2012 Irish Salary Survey (Accountancy & Finance)

At Lincoln Search & Selection, we have compiled our comprehensive Salary Survey for Ireland 2012. The Survey compiles average salaries for the Accountancy & Finance industry, where Lincoln Search & Selection are experts in Talent Acquisition and recruitment.

To view this Salary Survey, click here.

So, are you being paid enough in your role? If you have any queries about our Salary Survey, please feel free to contact our Recruitment Team at Lincoln Search & Selection for more information, or to discuss your next career move and ensure you’re receiving the salary you deserve.

Email us at info@lincoln.ie or phone us in Dublin on 01 661 0444.

4 Things You Didn’t Know About Irish Accountants

1. What Companies and Which Sectors Employ the most Irish-Trained Accountants?

What companies and which sectors employ the most Irish accountants?The top 5 sectors for employing Irish-trained qualified Accountants are:

  • Audit firms (PWC, KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton and BDO on top) employ 49% of Irish Accountants in the top 5 sectors.
  • Financial Services firms (Bank of Ireland, AIB, Ulster Bank, State Street, BNY Mellon and Northern Trust) employ 27% of Irish Accountants in the top 5 sectors.
  • Technology firms (like Microsoft, Google, Dell and EMC) employ a huge 13% of Irish Accountants in the top 5 sectors.
  • Pharmaceutical firms (Pfizer is the top employer) retains 6% of Irish accountants in the top 5 sectors.
  • Consulting firms (Accenture) retains 5% of Irish accountants in the top 5 sectors.

As well as being employed full time by large firms, over 10% of Irish-trained Qualified Accountants have worked in temporary, contract or interim roles.

2. What Universities produce the most irish-trained qualified accountants?

What Universities Have Produced The Most Irish-Trained Qualified Accountants?

Irish-qualified Accountants are produced amongst the top Universities and 3rd level institutions in the country, including University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin.

The level of education received through University plays a major role in teaching would-be accountants the principles of business administration and the necessity of prudent accounting. That’s why Irish-trained accountants are highly valued talent, and why we at Lincoln Search & Selection actively source Irish-trained Accountants for our clients.

3. Top employers of Irish-trained Accountants Overseas?

The Top Employers of Irish-Trained Accountants Overseas

4. How many Irish-trained accountants have emigrated?

How many Irish Accountants Have Emigrated?

Over a quarter of Irish trained qualified accountants have emigrated overseas, to the UK (9% of the total pool), the US (6%), Australia (3%) and Canada (1%).

It’s with this in mind that we focus on retaining top Irish-trained talent in Finance in Ireland, where nearly 72% of Irish-trained qualified accountants still remain working today.

Previous Articles

Ireland: UCITS Evolution: Plain Vanilla to Alternatives

Derbhil O’Riordan of Dillon Eustace looks at the history of the Ucits regime, and its expanding reach as an EU investment product.

Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities, commonly referred to as Ucits, are collective investment schemes, established and authorised under a harmonised European Union (EU) legal framework; under which a Ucits fund established and authorised in one EU member state can be sold cross-border into other EU member states without a requirement for additional authorisation.

Originally introduced over twenty years ago, Ucits have become the gold standard EU investment fund product, recognised not only by the European financial services community but also internationally, with many jurisdictions from Asia to the Americas accepting Ucits as suitable for retail sale into their domestic markets. While they are sold across the full spectrum of investor types, Ucits have been designed principally for the retail market as open-ended diversified, liquid products with their parameters, permitted asset classes and investment and borrowing restrictions enshrined in EU law.

Evolution

The original 1985 Ucits Directive set down the legal forms which Ucits could take, their permitted investment and borrowing rules, liquidity requirements, prospectus disclosure rules, rules relating to reporting and to the role and duties of Ucits custodians/ depositaries and their management companies.

Importantly, however, Ucits is not a product which has stood still, rather it continues to evolve, with a significant broadening of permitted asset classes and more robust governance requirements being introduced in 2002 and clarified in 2007 (referred to generally as ‘Ucits III’). More recently, a series of additional changes have been implemented under the Ucits IV Directive in order to further simplify the European passport process, introduce master/feeder type structures, create a framework for cross-border fund mergers, replace the Simplified Prospectus and introduce further measures in relation to the Management Company Passport.

