Great success for the webinar “The implementation of the NPE Secondary Market Directive: insights from across Europe”, promoted by Credit Village and held on Wednesday, 21 January, which saw the participation of over 300 international operators, including advisors, investors, and servicers.
The webinar marked the first event conceived with a truly European scope, bringing together perspectives from multiple countries involved in the transposition of the directive and outlining a series of critical issues that are emerging across several Member States.
A clear exchange and sharing of views—together with the first tangible outcomes—prompted important reflections on the impact of the Secondary Market Directive, the European reform discussed for years and which, as repeatedly highlighted during the event, does not concern a single national market but the entire European ecosystem.
The event featured contributions from Carlos Ruiz Cabrera, President of ANGECO for Spain; Michela De Marchi, Secretary General of UNIREC for Italy; Georg Kovacs, President of AMCC for Romania; and Claus Spedtsberg, President of FENCA, the federation bringing together European debt collection associations. The discussion was moderated by Francesco Uggenti, Director of Business Development at Prelios Innovation.
As summarised by Spedtsberg, President of FENCA – Federation of European National Collection Associations: “The idea behind the NPL directive was good, but there is a difference between the idea and its implementation.” If the aim was to develop the secondary market, make it easier for banks to sell portfolios, help buyers find credit servicers, and build a common European framework, the feeling—at least from the snapshot shared yesterday—is that results are still far from expectations.
The first recurring data point is the reduction in the number of servicers. In countries where licensing systems were already in place, a paradoxical effect has emerged in some cases: deregulation combined with dual supervisory authorities, resulting in more administration and fewer market participants. Spedtsberg stressed that updates to the directive would be needed to make it work better than it does today, especially given the highly uneven implementation across Member States.
The case of Spain is emblematic, where transposition has not yet been completed. According to Ruiz Cabrera, the delay is linked to issues within the governing coalition and the cancellation of certain projects. The market, however, remains mature and resilient, with no evidence of transactions collapsing solely due to the delay. Rather, the lack of a clearly defined perimeter has a concrete operational impact: without final rules, it is difficult to invest in processes, IT systems, and reporting. The result is a market proceeding cautiously—also in terms of pricing—with a level of uncertainty that weighs both externally (regulatory risk perception) and internally (implementation projects put “on hold”). As noted, the real question does not seem to be if the directive will be transposed, but when—and in the meantime, the goal is to avoid repeating mistakes seen elsewhere.
Georg Kovacs, President of AMCC – Asociația de Management al Creanțelor Comerciale, offered the perspective of Romania, where the market has been heavily regulated since the post-crisis period and where the consumer protection authority plays a particularly strong role. His assessment was clear: the new directive has not simplified the market and has added further layers of administration. Challenges for new investors are also tied to a context in which large portfolios have already been sold, prices are high, and competition is intense.
For Italy, the discussion was led by Michela De Marchi, Secretary General of UNIREC, who traced the issue back to a structural factor: the domestic credit industry was already highly developed, and the European proposal was conceived when NPL volumes were very high, but entered into force when—at least in the Italian market—those volumes had already significantly declined. When combined with the high costs required to obtain the new licence, it becomes clearer why, as emerged during the debate, many operators do not perceive the investment as economically justifiable, particularly in a market considered already “saturated”.
Spedtsberg also referred to the German case: out of 434 operators represented by the sector association, only around 30 have applied for the new licence required by the directive. This figure clearly illustrates the impact of the reform in a country that already had an authorisation regime in place. The shift to a different supervisory authority and changes in requirements at the moment of portfolio transfer have increased operational complexity, with the concrete risk of market contraction rather than expansion.
Yesterday’s discussion showed that the debate around the Secondary Market Directive is far from over. Much has been discussed—and much will continue to be discussed—about the directive’s real effects on national markets, balancing harmonisation objectives with regulatory costs and operational impacts. The shared feeling is that the process is still evolving, and that the coming months will be decisive in determining whether and how the SMD will truly support the development of the secondary market, rather than constrain it.
