Articles Tagged with Investment Advisers

Published on:

By

On August 30, 2012, Ildi Duckor and Michael Wu, members of Pillsbury’s Investment Funds and Investment Management practice, met with executives and staff of the California Department of Corporations at the Department’s invitation.  The purpose of the meeting was to provide the Department’s investment adviser and broker dealer divisions (live in San Francisco and via teleconference in the Sacramento and Los Angeles offices) with a broad overview of the hedge fund industry.  “We hope that a better understanding of the industry will help balance hedge fund managers’ business needs with the regulators’ need for investor and market protection, and will streamline both the adviser registration and the examination process” said Ildi Duckor.  The Investment Funds and Investment Management team will continue to cooperate with the Department in an effort to provide industry insight with respect to future California regulation of hedge funds and their advisers.

Published on:

By

This guest post from the Margolis Advisory Group, co-authored by River Communications, is reprinted with permission.  The Executive Summary appears below and the full text is available here.

The JOBS Act is bringing change to the hedge fund industry, and, most likely, this change will accelerate the trend towards institutionalization. The lifting of the “advertising ban” opens the playbook, allowing hedge funds to engage in a wide range of strategic communications and marketing activities. For some, this will offer a new opportunity to compete for assets with traditional managers adept at managing their brands and marketplace perceptions. Others will resist, possibly to their detriment, as funds will no longer have the luxury of hiding “under the radar.”

Hedge funds who embrace the new, less restrictive environment will need to build mature, comprehensive strategic communications programs. The best practices include:

  • Revisiting the brand and value proposition on a regular basis to ensure it accurately and effectively reflects a “firm’s DNA.”
  • Implementing a consistent process that provides for the regular refreshing of value-added content to communications vehicles.
  • Creating content that provides true thought leadership, enhanced with proprietary surveys, and investment & industry commentary.
  • Considering a broad range of distribution and engagement vehicles to build awareness of the firm, including: web and mobile devices, public relations, marketing communications, targeted advertising and investor communications.

Hedge funds have thrived by embracing and even becoming catalysts for change. In this hyper-competitive industry, it is commonplace to expend disproportionate resources to capture even a minimal investment performance advantage. Because of this, it is surprising that there has not been more enthusiastic support in the trades for what is potentially the next major shift for the industry: the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or JOBS Act.

Passed with little fanfare, the JOBS Act lifts the ban on advertising for hedge funds (among other provisions) and has the potential to transform how managers market their firms, build their brands and communicate with their investors. Yet, much of the discussion in the trades and on the hedge fund industry speaking circuit has downplayed the potential impact of this provision as being only meaningful to the smaller funds. Large funds—as the typical explanation goes—believe they do not need to proactively market, as they commonly market off their mystique of exclusivity and will prefer to remain “under the radar” to protect their proprietary investment strategies. Furthermore, the larger funds are already staffed for one-on-one sales, and many in the hedge fund industry are under the false impression that sales are only based on individual contacts or “having the Rolodex.”

The fact is, change is coming to the hedge fund industry, and many managers will continue to adapt to the ongoing evolution as they always have. Most likely, this change will accelerate the trend towards resembling traditional managers—for hedge funds can now adopt advertising and marketing techniques, as well.

Consider the trends we have observed in the hedge fund and institutional asset management space, especially since the market declines of ’07-’08. New regulations have increased the demand for information on leverage and counterparty risk; the migration from single to multi-prime brokers has occurred, and institutional investors are demanding more transparency in investment operations, risk and administration. Perhaps, most significantly—the largest institutional investors have been allocating funds almost exclusively to the largest hedge funds.

According to “The Evolution of the Industry: 2012,” an annual KPMG/AIMA hedge fund survey, institutional investors now represent a clear majority of all assets under management by the global hedge fund industry, with 57 percent of the industry’s AUM residing in this category. And, the proportion of hedge fund industry assets originating from institutional investors has grown significantly since the financial crisis.

As a result, we are seeing a continuation of the institutionalization of hedge funds. The KPMG study confirmed this with survey data indicating that investors demand hedge funds look and act more like traditional institutional managers from an operational standpoint. In addition, 82 percent of respondents reported an increase in demand for transparency from investors, while 88 percent said investors are demanding greater due diligence.

Our own experience consulting with hedge funds and traditional managers has confirmed other indications of this trend, as well as with all investors—large and small—demanding greater operational efficiency; cost reduction; and models that enhance overall risk management, such as the move from single to multi-prime relationships; all delivered in an open and transparent way.

For hedge fund managers to attract large pools of money, they will increasingly need to be more institutional and transparent with all investors. This is a significant cultural shift for these firms. Not only do many hedge funds lack a strategic communications infrastructure, but the concept of such openness still runs contrary to the DNA of most firms.

The question then becomes: how should hedge funds that embrace a more open and inclusive communications strategy implement programs that will help them achieve this goal? The answer is they will need to develop an approach to communications that is similar to traditional institutional asset managers.

Published on:

By


By Bruce Frumerman
 

 
As published August 6 at FINalternatives.

 

August 6, 2012

 

Hedge Fund Marketing Implications From New Survey

Findings On Investment Beliefs

by Bruce Frumerman, Frumerman & Nemeth Inc.

The recently published Pensions & Investments/Oxford University survey on long-term investment beliefs has implications for how hedge fund firms market their strategies and get buy-in from institutional investors.

Relevant findings for hedge fund firm owners

In offering conclusions from their survey results Gordon L. Clark, professor at Oxford University’s Centre for the Environment, who led the survey, offered the key observation that managers will increasingly be differentiated by “their strong belief systems and a rigorous investment process that matches those beliefs.”  P&I reported that he went on to comment that “It’s terribly important for managers” to base investment decisions on a clear set of investment beliefs. “The whole logic of their business is premised on being able to articulate beliefs, testing beliefs and being able to revise beliefs in a very uncertain world.”

P&I also reported the comments of Rob Bauer, professor of finance and chair of the institutional investments division at Maastricht University, that more investment managers “now focus on the structure of their investment beliefs, how the beliefs translate into the design of the investment framework and how that framework is executed. The more sophisticated investment managers are really trying to have a coherent structure.”

