Agefi Luxembourg - février 2026

AGEFI Luxembourg 20 Février 2026 Fonds d’investissement By Mathilde SCHEIRLINCK, Senior Associate, Loyens&Loeff Luxembourg A s global creditmarkets have matured since the financial cri- sis era, private credit has gradu- ally evolved into amainstreamasset class. Yet, the challenging fundrais- ing environment has not spared thismarket. In response, spon- sors have increasingly focused on addressing, on the one hand, institutional investors’ demand for greater liquidity and invest- ment options and, on the other, the growing appetite for private assets fromthe high-end retail andprivate wealth segment. Evergreenprivate credit fund solutions offer away to meet these evolving demands. Evergreenprivatecreditfundscomeinawidevariety offormats,buttheyallhaveaperpetuallifeandoper- ate through ongoing fundraising and continuous investment activity. Because investors cannot be locked indefinitely, these structures provide adegree of liquidity while still enabling exposure to longer- dated, inherently illiquid assets. Hence, evergreen funds are oftendescribed as “semi-liquid”, reflecting theneedtobalanceinvestorredemptionfeatureswith thepreservationandstabilityofthefund’sunderlying assetportfolio.Theyallowinvestorstogainflexibility in asset allocation, timing of deployment and exit options, while sponsors benefit from the diversifica- tion of their earningsmodel, but also from the ability to hold loans to maturity, supporting a genuinely long-terminvestment strategy. Thisarticleexploresthecorestructuringmodelsdriv- ing this evolution and highlights the key considera- tions sponsors should address when designing such products. Structuring options Thereisnoone-size-fits-allapproachtoevergreenpri- vate credit funds. Luxembourg has proven particu- larlyeffectiveinsupportingawiderangeofstructures, which can be established as standalone vehicles, but are also frequently integrated intoexisting structures, either as feeder funds or as co-investment vehicles. Vintagemodel Sponsors seeking an evergreen vehicle while main- tainingoperationalproximitytoatraditionallocked-in capital flagship fund often favour the “vintage model”.Underthismodel,multiplevintagessucceed one anotherwithin the same fundvehicle, eachoper- atinglikeaclosedfundandofferinginvestorsthepos- sibilitytorolltheirunusedcommitmentsandreturned capital into subsequent vintages. Each vintage there- fore features a defined subscription period and dis- tinct investment cycle, with the sponsor being com- pensated through a classic carried interest waterfall. Investors may either roll into the next vintage or opt out, thereby exiting the fund. Given their similarities to closed-ended structures, vintagefundsaregenerallywellsuitedtoinstitutional investors,who aremost familiarwith thismodel and typicallydonotprioritiseliquidity.Instead,theirfocus isoftenonensuringcontinuedaccesstothesponsor’s strategyinfuturevintages.Inthiscontext,rollingcom- mitments into a subsequent vintage can be executed more efficiently from a cost and timing perspective than onboarding into an entirely new fund. Vintages may be set up as separate compartments of an umbrella reserved alternative investment fund ( RAIF ), each forming a legally ring-fenced pool of assets and liabilities. Using separate shareorinterestclassesisanalternative,but segregationisonlycontractualandlacksthe statutoryprotectionof RAIF compartments, cross-contamination risk remaining. Semi-liquidNAV-basedmodel Looking beyond traditional locked-in capital funds, sponsorsmay consider semi-liquid fund structures. Here, subscriptions are net asset value ( NAV ) based and processed on a continuous basis at a predeter- mined frequency. Subscriptions may be structured either as fullyfundeduponinvestment (more common in private- wealthofferings), or through a hybrid mechanism adapting the traditional commitment/drawdownmodel. In the latter case, commitments are drawn at the spon- sor’s discretion and result in the issuance of interests or shares at NAV. The drawdown sequence may range from a ‘first-in, first-drawn’ approach (the so- calledqueuedmodel)toaprorataallocationapproach (the unqueuedmodel). The queued model rewards early subscriptions and encourages investors to commit sooner, whereas the