6 ms·

Very interesting project, I like the overview. I also really like that you took the finance industry as a theme for your project. >> Every company in the Unite

Very interesting project, I like the overview. I also really like that you took the finance industry as a theme for your project. >> Every company in the United States Sorry for being so fussy but I highly recommended changing the word 'company' / not using it in the future, as the title is quite misleading. No private company in the US has to register with the SEC or has to file with the SEC. 'Investment advisors', who also go by other aliases like 'asset manager', have to file a 13F filing only if they a) are registered with the SEC due to fund marketing purposes and b) if they have, as you already mentioned, over $100 million dollars under management (not 'in holdings'). This is also why large family offices (.e.g. Bayshore Global Management of Sergey Brin) won't show up in any SEC records as they meet the second but not the first criteria - same goes pretty much for any non asset-management company (e.g. McDonald's) as they do not raise money for fund vehicles. However, you have take this into account on your website, and further below you wrote "money manager" which is correct in finance jargon. I hope this gives you a better understanding, keep up the great work.

anonyonoor 3y ago
I geniunely did not know that there was a real difference between companies and asset managers. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for informing me, and for the kind words, I'll make sure to avoid using the word company from now on.
- financypants 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonyonoor 3y ago
    Guess I just missed it. The SEC's search database provides info for companies and money mangers alike, so I wrongly assumed they were the same thing. Sorry.
    - williamdclt 3y ago
      They’re being rude, I don’t think you have anything to be sorry for. Very cool project, well done!
  - dang 3y ago
    You crossed into personal attack with this comment. That's not ok, and it looks like you've done it in other places as well (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39245439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39245439). Can you please avoid that? It's against the site guidelines and destroys what HN is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Btw, saying "I don't mean to be rude." doesn't change this—if that is your intent, then you need to edit your comments so they express your intent unambiguously. More on that here if you want further explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
pmalynin 3y ago
I think that’s not entirely correct either, for example Nvidia had to file a 13F for its holdings after their value of ARM shares exceeded 100M. And the requirement I believe is not for investment advisors (which is its own thing, see Register Investment Advisors from the SEC), but broadly extends to institutional investment managers which is a lot looser of a definition that can certainly include private companies like broker-dealers, in addition to hedge funds, RIC, etc as well as public corporation like Nvidia depending on the types of activities they are involved in.
- multicast 3y ago
  Good point, I did not mention that. Non-registered investment advisors are also included but this relates more to banks, bank holdings and broker/dealers (e.g. investment banks) who trade on 'investment discretion'[1]. Thus it means entities that are not registered as an investment advisor but still invest on behalf of outside clients and not their own book. This does clearly not apply to Nvidia. It is highly unlikely and not logical that they would manage money for third parties in the name of the public corporate entity, just for a pure side hustle. As that would not contribute much financially (in terms of fees that are earned from managing money on behalf of others) nor to their core business. The reason for this 13F filing, as you already guessed to some extent, is that Nvidia is a publicly traded company. As such it is subject to a wide range of SEC filings including those from section 13[2]. Nvidia seems to be a rare case. Acquiring public equity, as a company - especially as a public one, just for the purpose of managing concurrent assets, is very unusual but not out of the question - just away from the textbook. Given the fact that its ARM, whose acquisition failed before Nvidia filed the 13F, it could also serve some other purpose, e.g. showing that interest is still present. [1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Banks%2C%20bank%20holding%20companies%2C%20and,of%20the%20Investment%20Advisers%20Act https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Bank.... [2] https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-reporting-requirements/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20the%20required%20reports,and%2016%20of%20the%20Exchange https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-report...

anonyonoor 3y ago

I geniunely did not know that there was a real difference between companies and asset managers. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for informing me, and for the kind words, I'll make sure to avoid using the word company from now on.

financypants 3y ago
[flagged]
- anonyonoor 3y ago
  Guess I just missed it. The SEC's search database provides info for companies and money mangers alike, so I wrongly assumed they were the same thing. Sorry.
  - williamdclt 3y ago
    They’re being rude, I don’t think you have anything to be sorry for. Very cool project, well done!
- dang 3y ago
  You crossed into personal attack with this comment. That's not ok, and it looks like you've done it in other places as well (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39245439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39245439). Can you please avoid that? It's against the site guidelines and destroys what HN is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Btw, saying "I don't mean to be rude." doesn't change this—if that is your intent, then you need to edit your comments so they express your intent unambiguously. More on that here if you want further explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

pmalynin 3y ago

I think that’s not entirely correct either, for example Nvidia had to file a 13F for its holdings after their value of ARM shares exceeded 100M. And the requirement I believe is not for investment advisors (which is its own thing, see Register Investment Advisors from the SEC), but broadly extends to institutional investment managers which is a lot looser of a definition that can certainly include private companies like broker-dealers, in addition to hedge funds, RIC, etc as well as public corporation like Nvidia depending on the types of activities they are involved in.

multicast 3y ago
Good point, I did not mention that. Non-registered investment advisors are also included but this relates more to banks, bank holdings and broker/dealers (e.g. investment banks) who trade on 'investment discretion'[1]. Thus it means entities that are not registered as an investment advisor but still invest on behalf of outside clients and not their own book. This does clearly not apply to Nvidia. It is highly unlikely and not logical that they would manage money for third parties in the name of the public corporate entity, just for a pure side hustle. As that would not contribute much financially (in terms of fees that are earned from managing money on behalf of others) nor to their core business. The reason for this 13F filing, as you already guessed to some extent, is that Nvidia is a publicly traded company. As such it is subject to a wide range of SEC filings including those from section 13[2]. Nvidia seems to be a rare case. Acquiring public equity, as a company - especially as a public one, just for the purpose of managing concurrent assets, is very unusual but not out of the question - just away from the textbook. Given the fact that its ARM, whose acquisition failed before Nvidia filed the 13F, it could also serve some other purpose, e.g. showing that interest is still present. [1] https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Banks%2C%20bank%20holding%20companies%2C%20and,of%20the%20Investment%20Advisers%20Act https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq#:~:text=Bank.... [2] https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-reporting-requirements/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20the%20required%20reports,and%2016%20of%20the%20Exchange https://www.legalandcompliance.com/securities-law/sec-report...