Official Response to r/Banking on Reddit from Steadfast Equity

Addressing Accusations from u/Fromthepast77 Point-by-Point

Why You’re Reading This Here, Not on Reddit

We attempted to post this response directly in the Reddit thread where our company was being misrepresented. Our account was unexpectedly suspended shortly after doing so. This post contains the full, factual reply Reddit is actively censoring.

We support open discussion and welcome scrutiny—but that only works when both sides are allowed to speak. We made every good-faith effort to engage respectfully. The last thing we want is to pursue injunctions or defamation claims. We would far prefer to be given the opportunity to respond in a fair and open forum.

Free speech is an important core principle held dear at our firm. But this isn’t free speech—because when one side is silenced, it stops being dialogue. When we're not even allowed to reply, it becomes defamation. If Reddit continues to suppress our response while knowingly hosting false information, we will treat them as an active participant in the reputational harm caused alongside the other primary actors.

We encourage you to read the facts for yourself and make up your own mind.

---

TL;DR

We’re not a bank. We don’t offer insured savings. We’re a private capital firm operating under SEC Regulation D 506(c), for accredited investors only. It’s not for everyone—but it’s not a scam. Below is a point-by-point response correcting the key inaccuracies.

---

First, a note on fit.

Our bond offerings are designed for sophisticated institutions and experienced accredited investors—not for retail savers seeking FDIC-insured products. We recognize that part of the confusion here stems from an unintended mismatch in audience. When something doesn’t align with expectations, especially around familiar banking norms, it can feel off—or even trigger suspicion. But it’s important to distinguish between “not for you” and “not legitimate.” Risk is a necessary component of return in private markets. That doesn't make risk inherently bad or indicative of fraud—it just means it must be matched to the right investor profile.

---

Second, we appreciate the skepticism.

Seriously. Independent research and healthy scrutiny are hallmarks of responsible investing, and we welcome that—even if you ultimately decide we’re not a fit. The reality is: we’re a private issuer, and our offering is structured under Regulation D Rule 506(c), which is used by some of the largest and most respected firms in the industry. Our materials are written for an audience familiar with terms like PPM, DDQ, and Reg D. If you aren’t already comfortable navigating those documents, this probably isn't the right investment vehicle—and that’s perfectly okay.

---

On context and communication.

The real issue seems to be that our materials—which are intended for a highly specialized audience—have unexpectedly reached a broader public through forums like r/banking. We weren’t expecting retail investors to find us, and it’s prompted a reassessment of how accessible our content should be. We’ve even discussed raising our minimum to $500k and gating our information behind a secure, accredited-investor-only portal. The only reason we haven’t done so yet is that we continue to meet genuinely qualified investors who wish to start with a smaller allocation.

---

About the SEC filing “contradiction.”

You noted that our SEC Form D lists a $10,000 minimum while our site mentions a $50,000 minimum per investor. This is not a contradiction—it’s a technicality rooted in how securities law works. The Form D figure refers to the minimum total offering size or lowest possible tranche required for filing purposes—not the minimum per investor. In reality, our management has full discretion to set or raise the investor-level minimum, which we’ve increased over time (from $10k to $30k to $50k) due to demand and the need to filter for qualified leads. We’re currently evaluating another increase. Simply put, we’d rather work with one $1M investor than 100 investors at $10k. That’s not arrogance—it’s capital efficiency. We’re structured to work at institutional scale. Larger investors tend to have deeper experience, require less hand-holding, and generally move faster because they know how to validate offerings like ours.

---

So no—this isn’t a scam. It’s a niche product, for a niche audience.

And that’s okay. We understand how it might feel unfamiliar or confusing, especially to those used to traditional public markets and insured accounts. But we follow the same regulatory framework as any other legitimate private placement. We’ve been doing this for over a decade, and our investor base includes sophisticated institutions who know exactly what they’re buying—and why.

---

With that context in mind, let’s walk through your specific points. Starting with the SEC issue:

---

1. Regulation vs. Registration – A Common but Important Distinction:

It's understandable that the difference between being regulated by the SEC and being registered with the SEC can be confusing. Many legitimate private offerings, including those by well-known firms like Blackstone, KKR, and a16z, operate under Regulation D exemptions, which means they are not required to register their securities—but they are still very much subject to SEC regulation and oversight.

