Has Middle East unrest hit hedge funds? |
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Author: George M. Mangion, The Malta Independent
It comes as no surprise that the unrest in Libya and the rest of the Arab
world has upset the investment world. It directly affected the price of oil that
hit the unprecedented high of $119 per barrel.
This week, we are witnessing a massive exodus of expatriate staff leaving the
oil fields in the Sahara desert, as well as other experts pulling out of Libya.
Again during the unrest in Egypt the possibility of the Suez Canal being blocked
to oil tankers also pushed up the level of uncertainty and political risk.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank warned that given the sluggish
growth of both European and even more the US economies, a heavy increase in oil
price will not be sustainable and leads to higher inflation.
Again social unrest compounds the problem for hedge funds and other types of
funds as the resulting albeit temporary uncertainty will exacerbate the chances
of a fast recovery.
Let us also consider its effect on the fast-growing markets such as Latin
America, China and Russia where increasing wealth is prompting a greater focus
on investment planning and structuring issues. Here surplus funds are seeking
safe shelters and it comes as no surprise that investors demand higher
regulatory protection.
At the same time, we hope that an upturn already evident in fund activity in
emerging countries will lead to an overflow of such funds to seek shelter in
Europe. One hopes that the current unrest hitting Europe due to higher oil
prices is only temporary and that the markets will stabilise given the fast
revival of the Asian and emerging countries. Leaving aside the turmoil hitting
the oil rich Arab countries, one hopes that the alternative funds industry
continues to demonstrate an encouraging recovery away from the downturn
experienced in the past three years.
As markets strengthen, there is greater appetite for funds, although investor
attitudes remain cautious and the fund-raising environment for start-ups is more
challenging than a few years ago.
To make matters more complicated, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have
introduced stiffer rules. Regulatory changes such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the
US, and the European Union’s Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers,
are both formidable tools in their respective arsenals to tighten up an
otherwise lax attitude towards the goose that lays the golden eggs. In a world
of increased regulatory focus, it’s incumbent upon each European jurisdiction
including Malta to attract a fair share of funds that are seeking shelter
particularly from the so-called BRIC countries. So, in a nutshell, what is the
Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) directive and how can Malta gain
from it?
The Directive adopted in November 2010 contains new rules on the marketing of
alternative investment funds in the EU by both European and non-European
managers. It introduces for the first time the concept of a “passport” through
which authorised AIFMs can market EU AIFs to professional investors throughout
the EU, subject to a notification procedure.
The passport for EU AIFMs marketing EU AIFs comes into effect in 2013. It will
apply to all EU and non-EU AIFMs, irrespective of where the AIFs are domiciled.
Thus it will enable non-EU AIFMs to market across the EU without first having to
seek permission from each member state and comply with different national laws.
On the other hand, non-EU AIFMs will only obtain a passport if the non-EU
country in which they are located meets minimum regulatory standards and has
agreements in place with member states to allow information sharing.
There will be at least a two-year time lag before a passport is available for
non-EU AIFMs marketing any AIFs or for EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in Europe.
Accordingly, Maltese qualifying investment funds managed by US investment
managers should be able to take advantage of this passport from 2015. One of the
aims of the Directive is to enhance the transparency of AIFMs and the AIFs they
manage. The new transparency requirements cover disclosure to investors prior to
investment, reporting obligations to competent authorities and detailed
disclosures in AIF annual reports. It is advisable to define at this stage what
an AIF is. It is self-managed fund that is does not appoint a third party
manager.
The Directive has different effects depending on whether the AIF or the AIFM is
established within or outside the EU. There is a lighter regime for smaller AIFs
below a threshold of €100 million.
Consequently, the smaller AIFMs will not be subject to full authorisation but to
a registration in their home member state. There are notable exemptions which
exclude segregated managed accounts, funds managed by public sector entities
supporting social security or pension systems, such as certain sovereign wealth
funds, or family office vehicles that invest without raising external capital.
It is interesting to note that authorized AIFMs must effectively employ
resources and procedures that are necessary for the proper performance of its
business activities.
Naturally, they are expected to employ an appropriate liquidity management
system for each AIF. The additional cost of regulation imposed by the Directive
is a moot point now that the markets are experiencing some turbulence. On the
other hand, as a result of scandals such as the Madoff Ponzi scheme, both the US
and European leaders do not want investors facing similar losses. For added
investor protection, the Directive demands the functions of the depositary to be
both qualified and independent. Furthermore, an AIFM cannot act as depositary. A
prime broker is also prohibited from so acting, unless it has ‘functionally and
hierarchically’ separated its functions as a prime broker from those as a
depositary, among other requirements.
Depositaries will be held to a high standard of liability in the event of a loss
of assets and the burden of proof will reside with the depositary. The Directive
requires that if a depositary legally delegates its tasks to others, it must
provide a contract which allows the AIF or AIFM to claim damages against the
entity to which the tasks are delegated. This is intended to ensure that at no
point in the chain will liability be irretrievably lost.
The directive also requires that the AIF investors concerned must be informed
about the potential delegation of liability and the reasons for this. These new
rules are likely to create additional operational and compliance burdens for
depositaries but such costs are inevitable to assure transparency and fuller
accountability. One hopes that stabiliting returns to the funds market will help
Malta expand its nascent AIf market. Its global appeal is thanks to a sound and
business-friendly platform of legislation combined with flexibility and
user-friendliness administered by MFSA.
The MFSA already meets many of the requirements of the Directive. Once the
passport scheme comes into force, it could pave the way for the floodgates to
open to more investment.
To conclude, the recent unrest in Middle East can only complicate matters and
might, if prolonged, disrupt the tender grass shoots of an early recovery. At a
glance since the start of the year there were healthy signs that economies were
on the mend.
US stocks experienced the best January in several years, but losses in the
second half of this month due to disappointing earnings and political turmoil in
Egypt detracted from returns. Equally, many hedge funds posted a strong
performance in January, but losses in global-macro and trend-following
strategies overshadowed any overall gains in the industry.
It is a positive note that both Greece and Portugal successfully issued new debt
as European leaders showed stronger resolve to support the euro currency union.
We all hope that when the political storm that hit the oil rich Middle East and
North African countries subsides, we can enjoy the vision of a healthy hedge
fund revival.
The writer is a partner in PKFMALTA, an audit and business advisory firm.
gmm@pkfmalta.com