Working paper / Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, Institut for Law and Finance
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (141)
Has Fulltext
- yes (141)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (141)
Keywords
- Berichtspflicht des Vorstands (1)
- Directors’ remuneration (1)
- European Takeover Directive (1)
- European law (1)
- European regulation (1)
- Feststellungsklage (1)
- Rechtsschutz der Aktionäre (1)
- UCITS (1)
- asset management (1)
- break-through rule (1)
Institute
12
Increasingly, alternative investments via hedge funds are gaining importance in Germany. Just recently, this subject was taken up in the legal literature, too; this resulted in a higher product transparency. However, German investment law and, particularly, the special division "hedge funds" is still a field dominated by practitioners. First, the present situation shall be outlined. In addition, a description of the current development is given, in which the practical knowledge of the author is included. Finally, the hedge fund regulation intended by the legislator at the beginning of the year 2004 is legally evaluated against this background.
11
In response to recent developments in the financial markets and the stunning growth of the hedge fund industry in the United States, policy makers, most notably the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), are turning their attention to the regulation, or lack thereof, of hedge funds. U.S. regulators have scrutinized the hedge fund industry on several occasions in the recent past without imposing substantial regulatory constraints. Will this time be any different? The focus of the regulators’ interest has shifted. Traditionally, they approached the hedge fund industry by focusing on systemic risk to and integrity of the financial markets. The current inquiry is almost exclusively driven by investor protection concerns. What has changed? First, since 2000, new kinds of investors have poured capital into hedge funds in the United States, facilitated by the “retailization” of hedge funds through the development of funds of hedge funds and the dismal performance of the stock market. Second, in a post-Enron era, regulators and policy makers are increasingly sensitive to investor protection concerns. On May 14 and 15, 2003, the SEC held for the first time a public roundtable discussion on the single topic of hedge funds. Among the investor protection concerns highlighted were: an increase in incidents of fraud, inadequate suitability determinations by brokers who market hedge fund interests to individual investors, conflicts of interest of managers who manage mutual funds and hedge funds side-by-side, a lack of transparency that hinders investors from making informed investment decisions, layering of fees, and unbounded discretion by managers in pricing private hedge fund securities. Although there has been discussion about imposing wide-ranging restrictions onhedge funds, such as reining in short selling, requiring disclosure of long/short positions and limiting leverage, such a response would be heavy-handed and probably unnecessary. The existing regulatory regime is largely adequate to address the most flagrant abuses. Moreover, as the hedge fund market further matures, it is likely that institutional investors will continue to weed out weak performers and mediocre or dishonest hedge fund managers. What is likely to emerge from the newest regulatory focus on investor protection is a measured response that would enhance the SEC’s enforcement and inspection authority, while leaving hedge funds’ inherent investment flexibility largely unfettered. A likely scenario, for example, might be a requirement that some, or possibly all, hedge fund sponsors register with the SEC as investment advisers. Today, most are exempt from registration, although more and more are registering to provide advice to public hedge funds and attract institutions. Registration would make it easier for the SEC to ferret out potential fraudsters in advance by reviewing the professional history of hedge fund operators, allow the SEC to bring administrative proceedings against hedge fund advisers for statutory violations and give the agency access to books and records that it does not have today. Other possible initiatives, including additional disclosure requirements for publicly offered hedge funds, are discussed below. This article addresses the question whether U.S. regulation of hedge funds is really taking a new direction. It (i) provides a brief overview of the current U.S. regulatory scheme, from which hedge funds are generally exempt, (ii) describes recent events in the United States that have contributed to regulators’ anxiety, (iii) examines the investor protection rationale for hedge fund regulation and considers whether these concerns do, in fact, merit increased regulation of hedge funds at this time, and (iv) considers the likelihood and possible scope of a potential regulatory response, principally by the SEC.
