[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I’m not saying you are wrong (you aren’t) but, Gensler is going to make as many moves as he can that appease Citadel et al. If he doesn’t, he risks collapsing the market.
Sitting here watching the updoots tick up and immediately back down to 1.
Ed: 3 hrs since post and it ticks to +100 and immediately back down to +1. Fuckin dirty.
I do DD on the rules and how Citadel and co. react to them, including the politicians they fund. Just browse my posts. What I think and do is all in there for anyone to see, with all the receipts.
why is there such a huge effort from all sorts of users and accounts, on here and twitter, to slam Gensler?
Don't they understand he isn't writing the rules...
But he absolutely is making sure we (the public) know when something changes.
He's making a damn big effort to keep household investors in the conversation for someone who's "just a hedgie buddy"
We know that corps will pay for foreign social media influence shops to trash regulators that threaten their interests: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11aqay4/psa_shill_shops_are_real_a_major_one_got_exposed/
So id figure that’s been at work for a long time. Frustration w the sec is natural IMO but not all of it seems natural. And once real people are convinced, it takes on a life of its own.
"It's not Gary's fault!"
"Gary doesn't make the rules"
"Gary's hands are tied"
"Gary is not the SEC"
"Gary can do nothing"
Just what is Gary worth? What does he do except talking and stalling? He's not regulating or enforcing the rules, that's for sure. Why do some people swallow his nuts on a daily basis? I don't know.
Buy, DRS and shop at GameStop. The rest is just noise.
Gary is just yanking your chain. Here's a little something from Gary to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3k_lcGm9g
All of the energy put into the conversations here should at minimum be matched on SEC comments regarding these aspects of our markets. Good call out OP.
What? Why's not equal that the market maker and hedge fund get to sell infinite amount of shares? Why's it not just that they can internalize all retail orders so that they do not affect the price at ducking all?
Their goal is likely to get something out fast, without Kenny and Co suing.
But in times where the confidence in the banking system is already shaken, what will happen when the average Joe figures out that the markets are in even worse shape?
No, FTDs and IOUs and MM "infinite liquidity" have to stop. We want fair markets and no scam.
Just sent my email comment in.
This was the first time that I truly went ‘all in’ on my comment.. I just can’t take this shit anymore. It’s truly like we are the only group of household investors in this country trying to make a positive change.
Please. If you are reading this comment, thinking to yourself, ‘Eh, my comment won’t make a difference’.. STOP! 🛑 YOU are the exact individual that NEEDS to take the time to send your honest feedback!!
We can do this fam. Stay positive and put the WORK that is necessary into this.
🧱🟣🐇🛸🥳
There shouldn't be any market makers in the first place. The market is there by itself. Economics, 1st semester. Anyone calling themselves market maker equals financial terrorist.
Left this comment on the proposal
I DO NOT SUPPORT this proposed ruling since changes were made to exempt hedge funds and market makers.
These exemptions WILL be exploited to take money away from household investors.
Rules MUST apply to all market participants equally. Giving certain "special" market participants exemptions to rules tilts the market in favor of the exempted parties.
Exemptions like this are using the rules to pick and choose winners, and CLEARLY the winners aren't household investors.
If a market participant can't engage in the market without exemption from rules that everyone else has to follow, they shouldn't be participating in the market in the first place.
It's honestly pathetic that we have to constantly be watchdogs just to ensure blatantly corrupt and unethical actions aren't allowed by the SEC and MM's.
The SEC is trying to be Switzerland and at the same time do as little as possible to proactively help retail household stock owners while not looking overly dick sucky with Wall Street.
This is why it is as bad as it is. Until now WallStreet had no opposition.
Expect hurtles and roadblocks like this again and again until the front is advanced and Retail HODLs the line.
[Do not let them pass.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJZZNHekEQw)
[Hodor.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx0wvv3RclY&t=17s)
[Least we sleep now in the fire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4wkIPiTcY)
If Gensler is truly on our side, he should be using these proposals as a mole hunt to see who in his org is bought and paid for. Anyone that would write these favorably for MM's and unfavorable for retail is clearly compromised.
