A man wearing a blue suit with a white shirt and a tie, with his arms crossed, smiling and standing against a plain background.

BRAEDEN ANDERSON

Welcome to Anderson Insights.

We provide authoritative analysis on securities and commodities regulation, SEC and FINRA enforcement, and legal developments affecting crypto, digital assets, fintech, and financial services, authored by Braeden Anderson.

Please enjoy our legal writings. If you want to talk anything through, send Braeden an email.

Looking for something specific?

The full Anderson Insights archive is now searchable. Use the search bar to find past content by topic, agency, or keyword. Try searching: “SEC v. Jarkesy,” “ATS regulation,” “custody” or “digital assets”

K. Braeden Anderson K. Braeden Anderson

Robo-Advisers Under the Advisers Act: A Complete Framework for Building, Registering, and Governing a Digital Investment Adviser

Robo-advisers are not a regulatory shortcut. They are fully regulated investment advisers operating through code. While automation reduces human infrastructure, it embeds fiduciary duties, disclosure obligations, and compliance requirements directly into the platform. For fintech founders and financial institutions, success depends on designing systems that satisfy the Advisers Act at scale.

Read More
K. Braeden Anderson K. Braeden Anderson

Why the Definition of “Small Adviser” Deserves a Second Look

The SEC’s definition of a “small investment adviser” hasn’t kept up with reality, and it shows in how rules are written and analyzed. Firms managing $150–300 million in AUM are still treated like large institutions, even though many are lean, founder-led operations navigating real compliance strain. A proposed shift to a $1 billion threshold is a step in the right direction, but without legislative backing, it may not stick. This piece breaks down why the definition matters, how it shapes regulatory outcomes, and what needs to happen next.

Read More
K. Braeden Anderson K. Braeden Anderson

A LinkedIn “Like,” Judicial Recusal, and the Limits of Appearance

A Securities Docket poll showing 85% support for judicial recusal has sparked renewed debate after Elon Musk’s legal team moved to disqualify a Delaware judge over a LinkedIn “like.” This piece examines how that poll reflects public sentiment, while contrasting it with the governing legal standards for recusal under Delaware law and key precedent like Liteky and Caperton. The result is a clear tension between optics and doctrine, with the law suggesting a far higher threshold for disqualification than the poll implies.

Read More

About the Author - Braeden Anderson is a partner at Gesmer Updegrove LLP, where he leads the Securities Regulatory and Enforcement and Digital Assets practice areas. Prior experience includes roles at Robinhood Markets, Inc., Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Anderson P.C., and FINRA. He’s been nationally recognized by Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch® for Financial Services and Securities Regulation, and listed in Marquis Who’s Who in America for contributions to law and public service.