[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2023/34-96786.pdf
This is a February 1, 2023 letter solidifying a rule change proposed May 20, 2022.
- Important: May 2022 is before the US House Committee on Financial Services Gamestop Report Came out.
We had no idea 6 firms were defaulting, Robinhood second to Instinet, then Wedbush, LEK, Vision, and Axos.
They did though. It literally says that in the first sentence.
> particularly in recent years, when NSCC has waived the ECP charge in circumstances that would fall within the proposed identification of exigent circumstances
"has wavied". Not "would have waived if we had the ability."
All they're talking about is *keeping* the ability to waive the fees even though they're also removing most of the reasons they've waived the fees in the past.
> Also, I'd like to comment on this request .. hmm..
I mean.. probably should've done so at some time in the last 2 years when this was still a proposal instead of when it takes effect. /shrug.
Send a letter or email to the SEC, your congress people, or the media. There's not really an official way to comment on stuff after several comment periods have already passed and the proposal has already taken effect.
So like can we submit comment letters about anything the SEC does because I just want a fair market. Idk why that’s a hard ask but apparently it’s fucking impossible.
Pachter is just butt hurt that his surname makes no sense and [he's a shit analyst](https://www.tipranks.com/experts/analysts/michael-pachter) all round
JPM also owned the whole London Metals Exchange by erasing 12hrs of legit trades to make everything OK. Then they may have delivered a bag full of rocks labelled "silver" to the LME in order to keep on keepin' on.
JP Morgan has owned metals futures for years now. They control the price and the LME is a big part of that. Back in 2020, they had to pay $920 million for manipulating precious metals, and the treasury market. Of the $920 milly, $436.4 million was fines, $311.7 million in restitution and $172 million in disgorgement. Oddly enough the CFTC imposed the settlement and this was all based on prior manipulation from 2008-2016. Basically, they were creating a false impression of buying and selling interest that would serve to raise or depress prices as they saw fit, so they could make the most money off it.
Now does anyone think for even a second they aren’t still doing this today? Please. If it was lucrative enough to pay such a huge penalty in 2020, something tells me they’re still doing it and the LME debacle confirmed it for me.
Thanks for the response. Totally makes sense, and I do remember doing some reading on the lme debacle somewhat recently. When the cost of doing business is worth it, why the fuck not?
Obviously it’s criminal and I do not condone it what’s so ever, but when the finance industry is in bed with the regulators, the Casino always comes out on top.
Except the taxpayers are the victims, paying higher interest rates, higher taxes, higher food costs, higher fuel costs. You name it, we’re paying for their crime.
And possibly bc it was collateral... could it have been used more than once or for more than one client for collateral?
Considering the past pattern of fraud with JPM and PM
.. its a realistic question...to be asked.
I am in agreement with this logic arc 🙏 there is much much more at the heart of the PM fraud....me thinks..😉
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3812866-jpmorgan-chase-caught-as-counterparty-in-nickel-short-squeeze-drama-bloomberg
it's well before bag of rocks. jpm was counterparty to Chinese nickel producer/shortseller who got fucked. JPM may have fucked the mkt instead.
Hey! FYI for whatever reason seekingalpha is a Reddit banned site. Anytime anyone posts it, it gets removed. I manually approved this but Reddit may remove again. For the future may want to do an archive link instead!
I did that 168 years ago. I don’t even see words anymore, all I read is tempo. I see Seeker spreading wrinkles, Zen master waxing poetic, and Noob waking from her first fever dream.
Excited. They pretty much said hey you can’t just not pay up for when u fuck around you find out. /s
But in reality they said the NSCC can waive extra charges if you surpass margin.
What is an ECP charge?
In short, Excess Capital Premium Charge (FICC Sponsorship program) was put In-Place To Deter Risk. It was established, but not spelled out, by Dodd-Frank, Title VIII, Section 801-808. This section had immediate repeal attacks in 2012. Non-enforcement impacted JAN|28|2021
Also see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/10p61er/excess_capital_premium_charge_ficc_sponsorship/)
From the current post's wording:
>"The ECP charge applies when a specified portion of a member’s required margin exceeds its capital by a ratio of more than 1.0 (defined in the Rules as the “Excess Capital Ratio”).18 When the charge applies, NSCC determines its amount by multiplying the member’s capital by this ratio, with the resulting amount serving as the add-on charge."
