Category Archives: Updates & Publications

Response to SFC Consultation on Climate-related Risks

Posted on by

Under the “Consultation Paper on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-related Risks by Fund Managers” issued at the end of October 2020, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has proposed to introduce specific regulatory requirements on Hong Kong licensed fund managers to take into account climate-related risks in investment and risk management processes, make appropriate disclosures to investors on climate-related risks, and combat greenwashing.

The SFC Fund Manager Code of Conduct is proposed to be amended and a circular to be issued, to introduce baseline requirements that shall apply to managers of collective investment schemes, with enhanced standards expected of large fund managers of assets under management (AUM) of HK$4 billion or above, for fund-level disclosure on weighted average carbon intensity (WACI) of Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions associated with the funds’ underlying investments, on top of entity-level disclosures expected of all fund managers. Proposed requirements involve four key elements, covering (a) governance, (b) investment management, (c) risk management and (d) disclosure.  For each key element, the Consultation Paper provides examples on how these key elements may be applied in practice.

Market participants and interested parties were invited to submit comments to the SFC by 15 January 2021. Our firm has submitted a response to the SFC consultation, which we hope contributes to the industry and the development of sustainable finance in Hong Kong, as the SFC considers its regulatory approach and necessary steps.

In our response, we provided the following key suggestions and feedback:

– While we agree with the SFC’s primary focus on climate-related risks, we suggest that the SFC makes it clear the distinct policy objectives and expectations for managers to take into account climate-related risks in investment decisions (as risk management), on the one hand, and on the other hand, to direct capital to investing in climate-related opportunities and climate transition, especially in view of Mainland China and Hong Kong’s respective net-zero pledges.

– We urge the SFC to also consider encouraging managers to manage and disclose its investment and risk management policy around social or governance factors, although not mandatory, given it is increasingly expected globally for investment managers to take into account ESG issues in investment decisions, not just climate risks.

– We suggest that the SFC makes it expressed and clear that the enhanced requirements are aimed at requiring fund managers to intentionally adopt a framework or policy on how climate-related risks (or S or G factors) are taken into account in investment decisions and risk management, but that the SFC is not prescriptive, since the management of E, S or G factors are subject to the investment strategies, specific portfolio and/or investment management discretion.

– In applying TCFD recommendations, we suggest that the SFC clarifies that the proposed requirements are TCFD-based, rather than TCFD-aligned, so that it is clear the requirements form SFC’s expectation for fund managers to adopt a framework for governance and approach for assessing, managing, disclosing and measuring climate-related risks, but give room for the practicalities of fund management companies in the business of managing investment funds of varying investment strategies or portfolio composition, or funds with specific structure or governance, and the exercise of investment management process and discretion under different management or operational process that caters to specific strategies.

– We suggest the SFC gives fund managers flexibility to adopt or apply different policies, practices, standards or frameworks that may be appropriate for the different investment funds or different investment strategies under management. We consider that in mandating a specific framework or a single policy or approach for managing or disclosing climate-related risks for fund management organisations across the board and across strategies, there may be potential unintended consequences of managers adopting broad-brush general policy or disclosures which may carry increased risk of green-washing.

– The investment objective, preference or needs of investors should also be taken into account. Here, while the SFC Consultation proposes to apply the enhanced requirements to fund managers, we suggest that the SFC also considers encouraging managers of discretionary managed accounts to proactively clarify the clients’ expectation on managing E, S or G issues.

– We suggest that the SFC provides more specific clarifications and guidance on what and where disclosures should be made at the fund level in fund documents to investors, and what and where fund manager’s entity-level disclosures should be made. However, we consider that more emphasis should be on disclosures to be made at the fund level, for transparency to investors and also the relevance of climate-related risks really varies depending on the specific investment strategies or make-up of the investment portfolio.

While there is urgency to act, in terms of the timeline for the proposed requirements to apply, given corporate climate or ESG reporting is being enhanced (updated ESG reporting requirements of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange apply to reporting of periods from July 2020), and also alignment and harmonisation of global reporting framework, standards, tools and metrics are just underway, we suggest the transition period for fund managers to comply with specific data or reporting requirements give time for those developments to settle.

As this is the first time that the SFC will introduce specific requirements for Hong Kong licensed managers to take action on managing and disclosing climate-related risks, we also suggest that the SFC adopt requirements that clearly set out the policy and principles of the SFC’s regulatory expectations, while providing different compliance timelines to cater to different stages of enhanced standards for developing Hong Kong managers in climate-related investments and risk management, sustainable finance and ESG.