In our case, we filed a Form D, which is exactly what the SEC requires for a 506(c) exempt offering. This filing is not a loophole—it’s the formal process laid out by federal securities law. It includes a legal appointment of the SEC and state regulators as agents for service of process, meaning we are explicitly subject to regulatory jurisdiction in the event of any enforcement or legal action.

To claim that filing a Form D is “proof” we’re evading regulation is simply incorrect. It’s like saying someone who filed their taxes is trying to avoid the IRS. We are doing exactly what the law mandates, and doing so transparently.

If someone finds this process “unreassuring,” they would also have to distrust nearly every major private offering in the U.S., across tech, real estate, and finance. That’s not a realistic or informed position—nor is it a fair criticism of us specifically.

---

2. On “High-Pressure” Offerings—A Reality Check:

Calling a countdown clock with 72-hours remaining in an offering a “high-pressure sales tactic” reveals a deep lack of understanding of how real capital markets function.

In institutional finance, time-limited and size-restricted offerings are not just common—they’re structurally necessary. Why?

a) Capital Must Match Deployment

Every bond we issue is tied directly to a real, executable investment plan. That means we raise capital in specific tranches, for specific uses, with clear time windows. This isn’t marketing—it’s capital discipline. If we left offerings open indefinitely, it would water down returns, misalign deployment timing, and violate basic principles of financial engineering.

b) Speed is Normal at Scale

In real-world examples, multi-billion-dollar institutional offerings sell out in hours:

- Aramco’s $12B bond issue

- Aldar’s $840M raise

- Fakeeh’s $763M IPO

The idea that a short window is automatically “suspicious” only seems valid if your experience is limited to low-yield products like CDs, mutual funds, or bank accounts with perpetual access and no underlying strategy behind timing. That’s not finance—that’s consumer packaging.

c) Velocity and GDP: Not a Theory, a Formula

You can’t criticize time-bound capital formation if you don’t understand how timing affects economic output. Velocity of money, when inflation is stable, is real GDP per unit of supply—not correlated, but synonymous. If that’s new to you, that’s fine. But don’t mistake confusion for corruption.

That means that if you're trying to engineer optimal risk-adjusted returns (i.e., approach the efficient frontier), you must tie the flow of capital to time-sensitive opportunities.

The mistake here is confusing financial abstractions (like funds-of-funds and insured bank instruments) for real economic function. You’re mistaking the padded walls of retail finance for the engine room of actual capital deployment.

So no, a time-limited offering isn’t a red flag. It’s a reflection of a disciplined, strategically aligned capital stack. And frankly, confidently labeling that as a scam signals how little you know about the space you're criticizing.

---

3. On “Unsustainable” High Returns:

This is another example where a lack of familiarity with private markets leads to misleading conclusions.

To start, a 15% yield in private credit or alternative fixed-income is not “ridiculously high” to institutional investors. It may seem shocking if your entire frame of reference is FDIC-insured deposits or sovereign bonds—but that’s a mismatch of experience, not a red flag. These are simply different asset classes with different risk/return profiles.

Let’s clarify a core misconception: The interest rate you see from governments or banks is not the return they earn—it’s the rate they offer to you, the capital provider. That’s the price of money in a market with artificial constraints, central bank influence, and credit guarantees. But banks don't stop there. They turn around and lend that same capital out at 21%–28% on credit cards, or 33%+ in factoring or private lending. Their real-world returns are often far higher than what they pay savers. The yield spread is their business model.

Unlike regulated banks or insurance companies, we are not constrained by the same statutory limitations on portfolio composition. We’re able to deploy capital into high-yield, short-duration private credit—things like royalty streams, secured advances, or receivable portfolios—that traditional institutions are either too slow or too restricted to touch. That’s exactly why higher yields are available: because we’re solving inefficiencies they can’t.

If you’re familiar with portfolio construction or efficient frontier theory, you’d also know that blending higher-yield assets with other low-correlation components can actually reduce overall portfolio risk while enhancing returns. That’s the essence of what institutional allocators try to do every day. Just because this is new to you doesn’t make it new to the market.