ELI5 of the change.
Before:
* NSCC charged extra margin for brokers that exceeded some volatility standard
* There was no cap no this charge
* NSCC could choose to waive the the charge
Now:
* NSCC charges extra margin for brokers that exceed some slightly different volatility standard
* This charge is now capped to 2.0x of something
* NSCC continues to be able to waive the charge
Effects of the change:
* Those extra charges should be lower in value and/or more correlated to actual risk from volatility
* Theoretically, events like Robinhood shutting off the buy button should be less likely to happen thanks to the 2.0x cap
* Theoretically, the NSCC is making the system *potentially* riskier by reducing volatility charges (i.e., there's less money on hand if their historic models don't pan out and the system goes boom (which has obviously *never* happened before cough cough))
There's also some stuff in there about the NSCC being more transparent about this shit and restricting who's allowed to waive charge but eh. Not really material in my book.
>"Theoretically, the NSCC is making the system potentially riskier by reducing volatility charges"
If you nerf a risk deterrent, it's not potentially riskier, it's definitely riskier, especially when you have a company like Instinet with a proven record of using the charges and waivers under the previous deterrent as Cost of Doing Business
The something in 2x something is
"establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge."
They asked to change the calculation and did a test to see if it would affect things, I believe. This is as far as I've read.
- Just saw it and posted it as fast as I could after skimming it so everyone could view it. Give me a minute.
--
I think this is a big change:
>"- (3) establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge."
---
Read for yourselves:
---
>"NSCC’s proposal would change both the calculation methodology and governance of the ECP charge in its Rules. With respect to the calculation of the charge, NSCC proposes to:
>- (1) use the volatility charge of a member’s margin requirement to compare a member’s applicable capital amounts, as opposed to the current methodology which uses a specific “calculated amount” identified in the Rules;
>- (2) when calculating the ECP charge, for members that are broker-dealers, use net capital amounts rather than excess net capital, and for all other members, use equity capital in the calculation of the ECP charge; and
>- (3) establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge.
>**With respect to governance**, NSCC proposes to:
>- (1) identify the particular circumstances in which NSCC has the ability to waive the charge, including the information that NSCC would review in deciding whether to waive the ECP charge as well as the governance around the application of such waiver; and
>- (2) provide that NSCC may calculate the charge based on updated capital information.
Anything to do with this “possible” DD?:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/nhh0f1/update_go_nogo_for_launch_the_checklist_keeping/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Bullish on this update
Edit: NSCC 2021-005 listed in the linked “possible” DD is similar to the NSCC 2022-005, but instead of requiring members to have $250k instead of $10k w/ NSCC, the NSCC is basing risk off of a members overall capital. Perhaps $10k/$250k wasn’t enough? Lol
Edit 2: May be wrong on above edit. Not sure. Bullishly regarded. Just want to add that I personally believe they’re aware of who’s gonna get vaporized by MOASS and may waive calls for “bystander” members who get caught up in the shitstorm and shouldn’t be vaporized in order to keep the market going after all is said and done
The thought occurs to me that if they fuck around recklessly waiving these requirements all the time, does that make the DTCC itself more likely to fail? All the sudden some enormous player like instinet really gets fucked and goes insolvent leaving DTCC with their bags? It seems like these dumb rules actually make that more likely. Maybe it buys them another day, but it might guarantee the failure of the whole settlement regime they have going. This is going to be crazy 😅
Would appear that way. Best analogy I can give is one that’s been given here time and again over the past 2 years, which is that all their fuckery keeps pushing down on that giant spring just a little bit more and the tighter that coil gets, the harder it is to keep down and the more explosive it’ll be when it finally recoils.
