Articles Tagged with Investment Advisers

Published on:

By

Written by guest contributor, Bruce Frumerman, Frumerman & Nemeth Inc.

This article first appeared in FINAlternatives on January 30, 2012 and is re-printed with permission below.

It’s one thing when people who are not part of the hedge fund investor universe say hedge funds are money management firms that reveal too little about themselves. It’s another thing entirely when those folks investing in hedge funds are complaining about this.

In January SEI released part one of its results from its fifth annual survey of institutional hedge fund investors, conducted in collaboration with Greenwich Associates, The Shifting Hedge Fund Landscape. Three of the recommendations the report offers hedge fund firm owners give a glimpse into where surveyed investors are asking hedge funds to “provide more windows into investment processes and decision-making,” as SEI put it.

SEI says hedge funds need to:

  • Go The Extra Mile To Make Strategies Understandable.

Thoroughly explain the strategies and processes [you] are using to generate returns.

  • Keep Articulating And Reinforcing The Value Proposition.

Demonstrate exactly how [your] strategy and methods are enhancing [your] clients’ risk-adjusted portfolio returns.

  • Clarify Performance Expectations.

Work to help clients understand the tradeoffs between risk and reward, and how [your strategy] can be expected to perform under varying market conditions.

All of this points to a specific failing: most hedge funds are not communicating enough detail about how they think and how they invest. It’s not enough for a hedge fund manager to know this in his head. Further, it’s not enough for a hedge fund sales person to believe she is able to recite all this required information in a verbal presentation at a pitch meeting with a prospect. Institutional investors need to have this in writing. After all, they’ll be referring to a hedge fund’s marketing collateral when, months after a hedge fund has made its in-person presentation, the institution’s investment committee finally gets around to discussing the hedge fund firm and its strategy.

As SEI’s survey makes clear, hedge funds are not building out their storyline content enough to fully explain how they invest, differentiate themselves from competitors and communicate appropriate performance expectations. I’ve identified a reason why this is too often so: taking the wrong starting point. Many hedge fund firm owners go about their internal process of creating their storylines about how they invest by trying to think in bullet points, because that’s what goes into a flip chart pitchbook. That is the wrong starting point and the wrong point of reference. Think this way and you will end up leaving out too much detail about what you do that prospective investors want you to be communicating. Market this way and you may leave some prospects thinking your firm lacks transparency and others that your firm lacks the competence to pull of what you claim you aim to do.

Savvy hedge fund firms recognize that a flip chart pitchbook is a marketing tool, not the only marketing tool. They know that they have to deliver marketing collateral into the hands of institutional investor prospects who may take months before to looking at those documents again when discussing the hedge fund and its strategy in an investment committee meeting.

A flip chart pitchbook is not a leave-behind piece whose copy retells on paper the detail of what a fund manager presents verbally at a pitch meeting regarding the full story of his fund and its investment process. The people you pitch have learned from experience that bullet points in the typical flip chart pitch book rarely tell the full story. In a meeting, the portfolio manager or salesperson usually “fills in the blanks”, adding more information as they elaborate about their firm and its investment process. If you assume all of your prospects are attentive enough to absorb and recall this non-documented content months later, when investment allocation decisions might be made, you are mistaken.

So, how can you do a more effective job of thoroughly explaining your fund’s strategy and process in writing?

Here’s a recommendation for giving your firm a fresh start in this new year: begin by putting onto paper a clean, rethought long version storyline that explains your investment beliefs and details the process you follow to implement your strategy. Once you’ve written this out in sentence and paragraph format reread what you wrote, and try to do so with the critical eye of a skeptical prospect, because you need to construct a storyline to sell with that is buyer-focused, not seller-focused.

Your words need to be cogent and compelling. Keep in mind that people will not be able to follow you if your explanation about how you invests jumps around, so see to it that you build and tell a linear story.

With your new, long version storyline copy in hand you’ll have the baseline content that can be applied to a range of marketing tools. This content can serve as the meat of an in-person verbal presentation. Highlights of the long version storyline can be excised to be added to the data presented in a flip chart pitchbook, and to a fact sheet/backgrounder piece. Importantly, the full content belongs in a document of its own: an “evergreen” brochure that just addresses investment process. This evergreen document should retell in print what you communicate verbally at a pitch meeting for educating and persuading people to understand and buy into how you invest.

