Aug. 11, 2023
To whom it may concern and the general world public, I write with mockery of another comment (and actual respect) to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) two proposed rulemakings pertaining to security-based swaps and securities loans. In order to help my own understanding of the very effeciently criminal acting market, regulators must support the U.S. economy by not promoting the supposed "liquid and efficient markets" which take money from investors and trade via dark pools hidden from public view and leaving the investment without the realistic price discovery supply and demand supposes in any other real and fair marketplace. I am very happy that the SEC’s proposals to publicly disclose positions in security-based swaps and securities loans on a loan-by-loan basis could impair market liquidity (because most of the "liquidity" is used unfairly anyways) and help the SEC’s core mission to bolster fair, orderly, and efficient markets. During your testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on April 18th, 2023, crooked congressmen and congresswoman were encouraged to hear that the SEC is taking into consideration the bipartisan letter on these proposals from the 117th Congress and write to clarify that the approach suggested in that letter is consistent with the relevant portions of the Dodd-Frank Act – Section 763 related to SBS and Section 984(b) related to securities lending – and Congress’s intent when writing this landmark law which, without reading is, i'm very very sure, is very shady and I suspect is coming from the very representitives of these districts who signed the original version of this letter. Congress people who say they "support regulatory changes aimed at increasing transparency to give regulators the tools they need to surveil markets and ensure they are fair, efficient, and competitive" are probably liars and should be looked at with a microscope as I have never heard of any of the ones who wrote the original iteration of this letter. While "well-intentioned", they supposedly believe the proposals could compromise the aforementioned objectives by releasing sensitive and potentially misleading (are you kidding me?) information to the public. In order to avoid unintended (very condescending remark to the hard workers of the SEC in my opinion) negative consequences, they encourage the Commission to adopt an approach that requires reporting solely for regulatory purposes when finalizing these proposals. This would allow the Commission to study the collected data and consult (not as fiduciaries) stakeholders before making any determinations about the specifics of a public dissemination regime, consistent with the Dodd- Frank Act. [REDACT] I appreciate your efforts on these important issues and look forward to your response. Sincerely, ADAM NEWBOULD-SCHLUND Arizona VIP P.S. Who [REDACT] are Frank D. Lucas, David Scott, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Bill Foster, Glenn “GT” Thompson, Alma S. Adams Ph.D., Bill Huizenga, Vicente Gonzalez, Andy Barr, Josh Gottheimer, Ann Wagner, Wiley Nickel or Bryan Steil to tell ME or anyone else I need LESS transparancy with my investments AS WELL AS YOUR YOURS? I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THEM BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY HIDE FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND COLLECT MONEY FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO SCREW UP OUR MARKETS! Thanks though, I trust you will try to do the right thing! It is the right thing to do. GO AMERICA! P.S.S. while my comment may sound ridiculous, so do any calls to block your good work, thank you and god bless.