A debate brews between the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the hedge fund industry about proposed changes to the current definition of accredited investor. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires this definition be reviewed every four years. The definition of an accredited investor has not changed since 1982, except for the 2010 exclusion of a potential investor’s primary residence from net worth calculation, which actually flows from passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, not an SEC review.

Fears are that smaller hedge funds, those with under $100 million in assets under management, will experience a disproportionately negative impact as compared to larger hedge funds. This fear is based on the fact that institutional investors tend to favor large hedge funds, while smaller funds are dependent on individual high net worth investors. As a result, any change that shrinks the pool of individual investors operates to the detriment of smaller funds.

What’s on the Table?

One of the more innovative changes being considered revolves around the concept of evaluating the potential investor’s level of financial sophistication. How this would be accomplished is not entirely clear. However, it has been suggested that holding a Chartered Financial Analyst’s credential or a FINRA Series 7 license could be a starting point for accreditation. This would shift the emphasis from income and net worth to a standard that relies on the investor’s financial sophistication.

Another approach having merit consists of establishing a percentage of assets or income that may be invested. In theory, this would not shrink the pool of investors, whereas raising the income and/or net worth thresholds would certainly have that effect.

The Poor Get Poorer and the Rich Get Richer

The current definition of an accredited investor slams the door of opportunity in the faces of all but the wealthiest among us. Existing policy smacks of elitism and is not fundamentally different from Jim Crow laws precluding those not owning land from voting.

To put this in perspective, less than 5 percent of U.S. households meet the current definition of an accredited investor, leaving more than 95 percent of potential investors unable to benefit from investing in hedge or private equity funds.

Equal Opportunity

The SEC is presented with a unique opportunity to expand and invigorate the economy and widen economic participation in the broader investment community by making prudent changes to the crucially important definition of the accredited investor.

With American individual net worth having dropped below that of Switzerland, Australia, Norway and Luxembourg, the time may be right for the SEC to remove its boot from the throat of the nation’s economy. Shouldn’t economic freedom be on a par with the freedom to exercise one’s right to vote, to enjoy equal employment opportunity, to receive equal pay for equal work, and to be free from discrimination because of physical disability, sexual orientation, race or creed? Is there a rational argument for discriminating against someone based on net worth or gross annual income? This act of discrimination affects a greater percentage of Americans than any of the aforementioned. Where is the ACLU on this point?



Every action has consequences. The CalPERS divestiture will have some unanticipated consequences as well. Here are a few.

Doors that May Have Closed

  • Two and twenty was already on the rails and headed out of town before the CalPERS announcement. One of the industry’s worst kept secrets is that most large pension funds and institutional investors are already receiving a sweeter deal than the over-publicized two and twenty fee structure.  None-the-less, media attention surrounding this redemption will serve to grease the rails.
  • CalPERS may have revealed its soft underbelly. As the largest public sector pension fund, it was viewed to have held some sway over smaller pension fund managers. However, recent events have demonstrated that CalPERS leadership role was exaggerated, as evidenced by the legion of ebullient public pension fund managers who have spoken out in support of their hedge fund investments. For example, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) has affirmed its intent to stand by the hedge fund investments it has made. This suggests that rather than having been a leader, CalPERS has just been sonorous.

Doors that May Have Opened

  • Public employee pension funds are highly political entities. The complexities of hedge fund investments are not well understood by rank and file public servants who rely on their pension fund for retirement income. However, they do understand is fees and pension fund managers have clearly demonstrated their understanding of the positive role hedge fund investments play in a comprehensive investment strategy. Politics and pensioners may incent fund managers to explore investments in smaller hedge funds with proven track records and more palatable fees. This bodes well for many of the smaller hedge funds.
  • Hedge funds, in the main, are very likely to benefit from this ‘dust-up”. Publicity. Even bad publicity can be good. Hedge funds, now liberated from the decades old general solicitation ban, may see an organic bloom of interest from the retail market. Why? Because the CalPERS split with hedge funds piqued a broader interest in the industry, which may help hedge funds with retail ambitions. Broadly, hedge funds will benefit from the in-depth explanations public pension funds have been compelled to offer in support of their decision to remain invested in hedge funds.

Hedge fund managers need to recognize the doors of opportunity are opening, post CalPERS, and cross those thresholds with alacrity. Managers of smaller hedge funds have a unique opportunity to enhance market share in the public pension sector and they would be ill-advised to pass it by.

Managers of large and small funds would be well-advised to capitalize on the free and favorable publicity proffered by the heads of public pension funds. Large numbers are disavowing CalPERS strategy of divestiture. The cases they have made in support of their positions in hedge funds can be folded into any hedge fund’s retail strategy. Couple this with the rather cogent rationale for hedge fund investment, as articulated by so many public pension fund investors, and you have a powerful marketing tool at your disposal … for free.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

CalPERS: Why All the Fuss?

September 28, 2014

Much has been made of California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (CalPERS) decision to redeem some $4 billion of its assets from hedge fund investments. However, less is made of the fact that CalPERS manages some $300 billion in funds. This means that CalPERS had slightly more than 1% of its assets under management invested in [...]

read more…

Discount Hedge Funds – Is This the Wave of the Future?

September 14, 2014

Even ardent defenders of hedge fund fee structures must acknowledge the impact a marketplace open to retail investors may have on the status quo. Is the hedge fund 2 and 20 rule going the way of the banking industry’s 3-6-3 rule? Disruption It is no revelation that 2 and 20 has been under assault for [...]

read more…

Argentina – Victim or Victimizer

August 31, 2014

The retail credit universe is dominated by the FICO score. A consumer with a low FICO score will pay higher interest rates or suffer rejected credit requests. Similarly, a nation’s borrowing power is governed by scores from rating agencies. Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s, and Fitch are major players. High ratings make it possible for governments [...]

read more…

First: Do No Harm

August 17, 2014

There are equivalencies that can be drawn between the physician’s Hippocratic Oath to patients, and the hedge fund’s primary responsibility to its clientele. Just as the physician pledges to do no harm, the hedge fund manager has a similar charge with respect to preserving the investor’s capital. Don’t lose any principal! Of course, along with [...]

read more…

Imitation: The Most Sincere Form of Flattery

July 28, 2014

Most following the hedge fund industry are acutely aware that globally, hedge funds have more than $2.2 trillion in assets under management (AUM). This is a staggering sum by any measure and it continues to grow quarter over quarter. However, mutual funds remain the single largest draw for investor dollars, with $30 trillion in AUM [...]

read more…

Regulators Shift Enforcement Focus to Hedge Fund Marketing Practices

July 16, 2014

The removal of restrictions on general solicitation, a consequence of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, has created new opportunities for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to probe the depth of hedge fund pockets. The National Examination Program, part of the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspection and Examinations, has made it clear [...]

read more…

Insider Trading—A Regulatory Minefield

June 30, 2014

If the Internal Revenue Service is the governmental agency most feared by Americans in general, then the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the agency most feared by Wall Street, in general, and by hedge funds in particular. Illegal insider trading has been the SEC investigators’ priority target for decades and with the 2011 [...]

read more…

A Pen, a Telephone, and the SEC?

June 16, 2014

Hardly a day passes without news of one financial scandal or another in the financial services industry, particularly hedge funds, with SAC Capital Advisors, LLC being one of the higher profile examples. Colossal Fines The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has posted a list of cases on its website detailing the results of its efforts. [...]

read more…