Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 211.
Amends section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to raise the private-fund adviser registration exemption threshold from $150,000,000 to $175,000,000 and requires the SEC to adjust that dollar amount every five years for CPI-U inflation, rounding to the nearest $1,000,000.
Left emphasizes investor protection and transparency concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change to the Investment Advisers Act by increasing a registration-exemption threshold and instituting periodic inflation adjustments.
Amends section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to raise the private-fund adviser registration exemption threshold from $150,000,000 to $175,000,000 and requires the SEC to adjust that dollar amount every five years for CPI-U inflation, rounding to the nearest $1,000,000.
Technically narrow and administrable, but deregulatory nature invites oversight objections and Senate friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change to the Investment Advisers Act by increasing a registration-exemption threshold and instituting periodic inflation adjustments. The statutory amendment is targeted and integrates directly with the cited provision, but it omits several implementation and edge-case details that would normally be included to reduce ambiguity in administration.
Left emphasizes investor protection and transparency concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes investor protection and transparency concerns
Likely skeptical because raising and indexing the exemption shrinks the universe of advisers subject to SEC registration and oversight.
Concern centers on reduced investor protections, transparency, and potential weaker enforcement of private fund practices.
Sees administrative logic in indexing the threshold to inflation to avoid stale dollar amounts, but worries about investor protection gaps.
Would weigh efficiency gains against specific disclosure and enforcement safeguards.
Likely supportive because the bill reduces regulatory burdens on smaller private-fund advisers and indexes the threshold to prevent inflation-driven scope creep.
Seen as pro-small-business and pro-deregulation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administrable, but deregulatory nature invites oversight objections and Senate friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes investor protection and transparency concerns
Technically narrow and administrable, but deregulatory nature invites oversight objections and Senate friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a narrow substantive change to the Investment Advisers Act by increasing a registration-exemption threshold and instituting periodic inflation ad…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.