AIFMD reporting: the lessons learned so far

With the first batch of Annex IV reports in, what lessons can be gleaned ahead of the next June 30 reporting deadline? IPES managing director Ben Cook provides us an update.  

When the implementing regulations of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) were issued, market commentators were quick to point out the challenges inherent within the reporting requirements covered in Annex IV.

The first annual reporting deadline was in January 2015 and the first quarterly deadline was in April 2015. This article highlights some of our key learnings from this reporting.


The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) provided guidance regarding the contents of the reports, together with templates for completion. Whilst this was helpful, it didn’t go far enough to provide the level of clarity the market required, which has led to some fragmentation in the way responses were made.

The reporting questions  

The reports contained 340 questions across the Manager (AIFM) and Fund (AIF) reports; 38 and 302 questions respectively. Typically, around 120 of the questions are mandatory for private equity AIFMs and AIFs. Many clients chose to answer the mandatory questions only. Many of the questions have themselves caused questions. For example, the stress testing questions (numbers 279 and 280 in the ESMA template) have resulted in detailed answers from some clients, none from others and ‘not applicable’ from a few. Is this the outcome the EU was looking for?


Typically, reports were submitted by uploading an XML file to regulators’ reporting portals, which some GPs found challenging. Some regulators, such as the Danish regulator required submission by email for this reporting period. Luxembourg required the use of the eFile platform. Some regulators required different versions of XML. On average, our team submitted reports to four regulators on behalf of each client using national private placement regimes. If this is indicative of the market, simplification and harmonization of reporting can only be welcomed!


The reporting frequency depends on Assets under Management (AUM), leverage and whether investments are made in non-listed companies and issuers in order to acquire control. For private equity, this has, in the main, resulted in annual reporting. That said, many managers will be coming up against the next quarterly and mid-year deadline of June 30, 2015.

Filing deadlines are tight and providing timely data is challenging. Many managers have made the point that it is not possible to provide confirmed year-end information within 30 days. We welcomed public comments from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regarding “best endeavors” i.e. providing the most up to date data available and their pragmatic approach to this area. Whilst all participants are working towards providing the most accurate, up to date information possible, the “best endeavors” approach has brought realism to the process and demonstrates the UK regulator is listening to the industry.


Outsourcing the report production and filing allows AIFMs to stay focused on managing assets. The AIFM signs off the report contents prior to submission. The right outsource partner can collate the data, deal with the reporting process and provide piece of mind that the submission will meet the technical requirement of the regulatory gateways.

Looking ahead 

If history has taught us anything, it’s that regulation gets tighter, not lighter. Looking to the future, it is not beyond comprehension that the existing optional questions will become mandatory. It is therefore important that your outsource provider looks to the future and builds processes to collect that data.

Many managers have found the reporting process a challenging, time consuming exercise. The good news is that, for many, it is an annual occurrence.

Ben Cook is a London-based managing director of Ipes, a private equity fund administrator.