Johanne Evrard
Macro Prud Policy&Financial Stability
- Division
Financial Regulation and Policy
- Current Position
-
Senior Financial Stability Expert
- 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)
- 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
- 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