To read this content please select one of the options below:

Hedge Funds: The aftermath of the SEC staff report

Jedd Wider (Partner, Private Investment Funds Group, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, USA; Jwider@Orrick.com)
Kevin Scanlan (Associate, Private Investment Funds Group, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, USA; Kscanlan@Orrick.com)

Journal of Investment Compliance

ISSN: 1528-5812

Article publication date: 1 January 2004

150

Abstract

On September 29, 2003, the staff (“Staff”) of the Division of Investment Management of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a report to the SEC entitled the “Implications of the Growth of Hedge Funds” (the “Report”). The Report recommends amending Rule 203(b)(3)‐1 of the Advisers Act to require a hedge fund manager to “look through” each existing client and count each of the hedge fund’s underlying beneficial owners as a “client” of the hedge fund manager for the purpose of determining whether an investment adviser has 15 or more clients and therefore must register under the U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Such a registration requirement effectively would increase the minimum investment requirement for a hedge fund. The Report does not necessarily support the argument that subjecting hedge funds to periodic examinations by the SEC will help in early detection of fraud and prevention of resulting investor losses. Despite the Staff’s intentions to identify distinctions between customary hedge fund vehicles and other types of investment funds, no clear hedge fund definition or standard was provided in the Report. As a result, there is a danger that the scope of new hedge fund regulations will be too broad

Keywords

Citation

Wider, J. and Scanlan, K. (2004), "Hedge Funds: The aftermath of the SEC staff report", Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 90-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/15285810310813329

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2004, MCB UP Limited

Related articles