Apr. 20, 2022
Good day, The following is my comment for File Number SR-NSCC-2022-003: The market already lacks transparency and accountability for large institutions, so im disappointed this rule is being proposed. I've read every single page of legal speak in the file and have come to a clear conclusion. This rule would increase avoidance of true market price discovery through onward lending. It also removes the infinite risk of naked shorting entirely, and in so doing the deterrent of engaging in what is supposed to be very risky business practice. It's all upside for market makers which excessively naked short securities, and all downside for those on the wrong side of their shorting. How does this rule contribute to a "fair" market by any means...? I fail to see it. FTDs are already "reset" through a variety of methods such as using deriviatives not allowing them to reach their 30 day mark where the security needs to be "delivered." It is very frustrating to see rules like this being proposed that only favor reckless, mega money institutions (Naomi Prin did an excellent job explaining these institutions). Hopefully you'll consider the words of retail investors more with your decision making on regulations, as we've been educating ourselves a lot more over the past couple years. Stop proposing this rule, it was attempted to be passed last year as SR-NSCC-2021-010 which laid out the exact same fundamentals as 2022-003. This rule proposal only hurts the markets, and will lead to 2008 part 2. I’m sure you people at the SEC Know how propped up our market is, and you want to prop it up higher? Why? So that these institutions controlling multiple trillions of dollars can have a bailout at the cost of retail traders who work 2-3 jobs just to scrape by? This rule proposal is a sham for the retail investor and you people know it. Very sincerely, Carlos Perez