How useful is adding a brochure format marketing piece as a selling tool to provide, as SEI puts it, “more windows into investment processes and decision-making”?

Here’s a recent case example from a hedge fund client of my communications and sales marketing consulting firm. Having presented his pitch to a university endowment officer, the fund manager was complimented on his evergreen brochure leave-behind because, as the prospect noted, it fully retold the fund’s investment process that was given in the verbal pitch. That endowment officer added that nine out of ten times he only gets a flip chart pitchbook from those who pitch him, so he often lacks the investment process detail he needs, in an easily accessible marketing piece, for his due diligence. Another endowment team the hedge fund manager met with echoed that feedback. After telling the hedge fund manager they liked how his investment process was clearly spelled out in his 12-page, brochure-format leave-behind, they complained to him about getting too many 50-page pitchbooks from other money management firms.

So, if you want to be in a better position to attract new investors this year, look into how you could do a better job of articulating and reinforcing your value proposition; both with the story you tell and the range of marketing collateral in which you deliver it. Make it easier for your institutional prospects to remember and recount to fellow investment committee members how your firm invests and you will have created a competitive edge in your marketing.

 

#          #          #

© 2012 Frumerman & Nemeth Inc.

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.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould and Peter Chess

In re-proposed custody rules, the California Department of Corporations (“DOC”) has reflected the most important aspects of the comment letter that Pillsbury provided on July 27, 2011, such that all transactions and short positions need not be disclosed in the quarterly account statements.  In general, the re-proposed custody rules define “custody,” and subject to certain limited exceptions, require that advisers with custody maintain the assets with a qualified custodian.  The re-proposed custody rules also specify details with regard to audits and require compliance by advisers with specific safeguards.   

The DOC also released proposed regulations that contain a successor to the private fund exemption, which are currently in the comment period.  Under the DOC’s proposed private adviser exemption, advisers would be eligible provided they: (i) have not violated securities laws; (ii) file periodic reports with the DOC; (iii) pay the existing investment adviser registration and renewal fees; and (iv) comply with additional safeguards when advising 3(c)(1) funds.  Additionally, under the proposed regulations, the exemption defines a private fund adviser as an investment adviser that provides advice only to qualifying private funds, which include 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) funds.  A grandfathering provision for private advisers is also included. 

The Massachusetts Securities Division released amendments similar to the DOC’s on January 18, 2012.  These amendments contain regulations that relate to the private fund exemption and custody requirements, among others.  The amendments, released after consideration of industry comments, make substantive changes to the definition of “institutional buyer,” re-propose a broadened private fund exemption that includes the introduction of a grandfathering provision, and propose requirements for advisers with discretion over, or custody of, client funds. 

The purpose of the Massachusetts amendments is to coordinate with the new rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act.  Also included in the amendments is an exemption from state registration for advisers that provide advice solely to private funds that qualify as 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) funds.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould, Ildiko Duckor and Peter Chess

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) released a Final Rule on January 11, 2012, on the Registration of Swaps Dealers (SDs) and Major Swap Participants (MSPs).  The Final Rule establishes the process for the registration of SDs and MSPs and now requires SDs and MSPs to become and remain members of a registered futures association.  Included in the CFTC rulemaking is a definition of an “associated person” of an SD or MSP and an implementation of a prohibition on an SD or MSP permitting an associated person who is statutorily disqualified from registration from effecting or being involved in effecting swaps of behalf of the SD or MSP.

In a companion Notice and Order by the CFTC on the same day, the National Futures Association (NFA) was authorized to perform registration functions under the new rulemaking.  Specifically, the NFA is authorized to perform the following registration functions: 

  • To process and grant applications for registration and withdrawals from registration of SDs and MSPs, and to notify of provisional registration; 
  • In connection with processing and granting applications for registration of SDs and MSPs, to confirm initial compliance with such other related CFTC regulations that may be adopted;  
  • To conduct proceedings to deny, condition, suspend, restrict or revoke the registration of any SD or MSP or any applicant for registration in either category; and 
  • To maintain records regarding SDs and MSPs, and to serve as the official custodian of those CFTC records.

