Alternative Managers still unclear on the impact of AIFMD

24 Jul, 2012

London’s attraction as a financial hub will not be affected as a result of the regulation

 

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), continues to cause uncertainty amongst the alternatives industry as to how it will affect investment firms, according to a survey by the IMS Group (IMS), the leading regulation and compliance consultancy.

 

With a year to go before its implementation, two fifths of the survey’s respondents (41%) are still assessing whether AIFMD will cause managers to make structural changes to their organisation. This comes as publication of the final detail of the directive, which was slated for release on 22 July 2012, has been pushed back, prompting further industry uncertainty.

 

Further to this, 42% of respondents to the survey, conducted at a recent IMS briefing on AIFMD to more than 150 attendees, expect that AIFMD will influence their marketing strategies from 2013 onwards, 29% expect little influence and 23% don’t expect any influence.

 

Other findings from the survey are:

  • 77% of respondents think regulatory developments such as AIFMD will have little or no impact on the attraction of London as a financial hub.
  • Capital requirements (19%) and risk management (21%) were highlighted as the top areas of concern  for respondents within AIFMD, followed by depositary liability (14%) and remuneration (12%).
  • The largest negative impact of AIFMD is expected to be the ability to fundraise in Europe. However, it is predicted to have a positive impact on investor protection and investment transparency.
  • Sixty nine per cent of repondents expect the regulation to have little positive impact on the ability of regulators to manage systemic risk.

 

Jon Wilson (pictured), director of project consulting, The IMS Group, said: “The findings of the survey and the high volume of attendees at our seminar demonstrates that a haze of uncertainty continues to hang over the directive’s impact, not helped by the deferral of the Level II measures guidance until August or possibly September. Fund managers’ responses show they are alert to the challenges AIFMD brings but appear unimpressed by its supposed key benefit of a marketing passport”

 

Peter Moore, head of regulation and compliance, The IMS Group, said: “We have now been talking about AIFMD for a full Olympiad and the prolonged delay fuels needless anxiety. Final wraps on issues such as the definition of letter box entities could have a material impact on how firms structure themselves post AIFMD implementation. Every subsequent publication on AIFMD, from either the EU, the FSA or HMT must be studied as it will help inform the decisions still to be made by alternative managers.”

 

About the author

Related Posts

Leave a reply