
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10358-10368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4046]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 275

[Release No. IA-3372; File No. S7-17-11]
RIN 3235-AK71


Investment Adviser Performance Compensation

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or 
``SEC'') is adopting amendments to the rule under the Investment 
Advisers Act of 1940 that permits investment advisers to charge 
performance based compensation to ``qualified clients.'' The amendments

[[Page 10359]]

revise the dollar amount thresholds of the rule's tests that are used 
to determine whether an individual or company is a qualified client. 
These rule amendments codify revisions that the Commission recently 
issued by order that adjust the dollar amount thresholds to account for 
the effects of inflation. In addition, the rule amendments: provide 
that the Commission will issue an order every five years in the future 
adjusting the dollar amount thresholds for inflation; exclude the value 
of a person's primary residence and certain associated debt from the 
test of whether a person has sufficient net worth to be considered a 
qualified client; and add certain transition provisions to the rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments are effective on May 22, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel K. Chang, Senior Counsel, or C. 
Hunter Jones, Assistant Director, at 202-551-6792, Office of Regulatory 
Policy, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is adopting amendments to 
rule 205-3 [17 CFR 275.205-3] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 
(``Advisers Act'' or ``Act'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80b. Unless otherwise noted, all references to 
statutory sections are to the Investment Advisers Act, and all 
references to rules under the Advisers Act, including rule 205-3, 
are to Title 17, Part 275 of the Code of Federal Regulations [17 CFR 
part 275].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Discussion
    A. Inflation Adjustment of Dollar Amount Thresholds
    B. Exclusion of the Value of Primary Residence From Net Worth 
Determination
    C. Transition Provisions
    D. Effective Date
III. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    A. Benefits
    B. Costs
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VI. Statutory Authority
Text of Rules

I. Introduction

    Section 205(a)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act generally 
restricts an investment adviser from entering into, extending, 
renewing, or performing any investment advisory contract that provides 
for compensation to the adviser based on a share of capital gains on, 
or capital appreciation of, the funds of a client.\2\ Congress 
restricted these compensation arrangements (also known as performance 
compensation or performance fees) in 1940 to protect advisory clients 
from arrangements it believed might encourage advisers to take undue 
risks with client funds to increase advisory fees.\3\ Congress 
subsequently authorized the Commission to exempt any advisory contract 
from the performance fee restrictions if the contract is with persons 
that the Commission determines do not need the protections of those 
restrictions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80b-5(a)(1).
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 2639, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 29 (1940). 
Performance fees were characterized as ``heads I win, tails you 
lose'' arrangements in which the adviser had everything to gain if 
successful and little, if anything, to lose if not. S. Rep No. 1775, 
76th Cong., 3d Sess. 22 (1940).
    \4\ Section 205(3) of the Advisers Act. Section 205(e) of the 
Advisers Act authorizes the Commission to exempt conditionally or 
unconditionally from the performance fee prohibition advisory 
contracts with persons that the Commission determines do not need 
its protections. Section 205(e) provides that the Commission may 
determine that persons do not need the protections of section 
205(a)(1) on the basis of such factors as ``financial 
sophistication, net worth, knowledge of an experience in financial 
matters, amount of assets under management, relationship with a 
registered investment adviser, and such other factors as the 
Commission determines are consistent with [section 205].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted rule 205-3 in 1985 to exempt an investment 
adviser from the restrictions against charging a client performance 
fees in certain circumstances.\5\ The rule, when adopted, allowed an 
adviser to charge performance fees if the client had at least $500,000 
under management with the adviser immediately after entering into the 
advisory contract (``assets-under-management test'') or if the adviser 
reasonably believed the client had a net worth of more than $1 million 
at the time the contract was entered into (``net worth test''). The 
Commission stated that these standards would limit the availability of 
the exemption to clients who are financially experienced and able to 
bear the risks of performance fee arrangements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Exemption To Allow Registered Investment Advisers to Charge 
Fees Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon or Capital 
Appreciation of a Client's Account, Investment Advisers Act Release 
No. 996 (Nov. 14, 1985) [50 FR 48556 (Nov. 26, 1985)] (``1985 
Adopting Release''). The exemption applies to the entrance into, 
performance, renewal, and extension of advisory contracts. See rule 
205-3(a).
    \6\ See 1985 Adopting Release, supra note 5, at Sections I.C and 
II.B. The rule also imposed other conditions, including specific 
disclosure requirements and restrictions on calculation of 
performance fees. See id. at Sections II.C-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, the Commission amended rule 205-3 to, among other things, 
change the dollar amounts of the assets-under-management test and net 
worth test to adjust for the effects of inflation since 1985.\7\ The 
Commission revised the former from $500,000 to $750,000, and the latter 
from $1 million to $1.5 million.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exemption To Allow Investment Advisers To Charge Fees 
Based Upon a Share of Capital Gains Upon or Capital Appreciation of 
a Client's Account, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1731 (July 
15, 1998) [63 FR 39022 (July 21, 1998)] (``1998 Adopting Release'').
    \8\ See id. at Section II.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') \9\ amended section 205(e) of the Advisers Act to 
require that the Commission adjust for inflation the dollar amount 
thresholds in rules under the section, rounded to the nearest 
$100,000.\10\ Separately, the Dodd-Frank Act also required that we 
adjust the net worth standard for an ``accredited investor'' in rules 
under the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act''),\11\ such as 
Regulation D,\12\ to exclude the value of a person's primary 
residence.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \10\ See section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act (requiring the 
Commission to issue an order every five years revising dollar amount 
thresholds in a rule that exempts a person or transaction from 
section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act if the dollar amount threshold 
was a factor in the Commission's determination that the persons do 
not need the protections of that section).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 77a-77z-3.
    \12\ See 17 CFR 230.501-.508.
    \13\ See section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2011, the Commission published a notice of intent to issue 
an order revising the dollar amount thresholds of the assets-under-
management and the net worth tests of rule 205-3 to account for the 
effects of inflation.\14\ Our release (``Proposing Release'') also 
proposed to amend the rule itself to reflect any inflation adjustments 
to the dollar amount thresholds that we might issue by order.\15\ In 
addition, our proposed amendments (i) stated that the Commission would 
issue an order every five years adjusting for inflation the dollar 
amount thresholds, (ii) excluded the value of a person's primary 
residence from the test of whether a person has sufficient net worth to 
be considered a ``qualified client,'' and (iii) modified certain 
transition provisions of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Investment Adviser Performance Compensation, Investment 
Advisers Act Release No. 3198 (May 10, 2011) [76 FR 27959 (May 13, 
2011)] (``Proposing Release''). Rule 205-3 is the only exemptive 
rule issued under section 205(e) of the Advisers Act that includes 
dollar amount tests, which are the assets-under-management and net 
worth tests. See supra text accompanying note 10.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 12, 2011, we issued an order revising the threshold of the 
assets-under-management test to $1 million,

[[Page 10360]]

and of the net worth test to $2 million.\16\ We received approximately 
50 comments on our proposed rule amendments.\17\ Today we are adopting 
amendments to rule 205-3 largely as we proposed them, with 
modifications to address issues raised by commenters, as discussed 
further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Order Approving Adjustment for Inflation of the Dollar 
Amount Tests in Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 
1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3236 (July 12, 2011) [76 
FR 41838 (July 15, 2011)] (``Order''). The Order is effective as of 
September 19, 2011. Id. The order applies to contractual 
relationships entered into on or after the effective date, and does 
not apply retroactively to contractual relationships previously in 
existence.
    \17\ The comment letters we received on the Proposing Release 
are available on our Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-17-11/s71711.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Inflation Adjustment of Dollar Amount Thresholds