As for the comparison to countries: it’s exactly backwards. Most sovereigns run negative real returns and fund deficits by inflating their currencies—that’s not high yield, that’s purchasing power erosion. The compounded annual return of Berkshire Hathaway is 19.8%. Renaissance’s Medallion fund, net of fees, has returned over 60% annually. These are real numbers from sophisticated allocators, not theoretical speculation.

Is 18.5% sustainable forever? No. That’s why it’s a limited series. But is it real? Yes. It's entirely achievable in our specific strategies—especially when deployed in a tightly managed, overcollateralized credit environment.

So no, we’re not a “country,” and that’s exactly why our returns can be higher. Because we don’t issue debt for subsidies—we deploy capital to generate alpha. That’s a very different game.

---

4. “Buzzwords” Like AI, SaaS, and Real Estate

We’ve seen this accusation before: that any mention of high-growth sectors like AI or SaaS is a “red flag” or a ploy to mislead. But that logic doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Let’s break it down. High-return opportunities don’t appear in stagnant sectors—they come from growth. The idea that we should avoid mentioning AI, SaaS, or real estate—three sectors with massive and measurable capital flows—just to avoid sounding “buzzwordy” is, frankly, backwards. The irony is: if we didn’t invest in these areas, that would be a legitimate reason for concern.

Artificial Intelligence, for example, is projected to grow at a 35.9% CAGR—and some seasoned investors believe this could be a dramatic understatement. David Sacks recently described AI as potentially a million-fold productivity unlock. Whether or not you agree with his specific numbers, institutional capital is pouring into this space. You may call it hype—but the firms making multi-billion-dollar allocations call it opportunity.

Our strategy isn’t to blindly chase trends—it’s to identify real cash flow opportunities within structurally sound, high-demand sectors. That includes AI infrastructure, enterprise SaaS with recurring revenue, and real estate projects with compelling cap rates and collateral protections. These aren’t “buzzwords.” They’re verticals where risk-adjusted return profiles outperform.

If those words sound like jargon, we understand—it’s a sign this may not be the right offering for you. But calling something a scam because it references modern sectors with validated institutional demand is like calling venture capital a fraud because it talks about “startups.”

Let’s raise the level of discourse. You don’t have to invest with us—but mischaracterizing growth investing as grifting isn’t helping anyone understand how capital markets actually work.

---

5. “They Won’t Say What They Invest In = Scam?”

This one’s particularly frustrating, because it shows a total misunderstanding of both how private credit works and how real investment firms operate.

Let’s be clear: we don’t disclose our exact investment positions publicly for the same reason hedge funds, private equity firms, and proprietary trading desks don’t. Because doing so gives away competitive advantage. If we revealed the precise structures, counterparties, or asset-level terms we negotiate—it would destroy the alpha we create.

Would you demand Bridgewater or Citadel to publish their strategy playbook just to "prove" they’re real?

Also, the very nature of a bond is that it’s not equity. You’re not buying ownership, you’re lending capital for fixed return. That means your exposure is to our ability to meet those obligations—not to individual asset performance. The question isn’t “what are they buying,” the question is: “can they repay, and are the risks priced appropriately?”

In our case, yes—we can. We manage over $800 million in assets and maintain a conservative debt load under $200 million. The bond is issued by a fully accredited entity, backed by real assets and managed by a team that’s operated in this space for over a decade.

The logic here is simple: if someone offered you a 40% interest-only mortgage secured by a house worth 4x the loan amount, would you walk away because they won’t disclose the paint color in the living room? Of course not. You’re lending against value, not managing their interior design.

And the claim that we “declared our securities exempt from SEC regulation” is either a willful lie or a complete misunderstanding of Reg D. We file with the SEC under an exemption framework designed by the SEC. To claim that this somehow means we’re dodging regulation is as absurd as saying that someone who uses the IRS small business deduction is “evading taxes.”

We’ll leave it to readers to decide which perspective sounds more informed.

---

6. “They Use Self-Directed IRAs—Must Be a Scam”

This criticism misunderstands both the structure and the reality of private investing.

First, self-directed IRAs (SDIRAs) are not a red flag. They are the industry-standard vehicle for holding non-public investments—like real estate, private equity, and private credit—within a tax-advantaged account. The IRS allows IRAs to hold these types of assets, but most mainstream custodians (like Fidelity or Vanguard) choose not to support them, not because they’re illegal, but because of the operational complexity.

