No I'm quite serious. In many other parts of the world (at least, Australia, Canada and UK), the share registry for a company is available for inspection by anyone on request. There are some efficiencies to a properly-run shareholder system, especially related to settlement. Since shares are held in the owner's name directly and not through some third party broker, if that brokers goes bust, you still have access to your shares since they're all held in the owner's name, and can easily be transferred to a different brokerage for trading. Different countries, different bureacracies! I'm not arguing for either - it' simply an observation.
%% I agree with most of that+ noticed the SEC tends to a much better job than most gov agencies. {NOT that i expect them to do my due diligence, I sure do not expect them to do my due diligence} But since the IRS has enough power, dont need the SEC on that spy list .Sounds like banker Mr Stephens is also right to be against it . Current SEC leader ship is not likely to abuse it @ all, since they cut SEC fees. So looking long term, limit the gov,SEC doesnt need that list, especially since they could get anything worthwhile in court. I wish all the agencies would cut fees like SEC, seriously
2008, SEC couldn't see what was right in front of them... I even saw it... I didn't want to do puts, but if I did, would have made a ton of money. The no no loans...