Our submission response to the SFC may be published by the SFC along with other market and industry response to the Consultation in due course (typically when SFC publishes the consultation conclusions).

VTCO-LLP-Submission-SFC-Consultation-on-Climate-related-Risks-15012021Download

The enhanced requirements of the SFC will be an important and meaningful step to set the Hong Kong funds industry’s standard and providing guidance on best practices for Hong Kong licensed fund managers for sustainable finance, while we appreciate the issues and tasks involved are highly challenging and complex.

Further background and details of the SFC proposals are outlined in our previous legal update: SFC-Consultation-Paper-on-Climate-related-Risks Download

The full Consultation Paper is available on the website of the SFC:

Consultation Paper on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-related Risks by Fund Managers

2020 A-List Elite-100 lawyers China practice

Posted on by

China Business Law Journal A-List China Elite-100 (foreign lawyer)

We are delighted to start the 2021 work year with the news that our Managing Partner Vivien Teu is named in the A-List China Elite 100 lawyers (foreign firm) 2020, based on extensive research conducted by the China Business Law Journal, with input from thousands of in-house counsel in China and around the world as well as partners at Chinese and international law firms.

According to China Business Law Journal:

“The A-List is based on extensive research conducted by China Business Law Journal. To identify the elite lawyers for the Chinese market, we turned to thousands of in-house counsel in China and around the world, as well as partners at Chinese and international law firms, and asked them to tell us which lawyers should make the cut.

Nominations were received from professionals at a wide range of Chinese and international companies, law firms and other organizations.

The final list that we have produced reflects the nominations received combined with the China Business Law Journal editorial team’s years of collective experience in documenting and analyzing China’s legal market.”

The full list of 200 elite lawyers for China practice – 100 lawyers in PRC law firms and 100 lawyers in foreign law firms has just been published.

Access the full list and the report:

https://law.asia/china/china-top-lawyers-2020/

Hong Kong SFC proposes enhancements to competency framework of intermediaries and market practitioners

Posted on by

The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has launched a consultation on “Proposed Enhancements to the Competency Framework for Intermediaries and Individual Practitioners” on 11 December 2020 (Consultation Paper). The consultation is open for comments for two months. Public comments are required to be submitted to SFC no later than 10 February 2021.

The following key enhancements are proposed:

  • the minimum academic qualification requirements for individuals would be raised and a broader range of academic qualifications would be recognised;
  • applicants would have more flexibility for meeting the industry qualification and regulatory examination requirements;
  • competence requirements for individuals who are to advise on matters regulated by the Codes on Takeovers would be upgraded to address SFC’s concerns about the quality of work performed by some financial advisers on matters regulated by the Codes on Takeovers; and
  • continuous professional training (CPT) requirements for individual practitioners would also be enhanced.

Background

The SFC notes there have been substantial changes in its regulatory landscape since 2003 when the Guidelines on Competence (Competence Guidelines) and the Guidelines on Continuous Professional Training (CPT Guidelines) were issued, which outline the entry and ongoing competence requirements expected of a person engaging in regulated activity (RA). Separately, many other local and overseas regulators have recently updated their competence standards. In view of the development of the financial markets which have been evolving and becoming more sophisticated, the SFC therefore sees it essential to raise the industry’s professional standards bringing its competency framework up-to-date and thus would like to revise and modernize the competence requirements. Details of the proposed changes to the Competence Guidelines and CPT Guidelines are set out in Appendix A and Appendix C of the Consultation Paper respectively.

The SFC also raised concern about the quality of work performed by some financial advisers on matters regulated by the Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Buy-backs (Codes on Takeovers), where certain financial advisers were unaware of or did not understand the requirements under the Codes on Takeovers or relied excessively on their legal advisers in relevant transactions and failed to discharge their own duties and roles. To address this, SFC has proposed to upgrade and set out expressly the competence requirements for individuals who are to advise on matters or transactions falling within the scope of the Codes on Takeovers.

The proposed enhancements would be the first time the competency requirements are revised since 2003 and the proposed changes are fairly extensive.  We outline the key proposed changes and summarise the details in this legal update:

SFC-Consultation-on-Proposed-Enhancements-to-Competency-Framework-Dec2020Download

Proposed implementation timeframe

The SFC has proposed to implement the revised Competence Guidelines and CPT Guidelines at least six months after their publication and in any event no later than 31 December 2021.

