SEC’s Atkins slams hedge fund rule again
Paul Atkins, a commissioner at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has renewed his criticism of the regulator’s hedge fund registration rule – due to go into effect in February 2006.
Opponents of mandatory registration have argued that operational costs associated with registration will be passed on to investors in the form of higher fees, with little benefit in terms of investor protection.
And, according to Atkins, the SEC simply doesn’t have the resources to enable it to complete the examinations associated with registration. He believes the SEC’s efforts are disproportionate, given the relatively small number of investors in hedge funds. “I believe there are fewer than 100,000 investors in hedge funds – compared with the more than 90 million mutual fund investors,” said Atkins.
But Atkins went on to urge pragmatism, saying hedge funds should embrace the rule as it is already in place. According to the SEC commissioner, examiners at the Office of Compliance Inspection and Examination (OC) will soon begin in-depth hedge fund training sessions, some of which will be led by the MFA.
Parties wary of the SEC’s ability to keep closer tabs on hedge funds will not have been comforted by a report written by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) last month. The report questions the regulator’s ability to adequately oversee the mutual fund industry. As part of its oversight efforts, the OC randomly selects a sample of what it deems to be high-risk funds, alongside a smaller number of low-risk funds for examination.
Given constraints on resources, the GAO questioned the SEC’s capacity to examine mutual funds considered low risk within a 10-year period and to accurately identify funds that pose a higher risk and effectively target them for routine examination. The GAO suggested the SEC may be able to avoid becoming overstretched next year by modifying the registration rule so fewer hedge funds need register, and by gaining an increase in funding from the US Congress.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
One year on, regulators still want a cure for bank runs
Broad support for higher outflow assumptions on uninsured deposits, but that won’t save insolvent banks
Watchlist and adverse media monitoring solutions 2024: market update and vendor landscape
This Chartis report updates Watchlist monitoring solutions 2022 and focuses on solutions for sanctions (name and transaction) screening and monitoring adverse media and its related elements
Basel Committee reviewing design of liquidity ratios
Focus on LCR and NSFR after Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse, but assumptions may not change
Risk, portfolio margin, regulation: regtech to the rescue
A white paper outlining the complexity of setting the course for risk, margin and regulation
Prop shops recoil from EU’s ‘ill-fitting’ capital regime
Large proprietary trading firms complain they are subject to hand-me-down rules originally designed for banks
Revealed: the three EU banks applying for IMA approval
BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo ask ECB to use internal models for FRTB
FCA presses UK non-banks to put their affairs in order
Greater scrutiny of wind-down plans by regulator could alter capital and liquidity requirements
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Most read
- Basel Committee reviewing design of liquidity ratios
- SG trader dismissals shine spotlight on intraday limit controls
- Too soon to say good riddance to banks’ public enemy number one