The bill amends the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to change how the Small Business Administration (SBA) calculates SBIC leverage. It creates a new carve‑out allowing investments in small businesses located in low‑income or rural areas, in covered (critical) technology categories, and in small manufacturers to be excluded from the outstanding‑leverage calculation, subject to dollar and percentage limits, and only for investments made after enactment.
At the same time the measure revises maximum leverage ratios and dollar ceilings for individual licenses and commonly‑controlled companies and clarifies that most government funds may not be counted toward certain capital calculations for SBA leverage approvals. The net effect is a targeted incentive to steer SBIC capital into underserved geographies and strategic technology areas while changing the arithmetic and compliance rules fund managers must follow.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends 15 U.S.C. 662(9) and 683(b)(2) so that specified investments can be excluded from an SBIC’s outstanding leverage calculation, changes statutory leverage ratios and per‑license and aggregate dollar caps, and adds a rule barring most government funds from being counted for SBA leverage approval. Exclusions are limited by a cap (lesser of 50% of private capital or a set dollar amount) and apply only to investments made after enactment.
Who It Affects
Licensed SBICs and their managers, investors who provide private capital to SBICs, the SBA’s leverage‑approval and compliance teams, and small businesses that qualify as located in low‑income or rural areas, operate in listed critical‑technology categories, or meet the bill’s small‑manufacturer definition.
Why It Matters
The bill changes the commercial math of SBIC financing: it makes targeted investments more attractive by removing them from leverage limits up to a cap, while simultaneously lowering or reconfiguring base leverage and dollar ceilings — a combination that alters fund structuring, investor returns, and SBA oversight obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works in two tracks: (1) it adjusts the inputs the SBA uses when deciding how much leverage to authorize an SBIC, and (2) it rewrites the top‑line limits that govern how much leverage a licensee — or group of commonly controlled licensees — can carry. On inputs, the statute’s definition of certain capital sources is tweaked and a new paragraph makes clear that funds “obtained directly or indirectly” from federal, state, or local governments generally do not count for SBA approval of leverage requests, except for a few enumerated institutional sources.
Practically, that lowers the ability to rely on government capital to justify higher leverage unless the funds fit the enumerated exceptions.
On limits, the bill reduces the base leverage ratio for purposes of the statute from 300 (as expressed in current law) to 200 in the relevant subsection and replaces a single dollar ceiling with two categories based on a licensee’s interest‑payment frequency, setting a higher dollar ceiling for SBICs that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments. It also raises the aggregate cap for commonly controlled companies in one payment category and keeps a lower cap for others.Crucially, the bill creates a carve‑out that allows the SBA, when calculating outstanding leverage, to exclude certain investments — specifically, investments in small businesses located in low‑income or rural areas, in covered (critical) technology categories, and in small manufacturers.
That exclusion is not unlimited: the aggregate excluded amount for a licensee or commonly controlled group cannot exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the private capital in the company or $125 million. The exclusion applies only to investments made after the bill becomes law, so SBICs cannot retroactively recast past investments to gain additional leverage.For fund managers and compliance officers, the combination of lower base ratios and a new targeted exclusion means money must be allocated with both the leverage formula and the exclusion cap in mind.
An SBIC can expand leverage availability for targeted investments up to the exclusion cap, but the lower base ratio and revised per‑license ceilings may reduce leverage available for other portfolio investments. The SBA will need new verification processes to confirm geographic, industry, and timing eligibility for excluded investments and to monitor aggregate excluded amounts against the statutory cap.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(i) to change the statutory leverage ratio used in the calculation from 300 to 200.
It sets per‑license dollar ceilings: $250,000,000 for companies that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments and $175,000,000 for other licensed companies (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(ii) as amended).
For commonly controlled licensees the aggregate ceilings become $475,000,000 for those in the higher‑payment category and $350,000,000 for other companies (amendment to 15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(B)).
The bill authorizes excluding from an SBIC’s outstanding‑leverage calculation investments in small concerns located in low‑income or rural areas, in covered (critical) technology categories, or in small manufacturers, but caps the aggregate exclusion at the lesser of 50% of the SBIC’s private capital or $125,000,000.
Exclusions apply only prospectively — an investment is eligible for exclusion only if the licensee makes it after the date of enactment — and the bill clarifies that most government funds may not be counted toward SBA leverage approval except for specific institutional sources listed in the statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the public name 'Investing in All of America Act of 2025.' This is solely stylistic and creates no programmatic changes; the operative changes are in the amendments that follow.
