Obama administration to tighten regulation on VCs?

Venture capitalists may soon be facing more stringent reporting requirements, according to testimony from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today about the Obama administration’s plans to overhaul the country’s financial regulations.

But many details still need to be filled in, and there will probably be plenty of debate and revision before anything actually becomes law. Geithner’s proposal would (for the first time) require hedge fund, private equity, and venture capital fund advisers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to regularly report information so agencies can assess “whether the fund or fund family is so large or highly leveraged that it poses a threat to financial stability.”

Emily Mendell, Vice President of Strategic Affairs at the National Venture Capital Association, says she’s still waiting for more details, such as the size of the funds that would be affected by these regulations. Similar proposals have been floated in Congress before, she adds, and venture capital is usually lumped in because it’s easier “to just put everyone together” than to draw a clear boundary between venture capital and other types of funds.

“We do have a big concern that this is the type of thing where venture capital gets swept up into regulation meant for other asset classes,” Mendell says. “The venture industry is just not that large, and we don’t have any leverage, and we don’t participate for the most part in the public markets. … The government wants VC firms investing in startups and innovation, so creating regulatory burden for those firm at this time doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.”

Bill Gurley, a partner at Benchmark Capital, wrote a blog post that was even more critical of the proposal, describing it as “sweeping recommended legislation [that] will impose more undue costs and disclosures on entities that had absolutely nothing to do with the problem you are solving.”

Gurley also brings up a particularly troubling idea — that venture firms might have to provide specific metrics about the startups that they’re backing. This information would supposedly remain confidential, but I’m betting most entrepreneurs will be quite unhappy if this becomes a requirement. Is it a possibility? Mendell says the initial proposal is too vague to know one way or another.

The portion of Geithner’s statement that’s relevant to VCs is pretty short, by the way — venture capital itself is only mentioned once, in a parenthetical remark. Here’s the text:

Accordingly, we recommend that all advisers to hedge funds (and other private pools of capital, including private equity funds and venture capital funds) with assets under management over a certain threshold be required to register with the SEC. All such funds advised by an SEC-registered investment adviser should be subject to investor and counterparty disclosure requirements and regulatory reporting requirements. The regulatory reporting requirements for such funds should require reporting, on a confidential basis, information necessary to assess whether the fund or fund family is so large or highly leveraged that it poses a threat to financial stability. The SEC should share the reports that it receives from the funds with the entity responsible for oversight of systemically important firms, which would then determine whether any hedge funds could pose a systemic threat and should be subjected to the prudential standards outlined above.

The Obama administration previously ruffled some VC feathers with its plans to increase the tax on carried interest (the share of profits used to pay partners at firms) for hedge funds and venture firms.

[photo:flickr/Stephen Cummings]

Next Story:
Previous Story:

People: , ,

Photo of Anthony Ha

About the Author, Anthony Ha

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on enterprise technology, cloud computing, and tech policy. Before joining VentureBeat in 2008, Anthony worked at the Hollister Free Lance, where he won awards from the California Newspaper Publishers Association for breaking news coverage and writing. He attended Stanford University and now lives in San Francisco. Reach him at anthony@venturebeat.com. You can also follow Anthony on Twitter.

  • Rather than attempt to persuade the Treasury and legislators that the venture capital industry as a whole is not significant enough to present "systemic risk" to the financial system, wouldn't it promote transparency for the NVCA to accept registration of venture capitalists as investment advisers, and shift the lobbying focus to persuading the government that harm could come to their portfolio companies from extending reporting too deeply into company-specific details? I have blogged and have a small debate going on this subject on my blog, www.wac6.com.
  • PJ
    Hopefully all these green happy Valley VC's speak up and stop this march to declare ware on innovation, wealth, and what has made this economy vibrant for decades.
  • Tom Black
    Hopefully all these VCs will think again the next time a Democratic presidential candidate comes sweeping through the valley collecting donations and support.
  • motionview
    Good, they played a significant role in putting these Bozos in office.
  • If I was a USA VC, I would take my fund, my LPs and be moving on to a new jurisdiction, pronto. Why deal with additional cost and regulation when there are plenty of jurisdictions that will be more than happy to be supportive, and with less taxes, more freedom and less hassle.
  • Unless, of course, you still believe that most of the innovative startups are in Silicon Valley. I suppose that's debatable -- but me, I'd stay put.
  • AndreaF
    Madoff'sPonzi happened because of lack of control, not becasue of lack of regulations.
    And the people who lost their money were aware of the risks; just decided to ignore them.
    VCs and PEs are different from HFs anyway nad certainly should not be bundled together.
  • My impression is that these regulations aren't just a response to Madoff, but to the broader financial meltdown. Agree on the second point, though I'm not particularly informed when it comes to hedge funds.
  • I'm sure there's open are for compromise here too, but we don't want the makings of another Ponzi scheme either, so registration may not be a bad idea. As far as the taxes, that's an issue of it's own and should be up for discussion from both ends.

    I see some of this as an effort to also try to bring government and private industry together on the same note if you will. I don't see a need for VCs to have to report every detail as well, but a general plan of business would be in line, after all the rise of the VCs in health care in particular arose due to lack of government funding and support and we would not have some of the drugs, devices, etc. available to us today if VC funding had not answered the call.
  • Yes, I definitely agree that this is a "devil is in the details" situation.
  • AndreaF
    Insane to provide confidential information and for VCs to be included as well.
    First, the information will never stay confidential and therefore the risk of market distrotion and maniputation is hige.
    Second, VCs, PEs and HFs are not the cause of this mess, Banks are. Banks offer a public service and the current regulation in place should be enforced better; imposing more regulations on the funds will make things worse.
  • Dean Petorsi
    Thank God. It's about time.

    There have been some comments floating around for the past few months from people "in the know" about these changes.
    I can't wait to see legislation passed where every Partner at a VC and Hedge firm will be required to pass the Series 7, 63, 65, 24, 27 & 31.
    Considering these "privileged and over paid" firms are investing pension money and the VC industry has horrific returns over the last 10 years this is a great start.

    Change is coming!!!!
  • VCs are investing pension money?
  • Dean Petorsi
    Yes, they are.

    Look at CalPers (state employees), CalSTRS (Teachers) among others?

    ...In 1978, the US Labor Department relaxed certain of the ERISA restrictions, under the "prudent man rule,thus allowing corporate pension funds to invest in the asset class and providing a major source of capital available to venture capitalists....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital


    http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles...
  • Ah, OK, thanks for pointing that out.
blog comments powered by Disqus