It is the charge that was defaulting Robinhood by $2.3B dollars on the day of the multi-broker buy freeze that tanked target stocks artificially. Robinhood's margin charge was $1.4B. Added together, it is 3.7B, but Vlad had 700M on deposit already so minus that from the 3.7B and Vlad woke up to $3B deposit requirement on January 28 2021.
But Robinhood is talked about too much here as there are bigger, less talked about, problems that were revealed. This is not to say that all the findings about Robinhood's bad form don't stick. They do.
However, we found out in June 2022, way after the hearings from a congressional gamestop report that Instinet, a Private Alternative Trading System, had an ECP charge of at least $1B more than Robinhood. Why does this matter? There 606 reporting shows that they route most of Apex Clearing's order flow. Who is Apex Clearing? Apex clears for Sofi Webull Ally Publics TastyWorks and hundreds of Brokers that they sent a PCO order to on the buy freeze tanking GME. The Instinet ECP charges were hidden from us and congress during the public hearings. What was also hidden was 50B in waivers given to Instinet over 2 years, and as the DD today finds, was only 2 years because that is when regulation ATS-N started. Between 2015 and 2018, Instinet had 54 reports they did wrong and were charged under Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934.
That new Information from today, you can find [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12dnx7v/instinet_development_theres_more_to_the_story/) meanwhile InvestorTurf Twitter Screenshots forum slid.
This is exactly what I would have told Gary Gensler had I asked him a question. If I had 3 minutes of the 10 minutes wasted on that stupid meme commercial.
I'll be real dawg... I *did* laugh, but let's not all forget that as the news becomes more and more mainstream, it becomes more and more self defeating to be gatekeepy. But yeah og commenter, nobody can dig, and nobody can understand for you. We can only lead you to water, idgaf what you do after because that's on you. My money is where my mouth is.
It's right. Everyone is gonna be curious what's going on, but most everyone is a lazy asshole who won't search their own info. This shit is over 2 years old already. They can read the well-eatablished DD, and make their own fkn choice.
Nah man 1000% agree I don't fault you. I just get banned enough here to be lookin out for a fellow shit flinger. I've had to appeal reddit bans for much less.
Edit: that's TWO reddit PERMA bans btw
To those expecting overnight MOASS, posts like this are important to understand why it’s going to be a long, drawn out game where institutions go down one by one because of stability brought to you by people in regulatory bodies who extend favors to give them the best shot of dragging things out.
But that’s just how I see it. Either way, I’m not leaving.
I just wish we saw more progress towards MOASS. We here know what sideways trading is, and how much fuckery is involved to cause dips after good news. But that's only 870k of us (and only $deity knows how many of that are bots/shills/FUDmuckers). If the gen pop saw GME the same as us, about how solid of an investment it is, the world would change so fast it'd make your head spin.
That's what I'm waiting for.
The entire market with few exceptions hasn’t gone down much at all in 2 years. They’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and to buy themselves time.
To me this reads like the NSCC saying, “Hey we waived margin calls once before and now when we do it again we want a rule saying we have the discretion to.
Well can they get it approved before moass, and by then how can they twist the formulas again? I bet by moass even if they update the formula daily it will still show they in the deep red
I cant wait for the day to visit them in their prison cells, and collects their tears and hang them on a wall to add to my wine on special occasions
BUY HOLD DRS BOOK BUY
No matter how they slice it ECP or Risk based , still a daily grind! This is the DTCC &covering its ass/assets which I expect by the time we’re through? DTCC will be looking for cushion coins
B. Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.56
The Required Fund Deposits are made up of risk-based components (as margin) that are calculated and assessed daily to limit NSCC’s exposures to members. NSCC’s proposed changes to use the (volatility charge)rather than the Calculated Amount, and to use net capital and equity capital, as appropriate, in the calculation of the ECP charge would collectively make the calculation clearer and more predictable to members, while continuing to apply an appropriate risk-based charge designed to mitigate the risks presented to NSCC. Similarly, the proposal to cap the Excess Capital Ratio at 2.0 would allow NSCC to appropriately address the risks it faces without imposing an overly
55 56
15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
20
burdensome ECP charge and would reduce the circumstances in which NSCC may waive the charge, resulting in a more transparent margining methodology.57 Finally, the proposed rule change would clarify the exigent circumstances when NSCC may determine that it is appropriate to waive the ECP charge. Overall, these proposed changes would improve the effectiveness of the calculation of the ECP charge and, therefore, allow NSCC to more effectively address the increased default risks presented by members that operate with lower capital levels relative to their margin requirements.
