to achieve our aims.By being more efficient, it allows us:To prioritise better;To deploy scarce resources to maximum effect;To contribute optimally to delivering on our mandate for our citizens.The implementation of our revised approach to supervision is an ongoing effort. We continue to value stakeholders feedback and engagement on it.ConclusionI will conclude here. I hope that my remarks today have provided a useful insight into how we at the Central Bank think about some of the topics that are likely to be on your agenda. Many thanks for your attention.  I now look forward to our Questions and Answers.[1] Remarks by Deputy Governor Colm Kincaid to Central Bank of Ireland’s Consumer Protection Code Workshop - Modernising how we protect consumers in vulnerable circumstances [2] Remarks by Director Gerry Cross, Director Financial Regulation - Policy and Risk: Regulating for Better Outcomes [3] Central  Bank, Regulating & Supervising well – a more effective and  efficient framework, December 2025 [4] Thematic Assessment: Operational Resilience in the MiFID Investment Firm Sector[5] Central Bank: How we Regulate – Supervision

Invesco Investment Management Limited (CLONE) - Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm