Pravna ureditev investicijskih skladov in družb za upravljanje

• Main Author: Jurgec, Lovro
• Other Authors: Juhart, Miha
• Format: Doctoral or Postdoctoral Thesis
• Language: Slovenian
• Published: 2020
• Subjects: investicijski sklad; družba za upravljanje; upravljavec; UCITS sklad; alternativni investicijski sklad; cilji zakonodajnega urejanja; investment funds; management company; manager; UCITS fund; alternative investment fund; legislative goals; Sklad; sami
• Online Access: https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=115218; https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?id=127913&dn=; https://plus.si.cobiss.net/opac7/bib/13628675?lang=sl

V doktorski disertaciji je opravljena kritična analiza trenutno veljavne pravne ureditve opravljanja storitev upravljanja investicijskih skladov v EU in v Republiki Sloveniji. Navedena analiza je opravljena v luči treh temeljnih ciljev oz. namenov, ki jih zakonodajalci zasledujejo pri sprejemanju ukrepov na navedenem področju, in sicer zagotavljanju učinkovitega kapitalskega trga, zagotavljanju čim višje ravni zaščite vlagateljev ter zagotavljanju finančne stabilnosti določenega pravnega reda. Ob tem temeljno hipotezo doktorske disertacije predstavlja trditev, da de lege lata pravna ureditev navedenega področja tako na nacionalni kot tudi na nadnacionalni ravni ni (povsem) ustrezna, saj kljub svoji precejšnji rigoroznosti ne dosega (vedno) zgoraj navedenih ciljev oz. namenov, ki naj bi jih regulacija navedenega področja zasledovala. Kljub temu, da je mogoče na podlagi opravljene analize ugotoviti, da so bili temeljni cilji zakonodajalcev (tako na ravni EU kot tudi na ravni Republike Slovenije) z dosedanjimi zakonodajnimi ukrepi na navedenem področju vsaj na neki elementarni ravni doseženi, pa se navedena temeljna hipoteza izkaže za potrjeno v nekaterih pomembnih segmentih obstoječe pravne ureditve, ki lahko imajo pomembno vlogo pri nadaljnjem razvoju analiziranega področja. Neustreznost oz. nesorazmernost pri doseganju navedenih ciljev se tako pokaže predvsem pri zakonodajnih ukrepih, ki so bili sprejeti kot odgovor na zadnjo finančno krizo in ki so usmerjeni predvsem v zagotavljanje čim večje finančne stabilnosti pravnega reda ter varstva vlagateljev v investicijske sklade. Eden izmed takšnih pomembnih zakonodajnih ukrepov je nedvomno sprejetje AIFM Direktive, ki je povsem na novo opredelila nekatere obveznosti upravljavcev alternativnih investicijskih skladov in v zakonodajni okvir zaobjela veliko število subjektov, ki pred tem niso bili posebej regulirani. S sprejetjem navedene direktive so se tako bistveno poostrila pravila glede opravljanja alternativnih investicijskih skladov znotraj EU, kar je s seboj prineslo tudi pomembne stroškovne posledice za izvajalce navedenih storitev. Ne glede na to, da je AIFM Direktiva izvajalcem storitev upravljanja alternativnih investicijskih skladov prinesla tudi številne nove pravice (med drugim tudi pravice povezane s čezmejnim opravljanjem storitev), je iz opravljene mogoče ugotoviti, da so nekateri pomisleki v zvezi s tako širokim urejanjem navedenega področja vsekakor utemeljeni, še posebej če vzamemo v obzir nejasne učinke navedene direktive na aktivnosti tržnih udeležencev v navedenem segmentu ter nekatere pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z izvajanjem nadzora nad upravljavci alternativnih investicijskih skladov. Podobno je mogoče ugotoviti tudi v zvezi z pokriznimi ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti na področju delovanja t. i. skladov denarnega trga, ki so pomembno poostrili zahteve glede poslovanja navedenih skladov ter so, kot izhaja iz do sedaj opravljenih empiričnih analiz, povzročili precejšnje odlive sredstev iz navedenih skladov, pri čemer so sami učinki navedenega zakonodajnega ukrepa na zmanjšanje sistemskih tveganj zelo vprašljivi. Zgoraj navedena hipoteza se je nadalje potrdila še na treh ostalih pomembnih segmentih analiziranega področja, in sicer v zvezi s: a) prepovedjo oz. nemožnostjo izdajanja dolžniških vrednostnih papirjev s strani UCITS skladov, b) uzakonitvijo strogih kapitalskih zahtev za upravljavce investicijskih skladov, ter c) nemožnostjo ustanovitve UCITS sklada v Republiki Sloveniji v obliki pravne osebe. V zvezi z vsemi navedenimi segmenti je možno ugotoviti, da v teoriji in praksi ni mogoče opredeliti zelo prepričljivih razlogov za uzakonitev trenutnih (mestoma zelo strogih) pravil, ki lahko imajo pomembne posledice za nadaljnji (hitrejši) razvoj področja upravljanja in delovanja investicijskih skladov. V