The financial world is buzzing with concern over a proposed rule change by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), a subsidiary of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the designation SR-FICC-2025-013.
While the exact and full details of this rule remain undisclosed in public records, posts on X have sparked alarm among retail investors, who fear it could undermine transparency and enable risky financial practices.
This article aims to clarify what we know about SR-FICC-2025-013, address retail investors’ concerns, and provide actionable steps to stay informed and engaged.
What is SR-FICC-2025-013?
The SR-FICC-2025-013 rule is a proposed change to the FICC’s operational or regulatory framework, submitted to the SEC for review.
The FICC, established in 2003 as a merger of the Government Securities Clearing Corporation and the Mortgage-Backed Security Clearing Corporation, serves as the sole clearinghouse for U.S. government securities, including Treasury bills, bonds, notes, and mortgage-backed securities (MBS).
It is meant to ensure the efficient and systematic settlement of these transactions, acting as a central counterparty that guarantees trades by becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer.
One of the biggest concerns is the rule may allow inter-dealer brokers to use the same deposit ID for both broker and dealer accounts, potentially reducing transparency in how trades are netted and settled.
Investors on X are concerned this could facilitate practices like masking synthetic trades or rehypothecating shares—actions they argue could increase market risks and harm investors.
Why Retail Investors Are Concerned
Retail investors, empowered by platforms like X, are increasingly vocal about financial regulations that could affect their investments.
The concerns surrounding SR-FICC-2025-013 stem from several key issues:
- Lack of Transparency: Retail investors worry that the rule is being pushed through without adequate public scrutiny, limiting their ability to understand its implications. Posts on X describe the rule as “hidden from the public,” fueling distrust in the regulatory process.
- Potential for Reduced Accountability: Concerns on X suggests that allowing the same deposit ID for broker and dealer accounts could obscure the distinction between proprietary and client transactions. This could make it harder to track trades, potentially enabling broker-dealers to engage in practices like creating synthetic shares (hypothetical shares used in trading strategies) or rehypothecation (reusing client assets as collateral). Such practices, if unchecked, could increase systemic risks and expose investors to losses, especially in volatile markets.
- Risk of Market Fraud: Critics on X have labeled SR-FICC-2025-013 as a “dangerous proposal” that could “turn financial crime into policy.” They argue that reduced transparency in trade netting might allow broker-dealers to hide manipulative activities, such as short selling with unbacked shares, which could destabilize markets and erode investor confidence.
- Regulatory Capture: Wall Street and regulatory bodies prioritize institutional interests over those of everyday investors. The lack of further clarity around SR-FICC-2025-013, combined with its potential to benefit broker-dealers, has led some to suspect that the rule serves large financial firms at the expense of retail investors.
A June 2024 FICC rule change also drew criticism for potentially obstructing rival clearinghouses, suggesting that some FICC actions may prioritize its market dominance over competition.
If SR-FICC-2025-013 indeed loosens oversight of broker-dealer accounts, it could align with concerns about favoring established players, further fueling lack of trust in regulators.
Addressing Retail Investor Concerns
Retail investors’ concerns are valid and deserve attention.
Here’s how these concerns can be addressed:
- Demanding Transparency: The SEC’s rulemaking process requires public comment periods for proposed rules, ensuring stakeholders can voice concerns. Retail investors can push for the release of clearer SR-FICC-2025-013’s details by submitting inquiries or comments to rule-comments@sec.gov, referencing the rule’s file number. This pressure can encourage the SEC to expedite publication and clarify the rule’s intent.
- Advocating for Fairness: Retail investors’ distrust of regulatory capture reflects a broader desire for equitable markets. By participating in SEC comment periods and supporting advocacy groups like Retail United, investors can amplify their voices. Collaborative efforts can push for rules that prioritize market integrity over institutional convenience.
Related: SEC Now Responds to Retail Investors on Illegal Manipulation
Why This Matters
The SR-FICC-2025-013 rule has sparked significant concern among retail investors.
Retail investors are right to demand clarity and accountability, given the FICC’s critical role in U.S. financial markets.
By submitting comments to the SEC, monitoring official updates, and engaging with informed communities, retail investors can influence the regulatory process and protect their interests.
But I’m curious to know what you think — start a discussion on the new Retail Investor Forum.
Back to Retail Investor News.
Follow Frank Nez on X and Facebook for more community insights.
Also Read: Hedge Fund Now Freezes Ability For Customers To Withdraw Money
Latest Retail Investor News
About The Author