    We are amending rule 205-3 in three ways to carry out the required 
inflation adjustment of the dollar amount thresholds of the rule. 
First, we are revising the dollar amount thresholds that currently 
apply to investment advisers, to codify the order we issued on July 12, 
2011. As amended, paragraph (d) of rule 205-3 provides that the assets-
under-management threshold is $1 million and that the net worth 
threshold is $2 million, which are the revised amounts we issued by 
order.\18\ Although some commenters objected to raising these dollar 
amount thresholds,\19\ section 205(e) of the Advisers Act requires that 
we adjust the amounts for inflation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The calculation used to determine the revised dollar 
amounts in the tests is described below. See infra note 25. As we 
noted in the Proposing Release, an investment adviser can include in 
determining the amount of assets under management the assets that a 
client is contractually obligated to invest in private funds managed 
by the adviser. Only bona fide contractual commitments may be 
included, i.e., those that the adviser has a reasonable belief that 
the investor will be able to meet. See Proposing Release, supra note 
15, at n.17.
    \19\ Some commenters maintained, for example, that raising the 
dollar amount thresholds would limit the investment options for 
those investors that fall below the new thresholds, and would harm 
smaller funds that rely on investments from investors with more 
limited resources to operate. See, e.g., Comment Letter of Crescat 
Portfolio Management LLC (May 11, 2011) (``Crescat Portfolio Comment 
Letter''); Comment Letter of Hyonmyong Cho (June 8, 2011) (``H. Cho 
Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of Harold Clyde (June 4, 2011) 
(``H. Clyde Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of Douglas Estadt 
(June 7, 2011) (``D. Estadt Comment Letter''). Other commenters 
supported raising the dollar amount thresholds, noting that this 
change would ensure that the ``qualified client'' standard is 
limited to clients who are financially experienced and able to bear 
the risks of performance fee arrangements. See, e.g., Comment Letter 
of Better Markets, Inc. (July 11, 2011) (``Better Markets Comment 
Letter''); Comment Letter of Certified Financial Planner Board of 
Standards, Inc. (July 11, 2011) (``CFP Board Comment Letter''); 
Comment Letter of Managed Funds Association (July 8, 2011) (``MFA 
Comment Letter''); Comment Letter of North American Securities 
Administrators Association, Inc. (July 11, 2011) (``NASAA Comment 
Letter'').
    \20\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are adding to rule 205-3, as proposed, a new paragraph 
(e) that states that the Commission will issue an order every five 
years adjusting for inflation the dollar amount thresholds of the 
assets-under-management and net worth tests of the rule.\21\ These 
periodic adjustments are required by the Advisers Act,\22\ and most 
commenters supported this amendment to the rule.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rule 205-3(e) provides that the Commission will issue an 
order on or about May 1, 2016 and approximately every five years 
thereafter adjusting the assets-under-management and net worth tests 
for the effects of inflation. These adjusted amounts will apply to 
contractual relationships entered into on or after the effective 
date of the order, and will not apply retroactively to contractual 
relationships previously in existence. See supra note 16. The 
proposed rule would have stated that the Commission's order would be 
effective on or about May 1. We have deleted the word ``effective'' 
in the final rule to reflect the fact that the effective date will 
likely be later than May 1. See Order, supra note 16 (setting 
effective date of the order approximately 60 days after the order's 
issuance).
    \22\ See supra note 10.
    \23\ See Comment Letter of Chris Barnard (May 31, 2011) (``C. 
Barnard Comment Letter''); Better Markets Comment Letter; CFP Board 
Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Investment Adviser Association 
(July 11, 2011) (``IAA Comment Letter''); MFA Comment Letter. One 
commenter stated that the dollar amount tests should be reevaluated 
more frequently. See NASAA Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amended rule 205-3(e) also specifies the price index on which 
future inflation adjustments will be based.\24\ The index is the 
Personal Consumption Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (``PCE 
Index''),\25\ which is published by the Department of Commerce.\26\ The 
dollar amount tests we adopted in 1998 will be the baseline for future 
calculations.\27\ As we noted in the Proposing Release, the use of the 
PCE Index is appropriate because it is an indicator of inflation in the 
personal sector of the U.S. economy \28\ and is used in other 
provisions of the federal securities laws.\29\ Commenters agreed that 
the PCE Index is an appropriate indicator of inflation \30\ and that 
the 1998 dollar amounts are the proper baseline for future inflation 
adjustments.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See rule 205-3(e)(1).
    \25\ The revised dollar amounts in the tests reflect inflation 
as of the end of 2010, and are rounded to the nearest $100,000 as 
required by section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The 2010 PCE Index is 
111.112, and the 1997 PCE Index is 85.433. These values are slightly 
different from those provided in the Proposing Release because of 
periodic adjustments issued by the Department of Commerce. See 
Proposing Release, supra note 15, at n.19; see also infra note 26. 
Assets-under-management test calculation to adjust for the effects 
of inflation: 111.112/85.433 x $750,000 = $975,431; $975,431 rounded 
to the nearest multiple of $100,000 = $1 million. Net worth test 
calculation to adjust for the effects of inflation: 111.112/85.433 x 
$1.5 million = $1,950,862; $1,950,862 rounded to the nearest 
multiple of $100,000 = $2 million.
    \26\ The values of the PCE Index are available from the Bureau 
of Economic Analysis, a bureau of the Department of Commerce. See 
http://www.bea.gov. See also http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=64&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1997&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid.
    \27\ Rule 205-3(e) provides that the assets-under-management and 
net worth tests will be adjusted for inflation by (i) dividing the 
year-end value of the PCE Index for the calendar year preceding the 
calendar year in which the order is being issued, by the year-end 
value of the PCE Index for the calendar year 1997, (ii) multiplying 
the threshold amounts adopted in 1998 ($750,000 and $1.5 million) by 
that quotient, and (iii) rounding each product to the nearest 
multiple of $100,000. For example, for the order the Commission 
would issue in 2016, the Commission would (i) divide the year-end 
2015 PCE Index by the year-end 1997 PCE Index, (ii) multiply the 
quotient by $750,000 and $1.5 million, and (iii) round each of the 
two products to the nearest $100,000.
    \28\ See Clinton P. McCully, Brian C. Moyer, and Kenneth J. 
Stewart, ``Comparing the Consumer Price Index and the Personal 
Consumption Expenditures Price Index,'' Survey of Current Business 
(Nov. 2007) at 26 n.1 (available at http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/11%20november/1107_cpipce.pdf) (PCE Index measures changes in 
``prices paid for goods and services by the personal sector in the 
U.S. national income and product accounts'' and is primarily used 
for macroeconomic analysis and forecasting). See also Federal 
Reserve Board, Monetary Policy Report to the Congress (Feb. 17, 
2000) at n.1 (available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2000/february/ReportSection1.htm#FN1) (noting the reasons for 
using the PCE Index rather than the consumer price index).
    \29\ See Proposing Release, supra note 15, at n.22 and 
accompanying text.
    \30\ See Better Markets Comment Letter; IAA Comment Letter; 
Comment Letter of Georg Merkl (July 11, 2011) (``G. Merkl Comment 
Letter''). Although two commenters asserted that inflation is not 
the proper unit of measure by which to adjust net worth 
requirements, see Comment Letter of David Hale (May 20, 2011) and 
Comment Letter of Joseph V. Delaney (undated) (``J. Delaney Comment 
Letter''), section 205(e) of the Advisers Act requires that we 
adjust the dollar amount thresholds of rule 205-3 for inflation.
    \31\ See C. Barnard Comment Letter; G. Merkl Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exclusion of the Value of Primary Residence From Net Worth 
Determination

    We also are amending the net worth test in the definition of 
``qualified client'' in rule 205-3 to exclude the value of a natural 
person's primary residence and certain debt secured by the 
property.\32\ This change, although not required by the Dodd-Frank Act, 
is similar to the change that Act requires the Commission to make to 
rules under