The Final Rule and the Notice and Order released on January 11, 2012, are just a portion of a comprehensive new regulatory framework for swaps and security-based swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act.  The goal of the legislation is to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system. 

The Dodd-Frank Act further directs the CFTC, under Section 4s of the Commodity Exchange Act, to provide for the regulation of SDs and MSPs with respect to, among others, the following areas: capital and margin, reporting and recordkeeping, daily trading records, business conduct standards, documentation standards, duties, designation of chief compliance officer, and, with respect to uncleared swaps, segregation.

Pillsbury will continue to monitor the CFTC’s rulemaking and will provide further information as it becomes available.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould, Ildiko Duckor and Peter Chess

On January 4, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a National Examination Risk Alert addressing investment adviser use of social media.  Investment advisers should have policies regarding the use of social media, and the SEC outlined specific factors that need to be addressed by these policies.  The SEC’s guidance could be particularly important given the “crowdfunding” legislation Congress is currently considering.

The January 4, 2012 National Examination Risk Alert (January Alert) states that investment advisers’ use of social media must comply with various provisions of the federal securities laws, including the antifraud provisions, the compliance provisions, and the recordkeeping provisions.  The January Alert stresses that particular attention with regard to the use of social media must be paid to third party content (if permitted) and the recordkeeping responsibilities. 

The January Alert provides staff observations of factors that an investment adviser may want to consider when evaluating a compliance policy for the use of social media.  These include, but are not limited to:

  • Usage Guidelines.  Investment advisers may provide guidance in their policies on the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media;
  • Monitoring.  Investment advisers may consider how to effectively monitor their social media sites or any use of third-party sites;
  • Content Standards.  May include clear guidelines and the prohibition of specific content or other content restrictions; and
  • Information Security.  Investment advisers may consider any information security risks posed by access to social media sites.  These could include dangers from hacking and other breaches of information security. 

Additionally, investment advisers that allow for third-party posting on their social media sites should consider having policies and procedures in place to address this.  Reasonable safeguards should be in place to avoid any violation of the federal securities laws.  Potential violations could result from the appearance of testimonials on a firm’s social media.  For example, the SEC staff believes that the use of social plug-ins such as the “like” button could be considered a testimonial under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Finally, the January Alert notes that investment advisers should consider reviewing their document retention policies so that the retaining of any required records generated by social media use complies with the federal securities laws.  This review could include addressing factors such as: determining what types of social media use create a required record; maintaining applicable communications in electronic or paper format; creating training programs to educate advisory personnel about recordkeeping; and, using third parties in order to keep proper records.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has echoed the January Alert in recent releases, such as Regulatory Notice 11-39 from August 2011.  This Notice provided guidance on social media websites for broker-dealers, and addressed recordkeeping and third-party sites, among other topics.  This Notice supplemented an earlier FINRA notice from January 2010 that provided guidance with regard to blogs and social networking websites. 

The SEC has also recently increased its focus on internet-related enforcement actions.  On January 4, 2012, the SEC charged an Illinois-based adviser with perpetrating a social media scam.  The alleged scam involved offering fictitious securities that were promoted by using LinkedIn.  This follows multiple enforcement actions from February 2011 for internet-related schemes, including boiler rooms and spam-email touted pump and dumps.

Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is a method of capital formation where groups of people pool money, typically by use of very small individual contributions, in order to support the organizers that seek to accomplish a specific goal.

Congress has also been active in the realm of internet-related securities issues with its involvement in crowdfunding.  The House of Representative passed the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (H.R. 2930) on November 3, 2011.  H.R. 2930 provides for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities if the aggregate amount raised through the issuance is $1 million or less each year and each individual who invests in the securities does not invest, in any year, more than the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of the investor’s annual income.  Businesses could raise up to $2 million each year under the exemption if investors were provided with certain financial information.

The Senate currently is considering its own version of a crowdfunding bill, the Democratizing Access to Capital Act of 2011 (S. 1791).  S. 1791 provides for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded securities if the aggregate amount raised through the issuance is $1 million or less each year and each individual who invests in the security does not invest more than $1,000.  The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held hearings on December 1 and 14, 2011, regarding this legislation, but a vote on the bill has not yet occurred.