10
In an ideal world all investment products, including hedge funds, would be marketable to all investors. In this ideal world, all investors would fully understand the nature of the products and would be able to make an informed choice whether to invest. Of course the ideal world does not exist – the retail investment market is characterised by asymmetries of information. Product providers know most about the products on offer (or at least they should do). Investment advisers often know rather less than the provider but much more than their retail customers. Providers and intermediary advisers are understandably motivated by the desire to sell their products. There is therefore a risk that investment products will be mis-sold by investment advisers or mis-bought by ill-informed investors. This asymmetry of information is dealt with in most countries through regulation. However, the regulatory response in different countries is not necessarily the same. There are various ways in which protections can be applied and it is important to understand that the cultural background and regulatory histories of countries flavours the way regulation has developed. This means (as will be explained in greater detail later) that some countries are better able than others to admit hedge funds to the retail sector. Following this Introduction, Section II looks at some key background issues. Section III then looks at some important questions raised by the retail hedge fund issue. Many of these are questions of balance. Balance lies at the heart of regulation of course – regulation must always balance the needs of investors and with market efficiency. Understanding the “retail hedge fund” question requires particular attention to balance. Section IV then looks at the UK regime and how the FSA has answered the balance question. Section V offers some international perspectives. Section VI concludes. It will be seen that there is no obviously right answer to the question whether hedge fund products should be marketed to retail investors. Each regulator in each jurisdiction needs to make up its own mind on how to deal with the various issues and balances. It is evident, however, that internationally there is a move towards a greater variety of retail funds. There is nothing wrong with that, provided the regulators and the retail customers they protect, understand sufficiently what sort of protection is, or is not, being offered in the regulatory regime.
9
While hedge funds have been around at least since the 1940's, it has only been in the last decade or so that they have attracted the widespread attention of investors, academics and regulators. Investors, mainly wealthy individuals but also increasingly institutional investors, are attracted to hedge funds because they promise high “absolute” returns -- high returns even when returns on mainstream asset classes like stocks and bonds are low or negative. This prospect, not surprisingly, has increased interest in hedge funds in recent years as returns on stocks have plummeted around the world, and as investors have sought alternative investment strategies to insulate them in the future from the kind of bear markets we are now experiencing. Government regulators, too, have become increasingly attentive to hedge funds, especially since the notorious collapse of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) in September 1998. Over the course of only a few months during the summer of 1998 LTCM lost billions of dollars because of failed investment strategies that were not well understood even by its own investors, let alone by its bankers and derivatives counterparties. LTCM had built up huge leverage both on and off the balance sheet, so that when its investments soured it was unable to meet the demands of creditors and derivatives counterparties. Had LTCM’s counterparties terminated and liquidated their positions with LTCM, the result could have been a severe liquidity shortage and sharp changes in asset prices, which many feared could have impaired the solvency of other financial institutions and destabilized financial markets generally. The Federal Reserve did not wait to see if this would happen. It intervened to organize an immediate (September 1998) creditor-bailout by LTCM’s largest creditors and derivatives counterparties, preventing the wholesale liquidation of LTCM’s positions. Over the course of the year that followed the bailout, the creditor committee charged with managing LTCM’s positions effected an orderly work-out and liquidation of LTCM’s positions. We will never know what would have happened had the Federal Reserve not intervened. In defending the Federal Reserve’s unusual actions in coming to the assistance of an unregulated financial institutions like a hedge fund, William McDonough, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, stated that it was the Federal Reserve’s judgement that the “...abrupt and disorderly close-out of LTCM’s positions would pose unacceptable risks to the American economy. ... there was a likelihood that a number of credit and interest rate markets would experience extreme price moves and possibly cease to function for a period of one or more days and maybe longer. This would have caused a vicious cycle: a loss of investor confidence, lending to further liquidations of positions, and so on.” The near-collapse of LTCM galvanized regulators throughout the world to examine the operations of hedge funds to determine if they posed a risk to investors and to financial stability more generally. Studies were undertaken by nearly every major central bank, regulatory agency, and international “regulatory” committee (such as the Basle Committee and IOSCO), and reports were issued, by among others, The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group, the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Many of these studies concluded that there was a need for greater disclosure by hedge funds in order to increase transparency and enhance market discipline, by creditors, derivatives counterparties and investors. In the Fall of 1999 two bills were introduced before the U.S. Congress directed at increasing hedge fund disclosure (the “Hedge Fund Disclosure Act” [the “Baker Bill”] and the “Markey/Dorgan Bill”). But when the legislative firestorm sparked by the LTCM’s episode finally quieted, there was no new regulation of hedge funds. This paper provides an overview of the regulation of hedge funds and examines the key regulatory issues that now confront regulators throughout the world. In particular, two major issues are examined. First, whether hedge funds pose a systemic threat to the stability of financial markets, and, if so, whether additional government regulation would be useful. And second, whether existing regulation provides sufficient protection for hedge fund investors, and, if not, what additional regulation is needed.
