UK: Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive - On The Right Track?

Last Updated: 22 December 2009
Article by Deloitte Financial Services Group

Most Read Contributor in UK, August 2017

On 12 and 25 November 2009 the Swedish Presidency issued compromise proposals to the draft of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers ("AIFM") Directive. This was produced after extensive input from the impacted industries, the competent authorities and finance ministries of the 27 Member States.

The Directive has come a long way in six months, as reflected in the compromise proposal, and progress has been made on key issues but material concerns remain, particularly on the recently introduced remuneration annex. The articles will no doubt continue to evolve within the "black box" that is European decision making but there are a few select messages to draw out of the latest draft.

Originally, the European Commission submitted a proposed Directive on AIFM to the European Parliament and Council on 30 April 2009.

Whilst the Directive enraged many in the industry and drew much adverse comment, the overriding principles to gather systematically important data, impose restrictions on leverage, protect investors and ensure robust prudential requirements were echoed in many other global publications. In short, the key themes of the Directive were here to stay. Unfortunately after detailed scrutiny, the widely held view was that the articles were unworkable in their initial form and were insufficiently tailored for the industries they were attempting to regulate.

Rapporteur's draft report to the ECON committee – 1 December 2009

Jean-Paul Gauzès is the Rapporteur in the European Parliament for the AIFM Directive. The Rapporteur's draft report to the ECON committee details recommended changes to the Commission's original proposal before it can be accepted.

Gauzès appears to understand the important role of alternative funds within the EU and his report broadly echoes the direction of the Council's text, however there are a few key thoughts which can be drawn out.

  • Firstly, it is pleasing to note that he understands that the Directive needs to be better tailored for the various sub-sectors so as to reflect their impact on systemic risk. However, in the same stroke he recommends that the de-minimis thresholds are removed. A consequence of the latter is that relatively small AIFM will have to report leverage where there is minimal chance of systemic risk. Additionally these AIFM will suffer compliance costs which will be a disproportionate drag on returns compared to their larger rivals.
  • Secondly, Gauzès also wants more power to be given to the competent authorities and to reflect the new supranational supervisory roles which are being created. Giving significant power to entities far removed from the front line will not make for quality decision making.
  • Thirdly, there is a push for equivalence requirements for depositaries located outside the EU. This could curtail the ability of investors to gain access to emerging markets and therefore could affect risk adjusted returns.
  • Lastly, the flexibility for some AIFM to adapt to market conditions could be restricted if they are required to determine, in advance, what levels of leverage they intend to use.

Now that it is becoming clearer which way the Directive's provisions are heading, we take this opportunity to survey the current position, noting key recent changes and the European Parliament's commentary thereon. We acknowledge the Directive will remain a moving quantity over the coming months, however much can be gleaned from noting the overall direction of travel.

Who is the AIFM?

The new text has clarified the question, "who is the AIFM?". The recitals make clear that there should only be one AIFM for each Alternative Investment Fund ("AIF"), appointed by the AIF, and who should be in a position to comply with all the requirements of the Directive. There is scope for the AIF to also be the AIFM. The Directive only applies to managers established within the European Community.

Where a fund has multiple managers, such that the portfolio and risk management is spread across the providers, it might not be readily apparent who should be the AIFM, and therefore who needs to comply with all the requirements of the Directive. Once the AIFM has been appointed they will be in a position to delegate activities to other managers if appropriate, but those other managers will not be directly appointed by the AIF as AIFMs. This would represent a significant change to the current multi-manager model.

The process of selection, appointment and delegation of service provider functions will need to be more carefully managed under the new regime.

Restricted Activities?

Once an AIFM is authorised under this Directive, the activities it may perform will be restricted. The newly inserted Article 4a allows some services and activities to be undertaken but not the entire list within Annex 1, Section A & Section B of MiFID. Managers would need to set-up new entities to perform the activities which are not listed, this may be costly and it will be important to keep abreast of any changes to this Article.

Can the AIFM delegate functions?

The AIFM cannot delegate to the extent that they become a "letter box" entity; however where they do delegate portfolio or risk management functions, there needs to be evidence that due-diligence processes have been performed on those other providers, and they must also review the services provided by each third party on an ongoing basis. Although many of the requirements are currently performed by the AIFM, it might not be the case that they can evidence their decision making procedures. This may generate additional process, administrative requirements and costs.

Delegation by the AIFM will now only need to be "notified" to the competent authority, whereas under the previous draft "authorisation" of each delegation was required. Where this applies to entities outside the European Community there needs to be a co-operation agreement between the competent authorities of the home Member State and the supervisory authority of the third country.

Which investment funds are captured?

