DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Hedge Fund Whitepaper FINAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Hedge Fund Whitepaper FINAL Asset Management Changing rules The regulation, taxation and distribution of hedge funds around the globe June 2009 Contents Foreword 03 Changing rules 04 Regulatory developments 08 Taxation developments 10 Country-by-country overview 14 Table 1: Availability of hedge funds and funds-of-hedge funds to investors by country at June 2009 72 Table 2: Channels of distribution of hedge funds by country at June 2009 78 Table 3: Regulation of hedge fund managers by country at June 2009 86 Table 4: Taxation of hedge funds and hedge fund managers 90 Contacts 96 Whilst this information represents our understanding at the time of going to press, given the rapid pace of change in the global hedge fund industry, the factual data in this paper may quickly be superceded. Up-to-date advice should always be obtained regarding current regulations and fiscal rules. PricewaterhouseCoopers 02 Changing rules PricewaterhouseCoopers Changing rules June 2009 3 Foreword This is the 7th year we have produced our whitepaper report. Our last report was dated September 2008 and was published just as Lehman Brothers announced that it was in administration and the US Government announced massive support for AIG. These events signalled the start of a period of extreme financial turbulence and volatility. The reduction in worldwide securities in the draft Directive will affect not If you would like to discuss any of the markets coupled with net redemptions only the managers of hedge funds issues in this paper in more detail, over the last 9 months have resulted but also private equity, real estate, please speak with your usual contact at in industry assets under management infrastructure and some traditional long PricewaterhouseCoopers1 or one of the falling significantly – estimates suggest only managers. Although there is bound country members listed in the contact some 30% from their peak. Some to be much debate and lobbying to section at the end of this document. hedge funds have closed, some change the proposals, history shows have restructured and some fund that a lot of the original text will remain. managers have gone out of business. The changes proposed would have far The business environment remains reaching effects on the European extremely challenging yet the regulatory non-retail asset management industry consequences of the credit crunch and quite probably, a number of and their potential impact on the unintended consequences. marketplace are only beginning to emerge. All industry participants will need to monitor developments carefully as the At the end of April 2009, the European new rules emerge. Commission published a draft proposed Graham P.N. Phillips European Directive that will apply to all Once again our international network Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers (UK) Alternative Investment Fund Managers has successfully collaborated with our European Hedge Fund Practice Leader central team to produce this paper and established in an EU member state. June 2009 In their current form the proposals I am indebted to all those involved. 1. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. 01 Changing rules In September last year, the consequences of the credit crunch accelerated. Coupled with the demise of Lehman Brothers and the intervention of governments to “bail out” banks, the sub prime crisis became a banking crisis and then a macro crisis. For the sector, the deleveraging by financial institutions and flight to cash by all investor classes caused significant redemptions and, together with the falls in securities markets worldwide, is estimated to have reduced assets under management in the industry to about 30% of the position at December 2007. Last year we were predicting that some vision on the future business more institutional money would be environment – a tough challenge given allocated to hedge fund strategies and the huge upheavals in financial markets. that this money would fuel a focus on operational risk – both by investors But just as managers have started and managers. We anticipated that to see a slow down in redemptions the larger hedge fund managers would and started to achieve some positive need to embrace the published Best investment performance, they are Practice Standards and Practices (both being faced with a new challenge – of the Hedge Fund Standards Board a challenge from the regulators. and the US President’s Working Group on Financial Markets) to demonstrate The Draft EC Directive robust controls and processes. It is fair to say that since the European We also commented that compensation Parliament approved the Rasmussen strategies would need to be modified report in July 2008, it has been known and aligned to achieve adherence that the European Commission would to a strong operational control have to draft proposals to address the framework and avoid bias to risk and recommendations of this Parliament short term thinking. approved report. However, it was That was then. Whilst these issues not expected that the draft Directive remain valid the extreme financial published at the end of April 2009 market dislocation over the last 9 would be so wide in scope and months has caused every financial released with such limited consultation. institution to reappraise its business The draft directive is proposed to model. Necessarily, the emphasis apply to Alternative Investment Fund has been on survival and trying to get Managers (AIFMs) established in an PricewaterhouseCoopers 404 Changing rules PricewaterhouseCoopers Changing rules June 2009 5 EU member state and who provide It is unclear whether there is sufficient management services to alternative