As a result of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), mid-sized firms of less than $100 million in assets under management should make the switch from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight to state regulatory oversight. Most advisers know that under the newly adopted SEC rules, mid-sized advisers that were SEC registered prior to Dodd-Frank must remain SEC registered through the first quarter of 2012, and then complete their switch to state regulation by June 28, 2012. Firms wishing to switch should have already completed the state registration process to become effective in the state or states in which the adviser is registering.

It was estimated by this time that 3,200 firms would have made the switch to state regulation. However, spokesman John Nester for the SEC announced that as of April 5, a little more than 1,900 firms claimed that they were no longer eligible for SEC registration and needed to make the switch.

The Investment Advisers Association (IAA) believes that it needs to become more outspoken and involved in order to deter Congress from passing legislation requiring a self-regulatory organization (SRO) be designated for registered investment advisers. The IAA is concerned because Congress is fully aware of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's (FINRA) position and its desire to become the SRO for investment advisers. IAA vice president for government relations Neil Simon stated, "Despite our best efforts, there is still a woeful ignorance of the role investment advisers play. They're aware of FINRA. We need to help educate policymakers so they make informed decisions."

Section 914 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandated that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) prepare a report considering whether there should be an SRO for investment advisers, as there is for broker-dealers. The SEC set forth three possible models to help the agency better oversee advisers: (1) allow the SEC to charge user fees for exams, (2) establish a new SRO, or (3) allow FINRA to be the SRO for both registered investment advisers and broker-dealers. The IAA is supporting the user fee approach, while FINRA is aggressively pursuing becoming the designated SRO. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala) previously offered a bill which would provide for an SRO in response to the SEC's recommendations, which were delivered to Congress in January 2011. Some industry observers believe that Rep. Bachus is likely to release a revised discussion draft of his bill and push it, because he will leave his post of Financial Services Chairman in January 2013 due to term limits.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a joint proposed rule and guidelines to help protect investors from identity theft enacted by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This proposal currently does not apply to registered investment advisers. The SEC has recognized that registered investment advisers are unlikely to hold transaction accounts and thus would not qualify as a "financial institution." The SEC is requesting comments on the proposed rule asking whether the rule should "omit investment advisers or any other SEC-registered entity from the list of entities covered by the proposed rule?" When the proposal is published in the federal register there will be a 60-day comment period.

Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the SEC and the CFTC. The provisions amended section 615(e) by adding the CFTC and SEC to a list of federal agencies required to create identity theft regulations. The purpose of an identity prevention program is to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft.

The Obama administration released a proposed budget last week that will boost the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) budget for the next fiscal year. The SEC claims the need for an increased budget stems from the mandatory creation of 100 rules which is required by the Dodd-Frank Act and the need to hire new examiners to regulate the market more efficiently. The proposed budget would increase the SEC's funding by 18.5 percent from $1.32 billion to $1.57 billion.

Prior to the release of the Obama administration budget, the SEC submitted a budget request which stated that the new budget would allow for 222 new examiners. That request estimated that in 2013 it will be responsible for examining 10,000 advisers with $44 trillion in assets under management. Currently, it only has 10 examiners per $1 trillion in assets under management, a decrease since 2005 when it had 19 examiners for every $1 trillion in assets under management. The SEC is capable of reviewing only eight percent of registered advisers each year. Investment advisers have also shown a preference to be regulated by the SEC as opposed to FINRA or another self regulatory authority (SRO), as we discussed in a previous blog, BCG Report Claims FINRA Cost Will Exceed SEC Cost as RIA SRO.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released Final Rule No. IA - 3372 which changes the qualifications for advisers who charge performance fees. We discussed the proposed amendment to the rule in a previous blog post, Performance Based Fee Threshold Increase Sought by SEC in Proposed Order. These amendments are required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and will take effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is anticipated shortly. Until then advisers can rely on the grandfather provisions.

While advisers are generally unable to accept performance fees, there are exceptions. For example under certain circumstances, a client may become a "qualified client," under Rule 205-3, meaning he or she is deemed to be capable of bearing the risks associated with performance fee arrangements. Under the new rule, an adviser may charge performance fees to "qualified clients" who have at least $1 million of assets under management for that definition to apply. Under the previous rule, $750,000 in assets were required to be under management. Also, the net worth of an investor may also be a qualification for an exception. The amended rule raises the minimum net worth standard for qualified clients from $1 million to $2 million. (The other "qualified client" basis includes clients who immediately before entering the advisory contract are either executive officers, directors, trustees, general partners of the adviser or employees of the adviser and who have participated in the adviser's investment activities for at least twelve months. This definition has not changed with the amendment.)

