This bill revises how the Small Business Administration measures and approves leverage for Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs). It narrows which sources count as “private capital,” lowers general statutory leverage parameters, and creates a targeted exclusion that lets SBICs omit certain post‑enactment investments from their outstanding leverage calculations when those investments go to specified categories of small businesses.
The change aims to steer more debt capacity toward underserved geographies and sectors—rural and low‑income communities, firms in federally defined critical technology categories, and small manufacturers—while tightening the baseline leverage rules that apply across the SBIC program. For compliance officers and fund managers, the bill redraws the line between ordinary leverage limits and carve‑outs that can materially change an SBIC’s ability to finance specific portfolio companies; for the SBA it creates new verification and reporting responsibilities and new concentration‑risk questions for oversight.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends the Small Business Investment Act to (1) exclude most government‑sourced funds from the Administrator’s private‑capital count for leverage approval; (2) reduce the general leverage multiple and set new per‑fund dollar ceilings; and (3) allow SBICs to exclude qualifying investments in targeted small businesses from outstanding leverage calculations subject to per‑license caps and a 50%‑of‑private‑capital ceiling.
Who It Affects
SBIC managers and limited partners, SBA examiners and counsel, small businesses located in low‑income or rural areas, firms in the statutory ‘covered technology’ categories under title 10, and small manufacturers defined by the SBIC Act.
Why It Matters
The bill changes SBIC deal economics: managers that can direct investments into the specified categories gain additional leverage headroom, altering capital flows to underserved places and defense‑adjacent technology, while the SBA must adapt approvals, monitoring, and risk controls to the new exclusions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three interlocking adjustments to the SBIC leverage regime. First, it tightens the statutory perimeter for what counts as private capital when the Administrator evaluates a leverage request: funds traced back to federal, state, or local government entities generally do not count as private capital for leverage approval.
The text preserves certain institutional investor sources—for example, specified pension plans, foundations, endowments, and trusts—but otherwise treats government‑sourced money differently for the leverage calculation.
Second, the statute’s baseline leverage parameters change. The bill lowers a long‑standing multiple used in the calculation and introduces new dollar‑ceiling rules tied to a licensee’s interest payment cadence—different caps apply to SBICs that pay interest quarterly or semiannually versus those that do not.
It also revises the aggregate ceilings that apply when multiple SBIC licenses are commonly controlled, creating higher aggregate caps for commonly controlled entities that meet the regular payment cadence.Third, and most consequentially for deployment strategy, the bill creates a targeted carve‑out: investments made after enactment in certain qualifying small businesses can be excluded from the SBIC’s outstanding leverage calculation. Eligible recipients include small business concerns located in low‑income geographic areas under the SBIC Act’s cross‑references, rural businesses as defined in the cited Agricultural Act provision, firms classified under the federal ‘covered technology’ categories in title 10, and small manufacturers as defined in the SBIC Act.
The exclusion is subject to two limits: the total excluded amount cannot exceed the lesser of 50% of an SBIC’s private capital or a statutorily set dollar cap per license, and the carve‑out applies only to investments made after the law takes effect. Practically, that lets managers concentrate additional borrowed dollars behind prioritized portfolio companies while the headline leverage multiple for the fund overall is lower.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 15 U.S.C. 662(9) to specify that funds obtained from federal, state, or local governments generally do not count as private capital for SBA leverage approval, with narrow exceptions for certain institutional sources.
It reduces a statutory leverage multiple (striking “300” and replacing it with “200”) and replaces a flat dollar cap scheme with differentiated per‑license caps tied to interest payment frequency.
SBICs that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments face a per‑license ceiling of $250 million; other SBICs face a per‑license ceiling of $175 million for leverage under the amended provisions.
For commonly controlled SBIC licenses, aggregate ceilings rise to $475 million for entities meeting the payment cadence and $350 million for other commonly controlled groups.
The exclusion for targeted investments allows SBICs to omit post‑enactment investments in low‑income or rural small businesses, firms in the title 10 ‘covered technology’ categories, or small manufacturers from outstanding leverage up to the lesser of 50% of private capital or $125 million per company/companies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the Investing in All of America Act of 2025. This is purely formal but signals the bill’s intent to tie SBIC policy to geographic and sectoral inclusion.
Clarifies what counts as private capital for leverage approvals
The bill revises the statutory definition used when the Administrator reviews leverage requests, removing certain historical limitations and adding a new subparagraph that excludes funds obtained from government entities from being treated as private capital for leverage purposes. The section preserves several institutional investor categories in the existing text (pension plans, foundations, endowments, trusts), but otherwise sharpens the distinction between public‑sourced and private capital. For SBA practice this will change the composition of capital the agency recognizes when it signs off on leverage applications and could restrict leverage support for vehicles built with government money.