Given the proposed implementation timeline, industry practitioners should consider whether to make any consultation response and/or to prepare themselves for the revised competence requirements, and CPT training providers may wish to make corresponding adjustments to their training programs and CPT courses to be ready for the proposed enhancements once they are in force.

Access the SFC’s website here for the full consultation paper: https://apps.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/consultation/intermediaries-licensing/openFile?refNo=20CP8

Stewardship & Principles of Responsible Ownership

Posted on by

Stewardship is about the exercise of shareholders or investors rights, and on investment managers or asset owners as institutional investors as stewards of capital, and that it is part of fiduciary duty to vote as investors or engage with investee companies with a view to generating value or return from investments to clients or beneficiaries.   There may be different names, such as responsible owner or active ownership, but in essence it is about asset owners and asset managers discharging responsible investment, as stewards of capital. 

Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) published the Principles of Responsible Ownership (HK PRO) in 2016.  The HKPRO was issued with the stated objective to guide and assist investors to determine how best to meet ownership responsibilities, encompassing seven principles, though it is a set of voluntary and non-binding principles.

In our previous publication, Hong Kong Green or ESG Investing & SFC Authorised Funds, we focused on green or ESG investing of Hong Kong licensed investment managers, including a reflection on the results of the SFC ESG Survey, and an overview on the current range of SFC authorised green or ESG funds available for public offer, with reference to the SFC requirements on green or ESG funds, and also the range of investment strategies adopted by such funds.

An important element and commonly cited investment approach in green or ESG investment strategies adopted by green or ESG funds is ‘active ownership’.   In this publication, we focus on stewardship and responsible ownership, current market trends and developments, guidelines and standards, and also consider how managers may adopt and implement stewardship and responsible ownership policies. 

Stewardship & Principles of Responsible OwnershipDownload

Hong Kong Green or ESG Investing & SFC Authorised Funds

Posted on by

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issued its Strategic Framework for Green Finance (the Framework) on 21 September 2018, aiming to develop green finance in Hong Kong, and considering that Hong Kong is well positioned to complement Mainland China’s green development ambitions and to connect green finance flows between Mainland and the rest of the world.

Pursuant to the Framework, the SFC has the following action agenda, in summary: 

  • Enhance listed companies’ environmental and climate-related disclosures;
  • Conduct a survey on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, in particular environmental, in investment and risk analysis process; 
  • Facilitate the development of a wide range of green-related investments and financial products;
  • Support investor awareness, education and capacity building in green finance and investment-related matters;
  • Promote Hong Kong as an international green finance center.

With respect to the fund management industry in particular, subsequent to the issue of the Framework, on 11 April 2019[1] the SFC issued its “Circular to management companies of SFC-authorised unit trusts and mutual funds – Green or ESG funds” (the Circular).  The purpose of the Circular is to enhance disclosure comparability between similar types of SFC-authorised green or ESG funds, and their transparency and visibility in order to facilitate investors making informed investment decisions.

The SFC also conducted an industry-wide survey (the ESG Survey) from March to September 2019, intended to understand how and to what extent licensed asset management firms and leading institutional asset owners consider ESG in investment decisions and risk management, particularly those relating to climate change. The SFC issued the key findings of the ESG Survey in December 2019.  

Separately, last year a public consultation was conducted by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) and in December 2019 the consultation conclusions was issued on the review to the ESG Reporting Guide and Related Listing Rules for companies listed on HKEX.  This introduced enhanced requirements on the reporting and disclosure by listed companies on ESG, in particular on board governance, requiring mandatory disclosure of board engagement on a corporation’s consideration and reporting of ESG issues in its business activities, including materiality and quantitative assessment, risk management and strategy.  On climate, there is now a new requirement for disclosure on the policies and measures to identify and mitigate climate-related issues which have impacted or may significantly impact the listed issuer, and which reflects the Recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)[2].  The disclosure obligation on all social issues have been upgraded from recommended or voluntary disclosures to mandatory “comply or explain” disclosures.   The new requirements apply for financial years commencing on or after July 2020, and are expected to enhance the availability and quality of ESG data on HKEX-listed companies.   