What it means for hedge fund marketing

Marketing hedge funds has become more competitive.

Successful capital raising has always required having more than just performance that is within the ballpark of acceptance. Having institutional caliber operations and administration went from being a marketing differentiator to simply an expected cost of doing business. Along the way, from pre-crash to post-crash, the term transparency, and the call for it, changed in meaning. What began as calls for data — reveal the portfolio holdings and provide third-party reporting — morphed into a call for providing more explanation about the investment process and decision-making behind a firm’s strategy.

Institutional investors and their investment consultants have become more demanding for greater information detail about how hedge fund managers think and how they construct and manage their portfolios.

Is your firm communicating an institutional caliber explanation about its investment beliefs and the process behind its strategy? A few bullet points in a flip chart are not sufficient for accomplishing this. You cannot just claim you have a rigorous investment process and leave it at that. You have to prove it with a detailed explanation of this important subjective information that your hedge fund has to persuade people to understand and buy into: how it invests.

Reexamine your own communications. Are you truly differentiating your firm from the competition or are your marketing collateral, in-person presentations and responses to essay questions in RFPs and DDQs actually having you come across as a me-too copycat strategy-wise, offering no perceivable added value?

Have you given prospective investors easy access to a full, written explanation about your firm’s investment beliefs and investment process? Your hedge fund has a communications marketing risk management challenge. One of the important selling missions you have is to reduce the odds that a prospect will mess up retelling the subjective-based part of your firm’s story to others on the investment committee. Supplying them with the written long version story of investment beliefs and investment process will increase your control in how your prospect remembers and retells your story to other decision makers.

A flip chart pitchbook is not the right tool for this communications job. An additional marketing document that delivers this vital story in sentence and paragraph form about how your firm thinks is required. Such content is more suited to brochure format marketing collateral than to bullet point flip charts. If such a marketing tool is not already in your selling arsenal for making selecting your offering a more defensible decision in the minds of your prospects, creating this type of document should be at the top of your communications marketing To Do list.

The job of crafting the story of a hedge fund’s investment belief system and its investment process isn’t an assignment a portfolio manager can pass off to others to create with little or no participation from him. Too often, important parts of a hedge fund’s investment process story have never been fully communicated to people outside the firm. Also, many hedge fund firms find themselves unable to tell their investment beliefs and process story the same way twice. So, the portfolio manager’s participation with his communications marketing experts in locking down his firm’s storyline is vital.

Differentiate your hedge fund based on your investment beliefs and a demonstrable, rigorous investment process that matches those beliefs and you will improve your firm’s ability to out-market competitors and convert prospects to clients.

#          #          #

Bruce Frumerman is CEO of Frumerman & Nemeth Inc., a communications and sales marketing consultancy that helps financial services firms create brand identities for their organizations and develop and implement effective new marketing strategies and programs. His firm’s work has helped money management clients attract over $7 billion in new assets, yet Frumerman & Nemeth is not a Third Party Marketing firm. Bruce has over 30 years of experience in helping money managers to develop buyer-focused positioning strategies to differentiate them from their competitors; create more cogent and compelling sales presentations and marketing materials to better tell their story; and use media relations marketing and industry conference speaking opportunities to help establish a branded identity for their organization by generating third-party endorsement for the expertise of their people, the value of their services and the quality of their products. He has authored many articles on the topic of marketing money management services and is a frequent speaker on the subject at industry conferences. He can be reached at info@frumerman.com, or by visiting www.frumerman.com.

© Frumerman & Nemeth Inc. 2012

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay Gould and Peter Chess

On July 1, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, which prohibited an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the advisers or certain of its executives or employees make a contribution to certain elected officials or candidates.  Rule 206(4)-5, also known as the Pay to Play Rule, also included a third-party solicitor ban that prohibited an adviser or its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third-party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third-party was an SEC-registered investment adviser or a registered broker or dealer subject to pay to play restrictions. 

As originally adopted, the third-party solicitor ban’s compliance date was September 13, 2011.  However, not long after the Pay to Play Rule was adopted, Congress created a new category of SEC registrants called “municipal advisors” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Municipal advisors include persons that undertake a solicitation of a municipal entity.  The SEC then amended the Pay to Play Rule on June 22, 2011 in order to add municipal advisors to the category of registered entities excepted from the third-party solicitor ban and extended the original compliance date of the third-party solicitor ban.

On June 8, 2012, the SEC released a final rule that extends (for a second time) the compliance date for the third-party solicitor ban.  The SEC explained that it was necessary to ensure an orderly transition for advisers and third-party solicitors as well as to provide additional time for them to adjust compliance policies and procedures after the transition.  The new compliance date for the third-party solicitor ban will now be nine months after the required registration date for municipal advisers with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  This compliance date has yet to be finalized as the SEC has not yet adopted the applicable rule.

Published on:

By

Written by:  Jay B. Gould, Michael Wu and Peter Chess

Note: Pillsbury and KPMG, along with the California Hedge Fund Association, will be sponsoring a “Managers Only” event on the JOBS Act and the new world of “general solicitation” for Funds on June 14.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act” or the “Act”), signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012, seeks to encourage economic growth through the easing of certain restrictions on capital formation and by improving access to capital.  The JOBS Act contains a number of provisions that will directly impact private funds and their general partners, managers and sponsors.  Below is a summary of the Act’s provisions that directly affect private funds, including ongoing requirements for funds that at this time do not appear to be affected by the Act.

Section 4 of the Securities Act.  The JOBS Act amends Section 4 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”), so that offers and sales exempt under Rule 506 of Regulation D will not be deemed public offerings as a result of general advertising or general solicitation.  Private funds relying on the exception in Section 3(c)(1) (“3(c)(1) Fund”) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“Investment Company Act”), will be able to continue to avail themselves of this exception so long as all of their investors are accredited investors, as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D (“Accredited Investors”).  We expect that private funds relying on the exception in 3(c)(7) (“3(c)(7) Fund”) of the Investment Company Act will obtain the greatest benefit from the JOBS Act, as these funds, which accept only “qualified purchasers,” as defined in Section 2(a)(51) of the Investment Company Act, may now have up to 2000 investors (as discussed below) before they would be required to register as a public reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”).  3(c)(1) Funds will continue to be limited to 99 investors, although a fund manager may organize and offer both a 3(c)(1) Fund and a 3(c)(7) Fund with the same investment objective and strategies without the two funds being subject to “integration” under the Securities Act.