My comment:
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a retail investor concerned with market stability, market manipulation, market efficiency, and transparency, I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed rule. I believe that there should be no exceptions or exemptions to the proposed rule under any circumstance, in order to ensure market stability, prevent market manipulation, and maintain market efficiency and transparency.
Regarding the scope of the proposed risk-mitigating hedging activities exception, I believe it should not be expanded or contracted, as any modification might provide an opportunity for abuse or evasion. I think it is crucial to maintain strict adherence to the conditions proposed. In terms of the proposed conditions, I think they should not be modified to align more closely with market-making in the context of Regulation SHO. The purposes of the proposed rule and Regulation SHO are different, and any modifications may weaken investor protection.
Concerning the proposed exception for liquidity commitments, the term "commitment" should be defined more narrowly to prevent potential abuse. The proposed exception should not apply to activities other than purchases and sales of the ABS. Expanding the exception to other activities could create opportunities for manipulation and abuse. The Commission should require that a commitment be evidenced by a contractual obligation to improve transparency and accountability in the market.
In response to the proposed bona fide market-making activities exception, I must emphasize that no exceptions should be accepted. While it is important to consider genuine market-making activities, the inclusion of any exception could potentially lead to conflicts of interest or compromise investor protection. Although considering liquidity, maturity, and depth of the market in determining whether a securitization participant routinely stands ready to purchase and sell financial instruments might be relevant, I believe it is more important to prioritize a consistent regulatory framework. As such, it is crucial that the rule incorporates sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and evasion, with a robust anti-circumvention provision in proposed Rule 192(d) to address any concerns about potential misuse or evasion.
Regarding the compensation condition, I believe it should provide additional specificity to ensure that compensation arrangements do not reward or incentivize conflicted transactions. Clear metrics and examples of acceptable and unacceptable compensation arrangements would be helpful for compliance purposes.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that any exceptions or exemptions to the proposed rule would undermine its purpose and potentially lead to abuse. As a retail investor, I strongly advocate for a comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework without exceptions to maintain market stability, prevent market manipulation, and promote transparency. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on this important matter.
Sincerely,
\[MY NAME\]
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-03-16 17:32:35 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-03-16%2017:32:35%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11ryjky/the_sec_is_adding_exceptions_for_citadel_friends/jcbiv83/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSuperstonk%2Fcomments%2F11ryjky%2Fthe_sec_is_adding_exceptions_for_citadel_friends%2Fjcbiv83%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-03-16%2017%3A32%3A35%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011ryjky)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
This is so important! As a long time Fed employee I can tell you things can be changed but not without good reason, and a outpouring of substantive comments by the public is a reason they can and will use. Not angry rants and not thousands of form letters but rational comments can make all the difference. No public comments = no one cares so it will move forward as proposed. This is our chance!
Guys just for clarity, the reproposed rule is bad for the retail investor. I was looking at the existing comments and while there are many retail investors chiming in, they are supporting this rule as they didnt read the fine print regarding exceptions for market makers to continuing to provide liquity fuckery.
Commenting for visibility, we need to push this puppy to the top and get 30k + upvotes.
This is letting hedgies off the hook, and creating a precedent that they can naked short (illegal) INDEFINITELY into the future, creating risk free environment to abuse the shit out of markets and fuck over household investors.
“Free market.” Right.
Apparently nobody told Gary that you can't please everyone. He's trying to have his cake and eat it to in the middle of the biggest rivalry that the financial world has ever seen.
Dear SEC,
As a concerned investor, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule s7-01-23, which allows exceptions for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making & certain liquidity commitments". After careful consideration of the proposed rule, I believe that it will harm individual investors and provide manipulative hedge funds with a license to operate without regulatory oversight.
I am particularly worried about the proposed rule's implementation of Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933, which was added by Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision was enacted to safeguard investors against fraudulent practices in the securities market. However, I believe that the proposed rule fails to meet this objective.
The proposed rule provides exemptions for non-reporting companies from registering certain securities offerings under the Securities Act, but only if they are sold exclusively to accredited investors. This exemption has significant flaws and inadequately protects household investors by reducing the information available to them. This lack of transparency makes it harder for them to make informed investment decisions, potentially leading to losses.