In this synopsis, we focus specifically on green or ESG investing of Hong Kong licensed investment managers, including a reflection on the results of the SFC ESG Survey, and also provide a detailed overview on the current range of SFC authorised funds green of ESG funds available for public offer, with reference to the SFC requirements on green or ESG funds under the Circular, from the commonly adopted ESG or green principles or criteria, to the range of investment strategies (thematic, screening, ESG integration and active ownership) being adopted.   

The SFC’s current regulatory approach has significantly enhanced product disclosures, while not being overly prescriptive, narrow or final in what may be accepted as green or ESG investments.  This gives room for flexibility in the growing field, as the approaches and principles of ESG and green investing are still evolving globally, with hundreds of existing as well as growing numbers of ESG or green investing framework, policies, principles, standards and ratings, besides proprietary approaches.  

Undeniably green finance is becoming more and more prominent in the financial and investment industry. The SFC is expected to issue more regulatory policies or guidance on green or ESG investment products or approaches, which will be key to further develop and encourage considered and sustainable development of the field.  The investment industry, including all asset managers and asset owners being institutional investors or agents of the investing public, has an important and necessary role to lead broader impact and further engagement to meet goals in line with green or ESG principles. 

We hope this synopsis will be beneficial to fund managers in considering their green or ESG investment strategies, and also their product development plans, which may contribute to the further development of green or ESG investing and related fund products in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Green or ESG Investing & SFC Authorised Funds (July 2020)Download

For further information or discussion regarding the SFC requirements on green or ESG funds, SFC authorisation of investment funds, or related legal or regulatory considerations, please contact Vivien Teu, Managing Partner (Email: vivien.teu@vteu.co), Christina Suen, Counsel (Email: christina.suen@vteu.co) or any lawyer who is your usual contact at our firm.

[1] Please refer to our update and publication in April 2019 on the issue of the Circular: http://www.vteu.co/2019/04/14/green-or-esg-funds-hong-kong-regulator-issues-guidelines/

[2] The TCFD Recommendations were issued in June 2017 under an initiative of the Financial Stability Board, to develop climate-related financial disclosures that would provide the information needed by investors, lenders and insurance underwriters to appropriately assess and price climate-related risks and opportunities.  

Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Structure

Posted on by

Hong Kong Legislative Council has on 9 July 2020 passed the new legislation which introduced the Hong Kong limited partnership fund (LPF) structure, making available a new Hong Kong domiciled fund type for alternative investment funds, in particular private equity funds which are typically structured as limited partnerships.

With effect from 31 August 2020, the LPF structure may be established pursuant to the new Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Ordinance (LPFO). Application may be made to the Hong Kong Registrar of Companies to establish the LPF subject to the applicable requirements under the LPFO, identifying the proposed address, place of business and investment scope, the proposed general partner and proposed investment manager, as well as a proposed “Responsible Person”, which must be an authorised institution, licensed corporation, accounting person or legal professional, with responsibility to carry out anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing functions for the LPF.  The application to register an LPF must be submitted on behalf of the fund by a registered Hong Kong law firm or a solicitor in Hong Kong admitted to practise Hong Kong law.  The LPF will be registered if the Registrar of Companies is satisfied the application contains the necessary documents and information and the requisite application fee is paid.

As the LPF is not a separate legal person, the general partner of the LPF exercises authority and acts on behalf of the LPF. The general partner has ultimate responsibility for the management and control of the LPF and has unlimited liability for all the debts and obligations of the LPF, whereas if an authorised representative has been appointed by the general partner, the general partner and the authorised representative are jointly and severally liable and share ultimate responsibility for the LPF.  A limited partner has the benefit of limited liability under the LPF, and is not liable for debts and obligations of the LPF beyond the amount of the limited partner’s agreed contribution, but this is provided the limited partner does not take part in the management of the fund.  The LPFO specifically outlines certain activities or conduct that a limited partner may engage in that will not be regarded as taking part in the management of the fund, such as involving decisions around actual or potential conflict of interest, although those activities are not intended to be exhaustive circumstances through the exercise of which a limited partner may not be regarded as taking part in the management of the fund.

Licensing Requirements

Notably, unlike the Hong Kong open-ended fund company structure, the LPF is not subject to prior approval or (direct) regulation by the Securities & Futures Commission (SFC), Hong Kong’s primary regulatory body for the securities and futures market. The LPF must have a general partner and an investment manager that meet the respective requirements, as well as a proposed “Responsible Person” as noted above. The investment manager must be a Hong Kong resident over the age of 18 years, a Hong Kong company or a non-Hong Kong company registered with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, whereas the general partner may be one of those categories of persons, or, notably, may be a domestic or foreign limited partnership.  Where the general partner is a domestic or foreign limited partnership, the LPF must have an authorised representative that is a Hong Kong resident who is at least 18 years old, a Hong Kong company or a registered non-Hong Kong company.  There is also the requirement that an independent auditor be appointed to audit the financial statements of the LPF annually.

