Tag Archives: hedge fund registration

Hedge Fund Regulation Principles

Leave a reply

IOSCO Pushes Securities Regulators to Adopt Registration Provisions

Over the past few months we have been highlighting the Congressional attempts to regulate and/or register hedge funds and more recently have discussed the Obama hedge fund registration plan.  However, we have not discussed what is happening internationally.  Like the in the US, other major financial centers around the world have suffered from the economic downturn and have begun looking towards greater regulation of the financial system – this of course means greater regulation of hedge funds and registration for hedge fund managers.

There has been much discussion, both in the US and abroad, about world-wide principles for regulation.  There would be obvious benefits for some sort of international standards for all parts of the financial system, but there would need to be an unprecedented amount of cooperation between the various financial regulatory agencies which seems like an insurmountable task.  However, one group, the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO), is doing its best to act as a sort of communicator of best practices that financial regulatory systems should integrate into new regulations which are expected to be proposed in many jurisdictions.

Below I have published a press release announcing the IOSCO’s report on hedge fund oversight.  The full 26 page report, IOSCO Hedge Fund Regulation Report, tackles some of the high level issues which regulatory bodies should consider when drafting new hedge fund regulations.  It will be interesting to see how this report is received in the different jurisdictions throughout the world.

****

IOSCO/MR/12/2009
Madrid, 22 June 2009

IOSCO publishes principles for hedge funds regulation

The International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO) Technical Committee has today published Hedge Funds Oversight: Final Report which contains six high level principles that will enable securities regulators to address, in a collective and effective way, the regulatory and systemic risks posed by hedge funds in their own jurisdictions while supporting a globally consistent approach.

The report, which was prepared by the Task Force on Unregulated Entities (Task Force), recommends that all securities regulators apply the principles in their regulatory approaches.

The six high level principles are:

  1. Hedge funds and/or hedge fund managers/advisers should be subject to mandatory registration;
  2. Hedge fund managers/advisers which are required to register should also be subject to appropriate ongoing regulatory requirements relating to:
    1. Organisational and operational standards;
    2. Conflicts of interest and other conduct of business rules;
    3. Disclosure to investors; and
    4. Prudential regulation.
  3. Prime brokers and banks which provide funding to hedge funds should be subject to mandatory registration/regulation and supervision. They should have in place appropriate risk management systems and controls to monitor their counterparty credit risk exposures to hedge funds;
  4. Hedge fund managers/advisers and prime brokers should provide to the relevant regulator information for systemic risk purposes (including the identification, analysis and mitigation of systemic risks);
  5. Regulators should encourage and take account of the development, implementation and convergence of industry good practices, where appropriate;
  6. Regulators should have the authority to co-operate and share information, where appropriate, with each other, in order to facilitate efficient and effective oversight of globally active managers/advisers and/or funds and to help identify systemic risks, market integrity and other risks arising from the activities or exposures of hedge funds with a view to mitigating such risks across borders.

Kathleen Casey, Chairman of the Technical Committee, said:

“Securities regulators recognise that the current crisis in financial markets is not a hedge fund driven event. Hedge funds contribute to market liquidity, price efficiency, risk distribution and global market integration. Nevertheless the crisis has given regulators the opportunity to consider the systemic role hedge funds may play and the way in which we deal with the regulatory risks they may pose to the oversight of markets and protection of investors.

“The application of these principles, in a collective, cooperative and efficient way, can provide regulators with the tools to obtain sufficient, relevant information in order to address the regulatory and systemic risks posed by hedge funds.”

The Task Force was chaired by the CONSOB of Italy and the Financial Services Authority of the United Kingdom. It was established in November 2008 to support the initiatives undertaken by the G-20 to restore global growth and achieve reforms in the world’s financial systems.

The Task Force will continue to work to support the implementation of these standards by its members and to deal with future regulatory issues that may arise in relation to hedge funds. It will act as the contact point with prudential regulators and banking standards setters, as well as other regulatory bodies such as the Joint Forum and the hedge fund industry in relation to the development and implementation of industry standards of best practice.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. Hedge Funds Oversight – Final Report of the Technical Committee of IOSCO is available on IOSCO’s website.

2. Hedge Funds Oversight – Consultation Report of the Technical Committee of IOSCO was published on 30 April 2009.

3. IOSCO is recognized as the leading international policy forum for securities regulators. The organization’s wide membership regulates more than 95% of the world’s securities markets and IOSCO is the international cooperative forum for securities regulatory agencies. IOSCO members regulate more than one hundred jurisdictions and its membership is steadily growing.