General Solicitation and General Advertising.  The JOBS Act requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to amend Regulation D under the Securities Act to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitation and general advertising for offerings under Rule 506, provided that all purchasers are Accredited Investors.  The Act mandates that the SEC implement rule amendments ninety days after the enactment of the Act, or by July 4, 2012.

It is unlikely that the SEC will be able to meet this deadline given the requirement to provide public notice and comment prior to adopting any final rules; accordingly, these rule amendments are expected to be adopted by the fall with very little transition period.  Although the Act leaves little in the way of discretion to the SEC in the rulemaking process there are two areas in which the SEC may seek to provide substantive guidance.  The SEC is required to amend Regulation D such that any issuers relying on Rule 506 must take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers are Accredited Investors.  Some observers believe that the SEC may require issuers that avail themselves of the general advertising provisions to obtain sufficient financial information from prospective purchasers so that the “accredited status” of such investors can be more precisely determined.  This could take the form of requiring all such issuers to obtain an income statement or verified financial statement from investors.  The other area in which the SEC may attempt to provide additional oversight is with respect to the offering of private fund interests through broker-dealers. 

Brokers and Dealers.  The JOBS Act provides that with regard to securities offered and sold under Rule 506 and subject to certain conditions, registration as a broker or dealer under Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act will not be required for certain persons solely because of the performance of specific functions.[1]  This exemption from registration is available only if such persons: (i) receive no compensation in connection with the purchase and sale of the securities; (ii) do not have possession of customer funds or securities in connection with the purchase and sale of securities; and (iii) are not subject to statutory disqualification (sometimes referred to as “bad boy” provisions).  Although it is uncertain at this time, the SEC may take this opportunity to require private funds that avail themselves of the ability to advertise generally to conduct all offers and sales of their fund interests through a registered broker-dealer.  The SEC realizes that as a result of the fast moving and innovative private funds industry, the regulator lost control of Regulation D as well as the “issuer’s exemption” in Rule 3a4-1 under the Exchange Act, the exemption that fund managers rely upon to offer their securities directly to purchasers.  It is not clear that Rule 3a4-1 was ever intended for this purpose, and the SEC may take this opportunity to clarify how offers and sales are conducted generally by private fund managers.

Record Holders.  The JOBS Act increases from 500 to 2,000 the number of record holders of equity securities an issuer may have before the issuer is required to register under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, so long as the number of non-Accredited Investors does not exceed 499.  3(c)(1) Funds will be unable to have any non-Accredited Investors if they want to employ general advertising even though, under Regulation D rules that predate the JOBS Act, sales could be made to up to 35 non-Accredited Investors (with no general solicitation).  There is an outstanding question as to whether the SEC will “grandfather” in existing non-Accredited Investors in 3(c)(1) Funds, or if perhaps some form of Rule 506 will survive whereby sales to non-Accredited Investors will be permissible if no general solicitation takes place.      

Continuing Restrictions and Obligations.  Although the JOBS Act will potentially ease the burdens presented by capital raising for private funds, the following should be noted: 

  • Private fund offerings pursuant to Rule 506 will continue to be subject to the anti-fraud provisions of federal and state securities laws and the restrictions on advertising found in the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”).  For example, Rule 206(4)-1 of the Advisers Act (the advertising rule) and its general prohibition against advertisements that are false and misleading still necessitates compliance.  Managers of private funds that advertise generally must understand the advertising rules against “testimonials” in their public marketing materials.  To be “liked” on Facebook or similarly endorsed on other social networking sites would likely be considered to be an illegal testimonial by the SEC which could result in and administrative action accompanied by fines and penalties.   
  • Private funds should continue to rely on the guidance provided in the Clover Capital Management, Inc. SEC no-action letter and the subsequent line of letters when contemplating activities such as performance presentations by following practices so as not to present misleading performance results.  Further, private funds should continue to comply with Rule 206(4)-8 of the Advisers Act and its prohibition on making untrue statements or omitting material facts or otherwise engaging in fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative conduct regarding interactions with investors in pooled investment vehicles.  To the extent a private fund manager avails itself of the ability to advertise past performance, special care will need to be taken to ensure that all documents are consistent and performance information is presented in a manner that is complete and accurate.
  • Private funds should consider and continue to comply with advertising and disclosure rules as applicable to registered advisers and members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).  FINRA rules also apply to broker-dealers acting as placement agents or intermediaries in Rule 506 transactions.  Private funds making use of exemptions from registration under the Advisers Act and/or the Investment Company Act must continue to comply with the restrictions set forth in such exemptions.  For example, although the JOBS Act provides that offers and sales exempt from registration under Rule 506 will not be deemed public offerings by virtue of the use of general advertising and general solicitation, 3(c)(1) Funds must not exceed the one hundred beneficial owner limit.

Foreign Private Advisers.  A “foreign private adviser” that qualifies for the exemption from registration under the Advisers Act is an adviser that has no place of business in the U.S., fewer than 15 U.S. clients, less than $25 million attributable to U.S. clients and does not hold itself out generally to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser.  The SEC in the past has construed certain types of advertising, including information available on websites, as an example of an adviser holding itself out to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser.  Given the increased freedom for advertising under the JOBS Act, the SEC may look more closely at advisers taking advantage of the foreign private adviser exemption and whether any activities that could be construed as advertising may violate the terms of the exemption.

Regulation S.  Regulation S under the Securities Act, the safe harbor from registration for offshore sales of securities to non-U.S. persons, does not allow for “directed selling efforts” in the U.S.  It remains to be seen if general solicitation or advertising in connection with the amendments to Regulation D will be seen as “directed selling efforts” under Regulation S and whether the SEC will clarify how this will affect the potential use of Regulation S in connection with offerings under Rule 506.

