I am trying to capture the footnotes of the attached text. So, logic is that a footnote begins with a number on a newline (\n\d+\s) and ends with a number on a newline (\n\d+\s) or the word "Page". The logic seems to work on multiple online regular expression testers but is returning a bunch of empty strings as output on python script in google colab.
Here is the code:
m=re.findall('\n\d+(?:(?!\n\d+\s)(?!Page)(.|\n))*', text)
Output is list of empty strings
Here are two examples of text:
However, we also urge the Commission to go further, and revisit the entire NMS Plan
process -- which is fundamentally conflicted and severely outdated.3 The NMS Plan
process was devised over forty years ago at a time of fewer exchanges that were also
mutually owned, not-for-profit entities. In stark contrast, today, these entities are
for-profit publicly traded entities with third-party shareholders. While the proposed
reforms would assert the Commission’s ability to more effectively regulate NMS Plan
fee filings, it would not directly address the conflicts of interest of having for-profit
entities acting as both regulators and fee setters on essential capital market utilities. We
ask the Commission to boldly address these bigger issues, and to the extent necessary,
seek assistance from Congress.
1 The Healthy Markets Association is an investor-focused not-for-profit coalition working to educate
market participants and promote data-driven reforms to market structure challenges. Our members, who
range from a few billion to hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management, have come
together behind one basic principle: Informed investors and policymakers are essential for healthy capital
markets. To learn more about Healthy Markets or our members, please see our website at
http://healthymarkets.org.
2 Rescission of Effective-Upon-Filing Procedure for NMS Plan Fee Amendments, Sec. and Exch.
Comm’n, 84 Fed. Reg. 54794 (Oct. 11, 2019), available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-11/pdf/2019-21770.pdf (“Rescission Proposal”).
3 See, e.g., Remarks of Hon. Dan Gallagher, before the 2014 SRO Outreach Conference, Sept. 16,
2014, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2014-spch091614dmg-sro
Page 1 of 12
http://www.healthymarkets.org/
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-11/pdf/2019-21770.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2014-spch091614dmg-sro
rule-comments@sec.gov
Background on NMS Plans Generally
In the early 1970s, it became clear that the government needed to step into the markets
to provide a mechanism to consolidate information and accountability across a myriad
of trading venue. The Commission began outlining the contours of a “central market
system for listed securities.”4
The Commission has asked whether, as an alternative to rescinding the Fee Exception and
instating the standard procedure, it should consider permitting NMS plan fee applications to
take effect 60 days after filing if the Commission does not act. In our view, this approach –
while preferable to the current Fee Exception – essentially establishes a Fee Exception by
another name. As is the case under the current Fee Exception, the alternative, 60-day
9 Proposal at 17.
10 Proposal at 38.
4
https://transition.10
process, as described by the Commission, would still allow a fee change to take effect without
an affirmative determination by the Commission during the 60-day abrogation period that the
fee change comports with the requirements of the Exchange Act. More fundamentally, the
Commission has taken notice of the fact that NMS plan fees are not economically de minimis
or otherwise trivial; to the contrary, the total revenues generated by fees for core data totaled
more than $500 million in just 2017. Given that fact alone, we are hard-pressed to understand
why fee-related applications should be subject to a lesser standard of review than applications
that pertain to other matters and that may be less significant economically to investors and
other market participants.
In this second output, our desired output would be:
m=['9 Proposal at 17.', '10 Proposal at 38.']
In summary, each item in the list m should be a separate footnote. How should we approach this using regex in google colab using python
