《金杜律師事務所：香港有限合伙基金2021年度調研報告（75頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《金杜律師事務所：香港有限合伙基金2021年度調研報告（75頁）.pdf（75頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、香港有限合伙基金2021 年度調研報告2021 年 7 月長的路要走。為進一步加深各界對香港有限合伙基金制度的認知，推動香港有限合伙基金制度的進一步完善，吸引更多的基金管理人和投資人接受并采用香港有限合伙基金架構，金杜律師事務所、中源國際資本有限公司聯合業界領先的在港資管機構、金融機構及其他專業機構共同創設了香港有限合伙基金協會（協會）。協會成立的目的旨在促進金融、法律、會計及各其他專業機構和各界對于香港有限合伙基金制度及資管行業發展的交流，通過組織行業活動，加強與政府溝通，共同推動香港有限合伙基金以及香港私募基金行業持續穩定健康發展。同時，協會的成立也恰逢條例實施近一周年之際，金杜律師事務所

2、和協會共同推出香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告（本調研報告），旨在反映業界對有限合伙基金接受程度，目前使用香港有限合伙基金的特點，并與新加坡和盧森堡有限合伙基金的注冊走勢進行對比，對香港有限合伙基金的未來趨勢做出預測。同時，報告也匯集了業界對香港有限合伙基金制度的反饋、擔憂以及改進建議，并結合其他國家（如新加坡和美國）的法律及實踐操作提出了一些對監管思路的建議， 供香港立法及監管部門參考。 我們在此感謝此前每一位參與我們問卷調查的機構和個人。我們在此特別感謝以下協會創會機構的支持（按英文字母排序）：李鷹 博士 香港有限合伙基金協會創會會長中源資本創始合伙人兼首席執行官江競競香港有限合伙

3、基金協會創會會長金杜律師事務所合伙人兼香港基金業務主管2021 年 7 月我們同時感謝香港投資推廣署、香港金融發展局、香港家族辦公室（FamilyOfficeHK）對香港有限合伙基金協會創立的支持。感謝全國政協委員、香港立法會議員、太平紳士張華峰議員、海通國際證券集團有限公司行政總裁、太平紳士林涌博士對協會創立的支持，并同意擔任協會的名譽主席。作為創會會長，我們感恩時代賦予我們這樣的機遇，有幸親自參與并見證香港私募基金行業的發展。我們對香港有限合伙基金的未來充滿信心，并期待更多的機構和人士加入我們，共同創造香港私募基金的輝煌未來。Alpha Win Capital Limited 中源國際資本

4、有限公司BIL Wealth Management Limited 盧銀資產管理有限公司Business Securities Limited 東信證券有限公司China Life Franklin Asset Management Company Limited 中國人壽富蘭克林資產管理有限公司CLSA Limited 中信里昂證券有限公司CMBC Hong Kong Branch 中國民生銀行香港分行DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited 星展銀行（香港）有限公司Ernst & Young 安永Haitong International Securities Group

5、Limited 海通國際證券集團有限公司King & Wood Mallesons 金杜律師事務所Monmonkey Group Securities Limited 大圣證券有限公司SDG Asset Management (HK) Limited 山金資產管理（香港）有限公司SPDB International Holdings Limited 浦銀國際控股有限公司Wonderful Sky Financial Group 皓天財經集團目 錄1. 摘要2. 受訪者背景及在管基金概述2.1 問卷數據2.2 受訪者背景2.3 受訪者在管基金現況3. 香港有限合伙基金設立意向及需求3.1 設立意

6、向3.2 香港有限合伙基金擬定主要投資標的、投資地區及設立原因4. 已設香港有限合伙基金多維分析4.1 設立數據分析4.2 設立總數4.3 設立流程及時間4.4 當前注冊數量及趨勢4.5 未來注冊趨勢4.6 已設香港有限合伙基金的投資范圍4.7 已設香港有限合伙基金的GP4.8 已設香港有限合伙基金的管理人4.9 已設香港有限合伙基金的負責人4.10 GP與Initial LP的關系4.11 香港有限合伙基金的開業時間5. 未來的挑戰5.1 受訪者面臨的挑戰5.2 基金管理人持牌要求5.3 合格投資者的資質要求 6. 結語010303030406060810101011121417181920

7、21222323252829Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 51 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告香港有限合伙基金制度的推出及條例的實施解決了香港傳統的有限合伙制度與現代私募基金發展不匹配的問題，成為香港捕捉亞洲私募及創投基金龐大市場機遇的有效載體。截至 2021 年 6 月 30 日，共有 284 支香港有限合伙基金根據條例成功設立。其中，金杜律師事務所參與協助設立或作為基金律師的有 89 支，占總設立數約 31.3%，其中包括設立香港第一支有限合伙基金。作為行業的觀察者及實踐者，為進一步了解相關行業對香港有

8、限合伙基金制度生效以來的意見與反饋，金杜律師事務所于 2021 年 3 月向在港的部分資產管理機構和金融機構發起了一份針對有限合伙基金的問卷調查（問卷），旨在了解業界對有限合伙基金接受度的同時，匯集業界對香港有限合伙基金制度的反饋以及改進建議，供香港相關立法及監管部門參考。自 條例 實施10個月以來， 香港有限合伙基金的發展呈現持續增長的趨勢。香港有限合伙基金與其他傳統離岸基金組織結構基本相同，擁有合伙條款自由、利益分配機制靈活、合伙人信息保密、設立及維護費用較低等優點，因此基金管理人及投資者對其接受程度較高。受益于受訪者對粵港澳大灣區發展前景的看好，大多數受訪者對香港有限合伙基金表現出濃厚的

9、興趣，并表示有意設立或已經設立香港有限合伙基金，同時對香港未來成為國際私募基金主流注冊地之一充滿信心。鑒于受訪者多為中資背景機構或港資機構，其擬設立的相關有限合伙基金投資標的及目標投資者同樣主要位于大中華地區。香港有限合伙基金將私募基金的“離岸”功能與“在岸”功能緊密結合，充分利用本地各類基金服務供應商專業化的資源優勢，使基金管理人能夠通過在香港設立有限合伙基金、在香港募集資金、在香港或大中華地區進行項目投資的方式，優化基金架構設計，加強基金的經濟實質，避免跨法域的雙重監管。與之相對，參與問卷調查的國際機構比例較低，反映出香港有限合伙基金制度在國際機構中的認可程度有待提升。如何使得香港有限合伙

10、基金制度能夠走入更多知名資產管理機構及國際投資者的視野，并成為全球私募基金管理人心中具有競爭力的選擇，依然是政府和業界需要努力的方向之一。1摘 要Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 2 2除卻受訪者對香港及粵港澳大灣區區位影響力的關注，立法及監管機構為吸引基金管理人及投資者做出的努力不容忽視。香港有限合伙基金極具競爭力的設立及維護費用、簡便的設立流程、高度尊重市場慣例的法律規定以及較輕的持續合規義務進一步為該制度參與者提供了便利。另外，香港政府近年來也致力于通過多種稅務減免政策以降低私募投資及基金落戶香港的稅收成本。私募基

11、金在符合“基金”的定義并滿足特定其他條件的情況下，即可享受香港利得稅豁免。在投資人層面，投資人向香港有限合伙基金出資時不繳納資本稅，亦無需針對利潤及資產收益的分配（包括有限合伙人權益的轉讓與贖回）支付印花稅。香港有限合伙基金制度生效后，政府又適逢其會地公布了附帶權益稅務寬免及境外基金遷冊兩大利好消息，在助推香港有限合伙基金注冊數量飛躍式上漲的同時，也吸引其他已有離岸基金未來遷冊來港運營。與其他在岸基金橫向對比，香港有限合伙基金雖然面世時間較短，其熱度卻遠超新加坡及盧森堡類似的私募基金制度，這從香港有限合伙基金注冊數量及增長趨勢可見一斑。不可否認，香港政府在推動香港私募基金產業發展方面已取得階段

12、性成果。通過以條例為先導，以稅務（修訂）（附帶權益的稅務寬減） 條例 及 遷冊建議 為補充的 “三部曲”策略，為香港成為全球私募基金樞紐奠定了制度基礎。然而縱觀世界各地主流離岸私募基金設立地，其法域內私募基金監管框架的建立都并非一蹴而就，均依賴于監管機構對市場動態的洞悉及相關配套措施的不斷完善。就香港有限合伙基金制度而言，條例的立法過程雖基于國際市場慣例，但現階段在實操中某些方面仍存在一定的不確定性，受訪者仍存在種種擔憂：例如，公司注冊處及香港證監會能否適時地就私募基金發起人或管理人在設立和運營香港有限合伙基金過程中遇到的各類問題提供切實可行并符合國際慣例的指引或解決方案；已推出的附帶權益稅務

13、寬減等一系列優惠政策能否真正“落地”，使得基金管理人容易滿足相應條件從而切實享受利得稅豁免；遷冊政策細則何時推出，是否能夠有力保障現有離岸基金的遷移過程暢通無阻等。另外，目前香港對于基金管理人的監管相對嚴格，相較開曼對私募基金管理人的寬松監管及美國和新加坡對各類基金管理人分類監管的監管模式而言，偏向于嚴苛，因此眾多私募基金管理人對香港證監會放寬監管方式也有一定期待。香港有限合伙基金良好發展的勢頭是否能夠長期穩定延續，仍取決于香港政府后續能否在制度建設上繼續優化，和監管及稅務機構是否能夠傾聽業界以及市場的聲音。我們期待香港有限合伙基金能夠為香港資產及財富管理行業注入增長新動力，同時讓香港更好地發

14、揮在國家十四五規劃綱要下國際資產管理中心的功能定位，通過私募資本推動粵港澳大灣區乃至整個中國的建設及發展。香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告23 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告2.1 問卷數據針對問卷，我們收到來自香港資管行業機構共 202 份反饋，其中完整填寫的有效問卷為 87 份。我們對受訪者就香港有限合伙基金問卷的意見反饋進行了數據分析，同時，結合我們在香港有限合伙基金立法過程中與相關立法及監管部門的溝通與討論，以及協助客戶成功設立或作為基金律師參與的近 90支香港有限合伙基金的項目經驗，并基于對已成功設立的 260 支香港有限合伙基金公開信息的深度分析，匯集編寫了本調研

15、報告。我們希望通過本調研報告為行業進一步了解香港有限合伙基金提供有價值的參考。2.2 受訪者背景參與問卷的受訪者背景可主要分為中國內地中資背景機構（包括該等機構在香港成立的子公司或分支機構）以及本地港資機構。就受訪者類型而言，主要分為資產管理機構及基金服務機構（如基金行政管理人、托管人等）。就受訪者持牌情況，資管機構中近八成為香港證監會 9 號牌持牌機構。2受訪者背景及在管基金概述持牌機構78%非持牌機構22%受訪者的機構所屬背景 內地中資背景機構47%本地港資機構43%國際機構8%其他2%的機構所屬背景受訪者持牌機構比例 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 42.3 受訪者在管基金現況

16、就受訪者在管的基金投資目標所在地而言，絕大部分受訪者現有基金的投資目標位于大中華地區，少部分受訪者在管基金的投資目標所在地區為東亞、東南亞、美國及歐洲。就受訪者在管的基金投資標的類型而言，私募股權投資、二級市場投資及固定收益類產品的投資構成受訪者在管基金的主要投資類型。* 問卷中此題為多選題，此處百分比是指選擇某選項的人數占全部受訪者人數的百分比48%73%48%20%5%8%0%20%40%60%80%在管基金主要投資標的*私募股權/風投/股權并購二級市場股票固定收益房地產虛擬資產其他91%22%10%39%6%3%10%16%10%0%20%40%60%80%100%大中華東亞/東南亞澳洲

17、美國加拿大拉美英國歐洲其他國家在管基金主要投資地區 *在管基金主要投資標的 *5 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告就受訪者在管的離岸基金架構而言，開曼依然是絕大多數受訪者最常用的基金設立地，而開曼 SPC（segregated portfolio company）也是受訪者在管基金中最為常見的結構。同時我們也注意到，受訪者的在管基金之中，封閉式與開放式基金的數量基本持平。鑒于受訪者多為香港持牌公司，且目標投資地區及投資人主要集中在大中華地區，雖然受訪者的在管離岸基金中也有一小部分設立在新加坡、盧森堡等地區，但從受訪者反饋中可以看出，就市場普遍接受度、投資者熟悉度及便利性而言，目前仍沒有

18、相較在開曼設立基金更具有競爭力的基金設立方案。* 問卷中此題為多選題，此處百分比是指選擇某選項的人數占全部受訪者人數的百分比5%3%5%5%18%28%94%0%20%40%60%80%100%其他新加坡歐洲盧森堡BVI香港開曼群島受訪者在管離岸基金所在地 *6%11%32%40%69%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%其他BVI GP/LP開曼豁免公司開曼GP/LP開曼SPC受訪者在管離岸基金結構 *香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 63香港有限合伙基金設立意向及需求3.1 設立意向為了解香港有限合伙基金是否有可能成為受訪者于開曼以外設立基金的另一首選地，我們也通過

19、問卷了解了受訪者對于香港有限合伙基金的熟悉程度及設立傾向，并從基金設立的需求和目的等幾個維度進行了分析總結。根據問卷結果，絕大多數受訪者已通過不同渠道了解到了香港有限合伙基金。市場對于香港有限合伙基金反饋積極的原因之一或許是因為其與私募基金中使用率極高的開曼有限合伙形式相同，均屬于有限合伙的結構，因此業界對于香港有限合伙基金的熟悉度和接受程度都相對較高。 同時，自香港有限合伙基金首次發布征求意見稿至法律最終落地，相關立法部門在過程中積極主動地與業界進行了多輪、全方位的意見交換與深度討論，在設計香港有限合伙基金架構以及制定相關法律法規時充分參考了私募基金市場慣例及資管業市場需求，做到了簡化設立流

20、程、尊重市場慣例、迎合市場需求，意圖在實踐中為業界提供切實便利。了解, 94%不了解, 6%受訪者是否了解香港有限合伙基金7 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021另外，超過 90% 的受訪者認為，香港未來會成為國際私募基金一個比較重要的注冊地，而其中一半的受訪者相信香港會在未來的 3-5 年內實現成為國際私募基金的重要注冊地，僅有 6% 的受訪者認為香港未來不太可能成為國際私募基金的重要注冊地。 7 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告得益于香港有限合伙基金在設立要求、設立程序、后續維護及實際操作等各方面的便利與優勢，