 State Blue Sky Laws.  Many private funds have relied on self-executing exemptions in certain states in order to avoid filings and/or fees required under applicable state statutes or rules.  These self-executing exemptions are commonly conditioned on a prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising.  Private funds employing general solicitation and/or advertising in reliance on the amended Rule 506 should note the mechanics of such Blue Sky laws of the states where securities are being offered and sold and comply accordingly.

[1]   This applies to persons that: (a) maintain a platform or mechanism that permits the offer, sale, purchase, or negotiation of or with respect to securities, or permits general solicitations, general advertisements, or similar or related activities by issuers of such securities, whether online, in person, or through any other means; (b) co-invest in such securities; or (c) provide ancillary services with respect to such securities.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould, Michael Wu and Peter Chess

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) recently amended its registration rules regarding Commodity Pool Operators (“CPOs”) and Commodity Trading Advisors (“CTAs”), which will require many general partners and managers of private investment funds that previously relied on an exemption from registration to now register with the CFTC.  After a public comment period in which the industry overwhelmingly supported the continuation of these exemptions, the CFTC decided to rescind the CPO exemption under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(4) and amend the CPO exemption under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3).  Rule 4.13(a)(4) previously exempted private pools from registering as a CPO with the CFTC for funds offered only to institutional qualified eligible purchasers (“QEPs”) and natural persons who meet QEP requirements that hold more than a de minimis amount of commodity interests.

The CFTC’s amendment did not change the application of CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) to a fund of a hedge fund (“Fund of Funds”).  However, due to the repeal of these exemptions, many of the general partners or managers of a Fund of Funds’ underlying funds may be required to register as CPOs, thereby requiring registration of the Fund of Funds manager.  The CFTC has provided guidance with respect to when a Fund of Funds manager may continue to rely upon an exemption from registration as a CPO.  We have summarized these circumstances below:     

  • If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, which do not satisfy the trading limits of CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3)[1] (“Trading Limits”) and each of which is operated by a registered CPO, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may only rely on Section 4.13(a)(3) if the Fund of Funds itself satisfies the Trading Limits.
  • If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, each having a CPO who is either (a) exempt under CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) or (b) a registered CPO that complies with the Trading Limits, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may rely on Section 4.13(a)(3).
  • If a fund (i) allocates a Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, each of which satisfies the Trading Limits, and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may multiply the percentage restriction applicable to each underlying fund by the percentage of the Fund of Fund’s allocation of assets to such underlying fund, to determine whether that fund may rely on Section 4.13(a)(3).
  • If a fund (i) allocates the Fund of Fund’s assets to one or more underlying funds, and it has actual knowledge of the Trading Limits of the underlying funds (e.g., where the underlying funds or their CPOs are affiliated with a fund), and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may aggregate the commodity interest positions across the underlying funds to determine compliance with the Trading Limits and whether or not that fund may rely on CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3). 
  • If a fund (i) allocates no more than 50% of the Fund of Fund’s assets to underlying funds that trade commodity interests (regardless of the level of trading engaged by such underlying funds), and (ii) does not allocate the Fund of Fund’s assets directly to commodity interest trading, that fund may rely on CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3).

The CFTC amended Section 4.13(a)(3) to address how to calculate the notional value of swaps and how to net swaps.  In addition, the CFTC will now require a CPO relying on Section 4.13(a)(3) to submit an annual notice to the National Futures Association affirming its ability to continue relying on the exemption.  If a CPO cannot affirm its ability to do so, the CPO will be required to withdraw the exemption and, if necessary, apply for registration as such.

For additional information on whether these rule amendments will require you to register as a CPO or CTA, or whether the CFTC guidance or another exemption might provide a further exemption from registration, please contact your Pillsbury Investment Funds Attorney.

[1]   CFTC Rule 4.13(a)(3) requires that at all times either: (a) the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish commodity interest positions does not exceed five percent of the liquidation value of the Fund’s investment portfolio; or (b) the aggregate net notional value of the Fund’s commodity interest positions does not exceed one-hundred percent of the liquidation value of the Fund’s investment portfolio.

Published on:

By

Written by: Ildiko Duckor and Peter Chess

In light of the current regulatory environment, now more than ever, it is critical for you to comply with all of the legal requirements and best practices applicable to Investment Advisers.  The beginning of the year is a good time to review, consider and, if applicable, satisfy these requirements and best practices. 

As the new year is upon us, there are some important annual compliance obligations Investment Advisers either registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) or with a particular state (“Investment Adviser”) should be aware. 

First, we wanted to address three situations where Investment Advisers may need to make changes with regard to their registration.  These are:

(1) SEC-registered Investment Adviser switching to State registration.  SEC-registered Investment Advisers are required to withdraw registration if they have less than $90 million in Assets under Management (“AUM”).  Those Investment Advisers have a June 28, 2012 deadline for state approval.  These advisers should submit a state Form ADV to the relevant state by March 20, 2012 to allow at least 90 days for state approval (California in particular).

(2) State-registered Investment Adviser switching to SEC registration.  A state-registered Investment Adviser whose AUM as of December 31, 2011 was $110 million or more must register with the SEC by March 30, 2012.  Going forward, state-registered Investment Advisers must apply for registration with the SEC within 90 days of becoming eligible for SEC registration and not relying on an exemption from registration.  The threshold for registration with the SEC is $100 million or more in AUM, but you may stay registered with the state up to $110 million in AUM.

(3) Currently exempt Investment Adviser registering with the SEC.  An Investment Adviser previously exempt from registration that is now registering with the SEC must do so by the March 30, 2012 deadline.  The Form ADV should have been filed with the SEC by February 14, 2012.

The following is a summary of the primary annual or periodic compliance-related obligations that may apply to Investment Advisers.  The summary section begins with what we feel are “hot” areas of compliance for 2012, and then addresses continuing compliance and other regulatory issues.  The summary is not intended to be a comprehensive review of an Investment Adviser’s tax, partnership, corporate or other year-end requirements, nor an exhaustive list of all of the obligations of an Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”) or applicable state law.  Although many of the obligations set forth below apply only to SEC-registered Investment Advisers, state-registered Investment Advisers may be subject to similar and/or additional obligations depending on the state in which they are registered.  State-registered Investment Advisers should contact us for additional information regarding their specific obligations under state law.

