As part of its supervisory priorities for 2025, the AMF conducted a thematic control campaign with four investment service providers, focusing on communications sent to clients about Real Estate Investment Companies (SCPIs). The AMF draws the attention of market participants to this major issue of saver protection, in a context of ongoing tensions in the real estate market.
Following a marked deterioration in the SCPI market observed from the second half of 2023, several vehicles experienced declines in their share or redemption prices, a worsening of certain real estate indicators, an increase in their risk level, longer redemption periods, and even difficulties in meeting unit holders' redemption requests. These developments were likely to affect not only the risk profile of the products but also their positioning in product ranges, their distribution strategy, and the quality of information provided to investors.
The 'SPOT' (Operational and Thematic Practice Supervision) controls were carried out on four establishments of different profiles and sizes, covering the period from January 1, 2022, to the first half of 2026, with July 2023 as a pivotal date. The themes covered included the SCPI offering, marketing methods, pre-contractual and commercial documentation, sales network training, ongoing client information, assessment of advice suitability, and the role of the compliance verification function.
The campaign shows that while the controlled establishments generally identified the degradation of the SCPI market from July 2023, the consequences drawn were varied. The AMF notes that non-compliance existed in the establishments' systems before July 2023, when risks were still theoretical. In the absence of adaptation of these systems after this date, these shortcomings persisted, even as the identified risks materialized, making the findings all the more concerning. At the end of this assessment, the AMF found numerous breaches of applicable regulations.
One of the main lessons from the campaign concerns the absence, in suitability reports, of explanations for why, in the context observed at the time of advice, exposure to an illiquid and, where applicable, devalued SCPI remained an appropriate and relevant investment opportunity given the client's situation. The rationale for the advice often remained standardized, without sufficiently considering the evolution of product characteristics or the specific difficulties encountered by each SCPI.
Among the poor practices identified, the AMF notably points to the absence of formalized criteria for triggering a review of the product offering, leading to late or insufficiently justified adaptations; the lack of a system to attest to the effective delivery of commercial materials used during advice or to precisely identify the version available at the time of subscription; the absence of safeguards to limit client exposure to SCPIs relative to their overall financial savings; and the failure to adapt the involvement level of the compliance verification function despite the emergence of a new risk or the aggravation of an identified risk of poor marketing.
Among the good practices, the AMF observed the delisting of certain SCPIs (from the range of products marketed by the establishment) based solely on the evolution of their characteristics, regardless of the amount of assets held by the concerned clients; the choice of providing investment advisory services as the exclusive distribution strategy for SCPIs (excluding the reception-transmission of orders service); the development of educational tools for the sales network concretely explaining the consequences of liquidity tensions for clients and indicating points to be addressed during investment advice; and the implementation of regular or exceptional communications to existing investors to inform them of significant developments affecting their held SCPIs, when the establishment does not receive ongoing remuneration for investment advice.
