In advance of the event, Delano heard from Claude Niedner, partner and chairman of the law firm Arendt & Medernach. He speaks on the “Regulatory outlook: What are the priorities for alternative asset managers” panel, Wednesday 2 December, 10:40am.
AG: What do you want the audience to get most from your session?
CN: The aim of our session is to provide an update on the regulatory priorities for alternative asset managers. Alternative managers in the European Union are subject to a complex regulatory and legal framework which grants them access to a European passport for the distribution of their alternative investment funds. Navigating these complexities is important and the objective of the panel is to give guidance on new developments with both short term and long term implications.
From your point of view, how has the coronavirus pandemic changed the alternative funds sector this year?
The pandemic has created very different threats and opportunities. Internet-driven sectors are in a position opposite to the position of sectors where revenues are driven by a high number of clients in a physical location. Completing deals and fundraising have been more difficult but have continued. [General partners] will have to identify value creation potential in 2021, which hopefully will be a post-coronavirus environment. The pandemic has prompted public debt to surge and investors continue to face a long-term very low interest rate environment, obliging them to increase their allocations to alternative investments. The pandemic in this respect confirms the expected long-term strong growth of the alternative investments industry.
What are the biggest changes you expect to see in fund regulations in 2021?
The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) is subject to review and the European Commission is expected to provide a proposal for amendments to the Directive in the course of the year 2021. The consultation launched by the European Commission in October 2021 and closing in January 2022 raises a number of questions which could have far reaching consequences for the alternative investment fund industry. The topics range from the substance of management companies and their delegation model to the depository passport, the alignment of the Ucits and AIFMD framework and even include questions in relation to Esma powers. A broad spectrum of questions suggesting a more profound review departing from a technical review only as suggested by earlier positions of the European Commission.