Agefi Luxembourg - janvier 2026

Janvier 2026 23 AGEFI Luxembourg Fonds d’investissement By François-Xavier LE CORRE, Senior Manager – Legal Department, Mc Square E urope’s latest attempt to deepen its CapitalMarketsUnion is moving fromslogans to the op- erational plumbing that governs cross- border fundbusiness. A combination of newly adopted rule changes and parallel “market integra- tion” workstreams is putting the in- vestment fund rulebook back under close scrutiny, with reforms that can reshape howmanagement compa- nies are authorised, how they are supervised across borders, and howproductinnovationisbalanced against investor protection. The direction of travel is unmistakable: amore standardised single marketforassetmanagement,fewernationalfrictions, more convergent supervisory practices, and tighter guardrails around fast-growing areas such as private credit. The real question is whether the mechanics chosentogettherewillsimplifythesystemormerely relocate complexity into new processes, new tem- plates andnewlayers of oversight. At theheart of the currentwave is ahorizontal recal- ibration of the core EU manager regimes – UCITS and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers framework– coupledwithadeliberatepush toward moreconsistentsupervisoryoutcomes.Theobjective is twofold. First, Europewants cross-border fundac- tivity tobeeasier andmorepredictable formanagers and distributors. Second, it wants oversight to be more coherent, with fewer divergences in interpre- tationand fewer supervisorypractices that fragment thesinglemarketinpractice.Thetechniquefavoured to achieve this leans heavily on standardisation: more prescriptive supervisory reporting, greater re- liance on technical standards andguidance to trans- late high-level principles into operational requirements,andclearercooperationandescalation mechanisms between authorities. Standardisation is politically attractive because it reads as pro-integration. It is also where the indus- try’s most nuanced concerns sit. Many market par- ticipants – particularly those operating across multiple Member States – would welcome clearer andmore harmonised approval processes and a re- duction in the long timelines and inconsistent infor- mation requests that still characterise parts of authorisationandongoingsupervisoryengagement. Yet there is a fine line between harmonising out- comes and over-engineering process. A framework that shifts toomuch operational detail into technical standards cancreate complianceobligations that are difficult to contest, harder to apply consistently across jurisdictions, and ultimately burdensome for firms that already operate within national product laws layered on top of EUmanager rules. That tension becomes most visible when the discus- sionturnstomaintainingauthorisationandmanaging change over time. Under the emerging approach, managementcompaniesmayfacestricterobligations to notify their home supervisors ahead of material changes to the conditions of authorisation, with de- finedwindowsduringwhichanauthoritymayobject, request clarifications or impose conditions. In princi- ple, this strengthens investor protection by ensur- ing structural changes are screenedbefore imple- mentation and by discouraging “authorisation arbitrage” through post-approval drift. In prac- tice, it risks importing approval-style friction into routine corporate andproduct evolution. For jurisdictions where the local authority al- readyplays anactivegatekeeper role, and where operating models rely on pre- dictablelaunchandchangetimelines, thecumulativeeffectcouldbeslower time-to-marketandmoreoperational uncertainty. Integration, in other words, could become harder pre- cisely because “harmonised” pro- cessesbecomemoreproceduraland moredependentonhow“material- ity” is interpreted inpractice. Thereisalsoastructuralrealitythattheintegrationde- bate sometimes underestimates: UCITS andAIFMD are European frameworks, but much of what a fund “is” remains anchored in national law. Product regimes, corporate forms, depositary specifics, in- vestordisclosuretraditions,anddistributionpathways stilldiffermateriallyacrossMemberStates.Thisdiver- sityisnotmerelyhistoricalnoise;itreflectsdifferences in legal traditions and inhownationalmarkets chan- nel savings into investment. For that reason, many practitionersarguethatnationalsupervisors’proxim- itytomarketpracticeanddomesticproductlawisnot adispensable feature but anoperational necessity. A one-size-fits-all documentation template may ap- pear efficient, but if it ignores product diversity it can lead to rework, the proliferation of informal national guidance, andanet increase in time spent reconciling formalrequirementswithlocalreality.Harmonisation that does not recognise diversity tends to generate “shadow complexity”: unofficial workarounds, par- allel explanations, and additional legal checks that sit outside the letter of the standardised template. The supervision pillar raises similarly delicate ques- tions. Policymakers are seeking stronger tools to de- tect and address supervisory practices that are divergent,duplicativeordeficientinwaysthathinder single-marketactivity.Fewwoulddisputetheunder- lyingdiagnosis.Firmsoperatingcross-borderarewell acquainted with different interpretations of delega- tion,reporting,governanceexpectationsandliquidity risk management. The dilemma is how far to inten- sifyEuropeancoordinationwithoutunderminingthe