Here's a thread explaining background context of newly proposed @SECGov regs for VCs, for those who may not be familiar (or weren't in VC industry when current regs were created). Disclaimer: I'm no expert on precise details of any particular element/event I will describe.
1/2/ Prior to 2008 GFC, SEC focused mostly on "traditional" investment advisers we all think about: investment banks, mutual funds, private wealth advisers, etc.
A key driver of 2008 GFC, though, was the enormous increase in what was called the "shadow banking" system.
Apr 5, 2022 • 16 tweets • 4 min read
Just posted 6-tweet thread abt new proposed @SECGov rules affecting VCs (both ERAs + RIAs).
2/ First, esp. imp for ERAs to pay attn b/c many ERAs (wrongly!) assume that exempt from reg = exempt from oversight, inspection, or enforcement.
A subset of proposed rules apply equally to ERAs + RIAs.
In addn, some of these will override even terms in a specific fund LPA.
Apr 5, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
🧵ICYMI, @SECGov recently issued significant proposed new regs to cover US VC firms. Many cover only RIAs but some also cover ERAs (which is most VC's).
Here's a quick thread w/ a few summary takeaways:
1/2/ For RIAs only:
* increased transparency in reporting calculations for performance, fees, & expenses.
* mandatory audit of all funds
* independent fairness opinion for GP-led secondaries
* changes to Advisers Act compliance rule re: how SEC may conduct examinations
Mar 11, 2022 • 17 tweets • 3 min read
Quick explanation of the “denominator effect:” most institutional investors have a target % allocation to each asset class. Their actual exposure to those asset classes =
($ current value of assets held in an asset class)
divided by
($ current value of total portfolio)
1/n
If the value of the denominator falls faster than the value of the numerator, current actual % held in an asset class goes *UP*.
This may cause the % allocation to, say, VC to exceed the target % — not b/c value of VC assets fell, but b/c the value of other assets fell.
2/n