We are live morning and welcome to this public meeting as a consumer product safety commission. Before we start, I confirm that all the commissioners are here. Commissioner Bianco, you're muted. I do that every time. Don't I am here. Commissioner Feldman. The indicated is here through the chat. Commissioner Trump. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioner Boyle. Good morning. Good morning. This morning, the staff will breathe the commission on a draft final rule to establish a consumer product safety standard for magnets. The rule on magnets was developed after years of work at the commission focused on preventing the devastating arm primarily to children and teenagers. When just small, powerful magnets, too many parents have learned these magnets can attach to one another or to certain metals through tissue walls ripping through internal organs, blocking the digestive systems and cause long term damage and even death. This draft rule brings together the years of research and instant reports and understanding of the market more than 700 public comments to propose. Performance requirements for certain magnet products under section 7 and 9 of the consumer product safety act. In a moment, I'll turn this meeting over to the staff so that they can brief us when they have completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds necessary. As a reminder, if you have questions that address the agency's legal authority, they should be asked during a closed executive session. Take sent that as requested. It can be held later on today following this public hearing briefing us today. You have 2 individuals of Stephen or Shawnee engineering psychologist with the division of human factors director for engineering sciences and project manager for magnets and. He, Kim, attorney in the regulatory affairs division also joining us are Jason Levine, CPC's executive director, general counsel and acting commission secretary. That I'm going to turn the microphone over to Mr Shawnee and miss Kim. Good morning, we are honored to meet with you today. You're ready, we can move on to the next slide. Sorry, 1 more slide please for the agenda. I will start us off with a discussion of the rule making process for the draft final rule. Afterwards, I'll review the subject products, the hazard. The NPR and public comments on the NPR and the updated incident data analysis since the NPR. Then I'll describe the draft final rule and the economic analysis pertaining to the rule. Lastly, I'll summarize the main points from today's discussion. And I'll pass it on to high on slide. Good morning. My name is, I am Kim. I'm an attorney in the office of the general counsel, the commission may issue a final role for the safety standard of magnets under section 7 and 9 of the consumer product safety act. The commission commits the rule making with a notice of proposed rule. In January, 2022 under section 7 and 9 to address the unreasonable risk of injury and death. Associated with ingestion of loose or separable high powered magnets section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission to issue consumer product safety standards that consist of performance requirements. And requirements for warnings or instructions. These requirements must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product. The unreasonable risk inquiry involves balancing the likelihood and severity of the injury. Against the effect the regulation could have on manufacturers and consumers. Next slide, in addition, before promulgating a consumer product safety rule. The commission must consider and make certain findings under section 9 of the CPSA. These findings are set forth here. They include findings that show the public's need for the rule and the effect of the rule on the utility cost and availability of the product. At the benefits of the role, they are a reasonable relationship to its costs that the role imposes the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. The CPSA requires that these findings be supported by the substantial evidence on the record. Next slide. The final rule must also provide a regulatory analysis, describing the rules, potential costs and benefits, discuss alternatives to the role and summarize issues raised by comments on the initial regulatory analysis. Next slide. Under the CPSA, if a voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented that relates to the same risk of injury as the role the commission is considering, the commission cannot promulgate a final rule unless it finds that when the voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury, or two, it is unlikely that there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. The rule before you addresses six relevant standards that are applicable to the magnet ingestion hazard. However, as we will discuss, none of the standards are likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with magnet ingestion hazards that are addressed in the rule before you. Steve Harshani will now discuss the product and the hazard associated with subject magnet products. Next slide. Thank you. The subject products are consumer products designed, marketed or intended to be used by consumers for entertainment, jewelry, including children's jewelry, mental stimulation, stress relief, or a combination of these purposes, and that contain one or more looser separable magnets. As I'll discuss in the coming slides, the draft final rule has the same product scope as the NPR, but with several exemptions clarified and codified. Our primary concern for these products is the magnet internal interaction hazard, which we typically refer to as the magnet ingestion hazard. That is, deaths and serious injury associated with the ingestion of multiple hazardous magnets or a hazardous magnet in a ferromagnetic object. The draft final rule identifies magnets as hazardous consistent with ASTM and other international standards and prohibitions as magnets that are small objects and have a magnetic flux index of 50 or greater. Hazardous magnets are small enough to be ingested and strong enough to interact internally through body tissue and resist natural bodily forces to separate. This internal interaction has led to deaths and non-fatal acute and long-term adverse health consequences from volgulous, histiline, perforations, and other injuries. Medical management of magnet ingestion has inherent health risks, both from less invasive procedures such as serial imaging and anesthesia and endoscopies, and more invasive procedures such as laparotomies, resections, and other types of surgical intervention. Next slide, please. On January 10, 2022, the Commission published the NPR for magnets in the Federal Register under Section 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. Under the proposed rule, each loose or separate magnet in the subject magnet product would be required to meet the following criteria. One, the two large to fit entirely within the small part cylinder described in 16 CFR, Section 1501.4, or two, have a flux index of less than 50. That is, weak enough that they are less likely to cause internal interaction injuries if ingested. In other words, the proposed rule extended to the subject magnet products, the magnet strength and size requirements specified in the toy standard, ASTM-963, which is codified in 16 CFR Part 1250. The NPR would exempt products subject to ASTM-963 because these products must already meet the proposed magnet strength and size requirements. Additionally, the NPR would exclude other products that do not meet the criteria for some subject magnet products, such as certain products intended for home, kitchen, education, research, commercial, and industrial uses. Next slide, please. The NPR provided an assessment of existing domestic and international standards and prohibitions and other alternatives to the proposed rule and showed that the proposed rule is necessary. The proposed rule is similar to prohibitions in other countries, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and member states of the European Commission. Safety messaging, including public awareness raising efforts, has historically been ineffective at addressing the hazard for numerous reasons, most notably because consumers are unlikely to anticipate and appreciate the likelihood and nature of the hazard, particularly as it involves older children and teens. Packaging requirements, such as child resistant packaging, would be ineffective for the majority of the known ages involved in magnet ingestion incidents. Adversive agents, such as foul odors and biterance, has historically been ineffective at preventing ingestion of hazardous objects and substances. The estimated annual benefits of the proposed rule, that is the reduction in societal costs, far exceeds the estimated annual costs, such as lost utility for consumers and lost income for companies. To the extent that unidentified magnet products involved in ingestion incidents were products subject to the proposed rule, which staff assesses as likely, the estimated annual benefits could be substantially higher. Staff concluded that magnet ingestants involving unidentified magnet products generally involve products that would be covered by the proposed rule because of the following factors, among others. One, the known products involved in magnet ingestion incidents, that is, of the known products involved in magnet ingestion incidents, the subject magnet products and uses constitute a much larger proportion of the cases than the excluded products, particularly when considering cases that resulted in surgery. Two, the success of ASTM S963 in reducing the number of children's toys involved in magnet internal interaction injuries. And three, incidences of NICE, CFIS-RMS and Poison Center reported magnet ingestants relative to the vacated rule on magnet sets. We'll elaborate on these points in the following slides as we discuss staff's updated incident data analysis following NPR. Next slide, please. The commission's NPR requested comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule, such as the scope and definitions, performance requirements, safety messaging and packaging requirements, existing standards, staff's cost-benefit analysis, and the effective date of the rule. On March 2, 2022, CPSC held an oral hearing regarding the proposed rule, at which time five comments were presented. CPSC received 713 written comments on the NPR during the public comment period, which closed on March 28, 2022, and we received three additional comments after the period closed. All comments were considered, including the late-filed comments, two of which were from manufacturers of subject magnet products. Most two commented in favor of the proposed rule were medical professionals and or representatives of consumer advocacy groups and medical associations. And there were some consumers and a subject magnet product manufacturer who also supported the proposed rule. The groups and associations included, among others, representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Pediatric Surgery Association, the North American Society for Pediatric Astroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Safe Kids Central California, the Canadian Pediatric Society's Injury Prevention Committee, Consumer Reports, Kids in Danger, Consumer Federation of America, the Children's Safety Network at the Education Development Center and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, and Safe Kids worldwide. These commenters tended to view the proposed rule as a minimum and critically important standard by which to address the hazard. And then alternative, less stringent approaches are unlikely to be effective. In contrast, most two commented in opposition to the proposed rule were consumers as well as several subject magnet product manufacturers and hobbyist groups, such as the Hobby Manufacturers Association, the Magnet Safety Association, and Magnets and Nanomagnetics. Commenters opposed to the proposed rule generally affirmed