Apr. 20, 2022
Good morning, I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposed rule change and the manner in which it is written. For a truly open market rules should be proposed in a manner in which the average market participant can be expected to read and understand them in a single sitting. A one hundred and eighty-eight page written in a manner which almost seems intentionally designed to obfuscate or confuse retail investors to the true proposed changes is neither. If the legalese is a required complexity then I think a second copy written in plain language should be submitted alongside it. This stands for all future resolutions and rule changes. For this specific proposed change. I am not in favor of any proposed rules changes that would enable large market participants to settle financial obligations in any manner not on a lit exchange. Between dark pool trading, massive margins from banks, high frequency latency trading, payment for order flow, and the ability to be both a market maker and a hedge fund and repackage FTD’s using options and ETF’s the institution already has massive and unfair advantages over retail investors. Retail investors currently have one advantage over these market participants in a select number of stocks that the aforementioned market participants have made bad bets on and are struggling to get out of their obligations through any means necessary, including it appears, attempting to make it legal to roll FTD’s over between themselves and the NSCC. As it currently stands many retail investors have lost faith in the U.S. market as a fair exchange, and I know if I come into any money I plan on removing it all from the U.S. market in favor of foreign exchanges or blockchain backed exchanges where my life’s savings are not in danger of becoming prey to a predatory hedge fund cellar boxing an up and coming business in order to make tax free profits from its bankruptcy. If the SEC has any interest in retaining the up and coming generation of retail investors in the U.S. markets then they should strongly consider denying any changes like the aforementioned file that would give institutional investors yet another leg up in their rigged game.