supply of expertise in the EU investment funds (AIFs). The definition marketplace for such an independent of an AIF includes all non-UCITS funds valuation process, especially when it and therefore also covers for example, comes to hard–to-value assets. real estate funds, infrastructure funds, exempt unauthorised unit trusts and UK In addition, the AIF will need to appoint investment trusts. a depository. The depository needs to be an EU credit institution and this will Issues with the Directive exclude most existing prime brokers – it is thought that there are only four Not only was the scope much broader prime brokers who currently have EU than expected, but also the provisions credit institution status. Consequently, in the draft Directive were much an EU credit institution will need to be more extensive. For the hedge fund appointed as a depository to a hedge industry, it is proposed that EU hedge fund and in turn sub-delegate to a fund managers with assets under prime broker. This is feasible except management of EUR 100 million or that the draft Directive also requires the more will be subject to a minimum level depository to take the liability risk for of capital of EUR 125,000 plus a further breaches of the Directive, irrespective of 0.02 per cent of the value of assets the sub-delegation arrangements which under management in excess of EUR probably makes such arrangements 250 million. uneconomic and possibly unworkable. There are also detailed reporting The Directive also requires disclosure requirements for the AIFM to both the about leverage to both the investors home state regulator (e.g. information and the regulator. The definition of on governance structures, internal leverage is unclear but it appears that risk management systems, valuation the regulatory authorities including the procedures and risk management Commission itself will have the power systems and to investors (e.g. to impose limits on leverage. descriptions about valuation procedures, liquidity risk management, The reaction of the Industry redemption rights, identity of the AIF’s Associations has been negative and depository, the third party independent reflects their perception that only limited “valuator”, when the AIF may use consultation has taken place. Clearly, leverage, any investors who benefit the draft Directive will be subject to from preferential interests etc.). much lobbying and negotiation and it must be remembered that it only More fundamentally, the draft Directive represents Level 1 principles under the seeks to change some of the existing Lamfalussy process and the fine detail relationships and infrastructure within is yet to be worked out; however, most the industry. Under the proposals, it will commentators believe that the basic be necessary for each AIF to appoint thrust of the Directive will remain. an independent valuer to value the assets and then the units/shares of the AIF each dealing or subscription/ redemption day and at least annually. US Regulatory Developments Business Implications The US is moving at a different pace. What is clear is that the financial At the time of writing a US House environment in which hedge funds Sub-committee had just finished a operate has changed fundamentally. hearing on “Perspectives on Hedge The regulators are rewriting the rules. Fund Registration”. There is a bill Therefore, hedge fund managers need proposing an amendment to the to start re-thinking what this means Investment Advisors Act of 1940 to their business and operating model. which would lead to a mandatory Although the new rules are not yet registration regime for all US investment completely clear, there is enough advisors and non-US investment information in the proposed Directive advisors if they have US clients. This to start working through the issues, registration requirement differs to the considering their impact and then proposed European AIFM model (where potential solutions. We have set out an registration is required if the AIFM action plan opposite of the key areas operates from a place of business in the to consider. EU) because the US model, by virtue of linking the registration requirement to Conclusion clients, makes it extra-territorial. Hedge fund managers need to get up The US appears to be moving at a to speed quickly with the proposed slightly slower pace than the EU and new rules.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tax Transparent Funds in the UK
    July 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY Tax TransparenT Funds in The uK In January 2012, HM Treasury proposed the consultation process. The main changes relate to the introduction of contractual schemes for collective transfer of units and conditions for investment by retail investment. The main objective of introducing investors. Other changes reflect discussion about the contractual schemes was stated as being to ensure application of partnership and insolvency law. that the uK is able to compete for a share of the market in European pooled funds following the In addition, the Financial Services Authority (now implementation of the undertakings for Collective replaced by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) Investment in Transferable Securities (“uCITS”) IV and the Prudential Regulation Authority) issued a Directive in July 2011, which allows uCITS funds to consultation paper in February (CP13/5) addressing establish master-feeder arrangements. the proposals for tax transparent funds and the new rules (to be included in the FCA’s Collective Following on from the initial consultation period, HM Investment Schemes Handbook (“COll”)) which will Treasury published several drafts of the Collective enable contractual schemes to be authorised and Investment in Transferable Securities (Contractual regulated. The Tax Regulations were also updated. Scheme) Regulations 2012/13 (the “Regulations”) together with drafts of three complementary tax On 12 June, the Regulations (SI 2013/1388) were Regulations.1 published on legislation.gov.uk, together with an explanatory memorandum (a previous version of On 31 January 2013, HM Treasury published a further which had been published on 27 March). draft of the Regulations and an accompanying update.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Between Tax and Price and Global Evidence