that an all-ages prohibition is not reasonable, that ASTM S3458-21, the voluntary standard of safety messaging and packaging requirements for adult magnet sets, is a viable alternative, and that there are other hazards that are far more dangerous than magnets, such as regarding automobiles, firearms, and trampolines. Many also claim that the proposed strength and size limitations are both unnecessary and costly in terms of lost product utility and harm to small businesses. Many comments understated, though, the frequency of the incidence of the hazard, describing magnet ingestions as a few, several, or handful. And these commenters claim that specific companies had no incidence of magnet ingestion involving their subject magnet products. Next slide, please. Staff is aware of seven deaths since 2005, associated with ingestion of hazardous magnets, five of which occurred in the U.S., and this has not changed since the NPR's analysis. The updated NICS and CPSRMIS data analysis covers January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2021, adding one year to the analysis for the NPR. In general, staff's analysis of the updated data affirms the NPR analysis. The following NICS-based estimates are regarding the in-scope products, which include all magnet ingestion incident data other than data involving products identified as not subject to the rule. Staff estimates 25,000 cases from 2010 through 2021 were in scope. Staff estimates 2,500 cases in 2021, which is higher than the majority of the preceding years, including 2018 through 2020, demonstrating that cases have continued to rise. An estimated 5,000 victims, like 20% of the 25,000, were hospitalized or transferred to another hospital. In comparison, for the same timeframe, injuries from all toys combined had a hospitalization rate under 5%. Regarding the CPSRMIS incidents involving in-scope products, 362 incidents were reported to have occurred from 2010 through 2021, including 105 incidents reported since NPR. At least 156 incidents resulted in surgical intervention, including 43 reported since the NPR. It's important to note that the CPSRMIS reports are commonly received years after the incidents occurred, meaning that the actual counts of magnet ingestions are potentially higher than reported at this time, especially for year 2021 and other recent years. Next slide, please. Regarding the NICE cases, where product type was identified or described, magnet sets, magnet toys, and jewelry were the most common, but the majority were of unknown product type. Most of the CPSRMIS cases involved magnet sets, followed by products identified or described as magnet toys than jewelry. Relatively few cases involved identified out-of-scope products, such as home and kitchen products, particularly cases resulting in surgical intervention and signs of internal interaction. As I explained before, staff concludes it is likely that a substantial proportion of the unidentified magnet products were, in fact, subject magnet products. Where specified, the majority of the magnet ingestions involved playing with magnets at the time of the incident, followed by use as jewelry. Accidental ingestion of magnets was common, whereas intentional ingestion was rarely reported. Sharing of magnets between children was also commonly reported. Next slide, please. Detail in the NPR, staff and other researchers examined NICE, CPSRMIS, and Poison Control Center data and concluded that the 2014 magnet set rule was effective in reducing magnet ingestion incidents. The magnet set rule, just vacated by the 10th circuit in 2016, had similar requirements for the largest subset of subject magnet product involved in ingestion incidents, magnet sets. Starting this chart, staff estimated from the NICE data, 2,300 emergency department treated ingestions of in-scope magnets annually from 2010 through 2013, years prior to the announcement of magnet set rule, and 1,300 annually from 2014 through 2016, the years the rule was announced in place. For years 2017 through 2021, staff estimates 2,400 annual emergency department treated ingestions up from 2,300, which we had estimated for 2017 through 2020 in the NPR. This increase reflects the larger number of cases in 2021 than the preceding years 2018 through 2020. These trends over the past 12 years indicate that it is likely that a substantial proportion of magnet ingestions involves subject magnet products, including the cases in which the magnet product is not identified and that the magnet size and strength requirements in the draft final rule are effective in addressing the hazard. Next slide, please. Consistent with NPR under the draft final rule, each loose or separable magnet in a subject magnet product that fits entirely within the small part cylinder must have a flex index of less than 50, as measured by the procedures for determining the magnetic attractive force described in ASTMF 963. Also consistent with NPR, the draft final rule does not apply to toy subject to CCSE's mandatory toy standard in 16th C of R part 1250. The draft final rule includes clarifications to the NPR, that is, it codifies additional exempted products from the rule, which were mentioned as exclusions in the NPR. These exemptions are as follows, products manufactured, sold, and or distributed solely for school, research, professional, commercial, and or industrial purposes that contain one or more loose or separable magnets that are not designed, marketed, or intended to be used for entertainment, jewelry, stress relief, or a combination of these purposes. And two, products manufactured, sold, and or distributed solely for home use, such as hardware magnets that contain one or more loose or separable magnets and are not designed, marketed, or intended to be used for entertainment, jewelry, mental stimulation, stress relief, or a combination of these purposes. These clarifications address public comments on the NPR, that it was unclear what products are not subject to the rule. Based on the current data, staff agrees with comments that magnet products intended only for school, research, professional, commercial, and or industrial purposes should be exempt from the rule, even if the products are intended for mental stimulation, unless they are also intended for other subject magnet product uses. However, staff still concludes that products for home use are subject to the rule, even if they are intended for subject magnet product uses, including mental stimulation. Staff recommends the commission adopt the draft final rule to be effective 30 days after publication, with third-party testing requirements effective 90 days after publication. Next slide, please. The expected benefits of the rule are a reduction in the risk of death and serious injury to children and teens due to ingestion of hazardous magnets from the subject magnet products. Decisional costs associated with magnet ingestion injuries include the following considerations, among others. Medical costs, work loss, an intangible or non-economic cost of injury. On the other hand, the rule may result in loss to value experienced by consumers who would no longer be able to purchase subject magnet products with loose or separable hazardous magnets, as well as the lost profit to firms that could not produce and sell non-compliant products in the future. Public comments by sellers and consumers cite usefulness of the subject magnet products without size and strength limitations, including amusement, art, education, entertainment, stress relief, social, and innovative values, among others. In addition, internet data demonstrates that hazardous magnets from the subject magnet products, such as magnet sets, are also commonly used for jewelry. Staff's briefing package provides a range of estimates for between 100,000 and 1 million units sold annually. Assuming 500,000 units sold, staff estimates annual benefits of the rule to be $51.8 million, based on incident data from 2017 through 2021, excluding unidentified magnet products. Staff estimates annual costs from reduced annual consumer and producer surplus to be between $10 million and $17.5 million for this period. Thus, our estimates show that the potential benefits of the draft final rule would likely easily exceed the potential costs. Furthermore, to the extent that the unidentified magnet products involved in adjusting injuries were subject magnet products, which staff assesses as likely, the potential benefits of the draft final rule would be higher. For the same period, staff estimates annual benefits of the rule to be $167.9 million, just for the unidentified magnet products. A sensitivity analysis shows that even adding a relatively small portion of the nice cases involving unidentified magnet products to the base case substantially increases the estimated gross benefits of the rule. Next slide, please. Detailed in the briefing package, staff considered various alternative options to reduce the risk of the magnet internal interaction hazard, such as alternative performance requirements requiring safer packaging, warnings, aversive agents, using a later effective date, and relying on voluntary standards activities. While these alternative options would reduce the burden on companies and consumers that benefit from the use and sale of non-compliant products, staff concluded that less stringent alternatives to the draft final rule are not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with hazardous magnet ingestion. Next slide, please. Staff assesses that the draft final rule could have a significant adverse impact on a few small importers of subject magnet products, particularly importers of magnet sets, which are believed to receive nearly all their revenues from sales of subject magnet products. Again, staff reviewed less stringent alternatives to the draft final rule to determine if burdens associated with the rule could be lessened. The staff concluded that less stringent alternatives would not adequately address the hazard. As discussed in the NPR, affected manufacturers and importers may be able to market subject magnet products with compliant magnets. Staff has identified several companies that advertise subject magnet products, such as magnet sets, as having small object magnets with a flux index under 50. The draft final rule also incorporates additional exemptions. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. In summary, the draft final rule extends to certain amusement and jewelry products, such as magnet sets, the magnet size, and strength requirements established by STMF 963. That is, loose or separable magnets in these products cannot be hazardous magnets. The draft final rule is supported by the following factors, among others. Magnet adjustment trends and the associated deaths and injuries from these ingestions, known products involved, hazardous use patterns, CTSC recall activity, international standards and prohibitions, human factors and medical literature, and input from medical associations. Staff estimates the potential benefits of the rule easily, easily exceed the potential costs and substantially more to the extent that unidentified magnet products involved in nice reported incidents were products subject to the rule, which staff assesses this likely. Can move on to the next slide and that concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for that briefing. As he pointed out, it's really unfortunate that the court struck down a rule earlier because I think in the end of the day, never large number of children were injured in the interim. But going into the details, Miss Kim, can you discuss how the draft rule would address the concerns 10 circuit had when it struck down the former. Magnet sets rule in 2016. In the Zen magnets case. The 10th circuit found three flaws with the commission's 2014 magnet sets rule. First, the court found fault with the data that the commission used to estimate the risk of injury for magnet sets, because it didn't include data from after 2012. When CPSC began compliance actions that reduced magnet set sales. The court stated that the downward trend in the injury rates should have been considered in the evaluation of the benefits of the role. For the rule before you. We've provided data for periods before, during, and after the effective period of the 2014 magnets set rule. The estimated number of magnet ingestions treated in US hospital emergency departments was lowest by a significant margin during the 2014 through 2016 period of the magnet sets role. This new information shows that a product safety role that addresses magnet ingestion hazards is effective in reducing injuries and deaths. The second fault that the court found was with CPSC's reliance on an estimate that 90% of the cited injury reports, possibly involved magnet sets. The court questioned whether the rule is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury, given the uncertainty of real injury rates.  