Styperson POPE

Strategy & Compliance for Investment Firms


The Role of a Depositary under AIFMD

The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) is due to be transposed into law on 22 July 2013 and while some Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) will want to make use of the transitional year to avoid implementing changes straight away, others (for instance those marketing outside the UK) will want to comply from day one.  And on day one, they’ll need a Depositary.

The UK implementation of AIFMD allows for two types of Depositary (ignoring for the moment the ‘Depositary Lite’ model used  for non-EU AIFs).  These are the full blown Depositaries, the market for which is likely to be served by the established custodian banks, and the Private Equity AIF Depositary which is (albeit slowly) attracting some new entrants to the market.

Some prospective PE AIF Depositaries, generally existing, regulated fund administrators and third-party operators, are starting to put their head above the parapet and talk about their proposed services (and a little more reticently, their proposed pricing) but what does the Depositary role entail?

Cash Flow Monitoring
The Depositary is required to monitor all significant cash flows and quickly identify any that are inconsistent with the usual operations of the fund.  They must also reconcile all cash flows on a daily basis, although they may do so less frequently where cash movements are infrequent.

Subscriptions
The Depositary will receive information about subscription payments the same day they are received by the fund, the AIFM or a transfer agent.  The Depositary is then responsible for ensuring that the payments are booked into accounts in the name of the fund, the AIFM or the Depositary.

Safekeeping (Verification and Record Keeping)
Other rules apply where a Depositary is holding custodial assets but for non-custodial assets (such as real estate) the Depositary must verify the ownership of the assets and keep appropriate records.  What will create more complexity is the Depositary’s duty to ensure procedures are in place which prevent the assets being assigned, transferred, exchanged or delivered without the Depositary being informed, particularly as the Depositary’s responsibilities are on a ‘look through’ basis which limits the extent that these controls can be put in place in respect of structuring vehicles only.

AIFM Risk & Process Oversight
The most widely ranging responsibility of the Depositary, and the one which will require the most expertise and thought, is the duty to assess the risks of the fund’s strategy and the AIFM’s organisation and implement ongoing controls and verifications of the AIFM’s processes and procedures.

AIFM Instructions
The oversight functions of the Depositary extend to verifying the instructions of the AIFM to ensure compliance with the fund’s rules, offering documents and applicable law.

Valuation
The Depositary is required to ensure that procedures are in place for the valuation of the fund’s assets and that these are implemented effectively on an ongoing basis and reviewed periodically.

Distributions
The Depositary must ensure that the fund’s net income is handled in accordance with its rules, including ensuring that auditors’ reserves are taken into account and that any distributions are correctly made.

Many of these processes will be familiar to (better or more risk averse) regulated fund administrators and third-party operatorsSTYPERSON POPE has assisted a number of these firms to create and implement operational procedures, ensure appropriate governance, and identify and manage the risks involved in providing these services.


Things to Consider When Launching a Fund

The following headings cover some of the key considerations in setting up a fund which will be structured or promoted as an unregulated collective investment scheme:
Location (Tax)
Tax structuring is likely to be the driver behind the decision on where the scheme should be based.  This will be determined in part by who the investors are and where they and the assets of the scheme are located.  If the investors are based in the UK, especially if they are CGT exempt (eg through a SIPP or SSAS), a UK partnership is likely to be tax efficient without needing to look offshore.

Location (Regulation)
Some funds may consider offshore management to save on regulation however if the aim is to save on the ‘cost of regulation’, then the ‘cost of offshoring’ must be set against this.  Offshore lawyers, accountants, managers and administrators are often more expensive than their fully regulated UK equivalents.  It is also worth considering how investors will see the decision to operate off shore if it is perceived as an attempt to avoid regulation (and therefore avoid some of their protection).  Do also bear in mind that UK regulations still apply to the promotion of funds based offshore if that promotion is undertaken in, or from, the UK.

