Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The global financial crisis of 2008, the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Ponzi scheme scandals such as the Madoff case have led to the implementation of new financial regulations worldwide. In Europe, the management of alternative investment funds has often been questioned and held responsible for the severity of the crisis. For this reason, a new regulation named the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Directive entered into force on 21st July 2011. This Directive, which has given rise to much controversy, regulates the activity of Alternative Investment Fund Managers, funds that are not harmonized under the UCITS Directive. The objective of the AIFMD is to improve the transparency and control of these funds by creating harmonization within the European Union. 

This new regulation brings many changes for managers of PE funds, which until now were not subject to any regulation at the supranational level. The aim of this thesis is to analyze the impact of the AIFMD on the Private Equity sector in Europe. More specifically, the idea is to determine whether the AIFMD has brought additional costs or opportunities for PE funds. Through the study, the specificities of the PE sector and the main elements of the Directive are discussed. Then, the viewpoint of the literature, mainly dating from 2012 to 2014, is highlighted. It appears that at the time, the authors' views on the impact of the AIFMD were relatively negative and pessimistic. Finally, a more current qualitative study is conducted with 11 professionals from the PE sector having a good knowledge of the AIFMD. Here, the professionals interviewed draw a rather positive conclusion overall.

The results of our research demonstrates that it is difficult to generalize the impact of the AIFM Directive to the entire PE industry, but a positive trend is emerging overall from the various opinions gathered from professionals interviewed. Indeed, some requirements of the Directive are perceived as more restrictive for smaller AIFMs as opposed to larger players who have the necessary infrastructure. However, the PE industry as a whole was able to adapt to the new modus operandi. 

For future academic research, it would be wise to divide the PE industry into small and large AIFMs to study the impact of the AIFMD on each sub-category. Finally, this work focuses on a qualitative study but a quantitative dimension, via a difference-in-differences method, could be brought in to support the results of this thesis.

AIFM --- AIFMD --- Alternative investments --- Private Equity --- Directive --- Europe --- GFIA --- Investissements alternatifs --- Capital-investissement --- Directive --- Europe --- Sciences économiques & de gestion > Finance