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed on July 21, 2010, there have been significant reforms applicable to non-US advisers conducting business in the United States, including new registration requirements under the Advisers Act (the "Act").

Non-U.S. advisers may need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to conduct future business within the United States. A non-U.S. adviser is defined in the Advisers Act as an investment adviser that:

• Has no place of business in the United States;


• Has a total of less than 15 U.S. clients and investors in private funds;


• Has less than $25 million in assets under management associated with the U.S. clients and investors; and


• Does not hold itself out generally as a U.S. investment adviser.

On October 26, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced the adoption of Form PF, which stands for "Private Fund." Required by the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the adoption of the form seeks to require reporting by larger hedge fund and venture capital private advisers in an effort to assess systemic risks.

The minimum amount of assets under management before the reporting requirement is triggered is $150 million, meaning that smaller private fund advisers are not required to file Form PF at all. Once this threshold is reached, however, there is a tiered reporting requirement base on the level of assets under management within different categories as established by the form. The exclusion for the smaller advisers is justified because their funds have a minimal impact on a broad based systemic risk analysis, according to a statement by SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro delivered in connection with the adoption of the form.

Now that the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) has arrived and the SEC has adopted rules implementing changes to the investment adviser registration regime, the landscape can be relatively confusing. For investment advisers currently registered either with the state in which it maintains its principal office or with the SEC, the new rules are fairly easy to apply, particularly in light of the transition rules adopted on June 22, 2011 by the SEC as explained in Page Perry's previous post. For others, however, the application of the new rules will prove more complicated, particularly for those advisers whose principal office and place of business are in states that have unusual registration or regulatory provisions.

Take, for example, Wyoming. Since that state does not provide for investment adviser registration, it has always been somewhat of an anomaly, even before Dodd-Frank. Section 203A(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act only prohibits registration with the SEC of investment advisers who have assets under management of less than $25 million and are "regulated or required to be regulated as an investment adviser in the State in which it maintains its principal office and place of business." Wyoming-based advisers must therefore register with the SEC regardless of their assets under management, unless otherwise exempt from registration under the Investment Advisers Act or a private adviser able to rely upon the transition rule provided in 203-1(e).

The Virginia State Corporation Commission (Securities and Retail Franchising Division) yesterday adopted a policy statement providing guidance to advisers to private funds in light of the June 22, 2011 adoption of final rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the Virginia statement recognizes and addresses the "regulatory gap" created by the SEC Rule 203-1(e), which grants an extension to March 30 2012 for private advisers formerly exempt from registration under Investment Adviser Act Section 203(b)(3), which was repealed by Dodd-Frank, to register with the SEC.

As a consequence of Dodd-Frank, Virginia's Rule 21 VAC 5-80-210A.7, which excludes from the definition of "investment advisers" certain advisers exempt under Section 203(b)(3) of the Investment Adviser Act, becomes a nullity on July 21, 2011. In the absence of the policy statement, the effect of this would be to require private advisers subject to Virginia registration requirements, and that have no other basis for exemption, to register in Virginia as investment advisers by July 22, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new rules and rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the rules, as adopted, provided transitional provisions for investment advisers required to switch from SEC to state registration because they fail to meet the new requirement of $100 million in assets under management, require advisers to hedge funds and other private funds to register with the SEC, require reporting by certain exempt investment advisers, and make substantial changes to the Form ADV.

The final rule relating to transition differed somewhat from the rule originally proposed by the SEC. The final rule requires that any "mid-sized" registrant with the SEC (defined as any firm with between $25 million and $100 million under management) that is registered as of July 21, 2011 (Dodd-Frank's effective date) must remain registered with the SEC through the transition. New applicants that meet the definition of mid-sized advisers and who seek to apply between January 1, 2011 and July 21, 2011 can apply either with the SEC or the state or states in which it must register.

Hedge funds will be impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act in numerous ways, some more well-known than others. Some of the better known examples of such impact are the repeal of the private adviser exemption, thus requiring registration for hedge fund managers that do not qualify for other exemptions. Among the exemptions added, of course, is the much-publicized exemption for private funds with less than $150 million in annual assets under management.

Other areas of impact on the hedge fund industry are not as widely discussed. As the SEC Commissioner Troy A. Paredes highlighted in his June 8, 2011 address at The George Washington University Law School, other aspects of Dodd-Frank have less direct, but no less significant, impact on the hedge fund industry.

For example, Dodd-Frank directs the SEC to adopt regulations or guidelines that prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that might "encourage inappropriate risks" by financial institutions. This would prohibit investment advisers with $1 billion or more under management from paying excessive compensation that could lead to material financial loss.