unqueued model is preferred when the aim is to ensure equal treatment of all investors regardless of subscriptiondate.Sponsorsgenerallybecomeeligible toreceiveaperformancefee(alsoreferredtoasincen- tive allocation) once the fund has generated returns forinvestorsthatexceedapredefinedpreferredreturn or hurdle rate. Such preferred return represents the minimumannualised rate of return thatmust first be allocated to investors before the sponsormaybe enti- tled to in any share of the fund’s profits. Comparedwithvintagemodels,theNAV-basedsub- scription model places significant reliance on the robustnessoftheNAVbecausetheNAVservesasthe basis for determining investor entry and exit pricing, butalsoasthereferencepointforcalculatingthespon- sor’s performance fee. Exit mechanisms allow investors to exit the fund at NAV and may take several forms. Investors may be grantedredemptionrightsduringpredefinedliquid- itywindows, withwithdrawals typically subject to a quantitativecaponinvestorredemptionsineachdeal- ingperiod.Suchcapbetterallowsthesponsortoalign redemption flowswith the orderly generation of liq- uidity. More innovative liquidity solutions may also be implemented, such as run-off, bywhich investors cease to participate in new investments and remain exposed only to the existing portfolio, with with- drawals occurring once the underlying assets have been realised in their natural order; and/ormatching, whereby redemptions are funded to the extent they are covered by cash inflows fromnewsubscriptions. These solutions have the benefit of avoiding forced asset disposals to create liquidity. Institutional NAV-based funds can be efficiently established as unregulated special limited partner- ships ( SCSp ) issuing units to investors at NAV and can also adopt the RAIF regime. Alternatively, depending on investor preferences, the fundmay be established as a corporate partnership limited by shares ( SCA ) to preserve the traditional GP/LP gov- ernancemodel. In this case, the SCAshouldbe struc- turedasaninvestmentcompanywithvariablecapital ( SICAV )undertheRAIFregime,allowingforflexible and efficient adjustments to the fund’s share capital. When targeting high-end retail investors, the fund, whether structured as an SCSp, an SCA, or a public limited company (SA),will typicallyopt for thePart II undertaking for collective investment ( Part IIUCI ) regime. This regime requires prior regulatory approval and ongoing supervision and iswell-suit- ed toprivate-wealthdistribution channels given the absence of investor-eligibility criteria beyond the standard € 25,000minimum investment. Key considerations Compared to conventional locked-in capital funds, evergreenprivate credit funds introduce additional structural andoperational complexity. Sponsors can address these challenges through rigorous product design and early operational planning. Liquidity Balancing inherently illiquid assets with investor liquidity expectations is critical. While loan cash flows can to some extent help meet redemption requests, underlying loans aregenerally illiquidand cannot be readily sold on the secondary market. Semi-liquid funds therefore have limited liquidity unless they hold a significant allocation to highly liquid assets, whichwould however dilute returns. Sponsors must ensure that the portfolio’s liquidity profile is alignedwith the liquidity terms offered to investors. Valuation Valuation is another core concern for NAV-based evergreen funds. The timing and pricing of sub- scriptions, redemptions, and performance-fee crys- tallisation all depend on the fund’s ability to pro- duce a robust and frequent NAV. Because these assets lack observable market prices, this ability hinges on factors such as the predictability of cash flows, the determination of appropriate discount rates, and the quality and timeliness of borrower information.Ultimately, selecting the right valuation methodology, and ensuring that NAV calculations relyon sufficientlyobjective, evidence-based inputs, will bepivotal inassessingwhether avintagemodel or a NAV-based structure is more suitable. Fund operations To ensure the operational feasibility and efficiency of aNAV-based evergreenmodel, fund operations must be given careful consideration. Sponsors should engage earlywith