4. The Technical Committee, a specialised working group established by IOSCO’s Executive Committee, is made up of eighteen agencies that regulate some of the worlds larger, more developed and internationalized markets. Its objective is to review major regulatory issues related to international securities and futures transactions and to coordinate practical responses to these concerns. Ms. Kathleen Casey, Commissioner of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is the Chairman of the Technical Committee. The members of the Technical Committee are the securities regulatory authorities of Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Ontario, Quebec, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States.

5. IOSCO aims through its permanent structures:

  • to cooperate together to promote high standards of regulation in order to maintain just, efficient and sound markets;
  • to exchange information on their respective experiences in order to promote the development of domestic markets;
  • to unite their efforts to establish standards and an effective surveillance of international securities transactions;
  • to provide mutual assistance to promote the integrity of the markets by a rigorous application of the standards and by effective enforcement against offenses.

MEDIA ENQUIRIES
Greg Tanzer
Direct Line + 34 91 417 5549
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.iosco.org

****
Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009 Text of Statute

2 Replies

Text of New Hedge Fund Registration Bill

Earlier we posted a press release about the Private Fund Transparency Act and that it would subject hedge fund managers to registration with the SEC.  Below is the actual text of the statute.

We will be bringing an in depth analysis of changes and consequences of this bill in the next couple of days.

****

Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1276 IS

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1276

To require investment advisers to private funds, including hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and others to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 16, 2009

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To require investment advisers to private funds, including hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and others to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ADVISERS.

Section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(29) The term `foreign private adviser’ means any investment adviser who–

`(A) has no place of business in the United States;

`(B) during the preceding 12 months has had–

`(i) fewer than 15 clients in the United States; and

`(ii) assets under management attributable to clients in the United States of less than $25,000,000, or such higher amount as the Commission may, by rule, deem appropriate in accordance with the purposes of this title; and

`(C) neither holds itself out generally to the public in the United States as an investment adviser, nor acts as an investment adviser to any investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or a company which has elected to be a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and has not withdrawn its election.’.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE ADVISER EXEMPTION; LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR FOREIGN PRIVATE ADVISERS.

Section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

`(3) any investment adviser that is a foreign private adviser;’.

SEC. 4. COLLECTION OF SYSTEMIC RISK DATA; ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS.

Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-4) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: `The Commission is authorized to require any investment adviser registered under this title to maintain such records and submit such reports as are necessary or appropriate in the public interest for the supervision of systemic risk by any Federal department or agency, and to provide or make available to such department or agency those reports or records or the information contained therein. The records of any company that, but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, would be an investment company, to which any such investment adviser provides investment advice, shall be deemed to be the records of the investment adviser if such company is sponsored by the investment adviser or any affiliated person of the investment adviser or the investment adviser or any affiliated person of the investment adviser acts as underwriter, distributor, placement agent, finder, or in a similar capacity for such company.’; and

(2) adding at the end the following:

`(d) Confidentiality of Reports- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any supervisory report or information contained therein required to be filed with the Commission under subsection (a). Nothing in this subsection shall authorize the Commission to withhold information from Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency or any self-regulatory organization requesting the report or information for purposes within the scope of its jurisdiction, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this subsection shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552.’.

SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF PROVISION.

Section 210 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10) is amended by striking subsection (c).

SEC. 6. CLARIFICATION OF RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

Section 211(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-11) is amended–

(1) by striking the second sentence; and

(2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: `, including rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in this title. For the purposes of its rules and regulations, the Commission may–

`(1) classify persons and matters within its jurisdiction and prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons or matters; and

`(2) ascribe different meanings to terms (including the term `client’) used in different sections of this title as the Commission determines necessary to effect the purposes of this title.’.

****

Other related articles:

Obama’s New Hedge Fund Regulation Plan

6 Replies

Draft Speaks of IA Registration for Hedge Fund Managers

As you have probably heard by now, Obama will be presenting his plan for an overhaul of the financial system later today.  I have reviewed a copy of Obama’s Financial Regulation Proposal Draft and have reprinted some of the important aspects of the proposal below.  In general the most immediate impact for hedge fund managers is that they will be required to register with the SEC as investment advisors.  In addition to hedge fund managers, private equity fund managers and VC fund managers will also need to register.

While we understand that these are just proposals, Congress too is excited to get on the registration bandwagon although I think it unlikely for us to see any regulation passed before the end of this year.  Even so, hedge fund managers may want to start thinking about how they are going to register as investment advisors and what plans they will need to be putting in place (or plan to put in place in the future).

****

The plan’s main goals are:

  1. Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms.
  2. Establish comprehensive supervision and regulation of financial markets.
  3. Propose comprehensive regulation of all OTC derivatives.
  4. Protect customers and investors from financial abuse.
  5. Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.

