Opinion ID: 1228674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: broker or dealer

Text: (2) UFITEC urges it was not a broker or dealer because, its security transactions being a relatively small part of its investment banking and placement activity, it was not engaged in the business for either itself or others within the act's meaning. However, its security business constituted several million dollars, UFITEC charging a commission for its service. The phrase engaged in the business connotes a certain regularity of participation in purchasing and selling securities, but there is no requirement such activity be a person's principal business or principal source of income. (2 Loss, Securities Regulation (1961) p. 1295; Loomis, The Securities Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (1959) 28 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 214, 246; cf. Securities & Exch. Comm. v. United Financial Group, Inc. (9th Cir.1973) 474 F.2d 354, 356-357.) The purpose of the margin requirement could be effectively defeated if large businesses in this country were permitted to use a small percentage of their total activity to lend in excess of the margin requirement.