Subject: S7-31-22: WebForm Comments from Andrew
From: Andrew
Affiliation:

Mar. 7, 2023

March 7, 2023

 As an individual investor I am broadly in support of this proposal. I think it has great scope to improve competition in the markets and reduce wholesalers ability to scalp household / individual investors.
There are other vectors for me to invest in that are not the stock markets. In it's current state (without rules such as this proposal) I find it hard to trust the markets.
This proposal, should it be accepted, will go some way to restoring my confidence in the markets which, in my view, have become monopolised by institutional entities, market makers and wholesalers.


Exposing orders to competition in a qualified auction before executing a segmented order
internally is an excellent idea that I hope to see. If there is some cost to bear by individual investors for this change that somehow prevents \"free\" access to the markets it's one I gladly pay. There is no such thing as \"free\" access to the markets anyway. Indivdual investors are currently paying in other ways.

Of course, enforcement remains as important as the rules themselves. I would be further encouraged to participate in the markets if I were convinced that the penalties for rulebreaking were an adequate deterrent to misbehavior. Clearly that is not the case as there are entites that have fined multiple times per year over a period of many years. If they were inclined, how would one of these entities prove to the SEC that they should lose their licences? What would it take? Maybe they're already trying to tell you that they can't be trusted. Just a thought.

Wholesalers, broker-dealers and market makers regularly make the claim that they support \"retail\" or individual investors. This is false. The idea would be laughable if it weren't so insulting. They're certainly not speaking for me at least and I would suggest that when they start bleating about how this will harm individual investors that they are in fact worried about their own interests.


I like that you picked page 69 to begin the description of the proposed rule.

Thankyou for reading.