Doubt of Alternative Mutual Funds benefits

In schweser notes when numbering the three benefits of Offering AMFs they write:

" With new regulations in the US a susbtantial amount of hedge fund managers must be registered as investment advisers. As a result, it made it easier for hedge fund managers to establish a US mutual fund, as mutual fund managers must be registered investment advisers".

The benefit is that because the HF manager is already registered as an Investment advisor it would be easier for him to establish a AMF?

The logic the book is trying to communicate is the following:

as asset manager (HF included), the more asset the better (more fees), so it is always the goal to attract more investors. To attract more investors, it must register itself as register investment advisor and adhere to all the rules, therefore, if a hedge fund manager wants to attract more investors to its strategy, better to establish a AMF and register as investment advisor.

I think that is the intent of this topic…correct me if I misread the text.


I think you are right!