Contributed By Shearman & Sterling LLP
Hong Kong is a leading international financial centre, known for its strategic position as a hub and gateway to Mainland China, and for being one of the world’s largest capital markets. Hong Kong is also a principal centre for alternative investments, ranking second in Asia after Mainland China for total capital under management by private equity funds (excluding real estate funds), which amounted to USD212 billion in 2022 (see Asset and Wealth Management Activities Survey 2022, released by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) in August 2023, available at www.sfc.hk). The Hong Kong industry for alternative asset management is strengthened by its diversity. For these reasons, Hong Kong is an important jurisdiction for leading pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, family offices and other investors.
Hong Kong’s asset and wealth management business remained resilient in 2022 despite the challenges facing global markets. For example, according to the SFC’s Asset and Wealth Management Activities Survey 2022, the total assets under management (AUM) of Hong Kong’s asset and wealth management industry amounted to HKD30,541 billion as of 31 December 2022, and net fund inflows of HKD88 billion were recorded. The AUM drop of 14% year-on-year was similar to the 15% drop in the AUM of worldwide fund markets and slightly outran major market indices, while many other major fund markets saw net fund outflows. The AUM of Hong Kong’s asset and wealth management industry recorded long-term healthy growth of 143% over the last ten years.
Furthermore, from September 2022 to September 2023, the number of corporations licensed in Hong Kong for Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities dropped by 2.85%, increased by 2.4% and increased by 1.75%, respectively (see Table C2 Statistics on Number of Regulated Activities of Licensed Corporations, released by the SFC, available at www.sfc.hk); these three types of licences are most relevant to alternative asset managers. Over the same period, the number of Type 1 licensed representatives in Hong Kong dropped by 2.44%, while such number for Types 4 and 9 regulated activities increased by 1.86% and 0.17%, respectively (see Table C4 Statistics on Number of Regulated Activities of Licensed Representatives, released by the SFC, available at www.sfc.hk).
With its geographical and cultural proximity to Mainland China, Hong Kong continues to be an unparalleled gateway, enabling global capital to access Mainland China. In addition, the rapid development of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA) has created an additional need for private investment capital among start-ups in the innovation and technology field. Hong Kong is well positioned heading into 2024, thanks in part to legal and tax changes initiated in recent years by the Hong Kong authorities, including:
The first two changes have helped to promote and support industry adoption of the LPF form, pursuant to the Limited Partnership Fund Ordinance (LPFO), which took effect on 31 August 2020. With the passage of time and the benefit of these governmental initiatives, the LPFO is coming closer towards realising its objectives of bringing Hong Kong’s limited partnership form in line with global standards and encouraging the use of vehicles formed locally in Hong Kong.
With the enactment of the LPFO, Hong Kong is expected to be used more often by advisers and managers for the formation of fund entities. As of 13 September 2023, there were over 700 LPFs registered with the Hong Kong Company Registry (see Companies Registry, Statistics for Number of Limited Partnership Funds that have Remained Registered on the LPF Register, available at www.cr.gov.hk).
The common structure of a private fund that has a managerial or advisory presence in Hong Kong consists of:
Core fund documents include:
Persons investing in private funds set up in Hong Kong will not generally be deemed to be taking part in the management of the business of these funds (and will therefore benefit from the safeguard of limited liability) so long as these persons act as passive, economic investors in connection with the investment.
As in other leading funds jurisdictions, the LPFO sets out a non-exhaustive list of safe harbour activities that are not to be regarded as taking part in the LPF’s management, including:
The SFC is the primary regulator of private funds, fund managers and advisers in Hong Kong. Hong Kong-based investment managers and advisers with SFC licences are subject to regulation under certain codes of conduct, including the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission (Code) and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct (FMCC), which prescribe a set of matters that are required to be disclosed to investors. The FMCC, for example, requires the disclosure of cross-trades, leverage arrangements, securities lending, repo and reverse repo transactions, risk management policies, custody arrangements, climate-related risks and so forth, which are usually contained in marketing documents, such as a term sheet or private placement memorandum.
