MiFID II Inducement Conditions in Luxembourg Private Banking: The Article 37-3(3d) LFS Test
Article 37-3(3d) of the Luxembourg Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, as amended (the “LFS“) sets the general inducement test for Luxembourg private banking. This test forms part of the framework under Directive 2014/65/EU of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (“MiFID II“). A third-party fee, commission or non-monetary benefit may be retained only under specific conditions. The benefit must enhance service quality. It must not impair the client’s best interests. Disclosure must precede the relevant service.
Distinguish trailer fees from inducements
A trailer fee (rétrocession de commission) is a specific type of inducement. It generally refers to a recurring commission paid by a third party, often linked to the distribution or holding of a financial product. In practice, trailer fees are among the most common inducement forms encountered in private banking, portfolio management and investment advice.
The word trailer helps illustrate the mechanism. It refers to a commission that follows the client’s investment over time rather than being paid only at the outset. As long as the client remains invested in the product, the commission may continue to be paid to the distributor or intermediary. A trailer fee is therefore not limited to an upfront payment linked to the initial subscription. It may also remunerate an ongoing distribution, custody or servicing relationship that continues after the investment has been made.
The inducement analysis is broader. It covers any fee, commission or benefit linked to an investment service. The benefit may be monetary or non-monetary. Examples include direct payments, fee rebates, training, tools provided by third parties or other advantages that could influence how the investment service provider acts.
The previous article, Trailer Fees & MiFID II: The Luxembourg Private Banking Rules, looked at trailer fees in private banking as a practical example of an inducement. This control takes a broader view. It covers the general conditions that apply to any fee, commission or non-monetary benefit received or provided in connection with an investment service. The aim is not only to check transparency. It is also to determine whether the benefit complies with investor protection rules and the duty to act in the client’s best interests. In short, the question is not only: “has the client been informed?”. It is also: “may the benefit be accepted and retained?”.
Classify the service, test the inducement, document the client information
Service classification governs the analysis. Article 37-3(3b) and Article 37-3(3c) of the LFS apply to investment advice provided on an independent basis and to portfolio management. They prohibit accepting and retaining third-party fees, commissions and benefits. The logic is simple. For these services, the client must be able to rely on advice or management that is not influenced by payments from issuers, distributors or other third parties connected with the relevant financial instruments. The prohibition therefore limits conflicts of interest and strengthens alignment with the client’s interests. Only acceptable minor non-monetary benefits are excluded.
Article 37-3(3d) of the LFS demands more than disclosure. The information must cover the existence, nature and amount of the payment or benefit, or the calculation method, in a comprehensive, accurate and understandable manner. Where applicable, mechanisms for transferring the benefit to the client must also be disclosed. The information must be delivered before the relevant service is provided.
Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2026/374 of 20 February 2026 amended Delegated Directive (EU) 2017/593. It concerns third-party execution and research services. This article does not address the specific regime for those services. This development does not displace the general inducement test under Article 37-3(3d) of the LFS.
The control is simple. Start by identifying the relevant service. Then identify the benefit received or paid. Check two points: does the benefit enhance service quality? Could it impair the client’s interests? Finally, make sure the client was informed in advance.
Beware of a common mistake: informing the client is not enough. An inducement is not admissible merely because it has been disclosed. It must also satisfy the substantive regulatory conditions. In other words, transparency is necessary, but it does not replace the analysis. Treating mere client disclosure as sufficient to make the inducement admissible is not the Article 37-3(3d) test.
Connect with Bertrand Mariaux on LinkedIn.
You can listen to the related podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
References:
- Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, as amended, Article 37-3 — CSSF consolidated English text (https://www.cssf.lu/wp-content/uploads/L_050493_lfs.pdf)
- Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments — EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02014L0065-20250117)
- Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2026/374 of 20 February 2026 — EUR-Lex (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir_del/2026/374/oj/eng)