[[Page 10361]]

the Securities Act, such as Regulation D.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A).
    \33\ See section 413(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (requiring the 
Commission to adjust any net worth standard for an ``accredited 
investor'' as set forth in Commission rules under the Securities Act 
to exclude the value of a natural person's primary residence). The 
Dodd-Frank Act does not require that the net worth standard for an 
accredited investor be adjusted periodically for the effects of 
inflation, although it does require the Commission at least every 
four years to ``undertake a review of the definition, in its 
entirety, of the term `accredited investor' * * * [as defined in 
Commission rules] as such term applies to natural persons, to 
determine whether the requirements of the definition should be 
adjusted or modified for the protection of investors, in the public 
interest, and in light of the economy.'' See section 413(b)(2)(A) of 
the Dodd-Frank Act. In January 2011, we proposed rule amendments to 
adjust the net worth standards for accredited investors in our rules 
under the Securities Act. See Net Worth Standard for Accredited 
Investors, Securities Act Release No. 9177 (Jan. 25, 2011) [76 FR 
5307 (Jan. 31, 2011)] (``Accredited Investor Proposing Release''). 
We recently adopted those amendments substantially as proposed. See 
Net Worth Standard for Accredited Investors, Securities Act Release 
No. 9287 (Dec. 21, 2011) [76 FR 81793 (Dec. 29, 2011)] (``Accredited 
Investor Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to exclude the value of a person's primary residence 
and the debt secured by the residence, up to the fair market value of 
the residence, from the calculation of a person's net worth.\34\ A 
number of commenters supported the proposed exclusion.\35\ Many agreed 
with our statement in the Proposing Release that the value of an 
individual's residence may have little relevance to the person's 
financial experience and ability to bear the risks of performance fee 
arrangements.\36\ The Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards 
noted in its comment letter that the value of an individual's equity in 
a residence is more likely to be a function of the length of time that 
the investor has owned the home, than to be a function of the 
investor's experience or sophistication. Commenters also stated that 
excluding the value of the residence would promote regulatory 
consistency because it parallels the treatment of a person's primary 
residence in determinations of net worth under other securities 
rules.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Proposing Release, supra note 15, at n.28 and 
accompanying text.
    \35\ See, e.g., C. Barnard Comment Letter; CFP Board Comment 
Letter; MFA Comment Letter; NASAA Comment Letter.
    \36\ See, e.g., C. Barnard Comment Letter; CFP Board Comment 
Letter; NASAA Comment Letter.
    \37\ See, e.g., Better Markets Comment Letter; CFP Board Comment 
Letter; NASAA Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters objected to the exclusion of the value of a 
person's primary residence from the calculation of net worth. 
Commenters expressed concern that the exclusion would limit the 
investment options of less wealthy investors and restrict their access 
to advisory arrangements that include performance fees.\38\ Some argued 
that excluding the value of a residence would harm advisers to smaller 
funds that rely on investments from less wealthy investors.\39\ Others 
argued that home ownership, compared to home rental, may in fact 
evidence greater rather than less financial experience on the part of 
individuals.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Matthew Gee (June 14, 2011); 
Comment Letter of Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin 
Hachigan LLP (July 8, 2011) (``Gunderson Dettmer Comment Letter''); 
Comment Letter of Alvin Suvil (July 17, 2011) (``A. Suvil Comment 
Letter'').
    \39\ See, e.g., Comment Letter of Roger Alsop (June 16, 2011) 
(``R. Alsop Comment Letter''); J. Delaney Comment Letter; Comment 
Letter of Molly Huntsman (June 23, 2011) (``M. Huntsman Comment 
Letter''); Comment Letter of Greg Thornton (June 2, 2011); Comment 
Letter of Greg J. Wimmer (June 3, 2011).
    \40\ See M. Gee Comment Letter; Comment Letter of Douglas Wood 
(June 13, 2011) (``D. Wood Comment Letter''). Some commenters 
appeared to object to excluding residence from net worth on public 
policy grounds because the exclusion would discourage home 
ownership. See, e.g., Comment Letter of Ron Cuningham (June 25, 
2011) (``R. Cuningham Comment Letter''); D. Wood Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that the value of a person's residence 
generally has little relevance to the individual's financial experience 
and ability to bear the risks of performance fee arrangements, and 
therefore little relevance to the individual's need for the Act's 
protections from performance fee arrangements.\41\ Although the process 
of purchasing and financing a home can contribute to an individual's 
financial experience, the value of the individual's equity interest in 
the residence reflects the prevailing market values at the time and can 
be a function of time in paying down the associated debt rather than a 
function of deliberate investment decision-making. In addition, because 
of the generally illiquid nature of residential assets, the value of an 
individual's home equity may not help the investor to bear the risks of 
loss that are inherent in performance fee arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ For example, an individual who meets the net worth test 
only by including the value of his primary residence in the 
calculation is unlikely to be as able to bear the risks of 
performance fee arrangements as an individual who meets the test 
without including the value of her primary residence. We stated in 
2006, when we proposed a minimum net worth threshold for 
establishing when an individual could invest in hedge funds pursuant 
to the safe harbor of Regulation D, that the value of an 
individual's personal residence may bear little or no relationship 
to that person's knowledge and financial sophistication. See 
Prohibition of Fraud by Advisers to Certain Pooled Investment 
Vehicles; Accredited Investors in Certain Private Investment 
Vehicles, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2576 (Dec. 27, 2006) 
[72 FR 400 (Jan. 4, 2007)] at Section III.B.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our exclusion of the value of a person's primary residence from the 
net worth calculation under the rule is similar to the approach that 
the Commission has taken in other rules to determine the financial 
qualifications of investors. For example, the Commission excluded the 
value of a person's primary residence and associated liabilities from 
the determination of whether a person is a ``high net worth customer'' 
in Regulation R under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\42\ The 
Commission also excluded the value of a residence from the 
determination of whether an individual has sufficient investments to be 
considered a ``qualified purchaser'' under the Investment Company Act 
of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') who can invest in certain private 
funds that are not registered under that Act.\43\ As discussed above, 
this approach is also reflected in the Commission's recent amendments 
to the definition of ``accredited investor'' in rules under the 
Securities Act, including Regulation D, as required by the Dodd-Frank 
Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., Definition of Terms and Exemptions Relating to 
the ``Broker'' Exceptions for Banks, Securities Exchange Act Release 
No. 56501 (Sept. 24, 2007) [72 FR 56514 (Oct. 3, 2007)] at Section 
II.C.1 (excluding primary residence and associated liabilities from 
the fixed-dollar threshold for ``high net worth customers'' under 
Rule 701 of Regulation R, which permits a bank to pay an employee 
certain fees for the referral of a high net worth customer or 
institutional customer to a broker-dealer without requiring 
registration of the bank as a broker-dealer).
    \43\ Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act provides an 
exclusion from the definition of ``investment company'' for any 
``issuer, the outstanding securities of which are owned exclusively 
by persons who, at the time of acquisition of such securities, are 
qualified purchasers, and which is not making and does not at that 
time propose to make a public offering of such securities.'' A 
``qualified purchaser'' under section 2(a)(51) of the Investment 
Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(51)] includes, among others, any 
natural person who owns not less than $5 million in investments, as 
defined by the Commission. Rule 2a51-1 under the Investment Company 
Act includes within the meaning of ``investments'' real estate held 
for investment purposes. 17 CFR 270.2a51-1(b)(2). A personal 
residence is not considered an investment under rule 2a51-1, 
although residential property may be treated as an investment if it 
is not treated as a residence for tax purposes. See Privately 
Offered Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 
22597 (Apr. 3, 1997) [62 FR 17512 (Apr. 9, 1997)] at text 
accompanying and following n.48.
    \44\ See supra note 33 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters voiced particular concern about the exclusion of 
the residential value at the same time that we adjust the dollar amount 
thresholds for inflation, and argued that the two changes together 
could cause too much change at one time.\45\ We note that we revised 
the dollar amount threshold of the net worth test last July and that 
the

[[Page 10362]]

