This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalized service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookie notice for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.

Bookmark Email Print page

Management companies - Taking up your business challenges together | Brochure


DOWNLOAD  

Management companies are at a crossroads

Management companies - Taking up your business challenges togetherAt a time when many asset managers are expressing concern about pressure on margins and complex regulatory developments, management companies must find new ways of adapting to a changing environment for both UCITS and non-UCITS structures.

Since the advent of UCITS III, substance requirements have gradually and steadily increased. Market players have adopted various models in response to this evolution, though a common challenge underpins their choices: the increased minimum efficient operational scale for running a UCITS fund, whether via a management company or on a self-managed basis. The introduction of AIFMD not only confirms this trend but extends its application to non-UCITS products.

The CSSF circular 12/546 dated 24 October 2012 sets out the conditions and organisational requirements applicable to UCITS management companies and self-managed SICAVs. Key substance requirements can be summarised as follows:

  • Proportionality: derogations to substance requirements remain possible; however, the conditions under which they can be obtained have been reiterated by the CSSF
  • Shareholders: a ‘sponsorship letter’ can be requested by the CSSF, hence reintroducing ‘Promotership’ on a selective basis, with ad hoc guarantee requirements
  • Board composition: in addition to professional experience, directors must observe a more detailed and stringent incompatibility regime
  • Conducting officers: the new circular provides detailed qualification requirements (experience, location, availability, occupation), including scope and duties. Conducting officers must observe a more detailed and stringent incompatibility regime
  • Central administration and internal governance: both expertise and decision-making centres should be in Luxembourg and supported by adequate human and technical infrastructure
  • Delegation: delegation and sub-delegation both require prior CSSF approval and due diligence by the management company

Page Last Updated

Share

 

Stay connected:
Get connected
Share your comments
More on Deloitte Luxembourg
Learn about our site

Recently published