AIMA

The Alternative Investment Management Association

Alternative Investment Management Association Representing the global hedge fund industry

The US Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules for investment advisers and investors

Stephane Puel and David Malamed & Joanna Percenik

Gide Loyrette Nouel (Paris) and Gide Loyrette Nouel (NY), respectively

Q4 2007

In December 2006, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) proposed (i) new anti-fraud rules for investment advisers and (ii) a new standard for the definition of accredited investors. The SEC released these two newly proposed rules to the public for comments. The deadline for the public to submit comments on those two rules ended on 9 March 2007. The 600 comment letters sent to the SEC represent an extraordinarily high number for such technical issues and is a further indication that hedge funds have, in fact, in the public mind become an alternative to traditional investments. On 11 July 2007, the SEC voted to adopt the proposed anti-fraud provisions only.

The New Anti-Fraud Rule

The new rule will make it a fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative act, practice or course of business, for an investment adviser to a pooled investment vehicle to make false or misleading statements to, or otherwise to mislead, investors or prospective investors in that pool. The rule will apply to all investment advisers to pooled investment vehicles, regardless of whether the adviser is registered or not under the Advisers Act. Under the new rule, a pooled investment vehicle will include any investment company and any company that would be an investment company but for the exclusions in Sections 3(c) (1) or 3(c) (7) of the Investment Company Act. No scienter requirement has been provided for in this rule to trigger the adviser’s liability. The new rule does not grant any private right of action.

In other words, the new rule will apply to all pooled investment vehicles, including hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital, as well as mutual funds and business development companies.

The proposed rule came in the aftermath of the Goldstein decision . In this decision, the US Court of Appeals of D.C. overturned the new rule adopted by the SEC in 2004, requiring most hedge funds managers to register with the SEC. Under the Investment Advisers Act, managers with fifteen or more clients during the preceding twelve months and with more than US $30 million in assets under management are required to register with the SEC unless, among others, the adviser has fewer than fifteen clients. This exemption has been relied on by hedge fund managers to avoid federal registration. However, in 2004, the SEC decided that hedge fund managers were required to “look through” the fund and to count each of their beneficial owners as a client for the purpose of determining whether the manager has fewer than fifteen clients. This new rule was vacated in the Goldstein decision as the court in this case interpreted the term “client” to mean the fund itself and not the investors in the fund.

Most comments have supported these anti-fraud rules. A commonly shared view, however, was that the proposed rule was too broadly drafted and did not circumscribe the definition of fraud. Most commentators have also contested the lack of scienter requirement to establish the liability of the adviser. Some commentators have also suggested that the registered investment companies of Section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act, should be excluded from the scope of the proposed rule 206(4)-8, as the registered investment companies are already covered by a broad range of antifraud rules.

The Accredited Natural Person Rule

Unlike the anti-fraud rules, the accredited natural person standard came under strong criticism, especially among those who qualify under the current rules but would not be eligible to invest in hedge funds under the enhanced standard.

The current definition of an accredited investor under the Securities Act includes a natural person; provided that this person has a net worth of US$1 million or US$ 200,000 in income in the last two years, or US$300,000 in joint income with a spouse in the last two years ((Rule 501(a) and Rule 215 of the Securities Act)).

The new proposed category of accredited natural person, supplements the above test. An accredited natural person would be defined as any natural person who meets the above net worth/income test and who, in addition, owns at least US$2.5 million in qualifying investments. This new standard is intended to apply only to investors investing in private investment vehicles, other than certain venture capital funds, including hedge funds, that rely on the exclusion from the definition of an investment company under Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act.

