The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published on 19 July 2016 its final advice to the European Commission (the Commission) on the extension of the marketing passport under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) to 12 non-EEA countries, including the United States. This note is intended to highlight ESMA’s advice to the Commission and set out the steps firms would need to consider when applying for a third country passport.
Saemor Capital is a specialist in quantitative investment management, focused on absolute return generation. The company was founded in 2008 with the backing of insurance company AEGON as a cornerstone investor. The team consists of award-winning equity managers with vast experience in European equities. The majority of the investment team has worked together for over eight years. Managing approximately US$600 million, Saemor Capital is AIFMD-regulated and eligible to passport its distribution activities across Europe.
The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (AIFMD) brought with it significant changes for the regulation of the funds industry in Europe and here we take a look at events since implementation twelve months on from the close of the transitional period, focusing on the AIFMD regime in Ireland.
Following the implementation of the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Directive (2011/61/EC) and associated legislation, Cyprus now lays claim to being a growth jurisdiction within the European Union for the establishment and servicing of boutique and low cost alternative investment funds based locally or offshore. The choice of fund administrator is of paramount importance to the set-up of any hedge fund and in Cyprus there are many reasons to use or establish locally-based operations.
Switzerland has always been an attractive and relatively easily accessible market for the distribution of foreign funds. As at end-November 2014, the total volume of funds registered for sale to retail investors (including institutional share classes) amounted to more than CHF 850 billion. This is not the total market picture, however, as according to the Swiss National Bank, at the end of 2014 another approximately CHF 800 billion have been privately placed into securities accounts of Swiss and foreign private HNWI'’s and institutional clients held with banks in Switzerland.
There is significant potential for alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) to access Germany's large base of institutional investors. Despite the recent post-AIFMD challenges — including the abolition of Germany's pre-AIFMD private placement regime (NPPR) and BaFin's (the German supervisory authority) restrictive interpretation of reverse solicitation practices — Germany is far from the 'impenetrable' jurisdiction for marketing purposes under AIFMD or the KAGB (Kapitalanlagegesetzbuch, the 2013 German implementing legislation) that many clients assume. Not only is it possible for a non-EU fund to become authorised for marketing in Germany to professional and semi-professional investors under the KAGB, it is in fact not as difficult as previously assumed.
The European Union's Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (the ‘Directive’) provides for comprehensive changes in the regulatory framework applicable to alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) that manage or market alternative investment funds (AIFs) within the European Union.
The use of established third-party platforms has become increasingly popular for asset managers launching UCITS-compliant funds in recent years. The indicators are that this trend is likely to be even more pronounced among managers seeking to establish alternative funds in compliance with the EU Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD). This article provides an overview of some of the key considerations when negotiating the on-boarding of an asset manager onto an existing third-party platform in either the UCITS or AIFMD environments.
On June 8, 2011, the European Parliament and the European Council issued Directive 2011/61/EU on alternative investment fund managers (the AIFM Directive). The AIFM Directive applies to alternative investment fund managers that manage and/or market alternative investment funds (AIFs)—investment funds other than UCITS funds—in the EU and lays down a set of harmonised rules regarding authorisation, operation, and transparency. The managers of real estate funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, infrastructure funds, and hedge funds fall within the subjects to whom the provisions of the AIFM Directive apply.
With little more than five months to go before alternative managers active in Europe must be fully compliant with the European Union’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, Luxembourg is perfectly positioned to accommodate fund firms, from global investment houses to specialist boutiques, eager to exploit the potential of a passport to an EU-wide market.
The European Union Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (Directive 2011/61/EU) (AIFMD) was required to be implemented into the national laws of the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU) by 22 July 2013 and also into the national laws of the three additional European Economic Area (EEA) states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) by a date to be determined. On 19 December 2012, the European Commission (the Commission) published a delegated regulation supplementing AIFMD (the Level 2 Regulation), which sets out further detail around certain other provisions in AIFMD and is directly applicable in the Member States without the need for implementation.
The European Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD)1 came into force on 21 July 2011. It is now required to be implemented into the national laws of the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) and the 3 additional European Economic Area (EEA) states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) by 22 July 2013.