their fund administrator to align on key parameters such as dealing fre- quency for subscriptions and redemptions, NAV calculation processes, investor onboarding, and reporting requirements. These become even more critical for NAV-based subscription funds and those marketed to non-institutional investors, where enhanced operational capabilities are required for distribution, investor onboarding (includingAML/KYC), NAV and performance fee calculations and investor reporting. Portfolio allocations Sponsors managing evergreen private credit funds alongside closed-ended strategies must establish a clear and robust investment allocation policy. It is essential to articulate themethodologyused to allo- cate investment opportunities as they arise, and to disclose the related risks to investors tomitigate the risk of subsequent disputes. Conflicts of interest may arise where the sponsor is incentivised to pri- oritise a vehicle with continuous subscription inflows, allowing it todeploy cash immediatelyand preserve yield, over a fund operating under a com- mitment/drawdownmodel,where the sponsor con- trols the timing of capital inflows. However, con- tinuous inflows may also place pressure on spon- sors to deploy capital rapidly to generate returns, potentiallyat the expenseof securingoptimal invest- ment opportunities. Regulatory outlook EU Member States are currently implementing the second alternative investment fundmanagers direc- tive ( AIFMD 2 ), introducing requirements expected to have a significant impact on evergreen private credit funds, with a view to strengthen investor pro- tection andmitigate systemic risk. Funds engaging in loan-origination activities and managed by EU alternative investment fund man- agers( AIFMs )willbecomesubjecttoadditionalobli- gations. These include maximum exposure limits to certain restricted borrower types (such as otherAIFs, UCITS, or regulated financial undertakings), the im- pact of which will depend on the fund’s strategy. Moresignificantly,thenewrulesintroduceamanda- toryrisk-retentionrequirement,obligingafundtore- tain 5%of the notional value of any loan it originates and subsequently transfers to third parties. Should such funds have an investment strategy tomainly to originate loans, orwhose originated loans have a no- tional value that represents at least 50%of NAV, will qualifyasloan-originatingAIFsunderAIFMD2.They will also be subject to maximum allowed exposure- to-NAV limits, set at 175% for open-endedAIFs and 300% for closed-ended AIFs, calculated using the commitment method (such method implies the de- duction, from the overall exposure of theAIF, of cer- tain positions such as hedging and netting techniques). Loan-originating AIFs should be closed-endedunless theAIFMdemonstrates that the liquidity-riskframeworkiscompatiblewiththefund’s strategy and redemption terms. Evergreen private credit funds that qualify as open-ended fundswill alsobe required to include, in theirrulesorinstrumentsofincorporation,atleasttwo liquidity management tools ( LMTs ). From a regula- tory standpoint, a fundwould typically qualify as an open-ended fund where redemptions are processed at the request of an investor and out of the fund’s as- sets,withtherelatedproceduresandfrequencysetout in the fund documents. Where redemption features aresubjecttothediscretionofthefundoritsmanager (such as during a run-off), an evergreen fund is typi- cally classified as closed-ended. Therefore, the re- demption terms should be considered with an increased scrutiny in the product design phase. The referred above LMTs include redemption gates, ex- tensions of notice periods, redemption fees, swing pricing,dualpricing,anti-dilutionleviesandredemp- tions in kind. Other tools such as suspensions, side pockets or lockupsmay alsobeusedalongside to the mandatoryLMTs. Conclusion Private credit continues to show strongmomentum, with over 90% of investors planning to maintain or raise allocations andassets undermanagement set to hitrecordhighs.Againstthisbackdrop,evergreenpri- vatecreditfundscontinuetogainmomentum.While these structures have so far been more commonly adopted by establishedmanagers given their opera- tional and portfolio-management complexities, the model is rapidly developing, with growing