Brussels: Europeans are famously good savers and reluctant investors. Across the Union households sit on something close to ten trillion euros in bank deposits and cash, money that earns little, funds even less, and rarely finds its way into the companies that need capital to grow. The European Commission’s answer is the Savings and Investments Union, the rebranded and broadened successor to the long-stalled Capital Markets Union, and 2026 is the year it stops being a slogan and starts becoming legislation.
The logic was set out bluntly in the competitiveness report Mario Draghi delivered in 2024, which warned that Europe cannot finance its defence, green and digital ambitions out of public budgets and bank loans alone. American households hold far more of their wealth in equities and funds; European households hold far more in deposits. The gap is not a cultural curiosity but a structural drag, because savings parked in current accounts do not flow to scale-ups, infrastructure or the energy transition. The Savings and Investments Union is the Commission’s attempt to redirect that river without ordering anyone to take risks they do not want.
The toolkit is deliberately practical. Brussels wants simple, low-cost pan-European savings and investment products that ordinary people can open as easily as a bank account, with transparent fees and tax treatment that does not punish cross-border holdings. It wants to revive securitisation, the much-maligned practice of bundling loans so banks can lend more, this time with guardrails meant to avoid the excesses of 2008. And it wants more integrated supervision so that capital can move across the bloc’s still-fragmented markets without colliding with 27 different rulebooks.
That last ambition is where the project meets its hardest resistance. Centralising supervision, even partially, under a body such as the European Securities and Markets Authority touches a nerve in national capitals that guard their financial centres jealously. Tax treatment of savings remains a member-state competence, and several governments are wary of anything that looks like harmonisation by the back door. Smaller exchanges fear being swallowed; consumer advocates warn that nudging cautious savers toward markets they do not understand could expose them to losses they cannot absorb, especially if products are sold aggressively.
There is also a question the architecture cannot fully answer: whether Europeans actually want to invest. Decades of low financial literacy, painful memories of mis-sold products and a deep cultural preference for the safety of a deposit will not be reversed by a new account type alone. Supporters argue that the point is to remove the friction and let preferences shift gradually; sceptics counter that without better financial education and genuine trust, the plumbing will be built and the water will not flow.
The next milestones are concrete. The Commission is expected to bring forward proposals on savings and investment accounts and a review of the securitisation framework during the year, with the financial-services side of the executive framing them as a test of whether the Union can match its strategic rhetoric with the money to back it. If the deposits stay put, Europe’s grand plans for autonomy and competitiveness will keep running into the same wall: ambition the public mood, and the public’s savings, are not yet willing to fund.




