Why is strategic independence an important issue for the asset management industry?
“The reason for this is a clear wake-up call from the two regulators. Our members manage the assets of millions of Dutch citizens, but they do so on a digital infrastructure that is largely beyond their control. That creates a strategic vulnerability.At a member event we’re organizing soon, the regulators AFM and DNB will explain this themselves.
Digital vulnerability is a hot topic. Let’s be honest: few of us thought it possible for a NATO country to lay claim to the territory of another NATO country. This raises the question: “How dependent are you on other countries and parties for essential technology?”
Did that realization stem primarily from developments in the United States, or is there more to it?
“The fact that this has now become a genuine issue for the financial sector is partly due to the joint report published by the AFM and DNB in October 2025 on digital dependency in the financial sector.”
In that report, they warn that the sector is too dependent on a small number of non-European IT suppliers. Examples include cloud infrastructure, software, operating systems, data providers, and AI models. That concentration creates systemic risks.'
So the AFM and DNB are primarily issuing a warning. Does this mean that asset managers are already required to seek out European alternatives?
“No, that’s not how you should look at it. First and foremost, it’s a wake-up call: think about how dependent and vulnerable you yourself are. That applies not only to asset managers, but also to banks, insurers, and other players in the financial sector.
At the same time, this problem is too big for each company to solve on its own. Strategic autonomy isn’t just a task for a single asset manager. It’s a challenge for the entire sector.
An important role of DUFAS as an industry association is precisely to ensure that members don’t all have to reinvent the wheel on their own. We want to learn from one another, involve experts, and engage in dialogue with regulators. We’ll be doing just that on October 6 at our own event, “Rising Needs for Strategic Independence in the Asset Management Industry.” How can you reduce your own vulnerability right now? What alternatives are available? What choices can you make to increase your resilience?”
Explain. What specific steps can asset managers take?
“The first step is awareness. You need to know exactly where your dependencies lie. That sounds simple, but it isn’t always. It’s not just about cloud providers. Data, software, and AI models can also be part of that dependency.
The second step is to figure out how to reduce that vulnerability. Are there alternatives? Can you diversify your dependencies? Can you manage certain risks differently? A third and final step is to examine the extent to which strategic autonomy plays a role in investment decisions.
We also want to discuss these kinds of issues with members, experts, and regulators during the event. Ultimately, it would be great if this could eventually lead to practical tools—a kind of self-assessment or checklist that organizations can use to better evaluate: ‘Where exactly are my vulnerabilities?’
European strategic autonomy sounds quite ambitious. Are there enough alternatives to the major American technology companies?
"That’s exactly the next question. Regulators are right to warn about dependencies, but warnings alone won’t create European alternatives.
You therefore really need to look at this on two levels. Defensively: how can we reduce the current vulnerability? But also offensively: how do we ensure that European alternatives can emerge and grow?
This is a joint challenge for the government and the financial sector. If investable opportunities with a good risk-return ratio already existed, those investments would likely have been made long ago. The challenge lies precisely in the phase leading up to that: how do you ensure that promising European companies can continue to grow? The financial sector is also engaged in serious discussions with the government on this matter.
What role can the government play in this?
“For example, the government can help mitigate risks and act as a launching customer itself. In the United States, many successful technology companies have also benefited significantly from a government that was willing to create demand or assume risk at an early stage.
You’re seeing this happen more often in Europe as well. The question is how the government and investors can work together to ensure that promising companies in Europe not only emerge but can also continue to grow here. For example, procurement rules are now being adjusted so that strategic autonomy is given weight and the focus is no longer solely on price.
That said, you have to be honest about the dilemmas. A European alternative may initially be more expensive or not yet have the same scale as an established international player. In that case, you need to have a conversation with one another about what choices you’re willing to make. You can’t just tell a sector: “You’re too dependent; figure it out yourselves.” This is a shared challenge.”
Can investors also contribute by investing more in European technology companies?
“Yes, but even there, risk-return remains an important starting point, of course. Institutional investors look at return, risk, governance, and the scale at which an investment is possible. That doesn’t change.
At the same time, we do see that strategic autonomy is increasingly becoming a factor in the discussion. Just as investors have, in recent years, increasingly begun to examine the contribution investments make to sustainability, the question may also become more relevant: Does this investment contribute to Europe’s strategic resilience?
That doesn't mean that every European investment is automatically a good one. But if the risk-return ratio isn't right, you can still ask what role public capital can play in making European alternatives possible after all.
Isn't this a complicated issue for asset managers who do a lot of business with U.S. parties and also invest in U.S. companies?
“I don’t see that as a contradiction. Strategic independence doesn’t mean you have to break away from the U.S. or scale back existing relationships.
It’s mainly about having a choice—not being completely dependent on a single supplier, a single country, or a single system. Until now, we often assumed that this dependence was a given and unproblematic. People are now taking a more sober look at it.
You can still collaborate and invest just as you do now. But you want to better understand the vulnerabilities that dependence entails and where you need alternatives.”
How quickly does the sector need to get started on this? Is this an issue for the next five years?
“No, this is happening right now. The AFM and DNB published their report at the end of last year. Organizations dealing with governance and strategic risks need to be asking these questions right now.
Of course, you won’t have a European alternative to all the technology and infrastructure we’re talking about overnight. But that doesn’t mean you should just wait. The best time to plant a tree was yesterday; otherwise, the best time is today.