21、82% 的受訪者表示有意考慮設立香港有限合伙基金，有 10% 的受訪者表示已經成功設立了香港有限合伙基金，只有 8% 的受訪者表示不會考慮設立香港有限合伙基金。21%50%15%8%6%2-3年3-5年5-8年8-10年不太可能已設立10%有意設立82%不考慮設立8%香港有限合伙基金設立意向香港有限合伙基金會在未來幾年內成為國際私募基金較重要的注冊地？香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 83.2 香港有限合伙基金擬定主要投資標的、投資地區及設立原因香港有限合伙基金擬投資標的根據有意設立香港有限合伙基金的受訪者反饋，多數受訪者表示，未來可能考慮使用香港有限合伙基金架構同時進行單一資產投資和

22、多項資產的投資。受訪者未來可能通過設立香港有限合伙基金進行投資的資產類型主要集中在私募股權投資、風險投資與股權并購投資（76%）及二級市場股票投資（57%）。擬設香港有限合伙基金的目標投資者考慮到受訪者的背景，受訪者在管基金的目標投資者與受訪者擬設香港有限合伙基金的目標投資者主要所在地區均為大中華地區。 同時，與受訪者在管基金的目標投資地區一致，受訪者擬通過設立香港有限合伙基金所投資的目標投資地區也主要為大中華地區。* 問卷中此題為多選題，此處百分比是指選擇某選項的人數占全部受訪者人數的百分比# 此題中，大中華地區包括中國內地與中國香港76%57%38%28%14%3%0%10%20%30%4

23、0%50%60%70%80%潛在LPF的主要投資標的*私募股權/風投/股權并購二級市場股票固收房地產虛擬資產其他90%18%23%18%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%大中華地區#東南亞美國歐洲其他國家或地區潛在香港有限合伙基金的主要投資標的 *潛在香港有限合伙基金的目標投資者地區分布 *9 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告不難發現，從投資標的到潛在投資人分布，大中華地區的地理優勢始終是香港資管業的著力點。 結合中國內地與香港的雙邊稅務優惠、投資人對投資地區的熟悉程度以及各類基金服務供應商本地化等因素，我們相信香港有限合伙基金將成為重點關注大中華地

24、區資管及金融機構的新投資載體。選擇設立香港有限合伙基金的原因就受訪者已設立或考慮設立香港有限合伙基金的原因而言，除對大中華地區的關注以外，還包括香港有限合伙基金在設立及維護成本上的巨大優勢、香港附帶權益稅務寬減相關政策的推出，及對粵港澳大灣區發展前景的信心等。設立及維護費用與離岸基金相比有很大優勢設立及后續維護比離岸結構簡單便捷設立香港有限合伙基金可以基本實現搭建離岸基金的所有目的香港最新的附帶權益稅務優惠立法建議中國香港與中國內地以及其他國家和地區的雙邊稅收優惠，以香港有限合伙基金作為投資主體有利于投資稅收籌劃香港作為一個國際知名金融中心對于基金投資比離岸群島更有優勢我們相信，在港的基金管理

25、人和資產管理機構能夠通過設立香港有限合伙基金從設立及維護成本上優化架構設計， 結合香港獨一無二的地域、 政策及監管優勢向投資者提供更優質的服務并為投資目標賦能。67%61%59%44%39%30%選擇設立香港有限合伙基金的原因 * 問卷中此題為多選題，此處百分比是指選擇某選項的人數占全部受訪者人數的百分比香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 104.1 設立數據分析本調研報告第 4 部分就已設立的香港有限合伙基金的分析，為僅針對截止 2021 年 6月 10 日前注冊的共 260 支香港有限合伙基金的數據的分析。本調研報告中凡提及已注冊或已成功設立的香港有限合伙基金，均指該前 260 支香

26、港有限合伙基金的注冊信息。4.2 設立總數截至 2021 年 6 月 30 日，共有 284 支有限合伙基金根據條例成功設立。 其中，金杜律師事務所參與協助設立或作為基金律師的有 89 支，占市場份額約 31.3%。4已設香港有限合伙基金多維分析11 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告申請文件注冊完成向香港公司注冊處提交設立申請香港有限合伙基金的擬用名稱注冊辦事處地址投資范圍主要營業地址GP 的信息管理人的信息負責人的信息有關基金擬設立為香港有限合伙基金及有關其已符合資格規定的聲明及承諾該申請須由一家香港律師事務所或一名香港律師代擬任 GP提交向注冊處繳付 3，034 港元費用注冊處出具

27、有限合伙基金的注冊證明書，作為基金注冊為有限合伙基金的最終證明注冊處審閱注冊申請所需時間一般為 4 個工作日4.3 設立流程及時間香港有限合伙基金的設立程序相對簡便，設立時所需準備及遞交的文件、設立費用及設立時間都相對明確。 另外，香港有限合伙基金自身在不向公眾公開發售的前提下，無需取得香港證監會的認可或批準。 香港有限合伙基金可直接于香港公司注冊處通過以下程序進行注冊：香港有限合伙基金設立時間從遞交申請至公司注冊處到申請批復一般所需時間為 4 個工作日。特殊情況下，設立時間可能會因外部因素而相應延長。比如，據我們實踐經驗，今年 1 至 2 月香港疫情再度爆發期間，香港有限合伙基金的注冊時間一

28、度延長到了 7 個工作日，后在春節假期結束后，注冊時間逐步恢復至平均 4 個工作日。同時，根據條例規定，香港有限合伙基金的申請須由一家香港律師事務所或一名香港律師代擬任 GP 提交。根據我們總結分析，已注冊的香港有限合伙基金中絕大部分（占 80%）的申請是由律師事務所代為提交，另外小部分為律師個人代擬任 GP 提交。律師事務所80%律師個人20%有限合伙基金注冊申請呈交人香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 124.4 當前注冊數量及趨勢據統計，香港有限合伙基金的注冊數量在 2021 年第一季度下旬呈現飛躍式增長。我們理解，香港有限合伙基金注冊數量在該時間段的高速增長或與香港政府在 202

29、1 年 1 月至 2 月頒布的有關附帶權益稅務寬減，及境外基金遷冊來港的兩大利好建議有直接關系，政策支持成為香港有限合伙基金推廣的重要依托。附帶權益的稅務寬減具體而言，在 2021 年 1 月 4 日，香港立法會發布了財庫局提出的關于附帶權益的稅務寬減的討論文件。有限合伙基金的相關稅務處理，包括附帶權益稅務寬減一直是業界持續重點關注的熱門話題之一。該討論文件發布后，香港有限合伙基金于 2021 年 2 月份的注冊數量增長至同年 1 月的近 3 倍，達到一個月 32 支。繼討論文件發布后，2021 年稅務（修訂）（附帶權益的稅務寬減）條例草案于今年 1 月 29 日刊憲，并于 2021 年 4

30、月 28 日在香港立法會獲得通過，2021 年稅務（修訂）（附帶權益的稅務寬減）條例（稅務修訂條例）于 2021 年 5 月 7 日生效。 根據稅務修訂條例，合資格人士與合資格雇員因向特定基金提供投資管理服務而獲得的特定類型附帶權益，可享受利得稅和薪俸稅寬減。同時，就 2020 年 4 月 1 日或之后開始的課稅年度而言，在滿足稅務修訂條例規定的前提下，就具資格附帶權益凈額的利得稅稅率為 0%。稅務修訂條例界定“具資格附帶權益”為一筆由相關人士收?。ɑ蛳嚓P人士累計享有）的利潤相關回報方式的數額，前提是該數額受門檻收益率（即基金投資的優先回報率）所限。 稅務修訂條例對合資格基金 / 附帶權益發放

31、者、合資格的附帶權益收取者，合資格交易以及構成在香港從事實質活動的條件等均作出相關詳細規定。 附帶權益稅務寬減制度與香港有限合伙基金制度相輔相成。我們認為稅務修訂條例是提高香港基金業吸引力不可或缺的一部分，且將進一步提升香港作為亞太資產管理中心的競爭力。2020年9月2020年10月2020年11月2020年12月2021年1月2021年2月2021年3月2021年4月2021年5月2021年6月注冊數量17152016133258402944171520161332584029440102030405060702020年9月至2021年6月 - LPF注冊數量香港有限合伙基金注冊數量13 香

32、港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告基金遷冊2021 年 2 月 1 日，財庫局再次刊發了一份建議，旨在設立一項允許外地基金遷移來港的制度（遷冊建議）。該遷冊建議進一步鼓勵離岸基金以“遷冊”方式轉向香港基金市場，支持在香港境外以有限合伙或公司形式設立的基金，在符合有關以香港為注冊地的有限合伙基金或開放式基金型公司的相同資格規定等前提下，在香港分別注冊為香港有限合伙基金或開放式基金型公司。財庫局目標于 2021 年第三季度向立法會呈交落實遷冊建議的相關草案作一讀和二讀?；疬w冊在許多主流的離岸與在岸法域早已被允許，例如澤西、英屬維爾京群島、盧森堡、愛爾蘭和新加坡，而部分地區更進一步出臺了相應措

33、施，以確保市場參與者的遷冊流程更加順暢、簡便。遷冊建議再次反映出香港政府與相關立法部門為實現讓香港有限合伙基金制度更具競爭力而做出的努力。同時，基金遷冊并非只是相關立法者為推動當地基金設立而出具的政策，其也是為滿足不同市場對基金法域可能存在的特殊要求或偏好而制定的特殊制度。 通過受訪者對問卷的反饋，我們了解到超過 70% 的受訪者表示，如制度允許，受訪者有意考慮將其在管離岸基金遷冊至香港并注冊成香港有限合伙基金。 根據目前遷冊建議的內容，在香港境外以有限合伙或公司形式成立的基金，如符合有關以香港為注冊地的有限合伙基金或開放式基金型公司的相同資格規定，即可在香港分別注冊為有限合伙基金或開放式基金

34、型公司。在遷冊后，該基金仍然是同一個法律實體。遷冊來港之舉無意損害或影響基金之前成立或注冊的身份，基金遷冊不影響在香港注冊前訂立的合同和通過的決議，且不影響基金的權利、功能、法律責任、義務及財產，同時不影響任何之前由基金所提起或針對基金所提起的法律程序。遷冊建議仍有待進一步澄清和細化，但遷冊建議的推出為離岸基金提供了一個快捷簡易并切實的遷冊方案，我們殷切期盼遷冊建議早日落實。是74%否26%受訪者是否考慮將在管離岸基金遷冊成為香港有限合伙基金香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 144.5 未來注冊趨勢就未來發展趨勢而言，香港有限合伙基金與新加坡有限合伙型基金及盧森堡 SCSp（特殊有限合

35、伙）一經對比即可看出，香港有限合伙基金的勢頭與熱度遠超于新加坡及盧森堡，在香港有限合伙基金架構推出的 10 個月內，其注冊數量已經高達 284 支。香港有限合伙基金注冊數量2020年9月2020年10月2020年11月2020年12月2021年1月2021年2月2021年3月2021年4月2021年5月2021年6月注冊數量16315167801121702112402841631516780112170211240284050100150200250300香港有限合伙基金注冊數量15 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告相對比而言，盧森堡 SCSp（特殊有限合伙）架構推出的一年內，注冊數

36、量為 245 支3，而新加坡的有限合伙型基金架構從 2009 年 5 月份推出至 2021 年 6 月份，注冊數量僅為 519 支4。3資料來源：PwC 發布的The Luxembourg Special Partnership, A multi-purpose solution for the real estate industry第 1 頁， https:/www.pwc.lu/en/real-estate/docs/pwc-re-lux-special-partnership.pdf4資料來源：新加坡會計與企業管理局統計 https:/www.acra.gov.sg/training-

37、and-resources/facts-and-figures/business-registry-statistics新加坡有限合伙型基金 2019-2021 年注冊數量盧森堡 SCSp 制度推出第一年內的注冊數量2013年10月2014年1月2014年4月2014年7月注冊數量178814824517881482450501001502002503002019年1月2019年7月2020年1月2020年7月2021年1月2021年6月基金數量3973994214514855193973994214514855190100200300400500600新加坡有限合伙型基金2019-2021年

38、注冊數量香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 16再結合盧森堡基金從制度推出到 2020 年的設立趨勢5，我們期待香港有限合伙基金的增長趨勢能繼續保持，更期待香港能早日成為國際私募基金的重要注冊地。我們因此有理由相信，一系列利好政策消息的陸續發布顯示了香港政府致力于加強和鞏固香港作為基金管理業務及投資基金注冊地國際樞紐地位的決心，也為考慮設立香港有限合伙基金的資管機構及投資于香港有限合伙基金架構的投資者打了一劑強心針。如財庫局此前表示：政府一直致力鞏固香港作為私募基金樞紐的優勢，并在這方面進行三步曲的部署。第一步是我們已在各位立法會議員的支持下，在去年八月引入新的基金結構，讓私募基金可以在

39、香港以有限責任合伙形式成立，在過去短短幾個月已有 80 個有限合伙基金注冊。第二步，即是次立法建議，是為在香港營運的私募基金所分發的附帶權益提供稅務寬減。第三步是建議設立外地基金遷冊來港的機制， 以利便及吸引基金在香港落戶和營運， 我們已在二月一日向立法會財經事務委員會提出相關、即第三步的建議。我們有信心，在這三步曲完成后，香港可大大提升作為私募基金樞紐的吸引力。5資料來源：PwC 發布的Luxembourg Limited Partnerships，第 8 頁 https:/www.pwc.lu/en/alternative-investments/docs/luxembourg-limit

40、ed-partnership.pdf盧森堡 SCSp 注冊趨勢2015年6月 2016年6月 2017年6月 2018年6月 2019年6月 2020年6月注冊SCSp66811651685243633854665668116516852436338546650500100015002000250030003500400045005000SCSp注冊趨勢17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.6 已設香港有限合伙基金的投資范圍根據對已注冊的 260 支香港有限合伙基金公開信息的橫向對比，我們了解到超過半數的香港有限合伙

41、基金在注冊時披露的基金投資范圍不僅包含私募股權投資、上市公司二級市場投資或 IPO/Pre-IPO 項目投資，同時還包含了各種類型的證券、票據及其他固收類投資。根據上述統計我們可以看出，鑒于香港有限合伙基金需在向公司注冊處注冊時填寫基金投資范圍，如后續發生投資范圍變更，則 GP 需向公司注冊處通知并提交投資范圍變更手續，香港有限合伙基金的發起人更傾向于在注冊時不對該基金的投資范圍作出過多限制，以涵蓋香港有限合伙基金后續可能進行的不同類型投資。同時，上述統計結果與前述潛在香港有限合伙基金的主要投資標的形成呼應，即私募股權投資及二級市場投資同時作為潛在香港有限合伙基金與已注冊香港有限合伙基金的主要

