Jump to content

SEC Proposes eliminating 13F requirement under $3.5B


ratiman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Basically what the title says. Is there anyone who wants this? I can't imagine who it helps. Small managers probably like the reporting because it's a form of marketingy. It also gives company managements an idea who owns the stock. There'll be some push back against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for marketing purposes the small firms can just send their holdings to prospects, unless you're suggesting they find clients who are perusing their 13F's?  It's honestly a big problem in the industry that all of us steal ideas and don't pay for them.  If you are a responsible long-term investor in quality compounders with low-turnover why would anyone pay you when they can just copy you?  It is my opinion this should pass.

 

Also I don't think companies would use 13Fs to see who owns them, I would assume they get that info from exchanges.  Is that the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for individual investors, it would make scouting for investment targets harder.  while 90% of the value of all 13F holdings would still be reported, 90% of the funds holding 13F securities would be exempt.  I always like to check out what a guy owns after I have read about him, or read a piece by him.

 

I suppose a <$3.5B fund can not file when it doesnt suit it, when it is building a position, and then file when it suits the fund.  not a prohibition, just not a requirement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for marketing purposes the small firms can just send their holdings to prospects, unless you're suggesting they find clients who are perusing their 13F's?  It's honestly a big problem in the industry that all of us steal ideas and don't pay for them.  If you are a responsible long-term investor in quality compounders with low-turnover why would anyone pay you when they can just copy you?  It is my opinion this should pass.

 

Also I don't think companies would use 13Fs to see who owns them, I would assume they get that info from exchanges.  Is that the case?

 

I understand what you mean, but disagree that sourcing investment ideas from mandatory SEC filings should be characterized as theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for marketing purposes the small firms can just send their holdings to prospects, unless you're suggesting they find clients who are perusing their 13F's?  It's honestly a big problem in the industry that all of us steal ideas and don't pay for them.  If you are a responsible long-term investor in quality compounders with low-turnover why would anyone pay you when they can just copy you?  It is my opinion this should pass.

 

Also I don't think companies would use 13Fs to see who owns them, I would assume they get that info from exchanges.  Is that the case?

 

I understand what you mean, but disagree that sourcing investment ideas from mandatory SEC filings should be characterized as theft.

 

That's fair - I believe my point still stands that it isn't fair to the investment managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for marketing purposes the small firms can just send their holdings to prospects, unless you're suggesting they find clients who are perusing their 13F's?  It's honestly a big problem in the industry that all of us steal ideas and don't pay for them.  If you are a responsible long-term investor in quality compounders with low-turnover why would anyone pay you when they can just copy you?  It is my opinion this should pass.

 

Also I don't think companies would use 13Fs to see who owns them, I would assume they get that info from exchanges.  Is that the case?

 

Yea companies have many ways of finding out who their shareholders are. Ever wonder how that $200M company found a way to reach out to you and your $300k position during a proxy fight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

 

Looks like the rule change isn't going to happen. Good work guys.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/sec-push-to-keep-more-hedge-fund-investments-secret-fails-report-says/ar-BB1arjw1

 

Public comments on the proposed rule change were nearly unanimous in their disapproval. An analysis by Goldman Sachs found only 24 comments out of 2,238 supported the rule change. Large corporations opposed the move because it would give them less understanding of who their shareholders are, and other market participants decried the reduced transparency that would result from the change, and which would depress investor confidence.

 

Bloomberg reported that SEC officials were suprised by the level of opposition, but a statement said the regulator will continue to look for ways to reform the rule.

 

“It remains clear that the current threshold is outdated,” the agency told Bloomberg. “The comments received illustrate that the form is being used in ways that were not originally anticipated when the form was adopted. We are focused on examining these important issues before we move forward with determining the appropriate threshold.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...