effectivenessofnationalcompetentauthorities.Better coordinationcanreducefragmentation,butitcanalso introduce joint supervisorywork, additional report- ing channels, new coordination fora and, in some cases, extra cost. Those costs do not disappear; they move through the systemand tend to be priced into fundexpenses,meaningtheyareultimatelyborneby end-investors. This iswhy a recurring concern frommarket partici- pantsisthatEuroperisksequating“morelayers”with “more integration”. If the outcome is additional re- views, newprocedural steps andmore coordination platforms,thesystemmaybecomeformallymoreEu- ropeanbutpracticallyheavier.Thesharperscepticism surfaceswheneverreformsappeartoproduceagrad- ualshifttowardmorecentralisedsupervisorydynam- ics without a formal redesign of the supervisory architecture. Many industry voices stress that the closeness of regulators to asset managers and local market features is not simply a comfort factor; it is what allows supervision to be pragmatic, contextual andtimely.Theyalsowarnthatabruptchangesinsu- pervisoryexpectations,particularlythroughguidance with short implementation lead times, can cause sig- nificant disruptionwhen firms are forced to unwind practices that have been stable for years. From that perspective,thepriorityshouldbepredictableconver- gence: aligning interpretations through consultation and clear transition periods, rather than redesigning supervision inways that create uncertainty spikes. A third strand in the debate, andone thatmatters di- rectly for Europe’s competitiveness narrative, is pro- portionality. Large cross-border groups can absorb process change and reporting expansionmore easily than smaller managers that sit just above regulatory thresholds. Over time, thepractical impact of process expansion is often felt first by firms with less opera- tionalslack.Whenintegrationinitiativesfocusonnew notifications, governance evidencing and reporting depth, smaller managers can struggle to keep pace evenwheretheiractivitiesarenotaprimarysourceof systemicrisk.Apolicydesignedtoremovebarriersin thesinglemarketcanunintentionallyentrenchincum- bentsifitscompliancefootprintiseffectivelycalibrated for the largest firms. In fund centres that host both globalplatformsandspecialisedboutiques,thisisnot an abstract concern: market structure and competi- tiveness depend on whether smaller managers re- main able to operate viable cross-border models under a steadilymore procedural regime. Where the package will be watched most closely by real-economy stakeholders is in the way it intersects with product innovation, particularly private credit and loan-originating funds. Europe’s challenge is to support the growth of non-bank lending while pre- ventingliquiditymismatchesandconcentrationrisks from migrating into the fund sector. The revised framework’streatmentofloanoriginationtendstobe deliberately broad, capturing direct lending and cer- tainindirectstructureswherethefundmanagerisin- volved in structuring or pre-agreeing key loan characteristics before taking exposure. It also intro- duces a clearer concept of a loan-originating fund, linked either to the primacy of the strategy or to the materiality of originated loanswithin the portfolio. Theoperationalimplicationsformanagersaresignifi- cant. Requirements such as ongoing risk retention where loans are originated and transferred, concen- trationconstraintsforloanstosingleborrowersinde- fined cases, and leverage limits that differentiate between open-ended and closed-ended structures willshapeproductdesignandriskgovernance.Strate- gically, the most consequential signal is the frame- work’s preference for closed-ended structures unless anopen-endedvehiclecandemonstratethatliquidity risk management and redemption terms are gen- uinely compatiblewith the strategy. That is more than a technical point: it reflects a regu- latoryintenttopreventprivatecreditfrombeingpack- aged into liquidity promises that cannot be credibly supported by the underlying assets. For established fund hubs, the opportunity is clear – structuring ex- pertise,service-providerdepth,andamaturealterna- tives ecosystem – but so is the operational challenge. Firmswillneedtorevisitgovernance,disclosures,val- uation arrangements, liquidity tool selection and op- erational readiness toensure that innovation remains scalable under heightened scrutiny. Alongside product rules, the integration agenda also signals a broader shift toward more structured data for supervision. The logic is familiar: reduce duplica- tion across EU and national reporting frameworks, improveinteroperabilitythroughidentifiersandcom- monformats,andenableauthoritiestoreusethesame datasetsfordifferentprudentialandmarketmonitor- ing purposes. Done well, that can reduce the “same data,differenttemplate”problem.Donepoorly,itcan expandreportingscopefasterthanitremovesexisting obligations, producing a transition period in which costs increase before benefitsmaterialise. AllofthislandsinapoliticalmomentinwhichEurope wants to be “simpler” and “more competitive”, and where simplification has become a rhetorical anchor for reform. The credibility test will be whether each proposed layer has a measurable benefit that out- weighs its operational cost. For supervisors, the test willbewhethernewpowers,templatesandcoopera- tionmechanismsreducedivergenceanddelaysrather than shifting them into new forums. For managers – especiallythoserunningcross-borderoperatingmod- els – the coming periodwill