That’s why regulated specialty custodians exist—Equity Trust, Forge Trust, Entrust, AltoIRA, etc.—to serve accredited investors who want access to private offerings inside their retirement accounts. These firms are IRS-compliant, state-chartered, and exist specifically to support assets that fall outside traditional stocks and bonds.

So no—using a self-directed IRA is not evidence of a scam. It’s how investors get exposure to the private market. Suggesting otherwise just reveals a lack of experience with anything outside of brokerage accounts and index funds.

---

7. “They Mention Their Domain Age—Must Be a Scam”

This is reaching so hard it’s almost comical.

We mention the domain age in our FAQ because it's a common first question people ask—“How long have you been around?” It’s not our “evidence of legitimacy,” it’s just literally the first answer listed. If that’s the best red flag you’ve got, then we’re flattered.

Let’s break down the logic here:

- If a company has a new domain, it’s a scam.

- If a company has a longstanding domain, it’s also a scam.

So what’s the actual standard?

Spoiler: there isn’t one.

In our case, the domain in question—steadfastequity.com—is a premium exact-match name that would’ve been snapped up long ago by any serious operator in the space. You can verify via archive.org that we’ve had consistent ownership and presence, not some recycled or parked shell. That matters, not because it proves legitimacy, but because it refutes your lazy assumption that it’s a throwaway.

And no, scammers don’t tend to spend years building out branded assets, indexed content, investor documentation, and full compliance workflows under a premium domain just to run a one-off fraud. That’s not how real scams operate. You're grasping at superficial heuristics because you're out of depth on the actual mechanics of private markets.

---

8. “They Claim Bond Payments, But the Company Was Just Formed”

This is another example of misunderstanding how structured finance works.

Yes—our issuer entity for the current 506(c) offering was formed in 2025. That’s by design. In private markets, it’s standard practice to create a new, standalone legal entity to serve as the issuing vehicle for a specific offering. It provides clean accounting, defined liability boundaries, and clear investor protections.

Our management company, however, has been in business far longer and is the one operating and overseeing the investment strategy. That separation between the issuer and the operator is both normal and necessary—especially in alternative credit, real estate syndications, and fund structures. Anyone with experience in private placements knows this.

As for the Form D:

Yes, the April 7 filing shows $0 raised at that point. That’s exactly what the SEC requires:

You can file Form D before and once shortly after beginning sales. Then, unless you amend (which is optional, not mandatory for every sale), it stays static until year-end. So of course it doesn’t show closed deals from after that date—that’s not how Form D works.

If your standard of truth is “I didn’t see it on the Form D,” then you’ve fundamentally misunderstood what a Form D is. It’s a notice of exemption—not a live cap table or rolling ticker of private sales.

We have, in fact, made all scheduled bond payments to date, and none have been missed. That’s a verifiable claim and would be a massive legal risk if it weren’t true.

---

9. “They’re Paying Themselves $1.43M—Before Any Investment Is Made”

Let’s walk through this slowly.

The $1.43M figure listed in our Form D is not some secret fee taken off the top before investors get paid. It’s a required disclosure of aggregate compensation, which includes salaries, operations, some professional services, in-house legal and admin—the costs associated with managing a global investment business. The SEC asks for transparency, and we give it.

But here's the key point:

- That $1.43M is not deducted from your principal or your interest.

- It’s operating capital that the management company earns for running a real, profitable business—and it only exists because we’re already delivering returns.

- Your investment terms are fixed. We don’t get paid unless we perform.

On a $250M raise, $1.43M represents less than 0.6% in operating cost—and we’re offering fixed yields that beat almost everything else in the market. If you think 0.6% in expenses disqualifies a firm from legitimacy, you’re going to have to cancel basically every hedge fund, real estate sponsor, and private equity firm on Earth.

We make money because we’re good at what we do. And unlike many in this space, we disclose it.

---

10. Global Management, U.S. Oversight

Let’s address this directly.

Yes, we have executive team members and operations in the Philippines. That’s not “suspicious”—that’s global finance.

