One of my favourite aspects of working in the offshore environment is that we get to speak to fund managers based all over the world about the latest hot and trendy investment opportunities. Over the last few years we have dealt with enquiries about bitcoin, crowd-funding, acquiring a portfolio of oil tankers and real estate opportunities in Puerto Rico to name but a few of the more intriguing conversations. It constantly keeps the team on our (permanently parked under the desk) toes and there is no doubt that recently we have been part of a very regular trickle of Cuba based conversations and how to maximise the gradual opening of the borders.
When Raul Castro took over from his brother as President of Cuba in 2008, he began a long-anticipated process of political and economic reform. As a result of his strategy, the stagnant economy has been gradually coming to life, galvanised by a fledgling private sector. Diplomatic advances have been made, animosities are thawing and, slowly but surely, relations with overseas nations are being restored. With this sea change comes the possibility of direct foreign investment, a prospect historically laden with regulatory obstacles and risks – from both sides.
It is easy to see why there is excitement surrounding Cuba’s development. The tourism industry is set to explode and the relaxation in travel restrictions for Americans opens a previously-untapped market of over 300 million potential visitors. Such a vast influx of people will require utilities, hotels, ports, roads and telecoms; truly massive investment is required to improve the current infrastructure and there is cautious optimism from sponsors eager to participate in the process and Cubans looking forward to the resulting developments.
Indeed, it is the tourism sector that US News largely focused on in the following article as the best way to invest in Cuba as a US citizen:
But rather than related company stock-picking, what about direct foreign investment? Is there a way for US based investors to capitalise directly on some of the infrastructure opportunities for example?
It seems like almost six months since I was in Shanghai to present at the 2nd Annual Hedge Fund China Summit 2016 and to enjoy plenty of the vino tinto at the awards dinner afterwards where my firm, Harneys, picked up the trophy for “Best Offshore Law Firm for Hedge Funds”.
Wait, that’s because it was five months ago.
And what a five months it has been.
Shortly after picking up that award, I was thrilled to hear that my colleagues in our London office had been named Best Offshore Law Firm – Client Service at the HFM European Hedge Fund Services Awards, announced on 21 April 2016.
The HFM Awards are high profile in the global hedge funds industry and the client service award is independently judged based on the relative strength of client testimonials and market feedback. The awards recognise Harneys as having provided leading client service, innovation and expertise to our valued hedge fund clients of all sizes, from start-up hedge funds and emerging managers to global multi-billion dollar investment institutions. That is what we do.
Now, when I say thrilled … what I actually mean is … indignant that my colleagues in London would seek more glory than their far more humble colleagues battling away day and night here in the buzzing hub of economic activity that is Asia.
Many of our readers will no doubt have heard about the recent decision by the European Commission that Apple’s tax structure in Ireland breached the EU state aid rules. But what, you may wonder, does that have to do with offshore funds? For me it raises an important question of principle of who should be deciding international tax policy for multi-national corporations and other companies – including investment funds – that operate on a cross-border basis in Europe.
As we’ve blogged about before, the OECD’s been busy working on its BEPS plan to try to make the international tax system more joined up – and limit some of the mismatches that multi-national and other companies have for years (completely legally) used to reduce their tax bills.
Here in Europe, the European Council’s also been working on introducing legislation building on BEPS and the Commission’s 2015 Action Plan for Fair and Efficient Corporate Taxation in the European Union, via the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive. So far, this all looks suitably co-ordinated and sounds sensible when you bear in mind the Commission’s website statement that “National governments are responsible for raising taxes and settling tax rates…The EC Treaty does not specifically call for direct taxes (income and corporate taxes) to be harmonised.”
So how then does the 30 August 2016 state aid decision by the Commission about Apple’s tax structure in Ireland fit into this?
They’ve been talked about for a while by our bloggers and contributors but the moment has now come for the Cayman LLC, which has been available for registration since 13 July and numerous of which have already been formed. The Cayman LLC was introduced to meet the requirements of North American managers and intermediaries who use Delaware LLCs and want a flexible offshore version, and Cayman lawyers dealing regularly with North American clients are particularly excited about now being able to offer a “Cayman” version. Its introduction also highlights Cayman’s responsiveness to market demand as it continues to maintain its position as the dominant brand in North America for funds structures.
So what makes the Cayman LLC – or limited liability company, to give it its full name – so interesting?
In this guest post, my friend Scott Rosenthal discusses the role of an Outsource CFO and the reasons why fund managers might like to engage one. Do feel free to get in contact with Scott or myself if you would like to discuss any of this further.
There is a growing segment of the hedge fund and private equity fund service provider population called the Outsource CFO. Outsourcing has become very popular in recent years, in regards to back office, middle office, compliance (including outsourcing the investment advisers CCO), trading, and most other areas that a hedge fund needs to operate. What could be considered the final frontier of the service provider population is the Outsource CFO. The Outsource CFO model assists the start-up or smaller fund manager, who may not have the budget or the need for a full time CFO. So, instead of hiring someone who may not have the appropriate experience in order just meet the budgetary restrictions, fund managers can now opt to hire an Outsource CFO.
So why use an Outsource CFO?