Skip to main content

FCA tightens the clock on illiquid funds: 90 days to sell, two years to adjust

The FCA has proposed a mandatory 90-day notice period for authorised funds investing in illiquid assets such as property, with existing funds given two years to comply. For asset managers, distributors and platforms, this reshapes the economics of open-ended private market vehicles and forces a difficult client conversation.

The FCA has moved to end daily dealing in authorised funds that hold inherently illiquid assets. Under CP26/35, published on 8 October, investors in non-UCITS retail schemes will have to give at least 90 days' notice before redeeming, with existing funds granted two years to comply and required to give investors at least one year's notice of the change (FCA). Consultation closes on 11 December 2026 (FCA).

The end of a product fiction

The underlying problem is well understood inside the industry but has rarely been named this directly by the regulator. Some funds currently allow daily withdrawals despite holding assets that cannot be sold quickly without significant loss, and during stress this has forced suspensions or cash hoarding that drags on returns (FCA). The FCA's framing is unambiguous: 'Funds should be clear about whether they offer quick access or are built for longer-term investments like property,' said Michelle Beck, director, markets, at the FCA (FCA). The policy accepts that the liquidity mismatch at the heart of daily-dealing property funds was a design flaw, not a market accident.

Distribution is the hard part

For asset managers, the technical build is manageable. The commercial challenge is distribution. Platforms, model portfolio services and advisers have constructed workflows and client suitability frameworks around daily or near-daily dealing. A 90-day notice period changes how these funds sit inside ISAs, SIPPs and discretionary portfolios, and it changes the conversation with retail and wealth clients who have been sold a liquidity profile the underlying assets never supported. The one-year investor notification requirement for existing funds is, in effect, a mandated repapering and re-education exercise across the entire NURS distribution chain.

A deliberate push into private markets

Read alongside the FCA's growth remit, the proposal is not a retreat from illiquid assets but an attempt to make them investable at scale. By bringing the UK into line with new international liquidity standards for open-ended funds (FCA), the regulator is signalling that credible private markets exposure for UK investors requires honest product architecture. That matters for the wider policy agenda, including the pensions and capital markets reforms the Treasury is pursuing with international partners such as India on asset management and sustainable finance (HM Treasury). If UK-domiciled vehicles can hold property and infrastructure without the suspension risk that embarrassed the sector repeatedly over the last decade, the UK becomes a more credible home for long-duration capital.

What boards should do now

Asset manager boards should treat the two-year transition as a product strategy decision, not a compliance project. Some NURS property and infrastructure funds will not survive the economics of a 90-day notice structure once outflows crystallise during the notification year. Decisions on fund rationalisation, mergers, or conversion to long-term asset fund structures need to be taken in the first half of 2027, well before the compliance deadline bites. The firms that move early will shape the distribution conversation. Those that wait will inherit it.

What this reveals

The FCA has publicly named a liquidity mismatch the industry had quietly tolerated for years: a product design whose promised terms never matched the underlying assets. The deeper issue is not fund structure, it is how long an organisation can continue selling a proposition on assumptions, in this case daily liquidity, that stakeholders, regulators and operational reality have already stopped supporting. Other leadership teams should ask where else their distribution narrative, client suitability framework or product terms depend on a convenient fiction that supervisors have begun to challenge in adjacent areas. The two-year transition is not a grace period, it is a mandated repapering of a client relationship built on a promise the firm can no longer keep.

Questions accountable leaders should ask

  • 01Where in our product range do the terms we offer clients depend on assumptions about liquidity, capacity or counterparty behaviour that have not been stress-tested against a realistic downside?
  • 02If the FCA required us to give one year's notice to every affected investor tomorrow, do we know what those conversations would actually sound like, and who would struggle to have them?
  • 03Which parts of our distribution chain, platforms, MPS providers, advisers, have built workflows that assume the current product structure will not change, and how exposed are we if those workflows need rebuilding?
  • 04Have we distinguished between regulatory changes we treat as a 2028 compliance task and those that require commercial and client-conversation redesign starting now?
  • 05Where else is the industry quietly tolerating a product design flaw that a regulator is likely to name next?

What accountable leaders should do now

  1. 1Map every authorised fund, mandate or product where the dealing terms offered to clients diverge from the realistic liquidity of the underlying assets, and quantify the AUM and distribution exposure in each case.
  2. 2Commission a distribution-chain impact assessment covering platforms, MPS, SIPP and ISA wrappers, and adviser suitability frameworks, so the commercial redesign runs in parallel with the operational build, not after it.
  3. 3Draft the client and intermediary communications now, at least in outline, and pressure-test them with a sample of advisers and wealth clients to surface the objections before the one-year notice period starts.
  4. 4Reopen the product governance file on any other open-ended vehicle holding assets with uncertain liquidity, applying the same test the FCA has now applied to property funds, before the regulator extends the principle.
  5. 5Brief the board on the gap between the two-year compliance deadline and the much shorter window for commercial and distribution decisions, so capital allocation and product rationalisation choices are made with eyes open.

Explore the practical guide

This guide identifies where board-level strategic thinking typically diverges from what supervisors actually care about in financial services, and how to spot and close those gaps before they become enforcement problems. After reading, you will be able to audit your own board papers and strategy documents for the specific blind spots regulators notice.

Read the guide

Where internal confidence may exceed external evidence

Polar Insight helps leadership teams test critical assumptions against stakeholder, market, regulatory, and operational reality before risk compounds.

Explore Stakeholder Proximity

Stakeholder Signals

Consequential developments in financial services and other regulated markets, with one implication for accountable leaders.