The Fact
Three European supervisory authorities have just published a joint warning. Three "watchdogs" who divide up the work: the EBA oversees banks, EIOPA handles insurance, and ESMA watches over financial markets. As ESMA states in its official communication, these institutions are jointly calling for strengthened governance and harmonized controls throughout the European Union.
Their target? IT and technological risks related to what is called "frontier" artificial intelligence. The simplest image: imagine software capable of learning on its own, like a student who absorbs a lesson without a teacher, and of making certain decisions almost autonomously — without a human validating each step. These systems are making their entry into European finance. The authorities want to set the framework now, rather than discovering the flaws after an incident.
Why this topic concerns you, even from a distance
AI is no longer a laboratory curiosity. In a bank or an asset management company, it is already used to assess the risk of a loan, to spot suspicious movements on a bank card, or to place orders automatically. In other words: it directly affects the money that circulates, and therefore, indirectly, everyone's savings and investments.
The risk is not only that a robot "makes a mistake." It is that an error spreads. Compare it to a house of dominoes: one piece falls and knocks over the next in a matter of seconds. If several institutions rely on the same automated tools, the same weakness can repeat itself everywhere at the same time. This is exactly the scenario the regulators want to anticipate.
To give an order of magnitude: according to industry estimates, a large European bank processes millions of transactions every day based on automated systems. A technical failure, even a brief one, can therefore have chain reactions across the entire financial network. This is not a doomsday scenario, it is simply the reality of a highly interconnected system — like a neighborhood where all the buildings share the same electrical grid.
To place these changes in a broader context, our economic analyses in "JARVIS Readings" decode these trends on a daily basis.
What the authorities are concretely asking for
Behind the word "governance" there is a simple idea: knowing who decides and who controls. Concretely, the three authorities insist on several common-sense points:
- A clear person in charge. Each institution must be able to say who, internally, is accountable for the AI systems it uses. No "it's IT" or "it's the business side": an identified person or team.
- Homogeneous controls. Today, the way these tools are tested and monitored varies from one country to another. The goal is to have comparable rules everywhere, to avoid "holes in the net" between jurisdictions.
- Vigilance on IT security. A poorly protected AI system is a gateway for intruders. The security of data and access becomes as important as financial soundness itself.
- Traceability. Being able to explain why a decision was made — a bit like a logbook — so that it can be verified and, if needed, corrected.
Nothing spectacular, then: this is groundwork, preventive work, aimed at closing blind spots before they become a problem.
A global movement, not just a European one
Europe is not acting alone. On the other side of the Atlantic, the SEC — the watchdog of the American stock market — is continuing its work on adapting the regulatory framework to new technological realities. It has notably relaunched the work of its advisory committee dedicated to small businesses, and a report to Congress sets out recommendations to improve these companies' access to capital markets.
In the United Kingdom, the FCA is moving forward on its side with a package of reforms aimed at making stock markets more transparent. Here again, the spirit is the same: making the rules clearer and more consistent.
This international convergence tells the story of a collective awakening: an increasingly automated finance needs common guardrails. And that has a very real cost. Banks and brokers will have to invest more in their internal control systems. These compliance expenses are part of the landscape — they are neither good nor bad in themselves, they are the price of a more reliable system.
What this changes for your practice
For an investor, the lesson is simple: the soundness of the intermediary matters as much as the choice of investment. A broker or platform that meets high standards of IT security and asset protection is a partner that has put guardrails in place — not just a nice app.
Before entrusting money to an intermediary, make it a reflex to check that it is properly registered with the competent authorities. Our comparative directories of brokers and prop firms gather practical information on this point: withdrawal times, financial soundness, regulatory framework. This is the kind of detail that is not visible in daily life, but that weighs heavily on the day it matters.
In the markets, tighter controls are sometimes accompanied by phases of temporary fluctuations, particularly in technology stocks. These movements say nothing about the underlying trend: they simply remind us that volatility is part of the game. The right response is not to guess what comes next, but to structure your approach.
This is where well-designed tools help you stay on course. The JARVIS METHOD indicator, available on TradingView, comes with a position calculator and session markers — all designed to help you stay disciplined, without letting yourself be carried away by the fluctuations of the moment. The precise workings of the method are reserved for members; the general idea, however, comes down to one word: framework.
An inconvenient truth
Let's speak frankly. Most beginners do not lose because they lack intelligence or information. They lose because they seek to be right instead of managing risk. They bet too big on a single idea, do not set a loss limit, and let their emotions decide in their place. No regulator, no AI, no indicator can fix that for you.
Regulation protects the system, not your individual portfolio. This is an essential nuance. The guardrails mentioned by the EBA, EIOPA and ESMA aim to prevent a technical failure from spreading to the entire network. They will never stop you from making a hasty decision on a whim. That responsibility remains yours — and that is precisely what makes it a skill that can be learned.
Our position, as a training organization, is clear: discipline and risk management come before performance. A trader who survives long enough to learn will eventually progress. A trader who seeks the perfect trade will eventually lose everything. This is not a formula, it is what the journeys show.
How to progress concretely
Mastering risk is an integral part of a serious investment approach. Several resources are available to help you move forward step by step:
- The complete training program, organized into progressive paths, details good market practices, with bootcamps and mentoring for those who want enhanced support.
- The member area offers personalized follow-up: an orientation test to situate your profile, progress tracking, a trading journal (screenshots, result, mini psychological test) and a "My Trading" hub with your statistics.
- The investment journal (/investir section) covers stocks, ETFs and crypto, with prices and a weekly report — useful for following a long-term approach, away from daily agitation.
- The Telegram assistant offers a daily plan, a market brief every morning, a news watch and targeted discipline reminders.
- Mindset coaching and the "My fitness" section work on two often-neglected but decisive pillars for consistency: emotional management and the trader's lifestyle hygiene.
- The blog and the glossary help consolidate the basics, with country fact sheets and economic analyses to put each news item back into context.
💡 Concrete case
Let's take a deliberately simple example, purely educational — the amounts are orders of magnitude, to be verified according to your situation.
Imagine a trader who earns €3,000 per month in gains through a trading activity (prop firm or personal account). Depending on the framework chosen, the taxation is not the same:
- With the "flat tax" regime (single flat-rate levy), income from movable capital and capital gains are taxed at 30% (12.8% income tax + 17.2% social contributions). On €3,000, therefore, about €2,100 remains — meaning €900 goes to taxes and contributions.
- Under micro-BNC (activity declared as non-commercial profits), a flat allowance of 34% applies, up to a turnover limit of €77,700. On €3,000, the taxable base drops to about €1,980, to which social contributions and tax according to your bracket are then added. The net result therefore depends heavily on your personal situation.
The message is not "which regime is best" — that depends on each case and is a matter for a professional (accountant, tax advisor). The message is that the figure that counts is not what you earn, but what you have left. Many beginners ignore this until their first tax return. Anticipating this point is part of a serious practice, just like risk management.
Key takeaways
- The three European authorities (EBA, EIOPA, ESMA) are calling for a common framework to regulate "frontier" AI in finance.
- The objective is preventive: strengthen governance, harmonize controls, secure systems before an incident occurs.
- The movement is international: the SEC in the United States and the FCA in the United Kingdom are moving in the same direction.
- For the individual investor, this reinforces the importance of choosing rigorously regulated intermediaries and structuring one's approach.
- Regulation protects the system; your discipline protects your capital. The two do not replace each other.
These announcements do not turn things upside down for the individual investor. They recall a useful truth: in an increasingly automated world, rigor and vigilance remain your best allies — whatever the market context.
Educational content, trading involves a risk of capital loss, this is not investment advice.