Funds’ Portfolios Must Reflect Their Name, SEC Says

New rule means funds will have to derive 80% of their value from investments related to their official names.


The Securities and Exchange Commission finalized a new rule Wednesday which will require investment funds whose name suggests investments with “particular characteristics,” ranging from environmental, social and governance to artificial intelligence, to have at least 80% of their value in securities that correspond to that name.

Before the new rule, the only funds required to follow an 80% rule were those whose name evoked a “specific type of security,” such as ‘equity’ or ‘bonds,’ “and not a strategy,” such as ‘growth’ or ‘value,’ says Abigail Hemnes, a partner in K&L Gates’ asset management and investment funds practice. Index funds were likewise already subject to an 80% rule.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Fund names previously not subject to the names rule were subject only to the “general anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws,” Hemnes explains.

Besides names that evoke a strategy, any name that suggests the fund focuses on a particular geographic region, industry or goal must also follow an 80% policy, according to the SEC.

During Wednesday’s open hearing in which the rule was approved by a 4-1 vote, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler said that a fund name that includes “AI or big data” would need to have 80% of its value in securities that reasonably fit that description.

Growth vs. Value

Amanda Wagner, the senior special counsel for the SEC’s division of investment management, explained during the hearing that funds have flexibility to reasonably define the terms in their name. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce asked Wagner if one fund classifies a security as “growth” and another fund classifies it as “value,” is one necessarily violating the names rule? Wagner answered, “Definitely not,” provided the security could plausibly fall into either category.

Peirce also asked Wagner if a fund calling itself a “green car” fund could legally invest in high-efficiency gas-fired vehicles and not electric vehicles. Wagner answered yes, because that was a reasonable interpretation of “green car,” as that phrase has no “universal definition.” The fund certainly could not call themselves an electric car fund, Wagner added, and the fund would still have to define what it meant by “green” in its prospectus and disclose which securities it was counting toward 80%.

Wagner also noted that funds with compound names can reach 80% by adding the items together. Hemnes says that this would apply to ESG labeled funds, because they could keep the label, as long as ESG values added up to 80%. The fund would still have to define each term and disclose the exact criteria used to select investments described by the terms, she notes.

ESG Considerations

The initial proposal would have made ESG integration funds all but impossible to name ‘ESG,’ because it would have banned funds that do not use ESG considerations as a primary factor from using the label in their name. The final rule rolls this back, according to Hemnes: “ESG integration funds can still use an ESG term in” their names.

Andrew Behar, the CEO of As You Sow, a non-profit that promotes corporate social responsibility, said in an emailed statement that, “Under the proposed rule, if funds considered ESG factors, but such ESG factors were not the principal purpose of the fund’s investment strategy, it would have been materially deceptive and misleading to use ESG or a similar term (such as sustainable, green, impact, etc.) in the name. This section was left out of the final rule.”

Behar says that many funds take advantage of the remaining 20% in their portfolio in ways that can be “misleading.” He specifically cited funds that use environmental goals in their names but include coal companies in their portfolio. Behar says the final rule is a step in the right direction but ultimately will not end misleading labeling, “as long as you are 80% of what you say you are.”

If a fund falls below the 80% threshold, it will have 90 days to come back into compliance. The proposal, published in May 2022, initially gave funds only 30 days.

Funds greater than $1 billion in value will have 24 months after the rule’s effective date to comply, and those smaller will have 30 months. The effective date is 60 days after the rule is entered into the Federal Register.

DeVoe: Advisory Dealmaking Outpacing Last Year’s Q3

The uptick comes as RIA M&A activity experienced a slowdown for the previous 12 months.


Mergers and acquisitions activity among registered investment advisories in the year’s third quarter has already outpaced the same period in 2022, according DeVoe & Co.

As of September 13, transactions posted in the quarter reached 55, 4% more than the same period last year (53), the consultancy reported in a release and at their M&A+ Succession Summit in Dallas.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

While 35% of advisers surveyed by the firm said higher interest rates influenced their dealmaking decisions, a greater percentage still expect to acquire a firm within the next two years, at 65% of those surveyed by DeVoe. That expectation of dealmaking compares to just 55% from last year.

DeVoe revealed that July and August were strong months, with 23 and 27 transactions, respectively. Deals did slow in early September, with only five transactions through September 13. Overall, the uptick in M&A activity in the quarter reverses the 15% decline the industry had experienced from Q3 2022 through Q2 2023.

“Given the steady slowdown in M&A activity over the last several quarters, this is a notable uptick,” David DeVoe, founder and CEO of DeVoe & Co., said in a statement. “RIA M&A activity may continue to be volatile in the short-term; yet the mid-term and long-term should be an upward trajectory. The aging of RIA founders and an increasing interest in scale are expected to drive increasing M&A activity for the next several years.”

The dealmaking has not yet put transactions on pace to exceed last year’s total, and DeVoe still predicts fewer total deals this year than last. Transactions posted year-to-date amounted to 175, compared to 188 transactions for the same period the previous year. 2023 could potentially be the first down year in a decade of annual M&A transaction increases, according to slides provided by DeVoe.

The last 12 months of slowdown coincided with high interest rates, uncertainty in the economic environment and a volatile stock market, DeVoe reported. Q4 2022 was the beginning of the decline, when transactions were 20% lower than same period the year before. The subsequent quarters saw continued drops, with a 7% decline in Q1 2023 and a 15% decline in Q2 2023.

Whatever the environment, private equity firms and other investors still appear bullish on potential consolidation in both wealth management and retirement. On Tuesday, Carlyle Group Inc. announced a minority growth investment in RIA CAPTRUST Financial Advisors to, in part, fuel the firm’s continued growth.

In August, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s asset management arm, along with Charlesbank Capital Partners, announced a $1 billion capital infusion in World Insurance Associates LLC, in part to help fuel World’s Pensiomark Financial Group with its wealth management acquisition strategy.

DeVoe’s research found that adviser sentiment may be shifting more toward acquisition by aggregators, as opposed to from within the RIAs. Only 18% of advisers are confident that the next generation can afford to buy out the founders, DeVoe said. Previous years’ confidence levels were far higher, 38% in 2021 and 29% in 2022, according to a slide presentation shared by the firm.

«