It’s been almost a year since the FCA Assessment of Value rules came into force, and many firms would say that due to the FCA’s limited guidance thus far, they are still no clearer as to what a good value statement look like.
Of all the new regulations we have seen over the last few years, few have been as controversial or as polarising as the KID requirements under the regulation for Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs).
As discussed in our previous blog , ESMA has written to the European Commission ahead of the EU executive’s review of the AIFMD regulation. Although ESMA has recommended a raft of potential changes, one area that appears to be garnering particular attention, is the issue of delegation and substance.
When the European Commission announced back in March 2018, a proposal to amend the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), in order to provide for a uniform regime for “pre-marketing” of alternative investment funds (AIFs) across Europe, there were many commentators that declared that “AIFMD II had finally arrived”.
Last week, ESMA published a letter to the Commission setting out 19 key areas where it believes AIFMD could be improved. Specifically, ESMA’s letter includes: harmonising the AIFMD and UCITS regimes; delegation and substance; liquidity management tools; leverage; and the harmonisation of supervision of cross-border entities.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently proposed significant modifications to the mutual fund and exchange-traded fund disclosure framework. The proposed disclosure framework would feature concise and visually engaging shareholder reports that would highlight information that is particularly important for retail investors to assess and monitor their fund investments.
Last Friday (14th August) was the Q2 filing deadline for 13F reporting. But how many more filings will you have to make? Last month, the SEC announced proposed amendments to 13F Reporting, to update the reporting threshold for institutional investment managers, as well as a number of other ancillary changes. Below we detail some of these amendments.
On 2nd September 2019, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its final guidance regarding liquidity stress tests of investment fund…
Last week we took a brief look at the liquidity risk management regime in Hong Kong. This week, moving slightly southwest, and staying in the same continent, we review the liquidity risk requirements in Singapore. In 2018, the same year Hong Kong made amendments to its Fund Manager Code of Conduct, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued new Guidelines on Liquidity Risk Management Practices for Fund Management Companies (Guidelines).
Although liquidity risk management practices vary in different jurisdictions, in most cases, asset managers are required to monitor the liquidity of the fund on a frequent basis. Whilst many aspects of the regulations are broadly similar, differences can be seen from what is considered “liquid”, and around methodology to liquidity buckets, stress testing and reporting requirements. In Europe for example, neither UCITS nor AIFMD specify a specific methodology for calculating liquidity. This is in contrast to the US SEC Liquidity Risk Management Framework requirements which set out a specific methodology to be followed, although that methodology is not without its shortcomings.