8
Der Titel des Vortrags benennt eine der wichtigsten Abgrenzungsfragen, die man sich zu stellen hat, sobald man es mit Kurs- und Marktpreismanipulation zu tun hat. Was ist zulässiges Marktverhalten, was muss jeder Marktteilnehmer tun dürfen, ohne mit einem Bein im Gefängnis zu stehen und wo fängt die verbotene Kursmanipulation an? Eine bedeutsame Unterscheidung für die aktiven Akteure am Kapitalmarkt, um Klarheit darüber zu haben, was erlaubt ist und was nicht. Der Markt braucht das Vertrauen der Anleger, und Anleger vertrauen nur in ordnungsgemäß funktionierende Märkte, in Märkte, an denen Preisbildungsmechanismen funktionieren und kontrolliert werden. Daher ist es notwendig,Vorkehrungen zu treffen, die gewährleisten, dass Märkte funktionieren und Preise sich an Märkten manipulationsfrei bilden können und auch bilden. Auf der präventiven Seite tragen hierzu die Handelsregeln der verschiedenen Börsen bei, die insbesondere dezidierte Regelungen zur Preisbildung beinhalten. Sie sollen gewährleisten, dass Preise ordnungsgemäß zustande kommen und einen fairen Ausgleich von Angebot und Nachfrage darstellen. Ergänzt wird dieser präventive Aspekt durch die repressive Seite, nämlich die Ahndung von Fehlverhalten. Hierzu gab es bisher die Regelung des Kursbetrugs in § 88 Börsengesetz. Diese Vorschrift existierte inhaltlich bereits über 100 Jahre, in denen sie aber, wenn nicht tot, so doch zumindest annähernd scheintot war. Denn es sind kaum Verurteilungen oder sonstige Maßnahmen auf der Grundlage dieser Norm bekannt. Wollte man aus diesem Schattendasein allerdings folgern, dass aufgrund des integren Verhaltens der Marktteilnehmer eine solche Regelung obsolet sei, so wäre das ein Fehlschluss. Mit dem Vierten Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz, das zum 01. Juli 2002 in Kraft tat, wurde dann auch eine Reform durchgeführt. Die alte Vorschrift wurde gestrichen und durch die neue Regelung des Verbots der Kurs- und Marktpreismanipulation im Wertpapierhandelsgesetz ersetzt. Dort wurden §§ 20a und 20b neu eingefügt. Die Aufgabe der Überwachung dieses Manipulationsverbots und die Verfolgung von Verstößen wurde der BaFin übertragen.