The Philippines is:

- A close U.S. military ally and a former U.S. territory (until 1946),

- A signatory to tax and securities treaties with the United States,

- Home to a $437B GDP and one of Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing economies,

- A strategic hub for financial services, legal process outsourcing, and compliance operations for some of the biggest U.S. institutions.

Our CEO holds a valid U.S. visa and travels frequently around the world to meet with investors and partners. Yes, we have working U.S. phone lines, and yes, we speak with our U.S. investors—every day. The idea that geography limits communication or legitimacy is laughably outdated.

But there’s a real strategic reason we’re based here: The Philippines has no CFC (Controlled Foreign Corporation) laws, unlike the U.S., UK, or other high-tax jurisdictions. That means it’s entirely legal to operate tax-advantaged international investment entities from here. This allows us to run leaner structures, preserve yield, and pass on more return to investors—all while staying fully compliant with both local and U.S. securities regulations.

We’ve chosen this jurisdiction intentionally—not to hide, but to operate more efficiently and competitively. That’s not a red flag. That’s just smart capital structuring.

---

11. Intellectual Honesty and the Danger of Being Confidently Wrong

Let’s step back for a moment.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to ask yourself:

“What evidence would I accept as proof of legitimacy?”

If the answer is “nothing,” then this isn’t research—it’s just reflexive dismissal. Real diligence requires setting a falsifiable standard. That’s what we do every day when we evaluate opportunities—we define the thresholds that would change our mind.

Because if you can’t name the information that would convince you, then you’re not investigating—you’re just entrenching a bias. And that’s a dangerous place to operate from, especially in finance.

We’ve seen this before. It’s a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect—the cognitive bias where someone with a limited understanding overestimates their grasp of a complex topic. It’s easy to sound confident when you don’t know what you don’t know. But that confidence can lead to dangerously wrong conclusions.

Sometimes the smartest thing you can say is, “I don’t know enough to judge this yet.”

We’ve had to train ourselves and our team to do the same—because overconfidence in the wrong context destroys capital, relationships, and trust.

The uncomfortable truth is: the more you actually learn about private markets, securities law, and structured finance… the more you realize how little most people know. That’s not a criticism—it’s an invitation. Curiosity and humility are a far better foundation for understanding than outrage and assumption.

---

Drawing the Line Between Skepticism and Defamation

We realize it’s unfair to compare our resources and investing experience to yours. We get that. It’s unrealistic to expect you to know all of this at the level we do. And that’s OK. It’s OK not to know.

But what is not OK is projecting that lack of knowledge—or fear of the unknown—onto us in a way that accuses us of fraud. That crosses a legal line.

We recognize the legal line between criticism and defamation. And while some of the statements made could cross that line, we’re not here to suppress debate. We’re here to clarify, educate, and stand by our work. And we’re taking extreme ownership of our responsibility to communicate more clearly with the broader public—especially now that we’re reaching audiences beyond our traditional base of sophisticated investors.

Our goal is not to stifle honest debate. Quite the opposite—we welcome it. We will not be sending legal letters. We will not be pursuing defamation claims. We believe the comments made here were rooted in genuine concern and a desire to protect others. We respect that.

We believe in free expression. We believe in transparency. And we believe that the facts and the full context will always win out.

We don’t want to bury this thread. If anything, we hope it continues to rank. Let people see it. Let them read both the questions and the answers. Let them make their own decisions. That’s what real due diligence looks like.

---

This is an invitation to talk. If you have more concerns, post them—we’ll take the time to respond carefully and thoroughly. And if, after reviewing everything, you decide this isn’t right for you? That’s not just OK—that’s a good outcome.

Because the last thing we want is an investor who doesn’t truly want to be an investor. That’s a net negative for both sides.

We want investors who understand exactly what they’re buying, have assessed whether it fits their goals and risk tolerance, and choose to participate for the right reasons.

We’re not asking for blind trust. We’re asking for informed inquiry.

You don’t have to like our model—but at least critique it on its actual terms, not assumptions.

That’s how real due diligence works.

---

We’ll leave it here.

If you have more questions, ask—we’re happy to respond. And if this isn’t for you, no pressure. We’re building for investors who understand structured finance and know how to assess risk. That’s who we serve. That’s who we speak to.