Skip to main content
MENU
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • LOGIN
  • Subscribe
  • Topics
    • Alternatives
    • Consultants
    • Coronavirus
    • Courts
    • Defined Contribution
    • ESG
    • ETFs
    • Face to Face
    • Hedge Funds
    • Industry Voices
    • Investing
    • Money Management
    • Opinion
    • Partner Content
    • Pension Funds
    • Private Equity
    • Real Estate
    • Russia-Ukraine War
    • SECURE 2.0
    • Special Reports
    • White Papers
  • Rankings & Awards
    • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
    • Top-Performing Managers
    • Largest Money Managers
    • DC Money Managers
    • DC Record Keepers
    • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
    • World's Largest Retirement Funds
    • Best Places to Work in Money Management
    • Excellence & Innovation Awards
    • WPS Innovation Awards
    • Eddy Awards
  • ETFs
    • Latest ETF News
    • Fund Screener
    • Education Center
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Commodities
    • Actively Managed
    • Alternatives
    • ESG Rated
  • ESG
    • Latest ESG News
    • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
    • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
    • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
    • Impact Investing
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • ESG Rated ETFs
  • Defined Contribution
    • Latest DC News
    • DC Money Manager Rankings
    • DC Record Keeper Rankings
    • Innovations in DC
    • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
  • Searches & Hires
    • Latest Searches & Hires News
    • Searches & Hires Database
    • RFPs
  • Performance Data
    • P&I Research Center
    • Earnings Tracker
    • Endowment Returns Tracker
    • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
    • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
    • Pension Risk Transfer Database
    • Future of Investments Research Series
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Polls
  • Careers
  • Events
    • View All Conferences
    • View All Webinars
    • 2023 Defined Contribution East
    • 2023 ESG Investing
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Print
May 12, 1997 01:00 AM

OTHERS' VIEWS: 'GRAMM & DODD' AND MONEY MANAGER OVERSIGHT

David Tittsworth
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    In a few days, the Securities and Exchange Commission could issue new regulations that will have profound consequences for the investment adviser industry and investors that use it. At the heart of the current debate is the appropriate regulatory role of the states in regulating large investment advisers that do business on a national, or even international, basis.

    If properly issued, the new regulations should help larger advisers and their institutional investor clients by decreasing the current costs, risks and burdens of dual and overlapping federal and state regulation. If not (or if the regulations are ignored by the states), advisers will continue to bear the costs and burdens of inefficient and duplicative regulation, as well as face decreased competitiveness, uncertainty and even litigation.

    On Oct. 11, President Clinton signed into law the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, which included the most sweeping changes in the law governing investment advisers since the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Title III of the law, the Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act, divides responsibility for investment advisers between federal and state governments. Subject to certain exceptions, the IASCA allocates primary regulatory authority over "larger" advisers (defined to be those that manage more than $25 million in client assets) to the SEC and authority over "smaller" advisers to the various state securities regulators.

    This basic scheme makes abundant sense. By allocating and coordinating regulatory responsibility between the SEC and the states, Congress clearly sought to mitigate the problems of duplicative and inconsistent adviser regulations. As the SEC has noted: "Congress concluded that if the overlapping regulatory responsibilities of the Commission and the states were divided by making the states primarily responsible for smaller advisory firms and the Commission primarily responsible for larger firms, the regulatory resources of the Commission and the states could be put to better, more efficient use."

    The IASCA proved to be the final - and ultimately the most contentious - piece of the 1996 securities law puzzle. Toward the end of the 1996 legislative session, the Senate and House appeared to be at an impasse in considering legislation dealing with investment advisers.

    Based on bipartisan efforts led by Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., - which were supported strongly by the Investment Counsel Association of America - the Senate earlier in the year had passed an advisers bill that pre-empted state registration, licensing and qualification laws for larger investment advisers. Sen. Gramm and his colleagues recognized everyone could win by coordinating efforts to regulate the investment adviser industry.

