13F filing forms have this quirky convention where one contract gets reported as if it equals 100 shares. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just list the actual contract count? The current method seems to create unnecessary confusion in the reporting process.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
23 Likes
Reward
23
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LightningPacketLoss
· 11-07 05:13
When will we be able to change this rule?
View OriginalReply0
MEVHunterWang
· 11-06 23:35
I didn't quite understand—does "one trade equals 100 shares"?
View OriginalReply0
HashBard
· 11-05 16:29
smh... regulatory poetry at its finest, making simple numbers dance in multiples of 100
Reply0
DeFiVeteran
· 11-04 06:03
Does the report have to be so flashy?
View OriginalReply0
CommunityWorker
· 11-04 06:01
Why is filling this thing so difficult?
View OriginalReply0
PseudoIntellectual
· 11-04 05:56
Listening to these file rules is quite troublesome, tsk tsk.
View OriginalReply0
PrivacyMaximalist
· 11-04 05:56
The report also needs to beautify the numbers, it's so magical.
View OriginalReply0
TrustMeBro
· 11-04 05:54
What a hassle with the rules, why not just report the real number directly?
View OriginalReply0
SmartMoneyWallet
· 11-04 05:44
Report issues? Actually, they are all methods used by market makers to wash data.
13F filing forms have this quirky convention where one contract gets reported as if it equals 100 shares. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just list the actual contract count? The current method seems to create unnecessary confusion in the reporting process.