Search results

The purpose of this paper is to to summarize Advisers Act registration implications for non‐US advisers that now rely on the “private adviser” exemption from Advisers Act registration and to summarize the principal changes affecting investors in funds managed by non‐US advisers contained in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The paper explains the elimination of the “private adviser” exemption and the creation of the narrower “foreign private adviser” and other exemptions from Adviser Act registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to private funds; the Dodd‐Frank Act's provisions for information sharing by the SEC and the confidentiality of private fund information; the “Volcker Rule's” limitation of investment by banking entities and non‐bank financial companies in hedge funds and private equity funds; changes in the definition of “accredited investor”; and the future adjustment of the “qualified client” test for inflation.

The Dodd‐Frank Act will require many investment advisers and fund managers with their principal offices and places of business outside the USA to register with the SEC and to observe, with respect to US clients, the full spectrum of SEC regulations that apply to registered investment advisers. The Act will also impose new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on many non‐US advisers.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Purpose: With this study, the authors aim to analyze and highlight the financial performance of pension funds (public and private) and their impact on the economic growth of The Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development (OECD) countries, while taking into account the effect of market capitalization, inflation, and public debt.

Methodology: To carry out this analysis, the authors subjected our secondary data (derived from published in the annual reports of the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF) to econometric tests, specifically linear regression, random effect, fixed effect, the Hausman–Taylor Regression, the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), the Generalized Method of Moments – Arellano – Bond Estimation (GMM) and carried out an analysis of linear trends through the historical method and comparative method.

Findings: Based on the empirical results of this study, the authors conclude that the assets of public and private pension funds have positively affected the economic growth of OECD countries (2002–2018).

Practical Implications: This study provides an overview of the functioning of pension systems in OECD countries as well as the effects of these pension funds on their economic growth. Moreover, it provides additional new knowledge for governments and policymakers in these countries and a good source of information for all employees (whether public or private), on the quality and standards of living after retirement.

Significance: The importance of this study rests on the fact that OECD countries have a highly developed economy and have high-performance financial markets. Therefore, this highlights the importance of investments by pension funds in their financial markets for economic growth and for the indirect effects caused on their economies.

This article examines the recent phenomenon of investment advisors' and mutual fund complexes' creation of alternative investment products such as private investment funds. It explores the reasons behind the popularity of these investment vehicles.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel theory of the equilibrium liquidity premia of private equity funds and explore its asset-pricing implications.

The theory assumes that investors are exposed to the risk of facing surprise liquidity shocks, which upon arrival force them to liquidate their positions on the secondary private equity markets at some stochastic discount to the fund’s current net asset value. Assuming a competitive market where fund managers capture all rents from managing the funds and investors just break even on their positions, liquidity premia are defined as the risk-adjusted excess returns that fund managers must generate to compensate investors for the costs of illiquidity. The model is calibrated to data of buyout funds and is illustrated by using numerical simulations.

The model analysis generates a rich set of novel implications. These concern how fund characteristics affect liquidity premia, the role of the investors’ propensities of liquidity shocks in determining liquidity premia and the impact of market conditions and cycles on liquidity premia.

This is the first paper that derives liquidity premia of private equity funds in an equilibrium setting in which investors are exposed to the risk of facing surprise liquidity shocks.

The purpose of this study is to focus on mutual funds’ valuations of their US private firm holdings. According to extant academic literature, mutual funds’ boards of directors should assign prices to their private firm stocks based on their own determination of fair value.

This study investigates fluctuations in valuations of mutual funds holdings of private firms, and whether or not mutual funds managers are able to pick privately held firms that eventually undergo an initial public offer.

The study shows that private firm common stocks’ prices fluctuate much more than preferred stocks’; however, as expected, preferred stock is the most selected security type. This study also investigates these firms’ propensity to undergo an initial public offering (IPO). Results show that mutual funds allocated most of their capital to US private sector firms that underwent an initial public offering. Logit model results reveal that fund managers are able to pick privately held firms that will go public.

Due to data limitations, the authors’ analysis does not control for venture capital ownership; an issue the authors plan to address in the future.

Though, research in this area may exist, the authors have not found academic literature related to holdings of private firms by mutual funds, pricing by funds’ boards of directors or the motives for such investments.

To introduce the various private fund structuring options available in Singapore, an important fund management hub that has increasingly also come to be recognized as a popular fund domicile with its pro-business environment, transparent and robust regulatory regime and government support through tailored investment structures, tax incentives and extensive double taxation treaties.

