CP12/32: Implementation of the Alternative ... - BVCA admin
CP12/32: Implementation of the Alternative ... - BVCA admin
CP12/32: Implementation of the Alternative ... - BVCA admin
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>CP12</strong>/<strong>32</strong><br />
<strong>Implementation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Alternative</strong> Investment Fund Managers Directive<br />
Annex 1<br />
X<br />
requirements for <strong>the</strong>se firms, including additional own funds for <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional negligence<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> Article 9(7) (if no PII insurance is purchased), are less than <strong>the</strong> cash on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
balance sheet. Based on this analysis, we do not expect a capital shortfall for this type <strong>of</strong> AIF.<br />
Please see Table 5 for our aggregate analysis <strong>of</strong> internally managed investment trusts.<br />
UCITS firms<br />
38. We also reviewed UCITS firms because we expect some to manage AIFs. The UCITS<br />
Directive’s capital requirements are substantially similar to AIFMD, apart from <strong>the</strong><br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional negligence capital requirement. For UCITS firms that will be subject to AIFMD<br />
this requirement could be substantial if <strong>the</strong> AIFMD capital AUM is substantial. Because we<br />
do not have data on <strong>the</strong>se firms’ AIF portfolios, we have not estimated <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> this<br />
requirement or calculated to what extent <strong>the</strong> Article 9(6) guarantee might be usable.<br />
Table 5: The impacts <strong>of</strong> AIFMD capital requirements<br />
Types <strong>of</strong><br />
AIFM by<br />
current<br />
capital<br />
category<br />
BIPRU<br />
investment<br />
firm<br />
(Managers<br />
doing MiFID<br />
business)<br />
Venture<br />
capital<br />
managers<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r fund<br />
managers<br />
Internallymanaged<br />
investment<br />
trusts<br />
Current<br />
FSA capital<br />
sourcebook<br />
GENPRU/<br />
BIPRU<br />
IPRU (INV)<br />
Chapter<br />
5.2.3R(2)<br />
IPRU (INV)<br />
Chapter 5<br />
Number<br />
<strong>of</strong> abovethreshold<br />
firms in<br />
<strong>the</strong> sample<br />
Total AUM<br />
for abovethreshold<br />
firms<br />
(£m)*<br />
Capital<br />
shortfall<br />
(including<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
negligence)<br />
(£m)<br />
Increase<br />
in capital<br />
requirement<br />
due to<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
negligence<br />
(£m)<br />
Potential<br />
guarantee<br />
amount<br />
(Art 9(6))<br />
(£m)<br />
675 £4,500,000 £104.1 £450 £57<br />
42 £75,000 £31.6 £7.5 £2.7<br />
12 £28,000 0 £2.8 £1.0<br />
N/A 8 £13,000 0 £1.3 N/A<br />
* Note that <strong>the</strong>se amounts have been calculated from FSA038 (Volumes and Type <strong>of</strong> Business) returns and have not been<br />
independently verified, and thus are subject to data entry errors, double-counting <strong>of</strong> assets, etc.<br />
Liquid assets requirement<br />
39. We also propose to apply <strong>the</strong> liquid assets requirement to UCITS firms that do not manage<br />
any AIFs even though <strong>the</strong>y are not within <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Directive. This requirement<br />
should apply consistently to a UCITS firm irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> AIFs it manages,<br />
A1:10 Financial Services Authority November 2012
Change language