The main criticism with respect to this new standard is the lack of correlation between the additional US$2.5 million threshold and a higher sophistication on the part of the investors. Small investors have also complained about the unfair and discriminatory effect of such a new standard. Others have also pointed out that increasing the protection of unsophisticated investors by raising the financial minimum wealth level, does not address the real issue, i.e the growth of hedge funds and it is likely to impair new funds formation and fund raising by smaller investors. Other commentators have criticised the limitation of the proposed new definition to hedge funds only. Some have also questioned the proposed exceptions to this new rule, such as venture capital fund exclusion from the definition of private investment vehicles, based on the assertion that these funds play an important role in the capital formation process for small businesses. Again, those against the exception have argued that investment in venture capital may be as risky as investments in hedge funds and that hedges funds are as valuable a source of capital as venture capital. Many have expressed the view that the SEC should provide exceptions from the accredited natural person status for employees of fund’s managers, who are often sophisticated enough to evaluate the risks of investing in private investment pools. Another concern is the absence of grandfathering rules for current investors. According to the proposed rule, these investors will be prevented from making further investments if they do not meet the US$2.5 million test. The comment letters also call for an alternative to the proposed new standard for accredited investors to avoid the needless complexity of this supplemental test.

The strong reactions to the new standard show that many investors do not wish their access to hedge funds to be limited and that there is no such strong case, on the investors’ side, for increased regulatory protection of their interests. Back to Listing

Main Menu

  1. Home
  2. About
    1. Our Core Objectives
    2. AIMA's Policy Principles
    3. Meet the team
    4. AIMA Council
    5. Global Network
    6. Sponsoring Members
    7. Global Partners
    8. FAQs
    9. Opportunities at AIMA
      1. Analyst, Tax Affairs
  3. Join AIMA
    1. Benefits of Membership
    2. Membership Fees
    3. Application form
  4. Members
    1. AIMA Annual Reports
    2. AIMA Governance
    3. AIMA Logo
      1. Policy note
    4. AIMA Members' List
    5. AIMA Review of the Year
    6. Committees and Working Groups
    7. Weekly News
    8. Update Profile
  5. Investors
    1. AIMA Investor Services
    2. AIMA Members' List
    3. Investor Steering Committee
    4. Update Profile
  6. Regulation
    1. AIMA's Policy Principles
    2. Asset Management Regulation
      1. EU Asset Management Regulation
        1. AIFMD
        2. European Capital Markets Regulation
        3. MiFID / MiFIR
        4. UCITS
          1. ETFs and Structured UCITS
        5. Venture Capital
      2. US Hedge Fund Adviser Regulations
        1. Registration and Reporting
        2. Incentive-Based Compensation
        3. JOBS Act
      3. Asia Pacific Asset Management regulation
      4. Other Jurisdictions’ Asset Management Regulation
      5. Regulation of NBFCs / SIFIS
      6. Supervision
        1. UK regulatory reform
        2. European Supervisory Authorities
        3. US Self-Regulatory Organisations
      7. Remuneration
        1. UK
        2. US
        3. CRD IV and CRR
        4. AIFMD
        5. MiFID
      8. Shadow Banking
      9. Volcker Rule
      10. Other
    3. Markets Regulation
      1. Bank/Capital Regulation
        1. Capital Requirements Directive
        2. EU Bank Structural Reforms
      2. Derivatives/Clearing
        1. EMIR
        2. MiFID / MiFIR
        3. MAD / MAR
        4. Dodd-Frank Act Title VII
        5. Hong Kong
        6. IOSCO
        7. Singapore
      3. High Frequency Trading
        1. ESMA Guidelines
        2. MiFID / MiFIR
        3. MAD / MAR
        4. Flash Crash
        5. IOSCO
        6. Germany
        7. CFTC Automated Trading
      4. Insurance Regulation
        1. Solvency II
      5. Market Abuse
        1. MAD / MAR
        2. Indices as Benchmarks
      6. Position Limits
        1. MiFID / MiFIR
        2. CFTC Position Limits
      7. Resolution of Financial Institutions
        1. Europe
          1. EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive
          2. EU Non-Bank Recovery and Resolution
        2. CPSS-IOSCO
        3. Financial Stability Board
        4. UK
        5. USA
      8. Short Selling
        1. EU Short Selling Regulation
        2. Hong Kong Short Selling Regulation
        3. US Short Selling Regulation
        4. Short Selling Bans
      9. Securities Settlement
      10. Shadow Banking
        1. International Shadow Banking
        2. EU Shadow Banking
      11. Trading
        1. MiFID / MiFIR
        2. Dodd-Frank Act
    4. Tax Affairs
      1. EU Savings Directive
      2. FAIFs and FINROFs
      3. FATCA
      4. FIN 48 and IAS 12
      5. Financial Transaction Tax
      6. Investment Manager Exemption
      7. UK Offshore Funds Regime
      8. Other
    5. Search
    6. Resources
      1. Guidance Notes
      2. Jurisdictional Guides
      3. Noticeboard
        1. FATCA
        2. Other Hot Asset Management Topics
        3. Other Hot Markets Topics
        4. UK Partnership Tax Review
        5. Volcker Rule
      4. Hedge Fund Manager Training
      5. Quarterly Regulatory Update
      6. Webinar Programme
  7. Education
    1. AIMA Journal
      1. Search AIMA Journal articles
      2. AIMA Journal Archive
    2. ‘Capital Markets and Economic Growth – Long-Term Trends and Policy Challenges'
    3. AIMA/KPMG reports on state of global hedge fund industry
    4. Roadmap to Hedge Funds
    5. Guides for institutional investment
    6. Industry-standard DDQs
    7. Sound Practices
    8. Industry Guides
    9. CAIA
      1. FAI
    10. Services to Start-up Managers
    11. Useful Websites
    12. 'The Alternative Answer'
    13. Glossary
  8. Events
    1. AIMA Events
    2. Industry Events
  9. Media
    1. AIMA in the News
      1. Articles by AIMA
      2. Television interviews
    2. Press Releases & Statements
    3. Media Contacts
    4. Press Materials