42、投資標的。由此可見，目前已注冊的香港有限合伙基金所披露的投資范圍基本反映了受訪者對設立香港有限合伙基金的需求預期。* 問卷中此題為多選題，此處百分比是指選擇某選項的人數占全部受訪者人數的百分比17 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告已設香港有限合伙基金主要投資范圍所涉及的投資類型 *13%1%5%6%7%7%22%58%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%其他貸款房地產債券 / 票據 / 固定收益IPO / 上市公司Fintech / 科技 / 虛擬資產私募股權投資范圍廣泛 (含私募/公開市場及各類證券投資)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund

43、Annual Report 2021 184.7 已設香港有限合伙基金的 GP條例規定，香港有限合伙基金的 GP 可以由以下人士擔任：根據我們統計分析，目前已成功注冊的香港有限合伙基金中，超過九成發起人選擇使用香港私人股份有限公司作為基金 GP，另外小部分是通過自然人作為 GP 設立香港有限合伙基金。從法律層面而言，GP 需對香港有限合伙基金的債務承擔無限責任，因此絕大多數香港有限合伙基金發起人選擇通過其已設立或新設立的香港有限公司擔任 GP 也是意料之中。香港私人股份有限公司年滿 18 歲的個人注冊非香港公司有限責任合伙（地區不限）香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告18已注冊香港有限合

44、伙基金的 GP 類型93%1%0%6%香港私人股份有限公司注冊非香港公司有限責任合伙年滿18歲的個人19 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告4.8 已設香港有限合伙基金的管理人根據 條例 ， 香港有限合伙基金的GP必須委任一名管理人 （可以是GP自己） 以執行基金的日常投資管理職能，管理人可以由以下人士擔任：截止目前為止，已設立的香港有限合伙基金中使用香港持牌公司作為管理人的高達 195 支，占已注冊香港有限合伙基金的 75%。即使條例并無針對香港有限合伙基金管理人必須持有香港證監會牌照的相關規定，大部分香港有限合伙基金管理人均為香港證監會持牌人士。我們判斷形成這一趨勢的主要原因有兩個：

45、其一，香港有限合伙基金投資標的類型導致多數管理人實踐中難以被豁免持牌要求。香港證監會在 2020 年 1 月的致尋求獲發牌的私募股本公司的通函中澄清，任何在香港開展受規管活動的人士，都必須持有相關的香港證監會牌照。簡而言之，除非被豁免，任何針對符合證券及期貨條例下“證券”含義的投資組合或資產進行交易、實施管理或提供意見的人士（包括私募股權及風投），都將受限于持牌要求。值得注意的是，任何非香港私人公司的股份及債券明確包含在“證券”定義內。因此，即使香港有限合伙基金的投資標的并非位于香港，若香港有限合伙基金擬定進行私募股權投資，則需要滿足相應的持牌要求。其二，投資人和香港有限合伙基金的其他服務供應

46、商出于對其內部審批流程或合規要求的考慮，可能更傾向于與香港證監會持牌的基金發起人及管理人合作。年滿 18 歲的香港居民香港注冊成立的公司注冊非香港公司SFC持牌公司75%SFC持牌人士（自然人）3%非SFC持牌22%已注冊香港有限合伙基金的 SFC 持牌管理人統計 20如上圖所示，除香港證監會持牌管理人以外，已注冊的香港有限合伙基金中仍有高達四分之一的管理人并不持有任何香港證監會牌照。我們理解使用非持牌主體作為管理人的原因有：第一，除非管理人或香港有限合伙基金會在香港開展受規管活動，否則管理人并不需要取得香港證監會相關牌照；第二，實際操作中為簡化內部審批流程或加快實體設立過程，發起人可能優先選

47、擇從簡完成設立流程，在募資啟動后再完善架構，并完成持牌管理人的聘任工作。 另外，我們還關注到另一趨勢是同一持牌管理人同時管理多支香港有限合伙基金。其中同一管理人最多同時管理 18 支香港有限合伙基金。形成這一趨勢的原因或許同樣可歸結為持牌管理人因業務需求強勁，為簡化并加快基金投資實體的設立流程，管理人更傾向于選擇同時或分批次設立多支香港有限合伙基金，以提高未來行政及項目執行效率。26183有 26 名管理人同時管理 2 支或以上香港有限合伙基金已注冊的香港有限合伙基金中，同一管理人最多同時管理 18 支香港有限合伙基金其中3位為自然人管理人，另 23 名為機構管理人4.9 負責人條例規定，香港

48、有限合伙基金的 GP 必須委任一名負責人執行反洗錢措施，并且負責人應由以下人士擔任：我們在針對已注冊的香港有限合伙基金進行分析時發現，大多數 GP（73 %）選擇委任持牌法團作為香港有限合伙基金負責人，負責執行反洗錢（AML）等措施。除持牌法團外，會計專業人士及法律專業人士被委任作為負責人的比例不相上下。 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告金管局認可機構（銀行）香港律師會法律專業人士香港證監會持牌法團香港會計師公會會計專業人士21 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告4.10 GP 與 Initial LP 的關系為簡化設立流程及為基金募資爭取更多時間，按照行業慣例以及離岸基金設立模

49、式，基金發起人在初始設立基金實體時通常會使用發起人集團或架構內的現有實體分別作為 GP 以及 initial LP 完成實體設立，或選擇由第三方服務機構（如注冊代理）提供 initial LP 實體進行注冊。 條例高度尊重行業慣例，規定香港有限合伙基金發起人可在成功注冊之日起的兩周年時間內，保留同一公司集團內的兩家不同主體作為 GP 及 initial LP，為發起人提供充分的募資時間。結合上述對香港有限合伙基金管理人的分析，鑒于大多數香港有限合伙基金已聘任香港證監會持牌管理人管理基金，且持牌管理人自身受制于香港打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集條例的約束，對于執行反洗錢或打擊恐怖分子資金籌集措施相對

50、熟悉，由該等持牌管理人同時擔任香港有限合伙基金的反洗錢負責人順理成章。同時，持牌管理人作為負責基金整體運營的掌舵者，其對基金的投資人及整體運營情況有更為全面和深入的了解，由管理人同時擔任香港有限合伙基金負責人或可提高溝通效率，從而降低運營成本。與此同時， 我們注意到， 已設立的香港有限合伙基金中有部分基金的負責人職位由律所擔任。 我們理解根據 條例規定，有資格成為負責人的法律專業人士僅包括香港律師及外地律師，而不包括律師事務所，因此這一點仍有待相關立法部門與香港公司注冊處進一步澄清。個人會計師79%會計師事務所21%律師44%律師事務所56%持牌法團73%法律專業人士14%會計專業人士13%認

51、可機構0%屬同一公司集團35%不屬同一公司集團65%通過對已注冊香港有限合伙基金的數據分析，35% 的香港有限合伙基金延用了上述設立離岸基金時的慣常方案，即在基金實體初始設立時由同一公司集團內的兩家不同主體分別作為其 GP 以及 initial LP。 已設立香港有限合伙基金的負責人資質統計GP 與 Initial LP 的關聯 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 224.11 香港有限合伙基金的開業時間僅根據我們代表客戶設立香港有限合伙基金的經驗， 大部分的香港有限合伙基金在設立時選擇暫不開業：上述數據反映出了私募基金的行業慣例，即基金實體的設立及項目立項及與投資人的對接同時進行，私募

52、基金的發起人一般會在基金正式募資開始前就已完成基金實體的設立，以確?；饘嶓w的設立不會影響項目的進度。47% 的香港有限合伙基金發起人選擇立刻開業，即香港有限合伙基金將會即刻開始基金的募資程序。發起人在設立香港有限合伙基金的同時也會盡快引入外部投資人。53% 的香港有限合伙基金發起人選擇暫不開業。發起人務必在設立注冊之日的兩周年內引入外部投資人，以確保 GP 及 initial LP 不再屬于同一公司集團。47%47%53%53%23 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告5未來的挑戰5.1 受訪者面臨的挑戰隨著傳統離岸法域近年來出現諸多監管變化等因素影響， 我們有理由相信業內或將逐漸形成一

53、種新趨勢 ：即基金發起人逐漸傾向于將實質性資產管理活動與基金注冊地相匹配 - 香港有限合伙基金應運而生。但在香港有限合伙基金制度蓬勃發展的同時，我們理解新制度的推出只是改革的開始，條例制度仍有進一步優化的空間。鑒于此，我們也通過問卷了解了受訪者在考慮是否采用香港有限合伙基金作為基金架構時的一些最為突出的擔憂或可能面臨的挑戰，受訪者認同度降序排列如下 :香港有限合伙基金本身較新，等有較多成功運作案例后考慮潛在投資者對香港有限合伙基金不熟悉基金管理人附帶權益的稅務不確定性基金投資所得稅收的不確定性 基金可能受到證監會監管及 / 或擔心可能與監管機構共享基金相關的信息12345香港有限合伙基金 20

54、21 年度調研報告 24架構新穎、缺少投資者熟悉度香港有限合伙基金架構的新穎性及由此帶來的投資者對該結構的低熟悉度可能在一定程度上導致基金發起人對選擇香港作為基金注冊地一事望而卻步。不難理解，提高投資者對某種新型基金結構的熟悉程度通常需要在推廣該制度及引導投資者方面花費較長的時間。 雖然運用傳統的基金架構可能會給發起人在募資方面帶來諸多便利，但是，鑒于近年來開曼群島等傳統離岸法域頻頻出現監管變化，從更嚴格的報告及備案義務、經濟實質要求到各種其他立法變化，原先得益于稅收優惠和寬松監管的吸引力已被大幅削弱。另一方面，自香港有限合伙基金制度開始實施以來，已有近 300 支香港有限合伙基金在公司注冊處

55、成功注冊?？紤]到設立香港有限合伙基金的便捷性及維持香港有限合伙基金所需的相對低廉的成本，我們相信發起人及投資者在未來數年中將更樂于接受將基金注冊地遷至香港。所得稅及附帶權益稅務不確定性香港有限合伙基金的稅務相關處理是業界重點關注的方向之一。 對于此，除了上述第 4.4 段提及的稅務修訂條例外，香港稅務局于 2020 年 6 月 30 日也刊發了稅務條例釋義及執行指引第 61 號 (DIPN 61)，該指引增加了基金（包括其投資）在稅務處理方面的確定性。例如，對于投資私募股權的基金而言，為使基金投資能夠享受稅收優惠，該基金需要滿足多項額外條件，包括滿足總體香港不動產測試（10% 的門檻）、持有期

56、測試及控制權測試或短期資產測試。 而就稅務修訂條例而言，我們理解香港金融管理局也已在準備有關核證基金的相關指南，這將會成為確定附帶權益接收方是否有權獲得附帶權益稅收減免的關鍵?？傮w上看，香港政府已著手推動稅務制度與時俱進，并在增強基金稅務待遇的競爭力及吸引力方面做出了諸多努力。25 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告證監會的監管與 2018 年作為全新公司型基金架構引入的開放式基金型公司（OFC）不同，目前香港有限合伙基金無須在香港證監會進行注冊。盡管條例規定普通合伙人須委任一名投資管理人履行香港有限合伙基金的日常投資管理職能，但聘請第三方投資管理人并非強制性規定，普通合伙人自身也能夠履

57、行投資管理人的職能。至于香港有限合伙基金的主要運營人是否要按規定持有牌照，則需視乎事實而定，主要取決于香港有限合伙基金的實際投資情況。如上文第 4.8 條所述，基金管理人是否需要持有證監會牌照取決于其是否在香港進行受監管活動，即如果香港有限合伙基金的投資范圍不涉及“證券”，則可能無需聘請持牌人士。5.2 基金管理人持牌要求對基金管理人的持牌要求和監管環境是決定基金注冊地和架構的重要因素之一。香港目前暫無特別針對私募股權基金管理活動的牌照，至于私募股權基金管理人是否須持有相關牌照，則將需基于其實際業務范圍進行個案的具體分析。相較而言，新加坡針對基金管理人的持牌要求或更具彈性。一般而言，新加坡的基

58、金管理公司（FMC） 為持牌FMC （LFMC） 或注冊FMC （RFMC） 。持牌 FMC 被進一步分為三類，包括 (i) 就所有類型的投資者（包括零售投資者）開展業務的 LFMC（零售 LFMC）；(ii) 一般僅限于開展與“合格投資者”有關的業務的 LFMC（合格投資者 LFMC）；及 (iii) 僅管理風險投資基金的 LFMC（風投 LFMC）。由于私募股權基金通常只面向成熟的高凈值投資者募資，新加坡的私募股權管理人常以合格投資者LFMC 或 RFMC 身份（具體取決于預計的基金規模）開展運營，以避免適用對零售 LFMC 的嚴苛持牌和操守準則規定。另外，在基金有資格成為風投基金的情況下

59、，基金管理人還可選擇以風投 LFMC 牌照（受相關投資標的限制）管理基金。 新加坡雖然僅對于風投 LFMC 有特殊待遇，但因為新加坡監管機構對于風投基金的定義和一般廣義上理解的私募基金基本一致，鑒于此，新加坡針對風投 LFMC 出臺的“輕監管”的監管體系對于香港的私募基金管理人的持牌監管有一定的借鑒意義。香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 26另一方面，在判斷特定持牌或注冊規定是否適用于某一類型基金管理人時，美國已將管理資產規模作為一項衡量標準并針對私募股權和風投基金設計了特定制度。美國1940 年美國投資顧問法（經修訂）（顧問法）項下投資顧問一般須在美國證交 會 （United Sta

60、tes Securities and Exchange Commission）或一個或多個州監管機構進行注冊，除非有適用的豁免注冊的規定。顧問法項下的其中一項豁免條件是，如相關投資顧問 (i) 僅擔任私募基金的顧問，且在美國的管理資產少于 1.5 億美元；或 (ii) 僅擔任一個或多個風投基金的投資顧問，則在基金主要面向成熟的合資格高凈值投資者發售的基礎上，有可能豁免對該投資顧問的注冊要求，但仍需要作為豁免報備顧問向美國證交會提交報備。作為豁免報備的私募股權或風投基金投資顧問需要每年向監管機構更新其相關披露信息與表格， 同時， 與注冊投資顧問一樣，豁免報備顧問須遵守針對其內部紀錄保存的各項規定