Given the increased investment opportunities granted under Ucits III and the subsequent clarification of the terms ‘transferable securities’ and ‘money market instruments’, Ucits provide for a very broad spectrum of fund types and exposures, from relatively plain vanilla equity and bond products through to Ucits taking exposures to hedge fund and commodities indices, with fund of funds, money market and cash funds and index replicators also provided for. We have focused in this paper on Ucits investment in financial derivative instruments (FDI), index-tracking Ucits, and Ucits investing in FDI on financial indices to demonstrate the broad spectrum of fund types that fit within the Ucits structure.

Ucits investment in FDI

Prior to the introduction of Ucits III, Ucits could only employ FDI for efficient portfolio management purposes. Now, however, Ucits may invest in FDI for investment purposes subject to a variety of conditions relating to the nature of the exposures taken, the leverage generated through such positions, the process employed by the Ucits to manage the risks arising from derivatives investment as well as rules relating to OTC counterparty exposure and to the valuation of FDI.

Ucits investment in FDI must comply with the following conditions:

  • the underlying asset relates to Ucits eligible assets, financial instruments having one or several characteristics of these assets, financial indices, interest rates, FX rates or currencies;
  • the counterparties to OTC FDI are institutions subject to prudential supervision and belong to categories approved by the regulator (in Ireland, the Central Bank of Ireland, with a minimum (or an implied) credit rating (in the case of counterparties which are not credit institutions)) of A2 or equivalent, or guaranteed by an entity with a rating of A2;
  • OTC FDI are subject to reliable and verifiable daily valuation and must be capable of being sold, liquidated or closed by an offsetting transaction at any time at fair value at the initiative of the Ucits;
  • counterparty exposure is limited to 5% of net asset value or 10% for certain credit institutions; and
  • netting may be applied before counterparty exposure is calculated. Also, risk will be reduced where a counterparty provides acceptable collateral to the Ucits.

FDI positions may create long or synthetically short exposure to the underlying asset and may result in leverage to the Ucits portfolio. The rules for measuring global exposure and leverage differ depending on whether a Ucits is characterised as ‘sophisticated’ or ‘non-sophisticated’. The Central Bank has not provided a formal definition of what constitutes ‘sophisticated’ or ‘non-sophisticated’, but the use of OTC derivatives might indicate the Ucits is more sophisticated and the complexity of the transaction should also be considered.

The Central Bank requires that the global exposure and leverage of a non-sophisticated Ucits should be measured using the commitment approach. A Ucits fund’s global exposure may not exceed its net asset value, thus a leverage limit of 100% applies. A sophisticated Ucits is required to use an advanced risk measurement methodology to measure global exposure and the Central Bank recommends the use of the Value-at-Risk (VaR) method, meeting certain quantitative and qualitative criteria and calculated using an acceptable proprietary or commercially available model.

Index-tracking Ucits

One of the cornerstones of Ucits since the introduction of the original Directive in 1985, has been the imposition of strict risk spreading requirements. This has been enshrined in what is commonly known as the 5/10/40 rule which is that a Ucits may invest no more than 10% of its net assets in transferable securities or money market instruments issued by the same body, provided that the total value of transferable securities or money market instruments held in issuing bodies in each of which it can invest more than 5% is less than 40%.

This fundamental Ucits principle created problems for Ucits wishing to track an index where the weighting of a constituent element of the index exceeded the 5% limit or where the relationship between two or more constituent elements of the index meant they were considered to constitute a single issuer resulting in an aggregation of the exposure. However, since the introduction of Ucits III, Ucits, whose policy is to replicate an index, are permitted to invest up to 20% of net assets in shares and/ or debt securities issued by the same body, with the 20% limit being raised up to 35% in the case of a single issuer where justified by exceptional market conditions. This flexibility is permitted where the relevant index is recognised by the regulator on the basis that it is sufficiently diversified, represents an adequate benchmark for the market to which it refers and is published in an appropriate manner.

