Agefi Luxembourg - avril 2026

Avril 2026 33 AGEFI Luxembourg Fonds &Marchés À mesure que le marché secon- daire arrive à maturité, la sé- lectivité devient plus déter- minante que jamais Par EdouardBOSCHER, responsable private equity chez Carmignac L’an dernier, le marché secondaire du capital-investissement a atteint un volume de transactions recordde 226 milliards de dollars, soit une progres- sionde 41%par rapport à une année 2024 déjà historique (1) . Longtemps relégué à la marge des marchés privés, le segment du secondaire s’impose désormais comme un pilier des actifs privés. Alors que les investisseurs se préparent à une nou- velle année potentiellement record, la sélectivité sera essentielle, et l'Europe pourrait bien en être l’un des principaux bénéficiaires. Vers un nouveau sommet ? Le ralentissement des introductions en bourse (IPO), l’une des voies de sortie privilégiée par les investisseurs (LPs) et les sociétés de gestion (GPs), est fréquemment cité comme un facteur clé de l’es- sor du marché secondaire. Cette lecture, bien que pertinente, est incomplète. La maturation du mar- ché procède d’une dynamique plus profonde. Les transactions initiées par les gérants (« GP-led »), permettant d’offrir de la liquidité aux investisseurs historiques ou de conserver une exposition aux actifs, se sont progressi- vement imposées comme une composante structurelle du paysage. Autrefois considérées commedes solutions dedernier recours, ces opérations ont atteint 106milliards de dollars en 2025, enhausse de 49% (1) sur un an. Elles constituent désormais un levier stratégique pour les gérants : conserver des actifs performants, renforcer l’ali- gnement d’intérêts et optimi- ser les structures de capital. Dès lors, même dans l’hy- pothèse d’un redémarrage des IPOen 2026, la dynamique dumarché secondaire apparaît solidement ancrée. Une croissance soutenue, sans excès Face à la vigueur des volumes observés ces der- nières années, la question d’une éventuelle sur- chauffe peut légitimement se poser. Elle ne nous semble toutefois pas fondée. En dépit de niveaux élevés de capitaux disponibles (« dry powder ») dédiés aux stratégies secondaires, le flux d’opé- rations demeure particulièrement dynamique, traduisant un marché encore structurellement sous-capitalisé. Par ailleurs, l’analyse des niveaux de valorisation ne révèlepasde tensions excessives. Dansdenombreux segments, les prix restent globalement en ligne avec leurs moyennes historiques, en particulier pour les transactions initiées par les investisseurs (« LP-led »). Les exigences en matière de sélection et de due dili- gence demeurent rigoureuses, avec une différencia- tiondeplusenplusnetteentreactifsdegrandequalité et actifs plus fragiles. L’Europe, un terraind’opportunités privilégié Dans un univers riche en opportunités, l’exigence de sélectivité n’a jamais été aussi forte. À cet égard, le marché secondaire européen présente aujourd’hui des caractéristiques particulièrement attractives : des valorisations d’entrée plus mesurées, une résilience structurelle éprouvée, des cadres de gouvernance solides et unvivier croissant d’actifs de qualité. La concentration dumarché américain sur le secteur technologique,quienalongtempsfaitlaforce,consti- tueenrevancheunesourcedevulnérabilité.Dansune optique de diversification et de robustesse, l’Europe offre une alternative crédible, portée par son exposi- tion à des secteurs essentiels de l’économie réelle, notamment l’industrie, la santé, les infrastructuresou encore la transition énergétique. Dansuncontexte où lesfinances publiques sont sous contrainte,ycomprisdansleséconomieseuropéennes les plus solides, le capital privé sera appelé à jouer un rôle central pour accompagner ces transformations, qu’ils’agissedesouverainetéindustrielle,deréindus- trialisation ou de décarbonation. Pour autant, toute formede complaisance seraitmalvenue. Si l’Europe regorge d’opportunités, celles-ci sont hétérogènes tant en qualité qu’en potentiel de performance. Dans unmarché aussi vaste que complexe, la réus- site repose sur une expertise approfondie : capacité d’origination, solide analyse de données, maîtrise des structurations et compréhension fine des envi- ronnements réglementaires. Une maturité qui renforce l’attractivité Malgré une succession d’années records, le mar- ché secondaire devrait poursuivre son expansion organique. Il s’est mué en un écosystème sophis- tiqué et intermédié, permettant aux vendeurs de piloter activement et avec agilité leur exposition aux actifs privés. Du point de vue des investisseurs acquéreurs, les conditions actuelles apparaissent particulièrement favorables. En dépit de la croissance soutenue du marché, l’offre continue d’excéder la demande, maintenant des décotes significatives, enparticulier sur les transactions européennes. Loin d’éroder les perspectives de rendement, la montée enmaturité dumarché secondaire en ren- force au contraire la pertinence, l’efficacité et l’at- trait durable, tant pour les vendeurs que pour les investisseurs. 