61、以及顧問法下反欺詐等條款的相關規定。聚焦于風投基金，為鼓勵處于初創階段的企業并推動支持企業發展的資金，新加坡金融管理局推出了風險資本基金管理制度，據此，風投 LFMC 一般采取較為簡便的和較短的牌照發放流程，且相對于合格投資者LFMC和RFMC， 風投LFMC將受限于較少的資本和運營規定。 在此方面，我們注意到香港政府為推動與鼓勵本地初創企業，推出了多項計劃和激勵措施。例如，創新科技署于 2020 年 1 月邀請風投基金申請成為創新及科技基金（一支為鼓勵對本地創新科技初創企業的風險投資而設立的規模20億港幣的共同投資基金） 的共同投資合伙人，旨在塑造香港成為亞洲初創企業的樞紐。而針對以上監管方

62、面的考量，我們也試圖通過問卷，針對已獲得香港證監會牌照的受訪者，得到他們對運營香港有限合伙基金的持牌與監管要求的反饋，特別是受訪者對于根據管理規模進行分類監管模式的看法。 總體而言，大多數香港證監會持牌受訪者認為香港證監會應考慮適當放松對私募股權基金管理人的持牌規定。是60%否40%證監會是否應放松對私募股權基金管理人的持牌規定？27 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告具體而言，香港證監會持牌受訪者就香港證監會應如何放寬對私募基金管理人的持牌或持牌監管要求的反饋如下：如上述，大多數香港證監會持牌受訪者表示香港證監會應放松對私募股權基金管理人的持牌要求，其中包括考慮針對私募股權基金管理人引

63、入不同類型的資管牌照，以區分監管層面對私募股權基金管理人與零售基金管理人所適用的不同監管規定。在將基金管理規模納入考量標準的香港證監會持牌受訪者中，超過 40% 的香港證監會持牌受訪者認為在相關基金規模未達到 1 億港幣的前提下，香港證監會應考慮放松監管政策，針對該等私募基金管理人豁免持牌要求，同時超過 60% 的香港證監會持牌受訪者認為在相關基金規模不超過 5 億港幣的前提下，香港證監會應考慮僅要求該等私募基金管理人完成簡單備案程序，而無需持有香港證監會 9 號牌照。有 43% 的香港證監會持牌受訪者認為，證監會應針對私募基金的管理人制定特別的豁免持牌條件。例如，針對管理規模低于一定金額的基

64、金或僅接受專業投資者的投資，且不超過一定數量專業投資者的基金的相關管理人可豁免持牌要求。另有 14% 的香港證監會持牌受訪者認為，證監會應為私募基金管理人制定相對簡化的操守準則。有 39% 的香港證監會持牌受訪者認為，對于管理符合特定條件的基金（如管理規模低于一定金額的基金，或僅接受專業投資者的投資且不超過一定數量專業投資者的基金）的私募基金管理人僅要求簡單備案，無需持有 9 號牌。43%14%39%27 1 億42%5 億25%10 億33%基金AUM（港幣）1億9%5億64%10億18%50 億9%受訪者認為基金管理人可豁免持牌要求的基金 AUM（港幣）受訪者認為基金管理人可僅進行簡單備案

65、 （無需9號牌） 的基金AUM （港幣)香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 285.3 合格投資者的資質要求基金注冊地對基金發售及募資對象的資質要求也是基金管理人選擇基金注冊地的另一個重要考慮因素。美國證交會于 2020 年 8 月采納了針對擴大1933 年證券法（經修訂）下“合格投資者”定義的修訂，該修訂旨在使“合格投資者”的定義更加與當前現實接軌，其目的是使 Regulation D 項下的私募發行的投資機會開放給更多的專業投資者。例如，在修訂出臺前，個人合格投資者資質需要滿足的主要條件為資產凈值和收入方面的規定，即資產凈值須為至少 100 萬美元（不計其主要居所的估值），或其收入須

66、為至少20 萬美元（夫妻收入須為至少 30 萬美元）。而修訂后則允許投資人憑借其相關資歷（包括專業經驗、知識、特定認證，或其與產品發行人的關系）以滿足“合格投資者”的要求。其中，任何私募基金的“知識型員工（knowledgeable employee）”都將符合“合格投資者”的要求。該等“知識型員工”資質包括董事、基金普通合伙人、顧問委員會成員，或在私募基金內擔任類似高級管理職務或負責投資相關工作的人士。相較而言，未經香港證監會授權的私募股權基金通常僅可向符合當地法域規定的合格投資者發售，就香港投資者而言，投資者需符合證券及期貨（專業投資者）規則 （專業投資者規則）下“專業投資者”的定義。而目

67、前專業投資者規則對滿足法團及個人專業投資者定義人士的資產有非常明確的金額要求。對此我們也在問卷中對受訪者進行了提問， 根據問卷反饋， 66%的受訪者認為 專業投資者規則 項下 “專業投資者”的定義應被擴大，而在認為應擴大“專業投資者”定義范圍的受訪者中，75% 的受訪者認為在甄別投資者是否為“專業投資者”時，除考慮資產外，應同時考量其他相關因素。在同時認為“專業投資者”定義應被放寬，且應考量其他標準的受訪者中，同等比例的受訪者認為以下標準應被納入“專業投資者”的定義中：具備相應的專業證書和投資經驗的專業人士，如特許財務分析師，專注于投資和融資領域的律師和審計師；參與基金的管理和投資的基金管理人

68、成員（如負責人員、投資委員會成員、董事和其他雇員），以及直接參與基金的投資和管理的其他人員（包括參與風險管理以及基金的投資管理后勤業務的人員）。部分受訪者還表示希望在對 “專業投資者” 進行資產測試時應擴大資產類別至保單、 房地產物業等資產。繼香港政府陸續出臺的一系列在稅務、 基金回遷安排等方面的優惠政策， 以及針對風投基金的特設制度，我們期待香港證監會在未來考慮針對私募股權基金管理人制訂特定的監管政策，以鼓勵更多在港金融與投資機構關注香港有限合伙基金，進一步推動香港資產管理行業的發展。是66%否34%是75%否25%是否應放寬對 專業投資者 的定義 ?是否應考慮其他標準 ?29 香港有限合伙

69、基金 2021 年度調研報告香港有限合伙基金制度的高效落實結合遷冊政策及附帶權益稅務寬減等一系列優惠政策的推出使市場對香港有限合伙基金反響熱烈。市場的持續高度關注，以及領跑香港有限合伙基金設立的第一批資管機構的成功經驗再次加強了業界對香港有限合伙制度的信心。香港背靠內地，擁有國際金融中心的制度優勢，市場高度開放和國際化，具備與國際接軌的法治體制，擁有大量的金融人才及完善的金融基礎設施，具有金融產品、信息和資金自由流通等優勢。有限合伙基金制度的實施將進一步鞏固香港作為全球領先金融中心以及亞洲第二大私募基金中心的地位。此外，香港還是全球第二大生物科技公司的上市地，也是全球最大的離岸人民幣業務樞紐，

70、香港與內地及粵港澳大灣區的緊密聯系孕育著諸多科技、媒體和電訊、醫療健康、生物醫藥，以至金融科技等快速增長行業的投資機遇。結合關于金融支持粵港澳大灣區建設的意見中所提出政策支持（包括允許開展私募股權投資基金跨境投資試點，支持港澳私募基金參與粵港澳大灣區創新型企業融資，支持粵港澳三地機構共同設立粵港澳大灣區相關基金，支持保險資金、銀行理財資金按規定參與相關基金等），我們認為香港有限合伙基金制度下將會涌現出在香港設立投資基金的大量機遇，而這將有助于吸引國際基金管理人通過香港管理人民幣資產投資組合。香港有限合伙基金制度的推出恰逢其時地為香港資管業界就私募股權基金設立提供了一個切實有利的替代方案，助力基

71、金管理人更靈活地滿足市場需求。隨著粵港澳大灣區發展規劃的進一步推進和落實，結合目前市場對香港有限合伙基金的熱烈反響與高度評價，我們有充分的理由相信香港有限合伙基金在不久的將來會成為亞洲地區國際私募基金最受歡迎的架構之一。6結語香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 30本調研報告凡提及“香港”均應被詮釋為“中華人民共和國香港特別行政區”免責聲明本調研報告由金杜律師事務所進行整理匯編，其中收錄了來自香港資管行業機構對問卷的反饋。本調研報告內容僅代表香港資管行業機構對問卷的反饋意見，不構成金杜律師事務所對有關問題的法律分析或法律意見，亦不構成金杜律師事務所對任何具體法律問題的意見或建議。金杜律師

72、事務所對于本調研報告所列材料的準確性或完整性不作任何陳述與保證。任何僅依照本調研報告的全部或部分內容而做出的作為和不作為決定及因此造成的后果由行為人自行負責。如您需要法律意見或其他專家意見，應該向具有相關資格的專業人士尋求專業的法律幫助。金杜律師事務所保留對本調研報告的所有權利。未經金杜律師事務所事先書面許可，任何人不得以任何形式或通過任何方式（手寫、電子或機械的方式，包括通過復印、錄音、錄音筆或信息收集系統）復制本調研報告任何受版權保護的內容。金杜律師事務所是指由金杜律師事務所國際聯盟中的成員事務所組成的法律服務網絡。所有成員律師事務所均各自獨立提供各項法律服務。不論成員事務所還是其任何合伙

73、人或成員，均不得以其他成員事務所或其任何合伙人或成員的代理人身份行事。任何成員事務所的合伙人或成員不對任何其他成員事務所具有約束力。詳情參見。 31 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告金杜律師事務所成立于二十世紀 90 年代初，是中國最早設立的合伙制律師事務所之一，也是最早在香港特別行政區開設分所的中國律師事務所之一。金杜律師事務所經過過去多年的業務、資源整合持續擴張，業務拓展至美國、英國、歐洲及中東地區的多個國家，服務全球客戶。我們提供與眾不同的商業化思維和客戶體驗，被廣泛認為是全球最具創新力的律所之一。我們擁有640 多名合伙人及 2,700 多名律師，共有 29 間實體辦公室及 3

74、6 間虛擬云辦公室，借助統一的全球平臺，協助客戶了解當地的挑戰，應對復雜的地域形勢，提供具有競爭優勢的商業解決方案。我們為客戶發掘和開啟機遇，協助客戶在亞洲市場釋放全部潛能。憑借卓越的專業知識和在核心市場的廣泛網絡，我們致力于讓亞洲走向世界，讓世界聯通亞洲。我們以雄厚的實力和不斷創新的執業能力始終居于業界領先地位，近年來榮獲 200 多項國際及亞洲地區的商業和法律媒體獎項。同時，我們在所有國際權威法律評級機構每年對各業務領域和律師個人的排名中也收獲頗豐。關 于金 杜香港辦公室是金杜國際法律服務網絡的一個重要樞紐。隨著亞洲時代的來臨，作為一家全球總部位于亞洲的領先國際律師事務所， 我們致力于貫通

75、亞、 歐、非、美，協助客戶把握重要商機。我們的香港辦公室現有律師及法律人員 200 多名，其中包括 40 名合伙人級別的律師，是香港目前規模最大的國際律師事務所（按律師人數計算）。我們的業務涵蓋多個領域，從融資到并購，從監管合規到爭議解決，可提供全方位的法律服務。金杜香港基金團隊現共有 4 位合伙人，超過 30位律師及法律專業人員，是香港規模最大的基金團隊之一。2021 年，我們獲得國際法律權威排名機構錢伯斯亞太區私募基金領域第一梯隊排名；在國際金融法律評論及亞太法律 500 強等其他領先法律刊物上亦獲領先排名及高度認可。31 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 32江競競合伙人兼香港基

76、金業務主管香港電話 +852 3443 8504手機 +852 6384 李幗孫合伙人香港電話 +852 3443 8507手機 +852 9312 石璧寧合伙人香港電話 +852 3443 1233手機 +852 6075 范凱敦 (Hayden Flinn)聯席管理合伙人（香港）香港電話 +852 3443 1113手機 +852 6713 合伙人合伙人聯絡33 香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告北京市朝陽區東三環中路 1 號環球金融中心辦公樓東樓 18 層 100020T +86 10 5878 5588山東省濟南市濼源大街 102 號祥恒廣場 ( 香格里拉寫字樓 )18 層 25

77、0000T +86 531 55831600四川省成都市紅星路 3 段 1 號國際金融中心 1 座 1603-6 室 610021T +86 28 8620 3818山東省青島市東海西路 17 號海信大廈 10 層 266071T +86 532 8579 0008重慶市兩江新區財富東路 8 號1 幢 9 層 401121T +86 23 8607 1718廣東省廣州市天河區珠江新城珠江東路 6 號廣州周大福金融中心 25 層510623T +86 20 3819 1000浙江省杭州市教工路 18 號 世貿麗晶城歐美中心 D 區 12 層 310012T +86 571 5671 8000南京

78、市建鄴區江東中路 347 號南京國金中心一期寫字樓 32 樓 210019T +86 025 5872 0800北京濟南成都青島重慶廣州杭州南京亞 洲江蘇省蘇州市蘇州工業園區蘇州大道西 9 號中海財富中心西塔 43 層 02A 215021T +86 512 6292 7100蘇州馬吉街 138 號 9 樓 03 室T +65 6653 6500新加坡中環皇后大道中 15 號置地廣場告羅士打大廈 13 層T +852 3443 1000香港海南省三亞市吉陽區新風街 279 號藍海華庭寫字樓 18 572000T +86 898 8835 0099三亞東京都千代田區丸之內 3-2-3丸之內二重橋

79、大廈 21 樓 100-0005T +81-3-5218-6711東京海南省?？谑忻捞m區國興大道 3 號海航互聯網金融大廈 A 座 34 樓 570203T + 86 898 3156 7233 ?？谏虾Ｊ行靺R區淮海中路 999 號 上海環貿廣場寫字樓一期 17 層 200031T +86 21 2412 6000上海廣東省深圳市南山區科苑南路 2666 號中國華潤大廈 28 層 518052T +86 755 2216 3333深圳辦公 機構地 點機構地 點香港有限合伙基金 2021 年度調研報告 34Level 33, Waterfront Place1 Eagle StreetBrisb

80、ane QLD 4000, AustraliaT +61 7 3244 8000Level 12, Constitution Place,1 Constitution AvenueCanberra, ACT 2601, AustraliaT +61 2 6217 6000Level 27 Collins Arch447 Collins StreetMelbourne, Victoria, 3000, AustraliaT +61 3 9643 4000Level 30, QV1 Building250 St Georges TerracePerth WA 6000, AustraliaT +6

81、1 8 9269 7000Level 61, Governor Phillip Tower1 Farrer PlaceSydney NSW 2000, AustraliaT +61 2 9296 2000布里斯班堪培拉墨爾本珀斯悉尼澳 大 利 亞Avenue Louise 480 1050 Brussels, BelgiumT +32 2 511 5340Office 401-404,Gate Village 6,Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC),PO Box 24482 Dubai,United Arab EmiratesT +9714