Hong Kong is an international market with many of the same key investor types that operate in other important jurisdictions, including pension funds, insurance companies, private banks, wealth management firms, funds of funds, high net worth individuals and family offices. Some of these institutional investors are branch offices of Mainland China-based operations.
With the enactment of the LPFO, Hong Kong is expected to be used more often by advisers and managers for the formation of fund entities.
As described in 2.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds, the common structure of a private fund that has a managerial or advisory presence in Hong Kong would consist of:
Due to the periodic tightening of RMB capital outflows by the monetary regulators in Mainland China, investors that have to source capital from their Mainland China affiliate(s) may encounter difficulty in funding capital calls on a timely basis. In recent years, regulators in Mainland China have revisited and tightened control on inbound and outbound investments. Prior to making a private fund investment, investors would be advised to carefully review and understand the impact of these rules, updates thereto and relevant law enforcement actions. Certain investors are subject to special regulations based on their investor type.
Private funds set up in Hong Kong that have a Hong Kong-based team of investment professionals would typically retain, directly or indirectly, a Hong Kong investment manager or adviser.
The primary securities legislation in Hong Kong is the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). Depending on the facts and circumstances, the activities of an investment manager or adviser could come within various categories of regulated activities under the SFO, including:
A Hong Kong investment manager or adviser entity will therefore usually be licensed under the SFC for conducting regulated activities in Hong Kong. The three types of licences that such manager or adviser is most likely to hold are Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management). Moreover, a manager registered in a jurisdiction other than Hong Kong that intends to conduct a regulated activity in Hong Kong, such as offering private fund interests to residents in Hong Kong or providing fund management or advisory services, must still comply with the private placement rule as detailed in 2.3.7 Marketing of Alternative Funds and the SFC licensing regime as detailed in 2.3 Regulatory Environment, as applicable.
The core principle behind the Hong Kong licensing regime is that applicants must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the SFC, that they are fit and proper (Section 129 of the SFO) to be licensed, which broadly involves being financially sound, competent, honest, reputable and reliable. To obtain an SFC licence, an applicant would need to satisfy standards relating to the competence of responsible officers and other senior management, and relating also to the adequacy of financial resources.
An applicant must appoint at least two responsible officers (ROs) to be tasked with direct supervision of the conduct of each proposed regulated activity, with at least one RO being available at all times to supervise each of the proposed regulated activities and at least one RO being designated as an executive director.
In addition to ROs, any individual who carries on a regulated activity on behalf of the corporation will similarly be required to obtain a licence as a representative (LR) accredited to such corporation. As with ROs, LR applicants must satisfy the SFC that they have fulfilled the fit and proper requirement and must pass a related competency test.
To register a fund as an LPF, the proposed GP must arrange for a local Hong Kong law firm or solicitor to submit an application to the Hong Kong Company Registry, and must appoint an independent and local auditor to perform an audit of the LPF’s annual financial statements.
Non-local service providers operating in Hong Kong, where permitted, are not subject to an additional legal registration requirement solely on account of being non-local.
As indicated in 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime, if a non-local manager engages in a regulated activity from outside Hong Kong (eg, by actively marketing its services or products to the public, whether by itself or through another person on its behalf), and if such activity, if undertaken in Hong Kong, would constitute the carrying on of a business in regulated activity under the SFO, then such non-local manager should adhere to the Hong Kong licensing regime as discussed herein.
As indicated in 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime, the SFO prohibits undertaking an activity (eg, the “active marketing” of a service to the public, including through persons operating outside Hong Kong) where it would constitute a regulated activity if undertaken in Hong Kong, unless such person has obtained an appropriate licence.
SFC guidance suggests that the following factors would be considered in reaching the conclusion that this “active marketing” threshold has been crossed:
The SFO makes no distinction between the pre-marketing and marketing of alternative funds.
