ESMA Letter: AIFMD Revisions just the Tip of the Iceberg

August 24, 2020

I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.



-Mark Twain

We recently flagged the European Commission’s review of the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive (AIFMD). The Commission’s initial report was short and sweet but flagged certain significant probable changes to the composition of AIFMD at a high level. In response, last week, European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) published a letter which addresses AIFMD at the surface, but at the same time, the EU watchdog took the opportunity to raise numerous other weighty issues to the EC, which will be of great interest and some concern to asset managers. 

ESMA’s AIFMD comments were highly anticipated given AIFMD is an important EU regulation and some impactful revisions were expected. In 2020, maybe we should expect the unexpected, but it is fair to say most commentators were taken aback by the ESMA letter in terms of its scope, but also the worry that elements of the commentary could be disruptive to current global asset management models. 

ESMA’s remarks specific to AIFMD revisions are merely the tip of the iceberg. Let’s jump to the main points of interest:

Substance

The theme of “regulatory substance” has been a burning question in the main EU fund domiciles of Luxembourg and Ireland for some time now. Most recently in Ireland, the industry has been waiting for the Central Bank of Ireland to publish a “Dear CEO – CP86” letter to industry addressing required resources for Irish management companies required to be retained in Ireland.

ESMA’s focus on EU substance has increasingly intensified during the Brexit transition period. There has been a push to ensure EU funds are not merely “letterbox entities,” where the actual services are conducted in non-EU locations which by nature are harder for EU regulators to monitor. The industry’s has countered that both UCITS and AIFMD management companies (ManCos) leverage global expertise with appropriate oversight in the regulatory residence of the fund.   The industry contends that this  model protects investors by allowing local regulators to monitor services provided globally by supervising local oversight of these services while still allowing fund management access to the best investment and administrative expertise for their products, usually by using group company resources that would be expensive and inefficient to duplicate. 

The question of what represents “appropriate levels of substance” has to date focused on nature, scale complexity of funds, largely a subjective assessment.  There has been a divergence of opinions expressed during the course of  the Central Bank of Ireland CP 86 review, but these are in the context of ESMA’s desire to increase the services performed within the EU and to establish a  more objective assessment of regulatory substance.  Ultimately, this might result in adequate substance being assessed by a headcount of staff in the fund domicile or otherwise within the EU, which likely means less access to third country global resources.

So generally, global regulators are shifting towards better-defined and data-led quantitative assessments for supervision. Here again, ESMA appears to wish to move to a calculation of substance using a more formulaic approach. More objective, less subjective. More numbers, less words. How the calculation of substance lands will have significant impact on the current globally dispersed UCITS & AIFMD model.

Delegation Models

Any enhanced local substance requirements will directly affect a UCITS’ or AIFM’s ability to delegate certain key fund responsibilities to third country entities.    This is particularly significant in the present moment because many asset managers’ contingency plans for Brexit envisaged an uninterrupted continuation of delegation of portfolio management to UK based firms.  The ESMA letter throws that into some uncertainty as the issue of third country delegation is addressed in this context.

The letter proposes amendments to the AIFMD (and UCITS) delegation rules. As with substance considerations, further restrictions to the ability to delegate tasks to third countries would limit AIFMD and UCITS funds’ access to certain key global asset management hubs. Brexit plays a significant role in ESMA’s thinking on delegation, specifically flagging London’s importance as a hub in the letter:

Moreover, in light of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, delegation of portfolio management functions to non-EU entities is likely going to further increase...



The delegation of portfolio and risk management services specifically lie at the center of this debate. EU funds seldom directly employ staff to conduct functions and in terms of portfolio management specifically, delegation to a UK or US asset manager is quite routine. This is ESMA’s primary delegation concern. The use of third country entities not directly supervised by ESMA or an EU national regulator are characterized as creating “increased operational and supervisory risks” and further raises “regulatory arbitrage and investor protection concerns,” since these delegates are not directly subject to either the AIFMD or UCITS standards. 

ESMA’s comments on delegation further raise specter of regulatory equivalence, a real hot button Brexit issue, but the EU’s more general focus remains on ensuring that any third country delegates to EU fund be closely aligned to EU regulation.  

While many have rightly focused on the future relationship and interactions between the UK and EU, for the most part Brexit-inspired changes to third country rules equally impact other critical asset management hubs. New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong are a few examples of hubs where portfolio management is routinely delegated by UCITS and AIFMD funds. The globally dispersed delegation model has always meant EU funds can access the best investment expertise globally with very strong control and oversight measures within the domicile. The ESMA letter now suggests use of non-EU firms increases risk and their ability to supervise hence a push to restrict such delegation and force more services to funds to be conducted by regulated entities within the EU. 

Specifically, ESMA outlines three concrete changes to the current view on delegation:

  • Clearer legal drafting for delegation requirements across AIFMD and UCITS;
  • Formally listing core and critical functions which may not be delegated to third countries; and
  • Likelihood of setting maximum levels of delegation allowed outside the EU.