uptake amongEuropeansponsors.Theexpansionofthepri- vatewealth segment is accelerating this trend. As non-institutional investors seek access to private markets,evergreenstructuresofferacompellingsolu- tion by combining long-termprivate credit exposure with controlled liquidity features. AIFMD 2 is not expected to undermine the appeal of evergreen pri- vate credit funds. However, sponsors should antici- pate the revised regulatory framework, particularly in relation to loan-origination rules, leverage limits and liquidity management, and ensure that compli- ance features are embedded early in product design. In practice, regulatory evolution is likely to reinforce, rather thandiminish, the importance of robust struc- turing andgovernance for evergreen strategies. Evergreen Private Credit Funds: AStructuring Guide Par Mabrouk CHETOUANE, Head of Global Market Strategy, Natixis IM E ndépit du contexte géopolitique et de l’incertitude économique introduite par la nouvelle administration améri- caine, lesmarchés actions dans la sphère émergente ont connuune année 2025 toni- truante. LeMSCI émergent clôture l’année à +34%, son compartiment asiatique à +33%et son compartiment sud-américain à +56%. Quels ont été les déterminants cette performance robuste ? Lorsque l’on analyse les performances des indices actions émergents, quatre facteurs expliquent usuel- lement les dynamiques. Elles ont toutes été positive- mentaurendez-vousen2025:undollarquisedépré- cie,destauxsouverainsaméricainsquibaissentgrâce à un soutien accru de la réserve fédérale, une réduc- tion notable des prix des matières premières énergé- tiques ainsi qu’une conjoncturemondiale résiliente. Ces facteurs baissent les coûts de financement des entreprises et amoindrissent les charges opération- nelles tout en accroissant leurs résultats. La performance géographique, lorsque décomposée entre contribution de la croissance bénéficiaire des entreprisesattendueetvalorisation,lecaséchéantsen- timent,montre cependant une dichotomie. SileMSCIAsieavulacroissancebénéficiaireattendue contribuer à hauteur de 52 % de la performance, ce facteurn’expliqueque19%delaperformancedeson homologue sud-américain. Une part de cette diffé- rences’expliqueparlebiaistechnologiqueetfinancier quicaractériseleMSCIémergentasiatiquetandisque leMSCI LATAMest principalement exposé aux sec- teursfinanciersetminiersetdansunecertainemesure au secteur énergétique. Les facteurs qui ont permis aux indices émergents de progresser l’an passé seront-il au rendez-vous en 2026 ? A cet égard, la dichotomie observée entre la zone Asie émergente et l’Amérique Latine pourrait s’ac- centuer. Tout d’abord, la stabilitédudollar attendue en 2026 ne devrait pas soutenir les actifs émergents et les investisseurs ont d’ores et déjà pleinement intégré les baisses de taux de Fed. Par ailleurs, la région asiatique reste éloignée de considérations géopolitiques qui impliquent les États-Unis, l’Union européenne et l’Amérique Latine. Cet éloignement agit comme une sorte de bouclier que décorrèle et diversifie l’exposition aux actifsrisquésenparticulierdanslasphèreémergente. En outre, la principale différence entre l’Asie émer- gente et les autres marchés de ce segment est l’ex- position aux thématiques liées à l’IA, les semi- conducteurs et les nouvelles technologies dans une plus grandemesure. Les derniers chiffres de ventes de semi-conducteurs montrent que la zone Asie- Pacifique a progressé plus vite que les États-Unis faisant de cette zone le premier contributeur à l’échelle mondiale, la Chine reste un concurrent direct et premier ordre en matière d’intelligence artificielle et accentue encore plus sa domination dans le secteur de la robotique. La croissance des bénéfices attendue pour 2026 pour les entreprises du Kospi atteint 58 % et 21 % pour les entreprises de l’indice taiwanais et ces pro- jections sont largement supérieures à celles des pays du G7. Le Brésil ou le Mexique ou même les pays d’Europe émergente ne présentent pas de telles perspectives. Facteur aggravant, les économies dubloc émergent qui ont une exposition au facteur énergie pour- raient voir leur situation se dégrader en raison des pressions baissières sur le prix du pétrole. Une nouvelle année à deux chiffres pour les marchés émergents ?