Good morning.
Deputy Prime Minister Correia, thank you for chairing this plenary.
Kristalina, I’m glad to celebrate this partnership with you.
The recent events in Syria and Gaza give us reason to hope that peace is possible wherever conflict exists—DRC, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, and beyond. As we hope for peace, we must also prepare for it. In that pursuit, we’ve convened expert groups to plan for reconstruction in Gaza and Ukraine—drawing on regional specialists from both the public and private sectors. The Gaza group is now coordinating with partners active in the region. Reconstruction is an essential part of our mandate.
A service we stand ready to deliver whenever and wherever it’s needed and to the best of our ability. At the same time, as an institution of development, we are equally committed to conflict prevention. Alongside rebuilding what has been lost, we must also focus on creating the conditions for opportunity and stability. That is what motivates our actions and decisions today.
We are living through one of the great demographic shifts in human history. By 2050, more than 85% of the world’s population will live in countries we call “developing” today. In just the next 10 to 15 years, 1.2 billion young people will enter the workforce—vying for roughly 400 million jobs. That leaves a very large gap.
Let me express that urgency another way:
• Four young people will step into the global workforce every second over the next ten years.
• So in the time it takes to deliver these remarks, tens of thousands will cross that threshold—full of ambition, impatient for opportunity.
The pace of population growth is most staggering in Africa, which will be home to one in four people by 2050. Between now and then estimates suggest:
• Zambia will add 700,000 people every year.
• Mozambique’s population will double.
• While Nigeria will swell by about 130 million, firmly establishing itself as one of the most populous nations in the world.
These young people—with their energy and ideas—will define the next century. With the right investments—focused not on need, but opportunity—we can unlock a powerful engine of global growth. Without purposeful effort, their optimism risks turning into despair—fueling instability, unrest, and mass migration—with implications for every region and every economy. This is why jobs must be at the center of any development, economic, or national security strategy.
But what do we mean by a job? It can mean working for a company and advancing through it to higher levels, or being employed at a small business. But it could also mean starting your own as an entrepreneur. A job is more than a paycheck. It is what allows both women and men to pursue their aspirations. It’s purpose. It’s dignity. The anchor that holds families steady and the glue that keeps societies together. It is the straightest line to stability—and the hardest progress to reverse once achieved.
That is why we have reframed what we do—how we measure it, and how we deliver it—around this reality. Over the past two years, we have worked to move with more speed, simplicity, and substance. Average project approval times have been cut from 19 months to 12. Some projects are now approved in less than 30 days. We consolidated our leadership in 40 country offices, giving clients a single point of contact. By June next year, every country will have this structure. Our Knowledge Bank is being combined across the Group—focused on replicating solutions at scale.
While unifying corporate services like budgeting, human resources, procurement, and real estate. 153 internal metrics have been replaced by a corporate scorecard with 22 outcome indicators. Through new instruments and optimization, we expanded financial capacity by about $100 billion. The MDB co-financing platform has grown a pipeline of 175 projects. Of those, 22 are financed—worth $23 billion.
We established full mutual reliance with the Asian Development Bank—reducing duplication for clients. We are working to expand among MDB partners. And we’re developing an IFC2030 strategy to strengthen private capital mobilization. These reforms are the foundation. The mission is jobs.
Most jobs—nearly 90 percent—ultimately come from the private sector. But they don’t all begin there.
Countries move along a continuum:
• early on, the public sector drives job creation;
• over time, private capital and entrepreneurship take the lead.
But the private sector—whether large or small, local or global—can’t do it alone. Entrepreneurs need the right conditions to start, grow, and hire. Those conditions don’t happen by accident.
This is where the World Bank Group brings something unique through our three-pillar strategy:
First, governments lead—often with input from the private sector—to build the human and physical infrastructure that underpins opportunity: roads, ports, electricity, education, digitization, and healthcare. Our public arms—IBRD and IDA—finance these investments and help countries use resources effectively, and establish public-private partnerships.
Second, a business environment with clear rules, a level playing field, and sound economic management. That means secure land rights, predictable taxes, transparent institutions—as well as responsible debt management and exchange rate policies. We support these reforms alongside the IMF through our Knowledge Bank, using policy tools and performance-based financing.
Third, once the basics are in place, we help the private sector scale and reward risk-taking through IFC and MIGA—providing capital, equity, guarantees, and political risk insurance—backed up by ICSID.
This continuum—foundation, policy, capital—is how we translate ambition into jobs. It’s how we move from potential to paychecks. We’ve identified five sectors with potential to create jobs: infrastructure and energy, agribusiness, healthcare, tourism, and value-added manufacturing—including crucial minerals. These are not aid-dependent sectors. They are engines of growth—capable of generating locally relevant jobs without displacing work from developed economies.
And they help build the middle class that will fuel tomorrow’s global demand, including goods and services from developed markets. Over the past two years, we’ve launched a set of strategic initiatives across many of these sectors. They are not siloed plans. They reinforce one another—and bring together the full breadth of the World Bank Group, alongside partners. Because it will take all of us working in concert to deliver results at scale.
Our electricity strategy focuses on accessibility, affordability, and reliability—while managing emissions responsibly. It powers Mission 300, our effort to connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030. Countries have the flexibility to choose what fits their needs and context—whether upgrading grids or installing solar, wind, hydro, gas, and geothermal. But we have also begun the work—in partnership with the IAEA—to offer nuclear support for the first time in decades. The goal is enough power to drive productivity for people and businesses.
We’ve set a goal to help deliver healthcare for 1.5 billion people. This December, we will bring together governments, investors, and innovators at a summit in Tokyo to drive the agenda forward. Indonesia is already leading the way, committing to provide every citizen with an annual primary care visit on their birthday—an approach that could reshape the future of healthcare for 300 million people.