Structure
Tax will again be important in determining the structure of the fund but assuming that the investors are principally based in the UK and include some CGT exempt investors and some tax payers, a typical structure would involve a Limited or Limited Liability Partnership (which is tax transparent) with a UK Unit Trust feeder (for the SIPP and SSAS investors).  Various other vehicles might be used to achieve specific tax planning objectives such as allowing overseas investors to avoid withholding tax or allowing income to be rolled up into capital gains.

Operator
Establishing, operating and winding up an unregulated collective investment scheme is a regulated activity.  This means, where the fund is operated (run) from within the UK, the person doing so must be authorised by the FSA.  Some would-be fund managers become authorised directly, others employ a professional operator to run the fund on their behalf.
The decision on which route to take will depend on the experience available in-house, the size of the fund envisaged and whether it is likely to be one of many future funds.  If the fund is small, a one-off, or the fund manager lacks experience, the costs of becoming authorised and therefore having to buy in expertise, pay fees to the FSA, and maintain regulatory capital are likely to outweigh the costs of buying in a professional operator.

Administration
This activity covers a broad range of services from receiving and processing subscriptions (which can be regulated) to producing call notices, effecting transfers, paying distributions, maintaining statutory books and registers, and issuing updates to investors (which are generally not regulated).  Professional administrators have the expertise necessary to deal with administratively complex funds like hedge funds but others which trade only occasionally or which do not permit transfers or redemptions of their units may be easier to administer in-house.  Once the fund is up and running, certain communications are laid down by regulations and advice may be required on how these should be put together.

Accounting
Again, the need for an external accountant will depend on the complexity of the funds’ activities and the commitments made to investors about when financial information will be circulated.  Simple funds can be accounted for in house, while complex funds may need experienced personnel, specialist systems and a good understanding of models of returns and carried interests.

Promotion (Documents)
Within (and from) the UK, the promotion of unregulated collective investment schemes is very tightly restricted.  This is an area which many funds overlook in their planning but it is, of course, vital to achieving a successful launch.  Every fund needs a clear route to market and a strong offering to both investors and intermediaries.
Most funds will prepare an IM; great care (and good advice) should be taken in ensuring that the IM appropriately addresses the workings of the fund, the financial model, the parties involved, and (perhaps most importantly) the risks it carries.  Even if the IM is not going to be issued or approved by an authorised firm, having it verified by an experienced advisor might be very useful and save considerable cost in the long run.
In some cases, the IM may need to take the form of a prospectus which is a much more tightly prescribed document and, if this is the case, the cost of preparing it may be considerably higher.  Whether this is necessary will depend on the strategy for promoting the fund, its overall size, its minimum investment, and the legal status of the fund vehicles involved.
Unauthorised promoters of funds may be able to use documents approved by an authorised firm but whoever carries out the promotion, the categories of permitted recipient are few and tightly defined.  Great care must be taken to remain within these.

Promotion (Activity)
As well as the documents being used, attention must also be paid to whether the activity of promoting the fund is a regulated activity and therefore requires FSA authorisation in its own right.  It is likely that promotions which do not involve authorised intermediaries will be extremely difficult to undertake.

Next Steps
Knowing the following information will be helpful in addressing the considerations above:
  • What are the fund’s investments in? Asset class, location, &c.;
  • Who are the investors? Individuals, institutions, pension schemes, location, &c.;
  • How may investments will you receive?  Minimum, maximum, total number, &c.;
  • How may investments will you make?  Frequency, size, &c.;
  • Will you distribute income?  Size and frequency of distributions, &c.; and
  • What is your route to market?  Are intermediaries authorised, where are they based, &c..
To discuss any issues related to launching a fund as an unregulated collective investment scheme, please contact Simon Webber, StypersonPOPE’s MD, on 07710 260 717 or sw@strategic-compliance.co.uk.


Compliance Audits & Monitoring Visits

This post is just a quick anatomy of a compliance monitoring visit we’re in the middle of for an FSA authorised Investment Firm.  We tailor all our compliance audits and monitoring programmes to our clients’ particular businesses and we make sure that they add value by focussing not only on the bare FSA requirements but also commenting on best practice and efficiencies.  We have developed tried and tested monitoring formats for:

Like most of our clients, the one who’s ‘enjoyed’ today’s compliance visit, is on a quarterly programme with a slightly more expanded report at mid-year and a full review at each year end.  Today (Friday) is day one of the full review, continuing Monday, and ending in the delivery of a report to the Board by the close of next week.  It’s not the best time to be taking several days out to run a full compliance audit… but then it never is!

