Are any modifications required to the consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee prohibition for investment companies?
Is it appropriate to use the definition of “interested person” as set forth in Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act to test the independence of members of investment company audit committees, as proposed? If not, should the rule apply the affiliation test, which we propose to apply to operating companies, or a different test? As mentioned in the proposing release, investment companies have followed a workable definition of who would be considered an “interested person” or conversely, a person who would not be independent of the fund, through the definition of interested person in Section 2(a) 19 of the Investment Company Act. This definition currently provides the safeguards that the Commission is attempting to establish in identifying an independent person and, therefore, should continue to be applied to investment companies. 1-B. Responsibilities Relating to Registered Public Accounting Firms We request comment on implementation of this proposed requirement. Is additional s
Related Questions
- Why has the Board recommended that I vote in favor of reducing the investment advisory fee that each Outlook Fund pays to Funds Management (Proposal 1)?
- Can the third-party solicitor’s referral fee be paid from the investment advisory fee charged by the registered investment adviser?
- Are any modifications required to the consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee prohibition for investment companies?
