Ohio Investment Adviser Handbook
NOTES TO “ARE YOU AN INVESTMENT ADVISER UNDER OHIO LAW?”
1. “Compensation” is construed broadly and means the receipt of any economic
benefit, whether in the form of an advisory fee or some other fee, relating to the
total services rendered, commissions, or some combination of the foregoing. It is
not necessary that an adviser’s compensation be paid directly by the person
receiving investment advisory services, but only that the investment adviser
receive compensation from some source for the services. See SEC Release No.
IA-1092, § II.A.3. (October 8, 1987).
2. “As a part of regular business” and “engages in the business” both require a
“business” element and are to be construed in the same manner. The
determination to be made is whether the degree of the person’s advisory activities
constitutes being “in the business.” Whether a person giving advice about
securities for compensation would be “in the business” depends upon all relevant
facts and circumstances. In general, a person is deemed “in the business” if the
person (i) holds himself or herself out as an investment adviser or as one who
provided investment advice; or (ii) receives any separate or additional
compensation that represents a clearly definable charge for providing advice about
securities; or (iii) on anything other than rare, isolated and non-periodic instances,
provides specific investment advice. See SEC Release No. IA-1092, § II.A.2.
(October 8, 1987).
3. The advice, report or analyses need not be with respect to particular securities.
Rather, for example, advice concerning the relative advantages and
disadvantages of investing in securities in general as compared to other
investments would be “advice” for purposes of this prong of the definition. See SEC
Release No. 1A-1092, § II.A.1. (October 8, 1987)
4. Whether an exclusion from the definition of investment adviser is applicable
depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. For example, an attorney or
accountant who holds himself or herself out to the public as providing financial
planning or advisory services would not appear to fall within this “solely incidental”
exclusion. See SEC Release No. IA-1092, § II.B. (October 8, 1987). In general,
three factors are relevant to the determination of whether the “solely incidental”
exclusion is available: (i) whether the person holds himself or herself out to the
public as an investment adviser, financial planner or other provider of advisory
services; (ii) whether the advisory services are rendered in connection with and
reasonably related to the professional services; (iii) whether the fee charged for
advisory services is based on the same factors as those used to determine the fee
for the professional services. See, e.g., Hauk, Soule & Fasani, P.C., SEC No-
Action Letter (April 2, 1986); Milton O. Brown, P.C., SEC No-Action Letter (August
28, 1983).