Europaudvalget 2020-21
EUU Alm.del Bilag 276
Offentligt
2329246_0001.png
NOTE
The Danish Government's response to the consultation on the review
of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive.
The Danish Government believe that the AIFM regime generally functions
well and is a success story. Therefore, changes should be targeted to ad-
dress concrete matters. However, the consultation document is very general
and gives the impression of a more extensive revision, which we would
caution against.
However, one area where there is need of improvements in the AIFM re-
gime concerns investor protection, so investors get direct and relevant in-
formation corresponding to their investment activities. At this moment, the
AIFMD has a limited focus on investor protection, and it is predominantly
a regime targeted to professional investors. In light of the development of
the number of
AIFM’s
and investments in alternatives from retail investors,
there is a need for further attention on ensuring a high and consistent level
of investor protection in the Directive.
In regard of cases where an AIFM provides services to a MiFID investment
firm, the AIFMD does not specify the extent or securitisation of the posi-
tions between the two parties. As a result, there has been uneven conditions
between the companies since the AIFM’s are less restricted, and they can
apply their services in multiple activities. This should be addressed to cre-
ate level playing field and consistent rules.
While we do not believe we should touch upon UCITS rules in this context
we do wish to make one observation as the consultation touches upon the
issue of UCITS.
In the event that UCITS and AIFM’s gain double permis-
sion, it is important that there is a sufficient amount of harmonisation be-
tween the two areas. These investment funds cover a wide range of differ-
ent profiles, at least in their origins. Therefore, it is important to avoid un-
necessary burdens in double regulation for similar conditions between the
different fund types, and focus on where there may be relevant differences.
In this connection, it is also important to look at the interaction with MIFID
requirements, so that we prevent regulatory arbitrage.
EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 276: Notat samt høringssvar vedr. gennemgang af FAIF-direktivet
2/2
The AIFMD’s rules
are general and can therefore accommodate the differ-
ent types of AIFM’s,
which is positive. However, we believe there is merit
in further convergence being established through targeted delegated acts
and ESMA guidelines.
The Danish Government look forward to our continued dialogue on the
future of the AIFMD, and we are ready to engage with the Commission for
any further information that your services may require.
In addition to these key points, the Danish Government have submitted an-
swers to the specific questions in the Commission consultation paper.