Securities Law Blog

Since the boom of investment fraud uncovered during the financial crisis, lawmakers and state securities regulators are attempting to assume oversight of many investment advisers currently under the supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to the testimony given by Texas Securities Commissioner and the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) President Denise Voigt Crawford, “As the regulators closest to the investors, state securities regulators provide an indispensable layer of protection for Main Street investors.”

Crawford was one of many industry leaders to testify before the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) during its first round of hearings in January 2010. The FCIC is a 10-member bipartisan panel established to examine the cause of the financial crisis with the intention of producing a report offering recommendations to prevent a reoccurrence.

The financial regulation proposals in Congress could bring about 4,000 advisers who manage between $25 million and $100 million in assets under the supervision of state regulators, according to NASAA. Currently the SEC says it inspects from 9% to 12% of the 11,000 advisory firms it oversees. Allowing each state to oversee anywhere up to around 600 additional advisers, as would be the case in California, would lead to more frequent examinations. State regulators are in the process of generating a mutual agreement to cooperate with one another in policing additional advisers if the proposal passes.

“Our presence did not contribute to the crisis; rather, the fact that our regulatory and enforcement roles have been eroded was a significant factor in the severity of the financial meltdown,” testified Crawford.

Since the passage of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA), the responsibility of enforcement shifted from state to federal government. Now the states are fighting to get it back.

The NASAA President offered a series of recommendations to improve the ability of state regulators to pursue financial fraud. A few of these recommendations include: restoring state regulatory oversight of all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings; increasing state regulation of investment advisers; reexamining and removing the hurdles facing securities plaintiffs in private actions; and providing additional resources to uncover and prosecute securities fraud cases.