There was an immediate and emphatic appeal to the regulators, and the way the SEC works is often by encouraging self regulation. The CEO of the NASDAQ even went on air to ask for more SEC regulation.
This isn't unusual, it's pretty much how "government intervention" via the SEC, and a lot of other regulatory bodies, actually works.
Probably not any, but my understanding is that the answer to that is mostly yes because much of the incentive for these entities to self-regulate comes from the threat of worse-for-them regulations from SEC if they fail to do so in a way that SEC feels good about, and they spend a fair bit of energy communicating back and forth what those ways are, even if it's not made explicit on paper.
Look at the language of SEC (and other regulators outside of technical fields like pharma).
There are very occasional "landmark" regulations, often legislated, that are explicit. EG Sarbanes-Oxley.
Day-2-day, the SEC works mostly by signalling. They might make a policy declaration, or send letters to CEOs. They'll note things in periodic firm reviews. Publicly raise an eyebrow. Take action against or investigate one firm and publish findings. Rarely are specifically worded edicts issued.
Regulating bodies are designed to work largely through pressure instead of (ironically) through regulations. This is by design. Regulators are usually created in response to firms having won the loophole cat and mouse games, and the prohibitive complexity of actual regulations. If government wanted rules, they can just legislate directly instead of delegating to a regulator.
"Compliance" is often about staying away from trouble by playing a sort of guessing game. It doesn't mean that it's "hands off."
> Regulators are usually created in response to firms having won the loophole cat and mouse games, and the prohibitive complexity of actual regulations. If government wanted rules, they can just legislate directly instead of delegating to a regulator.
Large motivation to create regulatory bodies is expertise and focus on one (or more related) subject, and these regulatory bodies often simply recommend to the government/legislators and do the management the law mandates.
IMHO this 'suggestive' mode of operation is not usual outside of finance. (I might be wrong though, I have never seen a full list of regulatory bodies.)
...Exactly. This is by design. It's what regulators are designed to do. Medical/pharma is an exception. Usually regulators are designed to wield pressure. For long term goals, they usually steer towards more explicit "industry standards" that they can back... but they rarely author them.
For shorter term and more operational issues, pressure is the main toolkit.
How is disabling purchases and broker-wide outages not bolstering hedge funds?
There are hedge funds on both sides of this bet. So this intervention is both helping and harming "hedge funds" in equal measure depending on what side they have taken.
in the current situation, I don't think that private buyers trying the short squeeze (for which you have to hold) are really the driving force anymore. I think someone at robinhood had the (good) idea that at the current price, most people can realize a nice buck (by selling), while allowing them to buy a stock, which will probably go down a factor of 200 over the next year and currently fluctuates -50%/100% on a 20minute schedule required a casino license.
The whole idea of the short squeeze is that the hedgefunds can't buy anything anymore and the lenders want their stuff back. And if they are still overshorted and the lenders don't like to bleed them first, before initiating the squeeze I don't think that this somehow hurts retail investors. Maybe it benefits the lenders who can nicely bleed both shortsellers and the WSB+muskalike-crowd, but at the current price, where the stock has actually gone up quite a bit but stabilized, it seems quite clear that this thing is decided by the lenders now. Do they want to play the crazy game for a near bankrupt company and demand their loans from Melvin or Co. (which would probably result in fast default and them not seeing a substantial amount of their shares again with the others reduced to a pennystock) or do they just sail along, taxing the narcissistic sociopaths on one side, while slowly selling off their actual stock to then be bought by those and returned to them. I guess they decided for option 2 and I think they are not as dumb and chaddy as they look to you ;).