    For larger advisers operating in interstate commerce - and, increasingly, in international markets - it makes sense to make the SEC their primary regulator. By shedding responsibility for several thousand smaller advisers, the SEC will be able to concentrate its resources on a more limited universe, thereby increasing investor protection and regulatory efficiency. And for smaller advisers, it makes sense to make states their principal regulator. As SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. has noted, "The 1996 Act provides the states with the paramount role in overseeing the small investment advisers . . . where it's clear that they can do a more effective job." Again, investors will be the biggest winners from coordinating specific responsibilities between the SEC and the states.

    After the Senate passed its bill, it soon became apparent the situation on the other side of Capitol Hill was vastly different. The House had not passed any investment adviser bill and had resisted the notion of including any such legislation in the final conference report, in part because of opposition by state securities administrators. Thankfully, at the last minute, Sens. Gramm and Dodd proposed a compromise to the IASCA, which the House accepted. The final bill was enacted with overwhelming support.

    As enacted, the IASCA retains the broad federal pre-emption of state registration, licensing and qualification requirements for larger advisers the original Senate bill contained. But the compromise bill also added the following exception from federal pre-emption: "except that a State may license, register or otherwise qualify any investment adviser representative who has a place of business located within that State."

    The meaning of those 24 words is now the subject of an intense debate. The ICAA strongly believes they amount to a narrow and limited exception that allows states to register individuals of larger adviser firms based on uniquely local concerns - namely, where the adviser has an office in the state from which it does business and where a significant amount of the adviser's business consists of dealing with individual investors.

    Unfortunately, the SEC's proposed regulations expand this narrow exception to the point that the basic purpose of the new law could be undermined. Instead of using the new law's "place of business" test, the SEC essentially has proposed a "doing business" test, so any employee of a large adviser firm who regularly travels to another state to provide advisory services could be subjected to state registration, licensing and qualification requirements. The proposed regulations even go so far as stating that a place of business could include "a hotel room, temporarily rented office space, or even the home of a client, if the adviser representative regularly provides advisory services or solicits, meets with, or communicates to the client at that location."

    The ICAA believes this interpretation flies in the face of the normal meaning of "place of business" - i.e., an office or some other location from which the adviser provides advisory services, meets with, or communicates to clients. As Sen. Gramm noted recently, "When I think of place of business for an investment adviser representative, I certainly do not think of a restaurant, an automobile, an airport lobby or a phone booth, and I would consider it bizarre to think of an adviser's client as a place of business." If implemented, the proposal would negate the basic scheme envisioned under the IASCA, and actually could result in increased regulation and costs for larger advisers and their individual employees.

    The SEC has received more than 100 written comment letters on its proposal and will meet shortly to consider final regulations. The proposed "place of business" definition has come under fire from nearly all corners. SEC Commissioner Isaac Hunt noted in a speech in April that "with one exception . . . every commenter who addressed the issue opposed the Commission's proposal."

    The one exception to the maelstrom of opposition is the North American Securities Administrators Association, which essentially argues the federal government has no business telling the states how or whom they may regulate.

    The ICAA hopes the SEC, upon reflection, will faithfully implement the law as envisioned: to coordinate regulatory responsibility for advisers between the SEC and the states. For larger advisers, this would mean the SEC would have primary regulatory authority over their activities, except the firm also would have to register investment adviser representatives (those who deal extensively with retail clients) in states where the firm has an office.

    Even if the SEC properly implements the new law, a more serious threat might appear in the states. While it is too soon to predict the final outcome, some states already are considering legislation that directly contradicts provisions of the new law. These unfortunate actions apparently are being justified under the banner of states' rights. This type of confrontational approach, if pursued, could result in confusion, uncertainty and even litigation.

    A far better approach would be for all states to work with the SEC, the Congress and the investment adviser industry to fulfill the letter and spirit of the new law - i.e., to coordinate regulation of the adviser industry.

    Congress has taken a sensible step to ensure investor protection, increase regulatory efficiency and reduce overlapping and inconsistent regulation of large advisers. It would be highly unfortunate and counterproductive if states ignore such a common-sense approach and instead choose to go their separate ways.

    The ICAA stands ready to work with the SEC, the states and the adviser industry to achieve the goal of sensible, uniform and more efficient regulation. The new law, if implemented properly by the SEC and the states, is a long overdue step toward this commendable goal. nDavid Tittsworth is executive director of the Investment Counsel Association of America, which comprises more than 200 investment advisory companies that manage more than $1 trillion in total.