Through AgriConnect we’re helping smallholder farmers move from subsistence to surplus. Building an ecosystem around cooperatives that integrates financing for farmers and SMEs, links producers to markets, and harnesses digital tools like small AI.  It’s underpinned by a pledge to double our financing to $9 billion a year and mobilize an additional $5 billion.
We are also finalizing a minerals and mining strategy to help countries move beyond raw extraction into processing and regional manufacturing—so that more value, and more jobs, stay local. We expect to share this strategy in the coming months.
So, how do we make this real?
We begin with a single Country Partnership Framework across the World Bank Group that is developed with the country’s leadership and our subject matter experts. Each framework is a long-term strategic plan that unites the full capacity of IDA, IBRD, IFC, MIGA, and ICSID around a focused set of priorities—tailored to a country’s unique needs and ambitions. In one country, that might mean end-to-end mineral value chains. In another, tourism rooted in nature and culture, perhaps stronger health systems that heal and employ or agribusiness ecosystems that lift smallholder farmers.
The path is tailored, but the fundamentals are shared:
• build infrastructure,
• set clear, predictable rules,
• and support private investment.
To reach scale—and free up our balance sheet for the toughest challenges—we must unlock the full power of the private sector.
That’s why we are breaking down barriers to investment and creating conditions where private capital can deliver development impact.
We are advancing the roadmap the Private Sector Investment Lab provided, deploying tools and practical solutions across the institution:
• Regulatory clarity—first deployed through Mission 300 with more applications underway, our redesigned Knowledge Bank will carry this work forward.
• Guarantees—now managed centrally by MIGA and growing well—with a goal to triple the business by 2030.
• Foreign exchange solutions—With IMF, we’re developing local capital markets in 20 countries. While IFC has reached one-third of its lending in local currency with a goal to hit 40% by 2030.
• Junior equity—we launched the Frontier Opportunities Fund, seeded by IFC net income, but it needs additional contributions from philanthropy and governments;
• And perhaps most transformational—an originate-to-distribute model, bundling assets into investable products to bring institutional capital into emerging markets at scale. An effort led by former S&P CEO Doug Peterson.
Just weeks ago, we completed our first transaction— packaging $510 million of IFC loans into rated securities. Demand was strong. The next challenge is supply—so we’re building a sustained pipeline across the Bank. And we are planning to work with others. Each step lowers risk, boosts confidence, and helps meet private capital halfway. But capital won’t come without a strong foundation from the start.
That’s why we focus on doing development right: resilient, fiscally sound, rooted in trust, and built to last:
Smart development.
Many countries today are trying to grow, create jobs, and lift people out of poverty while facing droughts, storms, and floods—often on shaky fiscal ground, eroded by debt, weakened by corruption, or deprived of the resources needed to move forward. Smart development means building physical resilience and institutional strength. That is what our clients are asking for. And that demand is reshaping our work.
You can see the shift in the numbers. Last year, 48% of our financing qualified as having climate co-benefits under the shared MDB methodology—exceeding our own expectations. Within that, resilience made up 43% of the public sector portfolio—up from one-third just two years ago. I want to take a moment to explain this co-benefit formula and why client demand is driving these results.
When we build a road that connects a pharmaceutical manufacturer to a market—if it is built of quality to withstand floods and doesn’t have to be rebuilt: That is counted. When we build a school or skills incubator with insulation and reflective roofs, so extreme heat or cold doesn’t impact learning: That is counted. When we help a farmer access drought-resistant seeds and drip irrigation that increase crop yields, profits, and guard against dry-periods: That is counted. And if we build a corridor that transports goods via train instead of truck, which moves freight faster and cheaper: That is counted.
Smart development is lasting development.
The same demand is reshaping our work on institutions and public finance. More countries are asking for help to strengthen core systems—and we’re innovating:
• Launching a new generation of Public Finance Reviews to help governments redirect spending to high-impact priorities—14 completed, and 22 more expected soon.
• Helping manage liquidity risks before they escalate: IDA net flows reached $21 billion last fiscal year—up from $12 billion three years ago.
• Deploying debt-for-development tools to ease burdens and free up resources. We started with Côte d’Ivoire and now have nine similar transactions in the pipeline. With an appetite to do more.
• And we are working closely with partners like the IMF to accelerate debt restructuring under the G20 Common Framework, while also advancing domestic revenue reforms, expanding financing, and supporting liability management. At the same time, we’re trying to improve transparency by expanding the Debtor Reporting System to all G20 countries—giving all parties greater clarity and confidence.
And as desire grows for tools that build trust, we’re responding:
• Helping governments fight corruption with data-driven tools, digital IDs linked to assets, better fraud detection, and AI that connects tax, property, and identity data. Over the past decade, we’ve supported 120 governments in this effort and are currently working with 26 more to target corruption and illicit financial flows.
• And because even the best systems need capable stewards, our Knowledge Academy is equipping public servants to lead reform. More than 200 senior officials have already completed training, with six new tracks launching soon.
We’re beginning to see what’s possible.
In just two years, our annual financing grew from $107 billion to $119 billion. Private capital mobilization rose from $47 billion to $67 billion. Total commitments, including PCM, reached $186 billion. And we raised another $79 billion from private investors through bond issuances.
That scale is translating into real impact.
Since launching the new World Bank Group Scorecard in 2024, we’ve helped:
• 20 million farmers access technology, inputs, and markets.
• 60 million people connect to electricity
• 70 million people get an education or develop a skill
• And 300 million experience quality health and nutrition services
These aren’t just larger numbers—they reflect sharper focus and a shift in mindset. One that treats development not as charity, but as strategy. And sees jobs not as a side effect, but as the outcome of development done right. Because when we focus on jobs, we are not turning away from healthcare, infrastructure, education, or energy—we are doubling down on all of them. A job is what happens when a school leads to a skill, when a road leads to a market, when a clinic keeps someone healthy enough to work, when energy powers a business. That is how our efforts come together. That is how we turn investment into impact.
And that is how we deliver what people want most, need most, and deserve most: A job, a chance, a future, and dignity.
 
