When the EU’s Capital Markets Union was relaunched just over a year ago – rebadged as the „Savings and Investment Union“ – hopes stirred among banks, stock exchanges and investors that meaningful progress toward a true financial single market might finally be on the horizon. But that early enthusiasm has long since faded – at least outside Brussels. Disillusionment has set in, and many now fear that the coming months will be just as stagnant as the ten years since then-EU Commissioner Jonathan Hill first unveiled the project back in 2015. Financial professionals feel vindicated in their scepticism toward the EU, lamenting the glacial pace of reform. Much, they argue, is too timid – most of it too slow. For some, it feels like something out of Samuel Beckett: endlessly waiting for what’s been promised – only in vain.

The impatience and disappointment are understandable. But the dissatisfaction also reveals a degree of political naivety. Some market participants seemed to believe that a Capital Markets, Savings, or Investment Union would amount to a sudden breakthrough – promptly transforming savers into investors who could move their money seamlessly across deep, integrated markets. But let’s be honest: this is no semester project. It’s a generational challenge. Against that backdrop, much of the criticism levelled at the European Commission falls flat.

Take, for example, the recurring claim that the Commission’s proposals don't go far enough. Consider securitisation: calls for a full abandonment of higher capital buffers to account for agency risk – or for dropping due diligence and transparency requirements – had little chance of surviving the political process. Legislative proposals still need approval from both the Council and the European Parliament. Similarly, accusations that Brussels is too slow are only partly justified. The Commission’s roadmap for the Savings and Investment Union is in fact quite brisk – and so far, it’s sticking to it, from startup and scale-up initiatives to the revision of the EU securitisation framework. The fact that Europe’s legislative machinery moves slowly reflects the nature of its decision-making – and its commitment to democratic process.

In fact recent market developments may well prove more effective in accelerating capital market integration than regulatory efforts alone. One such trend is the ongoing reallocation of institutional capital from the US to the EU – a correction of past overexposure to US assets, but possibly the beginning of a broader shift. Amid an increasingly unpredictable political climate in the US, Europe may emerge as a haven of stability. Another factor: the growing availability of European „safe assets“ as outstanding bonds issued by the European Commission, the EIB and the ESM have now surpassed the one-trillion-euro mark. Politically, „eurobonds“ may still be taboo – but in the markets, instruments of that nature are already traded.

Of course, there are many political levers that could speed up integration. But most of them aren’t in Brussels – they’re in the national capitals. Two reforms, in particular, could provide the decisive push toward a real Capital Markets Union: harmonising Europe’s fragmented insolvency laws, and introducing tax-incentivised retirement savings products. In both cases, the key to implementation lies not with the EU institutions but with national governments. Which means the real complaints about the lack of momentum shouldn’t be directed at Brussels – but at Rome, Paris and Berlin.