《金杜律师事务所:香港有限合伙基金2021年度调研报告(75页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《金杜律师事务所:香港有限合伙基金2021年度调研报告(75页).pdf(75页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、香港有限合伙基金2021 年度调研报告2021 年 7 月长的路要走。为进一步加深各界对香港有限合伙基金制度的认知,推动香港有限合伙基金制度的进一步完善,吸引更多的基金管理人和投资人接受并采用香港有限合伙基金架构,金杜律师事务所、中源国际资本有限公司联合业界领先的在港资管机构、金融机构及其他专业机构共同创设了香港有限合伙基金协会(协会)。协会成立的目的旨在促进金融、法律、会计及各其他专业机构和各界对于香港有限合伙基金制度及资管行业发展的交流,通过组织行业活动,加强与政府沟通,共同推动香港有限合伙基金以及香港私募基金行业持续稳定健康发展。同时,协会的成立也恰逢条例实施近一周年之际,金杜律师事务所
2、和协会共同推出香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告(本调研报告),旨在反映业界对有限合伙基金接受程度,目前使用香港有限合伙基金的特点,并与新加坡和卢森堡有限合伙基金的注册走势进行对比,对香港有限合伙基金的未来趋势做出预测。同时,报告也汇集了业界对香港有限合伙基金制度的反馈、担忧以及改进建议,并结合其他国家(如新加坡和美国)的法律及实践操作提出了一些对监管思路的建议, 供香港立法及监管部门参考。 我们在此感谢此前每一位参与我们问卷调查的机构和个人。我们在此特别感谢以下协会创会机构的支持(按英文字母排序):李鹰 博士 香港有限合伙基金协会创会会长中源资本创始合伙人兼首席执行官江竞竞香港有限合伙
3、基金协会创会会长金杜律师事务所合伙人兼香港基金业务主管2021 年 7 月我们同时感谢香港投资推广署、香港金融发展局、香港家族办公室(FamilyOfficeHK)对香港有限合伙基金协会创立的支持。感谢全国政协委员、香港立法会议员、太平绅士张华峰议员、海通国际证券集团有限公司行政总裁、太平绅士林涌博士对协会创立的支持,并同意担任协会的名誉主席。作为创会会长,我们感恩时代赋予我们这样的机遇,有幸亲自参与并见证香港私募基金行业的发展。我们对香港有限合伙基金的未来充满信心,并期待更多的机构和人士加入我们,共同创造香港私募基金的辉煌未来。Alpha Win Capital Limited 中源国际资本
4、有限公司BIL Wealth Management Limited 卢银资产管理有限公司Business Securities Limited 东信证券有限公司China Life Franklin Asset Management Company Limited 中国人寿富兰克林资产管理有限公司CLSA Limited 中信里昂证券有限公司CMBC Hong Kong Branch 中国民生银行香港分行DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited 星展银行(香港)有限公司Ernst & Young 安永Haitong International Securities Group
5、Limited 海通国际证券集团有限公司King & Wood Mallesons 金杜律师事务所Monmonkey Group Securities Limited 大圣证券有限公司SDG Asset Management (HK) Limited 山金资产管理(香港)有限公司SPDB International Holdings Limited 浦银国际控股有限公司Wonderful Sky Financial Group 皓天财经集团目 录1. 摘要2. 受访者背景及在管基金概述2.1 问卷数据2.2 受访者背景2.3 受访者在管基金现况3. 香港有限合伙基金设立意向及需求3.1 设立意
6、向3.2 香港有限合伙基金拟定主要投资标的、投资地区及设立原因4. 已设香港有限合伙基金多维分析4.1 设立数据分析4.2 设立总数4.3 设立流程及时间4.4 当前注册数量及趋势4.5 未来注册趋势4.6 已设香港有限合伙基金的投资范围4.7 已设香港有限合伙基金的GP4.8 已设香港有限合伙基金的管理人4.9 已设香港有限合伙基金的负责人4.10 GP与Initial LP的关系4.11 香港有限合伙基金的开业时间5. 未来的挑战5.1 受访者面临的挑战5.2 基金管理人持牌要求5.3 合格投资者的资质要求 6. 结语00608417181920
7、229Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 51 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告香港有限合伙基金制度的推出及条例的实施解决了香港传统的有限合伙制度与现代私募基金发展不匹配的问题,成为香港捕捉亚洲私募及创投基金庞大市场机遇的有效载体。截至 2021 年 6 月 30 日,共有 284 支香港有限合伙基金根据条例成功设立。其中,金杜律师事务所参与协助设立或作为基金律师的有 89 支,占总设立数约 31.3%,其中包括设立香港第一支有限合伙基金。作为行业的观察者及实践者,为进一步了解相关行业对香港有
8、限合伙基金制度生效以来的意见与反馈,金杜律师事务所于 2021 年 3 月向在港的部分资产管理机构和金融机构发起了一份针对有限合伙基金的问卷调查(问卷),旨在了解业界对有限合伙基金接受度的同时,汇集业界对香港有限合伙基金制度的反馈以及改进建议,供香港相关立法及监管部门参考。自 条例 实施10个月以来, 香港有限合伙基金的发展呈现持续增长的趋势。香港有限合伙基金与其他传统离岸基金组织结构基本相同,拥有合伙条款自由、利益分配机制灵活、合伙人信息保密、设立及维护费用较低等优点,因此基金管理人及投资者对其接受程度较高。受益于受访者对粤港澳大湾区发展前景的看好,大多数受访者对香港有限合伙基金表现出浓厚的
9、兴趣,并表示有意设立或已经设立香港有限合伙基金,同时对香港未来成为国际私募基金主流注册地之一充满信心。鉴于受访者多为中资背景机构或港资机构,其拟设立的相关有限合伙基金投资标的及目标投资者同样主要位于大中华地区。香港有限合伙基金将私募基金的“离岸”功能与“在岸”功能紧密结合,充分利用本地各类基金服务供应商专业化的资源优势,使基金管理人能够通过在香港设立有限合伙基金、在香港募集资金、在香港或大中华地区进行项目投资的方式,优化基金架构设计,加强基金的经济实质,避免跨法域的双重监管。与之相对,参与问卷调查的国际机构比例较低,反映出香港有限合伙基金制度在国际机构中的认可程度有待提升。如何使得香港有限合伙
10、基金制度能够走入更多知名资产管理机构及国际投资者的视野,并成为全球私募基金管理人心中具有竞争力的选择,依然是政府和业界需要努力的方向之一。1摘 要Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 2 2除却受访者对香港及粤港澳大湾区区位影响力的关注,立法及监管机构为吸引基金管理人及投资者做出的努力不容忽视。香港有限合伙基金极具竞争力的设立及维护费用、简便的设立流程、高度尊重市场惯例的法律规定以及较轻的持续合规义务进一步为该制度参与者提供了便利。另外,香港政府近年来也致力于通过多种税务减免政策以降低私募投资及基金落户香港的税收成本。私募基
11、金在符合“基金”的定义并满足特定其他条件的情况下,即可享受香港利得税豁免。在投资人层面,投资人向香港有限合伙基金出资时不缴纳资本税,亦无需针对利润及资产收益的分配(包括有限合伙人权益的转让与赎回)支付印花税。香港有限合伙基金制度生效后,政府又适逢其会地公布了附带权益税务宽免及境外基金迁册两大利好消息,在助推香港有限合伙基金注册数量飞跃式上涨的同时,也吸引其他已有离岸基金未来迁册来港运营。与其他在岸基金横向对比,香港有限合伙基金虽然面世时间较短,其热度却远超新加坡及卢森堡类似的私募基金制度,这从香港有限合伙基金注册数量及增长趋势可见一斑。不可否认,香港政府在推动香港私募基金产业发展方面已取得阶段
12、性成果。通过以条例为先导,以税务(修订)(附带权益的税务宽减) 条例 及 迁册建议 为补充的 “三部曲”策略,为香港成为全球私募基金枢纽奠定了制度基础。然而纵观世界各地主流离岸私募基金设立地,其法域内私募基金监管框架的建立都并非一蹴而就,均依赖于监管机构对市场动态的洞悉及相关配套措施的不断完善。就香港有限合伙基金制度而言,条例的立法过程虽基于国际市场惯例,但现阶段在实操中某些方面仍存在一定的不确定性,受访者仍存在种种担忧:例如,公司注册处及香港证监会能否适时地就私募基金发起人或管理人在设立和运营香港有限合伙基金过程中遇到的各类问题提供切实可行并符合国际惯例的指引或解决方案;已推出的附带权益税务
13、宽减等一系列优惠政策能否真正“落地”,使得基金管理人容易满足相应条件从而切实享受利得税豁免;迁册政策细则何时推出,是否能够有力保障现有离岸基金的迁移过程畅通无阻等。另外,目前香港对于基金管理人的监管相对严格,相较开曼对私募基金管理人的宽松监管及美国和新加坡对各类基金管理人分类监管的监管模式而言,偏向于严苛,因此众多私募基金管理人对香港证监会放宽监管方式也有一定期待。香港有限合伙基金良好发展的势头是否能够长期稳定延续,仍取决于香港政府后续能否在制度建设上继续优化,和监管及税务机构是否能够倾听业界以及市场的声音。我们期待香港有限合伙基金能够为香港资产及财富管理行业注入增长新动力,同时让香港更好地发
14、挥在国家十四五规划纲要下国际资产管理中心的功能定位,通过私募资本推动粤港澳大湾区乃至整个中国的建设及发展。香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告23 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告2.1 问卷数据针对问卷,我们收到来自香港资管行业机构共 202 份反馈,其中完整填写的有效问卷为 87 份。我们对受访者就香港有限合伙基金问卷的意见反馈进行了数据分析,同时,结合我们在香港有限合伙基金立法过程中与相关立法及监管部门的沟通与讨论,以及协助客户成功设立或作为基金律师参与的近 90支香港有限合伙基金的项目经验,并基于对已成功设立的 260 支香港有限合伙基金公开信息的深度分析,汇集编写了本调研
15、报告。我们希望通过本调研报告为行业进一步了解香港有限合伙基金提供有价值的参考。2.2 受访者背景参与问卷的受访者背景可主要分为中国内地中资背景机构(包括该等机构在香港成立的子公司或分支机构)以及本地港资机构。就受访者类型而言,主要分为资产管理机构及基金服务机构(如基金行政管理人、托管人等)。就受访者持牌情况,资管机构中近八成为香港证监会 9 号牌持牌机构。2受访者背景及在管基金概述持牌机构78%非持牌机构22%受访者的机构所属背景 內地中资背景机构47%本地港资机构43%国际机构8%其他2%的机构所属背景受访者持牌机构比例 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 42.3 受访者在管基金现况
16、就受访者在管的基金投资目标所在地而言,绝大部分受访者现有基金的投资目标位于大中华地区,少部分受访者在管基金的投资目标所在地区为东亚、东南亚、美国及欧洲。就受访者在管的基金投资标的类型而言,私募股权投资、二级市场投资及固定收益类产品的投资构成受访者在管基金的主要投资类型。* 问卷中此题为多选题,此处百分比是指选择某选项的人数占全部受访者人数的百分比48%73%48%20%5%8%0%20%40%60%80%在管基金主要投资标的*私募股权/风投/股权并购二级市场股票固定收益房地产虚拟资产其他91%22%10%39%6%3%10%16%10%0%20%40%60%80%100%大中华东亚/东南亚澳洲
17、美国加拿大拉美英国欧洲其他国家在管基金主要投资地区 *在管基金主要投资标的 *5 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告就受访者在管的离岸基金架构而言,开曼依然是绝大多数受访者最常用的基金设立地,而开曼 SPC(segregated portfolio company)也是受访者在管基金中最为常见的结构。同时我们也注意到,受访者的在管基金之中,封闭式与开放式基金的数量基本持平。鉴于受访者多为香港持牌公司,且目标投资地区及投资人主要集中在大中华地区,虽然受访者的在管离岸基金中也有一小部分设立在新加坡、卢森堡等地区,但从受访者反馈中可以看出,就市场普遍接受度、投资者熟悉度及便利性而言,目前仍没有
18、相较在开曼设立基金更具有竞争力的基金设立方案。* 问卷中此题为多选题,此处百分比是指选择某选项的人数占全部受访者人数的百分比5%3%5%5%18%28%94%0%20%40%60%80%100%其他新加坡欧洲卢森堡BVI香港开曼群岛受访者在管离岸基金所在地 *6%11%32%40%69%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%其他BVI GP/LP开曼豁免公司开曼GP/LP开曼SPC受访者在管离岸基金结构 *香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 63香港有限合伙基金设立意向及需求3.1 设立意向为了解香港有限合伙基金是否有可能成为受访者于开曼以外设立基金的另一首选地,我们也通过
19、问卷了解了受访者对于香港有限合伙基金的熟悉程度及设立倾向,并从基金设立的需求和目的等几个维度进行了分析总结。根据问卷结果,绝大多数受访者已通过不同渠道了解到了香港有限合伙基金。市场对于香港有限合伙基金反馈积极的原因之一或许是因为其与私募基金中使用率极高的开曼有限合伙形式相同,均属于有限合伙的结构,因此业界对于香港有限合伙基金的熟悉度和接受程度都相对较高。 同时,自香港有限合伙基金首次发布征求意见稿至法律最终落地,相关立法部门在过程中积极主动地与业界进行了多轮、全方位的意见交换与深度讨论,在设计香港有限合伙基金架构以及制定相关法律法规时充分参考了私募基金市场惯例及资管业市场需求,做到了简化设立流
20、程、尊重市场惯例、迎合市场需求,意图在实践中为业界提供切实便利。了解, 94%不了解, 6%受访者是否了解香港有限合伙基金7 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021另外,超过 90% 的受访者认为,香港未来会成为国际私募基金一个比较重要的注册地,而其中一半的受访者相信香港会在未来的 3-5 年内实现成为国际私募基金的重要注册地,仅有 6% 的受访者认为香港未来不太可能成为国际私募基金的重要注册地。 7 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告得益于香港有限合伙基金在设立要求、设立程序、后续维护及实际操作等各方面的便利与优势,
21、82% 的受访者表示有意考虑设立香港有限合伙基金,有 10% 的受访者表示已经成功设立了香港有限合伙基金,只有 8% 的受访者表示不会考虑设立香港有限合伙基金。21%50%15%8%6%2-3年3-5年5-8年8-10年不太可能已设立10%有意设立82%不考虑设立8%香港有限合伙基金设立意向香港有限合伙基金会在未来几年内成为国际私募基金较重要的注册地?香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 83.2 香港有限合伙基金拟定主要投资标的、投资地区及设立原因香港有限合伙基金拟投资标的根据有意设立香港有限合伙基金的受访者反馈,多数受访者表示,未来可能考虑使用香港有限合伙基金架构同时进行单一资产投资和
22、多项资产的投资。受访者未来可能通过设立香港有限合伙基金进行投资的资产类型主要集中在私募股权投资、风险投资与股权并购投资(76%)及二级市场股票投资(57%)。拟设香港有限合伙基金的目标投资者考虑到受访者的背景,受访者在管基金的目标投资者与受访者拟设香港有限合伙基金的目标投资者主要所在地区均为大中华地区。 同时,与受访者在管基金的目标投资地区一致,受访者拟通过设立香港有限合伙基金所投资的目标投资地区也主要为大中华地区。* 问卷中此题为多选题,此处百分比是指选择某选项的人数占全部受访者人数的百分比# 此题中,大中华地区包括中国内地与中国香港76%57%38%28%14%3%0%10%20%30%4
23、0%50%60%70%80%潜在LPF的主要投资标的*私募股权/风投/股权并购二级市场股票固收房地产虚拟资产其他90%18%23%18%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%大中华地区#东南亚美国欧洲其他国家或地区潜在香港有限合伙基金的主要投资标的 *潜在香港有限合伙基金的目标投资者地区分布 *9 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告不难发现,从投资标的到潜在投资人分布,大中华地区的地理优势始终是香港资管业的着力点。 结合中国内地与香港的双边税务优惠、投资人对投资地区的熟悉程度以及各类基金服务供应商本地化等因素,我们相信香港有限合伙基金将成为重点关注大中华地
24、区资管及金融机构的新投资载体。选择设立香港有限合伙基金的原因就受访者已设立或考虑设立香港有限合伙基金的原因而言,除对大中华地区的关注以外,还包括香港有限合伙基金在设立及维护成本上的巨大优势、香港附带权益税务宽减相关政策的推出,及对粤港澳大湾区发展前景的信心等。设立及维护费用与离岸基金相比有很大优势设立及后续维护比离岸结构简单便捷设立香港有限合伙基金可以基本实现搭建离岸基金的所有目的香港最新的附带权益税务优惠立法建议中国香港与中国内地以及其他国家和地区的双边税收优惠,以香港有限合伙基金作为投资主体有利于投资税收筹划香港作为一个国际知名金融中心对于基金投资比离岸群岛更有优势我们相信,在港的基金管理
25、人和资产管理机构能够通过设立香港有限合伙基金从设立及维护成本上优化架构设计, 结合香港独一无二的地域、 政策及监管优势向投资者提供更优质的服务并为投资目标赋能。67%61%59%44%39%30%选择设立香港有限合伙基金的原因 * 问卷中此题为多选题,此处百分比是指选择某选项的人数占全部受访者人数的百分比香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 104.1 设立数据分析本调研报告第 4 部分就已设立的香港有限合伙基金的分析,为仅针对截止 2021 年 6月 10 日前注册的共 260 支香港有限合伙基金的数据的分析。本调研报告中凡提及已注册或已成功设立的香港有限合伙基金,均指该前 260 支香
26、港有限合伙基金的注册信息。4.2 设立总数截至 2021 年 6 月 30 日,共有 284 支有限合伙基金根据条例成功设立。 其中,金杜律师事务所参与协助设立或作为基金律师的有 89 支,占市场份额约 31.3%。4已设香港有限合伙基金多维分析11 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告申请文件注册完成向香港公司注册处提交设立申请香港有限合伙基金的拟用名称注册办事处地址投资范围主要营业地址GP 的信息管理人的信息负责人的信息有关基金拟设立为香港有限合伙基金及有关其已符合资格规定的声明及承诺该申请须由一家香港律师事务所或一名香港律师代拟任 GP提交向注册处缴付 3,034 港元费用注册处出具
27、有限合伙基金的注册证明书,作为基金注册为有限合伙基金的最终证明注册处审阅注册申请所需时间一般为 4 个工作日4.3 设立流程及时间香港有限合伙基金的设立程序相对简便,设立时所需准备及递交的文件、设立费用及设立时间都相对明确。 另外,香港有限合伙基金自身在不向公众公开发售的前提下,无需取得香港证监会的认可或批准。 香港有限合伙基金可直接于香港公司注册处通过以下程序进行注册:香港有限合伙基金设立时间从递交申请至公司注册处到申请批复一般所需时间为 4 个工作日。特殊情况下,设立时间可能会因外部因素而相应延长。比如,据我们实践经验,今年 1 至 2 月香港疫情再度爆发期间,香港有限合伙基金的注册时间一
28、度延长到了 7 个工作日,后在春节假期结束后,注册时间逐步恢复至平均 4 个工作日。同时,根据条例规定,香港有限合伙基金的申请须由一家香港律师事务所或一名香港律师代拟任 GP 提交。根据我们总结分析,已注册的香港有限合伙基金中绝大部分(占 80%)的申请是由律师事务所代为提交,另外小部分为律师个人代拟任 GP 提交。律师事务所80%律师个人20%有限合伙基金注册申请呈交人香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 124.4 当前注册数量及趋势据统计,香港有限合伙基金的注册数量在 2021 年第一季度下旬呈现飞跃式增长。我们理解,香港有限合伙基金注册数量在该时间段的高速增长或与香港政府在 202
29、1 年 1 月至 2 月颁布的有关附带权益税务宽减,及境外基金迁册来港的两大利好建议有直接关系,政策支持成为香港有限合伙基金推广的重要依托。附带权益的税务宽减具体而言,在 2021 年 1 月 4 日,香港立法会发布了财库局提出的关于附带权益的税务宽减的讨论文件。有限合伙基金的相关税务处理,包括附带权益税务宽减一直是业界持续重点关注的热门话题之一。该讨论文件发布后,香港有限合伙基金于 2021 年 2 月份的注册数量增长至同年 1 月的近 3 倍,达到一个月 32 支。继讨论文件发布后,2021 年税务(修订)(附带权益的税务宽减)条例草案于今年 1 月 29 日刊宪,并于 2021 年 4
30、月 28 日在香港立法会获得通过,2021 年税务(修订)(附带权益的税务宽减)条例(税务修订条例)于 2021 年 5 月 7 日生效。 根据税务修订条例,合资格人士与合资格雇员因向特定基金提供投资管理服务而获得的特定类型附带权益,可享受利得税和薪俸税宽减。同时,就 2020 年 4 月 1 日或之后开始的课税年度而言,在满足税务修订条例规定的前提下,就具资格附带权益净额的利得税税率为 0%。税务修订条例界定“具资格附带权益”为一笔由相关人士收取(或相关人士累计享有)的利润相关回报方式的数额,前提是该数额受门槛收益率(即基金投资的优先回报率)所限。 税务修订条例对合资格基金 / 附带权益发放
31、者、合资格的附带权益收取者,合资格交易以及构成在香港从事实质活动的条件等均作出相关详细规定。 附带权益税务宽减制度与香港有限合伙基金制度相辅相成。我们认为税务修订条例是提高香港基金业吸引力不可或缺的一部分,且将进一步提升香港作为亚太资产管理中心的竞争力。2020年9月2020年10月2020年11月2020年12月2021年1月2021年2月2021年3月2021年4月2021年5月2021年6月注册数量25840294425840294400702020年9月至2021年6月 - LPF注册数量香港有限合伙基金注册数量13 香
32、港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告基金迁册2021 年 2 月 1 日,财库局再次刊发了一份建议,旨在设立一项允许外地基金迁移来港的制度(迁册建议)。该迁册建议进一步鼓励离岸基金以“迁册”方式转向香港基金市场,支持在香港境外以有限合伙或公司形式设立的基金,在符合有关以香港为注册地的有限合伙基金或开放式基金型公司的相同资格规定等前提下,在香港分别注册为香港有限合伙基金或开放式基金型公司。财库局目标于 2021 年第三季度向立法会呈交落实迁册建议的相关草案作一读和二读。基金迁册在许多主流的离岸与在岸法域早已被允许,例如泽西、英属维尔京群岛、卢森堡、爱尔兰和新加坡,而部分地区更进一步出台了相应措
33、施,以确保市场参与者的迁册流程更加顺畅、简便。迁册建议再次反映出香港政府与相关立法部门为实现让香港有限合伙基金制度更具竞争力而做出的努力。同时,基金迁册并非只是相关立法者为推动当地基金设立而出具的政策,其也是为满足不同市场对基金法域可能存在的特殊要求或偏好而制定的特殊制度。 通过受访者对问卷的反馈,我们了解到超过 70% 的受访者表示,如制度允许,受访者有意考虑将其在管离岸基金迁册至香港并注册成香港有限合伙基金。 根据目前迁册建议的内容,在香港境外以有限合伙或公司形式成立的基金,如符合有关以香港为注册地的有限合伙基金或开放式基金型公司的相同资格规定,即可在香港分别注册为有限合伙基金或开放式基金
34、型公司。在迁册后,该基金仍然是同一个法律实体。迁册来港之举无意损害或影响基金之前成立或注册的身份,基金迁册不影响在香港注册前订立的合同和通过的决议,且不影响基金的权利、功能、法律责任、义务及财产,同时不影响任何之前由基金所提起或针对基金所提起的法律程序。迁册建议仍有待进一步澄清和细化,但迁册建议的推出为离岸基金提供了一个快捷简易并切实的迁册方案,我们殷切期盼迁册建议早日落实。是74%否26%受访者是否考虑将在管离岸基金迁册成为香港有限合伙基金香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 144.5 未来注册趋势就未来发展趋势而言,香港有限合伙基金与新加坡有限合伙型基金及卢森堡 SCSp(特殊有限合
35、伙)一经对比即可看出,香港有限合伙基金的势头与热度远超于新加坡及卢森堡,在香港有限合伙基金架构推出的 10 个月内,其注册数量已经高达 284 支。香港有限合伙基金注册数量2020年9月2020年10月2020年11月2020年12月2021年1月2021年2月2021年3月2021年4月2021年5月2021年6月注册数量2842840500300香港有限合伙基金注册数量15 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告相对比而言,卢森堡 SCSp(特殊有限合伙)架构推出的一年内,注册数
36、量为 245 支3,而新加坡的有限合伙型基金架构从 2009 年 5 月份推出至 2021 年 6 月份,注册数量仅为 519 支4。3资料来源:PwC 发布的The Luxembourg Special Partnership, A multi-purpose solution for the real estate industry第 1 页, https:/www.pwc.lu/en/real-estate/docs/pwc-re-lux-special-partnership.pdf4资料来源:新加坡会计与企业管理局统计 https:/www.acra.gov.sg/training-
37、and-resources/facts-and-figures/business-registry-statistics新加坡有限合伙型基金 2019-2021 年注册数量卢森堡 SCSp 制度推出第一年内的注册数量2013年10月2014年1月2014年4月2014年7月注册数量788002019年1月2019年7月2020年1月2020年7月2021年1月2021年6月基金数量3973994297399420500600新加坡有限合伙型基金2019-2021年
38、注册数量香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 16再结合卢森堡基金从制度推出到 2020 年的设立趋势5,我们期待香港有限合伙基金的增长趋势能继续保持,更期待香港能早日成为国际私募基金的重要注册地。我们因此有理由相信,一系列利好政策消息的陆续发布显示了香港政府致力于加强和巩固香港作为基金管理业务及投资基金注册地国际枢纽地位的决心,也为考虑设立香港有限合伙基金的资管机构及投资于香港有限合伙基金架构的投资者打了一剂强心针。如财库局此前表示:政府一直致力巩固香港作为私募基金枢纽的优势,并在这方面进行三步曲的部署。第一步是我们已在各位立法会议员的支持下,在去年八月引入新的基金结构,让私募基金可以在
39、香港以有限责任合伙形式成立,在过去短短几个月已有 80 个有限合伙基金注册。第二步,即是次立法建议,是为在香港营运的私募基金所分发的附带权益提供税务宽减。第三步是建议设立外地基金迁册来港的机制, 以利便及吸引基金在香港落户和营运, 我们已在二月一日向立法会财经事务委员会提出相关、即第三步的建议。我们有信心,在这三步曲完成后,香港可大大提升作为私募基金枢纽的吸引力。5资料来源:PwC 发布的Luxembourg Limited Partnerships,第 8 页 https:/www.pwc.lu/en/alternative-investments/docs/luxembourg-limit
40、ed-partnership.pdf卢森堡 SCSp 注册趋势2015年6月 2016年6月 2017年6月 2018年6月 2019年6月 2020年6月注册SCSp66863385466566863385466505000250030003500400045005000SCSp注册趋势17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.6 已设香港有限合伙基金的投资范围根据对已注册的 260 支香港有限合伙基金公开信息的横向对比,我们了解到超过半数的香港有限合伙