Two of us are splitting the work, with me reviewing all of their regulated activities, policies, procedures, management systems, governance provisions, and Gabriel reports (which should be OK because we’re involved in all their FSA reporting).  Their in-house Compliance Manager is reviewing their files and records including KYC and AML, financial promotions, client categorisation, periodic statements, and suitability assessments (each based on a sample I chose at random).

Despite being only one day in, the visit has already proved invaluable with a big gap identified in their conduct of business (COBS) procedures (actually, they’d done everything right but didn’t understand why so had gone to expensive lawyers for advice each time), and a few gaps in management systems which can very easily be plugged (once you know they’re there!).

We’ll have plenty of recommendations to make and we categorise them all based on the urgency of the change and the cost or effort of completing it.  Generally we like to see through the changes we suggest but we also understand the costs involved in ‘gold plating’ and accept that perfection may be a longer-term objective!

One inevitable consequence of a compliance monitoring visit is some additional training and it’s a great way to identify areas of need.  This may be informal training for the Board in the form of talking through the report, or it might be identifying the key topics for a firm-wide workshop.

It’s easy to forget how valuable a compliance audit or monitoring visit can be and often it’s the most cost effective way of discovering problems (it’s certainly a lot cheaper than letting them revel themselves!).  If you’d like to discuss what kind of visit would be most suited to your business, do please give Simon Webber, STYPERSON POPE‘s Managing Director, a call on 07710 260 717, or e-mail sw@strategic-compliance.co.uk.


Trusts & Money Laundering – HMRC AML registration for a TCSP

We’ve recently been doing some work with a couple of trusts which, because the investment returns aren’t shared with the trust’s settlors, are not collective investment schemes.  This means that the managing trustees don’t need to be regulated (although there are regulated custodians and investment managers involved) and therefore don’t automatically apply anti-money laundering measures.  This raises an important question…

What steps should non-investment trusts take under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007?

Well, as so often with compliance… it depends.

The first consideration is whether they should be regulated by the FSA.  This will depend on the intention of the trust.  If it is for investment purposes (such as a unit trust), and it has more than one settlor, it may well be a collective investment scheme (CIS) and therefore require an Operator.  One we’ve worked on was for the provision of funerals; these aren’t a CIS but are separately regulated unless they meet a number of detailed exemption criteria.

If the trust’s activities don’t require regulation by the FSA, it may still require registration with HMRC as a Trust or Company Service Provider (several of our clients fall into this relatively new and quite wide category).  This will be the case where an individual or company acts, or arranges for others to act, as a trustee by way of business.  Charities and trusts created by wills are generally excluded but a lot of trusts used for tax planning or asset protection will be caught.

If a trust or its managing trustees require regulation by the FSA or registration with HMRC, then the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLR) will apply.

This will generally mean that they have to identify, and then verify the identity of, anyone with whom they do business.  Depending on the nature of the relationships, this is likely to include the settlors (the people who give money or property to the trust), the beneficiaries (the people to whom the trust gives money or property), the trustees themselves, and possibly others as well.

The depth of these checks will depend on the risks the trust faces of being used for money laundering and financial crime.  The first priority of any company subject to the MLR is to assess this risk according to the requirements of the regulations.

Even if the trust doesn’t require regulation or registration, if it deals with individuals as settlors or beneficiaries, the trustees should seriously consider implementing some procedures to identify and verify the people on whose behalf they act.  These can be a lighter touch version of the MLR requirements but they provide an excellent template for best practice and identification techniques.

If you’re involved in the management of a trust and would like to discuss the Money Laundering or Regulated Activity Order regulations which apply to you, do please contact Simon Webber, StypersonPOPE’s MD, on 07710 260 717 or sw@strategic-compliance.co.uk.


