Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

Zelensky accelerates overhaul of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission — two members dismissed amid IMF demands

The President signed decrees dismissing Yaroslav Shlyakhov and Yurii Boyko. These are not isolated personnel changes but part of a broader marathon of reforms crucial for investor confidence and the stability of the capital market.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 5, 2026 · 1 min read

Zelensky accelerates overhaul of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission — two members dismissed amid IMF demands

What happened

On January 5, President Volodymyr Zelensky signed decrees No. 11 and No. 12 dismissing two members of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (НКЦПФР) — Yaroslav Shliakhov and Yuriy Boyko.

Both were appointed on April 1, 2021. According to «Ekonomichna Pravda», they submitted resignation letters as early as the beginning of December.

"They submitted resignation letters in early December"

— Ekonomichna Pravda

Context: why this matters

These decisions are more than mere personnel changes. The government lists strengthening the governance of the НКЦПФР as one of the 16 structural benchmarks of the IMF program. For the capital market, the key issues are the transparency of the process, the regulator's independence, and the implementation of regulatory changes that enhance investor protection.

Against the backdrop of the dismissal of the head of the НКЦПФР, Ruslan Magomedov, on December 31 (Oleksiy Semenyuk was appointed in his place), this looks like a systematic renewal of the regulator's team rather than isolated resignations.

What this means for the market

Strengthening governance could increase investor confidence and speed up the adoption of reforms necessary to access international financing. At the same time, the key is not just replacing people but ensuring transparent selection procedures, protection from political influence, and clear mandates for engaging with the market.

If the personnel changes are accompanied by systematic work on regulatory rules, this could improve the liquidity of the Ukrainian market and reduce risks for investors. If not, the risk of political instability at the regulator will remain.

What's next

Now the market's attention shifts from the decrees to practical implementation: who will fill the vacant positions and which proposals to strengthen governance and transparency will be realized. For Ukraine, this is a test: will these personnel changes turn into real steps to increase the confidence of international partners and investors?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026