The conduct of business in regulated activities relating to securities and futures market is subject to potential licensing requirements by the SFC under the Hong Kong Securities & Futures Ordinance (SFO).  In January 2020, the SFC issued a Circular to stamp out previous doubts as to the applicability of licensing requirements to private equity fund managers, noting it will consider the composition of the investment portfolio, which may trigger licensing requirements if the underlying specific purpose vehicles or underlying investments of the private equity fund under management fall within the definition of “securities”.

Where a person or entity deals in, advises on or manages a portfolio of “private equity” or “venture capital”, depending on whether the portfolio involves securities (the definition of which excludes shares or debentures of a company that is a private company within the meaning of section 11 of the Companies Ordinance), there may be potential licensing requirement.  In cases where the general partner, the manager or the adviser of the LPF conducts business in Hong Kong and deals in, advises on or manages shares or debentures of private offshore companies that fall outside the definition of a “private company” under the Companies Ordinance, it is likely that the firm in question will be required to be licensed, unless any relevant exemption applies. 

It should also be noted that persons engaged in the business of offering an LPF in Hong Kong may be required to be licensed by the SFC to carry on the Type 1 regulated activity of dealing in securities, unless any relevant exemption applies.  Hong Kong managers licensed by the SFC to conduct Type 9 regulated activity of asset management may rely on an exemption to market its fund as being incidental to its conduct of asset management business.

Favourable Tax Framework

Hong Kong managers are not restricted under any local requirements to form or establish Hong Kong-domiciled investment funds, and the SFO does not differentiate between local funds or offshore funds in the conduct of regulated activities of licensed persons or offers of securities. It has been common for Hong Kong managers to establish private equity funds in the form of limited partnership funds in offshore jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, considered to be favourable from tax perspectives in a flexible regime. 

As of 1 April 2019, Hong Kong has a new profits tax exemption regime for investment funds, regardless of the location of central management and control, their structure, size or investment objectives, to enjoy tax exemption for transactions in specified assets subject to meeting certain conditions.  A fund may enjoy the tax exemption in connection with its investment in both overseas and local private companies. The said profits tax exemption requires that qualifying transactions for the tax exemption are carried out through or arranged by a “specified person”, meaning a corporation licensed or registered for carrying out specified regulated activity under the SFO and which would include Hong Kong licensed managers.  Hence, since April 2019 the new profits tax exemption provides a more favourable and attractive tax framework for private equity funds to be established or managed in Hong Kong.

Another key issue is the tax treatment on performance fees or carried interest from the LPF and also the remuneration of fund executives, which may become subject to Hong Kong profits tax or salaries tax.  The Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has in the past reiterated that funds operating in Hong Kong should ensure that true arm’s length fees are paid to the Hong Kong manager and/or advisor for the risks and functions performed.  Furthermore, the IRD noted that any performance fee or carried interest arrangement would be closely examined by the IRD if it considers that the Hong Kong investment manager or advisor is not adequately remunerated for its level of services, after considering the functions, assets and risks attributable to the operations in Hong Kong, and that general anti-avoidance provisions may be applied if the distributions received are not genuine investment returns. 

However, with the LPF structure available from 31 August 2020, Hong Kong is looking at introducing tax concessions for carried interest for private equity funds that operate in Hong Kong, the details of which are to be further issued. The industry anticipates that there would be tax concessions for carried interest of private equity fund managers to further encourage private equity fund operators to establish Hong Kong domiciled LPFs and to operate in Hong Kong.

We welcome the introduction and availability of the Hong Kong LPF to offer an additional structuring choice to sponsors and managers of private equity funds, which would enhance Hong Kong’s position as an asset management centre in private equity funds and investments, further developing Hong Kong’s dynamic fund management industry.

For further information regarding the set up of a Hong Kong limited partnership fund structure which can be established from 31 August 2020, and related licensing or tax considerations for private equity funds, please contact Vivien Teu, Managing Partner (Email: vivien.teu@vteu.co), Sarah He, Associate (Email: sarah.he@vteu.co) or any lawyer who is your usual contact at our firm.