Marketing Funds: Promoting Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes

This is a long one but it’s a very complicated and misunderstood area… print it off, have a coffee, and take a deep breath…

The Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) imposes a restriction on unregulated collective investment schemes being marketed to the public but it also creates three sets of exemptions, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages.  (These all define to whom the fund can be promoted and by who, there are separate rules about the documents which must be used – click here for more information on when a prospectus is required.)

1. The Financial Promotions Order defines how an unauthorised firm can promote a scheme using unapproved documents.  Essentially, it allows promotion to some institutional investors and to Certified Sophisticated Investors (and, depending on the scheme’s investments, occasionally to self-certified high net worth or sophisticated investors).

Advantages to this approach are that:

  • Fees tend to be lower because,
    • the document used does not need to meet the FSA’s requirements for financial promotions, and
    • no FSA authorised firm has to take responsibility for the document.

Disadvantages are that:

  • an unauthorised (and therefore probably less expert firm) takes all of the responsibility,
  • the documents do still need to meet certain FSMA and common law requirements,
  • schemes can only be promoted to institutional and certified sophisticated investors,
  • the person making the communication has to establish that the investor is certified before making any promotion, and
  • authorised firms (eg IFAs) may not be able to pass on the promotion.

2. The Promotion of Collective Investment Scheme (Exemptions) Order contains one of the sets of exemptions to Section 238 of FSMA which restricts how an authorised firm can promote a Collective Investment Scheme. The exemptions here are very similar (but not identical) to those under the Financial Promotions Order (above).

Advantages are that:

  • an authorised firm is involved, giving comfort to partners in the fund by taking on some of the responsibility;
  • investors will feel more comforted knowing that a UK-based, FSA-authorised body is involved in the communication; and
  • the document does not have to meet the full requirements of the FSA’s financial promotion rules;
  • an authorised firm can approve the promotion to be made by unauthorised persons (but there’s little point because the promotion would be limited to the same people the unauthorised person cold promote it to anyway under the Financial Promotions Order).

Disadvantages are that:

  • fees will be higher because the firm will have to ‘verify’ the contents of the promotional material – they have a responsibility to investors to ensure that it is fair clear and not misleading;
  • schemes can still only be promoted to institutions and certified sophisticated investors;
  • the person making the communication still has to establish that the investor is certified before making any promotion; and
  • even some authorised firms (eg IFAs) can not pass on the promotion – eg if it would constitute MiFID business for them.

3. The FSA’s rules provide the final route for promotion. These define eight categories of investor to whom a scheme can be promoted without breaching the restriction in FSMA. Some of these are very specific exemptions for unusual types of schemes (like Church Funds and Lloyds underwriters) but two in particular are of more use.

Advantages of utilising these rules are that:

  • the scheme can be promoted to other groups of investors, including
    • persons assessed as suitable by an authorised firm (probably their IFA),
    • persons who have undergone an adequate assessment of their knowledge, experience and expertise by an authorised firm;
  • the scheme can be promoted in such a way as to reduce as far as possible the risk of someone making an investment who does not fit an exemption (this will mean controlling the promotion, dissuading ineligible persons from applying, and checking that applicants are eligible but unlike the other routes above, this does not need to be done ahead of making initial contact with an investor);
  • an authorised firm will take responsibility for the document; and
  • an authorised firm can approve the document for distribution by unauthorised persons.

Disadvantages of this approach are that:

  • the document will need to be more thorough, meeting all of the FSA’s requirements for financial promotions;
  • fees will be higher because the document will need to be verified by the authorised firm; and
  • an authorised firm will need to have processes and procedures in place to ensure that ineligible applicants are not permitted to participate in the scheme.

As you can see, each approach has its ‘pros and cons’ and each route is therefore suitable for certain types of schemes.

Routes 1 and 2 are most suitable for institutional schemes (ie funds where all of the investors are investment professionals, authorised firms, or high net worth companies and unincorporated associations).

