January 29, 1997
TO: CLOSED-END INVESTMENT COMPANY COMMITTEE No. 2-97
INVESTMENT ADVISERS COMMITTEE No. 5-97
SEC RULES COMMITTEE No. 11-97
SMALL FUNDS COMMITTEE No. 2-97
UNIT INVESTMENT TRUST COMMITTEE No. 4-97
RE: SEC PROPOSES NEW DEFINITIONS OF ""SMALL BUSINESS"" IN
CONNECTION WITH RULEMAKING UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES
LAWS
______________________________________________________________________________
The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed for public comment
amendments to the definitions of "small business" and "small organization" that are used in
connection with Commission rulemaking under the federal securities laws, including the
Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisers Act. These definitions are used
specifically for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires the Commission to
consider the impact of its regulations on small entities. The Commission is proposing
amendments to these definitions to reflect recent changes in the law as well as changes in the
securities markets over the past decade. The proposed amendments with respect to the
Investment Company Act and the Advisers Act are summarized below and a copy of the
Commissions release is attached. Comments on the proposed amendments must be filed with
the Commission within thirty days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Investment Company Act
Rule 0-10 under the Investment Company Act currently defines "small business" or
"small organization" to include each investment company that has $50 million or less in assets
as of the end of its most recent fiscal year. Recognizing that a definition that focuses only on
the investment companys own assets may no longer be appropriate given that most
investment companies today are part of a "family of funds," the Commission has proposed to
amend Rule 0-10 to treat an investment company as a small entity only if it and other
investment companies in its related group (as proposed to be defined in the rule) have net
assets of $50 million or less in the aggregate.
With respect to this proposal, the Commission requests comment on the proposed
definition of a group of related funds, on the appropriateness of the $50 million threshold and
on whether the test should be based on something other than asset size. (See pp. 18-19 of the
attached release.)
Investment Advisers Act
Rule 0-7 under the Investment Advisers Act currently defines "small business" or "small
organization" to include each investment adviser that either (i) manages client assets with a
total value of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year, and performs no
other advisory services; or (ii) performs other advisory services, manages clients assets of $50
million or less if it manages client funds, and has assets related to its advisory business that do
not exceed $50,000. Because Congress did not intend affiliates of large businesses to receive
benefits under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 0-7
to deem an adviser to be "affiliated" with a large firm when the adviser controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with such firm. In addition, the amendments would simplify
Rule 0-7 by applying the $50,000 business asset test to all advisers, rather than solely to advisers
that render services other than or in addition to managing client assets.
In connection with the proposed amendments to Rule 0-7, the Commission requests
comment on whether the proposed treatment of advisers affiliated with large firms properly
focuses only on control affiliations, on the appropriateness of the thresholds of $50 million for
client assets and $50,000 for business assets and, in particular, on whether the $50 million
threshold should be reduced to $25 million in light of the recently-enacted legislation
transferring to states primary responsibility for regulating "small" advisers (i.e., advisers with
less than $25 million under management). (See pp. 22-23 of the attached release.)
Amy B.R. Lancellotta
Associate Counsel
Attachment (in .pdf format)
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union