Investment funds and QAHCs – what are the problems the reforms are designed to tackle?
The current position
For a company to be a QAHC, it must meet the "ownership condition" by being at least 70% owned by good investors ("category A investors"). Included in the list of "category A investors" are "qualifying funds".
An entity is a fund if it is a "collective investment scheme" (CIS) or an "alternative investment fund" (AIF) for UK regulatory purposes. A fund is "qualifying" if it meets the "diversity of ownership condition", which it can do in one of three ways which, broadly, are:
- the fund is a CIS and meets the "genuine diversity of ownership condition" (the GDO);
- the fund is not closely held; or
- the fund is 70% controlled by category A investors.
The problem for corporate funds
As HMRC consider that the GDO is a one-off test (the others require on-going monitoring) it is, arguably, the most advantageous condition to meet. However, this is not open to most funds that are companies as, under the current rules, they are not CIS (unless they are open-ended investment companies).
The problem for aggregator funds
The GDO requires a fund to be widely marketed. As an aggregator fund is a fund through which different associated funds hold their interests in the same underlying asset. The associated funds may have been widely marketed, but the aggregator may not have been.
The problem for parallel funds
A parallel fund is essentially, a series of fund vehicles that are associated and which invest together in the same underlying assets. However, the current QAHC rules require fund structures to be considered on an entity by entity basis when assessing whether the ownership conditions is met.
Therefore, if there is both a main fund vehicle and a parallel fund vehicle, investing jointly in a potential QAHC, each must be considered separately. If the parallel vehicle is used by only a few investors, it may not satisfy any of the diverse ownership tests by itself and so may not be a "qualifying fund".