Lowers the baseline leverage multiple and creates per‑license dollar caps
The bill amends the clause that sets the leverage multiple and replaces a prior numeric term with a lower number (the statute’s text replaces “300” with “200”) and inserts explicit per‑license dollar ceilings tied to interest payment cadence. That mechanics change shifts part of the program’s leverage regulation from a pure ratio framework into a hybrid ratio/dollar cap framework. Managers and underwriters must account for the new ceilings when modeling liquidity, covenant headroom, and debt service scenarios for SBIC investments.
Raises aggregate ceilings for commonly controlled licenses with payment cadence carve‑out
The bill replaces the previous single aggregate cap for commonly controlled SBICs with two tiers: a higher aggregate ceiling for commonly controlled entities that meet the quarterly/semiannual payment cadence, and a lower ceiling for other commonly controlled groups. Operationally, groups that split activity across licenses will need to track which licenses meet the cadence test and how aggregate leverage stacks across commonly controlled entities for SBA reporting and covenants.
Creates the exclusion for investments in low‑income, rural, covered technology, and small manufacturer recipients
This provision authorizes SBICs to exclude investments made after enactment from the calculation of outstanding leverage if they are in (1) small business concerns located in low‑income geographic areas as cross‑referenced in the SBIC Act, (2) rural businesses per the cited Agricultural Act definition, (3) firms operating in covered technology categories identified under title 10, or (4) small manufacturers as defined elsewhere in the SBIC Act. The exclusion is limited: the aggregate excluded amount cannot exceed the lesser of 50% of the SBIC’s private capital or $125 million. The provision is explicitly prospective, applying only to investments made after the law’s effective date.
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
- SBICs focusing on rural and low‑income small businesses — They can exclude qualifying investments from outstanding leverage, effectively creating extra borrowed capacity to finance deals in underserved geographies.
- Small businesses in low‑income or rural areas and small manufacturers — They gain improved access to debt capital because eligible SBICs can increase finance available to those categories without immediately breaching leverage limits.
- Firms in federally designated ‘covered technology’ categories — Companies in defense‑adjacent or critical technology sectors may receive more SBIC attention and funding due to the carve‑out.
- Investors seeking mission‑aligned exposure — LPs and impact investors in SBICs that deploy to designated categories may see greater deployment velocity and potentially higher leverage‑enabled returns on those targeted investments.
Who Bears the Cost
- SBICs that do not target the eligible categories — These managers face tighter baseline leverage metrics and lower headroom under the new statutory multiple and dollar caps.
- SBA administrative and examination resources — The agency must implement new eligibility checks, track post‑enactment investments, and enforce exclusions, increasing compliance workloads.
- Taxpayers and leverage lenders — Concentrating additional borrowed financing in targeted sectors raises the potential for correlated losses; lenders and taxpayers absorb default risk tied to program leverage.
- Non‑SBIC private capital providers in the same markets — Preferential leverage treatment for SBICs in targeted sectors could distort competition for deal flow and change pricing dynamics.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize targeted capital deployment to underserved geographies and critical tech sectors (by exempting those investments from leverage calculations) while simultaneously reducing the general leverage envelope to contain program risk. The bill solves one distributional problem—moving credit toward priority places and sectors—while creating risk‑concentration, monitoring, and administrative burdens that may offset some of the intended access gains.
The bill mixes a stricter baseline leverage regime with carve‑outs that effectively permit more borrowing against certain investments. That design creates implementation complexity: SBA must now distinguish sources of capital (government vs. permitted institutional funds), verify the post‑enactment timing of eligible investments, and monitor whether excluded dollars are genuinely deployed to qualifying recipients rather than being re‑allocated or restructured to fit the categories.
Relying on cross‑references to other statutes (for low‑income geography and covered technology definitions) speeds drafting but forces SBA, licensees, and counsel to reconcile multiple statutory definitions and updates in other laws over time.
The numerical limits and per‑license ceilings reduce some previous headroom while the carve‑out caps (the lesser of 50% of private capital or a statutorily set dollar amount) introduce discontinuities between percent‑based and dollar‑based limits. That can produce edge cases—funds near the dollar cap could face abrupt leverage cliffs, and commonly controlled license groups must track different ceilings depending on payment cadence.
The law’s prospective‑only applicability avoids retroactive relief but also means managers cannot reclassify past investments to gain immediate additional leverage, which limits near‑term impact but preserves the potential for future concentration risk if many post‑enactment investments cluster in a sector.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.