revision was effective in September. Our current amendment of the net 
worth test to exclude the value of a residence, which will be effective 
in May 2012, will be effective approximately eight months after the 
previous change to the net worth test. Any further revisions of the 
dollar amount thresholds of rule 205-3 to adjust for inflation are not 
scheduled to occur until 2016.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., R. Alsop Comment Letter; R. Cuningham Comment 
Letter; M. Huntsman Comment Letter; A. Suvil Comment Letter.
    \46\ See rule 205-3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the commenters who disagreed with the proposal to raise the 
dollar amount threshold of the net worth standard or to exclude the 
value of a residence from net worth, also disagreed that a person's net 
worth should be used as a measure of eligibility for the exemption from 
the performance fee restrictions.\47\ These commenters did not 
recommend an alternative standard that is objective and verifiable, and 
that would effectively distinguish between those investors who do, and 
those who do not, need the protections of the Act's performance fee 
restrictions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., J. Delaney Comment Letter; Comment Letter of 
David Hale (May 20, 2011); Comment Letter of Tom Irvin (May 18, 
2011).
    \48\ One commenter suggested that a ``qualified client'' include 
an individual with a bachelor's degree in a finance-related major or 
a master's degree in any area from an accredited U.S. university. 
See Comment Letter of Troy Clark (June 23, 2011). Although the 
suggested finance-related major requirement would help to determine 
whether an individual is financially knowledgeable, the suggested 
master's degree requirement would not, and neither requirement would 
establish whether an investor has sufficient practical experience in 
making investment decisions or is capable of bearing the risks of 
loss associated with performance fee arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our amendment of the net worth standard of rule 205-3 differs from 
the proposed amendment in one respect. The approach we are adopting 
today will generally require any increase in the amount of debt secured 
by the primary residence in the 60 days before the advisory contract is 
entered into to be included as a liability. As discussed below, this 
change will prevent debt that is incurred shortly before entry into an 
advisory contract from being excluded from the calculation of net worth 
merely because it is secured by the individual's home.
    As proposed, the amended rule would have excluded the value of a 
person's primary residence and the amount of all debt secured by the 
property that is no greater than the property's current market 
value.\49\ The proposed treatment of debt secured by the primary 
residence was the same as we proposed for the calculation of net worth 
for accredited investors in our rules under the Securities Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Proposed rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A).
    \50\ See Accredited Investor Proposing Release, supra note 33, 
at text preceding n.28. One commenter recommended that all debt 
secured by the residence (not just debt up to the fair market value 
of the residence) be excluded from the net worth calculation. See G. 
Merkl Comment Letter. The commenter argued that excluding the debt 
secured by the residence up to the fair market value of the 
residence would require an investor to obtain a valuation of the 
residence from a real estate agent, which would be burdensome and 
costly. We note that the rule requires an estimate of the fair 
market value, but does not require a third party opinion on 
valuation for the primary residence. Furthermore, many online 
services provide residence valuations at no charge. In addition, if 
the amount of mortgage debt exceeds the value of the primary 
residence, excluding the entire debt would result in a higher net 
worth than under a conventional calculation that takes into account 
all assets and all liabilities. The commenter also acknowledged 
that, although he disagreed with the net worth test as a measure of 
financial sophistication, for purposes of calculating residence-
related indebtedness a ``close proximity between the time of taking 
on new debt and entering into the advisory contract could work.'' 
Cf. rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A)(2) (requiring that all residence-related 
indebtedness incurred within 60 days before the advisory contract is 
entered into, other than as a result of the acquisition of the 
primary residence, be subtracted from a client's net worth for 
purposes of determining whether the client is a ``qualified 
client'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on whether the 
amendments to the rule should contain a timing provision to prevent 
investors from inflating their net worth by borrowing against their 
homes, effectively converting their home equity--which is excluded from 
the net worth calculation under the amendments adopted today--into cash 
or other assets that would be included in the net worth 
calculation.\51\ In particular, we indicated that the amendments could 
provide that the net worth calculation must be made as of a date 30, 
60, or 90 days prior to entry into the investment advisory 
contract.\52\ This request for comment was similar to the one we made 
when we proposed amendments to the net worth standard in rules under 
the Securities Act, including Regulation D.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Proposing Release, supra note 15, at Section II.B.2.
    \52\ Id. Two commenters stated that the net worth calculation 
should not be required to be made on a specified date prior to the 
day the advisory contract is entered into. See C. Barnard Comment 
Letter; G. Merkl Comment Letter. Another commenter stated that the 
net worth calculation should be required to be made on a specified 
date prior to the day the advisory contract is entered into to 
assist in protecting against refinancing transactions intended 
solely to inflate net worth. See NASAA Comment Letter.
    \53\ See Accredited Investor Proposing Release, supra note 33, 
at Specific Request for Comment Number 7 in Section II.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the recently adopted accredited investor rule amendments 
adjusting the net worth standard,\54\ the rule amendments to the 
qualified client net worth standard include a specific provision 
addressing the treatment of incremental debt secured by the primary 
residence that is incurred in the 60 days before the advisory contract 
is entered into.\55\ Debt secured by the primary residence generally 
will not be included as a liability in the net worth calculation under 
the rule, except to the extent it exceeds the estimated value of the 
primary residence. Under the final rule amendments, however, any 
increase in the amount of debt secured by the primary residence in the 
60 days before the advisory contract is entered into generally will be 
included as a liability, even if the estimated value of the primary 
residence exceeds the aggregate amount of debt secured by such primary 
residence.\56\ Net worth will be calculated only once, at the time the 
advisory contract is entered into. The individual's primary residence 
will be excluded from assets and any indebtedness secured by the 
primary residence, up to the estimated value of the primary residence 
at that time, will be excluded from liabilities, except if there is 
incremental debt secured by the primary residence incurred in the 60 
days before the advisory contract is entered into. If any such 
incremental debt is incurred, net worth will be reduced by the amount 
of the incremental debt. In other words, the 60-day look-back provision 
requires investors to identify any increase in mortgage debt over the 
60-day period prior to entering into an advisory contract and count 
that debt as a liability in calculating net worth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Accredited Investor Adopting Release, supra note 33, at 
text following n.34.
    \55\ See rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A)(2).
    \56\ The fair market value of the primary residence is 
determined as of the time the advisory contract is entered into, 
even if the investor has changed his or her primary residence during 
the 60-day period. The rule provides an exception to the 60-day 
look-back provision for increases in debt secured by a primary 
residence where the debt results from the acquisition of the primary 
residence. Without this exception, an individual who acquires a new 
primary residence in the 60-day period before the advisory contract 
is entered into may have to include the full amount of the mortgage 
incurred in connection with the purchase of the primary residence as 
a liability, while excluding the full value of the primary 
residence, in a net worth calculation. The 60-day look-back 
provision is intended to address incremental debt secured against a 
primary residence that is incurred for the purpose of circumventing 
the net worth standard of the rule. It is not intended to address 
debt secured by a primary residence that is incurred in connection 
with the acquisition of a primary residence within the 60-day 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach should significantly reduce the incentive for persons 
to induce potential clients to take on incremental debt secured against 
their homes to facilitate a near-term investment. We believe a 60-day 
look-

[[Page 10363]]

back period is long enough to decrease the likelihood of circumvention 
of the standard by taking on new debt and waiting for the look-back 
period to expire. The 60-day period also is designed to be short enough 
to accommodate investors who may have increased their mortgage debt in 
the ordinary course at some point prior to entering into an advisory 
contract.
    Another alternative to address the possibility of parties 
attempting to circumvent the standard would have been to provide that 
any debt secured by the primary residence that was incurred after the 
original purchase date of the primary residence would have been counted 
as a liability, whether or not the fair market value of the primary 
residence exceeded the value of the total amount of debt secured by the 
primary residence. We believe that such a standard would be overly 
restrictive and not provide for ordinary course changes to debt secured 
by a primary residence, such as refinancing and drawings on home equity 
lines. We believe that the approach we are adopting here will protect 
investors by addressing circumstances in which they may have been 
induced to incur new debt secured by the primary residence for the 
purpose of inflating net worth under the rule, while still permitting 
ordinary course changes to debt secured by the primary residence. This 
approach is similar to the approach the Commission recently adopted for 
accredited investor rule amendments adjusting the net worth standard, 
and it responds to commenters who urged the Commission to promote 
regulatory consistency in the treatment of primary residences in other 
similar contexts in order to promote fairness, facilitate enforcement, 
and provide clarity for both industry and regulators.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Accredited Investor Adopting Release, supra note 33, at 
text following n.46; see, e.g., Better Markets Comment Letter; NASAA 
Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transition Provisions