Ucits investing in derivatives on financial indices

FDI are increasingly being used to access financial indices comprising assets that are not traditional target investments of Ucits, including hedge funds, and there are specific rules relating to what is acceptable as a permitted financial index underlying an FDI. The requirements are that the index must: be sufficiently diversified; represent an adequate benchmark for the market to which it refers; be published in an appropriate manner; and be managed independently from the management of the Ucits. It is necessary to submit the relevant index to the Central Bank for prior approval if (a) the index is comprised of ineligible assets or (b) the index is comprised of eligible assets but it would not be possible for the Ucits to invest directly in such underlying assets without breaching the Ucits risk spreading limits (assuming the Ucits does not wish to apply a look-through approach).

Hedge fund indices may qualify as financial indices to which exposure can be taken through FDI provided that they meet the index criteria indicated above and where:

  • the index methodology has a set of predetermined rules and objective criteria for the selection and rebalancing of index components;
  • the index provider does not accept payments from potential index components for the purpose of being included in the index; and
  • back-filling is not permitted.

Ucits continue to evolve to meet the requirements of markets, both commercial and practical, and while at times the pace of change may be too fast for some and too slow for others, to date, Ucits has generally achieved the right balance. The changes introduced by Ucits IV demonstrate the continued endeavours of European regulators to further evolve the Ucits brand, and maintain its position as the gold standard EU investment fund product. As new concerns arise surrounding global financial markets, and ‘shadow banking’, Ucits, a fully regulated structure with an independent depository and custodian function, provides a proven track record and an answer to the question of regulation in the alternative space.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


Source: Mondaq.com

Ireland: Funds Quarterly Legal And Regulatory Update

Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010

The Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive was transposed into Irish law on 5 May, 2010 by the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act, 2010 (the “CJA 2010″) and has been effective as of 15 July, 2010.

The period of consultation in respect of the final draft of the industry Money Laundering Guidance Notes has now closed. Once the core guidance notes have been published, it is expected that the process of finalising the sectoral guidance notes will commence.

On the 25 March, 2011 Council Regulation (EU) No 296/2011 amending Regulation EU No 204/2011 came into effect. This concerns restrictive measures to be applied in view of the situation in Libya. Designated persons are required to have appropriate procedures in place to meet with the requirements of this Regulation.

If you would like further information on anti-money laundering requirements or any changes arising out of the CJA 2010, Dillon Eustace regularly advises on all aspects thereof and provides training sessions on this topic. Training can be held either at Dillon Eustace’s office at 33 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 or in house training can be provided at a venue of your choosing.

UCITS, Non-UCITS & Hedge Funds

EC’s Draft Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers

The consultation period for the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (“ESMA”) call for evidence on the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive Level 2 implementing measures ended in January. ESMA is to provide further details in due course in relation to any public consultation it will carry out in light of responses to the call for evidence.

The European Commission wrote to ESMA on the 21 February, extending the deadline for ESMA’s Level 2 technical advice for a further month (to 16November, 2011).

For detailed information on the Directive including how it may impact your business, please refer to your usual contact in the Asset Management and Investment Funds Unit of Dillon Eustace.

ISE Approves Additional Requirements for Listing Actively Managed ETFs

Further to an application by Dillon Eustace to list the first actively managed ETF on the Irish Stock Exchange (the “ISE”), the ISE has issued a policy note addressing a number of rule changes facilitating such listings going forward. A review of these changes is available on our website:http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/Active%20ETF%20ISE%20Policy%20-%20Article%20short%20FD%20Feb2011.pdf

European Systemic Risk Board Holds First Meeting

The European Systemic Risk Board (“ESRB”) held its first meeting on 20 January, 2011.

The ESRB is aimed at contributing to the prevention or reduction of systemic risks to financial stability in the EU that arise from developments within the financial system.

The European Central Bank has commented that the ESRB will also contribute to the smooth functioning of the internal market and is aimed to ensure a sustainable contribution of the financial sector to economic growth.

However, the European Commission has stated that the ESRB will not have any binding power to impose measures on Member States or national authorities. It has been conceived as a “reputational” body with a high level composition that should influence the actions of policy makers and supervisors by means of its moral authority.

The seat of the ESRB will be in Frankfurt, Germany. The Chair of the ESRB is the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, while Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, was elected as first Vice-Chair of the ESRB by the members of the General Council of the European Central Bank.

ESMA’s Definition of European Money Market Funds

ESMA has published its guidelines on a common definition of “European money market funds” (the “Guidelines”).