41、基金在注册时披露的基金投资范围不仅包含私募股权投资、上市公司二级市场投资或 IPO/Pre-IPO 项目投资,同时还包含了各种类型的证券、票据及其他固收类投资。根据上述统计我们可以看出,鉴于香港有限合伙基金需在向公司注册处注册时填写基金投资范围,如后续发生投资范围变更,则 GP 需向公司注册处通知并提交投资范围变更手续,香港有限合伙基金的发起人更倾向于在注册时不对该基金的投资范围作出过多限制,以涵盖香港有限合伙基金后续可能进行的不同类型投资。同时,上述统计结果与前述潜在香港有限合伙基金的主要投资标的形成呼应,即私募股权投资及二级市场投资同时作为潜在香港有限合伙基金与已注册香港有限合伙基金的主要
42、投资标的。由此可见,目前已注册的香港有限合伙基金所披露的投资范围基本反映了受访者对设立香港有限合伙基金的需求预期。* 问卷中此题为多选题,此处百分比是指选择某选项的人数占全部受访者人数的百分比17 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告已设香港有限合伙基金主要投资范围所涉及的投资类型 *13%1%5%6%7%7%22%58%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%其他贷款房地产债券 / 票据 / 固定收益IPO / 上市公司Fintech / 科技 / 虚拟资产私募股权投资范围广泛 (含私募/公开市场及各类证券投资)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund
43、Annual Report 2021 184.7 已设香港有限合伙基金的 GP条例规定,香港有限合伙基金的 GP 可以由以下人士担任:根据我们统计分析,目前已成功注册的香港有限合伙基金中,超过九成发起人选择使用香港私人股份有限公司作为基金 GP,另外小部分是通过自然人作为 GP 设立香港有限合伙基金。从法律层面而言,GP 需对香港有限合伙基金的债务承担无限责任,因此绝大多数香港有限合伙基金发起人选择通过其已设立或新设立的香港有限公司担任 GP 也是意料之中。香港私人股份有限公司年满 18 岁的个人注册非香港公司有限责任合伙(地区不限)香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告18已注册香港有限合
44、伙基金的 GP 类型93%1%0%6%香港私人股份有限公司注册非香港公司有限责任合伙年满18岁的个人19 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告4.8 已设香港有限合伙基金的管理人根据 条例 , 香港有限合伙基金的GP必须委任一名管理人 (可以是GP自己) 以执行基金的日常投资管理职能,管理人可以由以下人士担任:截止目前为止,已设立的香港有限合伙基金中使用香港持牌公司作为管理人的高达 195 支,占已注册香港有限合伙基金的 75%。即使条例并无针对香港有限合伙基金管理人必须持有香港证监会牌照的相关规定,大部分香港有限合伙基金管理人均为香港证监会持牌人士。我们判断形成这一趋势的主要原因有两个:
45、其一,香港有限合伙基金投资标的类型导致多数管理人实践中难以被豁免持牌要求。香港证监会在 2020 年 1 月的致寻求获发牌的私募股本公司的通函中澄清,任何在香港开展受规管活动的人士,都必须持有相关的香港证监会牌照。简而言之,除非被豁免,任何针对符合证券及期货条例下“证券”含义的投资组合或资产进行交易、实施管理或提供意见的人士(包括私募股权及风投),都将受限于持牌要求。值得注意的是,任何非香港私人公司的股份及债券明确包含在“证券”定义内。因此,即使香港有限合伙基金的投资标的并非位于香港,若香港有限合伙基金拟定进行私募股权投资,则需要满足相应的持牌要求。其二,投资人和香港有限合伙基金的其他服务供应
46、商出于对其内部审批流程或合规要求的考虑,可能更倾向于与香港证监会持牌的基金发起人及管理人合作。年满 18 岁的香港居民香港注册成立的公司注册非香港公司SFC持牌公司75%SFC持牌人士(自然人)3%非SFC持牌22%已注册香港有限合伙基金的 SFC 持牌管理人统计 20如上图所示,除香港证监会持牌管理人以外,已注册的香港有限合伙基金中仍有高达四分之一的管理人并不持有任何香港证监会牌照。我们理解使用非持牌主体作为管理人的原因有:第一,除非管理人或香港有限合伙基金会在香港开展受规管活动,否则管理人并不需要取得香港证监会相关牌照;第二,实际操作中为简化内部审批流程或加快实体设立过程,发起人可能优先选
47、择从简完成设立流程,在募资启动后再完善架构,并完成持牌管理人的聘任工作。 另外,我们还关注到另一趋势是同一持牌管理人同时管理多支香港有限合伙基金。其中同一管理人最多同时管理 18 支香港有限合伙基金。形成这一趋势的原因或许同样可归结为持牌管理人因业务需求强劲,为简化并加快基金投资实体的设立流程,管理人更倾向于选择同时或分批次设立多支香港有限合伙基金,以提高未来行政及项目执行效率。26183有 26 名管理人同时管理 2 支或以上香港有限合伙基金已注册的香港有限合伙基金中,同一管理人最多同时管理 18 支香港有限合伙基金其中3位为自然人管理人,另 23 名为机构管理人4.9 负责人条例规定,香港
48、有限合伙基金的 GP 必须委任一名负责人执行反洗钱措施,并且负责人应由以下人士担任:我们在针对已注册的香港有限合伙基金进行分析时发现,大多数 GP(73 %)选择委任持牌法团作为香港有限合伙基金负责人,负责执行反洗钱(AML)等措施。除持牌法团外,会计专业人士及法律专业人士被委任作为负责人的比例不相上下。 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告金管局认可机构(银行)香港律师会法律专业人士香港证监会持牌法团香港会计师公会会计专业人士21 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告4.10 GP 与 Initial LP 的关系为简化设立流程及为基金募资争取更多时间,按照行业惯例以及离岸基金设立模
49、式,基金发起人在初始设立基金实体时通常会使用发起人集团或架构内的现有实体分別作为 GP 以及 initial LP 完成实体设立,或选择由第三方服务机构(如注册代理)提供 initial LP 实体进行注册。 条例高度尊重行业惯例,规定香港有限合伙基金发起人可在成功注册之日起的两周年时间内,保留同一公司集团内的两家不同主体作为 GP 及 initial LP,为发起人提供充分的募资时间。结合上述对香港有限合伙基金管理人的分析,鉴于大多数香港有限合伙基金已聘任香港证监会持牌管理人管理基金,且持牌管理人自身受制于香港打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集条例的约束,对于执行反洗钱或打击恐怖分子资金筹集措施相对
50、熟悉,由该等持牌管理人同时担任香港有限合伙基金的反洗钱负责人顺理成章。同时,持牌管理人作为负责基金整体运营的掌舵者,其对基金的投资人及整体运营情况有更为全面和深入的了解,由管理人同时担任香港有限合伙基金负责人或可提高沟通效率,从而降低运营成本。与此同时, 我们注意到, 已设立的香港有限合伙基金中有部分基金的负责人职位由律所担任。 我们理解根据 条例规定,有资格成为负责人的法律专业人士仅包括香港律师及外地律师,而不包括律师事务所,因此这一点仍有待相关立法部门与香港公司注册处进一步澄清。个人会计师79%会计师事务所21%律师44%律师事务所56%持牌法团73%法律专业人士14%会计专业人士13%认
51、可机构0%属同一公司集团35%不属同一公司集团65%通过对已注册香港有限合伙基金的数据分析,35% 的香港有限合伙基金延用了上述设立离岸基金时的惯常方案,即在基金实体初始设立时由同一公司集团内的两家不同主体分别作为其 GP 以及 initial LP。 已设立香港有限合伙基金的负责人资质统计GP 与 Initial LP 的关联 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 224.11 香港有限合伙基金的开业时间仅根据我们代表客户设立香港有限合伙基金的经验, 大部分的香港有限合伙基金在设立时选择暂不开业:上述数据反映出了私募基金的行业惯例,即基金实体的设立及项目立项及与投资人的对接同时进行,私募
52、基金的发起人一般会在基金正式募资开始前就已完成基金实体的设立,以确保基金实体的设立不会影响项目的进度。47% 的香港有限合伙基金发起人选择立刻开业,即香港有限合伙基金将会即刻开始基金的募资程序。发起人在设立香港有限合伙基金的同时也会尽快引入外部投资人。53% 的香港有限合伙基金发起人选择暂不开业。发起人务必在设立注册之日的两周年内引入外部投资人,以确保 GP 及 initial LP 不再属于同一公司集团。47%47%53%53%23 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告5未来的挑战5.1 受访者面临的挑战随着传统离岸法域近年来出现诸多监管变化等因素影响, 我们有理由相信业内或将逐渐形成一
53、种新趋势 :即基金发起人逐渐倾向于将实质性资产管理活动与基金注册地相匹配 - 香港有限合伙基金应运而生。但在香港有限合伙基金制度蓬勃发展的同时,我们理解新制度的推出只是改革的开始,条例制度仍有进一步优化的空间。鉴于此,我们也通过问卷了解了受访者在考虑是否采用香港有限合伙基金作为基金架构时的一些最为突出的担忧或可能面临的挑战,受访者认同度降序排列如下 :香港有限合伙基金本身较新,等有较多成功运作案例后考虑潜在投资者对香港有限合伙基金不熟悉基金管理人附带权益的税务不确定性基金投资所得税收的不确定性 基金可能受到证监会监管及 / 或担心可能与监管机构共享基金相关的信息12345香港有限合伙基金 20
54、21 年度调研报告 24架构新颖、缺少投资者熟悉度香港有限合伙基金架构的新颖性及由此带来的投资者对该结构的低熟悉度可能在一定程度上导致基金发起人对选择香港作为基金注册地一事望而却步。不难理解,提高投资者对某种新型基金结构的熟悉程度通常需要在推广该制度及引导投资者方面花费较长的时间。 虽然运用传统的基金架构可能会给发起人在募资方面带来诸多便利,但是,鉴于近年来开曼群岛等传统离岸法域频频出现监管变化,从更严格的报告及备案义务、经济实质要求到各种其他立法变化,原先得益于税收优惠和宽松监管的吸引力已被大幅削弱。另一方面,自香港有限合伙基金制度开始实施以来,已有近 300 支香港有限合伙基金在公司注册处
55、成功注册。考虑到设立香港有限合伙基金的便捷性及维持香港有限合伙基金所需的相对低廉的成本,我们相信发起人及投资者在未来数年中将更乐于接受将基金注册地迁至香港。所得税及附带权益税务不确定性香港有限合伙基金的税务相关处理是业界重点关注的方向之一。 对于此,除了上述第 4.4 段提及的税务修订条例外,香港税务局于 2020 年 6 月 30 日也刊发了税务条例释义及执行指引第 61 号 (DIPN 61),该指引增加了基金(包括其投资)在税务处理方面的确定性。例如,对于投资私募股权的基金而言,为使基金投资能够享受税收优惠,该基金需要满足多项额外条件,包括满足总体香港不动产测试(10% 的门槛)、持有期
56、测试及控制权测试或短期资产测试。 而就税务修订条例而言,我们理解香港金融管理局也已在准备有关核证基金的相关指南,这将会成为确定附带权益接收方是否有权获得附带权益税收减免的关键。总体上看,香港政府已着手推动税务制度与时俱进,并在增强基金税务待遇的竞争力及吸引力方面做出了诸多努力。25 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告证监会的监管与 2018 年作为全新公司型基金架构引入的开放式基金型公司(OFC)不同,目前香港有限合伙基金无须在香港证监会进行注册。尽管条例规定普通合伙人须委任一名投资管理人履行香港有限合伙基金的日常投资管理职能,但聘请第三方投资管理人并非强制性规定,普通合伙人自身也能够履
57、行投资管理人的职能。至于香港有限合伙基金的主要运营人是否要按规定持有牌照,则需视乎事实而定,主要取决于香港有限合伙基金的实际投资情况。如上文第 4.8 条所述,基金管理人是否需要持有证监会牌照取决于其是否在香港进行受监管活动,即如果香港有限合伙基金的投资范围不涉及“证券”,则可能无需聘请持牌人士。5.2 基金管理人持牌要求对基金管理人的持牌要求和监管环境是决定基金注册地和架构的重要因素之一。香港目前暂无特别针对私募股权基金管理活动的牌照,至于私募股权基金管理人是否须持有相关牌照,则将需基于其实际业务范围进行个案的具体分析。相较而言,新加坡针对基金管理人的持牌要求或更具弹性。一般而言,新加坡的基
58、金管理公司(FMC) 为持牌FMC (LFMC) 或注册FMC (RFMC) 。持牌 FMC 被进一步分为三类,包括 (i) 就所有类型的投资者(包括零售投资者)开展业务的 LFMC(零售 LFMC);(ii) 一般仅限于开展与“合格投资者”有关的业务的 LFMC(合格投资者 LFMC);及 (iii) 仅管理风险投资基金的 LFMC(风投 LFMC)。由于私募股权基金通常只面向成熟的高净值投资者募资,新加坡的私募股权管理人常以合格投资者LFMC 或 RFMC 身份(具体取决于预计的基金规模)开展运营,以避免适用对零售 LFMC 的严苛持牌和操守准则规定。另外,在基金有资格成为风投基金的情况下
59、,基金管理人还可选择以风投 LFMC 牌照(受相关投资标的限制)管理基金。 新加坡虽然仅对于风投 LFMC 有特殊待遇,但因为新加坡监管机构对于风投基金的定义和一般广义上理解的私募基金基本一致,鉴于此,新加坡针对风投 LFMC 出台的“轻监管”的监管体系对于香港的私募基金管理人的持牌监管有一定的借鉴意义。香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 26另一方面,在判断特定持牌或注册规定是否适用于某一类型基金管理人时,美国已将管理资产规模作为一项衡量标准并针对私募股权和风投基金设计了特定制度。美国1940 年美国投资顾问法(经修订)(顾问法)项下投资顾问一般须在美国证交 会 (United Sta
60、tes Securities and Exchange Commission)或一个或多个州监管机构进行注册,除非有适用的豁免注册的规定。顾问法项下的其中一项豁免条件是,如相关投资顾问 (i) 仅担任私募基金的顾问,且在美国的管理资产少于 1.5 亿美元;或 (ii) 仅担任一个或多个风投基金的投资顾问,则在基金主要面向成熟的合资格高净值投资者发售的基础上,有可能豁免对该投资顾问的注册要求,但仍需要作为豁免报备顾问向美国证交会提交报备。作为豁免报备的私募股权或风投基金投资顾问需要每年向监管机构更新其相关披露信息与表格, 同时, 与注册投资顾问一样,豁免报备顾问须遵守针对其内部纪录保存的各项规定
61、以及顾问法下反欺诈等条款的相关规定。聚焦于风投基金,为鼓励处于初创阶段的企业并推动支持企业发展的资金,新加坡金融管理局推出了风险资本基金管理制度,据此,风投 LFMC 一般采取较为简便的和较短的牌照发放流程,且相对于合格投资者LFMC和RFMC, 风投LFMC将受限于较少的资本和运营规定。 在此方面,我们注意到香港政府为推动与鼓励本地初创企业,推出了多项计划和激励措施。例如,创新科技署于 2020 年 1 月邀请风投基金申请成为创新及科技基金(一支为鼓励对本地创新科技初创企业的风险投资而设立的规模20亿港币的共同投资基金) 的共同投资合伙人,旨在塑造香港成为亚洲初创企业的枢纽。而针对以上监管方
62、面的考量,我们也试图通过问卷,针对已获得香港证监会牌照的受访者,得到他们对运营香港有限合伙基金的持牌与监管要求的反馈,特别是受访者对于根据管理规模进行分类监管模式的看法。 总体而言,大多数香港证监会持牌受访者认为香港证监会应考虑适当放松对私募股权基金管理人的持牌规定。是60%否40%证监会是否应放松对私募股权基金管理人的持牌规定?27 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告具体而言,香港证监会持牌受访者就香港证监会应如何放宽对私募基金管理人的持牌或持牌监管要求的反馈如下:如上述,大多数香港证监会持牌受访者表示香港证监会应放松对私募股权基金管理人的持牌要求,其中包括考虑针对私募股权基金管理人引
63、入不同类型的资管牌照,以区分监管层面对私募股权基金管理人与零售基金管理人所适用的不同监管规定。在将基金管理规模纳入考量标准的香港证监会持牌受访者中,超过 40% 的香港证监会持牌受访者认为在相关基金规模未达到 1 亿港币的前提下,香港证监会应考虑放松监管政策,针对该等私募基金管理人豁免持牌要求,同时超过 60% 的香港证监会持牌受访者认为在相关基金规模不超过 5 亿港币的前提下,香港证监会应考虑仅要求该等私募基金管理人完成简单备案程序,而无需持有香港证监会 9 号牌照。有 43% 的香港证监会持牌受访者认为,证监会应针对私募基金的管理人制定特别的豁免持牌条件。例如,针对管理规模低于一定金额的基
64、金或仅接受专业投资者的投资,且不超过一定数量专业投资者的基金的相关管理人可豁免持牌要求。另有 14% 的香港证监会持牌受访者认为,证监会应为私募基金管理人制定相对简化的操守准则。有 39% 的香港证监会持牌受访者认为,对于管理符合特定条件的基金(如管理规模低于一定金额的基金,或仅接受专业投资者的投资且不超过一定数量专业投资者的基金)的私募基金管理人仅要求简单备案,无需持有 9 号牌。43%14%39%27 1 亿42%5 亿25%10 亿33%基金AUM(港币)1亿9%5亿64%10亿18%50 亿9%受访者认为基金管理人可豁免持牌要求的基金 AUM(港币)受访者认为基金管理人可仅进行简单备案
65、 (无需9号牌) 的基金AUM (港币)香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 285.3 合格投资者的资质要求基金注册地对基金发售及募资对象的资质要求也是基金管理人选择基金注册地的另一个重要考虑因素。美国证交会于 2020 年 8 月采纳了针对扩大1933 年证券法(经修订)下“合格投资者”定义的修订,该修订旨在使“合格投资者”的定义更加与当前现实接轨,其目的是使 Regulation D 项下的私募发行的投资机会开放给更多的专业投资者。例如,在修订出台前,个人合格投资者资质需要满足的主要条件为资产净值和收入方面的规定,即资产净值须为至少 100 万美元(不计其主要居所的估值),或其收入须
66、为至少20 万美元(夫妻收入须为至少 30 万美元)。而修订后则允许投资人凭借其相关资历(包括专业经验、知识、特定认证,或其与产品发行人的关系)以满足“合格投资者”的要求。其中,任何私募基金的“知识型员工(knowledgeable employee)”都将符合“合格投资者”的要求。该等“知识型员工”资质包括董事、基金普通合伙人、顾问委员会成员,或在私募基金内担任类似高级管理职务或负责投资相关工作的人士。相较而言,未经香港证监会授权的私募股权基金通常仅可向符合当地法域规定的合格投资者发售,就香港投资者而言,投资者需符合证券及期货(专业投资者)规则 (专业投资者规则)下“专业投资者”的定义。而目
67、前专业投资者规则对满足法团及个人专业投资者定义人士的资产有非常明确的金额要求。对此我们也在问卷中对受访者进行了提问, 根据问卷反馈, 66%的受访者认为 专业投资者规则 项下 “专业投资者”的定义应被扩大,而在认为应扩大“专业投资者”定义范围的受访者中,75% 的受访者认为在甄别投资者是否为“专业投资者”时,除考虑资产外,应同时考量其他相关因素。在同时认为“专业投资者”定义应被放宽,且应考量其他标准的受访者中,同等比例的受访者认为以下标准应被纳入“专业投资者”的定义中:具备相应的专业证书和投资经验的专业人士,如特许财务分析师,专注于投资和融资领域的律师和审计师;参与基金的管理和投资的基金管理人
68、成员(如负责人员、投资委员会成员、董事和其他雇员),以及直接参与基金的投资和管理的其他人员(包括参与风险管理以及基金的投资管理后勤业务的人员)。部分受访者还表示希望在对 “专业投资者” 进行资产测试时应扩大资产类别至保单、 房地产物业等资产。继香港政府陆续出台的一系列在税务、 基金回迁安排等方面的优惠政策, 以及针对风投基金的特设制度,我们期待香港证监会在未来考虑针对私募股权基金管理人制订特定的监管政策,以鼓励更多在港金融与投资机构关注香港有限合伙基金,进一步推动香港资产管理行业的发展。是66%否34%是75%否25%是否应放宽对 专业投资者 的定义 ?是否应考虑其他标准 ?29 香港有限合伙
69、基金 2021 年度调研报告香港有限合伙基金制度的高效落实结合迁册政策及附带权益税务宽减等一系列优惠政策的推出使市场对香港有限合伙基金反响热烈。市场的持续高度关注,以及领跑香港有限合伙基金设立的第一批资管机构的成功经验再次加强了业界对香港有限合伙制度的信心。香港背靠内地,拥有国际金融中心的制度优势,市场高度开放和国际化,具备与国际接轨的法治体制,拥有大量的金融人才及完善的金融基础设施,具有金融产品、信息和资金自由流通等优势。有限合伙基金制度的实施将进一步巩固香港作为全球领先金融中心以及亚洲第二大私募基金中心的地位。此外,香港还是全球第二大生物科技公司的上市地,也是全球最大的离岸人民币业务枢纽,
70、香港与内地及粤港澳大湾区的紧密联系孕育着诸多科技、媒体和电讯、医疗健康、生物医药,以至金融科技等快速增长行业的投资机遇。结合关于金融支持粤港澳大湾区建设的意见中所提出政策支持(包括允许开展私募股权投资基金跨境投资试点,支持港澳私募基金参与粤港澳大湾区创新型企业融资,支持粤港澳三地机构共同设立粤港澳大湾区相关基金,支持保险资金、银行理财资金按规定参与相关基金等),我们认为香港有限合伙基金制度下将会涌现出在香港设立投资基金的大量机遇,而这将有助于吸引国际基金管理人通过香港管理人民币资产投资组合。香港有限合伙基金制度的推出恰逢其时地为香港资管业界就私募股权基金设立提供了一个切实有利的替代方案,助力基
71、金管理人更灵活地满足市场需求。随着粤港澳大湾区发展规划的进一步推进和落实,结合目前市场对香港有限合伙基金的热烈反响与高度评价,我们有充分的理由相信香港有限合伙基金在不久的将来会成为亚洲地区国际私募基金最受欢迎的架构之一。6结语香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 30本调研报告凡提及“香港”均应被诠释为“中华人民共和国香港特别行政区”免责声明本调研报告由金杜律师事务所进行整理汇编,其中收录了来自香港资管行业机构对问卷的反馈。本调研报告内容仅代表香港资管行业机构对问卷的反馈意见,不构成金杜律师事务所对有关问题的法律分析或法律意见,亦不构成金杜律师事务所对任何具体法律问题的意见或建议。金杜律师
72、事务所对于本调研报告所列材料的准确性或完整性不作任何陈述与保证。任何仅依照本调研报告的全部或部分内容而做出的作为和不作为决定及因此造成的后果由行为人自行负责。如您需要法律意见或其他专家意见,应该向具有相关资格的专业人士寻求专业的法律帮助。金杜律师事务所保留对本调研报告的所有权利。未经金杜律师事务所事先书面许可,任何人不得以任何形式或通过任何方式(手写、电子或机械的方式,包括通过复印、录音、录音笔或信息收集系统)复制本调研报告任何受版权保护的内容。金杜律师事务所是指由金杜律师事务所国际联盟中的成员事务所组成的法律服务网络。所有成员律师事务所均各自独立提供各项法律服务。不论成员事务所还是其任何合伙
73、人或成员,均不得以其他成员事务所或其任何合伙人或成员的代理人身份行事。任何成员事务所的合伙人或成员不对任何其他成员事务所具有约束力。详情参见。 31 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告金杜律师事务所成立于二十世纪 90 年代初,是中国最早设立的合伙制律师事务所之一,也是最早在香港特别行政区开设分所的中国律师事务所之一。金杜律师事务所经过过去多年的业务、资源整合持续扩张,业务拓展至美国、英国、欧洲及中东地区的多个国家,服务全球客户。我们提供与众不同的商业化思维和客户体验,被广泛认为是全球最具创新力的律所之一。我们拥有640 多名合伙人及 2,700 多名律师,共有 29 间实体办公室及 3
74、6 间虚拟云办公室,借助统一的全球平台,协助客户了解当地的挑战,应对复杂的地域形势,提供具有竞争优势的商业解决方案。我们为客户发掘和开启机遇,协助客户在亚洲市场释放全部潜能。凭借卓越的专业知识和在核心市场的广泛网络,我们致力于让亚洲走向世界,让世界联通亚洲。我们以雄厚的实力和不断创新的执业能力始终居于业界领先地位,近年来荣获 200 多项国际及亚洲地区的商业和法律媒体奖项。同时,我们在所有国际权威法律评级机构每年对各业务领域和律师个人的排名中也收获颇丰。关 于金 杜香港办公室是金杜国际法律服务网络的一个重要枢纽。随着亚洲时代的来临,作为一家全球总部位于亚洲的领先国际律师事务所, 我们致力于贯通
75、亚、 欧、非、美,协助客户把握重要商机。我们的香港办公室现有律师及法律人员 200 多名,其中包括 40 名合伙人级别的律师,是香港目前规模最大的国际律师事务所(按律师人数计算)。我们的业务涵盖多个领域,从融资到并购,从监管合规到争议解决,可提供全方位的法律服务。金杜香港基金团队现共有 4 位合伙人,超过 30位律师及法律专业人员,是香港规模最大的基金团队之一。2021 年,我们获得国际法律权威排名机构钱伯斯亚太区私募基金领域第一梯队排名;在国际金融法律评论及亚太法律 500 强等其他领先法律刊物上亦获领先排名及高度认可。31 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 32江竞竞合伙人兼香港基
76、金业务主管香港电话 +852 3443 8504手机 +852 6384 李帼孙合伙人香港电话 +852 3443 8507手机 +852 9312 石璧宁合伙人香港电话 +852 3443 1233手机 +852 6075 范凯敦 (Hayden Flinn)联席管理合伙人(香港)香港电话 +852 3443 1113手机 +852 6713 合伙人合伙人联络33 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告北京市朝阳区东三环中路 1 号环球金融中心办公楼东楼 18 层 100020T +86 10 5878 5588山东省济南市泺源大街 102 号祥恒广场 ( 香格里拉写字楼 )18 层 25
77、0000T +86 531 55831600四川省成都市红星路 3 段 1 号国际金融中心 1 座 1603-6 室 610021T +86 28 8620 3818山东省青岛市东海西路 17 号海信大厦 10 层 266071T +86 532 8579 0008重庆市两江新区财富东路 8 号1 幢 9 层 401121T +86 23 8607 1718广东省广州市天河区珠江新城珠江东路 6 号广州周大福金融中心 25 层510623T +86 20 3819 1000浙江省杭州市教工路 18 号 世贸丽晶城欧美中心 D 区 12 层 310012T +86 571 5671 8000南京
78、市建邺区江东中路 347 号南京国金中心一期写字楼 32 楼 210019T +86 025 5872 0800北京济南成都青岛重庆广州杭州南京亚 洲江苏省苏州市苏州工业园区苏州大道西 9 号中海财富中心西塔 43 层 02A 215021T +86 512 6292 7100苏州马吉街 138 号 9 楼 03 室T +65 6653 6500新加坡中环皇后大道中 15 号置地广场告罗士打大厦 13 层T +852 3443 1000香港海南省三亚市吉阳区新风街 279 号蓝海华庭写字楼 18 572000T +86 898 8835 0099三亚东京都千代田区丸之内 3-2-3丸之内二重桥
79、大厦 21 楼 100-0005T +81-3-5218-6711东京海南省海口市美兰区国兴大道 3 号海航互联网金融大厦 A 座 34 楼 570203T + 86 898 3156 7233 海口上海市徐汇区淮海中路 999 号 上海环贸广场写字楼一期 17 层 200031T +86 21 2412 6000上海广东省深圳市南山区科苑南路 2666 号中国华润大厦 28 层 518052T +86 755 2216 3333深圳办公 机构地 点机构地 点香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度调研报告 34Level 33, Waterfront Place1 Eagle StreetBrisb
80、ane QLD 4000, AustraliaT +61 7 3244 8000Level 12, Constitution Place,1 Constitution AvenueCanberra, ACT 2601, AustraliaT +61 2 6217 6000Level 27 Collins Arch447 Collins StreetMelbourne, Victoria, 3000, AustraliaT +61 3 9643 4000Level 30, QV1 Building250 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000, AustraliaT +6
