When the SEC and the French AMF announced their supervisory MOU in October 2026, compliance officers at firms with transatlantic operations faced a familiar challenge: separating regulatory fact from industry folklore. Cross-border regulatory cooperation sounds straightforward until you're the one explaining to senior management why your firm's registration timeline just changed or why your supervision framework needs revision.
These myths persist because international regulatory frameworks evolve faster than internal knowledge bases update. What worked for your predecessor three years ago may now contradict current supervisory arrangements. Let's examine what compliance officers commonly misunderstand about cross-border regulatory cooperation and what the SEC-AMF framework actually requires.
Myth 1: Bilateral MOUs Create Regulatory Equivalence
The Reality: The SEC-AMF MOU establishes a framework for consultation, cooperation, and information exchange. It does not grant mutual recognition or create regulatory equivalence between U.S. and French regimes.
Your firm still registers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 if you're conducting advisory business in the United States. The MOU facilitates this registration process for AMF-supervised asset management companies, but it doesn't replace SEC registration requirements with French regulatory credentials. You can't substitute AMF supervision for SEC compliance obligations.
The distinction matters when you're building your compliance program. You'll maintain separate compliance manuals addressing SEC custody rules, Form ADV disclosure requirements, and fiduciary standards alongside your French regulatory obligations. The MOU allows regulators to share information about your firm's operations, which means consistency across jurisdictions becomes more important, not less.
Myth 2: Information Sharing Happens Only During Investigations
The Reality: The MOU creates a comprehensive framework for ongoing supervisory cooperation, not just crisis response.
Compliance officers often assume that cross-border regulatory information exchange triggers only when something goes wrong. Under this framework, the SEC and AMF consult and share information as part of routine supervision of investment advisers and service providers operating in both jurisdictions.
This changes your risk calculus. When you're preparing for an SEC examination, assume the examiners may have access to supervisory information from the AMF. When you're addressing an AMF inquiry, recognize that your responses may inform SEC oversight. Your documentation standards need to meet both regulators' expectations simultaneously, and discrepancies between what you tell one regulator versus another create unnecessary exposure.
Myth 3: The MOU Speeds Up Registration for Everyone
The Reality: The MOU specifically facilitates registration for AMF-supervised asset management companies. If you're not currently supervised by the AMF, this arrangement doesn't accelerate your SEC registration timeline.
The SEC explicitly stated it will process new and pending registration applications by AMF-supervised asset management companies in light of this arrangement. That's a defined category. If your firm operates in France but isn't supervised by the AMF, or if you're expanding from another European jurisdiction, you're following the standard SEC registration process.
For firms that do qualify, understand what "facilitates" means in practice. The SEC still conducts its own review of your application, assesses your compliance program, and determines whether you meet registration requirements. The MOU allows the SEC to consult with the AMF about your supervisory history and compliance record, which can inform but doesn't replace the SEC's independent review.
Myth 4: One Compliance Program Satisfies Both Regulators
The Reality: You're implementing a coordinated compliance framework that addresses distinct regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction.
The temptation is strong: build one comprehensive compliance program and deploy it across your U.S. and French operations. The problem is that SEC and AMF requirements diverge on substantive issues. SEC custody rules under Rule 206(4)-2 don't map directly to French custody requirements. Form ADV disclosure obligations don't satisfy French transparency standards.
What the MOU enables is better coordination between your jurisdiction-specific programs. Your conflicts of interest policy can follow consistent principles while addressing SEC-specific disclosure requirements and AMF-specific management obligations. Your supervision procedures can apply uniform risk assessment frameworks while incorporating jurisdiction-specific testing protocols.
Document where your programs intentionally diverge and why. When regulators share information under the MOU, you want clear explanations for why your French entity follows different procedures than your U.S. affiliate, grounded in regulatory requirements rather than administrative convenience.
Myth 5: The MOU Protects You From Dual Enforcement
The Reality: Both regulators retain full enforcement authority over firms operating in their respective jurisdictions.
The MOU facilitates cooperation in supervision, which includes enforcement cooperation. It doesn't create a mechanism for one regulator to defer to another's enforcement action or prevent parallel proceedings.
If your firm violates SEC requirements while operating in the United States, the SEC pursues enforcement regardless of your AMF supervisory relationship. If you breach French regulations, the AMF acts independently. The information-sharing framework means both regulators may learn about misconduct more quickly and coordinate their responses more effectively.
Your compliance program must prevent violations under both regimes. You can't rely on regulatory cooperation to shield you from consequences when controls fail. The MOU makes coordinated enforcement more likely, not less.
What to Do Instead
Start by identifying which of your operations fall under the MOU's scope. If you're an AMF-supervised asset management company conducting or planning to conduct advisory business in the United States, review your SEC registration status and pending applications with counsel.
Build your compliance framework around the assumption that both regulators have visibility into your operations. Implement consistent risk assessment methodologies, even when specific controls differ by jurisdiction. Document your rationale for jurisdiction-specific procedures.
Establish internal protocols for responding to regulatory inquiries that account for information sharing. When the SEC requests information, consider whether that information creates implications for your AMF supervision, and vice versa. Coordinate your responses through a central compliance function that understands both regulatory relationships.
Review your disclosure documents, client communications, and marketing materials for consistency across jurisdictions. Discrepancies that once seemed minor become material when regulators routinely share supervisory information.
The SEC-AMF MOU represents how cross-border regulatory supervision actually works: not through harmonization or mutual recognition, but through structured cooperation between authorities that maintain distinct requirements. Your compliance strategy succeeds when it accounts for that reality rather than chasing myths about regulatory shortcuts.