“Hot” Compliance Areas

Qualified Client Threshold Updated.  In a Final Rule amendment recently released, the SEC clarified the calculation of the dollar amount thresholds applicable to the new qualified client standard which became effective on September 19, 2011.  The changes that became effective September 19, 2011 for the “qualified client” definition under the Advisers Act involved changing the previous $750,000 AUM test to $1 million and the current net worth test to $2 million.  The value of a person’s primary residence and certain debt secured by the property may not be included in the net worth test.  Either of these tests must be met at the time of entering into the advisory contract.  Investment Advisers that impose performance fees should prepare to amend form advisory agreements to account for the new thresholds for contracts entered into after September 19, 2011.  Investment Advisers that manage hedge funds, private equity funds, or other private funds that impose performance fees or incentive/carried interest allocations should have revised subscription agreements as follow:

  • Investors first investing between September 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012 are subject to the $1 million AUM and $2 million net worth thresholds, but these are calculated by including the value of the person’s primary residence.
  • Investors first investing as of or after May 22, 2012 are subject to the $1 million AUM and $2 million net worth thresholds, but the calculation excludes the value of the person’s primary residence.
  • There are two grandfather provisions. (1) Registered Investment Advisers are permitted to continue to charge clients performance fees if the clients were considered qualified clients before the rule changes. (2) Newly registering Investment Advisers will be permitted to continue charging performance fees to those clients they were already charging performance fees.

Accredited Investor Definition Changes.  The “accredited investor” definition has been amended to include any natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, exceeds $1 million except that the person’s primary residence may not be included as an asset for purposes of the calculation.  Other final amendments to the relevant rules added provisions for the treatment of debt secured by the primary residence and a grandfathering provision that permits the application of the former net worth test in certain limited circumstances.  Investment Advisers should revise subscription agreements for the clarified threshold calculation as follows:

  • Any investor making a first investment or making an additional contribution on or after July 21, 2010 must exclude the value of the primary residence from the net worth calculation.
  • Any investor making a first investment or making an additional contribution on or after February 27, 2012 must exclude the value of the primary residence from the net worth calculation in addition to observing the provisions added by the other final amendments described above.
  • Investors must qualify under the standard in effect at the time of each new investment contribution.

Form PF.  The SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted new reporting rules on October 31, 2011.  The new SEC rule under the Advisers Act requires Investment Advisers that advise one or more private funds and have at least $150 million in private fund AUM to file the Form PF with the SEC.  The new CFTC rule requires commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors registered with the CFTC to satisfy specific filing requirements with respect to private funds by filing the Form PF with the SEC in certain circumstances.  The Form PF has quarterly and annual filing requirements based on a number of factors, including amounts and types of assets.

  • Large hedge fund advisers[1] must file the Form PF within 60 days of each fiscal quarter end, with the first filing after the end of the first fiscal quarter ending on or after June 15, 2012.
  • Large liquidity fund advisers[2] must file the Form PF within 15 days of each fiscal quarter end, with the first filing after the end of the first fiscal quarter ending on or after June 15, 2012.
  • All other filers[3] must file the Form PF within 120 days of each fiscal year end, as applicable, on or after December 15, 2012.
  • Under initial compliance, many advisers will not need to file their first Form PF until 2013.

New CFTC Rules.  In a February 9, 2012 Final Rule, the CFTC rescinded Section 4.13(a)(4), which provided private pools with an exemption from registration as a CPO with the CFTC.  Investment Advisers operating 3(c)(7) private funds will no longer be able to claim exemption from CPO registration for funds offered only to institutional qualified eligible purchasers (“QEP”) and natural persons that meet QEP requirements that hold more than a de minimis amount of commodity interests.  The exemption under Section 4.13(a)(3) was retained, which provides exemption from CPO registration in cases where the pool trades minimal amounts of futures such that at all time either (a) the aggregate initial margin and premiums required to establish the fund’s commodity interest positions may not exceed 5% of the fund’s liquidation value or (b) the aggregate notional value of the fund’s commodity interest positions may not exceed 100% of the fund’s liquidation value.  Advisers that had relied on the Section 4.13(a)(4) exemption will either need to avail themselves of the Section 4.13(a)(3) exemption or register as a CPO, i.e., both 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) pools will have to comply with the 4.13(a)(3) exemption or register.

Continuing Compliance Areas

Update Form ADV.  An Investment Adviser must file an annual amendment to Form ADV Part 1 and Form ADV Part 2 within 90 days of the end of its fiscal year.  Part 1 and Part 2A of the Form ADV must be filed with the SEC through the electronic IARD system.  Accordingly, if you are SEC-registered adviser whose fiscal year ends on or after December 31, 2011, you must file Part 1A and Part 2A Brochure as part of your annual updating amendment by March 30, 2012.  If you are a state-registered adviser whose fiscal year ends on or after December 31, 2011, you must also file Part 1A, Part 1B, Part 2A Brochure and 2B Brochure Supplement as part of your annual updating amendment by March 30, 2012.

New Form ADV Part 1.  Part 1 of Form ADV has been amended, most importantly, with regard to the calculation of AUM and auditor information.  The Form now contains a uniform method of calculating AUM, and eliminates adviser discretion in including or excluding certain assets from the AUM calculation.

Form ADV Ongoing Updates.  Investment Advisers must amend Part 1 of their Form ADV promptly during the year if certain information becomes materially inaccurate.  The brochure and supplement must also be updated promptly during the year if any information becomes materially inaccurate unless the material inaccuracies result solely from changes in the amount of client assets managed or changes to the fee schedule.

FINRA Entitlement Program.  FINRA implemented changes to its Entitlement Program, which provides access to an Investment Adviser’s IARD account.  Every adviser firm (new and existing) is now required to designate an individual as its Super Account Administrator (SAA).  The SAA must be an authorized employee or officer of the adviser firm.

Fund IARD Account.  An Investment Adviser must ensure that its IARD account is adequately funded to cover payment of all applicable registration renewal fees and notice filing fees.