81、1 8 9269 7000Level 61, Governor Phillip Tower1 Farrer PlaceSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaT +61 2 9296 2000布里斯班堪培拉墨尔本珀斯悉尼澳 大 利 亚Avenue Louise 480 1050 Brussels, BelgiumT +32 2 511 5340Office 401-404,Gate Village 6,Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC),PO Box 24482 Dubai,United Arab EmiratesT +9714
82、313 170050/F 500 Fifth AveNew York CityNY 10110, USAT +1 212 319 4755535 Middlefield Road, Suite 245 Menlo ParkCA 94025, USAT +1 650 858 1285 Taunusanlage 1760325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyT +49 69 505029 300Milano Largo Augusto 8 20122 Milano, ItalyT +39 02 30 31 751布鲁塞尔迪拜纽约硅谷法兰克福米兰欧 洲中 东北 美11th Floo
83、r20 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 3BY UKT +44 20 7550 1500伦敦Calle Goya, 628001 Madrid, SpainT +34 91 426 0050马德里Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021July 2021In the 40 years of economic reform and opening up of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC or Mainland China), the economic ties d
84、eveloped between Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC (Hong Kong) and Mainland China are as strong as ever. Hong Kong is the gateway to Mainland China, and Mainland Chinas bridge to the world. The citys well-developed regimes support international activities into Mainland China and the
85、 expansion of Chinese investments worldwide.The 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs handover marked a significant milestone, with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) designated as a special economic zone. In line with the national strategy for the GBA, Hong Kong will form part of an inte
86、grated economic hub designed for stable economic growth and new market opportunities which the GBA initiative will bring.In February 2019, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council of the PRC released the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Gr
87、eater Bay Area (Outline). The Outline sets out Hong Kongs position and role as a global financial and asset management centre by leveraging the citys status as an international financial centre. In May 2020, the Peoples Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China
88、Securities Regulatory Commission and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange unveiled the Opinions on Financial Support for the Construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (Joint Opinion) which further promotes and supports the vision and initiatives set out in the Outline. I
89、t strengthens Hong Kongs significant role in leading the enhancement of the GBAs financial services industry and the continued development of Hong Kongs function as an international asset management and risk management centre. The release of the Joint Opinion encourages asset management institutions
90、 to develop their business plans in the GBA to further expand the asset management market in the GBA. At the same time, we are seeing traditionally-popular private fund domiciles introduce reforms to their laws and regulations in response to global initiatives to combat cross-border tax avoidance, m
91、oney-laundering and terrorist financing. In 2019, the Cayman Islands (Cayman) implemented the International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law, requiring offshore fund managers to satisfy relevant economic substance requirements, and in 2020, certain closed-ended private funds fell within the
92、 scope of supervision by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. Against the backdrop of a tightening regulatory environment, increased compliance requirements and cost of operating offshore private funds, the growing complexity of fund structures, and diminishing tax advantages, more and more fund m
93、anagers are now considering the transfer of their fund domiciles to onshore jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Singapore. With the possibility of unifying an investment funds domicile, operations and management team and exit channels in one single jurisdiction, Hong Kong is well positio
94、ned to become the next alternative jurisdiction for investment funds.Leveraging the move towards onshorisation, its reputation as a mature international financial centre and unique geographical advantage, Hong Kong has attracted a large number of Chinese private equity investors and international pr
95、ivate equity management institutions in recent years, using Hong Kong as a base to develop their onshore and overseas investments. 15 out of the worlds largest 20 private equity management institutions have offices in Hong Kong. As the second largest Asian private equity hub, there were, as of 20191
96、, a total of 560 private equity firms operating in Hong Kong and the total asset under management reached US$160 billion. Currently, there are also nearly 2,000 asset management companies licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC). Despite its position as the second largest
97、 Asian private equity hub, Hong Kong did not have a structure suitable for private equity funds to develop, and there were almost no private equity funds established in Hong Kong. The Limited Partnerships Ordinance (Cap.37) in Hong Kong has features which are not appealing for use in the modern priv
98、ate equity funds context. The private equity industry has long been calling for the introduction of a new limited partnership regime that is catered for private equity funds.After many years, through the joint efforts of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR and industry players, the long-awaited Limi
99、ted Partnership Fund Ordinance (Cap. 637) (Ordinance) finally came into effect on 31 August 2020, introducing Hong Kongs very own limited partnership fund (LPF) regime for private equity funds. This Ordinance follows various initiatives from the launch of A Paper on Limited Partnership for Private E
100、quity Fund by the Financial Services Development Council of Hong Kong in December 2015, the proposal in The 2018-19 Budget made by Financial Secretary of Hong Kong that explicitly states to examine the feasibility of introducing a limited partnership regime applicable for private equity funds, to th
101、e consultation paper published by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) in July 2019 seeking industry feedback on the proposal to establish a regime for limited partnership funds in Hong Kong. Foreword1According to the data of Asian Venture Capital Journal (AVCJ), which was cited by
102、the Legislative Council in the LegCo Briefs on the Bill dated 18 March 2020 and can be found at the following website:https:/www.legco.gov.hk/yr19-20/english/bills/brief/b202003201_brf.pdf. With the support of various government policies and promotion from the industry, the launch of the LPF regime
103、has been a resounding success a total number of 284 Hong Kong LPFs were successfully registered under the regime in the first 10 months after the Ordinance took effect. We understand the introduction of the LPF regime is only the beginning of the reform, and further improvements will need to be made
104、 in order for the Hong Kong LPF structure to be recognised internationally. To that end, King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) and Alpha Win Capital Limited, together with other leading asset management, financial and other professional services institutions in Hong Kong, jointly established the Hong Kong LPF
105、 Association (Association). The Association aims to help industry and market participants deepen their understanding of, and to help improve, the Hong Kong LPF regime to attract more fund managers and investors to adopt the Hong Kong LPF structure. The Association will work alongside financial, lega
106、l and accounting institutions and individuals committed to driving the development and promotion of the asset management industry and the LPF regime in Hong Kong. The Association aims to facilitate, on behalf of the business community, communication with government authorities on policies, laws and
107、regulations and supervision to strengthen cooperation and exchanges between relevant institutions across industries and sectors, and to promote the development of the Hong Kong LPF regime and the private equity fund industry in Hong Kong. The launch of the Association marks almost one year since the
108、 implementation of the Ordinance. KWM and the Association are honoured to be jointly launching this Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund - Annual Report 2021 (this Report) which analyses in depth the Hong Kong LPF regime and its development in its first year. Through a detailed survey conducted with l
109、eading funds practitioners and market participants, this Report provides an insight into the regime from the markets perspective, highlighting key features of successfully registered LPFs, and providing a forecast on the registration trend of the Hong Kong LPF regime by reference to similar regimes
110、introduced in Singapore and Luxembourg. This Report also contains industry feedback on the regime, including certain concerns, suggestions for regulatory changes and a comparison of the LPF regime against similar structures in countries such as Singapore and the United States. Additionally, we hope
111、this Report will provide a useful reference for legislative and regulatory authorities in Hong Kong when considering further improvements to the LPF regime. We take this opportunity to thank each respondent for their time in completing the survey and for providing valuable feedback.We would like to
112、express our sincere gratitude to the following founding members of the Association for their continuous support (in alphabetical order): Dr. LI Ying Founding president Hong Kong LPF AssociationFounding partner and CEO Alpha Win Capital Limited Mr. Jingjing JIANGFounding president Hong Kong LPF Assoc
113、iationPartner and Head of Hong Kong Funds Practice King & Wood MallesonsJuly 2021We would also like to thank InvestHK, the Financial Services Development Council of Hong Kong and FamilyOfficeHK for their invaluable support in the establishment of the Association. We would like to give special thanks
114、 to Hon Christopher CHEUNG Wah-fung (member of the National Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and Justice of the Peace) and Dr. LIN Yong (CEO of Haitong International Securities Group Limited and Justice of the Peace) for
115、 their support of the establishment of the Association and accepting the roles of honorary chairmen of the Association.As founding presidents of the Association, we are extremely grateful for the opportunity to witness and be part of the development of Hong Kongs private funds industry. We have ever
116、y confidence in the future direction of the Hong Kong LPF regime and welcome more institutions and individuals to join our Association. We look forward to working together to help shape and grow the industry and developing new opportunities in the region and internationally. Alpha Win Capital Limite
117、d 中源国际资本有限公司 BIL Wealth Management Limited 卢银资产管理有限公司 Business Securities Limited 东信证券有限公司 China Life Franklin Asset Management Company Limited 中国人寿富兰克林资产管理有限公司 CLSA Limited 中信里昂证券有限公司 CMBC Hong Kong Branch 中国民生银行香港分行 DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited 星展银行 (香港) 有限公司 Ernst & Young 安永 Haitong International
118、 Securities Group Limited 海通国际证券集团有限公司 King & Wood Mallesons 金杜律师事务所 Monmonkey Group Securities Limited 大圣证券有限公司 SDG Asset Management (HK) Limited 山金资产管理 (香港) 有限公司 SPDB International Holdings Limited 浦银国际控股有限公司 Wonderful Sky Financial Group 皓天财经集团 Table of Contents1. Executive Summary2. Respondents
119、background and overview of funds under management2.1 Survey data2.2 Respondents background2.3 Funds under management of the respondents3. Hong Kong LPFs establishment intention and demand3.1 Establishment intention analysis3.2 Prospective LPFs - investment target, geographical focus and reasons for
120、choosing LPFs4. Comprehensive analysis of registered Hong Kong LPFs4.1 Scope of statistics4.2 Total number of Hong Kong LPFs4.3 Set-up process and timing4.4 Current registration figures and trend4.5 Trend Forecast4.6 Investment scope of registered LPFs4.7 GPs of registered LPFs4.8 Managers of regist
121、ered LPFs4.9 Responsible persons of registered LPFs4.10 Relationship between the GP and the Initial LP4.11 Commencement of business5. Challenges ahead 5.1 Challenges faced by respondents5.2 Fund managers - licensing requirements5.3 Professional investors - eligibility 6. Conclusion0060810
122、73232528291 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021The Hong Kong LPF regime provides a much-welcomed and practical solution to the previous limited partnership regime which had not caught up with the rapid development of international private equity funds. LPFs ha
