These are some of the compliance-related stories that recently caught my attention.
Simply put, the proposed SEC ruling is (a) trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist; (b) will increase risk in our early-stage deals by adding a dimension of regulatory risk that isn’t there now; (c) will increase the cost and time for getting deals done; and (d) violates the Congressional intent of the JOBS Act, which recognized that using angel investment to create more jobs in startup companies was good for the US.
Finra’s lobbying expenses drop over last year but still dwarfs adviser groups by Mark Schoeff Jr. in Investment News
The Wall Street regulator of broker-dealers has decreased its spending on lobbying federal lawmakers substantially over the past year, in part because it’s not pushing for legislation that would allow it to expand its reach to investment advisers.
Hedge fund advertising by William Carleton
Here, a week after the big SEC open meeting (click here to run a rebroadcast of the live blogging Joe Wallin and I did during the meeting webcast), we are still thinking through the implications of how the proposed rules will impact startups, angels and venture capitalists. But it probably make sense to get educated enough on the hedge fund advertising critique that we can start to make some distinctions between Reg D filing requirements for funds, and proposed filing requirements for individual issuers.
Frankly, I’m a little disappointed that I didn’t figure this angle out on my own, given (a) the amount of time I spend writing about insider trading, and (b) the fact that I have two teenagers actively using Snapchat, but hey, better late than never. This morning, the Daily Intelligencer reports, CNBC’s Jim Cramer asked Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY, if Snapchat can be used to share insider trading tips without leaving a trail. Bharara’s response: “I don’t even know what you’re talking about.”