    We proposed two new transition provisions that would allow an 
investment adviser and its clients to maintain existing performance fee 
arrangements that were permissible when the advisory contract was 
entered into, even if the performance fees would not be permissible 
under the contract if it were entered into at a later date. We are 
adopting the two transition rules substantially as proposed, which 
commenters supported.\58\ At the suggestion of one commenter we also 
are adopting an additional transition provision to address certain 
transfers of interest, as discussed below.\59\ The amendments replace 
the current transition rules section of rule 205-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Rule 205-3(c)(1); rule 205-3(c)(2). See, e.g., C. Barnard 
Comment Letter; Gunderson Dettmer Comment Letter; M. Huntsman 
Comment Letter; IAA Comment Letter; MFA Comment Letter.
    \59\ See rule 205-3(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraphs (1) and (2) of rule 205-3(c) are designed so that 
restrictions on performance fees apply only to new contractual 
arrangements and do not apply to new investments by clients (including 
equity owners of ``private investment companies'') who met the 
definition of ``qualified client'' when they entered into the advisory 
contract, even if they subsequently do not meet the dollar amount 
thresholds of the rule.\60\ This approach minimizes the disruption of 
existing contractual relationships that met applicable requirements 
under the rule at the time the parties entered into them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ A ``private investment company'' is a company that is 
excluded from the definition of an ``investment company'' under the 
Investment Company Act by reason of section 3(c)(1) of that Act. 
Rule 205-3(d)(3). Under rule 205-3(b), the equity owner of a private 
investment company, or of a registered investment company or 
business development company, is considered a client of the adviser 
for purposes of rule 205-3(a). We adopted this provision in 1998, 
and the provision was not affected by our subsequent rule amendments 
and related litigation concerning the registration of certain hedge 
fund advisers. See 1998 Adopting Release, supra note 7; Goldstein v. 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 451 F.3d 873 (DC Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 205-3(c)(1)\61\ provides that, if a registered investment 
adviser entered into a contract and satisfied the conditions of the 
rule that were in effect when the contract was entered into, the 
adviser will be considered to satisfy the conditions of the rule.\62\ 
If, however, a natural person or company that was not a party to the 
contract becomes a party, the conditions of the rule in effect at the 
time they become a party will apply to that person or company. This 
provision means, for example, that if an individual met the $1.5 
million net worth test in effect before the effective date of our 2011 
order and entered into an advisory contract with a registered 
investment adviser before that date, the client could continue to 
maintain assets (and invest additional assets) with the adviser under 
that contract even though the net worth test was subsequently raised to 
$2 million and he or she no longer met the new test. If, however, 
another person becomes a party to that contract, the current net worth 
threshold will apply to the new party when he or she becomes a party to 
the contract.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Rule 205-3(c)(1), as amended, modifies the existing 
transition rule in rule 205-3(c)(1), which permits advisers and 
their clients that entered into a contract before August 20, 1998, 
and satisfied the eligibility criteria in effect on the date the 
contract was entered into, to maintain their existing performance 
fee arrangements.
    \62\ One commenter supported the provisions allowing advisers to 
continue to provide advisory services under performance fee 
arrangements that were permitted at the time the contract was 
entered into but stated that the rule should prohibit an adviser 
from charging performance fees to investors that are not qualified 
clients with respect to money committed after the effective date for 
the rule amendments. See G. Merkl Comment Letter. We believe such an 
approach would be unnecessarily disruptive to advisory 
relationships.
    \63\ Rule 205-3(c)(1). Similarly, a person who invests in a 
private investment company advised by a registered investment 
adviser must satisfy the rule's conditions when he or she becomes an 
investor in the company. See rule 205-3(b) (equity owner of a 
private investment company is considered a client of a registered 
investment adviser for purposes of rule 205-3(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 205-3(c)(2) provides that, if a registered investment adviser 
previously was not required to register with the Commission pursuant to 
section 203 of the Act and did not register, section 205(a)(1) of the 
Act will not apply to the contractual arrangements into which the 
registered adviser entered when it was not registered with the 
Commission.\64\ This means, for example, that if an investment adviser 
to a private investment company with 50 individual investors was exempt 
from registration with the Commission in 2009, but then subsequently 
registered with the Commission because it was no longer exempt from 
registration or because it chose voluntarily to register, section 
205(a)(1) will not apply to the contractual arrangements the adviser 
entered into before it registered, including the accounts of the 50 
individual investors with the private investment company and any 
additional investments they make in that company. If, however, any 
other individuals

[[Page 10364]]

become new investors in the private investment company or if the 
original investors became investors in a different private investment 
company managed by the adviser after the adviser registers with the 
Commission, section 205(a)(1) will apply to the adviser's relationship 
with the investors with regard to their new investments.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Section 205(a)(1) will apply, however, to contractual 
arrangements into which the adviser enters after it is required to 
register with the Commission. See rule 205-3(c)(2). The approach of 
subsection (c)(2) is similar to the transition provisions we adopted 
for the registration of investment advisers to private funds. See 
Registration Under the Advisers Act of Certain Hedge Fund Advisers, 
Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2333 (Dec. 2, 2004) [69 FR 72054 
(Dec. 10, 2004)]. We are adopting the subsection substantially as 
proposed, but have made minor changes to clarify that the transition 
provision applies only to contractual arrangements with advisers 
that were not required to register and did not register with the 
Commission. Our proposed subsection would have applied to 
contractual arrangements with any registered investment adviser that 
previously was ``exempt'' from the requirement to register with the 
Commission. The revised language clarifies that the transition 
provision applies to contractual arrangements with advisers when 
they were not required to register (even if they were not 
``exempt''), and does not apply to contractual arrangements entered 
into with advisers when they were registered (even if they were not 
required to register). Investment advisers that previously 
registered already are subject to section 205(a)(1) and rule 205-3, 
and therefore would not need the transition relief of rule 205-
3(c)(2).
    \65\ One commenter recommended that we revise the rule to 
accommodate fund-of-funds purchases when the acquiring funds are 
private investment companies. See MFA Comment Letter. The commenter 
recommended that the rule ``clarify'' that an acquiring private 
investment company is able to pay performance fees to the adviser of 
an acquired private investment company even if some of the investors 
in the acquiring private investment company are not qualified 
clients at the time the investment is made in the acquired private 
investment company. We are not making the suggested revision to the 
final rule, because it would permit advisers to pool small client 
accounts to circumvent the eligibility standards of rule 205-3(d)(1) 
and would permit performance fee arrangements that currently are not 
permissible under rule 205-3(b). As we stated in 1998, rule 205-3(b) 
specifies that the requirement to look through to each investor of a 
private investment company applies to each tier of a funds-of-funds 
structure. See 1998 Adopting Release, supra note 7, at Section II.C. 
(``Under [Rule 205-3(b)], each `tier' of such entities must be 
examined in this manner. Thus, if a private investment company 
seeking to enter into a performance fee contract (first tier 
company) is owned by another private investment company (the second 
tier company), the look through provision applies to the second (and 
any other) level private investment company, and thus the adviser 
must look to the ultimate client to determine whether the 
arrangement satisfies the requirements of the rule.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, at the suggestion of one commenter, we have revised the 
third paragraph of rule 205-3(c), to allow for limited transfers of 
interests from a qualified client to a person that was not a party to 
the contract and is not a qualified client at the time of the 
transfer.\66\ The approach we are taking is similar to the approach we 
adopted in rule 3c-6 under the Investment Company Act. Rule 3c-6 
provides that, in the case of a transfer of ownership interest in a 
private investment company by gift or bequest, or pursuant to an 
agreement relating to a legal separation or divorce, the beneficial 
owner of the interest will be considered to be the person who 
transferred the interest.\67\ We believe that, when those types of 
transfers occur, the transferee does not make a separate investment 
decision to enter into an advisory contract with the adviser, but is 
the recipient, perhaps involuntarily, of the benefits of a pre-existing 
contractual relationship. Because of the circumstances of these 
transfers, we believe the transferee is not of the type that needs the 
protections of the performance fee restrictions. We are therefore 
amending paragraph (3) of rule 205-3(c) to provide that, if an owner of 
an interest in a private investment company transfers an interest by 
gift or bequest, or pursuant to an agreement related to a legal 
separation or divorce, the transfer will not cause the transferee to 
``become a party'' to the contract and will not cause section 205(a)(1) 
of the Act to apply to such transferee. Thus, transfers in these 
circumstances will not cause the transferee to have to meet the 
definition of a qualified client under rule 205-3.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Gunderson Dettmer Comment Letter.
    \67\ See rule 3c-6(b) under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 
270.3c-6(b)].
    \68\ A gift transfer, however, would need to be a bona fide gift 
and could not be used as a means to avoid the protections of section 
205 of the Act, for example by transferring an interest in a private 
fund supposedly as a gift but in reality in exchange for payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Effective Date