The Guidelines aim to improve investor protection by setting out criteria to be applied by any fund that wishes to market itself as a money market fund. The criteria reflect the fact that investors in money market funds expect the capital value of their investment to be maintained while retaining the ability to withdraw their capital on a daily basis. A common definition will also help provide a more detailed understanding of the distinction between funds which operate in a very restricted fashion and those which follow a more ‘enhanced’ approach.

The Guidelines set out two categories of money market fund: Short-Term Money Market Funds and Money Market Funds. This approach recognises the distinction between shortterm money market funds, which operate a very short weighted average maturity and weighted average life; and money market funds which operate with a longer weighted average maturity and weighted average life. For both categories of fund, ESMA expects that there should be specific disclosure to explain clearly the implications of investing in the type of money market fund involved. For Money Market Funds, for example, this means taking account of the longer weighted average maturity and weighted average life of such funds. For both types of money market fund, this should reflect any investment in new asset classes, financial instruments or investment strategies with unusual risk and reward profiles.

The Guidelines will enter into force in line with the transposition deadline for the revised UCITS Directive (1 July, 2011).

However ESMA has provided that money market funds existing prior to 1 July 2011 will have until 31 December 2011 to comply with certain provisions of the Guidelines. Please contact your usual contact at Dillon Eustace for further information.

Re-domiciliation of Collective Investment Schemes to Ireland

The Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 amended the Companies Act 1990 and the European Communities (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) Regulations 2003, to provide an efficient legislative mechanism for corporate investment funds to re-domicile into Ireland. The Companies Act 1990 (Relevant Jurisdictions under Section 256F) Regulations 2010, identified the following as relevant jurisdictions from which corporate CIS could re-domicile into Ireland: Bermuda, BVI, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey.

Since the introduction of this legislation a number of funds have re-domiciled and more are in the process of re-domiciling. The first such re-domiciliation in respect of a Guernsey investment fund company to Ireland took place in this quarter. While the legislation provided an efficient legal mechanism for funds to re-domicile to Ireland, the Central Bank has now provided further guidance regarding the regulatory process and procedure for re-domiciling funds into Ireland e.g. the documentation that must be submitted to the Central Bank, confirmations required, etc.

In addition, although there are no legislative provisions which specifically address the redomiciliation of unit trusts to Ireland, the Central Bank has determined that a re-domiciliation process similar to that in place for corporate CIS should apply in respect of unit trusts.

Please contact a member of the Regulatory and Compliance Department in Dillon Eustace should you need further information on the regulatory process and procedure for redomiciling investment funds into Ireland.

Consultation on Revised UCITS Notices, NU Notices and Guidance Notes

In February 2011, the Central Bank issued a consultation paper on amendments to UCITS Notices, NU Notices and Guidance Notes to reflect the changes necessary under the UCITS IV Directive and other changes. Submissions by interested parties were to be made no later than 15 March 2011.

Corporate Governance Code for Irish Domiciled CIS

In late September, 2010, the IFIA published the voluntary Corporate Governance Code for Irish Domiciled Collective Investment Schemes (the “SI 450 Code”).

The SI 450 Code may be adopted by Irish domiciled collective investment schemes on a voluntary basis but the SI 450 Code does reflect existing practices imposed under the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 and the Central Bank’s UCITS & Non-UCITS Notices along with Guidance Notes.

Adoption of the SI 450 Code should enable Irish domiciled collective investment schemes with shares admitted to trading on a regulated market to refer to the SI 450 Code in a specific section in the Directors’ Report of that collective investment scheme’s Annual Report and in doing so comply with the provisions of the S.I. No. 450 of 2009 (as amended). Back in January 2010, the IFIA had published template corporate governance statement disclosures which might be included in an investment funds financial statement to ensure compliance with the provisions of S.I. No. 450 of 2009 (as amended). As the SI 450 Code is now available, the IFIA has revised the template corporate governance statement disclosures.

The SI 450 Code covers general requirements applicable to a board of directors including its composition, meetings, its role and committees. It further deals with the audit, compliance and risk management functions.

Separate to the SI 450 Code, the IFIA at the request of the Central Bank is working on a revised corporate governance code for the funds industry. It is expect that the revised code will introduce a number of new standards not currently dealt with by existing corporate governance practices e.g. time commitment expected from each director, number of nonfund directorships, number of independent directors and non-executive directors, etc.

