Now that most private funds managers are required to register with SEC as investment advisers, the SEC is considering abandoning them to regulation by FINRA.
The SEC released the much anticipated report, a 40-page “ Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations” mandated by Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The report is more a plea for resources than an abandonment. The report makes a simple statement: ” the Commission will likely not have sufficient capacity in the near or long term to conduct effective examinations of registered investment advisers with adequate frequency. The report points out that the frequency of examination is a function of the number of registered investment advisers (and their complexity) and the amount of SEC’s OCIE staff dedicated to examination. While the number of advisers and their complexity have increased, the staff of OCIE has decreased. The complexity will only increase as thousands of private fund managers come under the registered investment adviser umbrella.
The SEC staff recommended three options for Congress to consider:
- Self-Funding Authorize the SEC to impose user fees on registered investment advisers.
- Self Regulatory Organization Authorize one or more SROs, under SEC oversight, to examine all registered investment advisers.
- Limited SRO Authorize FINRA to examine all of its members that are also registered as investment advisers for compliance with the Advisers Act.
I read the report as a plea for more resources to oversee investment advisers.
Dodd-Frank is clearly pulling private fund managers into the domain of the Investment Advisers Act. That will require extra resources. On the other hand, they are kicking advisers with less than $100 million in assets out for SEC oversight and over to state registration and oversight. It’s unclear if that trade will result in more, less or about the same number of advisers under SEC oversight. The SEC has stated that about 3,500 advisers will go over to the states. They can only guess how many fund managers will become new registrants. (My guess is that the SEC will have a net loss.)
The report is interesting but holds not legal influence. All of the recommendations require Congressional action. My perception of Congress is that little will be done that helps Dodd-Frank during the next two years. I doubt they will give up the appropriations as a control method over the SEC.
In addition to the official report, Commissioner Elisse Walter issued a separate dissenting opinion expressing her disappointment with the SEC’s final report and reiterating her stance in favor of an SRO, citing funding as an issue that is too great to overcome both in the short and long terms.
Sources:
- SEC’s Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations
- Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- SEC Releases Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations in Compliance Avenue
- SEC Publishes Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations by Michael Wu in Investment Fund Law Blog
- Is split SEC vote behind delay of SRO report? by Mark Schoeff Jr in Investment News
- SEC offers 3 options for RIA oversight by Mark Schoeff Jr in Investment News
- fi360 Comments on the SEC’s SRO report
- Dodd-Frank Mandated SEC Study Offers Congress Choice of Users Fees or SROs to Enhance Investment Adviser Oversight in Jim Hamilton’s World of Securities Regulation
One thought on “SEC Study on Enhancing Investment Adviser Examinations”