One of the primary stated aims of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) was to increase investor protection. A key step in this regard was the imposition of a standard requirement that alternative investment funds managers (AIFMs) falling within the scope of the AIFMD and marketing their funds into Europe ensure each relevant alternative investment fund (AIF) which they manage appoints a third party depositary with respect to its underlying assets3.
The delegation model of fund management, whereby self-managed investment vehicles or their management companies appoint third party investment managers and advisers, has been a key basis upon which the success of the funds industry in Ireland has been built. There are currently in excess of 5,000 Irish domiciled funds and sub-funds, with assets in excess of 1 trillion euro, which have been established by over 400 fund promoters based in over 50 countries.
The German Ministry of Finance (BMF) on 20 July 2012 published the draft of a bill (Draft AIFM-Act) to implement the Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) into German law. Within the framework of implementing the AIFMD, the Draft AIFM Act provides, in particular, for the repeal of the German Investment Act (Investmentgesetz – InvA), which implemented the UCITS Directive 2009/65/EC (UCITSD) among other things.
While there are many challenges posed by the EU’s directive on alternative investment fund managers (AIFMD), the ones that everyone seems to focus on are those regarding the AIFMD’s depositary requirements. This note looks at these requirements in more detail and considers the extent to which they are relevant to EU managers of non-EU AIFs and non-EU managers of AIFs.
Directive 2011/61/EU on Alternative Investment Fund Managers, known colloquially as the ‘Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive’ or the ‘AIFMD’, will overhaul the pan-European regulatory regime applicable to the managers of hedge funds, real estate funds, private equity and other collective investment schemes containing, what is loosely being described as, ‘alternative investments’.
The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EU) (AIFM Directive) sets out new rules that are being introduced in the European Union (EU) in respect of the authorisation, operation, and ongoing reporting for managers of alternative investment funds (AIFMs) which manage and/or market alternative investment funds (AIFs) in the various member-state countries of the EU.
The recent economic landscape has seen a significant regulatory overhaul of the financial services sector in Europe. This article highlights the impact of the European Union Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) and how it will affect Australian fund managers seeking to undertake capital raising activities in Europe.
With the 22 June 2013 deadline for the implementation of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (Directive 2011/61/EC) (the Directive) fast approaching, fund managers based outside the EU need to consider how prepared they are for its introduction
In the blizzard of increased regulation from the United States and European Union, in particular the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), Asia’s two competing international financial centres – Hong Kong and Singapore, have traditionally taken different approaches to the further regulation of hedge fund managers. In the former, since the enactment of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) in 2003, no exempt status has been available. In the latter, there has long been an exemption for hedge fund managers. In the Special Administrative Region, since the global financial crisis the licensing regime has remained unchanged while in the ‘Lion City’ the regulatory regime is undergoing fundamental reform
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA); the successor of CESR, has been assigned with the mandate of providing the European Commission with proposals regarding the AIFMD implementing measures (i.e. implementing acts and delegated acts). ESMA has published a Consultation Paper (CP) containing its draft proposals which shall be finalised in the light of the feedback received and be subsequently submitted to the European Commission by 16 November 2011.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, demand on the part of institutional investors for more regulated, transparent and liquid collective investment schemes, and continuing uncertainty over the impact of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) directive on their marketing activities in Europe, have led to increased interest on the part of Asian hedge fund managers in so-called "Newcits" – UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) funds which pursue hedge fund type strategies and invest in derivatives for speculative purposes as opposed for efficient portfolio management.
The European Parliament adopted the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (the 'Directive') on 11 November 2010. The Directive contains new rules on the marketing of alternative investment funds in the EU by both European and non-European managers. This paper considers the impact of the provisions of the Directive, the opportunities afforded by this new European 'passport' for alternative funds and sets out the timeline for implementation of the new framework.
The leading global private equity managers, in terms of funds raised and diversification of assets, are predominantly based outside the EU, either in North America or elsewhere. Indeed, the private equity managers that are most attractive to investors today are often located within emerging markets. But how will such third-country managers access European institutional capital following implementation of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers directive (AIFMD)? Indeed, given the challenges created by the AIFMD, will they want to?