The line between writing for yourself and doing something regulated is drawn by three switches, and once you can see the switches the tree is short.
What are the three switches?
The first switch is consideration. Money, in any amount, from the reader to the writer, for the writing. Not a threshold: a switch. The first ₹499 subscription does the same legal work as the ten-lakhth, and a newsletter with 180 subscribers at ₹499 a month, taking ₹10,77,840 a year, is in exactly the position it was in on the day of its first paying reader.
The second switch is personalisation. Advice addressed to a person's own circumstances, rather than published to everybody who arrives, changes the character of the activity in both markets. It is what separates the research analyst regime from the investment adviser regime in India, and it is what the American publisher's exclusion is built around.
The third switch is discretion. Holding somebody else's assets, or the authority to trade them, is a different activity again, and it engages a different set of rules in both jurisdictions, including custody rules.
Advertisement
Run six activities through the switches.
| Activity | Consideration | Personalised | Discretion | India | United States |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private memo, never shown to anyone | no | no | no | nothing | nothing |
| Unpaid memo emailed to two friends | no | yes | no | outside the adviser definition for want of consideration; the research analyst definition turns on publication rather than payment, so keep it genuinely private | no compensation, so the Advisers Act's three-prong test fails at the first prong |
| Free public blog post with a target price | no | no | no | a recommendation and a price target published to the public; treat the research analyst regime as live and verify | likely inside the publisher's exclusion if bona fide, regular and impersonal |
| Paid subscription newsletter, 180 subscribers at ₹499 a month | yes | no | no | consideration plus recommendations: registration territory | the publisher's exclusion can still apply, and Lowe is the authority |
| Free group of 400 with a paid premium tier at ₹2,000 a quarter | yes, from 46 of them | in practice yes, once you answer individual questions | no | both regimes are live; the premium tier is consideration and the answered questions are personalisation | the exclusion fails once the advice becomes person-specific |
| Discretionary account run for a cousin under a power of attorney, no fee | no fee, but see below | yes | yes | portfolio management territory; the family exemption is narrow and fact-specific | advisory activity plus custody questions; the family and intrastate exclusions are narrow |
What is the US publisher's exclusion?
The American side of that table rests on one provision and one case. Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 defines an investment adviser by three prongs: advice about securities, as a business, for compensation. Subparagraph (D) excludes the publisher of a bona fide newspaper, news magazine or business or financial publication of general and regular circulation. In Lowe v. SEC (1985) the Supreme Court held that a publisher of impersonal investment newsletters, offered to the general public on a regular schedule, sits inside that exclusion, and the First Amendment reasoning behind the holding is why the exclusion is read generously.
The exclusion has three edges, and each is where people fall out of it. Bona fide means a genuine publication rather than a promotional device for something else, so a "newsletter" that exists to move a stock the writer owns is not one. General and regular circulation means published on a schedule to whoever subscribes, so episodic alerts timed to news events are outside it. Impersonal means no advice tailored to an individual reader's situation, so an active question-and-answer channel takes a publication out of the exclusion one answer at a time.
What happens on the Indian side?
The Indian side has no equivalent constitutional gloss, and its dividing question is the publication-versus-relationship one from Section 13. Publishing recommendations engages the research analyst regime. Advising identified clients for consideration engages the investment adviser regime. Managing money engages the portfolio manager regime. The three are separate registrations with separate obligations, and being outside one says nothing about the other two.
One practical instruction closes the tree. Whatever the classification, put a disclosure block on anything you publish, including the things that need none. A block on an unregulated memo costs nothing and builds the habit; the absence of a block on a regulated one is the first thing an enforcement letter names.