Please refer to your usual contact in Dillon Eustace for further details on the SI 450 Code or if you would like a copy thereof.

Consultation on legislative changes to the UCITS depository function and to UCITS managers’ remuneration

The IFIA has filed its response to the European Commission’s legislative proposal to review the current framework applicable to UCITS depositories and to introduce new provisions on UCITS’ managers’ remuneration with a view to improving the level of UCITS investor protection. Of particular note is the response concerning increased depositary liability. The European Commission is expected to respond to submissions during the second quarter of 2011.

UCITS IV

The European Council voted on 22 June, 2009 for the adoption of the UCITS IV Directive (the “Directive”), as already adopted by the European Parliament in plenary session on 13 January, 2009. The Directive was adopted in accordance with the co-decision procedure, thus marking the end of the first step for the implementation of a European text.

The UCITS IV proposal containing amendments to the UCITS Directive 85/611/EC was first proposed by the EC on 16 July, 2008. This proposal did not take into account the management company passport which, after having been debated at ESMA level, was introduced in December 2008.

According to the Lamfalussy process, there are three levels before the transposition of the Directive shall be considered as fully completed among Member States. Similar to MiFID, the Directive provides that the details of certain provisions should be covered by Level 2 implementing measures to be adopted by the EC with a view to harmonising the implementation of the text. On 13 February, 2009 the EC submitted to ESMA a provisional request for technical advices on the new UCITS Directive implementing measures.

The consultation paper that ESMA published on 8 July, 2009 provided technical advice on the level 2 measures related to the UCITS management company passport. ESMA’s draft advice covered the organisational requirements that companies managing UCITS need to fulfil, and inter alia conflicts of interest those companies must avoid. The advice also included details on the companies’ rules of conduct, depositaries and risk management, as well as on supervisory cooperation. The majority of the suggestions made in the ESMA advices were carried through into the Commission Directive 2010/43/EU of 1 July 2010 implementing the UCITS IV Directive as regards organizational requirements, conflicts of interest, conduct of business, risk management and content of the agreement between a depositary and a management company.

The final two steps of the Lamfalussy process will take place during and after the period of transposition of the Directive. Under Level 3, ESMA will be in charge of issuing interpretation recommendations to national authorities and under Level 4 the EC will control and advise Member States as to a proper interpretation and application of the Directive. Member States have until 1 July, 2011 to implement the text into national legislation. The Department of Finance has prepared the draft of the European Communities (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities) Regulations 2011, which is expected to be brought into effect around Easter 2011.

The following is a summary of the key implications of the UCITS IV Directive:

Management Company Passport

The concept of a management company passport (“MCP”) was first introduced in Directive 2001/107/EC (the “Man Co Directive”). The Man Co Directive introduced an authorisation framework for Man Cos which is similar to that applied to investment firms under MiFID imposing requirements relating to minimum capital, internal management control mechanisms, probity and experience of the directors and management and conduct of business rules.

These measures were intended to harmonise the authorisation process of Man Cos in all EU Member States which in theory would enable the MCP provided for in the Man Co Directive (as explained below) to operate effectively whereby a Man Co established in one Member State could be appointed as Man Co of UCITS schemes domiciled in other Member States.

However, despite the new authorisation process and the provision of a MCP contained in the Man Co Directive, the MCP has not worked under the existing legal framework. This failure was attributed to the fact that the definition of “UCITS Home Member State” in the Man Co Directive meant that it was not possible for a Man Co to passport its services in the context of UCITS funds established as unit trusts.

The Directive enables European funds created under the UCITS regime to be managed by a management company authorised and supervised in a Member State other than the home Member State of the fund.

Fund Mergers

The Directive establishes a unified regime for both cross-border and domestic mergers of funds. Pursuant to the Directive, all funds are entitled to merge regardless of their structure (corporate, unit trust, or contractual type of funds).

Master Feeder Structure

The Directive sets out the first European regulation concerning the setting-up of master feeder funds. A feeder fund is defined in the Directive as a UCITS or a sub-fund thereof which has been approved to invest at least 85% of its assets in units of another fund. It can also set aside 15% of its assets to invest in derivative instruments or liquid assets etc. As far as the master fund is concerned, it cannot itself be a feeder fund, nor hold units of a feeder fund.

