Yes. The route is change-of-control on a Banco de Portugal-authorised EMI, structured as a share purchase of the company holding the licence with prior qualifying-holding clearance from the supervisor. For most acquirers the comparison versus a fresh authorisation is decided on time and continuity rather than headline cost — an operating EMI with banking, payment volumes, and a clean supervisory record is not the same asset as a paper file in front of a regulator. Cadena Brokers does not list targets publicly and does not represent sellers. We work for the acquirer; the entity opens up under NDA after the initial fit conversation.

We do not quote transaction or government-fee numbers on a public page; the variables that move the all-in figure are the seller’s preference structure, the safeguarding-bank stickiness, the open AML or ICT supervisory items, and the clock the acquirer is willing to run. The fixed regulatory inputs are statutory: EUR 350,000 minimum initial capital under Article 55 of the RJSPME, ongoing own-funds calculated under one of the EMD2 methods, and segregated safeguarding of customer funds. Beyond those, the line items that genuinely matter are diligence depth on banking continuity and on the inherited supervisory backlog. Send the brief and we will scope it in the first call.

Yes. A Banco de Portugal-authorised EMI passports under PSD2 and the EMD2 framework by notification through Banco de Portugal to the host competent authority. Both cross-border services and establishment of branches, agents, and distributors are available across the EU 27. Common host markets for Portuguese EMIs are Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Ireland. The passporting notification is administrative; it is not a second authorisation file in the host country. For an acquirer whose post-close thesis is Iberian-anchored EU reach, that single feature is the structural reason Portugal sits in the comparison set with Spain, France, and Ireland rather than with offshore alternatives.

Prior notification to Banco de Portugal at the 10%, 20%, 30%, and 50% capital or voting-rights thresholds, or where the institution becomes a subsidiary of the acquirer. The documentation perimeter is set in Notice of Banco de Portugal No 6/2021. The supervisor assesses fit-and-proper standing of beneficial owners and proposed directors, financial soundness and source of funds, group transparency, the post-acquisition strategic plan, and AML/CFT integration; it consults the home supervisor of any EU-regulated acquirer. After the acquisition closes, the buyer has fifteen continuous days to notify Banco de Portugal of completion.

Sixty working days from a complete file under the EBA/ESMA/EIOPA Joint Guidelines, extendable by thirty working days in defined cases. The bottleneck is rarely the substantive review; it is the completeness gate. Files that arrive with documentation gaps — funding-source evidence, governance papers, or an under-developed strategic plan — reset the clock rather than running it down. Acquirers who arrive with a packaged file and clean ICT and operational-resilience self-assessments tend to clear in the first window without extension.

The statutory architecture is shared across the EU: EMD2 transposed into national law, EUR 350,000 statutory minimum capital, qualifying-holdings regime with the standard 10/20/30/50% thresholds, sixty-working-day Joint-Guidelines clock. The differences are practical. Banco de Portugal runs a smaller EMI book than the Bank of Lithuania, with deeper file-level scrutiny per institution and a more conservative posture at correspondent banks. Operating-substance cost in Portugal is materially below Dublin, Frankfurt, or Paris and broadly comparable to Madrid. For an acquirer choosing between Iberian charters, the answer usually rests on the post-close banking strategy, the existing scheme memberships of the target, and whether the substance footprint in country fits the operating plan.