Compliments of the World Bank GroupThe post World Bank | Remarks by World Bank Group President Ajay Banga at the 2025 Annual Meetings Plenary first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Rising geopolitical tensions and security concerns about emerging critical technologies are reshaping international co-operation in science, technology and innovation (STI), according to a new OECD report.
The OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025 finds that governments are increasingly aligning their STI policies with economic and national security objectives – from promoting critical research and emerging technologies, to protecting against unauthorised knowledge leakage, and projecting national interests through science diplomacy. This growing securitisation of STI reflects how the changing geopolitical environment is reshaping global research and innovation linkages.
As part of this broader shift, the report shows a sharp rise in research security measures – policies designed to protect sensitive research and prevent foreign interference. In 2025, countries reported 250 such policies — almost ten times more than in 2018. Over the same period, the number of countries with research security policies has increased from 12 to 41.

“The challenge is to strike the right balance between security, openness and innovation,” OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said. “Too little security can expose sensitive research, while too much can stifle innovation and positive collaboration. Governments need to design measures that are proportional to the risks, well-targeted, and which enable mutually-beneficial collaboration if they are to protect national interests without undermining research quality and slowing progress on shared challenges, from boosting productivity, to achieving net zero objectives, to advancing health innovation and enabling the digital transformation.”
The effects of securitisation and geopolitical realignments can already be seen in scientific collaboration. While the share of internationally co-authored scientific publications in OECD countries rose from just 2% in 1970 to 27% in 2023, the latest data indicate that this upward trend is losing momentum.
Governments are also stepping up investments in strategic research areas. Public research and development (R&D) spending on energy has increased by 76% over the last decade, and defence R&D budgets have grown by 75% over the same period – nearly twice as fast as overall R&D spending. Efforts to protect high-technology fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing are also intensifying, leading to closer scrutiny of international scientific collaborations at a time of growing competition.
For further information and media enquiries, journalists are invited to contact Elisabeth Schoeffmann (+33 1 85 55 44 06) in the OECD Media Office (+33 1 45 24 97 00).

 
Compliments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentThe post OECD | Changing geopolitical environment reshapes science, technology and innovation policy, says OECD first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), in close coordination with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State, is proud to support the launch of the American AI Exports Program—announced yesterday by our interagency partners as a bold, whole-of-government effort under President Trump’s leadership to advance U.S. innovation and global competitiveness in trusted, full-stack artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.  
As a member of the Economic Diplomacy Action Group (EDAG), EXIM is deploying its full suite of financing tools to accelerate the export of U.S.-made AI infrastructure, hardware, and software solutions. Through its China and Transformational Exports Program, a Congressional mandate signed into law by President Trump, EXIM ensures that American innovation and manufacturing lead the industries of the future. As part of this mandate, EXIM is specifically tasked with increasing financing for exports in transformational sectors, including Artificial Intelligence, to help U.S. companies compete and win in strategic global markets.
“Supporting the President’s AI export program is about ensuring the future is defined by US led innovation and American strength,” said Chairman Jovanovic. “Through this initiative, EXIM is unleashing America’s financing power to help U.S. companies compete and win in the race to define the next generation of AI built on U.S. values and technology.”  
The American AI Exports Program, launched under Executive Order 14320, features a new website, AIexports.gov, and a Request for Information (RFI) to gather input from U.S. industry stakeholders. These tools connect American AI developers, manufacturers, and exporters with global demand for secure, transparent, and trusted AI systems.
EXIM encourages U.S. companies engaged in AI development, deployment, and infrastructure to explore financing opportunities and participate in the RFI. For more information, visit AIexports.gov.
ABOUT EXIM:
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) is the nation’s official export credit agency with the mission of supporting American jobs by facilitating U.S. exports. To advance American competitiveness and assist U.S. businesses as they compete for global sales, EXIM offers financing including export credit insurance, working capital guarantees, loan guarantees, and direct loans. As an independent federal agency, EXIM contributes to U.S. economic growth by supporting tens of thousands of jobs in exporting businesses and their supply chains across the United States. Learn more at www.exim.gov.
 
Compliments of the Export-Import Bank of the United StatesThe post EXIM Bank | EXIM Powers American AI Exports Program first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Today, the Commission brought together top-tier private investors from across Europe to jointly express their intention to establish the Scaleup Europe Fund – a new, multi-billion fund to invest inthe most promising European companies in strategic deep tech areas.
By joining forces with these potential founding investors, the Commission moves ahead on the EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy aimed at building a dynamic and competitive startup and scaleup ecosystem across Europe.
The Scaleup Europe Fund responds to the urgent need for Europe to boost investments in scaleups and close the gap with global leaders. As highlighted in the Draghi report, the continent’s ability to scale innovative companies is crucial to its competitiveness.
So far, despite a strong startup pipeline, limited access to late-stage growth capital and fragmented investment markets have hindered European innovators’ ability to grow into global leaders.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “Europe has the ideas and the talent to build the most innovative companies in the world. But as they scale up we need to ensure they have the means to grow, attract investment and thrive right here at home. High quality jobs and Europe’s overall competitiveness depends on it. The Scaleup Europe Fund is an essential part of our work to make sure the best of Europe can choose Europe.”
Leading European investors to boost Europe’s tech leadership 
At the high-level meeting hosted today by Ekaterina Zaharieva, Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation, a core group of potential investors and the European Investment Bank (EIB), came together with a common goal – to unlock the value of Europe’s flourishing scaleup companies, while promoting European tech leadership.
Alongside the Commission and the EIB Group, the group of potential founding investors in the Fund include Novo Holdings, EIFO (Export and Investment Fund of Denmark), CriteriaCaixa, Santander/Mouro Capital, Fondazione Compagnia San Paolo/ Intesa Sanpaolo/Fondazione Cariplo, APG Asset Management, acting on behalf of Dutch pension fund ABP, Wallenberg Investments, and BGK (Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego).
These potential investors will work hand in hand with the Commission to establish and capitalise the fund. They also agreed today that the Scaleup Europe Fund will focus on growth capital and late-stage investments in a broad range of European strategic technology companies, including artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, semiconductor technologies, robotics and autonomous systems, energy technologies, space technologies, biotechnologies, medical technologies, advanced materials and agritech.
Next steps
The Scaleup Europe Fund will operate as a market-based, privately managed and privately co-financed growth fund investing in major European-led investment rounds.
The Commission, together with the other founding investors, will select and appoint a management company to implement the fund. A public call for the management company will be published soon, with the aim that the Scaleup Europe Fund can start first investments in Spring 2026.
Background
President Ursula von der Leyen, announced the Scaleup Europe Fund in her 2025 State of the Union Address as a flagship initiative aimed at making major investments in young, fast-growing companies in critical tech areas, so that “the best of Europe Choose Europe”.
 
 
Compliments of the European CommissionThe post Commission Partners with Private Investors to Set up Multi-billion Scaleup Europe Fund first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

A new Special Eurobarometer published today shows that the importance of the social economy is widely acknowledged, with 75% of Europeans recognising its importance for the well-being of society in their country.
Consequently, a significant majority endorse policies aimed at developing the social economy, including the creation of dedicated strategies and laws (88%), awareness-raising initiatives (86%), assistance to help people set up social economy organisations (86%), and direct financial support from the public sector (80%).
In addition, a significant number of Europeans (93%) think that businesses should be guided by social economy values, such as focusing on social and environmental goals, redistributing profits, and operating with democratic governance structures.
Half of Europeans have engaged with the social economy in the past five years, usually through activities such as volunteering (18%), donations (18%), and as customer (15%). In addition, 1 in 3 Europeans receive help from the social economy in areas like education, training, and housing.
An infographic summarising the key results of the survey is available, along with the full report and Member State factsheets.
 