Key Investor Information

The key investor information (“KII”) shall replace the simplified prospectus which failed to provide investors with all basic information to enable them to make an informed investment choice. It is intended to be a short pre-contractual document written in a brief manner and in non-technical language which shall provide easily understandable, fair, clear and not misleading information on the fund to contemplated or actual investors.

The European Commission has now published a Regulation 583/2010 implementing the UCITS IV Directive as regards the key investor information and conditions to be met when providing key investor information or the prospectus in a durable medium other than paper or by means of the website (the “Commission Regulation”).

On 1 July, ESMA issued Level 3 Guidelines on the methodology for the calculation of the synthetic risk and reward indicator in the KII document. Such an indicator should be based on the volatility of the fund using weekly or monthly returns concerning the previous five years.

Simplified Notification Procedure

A fund wishing to market its units in a Member State different from its country of incorporation will notify its supervisory authority of such project, through a notification procedure which will then be transferred by its home regulator to the competent supervisory authorities of the contemplated host country (new “regulator-to-regulator” procedure).

Enhanced Cooperation between Supervisory Authorities

The proposed amendments to the Directive will result in increased cross-border operations necessitating a full and timely cooperation between supervisory authorities. The Directive encourages the exchange of information, harmonises the powers of the supervisory authorities and allows for the possibility of immediate verifications and investigations, consultation and mutual help mechanisms.

The enhanced cooperation between supervisory authorities is expected to result in a more simplified Regulator-to-Regulator notification. This will permit a UCITS to begin marketing its units in another Member State (the “Host Member State”) no later than 10 working days after the date of receipt of the required standard notification letter accompanied by complete documentation required in the application. It also greatly simplifies the documentation required, and significantly the only document which requires translation into the language of the Host Member State is the KII.

The notification procedures in the UCITS IV Directive have been broadly welcomed by the European funds industry as it is believed that they will improve administrative efficiency and facilitate more efficient marketing and reduce translation costs.

UCITS IV introduces significant changes for UCITS management companies which will need to be addressed well in advance of the 1 July 2011 start date. In particular, through the UCITS IV Implementing Directive, new MiFID-like organisational and internal control requirements, conflicts of interest requirements and risk management requirements will be applied to UCITS management companies. In addition, UCITS management companies will need to comply with new rules of conduct. In order to facilitate a smooth transition, the Central Bank requires that each existing UCITS management company submit a revised business plan for review by it on or before 29 April, 2011.

For detailed information on UCITS IV, please refer to your usual contact in the Asset Management and Investment Funds Unit of Dillon Eustace and the following publications which can be read on our website:-

  • UCITS IV
  • Management Company
  • UCITS IV –

Key Investor Information Document – UCITS IV – Cross-Border Notifications

EU Commission publishes feedback on UCITS V consultation

On 17 February, 2011 the EU Commission published a response to the feedback it had received in respect of its consultation on the current framework applicable to UCITS depositaries and the introduction of new provisions on remuneration for UCITS managers. The key policy priority highlighted in the response is the clarification of UCITS depositary duties and liability regimes. In relation to the UCITS managers’ remuneration policy, the majority of respondents stressed that remuneration rules should be adjusted to the UCITS model. An impact assessment study will be published later this year alongside the EU Commission’s proposal for amendments to the UCITS Directive.

The European Commission has delayed publication of the UCITS V legislative proposal to the latter part of 2011 in order to allow time to include a new section on sanctions in the UCITS Directive. This is part of an initiative, the aim of which is to achieve greater convergence and reinforcement of the national sanctioning regimes in the financial sector. It is anticipated that the Commission will launch a public consultation on UCITS sanctioning regimes soon.

Companies now required to disclose auditors’ remuneration

Following the implementation of European Communities (Statutory Audits) (Directive 2006/43/EC) Regulations, 2010, an analysis of auditors’ remuneration is now required to be included in the statutory financial statements of Irish companies. Remuneration must be disclosed in respect of each of the following categories of work carried out by an auditor:

(a) the audit of individual accounts;

(b) other assurance services;

(c) tax advisory services;

(d) other non-audit services.

The requirement applies to financial years ending on or after 20 August, 2010.