Reaction to the crowdfunding legislation has been mixed.  Supporters, such as Tim Johnson, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, feel that the legislation will provide easier access to capital for smaller businesses and startups, which will grow business and create new jobs.  Detractors, such as Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., in his testimony before the Committee, argue that S. 1791 could well be titled “The Boiler Room Legalization Act of 2011.”

The crowdfunding legislation and its developments promise to bring more scrutiny to the interplay of the federal securities laws and the internet.  Investment advisers, and other financial firms, should examine and ensure related policies and procedures are up to par.

Published on:

By

Written by Peter J. Chess

Many fund managers are required to submit reports every month and/or every five years to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”).  The Department of the Treasury’s Treasury International Capital (“TIC”) data reporting system has two such upcoming reporting deadlines.    

TIC Form SLT

The Aggregate Holdings of Long-Term Securities by U.S. and Foreign Residents (“TIC Form SLT”) is required to be submitted by entities with consolidated reportable holdings and issuances (positions) with a fair market value of at least $1 billion as of the last day of any month.  These entities may include funds and their investment advisers, and U.S. companies.  The purpose of the TIC Form SLT is to gather information from U.S. resident entities on foreign persons’ holdings of long-term U.S. securities and on U.S. persons’ holdings of long-term foreign securities. 

If required to do so, fund managers and other entities must submit the report to the FRBNY by the 23rd day of each month with regard to the data of the previous month.  The upcoming TIC Form SLT will contain consolidated data as of December 31, 2011 and must be submitted by January 23, 2012. 

TIC Form SHC

The Report of U.S. Ownership of Foreign Securities, Including Selected Money Market Instruments (“TIC 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 TIC Form SHC is a benchmark survey of all significant U.S. resident custodians and end-investors held every five years. Custodians are all organizations that hold securities in safekeeping for other organizations.  End-investors are organizations that invest in foreign securities for their own portfolios or invest on behalf of others, such as investment managers/fund sponsors.

The TIC Form SHC is divided into three schedules: Schedule 1, Schedule 2, and Schedule 3.  Schedule 1 must be filed by all entities that are notified by the FRBNY that they are required to file the TIC Form SHC, and by all U.S. resident custodians or end-investors that exceed the reporting thresholds of Schedules 2 and 3.  Schedules 2 and 3 must be filed by entities that exceed the reporting threshold of $100 million for the respective specified safekeeping arrangements of foreign securities.

The data for the TIC Form SHC is as of December 31, 2011, and must be submitted by fund managers and other entities required to do so to the FRBNY no later than March 2, 2012.  

Published on:

By

The California Commissioner of Corporations (Commissioner) has released a notice regarding readoption of the emergency regulation on private adviser exemption.

On January 5, 2012, the Commissioner will file with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) the readoption of emergency regulations to extend the effectiveness of Rule 260.204.9 (10 C.C.R. §260.204.9) for a period of no longer than 90 days.    The changes to the rule will extend the current exemption from registration for investment advisers who are deemed private advisers for an additional 90 days.  The anticipated operative date of the emergency regulation is January 18, 2012. 

Information regarding the readoption of the  emergency proposal is posted on  the “What’s New” section of the Department of Corporations’ home page  (available at www.corp.ca.gov).

Pillsbury will continue to monitor this development and post additional information as soon as it becomes available.

Published on:

By

Written by Ildiko Duckor

An entity that meets the definition of a “Large Trader” after October 3, 2011 must file its initial Form 13H with the SEC by December 1, 2011 to be assigned a large trader identification number (LTID).  The filing is done electronically through the SEC’s EDGAR system.  The LTID must be disclosed to registered broker-dealers effecting transactions on behalf of the Large Trader. 

If you as a general partner or investment adviser (including any entities or individuals over which you have control, e.g., the right to vote or direct the vote of 25% or more of a class of voting securities of an entity) have investment discretion over aggregate transactions in exchange-listed securities that equal or exceed the Identifying Activity Level of: (i) 2 million shares or $20 million during any calendar day or (ii) 20 million shares or $200 million during any calendar month, you may qualify as a Large Trader and may have to file a Form 13H. 

When calculating the “Identifying Activity Level:” (i) aggregate all transactions during the specified period (one day and/or one month) (ii) for all “NMS securities” (national market securities, generally (exchange-listed securities including equities and purchases and sales (but not exercises) of options) and (iii) exclude the specified transactions that are exempt from consideration (as listed in the below-linked documents). 