There is nothing in the current draft to suggest that the AIF itself will be regulated directly, but this eventuality should not be ruled out, especially if we consider that the majority of Member States are familiar with the UCITS operational model. Regulating the AIF directly is unlikely to be a positive step, and could open the door to costly and restrictive requirements. The Directive stipulates disclosure requirements on the AIFM in relation to AIFs, including disclosure both to investors and to the Member State. AIFM will need to understand which of the funds they manage are AIF; broadly these are non-UCITS with more than one investor. The de-minimis thresholds of either €100m or €500m remain within the latest draft. The higher limit applies when the fund employs no leverage and there are no redemption rights within five years.

Managed accounts, which have just one investor, do not fall under the scope of this Directive; neither do funds where the only investors are those within the same group as the AIFM. Where a manager's business materially falls into either of these categories it may even be prudent to cease, or bring forward the cessation of other activities which do fall under this Directive to the extent that the forecast income generated is less than the costs of compliance.

Who can be the depositary?

It remains a requirement under the new text for each AIF to have an independent depositary, but this can now be either an EU credit institution or a MiFID investment firm. The appointed depositary now has the conditional ability to appoint sub-custodians based outside the EU. This is a significant step forward and will allow access to "best in class" service for the benefit of investors by keeping the market for providers open.

It is important to be clear that the term 'depositary' as referred to in the AIFM Directive text, is anyone who meets the requirements and fulfils the functions contained in Article 17. Depending on the circumstances this could be an administrator, custodian, prime broker, lawyer or other MiFID firm.

Additional flexibility has been built in for funds having a five year lock-up period and where investments are made on a non-frequent basis, which is welcome. Here, other parties can be appointed to fulfil the depositary role who are "subject to prudential regulation and ongoing supervision" or who already carry out the "depositary functions as part of professional or business activities". This is likely to be most relevant to the private equity model, although further clarity will be required to ensure it is in practice a beneficial concession.

Problems with the service provider model?

It is now clear that the depositary is responsible for ensuring its functions are performed with regard to each fund, taken in its entirety. The model envisioned by the Directive appears to be one where there is a "lead" depositary for each AIF who will then sub-delegate functions downwards to other custodians, in the EU or otherwise. However, the tough due-diligence requirements and de-facto strict liability clauses may make delegation of tasks by the depositary unattractive. It is possible that this structure could lead to greater operational or credit risk, to the extent that depositaries are reluctant to delegate tasks as they would still be liable for the actions of the delegate.

Service providers to the fund can crudely be classified into a few key functions: administration, transfer agent, custody, portfolio management, risk management and valuation. Significant problems arise in the current proposal because the administration, transfer agent and custody functions now all fall under the depositary's remit although there are a limited number of firms who have in-depth experience in all three areas.

Many of the largest administrators do not have a custody function and therefore would need to subdelegate the "safe-keeping" activities. It should be questioned if such companies have the "in-house" skill set required to perform the required due-diligence and, in particular, the ongoing monitoring activities which are laid down in the Directive. It would be understandable for an AIFM to be hesitant to appoint an administrator as "depositary" who does not also have custody experience. A similar situation will apply if a traditional custody provider is appointed with no administration experience. However, there is scope for additional understanding to be gained, on all sides, through the commissioning of controls reports over the activities performed by the "depositary" both on initial sub-delegation and the subsequent monitoring activities, albeit with obvious incremental costs.

A positive point to note is that the valuator can now be "functionally" independent which will allow for "in-house" valuations.

Overall it is unclear what the final service provider structure may look like, who will be performing the roles laid down by the Directive and therefore how the contractual relationships will develop. Where new contracts are established, all members of the value chain will need to assess the additional risks that arise. This is an area to watch with interest.

What is the depositary's liability?

The original strict liability requirements in the first draft Directive would have meant a significant increase in costs for investors, either via the depositary's insurance for providing the additional protection necessary, or through the cost of holding additional capital.

The Presidency's proposal has made extensive amendments to the depositary article (17); unfortunately not resulting in a significant departure from strict liability. Where the depositary sub-delegates functions, it can only contractually discharge itself of liability for certain specific losses. Those are broadly losses incurred as a result of the custodian being unable to immediately return assets (or the corresponding value) to the AIF. The depositary cannot discharge itself of liabilities in relation to other delegated activities, even if it has performed the required due diligence activities.

There may be a reluctance to take on the "lead" depositary role if the current liability requirements remain.

Where can AIF be marketed?