    The rule amendments we are adopting today will be effective on May 
22, 2012. In addition, in order to minimize the disruption of 
contractual relationships that met applicable requirements at the time 
the parties entered into them, the Commission will not object if 
advisers rely or relied upon the amended transition provisions of rule 
205-3(c) before that date.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ As discussed above, some advisers may have entered into 
contractual relationships with clients who met the requirements of 
the rule at the time the parties entered into them, but who no 
longer meet the requirements of the amended rule. See supra Section 
II.C. For example, some registered investment advisers may have 
entered into advisory contracts with clients who met the $1.5 
million net worth test when that test was applicable, but who would 
not meet the $2 million net worth test of the revised rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits imposed by 
its rules. In the Proposing Release, we analyzed the costs and benefits 
of the proposed rules and sought comment on all aspects of the cost-
benefit analysis, including identification and assessment of any costs 
and benefits not discussed in the analysis. Only two commenters 
addressed the cost-benefit analysis.\70\ These commenters focused on 
the costs of the rule but did not provide any empirical data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Comment Letter of Phillip Goldstein (May 24, 2011) 
(``P. Goldstein Comment Letter''); G. Merkl Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act generally 
restricts an investment adviser from entering into an advisory contract 
that provides for performance-based compensation.\71\ Congress 
restricted performance compensation arrangements to protect advisory 
clients from arrangements it believed might encourage advisers to take 
undue risks with client funds to increase advisory fees.\72\ Congress 
subsequently authorized the Commission in section 205(e) of the 
Advisers Act to exempt any advisory contract from the performance fee 
restrictions if the contract is with persons that the Commission 
determines do not need the protections of those restrictions. Section 
205(e) provides that the Commission may determine that persons do not 
need the protections of section 205(a)(1) on the basis of such factors 
as ``financial sophistication, net worth, knowledge of and experience 
in financial matters, amount of assets under management, relationship 
with a registered investment adviser, and such other factors as the 
Commission determines are consistent with [section 205].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See supra Section I.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted rule 205-3 to exempt an investment adviser 
from the restrictions against charging a client performance fees where 
a client has a specified net worth or amount of assets under 
management. Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 205(e) to 
require that the Commission adjust for inflation the dollar amount 
thresholds in rules promulgated under section 205(e) within one year of 
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and every five years thereafter. 
Generally an inflation adjustment is designed to help make the dollar 
amount thresholds in a provision continue to serve the same purposes 
over time. The amendments to rule 205-3 providing that the Commission 
will issue orders every five years adjusting for inflation the dollar 
amount thresholds of the rule will codify the Dodd-Frank Act's 
amendment of section 205(e) of the Advisers Act that requires the 
Commission to issue these orders.\73\ Also, pursuant to section 418's 
requirements, the Commission issued an order in July 2011 revising the 
threshold of the assets-under-management test to $1 million, and of the 
net worth test to $2 million. The rule amendments will codify in the 
rule the changes already made to the dollar amount thresholds in the 
July 2011 Order, and will have no separate economic effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, we are amending rule 205-3 to exclude the value of a 
natural person's primary residence and certain debt secured by the 
property from the determination of whether a person has sufficient net 
worth to be considered a ``qualified client.'' We are also modifying 
the transition provisions of the rule to take into account performance 
fee arrangements that were permissible when they were entered

[[Page 10365]]

into. We analyze the costs and benefits of these provisions below.

A. Benefits

    The exclusion of the value of an individual's primary residence 
will benefit certain investors. As discussed above, the Act's 
restrictions on performance fee arrangements are designed to protect 
advisory clients from arrangements that encourage advisers to take 
undue risks with client funds to increase advisory fees, while rule 
205-3 is designed to permit clients who are financially experienced and 
able to bear the risks of performance fee arrangements to enter into 
those arrangements.\74\ We believe that the value of an individual's 
primary residence may bear little or no relationship to that person's 
financial experience or ability to bear the risks of performance fee 
arrangements. The value of the individual's equity interest in the 
residence reflects the prevailing market values at the time and can be 
a function of time in paying down the associated debt rather than a 
function of deliberate investment decision-making. In addition, because 
of the generally illiquid nature of residential assets, the value of an 
individual's home equity may not help the investor to bear the risks of 
loss that are inherent in performance fee arrangements. Therefore, some 
of the clients who do not meet the net worth test of rule 205-3 without 
including the value of their primary residence may not possess the 
financial experience or ability to bear the risks of performance fee 
arrangements. We estimate that the exclusion of the value of an 
individual's primary residence will result in up to 1.3 million 
households that no longer qualify as ``qualified clients'' under the 
revised net worth test and therefore will now be protected by the 
performance fee restrictions in section 205 of the Advisers Act.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See supra notes 3 and 6.
    \75\ See infra notes 79-81. As discussed above, the amendments 
to rule 205-3 also exclude from the net worth test the amount of 
debt secured by the primary residence that is no greater than the 
property's current market value. The exclusion of the debt might 
limit these benefits in some circumstances. For example, if a client 
meets the net worth test as a result of the exclusion of debt 
secured by the primary residence and the market value of the primary 
residence were to decline to the extent that the debt could not be 
satisfied by the sale of the residence, the client might be less 
able to bear the risks related to the performance fee contract and 
the investments that the adviser might make on behalf of the client.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the exclusion of the value of an individual's 
primary residence from the calculation of net worth under the rule is 
similar to changes that Congress required the Commission to make to 
rules under the Securities Act, including Regulation D.\76\ As we noted 
when we recently adopted those rule amendments, section 413(a) of the 
Dodd-Frank Act required us to adjust the ``accredited investor'' net 
worth standards of certain rules under the Securities Act that apply to 
individuals, by ``excluding the value of the primary residence.'' \77\ 
The amendment to rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act we are adopting 
today, as some commenters argued, will promote regulatory consistency 
in the treatment of primary residences between this rule and other 
rules that the Commission has adopted that distinguish high net worth 
individuals from less wealthy individuals.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See supra note 33.
    \77\ See Accredited Investor Adopting Release, supra note 33, at 
n.18 and accompanying text.
    \78\ See supra notes 42-44 and 57 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the rule's transition provisions will allow 
advisory clients and investment advisers to avoid certain costs 
resulting from the statutory mandate to adjust for inflation and the 
Commission's resultant July 2011 Order. The amendments allow an 
investment adviser and its clients to maintain existing performance fee 
arrangements that were permissible when the advisory contract was 
entered into, even if performance fees would not be permissible under 
the contract if it were entered into at a later date. These transition 
provisions are designed so that the restrictions on the charging of 
performance fees apply to new contractual arrangements and do not apply 
retroactively to existing contractual arrangements, including 
investments in private investment companies. Otherwise, advisory 
clients and investment advisers might have to terminate contractual 
arrangements into which they previously entered and enter into new 
arrangements, which could be costly to investors and advisers.

B. Costs

    The amendments exclude the value of a person's primary residence 
and generally exclude debt secured by the property (if no greater than 
the current market value of the residence) from the calculation of a 
person's net worth.\79\ Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board, 
approximately 5.5 million households have a net worth of more than $2 
million including the equity in the primary residence (i.e., value 
minus debt secured by the property), and approximately 4.2 million 
households have a net worth of more than $2 million excluding the 
equity in the primary residence.\80\ Therefore, approximately 1.3 
million households will not meet a $2 million net worth test under the 
revised test, and will therefore not be considered ``qualified 
clients,'' when the value of the primary residence is excluded from the 
test.\81\ Excluding the value of the primary residence (and debt 
secured by the property up to the current market value of the 
residence) means that 1.3 million households that would have met the 
net worth threshold if the value of the residence were included, as is 
currently permitted, will no longer be ``qualified clients'' under the 
revised net worth test and therefore will be unable to enter into 
performance fee contracts unless they meet another test of rule 205-
3.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ As discussed above, any increase in the amount of debt 
secured by the primary residence in the 60 days before the 
securities are purchased will be included in the net worth 
calculation as a liability, regardless of the estimated value of the 
residence. See supra Section II.B; rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A)(2).
    \80\ These figures are derived from the 2007 Federal Reserve 
Board Survey of Consumer Finances. These figures represent the net 
worth of households rather than individual persons who might be 
clients. More information regarding the survey may be obtained at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
    \81\ Although some of these 1.3 million households may be 
grandfathered by the transition provisions of the rule, we assume 
for the purposes of our analysis that none of these households will 
be grandfathered. This assumption may therefore result in an 
overestimation of the costs of the rule amendments.
    \82\ This estimate, as described in the Proposing Release, was 
not premised on the notion that investors would borrow against the 
equity in their primary residence shortly before the calculation of 
net worth. See Proposing Release, supra note 15, at nn. 47-48 and 
accompanying text. The 60-day look-back provision in rule 205-3 that 
we are adopting today, because it reduces the incentives to incur 
debt secured by residences in order to boost net worth under the 
rule, strengthens the accuracy of our estimate. See supra notes 55-
57 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of this cost-benefit analysis, Commission staff 
assumes that 25 percent of the 1.3 million households would have 
entered into new advisory contracts that contained performance fee 
arrangements after the compliance date of the amendments, and therefore 
approximately 325,000 clients will not meet the revised net worth 
test.\83\

