The European private equity industry today published its response to the proposed Alternative Investment Fund Managers directive that seeks to place controls on the industry.

In what it must hope will be seen as a carefully considered and constructed response to the European Commission’s hastily drafted and ill-thought-out proposed directive, the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association — the voice for private equity in Europe — calls for the threshold for reporting on its companies’ activities to be lifted to 1 billion euros assets under management from 500 million.

It argues that private equity firms smaller than that specialise in managing small and medium-sized companies and should be subject to national legislation.

EVCA also wants a grandfathering clause introduced so firms existing funds that use no leverage and have no redemption rights (the vast majority of all unlisted private equity funds) would be exempt from the directive. It argues that failing to do this could result in termination of these funds “with disastrous consequences for the industry and its portfolio companies”.

The big question is who in Europe is listening?

Having already gained a surprise concession in the published draft, which lifted the reporting threshold to 500 million euros from an expected level of 250 million euros, private equity may be seen as pushing its luck by asking for further leeway.

While the Socialists lost ground to the Conservative right in the recent European Parliament elections, it would be a mistake to think that the left wing coalition leader Poul Nyrup Rasmussen will be any less strident in his call for stringent legislation on private equity and hedge funds alike. The right wing Governments in France and Germany have been just as loud in their demands for legislating of the industries.

Private equity might have been hoping for support from the UK, home to most of Europe’s largest funds, but the decision of the British Conservative party to step outside of the main right wing coalition in Europe will weaken the voice in its favour. A feeble British Labour Government and a UK Treasury with bigger fish to fry does not leave private equity with many influential friends.

EVCA’s response to the proposed directive is its opening shot in the whole legislative process which is likely to take at least one year, but it must have hoped for a warmer reception for its counter-proposals.

More than a “nice to have,” investor sentiment is running heavily on the side of environment, social and governance (ESG) factors, according to the latest Thomson Reuters Perception Snapshot.

Feedback from 25 global buy-side investors found that 84 percent evaluate ESG criteria to some degree when making an investment decision.

The remaining 16 percent say ESG issues are not considered until a company’s ability to generate high returns is hindered by these factors.

Some of the selected comments:

“ESG only plays a role to the extent that it is an overhang on the stock. There is no moral component to investing. We are value neutral when it comes to our investment decisions, but we are not value neutral in our lives. We have a fiduciary duty to our clients, to the people who give us money to manage to maximize returns, which means that we can not be limited by our own personal morality. If I see a cigarette company that looks interesting I may invest in it even though I might not like it
personally.” - U.S. Hedge Fund Investor

“I am convinced that companies that follow the philosophy of social and economic responsibility are performing better in the long-term than those that do not.” - European Core Growth Investor

The report dovetails with Tuesday’s push by U.S. President Barack Obama to push for tougher industrial standards aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama ordered the U.S. auto industry, where the hand of government is firmly in control (GM and Chrysler, but not Ford) to make more fuel-efficient cars to cut emissions and increase gas mileage.

The House of Representatives started its debate on the 946-page Democratic bill on Tuesday. Republicans are arguing the legislation would burden the economy with higher energy costs.

Does that matter, when scientists reported on Tuesday that global warming’s effects this century could be twice as extreme as estimated just six years ago?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists estimate the Earth’s median surface temperature could rise 9.3 degrees F (5.2 degrees C) by 2100. That’s up from the 4.3 degrees F (2.4 degrees C) estimate in 2003.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said seas would rise by between 18 and 59 cms (7-24 inches) this century. But it pointed to big uncertainties about ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica — one IPCC estimate was that this ice could add up to 20 cms to sea level rise.

As George Bush might say, the EU is addicted to Russian energy. While no member wants to kick the habit totally, Brussels would like the bloc to reduce its growing dependence.

Even before Moscow invaded Georgia, the main non-Russian route for exporting Central Asian and Azeri crude and gas to Europe, the EU watched Russia’s regular cuts in energy supplies to neighbours with concern.

But EU members have been reluctant to take the hard measures that would allow them to bypass Russia, so analysts think their reliance on Moscow will grow.

What should European countries to ensure it has sufficient oil and gas in the future? 

Should EU nations be prepared to put cash behind its energy diversification goals?

Is a common EU energy policy even possible when oil and gas is so important that no country seems prepared to risk its own energy security for that of the bloc?