Category: Investment Advisers Act

Tighter Rules on Advisory Performance Fee Charges

Under the Investment Advisers Act, an adviser can only charge a performance fee if the client was a “qualified client”. The SEC equates net worth with sophistication, so a “qualified client” had to have a level assets to prove their financial sophistication. Those levels are now officially increased.

The original standard was that the client had to have at least $500,000 under management with the adviser immediately after entering into the advisory contract (“assets-under-management test”) or if the adviser reasonably believed the client had a net worth of more than $1 million at the time the contract was entered into (“net worth test”). Those levels were increased to $750,000 and $1.5 million in 1985 to adjust for inflation.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act called for Section 205(e) of the Advisers Act to adjust those levels for inflation and re-adjust the levels every five years. The SEC also decided to toss out the value of a person’s primary residence, just as they did with the new accredited investor standards.

The rule now requires “qualified clients” to have at least $1 million of assets under management with the adviser, up from $750,000, or a net worth of at least $2 million, up from $1 million.

The SEC is using the same primary residence calculation they used in the new accredited investor standard. So, if you owe more on your mortgage than the value of your house, then you need to treat the overage as a negative asset. As the SEC did with the accredited investor standard, the SEC requires certain mortgage refinancings to be counted against net worth. If the borrowing occurs in the 60 days preceding the purchase of securities in the exempt offering and is not in connection with the acquisition of the primary residence, the new increase in debt secured by the primary residence must be treated as a liability in the net worth calculation. This is intended to prevent manipulation of the net worth standard, by eliminating the ability of individuals to artificially inflate net worth under the new definition by borrowing against home equity shortly before participating in an exempt securities offering. Once again, owning a house can only be a negative for the SEC standards.

While I used the CPI-I standard as the benchmark for inflation, the SEC chose to use the Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (“PCE Index”), published by the Department of Commerce. One of the questions from the SEC in the proposed rule was whether the PCE index was the appropriate measure of inflation. They’ve decided to use this index and continue to benchmark it against the original test amounts. In five years, you will be able to predict what the new levels will be.

As for private  funds, Rule 205-3(b) requires a look -through from the fund to the investors in the fund. Each “equity owner … will be considered a client for purposes of the” limitation.  If the fund is relying on the 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act then the fund’s investors should be “qualified purchasers”  and you won’t need to look much further. If the fund is using the 3(c)(1) exemption, then it will need to take a closer look at its investors to make sure that each is a qualified client.

Sources:

The Clock is Ticking

With a registration deadline of March 30, 2012 and a 45 day period for the SEC to review the application, private fund managers need to file their Form ADV by February 14. I know that there are fund managers still on the fence on whether to register or not.

The trouble came from Title IV of Dodd-Frank using the new term “private fund” instead of merely removing the 15 client rule exemption. The private fund definition involves parsing the definitions and exemptions under the Investment Company Act. That puts fund managers into the first week of securities law class having a discussion on “what is a security?” That may be an interesting intellectual discussion, but not one for a business owner trying stay in compliance with the law.

You add on top of that the new exemption for “venture capital fund“, leaving VCs scratching their heads on whether they are a venture capital fund manager or not?

The big unknown is the expectation of the limited partner. In the past, limited partners have accepted the fact that fund managers were not registered with the SEC. That was the nature of the industry. After March 30, many (most?) private fund managers will be registered. How many potential investors will throw your proposal in the trash because you can’t check the “registered with the SEC” box?

The decision time is here. To register or not register?

Sources:

Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2011

FINRA is elbowing its way into an oversight role for investment advisers. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus has introduced the Investment Adviser Oversight Act of 2011. The argument is that the SEC is too overburdened to effectively oversee investment advisors.

I find it strange that Congress wants to make the shift. If the SEC can’t handle the job, it’s because the Congress will not appropriate the money the SEC needs. If there are not enough inspections, its because there are not enough people. Effectively, it would shifting the cost of oversight from the taxpayers to the investment advisers.

The hearing on the bill can be summarized with three words: “Madoff, Madoff, Madoff.” (The one exception at the House hearing was Congressman Carson who pointed out that it was Congress who plunked down lots of new obligations on the SEC without providing funding.)

The current draft of the bill would exclude the following from oversight by a “registered national investment adviser association”:

  • Investment companies (mutual fund advisors)
  • Non-U.S. persons
  • Clients that in aggregate own at least $25 million in investments
  • Various religious, education or charitable entities
  • Stock pension plans and collective trusts
  • Private equity funds
  • Venture capital funds

Retail investment advisers would be governed by the “registered national investment adviser association” while hedge funds and private equity funds would stay with the SEC. Personally, I think the SEC has its weaknesses, but I dislike FINRA’s strict rule based approach to regulation.