1) Rapport Evercore 2025 sur le marché secondaire L'Europe s’affirme au cœur du marché secondaire By Katia FETTES, Partner, Global Loans & Anna KOZAKIEWICZ, Senior Asssociate, GlobalLoans,AshurstLLPLuxembourgbranch O ver the past year, a notable increase in fund finance transactions that also pre- sent securitisation aspects canbe observed. This article provides an overviewof the key structures that we have encountered in our prac- tice inLuxembourg, at the intersec- tionbetween local law, European Union regulations, and the laws of theUnitedStates. Securitisation Framework The concept of securitisation is not uni- form across jurisdictions, and under- standingthedistinctionsbetweenregimes isessentialwhenstructuringfundfinance transactionswith securitisation elements. Under the Luxembourg lawof 22March 2004 on securitisation (the “ 2004Law ”), a transactionwill need to be carried out by aLuxembourgincorporatedSPV,withits articles of incorporation clearly defining it as a securitisation undertaking (the “SPV” ) inorder toqualify as a securitisa- tion.A typical structure involves the SPV beingsetupasanorphanhavingaDutch foundation or Irish trust as its sole share- holder to ensure independence and bankruptcy remoteness. The SPV acquires or assumes risks relat- ing to claims, other assets, or obligations assumed by third parties, and issues financial instruments or takes out loans whose value or yield depends on such risks.Luxembourglawisflexibleinterms ofeligibleassetsforsecuritisations—loan obligations, other claims, financial instru- ments, and even real estate all qualify. At the European level, Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 (the “Securitisation Regu- lation” ) isbothbroader andmore restric- tive. It defines a securitisation as a trans- action whereby a credit risk associated with an exposure or pool of exposures is tranched, with payments dependent on performance and subordination deter- mining the distribution of losses. Unlike the Luxembourg law, the issuer neednotbeanyparticulartypeofvehicle, so a transaction under the Securitisation Regulationmayormaynot overlapwith a Luxembourg law securitisation. The Securitisation Regulation imposes a risk retention requirement of at least five per cent on an ongoing basis, designed to align the interests of originators and sponsors with those of investors, and no credit risk mitigation or hedging of the retained interest is permitted. In the United States, there is no single equivalent regime. Instead, several over- lapping frameworks apply: US securities lawsrequirethattheissuer’ssecuritiesare exempt from registration (typically via private placement or Rule 144A); the Investment CompanyAct requires struc- turing to avoid registration as an invest- ment company (relying on exemptions such as Rule 3a-7 or Sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7));andtheBankruptcyCodeandthe UCCgovernbankruptcyremotenessand truesaleconsiderations.The relevant reg- ulatory question is whether the issuer has issued an “asset-backed security”— a security collateralised by self-liquidat- ing assets where payments depend pri- marily on cash flows from the underly- ing assets — in which case the US risk retention regime generally applies. Fund FinanceApplications Having outlined the key regulatory frameworks, we now turn to how secu- ritisation techniques are beingapplied in practice across different fund finance products, including capital call financ- ings, NAV facilities, and the securitisa- tion of loan portfolios. Capital Call Financings Structured as Securitisations In a typical subscriptionfinancing struc- tured as a securitisation, a fund (the “Fund” ) establishes a special purpose vehicle, which will become a borrower (the “Borrower” ) under a loan agree- ment with a lender. The loan will be secured by the Fund’s rights to call capi- tal fromits limitedpartners and thebank accounts into which the investors’ com- mitments are paid. The Fund will grant such security in favour of the Borrower as security for its obligationsunder a sep- arate commitment agreement from the Fund to the Borrower (thereby ensuring the security is an asset of the Borrower that can then securitise them), who in turn pledges or assigns its claims under suchcommitment agreement against the Fund directly to the lender. What is achieved through this cascading arrangementisthetransferofriskrelating to the payment of uncalled capital com- mitments by the investors. As such, the securitised exposures are the investors’ uncalledcommitmentsandrelatedrights under the limitedpartnershipagreement and subscription documents, with risk transfer to the lender achievedviaachain of security arrangements. This is not necessarily a Luxembourg law securitisation, as the SPV need not be established as a securitisation under- taking under the 2004 Law. Rather, such financingmay constitute a securi- tisation under US law provided pay- ments are dependent on the exposure or pool of exposures. However, one could imagine this structure as a 2004 Law securitisation if the Borrower is established as a