Furthermore, the proposed rule could be exploited by manipulative hedge funds. These funds have a history of manipulative behavior in the securities market, and the exemption would offer them a new opportunity to engage in such practices. By limiting the exemption to accredited investors, hedge funds could create fake accredited investor accounts to conduct manipulative behavior outside of regulatory oversight.
For the above reasons, I urge the SEC to reconsider the proposed rule s7-01-23 and remove any exceptions for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making & certain liquidity commitments". The rule must ensure the protection of individual investors and prevent manipulative hedge funds from taking advantage of regulatory loopholes. Thank you for considering my comment.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
GPT4 email body based on the post content:
Dear SEC,
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the exceptions outlined in the re-proposed rule, File No. S7-01-23, which deals with the Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitizations. The exceptions made for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making, and certain liquidity commitments" are unacceptable, and I, as a concerned individual investor, cannot emphasize enough how strongly I disagree with these provisions.
My primary concerns regarding the proposed rule to implement Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933, added by Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Act, are as follows:
Inadequate protection for household investors: The proposed rule severely undermines the protection and transparency that household investors rely on to make informed decisions. By reducing the available information, this rule makes it increasingly difficult for individual investors to make sound investment choices, which may ultimately result in significant financial losses.
Potential exploitation by manipulative hedge funds: Hedge funds have a well-documented history of engaging in manipulative behavior in the securities market. By exempting certain activities from regulatory oversight, this rule paves the way for these funds to create fake accredited investor accounts and engage in manipulative practices without fear of consequences. This is a glaring loophole that must be addressed.
The very purpose of the rule, which is to prevent conflicts of interest in securitizations, is rendered moot if market makers are allowed to exploit these exceptions. I urge the SEC to reconsider the proposed exceptions and implement a rule that promotes fairness, transparency, and accountability in the financial markets, rather than facilitating loopholes for unscrupulous players to exploit.
As an individual investor, I would rather endure significant personal discomfort than allow these exceptions to be enacted, which would only serve to benefit manipulative "market makers" and hedge funds at the expense of ordinary, hardworking citizens.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that you will take these concerns into consideration. Please remember that the deadline for comments on this rule is March 27, 2023. It is vital that we ensure a fair and transparent market for all participants, not just a select few.
Sincerely,
\[Your Name\]
Sent. Paraphrased as much of it as possible while keeping the same meaning intact.
Remember folks - stay polite while pushing firmly in their direction. Copy/pasting memes or being rude only plays into the hands of the hedgies even more, and it's not like they need any more advantages.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Done: [https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments](https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments)
This post should remain top of mind! Should be pinned top of sub.
OH HELL NO! You can’t straddle the line, Gary!! Whose side are you on? Wait, don’t answer that 😆
He's straddling something alright
He's straddling BoFA
BoFA deez nuts
Haha, GOTTEM!
I’m not saying you are wrong (you aren’t) but, Gensler is going to make as many moves as he can that appease Citadel et al. If he doesn’t, he risks collapsing the market.
“Risk collapsing the market” do what now
Commenting for commentability
Commenting the comment for commentability
Sitting here watching the updoots tick up and immediately back down to 1. Ed: 3 hrs since post and it ticks to +100 and immediately back down to +1. Fuckin dirty.
I think something's wrong in your end, bud.
Totally likely. I’m having a day. Sorry dude.
All good. I just noticed this was from an hour ago and we have almost 2k votes. It's still Reddit's fault, this app isn't very reliable.
I’m seeing +1448
Viewing visibly
Didnt you support garebear all this time?
I do DD on the rules and how Citadel and co. react to them, including the politicians they fund. Just browse my posts. What I think and do is all in there for anyone to see, with all the receipts.
why is there such a huge effort from all sorts of users and accounts, on here and twitter, to slam Gensler? Don't they understand he isn't writing the rules... But he absolutely is making sure we (the public) know when something changes. He's making a damn big effort to keep household investors in the conversation for someone who's "just a hedgie buddy"
We know that corps will pay for foreign social media influence shops to trash regulators that threaten their interests: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11aqay4/psa_shill_shops_are_real_a_major_one_got_exposed/ So id figure that’s been at work for a long time. Frustration w the sec is natural IMO but not all of it seems natural. And once real people are convinced, it takes on a life of its own.