82、313 170050/F 500 Fifth AveNew York CityNY 10110, USAT +1 212 319 4755535 Middlefield Road, Suite 245 Menlo ParkCA 94025, USAT +1 650 858 1285 Taunusanlage 1760325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyT +49 69 505029 300Milano Largo Augusto 8 20122 Milano, ItalyT +39 02 30 31 751布魯塞爾迪拜紐約硅谷法蘭克福米蘭歐 洲中 東北 美11th Floo

83、r20 Fenchurch Street London EC3M 3BY UKT +44 20 7550 1500倫敦Calle Goya, 628001 Madrid, SpainT +34 91 426 0050馬德里Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021July 2021In the 40 years of economic reform and opening up of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC or Mainland China), the economic ties d

84、eveloped between Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC (Hong Kong) and Mainland China are as strong as ever. Hong Kong is the gateway to Mainland China, and Mainland Chinas bridge to the world. The citys well-developed regimes support international activities into Mainland China and the

85、 expansion of Chinese investments worldwide.The 20th anniversary of Hong Kongs handover marked a significant milestone, with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) designated as a special economic zone. In line with the national strategy for the GBA, Hong Kong will form part of an inte

86、grated economic hub designed for stable economic growth and new market opportunities which the GBA initiative will bring.In February 2019, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council of the PRC released the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Gr

87、eater Bay Area (Outline). The Outline sets out Hong Kongs position and role as a global financial and asset management centre by leveraging the citys status as an international financial centre. In May 2020, the Peoples Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China

88、Securities Regulatory Commission and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange unveiled the Opinions on Financial Support for the Construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (Joint Opinion) which further promotes and supports the vision and initiatives set out in the Outline. I

89、t strengthens Hong Kongs significant role in leading the enhancement of the GBAs financial services industry and the continued development of Hong Kongs function as an international asset management and risk management centre. The release of the Joint Opinion encourages asset management institutions

90、 to develop their business plans in the GBA to further expand the asset management market in the GBA. At the same time, we are seeing traditionally-popular private fund domiciles introduce reforms to their laws and regulations in response to global initiatives to combat cross-border tax avoidance, m

91、oney-laundering and terrorist financing. In 2019, the Cayman Islands (Cayman) implemented the International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law, requiring offshore fund managers to satisfy relevant economic substance requirements, and in 2020, certain closed-ended private funds fell within the

92、 scope of supervision by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority. Against the backdrop of a tightening regulatory environment, increased compliance requirements and cost of operating offshore private funds, the growing complexity of fund structures, and diminishing tax advantages, more and more fund m

93、anagers are now considering the transfer of their fund domiciles to onshore jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Singapore. With the possibility of unifying an investment funds domicile, operations and management team and exit channels in one single jurisdiction, Hong Kong is well positio

94、ned to become the next alternative jurisdiction for investment funds.Leveraging the move towards onshorisation, its reputation as a mature international financial centre and unique geographical advantage, Hong Kong has attracted a large number of Chinese private equity investors and international pr

95、ivate equity management institutions in recent years, using Hong Kong as a base to develop their onshore and overseas investments. 15 out of the worlds largest 20 private equity management institutions have offices in Hong Kong. As the second largest Asian private equity hub, there were, as of 20191

96、, a total of 560 private equity firms operating in Hong Kong and the total asset under management reached US$160 billion. Currently, there are also nearly 2,000 asset management companies licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC). Despite its position as the second largest

97、 Asian private equity hub, Hong Kong did not have a structure suitable for private equity funds to develop, and there were almost no private equity funds established in Hong Kong. The Limited Partnerships Ordinance (Cap.37) in Hong Kong has features which are not appealing for use in the modern priv

98、ate equity funds context. The private equity industry has long been calling for the introduction of a new limited partnership regime that is catered for private equity funds.After many years, through the joint efforts of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR and industry players, the long-awaited Limi

99、ted Partnership Fund Ordinance (Cap. 637) (Ordinance) finally came into effect on 31 August 2020, introducing Hong Kongs very own limited partnership fund (LPF) regime for private equity funds. This Ordinance follows various initiatives from the launch of A Paper on Limited Partnership for Private E

100、quity Fund by the Financial Services Development Council of Hong Kong in December 2015, the proposal in The 2018-19 Budget made by Financial Secretary of Hong Kong that explicitly states to examine the feasibility of introducing a limited partnership regime applicable for private equity funds, to th

101、e consultation paper published by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB) in July 2019 seeking industry feedback on the proposal to establish a regime for limited partnership funds in Hong Kong. Foreword1According to the data of Asian Venture Capital Journal (AVCJ), which was cited by

102、the Legislative Council in the LegCo Briefs on the Bill dated 18 March 2020 and can be found at the following website:https:/www.legco.gov.hk/yr19-20/english/bills/brief/b202003201_brf.pdf. With the support of various government policies and promotion from the industry, the launch of the LPF regime

103、has been a resounding success a total number of 284 Hong Kong LPFs were successfully registered under the regime in the first 10 months after the Ordinance took effect. We understand the introduction of the LPF regime is only the beginning of the reform, and further improvements will need to be made

104、 in order for the Hong Kong LPF structure to be recognised internationally. To that end, King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) and Alpha Win Capital Limited, together with other leading asset management, financial and other professional services institutions in Hong Kong, jointly established the Hong Kong LPF

105、 Association (Association). The Association aims to help industry and market participants deepen their understanding of, and to help improve, the Hong Kong LPF regime to attract more fund managers and investors to adopt the Hong Kong LPF structure. The Association will work alongside financial, lega

106、l and accounting institutions and individuals committed to driving the development and promotion of the asset management industry and the LPF regime in Hong Kong. The Association aims to facilitate, on behalf of the business community, communication with government authorities on policies, laws and

107、regulations and supervision to strengthen cooperation and exchanges between relevant institutions across industries and sectors, and to promote the development of the Hong Kong LPF regime and the private equity fund industry in Hong Kong. The launch of the Association marks almost one year since the

108、 implementation of the Ordinance. KWM and the Association are honoured to be jointly launching this Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund - Annual Report 2021 (this Report) which analyses in depth the Hong Kong LPF regime and its development in its first year. Through a detailed survey conducted with l

109、eading funds practitioners and market participants, this Report provides an insight into the regime from the markets perspective, highlighting key features of successfully registered LPFs, and providing a forecast on the registration trend of the Hong Kong LPF regime by reference to similar regimes

110、introduced in Singapore and Luxembourg. This Report also contains industry feedback on the regime, including certain concerns, suggestions for regulatory changes and a comparison of the LPF regime against similar structures in countries such as Singapore and the United States. Additionally, we hope

111、this Report will provide a useful reference for legislative and regulatory authorities in Hong Kong when considering further improvements to the LPF regime. We take this opportunity to thank each respondent for their time in completing the survey and for providing valuable feedback.We would like to

112、express our sincere gratitude to the following founding members of the Association for their continuous support (in alphabetical order): Dr. LI Ying Founding president Hong Kong LPF AssociationFounding partner and CEO Alpha Win Capital Limited Mr. Jingjing JIANGFounding president Hong Kong LPF Assoc

113、iationPartner and Head of Hong Kong Funds Practice King & Wood MallesonsJuly 2021We would also like to thank InvestHK, the Financial Services Development Council of Hong Kong and FamilyOfficeHK for their invaluable support in the establishment of the Association. We would like to give special thanks

114、 to Hon Christopher CHEUNG Wah-fung (member of the National Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and Justice of the Peace) and Dr. LIN Yong (CEO of Haitong International Securities Group Limited and Justice of the Peace) for

115、 their support of the establishment of the Association and accepting the roles of honorary chairmen of the Association.As founding presidents of the Association, we are extremely grateful for the opportunity to witness and be part of the development of Hong Kongs private funds industry. We have ever

116、y confidence in the future direction of the Hong Kong LPF regime and welcome more institutions and individuals to join our Association. We look forward to working together to help shape and grow the industry and developing new opportunities in the region and internationally. Alpha Win Capital Limite

117、d 中源國際資本有限公司 BIL Wealth Management Limited 盧銀資產管理有限公司 Business Securities Limited 東信證券有限公司 China Life Franklin Asset Management Company Limited 中國人壽富蘭克林資產管理有限公司 CLSA Limited 中信里昂證券有限公司 CMBC Hong Kong Branch 中國民生銀行香港分行 DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited 星展銀行 （香港） 有限公司 Ernst & Young 安永 Haitong International

118、 Securities Group Limited 海通國際證券集團有限公司 King & Wood Mallesons 金杜律師事務所 Monmonkey Group Securities Limited 大圣證券有限公司 SDG Asset Management (HK) Limited 山金資產管理 （香港） 有限公司 SPDB International Holdings Limited 浦銀國際控股有限公司 Wonderful Sky Financial Group 皓天財經集團 Table of Contents1. Executive Summary2. Respondents

119、background and overview of funds under management2.1 Survey data2.2 Respondents background2.3 Funds under management of the respondents3. Hong Kong LPFs establishment intention and demand3.1 Establishment intention analysis3.2 Prospective LPFs - investment target, geographical focus and reasons for

120、choosing LPFs4. Comprehensive analysis of registered Hong Kong LPFs4.1 Scope of statistics4.2 Total number of Hong Kong LPFs4.3 Set-up process and timing4.4 Current registration figures and trend4.5 Trend Forecast4.6 Investment scope of registered LPFs4.7 GPs of registered LPFs4.8 Managers of regist

121、ered LPFs4.9 Responsible persons of registered LPFs4.10 Relationship between the GP and the Initial LP4.11 Commencement of business5. Challenges ahead 5.1 Challenges faced by respondents5.2 Fund managers - licensing requirements5.3 Professional investors - eligibility 6. Conclusion010303030406060810

122、101011121417181920212223232528291 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021The Hong Kong LPF regime provides a much-welcomed and practical solution to the previous limited partnership regime which had not caught up with the rapid development of international private equity funds. LPFs ha

123、ve become an effective vehicle enabling Hong Kong to capture opportunities in the private equity and venture capital markets across Asia. As of 30 June 2021, a total of 284 Hong Kong LPFs have been successfully registered under the Ordinance. KWM has assisted clients in the registration of, or acted

124、 as fund counsel to, 89 LPFs, including the registration of the first-ever LPF in Hong Kong. The number of funds registered or closed through the assistance of KWM represents approximately 31.3% of the total number of LPFs.In March 2021, KWM circulated a survey (Survey) in respect of the Hong Kong L

125、PF regime to certain asset management and financial institutions in Hong Kong with the aim of collecting market feedback from market participants on the Hong Kong LPF regime and the Ordinance which will, in turn, hopefully provide a reference and benchmark for relevant legislative and regulatory aut

126、horities in Hong Kong on the LPF regime. Hong Kong LPFs registration has been receiving strong interest and seeing robust activity in the 10 months since the Ordinance came into effect and this demand is set to continue. Limited partnerships are familiar investment vehicles for fund managers across

127、different jurisdictions, and similar to the limited partnership vehicle used for offshore private funds, LPFs share the same structure, and allow contractual freedom with respect to commercial and economic arrangement between partners of the fund, offering a high degree of confidentiality with highl

128、y-competitive set-up and maintenance costs. Respondents were optimistic on the development of the GBA, and the market has shown strong interest in LPFs. A large number of respondents have also expressed interest in establishing LPFs and expressed confidence that Hong Kong will become one of the high

129、ly sought-after venues of registration for international private funds.Given that most respondents were Hong Kong-based professional institutions with a Mainland Chinese or Hong Kong background, it is not surprising that the investment objectives and target investors of their existing funds or prosp

130、ective funds are mainly located in the Greater China area. LPFs offer the possibility of unifying the funds domicile with its operations and management. It allows fund sponsors and managers to fully leverage their local resources to set up the fund vehicle, conduct fundraising and source and execute

131、 investment opportunities. This optimises the fund structure to align the substance of their asset management activities with the fund domicile and avoid regulatory requirements and supervision from multiple jurisdictions. In contrast, only a small proportion of respondents were international instit

132、utions. This may be an indication that the LPF structure is not yet widely recognised and/or accepted by international institutions, the promotion of which the relevant legislative authorities and industry players may want to consider.1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY2Apart from the geographical and strategic adva

133、ntages of Hong Kong and GBA, the respondents also acknowledge the continued efforts of Hong Kongs legislative and regulatory authorities in promoting the LPF regime. More specifically, the Hong Kong government has demonstrated its commitment in reducing tax costs for private equity investments and i

134、nvestment funds in Hong Kong through the introduction of tax exemptions. To the extent that an eligible private fund satisfies the definition of fund and other conditions under the relevant rules, the fund will be exempt from Hong Kong profit tax. Additionally, private equity investors are neither r

135、equired to pay capital tax when making capital contributions to the Hong Kong LPFs, nor required to pay stamp duty on the distribution of profits and returns on asset (including in respect of transfer and redemption of interests of limited partners). The carried interests tax concession together wit

136、h the re-domiciliation mechanism for offshore funds are essential components for attracting existing offshore funds to re-domicile to Hong Kong and have helped to boost the number of registrations of Hong Kong LPFs.The popularity of the Hong Kong LPF regime far exceeds that of similar private fund r

137、egimes in Singapore and Luxembourg as demonstrated by the numbers and growing trend of Hong Kong LPF registrations compared with the initial registration trend of such regimes in Singapore and Luxembourg. Hong Kong is well positioned to become an international hub for fund management activities and

138、investment fund domiciliation. The government has taken phased steps in promoting the development of the private equity fund industry. It is using the three-steps strategy proposed by FSTB, which is led by the Ordinance and supplemented by the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried

139、Interest) Ordinance 2021 and the Limited Partnership Fund and Business Registration Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2021 regarding the re-domiciliation.Looking at the traditionally-popular fund domicile jurisdictions around the world, the establishment and sustainable development of the legal and regul

140、atory framework for private equity funds invariably takes time and work. It usually relies on the insight of regulatory authorities into market dynamics and continuous improvements on policies. For the Hong Kong LPF regime, notwithstanding that the legislation of the Ordinance was introduced in acco

141、rdance with international market practices and conventions, there are still some uncertainties in practice at this early stage with respondents noting some concerns or questions. For example, whether the Companies Registry and the SFC could provide timely practical guidelines that are in line with m

142、arket practices in relation to certain issues encountered by fund sponsors or managers when establishing and operating the Hong Kong LPFs; whether the existing favourable policies such as tax concessions for carried interest can be practically implemented and made easy for fund managers to meet the