Luxembourg securiti- sation undertaking. Lendersmayalsorequirethatrestrictions on incurring additional debt and limita- tions on activities are incorporated in the constitutional documents of the SPV to preserve its bankruptcy remoteness. NAVFacilities Netassetvaluefacilitiescanbestructured in compliance with the EU Securitisation Regulation, thoughwhether they qualify asasecuritisationwilldependonthespe- cific structuring choices made. Notably, theSecuritisationRegulationrequiresthat theunderlyingexposures(inthiscase,the portfolio investments of the fund serving as basis for the NAV calculation) include a credit risk, which narrows the possible application of this structure primarily to debt funds, whose portfolio consists of loans or debt instruments andwill there- fore satisfy the credit risk criterion. A NAV facility is not usually a Luxembourg law securitisation (due to the required qualification as a securiti- sation vehicle under the 2004 Law). However, where the financing is made to a subsidiary of the fund incorporated for the purpose of holding the fund portfolio, suchvehicle could also qualify as a securitisation undertaking under Luxembourg law. Several further structuring considera- tions arise. First, the Securitisation Reg- ulation requires contractual tranching. This may be achieved where the fund is further financed through subordi- nated loans from another investor, or even where there is a contractual sub- ordination of the fund investors’ re- course against the fund to the bank. Second, the recourse of the bank must be limited to the portfolio assets being securitised. Third, the securitisation of existing securitisation positions (so- called “re-securitisation”) is prohibited under the Securitisation Regulation. This means that if the fund holds secu- ritisation positions within its portfolio, a new securitisation layered on top would not be permitted. Finally, the five per cent. risk retention requirement applies, and as the origina- tor must have economic substance, the retaining entity is likely to be the master fund where the securitisation is effected through an SPV. Market Drivers The primary reason US banks structure fund finance deals as securitisations relates to regulatory capital requirements undertheUSimplementationoftheBasel III framework. While demand for capital call financing from fund sponsors has been growing, prudential requirements are gradually becoming stricter, increas- ing the pressure on banks’ balance sheets and forcing more creative approaches to standard lending operations. Forshort-termrevolvingfacilitiesthatmay be considereda securitisation (if the credit riskassociatedwiththeassetsisseparated intoat least two tranches), riskweight cal- culation is generally more favourable under the law of the United States than a standard corporate loan exposure and as result, itsweight on the balance sheet of a bank is considerably lighter. In Europe, Basel recommendations are also applied, though implementation sometimesdiffers.Todate,thisstructuring trendhasbeenobservedprimarilyamong US banks rather than EU-established lenders. Whether upcoming changes under theCRRandCRDVImayalter the Europeanposition remains to be seen. Securitisation of a Portfolio of Capital Call Loans Anotheralternativetomanagethebank’s portfolio of loans involves the securitisa- tion of a portfolio of existing capital call loans.Thepurposehereisnottoimprove thecapitaltreatmentofanindividualloan for the bank, but to ensure the loan port- folio is taken off the bank’s balance sheet entirely and transferred to an SPV. This raises a number of practical challenges. The revolvingnatureof the facilities, cou- pled with multi-currency exposure and limitedprepaymentmechanics, requires careful consideration in thedesignof the paymentwaterfall andrelateddocumen- tation. Transfer restrictions inunderlying loan documentation must also be con- sidered and addressed through legal opinions and due diligence on fund finance documents. Data and disclosure requirements remain a significant challenge as well. Lenders are required to disclose infor- mation on the underlying pool, and striking the right balance between pro- viding sufficient statistical information to investors without revealing the iden- tities of underlying borrowers or limited partners is a persistent challenge. Conclusion As regulatory pressures intensify and investor demand for exposure to alter- native assets continues to rise, securiti- sation techniques are becoming an increasingly important tool in the fund finance practitioner’s toolkit. However, the cross-border nature of these trans- actions, the divergence between the Luxembourg, EU, andUS frameworks, and the practical challenges around structuring mean that careful, jurisdic- tion-specific analysis remains essential. This is a space that will continue to evolve, and market participants would be well advised to monitor regulatory developments on both sides of the Atlantic closely. An Overview of Market Developments The Intersection of Fund Finance and Securitisation