registered investment adviser

The SEC’s Division of Investment Management has posted Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response FAQs (the “FAQs”), which have been updated through April 14, 2020. The FAQs summarize and provide links to various forms of relief granted by the SEC and the Division to registered investment companies and investment advisers. A list of the questions addressed is provided below.
Continue Reading SEC Provides a Consolidated Reference for COVID-19 Relief for Investment Companies and Advisers

On June 5, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a package of rules and interpretations relating to the standards of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers, including a new “best interest” rule for broker-dealers. The package was adopted by a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr. as the lone dissenter. Chairman Jay Clayton, who supported the package, stated that the SEC was not adopting a uniform fiduciary rule for broker-dealers and investment advisers. Instead, Chairman Clayton explained that “Regulation Best Interest incorporates fiduciary principles, but is appropriately tailored to the broker-dealer relationship model and will preserve retail investor access and choice.” Chairman Clayton, as well as the SEC’s press release, emphasized that Regulation Best Interest cannot be satisfied by disclosure alone, but rather through compliance with each of the rule’s four substantive obligations.

The actions taken on June 5 include the following:


Continue Reading SEC Adopts Package of Reforms Aimed at Raising the Standard of Conduct for Brokers and Clarifying an Investment Adviser’s Fiduciary Duty

My first post discussed the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examination’s (“OCIE’s”) recent Risk Alert (the “Alert”) and specific fund categories in its crosshairs. This post will cover the three remaining fund categories and general examination issues identified by OCIE in the Alert.

Continue Reading OCIE Announces Risk-Based Exam Initiatives for Mutual Funds—Part 2

I have spoken for years about the importance of contingency planning for money market funds. So I understand why business continuity and transition planning is a great idea for investment advisers. I’m troubled, however, by the SEC’s recent proposal to require advisers to maintain such plans. My troubles lie more with their means than with their ends.
Continue Reading Should Failure to Plan Constitute Fraud?

As of January 1, 2016, a person defined as a “finder” will become exempt from the broker-dealer provisions of the California Securities Law of 1968, as amended. Under that law, the Commissioner of Business Oversight regulates the activities of broker-dealers. Assembly Bill No. 667, Section 25206.1 will exempt a “finder” from registration with the Commissioner as a broker-dealer.
Continue Reading Welcoming “Finders” in from the Cold in California

My initial post examined the risk of miscalculating regulatory assets under management (“RAUM”) for purposes of registering with the SEC as an investment adviser. This post shows that the SEC is highly motivated to bring reasonably punitive enforcement proceedings against investment advisers that “voluntarily” register with the SEC instead of with the appropriate state.
Continue Reading Federalism, Regulatory Assets under Management (“RAUM”), and Voluntary Registration with the SEC as an Investment Adviser — Part Two

As a matter of Federalism, Congress cannot require the several states to adopt laws regulating investment advisers, but it can prohibit “small” investment advisers from registering with the SEC unless they have a sufficient amount of RAUM. For the last two decades, Congress has been slowly but continuously removing “small” investment advisers from the SEC’s jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Federalism, Regulatory Assets under Management (“RAUM”), and Voluntary Registration with the SEC as an Investment Adviser — Part One