Other Points Addressed

Regarding Hedge Funds

All advisers to hedge funds (and other private pools of capital, including private equity funds and venture capital funds) whose assets under management exceed some modest threshold should be required to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act.  The advisers should be required to report financial information on the funds they manageme that is sufficient to assess whether any fund poses a threat to fiancnail stability.

Harmonize Futures and Securities Regulation

The CFTC and the SEC should make recommendations to Congress for changes to statutes and regulations that would harmonize regulation of futures and securities.

Strengthen Investor Protection

The SEC should be given new toold to increase fairness for investors by establishing a fiduciary duty for broker-dealers offering investment advice and harmonizing the regulation of investment advisers and broker-dealers.

Expand the Scope of Regulation

We urge national authorities to implement by the end of 2009 the G-20 commitment to require hedge funds or their managers to register and disclose appropriate information necessary to assess the systemic risk they pose individually or collectively.

Specifical goals with regard to Hedge Funds

  • Data collection
  • SEC should conduct regular, periodic examinations of hedge funds
  • Reporting AUM and other fund metrics to the SEC
  • SEC would have ability to assess whether the fund or fund family is so large, highly leveraged , or interconnected that it poses a threat to fiancial stability

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009

2 Replies

Another Bill Introduced in Senate to Regulate Hedge Funds

Congress now has three separate bills regarding hedge fund registration.  The most recent bill is called the Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009 and was introduced by U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) on June 16, 2009.

I will continue to update this post over time, but for now I have included the text of a press release from Senator Reed on the proposed bill.

****

June 16, 2009
Press Release

Reed Introduces Bill to Regulate Hedge Funds

WASHINGTON, DC — In an effort to strengthen financial oversight of hedge funds and other private investment funds, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), today introduced the Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009, which will help protect investors, identify and mitigate systemic risk, and prevent fraud.  This legislation amends the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require advisers to hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and other private investment pools to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“Hedge funds have played an important role in providing liquidity to our financial system and improving the efficiency of capital markets.  But as their role has grown so have the risks they pose.  This bill provides the SEC with long-overdue authority to examine and collect data from this key industry.  It also authorizes the SEC to share this data with other federal agencies in order to create a system-wide approach to identifying and mitigating risks,” said Reed, who chairs the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment.

Private funds are not currently subject to the same set of standards and regulations as banks and mutual funds, reflecting the traditional view that their investors are more sophisticated and therefore require less protection.  This has enabled private funds to operate largely outside the framework of the financial regulatory system even as they have become increasingly interwoven with the rest of the country’s financial markets.  As a result, there is no data on the number and nature of these firms or ability to calculate the risks they pose to America’s broader economy.

“The financial crisis is a stark reminder that transparency and disclosure are essential in today’s marketplace.  Improving oversight of hedge funds and other private funds is vital to their sustainability and to our economy’s stability.   These statutory changes will help modernize our outdated financial regulatory system, protect investors, and prevent fraud,” concluded Reed.

Specifically, the Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009 will:

  • Require all hedge fund and other investment pool advisers that manage more than $30 million in assets to register as investment advisers with the SEC.  The remaining smaller funds will continue to fall under state oversight.
  • Provide the SEC with the authority to collect information from the hedge fund industry and other investment pools, including the risks they may pose to the financial system.
  • Authorize the SEC to require hedge funds and other investment pools to maintain and share with other federal agencies any information necessary for the calculation of systemic risk.
  • Clarify other aspects of SEC’s authority in order to strengthen its ability to oversee registered investment advisers.

###

There have been two other proposed bills:

Additionally, I recommend you read about Obama’s plans for hedge fund regulation.

Form U4 and Form U5 Amendments

2 Replies

NASAA Requests Comments on Proposed Changes

Form U4 is the form used by Investment Advisory firms to register investment advisor representatives with their firm.  It is also used by broker-dealers to register reps with their firms.  Form U5 is used by both IA and BD firms to terminate a representative’s employment with such firm.  While I have not reviewed the changes to the forms in depth, the summary discussion (reprinted below) sounds reasonable.  We may be submitting comments on these proposals in the future as we discuss with other industry participant – please let us know if you have strong thoughts one way or another on the proposed changes.

The press release and discussion are both reprinted below.  For more information, please visit the NASAA site here.   Please also review our recommended articles at the very bottom of this page.

****

Notice for Request for Comment on Amendments to Forms U4 and U5 and Proposed Guidance for Filings by Investment Adviser Representatives

The NASAA CRD/IARD Steering Committee and the CRD/IARD Forms and Process Committee have worked with FINRA, regulators, and representatives of the financial services industry in developing amendments to the Form U4 and Form U5.