    Relationship between tax and price and global evidence Introduction Taxes on tobacco products are often a significant component of the prices paid by consumers of these products, adding over and above the production and distribution costs and the profits made by those engaged in tobacco product manufacturing and distribution. The relationship between tax and price is complex. Even though tax increase is meant to raise the price of the product, it may not necessarily be fully passed into price increase due to interference by the industry driven by their profit motive. The industry is able to control the price to certain extent by maneuvering the producer price and also the trade margin through transfer pricing. This presentation is devoted to the structure of taxes on tobacco products, in particular of excise taxes. Outline Tax as a component of retail price Types of taxes—excise tax, import duty, VAT, other taxes Basic structures of tobacco excise taxes Types of tobacco excise systems Tax base under ad valorem excise tax system Comparison of ad valorem and specific excise regimes Uniform and tiered excise tax rates Tax as a component of retail price Domestic product Imported product VAT VAT Import duty Total tax Total tax Excise tax Excise tax Wholesale price Retail Retail price Retail & retail margin Wholesale Producer Producer & retail margin Industry profit Importer's profit price CIF value Cost of production Excise tax, import duty, VAT and other taxes as % of retail price of the most sold cigarettes brand, 2012 Total tax
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Pensions Committee, 16/03/2017
    PENSIONS COMMITTEE ________________________________________________ Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 7.00 p.m. Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BG This meeting is open to the public to attend. Members: Vice Chair: Councillor Clare Harrisson Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury, Councillor Andrew Cregan, Councillor Md. Maium Miah, Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE, Councillor Candida Ronald and Councillor Andrew Wood Tony Childs (Co-optee Admitted Bodies Representative) and Kehinde Akintunde (Unions Representative) Substitutes: Councillor Marc Francis, Councillor Ayas Miah and Councillor Rajib Ahmed [The quorum for this body is 3 voting Members]. Contact for further enquiries: Scan this code to Nishaat Ismail, Democratic Services. view an electronic 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, E14 2BG agenda E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 020 7364 4120 Web:http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/committee Public Information Attendance at meetings. The public are welcome to attend meetings of the Committee. However seating is limited and offered on a first come first served basis. Audio/Visual recording of meetings. Should you wish to film the meeting, please contact the Committee Officer shown on the agenda front page. Mobile telephones Please switch your mobile telephone on to silent mode whilst in the meeting. Access information for the Town Hall, Mulberry Place. Bus: Routes: 15, 277, 108, D6, D7, D8 all stop near the Town Hall. Docklands Light Railway: Nearest stations are East India: Head across the bridge and then through complex to the Town Hall, Mulberry Place Blackwall station. Across the bus station then turn right to the back of the Town Hall complex, through the gates and archway to the Town Hall.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Philanthropy Legal Environment Index
    Rules to Give By A Global Philanthropy Legal Environment Index Initiated by Nexus; legal research conducted by McDermott Will & Emery LLP; analysis provided by Charities Aid Foundation, Nexus and McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Written by Elaine Quick Toni Ann Kruse Adam Pickering Contents Acknowledgments 4 About the Partners 5 Forewords 6 Rules to Give By Index Map 8 Executive Summary 10 Scope and Limitations of the Study 12 Scoring the Rules to Give By Index 14 Questions and Scoring 14 Exempt Countries 14 Analysis 15 Findings 17 Rules to Give By Index 17 Analyzing Index Scores 25 Income Level 26 Regional Breakdown 28 Non-Profit Organizations 30 Tax Exemption 30 Reporting Requirements 30 Impact of Legal Structure on Giving 33 Tax Incentives 34 Effectiveness of Tax Incentives for Individuals 38 Different Incentives for Corporations and Individuals 40 Estate Taxes and Incentives for Legacy Donations 41 Rules to Give By Index in Alphabetical Order 43 Rules to Give By Country Reports 51 Disclaimer 294 Rules to Give By: A Global Philanthropy Legal Environment Index 3 Nexus | McDermott Will & Emery | Charities Aid Foundation Acknowledgements Nexus would like to thank Alessandra Gregg, Clyde McConaghy, Elaine Quick, Yulya Spantchak, and Jonah Wittkamper. We are immensely grateful to McDermott Will & Emery LLP and the Charities Aid Foundation (“CAF”) for their dedication and the extensive resources they have committed to making this report possible. In particular we would like to thank Toni Ann Kruse, who led a team of over 70 attorneys at McDermott Will & Emery LLP in preparation of the Index to this report, and Adam Pickering at CAF, who led the analysis of the data compiled in the Index.