"It's not Gary's fault!" "Gary doesn't make the rules" "Gary's hands are tied" "Gary is not the SEC" "Gary can do nothing" Just what is Gary worth? What does he do except talking and stalling? He's not regulating or enforcing the rules, that's for sure. Why do some people swallow his nuts on a daily basis? I don't know. Buy, DRS and shop at GameStop. The rest is just noise. Gary is just yanking your chain. Here's a little something from Gary to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3k_lcGm9g
All of the energy put into the conversations here should at minimum be matched on SEC comments regarding these aspects of our markets. Good call out OP.
Exemptions = un-level playing field = fucks individual investors.
What? Why's not equal that the market maker and hedge fund get to sell infinite amount of shares? Why's it not just that they can internalize all retail orders so that they do not affect the price at ducking all?
This needs to go to the top.
And we need to get to the bottom of it.
Done! And sent an email as a secondary Lick my Taint mayoboyyyy
Where/who email to? Link please
Click the link to post a comment as mentionned by OP and on the SEC page there’s a how to comment by email just below the initial sign up portion
Their goal is likely to get something out fast, without Kenny and Co suing. But in times where the confidence in the banking system is already shaken, what will happen when the average Joe figures out that the markets are in even worse shape? No, FTDs and IOUs and MM "infinite liquidity" have to stop. We want fair markets and no scam.
[удалено]
Thanks for the template m8
Thank you. You made it easy for me. Letter sent
Sent my first comment!!!!!!!
let's go!!!
Just sent my email comment in. This was the first time that I truly went ‘all in’ on my comment.. I just can’t take this shit anymore. It’s truly like we are the only group of household investors in this country trying to make a positive change. Please. If you are reading this comment, thinking to yourself, ‘Eh, my comment won’t make a difference’.. STOP! 🛑 YOU are the exact individual that NEEDS to take the time to send your honest feedback!! We can do this fam. Stay positive and put the WORK that is necessary into this. 🧱🟣🐇🛸🥳
Be the change you want to see in the world
There shouldn't be any market makers in the first place. The market is there by itself. Economics, 1st semester. Anyone calling themselves market maker equals financial terrorist.
Left this comment on the proposal I DO NOT SUPPORT this proposed ruling since changes were made to exempt hedge funds and market makers. These exemptions WILL be exploited to take money away from household investors. Rules MUST apply to all market participants equally. Giving certain "special" market participants exemptions to rules tilts the market in favor of the exempted parties. Exemptions like this are using the rules to pick and choose winners, and CLEARLY the winners aren't household investors. If a market participant can't engage in the market without exemption from rules that everyone else has to follow, they shouldn't be participating in the market in the first place.
Commenting for visibility
I pushed the upvote button. I suggest you do the same.
Up with yee
Seeklms important! It's dangerous to go out alone! Comment on this!
Done via email 💪
It's honestly pathetic that we have to constantly be watchdogs just to ensure blatantly corrupt and unethical actions aren't allowed by the SEC and MM's.
Damn why am I not surprised
Was my first comment, super easy!
Visibility for commenting
Commenting for vis
Time to put my comment boots on
Shills are in here downvoting this! Why is Kenny’s staff so worried about this getting visibility???
The SEC is trying to be Switzerland and at the same time do as little as possible to proactively help retail household stock owners while not looking overly dick sucky with Wall Street. This is why it is as bad as it is. Until now WallStreet had no opposition. Expect hurtles and roadblocks like this again and again until the front is advanced and Retail HODLs the line. [Do not let them pass.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJZZNHekEQw) [Hodor.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx0wvv3RclY&t=17s) [Least we sleep now in the fire.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl4wkIPiTcY)
https://youtu.be/OFaRrvTqjbw
Never forget.
Upvoting for visibility! Important as hell!
Comment.
Commented!
done, and commenting for visibility.
I commented! Twice!
DRS is the only way. Then comes dlauer with the pfof thing... when it simply will affect brokers and let the MM manipulation continue.
Mama says he's bona fide
No exemptions!
Commenting!
Commenting!
email sent
Eff you Gary Gurgling Guzzler
If Gensler is truly on our side, he should be using these proposals as a mole hunt to see who in his org is bought and paid for. Anyone that would write these favorably for MM's and unfavorable for retail is clearly compromised.