The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment.  On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes. NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this notice includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for 14 days. Accordingly, all comments should be submitted on or before June 23, 2009.

****

NOTICE FOR REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION OR TRANSFER (FORM U4), THE UNIFORM TERMINATION NOTICE FOR SECURITIES INDUSTRY REGISTRATION (FORM U5), AND PROPOSED GUIDANCE FOR FILINGS BY INVESTMENT ADVISER REPRESENTATIVES.

The NASAA CRD/IARD Steering Committee and the CRD/IARD Forms and Process Committee have worked with FINRA, regulators, and representatives of the financial services industry in developing amendments to the Form U4 and Form U5.  The proposed changes have been published by both FINRA and the SEC for public comment.  On May 13, 2009, the SEC approved the proposed changes.  NASAA is now publishing the amended forms for further review and comment by its members and other interested parties in anticipation of adoption of the revised forms by the NASAA membership.

In addition, this memo includes suggested guidance for states in responding to inquiries regarding the impact of the revisions on filings by investment adviser representatives.

Questions or comments regarding the revised forms should be directed to the following individuals:
Melanie Lubin
Office of the Attorney General
Division of Securities
200 Saint Paul Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-2020
(410) 576-6360
[email protected]

Pam Epting
Office of Financial Regulation
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0372
(850) 410-9819
[email protected]

Joseph Brady
NASAA
750 First Street, NE
Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20002
202-737-0900
[email protected]

The comment period begins June 9, 2009, and will remain open for fourteen (14) days.  Accordingly, all comments should be submitted to the individuals noted above on or before June 23, 2009.

Summary of Proposed Changes to Registration Forms

The SEC recently approved amendments for Forms U4 and U5 (“the Forms”).  These changes fall into the following categories.

  1. Willful Violations.  Additional questions have been added to Form U4 in order to enable regulators to identify more readily individuals and firms subject to a particular category of statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 15(b)(4)(D) of the Exchange Act.
  2. Revision to Arbitration and Civil Litigation Question.  Changes were made to the text of the question on the Form U4 regarding disclosure of arbitrations or civil litigation to elicit reporting of allegations of sales practice violations made against a registered person in arbitration or litigation in which that person was not named as a party to the arbitration or litigation.
  3. Revision to Monetary Threshold.  The monetary threshold for reporting settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or civil litigation on the Forms has been raised from $10,000 to $15,000.
  4. Date and Reason for Termination.  The definition of “Date of Termination” in the Form U5 has been revised in order to enable firms to amend the “Date of Termination” and the “Reason for Termination” subject to certain conditions.
  5. Technical Amendments.  Certain technical and clarifying changes were made to the Forms.

The SEC approved these amendments effective May 18, 2009, except the new disclosure questions regarding willful violations, which become effective 180 days later on November 14, 2009.  Firms will be required to amend Form U4 to respond to the new disclosure questions the first time they file Form U4 amendments for registered persons after May 18, 2009, at which time they may provide provisional “no” answers.  However, firms must provide final answers to the questions no later than November 14, 2009.

Revisions Regarding Willful Violations.

The amendments modify the Forms to enable regulators to query the CRD system to identify persons who are subject to disqualification as a result of a finding of a willful violation.  Specifically, the amendments add additional questions to existing Questions 14C and 14E on Form U4.  Question 14C, which inquires about SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulatory actions, adds three new questions regarding willful violations.  Similarly, Question 14E, which concerns findings by a self-regulatory organization, adds three identical questions.  The Form U4 Regulatory Action Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP) will continue to elicit specific information regarding the status of the events reported in response to these questions.

Adding new disclosure questions to Form U4 requires firms to amend such forms for all their registered persons. To ensure that firms have appropriate time to populate the forms accurately, the SEC delayed the effective date for the new regulatory action disclosure questions for 180 days until November 14, 2009. This schedule will provide firms with up to 180 days from the release date to answer the regulatory action disclosure questions.  Additionally firms, at their discretion, can file provisional “no” answers to the six new regulatory action questions during the 180-day period between the release date and the effective date.  During this time, the regulatory action disclosure questions will appear in the CRD system in a manner designed to indicate that such questions are not effective until 180 days from the release date and that any answers provided in response to such questions are provisional until such time as those questions become effective.  Any “no” answers filed in response to the new regulatory action disclosure questions during such 180-day period that are not amended before November 14, 2009, will become final, and the firm and subject registered person will be deemed to have represented that the person has not been the subject of any finding addressed by the question(s).  If a firm determines that a registered person must answer “yes” to any part of Form U4 Questions 14C or 14E, the amendment filings must include completed DRP(s) covering the proceedings or action reported.