    [Show full text]
  • IA UK FUNDS REGIME WORKING GROUP Final Report to HM Treasury Asset Management Taskforce
    IA UK FUNDS REGIME WORKING GROUP Final report to HM Treasury Asset Management Taskforce 6 June 2019 ADDENDUM on Onshore Professional Fund proposals – 11 March 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD FROM THE IA CEO ............................................................................... 4 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD ....................................................................................... 5 GROUP MEMBERSHIP / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 8 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 15 Background ............................................................................................................... 15 Purpose of group and report ....................................................................................... 16 Wider context ............................................................................................................ 16 Guiding pillars for moving forward ............................................................................... 17 1. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION ................................................................. 18 How the UK fund regime can support innovation .......................................................... 19 Long-Term Asset Fund ................................................................................................ 21 Onshore Professional
    [Show full text]
  • Land in the Caribbean
    Caribbean Land Policy Network LAND IN THE CARIBBEAN ISSUES OF POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT IN THE ENGLISH- SPEAKING CARIBBEAN Edited by Dr. Allan N. Williams LAND IN THE CARIBBEAN PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON LAND POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT IN THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING CARIBBEAN Edited by Allan Williams Email: [email protected] Special thanks to Jane Dennis for the final editing of this manuscript. All views, interpretations, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in this book are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the supporting or co-operating institutions. Verbatim copying of any part of this book is permitted, in any medium, provided that the copier gives a complete citation of the title, chapter, author and editor of the book, and provided that all copies made remain under these same terms and conditions which are conspicuously published on all copies. Hard copies of this book can be acquired from: Terra Institute 10900 Stanfield Road Blue Mounds, Wisconsin 53517 Email: [email protected] For further information about the Caribbean Land Policy Network, check the web site: www.terrainstitute.org or contact Caribbean Land Policy Network Steering Committee: Chairperson: Andrew Bishop, Commissioner of Land, Guyana (592) 227-2582 (ph) (592) 226-4052 (fx) [email protected] Secretary: Allan N. Williams (868) 624-2142 (ph) [email protected] Manuscript was prepared from digitised copy at the Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, for publication, October 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation of Investments in Funds Jon Garrett Agenda
    Taxation of investments in funds Jon Garrett Agenda 1. Overview 2. UK funds 3. Offshore funds 4. Non-resident capital gains 2 1. Overview 3 Overview Types of funds Offshore Traditional UK Traditional Mutual Funds (USA) Open Ended Investment Company Unit Investment Trusts (USA) Authorised Unit Trust Common Contractual Fund (Ire) Investment Trust SICAV/SICAF (Lux/France) Real Estate Investment Trust BEVAK/BEVEK (NL/Belgium) Exchange Traded Fund VCIC/ICAV (Ire) Authorised Contractual Scheme Exchange Traded Fund UK Alternative Offshore Alternative UK Limited Partnership Hedge Fund (typically Cayman Islands) Unauthorised Unit Trust Jersey (/G) Property Unit Trust Venture Capital Trust Exchange Traded Fund 4 Overview Investment by life companies Structural investments Reinsured funds Policy Policy Holders Holders Life Company Life Company Reinsurance contract OEIC/TTF Reinsurer Assets Assets 5 2. Taxation of UK Funds 6 Taxation of UK Funds Regulated Funds In the UK, regulated funds are typically established as: • Open-Ended Investment Company (“OEIC”), also known as an Investment Company with Variable Capital (“ICVC”) • Authorised Unit Trust (“AUT”) • Authorised Contractual Scheme (“ACS”) In the UK, these entities are typically authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) and, if so, are also known as Authorised Investment Funds (“AIFs”) – which can be confused with Alternative Investment Funds. 7 Taxation of UK Funds OEIC – Open Ended Investment Companies Characteristics Taxation in the fund • A company • Taxed at a basic