As discussed in the final regulatory analysis, the benefits from the rule far exceed the cost of the rule, even when unidentified magnet products are excluded. In addition, as explained by Mr. Harshani, the rule provides additional information on cases characterized as unidentified and finds that they are in fact, likely from likely to be subject magnet products. Based on the known products involved in the incidents. The success of the ASTM toy standard and reducing the magnet ingestion hazards and the data from the nice CPSRMS and poison center reported incidents. I would also note that the incident data analysis reviewed by the staff includes more comprehensive data than the 2014 magnet set rule, because that rule only covered magnet sets. The rule before the commission greatly expands the scope of products covered by the rule. Not only are magnet sets covered, jewelry is covered, including children's jewelry and also jewelry making sets. Finally, the court stated that the CPSC had not addressed the utility of magnet sets for scientific and math education, or as research tools. In the proposed rule, the commission specifically raised the issue of whether these types of products should be excluded and requested comment on them. The rule before you consider these issues and in response to comments provides specific exemptions from the rule. Magnets that are manufactured, sold and or distributed for home use or for school research professional commercial and or industrial purposes are exempt from the rule, unless they also meet the other criteria for subject magnet products. As discussed, the incident data did not show that magnet ingestion incidents are associated with those types of products. For all of these reasons, the issues identified by the 10th circuit when it vacated the 2014 magnet set rule have been addressed in this rule. Thank you, Mr. Kim and maybe Mr. Arshani you can expand upon what was Kim was saying and how this rule compares the scope to the vacated rule. Sure, as Ms. Kim explained, this rule expands the scope of what is considered hazardous magnets by modifying the performance requirements to consider magnets hazardous as they are small objects. And have a magnetic flux index of 50 or greater, as opposed to simply greater than 50 in line with changes to STMF 963. This rule also extends the product scope to capture other products likely to pose the magnet internal interaction hazard capturing all magnets designed marketed or to be used as for entertainment jewelry or stress release. Thank you and Mr. Arshani, the briefing package is unfortunately strengthened by the data regarding deaths and injuries from subject magnets before, during and after the effective period of the 2014 rule. It shows success of the rule and preventing injuries and increases incidents once these products were allowed back onto the marketplace. In fact, it shows a massive increase in the average annual estimated injuries when the rule went into effect, sorry, massive decrease from about 2300 per year to about 1300 per year. When the rule was vacated that number went right back up to 2400 per year. And these numbers are tragic and astounding. Mr. Arshani is reasonable to expect similar decrease incidents if this rule goes into effect. It is our expectation that the incidents will decrease appreciably if this rule goes into effect as written. From what we see in the data, magnet sets continue to be of primary concern. And the rule not only addresses magnet sets, but children's jewelry and certain other general use products as well. The staff assesses pose unreasonable risks of the magnet internal attraction hazard. Thank you Mr. Arshani. Ms. Kim, I'm going to turn to my fellow commissioners for questions that they may have as well. Turning by order of seniority, Commissioner Miyako. Thank you, Chairman. I thought the presentation was extremely thorough and I appreciate that and I have no questions. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Miyako. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Great. Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to thank all the presenters today for the presentation. I agree with Commissioner Miyako that this was a thorough and thoughtful presentation. Obviously, this is an issue that's been in front of the commission for a while. As was discussed today, the 10th Circuit reviewed our previous action and struck down the rule. I think that that serves as an important reminder to all of us that CTSC's actions need to be underpinned by strong data sound science and that the agency not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. We're going to be subject in the future to that kind of review. But on that front, in order to address some of the deficiencies that the 10th Circuit identified, one of the key aspects of the draft final rule that's in front of the agency right now is the carve out for scientific, industrial and home use magnets. I was wondering if you could speak a little bit about the enforcement implications that might arise because of that carve out. For example, how is our enforcement staff can be able to differentiate between magnets that fall squarely within the carve out that we're creating and other magnets that are impermeable. So, based on the current data staff assesses that the hazard is less likely to occur the exempted products, which has valuable functional utilities different from amusement and jewelry. Which are therefore less likely to be acquired and used by children and teens for playing in jewelry. Staff agrees with commenters that we need to remain vigilant regarding the exempted products to quickly address new hazard patterns and we will. The box scope is consistent with NPR, although we recommend exempting certain products designed market or intended for mental stimulation. Okay, I appreciate that answer, but it doesn't really answer the question. In terms of our staff in the field, looking at their products, how are they going to be able to clearly delineate between what's permissible and what falls within the scope of the exemption. Sure. We guard against against accurate sort of attempting to use the carve out that we're creating in terms of their marketing to effectively game the system. Commissioner Feldman. Just to perhaps caution, I think we wouldn't want to talk about compliance strategies in public session and you're raising your raising points which which can in part be discussed. I mean, James about to do so about, you know, how, how we interpret this draft rule, but in terms of the commission's compliance strategy, that's probably something that we'd want to discuss in a closed session. So, so without fair, I wasn't trying to discuss confidential information in a public session. So I'll reserve that question until later. Moving on with respect to the incident data. The numbers that that that we're basing this draft final rule on obviously tell a compelling story. But I'm curious in terms of in terms of looking at the incident data. We're differentiating between incidents involving small children and and adults obviously that the hazard patterns here that that we're most concerned about is, you know, ingestion by by small children that that that may not know anybody better and that fall into the vulnerable consumers category is have we done that granular breakdown. And does that tell us anything. We did consider ages and our detail analysis of the incident data and we found that the actually the vast majority of victims were were above age 5 and 16 or under. And we we put together the case before you based on that data to protect the vulnerable populations. Okay, I appreciate that response. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you commission. Commissioner Trump. Thank you and thank you everyone for your work on this briefing package and for the presentation today. I'm glad that we're nearing resolution on this issue. This is a problem that the agency has already solved once. Before 2 judges substituted their judgment for that of the experts at this agency. And that resulted in scores of grave injuries to children. Now this agency stepping up once again to correct that injustice and the proposed final rule looks like it will keep kids safe from gruesome injuries tied to ingesting small magnets. I want to make sure to make sure we get there. I want to better understand the exemptions that are being considered and I've got some questions about that 1st 1. That applies to products manufactured sold and or distributed solely for school research professional commercial and or industrial purposes. So. Overall, the exemption applies to products that are manufactured, sold or distributed solely for those purposes that I just listed. So, this exemption. Doesn't apply to products sold to consumers on the open market. Correct. I mean, we're talking about products that would be sold through specialty channels tailored to those exempted settings. Yes. Great, you know, I think a little bit of clarity on that point in the final rule. I think it is clear to me, but in order to make that crystal clear, I think we might want to. Just make sure we do that in the final rule. And as we start with. The 5 categories in this exemption, I want to look at the school purposes exemption. And, you know, staff states in comment 12 that because these products are intended for use in school. As opposed to home settings and personally used by children. The magnet internal interaction hazard would be less likely to pose an unreasonable risk of injury to children or teens. So, so that exemption. Wouldn't include products that are personally used by children or teens. So, so I just wanted to clarify on that 1. When we talk about school purposes, we're talking about teachers using these products to model or explain, not students. Correct. It considers both particularly for older ages where our students will be hands on with them, but we're talking about a supervised environment. And products that are not designed marketed or intended to be used for any subject magnet product to use beyond mental stimulation. So, can you clarify where you said. Older that you gave some indication that older students might be more hands on with this. So, do we give some delineation as to whether this exemption is intended for college or graduate schools where students would be using this hand on. I mean, we're not talking about high school, middle school, elementary school for hands on use for kids. Are we. The exception is it's for all school use and the definition is based on review of the incident data, which did not show magnets for school use to be a significant hazard pattern. The magnets of concern are the magnets for for the subject magnet product uses, which would now be prohibited by the rule. Can you give me a sense of any specific legitimate uses of these powerful magnet sets in schools that we're aware of. Starting from the elementary school side. Yeah, absolutely. Magnets are used for educational purposes to teach basic principles and especially for younger ages and more complex principles of physics magnetism and electricity. Including basic geometry. Okay, I think I'm going to come back to that because I don't feel that we've seen the evidence that we need for an open ended school exemption that will allow children. To handle these magnets sets in elementary middle schools. Yeah, certainly not 1 that puts these in their hands, but, but there's probably a way to allow for more appropriate use in. You know, as the education progresses and children older, but I do want to.  