State Notice Filings/Investment Adviser Representatives.  An Investment Adviser should review its advisory activities in the various states in which it conducts business and confirm that all applicable notice filings are made on IARD.  In addition, an Investment Adviser should confirm whether any of its personnel need to be registered as “investment adviser representatives” in any state and, if so, register such persons or renew their registrations with the applicable states.

Brochure Rule.  On an annual basis, an Investment Adviser must provide its clients and separate account client(s) with a copy of its updated Form ADV Part 2A, or provide a summary of material changes and offer to provide an updated Form ADV Part 2A.  An adviser could meet its delivery obligation to a hedge fund client by delivering its brochure to a legal representative of the fund, such as the fund’s general partner.  Delivery is required within 120 days of the end of the adviser’s fiscal year.

Annual Assessment of Compliance Program.  At least annually, an Investment Adviser must review its compliance policies and procedures to assess their effectiveness.  The annual assessment process should be documented and such document(s) should be presented to the Investment Adviser’s chief executive officer or executive committee, as applicable, and maintained in the Investment Adviser’s files.  At a minimum, the annual assessment process should entail a detailed review of:

  • (1)  the compliance issues and any violations of the policies and procedures that arose during the year, changes in the Investment Adviser’s business activities and the effect that changes in applicable law, if any, have had on the Investment Adviser’s policies and procedures;
  • (2)  the Investment Adviser’s Code of Ethics, including an assessment of the effectiveness of its implementation and determination of whether they should be enhanced in light of the Investment Adviser’s current business practices;
  • (3)  the business continuity/disaster recovery plan, which should be “stress tested” and adjusted as necessary;
  • (4)  the Social Media policies and procedures, which the SEC recommends all Investment Advisers should adopt as part of their compliance policies and procedures; Investment Advisers should consider adding such policies and procedures if they have not already done so;
  • (5) review compliance with side letters and other special terms policies and procedures; and,
  • (6)  the Whistleblower policies and procedures, which Investment Advisers should consider adopting or reviewing in light of recent SEC rules that implemented the whistleblower program that became effective in August 2011.  Under the new rules, persons who provide information to the SEC about a violation of any securities law may be eligible in certain situations to receive 10 to 30 percent of amounts recovered by the SEC.  Advisers should consider internal policies that promote employee reporting of violations.

Custody; Annual/Surprise Audit.  Private fund Investment Advisers should have their funds audited by a PCAOB registered independent account and provide audited financial statements of their fund(s), prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, to the fund(s)’ investors within 120 days of the end of the fund(s)’ fiscal year.  Investment Advisers that do not have their private funds audited should determine whether they are deemed to have custody of those funds’ assets and therefore are subject to an annual surprise audit and other requirements.

Annual Privacy Notice.  Under SEC Regulation S-P, an Investment Adviser must provide its fund investors or client(s) who are natural persons with a copy of the Investment Adviser’s privacy policy on an annual basis, even if there are no changes to the privacy policy.

New Issues.  Compliance should now address FINRA Rule 5131, which became effective in May 2011 and prohibits quid pro quo and “spinning” allocations of new issues of securities and addresses the book-builiding, new issue pricing, penalty bids, trading and waivers of lock-up agreements by member firms and associated persons.  This new rule must be observed in addition to Rule 5130, whereby an Investment Adviser that acquires “new issue” IPOs for a fund or separately managed client account must obtain written representations every 12 months from the fund or account’s beneficial owners confirming their continued eligibility to participate in new issues.  This annual representation may be obtained through “negative consent” letters.

ERISA.  An Investment Adviser may wish to reconfirm whether its fund(s)’ investors are “benefit plan investors” and whether investments by benefit plan investors result in fund assets being characterized as “plan assets” for purposes of reconfirming its fund(s)’ compliance with the 25% “significant participation” exemption under ERISA.  This is particularly important if a significant amount of a fund’s assets have been withdrawn or redeemed, and some Investment Advisers may need to check compliance procedures with each investment or withdrawal.  The reconfirmation may be obtained through “negative consent” letters.

Anti-Money Laundering.  FinCEN may consider a new round of proposed anti-money laundering regulations for unregistered investment companies, certain investment advisers and commodity trading advisors.  An Investment Adviser is still subject to the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC and should have an anti-money laundering program in place.  An Investment Adviser should review its anti-money laundering program on an annual basis to determine whether the program is reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable law given the business, customer base and geographic footprint of the Investment Adviser.

FBAR Reporting.  A U.S. person is required to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBAR”) if they have a financial interest in or signature authority over a foreign bank, securities or other financial account (e.g., a prime brokerage account) in another country.  Failure to file this form when required can result in significant penalties.  Financial accounts that may be subject to FBAR reporting include accounts of a mutual fund or similar pooled fund which issues shares available to the general public that have a regular net asset value determination and regular redemptions.  Private offshore funds, such as hedge funds and private equity funds (e.g., a Cayman Island “mutual fund”) are not deemed to be a foreign financial account, and therefore investment advisers are not required to file an FBAR with respect to these funds.  However, if these private funds have either a foreign bank account, foreign prime brokerage account, or other foreign financial account, and the adviser has signature authority over those accounts, then the adviser may have to file an FBAR with respect to those accounts.

“Pay-to-Play”.  The SEC adopted two measures on June 30, 2010 to prevent “pay-to-play” practices by Investment Advisers seeking to manage funds for state and local governments.  The SEC adopted amendments to these rules in 2011.  The amendments cover a multitude of topics, including the prohibition of soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others for elected officials in a position to influence the selection of the adviser.  With regard to California, generally employees of “external managers” fall under the definition of “placement agent” requiring lobbyist registration. There are exceptions. Employees (i.e., partners, members, etc.) who spend at least 1/3 of their time during a calendar year managing assets (i.e., securities) will not fall under the “placement agent” definition and may solicit from California state public plans.  This would require a portfolio manager-type to be involved in marketing to covered entities.  The second exception, a 3-prong test requires that the manager be selected through a competitive bidding process, which is rare, so this exception may not be helpful.