Compliments of the European CommissionThe post European Commission | Eurobarometer: Europeans Embrace the Social Economy and Call for More Support first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

This first annual progress by Maria Luís Albuquerque, Commissioner for Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union, covers the period from January to July 2025. It describes the simplification measures during this time-frame and provides feedback from the Commissioner’s first implementation dialogue and reality checks. It also includes key implementation and enforcement actions undertaken in this reporting period.
In the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, President von der Leyen advocated for a “simpler and faster Europe” to improve EU competitiveness and boost growth and innovation. To achieve this goal, all Commissioners were asked to contribute to simplifying EU legislation and reducing administrative burdens. Under the portfolio of Commissioner Albuquerque, the key priorities are the development of a savings and investments union and the removal of barriers hindering the single market for financial services, coupled with the simplification of the regulatory framework, notably on reporting requirements.
 
You can read the full report here.
 
 
Compliments of the European Commission.The post European Commission | 2025 Annual Progress Report: Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Addressing EU leaders at today’s European Council, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said that Parliament will deliver, making things better, simpler and easier.

Dear António, dear colleagues,
Congratulations on the adoption of the 19th package of sanctions. This was good news. On a less positive note – yesterday’s vote on the CSRD and CSDDD sustainability omnibus showed that for a huge section of the European Parliament, this compromise simply did not go far enough. That even with the best attempt at bridging positions, it would not have made things better, simpler, easier. For some other sections, any change would have been too much.
Majorities are always strongest from the centre out, because we believe that this is the way to move Europe forward. But if this is not possible, Parliament must deliver, regardless.
The text, as adopted in our Legal Affairs Committee, will now go to the next mini plenary session in a couple of weeks, with a deadline for amendments. I expect that the mandate from this Parliament will be deeper, giving us the majority we need to deliver, and probably pushing Council to go further.
In the past two weeks since we last met, Parliament applied the urgent procedure to postpone the chemical products legislation, adopted our position on the Common Agricultural Policy and even started trilogues. Negotiations here are normal and I am optimistic we will find an agreement soon.
On the Multiannual Financial Framework, I want to emphasise: Yes, our approaches may be different, but our core aims are the same. This is what we must keep in mind. The real risk of escalation exists, and it requires some good will on both sides to find a landing zone. We have managed before, and I am confident that we can manage again.
On housing. The European Parliament understands people’s concerns here. This is crucial for us. For the first time ever, we set up a Special Committee on Affordable Housing and we’ve also seen that the European Commission’s has taken some steps. We need to keep building on this momentum and we must deliver.
A lot has happened in Parliament since Copenhagen. And yet, we know we need to push even further.
Europe is at its best when we have a clear and united objective. Our single market, our common currency, our Schengen system – I’m not saying they work perfectly but those are the achievements people value the most.
So I want to say how encouraged I am to see so many interesting proposals circulating. This is the kind of bold thinking that Europe needs to embrace and reflect in its work programmes. That signals that we are moving away from the status quo. We might not agree on everything, but what we can agree on is that we cannot remain entrenched, or the world will move on without us. And it will do so quickly.
This is the exact mindset driving our actions in defence. Since we last met, we reached an agreement, secured the funding and got the European Defence Industry Programme done. The Parliament is now ready to move forward with a final vote. After that, everything hinges on its implementation.
This, of course, ties directly to Ukraine – to strengthening their defence industry, leveraging their technologies, especially in anti-drone measures and detection systems, and affirming that irrefutable principle of “peace through strength”. Rallying behind President Zelensky’s with a clear peace plan is essential.
This is where Parliament has – with a large majority – made its stance clear: we must phase out Russian gas and energy. And I hope negotiations can begin soon. As I said earlier, we welcome the adoption of the 19th package of sanctions, but making better use of Russian frozen assets remains critical. I understand the concerns – we need legal certainty – but we also need to act strategically and mount the pressure.
Yesterday, we received the heartbreaking news of a Russian strike hitting a kindergarten in Kharkiv. There is no justification for that horror. None. Zero. Russia’s attacks are growing increasingly brazen – with little respect for innocent life, international law or for a peaceful solution. That’s why our response must be to build-up the pressure.
Because ultimately, that’s what all of this comes down to. Peace. Genuine peace. We need to keep underlining why we do all that we do. Why we stand so firmly with Ukraine and why we’re investing in our security and defence. Because we have seen what happens when soft power is not backed up by the hard power needed to face today’s threats. We cannot let that happen again.
Now is the time to widen the circle of peace – and we can do that by building on the tremendous progress achieved in the Middle East. Again, I want to commend the efforts of the United States, Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye, and all who helped get us to this point. It was not easy or straightforward, but it mattered, and it got done.
The hostage release and ceasefire deal is a moment of historic hope for Israel, for Gaza. For a renewed course that keeps self-determination and the path towards statehood alive. That can provide stability for the wider Middle East, and the rest of the world. But it is also a moment of intense fragility. The peace plan must continue to be fully implemented.
And Europe must keep playing its part. We have not, and will never, stand idly. As the biggest donor of humanitarian aid to Gaza, we must keep delivering at scale and with speed in cooperation with international partners and legitimate Palestinian representatives, while pushing to make sure that this peace plan holds.
Peace is possible. And Europe has a role to play.
Thank you.

 
 
Compliments of the European Parliament.The post (European) Parliament will deliver – President Metsola to EU leaders first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

By Conny Olovsson and Alexander Popov
The economist Robert Lucas famously wrote that “Once one starts to think about economic growth, it is hard to think about anything else.” The Nobel committee seems to agree. For the second year in a row, it has chosen to honour work on economic growth. This ECB Blog post looks at the research of this year’s laureates.

