News Focus
News Focus
icon url

sab63090

04/30/25 6:56 AM

#488923 RE: Investor2014 #488917

I'm just trying to keep up and just saw your post right now! I'm not sure if the regulators have a specific agenda to address this, but I certainly have not seen anything to support a position...I thought boi's statement was pretty clear and I liked it! I'm not a WGT, but I remain positive at this time and agree with a lot of the positive slants on things!
icon url

boi568

04/30/25 8:18 AM

#488930 RE: Investor2014 #488917

I don't think you have ever worked for a regulatory agency; they are quite specific about their actual requirements. In fact, in the United States a regulation can be voided for vagueness by not providing notice to the public over what is required -- as a matter of due process.

The agency in this type of applicant situation will describe what is does require, and that's it. That is proper notice to the public. There are an infinite number of items that are not requirements (which are, of course, irrelevancies), and there is no point describing those.

If an agency tried to take the position you are suggesting -- that there are some assumed requirements it has not publicly discussed -- you can be assured, at least in the United States, that that agency's denial of an application would be overturned quite easily.