Johanne Evrard
Macro Prud Policy&Financial Stability
- Division
Financial Regulation and Policy
- Current Position
-
Team Lead - Financial Stability
- Fields of interest
-
Other Special Topics,International Economics,Public Economics
- Education
- 2010-2012
MA in Economics (Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium and Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain)
- 2008-2010
BA in Economics and Management (Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium)
- Professional experience
- 2019-2023
Lead economist - Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN), Eurogroup secretariat, European Commission
- 2015-2019
Financial stability expert - Financial Regulation and Policies Division, Directorate General Macroprudential Policy and Financial Stability, European Central Bank
- 2017-2018
Policy officer - Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services, and Capital Markets Union (FISMA), European Commission
- 2013-2015
Economist - European Institutions & Fora Division, Directorate General International and European Relations, European Central Bank
- 2012-2013
Policy advisor - Cabinet of Deputy Prime Minister, Belgian Federal Government
- 13 April 2026
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 33Details
- Abstract
- This article describes the current landscape of tokenised assets, illustrating the potential benefits across the entire asset value chain – from issuance to distribution and sales. As the Eurosystem is working towards enabling the settlement of distributed ledger technology (DLT) transactions using central bank money with a pilot by the end of the third quarter of 2026, we examine key enablers and barriers to unlocking the benefits of tokenisation for a digital capital market in Europe while safeguarding financial stability. These include the need for on-chain secondary market liquidity to enable scaling, as well as adaptations and harmonisation of the regulatory framework. Based on these findings, this article highlights how tokenisation, if it scales more widely, could contribute to the savings and investments union (SIU) agenda in two major ways. First, it offers an opportunity to create a European digital asset ecosystem from the early stages, in contrast to the fragmented market for traditional financial instruments, which developed from national markets. Second, it has the potential to improve market liquidity and efficiency, which can ultimately increase the scalability and development of capital markets in Europe. In turn, this could facilitate a more efficient allocation of capital within the economy. Lastly, developing a DLT ecosystem relying on European governance and based on assets denominated in euro is essential to maintaining monetary sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Finally, this article discusses the role of public authorities – including central banks, in providing the conditions for innovation to develop in a safe and resilient manner.
- JEL Code
- F36 : International Economics→International Finance→Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
O33 : Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth→Technological Change, Research and Development, Intellectual Property Rights→Technological Change: Choices and Consequences, Diffusion Processes
- 13 April 2026
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLE - No. 33Details
- Abstract
- Tokenisation holds the promise to automate the issuance process for bonds, reduce settlement times and enable more efficient and cheaper processes for conducting transactions. Given the transformative potential of tokenisation and distributed ledger technology (DLT) for capital markets and for the savings and investments union, this article investigates empirically whether the tokenisation of bonds – while still at an early stage – improves bond issuance efficiency and market liquidity. The tokenised bond market is currently still small but has seen an uptick in issuance over the past two years. To overcome the challenge presented by the limited availability of data on tokenisation, we construct a unique dataset for our analysis, primarily composed of financial and non-financial corporate bonds issued predominantly in Europe. Employing a matching procedure at the issuer-bond level, we ensure that tokenised and conventional bonds are comparable before assessing whether tokenisation has the potential to boost issuance efficiency, for example by automating processes, and to improve market liquidity by lowering entry and transaction barriers. We find that tokenised bonds reduce borrowing costs and improve market liquidity, but with no visible reduction in operational costs (all relative to the group of matched conventional bonds). Given that the market is still in its infancy, our results indicate that there may be greater benefits as the market grows. However, the future impact of tokenisation and the realisation of its potential benefits in terms of efficiency and liquidity will hinge on the underlying infrastructure and the possibility for the market to scale. Central banks initiatives – such as the Eurosystem’s explorations on the acceptance of DLT-based collateral and initiatives to improve and modernise market infrastructures - serve as key enablers that could support a scaling up of the market.
- JEL Code
- G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
G32 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Financing Policy, Financial Risk and Risk Management, Capital and Ownership Structure, Value of Firms, Goodwill
O33 : Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth→Technological Change, Research and Development, Intellectual Property Rights→Technological Change: Choices and Consequences, Diffusion Processes
- 13 April 2026
- MACROPRUDENTIAL BULLETIN - ARTICLEDetails
- Abstract
- This overview of the [33rd] Macroprudential Bulletin explores how the different articles in this issue speak to the opportunities and challenges presented by Europe’s rapidly evolving digital financial ecosystem. In particular, the overview explains how tokenisation – and DLT more specifically – can support deeper, more integrated and more efficient EU capital markets, noting that its benefits will only be realised safely if European policy action keeps pace in key areas.
