Jun. 07, 2022
To whom it may concern, I fully support the petition submitted. Just as a petition alone; it is brief, provides sourced facts, addresses opposition, successfully argues against it, and takes into account possible negative factors. The request is enforcement of an existing rule. I understand that the SEC has a very massive, perhaps an overload, of areas to oversee. Mr. Gensler has outwardly noted that he is committed to market transparency. A Google search of “Gary Gensler AND transparency” will provide numerous pages of results; I stopped counting at page 10. According to Merriam Webster, the definition of transparent, in this context, means: free from pretense or deceit; easily detected or seen through; readily understood; characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices. I believe invoking SEC Rule 304 (a)(4) is a great actionable way for Mr. Gensler, and the SEC as a whole, to prove promoting transparency means all aspects of the word. It proves lack of deceit. It shows that the SEC acknowledges rules that do exist, understands them, their application, and will use them as intended. In fact, invoking SEC Rule 304 (a)(4) proves that the SEC firmly upholds at least two the pillars of its mission: protecting investors and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets. I personally feel that a decision to not invoke SEC Rule 304 (a)(4) would erode or completely erase any progress that the SEC has made to non-Wall Street power players. Keep in mind that this not only includes current retail investors but also the younger population who are learning about financial markets by what they witness now. Thank you for your time in reviewing my comment. Sincerely, Rebecca Rossman Single mom of 2 independent young ladies Proud daughter of a Vietnam Veteran We the Investors volunteer Retail Investor