First I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. The proposed rule is a bad one and much more an irresponsible one. There are many reasons to say no to this rule but seemingly few reasons to say yes. saying yes to this rule only benefits those firms or groups that have to face up to their poor, and if this proposed rule applied, definitely illegal choices. For any group under the SEC's jurisdiction to have gotten so far into a risky position should be a reflection of the SEC's failure to regulate. Therefore this proposed rule is a direct tool to buffer against the consequences of those poor choices and furthermore to buffer the SEC's responsibility to actually maintain a responsible market. Frankly The proposed rule gives far too much flexibility in an already barely accountable system. For example the SEC knew about Madoff. One arrest for the 2008 crisis, a slap in the face of millions of Americans. And a slap on the wrist of those who were equally, if-not-more, responsible. Continued from 2008 we have rampant, corrupt if not illegal operations occurring throughout the market system. Allowed by slacked rules such as the proposed. In closing- should the proposed rule pass it would only confirm for millions of Americans that, once again, the SEC does not in fact work for the American people. It would confirm the conflict of interest that is seemingly threaded through all of the financial crises of the last few decades. I would expect our great American institutions to be working in the opposite direction, instead of limiting damage, start limiting market manipulation.