Waters introduces bill to fund investment adviser examinations

Despite new push, user-fee idea failed in 2012 and has uphill battle again

Apr 19, 2013 @ 11:57 am

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., today introduced legislation that would allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to charge user fees to investment advisers to fund oversight of the industry.

The measure addresses widespread concern that each year, the agency examines only about 8% of the approximately 11,000 registered advisers. Ms. Waters said that the SEC needs a source of revenue dedicated to regulating advisers and the bill would authorize fees to fund examinations.

“This legislation answers a funding gap which has been largely responsible for the infrequency of investment adviser exams, and represents the simplest and most direct method for achieving the desired result: improved quality and quantity of these exams and another step toward restoration of public confidence in the markets,” Ms. Waters, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement.

Under the measure, the user fees would be set by the SEC based on the cost and frequency of inspections and an adviser's size and assets under management, types of clients and risk characteristics.

Ms. Waters introduced her user-fee bill last year, as well, but it died without a vote after strong resistance from investment advisers. Similarly, a bill that would establish one or more adviser self-regulatory organizations, sponsored by Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, also died in committee without receiving a vote.

The new chairman of the committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, has expressed no interest so far in an SRO bill. Richard G. Ketchum, chief executive of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., has indicated that Finra has pulled back from its lobbying effort to become the adviser SRO.

But now, with the re-introduction of her user-fee measure, Ms. Waters has breathed new life into the adviser-oversight debate on Capitol Hill.

“We're delighted that Ms. Waters continues her commitment to this issue,” said Neil Simon, vice president for government relations at the Investment Adviser Association. “We think [the user fee bill] offers the best hope for providing a stable source of funding for [the SEC] to examine advisers more frequently.”

But the bill faces an uphill climb in Congress. It will be difficult for Ms. Waters, who introduced the bill with Rep. John Delaney, D-Md., to generate Republican support in the House.

“There has been relatively little bipartisanship in the House Financial Services Committee,” Mr. Simon said. “I am hopeful that will change.”

He said the prospects are better for Republican backing in the Senate, if a similar bill is introduced in that chamber.

One of the selling points for Mr. Simon and other backers is that a user fee obviates the need for an additional congressional appropriation to the SEC.

“This is not and should not be viewed as a partisan issue,” Mr. Simon said. “I am cautiously optimistic that this legislation will advance in this Congress.”

The bill has the backing of a wide range of adviser advocacy organizations. In addition to IAA, they include the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. and the Financial Planning Coalition, which is made up of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.

“State securities regulators and the investment adviser industry agree that authorizing the SEC to collect user fees from the investment advisers it examines is the most effective and efficient way to provide for more robust oversight of federally registered advisers,” A. Heath Abshure, Arkansas securities commissioner and NASAA president, said in a statement.

In a 2011 SEC study, the agency indicated that it lacks the budget resources to adequately oversee advisers. It recommended three solutions: allow the agency to impose user fees on advisers, establish a self-regulatory organization for advisers or expand the reach of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., the broker regulator, to include investment advisers who are dually-registered as brokers.

In its budget request to Congress, released last week, the SEC is seeking a funding boost of more than $350 million, part of which would be dedicated to hiring 250 new investment adviser examiners.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

Apr 30


Retirement Income Summit

Join InvestmentNews at the 12th annual Retirement Income Summit - the industry's premier retirement planning conference.Much has changed - and much remains to be learned. Attend and discuss how the future is full of opportunity for ... Learn more

Featured video


Why some retirement plan advisers think Fidelity is invading their turf

InvestmentNews editor Frederick P. Gabriel Jr. and reporter Greg Iacurci talk about this week's cover story that looks at whether Fidelity Investments is stepping on the toes of retirement plan advisers.

Latest news & opinion

Speculation mounts on whether others will follow UBS' latest move to prevent brokers from leaving

UBS brokers must sign a 12-month non-solicit agreement if they want to get their 2017 bonuses.

8 apps advisers love for getting stuff done

Smartphone apps that advisers are using in 2018 to run their business more efficiently.

Galvin's DOL fiduciary rule enforcement triggers industry plea for court decision

Plaintiffs warned the Fifth Circuit that Massachusetts' move against Scottrade signaled that the partially implemented regulation can raise costs for financial firms.

Social Security underpaid 82% of dually entitled widows and widowers

Agency failed to tell survivors that they could switch to a higher retirement benefit later.

Is Fidelity competing with retirement plan advisers?

As the Boston-based mutual fund giant expands the products and services it brings to the retirement market, some financial advisers say the firm is encroaching on their turf.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print