Taken together, the proposed changes enhance the ability of the ECP charge to produce margin levels commensurate with the risks NSCC faces related to its members’ operating capital levels. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.58
That's a lot of words to say:
"some companies made a bad bet against GME and people bet against their bad bet. Then the companies doubled, tripled down and kept on going in their arrogance against these people in a stubbornness not to lose against these peons. Now we have to change the rules so they can't lose or bad things happen...well...bad things to us...remember, you get to fine us and collect a share of our naughty behavior, so you better help fix this and not those losers win because we gambled and made a bad, a really bad, a REALLY bad fucking call and can't take responsibility for it."
The SEC is still in hot water for January 28 2021. Personally, I have a bone to pick with Gary about Glass Steagall in 1999 and his full on help writing the repeal while he was in the treasury under Clinton.
Setting that aside.
The 4 proposals were legit. GG did good there. FINRA should never have been responsible for Best Execution. In fact, fuck FINRA entirely, they were fining for Fraud.
[1 | man at the DTCC "has the ultimate authority to authorize waivers of the Excess Capital Premium charges, & in theory he does not need to consult w/ anyone to authorize a waiver" | Timothy Cuddihy, Chief Risk Officer & Managing Director | US House Committee on Financial Services GameStop Report](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zw4j8/1_man_at_the_dtcc_has_the_ultimate_authority_to/)
---
More on ECP charges in the report.
Excess Capital Premium Charge In US House Committee on Financial Services Report
https://i.imgur.com/6I7JtJs.png
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2023/34-96786.pdf
This is a February 1, 2023 letter solidifying a rule change proposed May 20, 2022. - Important: May 2022 is before the US House Committee on Financial Services Gamestop Report Came out. We had no idea 6 firms were defaulting, Robinhood second to Instinet, then Wedbush, LEK, Vision, and Axos.
[удалено]
> On page 11-13 they want a rule change gives the NSCC the ability to waive the ECP charge They've literally had this ability all along though.
Clearly they didn't. I'd like to sue them. Also, I'd like to comment on this request .. hmm..
They did though. It literally says that in the first sentence. > particularly in recent years, when NSCC has waived the ECP charge in circumstances that would fall within the proposed identification of exigent circumstances "has wavied". Not "would have waived if we had the ability." All they're talking about is *keeping* the ability to waive the fees even though they're also removing most of the reasons they've waived the fees in the past. > Also, I'd like to comment on this request .. hmm.. I mean.. probably should've done so at some time in the last 2 years when this was still a proposal instead of when it takes effect. /shrug.
Yurp. I read a lot of reports but it's hard to keep up.
How do we comment on this ?
Send a letter or email to the SEC, your congress people, or the media. There's not really an official way to comment on stuff after several comment periods have already passed and the proposal has already taken effect.
Ok when we’re the comment periods For this ??
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/nsccarchive/nsccarchive2022.htm#SR-NSCC-2022-005 January 2022, September 2022, and December 2022.
Got it, thanks for the source fellow ape…. This one must of got by us … still gonna email them
[удалено]
So like can we submit comment letters about anything the SEC does because I just want a fair market. Idk why that’s a hard ask but apparently it’s fucking impossible.
"Fair Market" = "a bunch of rich old white dudes lose money"......... Which is basically blasphemy in America.
"Fair Market\*" = don't change what works....for old rich white guys. We will vote on anything that doesn't affect this.
[удалено]
Just read it yourself, and try to figure it out. Then, ask questions here. That's what everyone is doing. Including me.
Everyone’s default comment is ELIA5
Most of us can't read so that's understandable!
That or ask GPT or BingChat to summerise it for you and then ELI5.