- JEL Code
- F36 : International Economics→International Finance→Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
O33 : Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth→Technological Change, Research and Development, Intellectual Property Rights→Technological Change: Choices and Consequences, Diffusion Processes
- 30 March 2026
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 383Details
- Abstract
- This paper provides an evidence-based assessment of the EU supervisory landscape by combining a comprehensive mapping of supervisory models and authorities with an analysis of capital market players across key sectors, including market infrastructures, asset management, and crypto-asset service providers. It documents a highly complex and fragmented supervisory architecture, characterised by a wide variety of national supervisory models and multiple authorities operating across the Union. While regulatory harmonisation through the Single Rulebook has progressed, supervisory responsibilities for capital market players remain largely national, with limited and uneven EU-level powers. This institutional fragmentation is increasingly misaligned with market realities, as capital markets have become more cross-border and integrated, albeit with important differences across sectors. The paper develops an analytical framework to assess options for a review of the EU capital markets supervisory architecture. Based on the sectoral mapping, it distils a few guiding principles for supervisory integration: a consistent approach based on common criteria (such as size and cross-border relevance) while accounting for sectoral specificities, and close cooperation between EU and national authorities. Finally, it conducts a sensitivity analysis around alternative degrees of supervisory integration and calibration criteria, and discusses the governance arrangements needed to make integrated supervision effective in practice. The analysis shows that a more integrated supervisory framework could deliver four key benefits: enhanced supervisory effectiveness, improved supervisory efficiency, reduced complexity and compliance burdens for firms operating across jurisdictions, and the removal of supervisory barriers that currently hinder the cross-border integration of EU capital markets.
- JEL Code
- E61 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook→Policy Objectives, Policy Designs and Consistency, Policy Coordination
F36 : International Economics→International Finance→Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
G20 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→General
G23 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Non-bank Financial Institutions, Financial Instruments, Institutional Investors
- 30 March 2026
- THE ECB BLOGDetails
- JEL Code
- G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G20 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→General
G30 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→General
F30 : International Economics→International Finance→General
- 13 February 2026
- THE ECB BLOGDetails
- JEL Code
- E50 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit→General
G20 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→General
G30 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→General
- 6 August 2025
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 373Details
- Abstract
- The European Union (EU) economy depends heavily on bank funding. For this reason, strengthening EU equity markets as an alternative funding source has been a policy priority under the Capital Markets Union (CMU) agenda, and more recently a key feature of the Savings and Investment Union (SIU). EU listed equity markets are smaller and structurally different from those in the United States (US), with differing market capitalisations of listed firms and differences in the number of companies listed, stemming from lower initial public offering (IPO) activity in Europe. This paper aims to understand the drivers behind the EU-US listing gap, focusing on two aspects: (1) the general firm-level benefits of listing, and (2) whether pre-listing financing opportunities in the EU are underdeveloped, hindering firm growth and ultimately market depth. This paper first puts forward an empirical analysis to assess how a firm’s decision to list impacts various key performance indicators, with a view to assessing the implications of listing for the economy at large. Second, it zooms in on innovative firms to shed light on the primary challenges faced by EU startups in their funding pipelines, with a focus on late-stage equity financing and venture capital (VC) markets. Focusing on the euro area (EA) as a proxy to derive broader benefits of listing in the EU, we find that EA companies’ key profitability measures, employment, innovation capacity and productivity all increase after listing – and are thus indicative of wider economic benefits. This is, however, associated with challenges for the long-term investment strategies of listed companies, such as potential short-termism – a topic widely studied in the literature. Moreover, a comparison with the US suggests that, while the benefits and risks of listing are qualitatively similar on the other side of the Atlantic, EA companies seem to benefit somewhat less from listing than their US peers. […]
- JEL Code
- G10 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→General
G30 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→General
L10 : Industrial Organization→Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance→General
L50 : Industrial Organization→Regulation and Industrial Policy→General
G24 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Investment Banking, Venture Capital, Brokerage, Ratings and Ratings Agencies
