Search results

The highly politicized debate about the recent Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM) Directive of the European Union led many observers to suspect an ideological battle between countries seeking to impose transnational regulation on financial service industries such as hedge funds and liberal market economies insisting on the benefits of market discipline in order to protect their financial centers. The battle that appeared to particularly pit France against the United Kingdom can thus be interpreted as an example of a regulatory paradigm shift in the aftermath of the crisis. This article cautions against such an ideas-centered account of financial regulation and points to the economic interests that drove the French and German agendas. However, contrary to the assumptions of traditional political economy approaches, national preferences were not simply defined by the aggregate of a country's economic interests. Rather, industry success in shaping government positions on alternative investment regulation crucially depended on how a given industry fit into the government's overarching geo-political agenda. By highlighting this feedback loop between government strategy and industry lobbying, the paper proposes a strategic analysis of financial regulation, as opposed to accounts that consider positions to be pre-determined by ideas or socio-economic structures.

The highly politicized debate about the recent Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM) Directive of the European Union led many observers to suspect an ideological battle between countries seeking to impose transnational regulation on financial service industries such as hedge funds and liberal market economies insisting on the benefits of market discipline in order to protect their financial centers. The battle that appeared to particularly pit France against the United Kingdom can thus be interpreted as an example of a regulatory paradigm shift in the aftermath of the crisis. This article cautions against such an ideas-centered account of financial regulation and points to the economic interests that drove the French and German agendas. However, contrary to the assumptions of traditional political economy approaches, national preferences were not simply defined by the aggregate of a country's economic interests. Rather, industry success in shaping government positions on alternative investment regulation crucially depended on how a given industry fit into the government's overarching geo-political agenda. By highlighting this feedback loop between government strategy and industry lobbying, the paper proposes a strategic analysis of financial regulation, as opposed to accounts that consider positions to be pre-determined by ideas or socio-economic structures.

Risk management has become a primary objective in the management decision. Particularly, in case of investment processes, the focus on risk management is becoming more pronounced, as a reaction to the increase in the complexity of financial products and processes of analysis, decision and implementation of investment projects. Currently, it is in progress the implementation of the European legislation in the field of investment funds, with a significant orientation towards the regulation of risk management models / processes. In this context, capitalizing the constant concern of the management for effective administration of the risk, SIF Moldova has structured and implemented a risk management model based on capital adequacy that includes quantifiable prudential indicators as objective support which is essential in optimizing the investment decision. As in the secondary legislation that is specific to AIF / AIFM it is not proposed and described a standard method of risk management and it is not stipulated a set exposure limits, it was decided to develop a model for risk management in accordance with the requirements of AIFM legislation by applying the principles stipulated in the banking norms.

The introduction of the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM Directive 2011/61/EU) in 2013 means a radical transformation of the EU regulatory landscape for the whole alternative investment fund industry. Taking into account the growing meaning of the alternative investment fund industry in Europe, the aim of the paper is to assess the impact the Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMD) will have on the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) managing Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) in the EU. The research is based on the case of Malta, which is a quickly growing financial centre. The main findings are based on an analysis of questionnaire responses conducted with key players in the fund industry regulated and licensed by the Malta Financial Services Authority. This study provides an extensive analysis of the AIFMD and its impact on Malta's financial service industry. It has highlighted various factors that will have a positive or negative impact on the industry resulting from the AIFMD. The paper provides recommendations for further development of the Maltese fund industry in the context of the AIFMD that can be partially applied to other fund domiciles. ; peer-reviewed

This article deals with the operations of alternative investment funds (AIF) and their legislation in Lithuania. Currently, the AIF registered in Lithuania face difficulties, since the majority of them are not able to attract investors and are forced to discontinue their operations. Nevertheless, the size of the AIF capital in Lithuania is consistently growing and contributes to the increasing share of capital among all investment funds. The legislation of AIF on the global scale before the financial and economic crisis in 2008 was rather weak; nevertheless, currently this trend is changing, a new legislation is put in place in the EU and USA in order to tighten AIF legislation and to limit their operations. However, AIF registered in Lithuania are rather small; therefore, this trend will not have a significant influence on Lithuania.