With respect to Form U5, the amendments did not alter Question 7D (Regulatory Action Disclosure), but added new Question 12C to the Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP. As of May 18, 2009, firms that answer “yes” to Question 7D on Form U5 will be required to provide more detailed information about the regulatory action in Question 12C of the DRP.  For regulatory actions in which the SEC, CFTC or an SRO is the regulator involved, Question 12C requires firms to answer questions eliciting whether the action involves a willful violation. These questions correspond to the questions added to the Form U4.  A firm will not be required to amend Form U5 to answer Question 12C on the DRP and/or add information to a Form U5 Regulatory Action DRP that was filed previously unless it is updating a regulatory action that it reported as pending on the current DRP.

Revisions to the Arbitration and Civil Litigation Disclosure Question.

The Forms have been revised to require the reporting of allegations of sales practices violations made against registered persons in a civil lawsuit or arbitration in which the registered person is not a named party.  Specifically, Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5 were amended to require the reporting of alleged sales practice violations made by a customer against persons identified in the body of a civil litigation complaint or an arbitration claim, even when those persons are not named as parties. The new questions apply only to arbitration claims or civil litigation filed on or after May 18, 2009. A firm is required to report a “yes” answer only after it has made a good-faith determination after a reasonable investigation that the alleged sales practice violation(s) involved the registered person.

Revisions to the Monetary Threshold.

The current monetary threshold for settlements of customer complaints, arbitrations or litigation was set in 1998 and has not been adjusted since that time.  The changes to the Forms include raising the existing reporting threshold from $10,000 to $15,000 to reflect more accurately the business criteria (including the cost of litigation) firms consider when deciding to settle claims. This change is reflected in Question 14I on Form U4 and Question 7E on Form U5.

Revisions Regarding “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination.”

Revisions to Form U5 provide that the date to be provided by a firm in the “Date of Termination” field is the “date that the firm terminated the individual’s association with the firm in a capacity for which registration is required.”  The amendments further clarify that, in the case of full terminations, the “Date of Termination” provided by the firm will continue to be used by regulators to determine whether an individual is required to requalify by examination or obtain an appropriate waiver upon reassociating with a firm.  Revisions to Form U5 also clarify that the relevant SRO or jurisdiction determines the effective date of termination of registration. The rule change also permits a firm, as of May 18, 2009, to amend the “Date of Termination” and “Reason for Termination” fields in a Form U5 it previously submitted, but in such cases it requires the firm to provide a reason for each amendment. To monitor such amendments, including those reporting terminations for cause, FINRA will notify other regulators and the broker-dealer with which the registered person is currently associated (if the person is associated with another firm) when a date of termination or reason for termination has been amended. The original date of termination or reason for termination will remain in the CRD system in form filing history.

Technical Revisions.

The Forms were amended to make various clarifying, technical and conforming changes generally intended to clarify the information elicited by regulators and to facilitate reporting by firms and regulators. For example, the amendments eliminated as unnecessary certain cross-references in the Forms.  Additionally, certain “free text” fields were converted to discrete fields.  The amendments also add to Section 7 of Form U5 (Disclosure Questions) an optional “Disclosure Certification Checkbox” that will enable firms to affirmatively represent that all required disclosure for a terminated person has been reported and the record is current at the time of termination. Checking this box will allow the firm to bypass the process of re-reviewing a person’s entire disclosure history for purposes of filing Form U5 in situations in which disclosure is up to date at the time of the person’s termination.  The amendments make additional technical changes to the Forms. For example, they incorporate the definition of “found” from the Form U4 Instructions into the Form U5 instructions; provide more detailed instructions regarding the reporting of an internal review (conducted by the firm); and clarify how an individual may file comments to an Internal Review DRP.

Guidance Regarding U4 Filings for Investment Adviser Representatives.

As explained above, the questions added to items 14C and 14E have been approved by the SEC but the effectiveness of the questions has been delayed until November 14, 2009.  The questions currently appear on the form in a manner designed to indicate that they are not currently effective.  Further, the answers to the questions currently default to “no” and will continue to do so until they become effective later this year unless a filer manually selects a “yes” answer.  The delayed effective date coupled with the default “no” answer is a temporary accommodation in order to give filers an opportunity to determine the appropriate answers to the new questions.

The CRD/IARD Steering Committee has received inquiries regarding how investment adviser representatives should respond to these questions.  It is the Steering Committee’s recommendation that state and territorial securities regulators handle the filings for investment adviser representatives in the same manner as broker-dealer agents who file on or after May 18, 2009.  That is, investment adviser representatives should be allowed to file provisional responses to the questions contained in 14C and 14E on the Form U4 until such time as the questions become effective on November 14, 2009.