Sources:

Image is by Lobstar28

Presidential Campaign Season and the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule

the great seal fo the state of iowa

With the recent Iowa Straw Poll, the presidential campaign season is getting into full gear. That also means that campaign fundraising is in full gear. I thought it would be useful to apply the SEC’s new Pay-to-play for Investment Advisors to the crop of presidential contenders.

Under SEC Rule 206(4)-5, investment advisors are limited in their ability to give campaign contributions to political candidates who can directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment advisor by a government-sponsored investment entity. A campaign contribution in violation of the rule means the investment advisor can not collect fees from the applicable government-sponsored investor for two years. The rule applies to registered investment advisors and fund managers that had been exempt under the now-repealed, private fund manager exemption.

The president of the United States is not an office that can directly or indirectly influence the hiring of an investment advisor, so that position is not one that is limited by the SEC Rule. However, you also need to look at the candidate’s current office to see if that position is one that is limited.

That means campaign contributions to the incumbent president, Barack Obama, are not limited by the rule. Some of his potential competitors are limited.

  1. Michele Bachmann. Her current office in the US House of Representatives is not limited by the rule.
  2. Ron Paul. His current office in the US House of Representatives is not limited by the rule.
  3. Tim Pawlenty. As Governor of Minnesota, contributions to his campaign would have been limited had he still been in office. He finished his term on January 3, 2011, which pre-dates the March 13, 2011 effective date of the rule.
  4. Rick Santorum. He does not currently hold a political office and is therefore not limited by the rule.
  5. Herman Cain. He does not currently hold a political office and is therefore not limited by the rule.
  6. Rick Perry. As the current Governor of Texas, he appoints trustees to the
  7. Mitt Romney. He does not currently hold a political office and is therefore not limited by the rule.
  8. Newt Gingrich. He does not currently hold a political office and is therefore not limited by the rule.
  9. Jon Huntsman. He does not currently hold a political office and is therefore not limited by the rule.
  10. Thaddeus McCotter. His current office in the US House of Representatives is not limited by the rule.

Registered Investment Advisors, private fund managers getting ready to register with Securities and Exchange Commission, and their employees need to be very cautious about making contributions to Governor Perry if they have a Texas state sponsored fund as a client or investor, or hope to have one as a client or investor in the next two years.

The rule also applies to placement agents. They must either be a registered investment advisor subject to SEC Rule 206(4)-5 or a municipal adviser subject to MSRB Rule G-42.

It is very obvious that SEC Rule 206(4)-5 can cause significant distortions in the political campaign.

Sources:

What is a Venture Capital Fund?

For me, venture capital has always been a fuzzy term. They generally invest in start-ups and provide early stage capital for their growth. As a company progresses through later rounds of funding, that definition does not seem to work that well. For example, would you label the latest rounds of funding in Facebook as “venture capital”?

The other problem for a venture capital fund is that liquidity events for their portfolio companies may leave them holding valuable chunks of publicly traded stock or mature private company securities, leaving their capitalization.

Until recently, an exact definition was not needed. Venture capital fund managers could operate across a spectrum of business models, depending on what limitations they promised to their fund investors.

Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission has required a more precise definition. Venture Capital fund managers can take advantage of an exemption from registration under the Investment Advisers Act. This exemption is not available for the rest of the private equity world of investment managers.

The SEC published the final definition under a new Rule 203(l)-1

A venture capital fund is any private fund that:

(1) Represents to investors and potential investors that it pursues a venture capital strategy;

(2) Immediately after the acquisition of any asset, other than qualifying investments or short-term holdings, holds no more than 20 percent of the amount of the fund‘s aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital in assets (other than short-term holdings) that are not qualifying investments, valued at cost or fair value, consistently applied by the fund;

(3) Does not borrow, issue debt obligations, provide guarantees or otherwise incur leverage, in excess of 15 percent of the private fund‘s aggregate capital contributions and uncalled committed capital, and any such borrowing, indebtedness, guarantee or leverage is for a non-renewable term of no longer than 120 calendar days, except that any guarantee by the private fund of a qualifying portfolio company‘s obligations up to the amount of the value of the private fund‘s investment in the qualifying portfolio company is not subject to the 120 calendar day limit;

(4) Only issues securities the terms of which do not provide a holder with any right, except in extraordinary circumstances, to withdraw, redeem or require the repurchase of such securities but may entitle holders to receive distributions made to all holders pro rata; and

(5) Is not registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8), and has not elected to be treated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-53).