Form 13H filing is required to be filed annually with the SEC within 45 days after the end of a Large Trader’s full calendar year. 

A full text of the SEC Final Rule and Form 13H is available here.

Please contact the IFIM team for assistance.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On November 28, 2011, the SEC charged OMNI Investment Advisors, Inc. of Utah, Feltl & Company Inc. of Minneapolis and Asset Advisors LLC of Troy, Michigan for failing to adopt and implement compliance procedures designed to prevent securities law violations.

The three enforcement actions discussed below should send a clear signal to investment advisers that are already registered and have implemented written compliance policies and procedures, as well as those advisers that will need to register by February 15, 2012, that the SEC is serious about adviser compliance and is willing to make examples of those advisers that do not fully implement a tailored compliance program. 

All three investment advisers, including OMNI’s owner and chief compliance officer Gary R. Beynon, were found to be in violation of the “Compliance Rule” under Rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act and were separately ordered to pay penalty fees and institute a series of corrective measures to settle the SEC charges. 

OMNI and Beynon failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures, failed to establish, maintain and enforce a written code of ethics and failed to maintain and preserve certain books and records.  Under the settlement, Beynon agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty.  He also agreed to be permanently barred from acting within the securities industry in any compliance or supervisory capacity and from associating with any investment company.  In addition, as part of the settlement, OMNI agreed to provide a copy of the proceeding to all of its former clients between September 2008 and August 2011. 

Feltl & Company failed to adopt and implement written compliance policies and procedures for its growing advisory business.  It further neglected to adopt a code of ethics and collect the required securities disclosure reports from its staff.  Under the settlement, Feltl & Company agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000 and return more than $142,000 to certain advisory clients.  In addition, the firm will hire an independent consultant to review its compliance operations annually for two years, provide a copy of the SEC’s order to past, present and future clients, and prominently post a summary of the order on its website.

Asset Advisors failed to adopt and implement a compliance program.  Asset Advisors adopted policies and procedures after SEC examiners brought it to the firm’s attention, but never fully implemented them. Similarly, Asset Advisors only adopted a code of ethics at the behest of the SEC exam staff and then failed to adequately abide by the code. Under the settlement, Asset Advisors agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty, cease operations, de-register with the Commission, and with clients’ consent, move advisory accounts to a new firm with an established compliance program.

A full text of the SEC release and orders is available here.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, the SEC charged Morgan Stanley Investment Management (“MSIM”) with violating securities laws in a fee arrangement that costs a fund and its investors approximately $1.8 million in sub-adviser fees.

MSIM is the primary adviser to The Malaysia Fund (the “Fund”), a closed-end investment company that invests in equity securities of Malaysian companies.  AMMB Consultant Sendirian Berhad (“AMMB”) was an SEC registered adviser located in Malaysia.  AMMB is a wholly owned subsidiary of AM Bank Group, one of the largest banking groups in Malaysia.  Pursuant to a Research and Advisory Agreement entered into by the Fund with AMMB and MSIM in 1987, AMMB undertook to provide advice, research and assistance to MSIM for the benefit of the Fund.  Every year AMMB submitted a report to MSIM which MSIM provided to the Fund’s board of directors in its evaluation for the renewal of the advisory and sub-advisory agreements.  The board evaluated and approved AMMB’s sub-adviser agreement based on representations from MSIM that AMMB was providing advisory services to the Fund.  AMMB did not actually provide those advisory services.  MSIM also prepared and filed the Fund’s annual and semi-annual reports to investors that inaccurately represented AMMB’s services. 

The SEC found that “MSIM failed its duty to provide the fund’s board members with the information they needed to fulfill their significant responsibility of reviewing and approving the sub-adviser’s contract.”  In addition, MSIM did not adopt and implement policies and procedures governing the advisory contract renewal process and its oversight of AMMB.

According to the SEC’s order, MSIM willfully violated Section 15(c) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act and Section 206(2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. 

The SEC ordered MSIM to pay the Fund $1.845 million as reimbursement of the advisory fees the Fund paid to AMMB from 1987 to 2008.  MSIM was also ordered to pay $1.5 million penalty fee.  MSIM agreed to pay over $3.3 million to settle the SEC’s charges. 