Forms.

Copies of the revisions as approved by the SEC are attached.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

NASAA Takes Sides on Proposed Hedge Fund Legislation

Leave a reply

Endorses House Bill Over the Grassley-Levin Hedge Fund Bill

Last week the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced its support of the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009, a house bill introduced earlier this year by Representatives Capuano and Castle.  The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act is one of two bills introduced in Congress which would effectively require many unregistered hedge fund managers to register with the SEC.  The other bill, the Hedge Fund Transparency Act, was introduced into the Senate by Senators Grassley and Levin.  While the Adviser Registration Act would close what some are calling a loophole in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Transparency Act would create a whole new regime for regulating hedge fund entities (as opposed to the management company).  The Transparency Act also came under fire earlier this year for being poorly drafted.

The NASAA support was announced in the release we have reprinted below.  If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to contact us.  Related hedge fund registration articles include:

****

May 28, 2009

NASAA Supports the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (H.R. 711)

Legislation Would Require Hedge Fund Advisers to Register with SEC

WASHINGTON (May 28, 2009) – The North America Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) today endorsed proposed bipartisan legislation that would require hedge fund advisers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (H.R. 711), sponsored by Reps. Michael E. Capuano (D-MA) and Michael Castle (R-DE), addresses one of NASAA’s Core Principles for Financial Services Regulatory Reform – closing regulatory gaps.

“NASAA appreciates the efforts of Rep. Capuano and Rep. Castle to promote the regulation of hedge fund advisers in a manner that will provide greater transparency to the marketplace while not overburdening the hedge fund industry,” said NASAA President and Colorado Securities Commissioner Fred Joseph. “Advisers to hedge funds should be subject to the same standards of examination as other investment advisers.”

Because they qualify for a number of exemptions to federal and state registration and disclosure laws, hedge funds remain largely unregulated today. The SEC has attempted to require hedge fund managers to register as investment advisers, but that effort was overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision. “Given the need for greater oversight and transparency in many corners of the financial services industry in the wake of the market meltdown, Congress should give the SEC explicit statutory authority to regulate hedge fund advisers as investment advisers,” Joseph said.

Joseph noted that the Managed Funds Association, which represents the hedge fund industry, now supports the registration of investment managers – including hedge fund managers – with the SEC. “This is a step in the right direction,” Joseph said. “While hedge funds did not cause the current economic and financial crisis facing the United States, they, along with the rest of the shadow banking industry, played a role. This reason alone is enough to require greater regulation of all parties in question.”

Joseph said NASAA will continue to press Congress for additional reforms of the hedge fund industry, including granting the SEC authority to require hedge funds to disclose their portfolios, including positions, leverage amounts and identities of counterparties, to the appropriate regulators; and appropriating the necessary funds to ensure that the regulators are sufficiently equipped, in terms of personnel and technology, to provide meaningful analysis of this data and to exercise proper oversight over hedge funds.

NASAA is the oldest international organization devoted to investor protection. Its membership consists of the securities administrators in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada and Mexico.

For more information:
Bob Webster, Director of Communications
202-737-0900

MFA Supports Hedge Fund Registration

1 Reply

MFA Lobbyist Testifies to Congress Regarding Hedge Fund Registration

In a somewhat surprising move, the MFA stated to Congress today that it supports registration for hedge fund managers.  Below is a press release regarding the statement.  The MFA also released its final written testimony to Congress which can be found here. CNBC has also produced a short news clip on this event which can be found here (note: you may have to watch a commercial for pajamagram).

I will continue reporting more on this issue and will also update this post once I have had a chance to review the written testimony.
****

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Meg Bode
(516) 869-6610

May 7, 2009

MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR REGISTRATION OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS

WASHINGTON, DC – In testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises hearing, “Perspectives on Hedge Fund Registration,” Managed Funds Association (MFA) today announced its support for mandatory registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), of investment advisers, including advisers to private pools of capital under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Richard H. Baker, MFA President and CEO, said, “Though hedge funds were not the cause of the ongoing problems in our financial markets and our economy, MFA and our members share the commitment of policy makers to enact measures that will help restore stability to our markets, strengthen financial institutions and restore investor confidence. We believe supporting mandatory registration for investment advisers is just one of the many important steps that can be taken towards these mutually shared goals.

Baker noted, “This proposed framework goes beyond that recently called for by Treasury Secretary Geithner. The Administration’s proposal called for only the largest fund advisers to be registered for the purpose of assessing their systemic relevance. The registration regime we are supporting today, which has been driven largely by changes in markets and the growing demands of investors, is more comprehensive and will subject the vast majority of investment advisers, including the largest and those considered most systemically relevant, to the SEC’s registration requirements.