These are all new concepts raised by ESMA in their latest letter and certainly these are restrictive enough to affect the existing model of delegation for EU regulated funds. A key driver of the continued growth and success of AIFMD and UCITS funds to date has been the able to access “best of breed” skillsets to the benefit of EU funds and their investors without incurring the expense of replicating capabilities in multiple jurisdictions, a reason why the EU must delicately balance these considerations. In particular, the UCITS brand and governance model has been a spectacular multi-year EU policy success story, greatly aided EU investors with long terms savings and is the envy of many other financial centers.  Any debate on changes to the model should consider these factors, as this will be a key policy battleground for global asset managers now that ESMA has indicated its intentions. 

While the delegation and substance issues certainly jump out and will take the lion’s share of attention for asset managers with EU funds, the ESMA letter is also notable for the wide range of issues it addresses. These are issues that impact AIFMD but also UCITS and the rulesets’ interactions with another foundational EU regulation such as MIFID 2 for example. 

ESMA take the opportunity to alert the EC to a litany of other crucial asset management issues that are highly significant. We will undoubtedly revisit these in due course, but other points of great interest within the letter include:

  • Harmonization of Regulatory reporting across AIFMD and UCITS
  • Enhanced Fund Liquidity reporting
  • Leverage calculations
  • “White Labelled” management company
  • Private Equity leverage calculations (aggregated / look thru to SPV leverage)
  • Management company secondments
  • New EU investor categorization: Semi-professional investors
  • New Loan Origination Funds Regime
  • Depositary rules to CSDs & Depositary passport
  • AIFMD External valuer liability – lower liability threshold
  • EU reverse solicitation definition
  • Mandatory LEI for all AIFMs / AIFs
  • Harmonization of supervision for cross-border entities and branches
  • ESG integration

This non-exhaustive list is proof that while ESMA have flagged certain key AIFMD revisions and brought regulatory substance to the forefront, these issues are merely the tip of the EU regulatory iceberg and global asset managers must stay tuned.

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) may be used as a generic term to reference the company as a whole and/or its various subsidiaries generally. This material and any products or services may be issued or provided in multiple jurisdictions by duly authorized and regulated subsidiaries.This material is for general information and reference purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice and is not intended as an offer to sell, or a solicitation to buy securities, services or investment products. Any reference to tax matters is not intended to be used, and may not be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or other applicable tax regimes, or for promotion, marketing or recommendation to third parties. All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy is not guaranteed, and reliance should not be placed on the information presented. This material may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted, or any of the content disclosed to third parties, without the permission of BBH. All trademarks and service marks included are the property of BBH or their respective owners.© Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. 2021. All rights reserved.

This browser is not fully supported by our public website and may not display or function as expected for this reason. Please note, the Infuse Portal and BBH client applications fully support the IE 11 browser.

Important Information for Non-U.S. Residents

You are required to read the following important information, which, in conjunction with the Terms and Conditions, governs your use of this website. Your use of this website and its contents constitute your acceptance of this information and those Terms and Conditions. If you do not agree with this information and the Terms and Conditions, you should immediately cease use of this website. The contents of this website have not been prepared for the benefit of investors outside of the United States. This website is not intended as a solicitation of the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument or any investment management services for any investor who resides in a jurisdiction other than the United States1. As a general matter, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. and its subsidiaries (“BBH”) is not licensed or registered to solicit prospective investors and offer investment advisory services in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The information on this website is not intended to be distributed to, directed at or used by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to law or regulation. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access the website.  Under certain circumstances, BBH may provide services to investors located outside of the United States in accordance with applicable law. The conditions under which such services may be provided will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by BBH. BBH will only accept investors from such jurisdictions or countries where it has made a determination that such an arrangement or relationship is permissible under the laws of that jurisdiction or country. The existence of this website is not intended to be a substitute for the type of analysis described above and is not intended as a solicitation of or recommendation to any prospective investor, including those located outside of the United States. Certain BBH products or services may not be available in certain jurisdictions. By choosing to access this website from any location other than the United States, you accept full responsibility for compliance with all local laws. The website contains content that has been obtained from sources that BBH believes to be reliable as of the date presented; however, BBH cannot guarantee the accuracy of such content, assure its completeness, or warrant that such information will not be changed. The content contained herein is current as of the date of issuance and is subject to change without notice. The website’s content does not constitute investment advice and should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. There is no guarantee that any investment objectives, expectations, targets described in this website or the  performance or profitability of any investment will be achieved. You understand that investing in securities and other financial instruments involves risks that may affect the value of the securities and may result in losses, including the potential loss of the principal invested, and you assume and are able to bear all such risks.  In no event shall BBH or any other affiliated party be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, lost profits, loss of business or data, or punitive damages arising out of your use of this website. By clicking accept, you confirm that you accept  to the above Important Information along with Terms and Conditions.

 
1BBH sponsors UCITS Funds registered in Luxembourg, in certain jurisdictions. For information on those funds, please see bbhluxembourgfunds.com


captcha image

Type in the word seen on the picture

I am a current investor in another jurisdiction