PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 18, 2013
Investment Adviser Examination Improvement Act of 2013 - Declares the sense of Congress that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should increase the number and frequency of examinations of investment advisers.
Amends the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to direct the SEC to collect an annual fee from investment advisers subject to SEC inspection or examination to defray the cost of such inspections and examinations. Exempts certain state-regulated investment advisers from the requirement to pay an annual fee.
Prescribes a fee calculation formula. Requires the SEC to make the formula publicly available on its website along with the factors used to reach the fee determination.
Requires the Comptroller General to audit biennially the use of such fees, SEC reviews of the fee formula, and any adjustments to it.
Makes such fees available to the SEC, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, to pay costs associated with inspecting and examining investment advisers.
People & committees
Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1627 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1627 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1627 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1627 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.