Feb. 25, 2022
To whom it may concern: The timing of the reporting, while I understand a balance must be struck in terms of competitiveness, is too long. The delay should be limited to 14 days, including the processing and release of the information by the SEC. This is feasible, it can be automated and provides timely reporting of short data. The proposed timeframe for reporting will not provide transparency, in fact such a delay in reporting will only lead to more creative ways to obfuscate true and correct data. As we have already seen, with PF reporting, the requirement for timely data is critical to the role of the SEC. Furthermore, that this data will not be verified by the SEC is problematic. Already there exists far too many examples of self reported data simply being inaccurate, late, or both. For example, Short Exempt marking when SSR is on. This is a key situation in which legitimately it can be shown that a failure to verify the data, accuracy of the data or accuracy of the right to mark such has been abused. Therefore, I propose that submitted SRO or institutional data be randomly audited, 5% per market quarter to ensure that the system is working as intended. The failure to verify and trust submitted data has consistently been a significant issue in the market and one which is a key concern to Investors. The results of those audits must be free and publicly available. The threshold to report ($10 million or 2.5% of shares) is also significantly too large. Given the time and scope in the original document of reporting and the two options, this leaves what is and will be considered a loophole to ensure the data, which is *not* verified, will be improperly reported or not reported, as the case may be, in order to continue and facilitate manipulative short positioning in the market. Therefore I propose that the threshold be lowered to $5 million and 1.25% and that it is not a choice of one or the other, rather that if either case is met, reporting must occur. In regards to the specific questions as laid out by the document - Q18 - As it relates to the CAT, it is sufficiently clear what the requirements are. The technological changes are straight forward (to a degree) and should not represent a burden of cost to implement. As to concerns on the reporting of "Buy to Cover", the primary concern is that any loophole provided in regards to this, will be exploited. Such that, any such loophole must have specific reporting requirements when it is used. The reported data must be free and publicly available. In regards to the Bona fide market making exception and closing out FTDs (failure to deliver), this is equally as important and is required for reporting to be accurate and complete. At this time there is a significant concern that FTDs are not being closed and simply sitting at the Obligation Clearing Warehouse, a.k.a The FTD Graveyard. The loophole on bona fide market making has been exploited far too often and the resulting FTDs are ignored. Failure to report on this will continue the abuse. Regards, Michael Behrens