143、corresponding conditions and to be tax exempted; and the timing of detailed policies regarding re-domiciliation of offshore funds and whether such policies could effectively ensure the smooth re-domiciliation of existing offshore funds, etc. Furthermore, private fund managers are currently regulated

144、 with greater scrutiny in Hong Kong. In comparison with the loosened regulatory regime on private fund managers in Cayman and the tailor-made regulations for different types of fund managers in the United States and Singapore, regulatory requirements imposed on private fund managers in Hong Kong ten

145、d to be relatively strict and rigid. In light of this, many private fund managers also have expectations for deregulation by the SFC. The question of whether the Hong Kong LPF regime would be able to maintain its momentum in the long run would depend largely on whether the Hong Kong government would

146、 continue to make improvements to the LPF regime and whether regulatory and tax authorities would continue to take note of market and industry feedback.We fully anticipate that the Hong Kong LPF regime will invigorate Hong Kongs asset and wealth management industry. The changes brought by the Hong K

147、ong LPF regime to the private equity sector will enable Hong Kong to better play its key role as the international asset management centre in line with the 14th Five-Year Plan, and to further support the development of the GBA and the PRC by making good use of private equity. Hong Kong Limited Partn

148、ership Fund Annual Report 20213 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20212.1 Survey dataA total of 202 responses were received from asset management-related institutions in Hong Kong, with 87 fully completed Surveys. This Report is based on our analysis of the responses from the fully co

149、mpleted Surveys, as well as information from our discussions with relevant legislative and regulatory authorities during the legislative process of the Hong Kong LPF regime. We also share practical knowledge and experience which we gained through assisting clients in the set-up of, or acting as fund

150、 counsel to, nearly 90 Hong Kong LPFs. We hope this Report will provide meaningful reference and insights for the industry to better understand the Hong Kong LPF regime.2.2 Respondents backgroundRespondents are primarily categorised as Mainland Chinese institutions (including their subsidiaries or b

151、ranches established in Hong Kong) and local Hong Kong institutions.The nature of respondents businesses can be classified as asset management firms, fund-related service providers (such as fund administrators and custodians). In terms of the respondents licensing status, nearly 80% of the respondent

152、s in the asset management business are licensed with the SFC for Type 9 regulated activities.2RESPONDENTS BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF FUNDS UNDER MANAGEMENT Respondents backgroundLicensed and non-licensed corporationsLicensed corporations78%Non-licensed corporations 22%Mainland Chinese institutions47

153、%Hong Kong institutions43%International institutions8%Others2%Respondents backgroundHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 42.3 Funds under management of the respondentsMost respondents currently manage funds with investment targets in the Greater China area, while a small number of r

154、espondents manage funds with a geographical focus in East Asia, Southeast Asia, the United States and Europe.Funds managed by most respondents have an investment focus on PE/VC investments, or secondary stock market and fixed income securities. * In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and

155、 the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsInvestment focus of funds under management*91%22%10%39%6%3%10%16%10%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%GreaterEA/SEAAustraliaU.S.CanadaLatinUKEUOthersAmericaChina Area48%73%48%2

156、0%5%8%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%PE/Publicly-tradedFixedRealVirtualOthersstocksincomeestateassetsVC/buyoutGeographical focus of funds under management*5 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Cayman remains the most popular fund domicile for existing funds under management by respondent

157、s, and Cayman SPC (segregated portfolio company) is the most commonly used structure for existing funds managed by respondents. Further, respondents manage a substantially similar proportion of closed-ended funds and open-ended funds.While there were a small portion of respondents with existing fund

158、s established in Singapore, Luxembourg or other regions, Cayman remains the dominant fund domicile for investment funds due to its universal acceptance and investor familiarity, despite the fact that most respondents are Hong Kong licensed coprorations with investment focus and target investors loca

159、ted in the Greater China area.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsDomicile of funds under management*Structure of funds under management*6%11%32%40%69%0%10%

160、20%30%40%50%60%70%80%OthersBVI GP/LPCayman exempted companyCayman GP/LPCayman SPC5%3%5%5%18%28%94%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Other countriesSingaporeEuropeLuxembourgBVIHong KongCayman IslandsDomicile of funds under management*Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 63HONG KONG LP

161、FS ESTABLISHMENT INTENTION AND DEMAND3.1 Establishment intention analysisTo better predict whether Hong Kong LPFs are likely to become a practical alternative to setting up funds in Cayman, the Survey asked whether respondents would consider using the LPF structure for prospective fund formation, an

162、d if so, what would be the demand and key features of these prospective LPFs. The vast majority of respondents are aware of the Hong Kong LPF regime (through various means). The positive market response could be attributable to the respondents familiarity with the limited partnership structure, whic

163、h forms the basis of the Cayman exempted limited partnership structure and also the Hong Kong LPF structure. Legislative authorities in Hong Kong initiated rounds of consultations and actively sought feedback from industry participants when formulating the LPF regime. The regime reflects common mark

164、et practice with a highly streamlined set-up procedure. This has led to a promising result - 82% of respondents indicated that they would consider using the LPF structure for their prospective fund formation, while 10% of respondents had already successfully registered LPFs. 8% of respondents indica

165、ted that they would not consider setting up Hong Kong LPFs.Awareness of LPFsAware 94%Not aware 6%7 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021In addition, more than 90% of respondents believe that Hong Kong will become an important venue of registration for international private funds in t

166、he future, with one half of respondents believing that Hong Kong will become an important venue of private fund registration in the next 3-5 years. Only 6% of respondents believe that Hong Kong is unlikely to become an important venue of registration for international private funds. 7 Hong Kong Limi

167、ted Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Intention to set up LPFHow long will it take for Hong Kong to become an important place of registration for international private funds?Already set up10%Have intention to set up82%No intention to set up8%21%50%15%8%6% 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-8 years 8-10 yearsNev

168、erHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 83.2 Prospective LPFs - investment target, geographical focus and reasons for choosing LPFsProposed investment targetsOf the respondents who intend to establish Hong Kong LPFs, the majority would consider using the LPF structure to make both si

169、ngle asset investments and multiple assets investments.Prospective LPFs which respondents propose to set up mainly target investments in private equity, venture capital and buy-out (76%) and secondary stock market (57%).Target investors of prospective LPFsGiven the respondents background, it is not

170、surprising that the target investors of the funds under management of the respondents and the target investors of the Hong Kong LPFs to be established by the respondents are mainly located in the Greater China area. Similarly, consistent with the geographical focus of the funds that are currently un

171、der their management, the respondents future investments are also focused in the Greater China area.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondents# In the Survey, the

172、 Greater China Area includes Mainland China and Hong Kong SARInvestment focus of prospective LPFs*Location of target investors of prospective LPFs*76%57%38%28%14%3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%PE/Publicly-tradedFixedRealVirtualOthersstocksincomeestateassetsVC/buyout90%18%23%18%9%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

173、80%90%100%GreaterSoutheastU.S.EUOthersAsiaChina Area #9 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Naturally, from investment targets to the spread of potential investors, the geographical advantage of the Greater China area has always been the focus of Hong Kongs asset management industry

174、. With a winning combination of the bilateral tax reliefs between Mainland China and Hong Kong, the familiarity of investors with the investment areas, the localisation of various fund service providers and so on, we predict that Hong Kong LPFs will become a new investment vehicle for asset manageme

175、nt and financial institutions focusing on the Greater China area. Reasons for choosing LPF structureRespondents reasons for establishing or considering to establish Hong Kong LPFs include its highly-competitive establishment and maintenance costs, the introduction of policies related to carried inte

176、rest tax concession, and the respondents confidence in the development prospects of GBA, as well as the respondents focus on the Greater China area. Compared with offshore funds, there are greater advantages in terms of establishment and maintenance costsEstablishment and subsequent maintenance are

177、simpler and more convenient than offshore structuresAll purposes for establishing an offshore fund can be basically realised by establishment of an LPFHong Kongs latest legislative proposal on tax concessions for carried interestThe use of Hong Kong LPF as the investment vehicle is beneficial to inv

178、estment tax planning by virtue of the bilateral tax reliefs between Hong Kong and Mainland China and between Hong Kong and other countries or regionsAs an internationally renowned financial centrer, Hong Kong has more advantages in fund investments than offshore islandsWe believe that fund managers

179、and asset management institutions in Hong Kong can provide better services to investors and help realise investment goals by choosing Hong Kong LPFs, from the low establishment and maintenance costs to structural design optimisation in combination with Hong Kongs unique geographical, policy and regu

180、latory advantages. 67%61%59%44%39%30%Reasons for choosing LPF structure* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondents who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondentsHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report

181、2021 104.1 Scope of statisticsThe analysis on registered Hong Kong LPFs in this part is conducted based on information of the first 260 Hong Kong LPFs registered as of 10 June 2021. In this Report, references to registered or successfully registered or established Hong Kong LPFs shall mean the regis

182、tration information of these 260 Hong Kong LPFs.4.2 Total number of Hong Kong LPFsAs of 30 June 2021, there were 284 LPFs successfully registered under the Ordinance. King & Wood Mallesons has assisted in the registration of, or has acted as the fund counsel to, 89 Hong Kong LPFs, accounting for app

183、roximately 31.3% of total registered Hong Kong LPFs.4COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF REGISTERED HONG KONG LPFS11 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Application packCompletion of registrationSubmit application to Companies RegistryProposed name of LPFRegistered addressInvestment scopePrin

184、cipal place of businessGP detailsDetails of Investment ManagerDetails of Responsible PersonDeclaration and undertaking that the fund is set up as an LPF and meet the eligibility requirementsSubmission by a Hong Kong law firm or a solicitor on behalf of the proposed GPFees to HKCR: HK$3,034Companies

185、Registry to issue a registration certificate as proof of registrationTiming: HKCR generally requires 4 business days to process the application4.3 Set-up process and timingThe set-up process of a Hong Kong LPF is relatively simple. The documents required to be submitted upon registration, the set-up

186、 cost and time required for registration are straightforward. No authorisation or approval by the SFC is required to the extent the Hong Kong LPF does not offer or issue fund interest to the public. Hong Kong LPFs are registered with the Hong Kong Companies Registry through the process outlined belo

187、w:In terms of the registration timeframe, it generally takes 4 business days for the Companies Registry to process and register a Hong Kong LPF, subject to potential extension and delay caused by external factors. Based on our experience, during the initial wave of the pandemic in Hong Kong in Janua

188、ry and February in 2021, the time required for registration of Hong Kong LPFs was generally extended to 7 business days, which subsequently gradually returned to an average of 4 business days after the end of the Chinese New Year holiday.Under the Ordinance, applications for Hong Kong LPFs must be s

189、ubmitted by a Hong Kong law firm or a Hong Kong solicitor on behalf of the proposed GP. Our analysis of the registered Hong Kong LPFs shows that the vast majority of applications (around 80%) were submitted by law firms, with a small portion being submitted by solicitors on behalf of the proposed GP

190、.Presentor of application for registrationHong Kong law firm80%Hong Kong solicitor20%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 124.4 Current registration figures and trendWe saw a surge in the number of Hong Kong LPFs registered in the latter half of Q1 2021. The steep increase in the nu

191、mber of registrations during this period may be attributable to the two proposals announced by the Hong Kong government between January and February 2021, namely, the carried interest tax concession and re-domiciliation of offshore funds proposals. Policy support is clearly critical for the promotio

192、n of the Hong Kong LPF regime.Carried interest tax concessionThe Hong Kong Legislative Council published a discussion paper on 4 January 2021 on certain tax concession for carried interest that was previously proposed by the FSTB. Tax treatment of Hong Kong LPFs, including tax concessions for carrie

193、d interest has been a continued focus by the industry, and the numbers of registra-tion of Hong Kong LPFs immediately after the publication of the discussion paper rose in February 2021 to nearly 3 times of the number of registrations in January 2021, reaching 32 in a single month.Following the publ

194、ication of the discussion paper, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Bill 2021 was gazetted on 29 January 2021 and was passed by the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 28 April 2021. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Carried Interest) Ordinance 2021

195、(Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance) came into effect on 7 May 2021. Pursuant to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, certain carried interest obtained by qualifying persons and qualifying employees for the provision of investment management services to specified funds may be eligible for pro

196、fits tax and salaries tax concessions. At the same time, for any tax year beginning on or after 1 April 2020, net eligible carried interest will be subject to 0% profits tax provided such concessions are in compliance with the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordi

197、nance defines an “eligible carried interest” as a sum received by or accrued to a person by way of profit-related return subject to a hurdle rate which is a preferred return on investments of the fund. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance also provides detailed provisions on qualifying fund / ca

198、rried interest payer, qualifying carried interest recipients, qualifying transactions and relevant criteria on what constitutes engaging in substantial activities in Hong Kong. The carried interest tax concession complements the Hong Kong LPF regime and the implementation of the Inland Revenue (Amen

199、dment) Ordinance again reflects the governments commitment to making Hong Kong a more attractive place for fund domicile, and creating further competitive advantage for Hong Kong as the asset management centre in the Asia Pacific region.LPF registration trend Sep 20 Oct 20 Nov 20 Dec 20 Jan 21 Feb 2

200、1 Mar 21 Apr 21 May 21 Jun 21No.1715201613325840294417152016133258402944010203040506070LPF registration trend13 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Fund re-domiciliationOn 1 February 2021, the FSTB published another proposal for establishing a regime to allow offshore funds to re-do

201、micile to Hong Kong (Re-domiciliation Proposal). The Re-domiciliation Proposal further encourages offshore funds to migrate to Hong Kong via “re-domiciliation”, and allows funds established offshore in the form of limited partnerships or companies to register as a Hong Kong LPF or an open-ended fund

202、 company as applicable, provided that they satisfy the same eligibility criteria as Hong Kong LPFs or open-ended fund companies respectively. The FSTB targets to submit the bill to the Legislative Council for first and second reading in the third quarter of 2021.Fund re-domiciliation was introduced

203、long ago in many mainstream offshore and onshore jurisdictions such as Jersey, the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Luxembourg, Ireland and Singapore, with some of these jurisdictions further introducing detailed rules and measures to ensure a seamless re-domiciliation process for market participants.T

204、he Re-domiciliation Proposal is a further effort from the Hong Kong government and the related legislative authorities to boost the competitiveness of the Hong Kong LPF regime. Fund re-domiciliation is not simply a policy issued by legislators for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of loc

205、al funds, it is also a regime specially formulated to satisfy the specific requirements or preferences of some fund sponsors over the funds domicile. Based on the feedback by respondents to the Survey, we note that over 70% of respondents are willing to consider to re-domicile its existing funds fro

206、m offshore jurisdictions to Hong Kong as LPFs.As outlined above, under the Re-domiciliation Proposal, offshore funds established as limited partnership or company may, subject to satisfaction of the same eligibility criteria as LPFs or open-ended fund companies registered in Hong Kong, be registered

