AIFM-direktivet och dess effekt på private equity-branschen
(2010) JURM01 20101Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Ända sedan Europeiska kommissionen i april 2009 lade fram sitt förslag till AIFM direktiv har det varit föremål för hård kritik och en stor mängd ändringsförslag. Direktivet, som syftar till att reglera den inre marknaden för alternativa investeringsfonder och därigenom minska förekomsten av systemstabilitetsrisker, har kallats protektionistiskt och har föranlett en häftig politisk debatt. Skälet till denna uppståndelse är att direktivet inför ett helt nytt regelsystem angående förvaltningen av alternativa investeringsfonder – en fondkategori till vilken bland private equity-fonder, hedgefonder, infrastrukturfonder och råvarufonder räknas. Enligt direktivförslaget skall det krävas auktorisering för att få förvalta en AIF-fond, och... (More)
- Ända sedan Europeiska kommissionen i april 2009 lade fram sitt förslag till AIFM direktiv har det varit föremål för hård kritik och en stor mängd ändringsförslag. Direktivet, som syftar till att reglera den inre marknaden för alternativa investeringsfonder och därigenom minska förekomsten av systemstabilitetsrisker, har kallats protektionistiskt och har föranlett en häftig politisk debatt. Skälet till denna uppståndelse är att direktivet inför ett helt nytt regelsystem angående förvaltningen av alternativa investeringsfonder – en fondkategori till vilken bland private equity-fonder, hedgefonder, infrastrukturfonder och råvarufonder räknas. Enligt direktivförslaget skall det krävas auktorisering för att få förvalta en AIF-fond, och fondförvaltare föreslås bli skyldiga att följa en mängd krav angående bland annat informationsgivning, arvoderingsmodeller och skuldsättningsnivåer. Dessutom innehåller direktivförslaget ett flertal begränsningar gällande förvaltningen av tredjelandsbaserade AIF-fonder, och det uppställs även restriktioner beträffande tredjelandsbaserade förvaltares fondmarknadsföring inom EU.
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka vilka konsekvenser det föreslagna AIFM direktivet kan komma att få för private equity-branschen i Europa. Då AIF-sektorn består av en mycket heterogen grupp av fonder finns det en risk för att en AIF-gemensam reglering kan leda till en olämplig schablon¬behandling, och från branschhåll har det framhållits att den föreslagna regleringen är utformad med hedgefonders verksamhet för ögonen. Mot bakgrund av private equity-branschens betydelse för såväl den europeiska som den svenska ekonomin är det av stor vikt att regleringen av private equity blir lämpligt utformad och proportionerlig i förhållande till sitt syfte, och det är dessa frågor som denna studie avser att undersöka närmare. Av den företagna undersökningen framgår det att direktivförslaget tar otillräcklig hänsyn till de inbördes skillnaderna mellan de olika AIF-fonderna, och detta riskerar att föranleda stora och onödiga efterlevnads-kostnader vilka i slutändan lär få bäras av investerarkollektivet. Vidare är direktivets ordalydelse full av tvetydigheter, och härutöver tillkommer att de föreslagna tredjelands¬bestämmelserna sannolikt kommer att få en mycket negativ inverkan på europeiska investerares tillgång till den världsledande amerikanska AIF-marknaden.
Vid tidpunkten för denna uppsats slutförande arbetar Europeiska rådet, Europaparlamentet och kommissionen med att uppnå enighet kring utformningen av det slutliga AIFM-direktivet. Under lagstiftnings-processens gång har det bildats utpräglade politiska läger – där i synnerhet Storbritannien och USA är starka motståndare till direktivets nuvarande lydelse – varför det i nuläget är osäkert hur den slutliga utformningen skall komma att se ut. Mot bakgrund av de tämligen grundläggande bristerna i direktivförslagets nuvarande lydelse anser jag att en genomgripande omarbetning vore högst rekommendabel. (Less) - Abstract
- Ever since the European Commission presented its draft proposal of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive in April 2009, it has been the subject of harsh criticism and a multitude of amendment proposals. The Directive, which aims to regulate the internal market for Alternative Investment Funds (AIF) as to reduce systemic risks, has been labeled protectionist and is the cause of a heated political debate. The reason for the controversy is that the Directive introduces a whole new set of rules for managers of AIFs, a category of funds which for example includes private equity funds, hedge funds, infrastructure funds and commodity funds. Under the suggested regime, the management of an AIF would require authorization and fund... (More)
- Ever since the European Commission presented its draft proposal of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive in April 2009, it has been the subject of harsh criticism and a multitude of amendment proposals. The Directive, which aims to regulate the internal market for Alternative Investment Funds (AIF) as to reduce systemic risks, has been labeled protectionist and is the cause of a heated political debate. The reason for the controversy is that the Directive introduces a whole new set of rules for managers of AIFs, a category of funds which for example includes private equity funds, hedge funds, infrastructure funds and commodity funds. Under the suggested regime, the management of an AIF would require authorization and fund managers would have to comply with a vast number of requirements, for instance concerning transparency, remunerations and leverage. Moreover, the third country regime of the proposed Directive sets hurdles for the management of funds based outside of the EU, as well as for the marketing in the EU by managers based in third countries.