Tax in the transparent world: a review and update on automatic exchange of information

Posted on by

Traditionally, business owners and investors have tended to diversify wealth and investments outside of their home jurisdictions, and the use of holding structures, with offshore companies, offshore accounts and/or trusts, or a combination thereof, is relatively common place, across many jurisdictions and has been existing for a long time.  It is usual to involve handing over legal ownership and responsibility for the assets and delegating control or investments to a third party trustee. The reasons for setting up a trust varies but with growing global wealth, there continues to be ever-growing needs for such arrangements for maintaining and protecting wealth for future generations, and as succession planning.  In a wealth management centre like Hong Kong, for instance, we continually see increasing demands for trust set-up among high-net-worth individuals and families in China and the rest of Asia, amongst others.

Meantime, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) has in recent years doubled up efforts of (non-US) tax authorities globally towards chasing taxpayers who are flying under the radar of their home countries’ tax authorities and who do not declare their income or gains arising from assets or investments held overseas.   As a responsible member of the international community and in keeping up its international reputation and competitiveness as an international financial centre, Hong Kong has also adopted automatic exchange of information between tax authorities, moving from its previous position of providing information only upon request. 

In this synopsis, we provide an outline of the global changes that have driven the enhancement of tax transparency – more specifically, the international standard on automatic exchange of financial account information in tax matters, which has now been implemented by many jurisdictions globally including Hong Kong and China.

Tax-in-Transparent-WorldDownload

Remote onboarding

Posted on by

On 28 June 2019, the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (“SFC”) issued (i) a circular to intermediaries on ‘Remote onboarding of overseas individual clients’ (“the Circular”), and also (ii) a circular on corresponding amendments to paragraph 5.1 of the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission (“Code of Conduct”). The amendments to the Code of Conduct took effect on 5 July 2019. As technology advances, more and more business activities take place online. As such, SFC set out new approaches for opening accounts under such development.

In this publication, we refer to the SFC’s current published list of acceptable approaches, with an outline of the required steps for remote onboarding of overseas individual clients when licensed or registered persons engage in providing services online in securities or futures business.

 

Legal-Update-SFC-circular-on-Remote-Onboarding-2019-JulyDownload

Enhanced Requirements on Complex Products

Posted on by

From 6 July 2019, the Guidelines on Online Distribution and Advisory Platforms (“Guidelines on Online Platforms”) issued by the Securities & Futures Commission (“SFC”) would become effective, within which outlines the SFC’s further guidance on the expected conduct requirements on intermediaries offering investment products on online platforms, and where the SFC introduced specific requirements with respect to investment products that are “complex products”. Correspondingly, a new paragraph 5.5 in the SFC Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission (“Code of Conduct”) shall apply to all intermediaries (online or offline) in providing services in complex products. Paragraph 5.5 of the Code of Conduct will also take effect on 6 July 2019.

In this update, we provide an overview of the enhanced requirements that would apply under which investment products may be categorised as complex products, in respect of which intermediaries would need to ensure suitability of the product to its clients and provide expected disclosures of minimum product information and warning statements. Intermediaries and fund managers should be taking actions including legal and regulatory review of their service offerings, product due dilience processes and product disclosures in preparing for compliance with the requirements.

Enhanced Requirements on Complex ProductsDownload

聚焦香港资产管理

Posted on by

香港的资产管理和基金行业在开放式基础框架下发展成熟并取得成功。这不仅反映在香港接纳和认可基金经理的海外资格和不同市场的经验以在香港设立基金管理公司，也体现在香港对基金设立地采取的中立和不设限制的态度上。在这样的背景下，香港得以发展成为一个世界金融中心，吸引众多的国际机构和集团在此设立资产管理公司。中国大陆的基金公司也在近年纷纷加入其中，到香港来成立资产管理平台，以香港作为中心开拓境外及国际市场。

最近，香港在提升其作为国际金融中心的竞争力和巩固其作为中国大陆门户的地位方面所作的努力使得现状有所改变。国际监管和财务方面的合作也存在新的发展。 本文中我们概要聚焦香港作为一个国际资产管理中心在资产管理领域的主要特点和变化，为资产管理机构将香港纳入其全球策略提供一定的参考依据，并希望有助考虑在香港展开业务的资产管理人探讨香港的潜在新优势。

聚焦香港资产管理Download