Last Monday, the Royal Swedish Academy awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences to three laureates. The committee singled out Joel Mokyr “for having identified the prerequisites for sustained growth through technological progress”, and Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt “for the theory of sustained growth through creative destruction”. The winning research is highly relevant for the euro area economy. Just recently, for example, Philippe Aghion took part in a discussion at the ECB Forum on Central Banking on how to tap Europe’s growth potential. He also co-authored an earlier ECB Blog post on Europe’s prospects of becoming a green technology leader.
While differing somewhat in both method and scope, in their overall body of work the three laureates take on some of the biggest questions an economist can ask: why do some countries grow faster than others? How can countries not only achieve economic prosperity, but also maintain it?
Their answer to these trillion-dollar questions can be summed up in one word: technology, emerging from an ever-expanding pool of ideas and knowledge. When first proposed in the 1960s, this notion represented a quantum leap. Earlier models of economic growth, such as the canonical one by Robert Solow (himself a Nobel Prize winner in 1987), took technological progress as given. Economists, known for their love of Greek words, call this process “exogenous”, or “from outside”. In contrast, the ever-growing strand of research that formalized the genesis and rise of new technologies (including the 2018 Nobel Prize winner Paul Romer’s pioneering model of R&D-driven growth) looks at “endogenous” growth, or growth generated “from inside”. Standing on the shoulders of giants, this year’s laureates have built on that legacy.
The lessons of the Industrial Revolution
The economic historian Joel Mokyr has studied the question of how growth came about and took hold through the lens of the Industrial Revolution,[1] arguably one of the most interesting economic episodes in human history. For millennia, standards of living remained consistently flat. Economic growth was limited and temporary (i.e. it was not “sustained”). However, at some point in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the world entered a phase of sustained growth and rising living standards (see Chart 1).[2] It was obvious that the striking growth in income ushered in by this event was spurred by dramatic technology-driven improvements to labour productivity. And yet, back when Mokyr was embarking on his academic career, it was far from clear why the Industrial Revolution happened when it did. Even more puzzling was why it happened in Europe and not in China or India, each of which accounted for a larger share of global GDP in the mid-18th century.
Chart 1

Global average GDP per capita over the long run

Source: Our World in Data

Mokyr came up with an answer that can be summarised as follows: for sustained economic growth, new technologies must not only be invented, but also taken up and maintained. Because existing elites often push back against technological innovation, new ideas must take root quickly. Otherwise, they can fade away. Take the steam engine, often seen as the paradigmatic invention of the Industrial Revolution. First of all, someone had to come up with the idea of a new apparatus able to transform heat energy into mechanical work. Second, and crucially, the device had to be both practical and profitable. To this end, new equipment had to be built, installed, operated, maintained and repaired. This had to be done by expert craftsmen. In an age in which machinery was custom-made, all of this depended on a trained and experienced workforce.
And it is here that Europe – and England in particular – excelled in the early 19th century. It could draw on a critical mass of artisans and engineers. Mokyr calls the members of this class “Upper Tail Human Capital”. These were not the social elites, who were educated but uninterested in technological progress, nor the common workers, who were largely illiterate, but rather those who were open to new ideas and educated enough to understand new technologies and spread the word. Thanks to its apprenticeship structures, its world-class universities, its numerous scientific societies and its penchant for publishing and exchanging ideas, England had built up a critical mass of scientists and craftsmen who not only talked among themselves and worked together, but who also transformed these ideas into commercial products. This gave rise to the knowledge and skills that were the chief source of technical human capital in this age. Between 1750 and 1825, English industry became a hotbed of innovation. And it emerging as an unrivalled market for applying and improving on new ideas.
Mokyr’s major contribution is thus that economic growth through technological innovation depends on generating new ideas and on maintaining knowledge that can then be passed on. In contrast, before the Industrial Revolution, many useful technologies were deployed without any real understanding of how or why they worked. Mokyr also points out that new inventions often replace old technologies and can thus disrupt existing ways of working. New technologies tend to face resistance from entrenched groups who see their privileges under threat. For sustained growth to take hold, societies must therefore be open to new ideas, allow intellectual exchange and support the incremental build-up of both scientific and engineering expertise.
The role of “creative destruction”
While Mokyr’s work makes a historical case for the primacy of ideas and knowledge in enabling technological progress, Aghion and Howitt take this further. They drill into the precise mechanisms whereby innovation generates economic growth.
The core ideas for which they were honoured by the Nobel committee can be found in their landmark 1992 paper.[3] Here, they took an old idea from Joseph Schumpeter – that capitalism advances through constant disruption – and used it to build a rigorous economic model.
In their framework, growth does not happen smoothly or automatically. Rather, it is driven by a never-ending race to innovate. Entrepreneurs and firms invest in research and development because the rewards are big: a successful innovation temporarily brings extraordinary rewards – so-called monopoly profits – until everyone else catches up. But every successful new technology also wipes out the value of its predecessors – “creative destruction” in the world of Aghion and Howitt. In contrast to Romer’s model, where growth comes from the creation of new product varieties, in their model growth arises from a continual process of quality-improving innovations whereby old technologies are replaced by new ones, which build and expand on prior knowledge. So it is that innovation creates economic value not only for the innovators, but also for society as a whole. And this motivates subsidies to R&D.
This churn is both the engine and the cost of progress. Innovation raises productivity and living standards. At the same time, it destroys existing firms, displaces workers and leads to periods of adjustment. Growth, in other words, is not painless, and progress goes hand in hand with turbulence.
The policy implications are complex. For example, in a highly competitive environment the pay-off from investing in innovation soon disappears, making innovation unprofitable. Weak competition, meanwhile, also deters innovation because monopolists do not feel threatened enough to innovate. Stronger patent rights can spur innovation, but too much protection can entrench monopolies and slow the pace of change. A careful combination of competition, openness, subsidies and social insurance is therefore needed to keep the engine of creative destruction running.
These ideas have a wide range of real-world applications. For example, in his later work[4] Aghion combined the idea of “creative destruction” with climate modelling. Here, he showed the benefit of subsidising research on green technologies until clean energy can outcompete dirty energy, demonstrating how his theories can be applied to the “green transition”.[5] Today, the ongoing resource-intensive “gold rush” in Artificial Intelligence among a few very innovative companies running neck-and-neck with each other bears out the Schumpeterian notion that innovation – regardless of how useful it ultimately turns out to be – is at its best when a market is neither monopolistic nor overly competitive.
In defence of science, technology and growth
This year’s Nobel laureates teach us an important lesson: sustained growth cannot and should not be taken for granted. Indeed, for most of human history economic stagnation was the norm. Overall, their work warns us to take heed of the factors that can impede or even destroy economic growth. These include monopoly power, restrictions to expanding knowledge and bad economic policy.
This year’s award also comes on the heels of the 2024 Nobel Prize awarded to Daron Acemoglu, David Robinson and Simon Johnson. Their work underscored the key role played by competent and independent institutions – for instance, by protecting property rights, placing constraints on the power of elites and ensuring credible, predictable, and rule-based policy – in generating and maintaining growth and prosperity. It is rare to see two consecutive awards for research on such similar topics. It is almost as if the Nobel committee is sending out a warning to a world that has seemingly grown sceptical of science and weary of technology and is all too willing to entertain the idea of degrowth.
The lessons for us Europeans could not be clearer. A mere century ago, Europe was home to some of the world’s most innovative companies, its top universities and its deepest capital markets. But the continent that gave rise to the Industrial Revolution is today seen as a growth laggard and an example of how technological progress can be squandered. To regain Europe’s reputation for economic excellence, we need to boost innovation and competitiveness through increased R&D investment and streamlined regulation that supports business dynamism. And we need to do so even at the cost of some disruption. All of which, incidentally, very much chimes with the conclusions from last year’s Draghi report.[6] This year’s Nobel Prize winners would no doubt agree.
The views expressed in each blog entry are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Riksbank, the European Central Bank or the Eurosystem.
Check out The ECB Blog and subscribe for future posts.
For topics relating to banking supervision, why not have a look at The Supervision Blog?