[[Page 10366]]

Commission staff estimates that about 40 percent of those 325,000 
potential clients (i.e., 130,000) will separately meet the ``qualified 
client'' definition under the assets-under-management test, and 
therefore will be able to enter into performance fee arrangements.\84\ 
The remaining 60 percent (195,000 households) will have access only to 
those investment advisers (directly or through the private investment 
companies they manage) that charge advisory fees other than performance 
fees.\85\ Some of these investors may be negatively affected by their 
inability to enter into performance-based compensation arrangements 
with investment advisers (which arrangements in some ways align the 
advisers' interests with the clients' interests). These investors also 
may experience differences in their investment options and returns, 
changes in advisory service, and the cost of being unable to enter into 
advisory contracts with their preferred advisers. For purposes of this 
cost-benefit analysis, Commission staff assumes that approximately 80 
percent of the 195,000 households (i.e., 156,000 households) will enter 
into non-performance fee arrangements, and that the other 20 percent 
(i.e., 39,000 households) will decide not to invest their assets with 
an adviser.\86\ Commission staff anticipates that the non-performance 
fee arrangements into which these clients will enter may contain 
management fees that yield advisers approximately the same amount of 
fees that clients would have paid under performance fee arrangements. 
Under these non-performance fee arrangements, if the adviser's 
performance is not positive or does not reach the level at which it 
would have accrued performance fees (i.e., the ``hurdle rate'' of 
return), a client might end up paying higher overall fees than if he 
had paid performance fees.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The assumption that 25% of these investors would have 
entered into new performance fee arrangements is based on data 
compiled in a 2008 report sponsored by the Commission. See Angela A. 
Hung et al., Investor and Industry Perspectives on Investment 
Advisers and Broker-Dealers 130 (Table C.1) (2008) (available at 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-1_randiabdreport.pdf). That 
report indicated that 20% of investment advisers charge performance 
fees. Id. at 105 (Table 6.13). Commission staff assumes the 
percentage of investment advisers charging performance fees reflects 
investor demand for these advisory arrangements. Although the report 
indicates that 20% of investment advisers charge performance fees, 
the use of a 25% assumption is intended to overestimate rather than 
underestimate costs, especially given the inherent uncertainty 
surrounding hypothetical events. It is also notable that an average 
of only 37% of investors indicated they would seek investment 
advisory services in the next five years. The estimate concerning 
1.3 million households is derived from the 2007 Federal Reserve 
Board Survey of Consumer Finances. See supra note 80 and 
accompanying and following text.
    \84\ This estimate is based on data filed by registered 
investment advisers on Form ADV.
    \85\ Commission staff estimates that less than one percent of 
registered investment advisers are compensated solely by performance 
fees, based on data from filings by registered investment advisers 
on Form ADV.
    \86\ This assumption is based on the idea that a substantial 
majority of investment advisers that typically charge performance 
fees and that in the future would calculate a potential client's net 
worth and determine that it does not meet the $2 million threshold, 
will offer alternate compensation arrangements in order to offer 
their services. As noted above, Commission staff estimates that less 
than one percent of registered advisers charge performance fees 
exclusively. See supra note 85.
    \87\ Performance fee arrangements typically include a ``hurdle 
rate,'' which is a minimum rate of return that must be exceeded 
before the performance fee can be charged. See, e.g., Tamar Frankel, 
The Regulation of Money Managers Sec.  12.03[F] (2d ed. Supp. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff estimates that the remaining 39,000 households 
that would have entered into advisory contracts, if the value of the 
client's primary residence were not excluded from the calculation of a 
person's net worth, will not enter into advisory contracts. Some of 
these households will likely seek other investment opportunities. Other 
households may forego professional investment management altogether 
because of the higher value they place on the alignment of advisers' 
interests with their own interests associated with the use of 
performance fee arrangements.
    We recognize that the exclusion of the value of a person's primary 
residence from the calculation of a person's net worth will reduce the 
pool of potential qualified clients for advisers. This, in turn, might 
result in a reduction in the total fees collected by investment 
advisers. In order to replace those clients and lost revenue, some 
advisers may choose to market their services to more potential clients, 
which may result in increased marketing and administrative costs.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Although advisers that charge performance fees typically 
require investment minimums of $10,000 or more, one of the steps 
that advisers may take to market their services to a larger number 
of potential clients is to reduce their investment minimums. This 
may result in slightly higher administrative costs for investment 
advisers that choose to take such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although some commenters asserted that these amendments would harm 
small advisers or less wealthy clients, commenters did not provide any 
quantitative data to support their statements.\89\ As discussed above, 
advisers may charge advisory fees other than performance fees in order 
to obtain revenue from clients who do not meet the definition of 
``qualified clients.'' In addition, clients who no longer meet the net 
worth test as a result of the exclusion of their primary residence 
likely would have invested a smaller amount of assets than other 
clients who continue to meet the test. As a result, the revenue loss to 
investment advisers from the exclusion of these clients from the 
performance fee exemption may be mitigated. Moreover, as mentioned 
above, less wealthy clients can enter into non-performance based 
compensation arrangements and seek other investment opportunities. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we believe that the 
amendments are unlikely to impose a significant net cost on most 
advisers and clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See supra notes 38-39 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asserted that because liabilities in excess of the 
value of the primary residence would be included in the net worth 
calculation the Commission should include in its analysis the cost to 
clients of obtaining valuations from real estate agents.\90\ First, 
currently investors may include the value of their primary residence in 
the calculation of their net worth and, as such, those investors that 
choose to do so must be estimating the value of the primary residence 
in order to calculate their net worth. Second, the rule requires an 
estimate, but does not require a third party opinion on valuation 
either for the primary residence or for any other assets or 
liabilities. Third, as we noted previously, many online services 
provide residence valuations at no charge.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See G. Merkl Comment Letter.
    \91\ See supra note 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters argued that excluding the value of an investor's 
primary residence from the net worth test of the rule at the same time 
as adjusting the rule's dollar amount thresholds for inflation would 
cause too much change at one time.\92\ Although we attribute the costs 
of inflation-adjusting the dollar amount thresholds of the rule to the 
Dodd-Frank Act and the order we issued thereunder, we have considered 
the relative magnitude of each of these changes to the net worth 
standard in determining the significance of making these changes at the 
same time. Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board, approximately 
7 million households have a net worth of more than $1.5 million (the 
previous net worth threshold, including primary residence), and 
approximately 5.5 million households have a net worth of more than $2 
million (the revised net worth threshold we established by order in 
July 2011, including primary residence).\93\ Therefore, inflation-
adjusting the dollar amount threshold of the net worth test from $1.5 
to $2 million will have caused about 1.5 million households to no 
longer meet the net worth test of the rule. Therefore the numerical 
effect of the inflation adjustment of the net worth test's dollar 
amount threshold (1.5 million households) is slightly greater than the 
exclusion of primary residence from the net worth test (1.3 million

[[Page 10367]]