Baker’s testimony stressed that while hedge funds are important to the capital markets and the financial system, the relatively small size and scope of the industry, with approximately $1.5 trillion in assets under management, did not pose significant systemic risk. He also stressed that hedge funds are substantially less leveraged than banks, have outperformed the overall market and have not sought any federal assistance.

Baker indicated that to fulfill these additional responsibilities, without diminishing the agency’s ability to meet its core mission of investor protection, the SEC would need additional resources specifically for personnel, technology and training and recruitment.

“A registration framework that overwhelms the resources, technology and capabilities of regulators will not achieve the intended objective, and will greatly impair the ability of the regulator to fulfill their existing responsibilities, as well as their new responsibilities.”

In addition to supporting registration, MFA’s written testimony outlined several key principles that they believe Congress, the Administration and other policy makers should consider as they discuss changes to the financial regulatory system.

A copy of MFA’s written testimony is available at www.managedfunds.org.

About Managed Funds Association

MFA is the voice of the global alternative investment industry. Its members are professionals in hedge funds, funds of funds and managed futures funds, as well as industry service providers. Established in 1991, MFA is the primary source of information for policy makers and the media and the leading advocate for sound business practices and industry growth. MFA members include the vast majority of the largest hedge fund groups in the world who manage a substantial portion of the approximately $1.5 trillion invested in absolute return strategies. MFA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with an office in New York. For more information, please visit: www.managedfunds.org.

# # #

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009

3 Replies

Congressional Bill Proposed in House

In January we gave significant attention to the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009 and we did not focus at all on a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives.   The Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009, introduced on January 27, would change the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to require those managers with more than $30 million in assets to register as investment advisors with the SEC (for background, please see 203(b)(3) exemption).  The Hedge Fund Transparency Act takes a decidedly different route to regulation – it would require hedge fund managers, under the Investment Company Act of 1940 , to register as investment advisors and it would also require hedge funds to submit certain information to the SEC.

The fate of both of these bills is currently in question.  It seems as though Congress and the SEC are waiting for President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner to develop a plan for a comprehensive regulatory system.  While we remain in this holding pattern it seems likely that any regulatory changes are months and months away.

The full text of the Registration Act are reprinted below along with a press release announcing the proposed measure.  Other related hedge fund law articles include:

****

Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 711 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 711

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 27, 2009

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself and Mr. CASTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to remove the registration exception for certain investment advisors with less than 15 clients.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF THE PRIVATE ADVISOR EXEMPTION.

Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) is amended by striking subsection (b)(3).

Source

****

PRESS RELEASE

Capuano, Castle Bill Would Improve Oversight of Hedge Funds

Requires money managers to register with SEC

January 27, 2009

Washington, DC — Today, Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE) and Mike Capuano (D-MA), introduced bipartisan legislation that is intended to close a loophole created in the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, which exempts hedge fund managers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have less than 15 clients. The Hedge Fund Managers Registration Act, would require anyone who manages hedge funds to register with the SEC, and therefore improves federal oversight of these investments.

“This measure would require all hedge fund managers to register with the SEC so that their actions on behalf of investors are transparent,” said Rep. Capuano. “I have long advocated this simple step as a way to better understand how hedge fund managers are operating, and how they are investing the resources of their clients. In addition to providing us with basic census information on hedge funds, this measure can be used to detect and deter fraudulent practices and risky behavior before it’s too late.”

“Hedge funds are a $1.5 trillion industry that account for roughly 30 percent of U.S. stock trading, but also have tremendous presence in other areas of our markets. Without greater attention and oversight to protect investors from fraud, hedge funds pose systemic risk to our economy,” said Rep. Castle, senior member on the House Financial Services Committee. “As we work to help regain our economic health, I believe we can and should scrutinize money managers more carefully and begin to reclaim some order in equity markets. I am hopeful that this legislation will work as a tool to help protect investors from becoming victims. This is the first in a series of reforms I intend to strongly advocate in the coming months.”

—

Contact: Alison M. Mills (617) 621-6208
Contact: Stephanie Fitzpatrick (202) 225-4165 (Rep. Castle)

Hedge Fund Law Questions

Leave a reply

Recently I have received a few good hedge fund law questions.  Please remember that these answers are general discussions of the law and should not be a substitute for actual legal advice.  This discussion does not form an attorney-client relationship, please see our disclaimer.

****

Question: [with reference to the new Hedge Fund Registration article] So what’s to say a hedge fund can’t just become the outside advisor to a series of managed accounts?  If so, does the fund still need to register?