The passport for AIF established in third countries and with EU AIFM to market across the EU would have been welcomed by many in the industry; unfortunately it has not survived into this recent draft and these third country AIF will need to take advantage of the current private placement regimes in individual Member States. However, it is perhaps positive to note that there is now confirmation that these private placement regimes will remain available, which was previously unclear. Member States now have the power to impose additional restrictions on those AIFM who market their AIF to retail investors, although they cannot impose stricter conditions where this is on a cross border basis compared to where it is marketed domestically.

The current text makes no provisions for the authorisation of managers that are established outside the EU. It remains to be seen whether this encourages managers to move outside the EU and make use of private placement regimes, or whether the EU regulated status becomes a strong market preference and the opposite effect is seen. The former is a distinct possibility if compliance costs impact on investor returns (or if the remuneration annex is not well received!). In general the marketing articles remain somewhat opaque and it could be an area where clarifying text will be inserted.

Will leverage be constrained?

The Turner Review cites leverage as having been a contributing factor in causing the financial crisis and therefore it is only natural that the commission wants to collect this information to identify where its build up could lead to a systemic risk.

Managers of leveraged funds should, after reading the current draft, have more confidence that inappropriate ex-ante leverage conditions will not be imposed by the Commission; however they may still adopt implementing measures to determine when the Member States may limit the leverage employed by a fund. The scope for such measures is limited; the Member State may only set caps "when it is deemed necessary in order to ensure the stability and integrity of the financial system". While some AIFs are large and generate significant percentage of market trading volumes, individual AIFMs or AIFs deemed to generate systemic risk should be few when compared to leverage and capital ratios of other financial institutions that generate systemic risk.

There is currently no mention of leverage restrictions being specifically differentiated by asset class; however when the Directive refers to the implementation measures that the Commission may adopt there is reference to "different strategies of AIF" and therefore this could open the door for such provisions at a later stage.

Where an AIFM has funds established outside the EU and with no EU investors they will still be required to disclose the fund's leverage to the competent authorities of the Member State. Such managers may consider moving outside the EU if the majority of their business falls into the above category.

What about "controlling interest" disclosures?

There has been public concern surrounding the nontransparency of Private Equity owned firms and this had predominately focused on takeovers of large and highprofile public companies.

It was unreasonable to set the controlling interest threshold for disclosure at 30% of the voting rights of the acquired company, not least because it was unclear how 30% could, under normal circumstances, have constituted a "controlling" interest. Private equity managers will be pleased that this threshold is now increased to 50%.

Additionally it was disproportionate to apply blanket disclosure requirements to all investee companies. Progress has been made in this area, and small and medium sized companies are no longer within scope, neither are listed companies or new issues and the current listing rules will apply to the latter.

What are the capital requirements?

Significant clarification was needed to the capital articles and this has been provided in the new text. Capital requirements have been aligned with other EU directives and it has been made clear that they do not apply to management companies authorised under the UCITS Directive and must be at least the amount required under the Capital Adequacy Directive.

It is positive to note that, subject to authorisation, some AIFM may provide up to 50% of the capital required in the form of a guarantee, although managers of leveraged funds will not be able to avail themselves of this. Additionally there will be a €10m cap on the capital required.

Why have remuneration provisions been included? There was no mention of remuneration (which includes carried interest) within the original proposed Directive. Prior to this recent draft release it was not widely known that such articles, similar to those for bankers' remuneration, would be present. Broadly the remuneration articles seek to align the interests of investors with those of the investment manager, but this is achieved through prescriptive measures, irrespective of the fund type or investors' preferences. These also include requirements for disclosure of individuals' remuneration.

Hedge fund managers may be most impacted by the requirement that variable remuneration is only paid when "sustainable according to the financial situation of the AIFM as a whole". This may limit the ability of managers to reward, and therefore retain, star performers when the overall performance has been poor. The private equity sector in particular already has effective systems for aligning the interests of the above parties, which are arguably more effective than the policies set down in the Directive.

There are many other new remuneration clauses which will present problems if they remain in their current form. The details of these will be a topic of significant discussion over the coming months, particularly in the context of wider corporate governance.

Development of the AIFM Directive in 2010

The timeline below gives an indication of the expected progression of the Directive through to final approval. Particularly in light of the hand over in presidency on 1 January, this may prove to be flexible.


The above discussion is by no means an exhaustive list of the provisions within (or recent changes to) the Directive, but it does give an indication of the direction of travel for many of the key themes. It is worth keeping in mind that all European directives are politically charged and the eventual outcomes are not always those that would have been made after a rational debate of the facts.

At the time of going to press we were made aware that all further European Council working groups had been cancelled. The implication being, that a general approach from the Council will not be forthcoming before January 2010. Significant power has now been transferred to the Spanish Presidency, although it is unclear what direction they will take the Directive. In summary – the directive is "off track".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.