See, e.g. Mokyr, J. (1990), The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress; Mokyr, J. (2002), The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy; and Mokyr, J. (2016), A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy.
While economists typically measure economic growth in terms of changes in GDP, note that growth also includes other aspects such as new medicines, better food, safer cars and many other improvements in welfare.
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction”, Econometrica 60, 323—351.
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Burzstyn, L. and Hemous, D. (2012), “The Environment and Directed Technical Change.” American Economic Review 102, 131—166.
For an expansion of this model, accounting for the role played by financial markets, see https://www.ecb.europa.eu//pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2686~c5be9e9591.en.pdf.
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en

 
Compliments of the European Central BankThe post ECB | Understanding sustained growth: the 2025 Nobel Prize and why it matters for Europe first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Speech by IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the 2025 Annual Meetings Plenary
Deputy Prime Minister Olavo Correia, thank you, and may my future travels take me to the beautiful shores of Cabo Verde and the soulful melodies of Cesária Évora—or perhaps even to a football victory chant! Congratulations to your national team for qualifying for the World Cup for the first time in your country’s history!
Dear Ajay, I cannot think of a better partner to have at the Bank than you! Thank you for your remarks and for your total and tireless focus on jobs.
As you point out Ajay, the world confronts a great demographic divide. Let’s look at a world map: first, we see a set of countries grappling with aging and shrinking populations; then, a group in the middle; and finally, large sections of Africa and parts of the Middle East and Central Asia where population growth is surging, as is a youthful workforce.
To our global membership, a very warm welcome—and let me state upfront that any insights I may share with you today reflect the collective wisdom of the IMF’s talented and dedicated team coming from 172 countries.
All IMF management and staff in this hall: please stand and be recognized—from our brand new First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz, to the rest of our senior management team, to all!
***
Since we last met here in this big hall on October 25, 2024, uncertainty has shot up-up-up—yet global sentiment is holding. In other words, we have a mix of anxiety and resilience. Today I would like to reflect on both.
First, the anxiety.
From technology to geopolitics to climate to trade, change is unsettling. The world trading system that delivered so much for so many is being shaken to its core—for many reasons, including because the playing field wasn’t truly level and the people left behind received too little help in retooling for new and better jobs.
We see assertive nontariff measures ranging from import licensing to export controls and port fees, with subsidy counts capturing only part of the picture. We see non-market industrial policies and exchange rate distortions.
And, of course, we have U.S. tariff rates shooting up this year. But here is a key fact: 188 of our 191 member countries have so far avoided tit-for-tat tariff actions.
Having noted that trade barriers hurt both growth and productivity, and having urged policymakers to preserve trade as an engine of growth, I welcome this restraint by most countries—although surely there will be more changes to come.
At this point, despite all the turbulence, an estimated 72 percent of world trade is still being conducted on most-favored-nation terms: countries take their lowest bilateral tariff rate and offer it to all of their trading partners. Simple, not complex.
Trade is not a zero-sum game. Provided firms can maintain diversified and robust supply chains, provided governments can retain their strategic autonomy and assist those who lose out from trade, and provided external balances are not unsustainably large, imports and exports enhance welfare. No wonder the current uncertainty around trade policies and the risk of losing trade as an engine of growth are creating anxiety.
So let me rotate to the resilience.
Despite the sweeping policy shifts we have seen this year, and defying many expert predictions, the global economy has held up reasonably well thus far. World growth is projected to slow from 3.3 percent last year to 3.2 percent in 2025 and 3.1 percent in 2026—slower than needed and below what we forecast one year ago, but not a dramatic slowdown.
One reason for this resilience has been private sector adaptability, as seen in the import frontloading, the stockbuilding, and the supply-chain strengthening. Years of robust profits have allowed exporters and importers to squeeze margins, cushioning the price impact of higher tariffs on consumers, at least for now.
The other reason is more of a double-edged sword: private sector investment in artificial intelligence, especially in the U.S., is booming. This is propping up U.S. and world growth and delivering supportive financial conditions for all.
This is where optimism—in this case about the genuine potential of AI—risks becoming complacency.
From the railways to the internet, the history of financial market responses to pathbreaking new technologies is a story of overestimation and market correction—here, for instance, we see a snapshot of the dotcom episode and its impact on growth. The world would be wise to manage such risks.
How? We need strong financial sector oversight, alert to excessive risk-taking and the growing links between banks, nonbanks, and crypto, and we need judicious monetary policy.
This and other cross-cutting advice punctuate our multilateral surveillance, where our World Economic Outlook, Global Financial Stability Report, and Fiscal Monitor—all released this week—shine light, lower the temperature, and propose a path forward.
Our bilateral surveillance, delivered via regular consultations with all our member countries—advanced, emerging, and low-income alike—as well as our Financial Sector Assessment Program, distills our multilateral advice into tailored policy recommendations country by country.
In meeting after meeting this week, I have advised finance ministers and central bank governors not only to mitigate the near-term risks but also to look beyond them—preserving independent, accountable, and effective institutions, and finding, capturing, and delivering the opportunity that change always brings.
We see three medium-term objectives:
• One, repairing governments’ finances. This is necessary so they can buffer new shocks and attend to pressing needs without driving up private sector borrowing costs. No finance minister should simply wait for faster growth to come to the rescue. On the contrary, fiscal consolidation can release resources to support private sector-led growth.
• Two, domestic and external rebalancing. This is necessary to ensure that excessive macroeconomic imbalances do not emerge as a spoiler. We need fiscal consolidation in some places, and policies to lift domestic demand in others.
• And three, lifting trend growth. This is essential for economies to generate more jobs, more public revenue, and better public and private debt sustainability.
Lifting growth requires three things: one, regulatory housecleaning to unleash private enterprise; two, deeper regional integration; and three, preparedness to harness AI.
Regulatory housecleaning and regional integration are closely interlinked, including because many of the rules and regulations that tie down private enterprise at home also restrict the movement of goods, services, people, capital, and ideas across borders—many regulations double up as nontariff barriers, and nontariff barriers are a key part of the unlevel global playing field.
In this new world of bilateral and plurilateral dealmaking, we see a diverse global trading landscape. Economies that are small and reliant on exports are at the receiving end of others, while those that are large and relatively less open—or control critical inputs to global supply chains—have negotiating power. Looking at this splash of dots showing countries by size of imports and trade openness, the bottom right quadrant is where we find the largest, least open economies.
Many countries are seeking to build strength and find voice through cohesion. Here we see a selection of the world’s trading blocs, each enjoying more size and heft than its member countries individually. Our advice to the world’s trading blocs? Reduce your internal frictions and press forward with integration for resilience and growth.
Finally, the other potential accelerator of global productivity growth is artificial intelligence. We at the Fund expect real gains, but our estimates are in a wide range—a global productivity growth uplift of 0.1–0.8 percentage points per year.
AI will also take away millions of today’s jobs, and policymakers need to help ease the transition. Old professions will fade. New ones will rise: big-data specialists, fintech engineers, machine-learning experts, and so on. Such churn is not uncommon. Recall how the automobile replaced the horse and buggy.
The key to maximizing the productivity gains and managing the fallout of AI is preparedness. Our research finds Singapore, the U.S., and Denmark in the lead, while many others trail behind. As a transmission line for global best practice, the IMF will assist all members, with a focus on managing the macroeconomic implications.
***
Internally, we are of course pressing forward with AI adoption of our own—including to put more knowledge at the fingertips of our members.
We are enhancing our productivity while preserving our trademark budget discipline. The IMF covers its operating expenses from own revenues—with zero reliance on annual appropriations—and maintains a deep commitment to leanness.
Despite the increasing complexity of the world economy and the expansion of the services we provide to our members, our administrative spending today is about the same size as 20 years ago.
Our work in capacity development includes operational advice, with almost 3,000 projects delivered in the last year; training, with over 500 courses serving over 19,000 officials over the same period; and convening, which last February included our first-ever emerging market conference, in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, co-hosted with Minister Al‑Jadaan.
Our lending activity, anchored by macroeconomic adjustment and conditionality, currently includes programs with 43 countries, with $37 billion approved since last October, of which almost $5 billion has been to nine low-income countries.
In an uncertain world, a well-resourced IMF is essential. In that regard, let me today repeat two requests to our members:
• First: on our quota base. We are pressing to get the 50 percent quota increase agreed last year across the finish line. I ask all member countries that have not yet ratified the increase to please do so expeditiously.
• Second: on our Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, our main vehicle for concessional lending to low-income countries. We are pressing forward with the reforms agreed last year to put the PRGT on a path to self-sustainability, which include, one, distributing up to $9.4 billion to an interim account over a five-year period and, two, getting to a point where 90 percent of the principal in this account is promised to the PRGT. To date, 20 countries—most recently India and, just yesterday, China—have provided assurances totaling 43 percent. But broader support from the membership remains essential to reach 90 percent. I ask you for this support.
Finally, there is one further matter that I want to bring to your attention, and that is the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust—CCRT—our vehicle to provide grants to help low-income member countries pay debt service owed to us if they face natural or public health disasters. Quite rightly, the CCRT was depleted during the pandemic.
Our ambition must be to remain able to assist our poorest members when they face situations beyond their control. The amounts needed here are in the millions, not billions, and would make a huge difference. So now, as you return to your capitals, I ask you this: please consider opening a discussion on CCRT replenishment, for the greater good.
***
Let me end with something lighter.
In March last year, I gave a speech at Cambridge University on “The Economic Possibilities For My Grandchildren” in which we animated some famous words from the great John Maynard Keynes—here we have that synthetic audio again.
And now, 18 months later, please see our new AI avatar of Mr. Keynes, strolling casually through this very hall!
No better way to end than with this little bit of fun, I think: despite all the anxiety that change brings, let us be optimistic! Let us feel our spirits lifted by the human progress that the coming year will surely bring!
Thank you!
 
Compliments of the International Monetary FundThe post IMF | Resilience in a World of Uncertainty first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

By Pauline Avril, Maciej Grodzicki, Lukas Jürgensmeier and Alessandro Ricci

Banks have bought back over €60 billion of their own shares since 2020, which is a sign of the industry’s confidence. However, share buybacks can also reduce the capital banks have available for potential crises. This blog post examines how euro area banks’ share prices reacted to these buybacks.

