AGEFI Luxembourg - juillet août 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 28 Juillet / Août 2025 Fonds d’investissement Par Pascal RIEGIS, co-responsable Gestion Actions Fondamentales,ODDOBHFAM M algré les secousses provoquées par la guerre tarifaire déclen- chée parDonaldTrump, Les Mid Caps Européennes affichent de bonnes performances depuis le début de l’année, portés no- tamment par les secteurs de la défense, des financières et de l’industrie. Notre position constructive sur ce segment repose sur plusieurs éléments : une politique moné- taire plus accommodante mar- quéepardesbaissesdetauxd’in- térêt,quelquessignauxpositifssurun possible cessez-le-feu enUkraine, ainsi que des valo- risationspotentiellementattractives,actuellementinfé- rieures à leur moyenne historique, qui ont contribué à alimenter le rebondde la classe d’actif. Par ailleurs, le plan de relance allemand axé sur les infrastructures et la défense, annoncé plus tôt cette année, devrait particulièrement bénéficier aux entre- prises allemandes tournées vers leurmarché domes- tique, avec un effet d’entraînement potentiel sur l’en- semble de la zone euro. La valorisation est-elle attractive ? Après plusieurs années de sous-performance par rapportauxgrandescapitalisations,lesentreprises européennes de moyenne capitalisation ont subi une forte décote. En effet, la prime de valorisation dont elles bénéficiaient depuis longtemps par rap- port aux Large Caps , en raison de leur croissance bénéficiairesupérieure,estdésormaispra- tiquement nulle. Au30juin2025,selonBloomberg, le ratio cours/bénéfice (PER) des Mid Caps européennes (MSCI Europe MidCap NREUR)s’éta- blissait à 17,1x, contre une moyennehistoriquesur15ans de 16,5x. Ce niveau reste légè- rement supérieur à celui des grandes capitalisations (MSCI Europe Large Cap NR EUR) à 16,7x, selonnotre analyse. Quels sont les catalyseurs ? Plusieurs indicateurs fondamentaux pourraient po- tentiellement raviver l’intérêt des investisseurs pour les Mid Caps européennes : la poursuite ou l’accélé- ration de la baisse des taux d’intérêt, un regain d’in- térêt pour l’Europe à un moment où l’exceptionnalisme américain est remis en question, des données laissant entrevoir une amélioration de la croissance économique, desprogrammesd’inves- tissement paneuropéens, ainsi qu’une amélioration des fondamentaux des sociétés demoyenne capita- lisation,etc.Cescatalyseursrestentàconfirmer,mais sont nombreux. Après des années de performances décevantes (tant en valeur absolue qu’en relatif par rapport aux Large Caps ) et compte tenu des faibles valorisations des moyennes capitalisations euro- péennes, leur rebondboursier, lorsqu’il se produira, pourrait être significatif. Nous constatons d’ailleurs une amélioration récente desmarchés actions européens, soutenus par le plan d’investissementambitieuxdelanouvellecoalitional- lemandeetl’augmentationdesdépensesmilitairesdes pays de l’OTAN, qui dynamisent notamment le sec- teurdeladéfense.Toutefois,l’incertitude,notamment aux États-Unis, liée aux droits de douane annoncés par Donald Trump, incite les investisseurs à la pru- dence sur lesmarchés actions. Pourquoi est-ce le bonmoment pour les MidCaps selonnous ? Bienqu’ellesaientétépénaliséesen2021etdébut2022 par les perturbations sur la chaîne d’approvisionne- ment et la flambée des coûts, nos entreprises ont su faire face à ces défis, enpréservant leursmarges et en démontrantleurcapacitéd’adaptationdansdesenvi- ronnements difficiles. Malgré les tensions commerciales récentes, elles res- tent bien positionnées pour s’adapter. En effet, grâce à leurs activités mondiales et à leur présence locale dansdenombreuxpays,ellesmaintiennentdesstruc- tures de coûts compétitives dans toutes les régions. Même si la question de l’origine des approvisionne- ments devient plus sensible, ces entreprises ont la ca- pacité d’adapter leur production, un défi que leurs concurrents – y compris américains – doivent égale- ment relever. Les parts demarché de nos entreprises sélectionnées devraient être préservées dans chaque pays grâce à leur avantage concurrentiel. Selonnous, une fois le contexte stabilisé, le potentiel de hausse pourrait être significatif. Comme toute stratégie actions, il faut rappeler qu’in- vestirdansdessociétésàmoyennecapitalisationcom- porte des risques liés aux marchés financiers (risque de perte en capital, risque actions, risque de liquidité, risque lié à la détention de titres à moyenne capitali- sation, etc.). Conclusion Au-delàducontexteactuel,les MidCaps devraientêtre considérées comme une classe d’actifs de « crois- sance » au seind’unportefeuillediversifié, offrant un équilibreentre risqueet opportunité.Avecdesvalori- sations actuellement inférieures à leur moyenne his- torique, elles pourraient constituer une alternative intéressante aux Large Caps pour les investisseurs, comptetenudeleurrendementhistoriquesupérieur*, bienque le risque de