207、 in Hong Kong as an LPF or open-ended fund company, as applicable. The fund will remain the same legal entity after re-domiciliation, and it is intended that re-domiciliation to Hong Kong will not prejudice or affect the status of the fund as it is currently established or registered, nor will re-do

208、miciliation affect any prior agreements or resolutions entered into or passed before its re-domiciliation to Hong Kong. Further, it is intended that re-domiciliation will not affect the funds existing rights, functions, liabilities, obligations and properties and will not affect any proceedings prev

209、iously commenced by or against the fund.The Re-domiciliation Proposal still needs clarification and further detail from the government, but the launch of the Re-domiciliation Proposal provides a quicker, simpler and pragmatic solution for offshore funds to re-domicile. We eagerly look forward to the

210、 early implementation of the Re-domiciliation Proposal.Intention to re-domicile to Hong KongYes74%No26%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 144.5 Trend ForecastThe LPF regime has gained much attention and popularity with the total number of registrations reaching 284 in its first 10

211、 months alone. This uptake has far exceeded that of Singapores limited partnership and Luxembourgs SCSp (special limited partnership) when these structures were initially introduced in Singapore and Luxembourg.Number of registered LPFs Sep 20 Oct 20 Nov 20 Dec 20 Jan 21 Feb 21 Mar 21 Apr 21 May 21 J

212、un 21No.16315167801121702112402841631516780112170211240284050100150200250300Number of registered LPFs15 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021There were 2453 registered SCSp (Special Limited Partnership) within the first year of the launch of Luxembourgs SCSp structure, and the total

213、number of registered Singapore limited partnerships from its initial launch in May 2009 to June 2021 was 5194.3 “The Luxembourg Special Partnership, a multi-purpose solution for the real estate industry” published by PwC, page 1 (https:/www.pwc.lu/en/real-estate/docs/pwc-re-lux-special-partnership.p

214、df)4 The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authoritys statistics (https:/www.acra.gov.sg/training-and-resources/facts-and-figures/business-registry-statistics) Oct 13 Jan 14 Apr 14 Jul 14No.17881482451788148245050100150200250300Number of Luxembourg SCSp in the first yearNumber of Luxembourg SCSp i

215、n the first year Jan 19 Jul 19 Jan 20 Jul 20 Jan 21 Jun 21No.3973994214514855193973994214514855190100200300400500600Number of Singapore Limited Partnerships (2019-2021)Number of Singapore Limited Partnerships (2019-2021)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 16With this commitment by

216、the government, combined with the encouraging registration trend for Luxembourg funds from the launch of the regime to 20205, we are hopeful that the growth trend of Hong Kong LPFs will continue at a pace, and that Hong Kong will become an important venue of registration for international private eq

217、uity funds in the near future. We have discussed the Hong Kong governments efforts in strengthening and reinforcing Hong Kongs positioning as an international hub for fund management business and place of registration for investment funds. The introduction of a series of customised policies also boo

218、sts confidence among asset managers and investors who are considering using the LPF structure.As the FSTB previously indicated, “the government is committed to strengthening Hong Kongs competitive edge as a private equity fund hub and has carried out a “three-step” plan in this respect. The first st

219、ep is the introduction, with the support of members of the Legislative Council, of a new fund structure in August last year, so that private equity funds can be set up in Hong Kong in the form of a limited partnership. In the past few months, there were already 80 LPFs registered. Second, is the rec

220、ommendation regarding legislation, so as to provide tax concessions for carried interests distributed by private equity funds operating in Hong Kong. The third step is to propose the establishment of a mechanism for the re-domiciliation of offshore funds to Hong Kong, so as to facilitate and attract

221、 funds to domicile and operate in Hong Kong. We have already submitted relevant recommendations (i.e. recommendations for the third step) to the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council on 1 February. We are confident that, upon completion of this “three-step plan”, Hong Kong can greatl

222、y increase its attractiveness as a private equity hub.” 5 The “Luxembourg Limited Partnerships” published by PwC, page 8 https:/www.pwc.lu/en/alternative-investments/docs/luxembourg-limited-partnership.pdfLuxembourg SCSp registration trend Jun 15 Jun 16 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun 19 Jun 20No.6681165168524363

223、3854665668116516852436338546650500100015002000250030003500400045005000SCSp registration trend17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.6 Investment scope of registered LPFs Based on our analysis of publicly-available information for the first 260 registered LPFs, we note that more th

224、an half of these LPFs adopt a broad investment strategy and the investment scope disclosed in their registration forms submitted with the Companies Registry cover not only private equity investment, but also investment in securities of listed companies, IPO/Pre-IPO investment and investment in vario

225、us other types of securities, notes and fixed income products. The investment scope of an LPF is disclosed in its registration form submitted to the Companies Registry, and in accordance with the Ordinance, any subsequent change to the investment scope must be notified to the Companies Registry via

226、a filing process. This may have contributed to the fact that sponsors appear to have adopted a broad investment scope upon registration of an LPF, so as to maximise the ongoing investment flexibility of the LPF without triggering any subsequent filing requirements. These results also echo the invest

227、ment objectives of prospective LPFs, where investments in private equity and secondary stock markets continue to be the main investment objectives for registered LPFs as well as prospective LPFs.* In the Survey, this is a multiple-choice question and the percentages refer to the number of respondent

228、s who chose a certain option in relation to the total number of respondents17 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021Investment focus of registered LPFs*13%1%5%6%7%7%22%58%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%OthersLoanReal estateBonds / Notes / Fixed incomeIPO / Listed companyFintech / Technology /

229、 Virtual assetsPrivate equityBroad investment scopeHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 184.7 GPs of registered LPFsThe Ordinance stipulates that the GP of an LPF may be any of the following:Our analysis of the registered LPFs shows that over 90% of GPs take the form of a Hong Kong

230、private company limited by shares, with a small portion of LPFs having a natural person acting as GP. From a legal perspective, the GP of an LPF has unlimited liability for all the debts and obligations of the LPF, and it is no surprise that an overwhelming majority of fund sponsors choose to struct

231、ure the GP using a Hong Kong company.Hong Kong private company limited by sharesIndividual over 18 years oldRegistered non-Hong Kong companyLimited partnership(Regardless of domicile)Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 18GP of registered LPFs93%1%0%6%Hong Kong PrivateCompanyRegiste

232、red non-HongKong companyLimited partnershipIndividual over18 years oldGP of registered LPFs19 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20214.8 Managers of registered LPFsThe GP of an LPF must appoint a person as an investment manager (which can be the GP itself) to carry out the day-to-day i

233、nvestment management functions of the LPF, and the investment manager may be any of the following:Out of the 260 registered LPFs, 195 LPFs appointed an SFC licensed corporation to act as its investment manager which accounts for 75% of registered LPFs.While the Ordinance does not mandate the manager

234、 of an LPF to hold an SFC licence, the majority of LPF managers are SFC licensed persons. We believe there to be two main reasons for appointing a licensed manager. Firstly, the asset class into which an LPF invests creates a practical difficulty for the relevant manager to be exempted from licensin

235、g requirement. The SFC clarified in the “Circular to private equity firms seeking to be licensed” issued in January 2020 that any person carrying on regulated activities in Hong Kong must hold relevant SFC licences, which means unless exempted, any person dealing in, managing or advising on investme

236、nt portfolio or assets within the meaning of “securities” under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (including private equity and venture capital) is subject to the licensing requirements. It is worth noting that, shares and bonds of a non-Hong Kong private company are expressly included within the

237、 definition of “securities”, and accordingly even if the investee company is located outside of Hong Kong, the manager of the LPF which proposes to make a private equity investment in such an investee company is still subject to the relevant licensing requirements. Secondly, investors and other serv

238、ice providers of LPFs may prefer to work with SFC licensed sponsors and managers for reasons such as investor confidence and internal compliance requirements. Hong Kong resident over 18 years oldRegistered Hong Kong companyRegistered non-Hong Kong companyInvestment manager of registered LPFsSFC lice

239、nsed （corporation）75%SFC licensed (Individual)3%Non-SFC licensed22%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 20As illustrated above, a quarter of the managers of registered LPFs do not hold an SFC licence. Non-licensed managers may be appointed because firstly, unless regulated activitie

240、s are carried out in Hong Kong, the manager of an LPF may not need to obtain an SFC licence, and secondly, in practice, in order to simplify the internal approval process or to expedite the set-up of a fund structure, sponsors may be inclined to simplify and complete the set-up using a non-licensed

241、entity and only engage a licensed manager upon commencement of its fundraising process.We have also seen a trend whereby a single licensed manager concurrently manages multiple LPFs, with a single manager managing at most, 18 LPFs. This may be a result driven by strong business demand, in which case

242、 the licensed manager chose to streamline the set-up process by registering and maintaining multiple LPFs so as to reduce administrative costs and improve execution efficiency in the fundraising stage. 26183the number of managers concurrently managing multiple LPFsthe current highest number of LPFs

243、we have seen being managed by one single licensed manageronly 3 managers are natural persons; the others are corporate managers4.9 Responsible persons of registered LPFsThe Ordinance requires the GP to appoint a person as a responsible person to carry out anti-money laundering measures, and the resp

244、onsible person may be any of the following: The majority of GPs of registered LPFs (73%) have appointed a licensed corporation as the responsible person of the LPF, followed by a similar proportion of accounting professionals and legal professionals acting in such capacity. Hong Kong Limited Partner

245、ship Fund Annual Report 2021 Hong Kong Monetary AuthorityAuthorised institution (Bank)Hong Kong Law SocietyLegal professionalsSecurities and Futures CommissionLicensed corporationsThe Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public AccountantsAccounting professionals21 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Ann

246、ual Report 20214.10 Relationship between the GP and the Initial LPFund vehicles (both onshore and offshore) are usually set up by engaging professional third party service providers, such as the registered agent of the fund, acting as the initial LP, or by having an entity or individual within the s

247、ponsors group acting as the initial LP to simplify and expedite the set-up procedure. Consistent with market practice, the Ordinance allows an LPF to be set up by the GP and an initial LP within the same group for up to two years after registration, providing sufficient time for sponsors for fundrai

248、sing. This aligns with our findings from analysing the data of registered LPFs, which shows that 35% of the sponsors have set up LPFs using an initial LP that is within the same group as the GP. Read together with statistics on managers of registered LPFs, the majority of registered LPFs have engage

249、d a licensed manager to manage the fund, and as the licensed manager is itself required to comply with Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance of Hong Kong, such manager is able to leverage its existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policies and measur

250、es that are already in place when managing the LPF. Coupled with the extensive role played by the manager in the day-to-day management of the LPF, having the licensed manager act as responsible person of the LPF is expected to significantly lower the operation and administrative costs and improve co

251、mmunication between the fund and its investors.On a separate note, we have seen law firms acting as the responsible person to several registered LPFs. While it is our understanding that a legal professional who is permitted to act as the responsible person of an LPF is required to be a Hong Kong sol

252、icitor or a registered foreign lawyer, therefore disqualifying law firms to act as the responsible person, we respectfully await further clarification from the Companies Registry and relevant legislative authorities on this point. Licensed corporations73%Legal professionals14%Accounting professional

253、s13%Authorised institution0%Accountant79%Accounting firm21%Solicitor44%Law firm56%Responsible person of registered LPFsRelationship between GP and initial LPIn the same group35%Not in the same group65%Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 224.11 Commencement of businessBy reference s

254、olely to our experience in acting for clients in the registration and formation of LPFs, we understand most LPFs do not commence business immediately upon registration.This practice once again reflects market practice for private funds where formation of investment entities is being organised concur

255、rently with deal sourcing and fund raising. Sponsors will often have completed initial formation of the fund entities on or before the fundraising process officially begins so as to minimise any impact or potential delay to the fundraising process or deal execution of the fund due to the rather admi

256、nistrative procedure of formation of the fund entities. 47%47%53%53%47% of LPFs will commence fundraising and business immediately after registration. Sponsors will admit external investor(s) as soon as possible upon registration of the LPF53% of LPFs from our experience will not commence business i

257、mmediately after registration. Sponsors must admit external investor(s) before the second anniversary of the LPFs registration date to prevent all partners in the LPF from being corporations in the same group of companies23 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 20215CHALLENGES AHEAD5.1 Ch

258、allenges faced by respondentsLed by various factors including regulatory changes in popular offshore jurisdictions in recent years, we have reasons to expect a new trend to be formed in the industry where fund sponsors will become more inclined to align the substance of their asset management activi

259、ties with the fund domicile. The Hong Kong LPF regime emerged at the right time. Despite the robust development of the LPF regime, there is room for improvement. We asked respondents to select some of their main concerns and the biggest challenges they face when considering structuring their fund as

260、 an LPF. The respondents top concerns are listed in descending order:The regime itself is relatively new and will consider after there are enough successful casesPotential investors are not familiar with the LPF structureUncertainty of taxation on fund managers carried interestUncertainty of tax tre

261、atment for fund investment returnThe LPF itself may be regulated by the SFC and/or concern about the possibility of related information sharing with regulators12345Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 24Lack of investor familiarityThe lack of investor familiarity due to the nascent

262、LPF regime may, to some extent, deter fund sponsors from choosing Hong Kong as a place of fund domicile, and fund sponsors will inevitably be required to spend time on educating investors on the new fund structure and providing continuous guidance to investors to improve investor familiarity through

263、out the fundraising process. While traditional offshore fund structures may be an easier choice for sponsors in this regard, regulatory changes in recent years ranging from more stringent disclosure, reporting and filing obligations to econom-ic substance requirements in popular offshore jurisdictio

264、ns such as the Cayman Islands, have more or less dampened the tax and cost benefits associated with these offshore fund structures.Since the implementation of the LPF regime, nearly 300 Hong Kong LPFs have been successfully registered with the Companies Registry. Given the relatively straightforward

265、 set-up process, combined with competitive set-up and maintenance costs of an LPF, we expect that fund sponsors and investors will become more recep-tive to the change of fund domicile to Hong Kong as the regime matures.Tax uncertaintyTax treatment of LPFs has been a major focus in the industry. In

266、addition to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance as outlined in paragraph 4.4 above, the Inland Revenue Department also issued the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes No. 61 (DIPN 61) on 30 June 2020, which provides greater clarity on the tax treatment relating to funds and their unde

267、rlying investments. For instance, in order for a private equity fund to be eligible for tax relief in respect of its underlying investments, the fund must satisfy a number of additional conditions, including passing an immovable property test (10% threshold) for its underlying assets, an asset holdi