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the potential effects that the proposed AIFM Directive will have on the private equity industry in Europe. As the AIF sector consists of a highly heterogeneous group of funds, there is a great concern within the private equity industry that private equity funds will be subjected to a “one-size-fits-all” regime which will have been designed with the operations of hedge funds in mind. Seeing as the proposed Directive will change the European private equity market quite significantly, it is of vital importance to the industry that the Directive does not come out disproportionate or ill-suited for the special characteristics of private equity funds. The study performed in this thesis shows that the text of the Directive does not take into sufficient consideration the differences between the various types of AIF, notwithstanding the amendments proposed by the European Council and Parliament. Moreover, the text is riddled with ambiguities and the suggested third country regime is likely to have detrimental effects on European investors’ access to the world-leading American AIF market. In view of these observations, it is perhaps a good thing that the process of finalizing the Directive’s text has dragged on for longer than anticipated.
At present, the Council and Parliament are working on separate drafts of amendments and assuming that they can agree on their respective drafts, a three-way negotiation will take place between the Council, Parliament and the Commission. As it stands now however, discussions within both the Council and Parliament have come to an impasse. The spring of 2010 has seen votes and debates repeatedly postponed, and it is an absolute possibility that a fair share of the directive will be rewritten entirely, especially in view of the strong opposition from the United Kingdom and the USA. Based on the observations made in this study, I believe that an overhaul of the Directive would be well advised. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1690979
- author
- Zimdahl, Carl Johan LU
- supervisor
-
- Lars Gorton LU
- organization
- course
- JURM01 20101
- year
- 2010
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, Associationsrätt, EG-rätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1690979
- date added to LUP
- 2010-10-07 14:34:11
- date last changed
- 2010-10-07 14:34:11
@misc{1690979,
abstract = {{Ever since the European Commission presented its draft proposal of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive in April 2009, it has been the subject of harsh criticism and a multitude of amendment proposals. The Directive, which aims to regulate the internal market for Alternative Investment Funds (AIF) as to reduce systemic risks, has been labeled protectionist and is the cause of a heated political debate. The reason for the controversy is that the Directive introduces a whole new set of rules for managers of AIFs, a category of funds which for example includes private equity funds, hedge funds, infrastructure funds and commodity funds. Under the suggested regime, the management of an AIF would require authorization and fund managers would have to comply with a vast number of requirements, for instance concerning transparency, remunerations and leverage. Moreover, the third country regime of the proposed Directive sets hurdles for the management of funds based outside of the EU, as well as for the marketing in the EU by managers based in third countries.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the potential effects that the proposed AIFM Directive will have on the private equity industry in Europe. As the AIF sector consists of a highly heterogeneous group of funds, there is a great concern within the private equity industry that private equity funds will be subjected to a “one-size-fits-all” regime which will have been designed with the operations of hedge funds in mind. Seeing as the proposed Directive will change the European private equity market quite significantly, it is of vital importance to the industry that the Directive does not come out disproportionate or ill-suited for the special characteristics of private equity funds. The study performed in this thesis shows that the text of the Directive does not take into sufficient consideration the differences between the various types of AIF, notwithstanding the amendments proposed by the European Council and Parliament. Moreover, the text is riddled with ambiguities and the suggested third country regime is likely to have detrimental effects on European investors’ access to the world-leading American AIF market. In view of these observations, it is perhaps a good thing that the process of finalizing the Directive’s text has dragged on for longer than anticipated.
At present, the Council and Parliament are working on separate drafts of amendments and assuming that they can agree on their respective drafts, a three-way negotiation will take place between the Council, Parliament and the Commission. As it stands now however, discussions within both the Council and Parliament have come to an impasse. The spring of 2010 has seen votes and debates repeatedly postponed, and it is an absolute possibility that a fair share of the directive will be rewritten entirely, especially in view of the strong opposition from the United Kingdom and the USA. Based on the observations made in this study, I believe that an overhaul of the Directive would be well advised.}},
author = {{Zimdahl, Carl Johan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{AIFM-direktivet och dess effekt på private equity-branschen}},
year = {{2010}},
}