SEC proposed rule on trading MF within 5 days

Discussion in 'Trading' started by amg, Mar 18, 2004.

  1. amg

    amg Guest

    The SEC is, again, making a move to penalize individual investors.

    http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/ic-26375a.htm

    My thoughts:
    This rule is unduly punitive to the INVESTOR.

    The egregious mutual fund violations were performed by MUTAL FUND managers. By egregious I refer to after-hours trading, excessive short term trading against the rules of the fund prospectus, gaming the time-zone differential on foreign asset funds, and trading their own or family accounts using these same illegal methods. These were committed by FUNDS not individual investors.

    Why penalize the investor 2 percent for legitimately trading a fund, for their own reasons, only to put that fee right back in the pockets of those known to have taken far more from the investors than the fines since levied against them. I believe the SEC has missed the mark completely with the focus on the individual.

    Since the market fall, and fall of unscrupulous corporate and financial managers, the SEC has claimed to put the interests of the indivudual investor first. This proposed rule does nothing towards that end.

    You may submit comments to this proposed rule here:
    http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-c...sed/s71104&file_num=S7-11-04&action=Show_Form
     
  2. And you believe him : see below "You have gotten to being kidding!!!!" :D
     
  3. http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s71698/marino1.txt


    Subject: S7-16-97

    Date: 8/13/98 6:49 PM


    You have gotten to being kidding!!!!

    I have contacted the SEC numerous times and continue as a matter of courtesy
    to
    e:mail the agency regarding the recent contacts that I have made. Mr Arthur
    Levitt Chairman of the SEC has at various times chastised the CPAs for not
    doing enough to uncover fraud. That is some joke when you consider the role
    that the SEC has played in covering-up a major stock market manipulation case.
    Remember, it was the SEC who supported the brokerage industry by allowing them
    to monitor and dispose of consumer complaints. The SEC went so far under Shad
    as to state, in their friend of the stockbrokerage industry brief in the
    McMahon v. Shearson case that went before the US Supreme Court in 1987, that
    the SEC monitors arbitration cases. In my case the SEC covered-up a stock
    market manipulation case.. It was Ira Sorkin, former Northeast SEC
    administrator, who confessed to the press in 1986 that self-regulation never
    worked. It was he who refused to investigate my case because he considered the
    fact that Merrill Lynch had performed their own extensive internal
    investigation. (I have an SEC internal memorandum that supports the statement
    Sorkin made to Shad). They certainly did. They got rid of their workpapers
    that supported earnings projections that were 100% off the mark and not
    corrected until the end of the 11th month of the corporate calendar year.

    I have made a copy of the e:mail that I have forwarded to various interested
    news groups and organizations.

    [see the rest on the site it's too long]
     
  4. amg

    amg Guest

    from the exceptions:
    It appears to me that Rydex, and similar funds with twice daily redemption periods, may be exempt. I wonder too about the Fidelity Selector funds, whose NAVs are priced hourly. Will have to check on this.
     
  5. flyers&divers

    flyers&divers Guest

    AMD thanks for the link to the SEC. I wrote to them.

    Her eis a copy of it:

    Imposing a 2% fee for mutual fund transactions under 5 days would further limit the survival of the small investor. One is loosing by being locked into bad investments and not by getting out quickly.

    If one wanted to get out of an investment there should not be a penalty for it.

    Even if there was a fee the 2 fee is laugheably excessive.
    At several online brokers one can liquidate a 75.000 investment let say 7500 shares of IBM for $1 or less.
    The proposed rule would make the investor pay the fund company who is as electronically advanced as the discount brokers 1500 TIMES that much?

    Gentlemen, please do not let yourselves be swayed by the smooth talking lawyers of the MF industry.

    Sincerely,