托马斯解释：“其实没有人真正在监督、检查这些资金的用途，就连出资人也经常忽略这一点。如果投资者认为出了问题，他们获得信息的唯一可靠途径就是提起诉讼。随后他们就可能和这笔资金或者其他人失去联系。”

    私募基金的反驳包括两部分。首先，私募基金的行为代表其自身，而不仅仅是作为中间人参与交易的第三方。举例来说，如果一家公司在不借助投行的情况下向另一家公司转让资产，并没有哪项法律要求这两家公司注册为券商。对于托马斯的整体观点，私募基金方面指出，私募基金行业已经受到了投资顾问条例的规范——这是多德-弗兰克（Dodd-Frank）法案的一部分，私募基金曾就此提出反对，但以失败告终——进一步监管必须经国会立法，而不是由证监会发号施令。

    这场争论中特别有意思的一点是，目前私募基金正越来越多地和有限合伙实体分享费用收入，比如公共养老金、大学所获捐款以及非营利基金会。实际上，2012年初以来到期的私募基金中，60%的基金将所有交易费都转交给了有限合伙实体。如果出于交易费的缘故而要求私募基金公司注册为券商，许多私募基金公司就有可能干脆选择专门聘用投资银行，以便将现金从有限合伙实体转移到华尔街。

    同时，一直有人担心私募基金并不总是披露所有费用收入。而且正如托马斯所言，除了法院命令外，有限合伙实体几乎没有权力开展调查。让私募基金注册为券商可能为有限合伙实体解决这个问题，只是费用收入的下降可能抵消进行注册所带来的心理安慰。换句话说，投资者是愿意得到大多数费用收入呢？还是愿意一无所获？

    不过，对乔丹•托马斯及其客户来说，此事关乎现行法律，在他们看来黑白分明。托马斯说：“私募基金公司有券商的所有特征，但它们还没有注册为券商，问题就是这么简单。”（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie  

    "No one is really monitoring or examining what these funds are doing, often including their own investors," Thomas explains. "If an investor thinks something is wrong, their only real way to get information is to file suit. And then they risk losing access to that fund, and others, in the future."

    Private equity's counterargument is twofold. First, private equity funds are acting on their own behalf, rather than as a third party whose only involvement in the transaction is as a middleman. If one corporation sells assets to another corporation without the use of investment banks, for example, there is no law requiring the corporations to register as broker-dealers. As to Thomas' broader point, private equity sources point out that the industry already is regulated via the investment advisor rules -- something PE fought, and lost, as part of Dodd-Frank -- and that any additional oversight would have to be codified by Congress, not the SEC.

    What's particularly interesting about this battle is that it comes as private equity funds are sharing more and more of their fees with limited partners, such as public pension systems, university endowments and nonprofit foundations. In fact, more than 60% of funds closed since the beginning of 2012 rebate every dime of transaction fees to LPs. If private equity firms are required to register as broker-dealers because of transaction fees, many might just choose to exclusively hire investment banks -- thus transferring cash from LPs to Wall Street.

    At the same time, there are persistent concerns that private equity funds don't always disclose the existence of all incoming fees and, as Thomas said, LPs have little investigatory power outside of court-ordered discovery. Broker-dealer registration may solve this problem for LPs, although the peace of mind may be offset by the decreased fee income. In other words, would investors rather get most of all fees or all of no fees?

    For Jordan Thomas and his client, however, it comes down to a question of current law, which they see as black-and-white. "Private equity firms have all the hallmarks of being broker-dealers, but they haven't been registering as broker-dealers," Thomas says. "It's really that simple."