123、ve become an effective vehicle enabling Hong Kong to capture opportunities in the private equity and venture capital markets across Asia. As of 30 June 2021, a total of 284 Hong Kong LPFs have been successfully registered under the Ordinance. KWM has assisted clients in the registration of, or acted
124、 as fund counsel to, 89 LPFs, including the registration of the first-ever LPF in Hong Kong. The number of funds registered or closed through the assistance of KWM represents approximately 31.3% of the total number of LPFs.In March 2021, KWM circulated a survey (Survey) in respect of the Hong Kong L
125、PF regime to certain asset management and financial institutions in Hong Kong with the aim of collecting market feedback from market participants on the Hong Kong LPF regime and the Ordinance which will, in turn, hopefully provide a reference and benchmark for relevant legislative and regulatory aut
126、horities in Hong Kong on the LPF regime. Hong Kong LPFs registration has been receiving strong interest and seeing robust activity in the 10 months since the Ordinance came into effect and this demand is set to continue. Limited partnerships are familiar investment vehicles for fund managers across
127、different jurisdictions, and similar to the limited partnership vehicle used for offshore private funds, LPFs share the same structure, and allow contractual freedom with respect to commercial and economic arrangement between partners of the fund, offering a high degree of confidentiality with highl
128、y-competitive set-up and maintenance costs. Respondents were optimistic on the development of the GBA, and the market has shown strong interest in LPFs. A large number of respondents have also expressed interest in establishing LPFs and expressed confidence that Hong Kong will become one of the high
129、ly sought-after venues of registration for international private funds.Given that most respondents were Hong Kong-based professional institutions with a Mainland Chinese or Hong Kong background, it is not surprising that the investment objectives and target investors of their existing funds or prosp
130、ective funds are mainly located in the Greater China area. LPFs offer the possibility of unifying the funds domicile with its operations and management. It allows fund sponsors and managers to fully leverage their local resources to set up the fund vehicle, conduct fundraising and source and execute
131、 investment opportunities. This optimises the fund structure to align the substance of their asset management activities with the fund domicile and avoid regulatory requirements and supervision from multiple jurisdictions. In contrast, only a small proportion of respondents were international instit
132、utions. This may be an indication that the LPF structure is not yet widely recognised and/or accepted by international institutions, the promotion of which the relevant legislative authorities and industry players may want to consider.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY2Apart from the geographical and strategic adva
133、ntages of Hong Kong and GBA, the respondents also acknowledge the continued efforts of Hong Kongs legislative and regulatory authorities in promoting the LPF regime. More specifically, the Hong Kong government has demonstrated its commitment in reducing tax costs for private equity investments and i
134、nvestment funds in Hong Kong through the introduction of tax exemptions. To the extent that an eligible private fund satisfies the definition of fund and other conditions under the relevant rules, the fund will be exempt from Hong Kong profit tax. Additionally, private equity investors are neither r
135、equired to pay capital tax when making capital contributions to the Hong Kong LPFs, nor required to pay stamp duty on the distribution of profits and returns on asset (including in respect of transfer and redemption of interests of limited partners). The carried interests tax concession together wit
136、h the re-domiciliation mechanism for offshore funds are essential components for attracting existing offshore funds to re-domicile to Hong Kong and have helped to boost the number of registrations of Hong Kong LPFs.The popularity of the Hong Kong LPF regime far exceeds that of similar private fund r
137、egimes in Singapore and Luxembourg as demonstrated by the numbers and growing trend of Hong Kong LPF registrations compared with the initial registration trend of such regimes in Singapore and Luxembourg. Hong Kong is well positioned to become an international hub for fund management activities and
138、investment fund domiciliation. The government has taken phased steps in promoting the development of the private equity fund industry. It is using the three-steps strategy proposed by FSTB, which is led by the Ordinance and supplemented by the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried
139、Interest) Ordinance 2021 and the Limited Partnership Fund and Business Registration Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2021 regarding the re-domiciliation.Looking at the traditionally-popular fund domicile jurisdictions around the world, the establishment and sustainable development of the legal and regul
140、atory framework for private equity funds invariably takes time and work. It usually relies on the insight of regulatory authorities into market dynamics and continuous improvements on policies. For the Hong Kong LPF regime, notwithstanding that the legislation of the Ordinance was introduced in acco
141、rdance with international market practices and conventions, there are still some uncertainties in practice at this early stage with respondents noting some concerns or questions. For example, whether the Companies Registry and the SFC could provide timely practical guidelines that are in line with m
142、arket practices in relation to certain issues encountered by fund sponsors or managers when establishing and operating the Hong Kong LPFs; whether the existing favourable policies such as tax concessions for carried interest can be practically implemented and made easy for fund managers to meet the
143、corresponding conditions and to be tax exempted; and the timing of detailed policies regarding re-domiciliation of offshore funds and whether such policies could effectively ensure the smooth re-domiciliation of existing offshore funds, etc. Furthermore, private fund managers are currently regulated
144、 with greater scrutiny in Hong Kong. In comparison with the loosened regulatory regime on private fund managers in Cayman and the tailor-made regulations for different types of fund managers in the United States and Singapore, regulatory requirements imposed on private fund managers in Hong Kong ten
145、d to be relatively strict and rigid. In light of this, many private fund managers also have expectations for deregulation by the SFC. The question of whether the Hong Kong LPF regime would be able to maintain its momentum in the long run would depend largely on whether the Hong Kong government would
146、 continue to make improvements to the LPF regime and whether regulatory and tax authorities would continue to take note of market and industry feedback.We fully anticipate that the Hong Kong LPF regime will invigorate Hong Kongs asset and wealth management industry. The changes brought by the Hong K
147、ong LPF regime to the private equity sector will enable Hong Kong to better play its key role as the international asset management centre in line with the 14th Five-Year Plan, and to further support the development of the GBA and the PRC by making good use of private equity. Hong Kong Limited Partn
148、ership Fund Annual Report 20213 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20212.1 Survey dataA total of 202 responses were received from asset management-related institutions in Hong Kong, with 87 fully completed Surveys. This Report is based on our analysis of the responses from the fully co
149、mpleted Surveys, as well as information from our discussions with relevant legislative and regulatory authorities during the legislative process of the Hong Kong LPF regime. We also share practical knowledge and experience which we gained through assisting clients in the set-up of, or acting as fund
150、 counsel to, nearly 90 Hong Kong LPFs. We hope this Report will provide meaningful reference and insights for the industry to better understand the Hong Kong LPF regime.2.2 Respondents backgroundRespondents are primarily categorised as Mainland Chinese institutions (including their subsidiaries or b
151、ranches established in Hong Kong) and local Hong Kong institutions.The nature of respondents businesses can be classified as asset management firms, fund-related service providers (such as fund administrators and custodians). In terms of the respondents licensing status, nearly 80% of the respondent
152、s in the asset management business are licensed with the SFC for Type 9 regulated activities.2RESPONDENTS BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF FUNDS UNDER MANAGEMENT Respondents backgroundLicensed and non-licensed corporationsLicensed corporations78%Non-licensed corporations 22%Mainland Chinese institutions47
153、%Hong Kong institutions43%International institutions8%Others2%Respondents backgroundHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 42.3 Funds under management of the respondentsMost respondents currently manage funds with investment targets in the Greater China area, while a small number of r
154、espondents manage funds with a geographical focus in East Asia, Southeast Asia, the United States and Europe.Funds managed by most respondents have an investment focus on PE/VC investments, or secondary stock market and fixed income securities. * In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and
155、 the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsInvestment focus of funds under management*91%22%10%39%6%3%10%16%10%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%GreaterEA/SEAAustraliaU.S.CanadaLatinUKEUOthersAmericaChina Area48%73%48%2
156、0%5%8%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%PE/Publicly-tradedFixedRealVirtualOthersstocksincomeestateassetsVC/buyoutGeographical focus of funds under management*5 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Cayman remains the most popular fund domicile for existing funds under management by respondent
157、s, and Cayman SPC (segregated portfolio company) is the most commonly used structure for existing funds managed by respondents. Further, respondents manage a substantially similar proportion of closed-ended funds and open-ended funds.While there were a small portion of respondents with existing fund
158、s established in Singapore, Luxembourg or other regions, Cayman remains the dominant fund domicile for investment funds due to its universal acceptance and investor familiarity, despite the fact that most respondents are Hong Kong licensed coprorations with investment focus and target investors loca
159、ted in the Greater China area.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsDomicile of funds under management*Structure of funds under management*6%11%32%40%69%0%10%
160、20%30%40%50%60%70%80%OthersBVI GP/LPCayman exempted companyCayman GP/LPCayman SPC5%3%5%5%18%28%94%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Other countriesSingaporeEuropeLuxembourgBVIHong KongCayman IslandsDomicile of funds under management*Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 63HONG KONG LP
161、FS ESTABLISHMENT INTENTION AND DEMAND3.1 Establishment intention analysisTo better predict whether Hong Kong LPFs are likely to become a practical alternative to setting up funds in Cayman, the Survey asked whether respondents would consider using the LPF structure for prospective fund formation, an
162、d if so, what would be the demand and key features of these prospective LPFs. The vast majority of respondents are aware of the Hong Kong LPF regime (through various means). The positive market response could be attributable to the respondents familiarity with the limited partnership structure, whic
163、h forms the basis of the Cayman exempted limited partnership structure and also the Hong Kong LPF structure. Legislative authorities in Hong Kong initiated rounds of consultations and actively sought feedback from industry participants when formulating the LPF regime. The regime reflects common mark
164、et practice with a highly streamlined set-up procedure. This has led to a promising result - 82% of respondents indicated that they would consider using the LPF structure for their prospective fund formation, while 10% of respondents had already successfully registered LPFs. 8% of respondents indica
