Interview with Les Echos

Interview with Claudia Buch, Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, conducted by Ingrid Feuerstein and Krystele Tachdjian on 2 June 2026

10 June 2026

UniCredit is seeking to own more than 30% of Commerzbank. Do you think the current headwinds (geopolitical risks, economic consequences of the war in Iran, etc.) will encourage bank mergers?

Let me answer this question in general, without commenting on specific cases. Banks certaintly need to respond to the current environment, and this can affect the internationalisation of their business models. From our side, we take geopolitical risks very seriously, they have been one of our priorities for several years now. It is not just that these risks are heightened – they have materialised with the ongoing military conflicts and in the form of higher tariffs. We are working very closely with banks to assess the implications for credit risk, as energy prices and tariffs have increased and as supply chains may be disrupted. Banks need to be highly vigilant.

We are experiencing a series of geopolitical shocks, as well as concerns around AI. The Financial Stability Board has issued a warning about financial stability. What is your view?

We are fully aligned with the Financial Stability Board and take the impact of cyber risk on banks’ operational resilience very seriously. Two years ago we conducted a cyber resilience stress test, which provided very useful information and allowed banks to learn from good practices in the industry. We have an oversight and monitoring function regarding IT outsourcing. This provides us with a better understanding of banks’ vulnerabilities and helps ensure they have sound risk management systems in place.

Do banks need to strengthen their defences against cyber threats?

Our cyber resilience stress test showed that banks generally have response and recovery frameworks in place to deal with potential cybersecurity incidents. However, with advanced AI models, the capabilities of AI tools – both in terms of protection and potentially for mounting attacks – have increased, and the threat landscape is evolving rapidly. Banks thus have to prioritise protecting against cyber attacks and further strengthening their resilience.

The Mythos threat has emerged since your last cyber stress test. Would a new stress test be needed now?

Our current priorities are that banks put sufficient protections in place and that knowledge is being shared. We have contacted banks to facilitate knowledge-sharing across the industry. We are also working on addressing the findings from previous work. A new cyber stress test is not currently on the agenda.

European authorities fear that European companies are not on a level playing field with US firms regarding Mythos. How have you contributed to this discussion?

We are of course in contact with all our international counterparts, and we are raising awareness among policymakers that the banking sector is affected. What matters is that banks use already existing technology and focus on what needs to be done to protect themselves against cyber risk. This requires boards to treat cyber resilience as a strategic priority and to allocate adequate resources to address evolving cyber threats.

Do you think these cyber threats are systemic for the financial system?

They could be. That is why we monitor how banks outsource services to IT providers and other third parties. If several banks rely on the same provider and if that provider is hit by a cyberattack, this could have a systemic dimension. As a microprudential supervisor, our role is to work with banks and ensure that they do everything necessary to manage outsourcing risks well.

You now have more than ten years’ experience of European banking supervision. Do you, like the banks, think it should be simplified?

Over the past 12 years, we have built a highly effective European supervisor. We have harmonised supervisory standards at the European level, based on the Single Rulebook. Our main achievement has been to restore confidence in European banks. The banking sector is much better capitalised than before. This allows banks to contribute to lending and growth. At the same time, the system has become relatively complex. We have therefore implemented comprehensive reforms by identifying areas of undue complexity and streamlining our supervision, while safeguarding the resilience of banks.

Do you think there is still some work to be done to streamline and simplify things?

We have two main areas of work this year. The first is a review of our guides for banks in order to make them clearer. We provide our interpretation of the rules and how we apply them during the supervisory process. It’s not about making the rules, because we are supervisors, not regulators. Some guides, like the ones written during the COVID-19 pandemic, have become obsolete and can be discontinued.

The second area concerns proportionality. Supervision must be proportionate to the underlying risks and the size of banks. We have identified areas where more can be done, particularly in reporting.

The ECB Governing Council has also made a series of recommendations to the legislators and the European Commission, as to how the system could be simplified through legislative changes.

It has been more than two years since Mario Draghi presented his report, and only a few of his recommendations have been implemented. How could you help move things forward?

The supervision reforms that we are implementing have certainly been inspired by discussions around the Draghi report. We can simplify the system without weakening resilience. Maintaining resilience and strong standards is absolutely crucial in the current risky environment to ensure that banks can support the economy also during periods of stress.

Do you see a deterioration in credit quality?

So far, we have not seen geopolitical tensions reflected in weaker credit quality. Non-performing loans remain around 2% on average. We are seeing weaker growth forecasts and an increase in corporate insolvencies, but it takes time before the effects show up on banks’ balance sheets. That’s why we are now conducting a reverse stress test to identify where vulnerabilities might emerge in the future.

How are you managing the current private credit situation?

We have identified which European banks are more closely linked to private credit markets. In several cases, there is room for improvement in banks’ risk management. But there is clearly an issue about lacking visibility in relation to the private credit market. That’s why we are calling for greater transparency and better reporting for actors on private markets. We need international policy responses to ensure that pockets of vulnerability are adequately addressed.

Could there be a broader impact on financial stability?

We can’t rule out the possibility of risks building up over time, including through leverage, interconnectedness and liquidity risks. This is a key focus of the Financial Stability Board’s ongoing work, and that is why banks must remain very vigilant.