Article by Paula Kelleher  and Breeda Cunningham  of Dillon Eustace Solicitors

To read this document in its entirety please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Source: Mondaq.com

Ireland: Out of the gloom

Ireland’s future once lay in financial services. What now? Christine Senior of IPE Magazine reports

It is clear that Ireland has been in the doldrums for some time. The country had successfully established itself as a financial centre, but collateral damage from its debt crisis has hit brand name Ireland.

There is another side to the story, however. In an ironic twist, one impact of the crisis has been beneficial. With plummeting commercial rents and shrinking labour costs, Dublin is proving to be

more attractive to foreign enterprises. DTZ showed prime rents fell 39% in 2009 and they continue to fall. Labour costs fell in comparison to the EU average, and the European Commission estimates that Irish labour costs will have fallen 6.8% by 2011, compared with 2008.

The jewel in Ireland’s crown as a business centre for foreign companies is undoubtedly its cherished 12.5% corporate tax rate. In the negotiations to agree a bailout package the Irish government fought vigorously to defend this, and won. The argument in Dublin is that any attempt to chip away at this tax rate would be catastrophic for Ireland’s attempt to dig itself out of its debt pit.

You would expect the local financial services industry to talk up the solidity and success of its business – but it also has figures to prove its case. On the funds side, statistics from the Irish Funds Industry Association show that the proportion of global hedge funds domiciled in Ireland doubled to 7.4% during the first three quarters of 2010, making Ireland home to 63% of the European hedge funds market.

The custody and asset servicing sector is also booming. Figures from Lipper show the value of all mutual funds serviced in Ireland at the end of June this year stood at $1.46trn (€1.1trn), a rise of 7.2% over one year. The second half of the year seems set to be even stronger, as Lipper estimates that Irish-domiciled fund assets alone, serviced in Dublin, rose by 19% between June and October.

On the fund management side, business looks equally buoyant. According to the latest official figures at the end of June, assets under management were up, at close to €350bn. Around three-quarters of that is managed on behalf of non-Irish residents. Another positive is that fund managers are hiring staff again, according to Frank O’Dwyer, chief executive of the Irish Association of Investment Managers.

The funds industry suffered a scare in the autumn. Chile placed Ireland’s fund industry on the watch list after Fitch downgraded the country’s sovereign credit rating. The action was a consequence of Chile’s unusual, if not unique, regulation which specifies the credit rating of the domicile of funds it invests in. The Irish funds industry risked losing $6bn of Chilean pension assets from Irish-domiciled UCITS, and the Irish government and the industry mounted a vigorous campaign to convince the Chileans that the industry strength was unaffected by sovereign debt concerns.

Mark White, head of investment funds at the Dublin law firm McCann Fitzgerald, commented: “Having engaged with the Irish government authorities, agencies and industry, the CCR, the Chilean Risk Classification Commission, has reconfirmed its approval of Irish authorised UCITS and it has also decided to review the criteria it will apply in considering the eligibility of those UCITS.”

The buoyancy of the local funds industry owes something to a desire among fund promoters to abandon lightly regulated offshore jurisdictions in favour of better regulated onshore jurisdictions.

“Investors particularly in Europe are saying: ‘we are not sure about staying in Cayman, or BVI, or Bermuda and as a result prefer to be in a UCITS funds or a regulated EU fund’,” says White. “Ireland gives them that and the fact there is the expertise particularly on the alternatives side means they choose Ireland over Luxembourg, which is happening recently notwithstanding our domestic financial woes.”

This preference for onshore domicile is demonstrated by London-based RWC Partners, which is about to launch its first Irish-domiciled fund in January. The RWC Macro fund is a qualified investment fund. The choice of Dublin as a domicile was a deliberate rejection of lightly regulated offshore centres.

Dan Mannix, head of business development for RWC Partners, says: “For a business like ours, which has the infrastructure to support slightly more regulated environments, we can choose what we believe is the optimum place to domicile as opposed to the one which has lowest costs or a light regulation touch. In our opinion, there is less uncertainty over the future of funds domiciled in Ireland than those domiciled outside the EU. That’s principally as a result of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) directive.”

As a fund domicile, Ireland offers many advantages: from a favourable regulatory environment to local expertise, from experienced service providers and a tax structure, which enables funds to pay out income or gains free of local tax.

