What it means
The exemption rests on the view that very wealthy individuals and institutions can assess risk, negotiate terms and bear losses without regulatory protection. In exchange for that assumption, the fund must satisfy itself that every single holder meets the qualified purchaser standard, with no allowance for a handful of merely accredited investors.
The headline tests sit in statute: an individual who owns more than $5 million in investments, a family company with more than $5 million in investments, or an institution investing at least $25 million on a discretionary basis. Investments for this purpose means securities, commodity interests, property held for investment and cash held for investing, not the family home, the car or personal possessions.
Because there is no owner ceiling, these funds can grow to thousands of holders, but a separate rule quietly bites. Once a private fund has a large number of record holders and crosses a size threshold, it can be pulled into public company reporting under general securities law, so managers watch that count and commonly keep it well under two thousand.
Operationally, subscription documents for a 3(c)(7) fund ask for more evidence than a simple accredited investor questionnaire, often including schedules of investments or confirmation from an accountant or adviser. The administrator keeps a register that supports the claim for every holder, because losing exempt status is a serious event rather than a paperwork slip.
Choosing between the two exemptions is a commercial decision as much as a legal one. A manager with a small circle of moderately wealthy backers will favour 3(c)(1), while one building a large institutional book will favour 3(c)(7) and accept the narrower universe of eligible investors.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A $900 million global macro fund in New York closes its accredited investor vehicle and reopens as a 3(c)(7) fund so it can accept pension schemes and endowments without rationing owner slots. Its subscription pack now asks every applicant for a schedule of investments supporting the $5 million test.
Example
A commodities manager has 1,850 qualified purchaser holders and a growing waiting list. The chief operating officer freezes new admissions and plans a second fund, to stay clear of the record holder threshold that would trigger public reporting obligations.
Example
A family office with $40 million of investments is approved for a private infrastructure fund within a week, because its custodian statements make the qualified purchaser test easy to evidence. The same family office is turned away from a 3(c)(1) fund that has no owner slots left at any price.
Formula
Calculation
Qualified purchaser test for an individual: total investments owned must exceed $5,000,000.
An applicant presents listed shares and bonds of $3,200,000, commodity interests of $1,400,000 and cash held for investment of $1,100,000. Total investments = $3,200,000 + $1,400,000 + $1,100,000 = $5,700,000, which is more than the $5,000,000 threshold, so she qualifies. Her home, valued at $2,000,000, is excluded from the count, and if the $1,100,000 were her everyday current account rather than cash held for investing, her total would be $3,200,000 + $1,400,000 = $4,600,000 and she would fail the test.Case study
Seen in the real world.
Meridian Slate Partners is a fictional manager used here purely as an illustrative example. It ran a successful $200 million 3(c)(1) fund with 98 beneficial owners and was turning away institutional money because the register was effectively full.
In the illustrative scenario the firm launched a 3(c)(7) fund with the same strategy and a $10 million minimum, accepting that no merely accredited investor could join. Within two years it had 160 qualified purchaser holders, including four pension schemes, and total assets of $1.1 billion, while the original fund continued unchanged for its existing investors.
The fictional firm's one scare came when its administrator noticed the combined holder count climbing towards the level where public reporting obligations can be triggered. It capped admissions and opened a third vehicle, which is the ordinary housekeeping these structures require.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Assuming an accredited investor may be admitted to a 3(c)(7) fund, when every holder must clear the higher qualified purchaser bar.
- Reading no owner cap as no limits at all, and ignoring the separate record holder threshold that can pull a large private fund into public reporting.
- Counting a main residence, cars or personal possessions towards the $5 million investments test.
Questions
People also ask.
Is a 3(c)(7) fund safer than a 3(c)(1) fund?
Neither is inherently safer as an investment; the difference is who may invest and how many holders are permitted, not the quality of the strategy or the terms.
Can one fund rely on both exemptions at the same time?
A single fund relies on one exemption, though managers often run parallel 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) vehicles with the same strategy and fee terms.
What if an investor's wealth falls below the threshold later?
Status is tested when the investment is made, so a later fall in value does not retrospectively break the exemption, although any fresh subscription would be assessed again.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%