I'm, I'm proud to report that my son earned a lot of those, but, but 1 day he came home with a magnet set. We immediately disposed of it, but, but what about something like that if, if there's sets of giveaway toys used by teachers, they include magnet sets. Those don't meet the proposed school purposes exemption. Do they. Now, subject magnets that's as defined in and proposed 16 CFR 12, 62 dot to be would apply as the magnets. Like they designed marketed or intended to be used for entertainment jewelry stress relief or a combination of these purposes. So, so, because these are. They're a toy essentially they would not be allowed by this exemption. Okay. Now, we've got a professional purposes exemption and research purposes exemption. And I just wanted to understand the interaction between the 2 to the extent there is some. So, is the research purposes exemption. Is that only intended for academic research like post secondary school research. It was encompassing for various research purposes, including academic medical defense. Um, et cetera. Okay. Um. What can you give us some examples of specific academic research that we're aware of? So, similar to industrial use magnets are used for various innovative purposes. Sorry, my, I'm not agreeing with me at the moment. So. Can I get back to this at a later time? Yeah, let me know when, when that, when that comes back and we can follow up. But, but I do want to be clear about 1 part of this. When we talk about research, can we be very clear that we're not talking about home research by children and teens?  Correct. Those would be magnets intended for home use. And that would not be allowed. Correct. Okay. Um, and, you know, I can picture professional, well, none of this, this goes back to the question you were getting back to me on the professional purposes. Um, well, maybe it doesn't. So, so actually. I can picture professional research, but I don't understand what professional purposes other than research might be. Do you have some sense of legitimate professional uses that we're trying to include with that part of the exemption. I believe several commenters raised modeling or sculpture building or architectural uses. Okay. Um, and then I think maybe the last 1, I'll ask about here is I'm certainly confused by the commercial purposes part of the exemption. I can't quite picture what this is and I want to make sure that we're not. Creating something that could be misinterpreted. You know, if I'm a real estate agent and I want to, you know, take 1 of these magnets that's put my business card on it and just send it out to prospective clients. That's not okay into the commercial purposes exemption. Is it? I mean, what are we talking about there? The commercial use examples include, for example, use on magnetic boards and a fixing items together among others. This exemption to which we're referring still covers all of the other subject magnet product uses other than mental stimulation. I'm so you said. For use on a magnet board. I don't know that. Can you explain what that is? Yeah, sorry about that a magnetic or ferro magnetic board, such as if you consider going into a restaurant and having items on the board. Just like to hold things up. Wouldn't that be wouldn't that be professional? It can be used professionally for that reason, but typically what we've seen is more for modeling and sculpture building such as as miss can put architecture. Well, you know, I guess I wonder, and we can think about this some more, but. The examples you gave for commercial, I wonder if they're redundant of if we cut commercial, don't those still fit under the professional exemption. Do we need commercial? I worry it adds a little bit of ambiguity that. I don't want to take an advantage of or legitimate confusion. I mean, either way. I'm happy to discuss this further after the briefing. I also want to emphasize that that this exemption is for products sold and distributed solely for these purposes. Fair enough, but I guess let's let's fill follow up on that. If you can kind of compare the list of possible uses between commercial and professional and and let me know if there's some that fit in 1 and not the other so that we might need both. But that's that's what I'm getting at there and industrial purposes. I'm not quite sure what they are, but I can probably picture those. That's that's all for me right now. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner commissioner boil. Thank you, Mr chair, and thank you to the staff for this thorough presentation and not only for the work on this. Rule, but for the last 10 years or more that all staff has been working on this at the agency. So I do appreciate that very much. I just have a couple of questions. A lot of them have already been asked just to follow up on some answers that have already been given. And Mr. Hirshani, I think in response to the chair question about the difference between the rule before us now and the vacated rule. You mentioned something about the flux. I understand the expansion of the scope in terms of jewelry. But I just want to make sure I understood what you said in terms of the difference of the flux if I heard you correctly. Yeah, sure. The, the vacated rule on magnets that was based on a previous iteration of the MS, which considered magnets hazardous if they were 50 had a magnetic flux index of 50. I'm sorry, if greater than 50. Whereas, and other international standards and prohibitions has since been updated to include 50 and therefore a hazardous magnet has a magnetic flux index of 50 or greater. And as a small object. So, for practical purposes, does that have a big implication or is that just for clarity? It's predominantly for clarity, but we also has tested magnets that were close to the limit. So it's. We found it important to go with what was determined by consensus to be the. The most appropriate number at this time. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that. I have a language question and I'm not sure who this is for maybe for miss Kim. Is there a difference between exclusion and exemption? I mean, if you could explain how we went from talking about exclusions to exemptions. And that's miss Kim would like to answer that the intent was just to emphasize that in the NPR, we only formally codified the exemption for toy subject. We provided as examples of other excluded. The products that are now being that we now recommend codifying formally with only change being mental stimulation for certain products. Thank you. I was on mute. Well, I was talking so I'll try again. For all intents and purposes. There is not much of a distinction between exclusion and exemption. When you write codified text, you would use the word exemption. Because that's a specific term that we use to exclude certain products in the code. For the purposes of the NPR, we use the word exclusion because we were really inquiring about it. We were asking the public to comment on it. And what they thought whether this should go outside the scope of the rule or not. So it's, it's more of a semantic distinction, but for the purposes of codification. I think the office of federal register would say exemption is proper. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that is another way to look at it though. Could we have looked at the definition and change the definition of subject matter product subject. Magnet product to talk about these exclusions as opposed to saying calling them an exemption would that have been a different way and acceptable way to approach it. We certainly considered. Except that there was some confusion about it when we. When we requested comments and asked about these specific issues, we got commenters saying. We're unclear as to what you mean. So in response to those comments, we felt it was necessary to be more explicit and clear. So the manufacturers understood and the consumers understood what was within the scope and what was outside the scope of the rule. Okay, thank you. And I do actually want to get back to something you just said, Mr. Herschani about the the mental stimulation. If you could explain to me a little bit more how we arrived at including that in the definition, but including it in the professional use, but not in the home use just to if you could walk through that for me. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. CPSC staff assesses that mental stimulation is an important criterion criterion for subject magnet products as it encompasses numerous uses that appeal to children and teens for home use. Such as puzzle working and sculpture building, which are common descriptions for subject magnet products like magnet sets. I agree with commenters that the term mental stimulation may be interpreted more broadly than we intended by capturing products not for home uses that may nonetheless be mentally stimulating. It's just those manufactured sold and or distributed solely for educated uses at schools and universities. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. And then I just have some sort of small questions that I just wanted to get clarity on. If you don't mind, do bicycle helmets fall within the scope of the rule? I know there was a discussion of a recall that involved magnets and bicycle helmets and it was unclear to me which side of the line it fell on based on that. As a general matter, bicycle helmets are not within scope. We would evaluate if a specific helmet has loose or separable magnets that would meet the inclusion criteria. Regarding the case to which you're referring where I'm working with compliance on this and we'll get back to you after the briefing. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. One other question I had was about the sellers of magnets. Are most of them overseas or domestic sellers? As we discussed in the package, while the majority of the manufacturers are overseas, most of the sellers in the past two years have been in the US. Okay, thanks. And 1 final question was just on the test methodology that staff developed. If you could just explain why staff developed its own methodology. Is it mandatory? Do labs have to follow that? The draft final rule uses the test methodology described in a 963, which is also used in other international standards and prohibitions. Showing an appendix in the appendix to have the of the briefing package staff provided recommendation for assisting testers and identifying accurately and consistently the flux, particularly for smaller diameter spherical magnets. This is those between 2 and 3 millimeters. The method is not mandatory. And it is consistent with the SDMS 963. Additionally, 1 of the commenters who represented a subject magnet product manufacturer described using a very similar method. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I don't have any other questions. Mr. share, but do you want to thank the staff again for all your hard work? I appreciate it. Thank you, commissioner. Just to make sure I want to get 1 point time commission. Some commissions that indicated desire to ask questions and a closed executive session dealing with confidential information. Is that correct? Yes. That given that request we're going to reconvene and close session at noon. Were there any other questions that commissioners want to raise at this point in time or seek a 2nd round for public questions or issues that can be discussed in public hearing none. I do want to thank the staff for the formative briefing so far and for the commissioners for the active participation. This briefing is now closed. I'll see the commissioners and staff at noon. Thank you. Thank you.


