Beverly Chandler, Opalesque London: Peter Moore, Head of Regulation at the IMS Group, commenting on AIFMD and its failure to make distinctions in the European alternative asset management industry, has drawn comparisons between AIFMD and the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act.
In a note entitled 'The dangers of sharing a name with a bad dog’, Moore recalls that in 1991 the UK’s Parliament passed The Dangerous Dogs Act ("DDA") in response to a sudden increase in the number of serious dog attacks reported by the UK media. "Nowadays, it is often cited as the prime example of a rushed piece of legislation introduced as an overreaction to transient public mood" he writes.
Moore comments that such a phenomenon will be familiar to participants in capital markets generally, "many of whom will have detected how politician-induced overregulation of markets and their participants follows a period of "enlightened" deregulation, as inevitably as bust follows boom". Moore feels that AIFMD’s terms, most notably those relating to depositaries, are an overreaction to Madoff.
"Conversely, a significant distinction between AIFMD and DDA is that the latter is targeted at specific dog types regarded in need of greater control to protect the public and in respect of which special measures (court approval, insurance, breeding restrictions, obligatory muzzle and lead) apply. So despite its flaws, the DDA draf......................
To view our full article Click here