A full text of the SEC release and order are available here.

Published on:

By

Written by Jay Gould

On October 18, 2011, the SEC released a notice of FINRA’s filing of Proposed Rule 5123 (the “Proposed Rule”) which would require FINRA members and associated persons to: 1) provide to investors disclosure documents in connection with private placements prior to sale and 2) file with FINRA such disclosure documents within 15 days after the date of first sale and any subsequent amendments.  These proposed changes would significantly affect fund managers who offer or sell their funds that are exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act through third party marketers, nearly all of which are required to be registered as broker-dealers.

Pre-sale requirement to provide disclosure documents to investors

The Proposed Rule would require FINRA members and associated persons that offer or sell private placements or participate in the preparation of private placement memoranda (“PPM”), term sheets or other disclosure documents in connection with such private placements, to provide such disclosure documents to investors prior to sale.  The disclosure documents must describe the anticipated use of offering proceeds, the amount and type of offering expenses, and the amount and type of offering compensation.  Much of this information is currently captured in the Form D filing that most fund managers file with the SEC, but under the Proposed Rule, would go directly to investors in connection with the sale of fund interests.

As a practical matter, this likely means increased scrutiny of hedge fund and other private fund offerings by FINRA, as well as the likelihood that third party marketers that sell on behalf of hedge funds may request greater or more enhanced indemnification from fund managers in the placement agency agreement between the third party marketer and the fund manager.  Accordingly, fund managers who use third party marketers to market their funds must keep their fund documents updated, taking into account all changes to fund strategies, material performance issues (to the extent applicable), regulatory changes and management personnel changes, to name a few.      

Post-sale requirement to notice file with FINRA

The Proposed Rule would also require each FINRA member and associated person to notice file with FINRA by filing the PPM, term sheet or other disclosure documents no later than 15 days after the date of first sale.  In addition, any amendments to such disclosure documents or disclosures required by the Proposed Rule would have to be filed no later than 15 days after such documents are provided to any investor or prospective investor.  To the extent these documents are provided to investors, they would also be subject to the strict liability standard of Rule 206(4)-8 under the Investment Advisers Act to which all fund managers are already subject.  Accordingly, fund managers must be careful to keep all of their documents current under the materiality standards of state and Federal securities laws.

Offerings Exempted from the Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule would exempt several types of private placements including offerings sold only to any one or more of the following purchasers: 

  •  institutional accounts, as defined in NASD Rule 3110(c)(4);
  • qualified purchasers, as defined in Section 2(a)(51)(A) of the Investment Company Act;  (Accordingly, 3(c)(7) funds would be exempt from the Proposed Rule.)
  • qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • investment companies, as defined in Section 3 of the Investment Company Act;
  • an entity composed exclusively of qualified institutional buyers, as defined in Securities Act Rule 144A;
  • banks, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act; and
  • employees and affiliates of the issuer.

In addition, the Rule would exempt the following types of offerings:

  • offerings of exempted securities, as defined by Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act;
  • offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or SEC Regulation S;
  • offerings of exempt securities with short term maturities under Section 3(a)(3) of the Securities Act;
  • offerings of subordinated loans under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1, Appendix D;
  • offerings of “variable contracts” as defined in Rule 2320(b)(2);
  • offerings of modified guaranteed annuity contracts and modified guaranteed life insurance policies, as referenced in Rule 5110(b)(8)(E);
  • offerings of non-convertible debt or preferred securities by issuers that meet the eligibility criteria for incorporation by reference in Forms S-3 and F-3;
  • offerings of securities issued in conversions, stock splits and restructuring transactions that are executed by an already existing investor without the need for additional consideration or investments on the part of the investor;
  • offerings of securities of a commodity pool operated by a commodity pool operator as defined under Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act; and
  • offerings filed with FINRA under Rules 2310, 5110, 5121 and 5122.

Confidential treatment

Documents and information filed with FINRA pursuant to the Proposed Rule would be given confidential treatment.  FINRA would use such documents and information solely for the purpose of determining compliance with FINRA rules or other applicable regulatory purposes.  In addition, FINRA would afford confidential treatment to any comment or similar letters by FINRA and thus could not be discoverable by a litigant through a legal action.

A full text of the SEC Notice and Proposed Rule is available here.