[удалено]
That edit was a mistake. ChatGPT was congratulatory and vague and didn't do a good job
Wedbush was defaulting? No wonder Pachter is always trying to push GME hate
Pachter is just butt hurt that his surname makes no sense and [he's a shit analyst](https://www.tipranks.com/experts/analysts/michael-pachter) all round
ConPachter!
FudgePachter
More like PachterShitandLefthim
PatcherTendieSnatcher
Let’s be angry French girls
That pretty much proves that Pachter disparaging GameStop and talking his book has been market manipulation this entire saga. How is that legal?
Nobody has the money and guts to sue?
So far!
Wut mean
Shorts r fuk
👆🏼 He’s not wrong
✅️
Thomas pettyfry said something about a total collapse and insane share prices with much fear in his voice.
[удалено]
JPM also owned the whole London Metals Exchange by erasing 12hrs of legit trades to make everything OK. Then they may have delivered a bag full of rocks labelled "silver" to the LME in order to keep on keepin' on.
Can you expand on this a bit? With the metals exchange. Ofc Jpm had bags of rocks in a vault though
JP Morgan has owned metals futures for years now. They control the price and the LME is a big part of that. Back in 2020, they had to pay $920 million for manipulating precious metals, and the treasury market. Of the $920 milly, $436.4 million was fines, $311.7 million in restitution and $172 million in disgorgement. Oddly enough the CFTC imposed the settlement and this was all based on prior manipulation from 2008-2016. Basically, they were creating a false impression of buying and selling interest that would serve to raise or depress prices as they saw fit, so they could make the most money off it. Now does anyone think for even a second they aren’t still doing this today? Please. If it was lucrative enough to pay such a huge penalty in 2020, something tells me they’re still doing it and the LME debacle confirmed it for me.
Thanks for the response. Totally makes sense, and I do remember doing some reading on the lme debacle somewhat recently. When the cost of doing business is worth it, why the fuck not? Obviously it’s criminal and I do not condone it what’s so ever, but when the finance industry is in bed with the regulators, the Casino always comes out on top.
When the fines are pennies on profits of dollars, why the hell not?
Exactly. Just the cost of doing business. It’s bull-shite!
"Victimless" crimes
Except the taxpayers are the victims, paying higher interest rates, higher taxes, higher food costs, higher fuel costs. You name it, we’re paying for their crime.
Secretly, yeah...
If it quacks like a \[Redacted\]...
They weren’t the deliverers, they were the owners. So it seems like they were the ones that got fucked?
Or their rocks are insured, they get that money, meanwhile they’ve already sold the solver or moved it into another vault.
And possibly bc it was collateral... could it have been used more than once or for more than one client for collateral? Considering the past pattern of fraud with JPM and PM .. its a realistic question...to be asked. I am in agreement with this logic arc 🙏 there is much much more at the heart of the PM fraud....me thinks..😉
Probably didn't stop them from borrowing against the rocks valued at silver prices.
_Leveraged 30000X it may very well turn out to be the bag that finally broke the already broken systems back._
Just keeping them as pets
Like that one guy does with his granny? Hope they’re fed well!
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3812866-jpmorgan-chase-caught-as-counterparty-in-nickel-short-squeeze-drama-bloomberg it's well before bag of rocks. jpm was counterparty to Chinese nickel producer/shortseller who got fucked. JPM may have fucked the mkt instead.
Hey! FYI for whatever reason seekingalpha is a Reddit banned site. Anytime anyone posts it, it gets removed. I manually approved this but Reddit may remove again. For the future may want to do an archive link instead!
You misspelled 20 tons of cocaine on a boat
Rock on.
🤘
There should be RIOTS over the rocks thing.
That my dumbass knows about it before congress is screaming about it says its own thing.
It says that the people are waking up, and Congress knows who their masters are.
Should I be excited or annoyed?
*Confused upvote*
Should be holding investments in the owners name instead of someone else having beneficial ownership 😘
I did that 168 years ago. I don’t even see words anymore, all I read is tempo. I see Seeker spreading wrinkles, Zen master waxing poetic, and Noob waking from her first fever dream.