268、ng period test, a control test or short-term asset test. In relation to the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Ordi-nance, we understand that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is also in the process of finalising guidelines on the certification of a fund, which will be key in determining whether a carried in

269、terest recipient is eligible for any carried interest tax concession. Overall, the Hong Kong government is clearly driving towards modernising its tax regime and aiming to bring a more competitive and attractive tax regime for funds.25 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021SFC Supervi

270、sionUnlike the open-ended fund company (OFC) which was introduced as a new corporate fund structure in Hong Kong in 2018, the LPF is currently not required to be registered with the SFC. Whilst the Ordinance requires the GP to appoint an investment manager to carry out the day-to-day investment mana

271、gement functions of the LPF, the GP itself could take on the role as the investment manager and it is not mandatory to have a third party investment manager appointed. Whether any key operator of the LPF is required to be licensed by the SFC is determined in light of the specific circumstances surro

272、unding the fund, its management and its investments.As set out in paragraph 4.8 above, whether a fund manager needs to hold an SFC licence would depend on whether it carries on any regulated activities in Hong Kong, and it may not be necessary for an LPF to appoint an SFC licensed fund manager if th

273、e fund does not directly or indirectly invest in any “securities”.Licensing requirements and regulatory supervision of fund managers are crucial factors affecting a fund sponsors decision on a funds domicile and structure. In Hong Kong, there is currently no licence issued specifically to fund manag

274、ers conducting private equity fund management activities. Whether a private equity fund manager is required to be licensed will need to be analysed on a case-by-case basis by reference to its actual business activities. In contrast, Singapore takes a more comprehensive approach towards licensing req

275、uirement applicable to fund managers managing different classes of asset. Generally speaking, fund management companies (FMCs) in Singapore are either licensed FMCs (LFMCs) or registered FMCs (RFMCs). LFMCs are further sub-divided into three categories, including: (i) LFMCs carrying on business in r

276、espect of all types of investors including retail investors (Retail LFMCs); (ii) LFMCs generally restricted to carrying on business in respect of “qualified investors” only (A/I LFMCs); and (iii) LFMCs who only manage venture capital funds (VC LFMCs). On the basis that private equity funds are typic

277、ally only offered to sophisticated and high net worth investors, private equity fund managers in Singapore often seek to operate as either A/I LFMCs or RFMCs (depending on the expected fund size) to steer clear of the onerous licensing and conduct of business requirements for Retail LFMCs. In additi

278、on, where the funds qualify as venture capital funds, fund managers may also opt to manage the fund by holding a VC LFMC licence, subject to certain investment restrictions.Although distinction is made in licensing requirements for VC LFMCs in Singapore, the definition of a venture capital fund adop

279、ted by Singaporean regulators is substantially similar to private equity funds in a broad sense. In view of this, Singapores “light touch” licensing and regulatory regime for VC LFMCs are valuable references for Hong Kongs licensing regime in respect of private fund managers.On the other hand, in de

280、termining the licensing or registration requirements applicable to a certain type of fund manager, the U.S. has taken the assets under management as a benchmark and put in place specific regimes for private equity and 5.2 Fund manager - licensing requirementsHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual

281、 Report 2021 26venture capital funds. Under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (Advisers Act), investment advisers are generally required to be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or one or more state regulators unless an exemption applies. On

282、e of the exemptions under the Advisers Act is that relevant investment advisers that: (i) act solely as an adviser to private fund and has assets under management in the United States of less than US$150 million; or (ii) solely as an investment adviser to one or more venture capital funds, may be ex

283、empted from the registration requirement, on the basis that these funds are predominantly catered for accredited and sophisticated high-net-worth investors; provided, however, that they are still required to complete relevant filings with the SEC. Despite being exempt from the rather onerous registr

284、ation requirement, these private equity or venture capital fund investment advisers are still subject to the supervision and oversight of the SEC and are required to update their relevant disclosure forms and information and are required to comply with the relevant record-keeping requirements and ru

285、les on its internal policies and other requirements (e.g. anti-fraud provisions) which would apply as in the case of any other registered investment advisers. Regarding venture capital funds, in order to support businesses in the start-up phase and promote funding for enterprise development, the Mon

286、etary Authority of Singapore introduced a venture capital fund manager regime, under which VC LFMCs generally undergo a simplified and shorter licensing process, and are subject to fewer capital requirements and conduct of business requirements which A/I LFMCs and RFMCs are subject to. In this regar

287、d, we note the Hong Kong government has introduced various schemes and incentives to promote and encourage investment in local start-ups. For example, in January 2020, the Innovation and Technology Commission invited venture capital funds to apply to become co-investment partners of the Innovation a

288、nd Technology Venture Fund, which is a HK$2 billion co-investment fund established to encourage venture capital investment in local innovation and technology start-ups, so as to mould Hong Kong as a start-up hub in Asia.In response to the above regulatory considerations, we asked SFC-licensed respon

289、dents in the Survey for their views on the licensing and regulatory requirements for operating an LPF, especially on differentiated regulatory requirement based on the class of assets under management. Generally speaking, most of the SFC-licensed respondents believe that the SFC should consider rela

290、xing the licensing requirements applicable to private equity fund managers. Should SFC relax licensing requirements for private equity fund managers?Yes60%No40%Specifically, feedback from SFC-licensed respondents on measures which may be adopted by the SFC in relaxing the licensing or regulatory req

291、uirements applicable to private fund managers are as follows:As outlined above, most of the SFC-licensed respondents agreed that the SFC should relax the licensing requirements applicable to private equity fund managers, including introducing classified asset management licence for private equity fu

292、nd managers, which is to be differentiated from those applicable to retail fund managers. Over 40% of SFC-licensed respondents who believed the assets under management should be taken into consideration by regulator, also believed that when the fund size is below HK$100 million, the SFC should consi

293、der a licensing exemption for fund managers of such funds, and over 60% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that when the relevant fund size is below HK$500 million, a simple filing procedure (as opposed to a type 9 licence requirement) should suffice for such fund managers.43% of the SFC-licen

294、sed respondents believed that the SFC should stipulate special exemption conditions applicable to private fund managers. For example, an exemption from the licensing requirements may be granted to fund managers of such funds that have an asset under management below a certain monetary threshold or f

295、unds that only accept investment from up to a certain number of professional investors. Another 14% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that the SFC should formulate a relatively simplified code of conduct for private fund managers.39% of the SFC-licensed respondents believed that there would b

296、e no need for fund managers of private funds that meet specific requirements (such as managers of funds with asset under management below a certain monetary threshold or funds that only accept investment from up to a certain number of professional investors) to be licensed with the SFC for Type 9 re

297、gulated activities.43%14%39%27 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 Monetary threshold (AUM in HK$) for licensing exemptionMonetary threshold (AUM in HK$) for filing requirement100 million42%500 million25%1 Billion33%100 million9%500 million64%1 billion18%5 billion9%Hong Kong Limite

298、d Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 285.3 Professional investors - eligibilityProvisions in the relevant jurisdiction on the criteria of an eligible person to whom the fund may offer and issue interests to is another important factor which must be considered by fund sponsors in choosing the place

299、of fund domicile. The SEC adopted amendments in August 2020 that expanded the definition of “accredited investor” under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These amendments are designed to modernise the definition of “accredited investor”, with an aim to opening private offers under Regulation D

300、 to a wider group of sophisticated investors. For example, previously, the key criteria in respect of a qualified individual investor is their net asset and income individuals had to have a net worth of at least US$1 million excluding the value of their primary residence, or income of at least US$20

301、0,000 (US$300,000 for couples). The amendments now allow individual investors to qualify based on their credentials including their professional expertise and knowledge, certain certification or the individuals relationship with the product issuer. Out of the requirements, anyone who is a “knowledge

302、able employee” of a private fund would also qualify as accredited investors, which may include a director, general partner, advisory board member, or person serving in a similar capacity of the private fund or an affiliated management person of the private fund.In contrast, interest in private equit

303、y funds not authorised by the SFC may generally be offered only to investors who are accredited or otherwise qualified in accordance with rules and regulations applicable to the relevant jurisdiction. For Hong Kong investors, they must qualify as “professional investor” under the Securities and Futu

304、res (Professional Investor) Rules (Professional Investor Rules), which currently sets out a distinct monetary threshold for corporate professional investor and individual professional investor. We also raised this question in the Survey. 66% of respondents believed that the definition of “profession

305、al investor” under the Professional Investor Rules should be broadened, and amongst this group, another 75% of respondents believed that factors other than asset, should also be taken into account when considering whether an investor qualifies as a “professional investor”. Among respondents who beli

306、eved that the definition of “professional investor” should take into account other criteria, an equal number of respondents think the following persons should also be considered as “professional investor”:professionals with corresponding professional certificates and investment experience, such as c

307、hartered financial analyst, lawyers and auditors who specialise in the area of investment and financing;members of the fund manager who participate in the management and investment of the fund, such as responsible officers, investment committee members, directors and employees and other officers dir

308、ectly involved in the investment and management of the fund (including officers involved in the risk control and back office of investment management of the fund).Some respondents also indicated that when conducting the monetary threshold test for a “professional investor”, asset classes should be e

309、xpanded to also include insurance policies and real estate properties etc. Following the line of initiatives introduced by the Hong Kong government covering taxation, fund re-domiciliation and the special regime for venture capital funds, we hope the SFC would consider formulating customised policie

310、s for private equity fund managers in the future to attract more attention from the financial and investment sectors in Hong Kong to utilise the LPF structure and to further the development of Hong Kongs asset management industry.Should the definition of professional investor be broadened?Should non

311、-monetary criteria be considered?Yes66%No34%Yes75%No25%29 Hong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021The successful implementation of the Hong Kong LPF regime, together with a series of preferential policies such as the launch of the fund re-domiciliation regime and carried interest tax co

312、ncession, are key drivers for the positive market sentiment of the regime. This game changing regime has continued to attract intense attention in the market and the successful establishment of LPFs by the first batch of asset management institutions have reinforced the industrys confidence in this

313、regime.Hong Kongs proximity to Mainland China, ensures that it is well positioned to draw on its advantages as an international financial centre, its transparent and international market and well-developed legal and financial systems aligned with international standards and best practices, talent cl

314、usters and extensive network of experienced financial professionals, free flow of financial products, capital and information. The LPF regime further strengthens Hong Kongs position as a world class financial centre and the second largest private fund centre in Asia.Hong Kong is also the worlds seco

315、nd largest bourse for biotechnology companies, and the worlds largest offshore RMB transaction hub. The proximity and connectivity between Hong Kong, Mainland China and the GBA presents unprecedented opportunities in many emerging and new economy industries, including technology, media and telecommu

316、nications, healthcare, biomedicine, and fintech. With the policy support proposed in the “Opinions on Financial Support for the Construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area” (including establishing pilot schemes for cross-border private equity fund investments, supporting Hong Kong

317、 and Macau SAR private funds investing in innovative enterprises in the GBA, supporting institutions in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau SAR to jointly establish funds in the GBA, supporting insurance funds and wealth management funds to be utilised in investment funds in accordance with relevant prov

318、isions and etc.), we expect the LPF regime will bring abundant opportunities enabling international fund managers to manage RMB asset portfolios through setting up of funds in Hong Kong. The introduction of the LPF regime at this opportune time offers an attractive and viable alternative for the Hon

319、g Kong asset management industry to establish private equity funds, enabling fund managers to meet market demand through flexible means. As the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area Development Plan enters its next stage of development, accompanied by the positive sentiment and recognition from

320、 market participants, we firmly believe the LPF regime will soon become one of the most widely-used fund structures for international private funds in Asia. 6CONCLUSIONHong Kong Limited Partnership Fund Annual Report 2021 30DisclaimerThis Report is compiled by King & Wood Mallesons and contains feed

321、back from industry participants in the Hong Kong asset management industry with respect to the Survey. Its contents only reflect the feedback and views of those participants in the Hong Kong asset management industry in response to the Survey. It does not constitute KWMs legal advice or legal analys

322、is, nor does it form part of KWMs advice or suggestion regarding any specific legal matter. No representation or warranty is intended to be made by King & Wood Mallesons in respect of the accuracy or completeness of any material set out in this Report. Any person who makes any decision regarding any

323、 action or omission by only relying on the contents of this Report in whole or in part shall be solely liable for such decision and any outcome arising therefrom. If you need any legal advice or other specialist advice, you should seek the professional and legal assistance from the relevant professi

324、onals with proper qualifications.King & Wood Mallesons reserves all its rights in respect of this Report. Without prior written permission of King & Wood Mallesons, no person may reproduce any content of this Report in any form or by any means (in handwriting, by electronic or mechanical means, incl

325、uding via photocopy, audio recording, recording pen or information collection system).King & Wood Mallesons refers to a legal service network composed of member firms in the international alliance of King & Wood Mallesons. All member law firms provide various legal services independently. Neither th

326、e member firm nor any of its partners or members shall act as agents of other member firms or any of its partners or members. The partners or members of any member firm are not binding on any other member firm. See for details. Any reference to “Hong Kong or HK” in this Report shall be construed as

327、a reference to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.Founded in the early 1990s, King & Wood Mallesons (known as King & Wood at that time) was one of the earliest partnership law firms established in the PRC, and also one of the first Chinese law firms to open

328、an office in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Through many years of continuous business development and resources integration, King & Wood Mallesons has successfully expanded its coverage to many countries including the U.S., UK, EU and the Middle East region to better serve its global c

329、lients.Recognised as one of the worlds most innovative law firms, King & Wood Mallesons offers a different perspective to commercial thinking and the client experience. With access to a global platform, a team of over 640 partners and 2,700 lawyers in 29 physical offices and 36 cloud offices works w

330、ith clients to help them understand local challenges, navigate through regional complexity, and to find commercial solutions that deliver a competitive advantage for our clients. We help clients to open doors and unlock opportunities as they look to Asian markets to unleash their full potential. Com

331、bining an unrivalled depth of expertise and breath of relationships in our core markets, we are connecting Asia to the world, and the world to Asia. With our strong foundation and ever-progressive practice capacity, we have been a leader in the industry. We have received more than 200 international

332、and ABOUT KING & WOOD MALLESONSregional awards from business and legal media in recent years. Meanwhile, we have been consistently awarded by the internationally authoritative legal rating agencies for our leading practice in various areas and our outstanding lawyers.Our Hong Kong office serves as a

333、n important hub of the KWM international network. As the Asian era arrives, we, a leading international law firm headquartered in Asia, are committed to reaching out clients in Asia, EU, Africa, and America to help them grasp the important business opportunities. With over 200 lawyers and fee earners, including 40 partner-level lawyers, KWM Hong Kong office is now the largest international law fir