Risks to funds domiciled in Ireland come more from counterparties such as custodians and administrators than from Ireland’s sovereign status. But inevitably that might not be immediately obvious to potential clients whose view of Ireland is coloured by the relentless bad news on the debt and banking front.

The fact that many Dublin-based custodians and administrators are global names with sound reputations is reassuring. BNY Mellon, State Street Corporation, JPMorgan, Citi Global Transaction Services, BNP Paribas Security Services and SEI Investment Manager Services are world-class service providers.

State Street is a prime example of how custody business can flourish in the current climate. Business volumes have grown strongly over the past year, which is a source of great satisfaction to Willie Slattery, State Street Corporation’s country head in Ireland. He says the regulatory environment is a particular strength for the funds industry: “It is a regulatory environment that understands international fund products and is hugely respected by our client base,” he says.

Clients have expressed concerns about the ongoing crisis, says Slattery: “We have been able to reassure clients that because our business is ring-fenced from issues relating to the Irish state, with bank accounts held by State Street and by assets completely segregated and held on behalf of the clients that there are no implications for the clients, or for our business, arising from counterparty risk issues surrounding the Irish state.”

That does not mean that everything is perfect with the framework for financial services companies doing business in Ireland. Joe Duffy, BNY Mellon’s Ireland country executive, would welcome some further practical measures from the authorities: “We are looking for clarity on how EU regulations will be transposed into Irish law and for the local regulatory environment to enter a period of stability so that we know what we need to comply with.”

Another area of Irish business that looks immune to the crisis is the provision of pensions pooling vehicles for multinationals. The Irish Common Contractual Fund (CCF) is competing with Belgium’s OFP and Luxembourg’s FCP. The Irish vehicle currently loses out to the Belgian OFP through its stricter funding requirements for DB pensions.
“In terms of establishing a pan-European pension scheme as an entity as opposed to just financing vehicles, the Belgian OFP has probably become one of the most attractive for DB arrangements because of the reasonable flexibility in the funding requirements,” says Philip Shier, senior actuary at Aon Hewitt in Dublin.

But Ireland might regain some competitiveness if the funding requirements were relaxed, a possibility contained in the National Pensions Framework unveiled in March last year.
For DC pensions, though, the Irish structure benefits from Dublin’s evident strength in the realm of investment funds. “Certainly for DC, Ireland obviously has fund management capabilities, and a strong tradition of pension administration and advice,” adds Shier.

Two big uncertainties over the past year in the Irish asset management industry have been over the ownership of two of its leading asset management firms. Earlier this year, KBC Asset Management was acquired by RHJ International for €23.7m and rebranded Kleinwort Benson, the private bank bought by RHJ as part of its plan to restructure as a financial services company.

Kleinwort Benson Investors in Dublin will continue its previous strategy under the new ownership, says chief executive Sean Hawkshaw. “The beauty of this business is that is it immensely scaleable and we have a fully fledged operating platform which is structured to deal with the most demanding institutional investors from anywhere in the world.”

The firm runs three core strategies – environmental equities, high-dividend equities and multi-asset strategies. It has around €4bn in assets under management, and approximately 50% of its client base is internationally based.

Hawkshaw admits that the uncertainty up to and during the sale process in 2009 and early 2010 limited its ability to attract new business. “Now that the dust has settled on the deal we’re back in action and we’ve started gaining new clients again, which is terrific.”

Frank O’Dwyer, said the deal attracted widespread approval: “KBC was a very outward looking business which had considerable success at winning mandates overseas.”
The sale of Bank of Ireland Asset Management to State Street Global Advisors for the knockdown price of €57m completed early this January (see box on previous page).BIAM had been under pressure for some years with poor performance and shrinking assets, although, its sale was a condition imposed by the EU for the government bail-out of Bank of Ireland. By acquiring BIAM’s active management capability, State Street wants to fulfil its ambition to expand outside its traditional passive management specialisation.

Source: IPE Magazine

Forensic Accounting & Investment Losses

Andrew Brown, Partner with Deloitte in Ireland discusses Investment Losses from a Forensic Accounting perspective

Ireland’s Bailout gets the Taiwanese Animation Treatment. Hilarious!