Welcome to the After Hours podcast, hosted by Harry Haas and James Friedlender, presented by My Investing Club. What's going on, guys? We're back with another episode of the After Hours podcast. Today, we have Johnny in chat. His name is Bomb Tiki-Tiki, so you will notice him in there. So thank you for coming on, man. What's going on? Yeah, man, no much. It's midnight, guys. Good. Dude, I think that's psychopathic that you trade up. It's midnight and we're trade. Where are you? Australia? Yeah, I'm in Australia. So like, I'm sleeping around 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. So my sleeping pass is right in front of me.   You and people like Austin, dude.   So it really props to you. Yeah, I mean, you get used to it after like the first, you know, three weeks of it. Yeah, no, for sure, for sure. So anyways, we'll dive into it. So I guess we'll start off in old-fashioned. You know, how did you get in the trading? How did you find it? And then how did you eventually find MIC? Yes, I think for me, I was kind of the perfect victim to be set up to take a huge loss on my first trade. And it was a man because of my MIC going into trading. I was really profit-focused and I was kind of, I was in my second year of uni doing mechanical engineering and I said to myself, like, this can't be it. Like I needed to find a way out of it somewhere, but I had no idea what I was going to do. And it was not until my brother actually introduced me to like the whole idea of trading that I started to get into it. And that was around about like three years ago now. So December, 2018. And from that point on, it was kind of just deep dive into as much user content as I could find. Kind of bounced around from place to place. I landed up, like, I think, yeah. I ended on Tim Sykes and I watched like all his stuff or a lot of it. And then from then on, I actually found Tim Grittani and Stephen Ducks. Oh yeah, super, yeah. Hard to say, like trading is really good DVD, which is actually where I've been. Yeah, so I started with that. I watched that like five times. And from that moment on, that was when I could really see, you know, like, this is something that I could learn and that I could actually master if I spent enough time with it. And that was my first time seeing, you know, like real in the moment trading and what it's actually like. Yeah. So after that, I went to Ducks's chat room because Tim didn't have one at the time. And I was like, I'm just gonna learn as much as I can from this guy. And what I found from observing them was, yes, I was seeing heaps of massive P&Ls being made. But to me, I've never even known about potential losses that I can make. So I'm saying like 70K in one day, like 35K in one day. But the risk to make that was just non-existent in my mind. Yeah. So the first day when I'm about to trade, I still remember it. It was like, took an FT&W three years ago and I'm just so eager to get into it. Like I'm so eager to start. And I remember saying to myself, oh, well, Tim and Ducks go in like 100,000 shares. So let me just go in something small. They must go in like one-tenth of that, which is like 10,000 shares. I was gonna say that's still a lot of shares.  Like Tim was adding like the time, 20,000 pop in his trading ticket. So I'm like, this is nothing.   Yeah, okay, all right. So much risk goes with it. But in my head, 10 cents on 10,000 shares was a $1,000 game for me. Yes, yep. And what actually happened when I went to locate the shares was the locate fee was like 400 bucks. And like for me who never spends anything, I see that. And I'm like, yeah, there ain't no way I'm paying that. I'm like, I want to enter it first. That's way too much. Because I mean, convert that to Australian dollars at the time it was like $1,000 bucks after a locate fee. So I'm like, I'm just going to sit back and I'm just going to watch the trade play out and see what happens. And like I kid you not, it was the most perfect short you could ever have. Like perfect balance. And it just dropped like a dollar and 10 cents a share and just faded off for the rest of the day. And everyone that posted the game, like ducks made like 80K on it. Yeah, of course, right? And I have no idea like what these people's account sizes are, but I'm just seeing the numbers that are on the screen. And I'm like, and I'm thinking about, oh, like if I'd just gone in with 10,000 shares, which is way too big for my account size at the time, like I could have made 11K on this. So in my head, now I've got so much FOMO and it really just came back to bite me the very next day because I go into the market and like lo and behold, it's a ticket gapping up, one that we all know really well, the PTH, the Black Swan. Oh!  Oh no, I don't like where this is going, no. Oh no. And it was on the day before it, it was the day of the Black Swan move.  But this time I'm prepared. This time I'm only gonna go in 3,000 shares, which is huge for like a $7 stock. So I remember straight out of the gate, it's around 780 and on the day level, yeah, there was an eight dollar level which had like 100 million volume traded on that day. So for ducks, that was like unbreakable resistance. So like you should, like on the day, it should reach eight bucks and it shouldn't break through just because the amount of volume the trend that day previously. And me not doing anything, you know, this was a micro flight. I just slamming at the first sign of weakness. So open at 780, it slams down to like 774.  Like I saw what happened yesterday and I expected the same thing to happen. Of course, we know it didn't, like immediately pop to 780s and now I'm down 300 bucks and this is the first traffic I've ever made and I'm coming in with the expectation to see like a big green number there and now I'm staring at like a loss. And at that moment, I kind of freeze and I'm like, okay, it's still underneath eight dollars. Like, I'll just hold it, see what happens. And I haven't even placed a hard stop then. I'm just expecting that I'll be able to manually stop it when the time comes. And all of a sudden, that room starts going crazy and everyone's saying like, Guy Gentile just bought the phone. Guy Gentile just bought the phone. And I remember looking at it and I look back and my stomach just sank as there was a huge green candle from like 780s to like 840s and I'm just losing my lost at 2.2K. And at that moment, I just free, I don't know what to do. I'm like, I'm adhering headlights at this point. And this is one that just gave no relief for sure. It's instantly another huge squeeze up to 880s and I cut it. Like, thank God I cut it there because it did go to 74 later.  That's pretty normal. That's more normal than you probably think though.  It's just you happen to pick like one of the worst squeezes of all time to try it on, but that's just like luck, right? I mean, that could be anyone technically. So from here, you took that loss.  What did you do next? Like, where did you go from there? So immediately what I did was I went into my room and I typed in, how to deal with trading losses. They were going to say cried or something. Farmer. Alcohol, drugs. Wait, did you say farmer? Is that what you said? It was, yeah, it was farmer that came up as the first video. Oh, dude. Oh, my God. So I had to get this back. But yeah, from that moment on, I pulled my size way back. And I really just focused on learning the setups and knowing how much I'm going to lose before I go into the trade. Now with MIC, I actually didn't find out about that until two months later when someone was posting this person's chart in the room and this guy was getting like bottom tech, top tech, bottom tech, top tech.  I think his name was like, SniperTrader21, if that rings a bell. Oh, it was like an Harriet, that was bad.  Yeah, so it was actually a very short that had been posted into. And there were like quite a few of them. I think it was like D-A-R-E, first bounce was one of them. Oh really? So they were looking at my chart in the doc's chat room. Oh, wow. So everyone was viewing your charts and I just immediately went on like Twitter, like go to check this guy out, saw all your charts and then I just saw like first bounce, first bounce, MIC. And I'm like, I'm just no brainer. I just clicked, I'm like, yeah, okay, like I'm gonna sign up and see what this is about. That's awesome. Yeah, so I joined MIC and this has been like, I don't think Tom Diesel was even at this point. It was pretty early on. Those are good days. But I remember going through like as many as I could. How about? I don't know. He said those are good days. He said those are good days. Tom, that popped out of my nose. Okay, anyway.  Yeah. And then the time for the first bounce came and it was like, it was, you remember at Harry, like the legendary OPTT, first bounce. Oh my God, that was epic. Major throwback. Yeah. Yeah, memory lane today. Bro, man, that trade, there were a couple of trades where I was in uni and we have these like study groups.  That's basically what I would do.  Everyone was just watching me trade this.  Like what's your plan on this? So I was like, all right boys, setting up for first bounce, let's go. And I remember just writing in them, I see Chad, you can probably find it in the archives, like, all right, first bounce coming, first bounce coming. And I did not expect it to do that. It did like move down a little bit, like got off the like notch, started building back up. And it like stalled for a little bit. And like, I was already in like decent size. And I was like, oh, should I cut it? Should I not? And everyone's like, don't cut it. What are you talking about? So I'm like, all right boys, I won't cut it, stop loss for break even. And all of a sudden this thing just ripped and everyone behind me was like, oh. Oh. Oh, I remember, yeah, so after it ripped and then it was like you sending your average from literally like the notch and then 10 minutes later you're like, boom, I'm done. Yeah. Boom, I'm done. I missed the first bounce days.  