Answer:  Many hedge fund management companies do provide individual account management outside of the hedge fund.  Typically this is described as hedge fund separately managed accounts. There are many reasons why a manager may have such accounts, including the fact that many large institutional investors require that their assets be managed in this way.

With regard to registration, yes a manager may have to register as an investment advisor if he manages separately managed accounts outside of the hedge fund.  There are two separate levels of registration – State and SEC.  Generally the SEC does not require a manager to register unless the manager has 14 or less clients over the last 12 months.  This generally means that a hedge fund manager can have 13 separately managed account clients (in addition to the hedge fund) without implicating the SEC registration requirements (see Hedge Fund Registration Exemption).  However, states are free to adopt their own registration laws and many would require a manager with 5 separately managed account clients (in addition to the hedge fund) to register as an investment advisor with the state securities commission.

Each manager’s situation is unique and if the manager has specific questions regarding his legal or registration status he should discuss with legal counsel.  Additionally, if the Hedge Fund Transparency Act is passed, it is likely that hedge fund managers with $50 million or more of AUM will need to register as investment advisors with the SEC.

Question:  Regarding the 3c7 Funds, does the counting of investors require a ‘look through’?  I.e. If an qualified investor was a Fund of Funds, would the counting up to the limit of 500 investors require counting the underlying investor of the Fund of Funds?

Answer: If the investing fund was also a Section 3(c)(7) hedge fund then there would be no “look through.”  If the investing fund was a Section 3(c)(1) hedge fund then there would be certain issues which the Section 3(c)(1) would need to take into consideration.  We will be writing a post about this issue shortly.

Question: What happens if you are NOT an accredited investor, but you have already been allowed to invest into a hedge fund that requires you to be an accredited investor?

Answer: I am not quite sure how this would happen but I believe there might be two separate ways.  First, the investor may have lied in the hedge fund subscription documents.  The subscription documents require the investor to make certain representations regarding the investor’s net worth.  Generally hedge fund managers have no duty to inquire further about the representations made in the subscription documents.  If this happens then generally the investor will not receive the protections under the law for non-accredited investors.

Second, the investor may have been an accredited investor at the time the subscription documents were signed and, because of outside circumstances, the investor later becomes a non-accredited investor.  In this instance the newly non-accredited investor should immediately contact the hedge fund manager and inform him of the new circumstances.

Question: Can you recommend a cost-effective (cheap) administrator for a hedge fund start up?

Answer: Yes.  It is common for me to provide clients with recommendations for all service providers including hedge fund administrators.  There are many hedge fund administration firms and there are many low cost providers which I can put you in touch with.  Usually I will want to get to know you and your firm before I make recommendations.  If you are interested, please contact us now.

Grassley Clarifies Hedge Fund Registration Act

Leave a reply

Investors in Hedge Fund Won’t Need to Disclose Names and Addresses

As we have discussed in many posts, Senators Grassley and Levin have introduced legislation which would require hedge funds to be regulated under the Investment Company Act.  The legislation would also require hedge fund managers to be registered as investment advisors with the SEC under the Investment Advisors Act.  The name of the act is the Hedge Fund Transparency Act of 2009.

As I pointed out in this post, one of the more controversial parts of the bill was the requirement that the fund disclose the names and current addresses of each investors in the hedge fund.  The specific provision provides:

“The information form required…shall be filed at such time and in such manner as the Commission shall require, and shall…include… the name and current address of…each natural person who is a beneficial owner of the investment company.”  The information shall “be made available by the Commission to the public at no cost and in an electronic, searchable format.”  (See new Section 6(g)(2) of the Investment Company Act as described in Section 2(b) of the bill)

However, the plain words of the statue, apparently, aren’t what they mean.  Senator Grassley has recently stated that the disclosure of names and addresses only applies to the hedge fund managers.  The Wall Street Journal recently ran this piece which states:

“The bill requires disclosure of a hedge fund’s beneficial owners, who profit from the fees generated in operating the fund,” and not the names of outside clients, the senators said in a joint statement Thursday.

We disagree with this statement and we humbly recommend that the bill be amended if there was an intent which is different from the plain language meaning of the bill.  Additionally, there are other parts of the bill which deserve clarification if any re-writes occur.  Specifically we believe that new Section 6(g)(1), as described in Section 2(b) of the bill, would require the hedge fund itself to register as an investment advisor with the SEC.  We believe the intent is for the hedge fund management company, instead, to register with the SEC and accordingly Section 2(b) of the bill should be rewritten.

As an open note to Senators Grassley and Levin, we would be happy to provide input on future revisions of this bill.