Uh ... yeah, Clem but what I was doing was just stacking up ironies (as I know 'Expert Market' isn't an SEC term), as well as criticizing the SEC's wording about 'protecting investors.'
Note that the SEC Order says at least 3 times that its judgement will be to determine "whether" it is "necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors".
Surely the SEC can't be ignorant of the definition of who those experts are that are allowed to trade on the Expert Market. The otc blog itself defines them this way:
By definition this excludes dumb-guy retail investors who are too stupid to realize the thin ice of the scam they are looking at, and restricts access to "[o]nly broker-dealers and professional or sophisticated investors" who should know (and smell) a scam when they see one.
Now it is true that the OTC blog further says:
"Despite the restrictions on who can view quotations, the Expert Market does not impose restrictions on who can trade securities. Rule 15c2-11 governs a broker’s ability to submit, publish or distribute quotations (i.e. bids and offers) in OTC securities. The Rule does not apply to the underlying transactions or the ability of an investor to buy or sell a security."
but in reality, the idea that this "does not impose restrictions on who can trade securities" is baloney-shards. Every retail trader knows that all the reputable brokers refuse to allow buys for those stocks, and that they have to jump through poop-hoops to find some trading firm that will let them buy them, OR they must be 'dern feriners' who somehow are allowed to be stupid by their foreign brokerage firms.
So, in reality, the SEC isn't "protecting" any retail traders who currently own this stock if they send WCVC to revocation hell, and they sure as hell ought to allow the "professional and sophisticate" investors to get burned for being even more stupid than retail investors hoping for a quick flip.
0
Liked By
Be the change you want to see in the world!
Spread the love. Be the first to like this post!