Controversial Appointment Looms at Belgian State Investment Firm
The Belgian investment firm SFPIM is facing scrutiny following the nomination of Axel Miller, a former Dexia executive, as its novel chairman. The move, announced Wednesday, March 25, 2026, by MR-voorzitter Georges-Louis Bouchez, has already sparked significant criticism and even threats of resignation from within the organization.
According to reports, Miller’s appointment is being defended by Bouchez, who cited his extensive experience in the private sector and financial markets, as well as his recent role as a political chief of staff, as qualifications for the position. The SFPIM plays a crucial role in managing the Belgian state’s investments in strategic sectors and companies and is currently preparing for the partial privatization of Belfius, the state-owned bank.
Miller previously served as CEO of Dexia’s Belgian branch in the early 2000s, stepping down in late 2008 during the global financial crisis. The bank required a €3 billion bailout from the Belgian government to remain solvent. This history has fueled opposition to his nomination, with some critics questioning the appropriateness of entrusting him with overseeing the privatization of Belfius.
Meyrem Almaci, a Groen-Kamerlid, sharply criticized the nomination, calling it “outright perverse.” She argued that having the former CEO of Dexia oversee the partial privatization of Belfius is “several bridges too far,” and described the decision as “a slap in the face to every Belgian.”
Koen Schoors, the ondervoorzitter of the SFPIM, has reportedly threatened to resign if Miller’s appointment is confirmed. This internal dissent underscores the level of concern surrounding the nomination.
Miller has also held leadership positions at Petercam and D’Ieteren, though he left both roles prematurely. He is now poised to lead the Belgian sovereign wealth fund as it prepares for the sale of 20% of Belfius, a move approved by the De Wever government.
The controversy surrounding Miller’s appointment highlights the sensitivity surrounding the management of state-owned assets and the scrutiny faced by individuals with a history tied to financial crises.