If you are thinking of pursuing either of these routes and the fund is looking for investment from individuals then make sure that you or your distribution network already know a good number of Certified Sophisticated Investors (be careful to ask the right question and get the right answer because Self-Certified Sophisticated Investors, probably won’t count and certificates that do not cover unregulated collective investment schemes are useless to you).

If in any doubt, we recommend that you pick a sample of your target audience, say 20 investors, and (without telling them anything about the fund), ask them if they have a certificate and if they do, to fax it over to you.We can take a quick look at these and make sure that they are the right kind.Once you know what percentage of your target audience has these certificates then you’ll know how restricted you’ll be in promoting your fund.

Route 3 is likely to be more expensive because the authorised firm (probably the operator of the scheme) is going to be more involved – they will verify the document (as indeed they will for route 2 and you will for route 1), they will ensure it meets the FSA’s higher standards, they will approve it for distribution by you, and they will have in place process and procedures designed to stop ineligible investors from participating.

On the other hand, this route will allow more effective promotion of the scheme on the basis that investors will be protected by the assessments carried out by authorised firms (be they the operator or an IFA). If you want to promote the scheme to individuals who don’t already hold a Certificate of Sophistication covering unregulated collective investment schemes, these protections will need to be in place.

Above, I said the fact that “the document will need to be more thorough, meeting all of the FSA’s requirements for financial promotions” was a disadvantage. It might equally be seen as an advantage, both for the investor, who is better informed and therefore better protected, and for the promoter who can draw the attention of their distribution network to the involvement of an authorised firm.

StypersonPOPE can help you to determine the most effective route to employ in promoting a scheme. If you would like to discuss scheme promotion, please do contact Simon Webber,StypersonPOPE’s Managing Director, either by telephone or e-mail.


Investor Certificates: Sophisticated Investors & High Net Worth Individuals

Some communications about financial services (particularly those by unathorised firms or those related to funds) are restricted to ‘certified’ investors.  It’s important not to mix these up with an investor’s categorisation as Retail or Professional or whether they are a Qualified Investor – these are three quite separate regimes of classification.

The differences between the certificates are subtle but vital to understand. For instance, just taking sophisticated investors, there are three different types of certificate depending on what the promotion is about and who is making it – it’s possible that a single investor might hold all three and yet still not count as a ‘Certified Sophisticated Investor’ in respect of any particular investment.

Financial Promotions Order Certificates include:

  • Certified Sophisticated (signed by an authorised firm)*
  • Self-certified Sophisticated**
  • Self-certified High Net Worth**

* Only in respect of the investments the certificate lists
** Only in respect of debentures and shares in unlisted securities

Promotion of Collective Investment Scheme (Exemptions) Order Certificates cover the same categories but have slightly different content.

When relying on certificates, the promoter must ensure that the investor holds the relevant certificate before making any promotion. We recommend that they see a copy of the certificate either by post, fax or scan. This can be difficult in practice but it is the only route available to firms under these regimes.

To establish whether your target audience is likely to have the required certificates, we recommend that you pick a sample, say 20 investors, and (without telling them anything about the investment), ask them if they have a certificate and if they do, to fax it over to you.

StypersonPOPE can take a quick look at the certificates you receive and determine which ones you can rely on.

Once you know what percentage of your target audience has these certificates then you’ll know how restricted you’ll be in promoting your investment opportunity. If it proves to be unworkable, there are alternative routes available which circumvent the need for certificates entirely.

In any case, StypersonPOPE can help you to determine which certificates are appropriate and what percentage of your target audience holds them. If you would like to discuss scheme promotion, please do contact Simon Webber, StypersonPOPE’s Managing Director, either by telephone or e-mail.


Structuring Funds: Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes

This isn’t intended to be comprehensive but it hopefully introduces some of the terminology for those who are unfamiliar.  Most fund vehicle types link to Wikipedia articles which open in a new window.

Partnerships
Limited Partnerships (LPs) and Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) are popular UK structures for funds because they are ‘tax transparent’, meaning that they will pay no tax themselves and each of the investors (partners) will be responsible for their own tax. This is particularly attractive to investors who don’t pay UK tax – this applies to SIPP and SSAS pension trusts and investors based outside the UK.