6
5
4
Bei der Regulierung und Aufsicht auf den internationalen Wertpapiermärkten gibt es immer noch viele Unterschiede bei den Regelungsinhalten und in der Prioritätensetzung. Die steigende weltweite Verflechtung der Finanzsektoren und deren Akteure sowie die hohe Kapitalmobilität machen es jedoch zunehmend erforderlich, auch die Aufsicht zunehmend zu internationalisieren. Internationale Aufsichtsstandards wiederum können grenzüberschreitende Aktivitäten von Marktteilnehmern erleichtern und sicherer machen. Es ist inzwischen anerkannt, dass eine gute und effiziente Regulierung einen Finanzplatz gerade im internationalen Umfeld attraktiv macht und so dessen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erhöht. Es ist daher von großer Bedeutung, die nationale Aufsicht internationalen Standards folgen zu lassen. Eine wichtige Funktion bei der Aufstellung dieser Standards haben die internationalen Organisationen wie IOSCO im Wertpapierhandel, die IAIS im Versicherungs- und der Baseler Ausschuss im Bankenbereich inne. In vielfältiger Weise ist deren Arbeit für den Finanzplatz Deutschland richtungsweisend. Das sind wichtige Gründe, weshalb die Teilnahme an Aktivitäten der IOSCO, Mitarbeit an Berichten, Standards und Resolutionen der IOSCO dem deutschen Kapitalmarkt und insbesondere dem Wertpapierhandel in Deutschland nützen kann. Um näher verständlich machen zu können, auf welche Weise IOSCO dem deutschen Kapitalmarkt in diesem Sinne nützlich sein kann, und Arbeiten in der IOSCO von Bedeutung für das deutsche Recht im Bereich des Wertpapierhandels sind, ist es zunächst wichtig, die Organisation IOSCO (1) , ihre Zielsetzung (2) und Struktur (3) zu verstehen, und die Bereiche zu kennen, in denen IOSCO arbeitet (4) sowie die Formen und jeweilige Bindungswirkung der Produkte der IOSCO (5). Wichtig in diesem Zusammenhang sind auch Art und Weise, auf die in IOSCO Beschlossenes unser Finanzsystem tangieren kann und bereits tangiert hat.
3
Die Begrenzung der Beteiligungen von Einlagenkreditinstituten an Unternehmen außerhalb des Finanzsektors nach § 12 Abs. 1 KWG ist mit der Einführung des Begriffs der qualifizierten Beteiligung (§ 1 Abs. 15 KWG) durch das Vierte Finanzmarktförderungsgesetz1 neu geregelt worden, nachdem § 12 KWG bereits zuvor im Rahmen der 6. KWG-Novelle2 gänzlich umgestaltet wurde3. Bislang knüpfte die bankaufsichtsrechtliche Reglementierung von Unternehmensbeteiligungen an den Begriff der bedeutenden Beteiligung im Sinne von § 1 Abs. 9 KWG an. Da dieser Begriff zugleich Anknüpfungspunkt für die Regeln über die Anteilseignerkontrolle gemäß § 2b KWG ist und beiden Regelungsbereichen ein unterschiedlicher Normzweck zugrunde liegt, hat es der Gesetzgeber aus Gründen der Rechtsklarheit für erforderlich gehalten, den Begriff der qualifizierten Beteiligung einzuführen, um nicht völlig unterschiedliche Sachverhalte mit dem gleichen juristischen Term zu besetzen 4. § 2b KWG dient dazu, die an Instituten tatsächlich bestehenden Machtverhältnisse offenzulegen, um es der Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) zu ermöglichen, etwaige Gefahren für die Funktionsfähigkeit von Instituten rechtzeitig abzuwehren5. Demgegenüber sollen durch die Begrenzung von Beteiligungen nach § 12 Abs. 1 und 2 KWG in erster Linie Ansteckungsrisiken reduziert werden6. Beteiligungen können die Solidität des beteiligten Unternehmens in Gefahr bringen, wenn das Beteiligungsunternehmen in finanzielle Schwierigkeiten gerät oder sogar insolvent wird. Für Einlagenkreditinstitute ist die Gefahr einer beteiligungsbedingten Ansteckung besonders hoch, da sie ihre Aktiva durch die Hereinnahme von Einlagen überwiegend fremd finanzieren7. Die bankaufsichtsrechtliche Beteiligungsreglementierung verdient vor dem Hintergrund ihrer neuen Fassung eine nähere Überprüfung. Bei der Untersuchung wird insbesondere der für die Begrenzung von Beteiligungen zentrale Begriff der qualifizierten Beteiligung nach 1 Abs. 15 KWG analysiert (dazu III.). Darüber hinaus werden die sonstigen Tatbestandsmerkmale des § 12 Abs. 1 KWG (dazu II. und IV.) sowie die Folgen der Überschreitung vorgegebener Beteiligungsbegrenzungen erörtert (dazu V.). Eine Beurteilung der Regulierung von Unternehmensbeteiligungen nach § 12 Abs. 1 KWG rundet den Beitrag ab.