165、ted that they would not consider setting up Hong Kong LPFs.Awareness of LPFsAware 94%Not aware 6%7 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021In addition, more than 90% of respondents believe that Hong Kong will become an important venue of registration for international private funds in t
166、he future, with one half of respondents believing that Hong Kong will become an important venue of private fund registration in the next 3-5 years. Only 6% of respondents believe that Hong Kong is unlikely to become an important venue of registration for international private funds. 7 Hong Kong Limi
167、ted Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Intention to set up LPFHow long will it take for Hong Kong to become an important place of registration for international private funds?Already set up10%Have intention to set up82%No intention to set up8%21%50%15%8%6% 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-8 years 8-10 yearsNev
168、erHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 83.2 Prospective LPFs - investment target, geographical focus and reasons for choosing LPFsProposed investment targetsOf the respondents who intend to establish Hong Kong LPFs, the majority would consider using the LPF structure to make both si
169、ngle asset investments and multiple assets investments.Prospective LPFs which respondents propose to set up mainly target investments in private equity, venture capital and buy-out (76%) and secondary stock market (57%).Target investors of prospective LPFsGiven the respondents background, it is not
170、surprising that the target investors of the funds under management of the respondents and the target investors of the Hong Kong LPFs to be established by the respondents are mainly located in the Greater China area. Similarly, consistent with the geographical focus of the funds that are currently un
171、der their management, the respondents future investments are also focused in the Greater China area.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondents# In the Survey, the
172、 Greater China Area includes Mainland China and Hong Kong SARInvestment focus of prospective LPFs*Location of target investors of prospective LPFs*76%57%38%28%14%3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%PE/Publicly-tradedFixedRealVirtualOthersstocksincomeestateassetsVC/buyout90%18%23%18%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
173、80%90%100%GreaterSoutheastU.S.EUOthersAsiaChina Area #9 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Naturally, from investment targets to the spread of potential investors, the geographical advantage of the Greater China area has always been the focus of Hong Kongs asset management industry
174、. With a winning combination of the bilateral tax reliefs between Mainland China and Hong Kong, the familiarity of investors with the investment areas, the localisation of various fund service providers and so on, we predict that Hong Kong LPFs will become a new investment vehicle for asset manageme
175、nt and financial institutions focusing on the Greater China area. Reasons for choosing LPF structureRespondents reasons for establishing or considering to establish Hong Kong LPFs include its highly-competitive establishment and maintenance costs, the introduction of policies related to carried inte
176、rest tax concession, and the respondents confidence in the development prospects of GBA, as well as the respondents focus on the Greater China area. Compared with offshore funds, there are greater advantages in terms of establishment and maintenance costsEstablishment and subsequent maintenance are
177、simpler and more convenient than offshore structuresAll purposes for establishing an offshore fund can be basically realised by establishment of an LPFHong Kongs latest legislative proposal on tax concessions for carried interestThe use of Hong Kong LPF as the investment vehicle is beneficial to inv
178、estment tax planning by virtue of the bilateral tax reliefs between Hong Kong and Mainland China and between Hong Kong and other countries or regionsAs an internationally renowned financial centrer, Hong Kong has more advantages in fund investments than offshore islandsWe believe that fund managers
179、and asset management institutions in Hong Kong can provide better services to investors and help realise investment goals by choosing Hong Kong LPFs, from the low establishment and maintenance costs to structural design optimisation in combination with Hong Kongs unique geographical, policy and regu
180、latory advantages. 67%61%59%44%39%30%Reasons for choosing LPF structure* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report
181、2021 104.1 Scope of statisticsThe analysis on registered Hong Kong LPFs in this part is conducted based on information of the first 260 Hong Kong LPFs registered as of 10 June 2021. In this Report, references to registered or successfully registered or established Hong Kong LPFs shall mean the regis
182、tration information of these 260 Hong Kong LPFs.4.2 Total number of Hong Kong LPFsAs of 30 June 2021, there were 284 LPFs successfully registered under the Ordinance. King & Wood Mallesons has assisted in the registration of, or has acted as the fund counsel to, 89 Hong Kong LPFs, accounting for app
183、roximately 31.3% of total registered Hong Kong LPFs.4COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF REGISTERED HONG KONG LPFS11 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Application packCompletion of registrationSubmit application to Companies RegistryProposed name of LPFRegistered addressInvestment scopePrin
184、cipal place of businessGP detailsDetails of Investment ManagerDetails of Responsible PersonDeclaration and undertaking that the fund is set up as an LPF and meet the eligibility requirementsSubmission by a Hong Kong law firm or a solicitor on behalf of the proposed GPFees to HKCR: HK$3,034Companies
185、Registry to issue a registration certificate as proof of registrationTiming: HKCR generally requires 4 business days to process the application4.3 Set-up process and timingThe set-up process of a Hong Kong LPF is relatively simple. The documents required to be submitted upon registration, the set-up
186、 cost and time required for registration are straightforward. No authorisation or approval by the SFC is required to the extent the Hong Kong LPF does not offer or issue fund interest to the public. Hong Kong LPFs are registered with the Hong Kong Companies Registry through the process outlined belo
187、w:In terms of the registration timeframe, it generally takes 4 business days for the Companies Registry to process and register a Hong Kong LPF, subject to potential extension and delay caused by external factors. Based on our experience, during the initial wave of the pandemic in Hong Kong in Janua
188、ry and February in 2021, the time required for registration of Hong Kong LPFs was generally extended to 7 business days, which subsequently gradually returned to an average of 4 business days after the end of the Chinese New Year holiday.Under the Ordinance, applications for Hong Kong LPFs must be s
189、ubmitted by a Hong Kong law firm or a Hong Kong solicitor on behalf of the proposed GP. Our analysis of the registered Hong Kong LPFs shows that the vast majority of applications (around 80%) were submitted by law firms, with a small portion being submitted by solicitors on behalf of the proposed GP
190、.Presentor of application for registrationHong Kong law firm80%Hong Kong solicitor20%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 124.4 Current registration figures and trendWe saw a surge in the number of Hong Kong LPFs registered in the latter half of Q1 2021. The steep increase in the nu
191、mber of registrations during this period may be attributable to the two proposals announced by the Hong Kong government between January and February 2021, namely, the carried interest tax concession and re-domiciliation of offshore funds proposals. Policy support is clearly critical for the promotio
192、n of the Hong Kong LPF regime.Carried interest tax concessionThe Hong Kong Legislative Council published a discussion paper on 4 January 2021 on certain tax concession for carried interest that was previously proposed by the FSTB. Tax treatment of Hong Kong LPFs, including tax concessions for carrie
193、d interest has been a continued focus by the industry, and the numbers of registra-tion of Hong Kong LPFs immediately after the publication of the discussion paper rose in February 2021 to nearly 3 times of the number of registrations in January 2021, reaching 32 in a single month.Following the publ
194、ication of the discussion paper, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Bill 2021 was gazetted on 29 January 2021 and was passed by the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 28 April 2021. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Ordinance 2021
195、(Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance) came into effect on 7 May 2021. Pursuant to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, certain carried interest obtained by qualifying persons and qualifying employees for the provision of investment management services to specified funds may be eligible for pro
196、fits tax and salaries tax concessions. At the same time, for any tax year beginning on or after 1 April 2020, net eligible carried interest will be subject to 0% profits tax provided such concessions are in compliance with the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordi
197、nance defines an “eligible carried interest” as a sum received by or accrued to a person by way of profit-related return subject to a hurdle rate which is a preferred return on investments of the fund. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance also provides detailed provisions on qualifying fund / ca
198、rried interest payer, qualifying carried interest recipients, qualifying transactions and relevant criteria on what constitutes engaging in substantial activities in Hong Kong. The carried interest tax concession complements the Hong Kong LPF regime and the implementation of the Inland Revenue (Amen
199、dment) Ordinance again reflects the governments commitment to making Hong Kong a more attractive place for fund domicile, and creating further competitive advantage for Hong Kong as the asset management centre in the Asia Pacific region.LPF registration trend Sep 20 Oct 20 Nov 20 Dec 20 Jan 21 Feb 2
200、1 Mar 21 Apr 21 May 21 Jun 21No.2584029442584029440070LPF registration trend13 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Fund re-domiciliationOn 1 February 2021, the FSTB published another proposal for establishing a regime to allow offshore funds to re-do
201、micile to Hong Kong (Re-domiciliation Proposal). The Re-domiciliation Proposal further encourages offshore funds to migrate to Hong Kong via “re-domiciliation”, and allows funds established offshore in the form of limited partnerships or companies to register as a Hong Kong LPF or an open-ended fund
202、 company as applicable, provided that they satisfy the same eligibility criteria as Hong Kong LPFs or open-ended fund companies respectively. The FSTB targets to submit the bill to the Legislative Council for first and second reading in the third quarter of 2021.Fund re-domiciliation was introduced
203、long ago in many mainstream offshore and onshore jurisdictions such as Jersey, the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Luxembourg, Ireland and Singapore, with some of these jurisdictions further introducing detailed rules and measures to ensure a seamless re-domiciliation process for market participants.T
204、he Re-domiciliation Proposal is a further effort from the Hong Kong government and the related legislative authorities to boost the competitiveness of the Hong Kong LPF regime. Fund re-domiciliation is not simply a policy issued by legislators for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of loc
205、al funds, it is also a regime specially formulated to satisfy the specific requirements or preferences of some fund sponsors over the funds domicile. Based on the feedback by respondents to the Survey, we note that over 70% of respondents are willing to consider to re-domicile its existing funds fro
206、m offshore jurisdictions to Hong Kong as LPFs.As outlined above, under the Re-domiciliation Proposal, offshore funds established as limited partnership or company may, subject to satisfaction of the same eligibility criteria as LPFs or open-ended fund companies registered in Hong Kong, be registered
207、 in Hong Kong as an LPF or open-ended fund company, as applicable. The fund will remain the same legal entity after re-domiciliation, and it is intended that re-domiciliation to Hong Kong will not prejudice or affect the status of the fund as it is currently established or registered, nor will re-do