households).\94\ As discussed above, we are not making these two 
changes to the rule at the same time.\95\ We revised the dollar amount 
threshold of the net worth test for inflation in July 2011 (as required 
by statute), and the revision was effective in September 2011. Our 
current amendment of the net worth test to exclude the value of a 
primary residence, which will be effective in May 2012, will be 
effective approximately eight months after the previous change to the 
net worth test.\96\ We believe that what has turned out to be a two-
step process (adjustment for inflation followed by exclusion of primary 
residence), with roughly equal results on the numbers of ``qualified 
clients,'' will help to ameliorate the economic impact of the two rule 
revisions on investment advisers. In addition, we are concerned that 
delaying beyond 90 days the effective date of excluding primary 
residence from the net worth standard might encourage some advisers to 
focus their efforts on entering into performance fee arrangements with 
clients who will not meet the rule's net worth standards after the 
effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See supra note 45 and accompanying text.
    \93\ See supra note 80.
    \94\ See supra text accompanying note 81.
    \95\ See supra note 46 and preceding text.
    \96\ Any further revisions of the dollar amount thresholds of 
rule 205-3 to adjust for inflation are not scheduled to occur until 
2016. See rule 205-3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the rule's transition provisions are not likely 
to impose any new costs on advisory clients or investment advisers. As 
discussed above, the amendments allow an investment adviser and its 
clients to maintain existing performance fee arrangements that were 
permissible when the advisory contract was entered into, even if 
performance fees would not be permissible under the contract if it were 
entered into at a later date. The amendments also allow for the 
transfer of an ownership interest in a private investment company by 
gift or bequest, or pursuant to an agreement relating to a legal 
separation or divorce to a party that is not a qualified client.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Rule 205-3(c)(3). The rule provides that for purposes of 
paragraphs 205-3(c)(1) (transition rule for registered investment 
advisers) and 205-3(c)(2) (transition rule for registered investment 
advisers that were previously not registered) the transfer of an 
equity ownership interest in a private investment company by gift or 
bequest, or pursuant to an agreement related to a legal separation 
or divorce, will not cause the transferee to become a party to the 
contract and will not cause section 205(a)(1) of the Act to apply to 
such transferee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not expect that adjustment of the dollar amount thresholds in 
rule 205-3, which codifies the adjustments that the Commission effected 
in its July 2011 order, will impose new costs on advisory clients or 
investment advisers. The adjustments will have no effect on existing 
contractual relationships that met applicable requirements under the 
rule at the time the parties entered into them, because those 
relationships may continue under the transition provisions of the rule. 
Although an investment adviser could be prohibited from charging 
performance fees to new clients to whom it could have charged 
performance fees if the advisory contract had been entered into before 
the adjustment of the dollar thresholds, we attribute this effect to 
the Dodd-Frank Act rather than to this rulemaking. One commenter stated 
that rather than addressing the contention that the adjustment to the 
dollar amount thresholds is unfair to small investors, the Commission 
``passed the buck'' back to Congress.\98\ The Commission, however, is 
required to adjust the dollar amount thresholds for the effects of 
inflation. Exempting less wealthy investors from the limits would be 
contrary to the purpose of the dollar amount thresholds, which is to 
limit the availability of the exemption to clients who are financially 
experienced and able to bear the risks of performance fee arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See P. Goldstein Comment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 418 of the Dodd-Frank Act does not specify how the 
Commission should measure inflation in adjusting the dollar amount 
thresholds. We proposed, and are adopting, the PCE Index because it is 
widely used as a broad indicator of inflation in the economy and 
because the Commission has used the PCE Index in other contexts. It is 
possible that the use of the PCE Index to measure inflation might 
result in a larger or smaller dollar amount for the two thresholds than 
the use of a different index, but the rounding required by the Dodd-
Frank Act (to the nearest $100,000) likely negates any difference 
between indexes.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The amendments to rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act do 
not contain any ``collection of information'' requirements as defined 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (``PRA'').\99\ 
Accordingly, the PRA is not applicable. We received no comments on any 
PRA issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Commission certified in the Proposing Release, pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
(``RFA''),\100\ that the proposed rule amendments would not, if 
adopted, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.\101\ As we explained in the Proposing Release, under 
Commission rules, for the purposes of the Advisers Act and the RFA, an 
investment adviser generally is a small entity if it: (i) Has assets 
under management having a total value of less than $25 million; (ii) 
did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its 
most recent fiscal year; and (iii) does not control, is not controlled 
by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser 
that has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any person 
(other than a natural person) that had total assets of $5 million or 
more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year (``small 
adviser'').\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \101\ See Proposing Release, supra note 15, at Section VI.
    \102\ Rule 0-7(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information in filings submitted to the Commission, 617 of 
the approximately 11,888 investment advisers registered with the 
Commission are small entities. Only approximately 20 percent of the 617 
registered investment advisers that are small entities (about 122 
advisers) charge any of their clients performance fees. In addition, 24 
of the 122 advisers required at the time of the Proposing Release an 
initial investment from their clients that would meet the then current 
assets-under-management threshold ($750,000), which advisory contracts 
will be grandfathered into the exemption provided by rule 205-3 under 
the amendments. Therefore, if these advisers in the future raise those 
minimum investment levels to the revised level that we issued by order 
($1 million), those advisers could charge their clients performance 
fees because the clients would meet the assets-under-management test, 
even if they would not meet the revised net worth test that excludes 
the value of the client's primary residence. For these reasons, the 
Commission believes that the amendments to rule 205-3 will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission requested written comments regarding the certification. 
One commenter stated that the Proposing Release includes ``suspicious'' 
quantified data to support the claim as to how few advisers will be 
affected by the required review every five years.\103\ The commenter 
provided no further detail about why the quantified data was 
suspicious, or any

[[Page 10368]]

alternative empirical data, and did not address the number of small 
advisers that would be affected.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Comment Letter of David Flatray (May 29, 2011).
    \104\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is adopting amendments to rule 205-3 pursuant to the 
authority set forth in section 205(e) of the Investment Advisers Act of 
1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b-5(e)].

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 275

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Rules

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 275--RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

0
1. The general authority citation for Part 275 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-
2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, 80b-11, unless 
otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 275.205-3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  275.205-3  Exemption from the compensation prohibition of section 
205(a)(1) for investment advisers.

* * * * *
    (c) Transition rules--(1) Registered investment advisers. If a 
registered investment adviser entered into a contract and satisfied the 
conditions of this section that were in effect when the contract was 
entered into, the adviser will be considered to satisfy the conditions 
of this section; Provided, however, that if a natural person or company 
who was not a party to the contract becomes a party (including an 
equity owner of a private investment company advised by the adviser), 
the conditions of this section in effect at that time will apply with 
regard to that person or company.
    (2) Registered investment advisers that were previously not 
registered. If an investment adviser was not required to register with 
the Commission pursuant to section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3) and 
was not registered, section 205(a)(1) of the Act will not apply to an 
advisory contract entered into when the adviser was not required to 
register and was not registered, or to an account of an equity owner of 
a private investment company advised by the adviser if the account was 
established when the adviser was not required to register and was not 
registered; Provided, however, that section 205(a)(1) of the Act will 
apply with regard to a natural person or company who was not a party to 
the contract and becomes a party (including an equity owner of a 
private investment company advised by the adviser) when the adviser is 
required to register.
    (3) Certain transfers of interests. Solely for purposes of 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, a transfer of an equity 
ownership interest in a private investment company by gift or bequest, 
or pursuant to an agreement related to a legal separation or divorce, 
will not cause the transferee to ``become a party'' to the contract and 
will not cause section 205(a)(1) of the Act to apply to such 
transferee.
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) A natural person who, or a company that, immediately after 
entering into the contract has at least $1,000,000 under the management 
of the investment adviser;
    (ii) A natural person who, or a company that, the investment 
adviser entering into the contract (and any person acting on his 
behalf) reasonably believes, immediately prior to entering into the 
contract, either:
    (A) Has a net worth (together, in the case of a natural person, 
with assets held jointly with a spouse) of more than $2,000,000. For 
purposes of calculating a natural person's net worth:
    (1) The person's primary residence must not be included as an 
asset;
    (2) Indebtedness secured by the person's primary residence, up to 
the estimated fair market value of the primary residence at the time 
the investment advisory contract is entered into may not be included as 
a liability (except that if the amount of such indebtedness outstanding 
at the time of calculation exceeds the amount outstanding 60 days 
before such time, other than as a result of the acquisition of the 
primary residence, the amount of such excess must be included as a 
liability); and
    (3) Indebtedness that is secured by the person's primary residence 
in excess of the estimated fair market value of the residence must be 
included as a liability; or
    (B) Is a qualified purchaser as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A) of 
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(51)(A)) at the 
time the contract is entered into; or
* * * * *
    (e) Inflation adjustments. Pursuant to section 205(e) of the Act, 
the dollar amounts specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)(A) 
of this section shall be adjusted by order of the Commission, on or 
about May 1, 2016 and issued approximately every five years thereafter. 
The adjusted dollar amounts established in such orders shall be 
computed by:
    (1) Dividing the year-end value of the Personal Consumption 
Expenditures Chain-Type Price Index (or any successor index thereto), 
as published by the United States Department of Commerce, for the 
calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the order is being 
issued, by the year-end value of such index (or successor) for the 
calendar year 1997;
    (2) For the dollar amount in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, 
multiplying $750,000 times the quotient obtained in paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section and rounding the product to the nearest multiple of 
$100,000; and
    (3) For the dollar amount in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section, multiplying $1,500,000 times the quotient obtained in 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section and rounding the product to the 
nearest multiple of $100,000.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4046 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


