Cookie policy

By pursuing your navigation on our website, you allow us to place cookies on your device. These cookies are set in order to secure your browsing, improve your user experience and enable us to compile statistics. For further information, please report to our cookie policy.

Article (124/421)
Considering the consequences
Considering the consequences
Back

Considering the consequences

01/06/2016

Daniel Engel

Daniel Engel

Global Head Private Equity and Debt Solutions

BNP Paribas Securities Services

View profile
Daniel Engel discusses the ramifications of Europe’s current and incoming regulation with PERE magazine

The financial crisis of 2008 led to a regulatory frenzy on both sides of the Atlantic.

The main regulatory initiatives following the 2008 financial crisis had certain objectives in common, namely to increase transparency, protect investors and shield markets from possible systemic risks – most notably via imposing capital adequacy requirements.

These regulations have transformed operational models and infrastructures and will continue to do so as the next wave of regulations gets under way.

The private real estate market should be looking ahead to that next wave and aiming to anticipate it – namely the following four initiatives:

1. Base Erosion and Profit Shifting

In a nutshell: This OECD led initiative is aimed at corporate tax optimisation strategies used by multinational enterprises. The plan is laid out into 15 action items, which in turn are split into five groups: coherence, substance, transparency, digital economy, multi-lateral treaty.

The fallout: The opportunity will be for certain jurisdictions to enlarge substance requirements in servicing these structures, in order to ensure that taxation occurs.

Indirectly, this could impact alternative investment vehicles, as they are cross-border investment structures. For asset managers, this could have an impact on the operating models and thereby represent a significant costing impact as managers require an overall review of the operational model and structuring.

2.European Long Term Investment Fund

In a nutshell: This initiative allows channeling funds from both retail and institutional investors for long term investment projects. ELTIFs may be the beginning of a two-tiered Europe when it comes to alternative investments. From a practical perspective, AIFMs will need to gain approval to manage ELTIFs, and therefore to comply with requirements laid out in the AIFM and ELTIF directives.

The fallout:  The hybrid structure will allow for non-bank funding of these projects, which in itself is one of the positive factors of the regulation.

We will have to wait to see how the market reacts to this vehicle and whether it will actually be seen as efficient in accomplishing the original goals. For custodians and administrators it will once more represent a certain operational burden and review process.

3.Solvency II

In a nutshell: Although not a new regulation, it only came into force in January 2016. The directive is aimed at insurance companies and sets out risk framework and liquidity requirements. It is based on three pillars, dealing with quantitative financial requirements; risk management; and information to be provided to supervisory authorities.

The fallout: Whereas increased transparency certainly is a positive thing, this regulation could inhibit investments into certain economic sectors. Meanwhile, allocation to debt investments should continue to increase, as the related ratios are favorable.

This drive for increased transparency will require insurance companies to invest in a solid infrastructure to produce the required data, and to work with providers that have put into place similar measures to ensure data delivery to their clients. Concurrently, from an alternatives perspective, it remains to be seen whether insurance companies will continue to allocate investments to both real estate and private equity, as they have in the past, or whether this regulation will dampen this trend by imposing certain liquidity ratios.

4.Reserved Alternative Investment Funds

In a nutshell: This new vehicle is intended to widen the available vehicles in terms of structuring alternative funds and hasten the speed at which they are established. Managed by an authorised AIFM, they will be indirectly subject to the AIFMD regime.

The fallout: The struggle amongst international centers will continue. This is beneficial for the sector overall, as it will imply a continued focus on providing the best-suited vehicles and structuring opportunities. It will be of crucial importance for certain jurisdictions to continue to come up with market-leading initiatives going forward.

This new type of AIF will have the same characteristics as the regulated SIF, with the exception that these vehicles will be non-regulated. No prior authorisation from the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) will be required, nor will any supervision be conducted by the CSSF. The supervision will be conducted indirectly via the AIFM supervisory authority. Ultimately, this vehicle will increase the time to market for managers in launching real estate or private equity funds.

Regulations have a significant footprint on current operating models and therefore a significant financial impact. But they also present very real opportunities. In a world where the outlook for alternatives is so upbeat, asset managers able to navigate the regulatory landscape efficiently stand to have the best chance of creating and preserving value.

 

This article originally appeared in PERE magazine.

Follow us