{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03355704697986577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008053691275167786, 'mean_word_length': 5.016129032258065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To EU, or not to EU: That is the AIFMD Question

This article provides a critical and evaluative analysis of The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD), with a view to helping readers form a response to the crucial AIFMD question: Should third country (non-European Union) Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFMs) opt-in to the new AIFMD regime or not? The article will critically discuss arguments in favour of, and against hedge fund regulation, as well as providing an overview of the key AIFMD operational provisions. It will also critically review the AIFMD question for third party (non-European Union) AIFMs, by analysing a number of different arguments both in favour of, and against, the AIFMD provisions.