GAO Report on SRO for Private Fund Advisers

SRO for Private Fund Adviser could be established, but not without challenges

Over the last few weeks we have heard much talk about the potential formation of a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for registered investment advisers (i.e. hedge fund managers). In July the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report on the feasibility of forming an SRO to provide oversight to private fund advisers. The report was required by the Dodd-Frank Act and it discusses the feasibility of establishing the SRO as well as the potential advantages and disadvantages of forming such an organization.  This report comes on the heels of an SEC study of IA examinations which analyzed whether an IA SRO would be feasible.  [We concluded:  This study simply states the obvious – the SEC does not have the resources it needs to adequately do its job.  It seems like the major conclusion has already been reached – IA firms are going to need to pay for their oversight because Congress will not pay for it.]  In the GAO report, the issue is examined further and the conclusion states that an SRO could be established and there would be potential advantages and disadvantages for doing so.

Feasibility of Establishing the SRO

The report discussed the feasibility of establishing the SRO. In general there are a number of items which would need to be put into place before an SRO could be formed and operating. The main item is that Congress would need to specifically authorize, through legislation, the creation of the SRO which would then be subject to SEC oversight.  After authorization, a determination would be made as to whether the SRO would be created ab initio or if an existing SRO would take over the responsibilities of overseeing private fund advisers. It is likely that, given the costs of establishing an entirely new entity, an existing SRO (such as FINRA or the NFA) would simply be given the new oversight responsibilities. Once an SRO was determined, bylaws and operational issues will need to be addressed including fee and governance structures, board of directors, compliance rules and enforcement rules.

In any event, establishing an SRO for private fund advisers is likely to be resource intensive and subject to various levels of the political process – Congress, the SEC, (potentially) the CFTC, NASAA, and the SRO would all have agendas with respect to the SRO. Additionally, even within the private fund advisers group there is likely to be political positioning – large managers are going to have different concerns

than small managers and are most likely going to want to have a larger say with respect to operations (especially if they are paying a disproportionate amount of the fees to support the IA oversight functions of the SRO).

Potential Advantages of a Private Fund Adviser SRO

The report listed the following as potential advantages of the SRO:

Advantages of a private fund adviser SRO include its potential to (1) free a portion of SEC’s staff and resources for other purposes by giving the SRO primary examination and other oversight responsibilities for advisers that manage private funds, (2) impose higher standards of conduct and ethical behavior on its members than are required by law or regulations, and (3) provide greater industry expertise and knowledge than SEC, given the industry’s participation in the SRO.

Potential Disadvantages of a Private Fund Adviser SRO

The report listed the following as potential disadvantages of the SRO:

Some of the disadvantages of a private fund adviser SRO include its potential to (1) increase the overall cost of regulation by adding another layer of oversight; (2) create conflicts of interest, in part because of the possibility for self-regulation to favor the interests of the industry over the interests of investors and the public; and (3) limit transparency and accountability, as the SRO would be accountable primarily to its members rather than to Congress or the public

State Registration Issues

One of the questions which this particular report did not address is whether managers registered with a state securities division (instead of the SEC) would be subject to oversight by the SRO.  The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages did not include state jurisdictional issues, but these issues are important.  The state securities divisions are subject to the same budgetary limitations as the SEC and many times the states do not (contrary to reports by NASAA) have the expertise necessary to properly examine fund managers and other investment advisers.  If state managers are not required to be part of the SRO then you are likely to see a wide disparity in examination and oversight between state registered managers and SEC registered managers (who would also be subject to SRO oversight).  Expect to see this discussed in greater depth going forward.


The issue of whether or not there should be an IA SRO is not going to go away any time soon – especially with the SEC under intense budget pressure and the looming deadline for hedge fund IA registration (March 30, 2012). It is clear that in the race to be the SRO for investment advisers, FINRA is the leader and really probably the only viable option. While having FINRA oversee both BDs and IAs may not make the most sense, it is probably better than the alternatives which right now include (1) the NFA (which oversees managed futures firms) or (2) starting an SRO from scratch.  Expect to hear more on this issue soon from both Congress and the SEC.

For the full GAO report, please see GAO Private Fund Adviser SRO Report.


Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP is a law firm which provides adviser registration, compliance and legal support to SEC registered hedge fund managers. Bart Mallon can be reached directly at 415-868-5345; Karl Cole-Frieman can be reached at 415-352-2300.