Private-placement debate now public — and very ugly — feud

Fur still flying over SEC's delay in allow advertising for Reg D offerings and the like

Dec 10, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

By Dan Jamieson

One thing we can look forward to in the new year is continued vitriol over how the Securities and Exchange Commission is implementing (or not) the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, aka the JOBS Act. And that feuding may spark a lawsuit against the SEC.

The most heated issue is a proposal to allow issuers of private securities, e.g., hedge funds, to publicly advertise and solicit accredited investors, as mandated by the law. Tempers flared last August when SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro delayed the controversial rule change to allow for a public comment process on the proposal through Oct. 5.

The Wall Street journal stirred up that pot again this month when it reported that Ms. Schapiro delayed the rule due in part to concern about her “legacy” at the commission.

The story led to a nasty WSJ editorial last week claiming that Ms. Schapiro was taking orders from consumer advocate Barbara Roper, head of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America. Ms. Roper then shot back, calling the editorial “absurd.”

The mudslinging no doubt will continue, despite fairly widespread agreement that rules covering private placements were long due for an overhaul, including “advertising” rules that limit what hedge funds can say publicly.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., chairman of a House oversight subcommittee, last month urged Ms. Schapiro to get on with implementing the change before she leaves the agency this Friday, noting in a letter that the SEC has had nearly two months to consider comments. He added that soon-to-be SEC Chairman Elisse Walter recently voiced concerns about the rule change.

Meanwhile, stay tuned for a lawsuit when the SEC does act on the proposal.

Consumer groups said as much in their comment letters. “A rule adopted pursuant to this proposing release would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge,” Ms. Roper wrote then, citing a 2011 legal case that has been widely cited by industry interests to stop SEC rule makings based on lack of cost-benefit analysis.

The threat fits with the pattern of consumer groups' making louder noises about how they, too, can use the cost-benefit argument in stopping industry-favored rules. The SEC's proposal “makes a mockery of cost-benefit analysis,” Mercer Bullard, founder of Fund Democracy Inc., wrote in a comment letter that reads like a legal brief in waiting.

Oh yeah — can't wait.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Events

Are investors getting complacent?

Tom Florence, CEO of 361 Capital, discusses growing investor complacency and why he thinks overconfidence might be creeping into adviser and investor decision making.

Video Spotlight

Help Clients Be Prepared, Not Surprised

Sponsored by Prudential

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

Why private equity wants a piece of the RIA market

Several factors, including consolidation in the independent advice industry and PE's own growing mountain of cash, are fueling the zeal to invest.

Finra bars former UBS rep for private securities transactions

Regulator says Kenneth Tyrrell engaged in undisclosed trades worth $13 million.

Stripped of fat commissions, nontraded REIT sales tank

The "income, diversify and interest rate" pitch was never the main draw for brokers.

Morgan Stanley fires former Congressman Harold Ford for misconduct

Allegations against the wirehouse's former managing director include sexual harassment, which Ford denies.

Finra notes compliance pitfalls in first-time release of exam findings

Broker-dealer self-regulator summarizes deficiencies on areas including product suitability, cybersecurity

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print