The SFO stipulates 12 types of regulated activities, the most relevant of which for a private equity fund sponsor are Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management).
Type 1 regulated activity includes the making of, or offering to make, an agreement with another person or inducing, or attempting to induce, another person to enter into an agreement for, or with the view to, acquiring or disposing of securities. If a company engages in the distribution and sale of securities, such as limited partnership interests or shares in a company, a Type 1 licence would thus be required. In addition, if a company engages in deal sourcing and the execution of private equity transactions, including negotiations with a target company, this conduct may also constitute Type 1 regulated activity.
Type 4 regulated activity includes the giving of advice on whether to acquire or dispose of securities. A company that provides investment advice will need to apply for and obtain a Type 4 licence, unless such advisory activities are wholly incidental to Type 1 regulated activity.
Type 9 regulated activity includes the managing of a real estate investment scheme or securities or futures contracts. A company will need a Type 9 licence if it provides portfolio management services and exercises discretionary investment authority to make investment decisions for its clients.
As the profile of each private fund management team or sponsor with a managerial or advisory presence in Hong Kong may differ depending on factors such as strategy, personnel, business capabilities and operational models, many firms decide to apply for one or a combination of the Type 1, 4 or 9 licences, while some other firms instead seek to rely on an exemption from the licensing requirements. Alternatively, some firms may choose to acquire a corporation that is already licensed and conduct the desired type of regulated activity through the acquisition. The SFO sets out various exemptions from the licensing requirements, the most relevant of which are profiled below.
A company may not need a licence for certain regulated activities if these activities are performed in a manner that is wholly incidental to the carrying out of another regulated activity for which the company is already licensed. For example, a company that holds a Type 9 licence may rely on the incidental exemption to carry out related Type 1 and Type 4 regulated activities, provided that the preceding activities are undertaken solely for the purposes of the company’s asset management business.
A company may not need a licence for Type 4 or Type 9 regulated activity if it provides the relevant advice or services solely to:
Offerings in Hong Kong of interests in private funds structured as partnerships or trusts (in the case of closed-end funds) are subject to regulation under the SFO. Offerings in Hong Kong of shares or debentures issued by private investment funds structured as companies (in the case of open-end funds, such as hedge funds) are subject to regulation under both the SFO and the Companies Ordinance.
Offering documents relating to securities offered to members of the Hong Kong public, whether offered by a licensed person or not, must be authorised by the SFC unless an exemption applies.
One of the most commonly used exemptions applies to offers made solely to “professional investors”, within the meaning of the SFO and its relevant subsidiary legislation. “Professional investors” broadly encompasses:
If fund interests are marketed in Hong Kong, the relevant investors should be provided with a supplemental Hong Kong investor questionnaire to confirm and document their professional investor status. It should be noted, however, that the admission by a fund of certain types of professional investors, including individuals, may cause such fund to be subject to enhanced compliance and due diligence requirements.
To the extent all Hong Kong offerees cannot meet the professional investor standard, another exemption is available under current market practices for offerings to not more than 50 offerees in Hong Kong. Although the offering documents for the types of private offers listed above are not required to comply with prospectus content requirements, they should include an appropriate securities legend to highlight that the offering documents have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong and that investors are encouraged to seek independent professional advice.
Please refer to the private placement rule as detailed in 2.3.7 Marketing of Alternative Funds and the SFC licensing regime as detailed in 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime.
Please see 2.4 Operational Requirements regarding ongoing requirements.
As mentioned in 2.3.7 Marketing of Alternative Funds, one exemption commonly relied upon by a private fund to facilitate private placement in Hong Kong is an offering limited to “professional investors”. The term “professional investor”, for this purpose, is defined in the SFO and its relevant subsidiary legislation, and is broadly split into three categories:
Institutional professional investors generally include authorised or regulated entities, such as:
Individual professional investors and corporate professional investors are usually determined based on their asset value or portfolio size, including:
The SFC is the main regulator of funds, fund managers and advisers in Hong Kong, and derives its investigative, remedial and disciplinary powers from the SFO and subsidiary legislation. The SFO has empowered the SFC with multiple roles. The SFC’s principal responsibilities include maintaining and promoting the fairness, efficiency, competitiveness, transparency and orderliness of the securities and futures industry. The SFC’s scope of work includes licensing and supervising persons that conduct activities under the SFC’s regulatory purview.