Special Purpose Vehicles of Investment Advisers.  In January 2012, the SEC confirmed that, subject to certain conditions, it would not recommend enforcement action to the SEC under the Advisers Act against an Investment Adviser or a related Special Purpose Vehicle established to act as the general partner or managing member of a private fund managed by the Investment Adviser if the Special Purpose Vehicle does not separately register as an Investment Adviser.

Amend Schedule 13G or 13D.  An Investment Adviser whose client or proprietary accounts, separately or in the aggregate are beneficial owners of 5% or more of a registered voting equity security, and who have reported these positions on Schedule 13G, must update these filings annually within 45 days of the end of the calendar year, unless there is no change to any of the information reported in the previous filing (other than the holder’s percentage ownership due solely to a change in the number of outstanding shares).  An Investment Adviser reporting on Schedule 13D is required to amend its filings “promptly” upon the occurrence of any “material changes.”  In addition, an Investment Adviser whose client or proprietary accounts are beneficial owners of 10% or more of a registered voting equity security must determine whether it is subject to any reporting obligations, or potential “short-swing” profit liability or other restrictions, under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Section 16 Filings.  Individuals or entities that hold a beneficial ownership of ten percent of any class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, if an officer or director of such issuer, may be required to file Form 3, 4, or 5 regarding crossing certain thresholds, reporting certain sales, and making certain annual reports.

Form 13F.  An “institutional investment manager,” whether or not an Investment Adviser, must file a Form 13F with the SEC if it exercises investment discretion with respect to $100 million or more in securities subject to Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act (e.g., exchange-traded securities, shares of closed-end investment companies and certain convertible debt securities), which discloses certain information about such its holdings.  The first filing must occur within 45 days after the end of the calendar year in which the Investment Adviser reaches the $100 million filing threshold and within 45 days of the end of each calendar quarter thereafter, as long as the Investment Adviser meets the $100 million filing threshold.

Form 13H.  The SEC adopted Rule 13h-1 under the Exchange Act which requires “Large Traders” meeting certain definitional thresholds in transactions in NMS securities to identify themselves to the SEC and make certain disclosures to the SEC on Form 13H, effective October 3, 2011.  “Large Traders” are defined as any person that exercises investment discretion over one or more accounts and effects transactions of NMS securities for or on behalf of such accounts, in an aggregate amount of at least $20 million in a day or $200 million in a month.  In addition to an initial filing, all large traders must submit an annual filing on Form 13H within 45 days after the end of the calendar year and submit any amendments promptly after the end of any calendar quarter where information in the form becomes materially inaccurate.

Treasury International Capital System (“TIC”) Forms:

  • TIC Form SLT.  Adopted in 2011, the Form SLT is required to be submitted by entities with consolidated reportable holdings and issuances with a fair market value of at least $1 billion as of the last day of any month.  The first filing was required to be submitted by January 23, 2012 for consolidated data as of December 31, 2011.
  • TIC Form SHC.  The Form SHC is a mandatory survey of the ownership of foreign securities, including selected money market instruments, by U.S. residents as of December 31, 2011.  The form must be submitted by fund managers and other entities required to do so no later than March 2, 2012.

Offering Materials.  As a general securities law disclosure matter, and for purposes of U.S. federal and state anti-fraud laws, including Rule 206(4)-8 of the Advisers Act, an Investment Adviser must continually ensure that each of its fund offering documents is kept up to date, consistent with its other fund offering documents and contains all material disclosures that may be required in order for the fund investor to be able to make an informed investment decision.

Full and accurate disclosure is particularly important in light of Sergeants Benevolent Assn. Annuity Fund v. Renck, 2005 NY Slip op. 04460, a recent New York Appellate Court decision, where the court held that officers of an investment adviser could be personally liable for the losses suffered by a fund that they advised if they breached their implied fiduciary duties to the fund.  The fiduciary nature of an investment advisory relationship and the standard for fiduciaries under the Advisers Act includes an affirmative duty of utmost good faith, and full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an affirmative obligation to use reasonable care to avoid misleading clients.

Accordingly, it may be an appropriate time for an Investment Adviser to review its offering materials and confirm whether or not any updates or amendments are necessary.  In particular, an Investment Adviser should take into account the impact of the recent turbulent market conditions on its fund(s) and review its fund(s)’ current investment objectives and strategies, valuation practices, performance statistics, redemption or withdrawal policies and risk factors (including disclosures regarding market volatility and counterparty risk), its current personnel, service providers and any relevant legal or regulatory developments.

Blue Sky Filings/Form D.  Many state securities “blue sky” filings expire on a periodic basis and must be renewed.  Accordingly, now may be a good time for an Investment Adviser to review the blue-sky filings for its fund(s) to determine whether any updated filings or additional filings are necessary.  We note that all Form D filings for continuous offerings will need to be amended with the SEC on an annual basis.

Liability Insurance.  Due to an environment of increasing investor lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny of fund managers, an Investment Adviser may want to consider obtaining management liability insurance or review the adequacy of any existing coverage, as applicable.

If you have any questions regarding the summary above, please feel free to contact us.

 

[1]   Large hedge fund advisers are advisers with at least $1.5 billion under management attributable to hedge funds.

[2]   Large liquidity fund advisers are advisers with at least $1 billion in combined AUM attributable to liquidity funds and registered money market funds.

[3]   This group includes smaller private fund advisers and large private equity fund advisers, which are advisers with at least $2 billion in AUM attributable to private equity funds.  All advisers with at least $150 million in AUM that are not considered large hedge fund advisers, large liquidity fund advisers, or large private equity fund advisers are considered smaller private fund advisers.

Published on:

By

Last week’s article on HFMWeek entitled “Disclosure Gets Closer” discussed registration requirements of investment advisers to hedge funds under the Dodd-Frank Act.  The article, which was written by Will Wainewright, quoted Jay Gould, a partner and member of our Investment Fund and Investment Management team, who said “[T]he most difficult part of SEC registration – not an onerous process in itself – is implementing, testing, internally enforcing and updating the compliance procedures that the SEC will be checking on once you are registered.” 

A full text of the article is available here.