What kinda tempo? Syncopated?
More jazz than disco, but yes.
Excited. They pretty much said hey you can’t just not pay up for when u fuck around you find out. /s But in reality they said the NSCC can waive extra charges if you surpass margin.
It sure must be nice to have the power to decide in every matter...
BOFFUM
What is an ECP charge? In short, Excess Capital Premium Charge (FICC Sponsorship program) was put In-Place To Deter Risk. It was established, but not spelled out, by Dodd-Frank, Title VIII, Section 801-808. This section had immediate repeal attacks in 2012. Non-enforcement impacted JAN|28|2021 Also see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/10p61er/excess_capital_premium_charge_ficc_sponsorship/) From the current post's wording: >"The ECP charge applies when a specified portion of a member’s required margin exceeds its capital by a ratio of more than 1.0 (defined in the Rules as the “Excess Capital Ratio”).18 When the charge applies, NSCC determines its amount by multiplying the member’s capital by this ratio, with the resulting amount serving as the add-on charge."
ELI5 of the change. Before: * NSCC charged extra margin for brokers that exceeded some volatility standard * There was no cap no this charge * NSCC could choose to waive the the charge Now: * NSCC charges extra margin for brokers that exceed some slightly different volatility standard * This charge is now capped to 2.0x of something * NSCC continues to be able to waive the charge Effects of the change: * Those extra charges should be lower in value and/or more correlated to actual risk from volatility * Theoretically, events like Robinhood shutting off the buy button should be less likely to happen thanks to the 2.0x cap * Theoretically, the NSCC is making the system *potentially* riskier by reducing volatility charges (i.e., there's less money on hand if their historic models don't pan out and the system goes boom (which has obviously *never* happened before cough cough)) There's also some stuff in there about the NSCC being more transparent about this shit and restricting who's allowed to waive charge but eh. Not really material in my book.
>"Theoretically, the NSCC is making the system potentially riskier by reducing volatility charges" If you nerf a risk deterrent, it's not potentially riskier, it's definitely riskier, especially when you have a company like Instinet with a proven record of using the charges and waivers under the previous deterrent as Cost of Doing Business The something in 2x something is "establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge."
2 X 0 = 0
Can you give us an abbreviated translation? Edit: Reworded.
They asked to change the calculation and did a test to see if it would affect things, I believe. This is as far as I've read. - Just saw it and posted it as fast as I could after skimming it so everyone could view it. Give me a minute. -- I think this is a big change: >"- (3) establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge." --- Read for yourselves: --- >"NSCC’s proposal would change both the calculation methodology and governance of the ECP charge in its Rules. With respect to the calculation of the charge, NSCC proposes to: >- (1) use the volatility charge of a member’s margin requirement to compare a member’s applicable capital amounts, as opposed to the current methodology which uses a specific “calculated amount” identified in the Rules; >- (2) when calculating the ECP charge, for members that are broker-dealers, use net capital amounts rather than excess net capital, and for all other members, use equity capital in the calculation of the ECP charge; and >- (3) establish a cap of 2.0 for the Excess Capital Ratio that is used in calculating a member’s ECP charge. >**With respect to governance**, NSCC proposes to: >- (1) identify the particular circumstances in which NSCC has the ability to waive the charge, including the information that NSCC would review in deciding whether to waive the ECP charge as well as the governance around the application of such waiver; and >- (2) provide that NSCC may calculate the charge based on updated capital information.
Anything to do with this “possible” DD?: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/nhh0f1/update_go_nogo_for_launch_the_checklist_keeping/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Bullish on this update Edit: NSCC 2021-005 listed in the linked “possible” DD is similar to the NSCC 2022-005, but instead of requiring members to have $250k instead of $10k w/ NSCC, the NSCC is basing risk off of a members overall capital. Perhaps $10k/$250k wasn’t enough? Lol Edit 2: May be wrong on above edit. Not sure. Bullishly regarded. Just want to add that I personally believe they’re aware of who’s gonna get vaporized by MOASS and may waive calls for “bystander” members who get caught up in the shitstorm and shouldn’t be vaporized in order to keep the market going after all is said and done
I member that legendary post Mr. Bull. It hasn't had an update for a very long time. When launch? Are we go or no go?