The SFC often publishes guidance on regulatory matters and is quick to act when dealing with pressing concerns. It often consults the industry and public at large prior to enacting significant changes in regulation. In recent years, the SFC has focused on addressing irregularities in the market, developing regulatory approaches towards new, emerging asset classes such as virtual assets, strengthening oversight of fund managers and advisers, and taking account of the multi-jurisdictional nature of private equity.
Where applicable, the SFC initiates disciplinary actions against fund managers and advisers for misconduct. For example, the SFC recently reprimanded and imposed a HKD3.4 million fine on an asset management company holding Type 4 and Type 9 licences for regulatory breaches and internal control failings in relation to the segregation of client money and the provision of statements of accounts to clients (see SFC Enforcement News, SFC reprimands and fines Changjiang Asset Management (HK) Limited $3.4 million for regulatory breaches and internal control failures, available at apps.sfc.hk). The SFC posts notices of enforcement actions on its website as a way of offering and providing insight into its regulatory approach and priorities.
Fund managers in Hong Kong have certain reporting obligations under the SFO, the Code, the FMCC and other applicable codes and guidelines. For example, the SFC requires licensed or registered persons to submit records of audited accounts, on an ongoing basis. Pursuant to the FMCC, fund managers may also be requested by the SFC to provide additional information to help enable the SFC to monitor systemic risk, on an ongoing basis. Such information may cover matters such as fund-level leverage, the terms of securities lending and the substance and balance of other assets and liabilities. In addition, the Code requires licensed or registered persons to report to the SFC immediately following certain specified events, such as compliance breaches and the initiation of legal proceedings.
The FMCC, in particular, requires a fund manager that is responsible for overall fund operations to disclose to investors the expected maximum level of leverage that may be employed on behalf of such fund and the basis for calculating this leverage, which should be reasonable and prudent. Moreover, the FMCC provides that a fund manager should not borrow funds from a connected person on behalf of a fund, unless interest charged and fees levied in connection with the relevant loan are no higher than the prevailing commercial rate for a similar loan.
It is also worth noting that, under the latest version of the FMCC dated August 2022, fund managers are required to assess climate-related risks associated with their investment strategies and portfolios, and to make appropriate investor disclosures with respect thereto. These requirements for fund managers reflect industry demand for asset managers to be mindful of their climate risk exposures, as well as the SFC’s efforts to keep ahead of global regulatory developments in this space.
Although a breach of the Code or the FMCC should not directly cause the relevant licensed or registered persons to become subject to legal action, such a breach could reflect negatively on the fitness and propriety of the sanctioned persons and may thus create a basis for disciplinary action.
Asian private equity or venture capital funds have traditionally sought financing to bridge a funding gap, by way of either a capital call or a subscription credit facility. Such facilities are useful to private equity and venture capital funds as they can access funds quickly to capitalise on investment opportunities while waiting for capital calls from limited partners to arrive. Drawdown under a capital call facility could be arranged within as little as one business day, whereas a capital call could take ten business days or more. The authors have also seen capital call facilities being utilised to bridge the funding gap between the time in which an acquisition is completed and drawdown under a permanent asset-level financing.
When seeking to incur financing or leverage, these funds are most likely to do so by entering into capital call and subscription credit facilities from banks, including international banks with a Hong Kong presence. Capital call and subscription facilities are structured as revolving facilities with the private equity or venture capital fund as borrower. The facilities are secured by an assignment of capital call rights under the limited partnership agreement and unfunded commitments of the limited partners, together with a charge over the accounts to which capital calls are to be deposited. The facilities are not usually secured by any of the fund’s underlying investment assets.
