09 July 2026
AIFMD II and the UCITS review: what EU reform means for global fund managers Introduction: The stakes of EU reform for global managers What AIFMD II actually changes and for whom Delegation and substance: the reforms that matter most Loan-originating funds: new rules, new obligations Liquidity management tools: an expanded toolkit with new responsibilities Reporting obligations: what has changed and what is coming Stricter requirements regarding national private placement rules What managers should be asking their advisers now
Exploring the Funds Hub
About
AIFMD II (Directive (EU) 2024/927) is in force, with national transposition due by 16 April 2026, and the UCITS review is following closely behind.
For global managers using Luxembourg as their EU gateway, the practical impact is concentrated in four areas: tighter delegation and substance expectations, a new regime for loan-originating funds, mandatory liquidity management tools for open-ended funds, and expanded reporting. Managers who reassess their delegation model, substance footprint and fund documentation early will protect their EU market access and avoid costly retrofitting later.
For managers who reach European investors through Luxembourg, AIFMD II and the UCITS review are not abstract EU technicalities; they reshape how funds are structured, delegated and operated. Luxembourg's passporting advantage has always rested on a simple proposition: a properly authorised manager can market across the EU from a single domicile. That advantage is now only as strong as a manager's ability to satisfy tightening substance and delegation expectations.
The headline position is straightforward. AIFMD II is in force, with Member States required to apply the new rules from April 2026, and the UCITS Directive has been amended in parallel; a broader UCITS review is expected to follow closely. For managers in the UK, US, Switzerland and Asia, the practical question is no longer whether to engage, but how quickly. This piece sets out what has changed, what remains in transition, and what it means for managers operating from outside the EU.
AIFMD II (Directive (EU) 2024/927) amends both the AIFMD and the UCITS Directive. It entered into force in April 2024, and Member States, including Luxembourg, must transpose it into national law by 16 April 2026. In practice, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) will give effect to the regime through national legislation and supplementary circulars, with certain technical standards still to be finalised by ESMA. The timeline matters as much as the content: some obligations bite on transposition, while others phase in or await regulatory technical standards (RTS).
The scope is broad but uneven. The reforms affect all AIFMs to some degree through delegation, substance, and reporting. Still, the most consequential changes are concentrated in loan origination, liquidity management tools (LMTs) for open-ended funds, and the delegation model used by non-EU managers. The UCITS review runs on a separate track. The liquidity provisions have been aligned with AIFMD II through the same directive. Still, the wider UCITS VI agenda, covering issues such as eligible assets, remains at an earlier, consultative stage. Managers should treat the two as related but distinct.
For most global managers, this is the section that matters. AIFMD II preserves the delegation model; a Luxembourg AIFM can still delegate portfolio management to a manager in London, New York, Zurich or Singapore, but it raises the bar on transparency and accountability. Regulators now expect a clear, documented view of the entire delegation chain: where functions sit, who performs them, and how they are supervised. Delegation reporting is expanded, and ESMA will conduct peer reviews to ensure that letterbox entities do not slip through the cracks.
Substance is the other side of the same coin. A Luxembourg AIFM must demonstrably perform the functions it is authorised for, with at least two senior persons conducting its business in the EU on a full-time basis. It can no longer present a lean local presence while substantive work is done elsewhere, without that arrangement attracting scrutiny. For a US- or Asia-based manager acting as delegated portfolio manager of a Luxembourg AIFM, the message is clear: the local entity needs genuine decision-making capability, robust oversight of delegates, and the resources to match. The CSSF and ESMA are drawing firmer lines here, although precisely how far substance expectations extend c...
For global managers using Luxembourg as their EU gateway, the practical impact is concentrated in four areas: tighter delegation and substance expectations, a new regime for loan-originating funds, mandatory liquidity management tools for open-ended funds, and expanded reporting. Managers who reassess their delegation model, substance footprint and fund documentation early will protect their EU market access and avoid costly retrofitting later.
For managers who reach European investors through Luxembourg, AIFMD II and the UCITS review are not abstract EU technicalities; they reshape how funds are structured, delegated and operated. Luxembourg's passporting advantage has always rested on a simple proposition: a properly authorised manager can market across the EU from a single domicile. That advantage is now only as strong as a manager's ability to satisfy tightening substance and delegation expectations.
The headline position is straightforward. AIFMD II is in force, with Member States required to apply the new rules from April 2026, and the UCITS Directive has been amended in parallel; a broader UCITS review is expected to follow closely. For managers in the UK, US, Switzerland and Asia, the practical question is no longer whether to engage, but how quickly. This piece sets out what has changed, what remains in transition, and what it means for managers operating from outside the EU.
AIFMD II (Directive (EU) 2024/927) amends both the AIFMD and the UCITS Directive. It entered into force in April 2024, and Member States, including Luxembourg, must transpose it into national law by 16 April 2026. In practice, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) will give effect to the regime through national legislation and supplementary circulars, with certain technical standards still to be finalised by ESMA. The timeline matters as much as the content: some obligations bite on transposition, while others phase in or await regulatory technical standards (RTS).
The scope is broad but uneven. The reforms affect all AIFMs to some degree through delegation, substance, and reporting. Still, the most consequential changes are concentrated in loan origination, liquidity management tools (LMTs) for open-ended funds, and the delegation model used by non-EU managers. The UCITS review runs on a separate track. The liquidity provisions have been aligned with AIFMD II through the same directive. Still, the wider UCITS VI agenda, covering issues such as eligible assets, remains at an earlier, consultative stage. Managers should treat the two as related but distinct.
For most global managers, this is the section that matters. AIFMD II preserves the delegation model; a Luxembourg AIFM can still delegate portfolio management to a manager in London, New York, Zurich or Singapore, but it raises the bar on transparency and accountability. Regulators now expect a clear, documented view of the entire delegation chain: where functions sit, who performs them, and how they are supervised. Delegation reporting is expanded, and ESMA will conduct peer reviews to ensure that letterbox entities do not slip through the cracks.
Substance is the other side of the same coin. A Luxembourg AIFM must demonstrably perform the functions it is authorised for, with at least two senior persons conducting its business in the EU on a full-time basis. It can no longer present a lean local presence while substantive work is done elsewhere, without that arrangement attracting scrutiny. For a US- or Asia-based manager acting as delegated portfolio manager of a Luxembourg AIFM, the message is clear: the local entity needs genuine decision-making capability, robust oversight of delegates, and the resources to match. The CSSF and ESMA are drawing firmer lines here, although precisely how far substance expectations extend c...