Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
Tailoring for Main Street’s Investors Act
A Republican bill with 4 Republican cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Tailoring for Main Street's Investors Act. It changes the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to give certain private fund advisers an exemption from registration requirements. To qualify, an investment adviser must act solely for private funds with less than $5,000,000,000 in U.S. assets under management. Additionally, every investor in those private funds must be a qualified purchaser, an accredited investor, or an eligible licensed investment professional. Furthermore, the private funds cannot offer investors redemption or similar liquidity rights except in extraordinary circumstances. The bill also requires exempted advisers to maintain records and report to the Commission every two years. Finally, covered entities with less than $1,000,000,000 in assets only need to file Form ADV once every two years using a new short form developed by the Commission.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
It eases regulatory compliance for smaller investment advisory businesses.
- Scored +5
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill reduces the regulatory and reporting burden on smaller investment advisory firms.
- Scored +4
Would high-income households be better off under this?
The bill benefits high-income/qualified investors by providing more flexible private fund structures.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The exemption reduces registration requirements and limits liquidity rights for investors, which may decrease protections.
- Scored -2
Would retired people be better off under this?
Restrictions on liquidity rights could negatively impact retirees' ability to access their fund investments.
- Scored -2
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Reducing registration requirements and altering filing frequencies may decrease overall transparency for certain funds.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 creates an exemption from registration for certain private fund advisers with assets under management in the United States of less than $5,000,000,000, provided their investors meet specific criteria and the funds do not offer standard redemption or liquidity rights. This could reduce regulatory burdens for qualifying advisers.
-
Section 3 allows covered entities with less than $1,000,000,000 in assets to file Form ADV only once every two years instead of more frequently. This cuts down paperwork requirements for smaller entities.
-
Section 3 also requires the Commission to develop a short form version of Form ADV for entities with less than $1,000,000,000 in assets. This could make the filing process simpler for those smaller entities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2 outlines that exempted private funds do not offer investors redemption or similar liquidity rights except in extraordinary circumstances. This means everyday people or investors who put money into these funds may have a harder time getting their money out quickly.
-
Section 2 and Section 3 reduce the frequency of required reporting and filings to once every two years for certain advisers and entities. Less frequent oversight could mean less transparency for the public regarding these financial operations.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — It eases regulatory compliance for smaller investment advisory businesses. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill provides regulatory flexibility that benefits large-scale wealth management. Would high-income households be better off under this? — The bill benefits high-income/qualified investors by providing more flexible private fund structures. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The exemption targets qualified purchasers and accredited investors, typically high-net-worth individuals. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill facilitates investment opportunities for extremely wealthy individuals through private fund exemptions. Would retired people be better off under this? — Restrictions on liquidity rights could negatively impact retirees' ability to access their fund investments.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill reduces the regulatory and reporting burden on smaller investment advisory firms. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The exemption reduces registration requirements and limits liquidity rights for investors, which may decrease protections.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reducing registration requirements and altering filing frequencies may decrease overall transparency for certain funds.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House
Andy BarrRepublican · Kentucky
Scott FitzgeraldRepublican · Wisconsin
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Ryan MackenzieRepublican · Pennsylvania