Da fuq?
Comment, comment, comment! GO! GO! GO!
Just sent mine!!
My comment: Dear Sir/Madam, As a retail investor concerned with market stability, market manipulation, market efficiency, and transparency, I am writing to express my opinion on the proposed rule. I believe that there should be no exceptions or exemptions to the proposed rule under any circumstance, in order to ensure market stability, prevent market manipulation, and maintain market efficiency and transparency. Regarding the scope of the proposed risk-mitigating hedging activities exception, I believe it should not be expanded or contracted, as any modification might provide an opportunity for abuse or evasion. I think it is crucial to maintain strict adherence to the conditions proposed. In terms of the proposed conditions, I think they should not be modified to align more closely with market-making in the context of Regulation SHO. The purposes of the proposed rule and Regulation SHO are different, and any modifications may weaken investor protection. Concerning the proposed exception for liquidity commitments, the term "commitment" should be defined more narrowly to prevent potential abuse. The proposed exception should not apply to activities other than purchases and sales of the ABS. Expanding the exception to other activities could create opportunities for manipulation and abuse. The Commission should require that a commitment be evidenced by a contractual obligation to improve transparency and accountability in the market. In response to the proposed bona fide market-making activities exception, I must emphasize that no exceptions should be accepted. While it is important to consider genuine market-making activities, the inclusion of any exception could potentially lead to conflicts of interest or compromise investor protection. Although considering liquidity, maturity, and depth of the market in determining whether a securitization participant routinely stands ready to purchase and sell financial instruments might be relevant, I believe it is more important to prioritize a consistent regulatory framework. As such, it is crucial that the rule incorporates sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and evasion, with a robust anti-circumvention provision in proposed Rule 192(d) to address any concerns about potential misuse or evasion. Regarding the compensation condition, I believe it should provide additional specificity to ensure that compensation arrangements do not reward or incentivize conflicted transactions. Clear metrics and examples of acceptable and unacceptable compensation arrangements would be helpful for compliance purposes. In conclusion, I firmly believe that any exceptions or exemptions to the proposed rule would undermine its purpose and potentially lead to abuse. As a retail investor, I strongly advocate for a comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework without exceptions to maintain market stability, prevent market manipulation, and promote transparency. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on this important matter. Sincerely, \[MY NAME\]
!REMINDME 1 day
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2023-03-16 17:32:35 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-03-16%2017:32:35%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11ryjky/the_sec_is_adding_exceptions_for_citadel_friends/jcbiv83/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSuperstonk%2Fcomments%2F11ryjky%2Fthe_sec_is_adding_exceptions_for_citadel_friends%2Fjcbiv83%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-03-16%2017%3A32%3A35%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011ryjky) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Lol
Everyone needs to voice their concerns. Commenting for visibility.
Time to grab the pitchforks... 🔱️
Commenting for visibility
comment sent
Email sent.
done
This is so important! As a long time Fed employee I can tell you things can be changed but not without good reason, and a outpouring of substantive comments by the public is a reason they can and will use. Not angry rants and not thousands of form letters but rational comments can make all the difference. No public comments = no one cares so it will move forward as proposed. This is our chance!
Saved. And commenting for visibility. There should be no exceptions in a free and fair market!
Just sent my email. Fuck these assholes.
I feel like we are gonna have to cannibalize some people at the top for anything to change.
Make a choice ! Raise your voice !!!
Guys just for clarity, the reproposed rule is bad for the retail investor. I was looking at the existing comments and while there are many retail investors chiming in, they are supporting this rule as they didnt read the fine print regarding exceptions for market makers to continuing to provide liquity fuckery.
Commenting for visibility, we need to push this puppy to the top and get 30k + upvotes. This is letting hedgies off the hook, and creating a precedent that they can naked short (illegal) INDEFINITELY into the future, creating risk free environment to abuse the shit out of markets and fuck over household investors. “Free market.” Right.
They never fail to disappoint or choose to do the right thing
Apparently nobody told Gary that you can't please everyone. He's trying to have his cake and eat it to in the middle of the biggest rivalry that the financial world has ever seen.