Sub Menu

  1. Education
    1. AIMA Journal
    2. Bibliography
    3. CAIA Designation
    4. Research
    5. Roadmap to Hedge Funds
    6. AIMA's Investor Steering Committee Paper
    7. Glossary
  2. Regulatory, Tax, Policy & Government Affairs
    1. AIMA Position Papers
    2. AIMA Responses
      1. Australian Tax Office
      2. Authority for the Financial Markets
      3. Committee of European Banking Supervisors
      4. Committee of European Securities Regulators
      5. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
      6. Dubai Financial Services Authority
      7. European Commission
      8. European Securities and Markets Authority
      9. Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority
      10. Financial Services Authority (UK)
      11. Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau
      12. Guernsey Financial Services Commission
      13. HM Revenue & Customs
      14. HM Treasury
      15. Independent Commission on Banking
      16. IOSCO
      17. Monetary Authority of Singapore
      18. Securities and Exchange Board of India
      19. Securities and Exchange Commission (USA)
      20. Securities and Futures Commission
      21. Singapore Exchange
      22. The Takeover Panel
      23. US House of Representatives / Senate
      24. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
      25. Financial Stability Oversight Council
      26. Financial Stability Board
      27. US Treasury
      28. Internal Revenue Service
      29. US Federal Reserve
      30. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
      31. Council of European Union
      32. Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing
      33. House of Lords
    3. AIMA Summaries
      1. CESR
      2. European Commission
      3. Financial Services Authority (UK)
      4. HM Revenue & Customs
      5. HM Treasury
      6. IOSCO
      7. Securities and Exchanges Commission
      8. FSOC
      9. CFTC
    4. Guidance Notes
    5. Jurisdictional Resource
    6. AIMA Noticeboard
      1. EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers
      2. FSA Remuneration Code
      3. Short Selling
      4. US Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
      5. UK Stewardship Code
      6. Securities Law Directive
      7. EU Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers - Level II
      8. EU Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID)
      9. International Financial Centres
      10. Bribery Act
      11. Market Abuse Directive
      12. MF Global
      13. FATCA
      14. FTT
      15. Other Tax Issues
    7. AIMA Regulatory Update
  3. Sound Practices
    1. Due Diligence Questionnaires
    2. Guides to Sound Practices
  4. Start-Up Service Providers
  5. Useful Websites