Private equity regulation: what are the consequences of the alternative investment fund managers directive (AIFMD) on private equity managers?

The recent global financial crisis brought significant regulatory changes in the worldwide financial industry. In Europe and in the alternative asset sector specifically, a new regulation by the name of Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive saw the daylight in 2010. This far-reaching and complex Directive with the main goal of regulating and overseeing alternative investment funds has triggered many discussions and represents an industry game-changer. Thus, this research will focus on the impact and consequences of the Directive on private equity fund managers and the role of regulators. In other words, what are the effects, what does that mean in a quantitative and qualitative sense, and how is it likely to influence the outlook of this asset class? In order to provide the reader with an extensive view on the topic, the paper will first discuss relevant theory and literature, using mix-methods and legal-dogmatic approaches. Further, descriptive case studies, analysis of existing surveys, and interviews with industry experts will supplement the paper in order to understand primary implications of the Directive with the goal of providing useful insights for further private equity regulation research.

Implementing the AIFMD: Success or failure? ECMI Commentary No. 34, 28 March 2013

This commentary considers the implementation of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) by the European Commission. The AIFMD creates an internal market for asset management and as an endeavour to develop market-based finance is an important piece of legislation for the European economy. The author, Mirzha de Manuel Aramendía, considers the implementation of some of the provisions that raised concern among industry participants. He finds that, on balance, a practical and flexible approach to implementation has been followed that should help secure the success of the framework, which at present is still uncertain. The commentary also considers the remuneration guidelines adopted recently by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). It encourages EU and national authorities to commit to the success of the AIFMD framework, as part of a broader effort to develop capital markets and reduce the historical reliance of the European economy on bank finance.

The Law and Economics of Hedge Fund Regulation: A Comparison between the U.S. and the EU

This doctoral dissertation seeks to assess and address the potential contribution of the hedge fund industry to financial instability. In so doing, the dissertation investigates three main questions. What are the contributions of hedge funds to financial instability? What is the optimal regulatory strategy to address the potential contribution of hedge funds to financial instability? And do new regulations in the U.S. and the EU address the contribution of hedge funds to financial instability? With respect to financial stability concerns, it is argued that despite their benefits, hedge funds can contribute to financial instability. Hedge funds’ size and leverage, their interconnectedness with Large Complex Financial Institutions (LCFIs), and the likelihood of herding behavior in the industry can potentially undermine financial stability. Nonetheless, the data on hedge funds’ size and leverage suggest that these features are far from being systemically important. In contrast, the empirical evidence on the interconnectedness of hedge funds with LCFIs and their herding behavior is mixed. Based on these findings, the thesis focuses on one particular aspect of hedge fund regulation: direct vs. indirect regulation. In this respect, a major contribution of the thesis to the literature consists in the explicit discussion of the relationships between hedge funds and other market participants. Specifically, the thesis locates the domain of the indirect regulation in the inter-linkages between hedge funds and prime brokers. Accordingly, the thesis argues that the indirect regulation is likely to address the contribution of hedge funds to systemic risk without compromising their benefits to financial markets. The thesis further conducts a comparative study of the regulatory responses to the potential contribution of hedge funds to financial instability through studying the EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) and the hedge fund-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.