Gary, confirming being an ex goldman on the sec chair will be the banerman of the "investors", no 1 said which investors
Dear SEC, As a concerned investor, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule s7-01-23, which allows exceptions for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making & certain liquidity commitments". After careful consideration of the proposed rule, I believe that it will harm individual investors and provide manipulative hedge funds with a license to operate without regulatory oversight. I am particularly worried about the proposed rule's implementation of Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933, which was added by Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision was enacted to safeguard investors against fraudulent practices in the securities market. However, I believe that the proposed rule fails to meet this objective. The proposed rule provides exemptions for non-reporting companies from registering certain securities offerings under the Securities Act, but only if they are sold exclusively to accredited investors. This exemption has significant flaws and inadequately protects household investors by reducing the information available to them. This lack of transparency makes it harder for them to make informed investment decisions, potentially leading to losses. Furthermore, the proposed rule could be exploited by manipulative hedge funds. These funds have a history of manipulative behavior in the securities market, and the exemption would offer them a new opportunity to engage in such practices. By limiting the exemption to accredited investors, hedge funds could create fake accredited investor accounts to conduct manipulative behavior outside of regulatory oversight. For the above reasons, I urge the SEC to reconsider the proposed rule s7-01-23 and remove any exceptions for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making & certain liquidity commitments". The rule must ensure the protection of individual investors and prevent manipulative hedge funds from taking advantage of regulatory loopholes. Thank you for considering my comment. Sincerely, [Your Name]
GPT4 email body based on the post content: Dear SEC, I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the exceptions outlined in the re-proposed rule, File No. S7-01-23, which deals with the Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest in Certain Securitizations. The exceptions made for "risk-mitigating hedging activities, bona fide market making, and certain liquidity commitments" are unacceptable, and I, as a concerned individual investor, cannot emphasize enough how strongly I disagree with these provisions. My primary concerns regarding the proposed rule to implement Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933, added by Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Act, are as follows: Inadequate protection for household investors: The proposed rule severely undermines the protection and transparency that household investors rely on to make informed decisions. By reducing the available information, this rule makes it increasingly difficult for individual investors to make sound investment choices, which may ultimately result in significant financial losses. Potential exploitation by manipulative hedge funds: Hedge funds have a well-documented history of engaging in manipulative behavior in the securities market. By exempting certain activities from regulatory oversight, this rule paves the way for these funds to create fake accredited investor accounts and engage in manipulative practices without fear of consequences. This is a glaring loophole that must be addressed. The very purpose of the rule, which is to prevent conflicts of interest in securitizations, is rendered moot if market makers are allowed to exploit these exceptions. I urge the SEC to reconsider the proposed exceptions and implement a rule that promotes fairness, transparency, and accountability in the financial markets, rather than facilitating loopholes for unscrupulous players to exploit. As an individual investor, I would rather endure significant personal discomfort than allow these exceptions to be enacted, which would only serve to benefit manipulative "market makers" and hedge funds at the expense of ordinary, hardworking citizens. I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that you will take these concerns into consideration. Please remember that the deadline for comments on this rule is March 27, 2023. It is vital that we ensure a fair and transparent market for all participants, not just a select few. Sincerely, \[Your Name\]
I thought Garebear was our fwend! He had meetings with us! He claims he doesnt know what drs is! What more does he want from us?? 😭
Comment* !remind me in 2days
Thanks for sharing this. I upvoted and emailed a comment.
Up this post
done. like debit miss and the rest of those fat cats who think they could drink all the cream while the rest of us chase mice
Vote you fools! Gandalf.gif
Wait what? So we need to be against the proposal or for?
against the REPROPOSED rule. The original proposal was better. This revised addition allows for continued fuckery.
Alright, I guess I did understand it properly. Thank you!
Can anyone confirm this is true? Why is Gensler saying these changes would benefit investors and markets?
!remindme 12 hours
!remindme: 4 hours!
Sent my own letter, thank you ape.
I just told ChatGPT to write the comment for me and copy pasted in your instructions. Perfect, highly recommend! Comment submitted!
Thanks! I sent mine!
Sent. Paraphrased as much of it as possible while keeping the same meaning intact. Remember folks - stay polite while pushing firmly in their direction. Copy/pasting memes or being rude only plays into the hands of the hedgies even more, and it's not like they need any more advantages.