208、miciliation affect any prior agreements or resolutions entered into or passed before its re-domiciliation to Hong Kong. Further, it is intended that re-domiciliation will not affect the funds existing rights, functions, liabilities, obligations and properties and will not affect any proceedings prev
209、iously commenced by or against the fund.The Re-domiciliation Proposal still needs clarification and further detail from the government, but the launch of the Re-domiciliation Proposal provides a quicker, simpler and pragmatic solution for offshore funds to re-domicile. We eagerly look forward to the
210、 early implementation of the Re-domiciliation Proposal.Intention to re-domicile to Hong KongYes74%No26%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 144.5 Trend ForecastThe LPF regime has gained much attention and popularity with the total number of registrations reaching 284 in its first 10
211、 months alone. This uptake has far exceeded that of Singapores limited partnership and Luxembourgs SCSp (special limited partnership) when these structures were initially introduced in Singapore and Luxembourg.Number of registered LPFs Sep 20 Oct 20 Nov 20 Dec 20 Jan 21 Feb 21 Mar 21 Apr 21 May 21 J
212、un 21No.2842840500300Number of registered LPFs15 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021There were 2453 registered SCSp (Special Limited Partnership) within the first year of the launch of Luxembourgs SCSp structure, and the total
213、number of registered Singapore limited partnerships from its initial launch in May 2009 to June 2021 was 5194.3 “The Luxembourg Special Partnership, a multi-purpose solution for the real estate industry” published by PwC, page 1 (https:/www.pwc.lu/en/real-estate/docs/pwc-re-lux-special-partnership.p
214、df)4 The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authoritys statistics (https:/www.acra.gov.sg/training-and-resources/facts-and-figures/business-registry-statistics) Oct 13 Jan 14 Apr 14 Jul 14No.78800Number of Luxembourg SCSp in the first yearNumber of Luxembourg SCSp i
215、n the first year Jan 19 Jul 19 Jan 20 Jul 20 Jan 21 Jun 21No.3973994297399420500600Number of Singapore Limited Partnerships (2019-2021)Number of Singapore Limited Partnerships (2019-2021)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 16With this commitment by
216、the government, combined with the encouraging registration trend for Luxembourg funds from the launch of the regime to 20205, we are hopeful that the growth trend of Hong Kong LPFs will continue at a pace, and that Hong Kong will become an important venue of registration for international private eq
217、uity funds in the near future. We have discussed the Hong Kong governments efforts in strengthening and reinforcing Hong Kongs positioning as an international hub for fund management business and place of registration for investment funds. The introduction of a series of customised policies also boo
218、sts confidence among asset managers and investors who are considering using the LPF structure.As the FSTB previously indicated, “the government is committed to strengthening Hong Kongs competitive edge as a private equity fund hub and has carried out a “three-step” plan in this respect. The first st
219、ep is the introduction, with the support of members of the Legislative Council, of a new fund structure in August last year, so that private equity funds can be set up in Hong Kong in the form of a limited partnership. In the past few months, there were already 80 LPFs registered. Second, is the rec
220、ommendation regarding legislation, so as to provide tax concessions for carried interests distributed by private equity funds operating in Hong Kong. The third step is to propose the establishment of a mechanism for the re-domiciliation of offshore funds to Hong Kong, so as to facilitate and attract
221、 funds to domicile and operate in Hong Kong. We have already submitted relevant recommendations (i.e. recommendations for the third step) to the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council on 1 February. We are confident that, upon completion of this “three-step plan”, Hong Kong can greatl
222、y increase its attractiveness as a private equity hub.” 5 The “Luxembourg Limited Partnerships” published by PwC, page 8 https:/www.pwc.lu/en/alternative-investments/docs/luxembourg-limited-partnership.pdfLuxembourg SCSp registration trend Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19 Jun 20No.66863
223、385466566863385466505000250030003500400045005000SCSp registration trend17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.6 Investment scope of registered LPFs Based on our analysis of publicly-available information for the first 260 registered LPFs, we note that more th
224、an half of these LPFs adopt a broad investment strategy and the investment scope disclosed in their registration forms submitted with the Companies Registry cover not only private equity investment, but also investment in securities of listed companies, IPO/Pre-IPO investment and investment in vario
225、us other types of securities, notes and fixed income products. The investment scope of an LPF is disclosed in its registration form submitted to the Companies Registry, and in accordance with the Ordinance, any subsequent change to the investment scope must be notified to the Companies Registry via
226、a filing process. This may have contributed to the fact that sponsors appear to have adopted a broad investment scope upon registration of an LPF, so as to maximise the ongoing investment flexibility of the LPF without triggering any subsequent filing requirements. These results also echo the invest
227、ment objectives of prospective LPFs, where investments in private equity and secondary stock markets continue to be the main investment objectives for registered LPFs as well as prospective LPFs.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondent
228、s who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondents17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Investment focus of registered LPFs*13%1%5%6%7%7%22%58%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%OthersLoanReal estateBonds / Notes / Fixed incomeIPO / Listed companyFintech / Technology /
229、 Virtual assetsPrivate equityBroad investment scopeHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 184.7 GPs of registered LPFsThe Ordinance stipulates that the GP of an LPF may be any of the following:Our analysis of the registered LPFs shows that over 90% of GPs take the form of a Hong Kong
230、private company limited by shares, with a small portion of LPFs having a natural person acting as GP. From a legal perspective, the GP of an LPF has unlimited liability for all the debts and obligations of the LPF, and it is no surprise that an overwhelming majority of fund sponsors choose to struct
231、ure the GP using a Hong Kong company.Hong Kong private company limited by sharesIndividual over 18 years oldRegistered non-Hong Kong companyLimited partnership(Regardless of domicile)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 18GP of registered LPFs93%1%0%6%Hong Kong PrivateCompanyRegiste
232、red non-HongKong companyLimited partnershipIndividual over18 years oldGP of registered LPFs19 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.8 Managers of registered LPFsThe GP of an LPF must appoint a person as an investment manager (which can be the GP itself) to carry out the day-to-day i
233、nvestment management functions of the LPF, and the investment manager may be any of the following:Out of the 260 registered LPFs, 195 LPFs appointed an SFC licensed corporation to act as its investment manager which accounts for 75% of registered LPFs.While the Ordinance does not mandate the manager
234、 of an LPF to hold an SFC licence, the majority of LPF managers are SFC licensed persons. We believe there to be two main reasons for appointing a licensed manager. Firstly, the asset class into which an LPF invests creates a practical difficulty for the relevant manager to be exempted from licensin
235、g requirement. The SFC clarified in the “Circular to private equity firms seeking to be licensed” issued in January 2020 that any person carrying on regulated activities in Hong Kong must hold relevant SFC licences, which means unless exempted, any person dealing in, managing or advising on investme
236、nt portfolio or assets within the meaning of “securities” under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (including private equity and venture capital) is subject to the licensing requirements. It is worth noting that, shares and bonds of a non-Hong Kong private company are expressly included within the
237、 definition of “securities”, and accordingly even if the investee company is located outside of Hong Kong, the manager of the LPF which proposes to make a private equity investment in such an investee company is still subject to the relevant licensing requirements. Secondly, investors and other serv
238、ice providers of LPFs may prefer to work with SFC licensed sponsors and managers for reasons such as investor confidence and internal compliance requirements. Hong Kong resident over 18 years oldRegistered Hong Kong companyRegistered non-Hong Kong companyInvestment manager of registered LPFsSFC lice
239、nsed (corporation)75%SFC licensed (Individual)3%Non-SFC licensed22%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 20As illustrated above, a quarter of the managers of registered LPFs do not hold an SFC licence. Non-licensed managers may be appointed because firstly, unless regulated activitie
240、s are carried out in Hong Kong, the manager of an LPF may not need to obtain an SFC licence, and secondly, in practice, in order to simplify the internal approval process or to expedite the set-up of a fund structure, sponsors may be inclined to simplify and complete the set-up using a non-licensed
241、entity and only engage a licensed manager upon commencement of its fundraising process.We have also seen a trend whereby a single licensed manager concurrently manages multiple LPFs, with a single manager managing at most, 18 LPFs. This may be a result driven by strong business demand, in which case
242、 the licensed manager chose to streamline the set-up process by registering and maintaining multiple LPFs so as to reduce administrative costs and improve execution efficiency in the fundraising stage. 26183the number of managers concurrently managing multiple LPFsthe current highest number of LPFs
243、we have seen being managed by one single licensed manageronly 3 managers are natural persons; the others are corporate managers4.9 Responsible persons of registered LPFsThe Ordinance requires the GP to appoint a person as a responsible person to carry out anti-money laundering measures, and the resp
244、onsible person may be any of the following: The majority of GPs of registered LPFs (73%) have appointed a licensed corporation as the responsible person of the LPF, followed by a similar proportion of accounting professionals and legal professionals acting in such capacity. Hong Kong Limited Partner
245、ship Fund Annual Report 2021 Hong Kong Monetary AuthorityAuthorised institution (Bank)Hong Kong Law SocietyLegal professionalsSecurities and Futures CommissionLicensed corporationsThe Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public AccountantsAccounting professionals21 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Ann
246、ual Report 20214.10 Relationship between the GP and the Initial LPFund vehicles (both onshore and offshore) are usually set up by engaging professional third party service providers, such as the registered agent of the fund, acting as the initial LP, or by having an entity or individual within the s
247、ponsors group acting as the initial LP to simplify and expedite the set-up procedure. Consistent with market practice, the Ordinance allows an LPF to be set up by the GP and an initial LP within the same group for up to two years after registration, providing sufficient time for sponsors for fundrai
248、sing. This aligns with our findings from analysing the data of registered LPFs, which shows that 35% of the sponsors have set up LPFs using an initial LP that is within the same group as the GP. Read together with statistics on managers of registered LPFs, the majority of registered LPFs have engage
249、d a licensed manager to manage the fund, and as the licensed manager is itself required to comply with Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance of Hong Kong, such manager is able to leverage its existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policies and measur
