Form PF vs AIFMD: A Comparison of Reporting Requirements for Alternative Investment Funds

Navigating Multi-Jurisdictional Reporting: Form PF vs AIFMD

Asset managers must comply with regulatory responsibilities across multiple jurisdictions, with varying requirements set by each National Competent Authority. However, managing ever-emerging multijurisdictional regulatory requirements can lead to data inconsistency and reputational damage if not handled holistically. Successful reporting under AIFMD and Form PF mandates requires centralized data management, integration, validation, and automation.

In this video, we compare and contrast the regulatory requirements for AIFMD in Europe and Form PF in the United States. Form PF (Private Fund Form) is a filing requirement for SEC-registered investment advisers with at least $150 million in private fund assets under management. AIFMD is a directive that regulates alternative investment fund managers in the EU. While both frameworks aim to improve transparency and oversight of private funds, they apply to different entities and have distinct requirements. Both ESMA and the SEC apply a risk-based, data-driven and outcome-focused approach when supervising filers.

As a thought leader in this space, we offer unique insights into managing and complying with multi-jurisdictional regulations. We continuously monitor and deliver solutions to meet the requirements of multi-jurisdictional regulations, including those of AIFMD and Form PF.

Watch our video to learn how AQMetrics can help firms navigate the differences between AIFMD and Form PF and comply with multi-jurisdictional regulations at all times.

Topic: Form PF VS AIFMD: How do they compare?

Presenter: Cian Brennan, Regulatory Reporting & Customer Success Team Lead, AQMetrics.

Want to find out more?

Book a demo to learn more about how AQMetrics can transform your regulatory reporting.