An article by Kalpana Fitzpatrick
- URS Wietlisbach, partner and executive vice chairman at Partners Group spoke at SuperInvestor 2010
The European Commission came under fire at the SuperInvestor 2010 conference in Paris this week over the Alternative Investment Fund Managers directive (AIFM), which was blasted as an unnecessary and complex piece of legislation.
Speaking at a panel session on regulation, Urs Wietlisbach, partner and executive vice chairman at Partners Group, said the regulation increased the number of barriers for new entries. “For new starters, it is going to be cumbersome. I don’t think it adds any value,” he said.
Richard Wilson, senior partner at Apax Partners and the former chairman of the European Venture Capital Association, added that although it was good to have some clarity, the devil will be in the detail. “The details will be thrashed out over the next few years, and it is what is in the details that will be key. The directive is not perfect and it is going to increase the burden on portfolio companies.”
He added: “At the end of the day, alternative investment managers are getting special treatment in this directive and it is not a level playing field and smaller players in particular are going to get hit hard, as it is not a light touch directive.”
Didier Millerot, member of the cabinet of Michel Barnier, commissioner for internal market and services, spoke at SuperInvestor 2010
Didier Millerot, member of the cabinet of Michel Barnier, commissioner for internal market and services, defended the directive saying it would add transparency and that the European Commission believes it has managed to get a balance. “There are costs involved and it will add operational complexity for us, but the good thing is that if we have more transparency, new classes of LPs may be attracted to the market.”
Apax’s Mr Wilson agreed that although transparency was a good thing and would help boost interest and understanding of the industry, he argued that it would increase costs in the private equity industry and for investors, as well as put a burden on the portfolio companies. Mr Wilson added that it was unclear if the AIFM directive increased protection for investors and said that it was not obvious how professional funds would benefit.
One major clause within the directive that caused a stir was article 30, which will place serious restrictions on private equity firms by limiting what they can sell. Mr Wietlisbach said GPs often sell part of a business to add value in other areas, and it was unclear whether the regulation covered this. Mr Millerot said: “The idea was not to prevent private equity firms to be able reorganise a group.”
He argued that “the good managers were the ones that complied with regulation” and that there was little room for manoeuvre once the directive was set. “Regulation will happen, but all the principles in the directive need to be discussed with the new advisory body, which is in the process of being hired. They will advise the commission as well as have a supervisory role.” He said the authority will have an obligation to consult and the private equity industry and investors should take the opportunity to get involved in consultations.