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing an Investment Vehicle European Real Estate Fund Regimes
    Choosing an investment vehicle European Real Estate Fund Regimes May 2019 www.pwc.com/realestate This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors. Introduction This booklet aims to provide an overview of the most common European collective investment vehicles (CIVs) suitable for investment in real estate, including their legal form, as well as their regulatory and tax position. The AIFM Directive entered into force on Many countries offer attractive tax facilities, 22 July 2013 and has been implemented by including tax exemptions, to their local real EU Member States, which had to consider estate CIVs. In many countries, these tax both regulatory matters and changes to facilities are not available to real estate CIVs Uwe Stoschek fund and investor taxation. This has resulted investing from a different jurisdiction. Therefore, in significant changes in the European real there are still important steps to take until there Partner, estate fund landscape. AIFMD has forced is a level playing field for real estate CIVs also Global Real Estate Tax fund managers and investors to change from a tax perspective. Our country specialists Leader their approach and look not only at national mentioned in this publication will be very happy PwC Germany rules, but also at EU rules and guidelines. to help you by providing further information on At the same time, the new passports for any of the fund vehicles described. +49 30 2636-5286 professional investor funds provide new +49 160 5820641 options. Managers must consider where they [email protected] apply for authorisation to obtain the licence, paying close attention to legal and tax aspects, as well as available business infrastructure and personal resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Credit Suisse First Boston Deutsche Bank the Date of This Offering Circular Is October 26, 2005
    OFFERING CIRCULAR U.S.$200,000,000 Odebrecht Overseas Limited (Organized in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas) 9.625% Perpetual Notes Unconditionally Guaranteed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A. (Incorporated in the Federative Republic of Brazil) ______________ Odebrecht Overseas Limited, or OOL, is offering U.S.$200,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its 9.625 % perpetual notes. Interest on the notes will accrue at a rate of 9.625% per year. OOL will pay interest on the notes quarterly in arrears on March 22, June 22, September 22 and December 22 of each year, commencing on December 22, 2005. The notes will be unconditionally guaranteed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A., or CNO. OOL is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of CNO. The notes will be perpetual notes with no fixed final maturity date and will be repaid only in the event that OOL redeems the notes or upon acceleration due to an event of default, as described under “Description of the Notes.” The notes may, at the option of OOL, be redeemed, in whole but not in part, at 100% of their principal amount plus accrued interest and additional amounts, if any, on any interest payment date on or after September 22, 2010 or at any time upon the occurrence of specified events relating to Brazilian or Bahamian tax law, as set forth in this offering circular. The notes will be senior unsecured obligations of OOL ranking equal in right of payment with all of its other existing and future senior unsecured debt. The guarantee will be a senior unsecured obligation of CNO and subordinated to secured debt of CNO to the extent of such security.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Policy in the Bahamas
    NEW DIRECTIONS IN BAHAMIAN ECONOMIC POLICY: SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT TAXATION Alvin Rabushka Senior Fellow Hoover Institution Stanford University (Economic Adviser, Securities Market Task Force) Speech Delivered to City Rotary Club Tuesday, May 13, 1997 Nassau, The Bahamas NEW DIRECTIONS IN BAHAMIAN ECONOMIC POLICY: SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT TAXATION Distinguished Rotarians and Invited Guests, It is said that "death and taxes are inevitable." The difference is that death occurs but once, while taxes are a daily affliction. Today, tomorrow, next week, and next month you will pay one or more of the following taxes: company fees and registration, motor vehicle tax, departure tax, import tax, stamp tax, export tax, property tax, payroll tax, and a raft of fees and charges. The import tax, which generates 63% of tax revenue and 57% of combined tax and non-tax revenue, is especially onerous. It shows up in the price of virtually everything you buy, whether directly in imported goods or indirectly in locally-produced goods that use imported materials (unless you live in Freeport). Make no mistake about it: The import tax is a massive sales tax that hits low-income Bahamians