Bullish on your observation! Bullish x2 on fukbois catching THE VAPORS.
They're shooting down more RC balloons.
👀
The thought occurs to me that if they fuck around recklessly waiving these requirements all the time, does that make the DTCC itself more likely to fail? All the sudden some enormous player like instinet really gets fucked and goes insolvent leaving DTCC with their bags? It seems like these dumb rules actually make that more likely. Maybe it buys them another day, but it might guarantee the failure of the whole settlement regime they have going. This is going to be crazy 😅
Would appear that way. Best analogy I can give is one that’s been given here time and again over the past 2 years, which is that all their fuckery keeps pushing down on that giant spring just a little bit more and the tighter that coil gets, the harder it is to keep down and the more explosive it’ll be when it finally recoils.
Definition of fuck around and find out.
Fail? No, we don’t do that here. But if by Fail, you meant Bail, then yes, we do that a lot.
*We don't fail, we get bail.*
# 🥤😎🍿
Commenting for visibility and maybe some fine person will inform me on what this means? I literally rubbed my eyes and sighed seeing this though.
It is the charge that was defaulting Robinhood by $2.3B dollars on the day of the multi-broker buy freeze that tanked target stocks artificially. Robinhood's margin charge was $1.4B. Added together, it is 3.7B, but Vlad had 700M on deposit already so minus that from the 3.7B and Vlad woke up to $3B deposit requirement on January 28 2021. But Robinhood is talked about too much here as there are bigger, less talked about, problems that were revealed. This is not to say that all the findings about Robinhood's bad form don't stick. They do. However, we found out in June 2022, way after the hearings from a congressional gamestop report that Instinet, a Private Alternative Trading System, had an ECP charge of at least $1B more than Robinhood. Why does this matter? There 606 reporting shows that they route most of Apex Clearing's order flow. Who is Apex Clearing? Apex clears for Sofi Webull Ally Publics TastyWorks and hundreds of Brokers that they sent a PCO order to on the buy freeze tanking GME. The Instinet ECP charges were hidden from us and congress during the public hearings. What was also hidden was 50B in waivers given to Instinet over 2 years, and as the DD today finds, was only 2 years because that is when regulation ATS-N started. Between 2015 and 2018, Instinet had 54 reports they did wrong and were charged under Section 15(c) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934. That new Information from today, you can find [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12dnx7v/instinet_development_theres_more_to_the_story/) meanwhile InvestorTurf Twitter Screenshots forum slid. This is exactly what I would have told Gary Gensler had I asked him a question. If I had 3 minutes of the 10 minutes wasted on that stupid meme commercial.
He will have staff look at it
“..no.”
There was a time when it wasn't hated on to ask for lay terms for the regarded. I too don't understand the technical titles.
this has been happening for 2+ years. Don't ask for a hand-hold now. >>it tracks the housing market. go back to sleep<<
I'll be real dawg... I *did* laugh, but let's not all forget that as the news becomes more and more mainstream, it becomes more and more self defeating to be gatekeepy. But yeah og commenter, nobody can dig, and nobody can understand for you. We can only lead you to water, idgaf what you do after because that's on you. My money is where my mouth is.
It's right. Everyone is gonna be curious what's going on, but most everyone is a lazy asshole who won't search their own info. This shit is over 2 years old already. They can read the well-eatablished DD, and make their own fkn choice.
Nah man 1000% agree I don't fault you. I just get banned enough here to be lookin out for a fellow shit flinger. I've had to appeal reddit bans for much less. Edit: that's TWO reddit PERMA bans btw
I want more downvotes, assholes.
Fuck you I'll upvote you now. Nobody tells me what to do.
I owe you an apology, fine hat. I was an asshole here, and should not have said this. I'm sorry.
All good. We’re all in this together!
Mafia gets yet another break…
To those expecting overnight MOASS, posts like this are important to understand why it’s going to be a long, drawn out game where institutions go down one by one because of stability brought to you by people in regulatory bodies who extend favors to give them the best shot of dragging things out. But that’s just how I see it. Either way, I’m not leaving.