Under the LPFO, an LPF is eligible for an exemption from Hong Kong profits tax on qualifying income. Relatedly, cash contributions and distributions to and from an LPF will not incur Hong Kong stamp duty.
Management fees, if not sourced in Hong Kong, are generally not subject to Hong Kong profits tax. Carried interest received on or after 1 April 2020 is generally exempt from Hong Kong profits tax and salaries tax (and excluded from employment income for purposes of calculating salaries tax), pursuant to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Ordinance 2021. To qualify for the exemption under this ordinance, eligible carried interest must relate to the provision of investment management services to certified investment funds. A certified investment fund is a fund within the meaning of Section 20AM of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (IRO) that is certified by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) as being in compliance with the criteria for certification published by the HKMA. On 16 July 2021, the HKMA issued a guideline setting out the criteria for the certification of funds in relation to the tax concessions for carried interest.
As there are views that the details and procedures for applying for tax concessions are complicated and the vetting standards are overly stringent, the Inland Revenue Department announced in March 2023 that it has consulted the industry on the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes (DIPN) being prepared for the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Ordinance 2021, and will formally publish the DIPN to facilitate the industry's better understanding of the application of the rules and to benefit from the tax concession (see Inland Revenue Department, Press Release on LCQ15: Attracting overseas private equity funds to re-domicile to Hong Kong, available at www.ird.gov.hk).
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
This topic is outside the coverage scope for this chapter.
The LPFO has been in operation since 31 August 2020. With the advent of the LPF, fund sponsors have the ability to form a streamlined fund structure with legal domicile, business operations and management personnel all in the single jurisdiction of Hong Kong, with resulting cost and other efficiency benefits.
Relatedly, in recognition that many private funds set up in foreign jurisdictions may wish to re-domicile to Hong Kong during their term of operation, the fund re-domiciliation mechanism came into effect on 1 November 2021. This set of ordinances allows a foreign fund to relocate to Hong Kong and be registered as an OFC or LPF, as applicable, via the submission of a relatively straightforward application. Investors’ rights and liabilities in a converted vehicle would not be adversely affected by such conversion, and no additional stamp duty would be incurred. According to the Inland Revenue Department, as of February 2023, the Hong Kong Company Registry and the SFC have received over 60 enquiries on fund re-domiciliation to Hong Kong, and four applications (including two OFCs and two LPFs) which were all approved. In addition, the Hong Kong government plans to introduce a mechanism to facilitate companies domiciled overseas seeking re-domiciliation to Hong Kong, and the legislative proposals are expected to be submitted to the legislative council of Hong Kong in the first half of 2024. The corporate general partner of an offshore partnership fund may utilise this mechanism to re-domicile itself to Hong Kong in parallel with the re-domiciliation of the fund to Hong Kong.
The SFC has been supporting sustainable finance regulatory developments. Much industry attention was drawn by the SFC’s announcement on 31 October 2023 to sponsor the development of a code of conduct for voluntary adoption by environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings and data products providers providing products and services in Hong Kong. This voluntary code will be developed via an industry-led working group and is expected to track international best practices and recommendations. The first draft will be issued in Q1 2024 for public consultation. The voluntary code will provide transparent and standardised ESG information for fund managers to conduct due diligence on ESG service providers and comply with their ESG policies and obligations (see SFC News, SFC Supports and Sponsors the Development of An Industry-Led Voluntary Code of Conduct for ESG Ratings and Data Products Providers, available at apps.sfc.hk).
The authors are optimistic that the combination of Hong Kong’s favourable global position, expanding treaty network, tax concessions and well-designed LPF Ordinance may cause many fund sponsors to look to Hong Kong for their next generation of private funds.
21/F, Gloucester Tower
The Landmark, 15 Queen’s Road
Central
Hong Kong SAR
+852 2978 8000
+852 2978 8099
info@shearman.com www.shearman.com