Published on:

By

Written by: Jay Gould and Peter Chess

1.  What is the Form PF?

The Form PF (PF is short for “private funds”) is a new form that focuses mainly on private fund reporting with regard to information such as counterparty dealings, leverage, and investment exposure.  A “private fund” under the Form PF refers to any issuer that would be an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, if not for the exemptions provided by Sections 3(c)1 or 3(c)7 of that Act.  Under some circumstances, non-“private funds” such as money market funds registered with the SEC may be required to report on the Form, in addition to “private funds.”

2.  Do investment advisers need to file the Form PF?

Yes, in certain circumstances.  Only investment advisers registered with the SEC that meet a $150 million threshold must report on the Form PF.  The $150 million threshold refers to a specific and somewhat complicated calculation with regard to regulatory assets under management. 

3.  What are the categories of filers? 

Advisers required to file the Form PF need to determine which category of filer corresponds to them.  Large private fund advisers are categorized as either large hedge fund advisers, large liquidity fund advisers, or large private equity fund advisers.  Large hedge fund advisers are those having at least $1.5 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to hedge funds, subject to other conditions.  Large liquidity fund advisers are those having at least $1 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to “liquidity funds” and money market funds registered with the SEC, subject to other conditions.  Large private equity fund advisers are those having at least $2 billion in regulatory assets under management attributable to private equity funds, subject to other conditions.  All other filers are categorized as smaller private fund advisers.

4. What are the reporting deadlines?

Initial compliance under the Form PF will be in phases.  The first required filers will be large private fund advisers with at least $5 billion attributable to hedge funds, to liquidity funds, or to private equity funds.  These large hedge fund advisers will have 60 days, and large liquidity fund advisers will have 15 days, after the end of the first fiscal quarter ending on or after June 15, 2012, to file their first Form PF.

Other filers will have to make their first filing by the deadline following the end of the first fiscal quarter for each adviser, as applicable, on or after December 15, 2012.  Under the initial compliance, many advisers will not need to file their first Form PF until 2013.

Going forward, the Form PF must be filed:

  • For large hedge fund advisers, within 60 days of its fiscal quarter end;
  • For large liquidity fund advisers, within 15 days of each fiscal quarter end; and
  • For other filers, within 120 days of each fiscal year end.

5.  What constitutes the Form PF? 

The Form PF, in its entirety, contains sixty pages, and is divided into four sections with corresponding subsections.  Most advisers will not have to complete all four sections.  The four sections feature reporting on, among other things: identifying information about the adviser; fund-by-fund reporting by all advisers about items such as fund identification, performance and valuation; fund-by-fund reporting by hedge fund advisers about items such as strategies, counterparties, and trading practices; aggregated private fund reporting for large hedge fund advisers; fund-by-fund reporting by large hedge fund advisers about items such as asset classes, portfolio liquidity, and risk metrics; fund-by-fund reporting for large liquidity fund advisers; and, fund-by-fund reporting for large private equity fund advisers. 

6.  What about the confidentiality of information reported?

Because of the nature of governmental sharing of the data provided on the Form PF, advisers should consider the options available to them with regard to preserving confidentiality.  Consequently, advisers should consider changing their overall recordkeeping practices so that they routinely identify funds solely by numerical or alphabetical designations.  

7.  How is the Form PF filed? 

The Form PF will be filed using the same IARD system on which advisers make the Form ADV filing.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould and Peter Chess

On January 18, 2012, the Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, part of the Division of Investment Management, issued a no-action letter (the “2012 Letter”) in response to a request for guidance from the American Bar Association’s Subcommittee on Hedge Funds on issues regarding the registration of certain investment advisers that are related to investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).  The 2012 Letter both reaffirms previous positions of the SEC and provides additional guidance, as discussed below.

Special Purpose Vehicles (“SPVs”).  In a December 8, 2005 letter, the SEC stated that it would not recommend enforcement action against a registered adviser and an SPV if the SPV did not separately register as an investment adviser, subject to conditions.  The 2012 Letter reaffirms this position.  The conditions in such a situation require that:

  • the investment adviser to a private fund establishes the SPV to act as the private fund’s general partner or managing member;
  • the SPV’s formation documents designate the investment adviser to manage the private fund’s assets;
  • all of the investment advisory activities of the SPV are subject to the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”); and
  • the registered adviser subjects the SPV, its employees and persons acting on its behalf to the registered adviser’s supervision and control and, therefore, the SPV, all of its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are “persons associated with” the registered adviser.

SPVs with Independent Directors.  The 2012 Letter states that an SPV that relies on the above conditions may also have “independent directors” and therefore would not be required to meet the uniformity of personnel requirement.

Groups of Related Advisers.  The 2012 Letter notes that for a variety of reasons, advisers to private funds may be part of a group of related advisers.  In some situations these advisers, although organized as separate legal entities, conduct a single advisory business because they, among other things, are subject to a unified compliance program and use the same or similar names.  The 2012 Letter states that a filing adviser and one or more relying advisers would be conducting a single advisory business and thus a single registration would be appropriate under the following circumstances:

  • The filing adviser and each relying adviser advise only private funds and separate account clients that are qualified clients and are otherwise eligible to invest in the private funds advised by the filing adviser or a relying adviser and whose accounts pursue investment objectives and strategies that are substantially similar or otherwise related to those private funds. 
  • Each relying adviser, its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are subject to the filing adviser’s supervision and control and, therefore, each relying adviser, its employees and the persons acting on its behalf are “persons associated with” the filing adviser. 
  • The filing adviser has its principal office and place of business in the United States and, therefore, all of the substantive provisions of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder apply to the filing adviser’s and each relying adviser’s dealings with each of its clients, regardless of whether any client or the filing adviser or relying adviser providing the advice is a United States person. 
  • The advisory activities of each relying adviser are subject to the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder, and each relying adviser is subject to examination by the SEC.
  • The filing adviser and each relying adviser operate under a single code of ethics and a single set of written policies and procedures, administered by a single chief compliance officer.
  • The filing adviser discloses in its Form ADV (Miscellaneous Section of Schedule D) that it and its relying advisers are together filing a single Form ADV in reliance on the 2012 Letter and identifies each relying adviser by completing a separate Section 1.B., Schedule D, of Form ADV for each relying adviser and identifying it as such by including the notation “(relying adviser).”