This article provides an overview of the available private fund structures as well as the key legal issues and considerations that fund managers and investors should take into account when structuring a private fund. It also provides a brief summary of the available tax incentive schemes for funds in Singapore.

With growth in private market assets under management fueled by private equity funds over the last decade, the use of private investment funds established in Singapore has become a popular means to tap the large capital inflows into Asia. Singapore offers a wide range of fund structures to suit different fund strategies and considerations, including the variable capital company (“VCC”) structure, a legal structure tailored for use as investment funds that was introduced in January 2020.

There are a range of Singapore private fund structures available with different features, including the VCC, which is a corporate structure that allows for umbrella-sub-fund structures with segregated assets and liabilities, and the limited partnership, which is familiar to international investors and permits a large degree of contractual flexibility. Other structures such as unit trusts and private companies may also be suitable depending on the particular circumstances and objectives of the fund. Fund managers who are exploring setting up fund vehicles to tap Asian capital or to invest in Asia should be aware of the possible options, and their pros and cons.

Practical analysis and guidance and market commentary from experienced investment funds lawyers.

To explain recent regulatory guidance for different types of stakeholders, including asset managers, fund complexes, and institutional investors.

Summary of recent regulatory guidance and explanation for different types of stakeholders, including asset managers, fund complexes, and institutional investors.

While the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) letter does not open the door to direct access to Private Market Investments by 401(k) plan participants, it does provide a framework for the expanded use of private equity and, we believe, other types of Private Market Investments in managed asset allocation funds such as target date funds.

Practical guidance from experienced asset management and investment funds and ERISA lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain certain SEC and state registration, disclosure, and recordkeeping requirements for US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers as defined in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The paper explains SEC and US state registration requirements; the elimination of the “private adviser” exemption; the creation of new, narrower adviser registration exemptions; reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to private funds; information and confidentiality provisions for private funds; the SEC's authority to make rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in the amendments set forth in the Act; provisions of the “Volcker Rule” concerning banking entities' ownership interests in hedge funds and private equity funds; the adjustment of the “qualified client” test for inflation; the definition of an “accredited investor”; and disqualifications from using Regulation D.

The Act will require many US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, particularly those advisers that have previously relied on the “private adviser” exemption from SEC registration, which has been eliminated by the Act. The Act will also impose new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on many investment advisers, including some who are not required to register with the SEC.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This paper aims to focus on the performance of private equity real estate funds. Since many institutional investors have special programs to invest with first time managers, or emerging fund managers, it also seeks further evidence on how persistent the performance of real estate funds is and how the growth in fund size affects the realised returns of a fund.

The analyses performed are based on a large global sample of value‐added and opportunistic private real estate funds. Different model specifications are used to study the fund and sponsor‐related factors' correlation with fund performance.

It is shown that the realised performance is positively correlated with fund size but negatively correlated with the sequence number of the fund supporting the fact that emerging managers are likelier to achieve good returns. The data also reveal trends in fund performance and the growth of the fund size. Evidence from private equity buy‐out funds has also shown that better performing fund managers are likely to raise follow‐on funds and often larger funds than poorly performing fund managers which is also confirmed by the findings of this paper. There is also an evidence that top‐performing funds do not grow proportionally as much as the average funds.

Actual datasets used in the regression models are often limited by exclusion of immature funds to enhance reliability of results.

This paper expands the recent studies on private equity to private real estate, an area that has experienced substantial growth during the past ten years.

To introduce, compare and contrast the new regulatory regimes for closed-ended funds recently enacted in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

Explores similarities and differences between the two regimes, as well as practical implications for fund managers, with respect to (1) the regulatory frameworks governing the funds; (2) the definitions of the types of funds covered by the regulations; (3) registration requirements and associated timing; (4) operating requirements, including responsibilities for portfolio management, valuation and safekeeping of fund property; the number of directors; audits; valuation procedures; safekeeping of fund assets; cash monitoring; identification of securities; offering documents, term sheets and marketing materials; and representation in the respective jurisdictions; and (5) additional requirements, including numbers and qualifications of investors.

The new legislation has been enacted in order to respond to certain European Union and other international recommendations and has the effect of aligning the regulatory regimes applicable to such funds structured in Cayman and BVI to the regulatory regimes applicable to such funds in other jurisdictions.

Expert guidance from lawyers with extensive experience in fund management, fund structuring and Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands laws and regulations.