• Below, we detail the benefits of multi-issuance securitization vehicles and how they perform across different areas of finance, according to the III Annual Report of the Asset Securitization Sector 2025-2026.
• The content is aimed at asset managers who want to gain an in-depth understanding of why structured products can be used in building their strategies.
• FlexFunds offers an asset securitization program that enhances the liquidity of a wide range of assets to optimize their distribution. For more information, feel free to contact our experts.

In the world of structured finance, multi-issuance securitization vehicles have established themselves as an increasingly popular tool for managers seeking to optimize costs and access opportunities.

Their growing popularity responds to the need for more efficient platforms to channel investments, but also presents challenges in terms of regulation, operations, and investor protection.

Funds: The regulated but costly alternative

One of the most traditional structures for channeling investments is the creation of funds. However, establishment and operational costs are usually high, making them less viable for smaller-scale operations.

In Ireland, for example, an Irish Collective Asset-management Vehicle (ICAV) can incur annual operating costs exceeding EUR 200,000, not including initial setup expenses.

Additionally, as regulated entities, fund directors must be approved by the Central Bank of Ireland, which adds complexity and time to the process.

While some investors value the additional security provided by a regulated vehicle, in many cases costs discourage the creation of funds for small or medium-sized transactions.

For such operations, multi-issuance securitization vehicles present a more cost-effective alternative.

Independent SPVs: The foundation of CLOs

At the other end are independent special purpose vehicles (SPVs), commonly used in larger-scale structures such as collateralized loan obligations (CLOs).

These types of issuances can reach hundreds of millions of dollars or euros, distributed across different debt tranches with varying payment priorities.

These are complex structures, involving active portfolio management and stricter regulation, as tranching requires compliance with the European Union Securitization Regulation.

CLOs, therefore, represent a domain where independent SPVs are essential, but their scale is far beyond the needs of many managers seeking more flexible and cost-efficient solutions.

Multi-issuance vehicles: Cost optimization and flexibility

Between funds and independent SPVs lie multi-issuance securitization vehicles, which allow cost optimization and flexible investment structures.

In these platforms, a single SPV can issue multiple “series” of debt securities, each independently designed and with contractually segregated assets.

This separation is key to ensuring that the risks of one series do not affect any other series and can be achieved through contractual mechanisms or “cell” legislation in jurisdictions such as Luxembourg.

Thanks to this structure, each issuance mirrors the economics of a small managed fund, but without the high establishment and operating costs of a traditional fund.

For this reason, multi-issuance platforms are especially attractive for smaller-scale transactions.

“While a standalone SPV is much cheaper than a fund to set up and run, the costs may still not be commercially viable for smaller issuances,” said Matthew Cahill, partner at Dentons Ireland, in the III Annual Report of the Asset Securitization Sector 2025-2026. 

“For such transactions, the greatest economies of scale and sharing of transaction costs can be achieved through the use of a multi-issuance securitisation vehicle. Each issuance can replicate the economics of a small managed fund with the proceeds being invested at the direction of the portfolio manager in permitted investments,” the executive added.

Regulatory framework: Between flexibility and limitations

One of the most relevant aspects when evaluating these structures is their regulatory framework. Generally, issuances from multi-issuance platforms do not constitute securitizations under the EU Regulation, as they do not involve credit risk tranching.

However, if securities were issued in different classes with varying seniority, the operation would need to comply with risk retention requirements and other applicable provisions.

This nuance offers advantages in terms of simplicity but may also represent a limitation for certain institutional investors authorized to acquire instruments only under specific regulatory frameworks.

Sale restrictions and asset security

Regardless of the chosen structure, sale restrictions and investor suitability criteria apply uniformly.

A critical aspect of multi-issuance platforms is the security of underlying assets: it is essential that each series has effective collateral to prevent its assets from being compromised by creditors of another issuance.

In practice, establishing guarantees can be complex in certain jurisdictions, introducing additional risk for investors.

Risks and potential contingencies for investors

Beyond cost and flexibility advantages, multi-issuance securitization vehicles are not without risks. Key risks include:

• Credit of underlying obligors: if asset issuers default, the SPV lacks resources to meet its obligations.
• Insufficient information: many transactions are listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange, where disclosure requirements are limited. This contrasts with listings on Euronext Dublin or Luxembourg, which offer greater transparency.
• Lack of effective collateral: even when guarantees are established, they may not be perfected, especially if assets are in jurisdictions with restrictive legal frameworks.
• Enforcement of guarantees: trustees often require investors to fund enforcement costs, which can practically discourage legal actions.
• Tax compliance: in jurisdictions such as Ireland, SPVs must meet specific tax conditions to maintain efficiency. Any non-compliance can lead to significant tax burdens, affecting profitability.

These risks are more pronounced in multi-issuance structures than in independent SPVs, due to the greater number of variables involved.

To learn more about the use of securitized vehicles in professional portfolio management, you can download the III Annual Report of the Asset Securitization Sector 2025-2026, prepared by FlexFunds in collaboration with Funds Society.