UCITS VI: why It matters and why the fund industry needs It

If you enjoy reading our articles and want to support our mission of sharing valuable insights on AML and investment funds, the easiest way to help is by subscribing to the Fundiligence newsletter.
For us it is very important, for you it is FREE.

The UCITS framework has been one of the most regulatory successful stories in the investment fund world and Today the UCITS funds are associated with safety, good governance, and investor protection. The latest UCITS reformulation has been done in 2016, in a moment of political and economical stability. What was considered strong enough 9 years ago, at the time of approval of UCITS V does not always work today, and surely didn't work during COVID period. UCITS VI is not a revolution, but it is a consequences of the challenges faced over the pandemic as well as a step that brings the UCITS framework closer to the realities of the current fund industry, especially after the market shocks of recent years.

To understand why the UCITS VI is necessary, we need to look back at UCITS V. When UCITS V entered into force in 2016, it focused on three areas: the role of the depositary, remuneration rules, and sanctions. These were important topics and they helped strengthen the structural foundation of the UCITS regime, but they did not deal with the operational side of fund management. They did not address liquidity in any meaningful way, even though liquidity is the core risk of an open-ended fund. They did not address the growing complexity of delegation models. And they did not address the fact that national regulators were applying UCITS rules differently, often leading to gaps and inconsistencies. For a few years this did not seem like a major issue, but then the market changed.

Between 2020 and 2022, several episodes reminded regulators that the liquidity risk in open-ended funds deserves more attention. During the COVID-19 shock, some funds were forced to suspend redemptions. What became very clear is that many investment funds were not prepared. They had redemption policies written on paper, but when the crisis arrived, the policies did not help. Tools existed, but they were not pre-selected, not operational, not tested, and not understood by investors. Supervisors realized that relying on generic stress tests and annual statements was not enough. They wanted funds to plan in advance for situations where liquidity suddenly disappears.

This is where UCITS VI comes in. One of the central ideas of UCITS VI is that liquidity management needs to be real, not theoretical. Funds will have to decide in advance which liquidity tools they will use if market conditions deteriorate. They will have to explain how these tools work, why they were chosen, and how they will be activated. This forces management companies to think seriously about the structure of their portfolios, the liquidity of their assets, and the behavior of their investors. It also changes the role of the board, because approving a liquidity framework becomes a decision with clear operational consequences. UCITS VI basically pushes funds to stop improvising during crises and to start preparing for them. UCITS VI will require management companies to pre-define their activation mechanisms, escalation procedures and interaction with the fund’s valuation and dealing arrangements. Liquidity risk management will need to be supported by quantitative liquidity risk indicators, portfolio-level liquidity bucketing and periodic stress-testing that reflects a range of redemption profiles, liquidation horizons, bid-ask spreads, market depth assumptions and cross-asset correlations under stressed conditions. UCITS VI also reinforces governance expectations by imposing explicit board accountability for the operational viability of LMTs, including their integration into constitutional documents and investor disclosures, and by requiring ongoing coordination with depositaries, transfer agents and fund administrators to ensure execution without market disruption.

Management companies will likely need to classify the liquidity of their assets on an ongoing basis, following methodologies aligned with ESMA’s liquidity bucketing approach, and to define in advance how Liquidity Management Tools such as swing pricing, anti-dilution levies, redemption gates or notice periods can be activated. These tools will need to be linked to measurable liquidity indicators, for example the time required to sell portfolio positions, the depth of the market, bid-ask spread movements or the impact of large redemption requests. Liquidity stress tests are also expected to become more robust and more frequent, including scenarios where selling assets may cause price contagion or where operational bottlenecks (e.g., settlement or transfer agency constraints) limit the fund’s ability to meet redemptions.

The second major element of UCITS VI concerns delegation. Delegation is at the heart of the Luxembourg and Irish fund industry. A fund domiciled in Luxembourg is often managed by an asset manager located elsewhere, and distributed across the world. This model works well, but it requires one condition: the management company must remain in control and perform a strong oversight of the Delegate, in line with the CSSF Circular 18/698, according to the Luxembourgish framework. Regulators have been worried for years that some entities delegate too much, or delegate without having the resources or the expertise needed to monitor what is being delegated. UCITS VI tries to address this by clarifying what effective oversight means, what kind of monitoring is expected, and how a management company can demonstrate that it really understands what its delegates are doing.

In Luxembourg, this topic is not new. The CSSF has been working on this for a long time, and Circular 18/698 already requires management companies to maintain real substance, to organize delegation in a way that preserves decision-making capacity, and to implement ongoing monitoring rather than relying on annual questionnaires. Many of the expectations of UCITS VI are already part of the Luxembourg regulatory culture. If we look at the wording of UCITS VI, nothing suggests a conflict with 18/698; if anything, it confirms and strengthens the approach that the CSSF has taken for years. For Luxembourg entities this means that the transition to UCITS VI will probably be less disruptive than in other jurisdictions, but it also means that the CSSF will expect a high quality of implementation, because firms have had years to prepare.

One of the most interesting aspects of UCITS VI is what it says about the future of the fund industry. There is a clear message behind the text: operational resilience matters more than ever. Liquidity events can shake entire markets. Delegation models can collapse if oversight is weak. Investor confidence can evaporate quickly if rules are applied inconsistently. UCITS VI is not trying to eliminate risk, because risk is part of investing. It is trying to ensure that funds are prepared, that controls are real, and that the system continues to work even when conditions are difficult.

The transition to UCITS VI will require work but I believe that from a delegation perspective Luxembourgish Management companies are already compliant. Surely some work will be needed on reviewing their liquidity policies, update prospectus language, train boards, and test the operational readiness. Delegation agreements will need to be reviewed, monitoring processes will need to be strengthened, and internal governance will need to be revisited. Some firms may discover gaps they were not aware of. Others may need to rethink how responsibilities are distributed internally. But none of this is surprising: it is the natural consequence of a framework that tries to keep pace with a market that has become much faster, more interconnected, and more demanding.

In the end, the reason UCITS VI matters is simple. The UCITS regime is a success because it has always adapted. It has never stayed frozen. Every revision has reflected a deeper understanding of how funds work in practice. UCITS VI continues this tradition. It takes the lessons learned from the last decade and turns them into obligations that aim to protect investors, increase transparency, and make the system more resilient. It is not a perfect text, and it will not solve every problem, but it is a necessary step.

For those of us who work in compliance, risk, or fund governance, UCITS VI is an opportunity to bring more discipline, more consistency, and more transparency into our daily work. It is also a reminder that regulation is never an obstacle when it reflects real risks and real behavior. The UCITS brand has survived for decades because it has earned investor trust. UCITS VI is the next step in keeping that trust intact for the decade ahead.

If you arrived until here, it means that you potentially enjoyed this article. I personally thank you and I invite you to subscribe to the newsletter. Also, feel free to get in contact and suggest any particular topic for the next release.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not reflect the official policy, position, or opinions of any financial institution, or other organization.
The content of this article is based on personal research of the author and understanding of AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and compliance topics.

This article has been written and reviewed by the author. Artificial intelligence tools were used only to support language editing and clarity. The analysis and opinions expressed remain entirely human.