Like I remember like the first bounce days. Oh, those were awesome. So did you trade that? Did you trade OPTT as well? I was too scared to pull the trigger. Cause I was still at PTSD for my big loss and like I'd just learned it. So I was kind of just on the sidelines and I remember having my finger on the trigger but when the time came I was too scared to actually enter. Well, especially when you, and this is the problem with me when I first started longing, like I know you do mostly shorts now, but when I first started longing I had learned all this short material and you like conditioned yourself to believe that stocks can not go up. Like you literally like, I don't even know what it was when I was learning how to short but I was like, oh, I just can't do this. Like this is impossible. Shit company, they have dilution, they have warrants, they have resistance on the daily.  And then you get stubborn, stubborn, stubborn blown out. And then that's when the real move obviously comes. And so I think as a long I've just been because I had that kind of short background first and that kind of conditioning as a short seller. I know when shorts are in trouble and I know when situations are happening where it's like, okay, this stock should have died a long time ago. Now I'm gonna start looking for this long position. Like for example, yesterday we had rally, which was a ticker that was red on the day. And we had broken red to green, we had came back. At that point it should have died, right? But we started creeping and creeping and now all of a sudden we're green again on the day. I know a ton of people are probably short underneath that red to green level or at least risking it. And we just started ripping above it. And that's what made a great long, right? It's just understanding the other side of the trade and who's trapped, you know? And I think that particularly has benefited me a lot as far as like my journey and what I've kind of done. Definitely, if I walk too long, then that's the approach I would take. Cause whenever I'd think about long, I'd only think about where would the majority of the shorts be entering? Where would they be willing to risk? And if they were to get pushed and that's pain, where would that be? And then kind of basis of that. Like authentic ideas that form real time. Yeah, yeah, 100%. Yeah, and it's so hard and difficult to say every morning like, what the long watch list is, because you could have three stocks doing amazing volume. And yes, you have the support and yes, you have all that.  You may get a little bound, but it's not really what you want. And then all the money flow switches to this one. And your supports from the bottom are completely thrown out the window. It's never going to get there because everyone's kind of buying this one now. So that's what has kind of been difficult for me as far as low hang fruit, it's a lot easier because number one, the stocks are dead. And you kind of have an if then scenario of, okay, if this pops here, then we're going together in a situation where we probably see some sellers that like whatever 750, whatever. And then the stock tanks again, it's a lot easier I think to do something like that. And okay, I'm looking to go along this one or that one. And even in a market like this, like for me, at least the hot chicks have not been that great. Like I've been longing other ships because I mean, I've been longing day two ships. Yeah, yeah, all the time because I've found that the day one tickers have been really choppy. They're not great for shorts. They're not great from long. They're not really directional for me. Like if you look at something like, I don't know what the ticker yesterday that I stock or whatever, but you know, we're literally in a chop, chop, chop range. And for me, I mean, I really got into longing because like I love the adrenaline and I love the big moves and I love being able to get in early and seeing those. It's the best of course. Yeah, yeah, 100%. And so when I'm in a situation where it's just range bound and choppy and every single time we break high day, we stuff and go lower. Like I just don't like that trading environment. I just feel like it's not really like friendly for me. But when I can get into something like rally where everyone's like, it has to go down. It has to go down. It has to go down. And we're freaking squeezing everyone out. That is the most rewarding feeling for me. And I feel like that's been kind of really important for me as well, just recognizing situations like that. Yeah, just with what you're saying, I feel the same way about the hot shake, not being the one that ends up having a huge move to the upside, just because everyone really just expects it to happen. So like, in a way, the market kind of doesn't let it happen. But we've been getting these broken stocks which are really broken, really give in from VWAP. And then all of a sudden, you know, they'll just teleport kind of right through VWAP and then just continue from there. Yeah, I think it's hard. And I give like longs more credit for this. But like, I think it's really tough when people want like a long loss to Harry because like, I feel like most of longing, everyone just assumes, like when my friends get into trading or they want to, they look at like the top gainers list. So all they see is the hot chick, which we see in there like, oh, this has to be it, this is gonna go to 50.   So I think it's tough because it's a long, it's a lot more feel too. It's like a broken stock. Like if it starts firming up at a certain level, like that's a lot of feel, that's a lot of like, there's no technical part to that, I feel like. And it's like, sure, like if you want to be like a technical long, you say, yeah, I'm gonna long at the break says level and, you know, get out of it goes back under, but like, it just doesn't work that way, especially in this market. I don't think it's very, it's very much more feel and like, you know, longing the stocks that everyone's kind of avoided. I mean, everyone's just like dumped in short, I guess, like it was gonna get squeezed out and so broken. Yeah. Those are not broken down, but don't break down. You know, that's where everyone gets trapped now. I think, I feel like the edge has changed so much because I feel like when we first got into trading, Harry too, like longing, I think it was harder back then because I think like a lot of stuff, we just had faders all the time. Like, I think it was much more as a long as a, you very much had to be nail and bail, like it was a much more scalpy mentality. And I feel like now it's like with the, with the resurgence of like being a short seller, like that has like, that has revitalized longing. And that's kind of when you switched to longing too is when you, when the shorting became like the only popular thing to do. Yeah. I mean, I was going back the other day looking at like times like Alex has like mentioned me on Twitter, just like going back for the old tweets just cause I was bored. And you know, I saw this one chart for me. It was like IGC where I just shorted the pop and covered the bottom. And he's like, oh, great trade from Harry here. And it's like, that was the time where I was shorting, but I was also learning longing. You know, like I was, I was, I was still shorting. I was still consistent shorting, but I was also learning. Okay. How do I get into longing? You know, how do I kind of look to attack some of these stocks on the long side? And we hear every New Year's people on Twitter, 2022 going to be the year of the long. I'm going to learn long this year. And you know, they, they realize longing is hard. And then they stopped longing. And it's like a lot of people, I think picture longing as like the dumb money, which is, it's fine for me. Like that's great.  Like I'm going to recognize that and I'm going to take advantage of that, right? I do think the majority of longs are done money.  And, you know, really what I've made my trading career kind of based off of is just people fighting. It's the same thing with shorts, you know, you have a ton of longs who have long and high who are just trying to exit on this pop, on the stuff, on this, whatever. Then they just get insanely, insanely crushed and that's how you can just take advantage of the short side. It's really just taking advantage of that kind of crowd, I think, you know? Absolutely. So, so just, so Johnny, at this point, now you're in MIC, what is your kind of focus now? Like where, where are you focused? So my focus has shifted. I'm also still here. I just need, I need to send the text real quick, but I'm still here. So it shifted quite a bit. I think in the earlier days, I needed to go through those phases of prioritizing like a high wind percentage and low risk report trades just so I can get, you know, learn how to get my initial entries done really well, learn how to get into areas and to strength if you're shorting. But mostly just know that I can actually, you know, pull money from the market. But the problem with that was that it wasn't really scalable. Like every time I try to size up, there would be something that goes wrong. And I found that it was always just due to my, my average lose had been bigger than my average win. Yeah. So I really needed to find a way to, you know, to fix that. So after doing that for about, you know, one year, because it's not, it's not an easy switch. I just said to myself, okay, I need to make a plan with how I'm going to transition from being focused on like nail and bail plays to plays like, like beer. Pretty much. And I think there's definitely a time and place to nail and bail for broken day ones, especially. But I've tried to kind of narrow down what I trade to like a select few setups where I know for certainty over a long period of time, I can get consistently at least three R on the trade. And I think the biggest thing that kind of helped me with this transition and with sizing up in general is just completely switching the way that I think to where I fully accepted losing in every aspect before the trade and especially while I'm in the trade, while I have unrealized gains there. And not even to a point where I've logged myself to break even, you know? Like if I had, if I'm unrealized one R 1.5 R and the trade is still on, I'm fully accepting of that to just go back and stop me out for a loss. And the way that I really strengthened that was because it wasn't easy. Like I was, initially I was a proper focus trader. All I cared about was, you know, I had this image in my head of, I need to make X amount of money every day. And I've kind of switched that to whenever I think about trading and like anytime of the