The AngloSaxon finance was any designated

The draft European directive on hedge funds plagues the City concentrate 80 of this industry in Europe. The threat is real. The criticism with a text 'hedge funds' managers consider politically motivated raining down. Christopher Fawcett, Executive Director and co-founder of the "hedge funds" Fund Fauchier Partners, gives his feelings on this project.

What do you think of the draft directive on "hedge funds"

First of all, I would like to clarify, since there is a tendency to forget, that the directive in preparation goes well beyond the "hedge funds". It also covers capital investment, venture capital or even real estate funds. And this oblivion is by design. Today, the debate crystallized on hedge funds. Which do not, of course, in the City, where the text is extremely poorly perceived. And for cause, it is a political work. Governments wanted officials to the crisis. The Anglo-Saxon finance was any designated. And "hedge funds" in particular, while banks and insurance companies are at the heart of the problem. Only, it is difficult to type on institutions that States themselves have rescued. On the other hand, we have never seen taxpayers refinance and "hedge funds". While in the crisis, they have returned capital to their investors.

It is charged to the alternative management of having sold massively in October and November. I answer: more than traditional management. In addition, it was not immediate since withdrawal outputs prepare to sixty days in our industry against a day for unit trusts.

What do you have to blame this text

First of all, it is not well motivated because, as I said, it is above all a motivation political. Then, there are serious gaps in its drafting: it was not preceded by a consultation and was made in haste. In addition, it ignores the report on the supervision and regulation of Jacques de Larosière. Moreover, Europe wants to reduce the effects of leverage to reduce systemic risk. It is surprising that the constraints on the "hedge funds" at the level of the lever and transparency are so different from what is accepted for banks. It does appear to be no distinction on the limits of the lever on the products, for example a State loan or a small value. Here also, a consultation would have to avoid these inaccuracies.

In addition, the drafters of the text do not account professional competence of institutional investors including the choice of investment would be seriously reduced by the directive. Some of them, British and Dutch, have already expressed their dissatisfaction on this text.

London has much to lose with this directive

Of course. It is disturbing that some Governments, seeking to be better perceived by the electorate, are likely to jeopardize the jobs and tax revenues in other Member countries. Major French banks installed in the City could also lose, because "hedge funds" are their clients. But the risk is not only confined to London instead. Europe could be marginalized in the field of financial innovation. It will not be surprised to see talent to move to the United States or Asia, there where the regulation is more sophisticated. I quite agree that everyone is regulated; What indeed is the case in London. An increase in measured transparency is also desirable.