Clarify capital sources and exclude most government funds from SBA leverage approval calculations
This amendment revises the statutory definition that governs what counts as certain capital sources for SBIC leverage approvals. It removes an old date restriction from one clause and expands the list of acceptable institutional sources to include foundations, endowments, and university trusts. It then adds a new clause that instructs the SBA not to treat funds obtained directly or indirectly from federal, state, or local governments (or their agencies or instrumentalities) as part of the capital the Administrator may consider when approving leverage — except for a limited set of enumerated institutional funds. In practice this blocks using most government money to inflate an SBIC’s capital picture for leverage purposes and forces clearer documentation of fund sources.
Lower base leverage ratio and create per‑license dollar categories
The bill lowers the base numerical ratio used in the statute and replaces the prior single ceiling with two explicit per‑license dollar limits tied to a licensee’s interest–payment frequency: a higher cap for those that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments and a lower cap for others. That language sets predictable dollar maxima for leverage on a per‑license basis, which affects both the absolute amount of leverage an SBIC may carry and how managers decide payment cadence for debt instruments in order to qualify for the higher cap.
Adjust aggregate ceilings for commonly controlled companies
This subsection updates the aggregate dollar ceilings that apply when multiple SBIC licenses are commonly controlled. The law now distinguishes between companies that make more frequent interest payments and other licensees, assigning a higher aggregate cap to the former. The change matters for fund families or sponsors that operate several SBICs under common control because it alters the maximum pooled leverage they can carry across those entities.
Create targeted exclusions and set caps and prospective applicability
This is the operationally decisive change: it permits the SBA to exclude from the outstanding‑leverage calculation investments that a licensee makes in small concerns located in low‑income or rural areas, in covered critical‑technology categories, or in small manufacturers. The statute limits the aggregate excluded amount to the lesser of 50 percent of the SBIC’s private capital or $125 million and makes the rule prospective — only investments made after enactment qualify. That creates a bounded pathway for SBICs to expand leverage capacity for targeted investments but requires careful tracking to avoid exceeding the exclusion cap.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small businesses in low‑income and rural areas — they may receive greater access to capital as SBICs can expand leverage available for investments in these geographies.
- Startups and firms in covered (critical) technology categories — the exclusion incentivizes SBICs to allocate funds to strategic technology sectors by effectively increasing leverage available for those investments.
- Small manufacturers meeting the statutory definition — manufacturers often underserved by venture models could see more SBIC attention and capital availability.
- SBICs and fund managers that pivot toward targeted investments — managers who can credibly channel capital into the enumerated areas gain additional leverage capacity (within the exclusion cap), potentially improving returns on those strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- SBICs that do not invest in the targeted categories — they face lower base leverage ratios and reconfigured dollar ceilings that may reduce overall leverage available for their existing portfolios.
- The SBA — the agency must implement eligibility verification, monitor excluded amounts across licensees and commonly‑controlled groups, and adjudicate source‑of‑fund questions when applicants seek leverage approval, increasing administrative burden.
- Investors and limited partners in non‑targeted SBIC strategies — reduced leverage for those strategies can compress expected returns or force structural changes to maintain target IRRs.
- License sponsors managing multiple SBICs — the new commonly‑controlled ceilings and the 50%/dollar exclusion cap create more complex allocation and compliance calculations across affiliated entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is that policymakers want to steer private SBIC leverage into underserved geographies and strategic technologies without increasing systemic leverage risk; doing so requires a mix of incentives and constraints that pull in opposite directions. The bill attempts to resolve that by lowering baseline leverage while carving out targeted exclusions, but that solution substitutes simplicity with conditional complexity — it incentivizes some investments but forces detailed rules, agency judgments, and new compliance costs that can mute or distort the intended flow of capital.
The bill pairs an incentive (carve‑outs for targeted investments) with blunt arithmetic changes (lower base leverage ratio and new ceilings). That combination creates ambiguity about the net capital effect: an SBIC that aggressively uses the exclusion could still face less overall leverage for its non‑targeted portfolio because the base ratio and per‑license caps are lower.
Determining whether a fund gains or loses leverage capacity will require modeling portfolio mixes, timing of investments, and whether the exclusion cap (50% of private capital or $125 million) is binding.
Operationally, the bill hands the SBA a verification challenge. The agency must define and verify eligibility for 'low‑income' and 'rural' designations, document covered technology categories consistent with the referenced statutory definition, and police the timing of investments to enforce the prospective rule.
The newly added prohibition on counting most government funds toward leverage approval is potentially open to interpretation — 'indirect' government funds raise questions about pass‑through structures, matching grants, or state programs that capitalize private vehicles. Those ambiguities create scope for dispute and for sponsors to design structures that test the statute’s limits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.