day, the only thing on my mind is like rare losing numbers or taking losses. So when I think about a trade that I've done or analyze it, the only thing on my mind at like any point is how much I'm gonna lose if I'm stopped out, if I'm wrong. And the more you kind of do that, the more it sort of strengthens in your pathways in your brain that associate, you know, these negative emotions that come along with losing and with giving back unrealized gains. But I think that aspect alone, you know, it helps mentally and but it wasn't enough. Like it wasn't enough, right? So I needed to figure out like what else needed to do. So the first thing was that I had to have my initial entries pretty much mastered. So I'm gonna enter a trade. Firstly, it needs to be one with like enough downside range, which at the time kind of is only shorting first red day or shorting day twos that have just had a massive move on day one. Because then I have like the downside range to be able to get the move and to be able to add. So I really just had a huge focus on getting my initial entries right. And then once we do get a confirmation move, so I take the initial entries sort of into strength. If it's a first red day, I won't short it if it pushes right and open until it drops below the VWAP. Because I don't know how hard it's gonna go. Like I don't wanna pick the top. And the majority of my size is gonna come after it goes red anyway. So I don't need to be in, I don't need to be trying to get the top. So what I did was I just waited for the top to be set. I waited for it to have that first pull. If it bounced, like I leave it alone until we get like the big VWAP crap, which is where, you know, that's at the first point that I'm really looking to enter. And that's where like I just switch on and just be in that complete mentality of how much am I gonna lose, where am I stopping out if I'm wrong. So like in doing that, I take my first entry into VWAP and I would risk one art on that trade. And before going into it, I've said to myself and I'll repeat it over and over and over again, like minus this amount, minus this amount, minus this amount. So I'm in a way I'm already accepting it and my brain is accepting it as a huge possibility that it might happen. If the trade stops me out, then I lose one art. And I don't care because at this point, I've traded my brain just continuously to prepare for this moment when I do lose. So I have no phone where to re-enter. I can just take the loss and if it sets up, I'll take the trade again. If it doesn't, well, then I'll just walk. But if it does work and I'm now in risking my one art and we do get that continuation move down to red grain, I have to just completely continuously repeat in my head the amount that I'm risking. So I don't think about the PNL because if I think about how much I'm up, I will take something off. I'll just do it. And it will be at a level where I shouldn't need to take it off.  Because I know that helps a lot of people. Once I do get the second art. So at that point, it still hasn't confirmed like red grain but if it does slam through, I get the balance and I get that art. Like at that point, I will allow my stop. Pretty much, yeah, like I do travel it with every single that I do. I'll have a separate stop that I'll put it there and that's kind of like the area where it shouldn't reach. So for like this specific ad, if it reaches here, then my thesis isn't validated for having like that ad down here. So as I'm like entering stop, like entering and adding to the winner, I kind of just have multiple stops out there still while risking like the same amount and yeah, I've only just started doing that where I'll take out like, I'll limit order out like 2% of my size. So my brain thinks that I'm like, I'm covering like a decent portion and like I'm locking something in but I'm still able to get like the majority of the move with like a big amount of my size but just as it's like going down as it's continuing, I'm just limit ordering out like 2%, 2%, 5%, paying myself and like I have to like limit order or the commissions will just add up like crazy. But the main thing that like really just helped me to improve was fully accepting losses and fully accepting the fact that I can give back all my unrealized gains. But like you need to be at a point where you're confident in your system and you're confident that if you do take three losses in a row, five losses in a row you can make them, you can be profitable in two trades. And like for me, that was just journaling my trades. I actually did it like your friend, Harry, like Jack how love journals his ones. Cause I would rather do that than trade it to you. Like I like them putting them manually just cause in my head it's kind of like going through the trade again and then like visualizing it all. But the main thing is that you get to see your average win and average loss over, you know at least, I'd say at least nine months just so you can experience like all the market cycle shifts. But once you know that, that was the big design factor that made me okay with losing multiple times in a row because I know that, you know I can be profitable in two trades. Yeah, no, I think. Sorry, I have a question actually. How did you adjust yourself from the way you were trading before would like trying to trade massive size to like what you're trading now? Cause obviously back then you were shorting too. So like how did you adjust that? Cause that's gotta be kind of a tough adjustment. Yeah, well that I actually over the course of probably a year, I attempted to size up 11 times. And each time that I, it was like, I was cursed or something like everything would just break pre market high of day or I'd get like a VWO confirmation and then I would just have like a huge stuff work that would like top tick me and I'd end up giving back like a three or four days worth of gains. And yeah, it was just insane. And like I remember one point cause I've been consistent for six months and it's like, okay, like now's the time to size up and then I size up and then nothing works. And I remember missing bow and I'm like, like I just lost like 10 times in a row. And then he's like, how do you lose 10 times in a row? It's such a day. I don't know what just happened. I was round about like the seventh time that I size up and I lost. That's when like I reached out to Harry and I'm like, dude, like I just keep giving back everything that I make, like I need help. And then Harry did help me. Yeah, what did I say? I can't remember. Like you sent some paragraph ended off with like you saying like, yeah, I can tell that you already knew that it's like, you know what to do. And I was like, yeah, like I just size down again. Just, well, I mean, I tend to the size up four more times until like finally, like it really was just that whenever I'd enter, if I did size up it would always be me scaling a range. So the actual amount that I'm gonna lose was unknown. Like I knew that I'd lose around this amount but I was kind of always hoping that it wouldn't get there. Like I'm scaling these lines. I'm like, please don't get to my final order. Like, oh, I should have hit me.  Please don't hit me. I've been there. Yeah. I just want to add, because like we are coming up on the end of the kind of like 30, 45 minute mark or whatever. And I just want to add like a couple of things that I think could help you. And so basically at the start of every trading day I always pay attention to the range of a thicker, right? So if the high is $5 and the low is $4 you don't want to be shorting near four bucks, right? You know, you want to be shorting near and sometimes we can see a range right to the downside where $4 breaks with authority and then we go to three or whatever, right? But for the most part as a general rule you don't really want to be shorting four bucks. And so I've always kind of pictured it as like where are the areas of like liquidity, right? Where we're going to have a lot of liquidity. So the whole thing to me has always been a liquidity gain. And so let's say the high is $5, the low is $4 and you know, where's the first kind of area of liquidity going to be? Well, VWAP let's say is that $4.50 that's going to be the first area of liquidity, right? Every single long trader is going to be chasing for that VWAP reclaim thinking we're going to the moon we're going, let's go. That would probably be where I would want to put some starter size on short because I just know that this is just liquidity game. They're going to be looking to kind of sell shares a bit above VWAP. The next area above that is going to be high a day. Again, that is another big, big liquidity area because every single long trader is chasing hoping for that range break higher, hoping that we can break out of that kind of $5 and $4 kind of range and look to move higher, right? And so I mean, the areas if I was shorting would be that kind of VWAP reclaim in around there. And I would look to take some small around high a day and then add, add, add when we confirm like stuff at high a day. And I mean, just because like the majority of the small cap don't break out of that $5 and $4 range, right? They're always stuck there. They're always stuck there. So it kind of becomes a game of averaging, right? Where you just want to have a high enough average that you can survive the top of that range and stop out if necessary. But you just want to kind of survive the top of that range so that when we do break lower and we do break to the downside, you have a great average. You don't need to worry about these kind of pops all the way down. And if you want to nail and bail it or recycle all the way down, you know, go ahead. You still have a decent enough average from the top. But I mean, you want to have meaningful entries. I think that is the most important part, right? If you're just, you know, adding into a pop because the stock popped, well, then you're going to end up getting fucked, right? Because it's not really a meaningful entry. Yeah, the stock popped, but it wasn't too like a meaningful area or a meaningful place with resistance on the chart, right? But I mean, if you look at what all these small caps do every single day, it's really just the liquidity game where they'll move the stock a bit above VWAP because they know every single long trader is