The doctoral dissertation contains a critical analysis of the current legal framework with respect to the provision of investment fund management services in the EU and the Republic of Slovenia. The aforementioned analysis is carried out in the light of three main objectives pursued by the legislators when adopting measures in the respective field, namely to ensure an efficient capital market, to ensure the highest possible level of investor protection and to ensure the financial stability of a particular legal order. Accordingly, the main hypothesis of the dissertation is that the de lege lata regulation of the aforementioned field at national as well as at supranational level is not (completely) appropriate, since despite its considerable strictness it does not (always) achieve the objectives which the regulation within the aforementioned field is intended to pursue.
Although, it can be concluded (on the ground of the executed analysis) that the basic objectives of the legislators (at the level of EU and at the level of Republic of Slovenia) have been with the adoption of the past legislative measures achieved at least at the elementary level, the main hypothesis proves to be correct with respect to some important segments of the existing legal framework, which may have an important role in further development of the analysed area. Inadequacy and/or disproportionality in the pursuing of the main legislative objectives is thus manifested in particular with respect to the legislative measures adopted as a response to the last financial crisis, which aim in particular at ensuring the maximum financial stability and the protection of investors in investment funds.
One such (important) legislative measure is undoubtedly the adoption of the AIFM Directive, which has completely redefined the obligations of alternative investment fund managers and has encompassed a large number of entities (before not specifically regulated) within the legislative framework. The adoption of that directive has thus significantly tightened the rules for the provision of management services with respect to alternative investment funds in the EU, and has also had significant cost implications for the providers of these services. Notwithstanding the fact that the AIFM Directive has provided a number of new rights to providers of management services with respect to alternative investment fund management (including rights related to cross-border provision of services), it can be concluded that some of the concerns regarding a broad regulation of that area had certainly proved to be correct, especially given the unclear effects of the adoption of the AIFM Directive on the activities of market participants in that segment, as well as some shortcomings with regard to supervision over the managers of alternative investment funds. A similar conclusion can be drawn with regard to the measures adopted in the area of money market funds, which have significantly tightened the requirements for the operations of these funds and, as the empirical analysis has already established, have led to significant outflows of funds from these funds, whereby the effects of this legislative measure on the reduction of systemic risks are highly questionable.
The aforementioned hypothesis was further confirmed in three other important segments of the analysed area, namely: a) the prohibition/inability to issue debt securities by UCITS funds; b) the enactment of strict capital requirements for investment fund managers; and c) the inability to form a UCITS fund in the Republic of Slovenia in the form of a legal entity. With regard to all the these three segments, it can be concluded that it is not possible to identify very convincing reasons for enacting current (sometimes very strict) rules, which can have significant (negative) consequences for the further (faster) development of the field of management and operation of investment funds.
Furthermore, in segments where the main hypothesis proved to be correct, the doctoral dissertation also provides some potential solutions with which the legislator could remedy or at least mitigate the identified deficiencies when adopting further legal measures within the field of investment fund management services.
|
