AIMA’s 2026 Global Policy and Regulatory Forum took place this week in Dublin. Globally, the themes of growth and competitiveness have come to dominate discussion of regulatory change, although at national and regional level this finds its expression in very different priorities: crypto market in the US, supervisory convergence in the EU. The event offered an opportunity to unpick these different regional agendas, while also scrutinising Ireland’s plans for its presidency of the EU’s Council in the second half of 2026 (and its focus on streamlining requirements for cross-border business and rebooting securitization).

Key takeaways from the event included:

• Those writing rules for the asset management sector clearly understand the potential for rule change to support growth and investment in infrastructure – proportionality and flexibility evidently matter. But regulating in a way that promotes national interests is also constrained by the inherent interconnectedness of global financial markets.

• There is a broad sense that the approach to rulemaking in the US has become more constructive, with better engagement between industry and the regulatory agencies. The challenge, however, is one of capacity in terms of rulemaking, and the potential for some areas of the administration’s agenda to dominate at the expense of others.

• The Bank of England’s System-Wide Exploratory Scenario is clearly inspiring similar projects at EU-level. As much as regulators can benefit from a better understanding of market dynamics, they equally view such exercises as helpful for industry as well, providing an opportunity for participants to understand if their assumptions about how markets and counterparts would react in times of stress are correct.

• Regulators are alive to the trend of wider retail participation in private market strategies and understand the economic benefits of opening up these strategies to a wider pool of potential capital. At the same time this also poses risks and a key concern is that investors should have an accurate understanding of the liquidity profile of the product that they have invested in.

• More than looking to challenge the banking sector directly, private credit firms are now playing a complementary role, taking a distinct place in the capital structure. Regulators still express concern about data gaps in this space, but are also looking at how better to share supervisory expertise across borders, particularly when it comes to approaches to stress testing.

• Both firms and supervisory authorities are looking to embrace the transformative opportunities associated with AI use, but caution is also evident as those using new tools need to be sure that they can trust the output. There is also a question as to whether AI-enabled supervisory approaches will lead regulators to ask for more data from firms, rather than scaling back their requests.