SB 1808, the Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act, would change how registered investment companies report “acquired fund fees and expenses” on SEC registration statements. Specifically, it allows a registered investment company to omit from that calculation certain indirect fees and expenses incurred through investments in acquired funds that are business development companies (BDCs). The bill amends disclosure rules tied to SEC forms used by mutual funds and other registered investment companies, including Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-3.
In practical terms, the bill narrows what must be included in the fee table disclosure for funds that invest in BDCs. It does not change the underlying investment activities of funds or BDCs, but it changes the way those costs are presented to investors and regulators. The measure is framed as a technical disclosure adjustment intended to support capital formation for small businesses by making BDC-related fund structures easier to use or market.
Impact
The bill would amend federal securities disclosure requirements under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and related SEC registration forms. It would give registered investment companies discretion to exclude certain indirect fees associated with investments in business development companies from acquired fund fee calculations on registration statements filed under section 8(b). The affected parties are registered investment companies, BDCs, and investors who rely on fee table disclosures when comparing fund costs.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited context provided, the measure appears to have a generally supportive, pro-capital-formation framing. Its title and structure suggest an effort to help small business financing by reducing disclosure burdens or making BDC investments more attractive in fund products. There is no recorded vote or committee debate in the provided material, so there is no evidence of organized opposition or detailed partisan division in the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether excluding BDC-related indirect fees from acquired fund fee calculations improves clarity and capital access or instead reduces transparency for investors. Supporters would likely argue that the current calculation overstates costs or discourages investment in BDCs, while critics could contend that omitting these fees makes fund expenses harder to compare and may understate the true cost of investing. No specific objections or amendments are shown in the provided transcripts or voting history.