perte en capital soit plus élevé. *Lesperformancespasséesneprésagentpasdesperformancesfutureset nesontpasconstantesdans letemps. Focus sur les Mid Caps Européennes By Dimitri PALATE, EY Luxembourg Partner, Wealth and Asset Management C osts and charges have become a focal point in the European invest- ment fund landscape, drivenby growing regulatory scrutiny andheightened investor sensitivity. Fundmanagers across Europe, particularly in the UCITS space, face intensified su- pervisionby national andEuro- pean authorities, ledby the EuropeanSecurities andMar- ketsAuthority (ESMA) and local regulators such as Lux- embourg’s Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Fi- nancier (CSSF). Background on theRegulatory Framework: ESMA’s CommonSupervisoryAction and theCSSF’s Supervisory Approach inLuxembourg In2021,ESMAinitiateda CommonSupervisoryAc- tion (CSA) across Member States targeting funds’ costs and fees. The CSA examined whether funds were: -Applying only justified and proportionate fees ; - Transparent in their disclosure to investors ; -Ensuring costgovernance throughinternalcontrols and oversight mechanisms. The findings published in 2022 highlighted weak- nesses, including inconsistent cost disclosures, lack of benchmarking or value assessments, and inade- quate pricing governance at the board level.As a re- sult, ESMA instructed National Competent Authorities (NCAs) to step up supervision and har- monize enforcement. In its December 2022 report, the CSSF highlighted deficienciesobserved in theLuxembourg fundmar- ket, such as: - Bundled “all-in” fees with opaque breakdowns; - Insufficient board oversight over cost structures; -Missing documentation supporting fee decisions. TheCSSFemphasizedthatfundmanagersmustreg- ularly assess anddocument cost structures, and put mechanisms in place to justify investor charges, in- cluding performance fees and third-party expenses. InNovember 2024, ESMA initiated a survey (1) to ex- amine the costs associatedwith investments inAIFs andUCITS, with the goal of providing insights into pricing practices within a crucial segment of EU fi- nancial markets. Subsequently, the CSSF requested a selection of UCITS andAIFmanagers, alongwith distributors, to fill out a comprehensive question- naire through thee-Deskportal. This surveyconcen- trated on all fees, charges, and expenses incurred directlyor indirectlyby investors, or by the management company/ AIF Man- agers (AIFMs) related to theoperations of the UCITS/AIFs, which are ulti- mately charged to the fund. A report utilizing the data collected will be delivered to the Euro- pean Parliament, the Council, and the Euro- pean Commission in Oc- tober 2025. This report will also contribute to an enhanced ESMA market report in 2025, focusing on the costs and perfor- mance of EUretail invest- ment products. Market Trends and Structural Evolution The European fund market is evolving under a mix ofregulatorypressure,investorexpectations,anddig- italization. Fund managers continue to face margin pressure as fee compression accelerates. Several key macro-trends are shaping the fee land- scape: - Shift towards ETF and Passive Products : These products generally offer lower Total Expense Ratios (TERs), forcing active managers to justify premium feesthroughperformanceandservicedifferentiation; - Transparency-DrivenDemand : In addition to fi- nancial returns, investors increasingly demand non-financial performance, aswitnessedby the im- portant market share (c. 60% according to Morn- ingstar) of Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) Article 8 and Article 9 funds driving more detailed reporting; -Digital Transformation :Automationof cost disclo- sures (e.g., via PRIIPs KIDs andMiFID II templates) improves comparability but demands better data governance; -Active ETF challenges : one of themajor challenges comesfromactiveETF’sduetotheirtransparency,on- going tradability and comparable lower TERfigures. It is foreseeable that this product line will be the biggest challenge for the traditional fund business going forward. In today’s dynamicmarket, peer group comparisons and performance figures help to determine whether a fund offers value for money. Funds exceeding cer- taincostthresholdsneedtosomehowjustifytheircost premium to the investors, either through active out- performance, complexity, or added value (e.g., sus- tainability strategies or specialized structuring). Constraints andChallenges Facedby FundManagers Fund managers must navigate various regulatory constraints. According to the UCITS Directive and ESMAGuidelines , feesmust beproportionate and clearly disclosed. MiFID II & PRIIPs require pre- contractual cost disclosure at both ex-ante and ex-post levels. CSSF Circulars enforce enhanced board re- sponsibility and pricing policies. At the same time, fundmanagersmust also consider operational constraints, such as multi-layered fees (e.g., investment management, distribution, and platform or trading fees) which must be consoli- dated and tracked, and cross-border distribution adds another layer of complexity due to divergent NCA interpretations. Despite a clear regulatory roadmap, asset managers encounter various hurdles: -UndueCostCharges: Duetolackofpricingpolicies or misalignment between board approval and oper- ational execution the risk of undue costs being charged to investors is concrete. - Technological Shortcomings : Legacy systems are often lacking accurate, timely cost data across products. -InconsistentDocumentDisclosures :Discrepancies between various official documents such as KIDs, marketingmaterials, and investor reports. - Comparison : Failing to conduct peer comparisons andvalueassessmentsbymanagerscanincreaserisk. Bynotcomparingtheirpracticesandvaluestoindus- trypeers,fundmanagersmaydecreasemarketshares and miss opportunities to identify and mitigate po- tential risks, leading to potential increased scrutiny fromregulators. While the ESMACSA onUCITS costs has largely placed the regulatory spotlight on retail funds, its implications are increasingly influencing the Al- ternative Investment Fund space. In line with su- pervisory expectations across Member States –particularly from authorities such as the CSSF – AIF Managers are expected to adopt enhanced scrutiny and transparency around fee structures, investor value, and cost governance . Although AIFs benefit from broader structuring flexibility compared to UCITS, recent CSSF feed- back, ESMAQ&As and the newUCITS/AIFMDi- rective signal a clear direction: costs must be fair, proportionate, and clearly documented. This in- cludes due diligence fees, performance-linked fees, asset acquisition costs, and third-party dele- gate charges. Moreover, value-for-money princi- ples , traditionally associated with UCITS, are gradually permeating AIF expectations –particu- larly in the context of professional investor pro- tection and cross-border fund distribution . Industryvoices, suchas ALFI , emphasize the impor- tance of: - Robust fee governance policies ; - Board-level oversight and escalation ; - Periodic benchmarking and justification of cost layers , especially in private equity, real estate, infras- tructure, andprivate debt strategies. For managers, this represents both a challenge and anopportunity : while aligningwith evolving super- visory frameworks adds operational complexity, it alsoenhancesinvestorconfidenceandpositionsfirms competitivelyinanenvironmentthatincreasinglyval- ues transparency, consistency, and accountability . Opportunities andStrategic Recommendations Amidthesechallenges,severalstrategicopportunities have emerged: -Value-for-MoneyProposition :Fundsthatintegrate clear cost governance and offer performance net of competitive fees can standout in crowdedmarkets. - Automation and Digital Reporting : Leveraging RegTech(regulatorytechnology)toproducemachine- readable, audit-proof disclosures enhances efficiency and reduces human error. - ESGFeeAlignment : Through the increase inman- agement fees stemming fromthe additional commit- ments from impact-driven investors or through dedicated ESG fees, aligning ESG costs with ESG valuecreatestransparencyandsatisfiesnewsupervi- sory expectations. - Fee Restructuring : Some managers are moving to- ward tiered fee models , performance-linked struc- tures , or even zero-fee share classes with backend revenuemodels. Also, considering to proactively update prospec- tuses and service agreements to reflect these shifts is essential. Tomaintain regulatory alignment and investor trust, fundboards andmanagers should: 1. Conduct Annual Cost Reviews : Integrate fee re- viewinto the fundboard’s annual agenda 2. Create a Fee Policy Document : Outline method- ologies, benchmarks, approval processes 3. Benchmark Fees : Against similar vehicles across domicile and strategy 4. EnsureDataConsistency :HarmonizePRIIPs, and MiFID II templates 5. EngageThirdParties :Useauditsorboard-levelcost review committees to independently challenge pro- cesses inplace Conclusion Costsandchargesremaincentraltofundgovernance and investors’ trust. The supervisory pressure led by ESMA’s CSA, coupled with CSSF and NCA action, signals a more intrusive, data-driven regulatory fu- ture. While constraints are intensifying, the opportu- nity to enhance transparency, build competitive pricing models, and align with investor needs has never beengreater. Assetmanagerswhoactnow–byadoptingbestprac- tices inpricinggovernance, embracingdigital report- ing, and prioritizing value for money – will not only meet compliance expectations but will also thrive in an increasingly cost-sensitive European investment environment. 1)ESMAiscollectingdataoncostslinkedtoinvestmentsinAIFsandUCITS Costs and Charges of Funds in Europe and Luxembourg: Supervisory Landscape, Market Trends, and Strategic Implications