> Then where is the right place for that? (rehash in political theater)
Within the SEC or at a performing arts center, depending on what level of scrutiny, the discussion of the topic is to be given. A congressional hearing is the equivalent of a discussion between a beat cop and hostile witness at a coffee shop.
> 2008 should have demonstrated that SEC is virtually powerless to take on the big guys.
They are the ONLY organization mandated to do so. Lacking specific power "to take on the big guys" (whatever that means) is a different issue. The SEC has the awareness of the market manipulation, as this monitoring and analysis is what they do. Congress should be speaking to them, not holding some theater.
> The purpose of a congressional hearing is to create awareness.
The awareness comes from media more than any other source. Are you implying that there is a lack of awareness for any individual interested in this topic? I feel like I'm talking to someone who participates in a different reality. GL with whatever.
I don't actually see much institutional abuse. Some hedge funds got squeezed, but that happens. Robinhood faced capital requirement issues, but considering the circumstances, it seems fair. Market makers kept trades happening.
The only abuse I see is Robinhood encouraging retail investors to make risky trades and possibly some people on WSB organizing a pump and dump. Institutions acted pretty responsibly.
DTCC blocked buying for the little guys and changed the rules without any notification, I dont know why you dont think that is not institutional abuse.
> but considering the circumstances, it seems fair.
No its not fair, if it was really serious the exchanges could have stopped trading in GME but they did not.
We don’t need congressional hearings to carefully explain to WSB newbs how the stock market works, why collateral requirements are important, how you can easily short the same shares multiple times, and why the institutions did their jobs in this kerfuffke if their own creation.