be about shaping imple- mentation. That means arguing for technical standards that genuinely translate existingprinciples intoworkableoperationaldetailratherthanbecoming a vehicle for substantive new requirements; pushing for proportionality in notification and reporting regimes; and ensuring that national product-law di- versity is treated as a design constraint rather than a nuisance to be ironedout. Luxembourgillustratesthestakesparticularlyclearly because its fundecosystemis inherentlycross-border and heavily reliant on predictability in authorisation andongoing supervisory engagement. The competi- tive edge is not only scale; it is the ability to industri- alise governance and compliancewithout sacrificing time-to-market,andtoofferrobuststructuresforboth traditionalUCITSandincreasinglyinstitutionalalter- native strategies. If market integration is delivered through faster, more consistent processes and more predictable supervisory convergence, Luxembourg stands tobenefit as ahub that can translate standard- isation into operational efficiency. If, however, inte- gration is delivered via heavier procedures, more approvalsindisguiseandadditionalreportinglayers, the competitive question becomes whether the ecosystemcanabsorbcomplexitywithoutpassingtoo much friction into costs and timelines. Intheend,marketintegrationinfundsisnotachieved bywriting theword“harmonised” into adirective. It is achievedwhen authorisations become faster with- outbeingweaker,whencross-bordersupervisionbe- comes more consistent without becoming heavier, and when innovation is allowed to develop within clear risk boundaries. Europe’s integration push can move the system in that direction, but only if legisla- torsresistthetemptationtolegislateoperationaldetail foritsownsakeandsupervisorsprioritisepredictable convergence over disruptive redesign. For the fund industry–particularly in internationally oriented hubs – the strategic task is to ensure that in- tegration delivers genuine simplification in practice, rather than a relocation of complexity into a more elaborate Europeanprocessmachine. Europe’s fund market integration push: integration by design, or complexity by relocation? N orman K., plate- forme de gestion de fortune indé- pendante dédiée aux entre- preneurs internationaux et aux grandes familles, an- nonce l’ouverture de son bureau au Luxembourg, une nouvelle étape straté- gique de son développe- ment en Europe et au-delà. Après Londres, l’ouverture d’un bureau au Luxembourg marque une nouvelle étape structurante dans le déploiement international de Norman K. Le groupe entre- tient, depuis de nombreuses an- nées, des relations étroites avec l’écosystème luxembourgeois, no- tamment bancaire et assurantiel, faisant de cette implantation une évolutionnaturelle et stratégique. «Notreambitionestdedevenirun acteurderéférencedelagestionde fortune au Luxembourg. L’inter- national constitue un pilier struc- turant de notre stratégie, portée par une clientèle déjà largement internationale et par une volonté claire de renforcer durablement notre présence en Europe et au- delà.Nousoffronsànosclientsun accompagnement indépendant, globaletultrapersonnalisé,conçu pour répondre à des probléma- tiques patrimoniales complexes dans un environnement interna- tional exigeant », indique Olivier Liot,HeadofCorporate&Private Banking et co-fondateur de Nor- man K, aux côtés de Brice Mon- voisin, Mathieu Mercati et Jean-Philippe Petit. Deux profils très expérimentés Nicolas L’Hermite et Nicolas Mayer (photo) ont rejoint le Groupe Norman K. en ce début d’annéeafindedirigeretdévelop- perlafilialeluxembourgeoise,res- pectivement en tant que CEO et SalesDirector. Fort de 18 années d’expérience dans la gestion de fortune au Luxembourg, Nicolas L’Hermite a occupé des fonctions commer- ciales et managériales au sein du Groupe BNP Paribas. Ces der- nièresannées,entantquemembre de la direction des activités de Wealth Management, il a contri- bué au développement de l’offre dédiée aux clients stratégiques – patrimoines supérieurs à 1 mil- liard USD – et à leurs Family Offices. Il a également accompa- gné des familles d’actionnaires et des dirigeants de grandes entre- prises en Europe, au Moyen- Orient et sur le continent améri- cain, en leur proposant des solu- tions globales pour leurs investis- sementsetlastructurationdeleurs opérations. Nicolas Mayer, de son côté, dis- pose de plus 15 ans d’expérience auLuxembourgdanslesecteurde la gestion de fortune au sein des établissements EFG,ABNAMRO etBNPParibas.Iloccupaitjusqu’ici la fonction de Senior Wealth Manager au sein de BNP Paribas Wealth Management Luxem- bourg, sa mission consistant à géreretdévelopperunportefeuille de clients stratégiques avec un focus sur lemarché français. Une trajectoire de croissance solide et structurée En 2026, Norman K. entend poursuivre son développement sur la based’une croissance orga- nique soutenue, portée par le renforcement continu de ses grandes verticales : Investisse- ment, Financement, Corporate Advisory et Wealth Solutions. Via sa nouvelle implantation dans la capitale luxembour- geoise, le groupe entend égale- ment accélérer sa croissance par le biais d’acquisitions externes. L’organisation de Norman K. en plateforme intégrée dans chacun de ses bureaux permet au groupe d’enrichirenpermanencelessolu- tions proposées à ses clients, tout en attirant des talents reconnus et expérimentés. Norman K. ouvre un bureau au Luxembourg ©NormanK.