Share buybacks indicate that a bank’s management is confident in its financial soundness and future prospects. Also, buybacks are subject to approval from a bank’s supervisors. By reducing equity, share buybacks mechanically increase the return on equity, which investors may see as a positive sign. However, by decreasing capital buffers, buybacks can reduce a bank’s safety margin, potentially leading to adverse market reactions. That’s why share buybacks matter from both a supervisory and a financial stability perspective.
Why do banks buy back their own shares?
Share buybacks can be particularly appealing to investors when a bank’s price-to-book ratio is below 100%. This means the market considers the bank to be worth less than the total value of its net assets. In some cases, this could indicate that a bank is close to financial difficulty or that investors doubt that the bank’s assets are accurately valued. More often, however, a price-to-book ratio below 100% suggests that the bank cannot earn the cost of capital committed by investors. For investors, a buyback can be an opportunity to reallocate capital to other investments which offer a better trade-off between risk and expected returns.
However, when the price-to-book ratio is above 100%, the higher valuation indicates that the bank is generating returns above its cost of capital. In this case, shareholders are likely to benefit if the bank reinvests its earnings in the business rather than paying them out. In other words, buybacks are less appealing when the share price is above the book value.
To understand how markets react to banks’ share buybacks, we use an event study approach. Specifically, we look at market price movements – share prices and volatility – around the dates when share buybacks are announced and executed. This blog post summarises the main findings.
Share buybacks by euro area banks: key facts
Between 2020 and 2024, 21 large, publicly listed euro area banks included in the EURO STOXX Banks Index announced 75 buyback programmes. Through these programmes, the banks returned €61.6 billion of capital to shareholders. In this timeframe, on average, each bank that bought back its own shares distributed 8.35% of its Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital as of the first quarter of 2020.
As profits increased over this period, banks steadily expanded the total size of the buyback programmes each year – measured in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 1, panels a) and b). The rise in the value of buybacks also came with more frequent buyback announcements, which increased each year until 2023 (panel c). Finally, the growing magnitude of buybacks has coincided with the increasing bank profitability, illustrated by the rising return on equity (panel d).
Chart 1­­

Overview of executed share buyback programmes and profitability by year

Sources: Bloomberg, ECB calculations.
Notes: Based on a sample of 21 listed euro area banks included in the EURO STOXX Banks Index. Panel d): simple average of the sample banks’ return on equity.

How did markets react to the announcement of banks’ buybacks?
Our analysis shows that when a bank announces a share buyback, its share price increases by 2.5% relative to the EURO STOXX Banks Index in the five trading days following the announcement (Chart 2, panel a). This measure, called the abnormal return, ensures we do not wrongly attribute changes affecting the share prices of the entire industry to an individual bank’s share buyback announcement. For context, the benchmark index yielded an annualised return of 8.7% over the same period. This highlights that share buybacks accounted for a significant part of total returns on bank shares.
As 43% of buyback announcements coincide with the release of quarterly earnings reports, i.e. earnings calls, our analysis distinguishes between these events. Therefore, we separated the effect of buyback announcements from earnings news. The findings indicate that cumulative abnormal returns follow the same pattern, whether or not the buyback coincides with earnings calls (Chart 2, panel b). This suggests that the effect of buybacks continues even when factoring in other market-relevant announcements.
We also found that the effect of buyback announcements depends on the bank’s price-to-book ratio (panel c). As we would expect, the positive impact of buyback announcements on share prices is stronger for banks trading below book value than for those with price-to-book ratios above 100%.
Chart 2

Buyback announcements – short-term effect on cumulative abnormal returns

Source: ECB calculations.Note: Vertical lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Contrary to the effect on share prices, the impact of buyback announcements on implied share price volatility – a measure that quantifies the market’s expectations about the share’s future volatility – varies depending on whether these announcements coincide with earnings calls. As shown in Chart 3, panel b), stand-alone buyback announcements lead to a temporary increase in share price volatility. This reaction is plausible, because the announcement conveys new information for the market to digest.
However, when buyback announcements coincide with earnings calls, they are associated with a decline in share price volatility. This effect is consistent with the literature on earnings announcements,[1] which shows a decrease in volatility immediately after an announcement.
Chart 3

Buyback announcements – short-term effect of buyback announcements on implied volatility vs. the day before the announcement

Source: ECB calculations.
Note: Vertical lines represent the 95% confidence intervals.

How did markets react to the execution of banks’ buybacks?
When companies deal in their own shares, it can distort share prices. To address this, the EU Market Abuse Regulation provides safeguards aimed at limiting the market impact of buyback trades.[2] To avoid conflicts of interest, banks usually outsource the repurchase of shares to an independent broker or a separate business unit.
That is why we also examined whether executing a share buyback has an impact on the share’s price and volatility. Specifically, we evaluated whether there is a relationship between the number of shares repurchased (as a share of the daily trading volume) and (i) abnormal returns and (ii) implied volatility.
The sample used for this analysis differs from that used in the previous section. Given limited data accessibility, we use transaction-level data on the share buybacks carried out by four large euro area banks between 2020 and 2024. These data are publicly available on the banks’ websites.
Overall, we find no difference in abnormal returns between days with and without share buybacks (Chart 4, panel a). Furthermore, an econometric analysis confirms no statistically significant relationship between abnormal returns and the share of buyback trades in total trading activity. Together, these findings indicate that the execution of share buybacks does not systematically affect share prices.
Brokers responsible for executing buybacks are often rewarded for buying back shares at a lower average price. When a share’s price drops, brokers are incentivised to buy more shares. These purchases could explain why buyback execution is associated with lower share price volatility (Chart 4, panel b).
Chart 4

Distribution of abnormal returns and implied volatility on trading days with and without share buyback executions

Source: ECB calculations.

Overall, the results of our study are largely consistent with the relevant literature.[3] The positive market reaction to share buybacks is stronger for banks whose shares trade below book value. This supports the signalling hypothesis, according to which a buyback programme is a sign that management and regulators have greater confidence in the bank’s financial health. Our results also show that, for the sample of four large euro area banks, buyback trading activity does not have an undue impact on market prices – which is in line with the objectives of the Market Abuse Regulation.
The views expressed in each blog entry are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem.
Check out The ECB Blog and subscribe for future posts.
For topics relating to banking supervision, why not have a look at The Supervision Blog?

See Donders, M., Kouwenberg, R., Vorst, T. (2000), “Options and earnings announcements: an empirical study of volatility, trading volume, open interest and liquidity”, European Financial Management, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 149-171, and Dubinsky, A., Johannes, M. Kaeck, A. and Seeger, N. (2019), “Option pricing of earnings announcement risks”, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 32, Issue 2, pp. 646-687.
Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 1), and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1052 of 8 March 2016 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the conditions applicable to buy-back programmes and stabilisation measures (OJ L 173, 30.6.2016, p. 34).
See Webb, E. (2008), “Bank stock repurchase extent and measures of corporate governance”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 180–199, and Andriosopoulos, D. and Lasfer, M. (2015), “The market valuation of share repurchases in Europe”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 55, pp. 327-339.

 
Compliments of the European Central BankThe post ECB | How Do Markets React to Banks’ Share Buybacks? first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.