250、es that are already in place when managing the LPF. Coupled with the extensive role played by the manager in the day-to-day management of the LPF, having the licensed manager act as responsible person of the LPF is expected to significantly lower the operation and administrative costs and improve co
251、mmunication between the fund and its investors.On a separate note, we have seen law firms acting as the responsible person to several registered LPFs. While it is our understanding that a legal professional who is permitted to act as the responsible person of an LPF is required to be a Hong Kong sol
252、icitor or a registered foreign lawyer, therefore disqualifying law firms to act as the responsible person, we respectfully await further clarification from the Companies Registry and relevant legislative authorities on this point. Licensed corporations73%Legal professionals14%Accounting professional
253、s13%Authorised institution0%Accountant79%Accounting firm21%Solicitor44%Law firm56%Responsible person of registered LPFsRelationship between GP and initial LPIn the same group35%Not in the same group65%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 224.11 Commencement of businessBy reference s
254、olely to our experience in acting for clients in the registration and formation of LPFs, we understand most LPFs do not commence business immediately upon registration.This practice once again reflects market practice for private funds where formation of investment entities is being organised concur
255、rently with deal sourcing and fund raising. Sponsors will often have completed initial formation of the fund entities on or before the fundraising process officially begins so as to minimise any impact or potential delay to the fundraising process or deal execution of the fund due to the rather admi
256、nistrative procedure of formation of the fund entities. 47%47%53%53%47% of LPFs will commence fundraising and business immediately after registration. Sponsors will admit external investor(s) as soon as possible upon registration of the LPF53% of LPFs from our experience will not commence business i
257、mmediately after registration. Sponsors must admit external investor(s) before the second anniversary of the LPFs registration date to prevent all partners in the LPF from being corporations in the same group of companies23 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20215CHALLENGES AHEAD5.1 Ch
258、allenges faced by respondentsLed by various factors including regulatory changes in popular offshore jurisdictions in recent years, we have reasons to expect a new trend to be formed in the industry where fund sponsors will become more inclined to align the substance of their asset management activi
259、ties with the fund domicile. The Hong Kong LPF regime emerged at the right time. Despite the robust development of the LPF regime, there is room for improvement. We asked respondents to select some of their main concerns and the biggest challenges they face when considering structuring their fund as
260、 an LPF. The respondents top concerns are listed in descending order:The regime itself is relatively new and will consider after there are enough successful casesPotential investors are not familiar with the LPF structureUncertainty of taxation on fund managers carried interestUncertainty of tax tre
261、atment for fund investment returnThe LPF itself may be regulated by the SFC and/or concern about the possibility of related information sharing with regulators12345Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 24Lack of investor familiarityThe lack of investor familiarity due to the nascent
262、LPF regime may, to some extent, deter fund sponsors from choosing Hong Kong as a place of fund domicile, and fund sponsors will inevitably be required to spend time on educating investors on the new fund structure and providing continuous guidance to investors to improve investor familiarity through
263、out the fundraising process. While traditional offshore fund structures may be an easier choice for sponsors in this regard, regulatory changes in recent years ranging from more stringent disclosure, reporting and filing obligations to econom-ic substance requirements in popular offshore jurisdictio
264、ns such as the Cayman Islands, have more or less dampened the tax and cost benefits associated with these offshore fund structures.Since the implementation of the LPF regime, nearly 300 Hong Kong LPFs have been successfully registered with the Companies Registry. Given the relatively straightforward
265、 set-up process, combined with competitive set-up and maintenance costs of an LPF, we expect that fund sponsors and investors will become more recep-tive to the change of fund domicile to Hong Kong as the regime matures.Tax uncertaintyTax treatment of LPFs has been a major focus in the industry. In
266、addition to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance as outlined in paragraph 4.4 above, the Inland Revenue Department also issued the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 61 (DIPN 61) on 30 June 2020, which provides greater clarity on the tax treatment relating to funds and their unde
267、rlying investments. For instance, in order for a private equity fund to be eligible for tax relief in respect of its underlying investments, the fund must satisfy a number of additional conditions, including passing an immovable property test (10% threshold) for its underlying assets, an asset holdi
268、ng period test, a control test or short-term asset test. In relation to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordi-nance, we understand that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is also in the process of finalising guidelines on the certification of a fund, which will be key in determining whether a carried in
269、terest recipient is eligible for any carried interest tax concession. Overall, the Hong Kong government is clearly driving towards modernising its tax regime and aiming to bring a more competitive and attractive tax regime for funds.25 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021SFC Supervi
270、sionUnlike the open-ended fund company (OFC) which was introduced as a new corporate fund structure in Hong Kong in 2018, the LPF is currently not required to be registered with the SFC. Whilst the Ordinance requires the GP to appoint an investment manager to carry out the day-to-day investment mana
271、gement functions of the LPF, the GP itself could take on the role as the investment manager and it is not mandatory to have a third party investment manager appointed. Whether any key operator of the LPF is required to be licensed by the SFC is determined in light of the specific circumstances surro
272、unding the fund, its management and its investments.As set out in paragraph 4.8 above, whether a fund manager needs to hold an SFC licence would depend on whether it carries on any regulated activities in Hong Kong, and it may not be necessary for an LPF to appoint an SFC licensed fund manager if th
273、e fund does not directly or indirectly invest in any “securities”.Licensing requirements and regulatory supervision of fund managers are crucial factors affecting a fund sponsors decision on a funds domicile and structure. In Hong Kong, there is currently no licence issued specifically to fund manag
274、ers conducting private equity fund management activities. Whether a private equity fund manager is required to be licensed will need to be analysed on a case-by-case basis by reference to its actual business activities. In contrast, Singapore takes a more comprehensive approach towards licensing req
275、uirement applicable to fund managers managing different classes of asset. Generally speaking, fund management companies (FMCs) in Singapore are either licensed FMCs (LFMCs) or registered FMCs (RFMCs). LFMCs are further sub-divided into three categories, including: (i) LFMCs carrying on business in r
276、espect of all types of investors including retail investors (Retail LFMCs); (ii) LFMCs generally restricted to carrying on business in respect of “qualified investors” only (A/I LFMCs); and (iii) LFMCs who only manage venture capital funds (VC LFMCs). On the basis that private equity funds are typic
277、ally only offered to sophisticated and high net worth investors, private equity fund managers in Singapore often seek to operate as either A/I LFMCs or RFMCs (depending on the expected fund size) to steer clear of the onerous licensing and conduct of business requirements for Retail LFMCs. In additi
278、on, where the funds qualify as venture capital funds, fund managers may also opt to manage the fund by holding a VC LFMC licence, subject to certain investment restrictions.Although distinction is made in licensing requirements for VC LFMCs in Singapore, the definition of a venture capital fund adop
279、ted by Singaporean regulators is substantially similar to private equity funds in a broad sense. In view of this, Singapores “light touch” licensing and regulatory regime for VC LFMCs are valuable references for Hong Kongs licensing regime in respect of private fund managers.On the other hand, in de
280、termining the licensing or registration requirements applicable to a certain type of fund manager, the U.S. has taken the assets under management as a benchmark and put in place specific regimes for private equity and 5.2 Fund manager - licensing requirementsHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual
281、 Report 2021 26venture capital funds. Under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (Advisers Act), investment advisers are generally required to be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or one or more state regulators unless an exemption applies. On
282、e of the exemptions under the Advisers Act is that relevant investment advisers that: (i) act solely as an adviser to private fund and has assets under management in the United States of less than US$150 million; or (ii) solely as an investment adviser to one or more venture capital funds, may be ex
283、empted from the registration requirement, on the basis that these funds are predominantly catered for accredited and sophisticated high-net-worth investors; provided, however, that they are still required to complete relevant filings with the SEC. Despite being exempt from the rather onerous registr
284、ation requirement, these private equity or venture capital fund investment advisers are still subject to the supervision and oversight of the SEC and are required to update their relevant disclosure forms and information and are required to comply with the relevant record-keeping requirements and ru
285、les on its internal policies and other requirements (e.g. anti-fraud provisions) which would apply as in the case of any other registered investment advisers. Regarding venture capital funds, in order to support businesses in the start-up phase and promote funding for enterprise development, the Mon
286、etary Authority of Singapore introduced a venture capital fund manager regime, under which VC LFMCs generally undergo a simplified and shorter licensing process, and are subject to fewer capital requirements and conduct of business requirements which A/I LFMCs and RFMCs are subject to. In this regar
287、d, we note the Hong Kong government has introduced various schemes and incentives to promote and encourage investment in local start-ups. For example, in January 2020, the Innovation and Technology Commission invited venture capital funds to apply to become co-investment partners of the Innovation a
288、nd Technology Venture Fund, which is a HK$2 billion co-investment fund established to encourage venture capital investment in local innovation and technology start-ups, so as to mould Hong Kong as a start-up hub in Asia.In response to the above regulatory considerations, we asked SFC-licensed respon
289、dents in the Survey for their views on the licensing and regulatory requirements for operating an LPF, especially on differentiated regulatory requirement based on the class of assets under management. Generally speaking, most of the SFC-licensed respondents believe that the SFC should consider rela
290、xing the licensing requirements applicable to private equity fund managers. Should SFC relax licensing requirements for private equity fund managers?Yes60%No40%Specifically, feedback from SFC-licensed respondents on measures which may be adopted by the SFC in relaxing the licensing or regulatory req
291、uirements applicable to private fund managers are as follows:As outlined above, most of the SFC-licensed respondents agreed that the SFC should relax the licensing requirements applicable to private equity fund managers, including introducing classified asset management licence for private equity fu
