Abstract
With the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence by investment managers in Europe, some questions arise that go beyond predictive performance. Investment firms will need to consider not only whether an AI system is caught by the scope of the EU AI Act, but also how its use interacts with existing governance, conduct, algorithmic trading and operational resilience requirements. The paper discusses regulatory constraints that apply to AI systems used for investment research, portfolio construction, risk management and algorithmic trading. The study is founded on a systematic documentary analysis of the EU AI Act, MiFID II, RTS 6, DORA and recent ESMA publications in order to distinguish between formal legal obligations and more general supervisory expectations and model governance. This demonstrates that portfolio selection models are not themselves high-risk systems under the AI Act and that explainability is not a uniform legal requirement for all investment models. But transparency and auditability still matter for internal validation, human oversight, model-risk management and supervisory accountability. 'This paper introduces a proportionate governance framework with three dimensions: the role of the AI system in the investment process, the degree of autonomy of the AI system and the potential impact on clients, firms and market integrity'. The framework connects these dimensions to differentiated requirements for documentation, validation, explainability, monitoring, human intervention, and third party oversight. The analysis will provide an operational framework for European asset managers to balance technological innovation with accountability and regulatory compliance.
Cuvinte cheie
artificial intelligence
investment management
AI governance
EU AI Act
model explainability
algorithmic trading
Istoric articol
Publicat
31.08.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
Flavia Mirela Barna, Anca Țăranu (2026). AI Governance in European Investment Management. Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu Jiu Economics Series, 2(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.4.2026.8
Referințe bibliografice
Bagattini, G., and Piazza, F. (2025). Artificial intelligence in EU investment funds: Adoption, strategies and portfolio exposures. ESMA TRV Risk Analysis, ESMA50-43599798-9923, European Securities and Markets Authority, Paris. Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8. European Banking Authority. (2020). Report on Big Data and Advanced Analytics, EBA/REP/2020/01, Paris. European Commission. (2016). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/589 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the organisational requirements of investment firms engaged in algorithmic trading. Official Journal of the European Union, L 87, 417–448. European Parliament and Council. (2014). Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU. Official Journal of the European Union, L 173, 349–496. European Parliament and Council. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector. Official Journal of the European Union, L 333, 1–79. European Parliament and Council. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. European Securities and Markets Authority. (2024). Public Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Provision of Retail Investment Services. ESMA35-335435667-5924, Paris. European Securities and Markets Authority. (2026a). AI adoption and trends in securities markets: EU evidence. ESMA TRV Risk Analysis, ESMA50-481369926-30599, Paris. European Securities and Markets Authority. (2026b). Supervisory Briefing on Algorithmic Trading in the EU. ESMA74-1505669079-10311, Paris. Financial Stability Board. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Financial Services: Market Developments and Financial Stability Implications. Basel. International Organization of Securities Commissions. (2021). The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning by Market Intermediaries and Asset Managers. Final Report, FR06/21, Madrid. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774. Mercer. (2026). How Artificial Intelligence Is Shaping Asset Management. Mercer Artificial Intelligence Asset Manager Survey, February 2026. https://www.mercer.com/en-us/about/newsroom/how-artificial-intelligence-is-shaping-asset-management/ National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1, Gaithersburg, MD. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., and Wickens, C.D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x.