They piece of the definition is the term “qualifying investments.”

Qualifying investment means:

(i) An equity security issued by a qualifying portfolio company that has been acquired directly by the private fund from the qualifying portfolio company;

(ii) Any equity security issued by a qualifying portfolio company in exchange for an equity security issued by the qualifying portfolio company described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section; or

(iii) Any equity security issued by a company of which a qualifying portfolio company is a majority-owned subsidiary, as defined in section 2(a)(24) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(24)), or a predecessor, and is acquired by the private fund in exchange for an equity security described in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this section.

Qualifying portfolio company means any company that:

(i) At the time of any investment by the private fund, is not reporting or foreign traded and does not control, is not controlled by or under common control with another company, directly or indirectly, that is reporting or foreign traded;

(ii) Does not borrow or issue debt obligations in connection with the private fund‘s investment in such company and distribute to the private fund the proceeds of such borrowing or issuance in exchange for the private fund‘s investment; and

(iii) Is not an investment company, a private fund, an issuer that would be an investment company but for the exemption provided by § 270.3a-7 of this chapter, or a commodity pool.

The big limitation throughout the definition is on the debt limitation.

Many funds use a subscription credit facility secured by the uncalled capital commitments. This gives them quicker access to cash for investments. Then the facility is paid down after capital is called. The use of a credit facility also allows the capital calls to be spread out and can be used to give fund investors more lead time to pull together their own cash. It seems this new rule will severly limit the ability of a venture capital fund to use a subscription credit facility.

Sources:

Image – Multiple sources across the internet. Let me know if you are the original creator

Report on Investment Adviser’s Use of Social Media in Massachusetts

Social Media used by Investment Advisers

There is a growing trend in the financial services industry to use social media sites for outreach to existing as well as potential customers. Noticing this trend, the Securities Division of The Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth surveyed investment advisers registered and doing business within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The purpose of the survey is to determine the scope of investment advisers’ use of social media, and what, if any, record retention and supervisory procedures have been implemented or utilized by those advisers. Empirical evidence is good to have.

The Division forwarded the social media survey to 576 investment advisers registered with the Division and located in the Commonwealth and 79% of advisers have responded.

  • 44% of investment advisers used some form of social media
  • Of those not using, 10% expect to use it in the next year
  • A majority of investment advisers using social media fall within the 42-62 age bracket

The Survey also suggests that some advisers do not have policies relating to the retention or supervision of social media content, are not retaining social media content, and do not supervise the use of social media content.

  • 69% of advisers using social media claimed to not have written record retention policies related to the retention of social media content
  • 57% also did not retain all content posted on social media websites maintained (directly or indirectly), by the firm.

It should not come as  surprise that the Division concluded that additional regulatory guidance concerning the use of social media would be appropriate. We have already seen enforcement at the national level for the abuse of social media. I expect the states will be on board soon and including a review of social media as part of their examination and review process.

Sources:

When is Real Estate a Security?

Fee simple ownership of the “bricks and mortar” of real estate is not a securities transaction. “The offer of real estate as such, without any collateral arrangements with the seller or others, does not involve the offer of a security.” As you move further away from that model, you move closer and closer to the ownership a security than the ownership of real estate. The line between the two is not a bright line. One of the latest cases to address the difference is Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotels 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30375, on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

One of the seminal cases is SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). That case involved an offering of units of a citrus grove development, coupled with a contract for cultivating, marketing, and remitting the net proceeds to the investor. They held that it was an offering of an “investment contract” within the meaning of that term as used in the provision of § 2(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 defining “security” as including any “investment contract,” and was therefore subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

Even though decades have passed, the line is bit a clearer, but still muddy as the Salameh case illustrates. The developer of the Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego used a condominium- hotel ownership structure to help provide capital.  The purchase/investment turned out to be a bad one, so they sued the developer.

Their claim was that a series of documents, including the Purchase Contract, the Unit Maintenance and Operations Agreement, and the Rental Management Agreement turned the ownership into a “security” and not the mere ownership of real estate. Since the securities were not registered, they could seek rescission. In this case, the ownership and control issues were not just split into separate documents, some of the documents were entered into at significantly different times.

