In a bid to understand the bare basics of Regulation 29, the Economist touched base with the Namibia Financial Institutional Supervisory Authority this week to get meaningful insight into what prospective unlisted investment managers have to contend with to tap into a new asset class in the context of Namibia in the guise of unlisted investments.
Speaking to NAMFISA spokesperson Isaac Hamata, the Economist established that a total of 35 applications in 2015 (14 Special Purpose Vehicles and 21 Unlisted Investment Managers) was recieved
“To date, the Namibia Financial Institutional Supervisory Authority has received a total of 53 applications for the registration of unlisted investment managers (UIMs) and special purpose vehicles (SPVs) of which 29 are for UIMs and 24 for SPVs.
Of the applications received, the Registrar approved 11 UIMs and 10 SPVs and rejected 8 UIMs and 10 SPVs.
The remaining applications 10 UIMs and 4 SPVs are under review,” said Hamata.
Keen to understand what would make an application unsuccessful, Hamata explained, “The Investment Plans, Management Agreements and Subscription Agreements do not include the minimum requirements as stipulated in Regulation 29. NAMFISA [would have] found that the composition of the trustees and or board of the Special Purpose Vehicle and Unlisted Investment Manager did not have independent directors, the proposed Chief Executive Officer and Portfolio Manager is not a Namibian citizen, [or that] applicants failed to provide the proof of 1% co-investment.”
Said Hamata, “the Registrar must be satisfied that the Unlisted Investment Manager has the ability to co-invest along with the investor participants; company objective for UIM and Special Purpose Vehicle not in line with the requirement as per regulation, in other words, to administer unlisted investments and to solely hold unlisted investments on behalf of investors respectively.”
Added Hamata, “based on the proposed business model and or structure of the Unlisted Investment Manager or Special Purpose Vehicle, the Registrar will determine as to whether the entity is in the public interest and can thus decline an application based an entity not being in public interest.”
Concluded Hamata,“all in all, the Authority is not able to approve incomplete applications that do not address all the requirements as stipulated in Regulation 29.”