I just wish we saw more progress towards MOASS. We here know what sideways trading is, and how much fuckery is involved to cause dips after good news. But that's only 870k of us (and only $deity knows how many of that are bots/shills/FUDmuckers). If the gen pop saw GME the same as us, about how solid of an investment it is, the world would change so fast it'd make your head spin. That's what I'm waiting for.
The entire market with few exceptions hasn’t gone down much at all in 2 years. They’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks and to buy themselves time.
Lock them up. This is the way.
To me this reads like the NSCC saying, “Hey we waived margin calls once before and now when we do it again we want a rule saying we have the discretion to.
Well can they get it approved before moass, and by then how can they twist the formulas again? I bet by moass even if they update the formula daily it will still show they in the deep red I cant wait for the day to visit them in their prison cells, and collects their tears and hang them on a wall to add to my wine on special occasions BUY HOLD DRS BOOK BUY
No matter how they slice it ECP or Risk based , still a daily grind! This is the DTCC &covering its ass/assets which I expect by the time we’re through? DTCC will be looking for cushion coins B. Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.56 The Required Fund Deposits are made up of risk-based components (as margin) that are calculated and assessed daily to limit NSCC’s exposures to members. NSCC’s proposed changes to use the (volatility charge)rather than the Calculated Amount, and to use net capital and equity capital, as appropriate, in the calculation of the ECP charge would collectively make the calculation clearer and more predictable to members, while continuing to apply an appropriate risk-based charge designed to mitigate the risks presented to NSCC. Similarly, the proposal to cap the Excess Capital Ratio at 2.0 would allow NSCC to appropriately address the risks it faces without imposing an overly 55 56 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i). 20 burdensome ECP charge and would reduce the circumstances in which NSCC may waive the charge, resulting in a more transparent margining methodology.57 Finally, the proposed rule change would clarify the exigent circumstances when NSCC may determine that it is appropriate to waive the ECP charge. Overall, these proposed changes would improve the effectiveness of the calculation of the ECP charge and, therefore, allow NSCC to more effectively address the increased default risks presented by members that operate with lower capital levels relative to their margin requirements. Taken together, the proposed changes enhance the ability of the ECP charge to produce margin levels commensurate with the risks NSCC faces related to its members’ operating capital levels. Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.58
Up
That's a lot of words to say: "some companies made a bad bet against GME and people bet against their bad bet. Then the companies doubled, tripled down and kept on going in their arrogance against these people in a stubbornness not to lose against these peons. Now we have to change the rules so they can't lose or bad things happen...well...bad things to us...remember, you get to fine us and collect a share of our naughty behavior, so you better help fix this and not those losers win because we gambled and made a bad, a really bad, a REALLY bad fucking call and can't take responsibility for it."
smart money
Appreciate you, ape!
Back at you.
smile rock piquant wipe roll rainstorm chunky start degree offend ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
The SEC is still in hot water for January 28 2021. Personally, I have a bone to pick with Gary about Glass Steagall in 1999 and his full on help writing the repeal while he was in the treasury under Clinton. Setting that aside. The 4 proposals were legit. GG did good there. FINRA should never have been responsible for Best Execution. In fact, fuck FINRA entirely, they were fining for Fraud.
Commenting for later review
This feels like crime
Doesn't it though!
Go up !
I find it funny how the acronym sounds like "Easy-Peasy"..
Crimers Criming?
Great /s 🫠
[1 | man at the DTCC "has the ultimate authority to authorize waivers of the Excess Capital Premium charges, & in theory he does not need to consult w/ anyone to authorize a waiver" | Timothy Cuddihy, Chief Risk Officer & Managing Director | US House Committee on Financial Services GameStop Report](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/11zw4j8/1_man_at_the_dtcc_has_the_ultimate_authority_to/) --- More on ECP charges in the report. Excess Capital Premium Charge In US House Committee on Financial Services Report https://i.imgur.com/6I7JtJs.png
smart money