Jul. 17, 2020
No. This proposal is a cheat rule aimed at killing the rise of at-home traders. Bloated investment managers can't keep up, so they take their millions of dollars to lobby you to rig the game in their favor. Keep the markets fair and transparent. Reject this proposal. The “justification” for the rule change is highly questionable. When is less transparency and less data ever a good thing for the small investor? Some investors may want to avoid over-owned stocks, believing they have a high level of risk. This rule change greatly reduces individual investors ability to reduce their risk. In the event of a significant correction the number of reporting managers would be diminished even further. The S&P suffered a 56.4% decline during the 2007-2009 financial crisis. A similar event using the most recent quarter as an example, would have reduced the number of funds by another 31% at a time when such data is needed even more. One SEC commissioner, Allison Heren Lee, has already voiced her opposition to this proposal. https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/lee-13f-reporting-2020-07-10 The proposed rule change would be a loss for all of us - it would enable more corruption and opaqueness. To put it in perspective, for the most recent quarter, that would reduce the number of funds that disclosed their holdings to the public from 5,283 to 549 or almost 90% of all filers. $2.3 trillion in investment holdings would no longer be disclosed to the public resulting in loss of transparency and valuable insight. When Congress first adopted Section 13(f) it did so to “stimulate a higher degree of confidence among all investors in the integrity of [the US] securities markets.” Taking this data away will have the opposite effect. Transparency is what gives investors confidence in US markets. The SEC should be pushing for more disclosure and transparency and not rolling back existing rules. This can only hurt small traders/investors and provides little to no benefit or savings.