like, wow, that's bullish. Wow, that's amazing. You know, if I was a market maker, I'd be selling shares right above VWAP because that's where all these longs are looking to chase. They're like, man, bullish, bullish, bullish. And then they get stuffed on and then the stock tank's lower, right? Same thing with high at A. Everyone's like, wow, we broke high at A. This is going to the moon, going to the moon, going to the moon. Right? If I'm a market maker, I'm selling shares, selling shares, selling shares, selling shares, tank it. Oh, well, that's to you, right? It's just really areas where you can take advantage of uneducated long chasers as a short. That can really make you a lot of money. Now, obviously, if we have broke high at A and we're supporting and we're kind of propping all the way up and we're propping, propping, propping, and then we get that move higher, well, then that thesis is wrong. But when we snap high at A or we snap VWAP and we're just kind of stalling and holding it around there, you know, that's probably an area where people are, you know, bigger players or institutions or whatever market makers are looking to sell shares. So, I mean, if I were you, that's what I would be focusing on, those kind of liquidity areas where people are looking to sell shares, institutions are looking to sell shares, bigger players are looking to sell shares and just take advantage and ride along with them, right? Yeah, I like that. Like, yeah, for broken day ones, that usually is like where I would be entering. Like, in a way, I kind of don't really want to see it get above VWAP if it is really deviated from there. So, I kind of like, I will play it differently to where I want to get like the majority of my size as close to VWAP as possible, just so I can get like really good risk reward. And then I'll have a stop, maybe two cents above VWAP for half my size and then a second stop at the closest line to VWAP from the upside, because you see all these moves that happen, we'll stuff VWAP and then it will reject almost immediately. And we won't, like if I was scaling it, then I wouldn't be able to get full size in there.  So, it's kind of just come to this point where I have done that and like, like it has kind of been one-to-one risk reward, which is just, for me, it's kind of a bit too stressful of a way to trade. So, it's really just been about, you know, picking those liquidity areas pre-market and really, really thinking about like which one should it not reach? Because of course, you know, we don't want it to reach pre-market high a day, but at the same time, a lot of them don't even make it near it. So, it's really just, you know, if it is super deviated from VWAP at the open, then I'll look to enter as close to VWAP as possible. But if it's, you know, opening up really close to VWAP, you know, maybe like 10, 15 cents away, that's when I'll take an entry at a mid to outer line, risking around the outer line, depending on, yeah, like the liquidity in the pre-market.  So, and now you've found like something that works for you, you have a process, you can articulate it. And I think that's key. I think everyone should be able to articulate their process. And I like that you now have confidence in your setups and you can kind of banter and have conversation with other traders who do the same. And like, you know what you're doing. So it's cool to watch you progress and would love to, you know, have you back on in the future too and kind of keep going.  So I really appreciate it. I know we are getting there the open here. So we're gonna wrap it up. But dude, thank you so much for coming on. This was awesome. I really hope that a lot of new guys kind of take this into account that like you are not alone.  So thank you again, man. We will do this again sometime. Perfect. Of course, dude, of course. All right boys.


Welcome to What is User Experience Design? This learning activity introduces you to what User Experience Design is and how it improves product development. What is User Experience Design? Unlike traditional design, User Experience Design combines functionality with usability. User Experience Designers always take the end user into consideration. So products designed by user experience designers are typically easier to use. While you may have heard the terms User Experience Design or designing for the user, you may not have really understood what these terms mean. User Experience Design is more than just creating a product or application. It's about understanding your users and designing a product for them that is not only usable, but also gives them a great experience. Using User Experience Design is great, but what does it mean in terms of practical applications? Let's say your company spends millions of dollars creating the absolute best widget on the planet. This widget can do anything and everything any widget owner has ever wanted. But when the new widget hits the market, no one buys it. Your customer's feedback starts rolling in and you learn that your users don't know how to use the new widget because the design is confusing and it's clumsy to hold. How did that happen? Why was the greatest widget ever unsuccessful? The widget failed because it wasn't designed with user in mind. Traditional product designers spend hours creating what they feel are the perfect products, applications or websites. These projects become the designers' babies. The designers love their babies. The families are proud of their babies and their friends are convinced to love their babies. When traditional designers finally share their babies with others and start hearing negative feedback, they struggle to accept that their creations aren't perfect. They may also be biased against any criticisms and suggestions for improvement. They can have a hard time understanding why others don't love their babies and resist making any changes to their original designs. So, how can this situation be avoided? By employing User Experience Design or UXD. With UXD, you're designing for the user and not for your own preferences and needs. As a UX designer, it's your job to look at the entire experience holistically and make sure that the user's needs are always met. UX designers must be advocates for the user. Your goal is to provide balance between the client's needs and the user's needs. So, how do you always incorporate the user's needs into the design? The UX designer includes user's needs from the very beginning of the project. Let's revisit the widget. The first step in making the widget user friendly is for the UX designer to observe potential customers using similar products and going about their daily lives. So, the UX designers find users that could potentially use the widget or are using a competitor's widget. Then, the UX designer performs either or both non-participatory or participatory observations. After the UX designers gather information from their observations, use the information to generate personas. A persona is a written illustration of a fictional character who is a representation of one type of user. These personas help UX designers understand who they're designing their widgets for. Although the personas are fictional, the information used to create them is not. Once the UX designers have information from the client and the personas, they can begin creating the prototype. UX designers create many different prototypes. Depending on the timeframe and budget, UX designers draw sketches to develop fully functioning applications. These prototypes are then used for testing. Testing is the most important part of UXD. There are two types of testing, usability and user experience. Usability tests ask the users to complete specific tasks to ensure the widget is functional. User experience testing, well, test the user's experience while using the widget. Both types of tests need to happen many times during the development phase of any product. To ensure your widget is usable and provides a great experience for your users, based on the UX testing results. The UX designer and the client can go back to their original designs and make changes to the widget to improve usability and user experience. You have completed what is user experience design.


Welcome to the remedy for summary program. I'm Nikhil Deshpande. I'm a product manager for remedy force in this video We will see how to export records displayed in my activity My activity now allows your clients to export their tickets and requests for offline analysis on the my activity page You will notice a new icon below the search bar Clicking the icon exports records displayed on the page to a CSV format The fields in the exported file are controlled by the field set SF1 self-service view tickets These are the same fields that are displayed on the record cards Additionally, if records of others are exported the names of the respective individuals are also included The ability to export records is available to all clients and does not have to be enabled There are a few caveats to exporting records that one must be aware of a Maximum of 2000 records can be exported There are a few limits by field type as well the first 5000 characters of long text fields are exported Fields of data type text area rich are not exported Formula fields are exported. However images therein are not Values in multi-slip pick list fields are separated by semi-colons. Let us now look at a demo of the product On my activity, you'll notice the new icon Export to CSV Right under the self others filter Clicking this icon exports whatever Tickets are displayed on the screen Even if you use filters or if you use search The records that you see in my activity can now be exported to CSV. You'll notice this icon Export to CSV right under the self others filter clicking on the icon Exports the tickets to a CSV format. You can then you can then open that CSV file in any spreadsheet tool such as Excel You'll also see that the file is timestamped So even if you generate multiple files over a short period of time, they will have unique file names now, let's look at Tickets, I've created on behalf of others You'll notice that for others an additional Column client name was added. You'll also notice that the structure of the exported file is Identical to the record card that's displayed on screen. Thank you for watching this overview of exporting my activity