G32 : Financial Economics→Corporate Finance and Governance→Financing Policy, Financial Risk and Risk Management, Capital and Ownership Structure, Value of Firms, Goodwill
L21 : Industrial Organization→Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior→Business Objectives of the Firm
L25 : Industrial Organization→Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior→Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope
- 27 June 2025
- THE ECB BLOGDetails
- JEL Code
- G15 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→International Financial Markets
- 11 March 2025
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 369Last updated on 19 May 2025Details
- Abstract
- The European Union needs a single market for capital. Well-developed and integrated capital markets are necessary to support economic growth and resilience across the region, while offering benefits for businesses, households and financial stability. This paper examines the importance of the CMU for achieving five strategic objectives: supporting innovation and productivity, financing the twin transition, shoring up pension savings, strengthening alternatives to bank financing, and fostering convergence and inclusion. It highlights the progress made over the past decade, the challenges encountered and the renewed impetus behind the CMU initiative. The paper proposes concrete steps for moving forward, building on long-standing priorities supported by the ECB and the current policy debate on the CMU. First, it suggests facilitating access to capital markets by creating a new standard for a European savings and investment product. Second, it emphasises the importance of expanding capital markets across borders. This would be facilitated by making improvements towards achieving a more integrated supervisory ecosystem, establishing an integrated trading and post-trading landscape that leverages potential benefits of the digital transition, and a more active securitisation market that does not compromise on financial stability. Third, the paper highlights the need to channel capital towards innovative and competitive firms by increasing opportunities for equity and venture capital financing. These actions should be complemented by longer-term initiatives. They would include the ongoing commitment to address obstacles stemming from the lack of harmonisation of insolvency laws, corporate and taxation regimes, designing a safe asset for Europe, completing the banking union, and promoting financial literacy and inclusion.
- JEL Code
- E61 : Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics→Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook→Policy Objectives, Policy Designs and Consistency, Policy Coordination
F36 : International Economics→International Finance→Financial Aspects of Economic Integration
G18 : Financial Economics→General Financial Markets→Government Policy and Regulation
G24 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Investment Banking, Venture Capital, Brokerage, Ratings and Ratings Agencies
G51 : Financial Economics
O16 : Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth→Economic Development→Financial Markets, Saving and Capital Investment, Corporate Finance and Governance
- 11 April 2018
- OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES - No. 208Details
- Abstract
- On 24 November 2015, the European Commission published a proposal to establish a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). The proposal provides for the creation of a Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) with a target size of 0.8% of covered deposits in the euro area and the progressive mutualisation of its resources until a fully-fledged scheme is introduced by 2024. This paper investigates the potential impact and appropriateness of several features of EDIS in the steady state. The main findings are the following: first, a fully-funded DIF would be sufficient to cover payouts even in a severe banking crisis. Second, risk-based contributions can and should internalise specificities of banks and banking systems. This would tackle moral hazard and facilitate moving forward with risk sharing measures towards the completion of the Banking Union in parallel with risk reduction measures; this approach would also be preferable to lowering the target level of the DIF to take into account banking system specificities. Third, smaller and larger banks would not excessively contribute to EDIS relative to the amount of covered deposits in their balance sheet. Fourth, there would be no unwarranted systematic cross-subsidisation within EDIS in the sense of some banking systems systematically contributing less than they would benefit from the DIF. This result holds also when country-specific shocks are simulated. Fifth, under a mixed deposit insurance scheme composed of national deposit insurance funds bearing the first burden and a European deposit insurance fund intervening only afterwards, cross-subsidisation would increase relative to a fully-fledged EDIS. The key drivers behind these results are: i) a significant risk-reduction in the banking system and increase in banks' loss-absorbing capacity in the aftermath of the global financial crisis; ii) a super priority for covered deposits, further contributing to protect EDIS; iii) an appropriate design of risk-based contributions, benchmarked at the euro area level, following a "polluter-pays" approach.
- JEL Code
- G21 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Banks, Depository Institutions, Micro Finance Institutions, Mortgages
G28 : Financial Economics→Financial Institutions and Services→Government Policy and Regulation
- 2025
- Economic Letters
- 2025
- SUERF Policy Brief
- 2020
- Economic Policy
- 2018
- VoxEU column