292、nd managers, which is to be differentiated from those applicable to retail fund managers. Over 40% of SFC-licensed respondents who believed the assets under management should be taken into consideration by regulator, also believed that when the fund size is below HK$100 million, the SFC should consi
293、der a licensing exemption for fund managers of such funds, and over 60% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that when the relevant fund size is below HK$500 million, a simple filing procedure (as opposed to a type 9 licence requirement) should suffice for such fund managers.43% of the SFC-licen
294、sed respondents believed that the SFC should stipulate special exemption conditions applicable to private fund managers. For example, an exemption from the licensing requirements may be granted to fund managers of such funds that have an asset under management below a certain monetary threshold or f
295、unds that only accept investment from up to a certain number of professional investors. Another 14% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that the SFC should formulate a relatively simplified code of conduct for private fund managers.39% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that there would b
296、e no need for fund managers of private funds that meet specific requirements (such as managers of funds with asset under management below a certain monetary threshold or funds that only accept investment from up to a certain number of professional investors) to be licensed with the SFC for Type 9 re
297、gulated activities.43%14%39%27 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 Monetary threshold (AUM in HK$) for licensing exemptionMonetary threshold (AUM in HK$) for filing requirement100 million42%500 million25%1 Billion33%100 million9%500 million64%1 billion18%5 billion9%Hong Kong Limite
298、d Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 285.3 Professional investors - eligibilityProvisions in the relevant jurisdiction on the criteria of an eligible person to whom the fund may offer and issue interests to is another important factor which must be considered by fund sponsors in choosing the place
299、of fund domicile. The SEC adopted amendments in August 2020 that expanded the definition of “accredited investor” under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These amendments are designed to modernise the definition of “accredited investor”, with an aim to opening private offers under Regulation D
300、 to a wider group of sophisticated investors. For example, previously, the key criteria in respect of a qualified individual investor is their net asset and income individuals had to have a net worth of at least US$1 million excluding the value of their primary residence, or income of at least US$20
301、0,000 (US$300,000 for couples). The amendments now allow individual investors to qualify based on their credentials including their professional expertise and knowledge, certain certification or the individuals relationship with the product issuer. Out of the requirements, anyone who is a “knowledge
302、able employee” of a private fund would also qualify as accredited investors, which may include a director, general partner, advisory board member, or person serving in a similar capacity of the private fund or an affiliated management person of the private fund.In contrast, interest in private equit
303、y funds not authorised by the SFC may generally be offered only to investors who are accredited or otherwise qualified in accordance with rules and regulations applicable to the relevant jurisdiction. For Hong Kong investors, they must qualify as “professional investor” under the Securities and Futu
304、res (Professional Investor) Rules (Professional Investor Rules), which currently sets out a distinct monetary threshold for corporate professional investor and individual professional investor. We also raised this question in the Survey. 66% of respondents believed that the definition of “profession
305、al investor” under the Professional Investor Rules should be broadened, and amongst this group, another 75% of respondents believed that factors other than asset, should also be taken into account when considering whether an investor qualifies as a “professional investor”. Among respondents who beli
306、eved that the definition of “professional investor” should take into account other criteria, an equal number of respondents think the following persons should also be considered as “professional investor”:professionals with corresponding professional certificates and investment experience, such as c
307、hartered financial analyst, lawyers and auditors who specialise in the area of investment and financing;members of the fund manager who participate in the management and investment of the fund, such as responsible officers, investment committee members, directors and employees and other officers dir
308、ectly involved in the investment and management of the fund (including officers involved in the risk control and back office of investment management of the fund).Some respondents also indicated that when conducting the monetary threshold test for a “professional investor”, asset classes should be e
309、xpanded to also include insurance policies and real estate properties etc. Following the line of initiatives introduced by the Hong Kong government covering taxation, fund re-domiciliation and the special regime for venture capital funds, we hope the SFC would consider formulating customised policie
310、s for private equity fund managers in the future to attract more attention from the financial and investment sectors in Hong Kong to utilise the LPF structure and to further the development of Hong Kongs asset management industry.Should the definition of professional investor be broadened?Should non
311、-monetary criteria be considered?Yes66%No34%Yes75%No25%29 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021The successful implementation of the Hong Kong LPF regime, together with a series of preferential policies such as the launch of the fund re-domiciliation regime and carried interest tax co
312、ncession, are key drivers for the positive market sentiment of the regime. This game changing regime has continued to attract intense attention in the market and the successful establishment of LPFs by the first batch of asset management institutions have reinforced the industrys confidence in this
313、regime.Hong Kongs proximity to Mainland China, ensures that it is well positioned to draw on its advantages as an international financial centre, its transparent and international market and well-developed legal and financial systems aligned with international standards and best practices, talent cl
314、usters and extensive network of experienced financial professionals, free flow of financial products, capital and information. The LPF regime further strengthens Hong Kongs position as a world class financial centre and the second largest private fund centre in Asia.Hong Kong is also the worlds seco
315、nd largest bourse for biotechnology companies, and the worlds largest offshore RMB transaction hub. The proximity and connectivity between Hong Kong, Mainland China and the GBA presents unprecedented opportunities in many emerging and new economy industries, including technology, media and telecommu
316、nications, healthcare, biomedicine, and fintech. With the policy support proposed in the “Opinions on Financial Support for the Construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area” (including establishing pilot schemes for cross-border private equity fund investments, supporting Hong Kong
317、 and Macau SAR private funds investing in innovative enterprises in the GBA, supporting institutions in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau SAR to jointly establish funds in the GBA, supporting insurance funds and wealth management funds to be utilised in investment funds in accordance with relevant prov
318、isions and etc.), we expect the LPF regime will bring abundant opportunities enabling international fund managers to manage RMB asset portfolios through setting up of funds in Hong Kong. The introduction of the LPF regime at this opportune time offers an attractive and viable alternative for the Hon
319、g Kong asset management industry to establish private equity funds, enabling fund managers to meet market demand through flexible means. As the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area Development Plan enters its next stage of development, accompanied by the positive sentiment and recognition from
320、 market participants, we firmly believe the LPF regime will soon become one of the most widely-used fund structures for international private funds in Asia. 6CONCLUSIONHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 30DisclaimerThis Report is compiled by King & Wood Mallesons and contains feed
321、back from industry participants in the Hong Kong asset management industry with respect to the Survey. Its contents only reflect the feedback and views of those participants in the Hong Kong asset management industry in response to the Survey. It does not constitute KWMs legal advice or legal analys
322、is, nor does it form part of KWMs advice or suggestion regarding any specific legal matter. No representation or warranty is intended to be made by King & Wood Mallesons in respect of the accuracy or completeness of any material set out in this Report. Any person who makes any decision regarding any
323、 action or omission by only relying on the contents of this Report in whole or in part shall be solely liable for such decision and any outcome arising therefrom. If you need any legal advice or other specialist advice, you should seek the professional and legal assistance from the relevant professi
324、onals with proper qualifications.King & Wood Mallesons reserves all its rights in respect of this Report. Without prior written permission of King & Wood Mallesons, no person may reproduce any content of this Report in any form or by any means (in handwriting, by electronic or mechanical means, incl
325、uding via photocopy, audio recording, recording pen or information collection system).King & Wood Mallesons refers to a legal service network composed of member firms in the international alliance of King & Wood Mallesons. All member law firms provide various legal services independently. Neither th
326、e member firm nor any of its partners or members shall act as agents of other member firms or any of its partners or members. The partners or members of any member firm are not binding on any other member firm. See for details. Any reference to “Hong Kong or HK” in this Report shall be construed as
327、a reference to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.Founded in the early 1990s, King & Wood Mallesons (known as King & Wood at that time) was one of the earliest partnership law firms established in the PRC, and also one of the first Chinese law firms to open
328、an office in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Through many years of continuous business development and resources integration, King & Wood Mallesons has successfully expanded its coverage to many countries including the U.S., UK, EU and the Middle East region to better serve its global c
329、lients.Recognised as one of the worlds most innovative law firms, King & Wood Mallesons offers a different perspective to commercial thinking and the client experience. With access to a global platform, a team of over 640 partners and 2,700 lawyers in 29 physical offices and 36 cloud offices works w
330、ith clients to help them understand local challenges, navigate through regional complexity, and to find commercial solutions that deliver a competitive advantage for our clients. We help clients to open doors and unlock opportunities as they look to Asian markets to unleash their full potential. Com
331、bining an unrivalled depth of expertise and breath of relationships in our core markets, we are connecting Asia to the world, and the world to Asia. With our strong foundation and ever-progressive practice capacity, we have been a leader in the industry. We have received more than 200 international
332、and ABOUT KING & WOOD MALLESONSregional awards from business and legal media in recent years. Meanwhile, we have been consistently awarded by the internationally authoritative legal rating agencies for our leading practice in various areas and our outstanding lawyers.Our Hong Kong office serves as a
333、n important hub of the KWM international network. As the Asian era arrives, we, a leading international law firm headquartered in Asia, are committed to reaching out clients in Asia, EU, Africa, and America to help them grasp the important business opportunities. With over 200 lawyers and fee earners, including 40 partner-level lawyers, KWM Hong Kong office is now the largest international law fir