Limited Partners / General Partners / Designated Members
There is likely to be a mix of passive and active members. Investors will be passive (Limited Partners) but the people running the fund will be active (a General Partner in an LP, or at least two Designated Members in an LLP). These active partners may also be called the ‘Sponsor’ and will be responsible for the running of the fund which may include calling investor meetings, paying the partnerships’ bills, making investment decisions, or agreeing contracts to outsource these and other duties. Typically, this role is played by an existing company or a special purpose vehicle (SPV) run by whoever initiates the fund – the people with the bright idea!  They may also have a carried interest vehicle which provides them with a tax-effective way to benefit from the success of the fund.

If all of the investors are in day-to-day control of their property (their investment) then the fund may be a ‘syndicate’ (and not really a fund at all) but these are extremely difficult to design and manage for more than a small handful of investors. If any investor is not in day-to-day control of their property it is likely that the fund will constitute a Collective Investment Scheme under UK law. As this is the case for the vast majority of funds, lets assume it’s the case here…

Operator
Any person setting up or operating a fund run from the UK (even where the partnership is established off shore but actually managed by people based in the UK), must be authorised by the FSA to establish, operate and wind up a collective investment scheme. If the people behind the fund are not already an authorised person with the appropriate permissions, then it’s likely that they will require the services of an ‘operator’. The operator will ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, will ensure appropriate information is provided to investors, and can play an important role in aiding the promotion the fund (there’s more detail on this last point, in our article “Three Routes To Promote a Collective Investment Scheme”).

Companies
Some people thinking about establishing a fund, consider structuring it as a limited company in order to avoid the need for an operator (incorporated bodies are excluded from the definition of a collective investment scheme unless they qualify as Open Ended Investment Companies – OEICs) but this is unlikely to be attractive if the fund is larger than about £1m because the cost of an operator will work out less than the amount of corporation tax that the fund would pay. The FSA also places restrictions on the way in which a company’s shares can be sold to investors which, although different, are no less onerous than those on collective investment scheme units and would usually require the assistance of professionals adding further costs.

Feeder Funds & EPUTS
There are a variety of reasons why feeder funds may be used but the most common are to provide:

  • a UK entity through which UK investors can put money into offshore funds;
  • an offshore entity through which non-UK investors can invest in UK funds; or
  • an EPUT through which UK capital gains tax exempt investors can invest.

The reasons for establishing such a fund are usually driven by tax advantages such as ensuring that the upside of investments is taxed as a capital gain rather than income or ensuring that capital gains tax exempt investors, such as SIPP and SSAS pension schemes, do not pay tax at all. ‘EPUT’ stands for Exempt Property Unit Trust and, like other feeder funds, will usually be one of the Limited Partners in the underlying fund. If run from the UK, it is likely that the feeder fund will also be a Collective Investment Scheme and will therefore require an authorised operator.

Unregulated vs. Authorised
This is where the terminology begins to get confusing. All Collective Investment Schemes run from the UK, require the involvement of an authorised operator or manager however, within this, there are two types of scheme; unregulated and authorised. These terms refer to the scheme itself (not the operator). ‘Unregulated’ can also be misleading because they are heavily regulated and very restricted in how they can be promoted.

Authorised funds must apply to the FSA for their authorisation and this can be very costly (for most funds, it is prohibitively so) and can take up to six months from application to authorisation. In addition, authorised funds need to follow rules allowing investors to leave the fund which can make it difficult for such schemes to invest in illiquid ‘alternative assets’ like property, art, wine, films, and shares in unquoted companies. For these reasons, most funds are structured as unregulated collective investment schemes.

StypersonPOPE specialises in assisting anyone involved in establishing or running unregulated collective investment schemes whether as General Partner, Sponsor, or Operator. If you would like to know more about our services, please contact Simon Webber, StypersonPOPE’s MD, on 07710 260 717 or sw@strategic-compliance.co.uk.