Market structure and governance shifts: five moves changing finance in 2025

The phrase market structure and governance shifts captures a year of steady but significant change across finance. From a rare private equity sale inside a big hedge fund to new rules for exchanges, warnings on trading practices, oil policy pauses and an AI funding surge, institutions are being pushed to rethink ownership, supervision and execution. Therefore, leaders must watch governance, market structure and the capital picture together.

## 1. Millennium’s rare stake sale: governance and ownership under a new light

Izzy Englander’s Millennium sold a 15% stake to top investors — the first time the founder parted with equity in the firm’s 36-year history. This is more than a financial transaction. It signals a shift in how long-standing firms think about ownership, succession and governance. For employees, clients and competitors, a top-level stake sale can change incentives. Therefore, boards and executives must reassess decision rights, disclosure and long-term strategy.

The immediate effect is a redistributed ownership base. New minority owners often demand clearer reporting, governance safeguards, and sometimes operational input. As a result, Millennium’s move could prompt peers to consider partial sales as a way to unlock value without a full exit. Additionally, fund clients watch such changes for continuity risk. If ownership becomes more dispersed, firms should strengthen governance documents and client communications.

Looking ahead, expect more private and partnership-led firms to weigh similar deals. However, each transaction will differ by firm history, culture and client sensitivity. For corporate governance teams, the lesson is to prepare for ownership change even in firms that appear stable. Clear succession plans and communication strategies will reduce client concern and preserve long-term strategy.

Source: ft.com

2. ESMA’s move: market structure and governance shifts in supervision of exchanges

The EU is set to expand supervision of stock and crypto exchanges, with proposals that would also let the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) settle disputes between large asset managers. This is a notable widening of remit. Therefore, the boundary between national and EU-level oversight is changing, and firms will face a new layer of compliance expectations.

For exchanges, the proposals imply tighter oversight of market operations, listing standards and cross-asset activities. Crypto platforms, which have often operated in lighter regulatory regimes, would face rules more like traditional venues. As a result, exchanges may need to invest in governance, audit trails and dispute-resolution processes. Additionally, asset managers could see faster resolution of large contractual disputes, reducing the risk of drawn-out legal battles.

Enterprises should start by mapping which parts of their business touch regulated venues. Compliance teams must update controls, and legal teams should model how ESMA dispute mechanisms might alter settlement and counterparty risk. Furthermore, technology and operations must be ready for increased reporting and oversight. However, this change also offers clarity: consistent EU supervision can reduce fragmentation and create predictable standards across member states.

In short, supervisors are shifting the market structure. Firms that act early to align governance and systems will limit disruption and potentially gain a competitive edge.

Source: ft.com

3. IOSCO’s warning on front-running: execution, trust and trading controls

International securities regulators warned that “pre-hedging” by market makers — effectively a form of front-running in competitive tenders — can lead to worse execution for asset managers. The concern is practical: when dealers act on anticipatory information, the price a manager can obtain for a trade may suffer. Therefore, execution quality and trust between liquidity providers and clients are at stake.

This warning highlights an often-overlooked governance issue in trading: controls around order flow, information barriers and dealer conduct. Asset managers must review trading protocols and request clearer disclosures from counterparties. Additionally, trade oversight teams should enhance monitoring for patterns that indicate pre-hedging. As a result, firms may renegotiate trading arrangements or alter how they run competitive tenders to protect client outcomes.

Regulators are not only flagging the problem; they are signaling potential action. Consequently, markets may see new rules, best-practice standards, or more intensive supervision of market makers. For buy-side firms, transparency and documented execution policies will be essential. Moreover, compliance and risk groups should update vendor due diligence and add execution-quality metrics to governance dashboards.

Ultimately, preserving fair access to liquidity and sound execution is central to market confidence. Firms that respond proactively will reduce client harm and regulatory exposure.

Source: ft.com

4. Energy markets and corporate planning: market structure and governance shifts after Opec+ pause

Opec+ agreed to pause planned oil output increases for the start of 2026, with eight countries backing the move. Crude prices climbed on the news. For companies with exposure to energy prices, this pause changes planning and risk assessments. Therefore, firms must revisit budgets, hedging programs and capital expenditure assumptions.

Energy-sensitive sectors — airlines, shipping, manufacturing and utilities — should reassess fuel forecasts and hedging strategies. A pause in output growth can tighten near-term supply expectations, which may increase volatility. As a result, treasury teams should model different price pathways and test liquidity cushions. Additionally, procurement and sales teams must communicate revised cost outlooks to customers and suppliers.

For investors and boards, the Opec+ decision underscores the link between geopolitics and corporate governance. Boards should ensure executive teams are prepared with clear contingency plans and transparent reporting on commodity exposures. Furthermore, companies may need to accelerate efficiency measures or alternative energy investments if higher prices persist.

Finally, the pause is a reminder that market structure — in this case, coordinated producer behavior — can sharply alter commercial realities. Firms that combine scenario planning with decisive governance actions will weather swings more effectively.

Source: ft.com

5. AI funding boom: valuation shock and corporate strategy for enterprise players

In months, AI funding added more than $500 billion in value to unicorns, and the Crunchbase Unicorn Board topped $6 trillion for the first time. This rapid revaluation reshapes capital markets and corporate strategy. Therefore, companies that sell to or invest in AI startups must reassess how they value partnerships, talent and future revenue streams.

A funding surge of this size changes comparables and investor expectations. Buyers and partners will face higher costs for AI capabilities, while investors may push for faster monetization. As a result, enterprise purchasers should focus on integration value rather than headline valuations. Due diligence needs to emphasize product fit, data governance and long-term cost-benefit, not just growth narratives.

For corporate development teams, competition for AI talent and assets is louder. Boards should require clearer return-on-investment cases for large AI deals. Additionally, risk and compliance should ensure AI investments align with company governance frameworks, especially around data use and vendor oversight. However, the boom also presents opportunity: well-chosen AI investments can unlock efficiency and new offerings across operations.

In short, the AI funding wave is rewriting valuation benchmarks. Firms that adopt disciplined evaluation and governance practices will convert hype into sustainable advantage.

Source: news.crunchbase.com

Final Reflection: Connecting the dots — governance, markets and strategic choices

Across ownership changes, expanded supervision, trading conduct warnings, commodity decisions and a massive AI funding surge, a clear theme emerges: governance and market structure are converging as the decisive forces in 2025. Therefore, leaders must stop treating regulatory, trading and capital questions as separate silos. Instead, boards should require integrated scenarios that link ownership shifts, oversight changes, execution risks, commodity exposure and technology valuations.

This year’s moves push firms to be both resilient and opportunistic. They should shore up governance documents, enhance transparency with stakeholders, and invest in monitoring systems that translate market signals into board-level actions. Additionally, disciplined investment frameworks will help separate durable opportunities — for example, well-governed AI partnerships — from short-term market fads.

Finally, these shifts are manageable. With clear governance, prudent risk controls and forward-looking strategy, firms can turn regulatory and market change into competitive advantage. As the landscape evolves, the organizations that connect governance, structure and strategy will lead the next phase of finance.