    Recommended for You
    Read the print edition of P&I
    Read the print edition of P&I
    Citadel's Ken Griffin gives $125 million to Chicago museum; name will change
    Citadel's Ken Griffin gives $125 million to Chicago museum; name will change
    Gender diversity is improving on FTSE 350 boards
    Gender diversity is improving on FTSE 350 boards
    The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing
    Sponsored Content: The Institutional Investor's Guide to ESG Investing

    Reader Poll

    January 25, 2023
    SEE MORE POLLS >
    Sponsored
    White Papers
    Show Me the Income: Discovering plan sponsor and participant preferences for cr…
    The Future of Infrastructure: Building a Better Tomorrow
    Fulcrum Issues: Equity Returns and Inflation — Choose Your Own Adventure
    What Matters Most in Considering a Private Debt Strategy
    Why pursue direct lending in the core middle market?
    Research for Institutional Money Management
    View More
    Sponsored Content
    Partner Content
    The Industrialization of ESG Investment
    For institutional investors, ETFs can make meeting liquidity needs easier
    Gold: the most effective commodity investment
    2021 Investment Outlook | Investing Beyond the Pandemic: A Reset for Portfolios
    Ten ways retirement plan professionals add value to plan sponsors
    Gold: an efficient hedge
    View More
    E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS

    Sign up and get the best of News delivered straight to your email inbox, free of charge. Choose your news – we will deliver.

    Subscribe Today
    December 12, 2022 page one

    Get access to the news, research and analysis of events affecting the retirement and institutional money management businesses from a worldwide network of reporters and editors.

    Subscribe
    Connect With Us
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

    Our Mission

    To consistently deliver news, research and analysis to the executives who manage the flow of funds in the institutional investment market.

    About Us

    Main Office
    685 Third Avenue
    Tenth Floor
    New York, NY 10017-4036

    Chicago Office
    130 E. Randolph St.
    Suite 3200
    Chicago, IL 60601

    Contact Us

    Careers at Crain

    About Pensions & Investments

     

    Advertising
    • Media Kit
    • P&I Content Solutions
    • P&I Careers | Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    Resources
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • FAQ
    • P&I Research Center
    • Site map
    • Staff Directory
    Legal
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Request
    Pensions & Investments
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Topics
      • Alternatives
      • Consultants
      • Coronavirus
      • Courts
      • Defined Contribution
      • ESG
      • ETFs
      • Face to Face
      • Hedge Funds
      • Industry Voices
      • Investing
      • Money Management
      • Opinion
      • Partner Content
      • Pension Funds
      • Private Equity
      • Real Estate
      • Russia-Ukraine War
      • SECURE 2.0
      • Special Reports
      • White Papers
    • Rankings & Awards
      • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
      • Top-Performing Managers
      • Largest Money Managers
      • DC Money Managers
      • DC Record Keepers
      • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
      • World's Largest Retirement Funds
      • Best Places to Work in Money Management
      • Excellence & Innovation Awards
      • WPS Innovation Awards
      • Eddy Awards
    • ETFs
      • Latest ETF News
      • Fund Screener
      • Education Center
      • Equities
      • Fixed Income
      • Commodities
      • Actively Managed
      • Alternatives
      • ESG Rated
    • ESG
      • Latest ESG News
      • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
      • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
      • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
      • Impact Investing
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • ESG Rated ETFs
    • Defined Contribution
      • Latest DC News
      • DC Money Manager Rankings
      • DC Record Keeper Rankings
      • Innovations in DC
      • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • Searches & Hires
      • Latest Searches & Hires News
      • Searches & Hires Database
      • RFPs
    • Performance Data
      • P&I Research Center
      • Earnings Tracker
      • Endowment Returns Tracker
      • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
      • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
      • Pension Risk Transfer Database
      • Future of Investments Research Series
      • Charts & Infographics
      • Polls
    • Careers
    • Events
      • View All Conferences
      • View All Webinars
      • 2023 Defined Contribution East
      • 2023 ESG Investing