Guernsey
There are no significant obstacles regarding investor protection, competition, market disruption and the monitoring of systemic risk impeding the application of the AIFMD passport to Guernsey.
Jersey
The same as Guernsey, above.
Hong Kong
Esma notes that detailed information on the Hong Kong regulatory framework remains incomplete. Therefore, more time is needed to analyse the extent to which the potential differences between the Hong Kong regulatory framework and the AIFMD may be material to the assessment on the potential application of the AIFMD passport to Hong Kong.
Esma also notes that some EU member states are considered as “acceptable inspection regimes” by the Hong Kong authorities, but most of them are not. It is therefore not clear whether there is a level playing field between EU and non-EU AIFMs as regards market access and whether EU AIFMs and EU AIFs are treated in the same way as managers and collective investment schemes of Hong Kong in terms of regulatory engagement.
Switzerland
Esma highlighted potential issues with the transfer of information under the existing Federal Act on Stock Exchanges and Securities Trading (Sesta). But it notes “a process is underway in Switzerland to amend Sesta, including the provisions on co-operation. The process is at a relatively advanced stage and the new version of Sesta adopted by the Swiss Parliament in June is due to enter into force on January 1 2016”.
Esma advises the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission that there will be no significant obstacles impeding the potential application of the AIFMD passport to Switzerland, upon the enactment of the amendments to Sesta.
Singapore
There is not enough evidence to assess the extent to which there would be significant obstacles regarding the monitoring of systemic risk or to assess the extent to which there would be significant obstacles regarding investor protection impeding the application of the AIFMD passport to Singapore.
Detailed information on the Singapore regulatory framework remains incomplete. Therefore, more time is needed to analyse the extent to which the potential differences between the Singapore regulatory framework and the AIFMD may affect the assessment on the potential application of the AIFMD passport to Singapore.
Esma advises the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to delay their decision on the potential application of the AIFMD passport to Singapore.