The issues are not that new. The Securities and Exchange Commission noted the problem as far back as 1973 when it issued Release No. 33-5347 which had guidelines on the applicability of federal securities laws to the sales of condominiums and units of real estate development.

The investors/purchaser lost the court case.  The court The case is now under appeal and there are numerous other issues involved in the case so we may not any new insight on when an investment in real estate becomes an investment in a security.

Sources:

Soros Doesn’t Want Your Money

In one of the most visible moves as a result of the new SEC regulations on investment advisers, George Soros is closing his $25 billion Quantum Endowment Fund to outside investors and returning their money.

Why?

“We have relied until now on other exemptions from registration which allowed outside shareholders whose interests aligned with those of the family investors to remain invested in Quantum. As those other exemptions re no longer available under the new regulations, SFM will now complete the transition to a family office….”

The Soros fund management company would have to register as an investment adviser and it doesn’t want to do that. They are kicking out non-family money and using the family office exemption to avoid registration.

Is this a good thing? Soros is a controversial figure, reviled for some because of his currency bets. For his investors, he returned about 20 percent a year, on average, since 1969. If some of those investors invest your retirement money, then you may be worse off.

It’s clear that the regulatory regime changes resulting from Dodd-Frank are going to change the business models for many money managers. Some, like Soros, will pull back operations to avoid the regulatory oversight.

Sources:

Image is George Soros – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010
DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 – George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management, USA, captured during the session ‘Rebuilding Economics’ of the Annual Meeting 2010 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2010 at the Congress Centre.
Copyright by World Economic Forum.
swiss-image.ch/Photo by Sebastian Derungs

Private Equity Exemption Bill Moves Ahead

The Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act, H.R. 1082, took another step forward this week when it was approved by the House Committee on Financial Services. It still has a long way to go before coming law so this is no time to stop getting your compliance infrastructure in place.

The bill still defers the definition of “private equity fund” to the Securities and Exchange Commission and gives the SEC six months to come up with that definition. Even assuming the bill passes and passes quickly, you would not know if you fit into this exemption until very close to the March 30, 2011 filing deadline under the Investment Advisers Act.

The bill has been revised and now imposes a leverage limitation.

“provided that each such fund has not borrowed and does not have outstanding a principal amount in excess of twice its invested capital commitments.”

I think that limitation would prohibit the use of a subscription secured credit facility by a private equity fund if they wanted to take advantage of this exemption. That borrowing is used prior to calling capital and to provide liquidity without calling capital. It makes it easier for the fund manager to smooth out capital calls to investors.

Beyond that facility, It’s not clear to me whether that limitation would include debt at the portfolio level. In reading the minority view at the end of the committee report (.pdf), they think the leverage limitation excludes leverage in the portfolio companies.

Unfortunately, the committee report comes across as very partisan and attacks Dodd-Frank as a whole. To me that would only seem to decrease the likelihood that the House as a whole will take the bill seriously.

Sources:

SEC Made It Harder to Earn Performance Fees

As a general rule, investment adviser cannot charge performance fees. Section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 generally prohibits an investment adviser from entering into, extending, renewing, or performing any investment advisory contract that provides for compensation to the adviser based on a share of capital gains on, or capital appreciation of, the funds of a client. That means no performance fees.

Unless the SEC makes an exception, which it has done so for people that don’t need the protections of that prohibition. Historically, that has meant the person has a “big pile of cash”. The big pile of cash standard had been if the client has at least $750,000 under the management of an investment adviser or the adviser reasonably believes the client has a net worth of more than $1,500,000.

Back in May the SEC has proposed raising those limits to $1 million under management or a minimum net worth of $2 million. The SEC was required to adjust the standard under Section 418 of Dodd-Frank. The adjustment was keyed to inflation. The SEC decided to exclude the value of person’s home, just as they did with the accredited investor standard, in calculating net worth.

As for private  funds, Rule 205-3(b) requires a look -through from the fund to the investors in the fund if it is relying on the 3(c)(1) exemption under the Investment Company Act. Each “equity owner … will be considered a client for purposes of the” limitation.  If the fund is relying on the 3(c)(7) exemption from the Investment Company Act then the fund’s investors should be “qualified purchasers”  and you won’t need to look much further. If the fund is using the 3(c)(1) exemption, then it will need to take a closer look at its investors to make sure that each is a qualified client.

The new standard will go into effect on September 19, 2011.

Sources:

Image: http://www.rgbstock.com/image/misbgGc/Money+series+2
licensed for reuse