especially hard. If "death and taxes are inevitable," then new and higher taxes are equally inevitable. The coming years will see a higher ceiling on payroll taxes for the National Insurance Board, a new tax for a contributory unemployment insurance scheme, and yet another new tax for catastrophic health insurance. Despite what you may regard as heavy taxation in The Bahamas, by world standards your islands are both a "low tax" jurisdiction and a "tax haven." Bahamians pay about 20% percent of their national income to the government in one form or another, compared with much higher shares of 35-60% in the United States and Western Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods of Taxation in the Tax Havens. Examples of Taxation in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands Enea Constantin
    Annals of the „Constantin Brâncuşi” University of Târgu Jiu, Economy Series, Special Issue ECO-TREND 2015 – Performance, Competitiveness, Creativity METHODS OF TAXATION IN THE TAX HAVENS. EXAMPLES OF TAXATION IN THE BAHAMAS, BERMUDA AND THE CAYMAN ISLANDS ENEA CONSTANTIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CONSTANTIN BRANCUSI UNIVERSITY OF TARGU JIU, ROMANIA, ENEA CONSTANTA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CONSTANTIN BRANCUSI UNIVERSITY OF TARGU JIU, ROMANIA, ROMANIA, [email protected] Abstract We should never trust appearances: "the drum, with all the noise it makes is not only filled with wind"[1]. This old oriental proverb perfectly illustrates our proposal regarding the "true false" tax havens. Only at the beginning of this century, learned before firms to exercise their activity in the national territory, returned to international trade. The continuous search for new outlets to escape the growing production, export them first and then they were implanted overseas sales platforms and then installing production. Zero Haven sites or havens with zero tax consisting essentially of small economies, the British colonies (Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands), dependent territories of the Commonwealth (Bermuda) or territories became independent (Antigua, Bahamas 1963 or Vanuatu 1980). Our study will analyze tax havens most common: Bahamas, Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, where we find all models of reception that can be viewed in other areas zero-haven: International Business Companies (Antigua, the Virgin Islands, Nevis) exemption schemes to insurance companies or banks (Barbados, Vanuatu). The subject of tax evasion subject of much debate, targeting both the domestic economic space and the world. Unlike their concerns globally, domestic concerns to reduce tax evasion resumes, especially on taxation of small businesses, avoiding knowingly scope of tax havens.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuring and Managing a Collective Investment Vehicle (CIV)
    Structuring and Managing a Collective Investment Vehicle (CIV) Dean Handley Asset Servicing, EMEA June 2014 Information Classification: Confidential Agenda 1 Authorised Contractual Schemes 2 CIV Governance and Structure 2 Information Classification: Confidential Authorised Contractual Schemes (1) BACKGROUND • ACS designed as a new regulated tax transparent fund vehicle primarily to facilitate the setting up of pooled “master funds” under UCITS IV as in order for “master-feeder” structures to be attractive to investors on a cross border basis the master fund needs to be a tax transparent fund (other jurisdictions already had TTFs). It was expected that investors such as pension funds and life companies will also find contractual schemes attractive. The vehicle itself is not a taxable entity and suffers no tax directly • The two types of TTF are the co-ownership scheme, where participants in the scheme own the assets beneficially as tenants in common. The scheme is not legally separate from the participants, so that assets are acquired, managed and disposed of directly on their behalf by the manager, while the depositary holds legal title as custodian. The other form is a partnership scheme which is a limited partnership under the Limited Partnership Act 1907 • Regulations aim to ensure that an ACS will be regulated in much the same way as an Authorised Unit Trust or Open Ended Investment Company. UMBRELLA STRUCTURES • The treasury has confirmed that the FCA will not be able to authorise limited partnership schemes using an ‘umbrella’ structure so the proposed rules in the consultation paper will reflect this provision. Only co-ownership schemes will be able to be part of an umbrella structure INVESTOR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA • Treasury’s legislation requires units in an ACS to only be issued to either a professional or a large investor or an existing ACS investor due to the small risk that foreign courts might not recognise UK legislation that limits liability of participants in a TTF.
    [Show full text]