segmentih, kjer se je temeljna hipoteza izkazala za potrjeno, pa so v doktorski disertaciji predstavljene tudi nekatere rešitve, na podlagi katerih bi lahko zakonodajalec pri nadaljnjem urejanju analiziranega področja, ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti tudi odpravil oz. vsaj ublažil. The doctoral dissertation contains a critical analysis of the current legal framework with respect to the provision of investment fund management services in the EU and the Republic of Slovenia. The aforementioned analysis is carried out in the light of three main objectives pursued by the legislators when adopting measures in the respective field, namely to ensure an efficient capital market, to ensure the highest possible level of investor protection and to ensure the financial stability of a particular legal order. Accordingly, the main hypothesis of the dissertation is that the de lege lata regulation of the aforementioned field at national as well as at supranational level is not (completely) appropriate, since despite its considerable strictness it does not (always) achieve the objectives which the regulation within the aforementioned field is intended to pursue. Although, it can be concluded (on the ground of the executed analysis) that the basic objectives of the legislators (at the level of EU and at the level of Republic of Slovenia) have been with the adoption of the past legislative measures achieved at least at the elementary level, the main hypothesis proves to be correct with respect to some important segments of the existing legal framework, which may have an important role in further development of the analysed area. Inadequacy and/or disproportionality in the pursuing of the main legislative objectives is thus manifested in particular with respect to the legislative measures adopted as a response to the last financial crisis, which aim in particular at ensuring the maximum financial stability and the protection of investors in investment funds. One such (important) legislative measure is undoubtedly the adoption of the AIFM Directive, which has completely redefined the obligations of alternative investment fund managers and has encompassed a large number of entities (before not specifically regulated) within the legislative framework. The adoption of that directive has thus significantly tightened the rules for the provision of management services with respect to alternative investment funds in the EU, and has also had significant cost implications for the providers of these services. Notwithstanding the fact that the AIFM Directive has provided a number of new rights to providers of management services with respect to alternative investment fund management (including rights related to cross-border provision of services), it can be concluded that some of the concerns regarding a broad regulation of that area had certainly proved to be correct, especially given the unclear effects of the adoption of the AIFM Directive on the activities of market participants in that segment, as well as some shortcomings with regard to supervision over the managers of alternative investment funds. A similar conclusion can be drawn with regard to the measures adopted in the area of money market funds, which have significantly tightened the requirements for the operations of these funds and, as the empirical analysis has already established, have led to significant outflows of funds from these funds, whereby the effects of this legislative measure on the reduction of systemic risks are highly questionable. The aforementioned hypothesis was further confirmed in three other important segments of the analysed area, namely: a) the prohibition/inability to issue debt securities by UCITS funds b) the enactment of strict capital requirements for investment fund managers and c) the inability to form a UCITS fund in the Republic of Slovenia in the form of a legal entity. With regard to all the these three segments, it can be concluded that it is not possible to identify very convincing reasons for enacting current (sometimes very strict) rules, which can have significant (negative) consequences for the further (faster) development of the field of management and operation of investment funds. Furthermore, in segments where the main hypothesis proved to be correct, the doctoral dissertation also provides some potential solutions with which the legislator could remedy or at least mitigate the identified deficiencies when adopting further legal measures within the field of investment fund management services.